CAR_Public/111229.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, December 29, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 258

                             Headlines

ABM INDUSTRIES: Trial in "Khadera" Class Suit Set for March 12
BACCO 898: Officers Accused of Improper Commingling of Funds
CITIGROUP: Bernstein Liebhard Dropped as Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel
COMMERCE BANCSHARES: Unit Settles "Wolfgeher" Suit for $18.3MM
COUNTRYWIDE: Calif. Judge Rejects Class Action for Second Time

DELPHI FINANCIAL: Sued Over $55MM Buyout Consideration for CEO
FRS CO: Mislead Consumers With "ALL NATURAL" Ads, Suit Alleges
LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Commissioner Balks at Class Action Ruling
PUDA COAL: Rosen Law Firm Appointed as Investor Co-Lead Counsel
SINO-FOREST: Faces Bondholder Class Action Following Default

SIRIUS: Ted Frank Challenges Antitrust Class Action Settlement
STATE OF OKLAHOMA: Won't Admit Wrongdoing in Foster Care Suit
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Still Awaits Okay of Merger-Related Suits Deal
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Stockholder Suit in Israel Remains Stayed

* Italian Consumer Group to Launch Class Suit Over Breast Implants
* Firm Says Law Schools May Face Wave of Class Actions in 2012



                          *********


ABM INDUSTRIES: Trial in "Khadera" Class Suit Set for March 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial is currently set for March 12, 2012, in the wage and hour
class action lawsuit captioned Khadera v. American Building
Maintenance Co.-West and ABM Industries, according to the
Company's December 23, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended October 31,
2011.

The Company has been named a defendant in various proceedings
arising in the ordinary course of business, including class
actions and purported class actions.  The Company says litigation
outcomes are difficult to predict and are often resolved over long
periods of time.

The Company is, or during 2011 was, a defendant in, among others,
the following class action or purported class action lawsuits
related to alleged violations of federal and/or state wage-and-
hour laws:

   * the consolidated cases of Augustus, Hall and Davis v.
     American Commercial Security Services (ACSS) filed July 12,
     2005, in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
     County (the "Augustus case");

   * the consolidated case of Batiz/Heine v. ACSS filed on
     June 7, 2006, in the U.S. District Court of California,
     Central District (the "Batiz case")

   * the consolidated cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM
     Janitorial Services filed on April 7, 2006, in the Superior
     Court of California, County of San Francisco (the "Bucio
     case");

   * the consolidated cases of Diaz/Morales/Reyes v. Ampco System
     Parking filed on December 5, 2006, in L.A. Superior Court
     (the "Diaz case");

   * Khadera v. American Building Maintenance Co.-West and ABM
     Industries filed on March 24, 2008, in U.S District Court of
     Washington, Western District (the "Khadera case");

   * Simpson v. ABM Janitorial Services-Northwest, Inc., and ABM
     Industries Incorporated filed on September 24, 2010, in the
     Superior Court for the State of Washington in and for King
     County (the "Simpson case"); and

   * Villacres v. ABM Security filed on August 15, 2007, in the
     U.S. District Court of California, Central District (the
     "Villacres case").

The named plaintiffs in the lawsuits are current or former
employees of subsidiaries of ABM who allege, among other things,
that they were required to work "off the clock," were not paid
proper minimum wage or overtime, were not provided work breaks or
other benefits, and/or that they received pay stubs not conforming
to state law.  In all cases, the plaintiffs generally seek
unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief or both.

                            Augustus

The Augustus case involves allegations that the Company violated
certain state laws relating to meal and rest breaks.  On
January 8, 2009, the Augustus case was certified as a class action
by the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County.  On
October 6, 2010, the Company moved to decertify the class and for
summary judgment.  Plaintiffs also moved for summary judgment on
the rest break claim.  On December 28, 2010, the Superior Court
de-certified the portion of the class related to the meal break
claims and granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs with
respect to the rest break issue.  On July 11, 2011, the Court
closed the class period as of July 1, 2011, and vacated the
previously scheduled trial date of September 12, 2011.  No trial
date has been scheduled.  The Company says an estimate of the
potential exposure, if any, cannot be made at this time.

                              Batiz

The Company was a defendant in the consolidated cases of
Batiz/Heine v. ACSS filed on June 7, 2006, in the U.S. District
Court of California, Central District (the "Batiz case").  The
Batiz case involved allegations relating to unpaid overtime.  On
September 29, 2010, the Batiz case was decertified as a class
action by the United States District Court of California, Central
District, and all opt-in plaintiffs were dismissed without
prejudice.  During the three months ended April 30, 2011, the
Company settled this case and paid an aggregate amount of
approximately $0.3 million in connection with the settlement.

                              Bucio

In connection with the Bucio case, a purported class action
involving allegations that the Company failed to track work time
and provide breaks, on April 19, 2011, the trial court held a
hearing on plaintiffs' motion to certify the class.  At the
conclusion of that hearing, the trial court denied plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class.  On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied.  The plaintiffs
have appealed the class certification issues.  The trial court
stayed the underlying lawsuit pending the decision in the appeal.

                              Diaz

On June 22, 2011, the parties accepted a mediator's proposal in
the Diaz case which involves settling all the claims made in the
first amended complaint for the period of October 1, 2002, to the
date on which the Court grants preliminary approval of the
settlement.  The preliminary approval of the Court is expected to
be received in the first quarter of 2012.  Under the proposed
settlement, the maximum amount which could be paid to claimants is
$4.7 million.  The anticipated payment under the terms of the
mediator's proposal is approximately $2.9 million.  The Company
has accrued $2.9 million with respect to this matter, which is
included in the total amount accrued for all litigation matters.

                             Khadera

The Khadera case is a collective action and involves allegations
relating to unpaid overtime and meal and rest claims.  It is an
opt-in class under the Fair Labor Standards Act and 343 plaintiffs
are in the class.  On December 1, 2011, the Court denied the
Company's motion for decertification, so the case will proceed to
trial as a collective action.  Class certification was granted
only with respect to certain overtime claims under federal law.
Trial is currently set for March 12, 2012.

                             Simpson

The Company is also a defendant in the Simpson case which involves
allegations relating to unpaid overtime, off-the-clock work, and
failure to provide meal and rest periods under Washington state
law.  The plaintiffs' motion for class certification in Simpson is
due January 9, 2012, and the trial date is currently scheduled for
September 10, 2012.

                            Villacres

On January 15, 2009, a federal court judge denied with prejudice
class certification status in the Villacres case.  That case and
the companion state court case filed April 3, 2008, in Los Angeles
Superior Court were both subsequently dismissed with prejudice on
summary judgment.  On June 17, 2010, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the
district court, which had summarily dismissed with prejudice the
Villacres case.  The state court companion case, filed April 3,
2008, in Los Angeles Superior Court, has also been dismissed with
prejudice by the judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court.  On
October 22, 2010, the State Appellate Court affirmed the decision
of the judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court.  The plaintiffs
filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court.  On
February 16, 2011, the California Supreme Court denied the
petition for review.  The decision of the United States Court of
Appeal for the Ninth Circuit and the California Supreme Court has
concluded the federal and state cases, respectively.


BACCO 898: Officers Accused of Improper Commingling of Funds
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Bifulco, Salvatore Gaudio, George Kalergios, Flavio
Colletta and Demetrius Partridge, on Behalf of Themselves as
Shareholders of Bacco 898 9th Avenue Corp, on Behalf of All Other
Shareholders of Bacco 898 9th Avenue Corp., Similarly Situated and
on the Right of 898 9th Avenue Corp. v. Bacco 828 9th Avenue
Corp., Robert Malta and Tarek Alam, Case No. 114443/2011 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., December 23, 2011) is an action for money damages
arising out of the Defendants' alleged conversion, breach of
fiduciary duty, misappropriation of funds, improper commingling of
funds, fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants of failing to disclose all
amounts of cash receipts, income, emoluments, and other
considerations and things of value taken by the Individual
Defendants from Bacco 898.  The Plaintiffs also argue that
Defendants Malta and Alam wrongfully excluded the Plaintiffs from
the exercise of their right to access the premises and electronic
records of Bacco.

The Plaintiffs are shareholders of Bacco.

Bacco is a New York corporation.  The Individual Defendants are
directors, officers and managing shareholders of the Bacco.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Konstantine G. Paschalidis, Esq.
          MAVROMIHALIS PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
          3403 Broadway, Suite 200
          Astoria, NY 11106
          Telephone: (718) 777-0400
          Facsimile: (718) 777-0599


CITIGROUP: Bernstein Liebhard Dropped as Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Bario, writing for The American Lawyer, reports that three
months after a federal judge issued a scathing order blasting the
lawyers on both sides of a securities class action against
Citigroup and its Smith Barney unit, the judge has dropped
Bernstein Liebhard as lead plaintiffs counsel.  And on the defense
side, Citi appears to have demoted WilmerHale as lead outside
counsel.


COMMERCE BANCSHARES: Unit Settles "Wolfgeher" Suit for $18.3MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce Bancshares, Inc.'s subsidiary reached an $18.3 million
class-wide agreement to settle the class action lawsuit captioned
Wolfgeher v. Commerce Bank, Case No. 1:10-cv-22017 (MDL 2036),
according to the Company's December 23, 2011, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On December 23, 2011, Commerce Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Commerce Bancshares, Inc., reached a class-wide settlement with
plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit captioned Wolfgeher v.
Commerce Bank, Case No. 1:10-cv-22017 (MDL 2036) originally filed
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri and subsequently transferred to the United States
District Court of the Southern District of Florida.  The second
amended complaint filed in December 2010, alleged claims that the
Bank had improperly charged overdraft fees on certain debit card
transactions.  The settlement, subject to documentation and court
approval, provides for a payment by the Bank of $18.3 million into
a class settlement fund the proceeds of which will be used to
issue refunds to class members and to pay attorneys' fees,
administrative and other costs, in exchange for a complete release
of all claims asserted against the Bank.  The Bank, while
admitting no wrongdoing, agreed to the settlement in order to
resolve the litigation and avoid further expense.


COUNTRYWIDE: Calif. Judge Rejects Class Action for Second Time
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for The American Lawyer, reports that for
the second time in two months, a federal judge has refused to
certify a class action alleging Countrywide engaged in misleading
sales and marketing practices in the run-up to the housing crash.
In October, the judge rejected a proposed plaintiff class of
500,000 borrowers; this time it was a class of 60,000.


DELPHI FINANCIAL: Sued Over $55MM Buyout Consideration for CEO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pontiac General Employees Retirement System, on Behalf of Itself
and all Other Similarly Situated Shareholders of Delphi Financial
Group, Inc. v. Kevin R. Brine, Edward A. Fox, Steven A. Hirsh,
Harold F. Ilg, James M. Litvack, James N. Meehan, Philip R.
O'Connor, Robert Rosenkranz, Donald A. Sherman, Robert F. Wright,
Delphi Financial Group, Inc., Tokio Marine Holdings Inc. and TM
Investment (Delaware) Inc., Case No. 7144- (Del. Chancery Ct.,
December 22, 2011) arises because Mr. Rosenkranz, the founder,
chief executive officer, chairman and largest shareholder of
Delphi, is taking at least $55 million in buyout consideration for
himself and out of the pockets of Delphi's public shareholders,
the Plaintiff alleges.

In connection with a sale of Delphi to Tokio Marine Holdings, Mr.
Rosenkranz has caused the Delphi Board, which he dominates, to
approve terms that pay him a substantial personal premium for his
shares over and above the consideration that the Board negotiated
for Delphi's public shareholders, Pontiac General contends.  In
doing so, Mr. Rosenkranz has made no secret of either his
intention to negotiate a deal that suited his personal interests,
or his willingness to obstruct consideration of strategic
alternatives that did not satisfy his self-interested objectives,
Pontiac General adds.

Pontiac General is a retirement fund for employees of Pontiac,
Michigan, and is a stockholder of Delphi.

Delphi, a Delaware corporation, is a financial services company
focused on specialty insurance and insurance-related businesses.
The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Delphi.
Tokio Marine Holdings, the holding company of the Tokio Marine
Group, is incorporated in Japan, and operates in the property and
casualty insurance, reinsurance and life insurance sectors
globally with a presence in approximately 40 countries/areas.  TM
Investment is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tokio Marine Holdings,
and was formed solely to effectuate the proposed sale of Delphi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
          Cynthia A. Calder, Esq.
          GRANT & EISNEHOFER, P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com
                  ccalder@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
          Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: markl@blbglaw.com
                  JeremyF@blbglaw.com


FRS CO: Mislead Consumers With "ALL NATURAL" Ads, Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Brandon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The FRS Company, d/b/a The FRS Healthy Energy Company,
Case No. 3:11-cv-06639 (N.D. Calif., December 23, 2011) alleges
that contrary to FRS's advertising of its products as containing
"QUERCETIN(TM) A POWERFUL ALL NATURAL ANTIOXIDANT," those products
contain unnatural, artificial and synthetic ingredients.

The Plaintiff argues that FRS knows that its advertisements are
false, deceptive, and likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.  He
contends that as a result of FRS's false, deceptive and misleading
advertising, consumers, including him, do not receive the benefit
of their bargain when they purchase FRS products and, therefore,
suffered an injury in fact and a loss of money with each purchase.

Mr. Brandon is a resident of Dallas, Texas.  He has purchased FRS
products, including ready-to-drink bottles in peach mango, orange
cream, blackberry acai, and cherry limeade; ready to drink cans of
low cal peach mango, apricot nectarine, low cal wild berry, and
low cal citrus pomegranate.

Headquartered in Foster City, California, FRS manufactures, sells
and markets sports energy drinks, shots, concentrates, chews and
powders throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          Danielle A. Stoumbos, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 398-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 398-8704
          E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com
                  dstoumbos@finkelsteinthompson.com


LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Commissioner Balks at Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Hemenway, writing for Propertycasualty360.Com, reports that
Louisiana Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon says a recent state
Supreme Court decision to reinstate a nearly $93 million class-
action judgment against the state's last-resort insurer is a
"potentially devastating event."

Speaking at a press conference in Baton Rouge, La., Mr. Donelon
says every property-insurance policyholder is at "grave risk and
exposure."

The lower court's early 2009 award was to give about 18,575
policyholders $5,000 each because Louisiana Citizens Property
Insurance Corp. waited too long to begin adjusting claims after
hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.

Citizens avoided having to post a bond to pay the original
judgment while the state-run insurer appealed the case.  Now,
unless the state Supreme Court reconsiders, all property-insurance
policyholders in Louisiana could be footing the bill because
Citizens has the ability to levy assessments.

Mr. Donelon says the worst-case scenario is that Citizens' maximum
exposure to the decision is $200 million, if other eligible
policyholders emerge.

The penalties involved are not for insufficient claim payment, but
for not initiating claim adjustment within 30 days.

Mr. Donelon says he is not opposed to policyholders getting $5,000
if they deserve it, but each should have to go to court to get the
amount determined instead of an overall blanket judgment for all.
He says private insurers faced similar class-action lawsuits but
they were not deemed applicable for class-action status.

Mr. Donelon says he thinks the Supreme Court's decision is an
"impermissible and unconstitutional" application of the law.  He
considers the judgment "unconscionable."

The case does nothing to remove the stigma of political favoritism
within the Louisiana court system, says Mr. Donelon, adding that
he fears it will have a "chilling effect on an insurance market in
recovery."

Citizens has about $200 million on hand but much of it is "spoken
for" -- earmarked for expenses like employee payroll, service
providers and reinsurance, Mr. Donelon says.

The last-resort insurer could pay the $93 million, but it would
leave the company in bad shape heading into the next hurricane
season.


PUDA COAL: Rosen Law Firm Appointed as Investor Co-Lead Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Dec. 22 issued an update in the
securities class actions filed on behalf of Puda Coal, Inc.
shareholders.

Recently, the court consolidated all filed cases against Puda Coal
into one consolidated action pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  The court has appointed
The Rosen Law Firm, as Co-Lead counsel for Puda Coal investors.

As part of Lead Counsel's continuing investigation, the Rosen Law
Firm encourages investors who purchased Puda Coal securities from:
(1) Macquarie Capital or Brean Murray, Carret & Co. in connection
with Puda Coal's public offering in December of 2010; or (2) Brean
Murray or Newbridge Securities Corporation in connection with Puda
Coal's public offering in February 2010, to contact the The Rosen
Law Firm to explore their legal options.

You may call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free,
at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail lrosen@rosenlegal.com or
pkim@rosenlegal.com

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


SINO-FOREST: Faces Bondholder Class Action Following Default
------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Esler, writing for Woodworking Network, reports that wood
flooring and lumber products firm Sino-Forest is facing a class
action suit from bond holders after defaulting on an interest
payment.

Based in China and traded on the Toronto stock exchange, the
lumber and wood product firm's board was asked to step down by its
largest shareholder.

Sino-Forest has been fending off criticism since investment
analyst Muddy Waters LLC issued a report charging it with
misrepresentation of its assets.  The Toronto Exchange suspended
trading in Sino-Forest's shares pending an investigation of the
charges.

Richard Chandler, an investment group in New Zealand, called on
the Sino-Forest board to be replaced after it defaulted on a C$9
million bond interest payment, while spending C$40 million on an
internal investigation aimed at rebutting Muddy Water's claims.

At issue is a representation of timberland assets made by Sino-
Forest in its public filings.  While it claimed to own timberland
within China, legally it has timber rights, not legal title to the
property itself, say analysts.

Sino-Forest is a vertically integrated wood products firm, holding
timberland, milling lumber and producing wood flooring and other
wood products.


SIRIUS: Ted Frank Challenges Antitrust Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomson Reuters News & Insight reports that the class-action
gadfly Ted Frank from the Center for Class Action Fairness has
filed a brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
that challenges U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr.'s approval of
the settlement of an antitrust class action against the satellite-
radio giant Sirius.  Mr. Frank's brief outlines the many, many
ways in which he believes Baer erred in approving the deal, which
Frank contends is worth nothing to Sirius subscribers.  Most of
his arguments are familiar objections to a settlement that doesn't
confer a cash payout to class members.

But the last of Mr. Frank's points is provocative indeed.  He
argued that when Judge Baer appointed class counsel, he violated
the U.S. Constitution by ordering the law firms to include
minority and female lawyers on their litigation teams.  Judge
Baer's imposition of quotas, Mr. Frank asserted, is inconsistent
with U.S. Supreme Court precedent on racial preferences -- not to
mention an improper manipulation of the class's representation.

"The interests of the class are to obtain the best result possible
at the lowest cost in attorneys' fees," the brief said.  "The fact
that class counsel must comply with quotas and choose case
staffing based on race or gender infringes on their duty to the
class by impermissibly altering their legal obligation under class
action law and may interfere with their ability to provide the
best representation for the class."

Baer has been calling on class counsel to include minority and
women lawyers on their teams since 2007, when he included that
requirement in the order appointing firms to represent a class
suing JPMorgan Chase.  Mr. Frank said in an interview on Dec. 16
that the judge's order may be a violation of the Due Process and
Equal Protection clauses, just as excluding jurors from a trial on
the basis of their race is unconstitutional.  "We have lots of
precedent that the judicial system is supposed to be above this,"
he said.  "It's counter to what America stands for."

Mr. Frank said he understands the "certain sensitivities" in
challenging a judge for encouraging diversity, and is risking "ad
hominem attacks" for taking this stand.  But he said his client,
whose wife and child are Hispanic, "understands the importance of
a government that is race neutral."

The Center for Individual Rights will be filing an amicus brief at
the Second Circuit backing Frank's assertion that Judge Baer's
order is unconstitutional, according to general counsel Michael
Rosman.  "The court has asked class counsel to make sure that
lawyers assigned to the case reflect race and gender metrics,"
Rosman said.  "That a part of the U.S. government instructing
private entities to use race in a decision process.  . . . Judge
Baer has no good reason for that, or if he does, he has not
specified that reason."

But class counsel James Sabella of Grant & Eisenhofer said that
Frank's argument is fatally flawed: Lawyers for the class would
have been a diverse group regardless of Judge Baer's instruction.
"Judge Baer didn't order anybody to do anything," Mr. Sabella
said.  "The firms involved in this case have diverse workforces. .
. . The fact is, we had a lot of women on the team because we have
a lot of women lawyers."  Mr. Sabella called Mr. Frank's
constitutional challenge "bizarre to raise on appeal."

Mr. Sabella explained that because Judge Baer's call for diversity
had no impact on the way the case was litigated or the fees class
counsel were awarded, it would be perverse to overturn the
agreement on those grounds.  "What would [Frank] want -- that we
redo the case except this time we staff it with all white men?"
Mr. Sabella said.  "[Frank] has a very conservative political
agenda. This appeal reveals more about his agenda than about the
case."

Mr. Frank previously challenged Judge Baer's diversity order in
the lower court, but Judge Baer did not address the point when he
approved the Sirius settlement over objections by Mr. Frank and
several other class members.


STATE OF OKLAHOMA: Won't Admit Wrongdoing in Foster Care Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ginnie Graham, writing for Tulsa World, reports that the
settlement of a federal class-action lawsuit on the horizon is not
admitting to the seriously broken child-welfare system alleged in
court filings, said the director of the Oklahoma Department of
Human Services.

The DHS commission overseeing the agency approved a settlement on
Dec. 20 pending the approval of the Contingency Review Board,
which was set to meet at 3:00 p.m. on Dec. 21 in Oklahoma City.

The terms of the settlement will remain confidential until
approval by the review board.  Then, it will move to U.S. District
Judge Gregory Frizzell, who will call for a fairness hearing and
make a decision whether to approve the settlement.

DHS Director Howard Hendrick pointed to reforms and improvements
beginning in 1995, including an automated information system and
the creation of multi-disciplinary teams for child abuse cases.

"The settlement will be part of the continuous quality improvement
initiatives that began 15 years ago and have continued to improve
since," Mr. Hendrick said.

Children's Rights, a New York-based children's advocacy group,
filed a lawsuit in February 2008 alleging abuses of children in
foster care, including scaldings, molestations and beatings.  The
lawsuit was expanded to a class-action suit in May 2009 after
Judge Frizzell agreed the problems were systemic and affected all
children in foster care.

When the Legislature is not in session, the Contingency Review
Board -- made up of the governor, the House speaker and the Senate
president pro tem -- must approve any lawsuit settlements that
could cost more than $25,000 in state funds.

DHS has been fighting the lawsuit with costs to outside attorneys
of at least $7 million, with another $2 million approved.

Asked if settling is an admission of a flawed system, attorney
Kent Meyers, an Oklahoma City attorney representing DHS in
settlement negotiations, said the child-welfare system involves
more than DHS employees.

"Every child welfare case is judicially supervised and prosecuted
by elected district attorneys, none of whom are employed by
OKDHS," Mr. Meyers stated in an e-mail.

"The system is not perfect because the judicial system which
handles all cases is imperfect.  (DHS) has always maintained and
continues to maintain that its operations meet all constitutional
standards, which are the issues in the litigation.

"So, if 'flawed' means are we admitting that (DHS) operations were
unconstitutional, the answer is an unequivocal no.  If 'flawed'
means does the settlement creates an opportunity to secure funding
to address previously unfunded needs, the answer is that we are
hopeful."

Since the lawsuit's filing, Mr. Hendrick said many reforms have
already been implemented such as a model to keep more children
from being taken into custody, enhanced staff training and the
elimination of standing orders, which prevent law enforcement from
taking children into custody without a judicial review.

In October, House Speaker Kris Steele launched a bipartisan, five-
member work group to examine DHS for possible reforms in the next
year.  He became a critic of the agency after some high-profile
deaths of children in which DHS had involvement.  The work group
is researching all programs of DHS, not just those in child
welfare.

Mr. Steele said he supports Hendrick's leadership of the agency,
said spokesman John Estus.

"Director Hendrick has one of the toughest jobs in state
government and he does an admirable job under challenging
circumstances," Mr. Estus said.  "He knows more about the agency
than almost anyone, so as long as he remains committed to working
together on reforms, the speaker is committed to working with him.
We're hopeful he'll be part of the solution along with everyone
else."

Mr. Estus said the unsung heroes are the case workers and front-
line employees, calling them "the ace up everyone's sleeve."

"These are talented, passionate folks who are out there every day,
under very difficult conditions, for little pay, literally saving
childrens' lives," Mr. Estus said.  "We don't hear about all the
successes they've had, but they've certainly had them. The
speaker's goal is to give these workers a system they can work
effectively within."

The number of cases handled by the workers has become one of the
sticking points in the lawsuit.

Estimates show that 68% of foster children have workers with 20 or
more cases and 15% of foster children are among caseloads of 30 or
more.  Officials have disagreed about how to calculate caseload
statistics.

Visitation rates of foster children or families at risk of child
abuse have also been in dispute, with plaintiffs saying not enough
are made and DHS claiming they have one of the best in the nation.

Accrediting-body standards call for no more than 18 children per
caseworker, or eight per caseworker in the case of special needs
children.

DHS has 1,327 employees in its Child Welfare Division and 1,117 of
those are front-line workers who carry caseloads.  An order by
Judge Frizzell last month noted that "defendants' own expert,
Robin Arnold-Williams, concluded that DHS does not accurately
measure caseloads and that its caseloads exceed professionally
accepted standards."

"The court finds that plaintiffs have presented 'significant
proof' that DHS has a policy or practice of failing to adequately
monitor the safety of plaintiff children causing significant harm
and risk of harm to their safety," his order states.

Other reforms being sought by Children's Rights include less
reliance on emergency shelters, better recruitment and training of
foster families, better communication between workers and foster
families, improved data collection and a neutral monitor.

Also, state law requires the Oklahoma child-welfare system have
national accreditation, which it lost a few years ago.

No damages will be awarded to the class members or the original
plaintiffs.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit against VeriFone Systems, Inc., remains pending,
according to the Company's December 23, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended October 31, 2011.

On or after December 4, 2007, several securities class action
claims were filed against the Company and certain of its officers,
former officers, and a former director.  These lawsuits were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California as In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, C 07-6140 MHP.  The original actions were: Eichenholtz
v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6140 MHP; Lien v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6195 JSW; Vaughn et al. v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6197 VRW (Plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed this complaint on March  7, 2008); Feldman et al. v.
VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6218 MMC; Cerini v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6228 SC; Westend Capital Management
LLC v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6237 MMC; Hill v.
VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6238 MHP; Offutt v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6241 JSW; Feitel v. VeriFone Holdings,
Inc., et al., C 08-0118 CW.  On August 22, 2008, the court
appointed plaintiff National Elevator Fund lead plaintiff and its
attorneys lead counsel.  Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended
class action complaint on October 31, 2008, which asserts claims
under the Securities Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A
and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 for securities
fraud and control person liability against the Company and certain
of its current and former officers and directors, based on
allegations that the Company and the individual defendants made
false or misleading public statements regarding the Company's
business and operations during the putative class periods and
seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.  The Company
filed its motion to dismiss on December 31, 2008.  The court
granted the Company's motion on May 26, 2009, and dismissed the
consolidated amended class action complaint with leave to amend
within 30 days of the ruling.  The proceedings were stayed pending
a mediation held in October 2009 at which time the parties failed
to reach a mutually agreeable settlement.

Plaintiffs' first amended complaint was filed on December 3, 2009,
followed by a second amended complaint filed on January 19, 2010.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
and the hearing on its motion was held on May 17, 2010.  In July
2010, prior to any court ruling on the Company's motion,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint on the basis that they have newly discovered evidence.
Pursuant to a briefing schedule issued by the court the Company
submitted its motion to dismiss the third amended complaint and
plaintiffs filed their opposition, following which the court took
the matter under submission without further hearing.

On March 8, 2011, the court ruled in the Company's favor and
dismissed the consolidated securities class action without leave
to amend.  On April 5, 2011, lead plaintiff filed its notice of
appeal of the district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.  On June 24, and June 27, 2011, lead
plaintiff dismissed its appeal as against defendants Paul
Periolat, William Atkinson, and Craig Bondy.  Lead plaintiff filed
its opening brief on appeal on July 28, 2011.  The Company filed
its answering brief on September 28, 2011, and lead plaintiff
filed its reply brief on October 31, 2011.  No oral argument has
been set for this appeal, and there has been no ruling on the
appeal to date.  At this time, the Company says it has not
recorded any liabilities related to this action as it is unable to
determine the outcome or estimate the potential liability.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Still Awaits Okay of Merger-Related Suits Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
VeriFone Systems, Inc. is still awaiting court approval of its
settlement to resolve merger-related class action lawsuits,
according to the Company's December 23, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended October 31, 2011.

On May 12, 2011, the United States Department of Justice (the
"DOJ") filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia against VeriFone, Hypercom
Corporation ("Hypercom"), and Ingenico S.A. ("Ingenico").  The
DOJ's complaint alleges antitrust claims with respect to the
Company's planned acquisition of Hypercom and with the April 1,
2011 Stock and Asset Purchase Agreement pursuant to which Hypercom
would have sold certain assets and liabilities of its U.S. payment
terminal business to Ingenico.  On May 19, 2011, VeriFone,
Hypercom, and Ingenico terminated the April 1, 2011 Stock and
Asset Purchase Agreement, and VeriFone and Hypercom entered into
an agreement with the DOJ to suspend the civil antitrust lawsuit
filed against the parties by the DOJ, in order to explore various
options for the planned divestiture of Hypercom's U.S. business,
including the possibility of a divestiture to an alternative
buyer.  Ingenico also requested that the DOJ move to remove
Ingenico as a defendant in the litigation.  On August 4, 2011,
VeriFone, Hypercom, and the DOJ agreed to settle the litigation,
Hypercom divested its U.S. payment systems business and VeriFone
completed its acquisition of Hypercom.  The settlement was
approved by the district court on August 4, 2011.

In connection with the announcement of the Company's merger with
Hypercom, several purported class action lawsuits were filed in
Arizona and Delaware state courts alleging variously, among other
things, that the board of directors of Hypercom breached its
fiduciary duties in not securing a higher price in the merger and
that VeriFone, Hypercom, FP Hypercom Holdco, LLC and Francisco
Partners II, L.P. aided and abetted that alleged breach.  The
actions seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages.  An
agreement in principle has been reached to resolve the litigation
based on confirmatory discovery, enhanced public disclosures, and,
reimbursement by Hypercom of a portion of the plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees which the Company does not expect to be material
to its results of operations.  The terms of settlement between the
parties are subject to court approval.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Stockholder Suit in Israel Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
A stockholder class action lawsuit commenced in Israel remains
stayed, according to VeriFone Systems, Inc.'s December 23, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended October 31, 2011.

On January 27, 2008, a class action complaint was filed against
the Company in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel, on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock on the Tel Aviv Stock
Exchange.  The complaint seeks compensation for damages allegedly
incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the publication of
erroneous financial reports.  The Company filed a motion to stay
the action, in light of the proceedings already filed in the
United States, on March 31, 2008.  A hearing on the motion was
held on May 25, 2008.  Further briefing in support of the stay
motion, specifically with regard to the threshold issue of
applicable law, was submitted on June 24, 2008.  On September 11,
2008, the Israeli District Court ruled in the Company's favor,
holding that U.S. law would apply in determining its liability.
On October 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to appeal
the District Court's ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court.  The
Company's response to plaintiffs' appeal motion was filed on
January 18, 2009.  The District Court has stayed its proceedings
until the Supreme Court rules on plaintiffs' motion for leave to
appeal.  On January 27, 2010, after a hearing before the Supreme
Court, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for leave to
appeal and addressed the case back to the District Court.  The
Supreme Court instructed the District Court to rule whether the
Israeli class action should be stayed, under the assumption that
the applicable law is U.S. law. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an
application for reconsideration of the District Court's ruling
that U.S. law is the applicable law.

Following a hearing on plaintiffs' application, on April 12, 2010,
the parties agreed to stay the proceedings pending resolution of
the U.S. securities class action, without prejudice to plaintiffs'
right to appeal the District Court's decision regarding the
applicable law to the Supreme Court.  On May 25, 2010, plaintiff
filed a motion for leave to appeal the decision regarding the
applicable law with the Israeli Supreme Court.  In August 2010,
plaintiff filed an application to the Israeli Supreme Court
arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison et al.
v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2869
(2010), may affect the outcome of the appeal currently pending
before the Court and requesting that this authority be added to
the Court's record.  Plaintiff concurrently filed an application
with the Israeli District Court asking that court to reverse its
decision regarding the applicability of U.S. law to the Israeli
class action, as well as to cancel its decision to stay the
Israeli proceedings in favor of the U.S. class action in light of
the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison.

On August 25, 2011, the Israeli District Court issued a decision
denying plaintiff's application and reaffirming its ruling that
the law applicable to the Israeli class action is U.S. law.  The
Israeli District Court also ordered that further proceedings in
the case be stayed pending the decision on appeal in the U.S.
class action.  At this time, the Company says it has not recorded
any liabilities for this action as it is unable to determine the
outcome or estimate the potential liability.


* Italian Consumer Group to Launch Class Suit Over Breast Implants
------------------------------------------------------------------
AGI reports that "Tens of thousands of women in Italy underwent
operations for Pip breast implants", as made known by Codacons,
the Italian association of consumers contesting the official data
according to which patients were only 4,300.  Codacons "will file
an account to 104 Prosecutors' Offices all over Italy, for
grievous bodily harm, fraud and production and sale of dangerous
products, asking for investigation over responsibility for absence
of controls.  The association is launching a class action to which
all patients who underwent operations for Pip breast implants may
take part, in order to obtain a EUR5,000 indemnification each, for
running health risks due to the dangerousness of those products.

A form will be published on the http://www.codacons.itWeb site
and on the http://www.carlorienzi.itblog and it can be used by
women who want to take part to the class action started by the
association."


* Firm Says Law Schools May Face Wave of Class Actions in 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------
Critics who accuse law schools of inflating graduates' employment
and salary statistics are not just using the blogosphere to air
grievances among themselves -- some are brazenly seeking to drum
up new plaintiffs for a wave of class action lawsuits against
American colleges and universities, warned two attorneys for the
national law firm, LeClairRyan.

"We have been tracking this issue closely for six months, and the
noise on the blogs and social networks is getting louder," said
veteran higher education attorney Robert B. Smith, a Boston-based
partner in LeClairRyan and leader of the firm's Education Industry
Team.  "Among those disenchanted souls who believe law degrees
should come with guarantees of 'gainful employment or your money
back,' the effort to find potential plaintiffs has been bold, to
say the least.  In a recent, Internet-published interview, an
attorney representing putative plaintiff classes in separate
actions against two law schools even went so far as to declare
2012 'the year of law school litigation.'"

In class action suits filed earlier this year, seven former
students from New York Law School and Thomas M. Cooley School of
Law accused their alma maters of trying to artificially boost
enrollments by exaggerating or misrepresenting graduates'
employment and salary statistics.  Meanwhile, online forums have
been full of speculation that at least 15 other schools are on a
"hit list" of possible targets for similar suits, noted veteran
class-action defense attorney Michael S. Haratz, a partner in
LeClairRyan's Business Litigation Team.  "Even institutions that
are not on this list need to proactively manage the potential risk
posed by the proliferation of these veiled and not-so-veiled
threats," said Mr. Haratz, who is based in the firm's Newark,
N.J., office.  "The management of potential litigation shouldn't
just start early -- ideally, it starts before the plaintiff's bar
has your school in its sights.  The time to take action, in other
words, is now."

And yet for education officials such as risk-managers and in-house
counsel, determining exactly what action to take can be difficult,
because the risk profile for each school is highly context-
dependent, Mr. Haratz noted.  "Let's say the university is under
the gun from outraged alumni who are tired of watching bloggers
sully their law school's name," he said.  "That school might feel
pressured to act quickly, but it is critical to think clearly
about the potential consequences and objectives of any response."

Indeed, many factors must be weighed, Mr. Haratz said.  "If there
is no pending litigation, but only litigation that is threatened
in one or more blog postings, the strategy and action, if any,
that is appropriate will vary depending on the circumstances,
balancing a variety of objectives and interests, including the
need to maintain the reputation of the institution and the need to
proactively address threatened litigation," he said.  For example,
if a class action suit has just been instituted in a state court,
a relevant question to consider is whether the court in which the
action is brought, or any judge assigned to the case, has much
experience with class-action litigation, the attorney noted.  "If
the judge has very little experience with class actions, it might
make sense to move the case to federal court, where such
litigation is likely more commonplace," Mr. Haratz said.

Likewise, certain judges rarely, if ever, grant motions to dismiss
in class-action litigation or complex commercial litigation.
"Strategically, filing a motion to dismiss must be considered
carefully, weighing the probability of success given the court or
judge, the nature of the legal deficiencies underlying the causes
of action pleaded, and whether the matters in dispute are public
or heavily politicized," Mr. Haratz said.  "Depending on the
circumstances, a motion to dismiss might not only be a long shot
-- it could actually give the opposition a chance to patch holes
in its case or otherwise provide public relations fodder for
class-action counsel, who may be all too inclined to litigate the
matter in the press and on the Internet."

While taking a proactive and aggressive approach, including suing
class-action attorneys and bloggers for defamation, might mollify
alumni, even these strategies could backfire, Mr. Haratz noted.
However, he said, other proactive decisions amount to a no-brainer
for law schools everywhere.  "For example, whether your school is
on the 'hit list' or not, you should already be looking carefully
at the content and presentation of your own salary and employment
data.  Make careful examination of whether this information is
consistent with regulatory requirements and whether modifications
might be warranted, as well as any risks associated with various
modifications," he said.  "It also makes sense to look into how
you are managing your communications within your board of trustees
and to influential alumni and the rest of the world.  This is
potentially discoverable information.  It needs to be handled in
ways that will not cause harm later on, while still bearing in
mind that you are managing a university with a student-body and
alumni network that have questions or concerns or seek clarity
amidst a stream of biased, incomplete or inaccurate information
that is being disseminated from sources outside the university
community."

The school's legal team should be well-versed in the dynamics of
class-action litigation and deeply familiar with the mindsets of
both the plaintiffs' bar and increasingly influential bloggers who
are part of the so-called "law school transparency" movement,
Smith noted.  While only three consumer-fraud class actions have
been filed against American law schools thus far, if pending
motions to dismiss in these cases go nowhere, chances are good
that a wave of new suits will be filed against law schools across
the country, he said.  Moreover, educational institutions that
publish similar "consumer" data could easily become targets as
well.  "If pending motions to dismiss fail, the plaintiffs' bar
will be emboldened," Smith concluded, "and these suits could
spring up like wildfire."

                        About LeClairRyan

LeClairRyan -- http://www.leclairryan.com-- provides business
counsel and client representation in corporate law and litigation.
With offices in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington, D.C.,
the firm has approximately 350 attorneys representing a wide
variety of clients throughout the nation.




                           *********

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.  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  * * *