CAR_Public/110413.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 13, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 73

                             Headlines

AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Faces Securities Class Action in Mass.
BC FERRIES: Faces Class Action Over Expired Tickets
BED BATH: Removes "Poligrates" Song-Beverly Suit to N.D. Calif.
BURGER KING: June 15 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Removes "Beltran" Song-Beverly Suit to ND Calif.

CHINA INTEGRATED: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
GUAM: Hospital Authority Sued Over Unpaid Retirement Benefits
IBM CORP: Faces Class Action Over Medicaid Eligibility Process
KANSAS: Judge Okays Settlement in Property Seizure Class Action
ORTHO-MCNEIL: May Face Suit Over Topamax Birth Defects

PUMA NORTH: Removes "Poligrates" Song-Beverly Suit to N.D. Calif.
SAXON MORTGAGE: Sued for Unfair Debt Collection Practices
UNION CARBIDE: Sued in W. Va. for Releasing Hazardous Substances
WASHINGTON: Faces Class Action Over Basic Health Program Cuts
WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Over Force-Placed Flood Insurance

WELLINGTON, AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over Water Quality


                             *********

AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Faces Securities Class Action in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of American
Superconductor Corporation, has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased the securities of AMSC between Nov. 2, 2010, and
April 5, 2011, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that AMSC and certain of its executive
officers misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) AMSC
was providing its primary customer -- Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd.
-- with contracted shipments in excess of its needs; (2) Sinovel
was not paying AMSC for certain contracted shipments; (3) AMSC was
continuing to provide Sinovel with contracted shipments although
Sinovel was not paying for certain prior shipments; (4) AMSC was
imroperly recognizing revenue on certain contracted shipments to
Sinovel; (5) AMSC's revenues were overstated; and (6), the Company
lacked adequate internal and financial controls.

On April 5, 2011, AMSC disclosed that on the last day of AMSC's
2010 fiscal year Sinovel refused to accept contracted shipments,
and AMSC believed Sinovel intended to reduce its level of
inventory before accepting further contracted shipments.  AMSC
also informed investors it was reviewing the appropriateness of
the timing of its revenue recognition on certain unpaid shipments
in fiscal 2010.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.  Until a
class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you
retain one.  If you purchased AMSC securities between Nov. 2,
2010, and April 5, 2011, you have certain rights and have 60 days
from April 6, 2011, to move for lead plaintiff status.  To be a
member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and
you may retain counsel of your choice.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215)638-4847
          Toll-Free at (888)638-4847
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/


BC FERRIES: Faces Class Action Over Expired Tickets
---------------------------------------------------
Sarah Douziech, writing for The Province, reports that a
high-profile North Vancouver lawyer filed a class-action lawsuit
on April 8 on behalf of ferry riders who were angered when B.C.
Ferries pocketed $1.2 million in prepaid fares after it cancelled
a refund policy last year.

The claim was filed, lawyer Jim Poyner said, because the ferry
corporation's move in April 2010 to terminate refunds or roll-
overs for unused prepaid fares was "a breach of contract" with
customers.

"We saw it as a conduct that had to be stopped and had to be
challenged," Mr. Poyner said, adding that at least 100 people are
involved in the claim.

Prepaid fares originally expired after two years, but their cash
value could be refunded or rolled over to buy new tickets with no
time limit.

B.C. Ferries' new policy states prepaid fares are valid for two
years and can only be rolled over to buy new tickets for six
months after expiry.

B.C. Ferries president and CEO David Hahn defended the change in
an interview with The Province earlier this month.

"We've been very firm and very aggressive in saying people could
not use their cards after the expiry date," Mr. Hahn said.  "The
policy is fixed and it's going to stay that way."

Mr. Hahn said Ferries notified all cardholders for whom it had an
email address and also posted notices on ships and in terminals.

"These are sophisticated travelers," said Mr. Hahn.  "It's the
responsibility of the individual to understand the terms and
conditions of what they purchased."

John Orton, a retired accountant in Victoria, is named as the
representative plaintiff in the claim filed on April 8.

According to the filing, Orton was watching the news last month,
nearly a year after the change was instituted, when he found out
he wouldn't get the $327 he paid for four unused tickets bought in
May 2007 and expiring in May 2009.

The problem is that a "tremendous" number of people Mr. Poyner has
heard from had no idea about the rule change, he said.

But Deborah Marshall, spokesperson for B.C. Ferries, said the
corporation made every effort to let customers know about the
change.

Emails were sent to 5,000 registered users and handouts were given
to passengers at ticket booths, alerting them to the change,
Marshall said.

She declined to comment on the legal matter.

Meanwhile, Consumers' Association of Canada (CAC) president
Bruce Cran said calls keep coming in about the class-action
lawsuit, even from non-ferry riders who are "extremely
sympathetic" to those affected.

Mr. Cran pointed to an Angus Reid poll done on behalf of the CAC
that found 90% of B.C. residents thought B.C. Ferries should
voluntarily pay back or honor the prepaid fares.

It also found 80% of the province opposes the ferry corporation's
decision to stop refunding or rolling over prepaid passes and 87
per cent thought the provincial government should step in and
force it to give people their money back.

"I thought this would have been solved politically," Mr. Cran
said, citing the strong public opinion on the matter.

He said the poll results were sent to both Premier Christy Clark
and B.C. Ferries.

B.C.'s transportation minister, Blair Lekstrom, declined to
comment on April 8.

Former transportation minister Shirley Bond had said she was told
B.C. Ferries' actions were legal and similar to the practices of
other businesses.

Mr. Poyner's lawsuit will have to be certified by the courts
before it can go any further.  He said he expects that decision to
come in the fall.


BED BATH: Removes "Poligrates" Song-Beverly Suit to N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Poligrates, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc., et al., Case No.
CGC-11-508808 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.), was filed
on March 4, 2011.  The plaintiff accuses BBB of requesting and
recording personal identification in the course of a credit card
transaction, in violation of California's Song-Beverly Credit Card
Act, California Civil Code Section 1747.08.

On the basis of diversity jurisdiction, Bed, Bath & Beyond, on
April 6, 2011, removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of
California, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 11-cv-01661 to the
proceeding.

Bed, Bath & Beyond is represented by:

          David F. McDowell, Esq.
          Purvi G. Patel, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 892-.5200
          E-mail: DMcDowell@mofo.com
                  PPatel@mofo.com


BURGER KING: June 15 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a
statement pursuant to an order of the Circuit Court of the 11th
Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida:

    IN RE BURGER KING HOLDINGS, INC.
    SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION

    IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH
    JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
    MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

    Case No. 10-48395 CA 40
    Complex Business Litigation Section

PUBLICATION NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION,

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND SETTLEMENT HEARING

TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE COMMON STOCK
OF BURGER KING HOLDINGS, INC. WHO HELD SUCH SHARES ON SEPTEMBER 2,
2010 THROUGH AND INCLUDING OCTOBER 19, 2010.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, that the above-captioned action has been
certified as a class action and that a settlement, which includes
the payment of up to $1,000,000 in Plaintiffs' counsel's
attorneys' fees and expenses, has been proposed.  A hearing will
be held before the Honorable Gill S. Freeman in the Miami-Dade
Circuit Court, 73 W. Flagler Street, Room 1407, Miami, Florida
33130 at 9:45 a.m., on June 15, 2011 to determine whether the
proposed settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and to consider the application of
Plaintiffs' Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY
BE AFFECTED BY THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LITIGATION.  Any
class member has the right to appear and to be heard at the
Settlement Hearing, provided he or she complies with certain
conditions set forth in the Notice of Pendency of Class Action,
Class Action Determination, Proposed Settlement of Class Action,
Settlement Hearing and Right to Appear.  You may obtain copies of
the Notice by contacting:

          Burger King Holdings, Inc. Notice Administrator
          c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
          P.O. Box 8040
          San Rafael, CA 94912-8040
          Telephone: (877) 333-5236

Inquiries or comments about the proposed Settlement may be
directed to Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel as follows:

          Emily C. Komlossy, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          3595 Sheridan Street, Suite # 206
          Hollywood, FL 33021

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432

If the Court approves the proposed settlement and you do not
object in the manner provided for in the Notice, you will be
forever barred from contesting the fairness, reasonableness or
adequacy of the proposed Settlement, or from pursuing the Settled
Claims as defined in the Notice.

Dated: March 23, 2011 Entered By Order of the Court


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Removes "Beltran" Song-Beverly Suit to ND Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Isabel Beltran, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc., et al., Case
No. CGC-11-508995 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.), was
filed on March 9, 2011.  Plaintiff, a resident of California,
alleges four causes of action: (1) alleged violations of the Song-
Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, codified at California Civil Code
section 1747.08; (2) common law negligence; (3) invasion of
privacy; and (4) unlawful intrusion.  Plaintiff's complaint arises
from a purported purchase transaction at a Children's Place store
located in San Francisco, California.

On the basis of diversity jurisdiction, The Children's Place, on
April 6, 2011, removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of
California, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 11-cv-01664 to the
proceeding.

Defendants operate retail stores throughout the United States,
including California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          Matthew I. O'Connor, Esq.
          HARRISON PATTERSON & O'CONNOR LLP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6990

The Children's Place is represented by:

          Michelle C. Doolin, Esq.
          Mazda K. Antia, Esq.
          Jennifer M. French, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 550-6000
          E-mail: doolinmc@cooley.com
                  mantia@cooley.com
                  jfrench@cooley.com


CHINA INTEGRATED: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. reminds investors of the important
May 24, 2011 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class
action filed by the firm on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of China Integrated Energy, Inc. from March 31, 2010 through
March 16, 2011.

To join the China Integrated class action, visit the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/or call Phil Kim, Esq. or
Jonathan Horne, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also
email pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information
on the class action.   The case is pending the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

According to the Complaint, China Integrated issued materially
false and misleading financial statements to investors because it
concealed related-party transactions.  On March 16, 2011, analyst
firm Sinclair Upton Research issued a report alleging that China
Integrated concealed a host of transactions between the Company
and its officers and directors that had the effect of funneling
cash to these officers and directors.  In addition, citing Chinese
SAIC filings, the report stated that China Integrated
misrepresented its financial performance, business prospects, and
financial condition to investors.  These adverse disclosures
caused China Integrated's stock price to drop, damaging investors.

On March 23, 2011, the Company issued a rebuttal, in which it
denied most of Sinclair Upton's allegations, but conceded that it
had engaged in an undisclosed related party transaction with the
CEO's 22 year old son.  After the Company's rebuttal, the stock
price fell once again, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 24, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Jonathan Horne, Esq. or Phil Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm,
toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at.  You may also visit
the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/

No class has yet been certified in the above action.  Until a
class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you
retain one.  You may choose to do nothing at this point and remain
an absent class member.

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.

CONTACT: Phil Kim, Esq.
         Jonathan Horne, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone:  (212) 686-1060
         Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425
         Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
         E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 jhorne@rosenlegal.com
                 http://www.rosenlegal.com/


GUAM: Hospital Authority Sued Over Unpaid Retirement Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Kerrigan, writing for Pacific News Center, reports that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in Guam's Superior Court
seeking more than $7 million in unpaid GovGuam retirement benefits
owed to GMHA employees.

The suit names 9 years in which retirement fund benefits were not
paid in full.  Those years are 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002,
2003, 2010 and 2011.

A copy of the class action suit is available at:

   http://www.pacificnewscenter.com/images/pdf/gmhsuitretirement.pdf

The suit estimates that the total amount of unpaid employee and
employer contributions for those years to be "approximately
$7 million".  But the lawsuit also seeks interest and penalties
which would push the total well over $7 million, "the final amount
to be determined at trial."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Lourdes B.Q. Tenorio, and all
other "employees of the Guam Memorial Hospital Authority who are
members of the Government of Guam Retirement Fund."

Ms. Tenorio is the Chief of Admissions at GMH where she has been
employed since 1987.

The lawsuit was filed on April 8 by Ignacio C. Aguigui of the
Lujan, Aguigui & Perez law firm.

According to Pacific News Center, it is the second major lawsuit
which the Lujan law firm filed Friday.  The other was a $269
million Class Action Suit filed in District Court seeking an order
to force GovGuam to pay the tax refunds it has not paid since at
least 2006.

Mindy Aguon, writing for KUAM, reports that Mr. Aguigui filed a
lawsuit on behalf of Rae and Jeff Paeste and Sharon Zapanta and
all other taxpayers who have been waiting to receive their income
tax refunds.

The plaintiffs filed timely and valid annual income tax returns
through the Guam Department of Revenue & Taxation and the
government has not paid the refunds since at least 2006 to the
present.  Court documents state that the class, which includes all
taxpayers who are waiting for their refunds and have not been
given a notice of disallowance of claims by the government, will
continue to suffer economic hardship because of the government's
continued failure to promptly pay refunds.

On April 4, Governor Eddie Calvo announced that his administration
intends to borrow money to pay the more than $269 million that is
owed to island taxpayers.  The lawsuit is seeking a judgment
forcing the payment of refunds as well as attorney's fees.


IBM CORP: Faces Class Action Over Medicaid Eligibility Process
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action claims thousands of Medicaid recipients were denied
benefits or suffered unfair lapses in medical coverage after
Indiana handed off the eligibility process to IBM, which screwed
up the installation so badly it was fired 7 years early from its
$1.3 billion contract.

The class claims that while the state ultimately canceled the $1.3
billion contract to have IBM "privatize and modernize" Medicaid
determinations, it has continued to use its subcontractors, which
are severely deficient in handling applications and appeals.

The class sued IBM, ACS Human Services, Phoenix Data and Arbor E&T
in Marion Superior Court.  Indiana is not named as a defendant.

In December 2006, Indiana's Family and Social Services
Administration (FSSA) contracted with IBM to "privatize and
modernize the public benefits eligibility determination process,"
according to the complaint.

IBM managed the overall process, while "most of the day-to-day
responsibilities to work with beneficiaries to determine their
eligibility, and even process their appeals, were delegated to
other contractors," such as ACS, Phoenix and Arbor.

One thousand five hundred state workers became employed under the
"IBM-coalition," according to the complaint.

While the FSSA had final say in which applicants were approved or
denied benefits, it relied on recommendations made through IBM
contractors, who hold themselves out to applicants as the Indiana
FSSA, the class claims.

"In March 2009, IBM was put on notice by the State of Indiana that
its performance in managing the functions critical to eligibility
determinations through its subcontractors was grossly deficient,
and after an effort to correct the multitude of problems through a
Corrective Action Plan, the State terminated its $1.3 billion
contract with IBM," the complaint states.  "IBM's role was phased
out through Dec. 14, 2009, seven years before the expiration of
the 10-year contract.  FSSA and IBM have sued each other over the
termination of the contract."

After IBM was out of the picture, Indiana contracted directly with
ACS, Phoenix and Arbor, the class says.

"The contractors were to interview beneficiaries, gather
documents, process them, enter facts into the computer systems,
explain program requirements, explain appeal rights, assist
clients who needed special help to assure that eligibility was
correctly and properly determined and that appeal rights were
honored," the complaint states.

The class says the contractors have a duty to maintain benefits
for recipients who have submitted appeals, until they receive a
fair hearing.  It adds that the "defendants also undertook to
perform FSSA's duty to assess whether a recipient who no longer
qualified under one category of Medicaid might qualify under a
different category, before cutting off benefits."

But the class says the defendants have "routinely 'lost' client
documents, including appeal requests," failed to return clients'
phone calls, then denied coverage without adequate information.

It says the defendants' workers also "send demands for client-
supplied information that are so poorly worded and non-specific
that the client has little guidance on which to base a response,"
and deny coverage when "the beneficiary responds to the best of
their ability but not to the worker's unstated intent, without
even calling the beneficiary for clarification."

The class adds that the defendants' call centers are designed so
that beneficiaries are blocked from speaking to someone with the
authority to solve issues, and that the staff is poorly trained
and not permitted to investigate problems.  And the defendants
have illegally prohibited beneficiaries from access to
computerized records with information about the status of their
cases.

The class claims that appeals have become "so back-logged that
fair hearings have been delayed for months beyond the 90-day time
limits."

"As a result of these actions, plaintiffs and thousands of
vulnerable Medicaid recipients similarly situated had and are
having their benefits interrupted or terminated altogether, losing
the value of access to health care and coverage afforded to them
under law," the class says.

Plaintiff Courtney Anderson, a 20 year-old woman who suffers from
a severe seizure disorder, says her benefits were unfairly cut off
when she was switching from one Medicaid program to another, and
that the defendants processed her case for termination, despite
her two appeals.

Ms. Anderson's mother was unable to refill her anti-seizure
prescriptions, putting her health in "immediate jeopardy," she.
Only with the help of an attorney were her benefits eventually
reinstated.

The class demands damages from IBM, ACS, Phoenix and Arbor, for
unfair denial of Medicaid benefits.

A copy of the Complaint in Bowman, et al. v. International
Business Machines Corp., et al., Case No. 49D071104PL013108 (Ind.
Super. Ct., Marion Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/08/IBM.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott R. Severns, Esq.
          Anna M. Howard, Esq.
          10293 N. Meridian Street, Suite 150
          Indianapolis, IN 46290
          Telephone: (317) 817-0300
          E-mail: sseverns@severns.com
                  amh@severn.com


KANSAS: Judge Okays Settlement in Property Seizure Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Morris, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that a
judge approved a settlement on April 8 in which Kansas City police
will pay about $1.2 million to 50 people who have contended that
police improperly seized their property.

The order ended a decade-long class-action lawsuit brought against
the Kansas City Police Department by plaintiffs who alleged that
police illegally handed their money and property to the federal
government for forfeiture, rather than running it though a state
system that would have given money to schools.

Lawyer George Barton, who represented the class, told Jackson
County Circuit Judge Brian C. Wimes that all 50 class members who
submitted valid claims would be paid in full.

"They are receiving an amount equal to the value of the currency
and property that was seized from them," Mr. Barton said.  "So
this is a fair, reasonable and adequate settlement."

Lawyers representing police said the department admitted no
wrongdoing but agreed to the settlement terms to avoid the
uncertainties of a trial.

"Because of the amount and size of a significant number of claims,
there was significant risk and exposure," said Travis Salmon.
"This is a reasonable and fair settlement agreement."

Because the class members, and not school districts, sued the
Police Department, the settlement money will go to them, not to
education.

Kansas City restaurant owner George Ricketts, who represented
class members at the hearing, said the settlement was fair and
asked the judge to approve the agreement.

Ricketts lost a BMW and more than $130,000 and other property and
cash in April 1996 when police raided his home, convinced he was a
drug dealer.  An appeals court later threw out his conviction.

Under the terms of the settlement, he will be paid $200,000.
Ricketts declined to speak about the settlement after the hearing.

Another lead defendant, Albert Raymond Pearsall of Albuquerque,
N.M., will be paid $73,102.

The names of other class members who will be paid under the
settlement were not filed with the court on April 8.

Separate from those payments to the plaintiffs, Mr. Barton and his
firm will be paid more than $1.3 million in legal fees and $99,370
in expenses.

The issue driving the settlement came to light in a Kansas City
Star series published in May 2000, "To Protect and Collect," which
exposed how police circumvented state laws by turning over
millions of dollars in alleged drug money they had seized to the
federal government.  Federal agencies kept most of the money and
returned a percentage to the Police Department.

State law, however, required that forfeited money be used for
public education.

In January 2001, a Missouri appeals court ruled that Kansas City
police had to return $34,000 to an imprisoned drug felon.  Lawyers
filed the class-action suit a couple of weeks later.

Police soon changed their forfeiture procedures.  They say they
now run every case through state court unless a federal judge
signs a warrant demanding assets in a particular case.


ORTHO-MCNEIL: May Face Suit Over Topamax Birth Defects
------------------------------------------------------
Women who delivered children with Topamax birth defects after
taking the drug or its generic form topiramate during pregnancy
may have legal recourse.  The FDA recently announced a link
between the drug and oral birth defects, and as a result, Topamax
users who delivered children with cleft lips or cleft palates may
be able to file a Topamax lawsuit to recover financial
compensation.  To find out if you can file a claim for medical
bills and other damages after delivering a child with Topamax
birth defects, visit http://www.classaction.org/topamax.html/and
complete the free case evaluation form for a no cost, no
obligation review of your claim.

Topamax birth defects may require both surgical and non-surgical
treatment, the cost of which could be recovered through a Topamax
lawsuit. Depending on the extent of the Topamax cleft, several
surgeries may be needed.  A cleft lip will typically require one
to two surgeries, with the initial procedure being performed by
the time the child reaches three months old.  Repair of a Topamax
cleft palate, however, often requires several procedures performed
over the course of 18 years.  Additionally, depending on the
extent of the Topamax birth defect, speech therapy, special dental
care, and psychological counseling may also be required.

Treatment for Topamax birth defects can extend over the course of
several years and result in costly medical bills for the child's
family.  Women who elect to take legal action for their child's
Topamax birth defects may be able to recover the cost of these
expenses, as well as other damages.  To find out if you are
eligible for financial compensation, visit Class Action.org and
complete the free case evaluation form.  The Topamax attorneys
working with the site are offering this online case review at no
cost and remain committed to protecting the rights of women who
bore children with Topamax birth defects.

                      About Class Action.org

Class Action.org is dedicated to protecting consumers and
investors in class actions and complex litigation throughout the
United States.  Class Action.org keeps consumers informed about
product alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps them
take action against the manufacturers of defective products,
drugs, and medical devices.  Information about consumer fraud
issues and environmental hazards is also available on the site.
Visit http://www.classaction.org/today for a no cost, no
obligation case evaluation and information about your consumer
rights.


PUMA NORTH: Removes "Poligrates" Song-Beverly Suit to N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Poligrates, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Puma North America, Inc., et al., Case No. RG
11564143 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), was filed on March 4,
2011.  The plaintiff accuses the defendants of requesting and
recording personal identification in the course of a credit card
transaction, in violation of California's Song-Beverly Credit Card
Act, California Civil Code Section 1747.08.

On the basis of diversity jurisdiction, Puma North America, on
April 6, 2011, removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of
California, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 11-cv-01671 to the
proceeding.

Puma North America is represented by:

          Fletcher C. Alford, Esq.
          Laura L. Geist, Esq.
          Jordan S. Altura, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 986-5900
          E-mail: falford@gordonrees.com
                  lgeist@gordonrees.com
                  jaltura@gordonrees.com

               - and -

          Debra Ellwood Meppen, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 576-5000
          E-mail: dmeppen@gordonrees.com


SAXON MORTGAGE: Sued for Unfair Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
Marie Gaudin, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-01663
Marie Gaudin v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. (N.D. Calif.
April 6, 2011), seeks to redress and remedy defendant Saxon
Mortgage Services' policy and practice of collecting "trial"
payments from its delinquent residential mortgage customers by
falsely promising them the opportunity to retain their homes
through an income-based loan modification under the protocols and
guidelines established by the Homeowners Affordable Modification
Program.  Ms. Gaudin alleges that Saxon's conduct with respect to
the HAMP trial agreements violated the Unfair Competition Law and
also constituted unfair debt collection practices under the
Rosenthal Act.

Ms. Gaudin relates that Saxon, after making a promise to
permanently modify her mortgage, then delayed the processing of
the loan modification, while urging her to continue making trial
payments.  Saxon subsequently denied her a permanent modification
without cause. Saxon sent Ms. Gaudin several letters purportedly
explaining why she had been declined for a permanent modification.
In these letters, Saxon falsely claimed that Ms. Gaudin had failed
to make the trial payments and supply requested documents.  When
she confronted Saxon with the falsity of these statements, Saxon
made no attempt to back up or explain them.

Marie Gaudin is a single, self-employed, small business woman who
has operated a San Francisco bridal boutique for over 30 years.
Defendant Saxon, a Texas corporation, does business throughout
California and has its principal place of business in Fort Worth,
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Mulligan, Esq.
          JENKINS MULLIGAN & GABRIEL LLP
          10085 Carroll Canyon Road, Suite 210
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (415) 982-8500

               - and -

          Peter B. Fredman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER FREDMAN
          125 University Ave, Suite 102
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 868-2626
          E-mail: peter@peterfredmanlaw.com




UNION CARBIDE: Sued in W. Va. for Releasing Hazardous Substances
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action accuses Union
Carbide, Dow Chemical, Elkem Metals, Globe Specialty Metals and
West Virginia Alloys of contaminating West Virginia with arsenic,
iron, lead, and other toxins, and endangering and harming public
health.

A copy of the Complaint in Ballard, et al. v. Union Carbide
Company, et al., Case No. 11-C-531 (W. Va. Cir. Ct., Kanawha
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/08/Env.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas F. Urban II, Esq.
          URBAN & FALK, PLLC
          2867 S. Abingdon St.
          Arlington, VA 22206
          Telephone: 703-861-5235

               - and -

          Jared R. Woodfill, Esq.
          Wallace T. Ward III, Esq.
          Robert Summerlin, Esq.
          WOODFILL & PRESSLER, LLP
          909 Fannin, Suite 1470
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: 713-751-3080


WASHINGTON: Faces Class Action Over Basic Health Program Cuts
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Snohomish County woman who's
been fighting breast cancer has filed a potential class-action
lawsuit over cuts to Basic Health, a month after the state booted
17,000 people off the subsidized health care program.

Among those disqualified from the program were children, seniors,
illegal immigrants, and legal immigrants who have not lived in the
U.S. for at least five years.

Seattlepi.com reports that the complaint was filed against the
state on April 7 in U.S. District Court and seeks class-action
status.  It accuses the state of violating the Constitution's
equal-protection clause by disqualifying some legal immigrants
while serving other immigrants and citizens.

A spokeswoman for Basic Health said she could not comment on the
lawsuit.

The plaintiff, Rattiya Unthaksinkun, says she is a married mother
of two who has lived legally in the U.S. for four years.  She says
she recently had to cancel a needed medical test because she lost
coverage.

"She does not know how she is going to be able to pay for this
test if her Basic Health benefits are not reinstated," the
complaint said.

Ms. Unthaksinkun is eligible to become a naturalized citizen
because her husband is a citizen, but the couple can't afford to
go through the process, she said in a court declaration.

The lawsuit echoes another complaint filed against Washington over
a proposed cut in food stamps for legal immigrants.  In that case,
a federal judge temporarily stopped the state from making the cut
in January.

The Basic Health lawsuit also follows weeks of appeals and
complaints from people who had found the state's disenrollment
process rushed and confusing.

Of the 17,000 people dropped from the program, 7,300 have
appealed.  More than 4,100 have been reinstated.


WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Over Force-Placed Flood Insurance
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Wells Fargo Bank forces borrowers to take out too much flood
insurance on their homes, then takes kickbacks and commissions on
the force-placed insurance.

A copy of the Complaint in Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et
al., Case No. 11-cv-_____ (W. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/08/WellsFlood.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles G. Frohman, Esq.
          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          Kai Richter, Esq.
          Rebekah L. Bailey, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          E-mail: frohman@nka.com
                  lukas@nka.com
                  drake@nka.com
                  krichter@nka.com
                  bailey@nka.com


WELLINGTON, AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over Water Quality
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wellington Times reports that the controversy about the state of
Wellington's water went unabated as a group of angry water users
press ahead with their calls for a class action.

"We are going ahead, I'm getting a lot of letters to my PO Box 90
address and I have many calls of support," said Sue Bloomfield
Bell, one of the prime movers behind the campaign.

Supporting her action is a very frustrated Michael Lyness who, in
his anger, brought a sample of the water to the Wellington Times
office.  "Look at this.  It looks like a bottle of coke.  It's
disgusting.  I am very upset," he said.

His frustrations, like many others in the area, spilled over after
his water pipes were air scoured.  "It is getting better, but this
is unbelievable.  How much has been wasted with their
mismanagement of this."

Mr. Lyness said he wanted people to demand more action.

"It's not just the state of the water, but also the time you have
to spend washing it in NapiSan," he said.

"I am now part of this class action, it will take time but we will
do it.

"In fairness they have scoured and done their best.  I believe
they're into zone 3 of their work but how frustrating has this
been."

The council remains steadfast that the eight-week timeline is
enough to complete the work.


                            *********

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, Noemi Irene A. Adala, 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  * * *