CAR_Public/110309.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, March 9, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 48

                             Headlines

AKEENA SOLAR: Discovery in Securities Class Suit Ongoing
AMAZON.COM: Sued for Misusing Privacy-Protection Software
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Rand" Suit in California
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Settles Investor Class Action for $27MM
ARCTIC GLACIER: Ontario Judge Okays Securities Class Action

BELL MOBILITY: 911 Class Action Set to Begin on May 7
BIG 5 SPORTING: Obtains Final Court Okay of "Weyl" Suit Settlement
BIG 5 SPORTING: Preliminary Hearing on "Kelly" Suit Settlement Set
BP PLC: Trial in Mexico Oil Spill Litigation Set for Feb. 2012
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Defends Student Recruitment Suit in Calif.

BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Defends Wage and Hour Suit in California
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals in IPO Suit Still Pending
CARDTRONICS INC: Continues to Defend Regulation E Class Suits
CARTER'S INC: Still Awaits Dismissal of Consolidated Suit
CIGNA HEALTHCARE: Sued for Discriminating Against Female Workers

COMMENCE CORP: Suit Over Software Won't Proceed as Class Action
CROWN MEDIA: Awaits Court Decision in "S. Muoio" Class Suit
DJO FINANCE: Settles With Plaintiffs in 27 Pain Pump Suits
FXCM: Accused in New York Suit of  Misleading Shareholders
GEO GROUP: Court Approves "Shelby" Suit Settlement, Dismisses Case

LA FITNESS: Berger & Montague Files Class Action in Florida
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Says Wingecarribee Council to Blame for Loss
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit
MELA SCIENCES: Three Securities Class Suits Consolidated
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Super Bowl Fans Have 60 Days to Settle

NELNET INC: Motion to Dismiss "Bais Yaakov" Suit Pending in N.J.
OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Stipulates to Dismissal of N.Y. Suit Appeal
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces TCPA Class Action in Georgia
POSTROCK ENERGY: Settlement of Securities Suit Becomes Final
POSTROCK ENERGY: Talks to Settle Class Suit in Kansas Ongoing

QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Firearm Dealers to File Class Action
REX ENERGY: Continues to Defend "Snyder" Case in Pennsylvania
SKYSERVICE AIRLINES: Ontario Court OKs Class Action Settlement
STAHLBUSH ISLAND: Settles Overtime Pay Class Action
STERIS CORP: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval

STREAM GLOBAL: Still Defends Sirius XM Class Suit in California
TOMOTHERAPY INC: Final Okay of Settlement Expected in 1st Half
TRIBUNE CO: Judge Okays Tribune ESOP Trustee Class Action
US RETAILERS: Sued for Asking Customers' Zip Codes
VANCOUVER: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Use of Breathalyzers

WASHINGTON POST: Still Defends Pension Fund Suit in D.C.
WASHINGTON POST: Kaplan Unit Still Faces Issue on Attorney's Fees
WASHINGTON POST: Kaplan Unit Awaits Court Okay of Suit Settlement
WHIRLPOOL: Sued for Misrepresenting "Steam Dryers"

* Discrimination Class Action Settlements on the Rise
* Kansas Bill to Curb Frivolous Consumer Class Actions



                             *********


AKEENA SOLAR: Discovery in Securities Class Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing with an August 1, 2011, cut-off date in a
securities class action lawsuit filed against Akeena Solar, Inc.,
according to the Company's March 2, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On May 18, 2009, the Company and certain of its officers were
named in a putative class action complaint in the United States
District Court Northern District of California San Jose Division
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.  The suit
alleges various omissions and misrepresentations during the period
of December 26, 2007 to March 13, 2008 regarding, among other
things, the Company's backlog reporting and bank line of credit.
The Company moved to dismiss the complaint on February 12, 2010,
for failure to state a claim for relief.  On May 20, 2010, the
District Court granted in part the Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint.  The District Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims
relating to statements made prior to the class period, including
statements relating to the Company's backlog, its Andalay product,
and its supply agreement with Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd.
Due to the stage of the case, the Company has not had the
opportunity to present any defenses to the only two remaining
allegations, which relate to the Company's December 26, 2007
disclosure of the Comerica line of credit and the Company's
January 2, 2008 announcement of the Suntech license agreement.  On
October 22, 2010, plaintiffs moved the court to certify themselves
as a class, a procedure required in order for plaintiffs to move
forward with their case as a class action.  On November 15, 2010,
lead plaintiff Sharon Hodges filed a motion to withdraw as a
representative plaintiff in the Class Action.  Ms. Hodges was one
of three court-appointed co-lead plaintiffs in the Class Action.
The remaining two lead plaintiffs filed a corrected motion seeking
class certification on November 15, 2010.  On December 13, 2010,
the Company filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and against the appointment of the remaining lead
plaintiffs as class representatives.  The hearing on the motion
for class certification was scheduled for February 28, 2011.  If
the Company's motion is successful, plaintiffs will not be able to
proceed with their class action against the Company. Discovery is
also currently ongoing with a court imposed cut-off date of
August 1, 2011.  The Company believe that the claims in this case
are entirely without merit and the Company is defending the case
vigorously.  However, this matter is in the early stages and it
cannot reasonably estimate an amount of potential loss, if any, at
this time.


AMAZON.COM: Sued for Misusing Privacy-Protection Software
---------------------------------------------------------
Nick Eaton, writing for Seattle-Post Intelligencer, reports that a
class-action lawsuit filed on March 2 alleges Amazon.com
fraudulently circumvents users' Web-browser privacy settings to
collect personal information without permission and share it with
other companies.

The suit says Amazon tricks Microsoft's Internet Explorer into
thinking the e-retail site is "more privacy-protective than it
actually is," and uses a clever work-around to collect users'
personal information even if they have set their browser to block
it.  The plaintiffs allege Amazon knowingly and fraudulently set
up its Web site to spoof IE, and purposefully misleads customers
in its privacy policy published online.

"For years, Amazon has been taking visitors' personal information
that it was not entitled to take," the lawsuit states.  "It does
so by misusing privacy-protection software on users' own
computers, bending the software to Amazon's purpose of collecting
more personal information than it had a right to collect or that
users have given it consent to collect."

Since the release of Internet Explorer 6 in 2001, most Web sites
have been using machine-readable codes that tell a browser their
privacy policies -- such as whether a website sends cookies and
with whom the Web site shares personal information gained from
those cookies.  Most Web sites use several standard "compact
policy" codes such as "NID" (no identified user information
collected), but Amazon uses the code "AMZN" -- which the lawsuit
says is "gibberish."

That code tricks IE into thinking Amazon's privacy policy falls in
line with a user's settings, even if they are set to the strictest
level, the lawsuit alleges.  Even if IE blocks Amazon from sending
and accessing cookies, as a work-around Amazon also uses what are
informally known as "Flash cookies" -- files that transmit data
via Adobe Flash Player, which is on most people's computers,
instead of Internet Explorer.

Browser cookies are small files that are often left on a user's
computer when they visit a Web site.  Amazon.com, for example,
accesses those cookies to look at the user's browsing history
there, and can glean what types of products the users has browsed
or purchased.

Most of the time, cookies must be enabled for someone to sign in
to Amazon, add items to their shopping carts and check out.  Many
Web sites can't function fully if a user turns off cookies in
their browser privacy settings.

But turning off cookies is more secure, keeping websites from
accessing a user's personal information.  The major Web browsers
-- Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, Apple Safari
-- all have features that allow the user to identify specific
websites as "trusted," allowing only those approved sites to send
and access cookies.

Most likely, people would consider Amazon a trustworthy Web site.
But the plaintiffs in the March 2 case, filed in U.S. District
Court in Seattle, want to call that into question.

One of the plaintiffs, Ariana Del Vecchio, said that after she
started using Amazon in 2008 to buy pet-care products, she began
receiving snail-mail advertisements from companies with which
she'd never done business.  Amazon, the lawsuit suggests, only
could have done that by sharing her personal information with
other companies, even though her computer was set up to restrict
Amazon's access to her data.

"Amazon claims in its privacy notice that it does not share users'
information with third parties for advertising purposes and that,
instead, it delivers third parties' advertisements on their
behalf," the lawsuit alleges.  "In fact, Amazon shares users' PII
with third parties for those third parties' independent use and
does not disclose this fact to consumers."

Amazon did not reply to multiple and repeated seattlepi.com
requests for comment.

The other plaintiff, Nicole Del Vecchio, stated she found Flash
cookies on her computer that Amazon had used in circumventing her
strict IE privacy settings.  IE was supposed to keep Amazon from
sending cookies to her computer, and did, but Amazon got around it
by using Flash cookies, the lawsuit says.

As a class-action lawsuit, the case represents anyone who has used
Internet Explorer versions 6, 7 or 8 -- with high privacy settings
-- to visit Amazon.com and purchase products there.  The
plaintiffs are asking for a jury trial, injunctive relief and
monetary damages, which could be spread among millions of
consumers.

The lawsuit also alleges Amazon deliberately misleads users in its
online privacy statement by saying Flash cookies -- officially
known as Flash Local Shared Objects (LSOs) -- are similar to
browser cookies, when they are in fact much larger in filesize,
can be accessed by other websites, and are difficult to manage or
delete.

"Amazon, through its use of an invalid Compact Policy and Adobe
Flash LSOs, causes IE users' browsers and computers to perform in
ways the users do not want," the lawsuit states.  "Amazon does so
intentionally, diminishing the performance and value to users of
their browsers and computers.

"The costs and harms described above are aggravated by Amazon's
continued re-tention and commercial use of the improperly acquired
user data."


AMERICAN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Rand" Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
American National Insurance Company continues to defend the
matter Rand v. American National Insurance Company, pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
according to the Company's March 2, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010.

American National is a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit wherein the Plaintiff proposes to certify a class of
persons who purchased certain American National proprietary
deferred annuity products in the State of California (Rand v.
American National Insurance Company, U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, filed February 12, 2009).
Plaintiff alleges that American National violated the California
Insurance, Business and Professions, Welfare and Institutions, and
Civil Codes through its fixed and equity-indexed deferred annuity
sales and marketing practices by not sufficiently providing proper
disclosure notices on the nature of surrender fees, commissions
and bonus features and not considering the suitability of the
product.  Certain claims raised by Plaintiff relate to sales of
annuities to the elderly.  Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties,
restitution, interest, penalties, attorneys' fees, punitive
damages and rescissionary and/or injunctive relief in an
unspecified amount.  Discovery in this case is ongoing.  If
necessary, class certification issues may be briefed and argument
heard by the Court in early to mid 2011.  In September 2010, the
Court granted partial summary judgment for American National due
to the nonexistence of certain California Insurance Code
violations, and granted partial summary judgment against American
National as to whether the Plaintiff received a disclosure notice
required by the California Insurance Code.  Plaintiff contends
that the alleged disclosure violation will support a California
Unfair Competition Law claim.  American National believes that it
has meritorious defenses.

Chartered in 1905, American National Insurance Company --
http://www.anico.com/-- is headquartered in Galveston, Texas.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Settles Investor Class Action for $27MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph A. Giannone, writing for Reuters, reports that Ameriprise
Financial Inc. agreed to pay $27 million to settle lawsuits filed
by clients of its independent-brokerage unit who bought private
placements in companies later revealed to be Ponzi schemes, a
lawyer for the plaintiffs said on March 3.

Two weeks ago the unit, Securities America, agreed to a separate
$21 million settlement with the same class of roughly 2,000
investors, who lost about $300 million.

Daniel Girard of San Francisco-based law firm Girard Gibbs,
attorney for the investors, said both class-action cases were
filed in 2009.

Officials from Ameriprise were not available for comment.  Janine
Wertheim, a spokeswoman for Securities America, said in an email
that the firm was pleased the settlement was going to a federal
judge for approval.

"We believe this represents good progress as we pursue a
resolution to this matter," she wrote.

Securities America, based in La Vista, Nebraska, is one of many
broker-dealers who sold private-placement interests in two
companies -- Medical Capital and Provident Royalties -- that went
bust in 2009. U.S. securities regulators accused the companies of
fraud in July of that year.

Girard told Reuters in an interview that the settlements, combined
with up to $4 million of insurance money, could yield about $52
million to be distributed among victims.

That works out to 20 cents on the dollar, he said, "which by the
standards of this sort of litigation is an excellent outcome."  In
many Ponzi schemes, there are no assets left to recover, he said.

"There has been a fair amount of scrutiny directed at the
advisers," he said.  "As securities professionals, there were
enough warning bells and red flags that they should have asked
more questions than they did."

Ameriprise, he noted, was not directly involved in approving the
private placement transactions.  It was sued as a "control
person," given its ownership and oversight of Securities America,
he added.

The Ameriprise settlement was first reported by Investment News.

In its annual report filed on Feb. 28, Ameriprise disclosed that
Securities America clients faced nearly $400 million in losses
from Medical Capital and Provident Royalties.

Ameriprise, one of the country's largest financial planning and
wealth management firms, in its annual report said it has reserved
about $40 million to cover claims.

In addition to the class actions, Ameriprise and Securities
America face complaints in Massachusetts and "a significant
volume" of individual arbitration claims.

Securities America is a network that provides support services to
about 1,800 self-employed brokers who generated $500 million in
revenue last year.  These brokers do not use the Ameriprise brand.


ARCTIC GLACIER: Ontario Judge Okays Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gray, writing for Globe and Mail, reports that an Ontario
Superior Court judge has okayed a class-action suit against Arctic
Glacier Income Fund by investors who suffered losses after a U.S.
antitrust probe of the ice business.

Investors in the fund, which owns Winnipeg-based bagged-ice maker
Arctic Glacier Inc., launched the $165-million suit in 2008. The
lawsuit came after Arctic Glacier revealed it was facing a U.S.
antitrust investigation, causing the fund's value to plummet.

The suit alleges the fund misrepresented itself by telling
investors it was "a good corporate citizen." The allegations have
not been proven.

Arctic Glacier's U.S. subsidiary pleaded guilty in 2009 to taking
part in a "criminal anti-competitive conspiracy" to allocate
customers among competitors in Michigan.  It also agreed to pay a
$9-million (U.S.) fine.

The class-action suit names the fund's trustees (including former
Manitoba premier Gary Filmon) and a handful of executives.

Michael Robb, a lawyer for the investors, said the two lead
plaintiffs are retail investors from Southwestern Ontario, adding:
"They took a hit on it and got peeved and decided they wanted to
take some action."

Arctic Glacier could not be reached for comment on March 4.

The case is the second securities class action to get the go-ahead
from a judge after new legislation boosted the rights of
shareholders to sue in Ontario in 2006.

The first was a case launched by investors in Imax Corp. after the
company had to restate its earnings in 2005.  Mr. Robb also acts
for the plaintiffs in that case.  The new Ontario rules initially
caused concern that companies would face an avalanche of
shareholder lawsuits.

This has not materialized, but a steady stream of shareholder
grievances have headed to the courts.  According to a January
report from NERA Economic Consulting, there were 28 outstanding
securities class-action cases in Canada.

Mr. Robb, a partner with Siskinds LLP in London, Ont., said the
fact that just two cases have made it to this stage and received a
judges green light shows that companies aren't facing frivolous
litigation: "That to my mind speaks to itself as to whether the
sky is falling on these issuers or not.  Certainly it isn't."


BELL MOBILITY: 911 Class Action Set to Begin on May 7
-----------------------------------------------------
MobileSyrup.com reports that on May 7, Yellowknife resident
James Anderson and his lawyers will finally put everything they've
work on for the past 4 years to the test.  The reason is that
May 7 is the date the $6 million 911 class action lawsuit against
Bell Mobility is starting.  Bell has for the last few years been
charging customers the $0.75 911 fee even though there is no 911
service in the area.  Bell recently stated they opted to charge
the fee in the N.W.T because customers might use the 911 service
while traveling.  Supreme Court Justice Ron Veale will preside in
the lawsuit and it's expected to last 2 weeks.


BIG 5 SPORTING: Obtains Final Court Okay of "Weyl" Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation obtained final court approval of
its settlement agreement with Shane Weyl in January, according to
the Company's March 2, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Jan. 2, 2011.

On August 6, 2009, the Company was served with a complaint filed
in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego,
entitled Shane Weyl v. Big 5 Corp., et al., Case No. 37-2009-
00093109-CU-OE-CTL, alleging violations of the California Labor
Code and the California Business and Professions Code.  The
complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of the
Company's hourly employees in California for the four years prior
to the filing of the complaint.  The plaintiff alleges, among
other things, that the Company failed to provide hourly employees
with meal and rest periods and failed to pay wages within required
time periods during employment and upon termination of employment.
The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, an award of
one hour of pay (wages) for each workday that a meal or rest
period was not provided; restitution of unpaid wages; actual,
consequential and incidental losses and damages; pre-judgment
interest; statutory penalties including an additional thirty days'
wages for each hourly employee in California whose employment
terminated in the four years preceding the filing of the
complaint; civil penalties; an award of attorneys' fees and costs;
and injunctive and declaratory relief.  On December 14, 2009, the
parties engaged in mediation and agreed to settle the lawsuit.  On
February 4, 2010, the parties filed a joint settlement and a
motion to preliminarily approve the settlement with the court. On
July 16, 2010, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.  On November 9, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for
final approval of the settlement with the court. On January 24,
2011, the court granted final approval of the settlement, reduced
the award of plaintiff's attorneys' fees, and instructed
plaintiff's counsel to prepare a written order on final approval
of the settlement.

Plaintiff's counsel has notified the Company that plaintiff
intends to file a motion requesting the court to reconsider its
reduction of the plaintiff's attorneys' fees award.  The Company's
estimated liability of $1.4 million under the settlement,
inclusive of payments to class members, plaintiff's attorneys'
fees and expenses, an enhancement payment to the class
representative, claims administrator fees and payment to the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, has been
included within the Company's accrued liabilities for legal
matters as of January 2, 2011.  The Company admitted no liability
or wrongdoing with respect to the claims set forth in the lawsuit.
Once the court enters the written order granting final approval,
the settlement will constitute a full and complete settlement and
release of all claims related to the lawsuit.


BIG 5 SPORTING: Preliminary Hearing on "Kelly" Suit Settlement Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider preliminary approval of a settlement
agreement Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation entered into to resolve
a class action lawsuit filed by Michael Kelly has been set for
March 18, 2011, according to the Company's March 2, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Jan. 2, 2011.

On August 13, 2009, the Company was served with a complaint filed
in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego,
entitled Michael Kelly v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et
al., Case No. 37-2009-00095594-CU-MC-CTL, alleging violations of
the California Business and Professions Code and California Civil
Code.  The complaint was brought as a purported class action on
behalf of persons who purchased certain tennis, racquetball and
squash rackets from the Company.  The plaintiff alleges, among
other things, that the Company employed deceptive pricing,
marketing and advertising practices with respect to the sale of
such rackets.  The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class
members, unspecified amounts of damages and/or restitution;
attorneys' fees and costs; and injunctive relief to require the
Company to discontinue the allegedly improper conduct.  On
July 20, 2010, the plaintiff filed with the court a Motion for
Class Certification.  The plaintiff and the Company engaged in
mediation on September 1, 2010 and again on November 22, 2010.
During mediation, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit.  On
January 27, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion to preliminarily
approve the settlement with the court.  Under the terms of the
settlement, the Company agreed that class members who submit valid
and timely claim forms will receive a refund of the purchase price
of a class racket, up to $50 per racket, in the form of either a
gift card or a check.  Additionally, the Company agreed to pay
plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs, an enhancement payment to
the class representative and claims administrator's fees.  Under
the proposed settlement, if the total amount paid by the Company
for the class payout, plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs, class
representative enhancement payment and claims administrator's fees
is less than $4.0 million, then the Company will issue merchandise
vouchers to a charity for the balance of the deficiency in the
manner provided in the settlement agreement.

The court has scheduled a hearing for March 18, 2011 to consider
the plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.
The Company's estimated total cost pursuant to this settlement is
reflected in a legal settlement accrual recorded in the fourth
quarter of fiscal 2010.  The Company admitted no liability or
wrongdoing with respect to the claims set forth in the lawsuit.
Once final approval is granted, the settlement will constitute a
full and complete settlement and release of all claims related to
the lawsuit. If the court does not grant preliminary or final
approval of the settlement, the Company intends to defend the
lawsuit vigorously.  If the settlement is not finally approved by
the court and the lawsuit is settled or resolved unfavorably to
the Company, this litigation, the costs of defending it and any
resulting required change in the business practices of the Company
could have a material negative impact on the Company's results of
operations and financial condition.


BP PLC: Trial in Mexico Oil Spill Litigation Set for Feb. 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------
A trial in the multi-district litigation involving BP p.l.c.,
resulting from a Gulf of Mexico oil spill, is scheduled for
February 2012, the Company disclosed in its March 2, 2011, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010

BP p.l.c., BP Exploration & Production Inc. and various other BP
entities are among the companies named as defendants in more than
400 private civil lawsuits resulting from the April 20, 2010,
explosions and fire on the semi-submersible rig Deepwater Horizon
and resulting oil spill and further actions are likely to be
brought.  BP E&P is lease operator of Mississippi Canyon, Block
252 in the Gulf of Mexico, where the Deepwater Horizon was
deployed at the time of the Incident, and holds a 65% working
interest.  The other working interest owners are Anadarko
Petroleum Company and MOEX Offshore 2007 LLC.  The Deepwater
Horizon, which was owned and operated by certain affiliates of
Transocean, Ltd., sank on April 22, 2010.  The pending lawsuits
and/or claims arising from the Incident have been brought in US
federal and state courts.  Plaintiffs include individuals,
corporations and governmental entities and many of the lawsuits
purport to be class actions.  The lawsuits assert, among others,
claims for personal injury in connection with the Incident itself
and the response to it, and wrongful death, commercial or economic
injury, breach of contract and violations of statutes.  The
lawsuits seek various remedies including compensation to injured
workers and families of deceased workers, recovery for commercial
losses and property damage, claims for environmental damage,
remediation costs, injunctive relief, treble damages and punitive
damages.  Purported classes of claimants include residents of the
states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama,  Florida, Texas,
Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia and South Carolina, property owners
and rental agents, fishermen and persons dependent on the fishing
industry, charter boat owners and deck hands, marina owners,
gasoline distributors, shipping interests, restaurant and hotel
owners and others who are property and/or business owners alleged
to have suffered economic loss.

The pending lawsuits are at the very early stages of proceedings
and most of the claims have been consolidated into one of two
multi-district litigation proceedings.  A trial of liability
issues in the pending multi-district litigation is currently
scheduled for February 2012.  Damage issues will be scheduled for
trial thereafter.

Until further fact and expert disclosures occur, court rulings
clarify the issues in dispute, liability and damage trial activity
nears, or other actions such as possible settlements occur, it is
not possible given these uncertainties to arrive at a range of
outcomes or a reliable estimate of the liability, BP related in
its latest SEC filing.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Defends Student Recruitment Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc., is defending itself from a lawsuit
alleging that the Company illegally recruited and retained
students, according to the Company's March 2, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

In January 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint in a
purported class action lawsuit naming it, Ashford University and
University of the Rockies as defendants.  The complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
on January 11, 2011, and is captioned, Scott Rosendahl and
Veronica Clark v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., Ashford University
and University of the Rockies.  The complaint generally alleges
that the Company and the other defendants engaged in improper,
fraudulent and illegal behavior in their efforts to recruit and
retain students.  The Company believes that the lawsuit is without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Defends Wage and Hour Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc., is defending itself from a lawsuit
alleging wage and hour laws violations, according to the Company's
March 2, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

In February 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint in a
purported class action lawsuit naming it, Ashford University, LLC,
and certain of its employees as defendants.  The complaint was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in San
Diego on February 17, 2011, and is captioned Stevens v.
Bridgepoint Education, Inc.  The complaint generally alleges that
the plaintiffs and similarly situated employees were improperly
denied certain wage and hour protections under California law.
The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against it.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals in IPO Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.'s settlement of
a consolidated class action lawsuit related to its initial public
offering remain pending, according to the Company's March 3, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended January 29, 2011.

On July 20, 2001, the first of a number of putative class actions
for violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Brocade, certain of its officers and directors, and
certain of the underwriters for Brocade's initial public offering
of securities.  A consolidated amended class action captioned, In
re Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, No. 01 Civ. 6613, was filed on April 19,
2002.  The complaint generally alleges that various underwriters
engaged in improper and undisclosed activities related to the
allocation of shares in Brocade's initial public offering and
seeks unspecified damages for claims under the Exchange Act on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of common stock from
May 24, 1999, to December 6, 2000.  The lawsuit against Brocade
was coordinated for pretrial proceedings with a number of other
pending litigations challenging underwriter practices in over 300
cases as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21
MC 92 (SAS), including actions against McDATA Corporation, Inrange
Technologies Corporation -- which was first acquired by Computer
Network Technology Corporation and subsequently acquired by McDATA
as part of the CNT acquisition -- and Foundry, and certain of each
entity's respective officers and directors, and initial public
offering underwriters.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the coordinated
litigation, under which the insurers will pay the full amount of
settlement share allocated to the Brocade Entities, and the
Brocade Entities will bear no financial liability.  On October 5,
2009, the Court granted final approval of the settlement.  Certain
objectors have appealed the Court's final order.


CARDTRONICS INC: Continues to Defend Regulation E Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cardtronics, Inc., remains a defendant in four class action
lawsuits before federal courts arising from its alleged violations
of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, commonly known as Regulation
E, according to the Company's March 3, 2011 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

EFT networks in the United States are subject to extensive
regulations that are applicable to various aspects of the
Company's operations and the operations of other ATM network
operators. The major source of EFT network regulations is the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act, commonly known as Regulation E. The
federal regulations promulgated under Regulation E establish the
basic rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of consumers who
use EFT services and of financial institutions that offer these
services, including, among other services, ATM transactions.
Generally, Regulation E requires ATM network operators to provide
not only a surcharge notice on the ATM screens, but also on the
ATM machine themselves; establishes limits on the consumer's
liability for unauthorized use of his card; requires the Company
to provide receipts to the consumer and establishes protest
procedures for the consumer.  During the last year, the number of
putative class action lawsuits filed nationwide in connection with
Regulation E disclosures against various financial institutions
and ATM operators alike appears to have increased dramatically.
As of March 3, 2011, the following lawsuits have been filed
against the Company alleging one or more violations of Regulation
E of a small number of specific Company's ATMs in three states:

   * Sheryl Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others
     similarly situated v. Cardtronics USA, Inc.; In the United
     States District Court of Tennessee-Western District;
     instituted September 2010;

   * Sheryl Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others
     similarly situated v. Cardtronics USA, Inc.; In the United
     States District Court of Mississippi-Northern District;
     instituted September 2010;

   * Joshua Sandoval; individually and on behalf of all others
     similarly situated v. Cardtronics USA, Inc., Cardtronics,
     Inc., and Does 1-10, inclusive; In the United States
     District Court of California-Southern District; instituted
     February 2011; and

   * Gini Christensen, individually and on behalf of all other
     similarly situated v. Cardtronics USA, Inc., Cardtronics,
     Inc., and Does 1-10, inclusive; In the United States District
     Court of California-Southern District; instituted February
     2011.

In each of the cases, the plaintiffs are seeking an order
certifying a class-action of previous users of each of the ATMs at
issue, statutory damages pursuant to 15 USC 1693m, costs of suit
and attorney's fees, and a permanent injunction.  The Company
believes that it is in material compliance with the requirements
of Regulation E and thus has good defenses to each of these
lawsuits.  Further, Regulation E provides two "safe-harbor"
defenses: (i) that the disclosure notice was on the ATM, but was
removed by someone other than the operator; and (ii) that the ATM
operator has a system in place to ensure that it places both
notices on the ATM.  The Company believes these defenses will
prevent any of these cases from having a material adverse impact
on its business, and that none of these lawsuits individually, or
in the aggregate, would materially adversely affect the Company's
financial condition or results or operations.  However, if the
Company's defenses were not successful, these and other similarly
filed lawsuits could have such a material adverse affect.


CARTER'S INC: Still Awaits Dismissal of Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Carter's, Inc., is still awaiting a court ruling on its motion to
dismiss an amended and consolidated complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, according to the
Company's March 2, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 1, 2011.

                         Plymouth Action

A shareholder class action lawsuit was filed on September 19, 2008
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia entitled Plymouth County Retirement System v. Carter's,
Inc., No. 1:08-CV-02940-JOF.  The Amended Complaint filed on
May 12, 2009 in the Plymouth Action asserted claims under Sections
10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, and
alleged that between February 1, 2006 and July 24, 2007, the
Company and certain current and former executives made
misrepresentations to investors regarding the successful
integration of OshKosh into the Company's business, and that the
share price of the Company's stock later fell when the market
learned that the integration had not been as successful as
represented. Defendants in the Plymouth Action filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under
the federal securities laws on July 17, 2009, and briefing of that
motion was complete on October 22, 2009.

                          Mylroie Action

A separate shareholder class action lawsuit was filed on
November 17, 2009 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia entitled Mylroie v. Carter's, Inc.,
No. 1:09-CV-3196-JOF.  The initial Complaint in the Mylroie Action
asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934
Securities Exchange Act, and alleged that between April 27, 2004
and November 10, 2009, the Company and certain current and former
executives made misstatements to investors regarding the Company's
accounting for discounts offered to some wholesale customers.

                        Consolidated Action

The Court consolidated the Plymouth Action and the Mylroie Action
on November 24, 2009.  On March 15, 2010, the plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Action filed their amended and consolidated
complaint.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 30,
2010, and briefing of the motion was complete on July 23, 2010.
The parties are awaiting an oral argument date or a decision from
the Court.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against the
claims in the Consolidated Action.


CIGNA HEALTHCARE: Sued for Discriminating Against Female Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Cigna Healthcare discriminates against its female employees
nationwide.

A copy of the Complaint in Karp v. Cigna Healthcare, Inc., Case
No. 11-cv-10361 (D. Mass.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/04/Cigna.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Sanford, Esq.
          Kristen L. Walsh, Esq.
          Catharine Edwards, Esq.
          SANFORD, WITTELS &HEISLER, LLP
          1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 310
          Washington, D.C. 20009
          Telephone: (202) 742-7780
          E-mail: dsanford@swhlegal.com
                  kwalsh@swhlegal.com

               - and -

          Kevin Kinne, Esq.
          Christopher M. Hennessey, Esq.
          COHEN KINNE VALICENTI &COOK LLP
          28 North Street, 3rd Floor
          Pittsfield, MA 01201
          Telephone: (413) 443-9399
          E-mail: kkinne@cohenkinne.com


COMMENCE CORP: Suit Over Software Won't Proceed as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a consumer fraud suit alleging that a deliberately placed "time
bomb" caused a law firm's management software to shut down can't
proceed as a class action, at least for now, a federal judge ruled
on Feb. 28.

Kalow & Springut, an 11-lawyer New York intellectual property
firm, had used software made by Commence Corp. of Tinton Falls,
N.J., for six years when it stopped working on March 20, 2006,
according to the suit, Kalow & Springut v. Commence Corp.,
3:07-cv-03442.

The firm, bringing counts under the federal Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act and New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, contends that
Commence intentionally designed the software to shut down so users
would be compelled to buy upgrades and that thousands of other
users of the software nationwide suffered crashes on that date.

Kalow & Springut became reliant on the software -- which managed
its client records, timekeeping, patent docketing and calendaring
-- because data entered into the program is converted into a
unique, proprietary format that is not readily converted for use
in other programs, the suit says.

"When your whole system goes down, it creates huge problems.
You're missing all sorts of data," says the plaintiff's attorney,
Peter Pearlman of Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrman & Knopf in
Saddle Brook.

Commence eventually provided a patch that restored operation for
users of newer versions of its software, but users of older
versions, like Kalow & Springut, had to buy the program's latest
version at a cost of $15,211, and all users incurred thousands of
dollars in losses from lost productivity and wages or fees paid to
computer consultants, the suit says.

The firm sought certification on behalf of all users of networked
Commence software on March 20, 2006.  Alternatively, it sought
certification of two subclasses -- one of users who had to buy an
upgrade to apply the patch, and the other of users who could use
the patch without an upgrade.

The suit was brought as a putative class action under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), and District Judge Freda Wolfson found the
class met the requirements under 23(a) -- numerosity, commonality,
typicality and adequacy.

Numerosity was not a problem because the number of customers in
the class is about 15,000 and each proposed subclass is at least
40 members, meeting the requirement set in Stewart v. Abraham ,
275 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2001), Judge Wolfson said

She rejected Commence's assertions that variations in the software
problem's impact on users meant the commonality and typicality
requirements were not met.  And meeting the commonality and
typicality requirements demonstrated that Kalow & Springut was
adequate to represent the class, she said.

Judge Wolfson also found the proposed class met Rule 23(b)(3)'s
requirement that a class action is superior to other methods of
adjudication, citing claims that would likely range from less than
$100 to tens of thousands of dollars.

But Judge Wolfson found that since the firm failed to conduct an
analysis into whether New Jersey law should apply to class members
nationwide, it failed to meet the Rule 23(b)(3) requirement that
questions of law or fact common to class members predominated over
questions affecting only individual members.

She agreed with Commence that, with respect to the plaintiff's
consumer fraud claim, a court would have to decide whether New
Jersey's statute should apply to a nationwide class.

Kalow & Springut argued that because Commence's software licenses
provided that they were governed by New Jersey law, the company
should not be allowed to oppose application of that law to a
nationwide class.  But Judge Wolfson found that since the fraud
claim is not based on any provision of the software license, the
license's choice-of-law clause is not dispositive.

Rather, the fraud claim is based on a knowing omission of the
defendant's allegedly deceptive failure to disclose the existence
of a "time bomb," so the court was bound to apply Section 148 of
Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, which applies to claims
of misrepresrentation, Judge Wolfson said.

That section requires the court to consider several factors,
including the location where the plaintiff acted in reliance on
the misrepresentation, the location where the plaintiff received
the misrepresentation, the location where the defendant made the
misrepresentation and the domicile of the parties.

If the analysis dictates application of the consumer fraud laws of
other states, "Plaintiff would be faced with an uphill battle of
demonstrating predominance," Judge Wolfson said.  But the parties
provided none of the information needed to perform that analysis,
Judge Wolfson said.

Plaintiff's attorney Mr. Pearlman says he plans to file a brief
addressing the choice-of-law issue and is confident he can provide
Judge Wolfson with a basis to certify the class.  "She found we
really satisfied every requirement other than the issue of whether
the state law of New Jersey should apply to all 50 states.  We
believe we can give the court what the court requires," Pearlman
says.

The lawyer for Commence Corp., Bruce Barrett of Margolis Edelstein
in Mount Laurel, N.J., declines to comment.


CROWN MEDIA: Awaits Court Decision in "S. Muoio" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crown Media Holdings, Inc., is awaiting a court decision in the
class action lawsuit filed by S. Muoio & Co. LLC, according to the
Company's March 3, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On July 13, 2009, a lawsuit was brought in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against each member of the Board of Directors of the
Company, Hallmark Cards and its affiliates, as well as the Company
as a nominal defendant, by a minority stockholder of the Company
regarding the then proposed Recapitalization. The plaintiff is S.
Muoio & Co. LLC which owned beneficially approximately 5.8% of the
Company's Class A Common Stock at the time of the complaint,
according to the complaint and filings with the SEC. The lawsuit
claims to be a derivative action and a class action on behalf of
the plaintiff and other minority stockholders of the Company. The
lawsuit alleges, among other things, that, the defendants have
breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company and minority
stockholders in connection with the Recapitalization transactions.
The lawsuit includes allegations that the consummation of the
Recapitalization transactions would result in an unfair amount of
equity issued to the majority stockholders, thereby reducing the
minority stockholders' equity and voting interests in the Company,
and that the majority stockholders would be able to eliminate the
minority stockholders through a short-form merger. The complaint
requested the court enjoin the defendants from consummating the
Recapitalization transactions and award plaintiff fees and
expenses incurred in bringing the lawsuit.

On July 22, 2009, a Stipulation Providing for Notice of
Transaction was filed with the Delaware Court of Chancery. The
Stipulation provided that the Company could not consummate the
transaction contemplated in the Recapitalization transactions
until not less than seven weeks after providing the plaintiff with
a notice of the terms of the proposed transaction, including
copies of the final transaction agreements. If the plaintiff moved
for preliminary injunctive relief with respect to any such
transaction, the parties would establish a schedule with the Court
of Chancery to resolve such motion during the seven week period.
In addition, following the decision of the Court of Chancery, the
Company would not consummate any transaction for a period of at
least one week, during which time any party may seek an expedited
appeal. The Stipulation further provided that the plaintiff would
withdraw its motion for preliminary injunction filed on July 13,
2009 and that the action would be stayed until the earlier of
providing the notice of a transaction or an announcement by the
Company that it was no longer considering a transaction.

By a letter of February 28, 2010, the plaintiff in this lawsuit
informed the Special Committee of the Board of Directors, which
considered and negotiated the Recapitalization, that the plaintiff
objected to the proposed recapitalization on the terms set forth
in the term sheet dated February 9, 2010. The plaintiff asserted,
among other things, that the transactions contemplated by the term
sheet would unfairly dilute the economic and voting interests of
the Company's minority stockholders, that the transactions should
be subject to a vote of the majority of the minority stockholders
and that the proposed transactions remain inadequate. The
plaintiff indicated that if the Company executed definitive
documents for the Recapitalization, the plaintiff would pursue the
litigation. The February 26, 2010 agreements executed by the
Company for the Recapitalization materially followed the
provisions in the earlier term sheet.

Notice of the terms of the proposed Recapitalization, including
copies of the executed definitive documents for the
Recapitalization, was provided to the plaintiff on March 1, 2010.
On March 11, 2010, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
raising similar allegations of breach of fiduciary duty against
Hallmark Cards and the director defendants and seeking rescission
of the Recapitalization rather than a preliminary injunction
enjoining the consummation of the Recapitalization, or
alternatively, an award of rescissory damages. If the Company is
forced to rescind the Recapitalization, short-term debt would
increase to approximately $1.2 billion, plus accrued interest. A
trial took place in September 2010 and the parties submitted post
trial briefs to the court. A decision of the court is expected to
be issued in the first or second quarter of 2011.

Studio City, Calif.-based Crown Media Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:
CRWN) -- http://www.hallmarkchannel.com/-- owns and operates
cable television channels dedicated to high quality, broad appeal,
entertainment programming.  The Company currently operates and
distributes Hallmark Channel in both high definition (HD) and
standard definition (SD) to 90 million subscribers in the U.S.
Crown Media also operates a second 24-hour linear channel,
Hallmark Movie Channel, available in both HD and SD, which focuses
on family-friendly movies with a mix of classic theatrical films,
presentations from the acclaimed Hallmark Hall of Fame library,
original Hallmark Channel movies and special events.


DJO FINANCE: Settles With Plaintiffs in 27 Pain Pump Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
DJO Finance LLC has entered into settlements with plaintiffs in 27
pain pump lawsuits, according to the Company's March 3, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

DJO Finance LLC is currently named as one of several defendants in
a number of product liability lawsuits involving approximately 100
plaintiffs, including a lawsuit in Canada seeking class action
status, related to a disposable drug infusion pump product (pain
pump) manufactured by two third party manufacturers that the
Company distributed through its Bracing and Supports Segment.  The
Company sold pumps manufactured by one manufacturer from 1999 to
2003 and then sold pumps manufactured by a second manufacturer
from 2003 to 2009.  The Company discontinued the sale of these
products in the second quarter of 2009.  These cases have been
brought against the manufacturers and certain distributors of
these pumps, and in some cases, the manufacturers of the
anesthetics used in these pumps.  All of these lawsuits allege
that the use of these pumps with certain anesthetics for prolonged
periods after certain shoulder surgeries has resulted in cartilage
damage to the plaintiffs.  The lawsuits allege damages ranging
from unspecified amounts to claims of up to $10 million.  Many of
the lawsuits which have been filed in the past three years have
named multiple pain pump manufacturers and distributors without
having established which manufacturer manufactured or sold the
pump in issue.  In the past three years, the Company has been
dismissed from a large number of cases when product identification
was later established showing that the Company did not sell the
pump in issue.

At present, the Company is named in approximately 20 lawsuits in
which product identification has yet to be determined and, as a
result, the Company believes that it will be dismissed from a
meaningful number of such cases in the future.  In addition, the
Company is named in approximately 15 cases in which the plaintiffs
have admitted that the Company did not sell the pump in issue, but
have alleged a conspiracy theory seeking to hold DJO responsible
for subsequent sales by that manufacturer after the Company ceased
buying pumps from that manufacturer.  To date, the Company is
aware of only two pain pump trials which have gone to verdict, one
in early 2010 which involved a manufacturer whose pump the Company
did not sell and one in September 2010 involving pain pumps that
DJO sold to two plaintiffs.

In the earlier trial, the plaintiff obtained a verdict of
approximately $5.5 million against the manufacturer.  In the
second trial involving DJO, the jury rendered a verdict in favor
of DJO and its manufacturer on all counts as to two plaintiffs and
a verdict on all counts for the manufacturer as to a third
plaintiff who had sued only the manufacturer.  In the past six
months, the Company has entered into settlements with plaintiffs
in approximately 27 pain pump lawsuits.  Of these, the Company has
settled approximately 17 cases in joint settlements involving its
first manufacturer and has settled approximately 10 cases
involving its second manufacturer in which the manufacturer's
carrier has made some contribution to the settlement amount or any
joint settlement, but for which the Company is seeking indemnity
for the balance of its costs.


FXCM: Accused in New York Suit of  Misleading Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that FXCM, an online currency
trader, sold 15 million shares for $226 million in its initial
public offering through false and misleading statements, and
underwriters Citigroup, Credit Suisse and JP Morgan helped it,
shareholders say in a class action filed in Manhattan federal
court.


GEO GROUP: Court Approves "Shelby" Suit Settlement, Dismisses Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
The GEO Group, Inc., obtained final court approval of its
settlement with plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit pending in
Texas, according to the Company's March 2, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended January 2, 2011.

On April 27, 2010, a putative stockholder class action was filed
in the District Court for Harris County, Texas by Todd Shelby
against Cornell Companies, Inc., members of the Cornell board of
directors, individually, and GEO.  The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on May 28, 2010, alleging, among other things, that the
Cornell directors, aided and abetted by Cornell and GEO, breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with GEO's acquisition of
Cornell.  Among other things, the amended complaint sought to
enjoin Cornell, its directors and GEO from completing the Cornell
Acquisition and sought a constructive trust over any benefits
improperly received by the defendants as a result of their alleged
wrongful conduct.  The parties reached a settlement which has been
approved by the court and, as a result, the court dismissed the
action with prejudice.


LA FITNESS: Berger & Montague Files Class Action in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. has filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
behalf of: (1) former members of L.A. Fitness International, LLC
who have incurred at least one additional monthly billing charge
after they attempted to cancel their Monthly Dues Membership
Agreements; and (2) current members of LA Fitness who entered into
Monthly Dues contracts which contain egregious cancellation
provisions and who will be forced to pay dues for one or more
months after they attempt to cancel their memberships.

If you believe that you have been improperly billed monthly dues
by LA Fitness after mailing a request to cancel your Monthly Dues
contract, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Eric Lechtzin of
Berger & Montague at 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000, or by e-mail at
elechtzin@bm.net

A copy of the Class Action Complaint can be viewed on Berger &
Montague, P.C.'s Web site at http://www.bergermontague.com/or may
be requested from the Court.  The docket number is 8:11-cv-457.

LA Fitness operates health and fitness clubs throughout the United
States.  The complaint alleges that LA Fitness breached its
Monthly Dues contract and violated the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act by representing that its Monthly Dues
contract was a "monthly" contract that could be terminated (along
with monthly dues billing) simply by following the contract's
cancellation procedures.  This representation was deceptive
because, in actuality, due to LA Fitness' unfair practices, it was
and is virtually impossible to cancel the contract without being
charged at least one or two months of additional dues, even when
members follow the contract's cancellation procedures.

The Complaint further alleges that LA Fitness breaches its Monthly
Dues contract and violates Florida's consumer protect laws by: (1)
refusing to act on properly submitted cancellation requests in
order to continue automatic billing of dues from members' bank
accounts or credit cards; (2) failing to disclose that the
contract cannot be cancelled by giving 30 days notice (or 20 days
for newer contracts), when in actuality members must mail
cancellations at least 61 days before their desired termination
date (or 51 days for newer contracts); (3) using prepaid last
month's dues to extend contracts beyond members' usage, despite LA
Fitness' representation in the contract that "no further billing
will occur" after timely mailing of a cancellation notice; and (4)
failing to inform members that they can only cancel by using a
particular cancellation form, obtainable only in-person at an LA
Fitness club, when the contract states that any "written notice"
will suffice.

For more information, please contact:

          Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
          Michael T. Fantini, Esq.
          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 1-888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000
          E-mail: ssavett@bm.net
                  mfantini@bm.net
                  elechtzin@bm.net

Berger & Montague, founded in 1970, is a pioneer in class action
litigation.  The firm's approximately 70 attorneys concentrate
their practice in complex litigation, including consumer
protection, securities fraud, whistleblower and false claims
actions, antitrust, labor and employment rights, and environmental
and mass torts, and have recovered several billion dollars for
consumers and investors.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Says Wingecarribee Council to Blame for Loss
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Lannin, writing for ABC News, reports that a senior executive
from a New South Wales council has told the Federal Court the
local arm of collapsed US investment bank, Lehman Brothers, misled
the council about complex investments linked to sub prime and
corporate debt.

Douglas Neville says he and the Wingecarribee Shire Council were
shocked when they found out an investment they purchased had
exposure to the housing market collapse in the U.S. and was due to
expire in 2047, nearly 40 years later than the council had
originally been told.

Lehman Brothers Australia denies it misled the councils and is
fighting the claims.

The court hearing is part of a class action against the failed
investment bank, which sold the products, known as collateralized
debt obligations (CDOs), to investors around the world.

Seventy-two councils, churches and charities are suing Lehman
Brothers for $260 million over the investments, which helped
trigger the global financial crisis.

In its submission to the court, which was released on March 3,
Lehman said the investment agreement between Wingecarribee and the
company authorized purchases of CDOs and was signed by council
representatives.

"The investments which LBA was expressly authorized to make
. . . . included CDOs," the submission said.

Wingecarribee Council is situated in NSW's southern highlands, two
hours' drive from Sydney and Canberra.

It is claiming $21 million in financial losses as a result of the
investments.

Mr. Neville, the council's financial services manager, told the
court Lehman Brother's local arm, Grange Securities, which later
became LBA, assured the council their investments were capital
guaranteed in early 2007.

He said Grange was hired to manage the council's investments.

Mr. Neville said he told Grange several times, including by email,
that the council only wanted to invest in conservative products.

"I explained the council was not interested in CDOs and we
couldn't put ratepayers funds at risk," he told the court.

Mr. Neville said Grange employee, Stewart Calderwood, visited the
council in February 2007 to discuss concerns that the investment
company had purchased CDOs on behalf of the council.

He said during the meeting in his office, Mr. Calderwood drew a
diagram on a whiteboard to describe the investment products.

Mr. Neville told the court that Mr. Calderwood had assured him the
investments were not CDOs but other investments called floating
rate notes, which were capital guaranteed at maturity.

A photo of the diagram has been tendered as evidence in the case.

Lehman says Wingecarribee raised queries about the council's first
investment "which suggested an understanding on the council's part
that investment in CDOs had not in fact been authorized" despite
the signed investment agreement.

It says Mr. Calderwood gave a detailed explanation of the nature
of CDOs to Mr. Neville and how they differed from floating rate
notes.

"Following that presentation, Wingecarribee confirmed that such
investments were authorized," the submission said.

Later in the year, the problems in the US housing market became
apparent and the council became concerned about the impact of the
sub prime crisis on its investments.

Mr. Neville says he and the council were shocked when told by
Grange at a meeting in August 2007 that they could lose some of
their capital on a product which was exposed to the crisis and
that the investment would not mature until 2047.

He said the council was previously advised the investment would
mature in 2010.

"After all these reassurances we had been given, we were now being
told we could lose our capital," he told the court.

Lehman said that Wingecarribee lost money on the investment
because it sold the product at the wrong time.

"Wingecarribee suffered loss only because of its own decision, for
which it has not provided any justification, to sell at the bottom
of the market in late 2007," the submission said.

At a meeting in September 2007, Mr. Neville said the council was
told that the Grange employees who bought the investments on
behalf of the council were on leave.

He said the council was also told by Grange that "capital is not
guaranteed on any investment".

Questioned by the barrister for the councils, Tony Meagher SC,
Mr. Neville said the council would never have bought the
investments had they known that was the case.

"We wouldn't have engaged Grange.  I would have recommended
keeping our investments in term deposits and bank bills,"
Mr. Neville told the court.

Mr. Neville was set to be cross examined by Lehman on March 7.

In a statement, Lehman's liquidator, Steve Parbery from PPB
Advisory, says it is difficult to assess whether Lehman has any
liability.

He says the case will provide legal clarity in regards to the
distribution of Lehman's assets.


MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International Inc. is awaiting a court ruling on the
recommendation to deny a motion filed by investors to amend their
complaint against the Company, according to McDermott
International's March 3, 2011, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On November 17, 2008, December 5, 2008 and January 20, 2009, three
separate alleged purchasers of the Company's common stock during
the period from February 27, 2008 through November 5, 2008 filed
purported class action complaints against MII, Bruce Wilkinson
(MII's former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board),
and Michael S. Taff (MII's former Chief Financial Officer) in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  Each of the complaints alleges that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by disseminating materially false and
misleading information and/or concealing material adverse
information relating to the operational and financial status of
three ongoing construction contracts for the installation of
pipelines off the coast of Qatar.  Each complaint sought relief,
including unspecified compensatory damages and an award for costs
and expenses.  The three cases were consolidated and transferred
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas.  In May 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, which, among other things, added Robert A. Deason
(JRMSA's former President and Chief Executive Officer) as a
defendant in the proceedings.  In July 2009, MII and the other
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was
referred to a Magistrate Judge.  In February 2010, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Memorandum and Recommendation on the motion,
finding that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for relief
under the securities laws and therefore recommended to the
District Court that the motion to dismiss be granted.  On March
26, 2010, the Court issued an order adopting the Magistrate
Judge's recommendations in full and dismissing the case.  However,
the order granted the plaintiffs leave to request to amend their
complaint and, on April 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion
with the District Court for leave to amend the complaint.  The
defendants filed their opposition to the plaintiffs' motion in May
2010, and in December 2010 the Magistrate Judge issued a
Memorandum and Recommendation that plaintiffs' motion to amend be
denied and that the case be finally dismissed.  In January 2011,
the plaintiffs filed their objections to the Memorandum and
Recommendation, and the defendants filed their response to those
objections.  Oral argument was held before the District Court on
February 15, 2011, and the Company awaits the District Court
decision.  The Company cannot reasonably estimate the extent of a
potential adverse judgment, if any.  The Company continues to
believe the substantive allegations contained in the amended
complaint are without merit, and it intends to continue defending
against these claims vigorously.


MELA SCIENCES: Three Securities Class Suits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------
Three purported securities class action lawsuits filed against
Mela Sciences, Inc., were consolidated into one action on
February 15, 2011, according to the Company's March 3, 2011 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

On November 19, 2010, a purported securities class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, naming as defendants the Company and certain
of its officers and directors, entitled Randall J. Pederson,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
MELA Sciences, Inc., Joseph V. Gulfo, Richard I. Steinhart, and
Breaux Castleman, No. 7:10-cv-08774-JFM. Two similar complaints
were also filed, one on December 2, 2010 and the other on
January 20, 2011, in the same District Court, entitled Amy
Steigman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MELA Sciences, Inc., Joseph V. Gulfo, Richard I.
Steinhart, and Breaux Castleman, No. 7:10-cv-09024-JFM; and Martin
Slove and Linda Slove, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. MELA Sciences, Inc., Joseph V. Gulfo,
Richard I. Steinhart, and Breaux Castleman, No. 1:11-cv-00429-JFM.
These three securities class actions were consolidated into one
action on February 15, 2011, entitled In re MELA Sciences, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 10-Civ-8774-JFM.  The securities class
action plaintiffs assert violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, alleging, among other things, that defendants made
misstatements and omissions regarding the Company's product,
MelaFind(R), on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company's
common stock during the period from February 13, 2009 through
November 16, 2010, and seek unspecified damages.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and it
intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits; however, as
with any litigation, the Company cannot predict with certainty the
eventual outcome of this litigation. Furthermore, the Company
expects to incur expenses, some of which may not be covered by its
insurance, in defending these lawsuits. An adverse outcome could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and its
business could be materially harmed.

MELA Sciences, Inc. is a medical technology company focused on
developing MelaFind(R), a non-invasive and objective computer
vision system intended to aid in the detection of early melanoma.
MELA Sciences designed MelaFind(R) to assist in the evaluation of
pigmented skin lesions, including atypical moles, which have one
or more clinical or historical characteristics of melanoma, before
a final decision to biopsy has been rendered. MelaFind(R) acquires
and displays multi-spectral (from blue to near infrared) digital
images of pigmented skin lesions and uses automatic image analysis
and statistical pattern recognition to help identify lesions to be
considered for biopsy to rule out melanoma. Melanoma is the
deadliest of all skin cancers. However, early detection of skin
cancers like melanoma can lead to virtually a 100% cure rate. By
increasing the accuracy and reducing the invasiveness of early
screening, MELA Sciences hopes to help improve early screening
rates, reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies and help save
lives.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Super Bowl Fans Have 60 Days to Settle
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Mosier, writing for Super Bowl XLV News, reports that ticket
holders whose seats weren't completed for Super Bowl XLV will have
at least 60 more days to decide whether to settle or sue.

A federal judge ruled on Feb. 28 that the NFL's March 1 deadline
about whether to accept the league's offers should be extended.

The offers range from a refund of triple the face value of the
tickets to hotel, airfare and admission to a future Super Bowl.

"This is a big win for the fans," said attorney Michael Avenatti,
who is representing some ticket holders.  "The NFL's offers do not
begin to approach what fans are rightfully entitled to under Texas
law."

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn also provided for
"limited additional information to be provided to putative class
members" in the federal class action lawsuit.  Mr. Avenatti, a
partner at Eagan Avenatti, said this requires the league to
provide the attorneys' contact information to the ticket holders.

The judge also ruled against a motion by Mr. Avenatti claiming
that the NFL was trying to "coerce unnamed class members to waive
their claims without knowing their full legal rights and
remedies."  However Mr. Avenatti said the judge did tell the NFL
to limit some of its communications with those ticket holders.


NELNET INC: Motion to Dismiss "Bais Yaakov" Suit Pending in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a purported class action captioned Bais Yaakov
of Spring Valley v. Peterson's Nelnet, LLC, is pending in New
Jersey, according to Nelnet, Inc.'s March 3, 2011 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

On January 5, 2011, Peterson's, a subsidiary of the Company, was
served with a Summons and First Amended Complaint which had been
filed on January 4, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  The First Amended Complaint alleged that
Peterson's had sent to the Plaintiff in 2008 and 2009 six
facsimiles advertising products or services offered by Peterson's,
that such facsimiles were not sent as the result of express
invitation or permission granted by the plaintiff, and that
Peterson's had failed to include certain opt out language in those
facsimile transmissions.  The First Amended Complaint alleged that
such acts violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
purportedly entitling the plaintiff to $500 per violation, trebled
for willful violations for each of the six faxes.  The Plaintiff
further included allegations that Peterson's had sent putative
class members more than 10,000 faxes that violated the TCPA,
amounting to more than $5.0 million in statutory penalty damages
and more than $15.0 million if trebled for willful violations.
The Plaintiff included allegations in the First Amended Complaint
seeking to establish a class action for two different classes of
plaintiffs: Class A, to whom Peterson's sent unsolicited facsimile
advertisements containing opt out notices similar to those
contained in the faxes received by the Plaintiff; and Class B, to
whom Peterson's sent facsimile advertisements containing opt out
notices similar to those contained in the faxes received by the
Plaintiff.  No class has yet been established or recognized by the
court.

Peterson's filed a Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint on February 16, 2011.  The Plaintiff has not yet
responded to that Motion to Dismiss and no oral argument has been
held on that motion.

The Company believes that Peterson's has strong defenses to the
complaint in this action and Peterson's intends to contest the
suit vigorously.  Due to the uncertainty, costs, and risks
inherent in the litigation process, the Company cannot predict the
ultimate outcome or resolution.


OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Stipulates to Dismissal of N.Y. Suit Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. has entered into a stipulation
dismissing an appeal of a court ruling in a consolidated class
action lawsuit filed against Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., a principal
subsidiary of Oppenheimer Holdings, according to the Company's
March 2, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On April 11, 2008, Oppenheimer and a number of its affiliates was
named as a defendant in a proposed class action complaint
captioned Bette M. Grossman v. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. et. al in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that Oppenheimer
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as
well as other provisions of the Federal securities laws) by making
material misstatements and omissions and engaging in deceptive
activities in the offer and sale of auction rate securities (ARS).

Oppenheimer filed an answer to the complaint denying the
allegations.  Oppenheimer believes it has meritorious defenses to
the claims raised in the lawsuit.  On February 20, 2009, this
action was consolidated with the Vining action.

                          Vining Action

On May 12, 2008, Oppenheimer and a number of its affiliates was
named as a defendant in a proposed class action complaint
captioned David T. Vining v. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. et. al. in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that Oppenheimer
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as
well as other provisions of the Federal securities laws) by making
material misstatements and omissions and engaging in deceptive
activities in the offer and sale of ARS.  Oppenheimer filed an
answer to the complaint denying the allegations.  Oppenheimer
believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims raised in the
lawsuit.  On February 20, 2009, the Grossman action was
consolidated with this action.  The complaint requests relief in
the form of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at
trial as well as costs and expenses.  On September 10, 2009,
Oppenheimer filed a motion to dismiss this consolidated action.
On September 27, 2010, Oppenheimer's motion to dismiss was granted
without prejudice.  Plaintiff filed an appeal of this dismissal
with the United States Circuit Court for the Second Circuit on
October 28, 2010.  On January 26, 2011, Plaintiff and Oppenheimer
stipulated to a dismissal of the appeal with prejudice.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces TCPA Class Action in Georgia
------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports that a Class Action lawsuit has
been filed against Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc.
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on behalf of all persons in the State of Georgia who,
since Oct. 28, 2010, received a non-emergency telephone call from
PRA to a cellular telephone through the use of an automatic
telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice and
who did not provide prior express consent for such calls during
the transaction that resulted in the debt owed.  The action is
captioned Kimberly Bartlett v. Portfolio Recovery Associates,
Inc., and is numbered 11-CV-00624.

According to the Complaint, PRA violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by using automatic dialing systems or an artificial
or prerecorded voice to contact cell phone users about purported
debts without their prior consent.  As described in the Complaint,
Ms. Bartlett, the named plaintiff in the action, was repeatedly
contacted since Oct. 28, 2010 on her cell phone about a purported
credit card debt.  The Complaint avers that Plaintiff never
consented to those calls, nor did she provide PRA with her
telephone number.

Under the TCPA, PRA could be ordered to pay attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses and costs of the lawsuit, and statutory
damages of $500 for each negligent violation, and/or $1,500 for
each knowing and/or willing violation. According to the Complaint,
the potential Class Members are estimated to number in the tens of
thousands.


POSTROCK ENERGY: Settlement of Securities Suit Becomes Final
------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
against PostRock Energy Corporation's predecessors has become
final, according to the Company's March 3, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

Four class action complaints were filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma naming Quest
Resource Corporation, Quest Energy Partners L.P. and Quest Energy
GP LLC, the general partner of the predecessor of QELP, and
certain of their then current and former officers and directors as
defendants.  The complaints were filed by certain stockholders on
behalf of themselves and other stockholders who purchased QRCP
common stock between May 2, 2005, and August 25, 2008, and QELP
common units between November 7, 2007, and August 25, 2008.  The
complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.  The complaints allege that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading
statements and/or concealing material facts concerning certain
unauthorized transfers of funds from subsidiaries of QRCP to
entities controlled by QRCP's former chief executive officer, Mr.
Jerry D. Cash.  The complaints also allege that, as a result of
these actions, QRCP's stock price and the unit price of QELP were
artificially inflated during the class period.

On December 29, 2008, the Court consolidated these complaints.  On
July 9, 2010, a stipulation of settlement was filed in the
consolidated federal action.  On August 13, 2010, the Court
entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement.  On
November 29, 2010, the Court approved the settlement and issued
its Order and Final Judgment dismissing with prejudice all the
federal individual and class securities actions as well as the
federal derivative actions.  The settlement, however, did not
become effective until the consolidated state court derivative
cases were dismissed.  Those derivative cases were dismissed on
January 26, 2011, and the settlement became final as of that date.
PostRock Energy contributed $1.0 million to the settlement of the
lawsuits and agreed to pay approximately $400,000 representing a
portion of associated defense costs of certain individual
defendants.  These amounts have been substantially paid as of
December 31, 2010.

PostRock Energy Corporation is a Delaware corporation formed in
2009 to combine its predecessor entities, Quest Resource
Corporation, Quest Energy Partners, L.P. and Quest Midstream
Partners, L.P., into a single company. In March 2010, the Company
completed the combination of these entities.


POSTROCK ENERGY: Talks to Settle Class Suit in Kansas Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
PostRock Energy Corporation and a group of royalty owners are in
talks to settle a class action lawsuit filed against the Company
in Kansas, according to the Company's March 3, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit filed by several royalty owners in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas.  The putative class consists of all
royalty and overriding royalty owners in the Kansas portion of the
Cherokee Basin.  Plaintiffs contend that the Company failed to
properly make royalty payments by, among other things, paying
royalties based on sale volumes rather than wellhead volumes, by
allocating expenses in excess of actual costs, by improperly
allocating production costs and marketing costs to royalty owners,
and by failing to pay interest on royalty payments made late.  The
Company has filed an answer, denying plaintiffs' claims.

The parties have participated in multiple mediation sessions with
the most recent in January 2011, and continue to engage in
settlement discussions.  The parties have agreed to a period of
limited discovery with another mediation to occur thereafter. If
the matter cannot be resolved at that time, the case will proceed
with general discovery, a class certification hearing, and a trial
on the merits.  The Company has recorded an accrual of $1.0
million related to this case.

PostRock Energy Corporation is a Delaware corporation formed in
2009 to combine its predecessor entities, Quest Resource
Corporation, Quest Energy Partners, L.P. and Quest Midstream
Partners, L.P., into a single company. In March 2010, the Company
completed the combination of these entities.


QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Firearm Dealers to File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hall, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that firearm
dealers are ready to fire a class action at the State Government
over income lost because of the failure of a new online permit
application system.

Many of the state's 150 dealers are facing ruin because of ongoing
problems with a $6 million computer system introduced last
November to "streamline" processing.

The Queensland Police Service implemented the Weapons Licensing
Management System, saying it would save $7.5 million over five
years in staff efficiencies.

However, the QPS has had to bring in 20 additional employees to
help process thousands of outstanding permit-to-acquire
applications from already-licensed shooters.

Weapons Licensing has revealed the current backlog is 4400
applications 400 more than when The Courier-Mail first reported
the issue on Feb. 7.

Dealers say their income has dropped by up to 80%, as only a
trickle of approvals are coming through, preventing them from
being paid by customers.

"This has seen staff lay-offs and some dealers going to the wall.
There is no doubt many won't be here in a few months if the
situation continues," Firearm Dealers Association of Queensland
president Robert Nioa said.

Mr. Nioa, also the national president, said Queensland was the
only state with this problem and in other states the process took
one day to complete.

"Dealers can't sell their firearms and they have also lost out on
being able to sell accessories.  The estimated damage to the
industry is well into the millions and climbing," he said.

Mr. Nioa said there was "a big call" for a class action to recover
lost profits and compensate businesses set to close.

He said this would be on the agenda at a special meeting in
Brisbane on March 21 to be attended by dealers from throughout
Queensland.

Some of the larger dealers now have 900 customers waiting for
permits and up to $1 million tied up.

The QPS said the problems had been largely caused by the need to
"temporarily suspend data processing for a period of time" during
the system change.

"The QPS is unable to provide a definitive deadline, as the time
taken to process applications for PTA is dependant on a number of
factors, including the number of new PTA applications received
each week, the complexity of the applications and the completeness
of the supporting information," a spokeswoman said.

Shooters Union of Queensland president Graham Park said shooters
were angry because they could not get approvals.

Mr. Park said shooters had been told at a meeting with police that
the situation might not be resolved for at least four months.

"Like the Queensland Health payroll bungle, the computer system
introduced to handle firearm permits has turned into an omelette,"
he said.


REX ENERGY: Continues to Defend "Snyder" Case in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rex Energy Corporation continues to defend itself against a
lawsuit related to proposed oil and gas leases in Westmoreland and
Clearfield Counties, Pennsylvania, according to the Company's
March 3, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In July 2009, the Company was named as defendants in a proposed
class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.  The named plaintiffs are five
individuals who have sued on behalf of themselves and all persons
who are alleged to be similarly situated.  The complaint in the
Snyder Case generally asserts that a binding contract to lease oil
and gas property was formed between the Company and each proposed
class member when representatives of Duncan Land & Energy, Inc., a
leasing agent that the Company engaged, presented a form of
proposed oil and gas lease to each person, and each person signed
the proposed oil and gas lease form and delivered the executed
proposed lease to representatives of Duncan Land.  The Company
rejected these leases and never signed them.  The plaintiffs seek
a judgment declaring the rights of the parties with respect to
those proposed leases, as well as damages and other relief as may
be established by plaintiffs at trial, together with interest,
costs, expenses and attorneys' fees.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the
plaintiffs' attempts to certify the proposed class and to
vigorously defend against all of the claims that have been
asserted in this lawsuit.  Because this lawsuit is still in the
early stages of discovery, the Company is currently unable to
express an opinion with respect to the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome.   The Company rejected proposed oil and gas
leases that potentially could be certified in the class covering
approximately 7,362 acres and a potential obligation for payment
of prepaid rentals or bonuses totaling approximately $17.7
million.  The Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of
any potential losses that might be associated with other aspects
of the plaintiffs' breach of contract claims in the Snyder Case,
or with respect to the plaintiffs' tort claims in the event of an
unfavorable outcome.


SKYSERVICE AIRLINES: Ontario Court OKs Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos P. Martins at Bersenas Jacobsen Chouest Thomson Blackburn
LLP disclosed that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently
approved the settlement of a class action lawsuit against the now
defunct Skyservice Airlines.  While the decision of Justice Perell
does not mark a change in the factors that a court must consider
when evaluating such a settlement, it does provide a good summary
of the issues that are at play.

The claim emanated from a flight from Toronto to Punta Cana,
Dominican Republic on May 22, 2005.  On landing at Punta Cana, the
Skyservice B767 violently landed nose first and bounced off the
runway several times before coming to a stop.  The aircraft
sustained major structural damage and the g-forces resulting from
this very hard landing subjected all of the passengers to violent
whiplash motions.

A class action lawsuit was commenced defining two classes of
plaintiff:

    * passengers on the flight; and

    * non-passenger family members who were able to claim under
      the Family Law Act (Ontario) for loss of care, guidance and
      companionship of those members in the first class.

The certification motion was originally scheduled for February
2006, but was adjourned to allow for two rounds of settlement
discussions.  The motion was further delayed by the fact that
Skyservice went into receivership in April 2010.

The classes were finally certified in November 2010, but by then
the certification was on consent, in order to facilitate
settlement of the claim.

The proposed terms of the settlement were that Skyservice would:

    * pay bodily injury damages (to be agreed or determined
      pursuant to a court-monitored claims/arbitration process
      described in the settlement agreement);

    * pay Family Law Act damages to class members (from a
      preliminary settlement fund of C$600,000);

    * reimburse the provincial public healthcare provider (Ontario
      Health Insurance) for costs associated with the medical care
      the injured passengers; and

    * pay pre-judgment interest.

A fee of C$200,000 was proposed for class counsel.  In addition,
Skyservice agreed to pay an additional "10% of the total damages
obtained for Class Members who are successful in claiming for
bodily injury under the terms and conditions of the settlement".

The court approved the settlement.  In doing so, it made reference
to Dabbs v Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, where the court
set out the following criteria to be used when assessing the
suitability of a class action settlement:

    * the likelihood of recovery or likelihood of success;

    * the amount and nature of discovery, evidence or
      investigation;

    * settlement terms and conditions;

    * recommendations and experience of counsel;

    * future expenses and likely duration of litigation and risk;

    * recommendations of neutral parties;

    * the number of objectors, if any, and the nature of the
      objections;

    * the presence of good-faith, arm's-length bargaining and the
      absence of collusion;

    * the degree and nature of communications of counsel and the
      representative parties with class members during the
      litigation; and

    * information conveying to the court the dynamics of and
      positions taken by the parties during the negotiation.

Having regard to these factors, the court concluded that the
settlement was "fair and reasonable" and "in the best interests of
the class members".  On this point, the court noted that "the
settlement in this case represents an excellent result for the
Class Members".

The court also approved the counsel fee, having regard to the
factors set out in Smith v National Money Mart, which are as
follows:

    * the factual and legal complexities of the case;

    * the risk undertaken, including the risk that the matter
      might not be certified;

    * the degree of responsibility assumed by class counsel;

    * the monetary value of the matters in issue;

    * the importance of the matter to the class;

    * the degree of skill and competence demonstrated by class
      counsel;

    * the results achieved;

    * the ability of the class to pay;

    * the expectations of the class as to the amount of the fees;
      and

    * the opportunity cost to class counsel in the expenditure of
      time in pursuit of the litigation and settlement.

For further information on this topic please contact Carlos P
Martins at Bersenas Jacobsen Chouest Thomson Blackburn LLP by
telephone (+1 416 982 3800), fax (+1 416 982 3801) or email at
cmartins@lexcanada.com


STAHLBUSH ISLAND: Settles Overtime Pay Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Bennett Hall, writing for Gazette-Times, reports that Stahlbush
Island Farms has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit demanding
overtime pay for workers in its food processing operation.

The settlement covers more than 100 current and former employees
of the Corvallis-area company.  It was agreed to in principle
Wednesday after a mediation session.

"We are still negotiating some of the finer points," said attorney
Steve Larson, Esq. -- slarson@stollberne.com -- of Stoll, Stoll,
Berne, Lokting & Schlachter, the Portland law firm representing
the plaintiffs.  The suit was filed last March in U.S. District
Court in Eugene.

The final agreement still must be approved by Chief Judge Ann
Aiken before settlement notices can be sent to the members of the
class action.  Mr. Larson estimated that process could take about
90 days.

Included in the settlement are current and former employees who
worked in the Stahlbush Island Farms food processing operation
between March 10, 2008, and March 10, 2010.  In addition to people
working on the production line, the deal also covers office
workers and truck drivers engaged in the processing side of the
business.

Mr. Larson said the full value of the settlement has yet to be
calculated, but workers covered by the deal would receive all
unpaid overtime wages from that two-year period, plus penalties
and interest.

Individual amounts will vary based on how the employees' time was
divided between farming and food processing, Mr. Larson said, but
"it's going to be significant dollars to those people."

Some Stahlbush employees opted out of the lawsuit, accepting up to
two years' back overtime plus 9 percent interest directly from the
company in exchange for waiving any additional claims.

The company, owned by Bill and Karla Chambers, grows a variety of
row crops on about 5,000 acres around the Willamette Valley.  It
also makes a line of frozen and pureed fruits and vegetables,
including some made from produce grown by other farmers.

At the core of the lawsuit was the question of whether Stahlbush
Island Farms should be covered by an agricultural exemption to
state and federal overtime rules.  It wasn't immediately clear
whether the suit would serve as a precedent for future labor law
cases because it ended in a negotiated settlement rather than a
judicial decision.

"The good news is that it's settled," Karla Chambers said on
March 3.  "The bad news is that there's no further clarity" for
businesses such as hers.

Ms. Chambers wouldn't say how many workers the company employs,
but she said about two-thirds are involved in farming and one-
third in food processing.  Farm operations are exempt from
overtime rules, she said, and farm-based food processors are, too,
as long as they are processing only their own crops.

Overtime requirements kick in when processors start handling
produce from other growers.  Because Stahlbush handles a
constantly-changing mix of its own and other farms' produce,
keeping hours separate in workers' time records was unmanageable,
she said.

"When we know what the standard is, we do really well,"
Ms. Chambers said.  "We try really hard to be in compliance."

Early last year the company implemented new overtime rules for
everyone working in its food-processing plant, Ms. Chambers said,
and now keeps its food processing and farm labor pools separate.


STERIS CORP: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
On March 3, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio granted preliminary approval to a
proposed settlement reached in a class action lawsuit filed by
Chimicles & Tikellis LLP against STERIS Corporation.  The lawsuit
is related to STERIS' marketing and sale of the STERIS SYSTEM 1(R)
Sterile Processor, a tabletop liquid chemical system that provides
rapid, low-temperature processing of surgical instruments such as
endoscopes and bronchoscopes.

Sterilization systems like the SS1 Device must be cleared by the
FDA before they can be sold to healthcare providers.  The FDA
cleared the SS1 in 1988.  The lawsuit filed by C&T alleges that
STERIS made several material changes to the SS1 Device after 1988
without obtaining the necessary clearance from the FDA, and that
as a result, the FDA informed healthcare providers that use of the
SS1 Device "should be discontinued as soon as practicable," but no
later than Aug. 2, 2011.  STERIS subsequently entered into a
consent decree with the FDA to implement a transition plan whereby
healthcare providers could return their SS1 Devices to STERIS in
exchange for a rebate.  There are no allegations in this case that
the SS1 Devices create a safety hazard, nor that anyone has been
harmed as a result of using the SS1 Devices.

The proposed settlement of the class action lawsuit is on behalf
of all domestic healthcare providers that own or owned a SS1
Device that was (a) purchased before Jan. 1, 2009, and (b) in use
on Dec. 1, 2009.  SS1 Devices purchased after January 1, 2009 are
not part of this proposed settlement because they are already
eligible for a full refund from STERIS under the Rebate Program.
In December 2009, STERIS prepared a list of SS1 Devices then in
use -- the "Transition List."  All eligible healthcare providers
on the Transition List will be sent notice of the settlement.  The
settlement applies to approximately 20,000 SS1 Devices owned by
approximately 6,600 customers.   Based on the number of Eligible
SS1 Devices and settlement options made available to each, C&T
estimates that the settlement provides approximately $20 million
of benefits to the class.

The benefits that class members can elect to receive differs
depending on whether they are members of Sub-Class A, Sub-Class B,
or Sub-Class C:

Sub-Class

A

Description

Class Members that (a) purchased or elect to purchase SYSTEM
1E(TM) Device from STERIS on or before December 31, 2012, and (b)
either (i) still have the Eligible SS1 Device(s) or (ii) returned
the Eligible SS1 Device(s) to STERIS in the Rebate Program.  The
SS1E is STERIS' next generation liquid chemical sterilant
processing system.

Settlement Consideration

Will receive SS1E Credits in the amount of $1,000.00 per Eligible
SS1 Device, which can be applied towards the purchase of any SS1E
Accessories, Parts Or Consumables; SS1E credits can be combined,
and must be claimed by December 31, 2012.

Sub-Class

B

Description

Class Members that (a) do not elect to purchase an SS1E Device and
(b) either (i) still have the Eligible SS1 Device(s) or (ii)
returned the Eligible SS1 Device(s) to STERIS in the Rebate
Program.

Settlement Consideration

Will, for each Eligible SS1 Device, have the option to receive
either (a) $500 in STERIS Product Credits, or (b) $300.00 in cash.
STERIS Product Credits may be redeemed for any STERIS product(s)
other than an SS1E Device, service, or service contracts.
STERIS Product Credits can be combined and must be claimed by
December 31, 2012.

Sub-Class

C

Description

Class Members that, for any reason other than because the Eligible
SS1 Device was returned to STERIS in the Rebate Program, no longer
have the Eligible SS1 Device.

Settlement Consideration

Will be entitled to receive a $200.00 cash payment from STERIS for
each Eligible SS1 Device.

In order to receive this settlement consideration, the Court must
grant final approval of this settlement and all Class Members
(except for those in Sub-Class C) will be required to return their
Eligible SS1 Units to STERIS.  Class Members will also be required
to return to STERIS all open or used SS1 quick connects, parts,
trays, containers, filters, sterility assurance products, S20
sterilant, and other parts, accessories, or consumables for their
SS1 Devices that are in the Class Member's possession.  If Class
Members have already disposed of these open or used items, they
will be given the option to sign a certification confirming that
these items have been disposed of and are no longer useable.

Class members will be mailed a claim form within ten days after
the Court grants final approval to the settlement.  The Court will
hold a hearing to decide whether to grant final approval to the
settlement on June 6, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.  Class members will then
have until Dec 31, 2012 to return their claim form to the address
listed on the claim form.

For additional information about the settlement, you may contact
the attorneys below, or visit the settlement Web site, which will
be activated shortly:  http://www.sterilizersettlement.com/

Attorneys to Contact:

          Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: 610-642-8500
          E-mail: nick@chimicles.com
                  josephsauder@chimicles.com
                  bfj@chimicles.com
          Web site: http://www.chimicles.com/


STREAM GLOBAL: Still Defends Sirius XM Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stream Global Services, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit in California, wherein the Company was named
as a third-party defendant, according to the Company's March 2,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company has been named as a third-party defendant in a
putative class action captioned Kambiz Batmanghelich, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the
general public, v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., filed in the Los Angeles
County Superior Court on November 10, 2009, and removed to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  The Plaintiff alleges that Sirius XM Radio, Inc.
recorded telephone conversations between Plaintiff and members of
the proposed class of Sirius customers, on the one hand, and
Sirius and its employees, on the other, without the Plaintiff's
and class members' consent in violation of California's telephone
recording laws.  The Plaintiff also alleges negligence and
violation of the common law right of privacy, and seeks injunctive
relief.  On December 21, 2009, Sirius XM Radio, Inc. filed a
Third-Party Complaint in the action against the Company seeking
indemnification for any defense costs and damages that result from
the putative class action.  On March 25, 2010, the Plaintiff filed
an amended complaint that added the Company as a defendant.  The
Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these claims,
but there can be no assurance at this time as to the outcome of
this lawsuit.


TOMOTHERAPY INC: Final Okay of Settlement Expected in 1st Half
--------------------------------------------------------------
TomoTherapy Incorporated expects final court approval of a
settlement in a purported securities class action to occur in the
first half of 2011, according to the Company's March 3, 2011 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

On May 30, 2008, and June 10, 2008, two separate complaints were
filed by certain of the Company's shareholders in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against the
Company and certain of its officers and all of its independent
directors during the period in question.  The complaints were
consolidated on October 23, 2008.  In the consolidated action, the
plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Securities Act
with respect to statements made in connection with the initial and
secondary public offerings of the Company's common stock and the
Exchange Act by misrepresenting its projected financial outlook
during the period May 9, 2007 through April 17, 2008.  The named
plaintiffs, Michael Schultz, John Scala, et al., seek to represent
persons who purchased the Company's securities between those dates
and who were damaged as a result of the decline in the price of
the Company's stock between those dates, allegedly attributable to
the financial misrepresentations, and seek compensatory damages in
an unspecified amount.

The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
December 8, 2008.  On July 9, 2009, the Court ruled on the motion
to dismiss the consolidated complaint by dismissing without
prejudice all claims under the Exchange Act and all but one claim
under the Securities Act for failure to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted.  On August 3, 2009, the plaintiffs
amended the consolidated complaint by filing their Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint.  The Company moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint on September 3, 2009, and on December 15, 2009, the
Court granted this second motion to dismiss in part and denied it
in part.  The plaintiffs have moved for class certification.

However, on July 28, 2010, the Company entered into an agreement
to settle the 2008 Securities Litigation.  Under the proposed
settlement, the claims against the Company and its officers and
directors stated in the Amended Complaint would be dismissed with
prejudice and released in exchange for a cash payment of $5.0
million to be funded by the Company's insurance carrier.  The
proposed settlement remains subject to the satisfaction of various
conditions, including negotiation and execution of a final
stipulation of settlement and approval by the Court following
notice to members of the purported class.  On September 20, 2010,
the Court preliminarily approved the terms for distribution of the
settlement fund, which has been placed in escrow, to purported
class members, less fees awarded by the Court to class counsel,
and other terms of the settlement.  Class members were notified
and given until January 18, 2011 to opt out of the class or file
claims.  Final court approval of the settlement is expected to
occur in the first half of 2011.

The Company continues to believe that it has substantial legal and
factual defenses to the allegations contained in the Amended
Complaint, and the Company intends to pursue these defenses
vigorously if the proposed settlement is not finalized and
approved by the Court.  If the settlement is not finalized and the
2008 Securities Litigation instead continues, although the Company
carries insurance for these types of claims and related defense
costs, a judgment significantly in excess of its insurance
coverage could materially and adversely affect its financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows.  As of
December 31, 2010, the Company estimated that its potential loss
from these claims and related defense costs will not exceed its
insurance deductible of $0.5 million, whether or not the proposed
settlement is finalized and approved by the Court.


TRIBUNE CO: Judge Okays Tribune ESOP Trustee Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Julie Johnsson, writing for Chicago Breaking Business, reports
that Tribune Co. employees at the time of company's 2007 leveraged
buy-out are eligible to join a class action lawsuit against the
ESOP trustee that represented their interests in the takeover by
billionaire Sam Zell, a federal judge ruled on March 4.

Any Tribune Co. employee or beneficiary who received or were
entitled to an allocation to their employee stock ownership plans
(ESOP) stock or ESOP cash accounts are now automatically members
of the class suing Lisle-based GreatBanc Trust Co. for failing to
fulfill its fiduciary responsibility in the deal, said Daniel
Feinberg, an attorney representing the employees and other
plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer's ruling is the second set-
back in less than a week for GreatBanc, the remaining defendant
with significant liability in a 2008 lawsuit brought by Dan Neil
and other Los Angeles Times staffers against the architects of the
ill-fated going-private transaction.

On Feb. 28, Judge Pallmeyer refused to cap damages against
GreatBanc for purchasing $250 million in unregistered shares from
Tribune Co. rather than buying Tribune stock on the open market in
the first stage of the $8-billion deal that bankrupted the media
conglomerate.  Chicago-based Tribune Co.'s holdings include the
Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times.

Judge Pallmeyer ruled in November 2010 that GreatBanc violated its
fiduciary duty by purchasing shares that couldn't readily be
traded, which is a prohibited transaction under the federal law
governing ESOPs.

GreatBanc had sought to limit its liability to either the $2.8
million cash principal payment made on the loan that funded the
stock purchase before Tribune filed for bankruptcy in 2008, or,
alternatively, the $15.3 million principal and interest paid at
that time.

The plaintiffs contend that about 11,000 current and former
Tribune employees were harmed by the transaction and are eligible
to collect damages.  The class is limited to Tribune ESOP
participants who received an allocation of Tribune stock and were
employed on Dec. 31, 2008, Feinberg said.

Judge Pallmeyer indicated that she may be willing to narrow the
class, dropping about 4,000 workers who were laid off or took
buy-outs and signed waivers to ERISA litigation as part of their
severance packages.

Federal authorities are also taking a closer look at the stock
transfer at the heart of billionaire Sam Zell's disastrous
leveraged buyout of Tribune Co.  The U.S. Labor Department is
investigating Tribune Co.'s employee stock ownership plan, as well
as GreatBanc, hired by Tribune Co. to serve as plan trustee and
represent employee interests in the $8 billion deal, according to
Tribune Co. bankruptcy filings.

The civil lawsuit brought by Neil has been trimmed down, and
Tribune Co., and most of its officials have been dropped as
defendants.  Judge Pallmeyer ruled earlier that Tribune Chairman
Zell wouldn't face damages since he didn't control the company in
2007 when the transactions occurred.


US RETAILERS: Sued for Asking Customers' Zip Codes
--------------------------------------------------
Dennis Rockstroh, writing for San Jose Mercury News, reports that
the attorney who won a California Supreme Court decision last
month forbidding retailers from asking for ZIP codes from
customers filed suit against 21 large national retailers on
March 4 for violating the law.

The suit names such businesses as Big 5 Sporting Goods, Bed Bath &
Beyond, JC Penney, Kohl's, Office Depot and Walmart.

Folsom attorney Gene J. Stonebarger was the lead counsel for the
plaintiff in the Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. case, in
which the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in
favor of the plaintiff, ruling that requesting and recording a
cardholder's ZIP code violates the California Credit Card Act.

The ruling reversed the decisions of two lower courts.

The Supreme Court found that the overriding purpose of the act was
to protect the privacy rights of consumers who pay for
transactions with credit cards.

Mr. Stonebarger also has class-action lawsuits pending against
such mall fixtures as Best Buy, Brookstone, Home Depot, Macy's,
Nordstrom, Old Navy, Restoration Hardware and Ross Dress for Less.

He has also filed suit against Michael's, Ikea, K-Mart, Lowe's,
Cost Plus, Ascena, Burlington Coat Factory, Destination Maternity,
Crate & Barrel, Cole Hahn, OfficeMax and The Container Store.

Also among the host of defendants in the lawsuit filed Friday
morning in San Francisco County Superior Court are The Pep Boys,
Pier 1 Imports, Avenue, Sephora, T.J. Maxx, Marshalls, Urban
Outfitters, Anthropologie, Coach, Lacoste, Lamps Plus, Maidenform
Brands, Pottery Barn, Sur La Table and West Elm, Stonebarger said
in a news release.

Mr. Stonebarger said his firm is investigating numerous other
national retailers for violations of California's consumer privacy
protection laws.

Mr. Stonebarger is seeking civil penalties that can run as high as
$1,000 per violation.

He is also asking the court for "restitution and disgorgement of
any ill-gotten profit," a court order that the defendants stop
asking for such personal information, and to prevent the
defendants from retaining the benefits of their wrongful conduct,
for attorney fees "and for such other relief as the court may deem
proper."

California consumers who feel they have had their privacy rights
violated by retailers collecting unnecessary personal information
about them during credit card transactions can contact Stonebarger
Law at zipcode@stonebargerlaw.com


VANCOUVER: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Use of Breathalyzers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Westad, writing for Postmedia News, reports that a
class-action lawsuit challenging impaired driving penalties given
out under new drunk driving legislation was filed on March 3 in
Vancouver.

The lawsuit says that, between Sept. 20 and Nov. 19, police
officers throughout the province were negligent in their use of
the roadside breathalyzer device, which determines a driver's
blood-alcohol level.

Legislation came into effect Sept. 20 that penalizes drivers whose
blood-alcohol concentration is between .05 and .08.  The level is
determined by a roadside breathalyzer, which indicates "warn" if a
person's blood-alcohol level is between those numbers.

The lawsuit alleges that until Nov. 19 police used improperly
programmed breathalyzers to determine the reading, which resulted
in drivers being penalized when their blood-alcohol levels were
below .05, said Michael Thomas, one of the lawyers who filed the
lawsuit.

On Nov. 19, Victoria Police Chief Jamie Graham, as chairman of the
B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police traffic safety committee,
recalled 2,200 roadside breathalyzers after RCMP lab tests found a
margin of error in the devices.  The RCMP found the units could
indicate a reading over .05 when the driver was actually under it.

The units were re-set so that a "warn" reading is obtained if the
driver blows .06, recognizing the potential machine error.

"The way the legislation is drafted, the public has to rely upon
proper enforcement.  Our allegation is that that wasn't done in
this time period," Mr. Thomas said.

Police either improperly programmed the devices or failed to
detect that they weren't programmed accurately, the lawsuit
alleges.  An estimated 170 people a week faced license suspensions
during the period, with penalties ranging from $600 to $4,060.

For a driver with one "warn" reading in the past five years, the
minimum penalty is an immediate loss of license for three days, a
$200 penalty and a $250 license reinstatement fee -- and the
likely loss of one's vehicle for the three days, plus towing and
storage fees.  For those with more than one reading above the
legal limit, the penalties escalate.

In a class-action suit, one person sues on behalf of all the
people who have similarly suffered.

The lawsuit has to go to B.C. Supreme Court to be classified as a
class-action suit before proceeding.  That will likely happen
within three months, Mr. Thomas said.

He will ask for repayment of costs incurred by people who were
improperly penalized.

This week, Solicitor-General Rich Coleman said the province is
considering allowing drivers to appeal roadside penalties for
impaired driving offences.

That would make no difference to the lawsuit, Mr. Thomas said.


WASHINGTON POST: Still Defends Pension Fund Suit in D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Post Company is still defending itself from a
purported securities class action complaint filed by the Plumbers
Local #200 Pension Fund in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, according to the Company's March 2, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Jan. 2, 2011.

A purported class action complaint was filed against the Company,
Donald E. Graham and Hal S. Jones on Oct. 28, 2010, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, by the Plumbers Local
#200 Pension Fund.  The complaint alleges that the Company and
certain of its officers made materially false and misleading
statements, or failed to disclose material facts relating to
Kaplan Higher Education (KHE), in violation of the federal
securities laws.  The complaint seeks damages, attorneys' fees,
costs and equitable/injunctive relief.

Based on an initial review of this complaint, the Company believes
the complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against it.


WASHINGTON POST: Kaplan Unit Still Faces Issue on Attorney's Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan, Inc., a subsidiary of The Washington Post Company, is a
party to a previously disclosed class action antitrust lawsuit
filed on April 29, 2005, by purchasers of BAR/BRI bar review
courses from fall 1997 through July 2006, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.  The court approved
a settlement of the case on July 9, 2007, and the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the approval of the
settlement on April 23, 2009.  Though the Ninth Circuit vacated
the district court's award of attorney's fees to class counsel and
counsel to various objectors to the settlement, and remanded to
the U.S. District Court to consider the attorney's fees issue
anew, and though that issue continues to be litigated, the
attorney's fees award will be paid from the escrowed settlement
funds so Kaplan does not anticipate that it will be affected by
the ultimate determination of the attorney's fees issue according
to The Washington Post Company's March 2, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Jan. 2, 2011.


WASHINGTON POST: Kaplan Unit Awaits Court Okay of Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The stipulation of settlement to resolve a purported class action
lawsuit in relation to Kaplan, Inc.'s bar review course is still
pending court approval, according to The Washington Post Company's
March 2, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 2, 2011.

Kaplan is a subsidiary of The Washington Post Company.

On February 6, 2008, Kaplan was served with another purported
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California alleging claims substantially similar to
those alleged in the previously settled lawsuit but on behalf of a
putative class that included all persons who purchased a bar
review course from BAR/BRI in the United States after the July
2006 cut-off for class membership in the prior action. West
Publishing Corporation, which owns BAR/BRI, is a co-defendant. On
April 15, 2008, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss.
On May 20, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On October 18, 2010, the
parties entered into a stipulation and settlement agreement, which
requires court approval to become effective.  In December 2010,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the case
to the District Court to consider approval of the settlement.


WHIRLPOOL: Sued for Misrepresenting "Steam Dryers"
---------------------------------------------- ----
Courthouse News Service reports that a Los Angeles Superior Court
class action claims Whirlpool misrepresents its Maytag and
Whirlpool "steam dryers," because they use water, not steam.


* Discrimination Class Action Settlements on the Rise
-----------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Richard J. Breibart, LLC disclosed that
according to the Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report,
the value of class action employment discrimination settlements
has gone up substantially over the past year.  The report
notes that, in 2010, the value of the top ten settlements was
$346 million.  By comparison, the total value of the 10 largest
settlements in 2009 was $84.4 million.

The settlement in Velez v. Novartis Corp., a federal case from the
Southern District of New York, accounts for over half of this
years' total.  The case was originally filed in 2004 by Amy Velez
and four female coworkers who alleged they were discriminated
against on the basis of gender and pregnancy.  Last May, Novartis
was found liable and ordered to pay $3.4 million to twelve named
plaintiffs.  The jury also ordered Novartis to pay $250 million in
punitive damages to the class of female employees.

The company appealed the verdict but later agreed to a
$175 million settlement.  Of the settlement money, $152.5 million
will go directly to the class of 5,600 current and former female
employees; the other $22.5 million will be used to address
personnel policies at the company, according to a Bloomberg
report.

Employment-Related Class Action Cases to Be Decided by The Supreme
Court

This term, the United States Supreme Court will be deciding two
employment-related class action cases.  According to the Society
for Human Resource Management (SHRM), the decisions in these cases
could alter when, whether and how class actions can be brought in
the future.

Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Betty Dukes, a Wal-Mart cashier and greeter, originally filed suit
against the retailer under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which
prohibits discrimination on the basis of race or gender.  The case
evolved into a class action which, according to an Associated
Press report, could involve over one million current and former
female employees of Wal-Mart.  The suit, filed in the United
States District Court of the Northern District of California,
specifically alleged that male employees were promoted faster and
to higher positions than women.

By a narrow 6-5 margin, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
to certify the class.  Wal-Mart appealed, and in December, the
U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear arguments on the
case.

According to Forbes Magazine, one of the crucial issues in the
case surrounds Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
which governs the formation of class actions.  The Supreme Court
will be asked to decide whether a case with such a substantial
number of plaintiffs should be allowed to proceed under Rule 23
and whether the plaintiffs in the case can seek compensatory
damages.

AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion

In Concepcion, the Court will have to decide the rights of
consumers to file class actions.  In 2006, Vincent Concepcion and
his wife signed up for wireless service with AT&T.  As part of
this service, according to the lawsuit, the company promised free
cell phones.  The phones, however, were subject to tax and other
charges.

The Concepcions filed suit and AT&T subsequently asked the U.S.
District Court to dismiss the suit because the contract between
the Concepcions and AT&T banned class action lawsuits as a remedy.
The court, however, refused and held that a ban on class actions
would violate state law.  The Supreme Court heard arguments in
November and a decision is expected within the next few months.


* Kansas Bill to Curb Frivolous Consumer Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------
Steve Vockrodt, writing for Kansas City Business Journal, reports
that the Kansas Chamber of Commerce contends that a bill it
supports in the Legislature would cut down on frivolous lawsuits
against businesses, though critics argue that it debases consumer
protections for Kansans.

Senate Bill 106 proposes, among other things, to restrict civil
lawsuits on behalf of consumers unless they have suffered actual
damages. It also would require a violator of the Kansas Consumer
Protection Act to pay penalties to the state or county in which
the offense was committed, and penalties would be capped at
$10,000 a violation.


                            *********

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  * * *