CAR_Public/110217.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, February 17, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 34

                             Headlines

APPLE INC: Judge Junks iPad Overheating Class Action
BROADWIND ENERGY: Accused in Ill. of Misleading Shareholders
CAMBREX CORP: Awaits Jurisdiction Ruling in Generic API Suit
CELANESE CORP: CNA Holdings Remains a Defendant in Various Suits
CEPHALON INC: Continues to Defend Consumer Protection Lawsuits

CI MUTUAL FUNDS: Market Timing Class Action May Still Proceed
COACH INC: Faces Class Action Over "Cease and Desist" Letter
DELTA AIRLINES: Sued in N.Y. Over Non-Payment of Overtime
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Continues to Defend "Gaer" Securities Suit
EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Monitor IAC Securities Class Suit

EXPEDIA INC: Coupons May Still Be Redeemed Under Settled Suits
EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend "Magill" Lawsuit in Canada
EXPEDIA INC: Still Defends "Chiste" Suit in New York
EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Hotel Taxes Suit in California
EXPEDIA INC: Appeal in Columbus-Findlay Suit Remains Pending

EXPEDIA INC: Class Certification Motion Remains Pending
EXPEDIA INC: Final Judgment Amount in Texas Suit Still Unknown
EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Hotel Taxes Suit in New Mexico
EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Hotel Taxes Suit in Indiana
EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Hotel Taxes Suit in New York

EXPEDIA INC: Trial in Tennessee Suit Set for November 29
EXPEDIA INC: Appeal From Hotel Taxes Suit Dismissal Still Pending
EXPEDIA INC: Hotel Taxes Suit in Florida Settled
EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Hotel Taxes Suit in Arkansas
GLEASON AND GLEASON: Member Sued for Unauthorized Practice of Law

HONEYWELL INT'L: Continues to Defend Claims in "Allen" Suit
HONEYWELL INT'L: Continues to Defend Consolidated Filter Suit
JOB SITE SERVICES: Class Suit Not Stayed Against Non-Debtor
KANSAS CITY, MO: Teacher's Union to File Class Action Over Brawl
LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces Class Action Over Gang Injunctions

MENTO GRAPHICS: Probe Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty Underway
MERCK FROSST: Faces Class Action Over Propecia & Proscar
NEW SOUTH WALES: Faces Class Action Over Bethcar Facility Abuses
NEW YORK: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
OPLINK COMMS: Awaits Ruling on Appeals of IPO Suit Settlement

PUERTO RICO BAR ASS'N: Pres. Jailed Over Class Action Gag Order
SMART TECHNOLOGIES: To Vigorously Defend Ontario Class Action
TRAVELERS COS: 3rd Cir. Refers Vilches Suit to Arbitration
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Healthcare Bill



                             *********

APPLE INC: Judge Junks iPad Overheating Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Gregg Keizer, writing for Computerworld, reports that a federal
judge has tossed a class-action lawsuit that claimed Apple's iPad
overheats when used outdoors in warm weather or in direct
sunlight, according to court documents.

In an order dated Feb. 10, U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel
dismissed a lawsuit submitted in July 2010 that accused Apple of
fraud, deceptive advertising and violating California's consumer
protection and unfair business practices laws by making, marketing
and selling defective tablets.

The three plaintiffs -- Jacob Balthazar, Claudia Keller and John
Browning -- said last year that they were duped into buying a
defective device by Apple's marketing claims that "reading on iPad
is just like reading a book."

The Plaintiffs alleged that, unlike a book, the iPad unexpectedly
shuts down in warm weather or when it's in direct sunlight.

But on Feb. 10, Mr. Fogel said that the trio's original charges
were inadequate.

"The Court concludes that these allegations are insufficient," Mr.
Fogel wrote in his order.  "At the least, Plaintiffs must identify
the particular commercial or advertisement upon which they relied
and must describe with the requisite specificity the content of
that particular commercial or advertisement."

Mr. Fogel gave the Plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint
that must add the specifics he cited.

Reports of iPads overheating preceded the Plaintiffs' lawsuit.
Within hours of its April 3, 2010, launch, for example, users
complained that the iPad shut down after being in direct sunlight.

"After about 10 minutes in the sun, my iPad overheated!," said
Elliot Kroo in an April 3 message on Twitter.  Mr. Kroo also
posted a screenshot of the ensuing warning that read, "iPad needs
to cool down before you can use it."

Apple sold 14.8 million iPads in 2010, and is expected to launch
the next-generation tablet in April.


BROADWIND ENERGY: Accused in Ill. of Misleading Shareholders
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Broadwind Energy, a wind
energy company, misrepresented its business prospects in a $57.5
million stock offering on the Nasdaq, allowing its CEO J. Cameron
Drecoll to sell $7.2 million of his own shares at inflated prices,
shareholders say in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Brasher v. Broadwind Energy, Inc., et
al., Case No. 11-cv-00991 (N.D. Ill.) (Zagel, J.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/14/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
          Lori A. Fanning, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 St. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332-3400

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mario Alba Jr., Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
          DYERS & BERENS LLP
          303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 861-1764

               - and -

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          Marshall Dees, Esq.
          HOLZER, HOLZER & FISTEL, LLC
          200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090


CAMBREX CORP: Awaits Jurisdiction Ruling in Generic API Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Cambrex Corporation is awaiting a ruling from a district court
regarding diversity jurisdiction in a suit filed by four health
care insurers, according to the Company's February 11, 2011 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.

In 1998, the Company and a subsidiary were named as defendants
along with Mylan Laboratories, Inc., and Gyma Laboratories of
America, Inc., in a proceeding instituted by the Federal Trade
Commission in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia.  Suits were also commenced by several State Attorneys'
General and class action complaints by private plaintiffs in
various state courts.  The suits alleged violations of the Federal
Trade Commission Act arising from exclusive license agreements
between the Company and Mylan covering two active pharmaceutical
ingredients: Lorazepam and Clorazepate.

All cases have been resolved except for one brought by four health
care insurers. In the remaining case the District Court entered
judgment after trial in 2008 against Mylan, Gyma and Cambrex in
the amount of $8,355,000 payable jointly and severally, and also a
punitive damage award against each defendant in the amount of
$16,709,000.  In addition, the District Court ruled that the
defendants were subject to a total of approximately $7,000,000 in
prejudgment interest.  In January 2011, the Court of Appeals ruled
that certain plaintiffs did not have the diversity jurisdiction
needed to bring an action in federal court and remanded the case
to the district court solely to determine which parties were
properly before the court and to what extent the removal of
certain parties from the case that do not meet jurisdictional
requirements may affect damages. The Court of Appeals further
declined to issue an opinion with respect to the merits of Mylan,
Gyma and Cambrex's objections to the jury's damage award until
such time as the jurisdiction issue is resolved by the district
court.

Cambrex paid $12,415,000 in exchange for a release from Mylan and
full indemnity in 2003 against future costs or liabilities in
related litigation brought by purchasers, as well as potential
future claims related to the ongoing matter.  In the event of a
final settlement or final judgment, Cambrex expects any payment
required by the Company to be made by Mylan under the indemnity.


CELANESE CORP: CNA Holdings Remains a Defendant in Various Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celanese Corporation's U.S. subsidiary, CNA Holdings LLC, remains
a defendant in putative class actions seeking recovery for alleged
damages caused by leaking polybutylene plumbing, according to the
Company's Feb. 11, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2010.

CNA Holdings LLC, which included the US business now conducted by
the Ticona business that is included in the Advanced Engineered
Materials segment, along with Shell Oil Company, E.I. DuPont de
Nemours and Company and others, has been a defendant in a series
of lawsuits, including a number of class actions, alleging that
plastics manufactured by these companies that were utilized in the
production of plumbing systems for residential property were
defective or caused such plumbing systems to fail. 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
or caused the plumbing systems to fail. In addition, in many cases
CNA Holdings' potential future exposure may be limited by
invocation of the statute of limitations.

In November 1995, CNA Holdings, DuPont and Shell entered into
national class action settlements that called for the replacement
of plumbing systems of claimants who have had qualifying leaks, as
well as reimbursements for certain leak damage. In connection with
these settlements, the three companies had agreed to fund these
replacements and reimbursements up to an aggregate amount of $950
million. As of December 31, 2010, the aggregate funding is $1,111
million due to additional contributions and funding commitments
made primarily by other parties. The time to file claims for the
class in Cox, et al. v. Hoechst Celanese Corporation, et al., No.
94-0047 (Chancery Ct., Obion County, Tennessee) has now expired.
Accordingly, the court ruled the terms of the Cox settlement have
been fully performed. The entity previously established to
administer all Cox related claims was dissolved on September 24,
2010.

During the period between 1995 and 2001, CNA Holdings was named as
a defendant in these putative class actions:

     (a) Couture, et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al.,
         No. 200-06-000001-985 (Quebec Superior Court, Canada);

     (b) Dilday, et al. v. Hoechst Celanese Corporation, et al.,
         No. 15187 (Chancery Ct., Weakley County, Tennessee);

     (c) Furlan v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. C967239
         (British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry,
         Canada);

     (d) Gariepy, et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al.,
         No. 30781/99 (Ontario Court General Division, Canada);

     (e) Shelter General Insurance Co., et al. v. Shell Oil
         Company, et al., No. 16809 (Chancery Ct., Weakley
         County, Tennessee);

     (f) St. Croix Ltd., et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al.,
         No. 1997/467 (Territorial Ct., St. Croix Division, the
         US Virgin Islands); and

     (g) Tranter v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. 46565/97
         (Ontario Court General Division, Canada).

On January 24, 2011 and February 7, 2011, the Chancery Court for
Weakley County, Tennessee entered judgments in the Shelter General
Insurance Co., et al., v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. 16809 and
the Dilday, et al. v. Hoechst Celanese Corporation, et al. No.
15187, respectively, dismissing with prejudice all claims against
the Company.

The class actions in Canada are subject to a pending settlement
that would result in the dismissal of those actions. In addition,
between 1994 and 2008 CNA Holdings was named as a defendant in
numerous actions of which three are actively pending.  In all of
these actions, the plaintiffs have sought recovery for alleged
damages caused by leaking polybutylene plumbing. Damage amounts
have generally not been specified but these actions generally do
not involve (either individually or in the aggregate) a large
number of homes.

Celanese Corporation -- http://www.celanese.com/-- as a global
leader in the chemicals industry, makes products essential to
everyday living.  The company's products, found in consumer
andindustrial applications, are manufactured in North America,
Europe  and Asia.  Net sales totaled $5.1 billion in 2009, with
approximately 73% generated outside of North America. Known for
operational excellence and execution of its business strategies,
Celanese delivers value to customers around the globe with
innovations and best-in-class technologies.  Based in Dallas,
Texas, the company employs approximately 7,400 employees
worldwide.


CEPHALON INC: Continues to Defend Consumer Protection Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cephalon, Inc., remains a defendant in a consolidated putative
class action lawsuit alleging violations of consumer protection
laws in Pennsylvania, according to the Company's Feb. 11, 2011
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In late 2007, the Company was served with a series of putative
class action complaints filed in the U.S. District for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of entities that claim to have
reimbursed for prescriptions of ACTIQ for uses outside of the
product's approved label in non-cancer patients.  The complaints
allege violations of various state consumer protection laws, as
well as the violation of the common law of unjust enrichment, and
seek an unspecified amount of money in actual, punitive and/or
treble damages, with interest, and/or disgorgement of profits.  In
May 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended
complaint that also alleges violations of RICO and conspiracy to
violate RICO.  The RICO allegations were dismissed with prejudice
in May 2009.  In February 2009, the Company was served with an
additional putative class action complaint filed on behalf of two
health and welfare trust funds that claim to have reimbursed for
prescriptions of GABITRIL and PROVIGIL for uses outside the
approved labels for each product.  The complaint alleges
violations of RICO and the common law of unjust enrichment and
seeks an unspecified amount of money in actual, punitive and/or
treble damages, with interest.

The Company believes the allegations in the complaints are without
merit, and the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in
these matters and in any similar actions that may be filed in the
future.  These efforts will be both expensive and time consuming
and, ultimately, due to the nature of litigation, there can be no
assurance that these efforts will be successful.


CI MUTUAL FUNDS: Market Timing Class Action May Still Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Langton, writing for News Investment Executive, reports that
an Ontario court has decided that a possible class action lawsuit
against a couple of mutual fund companies may still proceed,
despite the fact that the firms have already settled a regulatory
case against them.

Ontario's Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court has ruled on
an appeal from a decision handed down in January 2010, which
dismissed a motion for certification as a class action against the
five fund firms that were sanctioned as part of the mutual fund
market timing case back in 2004.

IG Investment Management Ltd., Franklin Templeton Investments
Corp. and AGF Funds Inc. have since entered into settlements with
the plaintiffs in this case, but CI Mutual Funds Inc. and AIC
Limited remain as defendants.

The divisional court decision released Jan. 31, 2011 notes that
the motion judge found that the plaintiffs had established four
out of the five necessary criteria for certification as a class
action, but that they failed on the fifth criterion -- that a
class proceeding would be a 'preferable procedure', and so their
claim for certification was denied.

The motion judge found that a class action would be the preferable
procedure if he ignored the Ontario Securities Commission's
enforcement case against the firms.  "The motion judge concluded
that the OSC settlement satisfied the goal of behavior
modification and that the OSC proceedings provided the plaintiffs
with access to justice.  He therefore ruled that the class action
was not the preferable procedure for resolving the plaintiffs'
claims and dismissed the motion for certification.  It is clear
that but for the OSC settlements, the action would have been
certified," the divisional court decision says.

However, on appeal, the divisional court concludes that the motion
judge's analysis of the impact of the OSC settlement on the issue
of preferable procedure is fundamentally flawed.

"The OSC proceedings had already been completed at the time this
action was commenced.  The action does not seek the recovery of
the $205 million already paid; it seeks recovery of the damages
not recovered through the OSC proceeding," the divisional court
decision says.  "On the evidence before the motion judge, which
must be accepted for purposes of the motion, a significant amount
of money is still owed to these plaintiffs.  It cannot be said
that the OSC process is a preferable procedure for recovering
damages it failed to recover in the first place."

The divisional court decision says that the motion judge
effectively treated the OSC proceeding as a reasonable settlement
of the plaintiffs' claims.  "Unless it can be said that the
plaintiffs have achieved full, or at the very least substantially
full, recovery, they are entitled to maintain this action," the
divisional court decision says.  "There is no other viable
alternative for recovering the shortfall after the OSC settlement
and all of the other tests for certification had been met.
Accordingly, in my view, the certification motion ought to have
been granted."

"It is necessary to recognize what this action is about.  It is
not about the $108 million in losses already recovered from these
two defendants; it is about the losses over and above that amount
that the plaintiffs allege are still owing, and which the
plaintiffs' expert estimates at $333 million," the divisional
court decision adds.  "In my opinion, the motion judge lost sight
of that point and this led him into error when determining whether
the OSC proceedings and the settlement agreements provided access
to justice for the investors."

As a result, the appeal was allowed, and a certification order
will be issued "on the condition that the motion judge approves a
revised litigation plan".


COACH INC: Faces Class Action Over "Cease and Desist" Letter
------------------------------------------------------------
ZippyCart reports that for some time now there has been hostility
brewing between designer retail brands and eBay merchants being
accused of selling counterfeit products.  Lately Coach has jumped
into the ring by threatening an ex-employee of the company with a
$2 million lawsuit, and demanding she send in all her Coach-
branded products.

Gina Kim of Seattle, claims she was selling her used Coach bag on
eBay when she received the "cease and desist" letter from a law
firm representing Coach Inc.  The premium retail brand accused her
of selling counterfeit goods in violation of state and federal
law.  Along with the threat of a lawsuit, the letter instructed
her to sign a statement admitting wrongdoing, and demanded her to
send Coach a $300 check for the trouble she's caused selling her
used bags on the auction site.

After receiving the letter and finding out her eBay account had
been frozen, courtesy of Coach, Ms. Kim decided to lash back by
hiring a lawyer of her own.

Ms. Kim filed the necessary papers to sue Coach in U.S. District
Court in Seattle last week, alleging violations of the state
Consumer Protection Act, defamation, interference with her
business relationship with eBay, and a laundry list of other
claims.  Kim and her lawyer are hoping the lawsuit will reach
class-action status by claiming that Coach's real motive in
sending out the letters is an attempt to suppress the online sale
of used items and forcing people to pay full price to the company
if they want a designer handbag.

Coach's associate general counsel, Nancy Axilrod, is saying these
claims are ridiculous.

"We strongly believe there is absolutely no merit to the
allegations in the lawsuit and we intend to vigorously defend
against the claims," she said.

Companies have also sought to shut down online ads that feature
stock photographs of brand items.  The companies claim they own
the rights to those photos, even if the item being sold is not
counterfeit.

James Caffarella of Littleton, Mass., fell into this pit when he
tried selling a legitimate silver golf-ball Tiffany key chain
using a stock photo.  He too received a cease and desist letter
demanding $450 in payment.  The issue was quickly settled as
Caffarella pleaded ignorance, not knowing he couldn't use stock
photography to sell items on eBay.

Ms. Kim's issue seems a bit more serious than a stock photo, and
she intends to treat it as such.  Her lawyers feel that Ms. Kim
did nothing wrong and that this is just another example of the
escalating speculation about companies' efforts to crack down on
the massive U.S. market for counterfeit goods.

"If Coach wants to send letters threatening $2 million lawsuits
against their own customers, they should at least do minimal
investigation to see whether those claims are accurate," says Jay
Carlson, one of Kim's attorneys.


DELTA AIRLINES: Sued in N.Y. Over Non-Payment of Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Delta stiffed gate attendants for overtime -- some of whom worked
60 hours a week.

A copy of the Complaint in Noel v. Delta Ailines, Inc., Case No.
CV11-00702 (E.D.N.Y.) (Dearie, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/14/Delta.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Wims, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID WIMS
          1430 Pitkin Ave., 2nd Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11233
          Telephone: (646) 393-9550


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Continues to Defend "Gaer" Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Education Management Corporation continues to defend itself from a
securities class action complaint alleging that the Company made
false statements in connection with its initial public offering,
according to the Company's February 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
period ended December 31, 2010.

On August 11, 2010, a securities class action complaint captioned
Gaer v. Education Management Corp., et al., was filed against the
Company, certain of its executive officers and directors, and
certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.
The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act of 1934 due to allegedly false and misleading
statements in connection with the Company's initial public
offering and the Company's subsequent press releases and filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Company believes
that the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend
itself.


EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Monitor IAC Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc., continues to monitor a securities class action
litigation against IAC/InterActiveCorp, as it has generally agreed
to bear a portion of the costs and liabilities, if any, associated
with any securities law litigation relating to conduct prior to
the spin-off of Expedia from IAC, according to the Company's
Feb. 11, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

Beginning on September 20, 2004, twelve purported shareholder
class actions were commenced in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against IAC/InterActiveCorp
and certain of its officers and directors, alleging violations of
the federal securities laws. These cases arose out of IAC's
August 4, 2004 announcement of its earnings for the second quarter
of 2004 and generally alleged that the value of IAC's stock was
artificially inflated by pre-announcement statements about its
financial results and forecasts that were false and misleading due
to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose various problems
faced by IAC's travel businesses. On December 20, 2004, the
district court consolidated the twelve lawsuits, appointed co-lead
plaintiffs, and designated co-lead plaintiffs' counsel. See In re
IAC/InterActiveCorp Securities Litigation, No. 04-CV-7447
(S.D.N.Y.). Expedia is not a party to this litigation, however,
under the terms of its Separation Agreement with IAC, Expedia has
generally agreed to bear a portion of the costs and liabilities,
if any, associated with any securities law litigation relating to
conduct prior to the spin-off of Expedia from IAC of the
businesses or entities that comprise Expedia following the Spin-
Off.

On October 18, 2004, a related shareholder derivative action,
Stuart Garber, Derivatively on Behalf of IAC/InterActiveCorp v.
Barry Diller et al., No. 04-603416, was commenced in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York (New York County) against certain
of IAC's officers and directors. On November 15, 2004, another
related shareholder derivative action, Lisa Butler, Derivatively
on Behalf of IAC/InterActiveCorp v. Barry Diller et al., No. 04-
CV-9067, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against certain of IAC's current and
former directors. On January 24, 2005, the federal district court
consolidated the Butler case with the securities class action for
pre-trial purposes only. On April 11, 2005, the district court
issued a similar consolidation order in respect of the Garber
case.

On July 5, 2005, the plaintiffs in the related shareholder suits
filed a consolidated shareholder derivative complaint against IAC
(as a nominal defendant) and sixteen current or former officers or
directors of IAC or its former travel business. The complaint,
which is based upon factual allegations similar to those in the
securities class action, purports to assert claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of
corporate assets, unjust enrichment, violation of Section 14(a) of
the Exchange Act, and contribution and indemnification. The
complaint sought an order voiding the election of IAC's then Board
of Directors, as well as damages in an unspecified amount, various
forms of equitable relief, restitution, and disgorgement of
remuneration received by the individual defendants from IAC.

On September 15, 2005, IAC and the other defendants filed motions
to dismiss both the securities class action and the shareholder
derivative suits. On November 30, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the motions. On January 6, 2006, the defendants
filed reply papers in further support of the motions. The court
issued an opinion and order (i) granting the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint in the securities class action, with leave
to replead, and (ii) granting the defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint in the shareholder derivative suits, with prejudice.
On April 23, 2007, the plaintiffs in the shareholder derivative
suits filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit from the District Court's order of
dismissal. On June 14, 2007, on consent of the parties, the appeal
was withdrawn from active consideration by the Court of Appeals,
subject to reinstatement by no later than March 31, 2008.
On May 15, 2007, the plaintiffs in the securities class action
filed a second amended complaint. The new pleading continues to
allege that the defendants failed to disclose material information
concerning problems at the Company's then-travel businesses and to
assert the same legal claims as its predecessor. On March 19,
2010, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and
dismissed the case in its entirety. The plaintiffs' time to appeal
has expired. On April 1, 2010, as a result of the court's ruling,
the plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of the complaint in the
two related consolidated shareholder derivative suits was
dismissed with prejudice on consent. Two appeals have been filed
by individuals challenging the certification of the classes as
well as the fees and expenses awarded to plaintiff's counsel.
Plaintiff's filed answering briefs on December 17, 2010.


EXPEDIA INC: Coupons May Still Be Redeemed Under Settled Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coupons under settled class action litigation against Expedia,
Inc., and its subsidiaries may continue to be redeemed until this
year, according to the Company's Feb. 11, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On February 18, 2005, three actions filed against Expedia, Inc., a
Washington corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of the
registrant -- C. Michael Nielsen et al. v. Expedia, Inc. et al.,
No. 05-2-02060-1 (Superior Court, King County), Bruce Deaton et
al., v. Expedia, Inc. et al., No. 05-2-02062-8 (Superior Court,
King County), each of which was filed January 10, 2005, and Jose
Alba, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v.
IAC/InterActiveCorp et al., No. 05-2-04533-7 (Superior Court, King
County) filed February 3, 2005 -- were consolidated under the
caption In re Expedia Hotel Taxes and Fees Litigation, No. 05-2-
02060-1, pending in King County Superior Court. The consolidated
complaint alleges that Expedia Washington is improperly charging
and/or failing to pay hotel occupancy taxes and engaging in other
deceptive practices in charging customers for taxes and fees. The
complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of all persons
who were assessed a charge for "taxes/fees" when booking rooms
through Expedia Washington. The complaint alleges violation of the
Washington Consumer Protection Act and common law conversion and
seeks imposition of a constructive trust on monies received from
the plaintiff class, as well as damages in an unspecified amount,
disgorgement, restitution, interest and penalties. Six of the
seven originally named plaintiffs have withdrawn from the suit. On
May 7, 2008, the court entered an order granting plaintiff's
motion to certify the class. On May 28, 2009, the court granted
the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their breach of
contract claim, without the benefit of an actual trial on the
merits. The plaintiffs' breach of contract claim was based on
Expedia's website Terms of Use that were in effect from February
2003 through December 2006. The court concluded that the damages
for the alleged breach were approximately $184 million. On July 8,
2009, Expedia reached an agreement in principle on a proposed
settlement of all claims with the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Preliminary Approval of the proposed settlement and the
settlement was approved on December 1, 2009. The distribution of
cash payments and coupons to class members was completed on June
1, 2010. Coupons may continue to be redeemed through June 2011.

On April 19, 2005, three actions filed against Hotwire, Inc., the
Company's discount travel Web site, were consolidated and now are
pending under the caption Bruce Deaton v. Hotwire, Inc. et al.,
Case No. CGC-05-437631, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco. The consolidated complaint,
which was amended on February 17, 2006, alleges that Hotwire is
improperly charging and/or failing to pay hotel occupancy taxes
and engaging in other deceptive practices in charging customers
for taxes and fees. The complaint seeks certification of a
nationwide class of all persons who were assessed a charge for
"taxes/fees" when booking rooms through Hotwire. The amended
complaint alleges violation of Section 17200 of the California
Business and Professions Code, violation of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and breach of contract, and seeks
imposition of a constructive trust on monies received from the
plaintiff class, as well as damages in an unspecified amount,
disgorgement, restitution, interest and penalties. On March 15,
2007, the court certified a class of all residents of the United
States to whom Hotwire charged "taxes/fees" for the facilitation
of reservations for stand-alone hotel rooms on its website. The
court has not yet required that Hotwire provide notice to the
potential class members. The parties have reached a settlement
that was approved by the court on December 8, 2009. Coupons issued
pursuant to the settlement may continue to be redeemed until April
2011.


EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend "Magill" Lawsuit in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Magill v. Expedia Canada
Corporation and Expedia.ca, CV-09-381919-00LP in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice remains pending, according to Expedia,
Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On June 26, 2009, a class action suit against Expedia Canada
Corporation was filed in Ontario, Canada, alleging that
disclosures related to "taxes and service fees" were deceptive.
The complaint asserts claims under the Competition Act and
Consumer Protection Act as well as claims of unjust enrichment,
restitution, constructive trust, accounting and disgorgement and
breach of contract.  It seeks damages in the amount of CA$50
million for the class as well as interest, fees and alternate
damages measures.  On September 24, 2010, the court added Expedia,
Inc., as a defendant and dismissed many of the plaintiff's claims
with leave to amend.  The class period was also limited.  The
plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim on January 7, 2011.


EXPEDIA INC: Still Defends "Chiste" Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc., continues to defend itself from a class action in
New York alleging that the Company unfairly charged its customers,
according to the Company's Feb. 11, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2010.

On December 8, 2008, a putative class action was filed in federal
court in New York State against Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire.
Similar lawsuits were filed at or about the same time against
Priceline and Travelocity. See Matthew R. Chiste, et al. v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et al., No. 08 CV 10676 (United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York).  The complaint
alleges that the defendants are improperly charging and/or failing
to pay hotel occupancy taxes and engaging in other deceptive
practices in charging customers for taxes and fees.  The complaint
seeks certification of a nationwide class of all persons who
booked a hotel room in New York City through the defendants.  The
complaint asserts claims for deceptive business practices,
conversion, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract and
seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and damages in an
unspecified amount, but exceeding $5 million.  On November 15,
2010, defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in part and the
bulk of the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.  Expedia filed a
Motion for Reconsideration seeking to have the remainder of the
case dismissed, which was denied.


EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Hotel Taxes Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc., continues to defend itself from a class action in
California alleging that it failed to pay hotel occupancy taxes,
according to the Company's Feb. 11, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On December 30, 2004, the city of Los Angeles filed a purported
class action in California state court against a number of
internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Expedia and
Hotwire. City of Los Angeles, California, on Behalf of Itself and
All Others Similarly Situated v. Hotels.com, L.P. et al., No.
BC326693 (Superior Court, Los Angeles County).  The complaint
alleges that the defendants are improperly charging and/or failing
to pay hotel occupancy taxes.  The complaint seeks certification
of a statewide class of all California cities and counties that
have enacted uniform transient occupancy-tax ordinances effective
on or after December 30, 1990.  The complaint alleges violation of
those ordinances, violation of Section 17200 of the California
Business and Professions Code, and common-law conversion.  The
complaint also seeks a declaratory judgment that the defendants
are subject to hotel occupancy taxes on the hotel rate charged to
consumers and imposition of a constructive trust on all monies
owed by the defendants to the government, as well as disgorgement,
restitution, interest and penalties.  On July 26, 2007, the court
signed an order staying the lawsuit until the cities have
exhausted their administrative remedies.  The case is coordinated
with the cases in San Diego, Anaheim, Santa Monica and San
Francisco.  On September 9, 2009, the City of Los Angeles issued
assessments totaling $29.5 million against Expedia companies
(Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire).  An administrative hearing
challenging the assessments was held on December 3, 2009.  On
September 16, 2010, the assessment review officer approved the
assessments.  A second level administrative review hearing was
held in December 2010.


EXPEDIA INC: Appeal in Columbus-Findlay Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a judgment in favor of Expedia, Inc., in a class
action alleging that it failed to pay hotel occupancy taxes
remains pending, according to the Company's Feb. 11, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On October 25, 2005, the city of Findlay, Ohio filed a purported
statewide class action in state court against a number of internet
travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia. City
of Findlay v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., No. 2005-CV-673 (Court of
Common Pleas of Hancock County, Ohio). On August 8, 2006, the city
of Columbus, Ohio and the city of Dayton, Ohio, filed a putative
statewide class action in federal court against a number of
internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and
Expedia Washington. City of Columbus, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
et al., 2:06-CV-00677 (United States District Court, Southern
District of Ohio). The complaints allege that the defendants have
failed to pay to the city hotel occupancy taxes as required by
municipal ordinance. The complaints include claims for violation
of hotel occupancy tax ordinances, violation of the consumer
protection act, conversion, imposition of a constructive trust and
declaratory relief. The Findlay lawsuit was removed to federal
court and consolidated with the case brought by Columbus and
Dayton. On July 26, 2006, the court held that defendants were not
subject to the payment of taxes under the hotel occupancy tax
ordinances and granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion to dismiss. The cities of Toledo, Northwood, Rossford,
Maumee, the Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority and
the Perrysburg Township and Springfield Township have been added
as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Class certification was never
granted. On November 18, 2010, the court ruled on the remaining
claim and held that defendants have not collected taxes that have
not been remitted and entered judgment in favor of the online
travel companies. Plaintiffs have appealed.


EXPEDIA INC: Class Certification Motion Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification filed by the city of Rome and
the city of Catersville in Georgia in a class action lawsuit
against Expedia, Inc., remains pending, according to the Company's
Feb. 11, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On November 18, 2005, the city of Rome, Georgia, Hart County,
Georgia, and the city of Cartersville, Georgia filed a purported
statewide class action in federal court against a number of
internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and
Expedia. City of Rome, Georgia, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et
al., No. 4:05-CV-249 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Georgia, Rome Division). The complaint alleges that the defendants
have failed to pay to the county and cities the hotel
accommodations taxes as required by municipal ordinances. The
complaint asserts claims for violation of excise and sales and use
tax ordinances, conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition of a
constructive trust, declaratory relief and injunctive relief. The
complaint seeks damages and other relief in an unspecified amount.
On May 9, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss. On June 8, 2006, plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint adding sixteen more municipalities and
political subdivisions as named plaintiffs. On May 10, 2007, the
court stayed the litigation, concluding that the plaintiffs must
exhaust their administrative remedies before continuing to
litigate their tax claims. On July 10, 2009, the court lifted the
stay of the litigation. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class
certification.


EXPEDIA INC: Final Judgment Amount in Texas Suit Still Unknown
--------------------------------------------------------------
The final amount of a judgment against Expedia, Inc., in a class
action alleging that it failed to pay hotel occupancy taxes in
Texas has not been determined, according to the Company's Feb. 11,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On May 8, 2006, the city of San Antonio filed a putative statewide
class action in federal court against a number of internet travel
companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire, and Expedia. See City of
San Antonio, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., SA06CA0381
(United States District Court, Western District of Texas, San
Antonio Division). The complaint alleges that the defendants have
failed to pay to the city hotel accommodations taxes as required
by municipal ordinance. The complaint asserts claims for violation
of that ordinance, common-law conversion, and declaratory
judgment. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount,
restitution and disgorgement. On October 30, 2009, a jury verdict
was entered finding that defendant online travel companies
"control hotels," and awarding approximately $15 million for
historical damages against the Expedia companies. The jury also
found that defendants were not liable for conversion or punitive
damages. The final amount of the judgment against the Expedia
companies has not been determined. In further proceedings, the
court will determine, among other things, whether the tax is
actually due on the amounts that the online companies retained for
their services and the amount, if any, of penalties and interest,
which could be significant.


EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Hotel Taxes Suit in New Mexico
---------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc., continues to defend itself from a class action in
New Mexico alleging that it failed to pay hotel occupancy taxes,
according to the Company's Feb. 11, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On May 17, 2006, the city of Gallup, New Mexico filed a putative
statewide class action in state court against a number of internet
travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia. City
of Gallup, New Mexico, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., CIV-06-
0549 JC/RLP (United States District Court, District of New
Mexico). The case was removed to federal court on June 23, 2006.
The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the city hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinances. The complaint asserts claims for violation of those
ordinances, conversion, and declaratory judgment. The complaint
seeks damages in an unspecified amount, restitution and
disgorgement. On April 18, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion to dismiss its own lawsuit. On July 6, 2007, the city of
Gallup refiled its lawsuit. Plaintiff filed its first amended
complaint on January 16, 2009. The court certified the class on
July 7, 2009. On March 1, 2010, the court denied the city's motion
for summary judgment and held that the online travel companies do
not have tax obligations under the city's ordinance and that
defendants have not collected taxes that have not been remitted.


EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Hotel Taxes Suit in Indiana
------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc., continues to defend itself from a class action in
Indiana alleging that it failed to pay hotel occupancy taxes,
according to the Company's Feb. 11, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On June 12, 2006, the Lake County Convention and Visitors Bureau,
Inc. and Marshall County filed a putative statewide class action
in federal court on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated political subdivisions in the state of Indiana against a
number of internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire
and Expedia. Lake County Convention and Visitors Bureau, Inc., et
al. v. Hotels.com, LP, 2:06-CV-207 (United States District Court
for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division). The
complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
municipalities hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinances. The complaint asserts claims for violation of those
ordinances, conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition of a
constructive trust, and declaratory judgment, and seeks damages in
an unspecified amount. On March 3, 2010, defendants' motion for
summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies
was granted.


EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Hotel Taxes Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc., continues to defend itself from a class action in
New York alleging that it failed to pay hotel occupancy taxes,
according to the Company's Feb. 11, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On October 24, 2006, the county of Nassau, New York filed a
putative statewide class action in federal court against a number
of internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire, and
Expedia.  The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to
pay hotel accommodation taxes as required by local ordinances to
certain New York cities, counties and local governments in New
York.  The complaint asserts claims for violations of those
ordinances, as well as claims for conversion, unjust enrichment,
and imposition of a constructive trust, and seeks unspecified
damages.  On August 17, 2007, the court granted defendants' motion
dismissing the lawsuit due to the plaintiff's failure to exhaust
its administrative remedies.  On August 11, 2009, the Second
Circuit remanded the case for the district court to determine
whether class certification is appropriate.  The district court
has ordered the parties to proceed with class certification.


EXPEDIA INC: Trial in Tennessee Suit Set for November 29
--------------------------------------------------------
Trial in a class action against Expedia, Inc., in Tennessee, which
alleges that it failed to pay hotel occupancy taxes, is scheduled
for November 29, 2011, according to the Company's Feb. 11, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On June 2, 2008, the cities of Goodlettsville and Brentwood,
Tennessee filed a putative class action in federal court against a
number of internet travel companies, including Expedia,
Hotels.com, and Hotwire. City of Goodlettsville and City of
Brentwood v. Priceline.com, Inc., et al., 3-08-0561 (United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee).  The
complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the
cities hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinance. The complaint asserts claims for violation of the local
ordinance, as well as claims for unjust enrichment and conversion,
and seeks damages in an unspecified amount. Plaintiffs have
voluntarily dismissed the City of Brentwood. Class certification
has been granted.  Trial is scheduled for November 29, 2011.


EXPEDIA INC: Appeal From Hotel Taxes Suit Dismissal Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action against Expedia,
Inc., alleging that it failed to pay hotel occupancy taxes in New
Jersey, remains pending, according to the Company's Feb. 11, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On June 18, 2008, the township of Lyndhurst filed a putative class
action in federal court against a number of internet travel
companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, and Hotwire. Township of
Lyndhurst v. Priceline.com, Inc., et al., 2:08-CV-03033-JLL-CCC
(United States District Court for District of New Jersey). The
complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the
township hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinance. The complaint asserts claims for violation of the local
ordinance, as well as claims for unjust enrichment and conversion.
The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. On March 18,
2009, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of
standing. Plaintiff's appeal is pending.


EXPEDIA INC: Hotel Taxes Suit in Florida Settled
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Expedia, Inc., alleging that it
failed to pay hotel occupancy taxes in Florida, was settled last
month, according to the Company's Feb. 11, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On June 3, 2008, the county of Monroe, Florida filed an individual
action in federal court against a number of internet travel
companies, including hotel accommodations taxes as required by
municipal ordinance. County of Monroe, Florida v. Priceline.com,
Inc., et al., 08-10044-CIV (United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida). The complaint alleges that the
defendants have failed to pay to the county hotel accommodations
taxes as required by municipal ordinance. The complaint purports
to assert claims for violation of the local ordinance, as well as
claims for unjust enrichment and conversion. The complaint seeks
damages in an unspecified amount. Plaintiff filed its first
amended complaint on May 28, 2010. Defendants' motion to dismiss
the first amended complaint was denied in part and granted in part
by the court and class certification was granted. Settlement was
reached in August 2010 and the court granted final approval of the
settlement on January 6, 2011.

On July 28, 2006, the city of Jacksonville, Florida filed a
putative class action in state court against a number of internet
travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, and Hotwire. The
lawsuit was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. In February 2009, the court gave leave for plaintiffs to
refile its complaint. Plaintiffs' amended complaint was filed on
March 10, 2009. City of Jacksonville v. Hotels.com LP, et. al.,
2006-CA-005393-XXXX-MA, CV-B (Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial
Circuit, Duval County, Florida). The complaint alleges that the
defendants have failed to pay to the city the tourist and
convention development taxes as required by state and municipal
ordinance. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.
The city did not opt out of the Monroe County Florida class action
and this case was settled on January 6, 2011, as part of the final
approval of the settlement of the Monroe County case.


EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Hotel Taxes Suit in Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc., continues to defend itself from a class action in
Arkansas alleging that it failed to pay hotel occupancy taxes,
according to the Company's Feb. 11, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On September 25, 2009, Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion
Commission and Jefferson County filed a class action against a
number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Inc.,
Hotels.com, and Hotwire. Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion
Commission, Jefferson County, Arkansas, and others similarly
situated v. Hotels.com LP, et. al. CV-2009-946-5 (In the Circuit
Court of Jefferson, Arkansas). The complaint alleges that
defendants have failed to collect and/or pay taxes under hotel tax
occupancy ordinances.  The court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss.


GLEASON AND GLEASON: Member Sued for Unauthorized Practice of Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Jarvis, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Gleason and Gleason, LLC f/k/a Gleason and Macmaster, LLC, et
al., Case No. 2011-CH-05007 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. February 9,
2011), accuses defendant Troy Lee Gleason, a member and manager of
the law firm of Gleason and Gleason, of engaging in the
unauthorized practice of law by representing Plaintiff before the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois
without complying with Local Rule 2090-1.

Local Rule 2090-1 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern
District of Illinois governs the 'Appearance Of Attorneys' before
the Bankruptcy Court.

Specifically Rule 2090-1 (A) (Admission to District Court
Required) provides that "[e]xcept as provided in Rules 2090-2
[relating to 'Representation By Supervised Law Students'] and
2090-3 [relating to 'Appearance By Attorneys Not Members Of The
Bar Of The District Court (Pro Hac Vice)'], an attorney appearing
before this court must be admitted to practice before the District
Court [for the Northern District of Illinois]."

Mr. Jarvis says Mr. Lee Gleason is not and never was admitted to
practice before the District Court and as such, is not and never
was authorized to practice before the Bankruptcy Court.

Mr. Jarvis relates that on September 28, 2005, he, in reliance
upon the representations by Troy Lee Gleason, retained defendants
at their law office in Chicago, Illinois, to prepare and file a
Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and represent him in the ensuing
bankruptcy proceeding.  Plaintiff paid Defendants a flat fee of
$735.00 as and for legal services to be rendered and costs to be
advanced.  Plaintiff states that had he known that Mr. Gleason was
not authorized to practice before the Bankruptcy Court, he would
neither have retained the lawyer nor the firm.

On October 11, 2005, Mr. Gleason filed Plaintiff's case in the
Bankruptcy Court.  On January 11, 2006, Mr. Gleason personally
appeared and purported to represent Plaintiff as an attorney at
the First Meeting of Creditors.  On April 3, 2006, the Bankruptcy
Court entered an Order of Discharge concluding the case.

On May 21, 2010, the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary
Commission of the Illinois Supreme Court ('ARDC'), filed a
complaint against Troy Lee Gleason.  The complaint alleges that
Troy Lee Gleason engaged in conduct: (A) involving dishonesty
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (B) that is prejudicial to the
administration of justice; and (C) which tends to defeat the
administration of justice or brings the courts or the legal
profession into disrepute.

Mr. Jarvis says defendants fraudulently failed to disclose to
Plaintiff that Mr. Gleason was not admitted to practice before the
District Court and was not authorized to appear and represent
Plaintiff before the Bankruptcy Court.

Mr. Gleason, thus asks the Court to order defendants to disgorge
and refund the fees received from the him and the proposed class.

The Plaintiff represents himself and the proposed class in this
Class Action Complaint:

          Wayne Jarvis, Esq.
          111 West Washington Street, Suite 1625
          Chicago, IL 60602-2703
          Telephone: (312) 467-6787


HONEYWELL INT'L: Continues to Defend Claims in "Allen" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International, Inc., continues to defend the remaining
claims in the matter Allen, et al., v. Honeywell Retirement
Earnings Plan.

Pursuant to a settlement approved by the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona in February 2008, 18 of 21 claims alleged
by plaintiffs in the Allen class action lawsuit were dismissed
with prejudice in exchange for approximately $35 million and the
maximum aggregate liability for the remaining three claims --
alleging that Honeywell impermissibly reduced the pension benefits
of certain employees of a predecessor entity when the plan was
amended in 1983 and failed to calculate benefits in accordance
with the terms of the plan -- was capped at $500 million.  Any
amounts payable, including the settlement amount, have or will
be paid from the Company's pension plan.  In October 2009, the
Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Honeywell
Retirement Earnings Plan with respect to the claim regarding the
calculation of benefits.

The Company says it continues to expect to prevail on the
remaining claims in light of applicable law and its substantial
affirmative defenses, which have not yet been considered fully by
the Court.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 11,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Honeywell International -- http://www.honeywell.com/-- is a
Fortune 100 diversified technology and manufacturing leader,
serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and services;
control technologies for buildings, homes, and industry;
automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials.
Based in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell's shares are traded on
the New York, London, and Chicago Stock Exchanges.


HONEYWELL INT'L: Continues to Defend Consolidated Filter Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated
suit alleging that it engaged in a conspiracy with other filter
manufacturers to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate U.S. customers
for after-market automotive filters.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed a
lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut,
alleging that 12 filter manufacturers, including Honeywell,
engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S.
customers for aftermarket automotive filters.  The lawsuit is a
purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters
from the defendants.  Parallel purported class actions, including
on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by
other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the United
States and Canada.  The U.S cases have been consolidated into a
single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of
Illinois.  The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice
notified Honeywell on Jan. 21, 2010 that it has officially closed
its investigation into possible collusion in the replacement auto
filters industry.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 11,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


JOB SITE SERVICES: Class Suit Not Stayed Against Non-Debtor
-----------------------------------------------------------
In Paulino Uto, Jose Edwin Lopez and Jose Alas, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, v. Job Site Services,
Inc., John O'Shea in his individual capacity, Case No. 10-cv-0529
(E.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle held that the
automatic stay provision of the United States Bankruptcy Code will
not be applied to the non-debtor corporate defendant, Job Site
Services, Inc., and the action will proceed with respect to that
entity on the schedule previously set by the Court.  Individual
defendant John O'Shea filed for bankruptcy protection pursuant to
Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code on February 4,
2011.  A copy of the February 9, 2011 Memorandum Opinion and Order
is available at http://is.gd/yvpmp2from Leagle.com.


KANSAS CITY, MO: Teacher's Union to File Class Action Over Brawl
----------------------------------------------------------------
KCTV5 News reports that the Kansas City, Mo., School District is
expected to respond to the mayhem that erupted at Southwest Early
College Campus on Feb. 11 when three fires were set, a brawl broke
out and a teacher was injured.

The president of the teacher's union that represents teachers at
the school has spoken out and said the union is planning to file a
class action grievance with the district today, Feb. 16.  At issue
are student and teacher safety.

"They have been silent, and it makes me angry because these
teachers were promised that things were going to get better and
things were going to improve," Andrea Flinders said.

Ms. Flinders was at the same education conference as district
superintendent John Covington last week when the incidents
occurred Friday.  She said while no students were injured Friday,
an English teacher was trampled and injured during the chaos.

"She's upset.  She says, 'I have flashbacks, Andrea.'  She said
all I could see were feet and kids and I was getting kicked.  She
said she woke up Saturday morning and felt like she was beat up."

Ms. Flinders staunchly defended the staff at SWECC, blaming the
escalating school violence on district administration.

"We're going to hold this administration accountable for student
safety and for staff safety," Ms. Flinders said.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces Class Action Over Gang Injunctions
---------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Watkins, writing for Associated Press, reports that two men
who were arrested in Los Angeles when police found them outside
after 10:00 p.m. have filed a lawsuit challenging the curfew
provision in many of the city's gang injunctions.

Christian Rodriguez and Alberto Cazarez, who authorities claimed
were in a west Los Angeles street gang, said they are not gang
members so they were unfairly arrested in June 2009 when officers
found them near a housing project well known for gang activity.

Their lawsuit, which seeks class-action status and was filed in
federal court on Feb. 11, takes aim at one of the more contentious
elements of gang injunctions that have become an increasingly
favored law-enforcement tool aimed at curbing gang activity.

Along with giving police the power to arrest accused gang members
if they are outside in a gang area between 10:00 p.m. and sunrise,
the injunctions also make it an offense for them to gather in
public, wear gang colors or make gang hand gestures.

Olu Orange, an attorney for Messrs. Rodriguez and Cazarez, said a
California appeals court in 2007 found the curfew provision of an
injunction against a Ventura County gang to be unconstitutional.

"There is a broad unconstitutional brush that has painted
primarily members of low-income and minority communities," he
said. "They don't have gang injunctions in Beverly Hills."

Anne Tremblay, supervisor of the city attorney's anti-gang
section, said she had not seen the lawsuit so she could not
comment on specific allegations but said the city stands by its
injunctions.

"We constitutionally enforce our injunctions and we work with the
LAPD to make sure they constitutionally enforce our injunctions,"
Ms. Tremblay said.  "Each injunction has provisions based on
applicable law."

LAPD spokesman Cleon Joseph said the department does not comment
on pending litigation.

Charges against Messrs. Rodriguez and Cazarez stemming from their
arrest were eventually dismissed.  Their lawsuit says their arrest
violated their constitutional rights to free assembly, travel and
protection from unlawful seizures.

Since being pioneered in Los Angeles in the 1980s, the use of gang
injunctions has proliferated across the nation and even overseas.
Vast swaths of Southern California are now subject to such
injunctions, and in Los Angeles alone, 43 permanent injunctions
covering 71 gangs and about 5,500 alleged gang members are in
place.

Injunctions are also used in several other states, including Texas
and Florida, and authorities in London recently began to use them.

Advocates point to dropping crime rates as proof the injunctions
work, but opponents say they cast too wide a net and unfairly
brand young men as gang members without due process.


MENTO GRAPHICS: Probe Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Buetow, writing for Printed Circuit Design & Fab, reports
that a private investigation is underway on behalf of
Mentor Graphics investors over possible breaches of fiduciary
duty.

The investigation was launched following a back-and-forth by two
major shareholders that were incensed over a recent decision by
Mentor's board of directors to move up the date of its annual
shareholders meeting.

The investigation, which is being undertaken by an undisclosed law
firm, is looking into whether Mentor directors and officers or
others breached or will breach their fiduciary duties in
connection with a potential takeover or buyout.  The firm seeks to
ensure shareholders get a maximum return in the event of a sale of
the company, says the Shareholder Foundation, a portfolio
monitoring service and investor advocacy group.

Class-action lawsuits over companies in play are not unusual, and
few result in findings of corporate malfeasance or material
damages for shareholders.

Last week, a battle erupted between the company and shareholders,
Carl Icahn, who directly or indirectly owns 14.7% of Mentor's
stocks, and hedge fund Casablanca Capital, which owns another
5.5%, over whether Mentor changed the date of its shareholders
meeting in order to head off the proposal of a dissident slate of
directors.

On Feb. 11, Mr. Icahn nominated his colleague David Schechter,
plus Federal-Mogul chief executive Jose Maria Alapont, Exar
director Gary Meyers, for Mentor's board.

Casablanca on Feb. 14 announced it would propose three new board
members for Mentor, including its founder Donald Drapkin, former
NaviSite chief executive Arthur Becker, and 2KDirect chief
executive Michael Barr.

Some media have reported Mentor has retained Goldman Sachs to help
its takeover defense in a potential proxy fight with Mr. Icahn.
Mentor has publicly denied the reports.


MERCK FROSST: Faces Class Action Over Propecia & Proscar
--------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Campbell, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
a class lawsuit has been in the Supreme Court of British Columbia,
Canada, by Vancouver resident, Michael Miller, against Merck
Frosst Canada and its affiliated companies.  The lawsuit has been
brought on behalf of Canadian men who used Propecia or Proscar and
suffered continuing sexual dysfunction.

Propecia and Proscar are prescribed as a cosmetic treatment for
male pattern hair loss also known as androgenic alopecia.  The
product monograph discloses that some men may experience sexual
dysfunction but states that the symptoms disappear after cessation
of the drug.

Mr. Miller, who is in his early 20s, was concerned when his hair
started to thin in some areas.  He was prescribed Proscar which he
hoped would stop his hair from thinning.  After about a month of
use he noticed a drastic change in his behavior, "I lost my
interest in sex and I felt anxious in social situations for no
particular reason," he says.  While on the drug, his symptoms of
sexual dysfunction increased as the months passed.  When he could
no longer bear the side effects, he stopped using Proscar but
these symptoms didn't go away: "My sexual functioning has not
recovered, I have seen specialists and have tried treatments but
nothing has worked," says Mr. Miller.


NEW SOUTH WALES: Faces Class Action Over Bethcar Facility Abuses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Davies, writing for The Daily Telegraph, reports that a
multi-million-dollar class action has started against the state of
New South Wales.  Lawyers are working pro bono in a bid to help
the 14 women and one man get the closure they need.

Together they suffered unspeakable cruelty -- years of severe
sexual, physical and emotional abuse at the hands of the very
people there to protect them.

But 30 years on from their ordeals, 15 former child residents of a
state-funded foster home are fighting back.

Tucked away in Brewarrina in the state's northwest in the 1970s
and '80s was the BethCar facility, a foster home for poor,
disadvantaged Aboriginal children who had nowhere else to go.

BethCar was run by a husband and wife team, Burt and Edith Gordon,
but the place was certainly no sanctuary for its young residents.

Instead, the plaintiffs -- none of whom spoke about what happened
there until recent years -- were subjected to sexual abuse by
Burt, their "father", as young as four years old, with their
"mother" Edith beating them if they failed to do what he asked.

In the '80s their son-in-law took over the running of BethCar, but
that was no respite for the youths, and he has recently been
jailed for two aggravated sexual assaults committed at the home.

One of the plaintiffs, now aged 40, said she had tolerated enough
by her early teens.  "I actually spoke out when I was 14, and my
foster mother, she beat me," she said.  "I kept my mouth shut, and
eventually ran away."

Other victims will tell the District Court of being forced to
endure endless molestation in darkened rooms, while on other
nights they hid under beds, terrified, to avoid being the next in
line.

Cruelly, their late "father" was held up as a model member of
society, an ABC documentary once calling him the region's Father
of the Year.

A victim said the legal process, which began three years ago, was
like being mistreated all over again.

Lawyers have been working for nothing since the case was first
lodged in 2008.

The statement of claim contends the State was negligent, but the
defendant said a variety of agencies funded the facility.

The case returns to court later this year.


NEW YORK: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------
An important class action settlement was announced on Feb. 14 that
will help thousands of New Yorkers to return to work quicker.  The
settlement was reached with the Office of Children and Family
Services ("OCFS") which operates the New York Statewide Abuse and
Maltreatment Register.  Before a person can work with children,
the state law requires that employers must first obtain a
clearance from the Register.  Without a clearance, people can not
work.

The Register maintains a list of people who have been accused of
maltreatment of children.  Those who have been listed are entitled
to a hearing to clear their names.  However, sometimes hearings
take more than a year to complete.  While waiting for the
hearings, people can not get jobs.  When the hearings are finally
held, up to 50-75% of the people are exonerated.

Mr. Hoffman, attorney for the plaintiffs in this case explained
that "it is not difficult for someone to place an anonymous call
to the hot line and have a person listed.  Many of the phone calls
to the hot line arise out of family disputes."  Mr. Hoffman
estimates that more than one million New Yorkers are listed on the
Register.

Under the terms of the settlement, those whose employment is
immediately affected will have their hearings completed in four
months.  For all others, hearings will be completed in eight
months.  The state is required to implement these time limits by
November 2011.

The settlement was approved by Hon. Shira Scheindlin, Federal
Judge in Manhattan at a hearing held on February 7, 2011.  Judge
Scheindlin had previously certified a class that consists of over
8,000 people who have requested and are awaiting a hearing.  The
litigation, titled Finch v. State was originally filed in 2004.
The Law Offices of Thomas Hoffman, P.C. in Manhattan was appointed
as class counsel to represent the plaintiffs and to monitor
compliance with the terms of the agreement.

Mr. Hoffman said "I am pleased with the settlement.  During these
very difficult economic times, thousands of people each year will
now be able to get back to work sooner so that they can support
their families."

The attorneys who negotiated the settlement on behalf of OCFS are
Assistant Attorney General Robert L. Kraft and OCFS Senior Counsel
Emily Reeb Bray.

For more information:

          Thomas Hoffman, Esq.
          250 W. 57 St., Suite 1020
          New York, NY 10107
          Telephone: (212) 581-1180 or (917) 589-6156
          Web site: http://www.registryclassaction.com/


OPLINK COMMS: Awaits Ruling on Appeals of IPO Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oplink Communications, Inc., is still awaiting a ruling on the
appeals filed by certain parties regarding a court order approving
a settlement of a class action lawsuit relating to its initial
public offering.

In November 2001, Oplink and certain of its officers and directors
were named as defendants in a class action shareholder complaint
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  In an amended complaint, the plaintiffs
alleged that Oplink, certain of Oplink's officers and directors
and the underwriters of Oplink's initial public offering violated
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegations that
Oplink's registration statement and prospectus failed to disclose
material facts regarding the compensation to be received by, and
the stock allocation practices of, the IPO underwriters.  Similar
complaints were filed by plaintiffs against hundreds of other
public companies that went public in the late 1990s and early
2000s and their IPO underwriters.  During the summer of 2008, the
parties engaged in a formal mediation process to discuss a global
resolution of the IPO Lawsuits.  Ultimately, the parties reached
an agreement to settle all 309 cases against all defendants, and
entered into a settlement agreement in April 2009.  The settlement
provides for a $586 million recovery in total, divided among the
309 cases.  Oplink's share of the settlement is roughly $327,458,
which is the amount Oplink will be required to pay if the
settlement is finally approved.  In October 2009, the Court
certified the settlement class in each case and granted final
approval to the settlement.  A number of appeals have been filed
with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging the fairness
of the settlement.  A number of shareholder plaintiffs have also
filed petitions for leave to appeal the class certification
portion of Judge Scheindlin's ruling.  These appeals and petitions
are pending.

No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 11, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Jan. 2, 2011.

Oplink Communications, Inc. -- http://www.oplink.com/-- is
engaged in designing, manufacturing and selling optical
networking components and subsystems.  The company's product
portfolio includes solutions for all-optical dense and coarse
wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM and CWDM, respectively),
optical amplification, switching and routing, monitoring and
conditioning, and line transmission applications.  The
addressable markets include long-haul networks, metropolitan area
networks (MANs), local area networks (LANs) and fiber-to-the-home
(FTTH) networks.  The company's customers include
telecommunications, data communications and cable television (TV)
equipment manufacturers located around the globe.  As a photonic
foundry, the company provides design, integration and optical
manufacturing solutions (OMS) for components and subsystem
manufacturing. Its product portfolio also includes optical
transmission products, including fiber optic transmitters,
receivers, transceivers and transponders.


PUERTO RICO BAR ASS'N: Pres. Jailed Over Class Action Gag Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Cassens Weiss, writing for ABA Journal, reports that Puerto
Rican lawyers are organizing vigils and holding press conferences
to show support for their embattled bar president, jailed after
refusing to pay a fine for violating a gag order in a class action
against the bar association.

Bar president Osvaldo Toledo was held in contempt after he held a
news conference last week, telling lawyers they could opt out of
the class and warning that the bar's headquarters might have to be
sold to pay the judgment, Caribbean Business reports.  He refused
to pay a $10,000 fine by the Feb. 17 deadline and turned himself
in.

The bar association is not planning to pay the fine, sources told
Caribbean Business.  On Feb. 12, the Puerto Rico bar's governing
board approved a manifesto expressing its solidarity with Toledo
for his "act of bravery and honor," Caribbean Business reports in
a separate story.  Publicly, bar officials declined to discuss
their next move, saying they are also bound by the gag order.

The class action suit challenged the bar's use of compulsory dues
to buy life insurance policies for all members of the bar.  Last
year the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston upheld an
injunction barring the use of dues for the insurance program, but
overturned a $4 million damages judgment, according to Caribbean
Business.  The appeals court said lawyers can opt out of the
class, and the lower court on remand can reduce the judgment
accordingly.

Membership in the bar is no longer compulsory.

Groups of lawyers have organized vigils at the prison where Toledo
has been jailed.  On Feb. 13, a group of lawyer lawmakers who are
members of the Popular Democratic Party held a press conference to
announce they are opting out of the class action, Caribbean
Business reports in its latest story on the controversy.


SMART TECHNOLOGIES: To Vigorously Defend Ontario Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
SMART Technologies Inc. on Feb. 14 disclosed that it has become
aware that a class proceeding has been commenced in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice on behalf of purchasers of shares of
SMART in the July 2010 initial public offering of 38.8 million
shares.

SMART believes that such Class Action is without merit and is
confident that SMART has complied with all applicable securities
laws requirements.  SMART intends to vigorously defend the Class
Action.

SMART Technologies is a provider of collaboration solutions.


TRAVELERS COS: 3rd Cir. Refers Vilches Suit to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated a
district court ruling in the class action entitled Vilches v.
Travelers Companies, Inc., issued in favor of the Company against
the appellants with respect to a class arbitration waiver.

Jose Ivan Vilches, Francis Sheehan Jr. and Jack Costeira
previously filed a class and collection action in the Superior
Court of New Jersey against Travelers, that sought to recover
unpaid wages and overtime pay on allegations the Company required
its insurance appraisers to work beyond 40 hours per week but
didn't properly compensate for additional labor incurred.
Travelers removed the matter to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, sought to dismiss the complaint and sought
to compel Vilches to arbitrate the wage claims.

Travelers and Vilches disputed on the Company's arbitration
policy.  Traveles asserted that Vilches agreed to an employment
provision making arbitration the required forum for the resolution
of all employment disputes that may arise.  Vilches conceded to
the arbitration agreement, but insisted that the revised
Arbitration Policy introduced by Travelers in April 2005 did not
bind them.  The revised arbitration policy explicitly precludes
"class arbitration."

The District Court found that Travelers provided sufficient notice
to Vilches on the revised Policy, and that Vilches' electronic
assent and continued employment constituted agreement to the
policy update.  The District Court thus held that Vilches waived
the ability to proceed through class arbitration, and ordered the
parties to individually arbitrate the employment disputes.
Vilches subsequently appealed the District Court order.

Upon review, the Third Circuit disagrees with Vilches' contention
that the addition of the class action waiver was unconscionable.
"Vilches only demonstrated their position relative to Travelers
and their interest in maintaining employment, which is
insufficient on its own to prove that the class arbitration waiver
is unreasonably favorable to Travelers."

Accordingly, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court order
and referred the matter to arbitration to resolve whether the
parties can proceed as a class in arbitration pursuant to the
relevant arbitration provisions.

A copy of the Third Circuit's February 9, 2011 decision is
available at http://is.gd/GBAOwpat Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Healthcare Bill
------------------------------------------------------
Logan G. Carver, writing Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, reports that a
group of people have filed suit in Lubbock against the President
of the United States asking a federal court to declare
unconstitutional the Obama administration's healthcare bill.

The class-action lawsuit is a re-filing of a case a federal judge
in Tennessee threw out.

"Lubbock has a really good reputation of the following the
Constitution, following the law, so we decided to file there,"
said Van Irion, a Tennessee attorney representing the plaintiffs
for Liberty Legal Foundation.

Liberty Legal Foundation is a conservative activist group
dedicated to "strategically challenging flawed court precendent to
restore our Constitution."

Slaton resident Arthur Enloe is a member of the group and
volunteered to serve as a plaintiff to challenge healthcare,
Mr. Irion said.


                             *********

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.  Leah
Felisilda, Neil U. Lim, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante,
Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  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  * * *