CAR_Public/111207.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, December 7, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 242

                             Headlines

ANZ BANK: Judge Tosses Four of Five Fee Types in Class Action
APPLE INC: Judge Decertifies Antitrust Class Action
CARGILL INC: Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Class Action Appeal
CARRIER IQ: Two Law Firms File Class Action Over Mobile Software
CHEMED CORP: Continues to Defend Workers' Suit in New York

CHEMED CORP: Appeal from Calif. Suit Cert. Order Remains Pending
CHINA-BIOTICS INC: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
COMMERCE BANCSHARES: Overdraft Fee Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
DELTA AIR: Faces Class Action in B.C. Over Improper Tax Charge
HEALTH CANADA: Manitoba Families Mull Healthcare Class Action

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Sued in Calif. Over Defective Printer Software
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Sued Over Deceptive Snapfish Valuepass Program
HTC CORP: Faces Class Action Over CIQ Software on Smartphones
IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Robins Geller Files Securities Class Action
JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in Antitrust Suits Remains Pending

JPMORGAN CHASE: Discovery in Bear Stearns Securities Suit Ongoing
JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in Enron-related Suit Remains Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Antitrust and IPO-related Suits Still Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend LIBOR-related Suit in New York
JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Madoff-related Lawsuits

JPMORGAN CHASE: MBS-related Suits Remain Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Discovery Ongoing in Municipal Derivatives Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Overdraft Fee Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Trial in Sigma-related Suit to Begin Feb. 2012
JPMORGAN CHASE: Awaits Approval of SCRA Suit Settlement

JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend 2 Mortgage Foreclosure Suits
MAJOR BANKS: Judge Appoints Interim Class Counsel in Libor Suit
MENASHA UTILITIES: Judge Okays $17.5MM Class Action Settlement
OXYPULSE MEDICAL: Sued for Sending Unsolicited Fax Ads in Ill.
PINE ISLAND: Investors File Class Action Over Losses

POWERCOR: Judge Okays Farmers' Bushfire Class Action Settlement
STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Class Action Over Undisclosed Service Fee
TRICARE MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action in D.C. Over Data Breach
UNITED STATES: Foster Care Class Action v. DHS Can Proceed
WELLS FARGO: Settles "Pick-A-Payment" Class Action for $75 Mil.

WESTERN AND SOUTHERN: Sued in Ohio for Breaching SPIA Contract





                          *********

ANZ BANK: Judge Tosses Four of Five Fee Types in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the country's biggest class
action against the banks and the billions of dollars in penalty
fees and late fees that were allegedly charged unfairly and
wrongly to their customers hit a big snag on Dec. 5 when a
judgment found in favor of only one in five charges.

The test case involved ANZ Bank versus 34,000 ANZ customers who
joined a class action bankrolled by litigation funder IMF to sue
the banks over an estimated AUD50 million in fees.  These
customers had a victory on late fees and credit cards, but
suffered a defeat on other fees such as dishonor fees, honor fees,
over limit fees and non payment fees.

The 134-page judgment is complex but boils down to Justice
Michelle Gordon in the Federal Court of Australia adopting a
strict definition of a penalty and therefore a breach of contract.
The hearing was a first step in deciding whether the five fees
could be considered penalties or if they were a fee for a service
provided by the bank.

It means up to one third of the 34,000 customers had a victory
over the late payment of credit cards, which is the biggest
economic component of the class action, and equivalent to more
than AUD18 million of the AUD50 million claimed.  The next step is
the main trial next year which will hear work out how much these
customers were allegedly over-charged by ANZ.

For the other banks, including Commonwealth Bank, National
Australia Bank, BankWest, Citigroup and Westpac, it means IMF will
stick with its plan to take them on one at a time in the courts
over late fees on credit cards.

But in the case of the other four penalties that were lost in the
Dec. 5 judgment, the biggest being the dishonor fees charged to
businesses, IMF will undoubtedly seek leave to appeal for a wider
definition of the meaning of penalty or even whether Justice
Gordon was right to conclude they were not capable of being
penalties.

In late 2009, ANZ and most of the other banks abolished a number
of fees on personal accounts, reduced overdrawn, dishonor and late
payment fees.

The other banks no doubt watched closely at the ruling on Dec. 5
and will think long and hard about whether to settle or wait to
see what the courts decide next year.


APPLE INC: Judge Decertifies Antitrust Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge has decertified a class that claimed Apple and AT&T
illegally restricted choice of carriers, saying the companies can
arbitrate iPhone users' claims.

Lead plaintiffs Paul Holman and Lucy Rivello filed a federal
complaint against Apple and AT&T Mobility (ATTM) in October 2007,
claiming the companies illegally controlled consumer choices by
limiting iPhone users to AT&T plans.  A San Jose federal judge
certified their class action last year.

AT&T and Apple fought the case, saying it should be arbitrated and
the class should be decertified because the "entire theory rests
on a single, unified course of conduct."

"Plaintiffs have wrapped themselves for years in the service
contract and in allegations of a single ATTM-Apple conspiracy to
survive motions to dismiss and obtain class certification," Apple
said in an August motion to compel arbitration.  "They cannot run
from those theories now."

Apple attorney Daniel Wall said the plaintiffs' case has always
been built around their wireless-service agreement, and they
cannot use that agreement "to prop-up antitrust claims, then use
it again to overcome obstacles to class certification, and yet
deny they are bound by the arbitration clause found in the
[agreement]."

Regardless of how the motions to compel arbitration were resolved,
Mr. Wall said the class must be decertified because their entire
theory was based on the wireless agreement.  In their latest
brief, the plaintiffs said that agreement was "merely background,"
Mr. Wall noted.

U.S. District Chief Judge James Ware agreed with Apple and AT&T,
granting their motions to decertify the class and compel
arbitration on Dec. 1.

The judge rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the arbitration
agreement was unenforceable.

"The Supreme Court has specifically considered the very
arbitration agreement at issue in this case, and has determined
that it is enforceable, on the grounds that the agreement
'essentially guarantee[d]' that 'aggrieved customers who filed
claims' would 'be made whole,'" Judge Ware wrote.

Apple can also compel the plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims,
even though the company did not sign the arbitration agreement,
according to the ruling.

Based on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
precedent, Apple can compel arbitration under the doctrine of
estoppel, because the subject matter of the dispute is intertwined
with the contract, and there is a sufficient relationship between
the parties, Judge Ware found.

"Plaintiffs themselves have alleged that there is a 'relationship'
between ATTM and Apple, inasmuch as plaintiffs' claim against
defendant Apple centers on their allegations that defendants ATTM
and Apple entered into an agreement prior to the commercial
release of the iPhone whereby purchasers of the iPhone would 'be
locked into using ATTM after the expiration of their initial two-
year service contracts,'" Judge Ware wrote.

A copy of the Order Granting Motions to Compel Arbitration and
Granting Motions to Decertify Class in In re Apple & AT&TM
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-05152 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at http://is.gd/S5g5jV


CARGILL INC: Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Class Action Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Hamilton, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that the
Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal two decisions
by the B.C. Court of Appeal that the final consumers of a product
cannot sue the producers in a class action law suit if they did
not purchase the product directly from the producer.

The decision involves efforts to set up two Canadian class action
law suits; one involving high-fructose corn syrup producers
Cargill Inc. and Archer Daniels Midland Co. (ADM), for conspiring
to fix the price of the sweetener; and Microsoft Corp., for
creating agreements with the manufacturers of computers that
required them to buy only Microsoft products.

The Supreme Court also agreed to hear appeals by the grain
companies of aspects of lower court decisions.

The two cases were being heard in British Columbia courts because
there is no federal court to hear Canadian class action suits.
Suits have been filed in two other provinces but the B.C. case is
most advanced.  The B.C. court ruled April 15 that consumers do
not have the right to launch a class-action suit against a
producer at the top of the distribution chain.

Lawyer Reidar Mogerman, who represents the claimants, including
Sun-Rype Products in the corn syrup case, said if the Supreme
Court finds that final consumers can launch a class action,
hundreds of million of dollars could be at stake.

"It was our view and the view of many practitioners and judges in
this area that this is an issue of major importance: the question
of whether the consumers who are at the bottom of the distribution
chain can sue the manufacturers at the top.  And that's the issue
that's going to go to Ottawa."

Microsoft states in its 2011 annual report that it expects to pay
$1.9 billion in American states where class action suits were
successful.  ADM agreed to pay C$100 million in 1996 for fixing
the price of two smaller products, lysine and citric acid.

The Cargill case was launched in 2006 and relates to transactions
in the 1990s.

Soft-drink makers are the largest users of high fructose corn
syrup and Canada is a big importer of it.

In 2004, an Illinois court ordered a settlement of a corn syrup
price-fixing class action that dated back to 1995.  Cargill agreed
to the settlement but said it conducted no illegal activity.


CARRIER IQ: Two Law Firms File Class Action Over Mobile Software
----------------------------------------------------------------
New York City based Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis, Attorneys at Law
and Los Angeles based Kiesel Boucher & Larson LLP on Dec. 2
disclosed that they have filed a nationwide class action lawsuit
against Mountain View, California based CARRIER iQ, Inc. ("CiQ")
on behalf of a class comprised of all persons and entities who own
an electronic device, including but not limited to, smartphones,
feature phones, tablets, and electronic-readers, in which CiQ's
Mobile Intelligence software application is installed.

The class action complaint, which was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges
that CiQ manufactures a software application that, unbeknownst to
Class members, was embedded into a wide variety of Electronic
Devices, including but not limited to, smartphones, feature
phones, tablets, and electronic-readers, purchased by Class
members over the past six years.  Plaintiff further alleges that
CiQ utilized its software application to illegally intercept,
collect, and share the data and communications sent or received by
Class members over their Electronic Devices in which CiQ's
software application has been secretly installed for approximately
six years.

More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that CiQ's software
application enabled CiQ to illegally intercept and monitor all
communications that are sent to, and received by, an Electronic
Device in which CiQ's software is installed.  CiQ's software does
so by: (i) intercepting and recording all keystrokes depressed on
the Electronic Devices; (ii) intercepting, reading and displaying
the actual text of all text messages sent from, or received by,
the Electronic Devices; and (iii) intercepting, reading and
displaying all Internet browser searches conducted on private
Wi-Fi networks

In commenting on the allegations of the Class Action Complaint,
Plaintiff's attorney Paul O. Paradis remarked, "The vast nature of
CiQ's illegal interception activities and the fact that the
Company's illegal activities were able to be conducted without
detection for nearly 6 years is frightening.  In the digital age
in which we live, the revelation of CiQ's illegal electronic
interception activities is a watershed moment for privacy
advocates around the world and serves as an alarming wake up call
to all of us who are concerned about protecting the privacy of
confidential communications of any type."  Attorney Paul Kiesel
added, "At this juncture of the litigation, it appears that in
excess of 140 million class members were victimized by CiQ's
illegal interception activities.  That fact, in and of itself, is
stunning."

Plaintiff alleges that CiQ's illegal interception and data
collection and sharing activities violated both the federal
Electronic Communications Privacy Act and California's Invasion of
Privacy Act, as well as other laws intended to protect Class
member's privacy and property interests.  Plaintiff seeks
statutory damages, restitution, punitive damages on behalf of
himself and all Class members, as well as an injunction enjoining
Defendant from continuing the illegal practices complained of in
the Complaint.

If you have any information concerning practices complained of in
the Class Action Complaint or would like further information
regarding this nationwide class action, please contact Paul O.
Paradis at 212-986-4500 or e-mail at pparadis@hhplawny.com or
Paul Kiesel at 310-854-4444 or e-mail at kiesel@kbla.com

Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis, Attorneys at Law, and Kiesel Boucher &
Larson, LLP have been retained as two of the law firms to
represent the Class.

CONTACT: Plaintiff's Counsel
         Paul O. Paradis, Esq.
         HORWITZ, HORWITZ & PARADIS, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
         570 Seventh Avenue - 20th Floor
         New York, NY 10018
         Telephone: (212) 986-4500
         Facsimile: (212) 986-4501

         Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
         KIESEL BOUCHER & LARSON LLP
         8648 Wilshire Boulevard
         Beverly Hills, CA 90211
         Telephone: (310) 854-4444
         Facsimile:  (310) 854-0812


CHEMED CORP: Continues to Defend Workers' Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Chemed Corporation continues to defend itself from a class action
lawsuit filed in New York by a class of workers, according to the
Company's Nov. 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

On March 1, 2010 Anthony Morangelli and Frank Ercole filed a class
action lawsuit in federal district court for the Eastern District
of New York seeking unpaid minimum wages and overtime service
technician compensation from Roto-Rooter and Chemed.  They also
seek payment of penalties, interest and plaintiffs' attorney fees.
The Company contests these allegations.  In September 2010, the
Court conditionally certified a class of service technicians,
excluding those who signed dispute resolution agreements in which
they agreed to arbitrate claims arising out of their employment.
In June 2011, the Court granted certification of a class of
technicians in 14 states on certain claims.  The Company said it
is unable to estimate its potential liability or range of
potential loss, if any, with respect to this case.


CHEMED CORP: Appeal from Calif. Suit Cert. Order Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from an appellate court's order denying class
certification of certain claims alleged by workers of Chemed
Corporation's VITAS segment remains pending, according to the
Company's Nov. 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

VITAS is party to a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County, in September 2006 by
Bernadette Santos, Keith Knoche and Joyce White.  This case
alleges failure to pay overtime and failure to provide meal and
rest periods to California admissions nurses, chaplains and sales
representatives.  The case seeks payment of penalties, interest
and Plaintiffs' attorney fees.  VITAS contests these allegations.
In December 2009, the trial court denied Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  In July 2011, the Court of Appeals affirmed
denial of class certification on the travel time, meal and rest
period claims, and reversed the trial court's denial on the off-
the-clock and sales representation exemption claims.  Plaintiffs
have filed an appeal of this decision.  The Company said it is
unable to estimate its potential liability or range of potential
loss, if any, with respect to this case.


CHINA-BIOTICS INC: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. is representing all shareholders in a securities
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased the
securities of China-Biotics, Inc. during the period between
July 10, 2008 and August 30, 2010, inclusive.  Saxena White urges
all investors who purchased shares on the Secondary Offering dated
September 29, 2009 at $15.00 per share to contact:

           Greg Stone, Esq.
           Saxena White P.A.
           2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
           Boca Raton, FL 33431
           Tel: (561) 394-3399
           E-mail: gstone@saxenawhite.com
           Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com

as soon as possible.

Saxena White P.A., which has offices in Boca Raton and Boston,
specializes in prosecuting securities fraud and complex class
actions on behalf of institutions and individuals.


COMMERCE BANCSHARES: Overdraft Fee Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against Commerce Bancshares, Inc.'s
subsidiary alleging that overdraft fees relating to debit card
transactions have been unfairly assessed remains pending,
according to the Company's Nov. 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2011.

On April 6, 2010, a suit was filed against Commerce Bank (the
Bank) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri by a customer alleging that overdraft fees relating to
debit card transactions have been unfairly assessed by the Bank.
The suit seeks class-action status for Bank customers who may have
been similarly affected, and has been transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida for pre-trial
proceedings as part of the multi-district litigation referred to
as In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation.  A second suit
alleging the same facts and also seeking class-action status was
filed on June 4, 2010 in Missouri state court, but has been stayed
in deference to the earlier filed suit.

No updates were disclosed in the Company's recent SEC filing.


DELTA AIR: Faces Class Action in B.C. Over Improper Tax Charge
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Delta
Air Lines charges a "tax" which is not a tax at all but which it
keeps for its own use.

A copy of the Complaint in Kadioglu v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Case
No. VLC-S-118115 (B.C. Sup. Ct.), is available at:

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/02/Delta.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Poyner, Esq.
          POYNER BAXTER LLP
          #408-145 Chadwick Court
          North Vancouver, BC
          V7M 3K1
          Telephone: 604-210-3651
                     888-789-1948


HEALTH CANADA: Manitoba Families Mull Healthcare Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that some northern Manitoba families and
aboriginal leaders are considering legal action over what they
claim is shoddy health care in their communities.

Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak (MKO), the organization
representing northern Manitoba First Nations, says it plans to
help concerned families launch a class-action lawsuit if health-
care conditions do not improve in their region.

MKO Grand Chief David Harper said he is outraged to learn that a
Health Canada review of the death in January of Kirby Wood
concluded that Mr. Wood had received proper care at the nursing
station on the Manto Sipi First Nation in God's River, Man.

"Right now the state of care is totally unacceptable, and it's not
going to work until the time comes when certain rules are put in
place," Mr. Harper told CBC News on Nov. 30.

Mr. Wood, 28, had gone to the nursing station feeling very ill,
but he was sent home with painkillers instead of being flown out
of the community for medical treatment, according to family
members.

"The nurse just told him to take Tylenol and drink water.  That's
it," said his sister, Roberta Wood.

Kirby Wood was later rushed back to the nursing station, where he
died.

In its review of Kirby's case, Health Canada said Mr. Wood
received appropriate treatment at the nursing station.

"Who else in Canada would approve [of] going to an emergency
[room] and being sent home with Tylenol . . . by a nurse, not even
a doctor?" Mr. Harper argued.

Mr. Harper said the federal review is further proof that health
care in remote areas is substandard.

Drianna Ross, a two-month-old girl from the nearby Gods Lake
Narrows First Nation, died despite attempts by her family to get
medical treatment for her.

The infant's parents told reporters last week that they took
Drianna to their local nursing station on Nov. 24, but they were
sent home with painkillers.

When the baby's condition deteriorated on Nov. 25, Drianna was
flown to hospital in Thompson where she died on Nov. 26.

Health Canada has said it will review Drianna Ross's death, and
officials will meet with the family once that review is complete.

Mr. Harper said First Nations need to have more input into their
own health-care services.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Sued in Calif. Over Defective Printer Software
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Hewlett-Packard printers have defective software that allows
hackers to gain access to the network they are on, steal
information from it, and control the printers.
A copy of the Complaint in Goldblatt v. Hewlett-Packard Company,
Case No. 11-cv-05779 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/02/HP.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 854-4444
          E-mail: kiesel@kbla.com

               - and -

          Paul O. Paradis, Esq.
          Gina M. Tufaro, Esq.
          Mark A. Butler, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ & PARADIS
          570 7th Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 986-4500


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Sued Over Deceptive Snapfish Valuepass Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Hill Castagnola, an individual, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated persons v. Hewlett-Packard
Company dba Snapfish.com, a California corporation, and Regent
Group, Inc. dba Encore Marketing International, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 3:11-cv-05772 (N.D. Calif., December 1,
2011) alleges that Hewlett-Packard has stolen money from its own
customers by transferring its customers' credit card information
to third party, Regent Group, Inc.  Regent then used the
customers' credit card information, along with a misleading Web
site, to deceive Snapfish's customers into enrolling in a fee-
based membership.

As a result of Snapfish's disclosure of consumers' billing
information to Regent, and as a result of Regent's deceptive Web
site, the Plaintiff asserts, she and numerous other consumers
similar to her were involuntarily enrolled in Snapfish's Valuepass
program and were wrongfully charged membership fees.

Courthouse News Service says the defendants are accused of
offering a small gift, or free shipping, but inadequately
disclosing that clicking upon the offer will result in monthly
charges of $14.95.

Snapfish sells photography goods and services on its Web site.  As
is customary, consumers are led through "several checkout screens"
to make their purchase.

"Defendants have used this checkout process to deceive customers
into enrolling in a fee-based membership," Ms. Castagnola says.

She says the Snapfish Web site sends customers to "a different
Web site, controlled by Regent," without informing them.  "To the
contrary, Regent designed its Web site to deceive consumers into
believing they were still viewing the Snapfish Web site by
displaying the Snapfish trademark and using the Snapfish layout
and color scheme."

Regent offers a "$10 gift code or other perk" if the unwitting
sucker "join(s) the Snapfish Valuepass program," Ms. Castagnola
says.

"Only in small print, on the far left side of the Regent Web site,
designed not to be noticed by the consumer, did the Regent
Web site disclose that consumers would be charged a $1.95
activation fee and then billed $14.95 per month thereafter for the
Snapfish Valuepass program."

Ms. Castagnola seeks restitution, costs, an injunction and class
damages for unfair and deceptive trade, and business law
violations.

Ms. Castagnola is a resident of Monte Rio, California.

Hewlett-Packard is a Delaware corporation based in Palo Alto,
California, and conducts business using as Snapfish.com.  Regent
is a Delaware corporation based in Lanham, Maryland.  In December
2010, Regent changed its name from Encore Marketing International,
Inc. to Regent Group, Inc.

A copy of the Complaint in Castagnola v. Hewlett-Packard Company
dba Snapfish.com, et al., Case No. 11-cv-05772 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/02/Snapfish.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karl S. Kronenberger, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Virginia A. Sanderson, Esq.
          KRONENBERGER ROSENFELO, LLP
          150 Post Street, Suite 520
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 955-1155
          Facsimile: (415) 955-1158
          E-mail: karl@KRInternetLaw.com
                  jeff@KRInternetLaw.com
                  ginny@KRIntemetLaw.com


HTC CORP: Faces Class Action Over CIQ Software on Smartphones
-------------------------------------------------------------
A group of consumers filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit
claiming that smartphone manufacturers HTC Corporation, HTC
America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. use software
developed by Carrier IQ, Inc. ("CIQ") that illegally intercepts
incoming text messages and captures users' key strokes --
including those used to compose e-mail and text messages or to
dial numbers -- without consumers' knowledge or permission.

In mid-November, software developer Trevor Eckhart published a
video blog illustrating the operation of the CIQ software
recording keystrokes, including information sent to secure
Web sites using HTTPS security protocols used in e-commerce and
other security-sensitive sites.

After Mr. Eckhart published his discovery and documents he found
on CIQ's Web site, CIQ accused him of copyright violations and
threatened legal actions unless he capitulated to the company's
demands.  The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a public-interest
digital rights watchdog stepped in to defend Eckhart and CIQ later
apologized to Mr. Eckhart and rescinded its demands.

According to CIQ, its software is embedded on smartphones to allow
the company to collect data for the benefit of cellular carriers
and device manufacturers, which is important to improving customer
experience, such as logging information related to dropped calls.

CIQ says its program does not log keystrokes or intercept messages
and it does not store or resell the information.

The lawsuit alleges that, in reality, the program does record
keystrokes and the content of messages, and could transmit the
information to third parties, possibly including information sent
to secure Web sites using HTTPS security protocols used in e-
commerce and other security-sensitive sites such as banking.

"Given our dependence on smartphones, we rely on the assumption
that our personal information is protected from third parties,"
said Steve W. Berman, the attorney representing the plaintiffs.
"Yet, it appears that Carrier IQ has violated this trust.  For
example, Mr. Eckhart's video shows CIQ software intercepting
incoming text messages, and it also shows that the software
captures dialed numbers and sensitive information sent through
protected Web sites."

The complaint was filed by Hagens Berman on Dec. 1 on behalf of
four smartphone users and names smartphone manufacturers HTC and
Samsung as defendants along with CIQ.  The lawsuit could be
amended to include other smartphone manufacturers that embed the
CIQ software on their devices.

"We believe that CIQ was intercepting and collecting private
information from smartphone users that they had no right to
monitor or record," Mr. Berman added.  "Their actions, in concert
with phone manufacturers and the various carriers, should raise
the hackles of anyone concerned about privacy in the broadest
terms."

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, accuses the companies of violating the
Federal Wiretap Act and California's Unfair Business Practice Act.

The Federal Wiretap Act prohibits the unauthorized interception or
illegal use of electronic communications.

The lawsuit asks the court to award damages under the Federal
Wiretap Act, and prevent companies from including similar software
in future smartphones.

Hagens Berman is interested in talking with smartphone users who
used devices that run CIQ software.  The firm can be contacted by
calling 206-623-7292.  More information is available at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/ciq


IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Robins Geller Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Dec. 2 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of Imperial Holdings, Inc.
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's February 7, 2011
initial public offering through September 27, 2011, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.  On
October 25, 2011, defendants in the class action removed the case
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, where it is currently pending.  At least one other class
action has been filed against Imperial in the Circuit Court of the
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida.
It too was removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, where an additional class action has
been filed.

If you wish to serve as a representative plaintiff, or if you wish
to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiffs'
counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this Class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/imperial/

Imperial is a specialty finance company that, through its
operating subsidiaries, provides liquidity solutions to owners of
illiquid financial assets.  Imperial provides premium financing
for individual life insurance policies and also purchases life
insurance policies in the life settlement and secondary markets
for resale to investors.  On September 27, 2011, after the close
of trading, Imperial issued a press release announcing that it had
been served with a search warrant issued by the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The Company
disclosed that "it and certain of its employees, including its
chairman and chief executive officer, and its president and chief
operating officer, are under investigation in the District of New
Hampshire with respect to its life finance business."  On this
news, shares of Company stock declined $4.11 per share, or 65.24%,
to close at $2.19 per share on September 28, 2011, on unusually
heavy trading volume.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in Antitrust Suits Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from an order dismissing two putative antitrust class
actions filed in a New York court against JPMorgan Chase & Co.
remains pending, according to the Firm's Nov. 4, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

The Firm was named in two putative antitrust class actions pending
in the federal District Court in New York.  The actions allege
that the Firm, along with numerous other financial institution
defendants, colluded to maintain and stabilize the auction-rate
securities market and then to withdraw their support for the
auction-rate securities market.  In January 2010, the District
Court dismissed both actions.  An appeal is pending in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Discovery in Bear Stearns Securities Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a joined securities class action lawsuit
filed by Bear Stearns shareholders, according to JPMorgan Chase &
Co.'s Nov. 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

Various shareholders of Bear Stearns have commenced purported
class actions against Bear Stearns and certain of its former
officers and/or directors on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired common stock of Bear Stearns between
December 14, 2006, and March 14, 2008 (the "Class Period").
During the Class Period, Bear Stearns had between 115 million and
120 million common shares outstanding, and the price per share of
those securities declined from a high of $172.61 to a low of $30
at the end of the period.  The actions, originally commenced in
several federal courts, allege that the defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding Bear Stearns'
business and financial results and that, as a result of those
false statements, Bear Stearns' common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.  Separately,
several individual shareholders of Bear Stearns have commenced or
threatened to commence arbitration proceedings and lawsuits
asserting claims similar to those in the putative class actions.
Certain of these matters have been dismissed or settled.  In
addition, Bear Stearns and certain of its former officers and/or
directors have also been named as defendants in a number of
purported class actions commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to represent
the interests of participants in the Bear Stearns Employee Stock
Ownership Plan ("ESOP") during the time period of December 2006 to
March 2008.  These actions, brought under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act ("ERISA"), allege that defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs and to the other participants
and beneficiaries of the ESOP by (a) failing to manage prudently
the ESOP's investment in Bear Stearns securities; (b) failing to
communicate fully and accurately about the risks of the ESOP's
investment in Bear Stearns stock; (c) failing to avoid or address
alleged conflicts of interest; and (d) failing to monitor those
who managed and administered the ESOP.

Bear Stearns, former members of Bear Stearns' Board of Directors
and certain of Bear Stearns' former executive officers have also
been named as defendants in a shareholder derivative and class
action suit which is pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  Plaintiffs assert claims
for breach of fiduciary duty, violations of federal securities
laws, waste of corporate assets and gross mismanagement, unjust
enrichment, abuse of control and indemnification and contribution
in connection with the losses sustained by Bear Stearns as a
result of its purchases of subprime loans and certain repurchases
of its own common stock.  Certain individual defendants are also
alleged to have sold their holdings of Bear Stearns common stock
while in possession of material nonpublic information.  Plaintiffs
seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount.

All of the actions filed in federal courts were ordered
transferred and joined for pre-trial purposes before the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Defendants moved to dismiss the purported securities class action,
the shareholders' derivative action and the ERISA action.  In
January 2011, the District Court granted the motions to dismiss
the derivative and ERISA actions, and denied the motion as to the
securities action.  Plaintiffs in the derivative action have
appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.  Plaintiffs in the ESOP action filed a motion
for leave to amend their amended consolidated complaint, which was
granted.  Discovery is ongoing in the securities action.

No updates were disclosed in the Company's recent SEC filing.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in Enron-related Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court order dismissing a purported class action
lawsuit related to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s banking relationship
with Enron Corp. remains pending, according to JPMorgan 's Nov. 4,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

JPMorgan Chase and certain of its officers and directors are
involved in several lawsuits seeking damages arising out of the
Firm's banking relationships with Enron Corp. and its subsidiaries
("Enron").  A number of actions and other proceedings against the
Firm previously were resolved, including a class action lawsuit
captioned Newby v. Enron Corp. and adversary proceedings brought
by Enron's bankruptcy estate.  The remaining Enron-related actions
include individual actions by Enron investors, an action by an
Enron counterparty, and a purported class action filed on behalf
of JPMorgan Chase employees who participated in the Firm's 401(k)
plan asserting claims under ERISA for alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties by JPMorgan Chase, its directors and named
officers.  That action has been dismissed, and is on appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

No updates were disclosed in the Company's recent SEC filing.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Antitrust and IPO-related Suits Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit over antitrust violations and
a consolidated class action suit challenging the initial public
offerings of Mastercard and Visa are pending, according to
JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s Nov. 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2011.

A group of merchants has filed a series of putative class action
complaints in several federal courts.  The complaints allege that
Visa and MasterCard, as well as certain other banks and their bank
holding companies, conspired to set the price of credit and debit
card interchange fees, enacted respective association rules in
violation of antitrust laws, and engaged in tying/bundling and
exclusive dealing.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages and
injunctive relief based on the theory that interchange fees would
be lower or eliminated but for the challenged conduct.  Based on
publicly available estimates, Visa and MasterCard branded payment
cards generated approximately $40 billion of interchange fees
industry-wide in 2010.  All cases have been consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
for pretrial proceedings.  The Court has dismissed all claims
relating to periods prior to January 2004.  The Court has not yet
ruled on motions relating to the remainder of the case or
plaintiffs' class certification motion.  Fact and expert discovery
have closed.

In addition to the consolidated class action complaint, plaintiffs
filed supplemental complaints challenging the initial public
offerings ("IPOs") of MasterCard and Visa (the "IPO Complaints").
With respect to the MasterCard IPO, plaintiffs allege that the
offering violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 1 of
the Sherman Act and that the offering was a fraudulent conveyance.
With respect to the Visa IPO, plaintiffs are challenging the Visa
IPO on antitrust theories parallel to those articulated in the
MasterCard IPO pleading.  Defendants have filed motions to dismiss
the IPO Complaints.  The Court has not yet ruled on those motions.
The parties also have filed motions seeking summary judgment as to
various claims in the complaints.  Oral argument on these summary
judgment motions is scheduled to be heard in November 2011.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend LIBOR-related Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to defend itself from a
consolidated class action filed in New York alleging suppression
of London Interbank Offered Rate rate, according to the Firm's
Nov. 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

JP Morgan Chase has been named as defendant along with other banks
in a series of individual and class actions filed in various U.S.
federal courts alleging that since 2006 the defendants either
individually suppressed the London Interbank Offered Rate rate
artificially or colluded in submitting rates for LIBOR that were
artificially low.  Plaintiffs allege that they transacted in U.S.
Dollar Libor-based derivatives or other financial instruments
whose values are impacted by changes in U.S. Dollar Libor, and
assert a variety of claims including antitrust claims seeking
treble damages.  All cases have been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Madoff-related Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to defend itself from a class
action lawsuit filed in relation to its being a long-time bank of
Bernard L. Madoff, according to the Firm's Nov. 4, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., JPMorgan
Securities, and J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd. ("JPMSL") have been
named as defendants in a lawsuit brought by the trustee (the
"Trustee") for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment
Securities LLC ("Madoff").  The Trustee has served an amended
complaint in which he has asserted 28 causes of action against
JPMorgan Chase, 20 of which seek to avoid certain transfers
(direct or indirect) made to JPMorgan Chase that are alleged to
have been preferential or fraudulent under the federal Bankruptcy
Code and the New York Debtor and Creditor Law.  The remaining
causes of action involve claims for, among other things, aiding
and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty,
conversion, contribution and unjust enrichment.  The complaint
generally alleges that JPMorgan Chase, as Madoff's long-time bank,
facilitated the maintenance of Madoff's Ponzi scheme and
overlooked signs of wrongdoing in order to obtain profits and
fees.  The complaint asserts common law claims that purport to
seek approximately $19 billion in damages, together with
bankruptcy law claims to recover approximately $425 million in
transfers that JPMorgan Chase allegedly received directly or
indirectly from Bernard Madoff's brokerage firm.  By order dated
October 31, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted JPMorgan Chase's motion to
dismiss the common law claims asserted by the Trustee, and
returned the remaining claims to the Bankruptcy Court for further
proceedings.

Separately, J.P. Morgan Trust Company (Cayman) Limited, JPMorgan
(Suisse) SA, JPMSL, Bear Stearns Alternative Assets International
Ltd. and J.P. Morgan Clearing Corp. have been named as defendants
in lawsuits presently pending in Bankruptcy Court in New York
arising out of the liquidation proceedings of Fairfield Sentry
Limited and Fairfield Sigma Limited (together, "Fairfield"), so-
called Madoff feeder funds.  These actions are based on theories
of mistake and restitution and seek to recover payments made to
defendants by the funds totaling approximately $150 million.
Pursuant to an agreement with the Trustee, the liquidators of
Fairfield have voluntarily dismissed their action against JPMSL
without prejudice to refiling.  The other actions remain
outstanding.

In addition, a purported class action is pending against JPMorgan
Chase in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, as is a motion by separate potential class
plaintiffs to add claims against JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and J.P. Morgan Securities
Ltd. to an already-pending purported class action in the same
court.  The allegations in these complaints largely track those
raised by the Trustee.  The JPMorgan Chase entities have moved to
dismiss these actions.

JPMorgan Chase is also a defendant in five actions pending in the
New York state court and one individual action in federal court in
New York.  The allegations in all of these actions are essentially
identical, and involve claims against the Firm for aiding and
abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty,
conversion and unjust enrichment.  In the state court actions, the
Firm's motion to dismiss is pending.  In the federal action, the
Firm prevailed on its motion to dismiss before the District Court,
and that decision was recently affirmed on appeal.  The Firm is
also responding to various governmental inquiries concerning the
Madoff matter.


JPMORGAN CHASE: MBS-related Suits Remain Pending
------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits relating to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s role as issuer or
underwriter in mortgage-backed securities offerings remain
pending, according to the Firm's Nov. 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2011.

JPMorgan Chase and affiliates, Bear Stearns and affiliates and
Washington Mutual affiliates have been named as defendants in a
number of cases in their various roles as issuer or underwriter in
MBS offerings.  These cases include purported class action suits,
actions by individual purchasers of securities or by trustees for
the benefit of purchasers of securities, and actions by insurance
companies that guaranteed payments of principal and interest for
particular tranches of securities offerings.  Although the
allegations vary by lawsuit, these cases generally allege that the
offering documents for approximately $180 billion of securities
issued by dozens of securitization trusts contained material
misrepresentations and omissions, including with regard to the
underwriting standards pursuant to which the underlying mortgage
loans were issued, or assert that various representations or
warranties relating to the loans were breached at the time of
origination.

In the actions against the Firm as an MBS issuer (and, in some
cases, also as an underwriter of its own MBS offerings), three
purported class actions are pending against JPMorgan Chase and
Bear Stearns, and/or certain of their affiliates and current and
former employees, in the United States District Courts for the
Eastern and Southern Districts of New York.  Defendants moved to
dismiss these actions.  One of those motions has been granted in
part to dismiss claims relating to all but one of the offerings.
The other two motions remain pending.

In addition, Washington Mutual affiliates, WaMu Asset Acceptance
Corp. and WaMu Capital Corp., along with certain former officers
or directors of WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp., have been named as
defendants in three now-consolidated purported class action cases
pending in the Western District of Washington.  The Court denied
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to add
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as a defendant on the theory that it is
a successor to Washington Mutual Bank.  In October 2011, the
District Court certified a class of plaintiff investors to pursue
the claims asserted, but limited those claims to the 13 tranches
of MBS in which a named plaintiff purchased.

In the actions against the Firm solely as an underwriter of other
issuers' MBS offerings, the Firm has contractual rights to
indemnification from the issuers, but those indemnity rights may
prove effectively unenforceable where the issuers are now defunct,
such as affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp ("IndyMac Trusts") and
Thornburg Mortgage ("Thornburg").  With respect to the IndyMac
Trusts, JPMorgan Securities, along with numerous other
underwriters and individuals, is named as a defendant, both in its
own capacity and as successor to Bear Stearns, in a purported
class action pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York brought on behalf of purchasers of
securities in various IndyMac Trust MBS offerings.  The court in
that action has dismissed claims as to certain securitizations,
including all offerings in which no named plaintiff purchased
securities, and allowed claims as to other offerings to proceed.
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of investors in certain
offerings is pending, and discovery is ongoing.

In addition, JPMorgan Securities and JPMorgan Chase are named as
defendants in an individual action filed by the Federal Home Loan
Bank of Pittsburgh in connection with a single offering by an
affiliate of IndyMac Bancorp.  Discovery in that action is
ongoing.

Separately, JPMorgan Securities, as successor to Bear, Stearns &
Co. Inc., along with other underwriters and certain individuals,
are defendants in an action pending in state court in California
brought by MBIA Insurance Corp. ("MBIA").  The action relates to
certain securities issued by IndyMac trusts in offerings in which
Bear Stearns was an underwriter, and as to which MBIA provided
guaranty insurance policies.  MBIA purports to be subrogated to
the rights of the MBS holders, and seeks recovery of sums it has
paid and will pay pursuant to those policies.  Discovery is
ongoing.  With respect to Thornburg, a Bear Stearns subsidiary is
also a named defendant in a purported class action pending in the
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico along
with a number of other financial institutions that served as
depositors and/or underwriters for three Thornburg MBS offerings.
The Court granted in part defendants' motion to dismiss but has
indicated that plaintiffs could replead.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Discovery Ongoing in Municipal Derivatives Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action lawsuit relating
to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s municipal bond offerings, according to
the Firm's Nov. 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

Purported class action lawsuits and individual actions (the
"Municipal Derivatives Actions") have been filed against JPMorgan
Chase and Bear Stearns, as well as numerous other providers and
brokers, alleging antitrust violations in the reportedly $100
billion to $300 billion annual market for financial instruments
related to municipal bond offerings referred to collectively as
"municipal derivatives."  In July 2011, the Firm settled with
federal and state governmental agencies to resolve their
investigations into similar alleged conduct.  The Municipal
Derivatives Actions have been consolidated and/or coordinated in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The court denied in part and granted in part defendants'
motions to dismiss the purported class and individual actions,
permitting certain claims to proceed against the Firm and others
under federal and California state antitrust laws and under the
California false claims act.  Subsequently, a number of additional
individual actions asserting substantially similar claims,
including claims under New York and West Virginia state antitrust
statutes, were filed against JPMorgan Chase, Bear Stearns and
numerous other defendants.  These cases are also being coordinated
for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  Discovery is ongoing.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Overdraft Fee Suit
------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to defend itself from a
consolidated class action relating to its debit card transaction
practices, according to the Firm's Nov. 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2011.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. has been named as a defendant in several
purported class actions relating to its practices in posting debit
card transactions to customers' deposit accounts.  Plaintiffs
allege that the Firm improperly re-ordered debit card transactions
from the highest amount to the lowest amount before processing
these transactions in order to generate unwarranted overdraft
fees.  Plaintiffs contend that the Firm should have processed
those transactions in the chronological order they were
authorized.  Plaintiffs seek the disgorgement of all overdraft
fees paid to the Firm by plaintiffs since approximately 2003 as a
result of the re-ordering of debit card transactions.  The claims
against the Firm have been consolidated with numerous complaints
against other national banks in Multi-District Litigation pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.  The Firm's motion to compel arbitration of certain
plaintiffs' claims was initially denied by the District Court.  On
appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit vacated the District Court's order and remanded the case
for reconsideration in light of a recent ruling by the United
States Supreme Court in an unrelated case addressing the
enforcement of an arbitration provision in a consumer product
agreement.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Trial in Sigma-related Suit to Begin Feb. 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in three putative class action lawsuits relating to
investments of medium-term notes of Sigma Finance, Inc., will
begin in February 2012, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s
Nov. 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. has been named as a defendant in four
putative class actions asserting Employee Retirement Income
Security Act and other claims pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York brought by
participants in the Firm's securities lending business.  A fifth
lawsuit was filed in New York state court by an individual
participant in the program.  Three of the purported class actions,
which have been consolidated, relate to investments of
approximately $500 million in medium-term notes of Sigma Finance
Inc. ("Sigma").  In August 2010, the Court certified a plaintiff
class consisting of all securities lending participants that held
Sigma medium-term notes on September 30, 2008, including those
that held the notes by virtue of participation in the investment
of cash collateral through a collective fund, as well as those
that held the notes by virtue of the investment of cash collateral
through individual accounts.  The Court granted JPMorgan Chase's
motion for partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs' duty of
loyalty claim, finding that the Firm did not have a conflict of
interest when it by provided repurchase financing to Sigma while
also holding Sigma medium-term notes in securities lending
accounts.  Trial on the remaining duty of prudence claim is
scheduled to begin in February 2012.

The fourth putative class action concerns investments of
approximately $500 million in Lehman Brothers medium-term notes.
The Firm has moved to dismiss the amended complaint and is
awaiting a decision.  Discovery is proceeding while the motion is
pending.  The New York state court action, which is not a class
action, concerns the plaintiff's alleged loss of money in both
Sigma and Lehman Brothers medium-term notes.  The Firm has
answered the complaint.  Discovery is proceeding.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Awaits Approval of SCRA Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is awaiting court approval of a settlement
resolving a class action filed over the Firm's procedures relating
to the Service Members Civil Relief Act and Housing and Economic
Recovery Act, according to the Firm's Nov. 4, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

Multiple government officials have conducted inquiries into the
Firm's procedures related to the Service Members Civil Relief Act
("SCRA") and the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008
("HERA").  These inquiries were prompted by the Firm's public
statements about its SCRA and HERA compliance and actions to
remedy certain instances in which the Firm mistakenly charged
active or recently-active military personnel mortgage interest and
fees in excess of that permitted by SCRA and HERA, and in a number
of instances, foreclosed on borrowers protected by SCRA and HERA.
The Firm has implemented a number of procedural enhancements and
controls to strengthen its SCRA and HERA compliance.  In addition,
an individual borrower filed a nationwide class action in United
States District Court for South Carolina against the Firm alleging
violations of the SCRA related to home loans.  The Firm agreed to
pay $27 million plus attorneys' fees, in addition to
reimbursements previously paid by the Firm, to settle the class
action.  Additional borrowers were subsequently added to the
class, and the Firm agreed to pay an additional $8 million into
the settlement fund.  The settlement is subject to final court
approval; a motion seeking their approval is scheduled to be heard
in November 2011.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend 2 Mortgage Foreclosure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to defend two purported class
action lawsuits relating to the Firm's mortgage foreclosure
procedures, according to the Firm's Nov. 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2011.

Four purported class action lawsuits have been filed against the
Firm relating to its mortgage foreclosure procedures, of which two
have been dismissed with prejudice.


MAJOR BANKS: Judge Appoints Interim Class Counsel in Libor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for The American Lawyer, reports that class
action litigation is beginning to take shape over allegations that
major banks manipulated Libor, the benchmark rate used to
calculate interest on trillions of dollars in securities globally.
On Dec. 5, the federal district court judge hearing the litigation
consolidated 20 class complaints, and appointed interim class
counsel.

Michael Hausfeld of Hausfeld LLP, one of the firms selected by the
judge, said the litigation could have unfathomably large damages.
"There was a period of time when I thought $100,000 was large," he
said.  "Then a million became large.  Then a billion. Here, the
market is trillions."

The ruling by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald was the latest
development in coordinated antitrust litigation against the banks
that belong to the panel that sets the London Interbank Offered
Rate.  Libor is the rate that banks charge to lend to other banks
in the London wholesale money market for maturities, and is used
by a number of financial institutions around the world to set
their own interest rates.

Judge Buchwald, who presides in the Southern District of New York,
appointed Hausfeld LLP and Susman Godfrey as interim class counsel
for over-the-counter or direct purchasers of securities affected
by Libor.  She also selected Kirby McInerney and Lovell Stewart
Halebian Jacobson as counsel to exchange-based or indirect
purchasers.

Judge Buchwald picked Hausfeld and Susman over Grant & Eisenhofer
and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, which had likewise sought to
represent the direct purchasers.  Hausfeld and Susman's named
plaintiff client, the city of Baltimore, had "by far the greatest
economic interest" after entering into "hundreds of millions of
dollars" of interest rate swaps with the banks that allegedly
manipulated Libor, Judge Buchwald said.

The lawsuits have come fast and furious since March, when the news
first emerged that government agencies in the United States and
Europe were investigating possible antitrust violations by the
Libor banks.  Barclays PLC, HSBC Holdings plc, and UBS AG are some
of the banks that have made public disclosures about the
government probes.  According to an August regulatory filing by
Barclays, the list of investigating authorities includes the U.S.
Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the U.K. Financial Services
Authority, and the European Commission.

While many of the private suits are class actions, some
plaintiffs, such as Charles Schwab Corporation, have chosen to go
it alone with individual suits.  The lawsuits have generally
accused the banks that made up the U.S. dollar panel of the
British Bankers Association from 2006 to 2009 of colluding to
artificially suppress Libor by underreporting the rates that they
used when borrowing from each other.  Members of the panel (which
included 16 banks until February 2011, when the membership was
expanded to 20) sent data daily Thomson Reuters Group, which then
calculated an average rate after excluding the four highest and
four lowest rates.

Underreporting rates benefited the banks' own derivatives
positions, the plaintiffs claim.  Those positions were primarily
in interest rate swaps, which has a market value of more than $300
million, according to papers filed by Hausfeld and Susman in
support of their appointment.

The banks have lawyered up to respond to the class actions and
other lawsuits that have followed those investigations.  The
defense now includes Locke Lord for HSBC; Simpson, Thacher &
Bartlett and Schiff Hardin for JPMorgan Chase & Co.; Davis Polk &
Wardwell for Bank of America Corporation; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison for Deutsche Bank AG; McDermott, Will & Emery
for Citigroup Inc.; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher for UBS; Milbank,
Tweed, Hadley & McCloy for Rabobank Group; Hogan Lovells for
Lloyds Banking Group plc; Hughes Hubbard & Reed for WestLB AG;
Sidley Austin for The Norinchukin Bank; and Katten Muchin Rosenman
for Royal Bank of Canada.

Mr. Hausfeld credited his firm's selection co-interim class
counsel to having a London office, a factor that Judge Buchwald
noted.  "Given that the case appears to involve extremely
complicated factual issues, we believe that having dedicated and
locally trained attorneys at the site of the core operative facts
could prove extremely beneficial," she wrote.

Mr. Hausfeld said the decision affirmed his decision to open a
London office, which launched in February 2009 with partners from
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, Mr. Hausfeld's former firm.  Cohen
Milstein itself had only opened a year earlier in London, where
class actions are not possible.  Mr. Hausfeld said that most
people assume a firm opens a London office just for business
there.  "This is a case that proves the value," he said.


MENASHA UTILITIES: Judge Okays $17.5MM Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael King, writing for Post-Crescent, reports that an
Indianapolis attorney who represented investors in the failed
Menasha Utilities steam plant project credits the city with
finding a creative solution that led to a $17.5 million cash
settlement.

An Indiana federal judge on Dec. 1 approved the class action
settlement among the city of Menasha, RBC Capital Markets and
about 150 investors who held the nearly $22.8 million in municipal
bonds that the city defaulted on in September 2009.

"In this type of a case, this was an excellent settlement for the
note holders or investors," said attorney Michael Wukmer, whose
firm, Ice Miller, was appointed by the federal court earlier this
year to represent all investors.  "They'll be receiving
approximately 77 percent of their investment back. There are some
people (in bond defaults) who lose it all."

The settlement represents the city's shortest path to helping
restore its damaged credit rating, which has plunged to B1 junk
bond status and eliminates the potential of a protracted federal
securities lawsuit that would have delayed its recovery.

Mr. Wukmer said bankruptcy was not an option under current
Wisconsin law but city officials were "creative in funding the
settlement" by working with WPPI Energy of Sun Prairie, the power
supplier to municipal electric utility, to provide the settlement
funding for the city, which is struggling to deal with another $18
million in general obligation debt from the failed steam plant.

"The law would have had to have been changed to allow Menasha to
file bankruptcy," Mr. Wukmer said.  "Typically in bankruptcy
there's a fight about whether or not fraud claims survive the
bankruptcy.  So, I don't know that bankruptcy was an option or
would have worked anyway."

Menasha City Atty. Pamela Captain said once a 30-day appeal period
expires, barring any unexpected challenges, the escrow agent
holding the settlement funding will be allowed to start
distributing the funds.

Ms. Captain said the city's attorneys who attended the hearing
told her that the federal judge complimented the parties for
reaching a settlement with minimal court intervention.

"We're very happy with the overall settlement," Mr. Wukmer said.
"The process was difficult for a lot of reasons.  I know the city
was in a very difficult situation."

Mr. Wukmer, whose firm was awarded about $1.2 million in
attorney's fees, said the judge's decision on Dec. 1 was "fair to
the class members.

"This was the most important step for the judge to approve the
settlement," Mr. Wukmer said.  "It will now allow the money to
change hands and be distributed to class members.

"Nothing corrects the default," Mr. Wukmer said.  "This is just
the settlement of the claims they made.  Is it over? Yes.  But it
doesn't change the fact that investors lost money."

The steam plant, which closed in October 2009, cost $41 million to
build, more than three times the original $12.5 million estimate
as net plant revenues were unable to cover the massive debt
despite significant taxpayer subsidies.

Questionable engineering, faulty projections, poorly written steam
contracts and hasty decisions to proceed on a design-build basis
without a spending cap or securing an important fourth steam
customer doomed the startup utility, which was created in the fall
of 2004.


OXYPULSE MEDICAL: Sued for Sending Unsolicited Fax Ads in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Able Home Health, LLC, on behalf of itself and a class v. Oxypulse
Medical Equipment, Inc., and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2011-CH-
41131 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., December 1, 2011) is brought to
secure redress for Oxypulse's actions in sending or causing the
sending of unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile
machines in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

The Plaintiff contends that Oxypulse either negligently or
willfully violated the rights of the Plaintiff and other
recipients in sending the unsolicited faxes.

Able Home is a limited liability company chartered under Illinois
law.

Oxypulse is an Arizona corporation.  The Plaintiff does not know
the names and identities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Michelle R. Teggelaar, Esq.
          Heather A. Kolbus, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379


PINE ISLAND: Investors File Class Action Over Losses
----------------------------------------------------
An update to a WINK News CALL FOR ACTION investigation into a land
trust run by Cape Coral realtor Greg Eagle.  Attorneys have now
filed paperwork on behalf of the investors who lost their money to
become a class action suit against Mr. Eagle and the bank trying
to foreclose on the property.

WINK News first told you about the situation involving the Pine
Island 101 Land Trust.  The trust contains 101 acres of land
around the area of Pine Island Road by the German American Social
Club.  The 52 investors in the Pine island 101 land trust bought
the property in the 1990s.

Court documents claim Mr. Eagle falsified documents to get a loan
on the property.  Those same court documents say Mr. Eagle didn't
repay the loan and the bank foreclosed leaving investors without a
dime.  Already, one investor has challenged the foreclosure on
those grounds.

Mr. Eagle told WINK news he had the right to mortgage the
property.  He says he did it to finance his private homeland
security project which fell through.

The suit is asking the judge to block the foreclosure and for the
property to be sold to repay the investors and the bank.  It's now
up to a judge to decide if the suit can continue as a class action
lawsuit.


POWERCOR: Judge Okays Farmers' Bushfire Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that a judge has approved
the settlement of a class action launched by farmers against an
electricity distributor over the Black Saturday bushfires in
western Victoria.

The class action was brought by lead plaintiff farmer Laurie
Thomas against electricity company Powercor on behalf of all those
who suffered loss or damage as a result of the Horsham fire.

Justice David Beach on Dec. 5 approved an agreement for Powercor
to pay 55 per cent of each claimant's losses, plus interest.

Powercor will also foot the bill for each group member's claim
assessment.

The fire was sparked by a live power line that fell from a pole
and ignited grass.

The fire razed about 2500 hectares over eight hours on February 7,
2009.

"There was widespread loss of crops, pastures, livestock, yards,
fences, trees, smaller vegetation and farm and other equipment,"
Justice Beach said.

"The Horsham Golf Club clubhouse was destroyed and its grounds
were razed."

The golf club's claim will be assessed differently to other
claimants, due to the extent of damage.

The clubhouse and more than 8,200 trees were destroyed, Justice
Beach said.

During a five-week trial, Powercor was sued for alleged
negligence, nuisance and breach of statutory duty.

The company argued electricity provision was inherently dangerous
and the risk could be managed, but not eliminated.

The trial was adjourned in October pending the agreement reached
between the parties.


STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Class Action Over Undisclosed Service Fee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that "Until recently," Starbucks
charged an undisclosed $1.50 "service fee" to customers who bought
less than 1 lb. of coffee, a class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Kurnick v. Starbucks, Corporation, et
al., Case No. 11-cv-01985 (W.D. Wash.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/02/Starbucks.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey C. Jones, Esq.
          KRUTCH LINDELL BINGHAM JONES, PS
          One Union Square, Suite 1701
          600 University Street
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-1505
          E-mail: jcj@krutchlindell.com

               - and -

          Michael Louis Kelly, Esq.
          Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
          Heather M. Peterson, Esq.
          KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
          2361 Rosecrans Avenue; Fourth Floor
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 536-1000
          E-mail: mlk@kirtlandpackard.com
                  bvp@kirtlandpackard.com
                  hmp@kirtlandpackard.com


TRICARE MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action in D.C. Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications International
Corp., and the Department of Defense allowed hackers access to
"millions of military clinic and hospital patients'" confidential
information, including medical records and Social Security
numbers.

A copy of the Complaint in Biggerman v. TRICARE Management
Activity, Case No. 11-cv-02142 (D.D.C.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/02/MedRecords.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
          Agnieszka M. Fryszman, Esq.
          Whitney R. Case, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Suite 500 West
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600

               - and -

          Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Ste. 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481

               - and -

          Robert T. Thopy, Esq.
          MCNEELY, STEPHENSON, THOPY & HARROLD
          2150 Intellipex Dr., Suite 100
          Shelbyville, IN 46176
          Telephone: (317) 825-5110


UNITED STATES: Foster Care Class Action v. DHS Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Nolan Clay and Randy Ellis, writing for NewsOK, report that a
federal judge on Nov. 30 ruled a class-action lawsuit against DHS
officials can go forward to trial on its most serious claim.

U.S. District Judge Gregory K. Frizzell did dismiss two other
civil rights claims against commissioners and the director of the
state Department of Human Services.

The single surviving claim is that DHS policies and practices
violate foster children's constitutional rights to be free from
harm and risk of harm.

The judge in his 32-page opinion noted there is evidence that
certain conditions for foster children have worsened recently.
The average daily population of children in DHS shelters, for
instance, grew from 53 in May 2010 to 104 in May 2011.  The judge
wrote that senior DHS managers and commissioners admit it is not
in a child's interest to remain in a shelter because a child is
better off in family-like settings.

A trial is set for February.  It will not involve a jury.
The 2008 case could cost the state millions of dollars if DHS
loses at trial.  The judge could force the agency to enact costly
reforms to its foster care practices.  The judge also could
require the state to pay millions of dollars in fees to attorneys
for the New York-based advocacy group, Children's Rights, which
filed the lawsuit.

The advocacy group is not seeking damage awards for every foster
child.  "This is a lawsuit about fixing the problems," said Marcia
Robinson Lowry, executive director of Children's Rights.

The state already has paid more than $6 million to outside
attorneys DHS hired to fight the lawsuit.

                   About the Judge's Findings

The judge found Children's Rights presented sufficient proof to
create a genuine factual dispute "about whether defendants'
policies, practices and procedures violate" foster children's due
process rights to be reasonably safe from harm.

Mr. Lowry said, "These are issues we will be able to prove at
trial because they come not only from our experts, but they come
from DHS data and DHS testimony.  Opinions of how harmful this is
come not only from our experts, but from DHS testimony and from
DHS experts.  I think we're going to have a very strong case at
trial."

A Tulsa attorney who is representing DHS stressed that the judge's
opinion is not a decision about the accuracy of the accusations
against DHS.

The attorney, Donald Bingham, said, "He was not finding that
certain facts are true.  He is saying there is sufficient evidence
that each side should get its day in court so he can hear all the
evidence and then he will weigh it.  He will decide what is
scientifically sound and what is plausible and believable and
persuasive."

The judge noted in his opinion that Children's Rights had
presented evidence that from 2002 through 2008 the reported rate
of abuse or neglect of Oklahoma foster children has been 1.54 to
3.97 times greater than the federal standard even though the state
doesn't report all instances.

                  'Evidence of Serious Issues'

The judge also noted the advocacy group "presented evidence of
serious issues with inadequacy of placement options, overuse of
shelters and lack of placement stability in the foster care
system."

He wrote the evidence shows DHS has a shortage of foster homes,
group homes and adoptive homes.  He noted a Children's Rights
expert concluded the shortage has led to dangerous and
inappropriate placement of foster children.

About shelters, the judge wrote there is evidence children under
the age of 6 are being kept in shelters for more than 24 hours and
at times children are kept in shelters longer than 30 days.  He
noted the Children's Rights expert concluded "that the overuse by
DHS of emergency placements such as shelters is harmful to
children because it jeopardizes their ability to form emotional
attachments . . . crucial to their development."

The judge further noted there was evidence that Oklahoma ranks
45th out of 51 jurisdictions nationwide in placement stability for
foster children.

He noted there is evidence that 28% of the children in out-of-home
care for less than 12 months in fiscal year 2010 had three or more
placements.  He wrote that was an increase from the year before.

"The number of foster children who had more than 20 placements was
150 in March 2010 and increased to 164 as of March 2011," he
wrote.

The judge wrote that both sides' experts, the DHS officials who
are being sued, and DHS senior managers "all agree that excessive
caseloads, missed visits between case workers and children, and
inadequate investigations of abuse and neglect pose a threat to
the safety of foster children, and that inadequate placement
options, excessive use of shelters and frequent placement moves
threaten the psychological and emotional health of children."

He also wrote that Children's Rights "presented evidence -- albeit
disputed -- that defendants' oversight of the DHS foster care
program is as inadequate as to give rise to a question of material
fact whether defendants have abdicated their professional
judgment."


WELLS FARGO: Settles "Pick-A-Payment" Class Action for $75 Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Rothacker, writing for Reuters, reports that Wells Fargo & Co
plans to pay $75 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought
by stockholders who claimed Wachovia misrepresented the quality of
its mortgages from 2006 to 2008.

The settlement is the latest effort by the fourth largest U.S.
bank to resolve lawsuits tied to its 2008 purchase of ailing
Wachovia.  In August, Wells agreed to pay $590 million to large
bond investors who made similar allegations.

The settlement amount was accounted for in prior quarters and will
have no financial impact, Wells spokeswoman Mary Eshet said on
Dec. 2.  The bank is pleased to "put this matter behind us," she
said.

The agreement resolves lawsuits initially filed in 2008 and later
consolidated in U.S. District Court in New York.  The lead
plaintiffs are various New York City pension funds.

In March, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Sullivan dismissed the
suits brought by stockholders, but plaintiffs appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In a letter filed in U.S. District Court, the parties said they
had reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims.

The complaint alleges Wachovia executives misled investors about
underwriting practices in its $120 billion "Pick-A-Payment" loan
portfolio to "artificially support" the bank's stock price.

These adjustable-rate mortgages included a minimum payment option
that did not cover all of the interest and principal owed, causing
a borrower's balance to increase.

Wachovia inherited the loans when it acquired California-based
Golden West Financial Corp in 2006 and continued to make them even
as the housing market cratered.

Losses started ballooning in early 2008, undermining the health of
Wachovia and contributing to its sale to Wells Fargo at the peak
of the financial crisis.  Wells does not make Pick-a-Payment
loans.  In his order in March, Judge Sullivan said the alleged
misrepresentations laid out in the stockholders' complaint
amounted to "corporate puffery rather than actionable statements."

The bondholders, however, had stated a "material misrepresentation
claim" based on loan-to-value ratios reported in offering
documents, he found.

The $75 million settlement with stockholders needs to be returned
to U.S. District Court from the appeals court for approval.

A year ago, Wells agreed to pay Citigroup Inc $100 million to
settle allegations that it interfered in the New York bank's
unsuccessful deal to buy most of Wachovia during the 2008
financial crisis.


WESTERN AND SOUTHERN: Sued in Ohio for Breaching SPIA Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
The Western and Southern Life Insurance Co. promises lifetime
payments on a Single Premium Immediate Annuity contract, but
stopped paying the lead plaintiff, who's still alive.

A copy of the Complaint in Harper v. Western-Southern Life
Assurance Company, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00836 (S.D. Ohio), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/02/Insure.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Janet G. Abaray, Esq.
          Melanie S. Bailey, Esq.
          BURG SIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH & JARDINE P.C.
          312 Walnut Street, Suite 2090
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 852-5600


                           *********

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  * * *