CAR_Public/110222.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, February 22, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 37

                             Headlines

3M CO: Suits Over Chemical Exposure in Alabama Still Pending
3M CO: Suits Over Perfluorochemicals in Morgan County Still Stayed
3M CO: Class Certification Issue Still Pending in "Whitaker" Suit
3M CO: "Garcia" Lawsuit Still Pending in Minnesota
AMAZON.COM: Sued for Illegally Collecting Customer Information

AMR CORP: Turner Plaintiffs' Plan to Pursue Claims Still Unclear
AMR CORP: Awaits Final Court Approval of Air Cargo Suit Settlement
APPLE INC: Sued Over Unauthorized Transmission of Personal Data
AT&T MOBILITY: Supreme Court to Decide on Consumer Class Action
BANK OF HAWAII: Faces Class Action Over Overdraft Fee Practices

BAYER CORP: Supreme Court to Decide on Baycol Class Action
BELL MOBILITY: Judge Authorizes Class Action Over Cellphone Fees
CABLEVISIONS SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Fox Programming Suits
CELL THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Wash.
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Dr. Levine Dies Following Sexual Abuse Suit

DELTA AIR: Certification of Section 1 Class Status Still Pending
ENCORE CAPITAL: Settles Class Action for $5.7 Million
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Motion to Decertify Class Remains Pending
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Continues to Defend Suits in Missouri
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Oral Argument in "Beeman" Suit Set for March 8

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Continues to Defend Suits Over Air Emissions
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Penelec Faces Lawsuit Over Air Emissions
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Unit Awaits Ruling on Motion to Appeal Order
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Allegheny Merger-Related Lawsuits Now Resolved
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Appeal From Class Suit Dismissal Still Pending

HOSPIRA INC: Still Awaits Ruling on Plaintiffs' Appeal
IKEA HOME: Recalls 26,000 SNIGLAR Cribs
JAMES PERSE: Recalls 6,700 Units of Men's and Women's Jackets
LIQUID COMBUSTION: Recalls 1,800 Sno-Tek Snow Blowers
MAY TRUCKING: Sued for Failing to Pay Proper Wages to Drivers

MEAD JOHNSON: Still Defends Suits Over "False Claims" for Enfamil
NUCOR CORP: Judge Certifies Employee Discrimination Class Action
NYSE EURONEXT: Being Sold to Deutsche Borse for Too Little
ONTARIO: Faces Class Action Over Abuse at Chatham Institution
PERFECT FITNESS: Recalls 7,000 Perfect Pullup

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend ERISA Lawsuit in Iowa
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Still Defends "Cruise & Mullaney" Suit
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Stipulate Dismissal of "Hurd" Class Action
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Still Defends Suit Over Defective NID Test Kits
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Still Defends Age Discrimination Suit in N.J.

REHABCARE GROUP: Being Sold to Kindred for Too Little, Suit Says
SALLIE MAE: Class Action Over Student Loans Can Proceed
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Judge Dismisses Discrimination Claims v. MTC
SATYAM COMPUTER: Settles Class Action for $125 Million
TIFFANY & CO: Faces Class Action Over Zip Code Policy

TOYOTA MOTOR: Seeks Dismissal of Acceleration Class Action
U.S. RETAILERS: Calif. Zip Code Ruling Spurs Class Actions
WELLCARE HEALTH: Final Settlement Hearing Set for May 4

* Proposed Kansas Bill to Restrict Consumer Class Actions



                             *********

3M CO: Suits Over Chemical Exposure in Alabama Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company continues to defend purported class-action lawsuits
involving perfluorooctanyl chemistry exposure at or near the
company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility, according to
the Company's Feb. 16, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002
in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama, involving
perfluorooctanyl chemistry, seeking unstated damages alleging that
the plaintiffs suffered fear, increased risk, subclinical
injuries, and property damage from exposure to perfluorooctanyl
chemistry at or near the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing
facility.  The Circuit Court in 2005 granted the Company's motion
to dismiss the named plaintiff's personal injury-related claims on
the basis that the claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions
of the state's Workers Compensation Act.  The plaintiffs' counsel
filed an amended complaint in November 2006, limiting the case to
property damage claims on behalf of a purported class of residents
and property owners in the vicinity of the Decatur plant.  Also,
in 2005, the judge in a second purported class action lawsuit
(filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking
unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving alleged
damage to their property from emissions of perfluorooctanyl
compounds from the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing
facility that formerly manufactured those compounds) granted the
Company's motion to abate the case, effectively putting the case
on hold pending the resolution of class certification issues in
the first action filed in the same court in 2002.  Despite the
stay, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking damages for
alleged personal injuries and property damage on behalf of the
named plaintiffs and the members of a purported class.  No further
action in the case is expected unless and until the stay is
lifted.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services, and
electro and communications.


3M CO: Suits Over Perfluorochemicals in Morgan County Still Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit involving perfluorochemicals
pending in Morgan County, Alabama, remains stayed, according to 3M
Co.'s Feb. 16, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief based on
the application by the Decatur wastewater treatment plant of
wastewater treatment sludge to farmland and grasslands in the
state that allegedly contain perflurooctanoic acid (PFOA),
perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and other perfluorochemicals.
The named defendants in the case include 3M, Dyneon LLC, Daikin
America, Inc., Synagro-WWT, Inc., Synagro South, LLC and
Biological Processors of America.  The named plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of all persons within the State of Alabama, Inc.
who have had PFOA, PFOS and other perfluorochemicals released or
deposited on their property.  In March 2010, the Alabama Supreme
Court ordered the case transferred from Franklin County to Morgan
County.  In May, 2010, consistent with its handling of the other
matters, the Morgan County Circuit Court abated this case, putting
it on hold pending the pending the resolution of the class
certification issues in the first case filed there.

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

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services, and
electro and communications.


3M CO: Class Certification Issue Still Pending in "Whitaker" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A request for class certification in a lawsuit alleging employment
discrimination against 3M Co. remains pending in Minnesota,
according to the Company's Feb. 16, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

In December, 2004, one current and one former employee of the
Company filed a purported class action in the District Court of
Ramsey County, Minnesota, seeking to represent a class of all
current and certain former salaried employees employed by the
Company in Minnesota below a certain salary grade who were age 46
or older at any time during the applicable period to be determined
by the Court -- the Whitaker Lawsuit.  The complaint alleges the
plaintiffs suffered various forms of employment discrimination on
the basis of age in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act
and seeks injunctive relief, unspecified compensatory damages
(which they seek to treble under the statute), including back and
front pay, punitive damages (limited by statute to $8,500 per
claimant) and attorneys' fees.  In January 2006, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to join four additional named plaintiffs.  This
motion was unopposed by the Company and the four plaintiffs were
joined in the case, although one plaintiff's claim was dismissed
following an individual settlement.  A class certification hearing
was held in December 2007.  On April 11, 2008, the Court granted
the plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action and
defined the class as all persons who were 46 or older when
employed by 3M in Minnesota in a salaried exempt position below a
certain salary grade at any time on or after May 10, 2003, and who
did not sign a document on their last day of employment purporting
to release claims arising out of their employment with 3M.  On
April 28, 2009, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the
District Court's class certification decision.  The Court of
Appeals found that the District Court had not required plaintiffs
to meet the proper legal standards for certification of a class
under Minnesota law and incorrectly had deferred resolving certain
factual disputes that were relevant to the class certification
requirements.  The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the
District Court for further proceedings in line with the
evidentiary standards defined in its opinion.  The trial court
took expert testimony on the class certification issue on May 5-6,
2010, and held a hearing on the issue on August 25, 2010.   A new
decision on whether the case should proceed as a class action is
pending.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services, and
electro and communications.


3M CO: "Garcia" Lawsuit Still Pending in Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------
The Garcia lawsuit is still in the initial phase of discovery
before a Minnesota district court, according to 3M Co.'s Feb. 16,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company was served on May 7, 2009, with a purported class
action/collective action age discrimination lawsuit, which was
filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division -- Garcia Lawsuit.  The case has
since been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota.  The case is still in the initial phase of
discovery.

In this case, five former and one current employee of the Company
are seeking to represent all current and former salaried employees
employed by the Company in the United States during the liability
period, which plaintiffs define as 2001 to the present.  In
addition to the six named plaintiffs, there are presently 86 other
current or former employees who have signed "opt-in" forms,
seeking to join the action.  This number has changed since the
case was filed and is likely to change again as the case
progresses.  The Garcia lawsuit expressly excludes those persons
encompassed within the proposed class in the Whitaker lawsuit.
The same firm, joined by additional California counsel and local
Minnesota counsel for the Garcia lawsuit, represents the
plaintiffs in both cases.

The allegations of the complaint in the Garcia lawsuit are similar
to those in the Whitaker lawsuit.  Plaintiffs claim that they and
other similarly situated employees suffered various forms of
employment discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the
federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  In regard to these
claims, plaintiffs seek to represent "all persons who were 46 or
older when employed by 3M in the United States in a salaried
position below the level of director, or salary grade 18, during
the liability period."  Because federal law protects persons age
40 and older from age discrimination, with respect to their claim
of disparate impact only, plaintiffs also propose an alternative
definition of similarly situated persons that would begin at age
40.  On behalf of this group, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
unspecified compensatory damages including back and front pay,
benefits, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees.

Certain of the plaintiffs' and putative class members' employment
terminated under circumstances in which they were eligible for
group severance plan benefits and in connection with those plans
they signed waivers of claims, including age discrimination
claims.  Plaintiffs claim the waivers of age discrimination claims
were invalid in various respects.  This subset of release-signing
plaintiffs seeks a declaration that the waivers of age
discrimination claims are invalid, other injunctive, but non-
monetary, remedies, and attorneys' fees.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services, and
electro and communications.


AMAZON.COM: Sued for Illegally Collecting Customer Information
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action filed in
Los Angeles Superior Court claims Amazon.com illegally collects
personal information from customers "for such purposes as
marketing and advertising."


AMR CORP: Turner Plaintiffs' Plan to Pursue Claims Still Unclear
----------------------------------------------------------------
It remains unclear whether the plaintiffs in the matter Turner v.
American Airlines, et al., will pursue their claims, according to
AMR Corporation's Feb. 16, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

Approximately 52 purported class action lawsuits have been filed
in the U.S. against the Company and certain foreign and domestic
air carriers alleging that the defendants violated U.S. antitrust
laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges for
passenger transportation.  On October 25, 2006, these cases, along
with other purported class action lawsuits in which the Company
was not named, were consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California as In re
International Air Transportation Surcharge Antitrust Litigation,
Civ. No. 06-1793 (the Passenger MDL).  On July 9, 2007, the
Company was named as a defendant in the Passenger MDL.  On
August 25, 2008, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against the
Company in this action.  On March 13, 2008, and March 14, 2008, an
additional purported class action complaint, Turner v. American
Airlines, et al., Civ. No. 08-1444 (N.D. Cal.), was filed against
the Company, alleging that the Company violated U.S. antitrust
laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges for
passenger transportation in Japan and certain European countries,
respectively.  The Turner plaintiffs have failed to perfect
service against the Company, and it is unclear whether they intend
to pursue their claims.  In the event that the Turner plaintiffs
pursue their claims, the Company will vigorously defend these
lawsuits, but any adverse judgment in these actions could have a
material adverse impact on the Company, according to the SEC
filing.

AMR Corporation operates with its principal subsidiary, American
Airlines Inc. -- http://www.aa.com/-- a worldwide scheduled
passenger airline.  At the end of 2006, American provided
scheduled jet service to about 150 destinations throughout North
America, the Caribbean, Latin America, including Brazil, Europe
and Asia.  American is also a scheduled airfreight carrier,
providing freight and mail services to shippers throughout its
system.  Its wholly owned subsidiary, AMR Eagle Holding Corp.,
owns two regional airlines, American Eagle Airlines Inc. and
Executive Airlines Inc., and does business as "American Eagle."
American Beacon Advisors Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of AMR,
is responsible for the investment and oversight of assets of AMR's
U.S. employee benefit plans, as well as AMR's short-term
investments.


AMR CORP: Awaits Final Court Approval of Air Cargo Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
AMR Corporation is awaiting final approval of its settlement of a
consolidated class action lawsuit alleging U.S. antitrust law
violations, according to AMR Corp.'s Feb. 16, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Forty-five purported class action lawsuits have been filed in the
U.S. against the Company and certain foreign and domestic air
carriers alleging that the defendants violated U.S. antitrust laws
by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges on cargo
shipments.  These cases, along with other purported class action
lawsuits in which the Company was not named, were consolidated in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York as In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation,
06-MD-1775 on June 20, 2006.  Plaintiffs are seeking trebled money
damages and injunctive relief.  To facilitate a settlement on a
class basis, the company agreed to be named in a separate class
action complaint, which was filed on July 26, 2010.  The
settlement of that complaint, in which the company does not admit
and denies liability, was given preliminary approval by the court
on September 8, 2010.  The settlement has not yet received final
approval, and some members of the class have elected to opt out,
thereby preserving their rights to sue the Company separately.

AMR Corporation operates with its principal subsidiary, American
Airlines Inc. -- http://www.aa.com/-- a worldwide scheduled
passenger airline.  At the end of 2006, American provided
scheduled jet service to about 150 destinations throughout North
America, the Caribbean, Latin America, including Brazil, Europe
and Asia.  American is also a scheduled airfreight carrier,
providing freight and mail services to shippers throughout its
system.  Its wholly owned subsidiary, AMR Eagle Holding Corp.,
owns two regional airlines, American Eagle Airlines Inc. and
Executive Airlines Inc., and does business as "American Eagle."
American Beacon Advisors Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of AMR,
is responsible for the investment and oversight of assets of AMR's
U.S. employee benefit plans, as well as AMR's short-term
investments.


APPLE INC: Sued Over Unauthorized Transmission of Personal Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Rodimer, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-00700
(N.D. Calif. February 15, 2011), asserts claims for privacy
violations and unfair business practices against the multinational
giant.  The plaintiffs allege that Apple, acting independently and
in concert with "Application Developers and Application
Developer's Affiliates," knowingly disclosed personal information
obtained from the plaintiffs' mobile devices using their Unique
Device Identifiers ("UDIDs"), to third party advertisers, in
violation of federal computer and privacy laws.

The plaintiffs add these violations were made for commercial gain
and without plaintiffs' consent.

The Complaint says that Apple failed to block access to, and void
the licensing agreements of defendant Application Developers even
after it received notice of individual and concerted actions.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          William M. Audet, Esq.
          Michael McShane, Esq.
          Jonas P. Mann, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          221 Main Street, Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com
                  mmcshane@audetlaw.com
                  jmann@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard Lockridge, Esq.
          Robert Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: ralockridge@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Malley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY
          1045 North Zang Blvd.
          Dallas, TX 75208
          Telephone: (214) 943-6100
          E-mail: malleylaw@gmail.com


AT&T MOBILITY: Supreme Court to Decide on Consumer Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Bengle Gilbert, writing for Yahoo News, reports that in AT&T
Mobility v. Concepcion, the Supreme Court will decide whether a
company has the right to require customers doing business with it
to sign away their right to participate in class action lawsuits.

What led to the lawsuit?

The Concepcions signed a contract and thought they were getting a
package discount on two phones, only to pay sales tax on the full
price of the phones, which resulted in a $30 claim.  They sued,
contending it was a fraud for AT&T to advertise the discounted
package then charge them tax on the full-price of both phones.

Why does it matter whether this case is heard as a class action?

Every consumer signing the same contract with potentially had an
identical claim against AT&T.  Individually, each of those
claimants, including the Concepcions, were out so little money, it
would cost more to hire a lawyer than they could recover if they
won.  But AT&T collected millions of dollars through these
charges.  By pooling their resources on legal representation,
consumers can afford to pursue their legal claims.

How did the case come to be before the U.S. Supreme Court?

The Concepcions filed suit against AT&T in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California.  The court combined their
case a class action case known as Laster that raised the same
issues.  AT&T tried to get the case dismissed, arguing that its
contract both required the Concepcions to resolve disputes through
arbitration (which resolves the dispute outside of the court
system) and forbid the Concepcions to pursue a class action.  The
district court refused to dismiss the case, and AT&T filed an
appeal of that ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The 9th Circuit upheld the district court's opinion, and AT&T
appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

What is the basis of the Circuit Court decision?

The 9th Circuit said based on earlier court rulings, the
Concepcions had to meet three criteria in order for the clause
barring class actions to be ruled unconscionable and, therefore,
unenforceable.  The contracts must be contracts of adhesion,
meaning one party unilaterally created the contract and imposed it
on the other; the dispute must be over relatively small sums of
money; and the party that drafted the contract must be found to
have used its superior bargaining power to cheat large numbers of
people out of small amounts of money.

What is the key issue before the U.S. Supreme Court?

The Federal Arbitration Act governs arbitration agreements and
determines whether and under what conditions they are enforceable.
Generally, that law says arbitration agreements are enforceable
unless the state law requirements for revoking a contract are met.
When a specific provision of an arbitration agreement, like a
class-action ban, is unenforceable under state law, does the state
law or the FAA determine the outcome?

Why does this case matter?

When a consumer does business with a corporation, the contract
setting out the terms is generally a standard one imposed by the
corporation.  With increasing frequency, such contracts contain
arbitration clauses, requiring a customer to resolve any claim
against the company through arbitration rather than a lawsuit.
The rationale behind such clauses is that arbitration is less
expensive and procedurally simpler than a court case.  Courts have
upheld such arbitration clauses where they don't unfairly limit
the consumer's rights to recover damages due them.

If the court rules for the Concepcions, AT&T argues that companies
will not be willing to enter into arbitration agreements because
they will no longer offer advantages over traditional litigation.

If the court rules for AT&T, plaintiffs whose individual legal
fees would exceed their potential recovery in litigation will be
deterred from seeking recompense due them, allowing corporations
to help themselves to millions of dollars by getting small sums
from large numbers of people.


BANK OF HAWAII: Faces Class Action Over Overdraft Fee Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Segal, writing for Star Adviser, reports that Bank of Hawaii
has been sued by customers alleging the bank used "unfair and
deceptive overdraft fee practices."

The complaint, filed as a class action on Feb. 15 in state Circuit
Court on behalf of Honolulu residents Lodley and Tehani Taulava,
accuses Bank of Hawaii of engaging in a systematic policy of
re-ordering debit card transactions from highest dollar amount to
lowest dollar amount.  The suit said this practice allowed the
bank to deplete the customer's available funds as quickly as
possible while maximizing the number of overdraft fees.

Bank of Hawaii spokesman Stafford Kiguchi said on Feb. 16 that the
bank changed its policy last month and now generally posts
transactions from lowest dollar amount to highest.  "This
minimizes overdraft fees paid by customers," Mr. Kiguchi said.

The suit cited an example involving the Taulavas in which they
were charged four overdraft fees of $26 each, or a total of $104,
from debits that were posted on the same day (Aug. 18, 2010).  The
Taulavas had five transactions that day, including an ATM
withdrawal, totaling $115.11.  The debits were processed from
highest to lowest.  The suit said that if the bank had processed
the transactions from lowest to highest or chronologically (based
on time of day), the Taulavas would have been assessed only one
overdraft fee of $26.

"Banks should not be allowed to gouge customers by unfairly
manipulating the manner in which transactions are posted and
overdrafts are charged," said John Perkin, a partner with Perkin &
Faria LLLC, which represents the plaintiffs.  "Such practices make
it more difficult for thousands of Hawaii families to make ends
meet.  We are continuing to investigate other banks in Hawaii."

Mr. Kiguchi said the bank is aware of customers' concerns about
overdraft fees.  He said that until the bank changed its policy
that this had been a common practice based on the belief that the
higher debits were someone's mortgage, tuition or car payments.

Mr. Kiguchi said there are also many other ways customers can
avoid overdraft fees.

"To ensure that customers know how much money they have to spend
without overdrawing their account, Bank of Hawaii provides account
balances through Internet banking, mobile banking, Bankoh by Phone
and at ATMs," Mr. Kiguchi said.

"The bank provides ways to avoid having transactions denied and
offers customers the ability to avoid overdrafts by linking a line
of credit or savings account to their checking account."

This is the first such lawsuit against a Hawaii bank, but several
mainland banks were recently sued over similar practices, Perkin &
Faria said in a news release.

In August 2010, a California judge awarded Wells Fargo customers
in that state $203 million in damages related to the bank's
overdraft fee practices.  Last month, a judge in Washington, D.C.,
approved a settlement in which National City Bank agreed to pay
its customers $12.5 million.  Earlier this month, Bank of America
agreed to pay its customers $410 million.

The three mainland firms that are assisting Perkin & Faria in the
Honolulu suit -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Kopelowitz Ostrow and
Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP -- also were involved in one or all of
those other recent settlements.


BAYER CORP: Supreme Court to Decide on Baycol Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Carol Bengle Gilbert and Carol Bengle Gilbert, writing for Yahoo
News, report that the U.S. Supreme Court is to decide on Smith v.
Bayer class action.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 18 took a close look at a federal
court's jurisdiction in class-action cases.  The court must decide
whether a federal court that denied class certification can
prevent individuals who were not the named representatives of the
proposed class from seeking class action certification in state,
instead of federal, court.

What is this case about?

This case involves a federal court order stopping parties from
seeking class-action certification in state court.  Normally, the
Anti-Injunction Act forbids a federal court from issuing an
injunction affecting state court proceedings.  There are
exceptions to the rule, including the relitigation exception at
issue in this case.  The 8th U.S. Circuit Court decision is based
on this exception; the court determined that its ruling in the
federal case involved the same issues as those in the state cases
and that the state plaintiffs were prospective members of the
class proposed by the federal plaintiff.

One important nuance is that the named parties for the two would-
be classes -- the one denied by the federal court and the one
proposed in state court -- are different.  The court will decide
whether this is significant in determining the proper scope of the
relitigation exception.

How did this case develop?

George McCollins sought to certify a class-action suit against
Bayer, the maker of Baycol, a prescription drug used to lower
cholesterol, in a West Virginia state court.  Bayer successfully
petitioned to have the case moved to federal district court.

Before being pulled from the market, Baycol was linked to 31
deaths in the United States.  However, Mr. McCollins did not
suffer adverse side effects from Baycol.  Instead, he sued under
state law claiming a breach of warranty and violation of the
Consumer Protection Act.  The court found that these consumer
economic loss claims depended on an assessment of individual
issues of fact and denied his motion to pursue a class action.

Two other former Baycol users, Keith Smith and Shirley Sperlazza,
had filed a case similarly premised on economic losses in a West
Virginia state court one month after Mr. McCollins.  Because the
grounds for removal to federal court were not met in that case, it
remained in state court.

After the federal district court refused to certify the McCollins
class, and the time for appealing that decision expired, Mr. Smith
and Ms. Sperlazza sought class action certification in their case
in state court.  Bayer sought an injunction to prevent the state
court action, and the district court granted its motion on the
grounds that the issue had already been decided by the federal
court.  Had the class proposed by Mr. McCollins been certified,
Mr. Smith and Ms. Sperlazza would have been included within its
scope.

Mr. Smith and Ms. Sperlazza filed an appeal to the 8th Circuit,
which affirmed the district court decision.

What will the Supreme Court decide?

The Supreme Court will decide whether the proposed class action
filed by Mr. Smith and Ms. Sperlazza falls under the Anti-
Injunction Act's exception that allows a federal court to stop a
state court action when the state court would be relitigating an
issue decided in federal court.  Mr. Smith and Ms. Sperlazza
contend that they had no knowledge of the McCollins case, were not
parties, and were deprived of procedural protections they would
have had had the class been certified.  Therefore, they contend
that the federal court's decision should not be binding on them.
The Supreme Court's decision will determine whether Mr. Smith and
Ms. Sperlazza may proceed with their bid to obtain state court
certification of a class action or must litigate their claims
individually.

Why is the case significant?

The case is important because it construes the right of a federal
court to enjoin state court action under the relitigation
exception.  Of particular significance is the fact that the
parties enjoined at the circuit level were not involved in the
federal litigation and did not receive any notice or right to
participate since the proposed class was never certified.  This
case potentially affects not only the rights of individuals to sue
in state courts but the rights of state courts to proceed on cases
when similar claims have been rejected in the federal court
system.


BELL MOBILITY: Judge Authorizes Class Action Over Cellphone Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Leger, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that the fees
consumers have to pay to cellphone companies will again come under
court scrutiny following the authorization of a Quebec class-
action lawsuit against Bell Mobility that became public last week.

Superior Court Justice Francine Nantel authorized the class action
launched by former Bell Mobility customer Denis Gagnon over early-
termination fees he was billed.

According to the suit, Mr. Gagnon was not told when a salesperson
offered to exchange a newer model for his older one that he was
signing a contract for 36 months of service or that he would have
to pay contract cancellation charges.  He was subsequently charged
$220 when he decided to change service providers.

Under changes to Quebec's Consumer Protect Act that came into
force last June 30, companies must disclose more information to
consumers and there are set limits on how much a client can be
billed for ending a contract.

Benoit Gamache, of BGA Avocats LLP, the law firm that filed the
class action on behalf of Gagnon, said the authorization is
intended to cover all clients who had to pay early termination
fees from Jan. 1, 2007 to when the new consumer protection law
came into force.

"These fees are excessive and illegal and are not mentioned in the
contract," said Mr. Gamache, who estimates upward of 10,000 people
in Quebec could stand to win reimbursement if the class action
suit is won.

"In the case of a small company, such fees could reach thousands
of dollars," he added.

BGA Avocats has filed a similar case against Rogers and Telus -
also over early-termination fees.

Last year, BGA Avocats reached an out-of-court settlement in a
class action filed on behalf of Bell Canada and Bell Mobility
clients who paid late payment charges on payments made before the
payment deadline provided on their bill.

Lawyers Valerie Beaudin and Jeanne Morency, of Beaudin & Associes,
are representing Bell Mobility in the latest certification.

Quebec has a new Court of Appeal judge and three Montreal lawyers
have been named to the bench of Quebec Superior Court by Canadian
justice minister and attorney general Rob Nicholson.

Richard R. Wagner, a judge with the Montreal division of Quebec
Superior Court, will now serve on the Quebec Court of Appeal.
Wagner, a former batonnier of the Barreau de Montreal and an
accredited mediator, moves to Quebec's highest court after six
years ruling at the Montreal division of Quebec Superior Court.
Before that, he practiced civil litigation and commercial law with
Lavery LLP.

Louis J. Gouin, a lawyer with Ogilvy Renault LLP in Montreal since
1975, will replace Wagner as a judge of Quebec Superior Court.  As
a lawyer, Gouin specialized in corporate reorganizations,
bankruptcy and insolvency, banking law and litigation.

Another bankruptcy and insolvency specialist also joins the bench.
Mark Schrager, a lawyer with Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP
since 2004, has been appointed a judge at Montreal's Quebec
Superior Court.  Mr. Schrager also practiced in financial-
restructuring and asset-based lending with Goldstein, Flanz &
Fishman LLP for 24 years before joining Davies.

Montreal solo practitioner Michael Stober joins the Montreal
division of Quebec Superior Court as judge.  Mr. Stober was
recently in the news representing Montreal's police brotherhood in
the court case resulting from the 2008 shooting of Montreal
teenager Fredy Villanueva.

Before setting up his own practice with a specialty in criminal,
penal and disciplinary law in 2001, Stober was an associate with
Yarosky, Daviault, La Haye, Stober & Issacs.  He is a former
attorney for the Surete du Quebec, the provincial police force,
and also worked as a Crown prosecutor and agent of the Attorney
General.

E. Paul Legault, a business lawyer with a specialty in
international business, trade and investment, has left Fraser
Milner Casgrain LLP after 12 years to join the corporate
commercial law group at Miller Thomson Pouliot LLP in Montreal.
Legault has advised European manufacturing and service businesses
and has a special connection with Italy.  The Italian-fluent
Legault is co-president of the Canada-Italy Business Council,
created in 2002 by the Italian and Canadian international trade
government departments, and is a member of the board of directors
of the Italian Chamber of Commerce in Canada.

The Lawyer of the Week profiled in an upcoming interview on Legal
Matters, The Gazette's online legal page at
www.montrealgazette.com/legalmatters, is Suzanne Cote, the head of
the litigation team at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP in Montreal.

Cote, who joined Osler late last year after leading the litigation
team at Stikeman Elliott LLP for almost nine years, is one of
under a handful of Canadian lawyers named as a 2011 Client Service
All-Star by BTI Consulting, Inc., a Wellesley, Mass-provider of
survey research to law firms and general counsel.  It bases its
choice of All-Stars on interviews with corporate counsel.


CABLEVISIONS SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Fox Programming Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevisions Systems Corporation continues to defend itself from
class action lawsuits filed by Cablevisions customers seeking
recovery for lack of Fox programming, according to the Company's
February 16, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of
certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16,
2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming
feeds to Cablevision, and as a result, those stations and networks
were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems.  On
October 30, 2010, Cablevision and Fox reached an agreement on new
affiliation agreements for these stations and networks and
carriage was restored.  Several class action lawsuits have been
filed on behalf of Cablevision customers seeking recovery for lack
of Fox programming.  The plaintiffs in those lawsuits have
asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
consumer fraud.  The Company believes these claims are without
merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously.

Cablevision and CSC Holdings, as the case may be, will accept for
payment all notes that were validly tendered at or prior to the
Expiration Time.  Subject to the satisfaction of the conditions to
the tender offers, the final settlement date for notes validly
tendered after the Early Tender Premium Deadline but at or prior
to the Expiration Time was on March 16, 2009.  Notes validly
tendered at or prior to the Early Tender Premium Deadline were
settled on March 2, 2009.


CELL THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Therapeutics, Inc., continues to defend itself from an
amended consolidated class action complaint pending in Washington,
according to the Company's February 16, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On March 12, 2010, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington against Cell Therapeutics, Inc., and
certain of the Company's officers and directors, styled Cyril
Sabbagh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cell Therapeutics, Inc., Dr. James A. Bianco, M.D.,
and Dr. Jack W. Singer (Case No. 2:10-sv-00414).

On March 19, 2010, a substantially similar class action complaint
was filed in the same court, styled Michael Laquidari,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Cell Therapeutics, Inc., Dr. James A. Bianco, M.D., and Dr. Jack
W. Singer (Case No. 2:10-cv-00480).

On March 31, 2010, a third substantially similar class action
complaint was filed in the same court, styled William Snyder,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Cell Therapeutics, Inc., James A. Bianco, Phillip M. Nudelman,
Louis A. Bianco, John H. Bauer, Richard L. Love, Mary O.
Mundinger, Jack W. Singer, Frederick W. Telling and Rodman &
Renshaw, LLC (Case No. 2:10-cv-00559).

The securities actions are pending before Judge Marsha Pechman in
the Western District of Washington.  The securities complaints
allege that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
making certain alleged false and misleading statements.  The
plaintiffs in the Sabbagh and Laquidari actions seek unspecified
damages on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the
Company's securities from May 5, 2009, through February 8, 2010.
The plaintiffs in the Snyder action seek unspecified damages on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's
securities from May 5, 2009, through March 19, 2010, including
purchasers of securities issued pursuant to or traceable to the
Company's July 22, 2009, public offering.

On May 11, 2010, motions were filed to consolidate the securities
actions and to appoint lead plaintiff and lead plaintiffs'
counsel.  On August 2, 2010, the court consolidated the three
securities actions, appointed lead plaintiffs, and approved lead
plaintiffs' counsel.  On September 27, 2010, lead plaintiff filed
an amended consolidated complaint.  On October 27, 2010, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint.  Plaintiffs filed an opposition on December 3, 2010,
and defendants filed their reply on December 22, 2010.  The
hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on January 28, 2011.

On Feb. 4, 2011, the court issued an order denying in large part
the defendants' motion.  Defendants' deadline to file an answer to
the remaining claims in the amended consolidated complaint was
February 18, 2011.


CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Dr. Levine Dies Following Sexual Abuse Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bostonist reports that just one day after being named in a class
action lawsuit over sexual abuse allegations against him,
Dr. Melvin D. Levine has died, his attorney Edward Mahoney said
Friday.  No details on his death were released and his family had
no comment.

On Feb. 17, 40 people filed suit against Dr. Levine and Children's
Hospital in Suffolk Superior Court on Feb. 16 for alleged
molestation while he worked at Children's Hospital from 1966
through 1985.  Dr. Levine was accused of medical malpractice and
sexual abuse and the hospital is accused of negligence.

Boston lawyer Carmen L. Durso alleged that there are about 5,000
boys who were victims.

Dr. Levine's attorney, Edward Mahoney, said he denied the
allegations.  Children's Hospital said the only complaint it
received against Dr. Levine was made after he left the hospital.
That complaint, Children's Hospital said, was investigated, and no
inappropriate conduct was found.

Dr. Levine did surrender his license to practice medicine in 2009
due to other allegations of misconduct.

David Abel and Martin Finucane, writing for The Boston Globe,
report that Children's Hospital has issued a statement, saying it
was "a national leader in child protection and we are committed to
protecting all children, including those treated at the hospital.
Children's Hospital would not, and did not, cover up any
inappropriate conduct relating to Dr. Levine."

The hospital said Dr. Levine hadn't practiced there for 25 years
and the allegations went back further than that.  It also said it
never received a complaint while he was there.  One complaint
after he left was investigated, his actions were found
appropriate, and a court dismissed the claims, the hospital said.

"The fact of the matter is that except for the one complaint we
investigated, no one alerted the hospital to any concerns
regarding Dr. Levine.  The hospital supervised Dr. Levine's
practice in accordance with the applicable standards of the time,"
the hospital said.  At the same time, the statement said, "If the
allegations of these former patients are true, we are devastated
and our most heartfelt sympathies go out to the victims of Dr.
Levine's wrongdoing."

In March 2009, Dr. Levine signed an agreement with the medical
board in North Carolina, where he now lives, saying that he would
never practice medicine again, the Globe reported.  The agreement
came after allegations were brought that he had performed improper
genital examinations on boys there.  A lawsuit filed by Ms. Durso
in 2008 in Superior Court accused Dr. Levine of abusing at least
seven boys who came to him for treatment.


DELTA AIR: Certification of Section 1 Class Status Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Section 1 class in the case
entitled In Re Delta/AirTran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litigation is
still pending, according to Delta Air Lines, Inc.'s February 16,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In May, June and July, 2009, a number of purported class action
antitrust lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Courts for the
Northern District of Georgia, the Middle District of Florida, and
the District of Nevada, against Delta and AirTran Airways. The
plaintiffs originally alleged that Delta and AirTran engaged in
collusive behavior in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act in
November 2008 based upon certain public statements made in October
2008 by AirTran's CEO at an analyst conference concerning fees for
the first checked bag, Delta's imposition of a fee for the first
checked bag on November 4, 2008 and AirTran's imposition of a
similar fee on November 12, 2008. The plaintiffs sought to assert
claims on behalf of an alleged class consisting of passengers who
paid the first bag fee after December 5, 2008 and seek injunctive
relief and unspecified treble damages. All of these cases have
been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the Northern
District of Georgia by the Multi-District Litigation Panel.

In February 2010, the plaintiffs in the MDL proceeding filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint which substantially
expanded the scope of the original complaint. In the consolidated
amended complaint, plaintiffs added new allegations concerning
alleged signaling by both Delta and AirTran based upon statements
made to the investment community by both carriers relating to
industry capacity levels during 2008-2009. Plaintiffs also added a
new cause of action against Delta alleging attempted
monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act,
paralleling a claim previously asserted against AirTran but not
Delta.

In August 2010, the District Court issued an order granting
Delta's motion to dismiss the Section 2 claim, but denying its
motion to dismiss the Section 1 claim. Plaintiffs have filed a
motion to certify the Section 1 class, which Delta has opposed.
This motion remains pending. The Company believes that the claims
in these cases are without merit and are vigorously defending
these lawsuits.


ENCORE CAPITAL: Settles Class Action for $5.7 Million
-----------------------------------------------------
Jessica Silver-Greenberg, writing for The Wall Street Journal,
reports that Encore Capital Group Inc. said it agreed to settle
all pending class-action lawsuits accusing the nation's largest
buyer of distressed consumer debt of using flawed or even phony
affidavits to collect money it was owed.

J. Brandon Black, Encore's president and chief executive, said in
an interview on Feb. 17 that the San Diego company reached
agreements to settle an unspecified number of suits across the
U.S. for as much as $5.7 million.

In the most prominent case, an Ohio federal judge ruled in 2009
that Encore violated federal and state laws by trying to collect
credit-card debt using a fake affidavit.  Encore disclosed its
settlement of the Ohio suit on Feb. 14 in a Securities and
Exchange Commission filing.

The Ohio lawsuit was part of a page-one article in November in The
Wall Street Journal about the surge in lawsuits filed against
people who aren't paying their bills.  Encore and rival debt-
collection firms buy delinquent credit-card obligations and other
loans in large batches, sometimes filing lawsuits to recover the
money.

In the interview, Mr. Black said the article led to "more and more
lawsuits related to the company's affidavit practices."

"We were subjected to copycat lawsuits because of that article and
other articles, so we decided to settle all pending class-action
lawsuits related to our affidavit practices," he said.

Mr. Black said there is nothing wrong with Encore's paperwork
procedures, adding that executives decided a nationwide settlement
would allow the company to avoid distracting, costly litigation.

An attorney representing plaintiffs didn't respond to a request
for comment.

Some regulators and judges have complained that documents
submitted to courts by debt collectors as proof of what a borrower
owes frequently are sloppy or fraudulent.  The accounts bought by
debt-collection firms often lack information about the underlying
debts, such as contracts or payment histories, according to judges
who rule on collection cases.

In the securities filing Monday, Encore said Texas Attorney
General Greg Abbott ordered the company last month to turn over
some documents related to an ongoing investigation of its "methods
of collecting consumer debts" in the state.  California's attorney
general also is conducting a probe of Encore's collection
practices.

Encore said it "intends to cooperate fully" with both
investigations.

In the Ohio case, U.S. District Judge David A. Katz concluded that
Encore employees determined the validity of debt "based entirely"
on a printout.  He rejected Encore's request to throw out the
suit.

As part of the suit, an employee of Encore subsidiary Midland
Funding LLC testified in a deposition that he signs 200 to 400
affidavits a day, and few of them are reviewed for accuracy.

"As far as what I deal with, they just come from the printer as
far as where we get them," the employee said.

Encore is the largest publicly traded debt-buying firm by revenue
in the U.S. In 2010, the company collected $266.7 million through
lawsuits, up 15% from $232.7 million a year earlier.  The number
of suits filed against borrowers rose 27% to 425,000 last year
from 334,000 in 2009.

Monday, Encore reported 2010 net income of $49.1 million, up 50%
from $33 million in 2009.  Revenue climbed 21% to $381.3 million
from $316.4 million.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Motion to Decertify Class Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts, Inc.'s motion to decertify the class in the
matter North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Express Scripts,
Civil Action No. CV-03-B-2696-NE, remains pending, according to
the Company's February 16, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31,
2010.

The suit was filed Oct. 1, 2003, and purports to be a class action
against the company on behalf of independent pharmacies within the
United States.  The complaint alleges that certain of the
company's business practices violate the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15
U.S.C Section 1, et. seq.  The suit seeks unspecified monetary
damages (including treble damages) and injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted on March 3,
2006.

A motion filed by the plaintiffs in an antitrust matter against
Medco and Merck in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania before the
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation requesting transfer of
this case and others to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
MDL treatment was granted on Aug. 24, 2006.

The company filed a motion to decertify the class on Jan. 16,
2007, and it has been fully briefed and argued.  The company is
awaiting the Court's decision on its motion.

Express Scripts, Inc. -- http://www.express-scripts.com/-- one of
the largest pharmacy benefit management companies in North
America, is leading the way toward creating better health and
value for patients through ConsumerologySM, the advanced
application of the behavioral sciences to healthcare.  This
approach is helping millions of members realize greater healthcare
outcomes and lowering cost by assisting in influencing their
behavior.  Headquartered in St. Louis, Express Scripts provides
integrated PBM services including network-pharmacy claims
processing, home delivery services, specialty benefit management,
benefit-design consultation, drug-utilization review, formulary
management, and medical and drug data analysis services.  The
company also distributes a full range of biopharmaceutical
products and provides extensive cost-management and patient-care
services.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Continues to Defend Suits in Missouri
------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts, Inc., continues to defend itself from various
lawsuits pending in Missouri, according to the Company's
February 16, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation on April 29, 2005,
transferred a number of previously disclosed cases to the Eastern
District of Missouri for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings was transferred in 2008:

   -- Minshew v. Express Scripts (Case No.Civ.4:02-CV-1503, United
      States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri)
      (filed December 12, 2001);

   -- Lynch v. National Prescription Administrators, et al. (Case
      No. 03 CV 1303, United States District Court for the
      Southern District of New York) (filed February 26, 2003);

   -- Mixon v. Express Scripts, Inc. (Civil Action No. 4:03CV1519,
      United States District Court for the Eastern District of
      Missouri) (filed October 23, 2003);

   -- Cameron v. Express Scripts, Inc. (Civil Action No.
      4:03CV001520; United States District Court of the Eastern
      District of Missouri) (filed October 23, 2003);

   -- Food Employers Labor Relations Association and United Food
      and Commercial Workers Health and Welfare Fund (Weiss) v.
      Express Scripts, Inc. (Civil Action No. 4:06CV01612 for the
      United States District Court Eastern District of
      Missouri)(filed November 6, 2006);

   -- United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Participating
      Employers Health and Welfare Fund (Lowthers) (Civil Action
      No. 4:06CV01541 for the United States District Court for the
      Eastern District of Missouri) (filed October 20, 2006);

   -- United Food and Commercial Workers Health and Welfare Fund
      of Northeastern Pennsylvania (Kessler) v. Express Scripts,
      Inc. (Civil Action No. 4:06CV01526 for the United States
      District Court Eastern District of Missouri) (filed
      October 17, 2006);

   -- Washington Wholesalers Health and Welfare Fund v. Express
      Scripts, Inc. (Civil Action No. 4:06CV01007 for the United
      States District Court Eastern District of Missouri) (filed
      June 30, 2006);

   -- Local 888 Health Fund (Bruny) v. Express Scripts, Inc.
      (Civil Case No. 4:06CV01611 for the United States District
      Court Eastern District of Missouri) (filed November 6,
      2006);

   -- Wagner et al. v. Express Scripts (Case No.04cv01018 (WHP),
      United States District Court for the Southern District of
      New York) (filed December 31, 2003);

   -- Scheuerman, et al v. Express Scripts (Case No.04-CV-0626
      (FIS) (RFT), United States District Court for the Southern
      District of New York) (filed April 27, 2004);

   -- Correction Officers' Benevolent Association of the City of
      New York, et al. v. Express Scripts, Inc. (Case No.04-Civ-
      7098 (WHP), United States District Court for the Southern
      District of New York) (filed August 5, 2004);

   -- United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers
      Midwest Health Benefits Fund, et al v. National Prescription
      Administrators, Inc., et al. (Case No.04-CV-7472, United
      States District Court for the Southern District of New York)
      (filed September 21, 2004);

   -- Central Laborers' Welfare Fund, et al v. Express Scripts,
      Inc., et al (Case No.B04-1002240, United States District
      Court for the Southern District of Illinois) (filed
      September 27, 2004);

   -- 1978 Retired Construction Workers Benefit Plan (Nagle) v.
      Express Scripts, Inc. (Civil Action No. 4:06-CV01156 for the
      United States District Court Eastern District of Missouri)
      (filed August 1, 2006);

   -- Fulton Fish Market Welfare Fund (Circillo) v. Express
      Scripts, Inc. (Civil Action No. 4:06-cv-01458 for United
      States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri)
      (filed October 3, 2006);

   -- Philadelphia Corporation for the Aging v. Benecard Services,
      Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 06CV2331 for the United
      States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
      (filed June 2, 2006);

   -- New England Health Care Employees Welfare Fund (Brown) v.
      Express Scripts, Inc. (Case No.4:05-cv-1081, United States
      District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri) (filed
      October 28, 2004);

   -- Local 153 Health Fund, et al. v. Express Scripts Inc. and
      ESI Mail Pharmacy Service, Inc. (Case No.B05-1004036, United
      States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri)
      (filed May 27, 2005);

   -- Fidelity Insurance Company, et al. v. Express Scripts, Inc.,
      et al., (Case No. 4:03-CV-1521-HEA, United States District
      Court for the Eastern District of Missouri) (filed March 20,
      2003); and

   -- Brynien, et al. v. Express Scripts, Inc. and ESI Mail
      Services, Inc. (Case No. 1:08-cv-323 (GLS/DRH), United
      States District Court for the Northern District of New York)
      (filed February 18, 2008).

The plaintiffs assert that certain of the company's business
practices, including those relating to its contracts with
pharmaceutical manufacturers for retrospective discounts on
pharmaceuticals and those related to the company's retail pharmacy
network contracts, constitute violations of various legal
obligations including fiduciary duties under the Federal Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, common law fiduciary duties, state
common law, state consumer protection statutes, breach of
contract, and deceptive trade practices.

The putative classes consist of both ERISA and non-ERISA health
benefit plans as well as beneficiaries.  The various complaints
seek money damages and injunctive relief.

On July 30, 2008, the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
of certain of the ERISA plans for which the company was the PBM
was denied by the Court in its entirety.  Additionally, the
company's motion for partial summary judgment in the Minshew and
Brown cases on the issue of the company's ERISA fiduciary status
was granted in part.

The Court found that the company was not an ERISA fiduciary with
respect to MAC (generic drug) pricing, selecting the source for
AWP (Average Wholesale Price) pricing, establishing formularies
and negotiating rebates, or interest earned on rebates before the
payment of the contracted client share.  The Court, in partially
granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, found that the
company was an ERISA fiduciary only with respect to the
calculation of certain amounts due to clients under a therapeutic
substitution program that is no longer in effect.

On Dec. 18, 2009, ESI filed a motion for partial summary judgment
on the remaining ERISA claims and breach of contract claims on the
cases brought against ESI on behalf of ERISA plans.  The company
is awaiting the Court's decision on this motion.

On Feb. 16, 2010, in accordance with the Schedule under the case
management order, Plaintiffs in the Correction Officers and Lynch
matters filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that National
Prescription Administrators (NPA) was a fiduciary to the
Plaintiffs and breached its fiduciary duty.  Plaintiffs also filed
a class certification motion on behalf of self-funded non-ERISA
plans residing in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania for which
NPA was PBM and which used the NPASelect Formulary from Jan. 1,
1996 through April 13, 2002.

On July 2, 2010, ESI filed a motion for partial summary judgment
as to certain non-ERISA claims being made in various cases.  On
December 21, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part
ESI's motion for partial summary judgment pertaining to certain
ERISA cases and granted plaintiffs leave to file amended
complaints, which were filed on January 21, 2011.

On Jan. 10, 2011, Central Laborers, one of three purported class
representatives among the NPA ERISA cases, voluntarily dismissed
all claims against ESI and NPA, with prejudice.  On Jan. 18, 2011,
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration pertaining to the
Court's December 21, 2010 Order.

On Jan. 28, 2011, NPA filed a cross motion for summary judgment
seeking a ruling that it was not a fiduciary under common law.

Fidelity was set for trial on July 11, 2011.

Express Scripts, Inc. -- http://www.express-scripts.com/-- one of
the largest pharmacy benefit management companies in North
America, is leading the way toward creating better health and
value for patients through ConsumerologySM, the advanced
application of the behavioral sciences to healthcare.  This
approach is helping millions of members realize greater healthcare
outcomes and lowering cost by assisting in influencing their
behavior.  Headquartered in St. Louis, Express Scripts provides
integrated PBM services including network-pharmacy claims
processing, home delivery services, specialty benefit management,
benefit-design consultation, drug-utilization review, formulary
management, and medical and drug data analysis services.  The
company also distributes a full range of biopharmaceutical
products and provides extensive cost-management and patient-care
services.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Oral Argument in "Beeman" Suit Set for March 8
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit set oral argument
on Express Scripts, Inc.'s appeal from an order denying its motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by Jerry Beeman, et al.,
for March 8, 2011, according to the Company's February 16, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On Dec. 12, 2002, a complaint was filed against Express Scripts,
Inc., and NextRX LLC f/k/a Anthem Prescription Management LLC and
several other pharmacy benefit management companies, entitled
Jerry Beeman, et al. v. Caremark, et al. (Case No.021327, United
States District Court for the Central District of California).
The complaint, filed by several California pharmacies as a
putative class action, alleges rights to sue as a private attorney
general under California law.  The complaint alleges that the
Company, and the other defendants, failed to comply with statutory
obligations under California Civil Code Section 2527 to provide
California clients with the results of a bi-annual survey of
retail drug prices.

On July 12, 2004, the case was dismissed with prejudice on the
grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the action.
On June 2, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the district court's opinion on standing and remanded the
case to the district court.

The district court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss on
first amendment constitutionality grounds is currently on appeal
to the Ninth Circuit.  Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class
certification, but that motion has not been briefed pending the
outcome of the appeal.

The Ninth Circuit scheduled oral argument on March 8, 2011.

Express Scripts, Inc. -- http://www.express-scripts.com/-- one of
the largest pharmacy benefit management companies in North
America, is leading the way toward creating better health and
value for patients through ConsumerologySM, the advanced
application of the behavioral sciences to healthcare.  This
approach is helping millions of members realize greater healthcare
outcomes and lowering cost by assisting in influencing their
behavior.  Headquartered in St. Louis, Express Scripts provides
integrated PBM services including network-pharmacy claims
processing, home delivery services, specialty benefit management,
benefit-design consultation, drug-utilization review, formulary
management, and medical and drug data analysis services.  The
company also distributes a full range of biopharmaceutical
products and provides extensive cost-management and patient-care
services.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Continues to Defend Suits Over Air Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Generation Corp. continues to defend a class action
complaint in connection with air emissions at its Bruce Mansfield
Plant, according to FirstEnergy Corp.'s Feb. 16, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

FGCO is a subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp.

In July 2008, three complaints were filed against FGCO in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking
damages based on Bruce Mansfield Plant air emissions.  Two of
these complaints also seek to enjoin the Bruce Mansfield Plant
from operating except in a "safe, responsible, prudent and proper
manner", one being a complaint filed on behalf of 21 individuals
and the other being a class action complaint seeking certification
as a class action with the eight named plaintiffs as the class
representatives.  FGCO believes the claims are without merit and
intends to defend itself against the allegations made in those
three complaints.

FirstEnergy Corp. is a diversified energy company headquartered in
Akron, Ohio.  Its subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the
generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, as well
as energy management and other energy-related services.  Its seven
electric utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth
largest investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million
customers served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio,
Pennsylvania and New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries
control more than 14,000 megawatts of capacity.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Penelec Faces Lawsuit Over Air Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Electric Company is facing a lawsuit in connection
with air emissions at its Homer City Station, according to
FirstEnergy Corp.'s Feb. 16, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

In January 2011, a complaint was filed against Penelec in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking
damages based on the Homer City Station's air emissions.  The
complaint was also filed against the former co-owner, New York
State Electric and Gas Corporation and various current owners of
the Homer City Station, including EME Homer City Generation L.P.
and affiliated companies, including Edison International.  The
complaint also seeks certification as a class action and to enjoin
the Homer City Station from operating except in a "safe,
responsible, prudent and proper manner."  Penelec believes the
claims are without merit and intends to defend itself against the
allegations made in the complaint.

FirstEnergy Corp. is a diversified energy company headquartered in
Akron, Ohio.  Its subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the
generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, as well
as energy management and other energy-related services.  Its seven
electric utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth
largest investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million
customers served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio,
Pennsylvania and New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries
control more than 14,000 megawatts of capacity.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Unit Awaits Ruling on Motion to Appeal Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jersey Central Power & Light Company is awaiting a ruling on a
motion to appeal a decision upholding a New Jersey trial court's
decision decertifying a class in a consolidated lawsuit to the New
Jersey Supreme Court, according to FirstEnergy Corp.'s Feb. 16,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In July 1999, the Mid-Atlantic States experienced a severe heat
wave, which resulted in power outages throughout the service
territories of many electric utilities, including Jersey Central
Power & Light Company.  Two class action lawsuits (subsequently
consolidated into a single proceeding) were filed in New Jersey
Superior Court in July 1999 against JCP&L, GPU, Inc., and other
GPU companies, seeking compensatory and punitive damages due to
the outages.  After various motions, rulings and appeals, the
Plaintiffs' claims for consumer fraud, common law fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, strict product liability and punitive damages
were dismissed, leaving only the negligence and breach of contract
causes of actions.  On July 29, 2010, the Appellate Division
upheld the trial court's decision decertifying the class.
Plaintiffs have filed, and JCP&L has opposed, a motion for leave
to appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court.  JCP&L is waiting for
the Court's decision.

FirstEnergy Corp. is a diversified energy company headquartered in
Akron, Ohio.  Its subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the
generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, as well
as energy management and other energy-related services.  Its seven
electric utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth
largest investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million
customers served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio,
Pennsylvania and New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries
control more than 14,000 megawatts of capacity.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Allegheny Merger-Related Lawsuits Now Resolved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits filed in connection with the merger agreement between
FirstEnergy Corp. and Allegheny Energy, Inc., have now been
resolved, according to FirstEnergy's Feb. 16, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On February 10, 2010, FirstEnergy Corp. entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger, subsequently amended on June 4, 2010, with
Element Merger Sub, Inc., a Maryland corporation, its wholly owned
subsidiary (Merger Sub) and Allegheny Energy, Inc.

In connection with the proposed merger, purported shareholders of
Allegheny have filed putative shareholder class action or
derivative lawsuits against Allegheny and its directors and
certain officers, referred to as the Allegheny Energy defendants,
FirstEnergy and Merger Sub.  Four putative class action and
derivative lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, Maryland (Maryland Court).  One was withdrawn.  The Maryland
Court has consolidated the remaining three cases under the
caption: In re Allegheny Energy Shareholder and Derivative
Litigation, C.A. No. 24-C-10-1301.  Three shareholder lawsuits
were filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County,
Pennsylvania and the court has consolidated these actions under
the caption: In re Allegheny Energy, Inc. Shareholder Class and
Derivative, Litigation, Lead Case No. 1101 of 2010.  One putative
shareholder class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania and is captioned Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System v. Evanson, et al.,
C.A. No. 10-319 NBF.  In summary, the lawsuits allege, among other
things, that the Allegheny Energy directors breached their
fiduciary duties by approving the merger agreement, and that
Allegheny, FirstEnergy and Merger Sub aided and abetted in these
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The complaints seek, among
other things, jury trials, money damages and injunctive relief.
While FirstEnergy believes the lawsuits are without merit and has
defended vigorously against the claims, in order to avoid the
costs associated with the litigation, the defendants have agreed
to the terms of a disclosure-based settlement of all these
shareholder lawsuits and have reached agreement with counsel for
all of the plaintiffs concerning fee applications.  Under the
terms of the settlement, no payments are being made by FirstEnergy
or Merger Sub.  A formal stipulation of settlement was filed with
the Maryland Court on October 18, 2010, and it was approved and
became final on January 12, 2011.  The separate Pennsylvania
federal and state proceedings were dismissed on January 14, 2011,
and January 18, 2011, respectively.  The shareholder actions have
been fully and finally resolved.

FirstEnergy Corp. is a diversified energy company headquartered in
Akron, Ohio.  Its subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the
generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, as well
as energy management and other energy-related services.  Its seven
electric utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth
largest investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million
customers served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio,
Pennsylvania and New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries
control more than 14,000 megawatts of capacity.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Appeal From Class Suit Dismissal Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal of a ruling dismissing a class action lawsuit related to
the reduction of a discount that had previously been in place for
residential customers in Ohio remains pending, according to
FirstEnergy Corp.'s Feb. 16, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On February 16, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in Geauga
County Court of Common Pleas against FirstEnergy Corp., The
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company and Ohio Edison Company
seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, as well as
compensatory, incidental and consequential damages, on behalf of a
class of customers related to the reduction of a discount that had
previously been in place for residential customers with electric
heating, electric water heating, or load management systems.  The
reduction in the discount was approved by the Public Utilities
Commission of Ohio.  On March 18, 2010, the named-defendant
companies filed a motion to dismiss the case due to the lack of
jurisdiction of the court of common pleas.  The court granted the
motion to dismiss on September 7, 2010.  The plaintiffs appealed
the decision to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, which has not yet
rendered an opinion.

FirstEnergy Corp. is a diversified energy company headquartered in
Akron, Ohio.  Its subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the
generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, as well
as energy management and other energy-related services.  Its seven
electric utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth
largest investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million
customers served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio,
Pennsylvania and New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries
control more than 14,000 megawatts of capacity.


HOSPIRA INC: Still Awaits Ruling on Plaintiffs' Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc., and Abbott Laboratories are still awaiting a ruling
on an appeal filed by plaintiffs in the matter Myla Nauman, Jane
Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories and Hospira,
Inc., on a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois in favor of the defendants, according to the
Company's February 16, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

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. 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.  Trial of this matter has
concluded. On April 22, 2010, the court issued a ruling in favor
of Hospira and Abbott on all counts.  Plaintiffs have appealed
that verdict. 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.


IKEA HOME: Recalls 26,000 SNIGLAR Cribs
---------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
IKEA Home Furnishings, of Conshohocken, Pa., announced a voluntary
recall of about 20,000 SNIGLAR cribs in the United States and
6,000 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The four bolts provided with some SNIGLAR cribs to secure the
mattress support are not long enough.  This can cause the mattress
support to detach and collapse, creating a risk of entrapment and
suffocation to a child in the crib.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves SNIGLAR non-drop-side, full-size cribs with
model number 60091931.  SNIGLAR, IKEA and the model number are
printed on a label attached to the mattress support.  The crib
frame and mattress support are made of natural/light-colored wood.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

    http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11135.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Romania and sold
through IKEA stores nationwide from October 2005 through June 2010
for about $80.

Consumers should stop using the crib immediately and check the
crib.  If the mattress support bolts extend through the nut, the
bolts are the proper length and the crib is not included in the
recall.  If the bolt does not extend through the nut, the crib is
included in the recall. Contact IKEA for a free repair kit for
recalled cribs.  In the meantime, find an alternate, safe sleep
environment for the child, such as a bassinet, play yard or
toddler bed depending on the child's age.  For additional
information, contact IKEA toll-free at (888) 966-4532 anytime, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.ikea-usa.com/


JAMES PERSE: Recalls 6,700 Units of Men's and Women's Jackets
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
fashion house James Perse, announced a voluntary recall of about
6,700 units of men's and women's jackets.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The jackets fail to meet the federal flammability standard for
wearing apparel, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves men's jacket is corduroy and is fully lined
with Sherpa fleece.  It has a five-button front closure, two side
pockets and two breast pockets.  The style number is MV2156. Two
styles of women's jackets are subject to this recall.  One is a
zip-front jacket with two pockets, a hood lined with Sherpa fleece
and a drawstring at the waist. The style number is WOY2443.  The
other is a belted, wrap jacket with a Sherpa fleece-lined collar.
It has two side pockets and wide knit cuffs at the wrist.  The
style number is WOY2444.  Each jacket is made of 100% cotton and
was manufactured in various colors.  A label with the style number
is located on the side seam of the inside of the jackets.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11134.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Bloomingdales, Neiman Marcus, Nordstrom, Saks Fifth Avenue,
Barneys of New York, and James Perse Boutiques from July 2010 to
December 2010 for $225 to $350.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled jackets and
return them to the store where they were purchased for a full
refund.  For additional information, contact James Perse toll free
at (800) 430-8559 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time,
Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.jamesperse.com/


LIQUID COMBUSTION: Recalls 1,800 Sno-Tek Snow Blowers
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Liquid Combustion Technology, LLC (LCT), of Travelers Rest, S.C.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 1,500 Sno-Tek snow blowers
and 300 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The snow blower's engine is missing a safety shield above the side
mounted electric starter, posing a laceration hazard to consumer's
fingers

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves snow blowers have a LCT StormForce engine
with "Sno-Tek" printed across a metal handlebar plate.  Snow
blowers with model numbers 920402 and 920403 and UPC codes
5105803094 and 5105803095 are included in this recall.  Only snow
blowers with engine model number PW1HK18650781DE-ABGOQUVE1M with
serial numbers ranging from 1065H04008325A through 1065H04012104A
are affected by this recall.  The product model number and UPC
codes are printed on a label attached to the outside of the gear
box near the left wheel.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11137.html

The Snow blower were manufactured in United States and the engine
in China and sold through home Depot and Ariens authorized dealers
nationwide and HD.com in Canada from August 2010 through September
2010 for between about $700 and $800.

Consumers should stop using these snow blowers and contact LCT for
a free repair kit and installation instructions or return them to
an authorized LCT service center location for a free repair.
LCT's Service Network toll free number is (800) 558-5402.  For
additional information, contact LCT at (800) 552-8094 between 9:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.LCTUSA.com/


MAY TRUCKING: Sued for Failing to Pay Proper Wages to Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glynis Farrell at Courthouse News Service reports that a
class action makes a welter of complaints against May Trucking
Co., including unfair wages, overtime violations, illegal
deductions -- and even charging drivers to cash their paychecks.

Lead plaintiff Scott Nance says May Trucking, based in Salem,
Ore., paid him just $50 a day during his "entry level driving
program," during which he and other drivers work more than 10
hours a day for 2 months.

He says May pays drivers only for time behind the wheel -- not for
time spent loading and unloading trucks -- and that it stiffed him
for his last paycheck.

Mr. Nance claims that May, which operates a fleet of more than 900
trucks nationwide, illegally deducts money itemized as "Oregon
Work Co." from truckers' paychecks to cover its own costs of doing
business.

He claims that May's wage statements are inaccurate, to the
company's advantage: "The wage statements that defendant provides
to truck drivers do not identify all wages owed.  . . . Defendant
. . . does not provide its truck drivers with itemized timely wage
statements that accurately identify the numbers of hours worked or
the amount of compensation due to them for their work."

And, Mr. Nance says, truckers cannot collect their wages until the
day after payday, and must use a company-issued Comdata card and
pay a fee to collect it: "Defendant pays truck drivers using a
'Comdata' card.  Wages are automatically transferred to a Comdata
account, but funds are not readily available to the employees
without charge.  If truck drivers want to withdraw funds from the
Comdata account via an ATM machine, for example, truck drivers
must pay a fee.  In addition, funds were not available in the
plaintiff's Comdata accounts until the following business day
after the pay date."

The Superior Court complaint describes May's policies as "unfair
. . . immoral, unscrupulous, unethical [and] deceitful," and
claims it "causes substantial injury to the plaintiff and the
class, and provides defendant with an unfair competitive advantage
over those employers who abide by the law and properly compensate
their employees in accordance with the law."

Mr. Nance seeks class damages and restitution on seven counts,
including failure to pay wages, failure to provide itemized wage
statements, failure to indemnify for employee's expenses, and
violations of California Business & Professions Code.

A copy of the Complaint in Nance v. May Trucking Company, et al.,
Case No. 37-2011-00051488 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/17/MayTruck.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allison H. Goddard, Esq.
          JACZKO GODDARD LLP
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 404-9205


MEAD JOHNSON: Still Defends Suits Over "False Claims" for Enfamil
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mead Johnson Nutrition Co. is still defending itself against
purported class-action suits alleging that the Company made false
advertising claims that Enfamil is the only baby formula with two
drugs that promote brain and eye development in babies, according
to the Company's February 16, 2011, Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

PBM Products, LLC (PBM), a manufacturer and distributor of store
brand infant formulas and nutritionals, obtained a judgment in the
amount of $13.5 million in a suit against the Company's
subsidiary, Mead Johnson & Company, LLC, in the U.S. District
Court (Eastern District of Virginia), alleging, among other
things, false and misleading advertising with respect to certain
Enfamil LIPIL infant formula advertising. After post-trial
briefing, the court confirmed the award and also ordered limited
injunctive relief. The Company has filed an appeal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit with respect to various
aspects of the district court proceedings, including both the jury
award and injunction. That appeal remains pending.

In addition, six putative consumer class action suits have been
filed and served against the Company's subsidiary, Mead Johnson &
Company, LLC, two of which also name the Company as a defendant.
(The Company has been dismissed as a party from the other suits,
and the Company either has sought or will seek to be dismissed
from the remaining two.) The Company also is aware of two
additional putative class actions that have been filed in the U.S.
District Court (Northern District of California) that have not yet
been served. All of these cases cite the PBM matter as support for
allegations that certain false and misleading advertising of
Enfamil LIPIL infant formula has resulted in financial injury to
consumers. A class of Florida consumers was certified in one of
the actions (Nelson v. Mead Johnson & Company, LLC), pending in
the U.S. District Court (Southern District of Florida), but the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has granted
defendant's petition for interlocutory appeal of that
certification decision. The Company denies all allegations in the
cases, which have been consolidated for adjudication in the U.S.
District Court (Southern District of Florida) by the Joint Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation. The Company also has entered into a
memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs' counsel in several of
the cases, with the goal of presenting a stipulation of settlement
and a joint motion for preliminary approval of settlement to the
U.S. District Court (Southern District of Florida). Although the
terms of the settlement are not finalized and remain confidential,
it is expected that they will resolve all claims on a nationwide
basis and not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
results of operations or financial condition.


NUCOR CORP: Judge Certifies Employee Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. District Court Judge who denied class certification to
seven Nucor employees four years ago reversed his prior ruling on
Feb. 17 without the introduction of any new testimony or evidence.
Judge C. Weston Houck followed the order of the Fourth U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals to certify the lawsuit as a class action.

The Feb. 17 ruling does not concern the legal merits of the case,
just how it will proceed.

"We believe Judge Houck made the correct decision when he denied
class certification in 2007 on allegations that were isolated and
many of which allegedly occurred over a decade ago.  He had a lot
of time and information to make the correct ruling," said
Giff Daughtridge, Vice President and General Manager of Nucor
Steel-Berkeley.  "However, [Thurs]day's ruling has been made and
now we look forward to the opportunity to pursue all avenues of
appeal of this procedural decision.  The allegations of
discrimination are simply that -- allegations.  We plan to appeal
this procedural ruling.  We are certain that even if the case does
proceed, once the facts are finally examined by a jury, it will be
clear that Nucor has always treated its employees fairly and given
them every opportunity to succeed, regardless of the color of
their skin."

Judge Houck denied class certification to seven plaintiffs in
Brown et al. v. Nucor on August 7, 2007, characterizing
plaintiffs' statistical evidence of discrimination as
"insignificant" and of "diminish[ed] probative value."  But a
divided three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed
Judge Houck's initial ruling and instructed him to certify the
lawsuit as a class action.  One of the three judges dissented,
arguing that the appellate court had inappropriately substituted
its own opinion of the facts by reversing Judge Houck's findings.

The order certifying the class reflects that the Court had little
alternative in light of the Fourth Circuit's opinion.  And the
Fourth Circuit's opinion was based on a standard for certifying
class actions that is currently being challenged in the United
States Supreme Court in perhaps the most significant class action
case in history -- Dukes v. Wal-Mart.  The Supreme Court's
decision in the Wal-Mart case may require this current case to be
re-evaluated under a clarified procedural standard, and Nucor will
continue to fight this class certification decision.  While these
seven individual cases have now been converted to a class action,
no discrimination at the Berkeley facility has ever been proven.

"Nucor's success has always been dependent upon the individuals
who make up our team," Mr. Daughtridge said.  "Our pay system
rewards everyone's teamwork by sharing the financial success of
the company with every person in Nucor, making fair treatment of
our team a top priority.  These programs and policies result in
Nucor historically paying some of the highest wages in the State
of South Carolina.  This is in addition to the fact that Nucor has
never had a layoff, a distinction that few employers in today's
tough economy can match."

Nucor Corporation (NYSE: NUE) and affiliates are manufacturers of
steel products, with operating facilities primarily in the United
States and Canada.  Nucor is North America's largest recycler.  A
FORTUNE 500 company, Nucor is based in Charlotte, NC and employs
more than 20,000 people at approximately 200 operating facilities
across the country.

Nucor is dedicated to the success of its team.  All team members
participate in profit sharing and receive an excellent benefits
package that includes comprehensive health insurance and tuition
reimbursement.  Additionally, every child of every Nucor employee
is entitled to scholarship money through the Nucor Foundation.
The foundation has awarded more than $52 million in scholarships
since 1974.

Nucor Steel-Berkeley and its team members are actively involved in
the community, providing support to the United Way, MUSC
Children's Hospital, the American Cancer Society's "Relay for
Life", East Cooper Community Outreach's "Out of Poverty"
initiatives and many other worthy causes.


NYSE EURONEXT: Being Sold to Deutsche Borse for Too Little
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say NYSE
EuroNext is selling itself too cheaply to Deutsche Borse -- for
0.47 shares of the new company for each NYSE share -- in a deal
valued at $10 billion.

A copy of the Complaint in KT Investments II, LLC v. Hessels, et
al., Case No. 650407/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), is available
at http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/17/NYSE.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory M. Nespole, ESq.
          Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600


ONTARIO: Faces Class Action Over Abuse at Chatham Institution
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Crown has been served with a claim alleging that severe and
systemic abuse occurred at the Southwestern Regional Centre, a
former government institution, near Chatham, Ontario, for people
living with developmental disabilities.

The claim, submitted by Rosalind Bechard, litigation guardian for
former Southwestern resident Mary Ellen Fox, is the first step
towards class action approval by the court.

Kirk Baert of the law firm Koskie Minsky LLP represents the
plaintiff.  He said he is pleased that this third and final class
action, on behalf of Ontario's institutional survivors, is moving
forward.

"As with the class actions launched by former residents at the
Huronia and Rideau institutions," says Mr. Baert, "we are moving
to trial to seek justice for those who suffered both physical and
psychological abuse while living at these centers, and to ensure
that this kind of institutional mistreatment does not happen
again."

From 1961 to 2008, the Southwestern Regional Centre, also known as
Cedar Springs, provided a residential program for developmentally
delayed and disabled persons.  Thousands lived at the facility
over the years, many of them children.

Fox alleges that residents were physically, mentally and
emotionally traumatized by their experiences at Southwestern.  In
her Statement of Claim, she alleges being overmedicated and
subjected to shocks with a "cattle prod" like device as
punishment. Only after leaving Southwestern did she learn to read
and write.

In the claim, it is alleged that the Province of Ontario breached
its fiduciary duties through the operation, control and management
of Southwestern.  In particular, it is alleged that the province's
failure to care for and protect residents resulted in physical
injury, psychological trauma, depression, anxiety, emotional
distress and mental anguish.

A similar class proceeding with respect to the Huronia Regional
Centre, in Orillia, Ontario was certified on July 30, 2010.
Koskie Minsky LLP represents the plaintiffs in that action as
well. Additionally, a Statement of Claim has been issued in
respect of the Rideau Regional Centre near Smith Falls, Ontario.


PERFECT FITNESS: Recalls 7,000 Perfect Pullup
---------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Perfect Fitness, of Mill Valley, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 7,000 Perfect Pullup.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The plastic handle on the recalled product can crack posing a fall
injury hazard for the user.

Perfect Fitness received approximately 2,200 reports of cracking
of the original handles, with 38 complaints of injuries that
included bruises, strains and sprains.

This recall involves Perfect Pullup, an adjustable height pull-up
bar that is installed in a doorway with screw-in holders.  The
recalled handles have a rectangular shape, are silver colored with
a red hook, and display the Perfect Pullup logo in white lettering
across the top.  The recalled models were manufactured between
December 2007 and April 2008.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11136.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
sporting goods stores nationwide, on their websites and on
Amazon.com from January 2008 through present for about $90.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled handles and
contact Perfect Fitness to order a free handle replacement kit.
For additional information, contact the firm toll-free at (877)
974-7733 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.perfectonline.com/handleexchange/


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend ERISA Lawsuit in Iowa
--------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Life Insurance Company continues to defend itself from a
lawsuit alleging ERISA violations pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

On November 8, 2006, a trustee of Fairmount Park Inc. Retirement
Savings Plan filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
against Principal Life. Principal Life's motion to transfer venue
was granted and the case is now pending in the Southern District
of Iowa. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Principal
Life breached its alleged fiduciary duties while performing
services to 401(k) plans by failing to disclose, or adequately
disclose, to employers or plan participants the fact that
Principal Life receives "revenue sharing fees from mutual funds
that are included in its pre-packaged 401(k) plans" and allegedly
failed to use the revenue to defray the expenses of the services
provided to the plans.  Plaintiff further alleged that these acts
constitute prohibited transactions under ERISA. Plaintiff sought
to certify a class of all retirement plans to which Principal Life
was a service provider and for which Principal Life received and
retained "revenue sharing" fees from mutual funds.  On August 27,
2008, the plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied.
The plaintiff's new motion for class certification, filed May 11,
2009, was stricken by the court on March 31, 2010. Principal Life
continues to aggressively defend the lawsuit.

No updates were reported in Principal Financial Group, Inc.'s
February 16, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Still Defends "Cruise & Mullaney" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group Inc., Principal Life, Principal Global
Investors, LLC, and Principal Real Estate Investors, LLC, are
still defending themselves against a lawsuit filed by Cruise and
Mullaney for ERISA violations, according to Principal Financial
Group Inc.'s February 16, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On December 2, 2009 and December 4, 2009, two plaintiffs, Cruise
and Mullaney, each filed putative class action lawsuits in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Principal Financial Group Inc., Principal Life, Principal
Global Investors, LLC, and Principal Real Estate Investors, LLC.
The lawsuits alleged the Cruise & Mullaney Defendants failed to
manage the Principal U.S. Property Separate Account in the best
interests of investors, improperly imposed a "withdrawal freeze"
on September 26, 2008, and instituted a "withdrawal queue" to
honor withdrawal requests as sufficient liquidity became
available.  Plaintiffs allege these actions constitute a breach of
fiduciary duties under ERISA. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class
including all qualified ERISA plans and the participants of those
plans that invested in PUSPSA between September 26, 2008, and the
present that have suffered losses caused by the queue.  The two
lawsuits, as well as two subsequently filed complaints asserting
similar claims, have been consolidated and are now known as In re
Principal U.S. Property Account Litigation. On April 22, 2010, an
order was entered granting the motion made by the Cruise &
Mullaney Defendants for change of venue to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The plaintiffs
have filed a Consolidated Complaint adding five new plaintiffs.
The Cruise & Mullaney Defendants are aggressively defending the
lawsuit.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Stipulate Dismissal of "Hurd" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group, Inc., and Principal Life entered into a
stipulation with plaintiffs to resolve a class action lawsuit
alleging ERISA violations, according to Principal Financial
Group Inc.'s February 16, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On July 1, 2010, Debra and Russell Hurd filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa against Principal Financial Group, Inc.,
and Principal Life. The complaint alleges the Hurd Defendants
underpay out-of-network health claims by using an allegedly flawed
database to calculate usual and customary charges. Plaintiffs are
suing on behalf of "all participants and/or beneficiaries in group
health plans in the United States issued, insured or administered
by [us] as to which [we] have administered claims and/or paid or
denied benefits for out-of-network benefit claims." The complaint
alleges four causes of action, all based on violations of ERISA.
The Hurd Defendants filed a stipulated dismissal with prejudice on
December 8, 2010.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Still Defends Suit Over Defective NID Test Kits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Inc. and its subsidiary, Nichols Institute
Diagnostics, are still defending themselves against a putative
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

In April 2010, a putative class action was filed against the
Company and NID in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of entities that allegedly
purchased or paid for certain of NID's test kits. The complaint
alleges that certain of NID's test kits were defective and that
defendants, among other things, violated RICO and state consumer
protection laws. The complaint alleges an unspecified amount of
damages.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 16, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Quest Diagnostics Inc. -- http://www.QuestDiagnostics.com/-- is
the world's leading provider of diagnostic testing, information
and services that patients and doctors need to make better
healthcare decisions.  The company offers the broadest access to
diagnostic testing services through its network of laboratories
and patient service centers, and provides interpretive
consultation through its extensive medical and scientific staff.
Quest Diagnostics is a pioneer in developing innovative diagnostic
tests and advanced healthcare information technology solutions
that help improve patient care.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Still Defends Age Discrimination Suit in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit alleging violations of age discrimination
laws in New Jersey.

In November 2010, a putative class action was filed against the
Company and certain present and former officers of the Company in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, on behalf of the
Company's sales people nationwide who were over forty years old
and who either resigned or were terminated after being placed on a
performance improvement plan. The complaint alleges that the
defendants' conduct violates the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination, and seeks, among other things, unspecified
damages. The defendants removed the complaint to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 16, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


REHABCARE GROUP: Being Sold to Kindred for Too Little, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say RehabCare
Group is selling itself too cheaply to Kindred Healthcare, for
$1.3 billion, or $26 plus .471 shares of Kindred stock for each
RehabCare share.

A copy of the Complaint in Norfolk County Retirement System v.
Rich, et al., Case No. 6197 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/17/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
          Matthew C. Moehlman, Esq.
          Iona M. Evans, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700

               - and -

          Christine S. Azar, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          One Commerce Center
          1201 N. Orange St., Suite 801
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 573-2530
          E-mail: cazar@labaton.com


SALLIE MAE: Class Action Over Student Loans Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action can proceed against Sallie Mae, a federal judge ruled,
declining to dismiss claims that the lender illegally charged
collection fees of 25% on student loans that had entered default
before summoning debt collectors.

The four class members, all of whom took out private student loans
to attend the California Culinary Academy in San Francisco between
2002 and 2004, claimed Sallie Mae added a collection charge of 25%
to their loan balances and reported the loans to third-party debt
collectors, who then tried to collect the principals, interest and
the 25% charge.  In one case, plaintiff Shawnee Silva paid
collection costs of at least $1,000 on each of her two loans.

U.S. District Judge Laurel Beeler rejected Sallie Mae's contention
that the class needed to be more specific in its allegations that
the costs were unreasonable.  She also threw out "Sallie Mae's
argument that plaintiffs must show losses of money or property
eligible for restitution."

Judge Beeler did dismiss two of the class's claims with leave to
amend.  Since the students could not prove the loans were goods or
services, or that Sallie Mae itself unfairly attempted to collect
on debts, the class can claim neither unfair charges under the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act nor unfair debt collection practices
under the Rosenthal Act.

The culinary school attended by the students is an affiliate of Le
Cordon Bleu, like the California School of Culinary Arts, which
has seen its own share of fraud lawsuits.

A copy of the Order Re Motion to Dismiss in Bottoni, et al. v.
Sallie Mae, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-03602 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/17/Sallie%20Mae.pdf


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Judge Dismisses Discrimination Claims v. MTC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action
accusing the San Francisco Bay Area's transportation planning
commission of discriminating against minorities by emphasizing
rail projects over bus lines is based on a "logical fallacy" and
smacks of desperation, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit ruled.

The federal appeals panel in San Francisco affirmed a lower
court's ruling in favor of the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, finding that the class of minority transit riders, the
advocacy group Communities for a Better Environment, and the
Amalgamated Transit Union No. 192 had failed to show that they
were treated differently than nonminority riders.

In a separate concurring opinion to the panel's unanimous decision
published on Feb. 16, Jude John Noonan went so far as to state
that the kind of endemic, institutional racism suspected by the
plaintiffs no longer exists in the famously liberal Bay Area.

"The twentieth century racial categories so confidently deployed
no longer correspond to American life among the young,"
Judge Noonan wrote in a concurrence on Feb. 16.  "What is true of
the young is already characteristic of the Bay Area where social
change has been fostered by liberal political attitudes, and a
culture of tolerance.  An individual bigot may be found, perhaps
even a pocket of racists.  The notion of a Bay Area board bent on
racist goals is a specter that only desperate litigation could
entertain."

The plaintiffs sued the commission in 2005, alleging that its
multibillion-dollar, long-range plans for bay-area transit
projects favored white riders over minorities by concentrating on
rail projects over bus lines.  They claimed that Bay Area rail
service had historically been used by whites, and buses by
minorities.  The plaintiffs also argued that they had lost job
opportunities and were forced to cut expenses because the
commission had neglected the city's bus service while at the same
time raising fares.

Finding that the class had failed to prove intentional
discrimination, the District Court granted summary judgment to the
commission, but allowed the plaintiffs' disparate impact claims to
go to trial.  The lower court, after a trial, found that while the
plaintiffs had shown that the commission's allocation of funding
to rail projects could be construed as discriminatory, the
commission had successfully countered with a legitimate
justification for its plans.

On appeal, the three-judge appeals panel affirmed the District
Court, but rejected its finding that the plaintiffs had
demonstrated intentional discrimination by the commission.

"The statistical measure upon which plaintiffs relied to establish
a prima facie case is unsound, and their claim rests upon a
logical fallacy," the majority opinion, authored by Judge Barry
Silverman, states.  "Although plaintiffs' statistical evidence
shows that minorities make up a greater percentage of the regional
population of bus riders than rail riders, it does not necessarily
follow that an expansion plan that emphasizes rail projects over
bus projects will harm minorities.  Plaintiffs' theory forecloses
altogether the possibility that [the commission] could devise any
rail-centered expansion that could benefit minority transit
riders, while the evidence shows that Bay Area minorities already
benefit substantially from rail service.  Without a more precise
statistical measure of how the particular projects included in the
[long-range plans] will serve the Bay Area's transit ridership, no
court could possibly determine whether [the commission's] long-
term expansion plan will help or harm the region's minority
transit riders."

Commission Chairman Scott Haggerty lauded the panel's ruling in a
statement released on Feb. 16.

"We are pleased with this victory and happy that after nearly six
years of litigation we can finally put this matter behind us,"
Haggerty said.  "MTC has been forced to spend millions of scarce
public dollars defending itself from a misguided lawsuit at a time
when there is an urgent need to stabilize and improve all Bay Area
transit systems."

A copy of the Opinion in Darensburg, et al. v. Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, No. 09-15878 (9th Cir.), is available
at http://is.gd/AlgfoJ

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Linda Lye, Esq.
          Peter D. Nussbaum, Esq.
          P. Casey Pitts, Esq.
          Daniel Purtell, Esq.
          ALTSCHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151

               - and -

          Bill Lann Lee, Esq.
          Margaret Hasselman, Esq.
          Angelica Kristen Jongco, Esq.
          Sacha C. Steinberger, Esq.
          LEWIS FEINBERG LEE RENAKER & JACKSON, PC
          476 9th Street
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 839-6824

               - and -

          Matthew Brigham, Esq.
          Heather Dunn Navarro, Esq.
          Brandon Kimura, Esq.
          Neha M. Marathe, Esq.
          Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          Hanover Campus
          3175 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
          Telephone: (650) 843-5677

               - and -

          Richard A. Marcantonio, Jr., Esq.
          Guillermo Mayer, Esq.
          PUBLIC ADVOCATES, INC.
          131 Steuart Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA  94105
          Telephone: (415) 431-7430

               - and -

          Adrienne Bloch, Esq.
          Communities for a Better Environment
          1904 Franklin Street, Suite 600
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 302-0430

Metropolitan Transportation Commission is represented by:

          Kimon Manolius, Esq.,
          Julia H. Veit, Esq.
          Warren Richmond Webster, Esq.
          Megan O. Thompson, Esq.
          Emily M. Charley, Esq.
          HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
          425 Market Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-3200

               - and -

          Francis F. Chin, Esq.
          Cynthia E. Segal, Esq.
          METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
          Office of the General Counsel
          101 8th St.
          Oakland, CA 94607-4700
          Telephone: (510) 817-5700


SATYAM COMPUTER: Settles Class Action for $125 Million
------------------------------------------------------
Satyam Computer Services Ltd. has informed BSE that the Company
has entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with
the Lead Plaintiffs in the putative class action filed against the
Company in the United States District Court, Southern District
Court of New York.  The Company has agreed to pay to the Class
members as consideration, US$125 million, subject to the approval
of the Reserve Bank of India and the determination of the
Authority for Advance Ruling, and 25% of any net recovery that the
Company may in the future obtain against any of the PwC-related
entities.  The Settlement amount includes taxes, compliance costs,
attorney's fees and expenses.

The Settlement is subject to the approval of the Court and may be
terminated prior to Court approval pursuant to the grounds for
termination set forth in the Settlement.  If the Settlement is
approved by the Court, in exchange for the settlement
consideration, the Lead Plaintiffs and the members of the Class
who do not opt-out of the Class, would release, among other
things, their claims against the Company.  The obligations
incurred pursuant to the Settlement are in full and final
disposition of the Action with respect to the Released Parties and
any and all Released Claims.

This Settlement does not cover the Aberdeen Action in the same
Court, wherein a trustee of two trusts, who are assignees of the
claims of 20 investors, sought recovery from the Company.  However
the investors who have assigned the claim to the two trusts are
entitled to participate in the proceeds of the Settlement.

Further, the Settlement is exclusively for and on behalf of the
Company and does not affect the other defendants to the class
action litigation.


TIFFANY & CO: Faces Class Action Over Zip Code Policy
-----------------------------------------------------
Rob Bates, writing for Jewelers' Circular Keystone, reports that
class action lawyers are targeting Tiffany & Co. and a host of
other retailers after the California Supreme Court ruled that
asking for customer zip codes violates a state law governing
credit cards.

Class action lawyers Jeffrey Krinsk of Finkelstein & Krinsk told
Reuters his firm recently filed a class action suit against
Tiffany & Co. over its zip code policy.  Suits have also been
suits filed against 20 other retailers, including Target, Walmart,
and Victoria's Secret, the news agency said.

The move comes after the California Supreme Court ruled in Pineda
v. Williams-Sonoma Stores that requesting a customer's zip code
violates the state's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act.

The case was filed in June 2008 by California resident Jessica
Pineda, who bought an item at Williams-Sonoma, and was
subsequently asked her zip code by the cashier.  "Believing she
was required to provide the requested information to complete the
transaction, plaintiff provided it," the court wrote.

According to the court, Williams-Sonoma used computer software to
match the plaintiff's name and zip code with her previously
undisclosed address, providing the retailer information for its
database.  That database is then used to market products and is
sold to other businesses, the court said.

The Supreme Court concluded that zip codes constitute "personal
identification information" and noted the law forbids inquiring
for such information.

This decision overturns a previous decision in favor of Williams-
Sonoma by a California Court of Appeals.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Seeks Dismissal of Acceleration Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Ken Bensinger, writing for Money & Company, reports that Toyota HQ
Toyota Motor Corp. is using a new NASA study finding no fault with
its electronics as evidence that a sudden acceleration class
action suit against it should be dismissed.

In a filing in federal court in Santa Ana last week, the automaker
argued that the study, conducted at the behest of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration and released Feb. 8, is
proof that its vehicles have no defects and the lawsuits are
therefore without merit.

"Plaintiffs are chasing a phantom theory of defect that only last
week NASA and NHTSA, after an extensive investigation, jointly
confirmed does not exist," Toyota outside counsel Lisa Gilford
wrote in a motion filed on Feb. 14.

She asked Judge James Selna to dismiss the suit, which
consolidates scores of claims from Toyota and Lexus owners
alleging that the presence of defects in their vehicles negatively
affected the value of their vehicles.  News of the filing was
first published by the National Law Journal.

This is the second time Toyota has sought dismissal of the
economic damages suit.  In November, Judge Selna refused to drop
the allegations based on the evidence present by Toyota at the
time; in December he also turned down a motion by Toyota to
dismiss personal injury and death claims related to sudden
acceleration claims.

By holding up the NASA and NHTSA reports in court, Toyota is
showing an aggressive push to use the government's research into
sudden acceleration not only to clear its name with the public but
also to climb out from under its legal problems as well.

Toyota spokeswoman Celeste Migliore declined to comment on the
company's legal strategy, but pointed to the plaintiffs'
"continued inability to provide a coherent theory of an alleged
defect and their blatant attempts to shift the focus of this case"
as important developments.

The NASA probe, unvelied by Transporation Secretary Ray LaHood
last week, focused on nine Toyota vehicles over a period of 10
months, finding no electronic defects that could cause unintended
acceleration.

And although it stopped short of clearing the automaker, pointing
to what it called mechanical defects that can cause acceleration
problems, the news was widely interpreted as a vindication.
(Toyota has issued two recalls to address the defects, for floor
mats that can entrap the gas pedal and for sticking accelerator
pedals.)

On its newsroom site, the automaker hailed the findings, saying
they "should further reinforce confidence in the safety of Toyota
and Lexus vehicles," and its stock price has risen nearly 6% since
the reports were released.

Judge Selna's consideration of the motion to dismiss will be an
early test of whether the study will have a similarly positive
influence for Toyota in the courtroom.

Steve Berman, co-lead counsel in the economic damages suits,
points out that government studies, such as National Transporation
Safety Board reports on airplane crashes, are almost never
admitted as evidence in court because the facts are in dispute.
He said he would oppose admitting the NASA and NHTA reports on the
same grounds.

"I don't think it will be admissable," said Mr. Berman.  He said
the report is "a contested issue" rather than proven fact, and
that he does not agree with either the findings or the methodology
of the government studies.

One of his specific complaints was that the study is heavily
redacted, making it difficult for his researchers to understand
how the research was conducted.  Mr. Berman said that he wrote
Toyota last week asking it for an unredacted copy but has not yet
heard back.

Even if the NASA and NHTSA findings hold up, plaintiff attorneys
argue that Toyota still could be on the hook for the lack of a
brake override feature in its vehicles, which is designed to
prevent sudden acceleration in cars with electronic throttle.

That technology has been employed by other automakers, including
Nissan and Volkswagen, for years, but Toyota did not begin
adopting it until last year.

Toyota attorney Gilford, in her filing this week, addressed that
argument, saying it "conveniently ignores a host of other fail-
safes and disingenuously suggests that a brake override system was
somehow an industry standard."

A hearing to review the dismissal motion is scheduled for
April 29, court filings show.


U.S. RETAILERS: Calif. Zip Code Ruling Spurs Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Terry Baynes, writing for Reuters Legal, reports that the
California Supreme Court's decision to bar merchants from
requesting customer zip codes has set off a frenzy of class action
lawsuits against big-name retailers, including Target, Wal-Mart
and Victoria's Secret.

At least 20 class action lawsuits have been filed in California
courts since Feb. 10, when the state's high court ruled that
Williams-Sonoma had violated state law by requesting consumer zip
codes.  The Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 prohibits
retailers from recording a customer's "personal identification
information" during a credit card transaction and imposes a civil
penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.  For the first time, the
Supreme Court ruled that such private information includes a
cardholder's zip code.

The Supreme Court reversed two lower court opinions and stated
that its ruling would apply retroactively even though California
appellate courts had previously ruled that zip codes were fair
game for merchants.  As a result, many retailers that were
requesting and recording customer zip codes before last Thursday
are now targets of class action suits.

Plaintiffs lawyers reacted quickly to the court's new precedent.
Jeffrey Krinsk of the class action litigation firm Finkelstein &
Krinsk said his firm has filed four separate class action suits in
the past week against Tiffany & Co., The Container Store, Shell
and Radio Shack.

"I wasn't anticipating the extent and emphatic nature of (the
court's privacy) protections," Mr. Krinsk said of the Pineda v.
Williams-Sonoma decision.  "We thought we had to bring some cases
in order to reaffirm the validity of the rule."  He said each suit
was filed on behalf of different plaintiffs -- all of whom
contacted the firm with complaints of retailers requesting their
zip codes.  He said the firm does not advertise to recruit
clients.

MOST CASES SETTLE

San Francisco firm, Nassiri & Jung, filed six class action suits
on Monday in San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of a single
named plaintiff, Heather Robertson.  Defendants in those suits
include Old Navy LLC, Target Corp and Macy's.

Mr. Krinsk downplayed the burden the decision imposes on
retailers.  He pointed to a section of the opinion that emphasized
the trial court's power to set the penalty anywhere between "a
penny" and the maximum $1,000 per violation.  "I'm sure the court
will exercise its discretion so as not to provide a windfall (to
plaintiffs)," Mr. Krinsk said.  "The intent isn't about putting
people out of business or to approach that level of
vindictiveness."

Most Song-Beverly suits end up settling, said Stephanie Sheridan
of Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold who has represented numerous
retailers in such cases.  Defendants don't want to face the risks
of a trial, she said, because of the potentially huge penalties
and because plaintiffs don't have to prove that they have been
harmed. Sheridan said she did not know of a single Song-Beverly
case that has made it all the way through trial.

David Faustman of Fox Rothschild in San Francisco said the
decision is wreaking havoc for retailers doing business in
California.  "It's a very unfortunate opinion that's going to
plague retailers who collect zip codes for very innocent purposes
that have nothing to do with tracking somebody down," Mr. Faustman
said. "And the potential damages are just massive, amounting to a
violation of due process."

Mr. Faustman won a dismissal of a similar class action suit
against his client, Party City Corp, in 2008 when the California
appeals court ruled that merchants could collect zip codes under
the statute.  In the prior case, the plaintiffs were unable to
prove that Party City was using the customers' zip codes to track
down their home addresses -- a fact Williams-Sonoma conceded.
Mr. Faustman now has to defend Party City again over the same
conduct in a class action suit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court
on Feb. 14.

Mr. Faustman said the Williams-Sonoma decision will force defense
lawyers to shift their focus and come up with creative new
arguments about the scope of damages and the propriety of
certifying a class.

         Nassiri & Jung Files Class Action Over Zip Codes

Kate Moser, writing for The Recorder, reports that a San Francisco
plaintiff firm filed six proposed class actions on Feb. 14 seeking
to penalize retailers for requesting ZIP codes from customers
paying with a credit card, less than a week after the state
Supreme Court ruled that practice is illegal.

Kassra Nassiri of Nassiri & Jung filed the suits -- targeting Old
Navy, Target Corp., Macy's Inc., Cost Plus Inc., Toys "R" Us Inc.
and Trader Joe's Co. -- on behalf of named plaintiff Heather
Robertson.

California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, writing for the
unanimous court, said retailers violate a consumer protection
statute when they ask card-using customers for ZIP codes.  ZIP
codes constitute personal identification information, the court
held, and requesting and recording that data from cardholders
violates The Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971.  When paired
with the cardholder's name, the ZIP code allows retailers to find
a home mailing address.

Another 10 class actions making similar claims were filed by a
handful of other law firms in Los Angeles on Feb. 14, said Michael
Burns, a partner in Seyfarth Shaw's San Francisco office who's
tracking the litigation and has handled a similar case in the
past.

The San Francisco suits filed on Feb. 14 contend that "if
successful, this action will enforce an important right affecting
the public interest and will confer a significant benefit, whether
pecuniary or non-pecuniary, on a large class of persons."

Retailers can be forced to pay up to $1,000 for each violation of
the act.

"The potential statutory damages could be what they call
'annihilating,'" Mr. Burns said.

Mr. Nassiri didn't respond to messages on Feb. 15.  The high
court's decision last week emphasized that the statute lists
maximum penalties but that courts have discretion over how badly
retailers get penalized.

Retailers are bracing for those penalties and for more class
actions.  After the Feb. 14 "banner day" for the ZIP-code
litigation, Mr. Burns said, "I have a feeling there's a lot more
coming."


WELLCARE HEALTH: Final Settlement Hearing Set for May 4
-------------------------------------------------------
The hearing to consider final approval of WellCare Health Plans,
Inc.'s settlement agreement resolving the consolidated securities
class action Eastwood Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Farha, et al., Case
No. 8:07-cv-1940-VMC-EAJ is set for May 4, 2011, according to the
Company's February 16, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

Putative class action complaints were filed in October 2007 and in
November 2007. These putative class actions, entitled Eastwood
Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Farha, et al. and Hutton v. WellCare Health
Plans, Inc. et al., respectively, were filed in Federal Court
against the Company, Todd Farha, its former chairman and chief
executive officer, and Paul Behrens, the Company's former senior
vice president and chief financial officer. Messrs. Farha and
Behrens were also officers of various subsidiaries of the Company.
The Eastwood Enterprises complaint alleged that the defendants
materially misstated the Company's reported financial condition
by, among other things, purportedly overstating revenue and
understating expenses in amounts unspecified in the pleading in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The
Hutton complaint alleged that various public statements supposedly
issued by the defendants were materially misleading because they
failed to disclose that the Company was purportedly operating its
business in a potentially illegal and improper manner in violation
of applicable federal guidelines and regulations. The complaint
asserted claims under the Exchange Act. Both complaints sought,
among other things, certification as a class action and damages.
The two actions were consolidated, and various parties and law
firms filed motions seeking to be designated as Lead Plaintiff and
Lead Counsel. In an Order issued in March 2008, the Federal Court
appointed a group of five public pension funds from New Mexico,
Louisiana and Chicago as Lead Plaintiffs. In October 2008, an
amended consolidated complaint was filed in this class action
asserting claims against the Company, Messrs. Farha and Behrens,
and adding Thaddeus Bereday, the Company's former senior vice
president and general counsel, as a defendant.

In January 2009, the Company and certain other defendants filed a
joint motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint,
arguing, among other things, that the complaint failed to allege a
material misstatement by defendants with respect to the Company's
compliance with marketing and other health care regulations and
failed to plead facts raising a strong inference of scienter with
respect to all aspects of the purported fraud claim. The Federal
Court denied the motion in September 2009 and the Company and the
other defendants filed their answer to the amended consolidated
complaint in November 2009. In April 2010, the Lead Plaintiffs
filed their motion for class certification. On June 18, 2010, the
USAO filed motions seeking to intervene and for a temporary stay
of discovery of this matter. Discovery has been stayed through
March 17, 2011.

In August 2010, the Company reached agreement with the Lead
Plaintiffs on the material terms of a settlement to resolve these
matters.  In December 2010, the terms of the settlement were
documented in a formal settlement agreement that is subject to
approval by the Federal Court following notice to all class
members.  On February 9, 2011, the Federal Court entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement and scheduled the final
Settlement hearing for May 4, 2011.

The settlement provides that the Company will make cash payments
to the class of $52,500,000 within thirty business days following
the Federal Court's preliminary approval of the settlement and
$35,000,000 by July 31, 2011. The settlement also provides that
the Company will issue to the class tradable unsecured
subordinated bonds having an aggregate face value of $112,500,000,
with a fixed coupon of 6% and a maturity date of December 31,
2016.  The bonds shall also provide that, if the Company incur
debt obligations in excess of $425,000,000 that are senior to the
bonds, the holders of the bonds have the right to accelerate
payment of the bonds. The Company will have the right to redeem
the bonds at 102% of face value during the first year and at 100%
of face value thereafter.  The settlement has two further
contingencies.  First, it provides that if, within three years
following the date of the settlement agreement, the Company is
acquired or otherwise experiences a change in control at a share
price of $30 or more, it will pay to the class an additional
$25,000,000.  Second, the settlement provides that the Company
will pay to the class 25% of any sums it recovers from Messrs.
Farha, Behrens and/or Bereday as a result of claims arising from
the same facts and circumstances that gave rise to this matter.
The Company may terminate the settlement if a certain number or
percentage of the class opts out of the settlement class.  The
settlement agreement also provides that the settlement does not
constitute an admission of liability by any party and such other
terms as are customarily contained in settlement agreements of
similar matters.

As a result of this settlement having been reached, the Company's
current estimate for the resolution of this matter is
$200,000,000.  The Company has discounted the $200,000,000
liability for the resolution of this matter and accrued this
amount at its estimated fair value, which amounted to
approximately $196,903,000 at December 31, 2010.  Approximately
$84,538,000 and $112,365,000 have been included in the current and
long-term portions, respectively, of Amounts accrued related to
investigation resolution in the Company's Consolidated Balance
Sheet as of December 31, 2010.

There can be no assurance that the settlement will be approved by
the Federal Court and the actual outcome of this matter may differ
materially from the terms of the settlement.


* Proposed Kansas Bill to Restrict Consumer Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Zepick, writing for Kake, reports that Kansas Consumer
Protection Laws could be in for a big change.  A proposed bill
would remove class action lawsuits, and allow only government
regulators to prosecute bad businesses.

Imagine buying a car and it turns out to be a lemon.  Imagine a
debt collector calling at all hours of the night.

Under the current law, the Consumer Protection Act allows people
to hire a lawyer and sue to get their money back or stop the bad
business practices.

A new bill would change that, allowing only government regulators
to prosecute the businesses.

The Kansas Chamber of Commerce, a group that represents businesses
across Kansas, introduced the bill saying frivolous lawsuits are a
problem across the country.

"If there's merit to the case, then we obviously want the consumer
to have the right to go after that claim through the Consumer
Protection Act, but if there's no merit to the court case then we
feel it shouldn't be allowed to go forward, Eric Stafford of the
Kansas Chamber of Commerce said.

The proposed bill would remove class actions, or lawsuits brought
by a group of people and would grant greater authority to the
Federal Trade Commission in Washington.

Supporters say the law will protect businesses from spending time
and money in court.  But opponents say the bill will undermine the
Consumer Protection Act, taking away the power to protect Kansans
from scams and unscrupulous businesses.

The bill removes financial penalties against bad businesses, takes
away protection from the agricultural buyers and other business
consumers, and if passed, would be retroactive applying to all
cases currently pending.

"Russ Hazelwood, a consumer attorney and a spokesperson for the
Kansas Association of Justice, said the bill would federalize
consumer protection and leave victims with few good options.

"Currently I can say either way you should call the district
attorney or the attorney general and we will look at perhaps
pursuing a case for you.  "Now I'll say here's the 800 number for
the FTC in Washington, D.C. give them a call and I'm sure you
won't here back."

Testimony on the new bill will continue Thursday at the Kansas
Statehouse.


                             *********

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  * * *