CAR_Public/111026.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 26, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 212

                             Headlines

ALCOA INC: Continues to Defend ERISA-Violation Class Suit
APOLLO GROUP: Awaits Approval of "Adoma" Suit Settlement
APOLLO GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
APOLLO GROUP: Court Dismisses "Sabol" Wage and Hour Class Suit
APOLLO GROUP: Settles Securities Class Suit Pending in Arizona

APOLLO GROUP: Still Awaits Decision in "Teamsters" Class Suit
ASPENBIO PHARMA: Response on Bid to Dismiss Suit Due Nov. 21
COZEN O'CONNOR: Full Tilt Poker Class Sues Over Money Laundering
E.I. DU PONT: MDL Panel Consolidates Imprelis Class Actions
ELECTRIC MOTION: Recalls 70 Lithium-Poly Battery Pack

ENERGY PLUS: Sued in N.Y. Over Deceptive Electricity Billing
GRUNENTHAL: Wants Thalidomide Class Action Heard in Germany
HUMANA INC: "Sacred Heart" Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
ICE: Faces Class Action Over Sexual Assault of 3 Immigrant Women
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Jail Class Action Nears Resolution

MICROSOFT CORP: Suit Ruling Review Pending in Canadian Supreme Ct.
PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Says
POWERCOR: Settles Bushfire Class Action for AUD40 Million
RAM MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Counterfeit Surgical Mesh
SUPERVALU INC: Class Suit Over C&S Transaction Remains Pending

SUPERVALU INC: Wisc. Suit Still Stayed Pending IOS D&O Suit Ruling
SUTHERLAND GLOBAL: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Approval
TARGET CORP: Recalls 3,400 Children's Frog Masks
TICKETMASTER: Proposed Settlement Pending Approval in California
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE: Faces Millions of Grievance Payouts

WPX ENERGY: Appeal in Suit Over Gas Price Indices Remains Pending
WPX ENERGY: Royalty Interest Class Suit Pending in Colorado




                          *********

ALCOA INC: Continues to Defend ERISA-Violation Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc. continues to defend itself from a class action lawsuit
alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
according to the Company's October 20, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

In November 2006, in Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No.
3:06cv448 (E.D. Tenn.), a class action was filed by plaintiffs
representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of
Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependents of
such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor-Management Relations Act by
requiring plaintiffs, beginning January 1, 2007, to pay health
insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for
certain medical procedures and prescription drugs.  Plaintiffs
alleged these changes to their retiree health care plans violated
their rights to vested health care benefits.  Plaintiffs
additionally alleged that Alcoa had breached its fiduciary duty to
plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their
health benefits would never change.  Plaintiffs sought injunctive
and declaratory relief, back payment of benefits, and attorneys'
fees.  Alcoa had consented to treatment of plaintiffs' claims as a
class action.  During the fourth quarter of 2007, following
briefing and argument, the court ordered consolidation of the
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction with trial,
certified a plaintiff class, bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs'
breach of fiduciary duty claims, struck the plaintiffs' jury
demand, but indicated it would use an advisory jury, and set a
trial date of September 17, 2008.  In August 2008, the court set a
new trial date of March 24, 2009, and, subsequently, the trial
date was moved to September 22, 2009.  In June 2009, the court
indicated that it would not use an advisory jury at trial.  Trial
in the matter was held over eight days commencing September 22,
2009, and ending on October 1, 2009, in federal court in
Knoxville, TN, before the Honorable Thomas Phillips, U.S. District
Court Judge.  At the conclusion of evidence, the court set a post-
hearing briefing schedule for submission of proposed findings of
fact and conclusions of law by the parties and for replies to the
same.  Post trial briefing was submitted on December 4, 2009.

On March 9, 2011, the court issued a judgment order dismissing
plaintiffs' lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice for the reasons
stated in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.  On
March 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for clarification and/or
amendment of the judgment order, which seeks, among other things,
a declaration that plaintiffs' retiree benefits are vested subject
to an annual cap and an injunction preventing Alcoa, prior to
2017, from modifying the plan design to which plaintiffs are
subject or changing the premiums and deductibles that plaintiffs
must pay.  Also on March 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for
award of attorney's fees and expenses.  Alcoa filed its opposition
to both motions on April 11, 2011.  The time for plaintiffs to
appeal from the court's March 9, 2011 judgment will not begin
until the court disposes of these motions.


APOLLO GROUP: Awaits Approval of "Adoma" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc. is awaiting the court's approval of its
settlement to resolve the wage and hour class action lawsuit
commenced by Diane Adoma, according to the Company's October 20,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended August 31, 2011.

On January 8, 2010, Diane Adoma filed an action in United States
District Court, Eastern District of California, alleging wage and
hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California law
for failure to pay overtime and other violations, entitled Adoma
et al. v. University of Phoenix, et al, Case Number 2:10-cv-04134-
JCJ.  On March 5, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, or
in the alternative to stay or transfer, the case based on the
previously filed Sabol and Juric actions.  On May 3, 2010, the
Court denied the motion to dismiss and/or transfer.  On April 12,
2010, plaintiff filed her motion for conditional collective action
certification.  The Court denied class certification under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and transferred these claims to the
District Court in Pennsylvania.  On August 31, 2010, the Court
granted plaintiff's motion for class action certification of the
California claims.  On September 14, 2010, the Company filed a
petition for permission to appeal the class certification order
with the Ninth Circuit, which was denied on November 3, 2010.
There are approximately 1,500 current and former employees in the
class.

In August 2011, the parties agreed to settle the case for an
immaterial amount, which was accrued in the Company's financial
statements during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011.  The
agreement, in which the Company does not admit any liability, is
subject to pending approval by the Court.


APOLLO GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated securities lawsuit, according to
the Company's October 20, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended August 31,
2011.

On August 13, 2010, a securities class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona by Douglas
N. Gaer naming the Company, John G. Sperling, Gregory W. Cappelli,
Charles B. Edelstein, Joseph L. D'Amico, Brian L. Swartz and
Gregory J. Iverson as defendants for allegedly making false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business practices
and prospects for growth.  That complaint asserted a putative
class period stemming from December 7, 2009, to August 3, 2010.  A
substantially similar complaint was also filed in the same court
by John T. Fitch on September 23, 2010, making similar allegations
against the same defendants for the same purported class period.
Finally, on October 4, 2010, another purported securities class
action complaint was filed in the same court by Robert Roth
against the same defendants as well as Brian Mueller, Terri C.
Bishop and Peter V. Sperling based upon the same general set of
allegations, but with a defined class period of February 12, 2007,
to August 3, 2010.  The complaints allege violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  On October 15, 2010, three
additional parties filed motions to consolidate the related
actions and be appointed the lead plaintiff.

On November 23, 2010, the Fitch and Roth actions were consolidated
with Gaer and the Court appointed the "Apollo Institutional
Investors Group" consisting of the Oregon Public Employees
Retirement Fund, the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme, and Amalgamated
Bank as lead plaintiffs.  The case is now entitled, In re Apollo
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case Number CV-10-1735-
PHX-JAT.  On February 18, 2011, the lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint naming Apollo, John G. Sperling, Peter V.
Sperling, Joseph L. D'Amico, Gregory W. Cappelli, Charles B.
Edelstein, Brian L. Swartz, Brian E. Mueller, Gregory J. Iverson,
and William J. Pepicello as defendants.  The consolidated
complaint asserts a putative class period of May 21, 2007, to
October 13, 2010.  On April 19, 2011, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss and oral argument on the motion was held before the
Court on October 17, 2011.

Discovery in this case has not yet begun.  The Company anticipates
that the plaintiffs will seek substantial damages, including
damages representing the aggregate investment losses attributable
to the alleged false and misleading statements by all shareholders
who purchased shares during the 29-month putative class period and
still held those shares on October 13, 2010.  Because of the many
questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this
legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.  Based on information
available to the Company at present, the Company says it cannot
reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and
accordingly have not accrued any liability associated with these
actions.

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


APOLLO GROUP: Court Dismisses "Sabol" Wage and Hour Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court dismissed the wage and hour class action lawsuit
commenced by Sabol, et al., against Apollo Group, Inc. in
September, according to the Company's October 20, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended August 31, 2011.

On July 31, 2009, several former employees filed an action in
Federal District Court in Philadelphia alleging wage and hour
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to pay
overtime and other violations, entitled, Sabol, et al. v. Apollo
Group, Inc., et al, Case Number 2:09-cv-03439-JCJ.  In January
2011, the parties agreed to settle the case for an immaterial
amount, which was accrued in the Company's financial statements
during the second quarter of fiscal year 2011.  The agreement, in
which the Company does not admit liability, was approved by the
Court on June 28, 2011, and the case was dismissed with prejudice
on September 26, 2011.


APOLLO GROUP: Settles Securities Class Suit Pending in Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc. entered into an agreement in September to
settle a securities class action lawsuit pending in Arizona,
according to the Company's October 20, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
August 31, 2011.

In January 2008, a jury returned an adverse verdict against the
Company and two remaining individual co-defendants in a securities
class action lawsuit entitled, In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona, relating to alleged false and
misleading statements in connection with the Company's failure to
publicly disclose the contents of a preliminary U.S. Department of
Education program review report.  After various post-trial
challenges, the case was returned to the trial court in March 2011
to administer the shareholder claims process.  In September 2011,
the Company entered into an agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs to settle the litigation for a payment of $145.0
million.  The Company says the outcome of this legal proceeding
remains uncertain including, but not limited to, the requirement
that any settlement agreement must be approved by the court.

Prior to entering into an agreement in principle to settle, the
Company had an accrual of $181.9 million related to this matter.
The Company had estimated for financial reporting purposes, using
statistically valid models and a 60% confidence interval, that the
damages could range from $127.2 million to $228.0 million, which
included the Company's estimates of (a) damages payable to the
plaintiff class; (b) the amount the Company may be required to
reimburse the Company's insurance carriers for amounts advanced
for defense costs; and (c) future defense costs.  The Company
recorded charges in fiscal year 2010 that represented the mid-
point of the estimated range of damages payable to the plaintiffs,
plus the other estimated costs and expenses.  The Company recorded
an amount based on the mid-point of the range of damages payable
to the plaintiff class because under statistically valid modeling
techniques the mid-point of the range is in fact a more likely
estimate than other points in the range, and the point at which
there is an equal probability that the ultimate loss could be
toward the lower end or the higher end of the range.  The Company
has also recorded charges in subsequent periods for estimated
incremental post-judgment interest and additional estimated future
legal costs.  Based on the settlement agreement, the Company
reversed $20.7 million of the charges during the fourth quarter of
fiscal year 2011 through litigation (credit) charge, net on the
Company's Consolidated Statements of Income.  As of August 31,
2011, the Company's remaining accrual of $161.2 million represents
the $145.0 million settlement, an estimate of the disputed amount
the Company may be required to reimburse its insurance carriers
for defense costs advanced to it, and estimated future legal
costs.


APOLLO GROUP: Still Awaits Decision in "Teamsters" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc., is still awaiting a court decision on
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of a ruling dismissing a
securities class action lawsuit commenced by the Teamsters Local
617 Pension and Welfare Funds,, according to the Company's
October 20, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended August 31, 2011.

On November 2, 2006, the Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare
Funds filed a class action complaint purporting to represent a
class of shareholders who purchased the Company's stock between
November 28, 2001, and October 18, 2006.  The complaint, filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, is entitled
Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc.
et al., Case Number 06-cv-02674-RCB, and alleges that the Company
and certain of the Company's current and former directors and
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
purportedly making misrepresentations concerning the Company's
stock option granting policies and practices and related
accounting.  The defendants are Apollo Group, Inc., J. Jorge Klor
de Alva, Daniel E. Bachus, John M. Blair, Dino J. DeConcini, Kenda
B. Gonzales, Hedy F. Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Todd S. Nelson,
Laura Palmer Noone, John R. Norton III, John G. Sperling and Peter
V. Sperling.  On September 11, 2007, the Court appointed The
Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff.
Lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
November 23, 2007, asserting the same legal claims as the original
complaint and adding claims for violations of Section 20A of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and allegations of breach of
fiduciary duties and civil conspiracy.

On January 22, 2008, all defendants filed motions to dismiss.  On
March 31, 2009, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice as to
Daniel Bachus, Hedy Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Dino J. DeConcini,
and Laura Palmer Noone.  The Court also dismissed the case as to
John Sperling and Peter Sperling, but granted plaintiffs leave to
file an amended complaint against them.  Finally, the Court
dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims concerning misconduct before
November 2001 and all of the state law claims for conspiracy and
breach of fiduciary duty.  On April 30, 2009, plaintiffs filed
their Second Amended Complaint, which alleges similar claims for
alleged securities fraud against the same defendants.  On
June 15, 2009, all defendants filed another motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint.  On February 22, 2010, the Court
partially granted the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, but
withheld a final determination on the individual defendants
pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint.

On March 31, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona dismissed the case with prejudice and entered judgment in
the Company's favor.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of this ruling and, if that is not successful,
plaintiffs have indicated they will appeal the ruling.  The
Company says the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at
this point.  Based on the information available to the Company at
present, the Company says it cannot reasonably estimate a range of
loss for this action and, accordingly, it has not accrued any
liability associated with this action.


ASPENBIO PHARMA: Response on Bid to Dismiss Suit Due Nov. 21
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' response on AspenBio Pharma, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
a securities class action lawsuit is due November 21, 2011,
according to the Company's October 20, 2011, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On October 1, 2010, the Company received a complaint, captioned
John Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AspenBio Pharma, Inc. et al., Case No. CV10 7365.
This federal securities purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court in the Central District of California
on behalf of all persons, other than the defendants, who purchased
common stock of the Company during the period between February 22,
2007, and July 19, 2010, inclusive.  The complaint names as
defendants certain officers and directors of the Company during
such period.  The complaint includes allegations of violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 against all
defendants, and of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants, all related to the Company's blood-based
acute appendicitis test in development known as AppyScore.  On the
Company's motion, this action was also transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado by order dated January
21, 2011.  The action has been assigned a District of Colorado
Civil Case No. 11-cv-00165-REB-KMT.

On July 11, 2011, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and
approved lead counsel.  On August 23, 2011, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended putative class action complaint, alleging the
same class period.  Based on a review of the amended complaint,
the Company and the individual defendants believe that the
plaintiffs' allegations are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend against these claims.

On October 7, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The motion is currently pending with the
plaintiffs' response due on November 21, 2011.


COZEN O'CONNOR: Full Tilt Poker Class Sues Over Money Laundering
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leigh Jones, writing for Reuters, reports that a purported class
of as many as 200,000 online poker players is suing Cozen
O'Connor, claiming that the law firm should disgorge legal fees it
received for representing clients involved in an Internet poker
operation.

The suit, filed on Oct. 17 in California federal court, claims
that Cozen O'Connor received more than $2 million in fees from
money laundered through a scheme orchestrated by the companies
behind the Web site Full Tilt Poker.  The lawsuit alleges that
Cozen knew or had reason to know that the fees were derived from
illegal sources and that it should repay those fees to the
plaintiffs.

Also named as defendants are Chris Ferguson, Howard Lederer, Rafe
Furst and other owners of companies behind Full Tilt Poker.  Last
month, they were also sued by the U.S. Department of Justice for
allegedly defrauding thousands of online poker players out of
millions, part of a DOJ crackdown on illegal Internet gambling.
Cozen, which has represented some of the defendants named in the
government's case, was not part of that action.

Cozen's general counsel, Robert Fiebach, declined to comment on
the Oct. 17 lawsuit, saying that the law firm had not been served
with the complaint.  The Philadelphia-based firm has about 500
attorneys, with about 80 in New York.

The action, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, alleges fraud, violations of federal anti-
racketeering law, unjust enrichment and violations of California
civil law against all of the defendants.

Representing the plaintiffs is Cyrus Sanai, a solo practitioner in
Beverly Hills, Calif.  Mr. Sanai, who asserts that the class
comprises about 200,000 consumers, said that a 2010 decision from
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, FTC v. Network
Services Depot, enables his clients to recover fees paid to law
firms through illegal activity.  He alleges that his clients are
entitled to about $900 million from all of the named defendants.

The case is Kennedy v. Ferguson, CV-118591, U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

For the plaintiffs: Cyrus Sanai, Sanais, Beverly Hills, Calif.

For the defendants: Not immediately available.


E.I. DU PONT: MDL Panel Consolidates Imprelis Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mario Massillamany of the Indiana law firm of Starr, Austen &
Miller, LLP, announced the ruling by the Multidistrict Litigation
Panel regarding the nationwide class action lawsuit against E.I.
du Pont de Nemours & Company ("DuPont"), charging that DuPont's
herbicide Imprelis is allegedly causing widespread death among
trees and other non-targeted vegetation across the country.  This
allows Starr Austen & Miller, LLP case, entitled as Shomo v. E.I.
du Pont de Nemours & Company (Case Number 1:11-00633), to move
forward.  The federal panel ruled under MDL number 2284 that the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania will serve the over 40 class
actions pending in 18 districts.

The panel's basis was due to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency office responsible for the investigation and handling of
Imprelis is located in Philadelphia.  Furthermore, the federal
courthouse of Philadelphia is not far from DuPont headquarters in
Wilmington, Delaware and is within the geographic concentration of
Imprelis damage.

"We are most gratified that the MDL panel agreed with our
arguments that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was the best
forum to handle this extremely important and complex litigation,"
stated plaintiffs' counsel Scott Starr.

Multidistrict litigation is a procedure utilized in the federal
court system to transfer to one federal judge all pending civil
cases of a similar type filed throughout the United States.  The
decision whether cases should be transferred is made by a panel of
seven federal judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the United
States Supreme Court.  The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation was created by legislation in 1968 with the intent to
have one court rule on all pretrial proceedings and discovery.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Delaware where DuPont
has its headquarters.  Entitled as Shomo v. E.I. du Pont de
Nemours & Company (Case Number 1:11-00633), the proposed class
includes all persons and entities who own property on which
Imprelis was applied, own trees or other vegetation whose roots
extend under property on which Imprelis was applied, or who own
property to which Imprelis migrated between October 4, 2010, and
the date of trial.  Plaintiffs seek relief for themselves.  The
proposed class includes compensation for the cost of replacing any
trees that are dying or have died and an injunction barring DuPont
from continuing to sell Imprelis.

Starr, Austen & Miller, LLP provides instructions on how to take
and preserve a soil sample, along with a copy of the complaint,
and complete a form to request further information on the case for
property owners who may have been affected by Imprelis.  These
resources can by obtained at the bottom of the web page located at
http://www.starrausten.com/imprelis-class-action/

Legal Resources for Impacted Property Owners

If you have suffered damage to trees on your property after the
spraying of Imprelis, please visit
http://www.starrausten.com/imprelis-class-action/to learn more
about the Imprelis class action lawsuit and report your
experiences.

Contact: Mario Massillamany, Esq.
         Starr Austen & Miller, LLP
         201 S 3rd Street
         Logansport, IN 46947-3102
         Telephone: (574) 722-6676
         Web site: http://www.starrausten.com


ELECTRIC MOTION: Recalls 70 Lithium-Poly Battery Pack
-----------------------------------------------------
About 70 units of rechargeable lithium-poly battery were
voluntarily recalled by Electric Motion Systems LLC of Dulles,
Virginia, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission.  Consumers should stop using the product immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The battery can overheat and catch fire.

The Company is aware of three reports of the battery catching
fire.  One incident resulted in a consumer receiving minor burns.

The recalled product is a black lithium-poly 37 volt, 10Ah battery
used in electric bicycles and propulsion systems.  The battery is
8.75 inches x 5.75 inches x 3.25 inches.  "E+" appears on a label
on the side of the battery.  Recalled batteries have "EMS# 11819-
101" at the top right of the label with a serial number between
10001 and 10200.  The batteries were sold on their own and as part
of the E+ Flex Kits.  The kits are complete propulsion systems.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12702.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at bike
shops nationwide and the company's Web site, from October 2009
through November 2010.  Batteries sold for between $900 and $1,000
and the E+ Flex Kits were sold for between $2,325 and $2,675.

Consumers should immediately stop using the battery packs and
contact Electric Motion Systems, LLC.  If you own a flex kit, you
will receive a free battery pack installed on a new front wheel
for your electric bike.  If you purchased just the battery,
Electric Motion Systems, LLC will provide you one of several
choices including a new, free frame to fit with your existing
electric propulsion system.  For additional information, contact
Electric Motion Systems, LLC toll-free at (877) 824-5339 between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, visit
their Web site at http://www.epluselectricbike.com/or e-mail the
company at info@epluselectricbike.com.  The company is contacting
its customers directly.


ENERGY PLUS: Sued in N.Y. Over Deceptive Electricity Billing
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action filed
in Manhattan claims Energy Plus overcharged "tens of thousands of
New York consumers" for electricity, through deceptive advertise
and billing.


GRUNENTHAL: Wants Thalidomide Class Action Heard in Germany
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elissa Hunt, writing for Herald Sun, reports that the makers of
deformity drug thalidomide are trying to force a woman born
without arms and legs to fly to Germany to take legal action.

Lynette Rowe is leading a Supreme Court class action for
compensation for unrecognized victims of the anti-nausea drug
which caused stillbirths and severe birth deformities.

But the drug's makers Grunenthal have indicated they want the case
heard in Germany, where its headquarters are and some witnesses
live.

Ms. Rowe's lawyer, Peter Gordon, said outside court his client did
not even own a passport and overseas travel would be difficult.

"We say Lynette has the right to invoke the jurisdiction of the
Victorian Supreme Court and to have her claim heard in her home
town," Mr. Gordon said.

"This is where she was born, she has lived here her whole life.

"Her mum took the thalidomide tablets in Victoria.  Getting to
Germany would not be an easy thing for her."

Ms. Rowe's parents Wendy and Ian have cared for her for 50 years
but are now close to their 80s.

They have urged the court to give them a quick hearing.

The parties will return to court to argue whether the case can be
heard here in December.

In a separate report, ABC Melbourne relates that in a statement,
the distributor of the drug, Diageo, says it is disappointed by
the Australian class action.

The company says it has already agreed to pay compensation to some
Australian victims.

It says it was prepared to consider the possibility of paying
future victims, before legal action was commenced.


HUMANA INC: "Sacred Heart" Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Humana Inc.'s subsidiary, Humana Military Healthcare Services,
Inc. ("Humana Military") was named as a defendant in Sacred Heart
Health System, Inc., et al. v. Humana Military Healthcare Services
Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-00062 MCR/EMT (the "Sacred Heart"
Complaint), a class action lawsuit filed on February 5, 2007, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida
asserting contract and fraud claims against Humana Military.  The
Sacred Heart Complaint alleged, among other things, that, Humana
Military breached its network agreements with a class of hospitals
in six states, including the seven named plaintiffs, that
contracted for reimbursement of outpatient services provided to
beneficiaries of the Department of Defense's (DoD's) TRICARE
health benefits program ("TRICARE").  The Complaint alleged that
Humana Military breached its network agreements when it failed to
reimburse the hospitals based on negotiated discounts for non-
surgical outpatient services performed on or after October 1,
1999, and instead reimbursed them based on published CHAMPUS
Maximum Allowable Charges (so-called "CMAC rates").  Humana
Military denied that it breached the network agreements with the
hospitals and asserted a number of defenses to these claims.  The
Complaint sought, among other things, the following relief for the
purported class members: (i) damages as a result of the alleged
breach of contract by Humana Military, (ii) taxable costs of the
litigation, (iii) attorneys fees, and (iv) any other relief the
court deems just and proper.

Separate and apart from the class relief, named plaintiff Sacred
Heart Health System Inc. requested damages and other relief for
its individual claim against Humana Military for fraud in the
inducement to contract.  On September 25, 2008, the district court
certified a class consisting of all institutional healthcare
service providers in TRICARE former Regions 3 and 4 which had
network agreements with Humana Military to provide outpatient non-
surgical services to CHAMPUS/TRICARE beneficiaries as of November
18, 1999, excluding those network providers who contractually
agreed with Humana Military to submit any such disputes with
Humana Military to arbitration.  On March 3, 2010, the Court of
Appeals reversed the district court's class certification order
and remanded the case to the district court for further
proceeding.  On June 28, 2010, the plaintiffs sought leave of the
district court to amend their complaint to join additional
hospital plaintiffs.  Humana Military filed its response to the
motion on July 28, 2010.  The district court granted the
plaintiffs' motion to join 33 additional hospitals on September
24, 2010.  On October 27, 2010, the plaintiffs filed their Fourth
Amended Complaint claiming the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Florida has subject matter jurisdiction over
the case because the allegations in the complaint raise a
substantial question under federal law.  The amended complaint
asserts no other material changes to the allegations or relief
sought by the plaintiffs.  Humana Military's Answer to the Fourth
Amended Complaint was filed on November 30, 2010.

Humana says it intends to defend the action vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 20,
2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.


ICE: Faces Class Action Over Sexual Assault of 3 Immigrant Women
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Romo and Nick Valencia, writing for CNN, report that a
class-action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of three immigrant
women who were allegedly sexually assaulted while in the custody
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Texas, the American
Civil Liberties Union said last week.

The ACLU, citing documents it said it had obtained through the
Freedom of Information Act, said in a news release that there have
been nearly 200 allegations of sexual abuse of immigration
detainees jailed at detention facilities across the United States
since 2007.

The ACLU release did not give dates of any of the alleged
assaults, including those involving the three women who are
plaintiffs in the class-action suit.  The plaintiffs were
identified only as Sarah Doe, Kimberly Doe and Raquel Doe "to
protect them from further harm," the ACLU said.

The alleged attacks occurred while the plaintiffs were being
transported from the T. Don Hutto Family Residential Center in
Taylor, Texas, to the airport or bus station in nearby Austin, the
ACLU said.

Its release did not say where the class-action suit was filed on
Oct. 19, but it said defendants include three ICE officials;
Williamson County, Texas, where the Hutto facility is; the
Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), a private prison company
that manages the Hutto facility; the former facility administrator
for Hutto; and a guard at the facility.

The lawsuit alleges that ICE along with Williamson County and the
Corrections Corporation of America were "deliberately indifferent
and willfully blind to the fact that (the guard named as a
defendant) and other employees regularly violated the rule that
detainees are not be transported without another escort officer of
the same gender present," the ACLU said.

ICE did not comment specifically on the ACLU's announcement of the
lawsuit, but an agency spokeswoman said ICE "maintains a strict
zero tolerance policy for any kind of abusive or inappropriate
behavior and requires all contractors working with the agency to
adhere to this policy."

ICE Public Affairs Officer Gillian Christensen added that the
agency requires regular criminal backgrounds checks for its
workforce.

"The (Department of Homeland Security) Office of the Inspector
General and ICE's Office of Professional Responsibility
investigate ALL allegations of sexual abuse or misconduct and the
agency takes appropriate action -- whether it is pursuing criminal
charges or administrative action -- when those allegations are
substantiated," Ms. Christensen said in the ICE statement.

The Corrections Corporation of America did not immediately respond
to requests for comment on the ACLU announcement.

The ACLU said it was basing its claim that there have been 185
allegations of sexual abuse in federal detention centers against
female immigration detainees on various federal documents.

The documents -- obtained from the Department of Homeland
Security's Office of Inspector General, Office of Civil Rights and
Civil Liberties and ICE, according to the ACLU -- showed that
Texas had more alleged abuse cases, 56, than any other state, the
organization's news release said.

"While the information gleaned from the documents likely does not
represent the full scope of the problem given that sexual abuse is
notoriously underreported, the documents nonetheless make clear
that the sexual abuse of immigration detainees is not an isolated
problem limited to a few rogue facilities or to a handful of bad-
apple government contractors who staff some of the nation's
immigration jails," the ACLU said.

"Unfortunately, we believe these complaints are just the tip of
the iceberg," said Mark Whitburn, senior staff attorney for the
ACLU of Texas.


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Jail Class Action Nears Resolution
-------------------------------------------------------
JJ Hensley, writing for The Arizona Republic, reports that the
inmates, jails and sheriff have all changed since a class-action
lawsuit was filed over county jail conditions 34 years ago, but
ongoing concerns kept the lawsuit alive.

That legal action, which over time changed the way Maricopa County
holds and treats inmates, appears finally to be coming to an end
-- if the Sheriff's Office can attend to a few minor issues in the
next few months.

Attorneys for inmates and the Sheriff's Office scheduled to
present their cases to a federal judge in the decades-old fight
canceled the hearings after lawyers on both sides agreed they were
close enough to resolving a final few issues that they did not
need to go before a judge.

"If, in fact, we do what we intend to do, it should be done -- no
hearing, nothing," said Jack MacIntyre, a sheriff's chief deputy.

It would be a milestone.  For years, county jails have been
subject to court-ordered oversight to ensure that inmate
conditions improved.  While a separate piece of the lawsuit
targeting Correctional Health Services -- a taxpayer-funded agency
that provides constitutionally mandated health care to inmates --
will continue under court oversight, the fact that the rest of the
Sheriff's Office's jail operations could emerge from oversight is
significant.

If the Sheriff's Office can, by early March 2012, increase the
caloric intake of inmates, address overcrowding in a holding
facility and prove there is proper sanitation, the agency will
emerge from court oversight.  Those requirements were part of an
amended judgment issued by a federal judge.

"We're pleased to see that the sheriff is agreeing to cooperate
and resolve and come into compliance with the second amended
judgment," said Sharad Desai, an attorney representing the
inmates.

Advocates say it has been a long time coming.

Three inmates held in the First Avenue Jail brought the original
lawsuit against then-Sheriff Jerry Hill in 1977, asking a federal
court to intervene over conditions they claimed were "degrading,
inhuman, punitive, unhealthy and dangerous."

Court documents and news reports from the time depict jails that
appear brutal compared with the spartan facilities Sheriff Joe
Arpaio now proudly operates.

The unsentenced inmates complained in court filings of cold food
that could contain glass or spit and meat that was sometimes
uncooked or dropped on the floor and served for dinner; of rodents
and insects living in 136-square-foot cells with up to eight
inmates who weren't allowed to shower for days; and of going days,
weeks, even months without seeing the sun or getting the chance
for recreation.

Patrick Schiffer was a young attorney at the time working in a
Community Legal Services office when he took the case in 1979, and
while he calls the case the most fun he has had as a lawyer, he
also recalls the horrid conditions.

"They had 8-by-21-foot cells with eight people and a toilet at the
end, so only about three guys could stand up at a time and they
spent 24 hours a day in there because the day rooms between the
cells were stacked with mattresses," he said.

Mr. Schiffer's work on the case also made him skeptical about the
county's commitment to change the jail system.  Correctional
Health Services' ongoing court oversight and Mr. Arpaio's
inclination to make life hard on inmates leave Mr. Schiffer
wondering about the effect of the court orders to improve
conditions over the years.

"That's been the problem from Day One of the judgment,"
Mr. Schiffer said.  "They don't follow what they promise to do.
They do some of it."

The condition of jails in Maricopa County was not unique at the
time.

In the early 1970s, federal judges began getting involved in cases
about prison conditions at the state and county levels, and what
they found was shocking, said Michele Deitch, an attorney and
University of Texas professor who served as a court-appointed
monitor in Texas prisons.

By the mid-1980s, nearly 40 states were operating all or parts of
their prison and jail systems under some sort of court order, she
said.

"A lot of these problems were invisible for a long time.  I think
there were abuses in these facilities for many, many years.  A lot
of it was sort of swept under the rug," Ms. Deitch said.  "When
all the testimony about these conditions started coming out, they
couldn't be ignored. So judges started imposing remedies to fix
these conditions."

Many of the cases, including Maricopa County's, took decades to
resolve because it took years to get funding, build new facilities
and change the culture of jail systems to meet the court-ordered
remedies, she said.

A federal judge first issued guidelines on legal compliance for
Maricopa County jails in 1981.  That judgment was amended in 1995.
Then in 2001, the Sheriff's Office tried to terminate the judgment
under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which states that decrees
on jail conditions are up for dismissal after two years unless
inmates can show their constitutional rights are being denied.

That led to U.S. District Judge Neil Wake's 2008 ruling that
unconstitutional conditions persisted in the county's jails.
Judge Wake issued a second amended judgment, which the Sheriff's
Office is now trying to prove it has complied with.

Despite the long-running legal battle and the millions spent to
litigate the case, Mr. MacIntyre said the lawsuit has had a
lasting impact on jail operations.

It played a role in the county's decision to seek funding for new
jail facilities, including the Lower Buckeye and Fourth Avenue
jails, and caused detention officials to closely examine the way
they treat and house inmates, he said.

"There's certainly been some benefit from that. But it's time,"
Mr. MacIntyre said.  "The system has benefited from it, but it's
time to return all the management back to the Sheriff's Office."


MICROSOFT CORP: Suit Ruling Review Pending in Canadian Supreme Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A large number of antitrust and unfair competition class action
lawsuits were filed against Microsoft Corporation in various
state, federal, and Canadian courts on behalf of various classes
of direct and indirect purchasers of the Company's PC operating
system and certain other software products.  The Company obtained
dismissals or reached settlements of all claims that have been
made to date in the United States.

All settlements in the United States have received final court
approval.  Under the settlements, generally class members can
obtain vouchers that entitle them to be reimbursed for purchases
of a wide variety of platform-neutral computer hardware and
software.  The total value of vouchers that the Company may issue
varies by state.  The Company will make available to certain
schools a percentage of those vouchers that are not issued or
claimed (one-half to two-thirds depending on the state).  The
total value of vouchers the Company ultimately issue will depend
on the number of class members who make claims and are issued
vouchers.  The maximum value of vouchers to be issued is
approximately $2.7 billion.  The actual costs of these settlements
will be less than that maximum amount, depending on the number of
class members and schools that are issued and redeem vouchers.
The Company estimate the total cost to resolve all of the state
overcharge class action cases will range between $1.9 billion and
$2.0 billion.  At September 30, 2011, the Company has recorded a
liability related to these claims of approximately $538 million,
which reflects the Company's estimated exposure of $1.9 billion
less payments made to date of approximately $1.4 billion mostly
for vouchers, legal fees, and administrative expenses.

The three cases pending in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec,
Canada have not been settled.  In March 2010, the court in the
British Columbia case certified it as a class action.  On
April 15, 2011, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed the
class certification ruling and dismissed the case, holding that
indirect purchasers do not have a claim.  The plaintiffs have
sought review by the Canadian Supreme Court.  The other two
actions have been stayed.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 20,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say
Pharmaceutical Product Development is selling itself too cheaply
to the Carlyle Group, for $3.9 billion, or $33.25 a share.

A copy of the Complaint in Litwin v. Eshelman, et al., Case No.
11CV004333 (N.C. Super. Ct., New Hanover Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/21/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Schiller, Esq.
          Marvin Schiller, Esq.
          SCHILLER & SCHILLER, PLLC
          Professional Park at Pleasant Valley
          5540 Munford Road, Suite 101
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 789-4677

               - and -

          Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
          Mark D. Smilow, Esq.
          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          WEISS & LURIE
          551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
          New York, NY 10176
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025


POWERCOR: Settles Bushfire Class Action for AUD40 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Houston and Michael Bachelard, writing for The Age, report
that the first class action from the Black Saturday bushfires has
been settled, with electricity distributor Powercor agreeing to
pay Horsham residents and businesses up to AUD40 million.

The conditional settlement will result in Powercor paying 66% of
all losses from the Horsham fire.

It is expected to have significant implications for four other
cases seeking to recover huge losses caused by the devastating
fires.

Given the result at Horsham, several large insurance companies are
now expected to help finance other legal challenges.  Maddens
Lawyers and Maurice Blackburn are understood to be locked in
negotiations with several insurance giants which have taken a
passive role in the legal proceedings to this point.

The settlement requires approval from the Supreme Court next
month, but faulty Powercor power lines were found to have caused
the blaze that destroyed 13 houses and 2,346 hectares on the
outskirts of Horsham.

The payout of 66% of losses includes an 11% payment for interest
owing.

While Powercor refused to accept legal liability as a condition of
the settlement, the company conceded the fire began on land owned
by local farmer Laurie Thomas after a live power line fell from a
pole and ignited grass.

It was alleged several screws on the power line in question had
come loose, which was blamed on inadequate maintenance.

Brendan Pendergast, a director of Maddens Lawyers, which mounted
the Horsham class action, said the five-week trial uncovered a
series of maintenance failures that could influence other legal
challenges involving fallen power lines.

"I need to be careful with what I say, but there are many
similarities between these fires and their causation, including
those in Coleraine and Beechworth," Mr. Pendergast said.

The decision by Powercor's lawyers to settle the matter is
believed to have been influenced by the testimony of maintenance
experts, including former SEC employees, who expressed serious
concerns about the condition of Victoria's ageing electricity
assets.

Several criticized Powercor's decision to move from three-yearly
inspections of electricity infrastructure to inspections every
five years.

The Kilmore East fire that claimed 119 lives has been blamed on a
power line maintained by another electricity distributor, SP
AusNet.

The Bushfire Royal Commission found the wire that broke was
probably installed in 1968.

The class action for the Kilmore East blaze was recently deferred,
and will not start until January 2013, but that case dwarfs all
the others.  As well as leaving 119 people dead, 1,242 homes were
destroyed.  Lawyers there are expected to seek losses of up to
AUD1 billion on behalf of thousands of victims.

SP AusNet has not admitted that its power line sparked the Kilmore
East blaze, despite a finding by the royal commission that it did.
Instead, the Singapore government-owned company has blamed the
Country Fire Authority and other government agencies for failing
to contain the fire.

Mr. Pendergast said up to 300 farmers and local businesses could
claim losses of almost AUD70 million from the Horsham fire alone.


RAM MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Counterfeit Surgical Mesh
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Fry at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action
claims eight medical distributors sold sterile surgical mesh under
the C.R. Bard label that was neither sterile nor made by Bard, but
were "counterfeits made in the Republic of China."  Bard is one of
the defendants.

Named plaintiff Irene Kirk Calo says she had counterfeit mesh
implanted in her during a gastric banding operation on Oct. 21,
2009.  She claims lead defendant RAM Medical recalled 16 lots of
the surgical mesh in March 2010, and in June that year, "the FDA
classified defendant RAM Medical's recall as a Class I recall, a
designation reserved for the most serious types of recalls."

Ms. Calo claims the mesh "was affixed with genuine Bard lot
numbers" and represented "as if having been manufactured by C.R.
Bard."

Also sued are Amerimed Corp., Henry Schein Inc., Medline
Industries, Marathon Medical Corp., MMS-A Medical Supply Co., and
Q-Med Corp.

Ms. Calo estimates that the class, of "all consumers in the United
States who had defendants' counterfeit surgical mesh surgically
implanted from September 1, 2007 until the present day," may
"exceed one thousand individuals."

"Surgical mesh is regularly used during surgical procedures to
reinforce soft tissue in the body where weakness exists, such as
in the repair of hernias and chest wall defects," according to the
complaint.

It continues: "The FDA has determined that surgical mesh
manufactured or caused to be manufactured, marketed, distributed
or sold by defendant is counterfeit.  The counterfeit products
were labeled and sold as 'Bard' brand surgical mesh but, upon
information and belief, were counterfeits made in the Republic of
China.

"According to the FDA, RAM Medical, Inc., distributed the
counterfeit surgical mesh between October 2008 and October 2009,
and the counterfeit surgical mesh was affixed with genuine Bard
lot numbers."

Ms. Calo says the defendants claimed, inter alia, that "the
product was sterile," that it had "been approved for surgical use
by the United States Food and Drug Administration" and that it was
"indicated for a specific surgical use."

But she says the hospital where she had her surgery, the
(nonparty) Lexington Medical Center in South Carolina, sent her a
letter in July 2010 "informing her that the surgical mesh
implanted during her October 2009 surgery was counterfeit surgical
mesh."

Ms. Calo claims the defendants "were able to and did charge a
premium price for their counterfeit surgical mesh -- a price
higher than that charged for similar products.  In the condition
in which defendants' counterfeit surgical mesh was sold, the
counterfeit surgical mesh was of no value whatsoever to plaintiff
or members of the class."

Ms. Calo does not specify in the complaint whether she suffered a
particular physical injury from the mesh.  She says she and the
class members "have sustained physical, mental, and/or emotional
injuries, fright, inconvenience and interruption of or intrusion
into their personal lives, and economic damages including loss of
income, and that they continue to suffer harm because of
defendants' wrongful conduct in violation of the law, as alleged
herein."

She seeks class damages for fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of
warranty and product liability.

A copy of the Complaint in Calo v. RAM Medical, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4679-11 (N.J. Super. Ct., Passaic Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/21/Mesh.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Drew Britcher, Esq.
          BRITCHER, LEONE & ROTH, L.L.C.
          175 Rock Road
          Glen Rock, NJ 07452
          Telephone: (201) 444-1644


SUPERVALU INC: Class Suit Over C&S Transaction Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
against SUPERVALU INC. alleging that a 2003 transaction between
the Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a
conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate markets.  In the 2003
transaction, the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming
Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy
proceedings and sold certain assets of the Company to C&S which
were located in New England.  Since December 2008, three other
retailers have filed similar complaints in other jurisdictions.
The cases have been consolidated and are proceeding in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The
complaints allege that the conspiracy was concealed and continued
through the use of non-compete and non-solicitation agreements and
the closing down of the distribution facilities that the Company
and C&S purchased from each other.  Plaintiffs are seeking
monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  The
Company says it is vigorously defending these lawsuits.

Separately from these civil lawsuits, on September 14, 2009, the
United States Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") issued a subpoena
to the Company requesting documents related to the C&S transaction
as part of the FTC's investigation into whether the Company and
C&S engaged in unfair methods of competition.  The Company
cooperated with the FTC.  On March 18, 2011, the FTC notified the
Company that it had determined that no additional action was
warranted by the FTC and that it had closed its investigation.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 20,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 10, 2011.


SUPERVALU INC: Wisc. Suit Still Stayed Pending IOS D&O Suit Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against
SUPERVALU INC., as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC
("IOS"), Inmar, Inc., Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.,
Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services, in the
United States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a
grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company who
allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and the
other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon
processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an
illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  The
plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit,
however all proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the
result of the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of
IOS.  Although this lawsuit is subject to the uncertainties
inherent in the litigation process, based on the information
presently available to the Company, management does not expect
that the ultimate resolution of this lawsuit will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 20,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 10, 2011.


SUTHERLAND GLOBAL: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Democrat and Chronicle reports that Sutherland Global Services
Ltd. has settled a class-action lawsuit alleging it didn't pay its
call center telemarketers the overtime they were owed.

The lawsuit, filed in 2005 in U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York, was brought by a pair of Rochester employees
of the Perinton-based business process outsourcing company.  The
suit eventually grew to 10 named employees and hundreds of unnamed
workers, claiming they regularly worked more than 40 hours a week
but were not paid overtime.

Sutherland denied the allegations.  But the company agreed in July
to a $4 million settlement to be divvied up among members of the
class.

Under the settlement, Sutherland does not admit any violation of
law.  U.S. District Judge David G. Larimer last week gave final
approval to the settlement, ending the litigation.


TARGET CORP: Recalls 3,400 Children's Frog Masks
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Target Corp., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, announced a voluntary
recall of about 3,400 Children's Frog Masks.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The plush frog masks lack proper ventilation.  When secured in
place across a child's face, it presents a suffocation hazard to
the child.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves child-sized frog-themed animal masks.  The
plush mask is green with yellow and red highlights.  There are two
eye cutouts and a green elastic band with a fastener used to
secure the mask at the back of the child's head.  UPC code
06626491474 is printed on a label attached to the mask.  Pictures
of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12017.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Target stores nationwide from August 2011 through
September 2011 for about $1.

Consumers should immediately take masks from young children and
return the product to any Target store for a full refund.  For
additional information, contact Target Guest Relations at (800)
440-0680 between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Central Time Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.target.com/


TICKETMASTER: Proposed Settlement Pending Approval in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thorin Klosowski, writing for Denver Westword, reports that in
2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against Ticketmaster by
ticket buyers who were automatically redirected by Ticketmaster to
TicketsNow.com, a reseller charging prices above face value.
Between 2008 and 2009, ticket buyers across the country purchasing
tickets for shows by acts like Bruce Springsteen, Miley Cyrus and
Radiohead, among others, were redirected without notification.  A
proposed settlement of as much as $16,500,00 is pending approval
in California District Court.

In February 2009, Ellen Diamond filed a class action complaint
against Ticketmaster in California District Court, and her suit
was followed by ten additional suits, all making similar claims
and all of which were consolidated into one action, with
approximately 165,000 subsequent members of the class.

Once the proposed settlement has been approved, the members of the
class, which includes a number of Coloradans, will receive
information about how to redeem the settlement, which, as
proposed, is either $10 (thus the up to $16,500,000 figure) or a
rebate on any future purchases made through TicketsNow.com
equaling 18.5% of the total transaction.  The settlement still
requires final approval by a judge.  Another provision of the
proposed settlement involves Ticketmaster offering disclosure on
an interstitial page when users are directed there from
Ticketmaster.  The proposed disclosure:

"You are leaving the Ticketmaster.com Web site and linking with
TicketsNow.com, a ticket resale marketplace.  Tickets on our
affiliate site, TicketsNow.com are at "market value" and often
exceed the face value of the ticket.  For more information about
TicketNow, visit the FAQ page on TicketsNow.com."

Deven Westword spoke with a few people who either missed out or
paid extra for Springsteen tickets when he was in town in 2009.
One ticket buyer remembers the TicketsNow.com price being about
$70 more, and he was logging in at 10:00 a.m., right after tickets
went on sale.  Another tells Deven Westword that he thought the
site had been hacked and decided not to purchase tickets online
and instead rushed to a retail outlet.


U.S. POSTAL SERVICE: Faces Millions of Grievance Payouts
--------------------------------------------------------
Sean Reilly, writing for Federal Times, reports that besides
paying tens of billions of dollars each year in compensation,
operations and overhead costs, the financially strapped U.S.
Postal Service has another huge annual expense: hundreds of
millions of dollars in settlements to disgruntled employees and
former employees.

This year, the Postal Service more than doubled its projections of
"probable" liabilities related to employee grievances and
lawsuits: $641 million, according to the agency's latest quarterly
financial report.  The mail carrier booked another $88 million for
possible payouts stemming from environmental, contract and tort
claims.

Grievance payouts alone cost the mail carrier $250 million in 2008
and $179 million in 2009, according to an inspector general's
report last year.  The mail carrier is the focus of thousands of
grievances each year from members of its four unions over alleged
contract violations.  Postal officials did not respond to a
Federal Times request for an accounting of the amounts spent in
recent years to settle lawsuits and grievances.

Moreover, it is unclear whether millions paid out in grievance
settlements are even legitimate.

Postal auditors found that the agency often failed to adequately
document grievance payments.  As a result, "there is no assurance
that at least $27.8 million in grievance settlement payments were
justified or warranted," the report said.

Union officials sometimes received disproportionately large shares
of class-action grievance settlements; in one case, a local union
president received up to 35% of the money, while some other payees
received less than 1%, the report said.  Neither the president nor
the union was identified.

Underlying such episodes, the IG said, was the Postal Service's
failure to establish procedures for ensuring that settlement
recipients identified by the union were in fact part of a class
action.  Just recently, former Texas postal worker John Woods
pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unlawful compensation
over allegations that he used his union post to pocket money from
class-action settlements.

The plea agreement came as Mr. Woods, a one-time branch president
of the National Postal Mail Handlers Union in Fort Worth, was set
to go to trial on federal wire fraud charges for allegedly
orchestrating a scheme in 2006-2007 to defraud union members at a
local processing plant.  According to the February indictment,
Mr. Woods or his chief shop stewards filed grievances over
purported contract violations, but then kept more than $225,000 in
settlement money for themselves.

Under the original charges, Mr. Woods could have faced years in
prison.  Assuming that a judge approves the plea agreement, he
instead will have to pay $95,732 in restitution and spend some
time on probation.  Mr. Woods could not be reached for comment;
officials at the Washington headquarters of the National Postal
Mail Handlers Union did not return phone calls.

Doug Tulino, the Postal Service's vice president for labor
relations, disputed many of the IG's findings.  Half of the cases
reviewed by the IG involved informal pay adjustments that did not
require the same level of documentation as formal grievances,
Mr. Tulino said in a written reply to the report.

While settlements must be reviewed to ensure that the money is
going to the right people, he added, "ignoring the reality that
[a] union official or member is harmed in a dispute" could be seen
as a violation of federal protections for union activity.

Under a separate law, however, the Postal Service was implementing
new controls that would help managers track grievance payout
activity and high-dollar amounts, he said.  The Postal Service has
since addressed the recommendations in the report, a spokeswoman
for the inspector general's office said.

                    Huge Class-Action Lawsuit

A considerable portion of the liabilities the Postal Service has
accounted for stems from one of the largest class-action
discrimination cases ever considered by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.

The case, dating back to 2006, charges that the Postal Service
violated federal disability law under a now-ended program known as
the National Reassessment Process that forced some employees out
of the USPS workforce because no limited-duty assignments could be
found for them after they were hurt on the job.

Although the Postal Service described the size of the class only
as "very large," an attorney for the plaintiffs, Jeremy Wright of
Washington, put the figure at 130,000 past and present postal
workers.

The reassessment program ended in January.  The Postal Service
said it had concluded the reassessment of all employees working in
modified assignments.

In its latest quarterly financial report, for the three-month
period ending in June, the Postal Service increased the amount of
money booked for "probable losses from claims and suits" from $314
million last fall to $729 million.  Asked about the reason for the
jump, a USPS spokesman cited the EEOC case, which was certified as
a class action last year.  If the plaintiffs win, the impact on
the Postal Service could be "material," the financial report said,
adding that the Postal Service "intends to vigorously contest the
matter."

Lawyers expect to keep collecting information through the legal
discovery process for another year, Mr. Wright said, adding that
he did not know why the Postal Service opted to note the case as a
possible liability this year.

USPS spokesman Dave Partenheimer declined comment on the grounds
that the matter is covered by attorney-client privilege.

The complaint began with Sandra McConnell, a former mail carrier
from Rochester, N.Y., who suffered a permanent back injury in 1997
after slipping on stairs while delivering mail.

After returning to work, Ms. McConnell was given a job with
modified duties that included customer assistance, warming up
vehicles in winter and delivering mis-sent Priority Mail,
according to a filing in her case.

That ended in May 2006, when she was pushed out of her position by
the National Reassessment Process, the filing said.

Among other allegations, Ms. McConnell charged that the
reassessment program targeted employees with disabilities and
created a hostile work environment.  While she and other
plaintiffs have not put a dollar figure on the total amount of
damages sought, possible relief would include reinstatement with
back pay and compensatory damages, Mr. Wright said.

Postal Service spokesman Mark Saunders said in a statement that
the agency makes every attempt to find "necessary work" for
employees who have physical limitations because of on-the-job
injuries.  Doing so, however, presents a growing challenge,
Mr. Saunders said, because of both declining workload and
increased automation.

Launched in 2006, the National Reassessment Process reviewed
assignments for tens of thousands of injured workers to make sure
they still met the Postal Service's operating needs.

When work was available that an individual employee with physical
restrictions could perform, the Postal Service offered such
options as a return to full duty with slight modification or part-
time modified assignments, the statement said.  If no job was
available, employees were told of their right to file for workers'
compensation from the Labor Department.


WPX ENERGY: Appeal in Suit Over Gas Price Indices Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal relating to allegations of manipulating published gas
price indices remains pending, according to WPX Energy, Inc.'s
October 20, 2011, Form 10 filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

In a letter dated October 19, 2011, and addressed to the
stockholders of The Williams Companies, Inc., Alan Armstrong, its
chief executive officer said that the Board of Directors of
Williams approved the spin-off of its natural gas and oil
exploration and production business as a separate, publicly traded
company named as WPX Energy, Inc.

Civil lawsuits based on allegations of manipulating published gas
price indices have been brought against Williams and others, in
each case seeking an unspecified amount of damages.  Williams and
WPX are currently defendants in class action litigation and other
litigation originally filed in state court in Colorado, Kansas,
Missouri and Wisconsin brought on behalf of direct and indirect
purchasers of natural gas in those states.  These cases were
transferred to the federal court in Nevada.  In 2008, the court
granted summary judgment in the Colorado case in favor of Williams
and most of the other defendants based on plaintiffs' lack of
standing.  On January 8, 2009, the court denied the plaintiffs'
request for reconsideration of the Colorado dismissal and entered
judgment in Williams' favor.  WPX expects that the Colorado
plaintiffs will appeal now that the court's order became final on
July 18, 2011.

In the other cases, on July 18, 2011, the Nevada district court
granted Williams' joint motions for summary judgment to preclude
the plaintiffs' state law claims because the federal Natural Gas
Act gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exclusive
jurisdiction to resolve those issues.  The court also denied the
plaintiffs' class certification motion as moot.  On July 22, 2011,
the plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal with the Nevada
district court.  Because of the uncertainty around these current
pending unresolved issues, including an insufficient description
of the purported classes and other related matters, WPX says it
cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential exposures at this
time.  However, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate
resolution of these items could result in future charges that may
be material to WPX's results of operations.

Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement, Williams
will indemnify WPX for any cash payments (including indirect,
punitive or consequential damages) incurred by WPX in connection
with pending proceeding.


WPX ENERGY: Royalty Interest Class Suit Pending in Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit filed by royalty interest owners in Garfield
County, Colorado, according to the Company's October 20, 2011,
Form 10 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In a letter dated October 19, 2011, and addressed to the
stockholders of The Williams Companies, Inc., Alan Armstrong, its
chief executive officer said that the Board of Directors of
Williams approved the spin-off of its natural gas and oil
exploration and production business as a separate, publicly traded
company named as WPX Energy, Inc.

As previously reported, in September 2006, royalty interest owners
in Garfield County, Colorado, filed a class action lawsuit in
District Court, Garfield County, Colorado, alleging Williams
improperly calculated oil and gas royalty payments, failed to
account for the proceeds that Williams received from the sale of
natural gas and extracted products, improperly charged certain
expenses and failed to refund amounts withheld in excess of ad
valorem tax obligations.  Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of
royalty interest owners, recover underpayment of royalties, and
obtain corrected payments resulting from calculation errors.
Williams entered into a final partial settlement agreement.  The
partial settlement agreement defined the class members for class
certification, reserved two claims for court resolution, resolved
all other class claims relating to past calculation of royalty and
overriding royalty payments, and established certain rules to
govern future royalty and overriding royalty payments.  This
settlement resolved all claims relating to past withholding for ad
valorem tax payments and established a procedure for refunds of
any such excess withholding in the future.

The first reserved claim is whether Williams is entitled to deduct
in its calculation of royalty payments a portion of the costs it
incurs beyond the tailgates of the treating or processing plants
for mainline pipeline transportation.  Williams received a
favorable ruling on its motion for summary judgment on the first
reserved claim.  Plaintiffs appealed that ruling and the Colorado
Court of Appeals found in Williams' favor in April 2011.  In June
2011, Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Colorado
Supreme Court.  WPX anticipates that the Court will issue a
decision on whether to grant further review later in 2011 or early
in 2012.

The second reserved claim relates to whether Williams is required
to have proportionately increased the value of natural gas by
transporting that gas on mainline transmission lines and, if
required, whether Williams did so and is, thus, entitled to deduct
a proportionate share of transportation costs in calculating
royalty payments.  WPX anticipates trial on the second reserved
claim following resolution of the first reserved claim.

WPX believes the royalty calculations have been properly
determined in accordance with the appropriate contractual
arrangements and Colorado law.  At this time, the plaintiffs have
not provided WPX a sufficient framework to calculate an estimated
range of exposure related to their claims.  However, it is
reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of this item
could result in a future charge that may be material to WPX's
results of operations.

Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement, Williams
will indemnify WPX for any cash payments (including indirect,
punitive or consequential damages) incurred by WPX in connection
with pending proceeding.


                           *********

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, Joy A. Agravante, Julie Anne
Lopez, 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  * * *