CAR_Public/120112.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, January 12, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 9

                             Headlines

AMERICAN INT'L: Liverpool Lawyer Embroiled in Fraud Class Action
APPLE: iPhone Users Launch Antitrust Class Action
BLUE CROSS: Sued in Missouri for Controlling Reimbursement Rate
CITY OF VICTORVILLE, CA: May Face Suit Over Red-Light Cameras
EBAY: Sellers Have Until Jan. 27 to Amend Paypal Class Action

GOV'T OF CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Wheat Board Changes
HYUNDAI: Sued in California Over False Advertising on Elantra
IMPERIAL SUGAR: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
MANHATTAN BEACH TOYOTA: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action
MF GLOBAL: Montana Farmers File Class Action v. Jon Corzine

MONSANTO CO: Plaintiff to Advise Court If Seeking to Amend Case
MONSANTO CO: Trial in "Bibb" Medical Monitoring Suit Began Jan. 3
MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Being Sold for Too Little, Ill. Suit Claims
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces NIS400-Mil. Class Action in Israel
PEPSI BEVERAGES: Judge Closes Overtime Class Action

PINNACLE WEST: Faces Class Action Over Sept. 2011 Power Outage
SABA SOFTWARE: Appeal in IPO Litigation vs. Unit Remains Pending
SABA SOFTWARE: Objector's Appeal in IPO Litigation Still Pending
SENEX SERVICES: Accused of Illegal Debt Collection in Illinois
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Class Action Oral Arguments Set for Jan. 10

SYNOVIS LIFE: Faces Shareholder Suits Over Proposed Baxter Merger
TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Chrome 6 Exposure Suits
UNITED STATES: DSS Sued Over Pending Medicaid Applications
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Lemberg Files Amended Class Action Complaint


                          *********

AMERICAN INT'L: Liverpool Lawyer Embroiled in Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Bartlett, writing for Liverpool Daily Post, reports that a
Liverpool lawyer is embroiled in a court case in the USA that
alleges he was an accomplice in a multi-million pound Wall Street
fraud.

Peter Rigby, of Liverpool-based JST Lawyers, has been dragged into
an action being brought by a group of international investors
against American investment fund Montague Morgan Slade (MMS).

The case is primarily against Michael Brown, Gordon Spedding and
convicted fraudster Anthony Heald, from Sunderland, who were
involved in the running of MMS.

The class action alleges that Mr. Rigby, who previously acted as
Mr. Heald's lawyer, "crossed the line from legal advisor to
accomplice in the MMS enterprise".

Mr. Rigby totally denies the allegations and he is currently
fighting to have the case against him thrown out by the Supreme
Court in New York.

His current law firm JST Lawyers, and former firm Keith Park
Solicitors, of St. Helens, are also named as defendants in the
case -- mainly because Mr. Rigby worked for them at the time.

In all there are 19 defendants.  The case against MMS and the
various defendants is set out across hundreds of pages of
documents filed in New York.

In essence the international investors allege that MMS claimed to
manage funds from an office in Wall Street but it was nothing more
than a Ponzi scheme that cheated at least 50 investors out of
approximately $16.6 million (GBP10.7 million).

John Lundin, of New York law firm Schlam Stone, is handling the
case for the investors.

In documents submitted to the court by Mr. Lundin's firm, it is
alleged that: "Rigby has played a role in several events that
appear to have been designed to delay and frustrate investor
redemptions.

"Rigby knowingly made false factual representations regarding MMS
that he intended investors to rely upon and on which they relied
in delaying redeeming their investments and initiating civil
and/or criminal actions against MMS for stealing their
investments."

Mr. Rigby is being represented by Chris Stanton, of Hill
Dickinson, and New York lawyers have also been instructed.

They have applied to the New York court to throw out the case
saying that it should not fall under their jurisdiction as none of
the parties involved in the case live in New York.

Mr. Rigby can be reached at:

         Peter Rigby, Esq.
         JST LAWYERS
         Telephone: +44(0)151 282 8957
         E-mail: prigby@jstlaw.co.uk

Mr. Stanton can be reached at:

         Christopher Stanton, Esq.
         HILL DICKINSON
         Telephone: +44 (0) 151 600 8332
         E-mail: christopher.stanton@hilldickinson.com


APPLE: iPhone Users Launch Antitrust Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Brid-Aine Parnell, writing for The Register, reports that four
American iPhone users have launched a class action suit against
Apple over its exclusive deals with carriers in the country and
the way it runs the App Store.

Apple partnered with US carrier AT&T when it first brought the
Jesus-mobe to stores in 2007, in a five-year exclusivity agreement
that tied users to an AT&T SIM card with no option to use another
network.

The four plaintiffs in the case are arguing that the restrictive
partnership violates the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act,
because it didn't give customers the "absolute legal right to
modify their phones to use the network of their carrier of
choice".

The complaint states:

"Prior to launch, Apple entered into a secret five-year contract
with AT&T that established AT&T as the exclusive provider of cell
phone voice and data services for iPhone customers through some
time in 2012.  As part of the contract, Apple shared in AT&T's
revenues and profits with respect to the first generation of
iPhones launched, known as the iPhone 2G, which was a unique
arrangement in the industry.  The Plaintiffs and other class
members who purchased iPhones did not agree to use AT&T for five
years.  Apple's undisclosed five-year Exclusivity Agreement with
AT&T, however, effectively locked iPhone users into using AT&T for
five years, contrary to those users' knowledge, wishes and
expectations."

While the iPhone fanbois knew that their shiny new toy was coming
from Apple in partnership with AT&T, they claim that they didn't
know that the length of that partnership was five years and they
didn't know they wouldn't get the unlock code if they asked for
it, something AT&T does give out for other phones bought under
contract.

As well as taking issue with being stuck with one carrier, the
complainants are also suing over the fruity firm's handling of its
App Store.

They want the court to decide that Apple's refusal to approve
third-party apps that don't pay the annual fee for the software
development kit, or don't hand over 30 per cent of their sales to
Apple, is unlawful.  If Cupertino doesn't approve an app and
iPhone users download it anyway, it voids their phone's warranty
-- a pretty risky move on such an expensive piece of kit.

The complaint alleges:

"Through these actions, Apple has unlawfully stifled competition,
reduced output and consumer choice, and artificially increased
prices in the aftermarkets for iPhone voice and data services and
for iPhone software applications."

The four people bringing the case against Apple say they're not
sure how many people could be counted in the suit, but estimate
that it is somewhere in the tens of millions.

The lawsuit is seeking a court order that stops Apple from selling
locked iPhones unless it makes the terms clear and forces it to
hand over the unlock code to everyone who already has a locked
Jesus-mobe.  The suit also wants the court to end the firm's
monopoly in the App Store.

Naturally, the complaint is also looking for attorney's fees and
costs, as well as "treble damages for injuries caused by Apple's
violations of the federal antitrust laws".

Class actions over Apple and AT&T has been knocking around in one
form or another since 2007, but this version of the complaint was
officially filed in California at the end of December last year
and is only being brought against Apple.

Another case against both Apple and AT&T for the same antitrust
violations, but brought by different plaintiffs, was already filed
in 2008 and is currently moving through the courts.

Apple had not replied to a request for comment at the time of
publication.


BLUE CROSS: Sued in Missouri for Controlling Reimbursement Rate
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that orthopedic clinics claim in a
class action that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Missouri used its
market power to set "unconscionabl(y)" low rates for services.

A copy of the Complaint in Rockhill Orthopaedics, P.C., et al. v.
RightCHOICE Managed Care, Inc. d/b/a Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Missouri, Case No. _____ (Mo. Cir. Ct., Jackson Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/09/BlueCross.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert A. Horn, Esq.
          Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq.
          HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 421-0700
          Facsimile: (816) 421-0899
          E-mail: rhorn@hab-law.com
                  jkronawitter@hab-law.com

               - and -

          Diane Breneman, Esq.
          Stacey L. Dungan, Esq.
          BRENEMAN DUNGAN, LLC
          311 Delaware Street
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 421-0114

               - and -

          Scott S. Bethune, Esq.
          DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2930
          P.O. Box 26250
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 421-1600
          E-mail: sbethune@dbjlaw.net


CITY OF VICTORVILLE, CA: May Face Suit Over Red-Light Cameras
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Cuevas, writing for KPCC, reports that the city of
Victorville faces a potential $9 million class action lawsuit
unless it changes the way it uses red-light cameras.

The people who want to sue also targeted the company that
installed the camera system.

Barstow attorney Bob Conaway wants to file the lawsuit on behalf
of more than 4,000 people who received and paid tickets issued by
Victorville's red-light camera system.  Each fine costs about
$490.  Conaway says he'll back off if the city dumps the camera
system, or revises the way it's operated.

"Cease the data gathering and ticket citations being issued," he
demanded.  "There should be an actual live body observing the date
feed from these machines.  Cops to verify the data as it's coming
in.  That would be the way to keep the machines in and to make it
not violate due process and the California rules of evidence."

Mr. Conaway says the cameras, operated by Phoenix-based Redflex
Camera Systems, violate civil rights because they don't give
ticketed motorists the opportunity to confront their accuser.  The
lawyer also says it's not right that the city allows a for-profit
company to process evidence that law enforcement personnel should
handle.

"That's the remarkable thing, the decision making on which tickets
to issue is made by Redflex," explained Mr. Conaway.  "They have a
machine-generated signature on the ticket from an officer that
says, 'I know this to be true on information and belief.'"

The lawsuit Conaway may file next month would seek to recover more
than $2 million in fines red-light runners have already paid, $6
million for insurance premium hikes and another million dollars in
legal fees and lost wages.

A spokesman for Redflex says the company is confident that the
case has no merit.  He would not say whether its attorneys had
reviewed the claim.

Last year, the Victorville City Council split on whether to
terminate its contract with Redflex over some of the same issues
raised in the complaint.


EBAY: Sellers Have Until Jan. 27 to Amend Paypal Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ina Steiner, writing for EcommerceBytes.com, reports that eBay
sellers who filed a class-action antitrust lawsuit against the
company last year have until January 27 to file a second amended
complaint, a judge ruled on January 5.  eBay had filed a motion to
dismiss, which the judge granted in part and denied in part.
According to the lawsuit allegations, "While eBay lists purported
alternative payment methods, eBay has through its intentional
action made it so PayPal is the only viable option for sellers."
The plaintiffs also complained about eBay's policy of collecting
commission fees on shipping costs.

The plaintiff, eBay seller Charlotte Smith, filed the lawsuit
against eBay on April 12, 2010, over the company's policy that
forces sellers to use its PayPal online payment service.

Ms. Smith's complaint alleges that eBay sellers "effectively have
and will continue to have no choice but to accept payment using
only eBay owned PayPal, and as a result sellers are and will
continue to be required to pay eBay through PayPal an additional
fee up to 3% and .30USD per transaction.  Defendant's actions
constitute an unlawful tying arrangement resulting in an
impermissible restraint of trade, in violation of federal law."

eBay had moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims because, under
the Clayton Act, private antitrust claims are subject to a four-
year statute of limitations, and the plaintiffs had claimed that
eBay's 2002 acquisition of PayPal "eliminated competition and
expanded (eBay's) own market dominance," such that eBay "possesses
effective monopoly power in online auction markets."

But Ms. Smith's lawsuit referred to several developments in eBay's
history that increasingly limited sellers ability to accept other
forms of payment, including its ban on Google Checkout, cash, and
money orders.

In his ruling last week, the judge referred to another case
involving Rite Aid retail merchants and American Express: "much
like the plaintiffs in the Rite Aid case, Plaintiffs here premise
their tying claims on eBay's continued modification of the
Accepted Payment Policy.  As in the Rite Aid case, the Court
concludes that those changes do constitute overt acts, and it
finds that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to show that
those changes inflicted new and accumulating harm on them.  In
addition, Plaintiffs have alleged that eBay had the ability to and
did enforce the purported tying arrangement within the limitations
period."

The judge, however, agreed with eBay that the plaintiffs failed
(1) to allege facts to show that a tying arrangement exists; (2)
to allege facts that show an actual adverse effect on competition;
(3) to allege facts supporting the relevant markets; and (4) to
allege facts showing antitrust injury."  Although the Court agrees
that Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts showing an adverse
effect on competition, it shall address each of Defendants
arguments."

For example, the judge writes, "the Court concludes that
Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts showing that the alleged
tie caused harm to competitors in the tied product market.
Because Plaintiffs may be able to allege such facts, the Court
shall grant them one final opportunity to amend."

                eBay Charges Fees on Shipping Costs

Plaintiffs also wanted relief from eBay's practice charging
"improper collection of shipping fees as part of final value fee,"
a policy that infuriates many eBay sellers.  The judge said,
however, that plaintiffs had not alleged that they they did not
consent to pay eBay a final value fee.  "Although leave to amend
should be freely granted, in light of the facts of this case, the
Court concludes that Plaintiffs would not be able to state a claim
for conversion."

The Smith v eBay lawsuit is not the only case in which sellers
have claimed eBay violated antitrust laws, and in November,
plaintiffs in one class-action lawsuit against PayPal (Fernando
vs. PayPal) asked a judge to intervene in a related lawsuit
(Zepeda vs. PayPal) on the grounds that they involved essentially
the same charges, and that any rights accorded to one class would
be available to the other.


GOV'T OF CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Wheat Board Changes
------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a class action lawsuit was launched in
Saskatoon on Jan. 9 seeking $15.4 billion in damages resulting
from changes made by the Harper government to the Canadian Wheat
Board.

Plaintiff Duane Filson, a farmer, teacher and municipal politician
from Woodrow, Sask., represents a class that could include any
Prairie grain farmer who sold wheat or barley to the Canadian
Wheat Board in 2011 or 2012.

Mr. Filson ran for the federal Liberals in the 2011 general
election in the riding of Cypress Hills-Grasslands, losing to the
current parliamentary secretary responsible for the Canadian Wheat
Board, Conservative David Anderson.

Merchant Law Group LLP launched the suit on farmers' behalf.
Class action lawsuits must be certified by a judge before they can
proceed, and the claims in the suit have not been proven in court.

The first court date to consider the certification of the class is
expected in about two months.

"This lawsuit is not about the single desk [monopoly marketing
system]," said Tony Merchant.  "If you're going to make changes,
you have to compensate," Mr. Merchant said, noting that when the
federal government ended the Crow Rate subsidy for shipping grain
by rail, farmers were compensated.

Documents filed in court say that farmers should be compensated
for losing all of the wheat board's assets at the time the
government's changes took effect: $100 million in cash, over 3,000
rail cars, the prepaid purchase value of lake freighters for
shipping grain by sea, an office building in Winnipeg and other
intangible assets, as valued by experts for the purpose of the
lawsuit.  Part of the claim includes damages for lost price
premiums previously obtained with the selling power of the board's
monopoly.

The wheat board had operated as a shared governance organization
since 1998, with farmer-elected directors constituting the
majority of the representatives on its board.  Proceeds from the
board's sales were returned to Prairie grain farmers.

Legislation that received royal assent Dec. 15 ended the wheat
board's monopoly over marketing Prairie wheat and barley as of
Aug. 1, 2012.  The eight remaining farmer-elected board members
were dismissed, leaving five government-appointed directors in
charge of the organization's future.

The board continues to operate for the 2012 crop year and beyond
as a voluntary seller for Prairie grain farmers, who may now also
sell to other private sector buyers in an open market.

After a five-year transition period, the government appointees who
now manage operations will determine if the wheat board can
continue to operate as a viable voluntary organization in an open
market.  If it cannot, it could be dissolved by the government
altogether.

The lawsuit argues that when the changes were made, sole control
over the wheat board moved out of farmers' hands and into the
government's, despite the fact that it will continue to exist as a
voluntary seller.

"A corporate dissolution requires surplus funds, proceeds and
assets to be returned to appropriate creditors and stakeholders,"
the lawsuit argues.  "The dissolution of the [farmer-controlled
wheat board] . . . requires the return of all funds, proceeds and
assets accumulated . . .back to the class, the rightful owners of
the CWB value."

The lawsuit deems the legislation as having "unlawfully
repurposed" tangible and intangible assets of farmers, causing
$15.4 billion in estimated damages and removing all the value and
benefits derived from the previous marketing system.

Further, it argues that the government has "wrongfully and
intentionally interfered with the business relations" between the
plaintiff, the wheat board and the former farmer-elected
directors.  The lawsuit claims a "breach of implied trust" to
maintain the wheat board's assets to the benefit of the farmers it
served, and claims that the new voluntary wheat board controlled
by the government has been "unjustly enriched" by the changes.

"How can a voluntary wheat board function? What can they offer?"
Mr. Merchant said.  "Economists say it isn't going to work and
those assets will be dissipated."

"Farmers say give me my share right now. I don't want to go into
that new gamble," Mr. Merchant says.

"Our government has delivered marketing freedom for Western
Canadian farmers and we will continue to work with farmers to make
sure the CWB remains a viable marketing option," said Agriculture
Minister Gerry Ritz in a statement on Jan. 9.

"It's disappointing to see further misguided legal action," the
statement says, adding that this "baseless action" does not affect
the arrival of an open market for Prairie wheat and barley as of
Aug. 1, 2012.

Tony Merchant can be reached at:

          Tony Merchant, Q.C.
          MERCHANT LAW GROUP LLP
          Suite 501 - 224 Fourth Ave. S.
          Saskatoon, SK S7K 5M5
          Telephone: (306) 359-7777
          E-mail: merchant@merchantlaw.com


HYUNDAI: Sued in California Over False Advertising on Elantra
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a Los Angeles Superior Court
class action claims Hyundai falsely advertises that the Elantra
gets 40 mpg, though it gets "considerably less."


IMPERIAL SUGAR: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Sugar Company is awaiting a court decision on a motion
for appointment of lead plaintiff in a consolidated shareholder
lawsuit pending in Texas, according to the Company's January 6,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended September 30, 2011.

On August 30, 2011, a shareholder of the Company filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, styled as Dawes v. Imperial Sugar
Company, et al., Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-03250, alleging that the
Company, its current President and Chief Executive Officer, and
its current Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,
violated the federal securities laws.  On September 22, 2011,
another shareholder filed a nearly identical putative class action
lawsuit against the Company, its current President and Chief
Executive Officer and its current Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas styled as Hassan v. Imperial Sugar
Company, et al., Civil Action No 4:11-cv-03457.  On October 28,
2011, these cases were consolidated by the court.  The complaints
assert fraud claims under Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and allege that the defendants made
misleading statements and/or omissions about the Company's sales
and business prospects, which purportedly were disclosed on August
5, 2011, when the Company announced its third fiscal quarter
results.  A motion for appointment of lead plaintiff was filed on
October 31, 2011.  Pursuant to the agreed-upon schedule, the lead
plaintiff will file an amended complaint 45 days after entry of an
order appointing the lead plaintiff.

The Company says this matter is in the early stages and it cannot
predict the ultimate outcome.


MANHATTAN BEACH TOYOTA: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case filed by Sanford Wittels & Heisler on Jan. 9 in Los
Angeles' Superior Court claims that John Elway's Manhattan Beach
Toyota knowingly permits a corporate culture of racial
discrimination and harassment.  The complaint alleges that John
Elway and his business partners, Mitchell D. Pierce and Jerry L.
Williams, have refused to take action, even though they have been
made aware of the discrimination and the intolerable working
conditions it creates for the dealership's loyal and hardworking
employees of color.

The former Sales Manager and long-time employee of John Elway's
Manhattan Beach Toyota, Timothy Sandquist, filed the class action
lawsuit on behalf of himself and all other current and former
employees of color.  Mr. Sandquist, an African American, describes
how he and other class members were driven out of the dealership,
due to Elway and his partners refusing to curtail the constant
racial discrimination and harassment that they were subjected to
while working at the former Denver Bronco quarterback's Toyota
dealership.

Mr. Sandquist is represented in the matter by Janette Wipper and
Felicia Medina, from the San Francisco office of Sanford Wittels &
Heisler LLP.

"It is beyond belief that anyone could ignore the pervasive racial
discrimination and harassment that Mr. Sandquist and other
employees experienced at John Elway's Manhattan Beach Toyota,"
said Ms. Wipper.  "This workplace is the very epitome of a hostile
work environment."

The complaint identifies Darrell Sperber, the General Manager at
John Elway's Toyota, as a repeat harasser and the primary source
of the rampant racial harassment.  Mr. Sperber was allegedly the
originator of frequent racial slurs, epithets and stereotypes,
including referring to non-Caucasian employees as "dumb Mexicans,"
"goddamn Mexicans," "apes," "Aunt Jemimas," "camel people" and
"slant eyes."  Mr. Sperber also encouraged personnel of the
dealership to make demeaning and vicious racist comments about
non-Caucasian customers who chose not to purchase a vehicle.

According to Mr. Sandquist, dealership personnel victimized by
Mr. Sperber have no recourse in dealing with the regular
harassment discrimination, because all methods of reporting on-
the-job discrimination, harassment or abuse are funneled through
Mr. Sperber himself.  The complaint alleges that several employees
who did complain about Mr. Sperber's harassment and discriminatory
behavior were retaliated against with further harassment and
sometimes termination.  It is also alleged that employees of color
experienced significant and ongoing disparities in compensation,
promotion and other employment opportunities in comparison to the
dealership's Caucasian employees.

As set forth in the complaint, as recently as June 2010, an
anonymous employee survey provided overwhelming evidence that
employees at John Elway's Manhattan Beach Toyota were constantly
harassed and discriminated against by Mr. Sperber.  Despite the
widespread complaints, the defendants, including Elway, took no
disciplinary action against Mr. Sperber, nor did they implement
any initiatives to remedy and end harassment and discrimination at
the dealership.

Mr. Sandquist filed the class action to force the John Elway and
his two business partners to abide by the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the California Unfair
Competition Law that make the discrimination and harassment
practiced at the dealership illegal.  The lawsuit seeks to end the
systematic, unlawful harassment and discrimination at John Elway's
Manhattan Beach Toyota, through the implementation of policies and
programs that restore equal employment rights at the dealership.

                  About Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP

Sanford Wittels & Heisler is a law firm with offices in
Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco that specializes in
qui tam, employment discrimination, wage and hour, consumer and
complex corporate class action litigation and has represented
thousands of individuals in major class action cases in the United
States.  The firm also represents individual clients in
employment, employment discrimination, sexual harassment,
whistleblower, public accommodations, commercial, medical
malpractice, and personal injury matters.  In May 2010, the firm
secured the largest jury award in the U.S. in a gender
discrimination class action in an employment case when a jury
returned a verdict of $253 million in compensatory and punitive
damages against Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.  For more
information, contact Sanford Wittels & Heisler at (202) 742-7777.

For more information, contact Jamie Baum, 1-847-502-3825

Janette Wipper and Felicia M. Medina can be reached at:

          Janette Wipper, Esq.
          Felicia M. Medina, Esq.
          SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1206
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 375-8903
          Facsimile: (415) 391-6901
          E-mail: jwipper@swhlegal.com
                  fmedina@swhlegal.com


MF GLOBAL: Montana Farmers File Class Action v. Jon Corzine
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Galli, writing for ABC News, reports that Montana farmers
have filed a class action suit against former New Jersey governor
Jon Corzine, charging that the failed financial firm run by
Mr. Corzine stole millions from their accounts to pay off its
spiraling debts, and that Mr. Corzine's "single-minded obsession"
with making MF Global a big player on Wall Street led to the
firm's collapse.

MF Global's clients included 38,000 wheat farmers, cattle ranchers
and others who "hedged" their crop prices by placing millions in
MF Global accounts.  Those accounts were supposed to be
"segregated and secure," according to the federal suit, meaning MF
Global could not draw on those funds.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of all 38,000 customers, alleges that
when MF Global made a series of bad investments -- notably in
European debt -- it began "siphoning funds withdrawn from
segregated client accounts" to cover its debts.

"This is a suit by the real victims of MF Global," said
plaintiff's attorney Mark Baker of the law firm Anderson, Baker &
Swanson.  "The missing funds were not investments in MF Global, or
loans to MF Global, but rather the customer's own money as
collateral to guaranty their contracts.  They were not to be used
by others -- let alone their own broker -- to speculate on risky
and exotic securities."

Mr. Corzine was at the helm of the firm when it declared Chapter
11 on October 31, the eighth-largest bankruptcy filing in U.S.
history.  Regulators initially thought $600 million in customer
funds had gone missing, but later upped their estimate to $1.2
billion.  Only 60 percent of customer funds could be found.

The Montana complaint takes square aim at Mr. Corzine, alleging
that the former governor longed to make MF Global a Wall Street
powerhouse through a series of risky investments.  The lawsuit
says Mr. Corzine, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs, had a "single-
minded obsession" when he took over in early 2010.

But Mr. Corzine was reckless in his zeal, according to plaintiffs'
attorneys, instead trading in the risky debt of European
countries.  MF Global grew not through sound business, alleges the
complaint, but "through Corzine's political lobbying and the
commingling and looting of customers' segregated accounts."

"Once over $1.2 billion in customer accounts was unaccounted for,
the Defendants were quick to bury their heads deep in the sand,"
the lawsuit claims.

According to the February issue of Vanity Fair, Mr. Corzine, who
reportedly made over $16 million between 2010 and 2011, was
shopping for a chateau in France with his wife two weeks before
MF Global filed for bankruptcy.

Testifying before the House Agriculture Committee in December, Mr.
Corzine said he had no idea where the $1.2 billion in missing
customer funds had gone and that investigators are still
untangling what happened.

Later in the month, he appeared before the Senate Agriculture
Committee to deny any wrongdoing.  "I never directed anyone at MF
Global to misuse customer funds.  I never intended to, and as far
as I'm concerned, I never gave instructions that anyone could
misconstrue," he said.

Mark Baker can be reached at:

          Mark Baker, Esq.
          ANDERSON, BAKER & SWANSON, PLLC
          One South Montana Avenue, Suite L-1
          Helena, MT 59601
          Telephone: (406) 449-3118
          Facsimile: (406) 449-0667


MONSANTO CO: Plaintiff to Advise Court If Seeking to Amend Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
directed the lead plaintiff of a securities class action lawsuit
against Monsanto Company to advise the Court whether it intends to
seek leave to move to amend its complaint, according to the
Company's January 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
November 30, 2011.

On July 29, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit, styled
Rochester Laborers Pension Fund v. Monsanto Co., et al., was filed
against the Company and three of its past and present executive
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri.  The lawsuit alleged that defendants violated the
federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements
between January 7, 2009, and May 27, 2010, regarding the Company's
earnings guidance for fiscal 2009 and 2010 and the anticipated
future performance of its ROUNDUP business.  On November 1, 2010,
the Court appointed the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as lead
plaintiff in the action.  On January 31, 2011, lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint against the Company and four of its
past and present executive officers in the same action.  The
amended complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making false and misleading statements during
the same time period, regarding the Company's earnings guidance
for fiscal 2009 and 2010 as well as the anticipated future
performance of its ROUNDUP business and its Seeds and Genomics
business.  Lead plaintiff claims that these statements
artificially inflated the price of the Company's stock and that
purchasers of the stock during the relevant period were damaged
when the stock price later declined.  Lead plaintiff seeks the
award of unspecified amount of damages on behalf of the alleged
class, counsel fees and costs.  The Company believes it has
meritorious legal positions and will continue to represent its
interests vigorously in this matter.

On April 1, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.  On June 14, 2011, lead plaintiff filed its opposition to
the motion, and defendants' reply thereto was filed on
August 12, 2011.  On December 12, 2011, lead plaintiff moved to
supplement the record on the motion to dismiss with facts
concerning the SEC investigation of the Company's financial
reporting associated with customer incentive programs for
glyphosate products and the Company's restatement of its financial
results for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 and certain quarters of
fiscal year 2011.

On January 5, 2012, the Court denied lead plaintiff's motion to
supplement the record, directed lead plaintiff to advise the Court
in writing by January 11, 2012, whether lead plaintiff intends to
seek leave to move to amend its complaint, and set a briefing
schedule with respect to lead plaintiff's motion to amend the
complaint in the event lead plaintiff moves for leave to amend.


MONSANTO CO: Trial in "Bibb" Medical Monitoring Suit Began Jan. 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for the medical monitoring class action lawsuit captioned
Zina G. Bibb et al. v. Monsanto Company, et al., began on
January 3, 2012, the Company disclosed in its January 6, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended November 30, 2011.

On December 17, 2004, 15 plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit, styled Virdie Allen, et al. v. Monsanto, et al., in the
Putnam County, West Virginia, state court against Monsanto, its
former parent, Pharmacia Corporation, and seven other defendants.
Monsanto is named as the successor in interest to the liabilities
of Pharmacia.  The alleged class consists of all current and
former residents, workers, and students who, between 1949 and the
present, were allegedly exposed to dioxins/furans contamination in
counties surrounding Nitro, West Virginia.  The complaint alleges
that the source of the contamination is a chemical plant in Nitro,
formerly owned and operated by Pharmacia and later by Flexsys, a
joint venture between Pharmacia's former subsidiary, Solutia Inc.,
and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. (Akzo Nobel).  Akzo Nobel and
Flexsys were named defendants in the case but Solutia was not, due
to its then pending bankruptcy proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks damages for property cleanup costs, loss of real
estate value, funds to test property for contamination levels,
funds to test for human exposure, and future medical monitoring
costs.  The complaint also seeks an injunction against further
contamination and punitive damages.  Monsanto has agreed to
indemnify and defend Akzo Nobel and the Flexsys defendant group,
but on May 27, 2011, the judge dismissed both Akzo Nobel and
Flexsys from the case.  The class action certification hearing was
held on October 29, 2007.  On January 8, 2008, the trial court
issued an order certifying the Allen (now Zina G. Bibb et al. v.
Monsanto et al., because Bibb replaced Allen as class
representative) case as a class action for property damage and for
medical monitoring.

On November 2, 2011, the court, in response to defense motions,
entered an order decertifying the property class.  The trial for
the Bibb medical monitoring class action began on January 3, 2012.


MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Being Sold for Too Little, Ill. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Drayer, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Christopher J. Artinian, John K. Castle, John J.
Connolly, Robert A. Goldschmidt, William C. Anton, Alan A. Teran,
Stephen E. Paul, David B. Pittaway, Dianne H. Russell, Zane
Tankel, Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc., Fertitta Morton's
Restaurants, Inc., Fertitta Morton's Acquisition, Inc., Case No.
2012-CH-00706 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., January 9, 2012) is a
stockholder class action brought on behalf of the public
stockholders of the Company against its Board of Directors for
breaches of fiduciary duty arising out of the Defendants' decision
to sell the Company to Fertitta at an inadequate and unfair price
following a grossly unfair process.

The Plaintiff alleges that the sale of Morton's to Fertitta
contemplated by a December 2011 merger agreement is unfair and
inequitable to Morton's public stockholders and constitutes a
breach of the fiduciary duties of the Board.  The Plaintiff also
alleges that the Merger Agreement and transactions approved and
contemplated thereby, including a tender offer, are unfairly and
inequitably coercive to the public stockholders and that the
stockholders are not provided with a voluntary choice whether to
tender their shares.

Mr. Drayer is a shareholder of Morton's.

Morton's, a Delaware corporation, owns and operates restaurants,
including upscale steakhouse restaurants under Morton's The
Steakhouse name and Italian restaurants under the Trevi name.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.
Fertitta Morton's Restaurant and Fertitta Morton's Acquisition,
Inc. are Delaware corporations and wholly owned companies of
Tilman J. Fertitta, founder, chairman of the board, President, CEO
and primary shareholder of Landry's Restaurants.  Both companies
were organized for the sole purpose of making a tender offer for
the outstanding shares of common stock of Morton's and completing
the Merger.  Landry's is a national, diversified restaurant,
hospitality and entertainment company principally engaged in the
ownership and operation of high end and casual dining restaurants,
primarily under the names of Landry's Seafood House, Rainforest
Cafe, The Chart House, Bubba Gump Shrimp Co., Claim Jumper,
Saltgrass Steak House and Oceanaire, as well as a fine dining
signature group of restaurants Vic & Anthony's, Grotto, Willie G's
and others.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Shedden, Esq.
          Tony Kim, Esq.
          SCHAD, DIAMOND & SHEDDEN, PC
          332 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 939-6280
          Facsimile: (312) 939-4661
          E-mail: jshedden@lawsds.com
                  tkim@lawsds.com

               - and -

          Peter Bull, Esq.
          Joshua Lifshitz, Esq.
          BULL & LIFSHITZ, LLP
          18 East 41st Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 213-6222
          Facsimile: (212) 213-9405
          E-mail: jml@nyclasslaw.com
                  pdb@nyclasslaw.com


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces NIS400-Mil. Class Action in Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------
A request for a NIS400 million class action suit against Partner
Communications Ltd. was filed in the Petach Tikva District Court
on Jan. 9, claiming damages for harm caused its customers due to
overcharging, "harassment, wasting time, and mental anguish."
Wireless carrier Partner operates the Orange brand in Israel.

The suit, which was submitted by Raanan Bashan and Leah Nemas-
Kahati from the Raanan Bashan Law Offices, claims that, "Partner
systematically mistreats hundreds of thousands of customers,
causes them to waste time, and inflicts trouble, mental anguish,
despair and much frustration."  The claimant says that this is in
flagrant violation of the Ministry of Communications' license
terms.

"This request concerns a war attrition that is deliberately being
waged by Partner against its customers, in an enraging, heavy-
handed, outrageous way, lacking in good faith," said the class
action claimants -- two small private companies that are Partner
customers, called Leverage and Entrepreneurship Ltd., A.A.A.
Software Consulting & Manufacturing Ltd., as well as the Raanan
Bashan Law Offices, which is also a client.

According to the plaintiffs, "With the aim of maximizing profits
and reducing expenses, Partner has abused hundreds of thousands of
customers, treated them with flagrant disregard, wasted their
time, hassled them, caused them aggravation, despair and
unimaginable frustration, all while abusing its enormous
commercial power and the fact that these customers allowed it in
complete faith to charge their accounts."

The request for class-action approval focuses on cases where
Partner customers' accounts were overcharged, and customers tried
to subsequently reverse the charges.  According to the claimants,
in these cases, it takes a long time for customers to receive a
response from a customer service representative at Partner, at
which point the customers have to go through a huge saga until
Partner corrects the accounting mistakes.

In this exact way, Leverage and Entrepreneurship Ltd. was
overcharged by Partner.  "This discovery led to a frustrating saga
that lasted almost a year, during which time Leverage and
Entrepreneurship's CEO approached Partner and its representatives
time and again by phone, e-mail, sms, fax, by physically arriving
at the customer service center, and by trying to stop the transfer
of funds that Partner was illegally carrying out."

The suit also claims that these are not isolated cases, or
exceptions to the norm, but the "deliberate, biased, and
calculated" conduct of Partner.  It was further claimed in the
suit that Partner's lack of good faith in this conduct was even
more severe in light of the company's extraordinary profitability.
Partner's revenue over the past three years has been an average of
NIS 6 billion, with net profit reaching almost unprecedented
levels in the Israeli market: 20% of revenue, or NIS1.2 billion a
year.

"With numbers like these," the suit claims, "The duty of care and
to act in good faith requires Partner to have an appropriate
customer services department that can provide reasonable and
effective service to its customers."


PEPSI BEVERAGES: Judge Closes Overtime Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge shut the door
on Jan. 9 on a class action alleging that Pepsi owes overtime to
current and former merchandisers at the McKees Rocks, Pa., plant,
citing an undisclosed settlement.

A copy of the Order of Court in Thieret, et al. v. Bottling Group,
LLC, d/b/a Pepsi Beverages Company, Case No. 11-cv-00644 (W.D.
Pa.), is available at:

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/09/PepsiSettlesOrder.pdf


PINNACLE WEST: Faces Class Action Over Sept. 2011 Power Outage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a Superior Court class action
blames Pinnacle West Capital Corp., Arizona Public Service Co.,
and San Diego Gas & Electric for the Sept. 8, 2011 power outage
that affected 1.4 million SDG&E customers in Southern California
for 12 hours.

A copy of the Complaint in Busalacchi, et al. v. Arizona Public
Service Company, et al., Case No. 37-2012-00090095 (Calif. Super.
Ct., San Diego Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/09/PowerOutage.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Ian Rott, Esq.
          Eric M. Overholt, Esq.
          HIDEN, ROTT & OERTLE, LLP
          2635 Camino del Rio South, Suite 306
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 296-5884
          Facsimile: (619) 296-5171
          E-mail: mrott@hrollp.com
                  eoverholt@hrollp.com


SABA SOFTWARE: Appeal in IPO Litigation vs. Unit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the initial public offering litigation involving Saba
Software, Inc.'s subsidiary remains pending, according to the
Company's January 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
November 30, 2011.

Centra Software Inc., certain of its former officers and directors
and the managing underwriters of Centra's initial public offering
were named as defendants in an action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
plaintiffs filed an initial complaint on December 6, 2001, and
purported to serve the Centra defendants on or about March 18,
2002.  The original complaint has been superseded by an amended
complaint filed in April 2002.  The action, captioned in re Centra
Software, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No.
01 CV 10988, is purportedly brought on behalf of the class of
persons who purchased Centra's common stock between February 3,
2000, and December 6, 2000.  The complaint asserts claims under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The complaint alleges that, in
connection with Centra's initial public offering in February 2000,
the underwriters received undisclosed commissions from certain
investors in exchange for allocating shares to them and also
agreed to allocate shares to certain customers in exchange for the
agreement of those customers to purchase additional shares in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  The complaint asserts that
Centra's registration statement and prospectus for the offering
were materially false and misleading due to their failure to
disclose these alleged arrangements.  The complaint seeks damages
in an unspecified amount against Centra and the named individuals.
Similar complaints have been filed against hundreds of other
issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998; the
complaints have been consolidated into an action captioned in re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92.

On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants in the consolidated
actions moved to dismiss all the actions, including the action
involving Centra.  On July 15, 2002, Centra, along with other non-
underwriter defendants in the coordinated cases, moved to dismiss
the litigation.  On October 9, 2002, pursuant to agreements
tolling the statute of limitations for claims related to the
litigation, the plaintiffs dismissed, without prejudice, the
claims against the named Centra officers and directors in the
litigation.  Subsequent addenda to the agreements extended the
tolling period through August 27, 2010.  On February 19, 2003, the
District Court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss the
claims against Centra under Rule 10b-5.  The motions to dismiss
the claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act were denied as
to virtually all of the defendants in the consolidated cases,
including Centra.

In June 2003, a proposed collective partial settlement of this
litigation was structured between the plaintiffs, the issuer
defendants in the consolidated actions, the issuer officers and
directors named as defendants, and the issuers' insurance
companies.  In June 2004, an agreement of settlement was submitted
to the District Court for preliminary approval.  The District
Court granted the preliminary approval motion on February 15,
2005, subject to certain modifications.  On
August 31, 2005, the District Court issued a preliminary order
further approving the modifications to the settlement and
certifying the settlement classes.  The District Court also
appointed the notice administrator for the settlement and ordered
that notice of the settlement be distributed to all settlement
class members by January 15, 2006.  The settlement fairness
hearing occurred on April 24, 2006, and the court reserved
decision at that time.

While the partial settlement was pending approval, the plaintiffs
continued to litigate against the underwriter defendants.  The
District Court directed that the litigation proceed within a
number of "focus cases" rather than in all of the 310 cases that
have been consolidated.  The Company's case is not one of these
focus cases.  On October 13, 2004, the District Court certified
the focus cases as class actions.  The underwriter defendants
appealed that ruling, and on December 5, 2006, the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court's class
certification decision.  On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit
denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing.  In light of the Second
Circuit opinion, counsel for the issuer defendants informed the
District Court that this settlement could not be approved because
the defined settlement class, like the litigation class, could not
be certified.  On June 25, 2007, the District Court entered an
order terminating the settlement agreement.  On August 14, 2007,
the plaintiffs filed their second consolidated amended class
action complaints against the focus cases and on September 27,
2007, again moved for class certification.  On November 12, 2007,
certain of the defendants in the focus cases moved to dismiss the
second consolidated amended class action complaints.  On March 26,
2008, the District Court denied the motions to dismiss except as
to Section 11 claims raised by those plaintiffs who sold their
securities for a price in excess of the initial offering price and
those who purchased outside the previously certified class period.
Briefing on the class certification motion was completed in May
2008.  That motion was withdrawn without prejudice on October 10,
2008.

On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement among
the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter defendants was
submitted to the Court for preliminary approval.  The Court
granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval and
preliminarily certified the settlement classes on June 10, 2009.
The settlement fairness hearing was held on September 10, 2009.
On October 5, 2009, the Court entered an opinion granting final
approval to the settlement and directing that the Clerk of the
Court close these actions.  On August 26, 2010, based on the
expiration of the tolling period stated in the agreements between
the plaintiffs and the named Centra officers and directors, the
plaintiffs filed a notice to terminate the tolling agreement and
recommence litigation against the named Centra officers and
directors.  The plaintiffs stated to the Court that they do not
intend to take any further action against the named Centra
officers and directors at this time.  Appeals of the opinion
granting final approval were filed, all of which were disposed of
except certain appeals were remanded to the district court to
determine standing to appeal.  On August 25, 2011, the district
court issued an order holding that the remaining objector had no
standing to appeal.  The August 25, 2011 order has been appealed.

The Company says that, on behalf of Centra, it intends to dispute
these claims and defend the lawsuit vigorously.  However, due to
the inherent uncertainties of litigation and because the district
court's August 25, 2011 order remains subject to appeal, the
ultimate outcome of the litigation is uncertain.


SABA SOFTWARE: Objector's Appeal in IPO Litigation Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal by a settlement objector in the initial public offering
litigation involving Saba Software, Inc., remains pending,
according to the Company's January 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
November 30, 2011.

In November 2001, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"District Court") against the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and certain underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering.  The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of
a class of certain persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between April 6, 2000, and December 6, 2000.  The complaint
alleges violations by the Company and its officers and directors
of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act"), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and other related
provisions in connection with certain alleged compensation
arrangements entered into by the underwriters in connection with
the initial public offering.  An amended complaint was filed in
April 2002.  Similar complaints have been filed against hundreds
of other issuers that have had initial public offerings since
1998.  The complaints allege that the prospectus and the
registration statement for the initial public offering failed to
disclose that the underwriters allegedly solicited and received
"excessive" commissions from investors and that some investors in
the initial public offering agreed with the underwriters to buy
additional shares in the aftermarket in order to inflate the price
of the Company's stock.  The complaints were later consolidated
into a single action.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
attorney and expert fees, and other unspecified litigation costs.

On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants in the consolidated
actions moved to dismiss all of the actions, including the action
involving the Company.  On July 15, 2002, the Company, along with
other non-underwriter defendants in the coordinated cases, moved
to dismiss the litigation.  On February 19, 2003, the District
Court ruled on the motions.  The District Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the claims against the Company under
Rule 10b-5, due to the insufficiency of the allegations against
the Company.  The District Court also granted the motion of the
individual defendants, Bobby Yazdani and Terry Carlitz, the
Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board and
former Chief Financial Officer and a member of the Company's Board
of Directors, to dismiss the claims against them under Rule 10b-5
and Section 20 of the Exchange Act.  The motions to dismiss the
claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act were denied as to
virtually all of the defendants in the consolidated cases,
including the Company.

In June 2003, a proposed collective partial settlement of this
litigation was structured between the plaintiffs, the issuer
defendants in the consolidated actions, the issuer officers and
directors named as defendants, and the issuers' insurance
companies.  In June 2004, an agreement of partial settlement was
submitted to the District Court for preliminary approval.  The
District Court granted the preliminary approval motion on February
15, 2005, subject to certain modifications.  On
August 31, 2005, the District Court issued a preliminary order
further approving the modifications to the settlement and
certifying the settlement classes.  The District Court also
appointed the notice administrator for the settlement and ordered
that notice of the settlement be distributed to all settlement
class members by January 15, 2006.  The settlement fairness
hearing occurred on April 24, 2006, and the court reserved
decision at that time.

While the partial settlement was pending approval, the plaintiffs
continued to litigate against the underwriter defendants.  The
District Court directed that the litigation proceed within a
number of "focus cases" rather than in all of the 310 cases that
have been consolidated.  The Company's case is not one of these
focus cases.  On October 13, 2004, the District Court certified
the focus cases as class actions.  The underwriter defendants
appealed that ruling, and on December 5, 2006, the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court's class
certification decision.  On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit
denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing.  In light of the Second
Circuit opinion, counsel for the issuer defendants informed the
District Court that this settlement could not be approved because
the defined settlement class, like the litigation class, could not
be certified.  On June 25, 2007, the District Court entered an
order terminating the settlement agreement.  On August 14, 2007,
the plaintiffs filed their second consolidated amended class
action complaints against the focus cases and on September 27,
2007, again moved for class certification.  On November 12, 2007,
certain of the defendants in the focus cases moved to dismiss the
second consolidated amended class action complaints.  On March 26,
2008, the District Court denied the motions to dismiss except as
to Section 11 claims raised by those plaintiffs who sold their
securities for a price in excess of the initial offering price and
those who purchased outside the previously certified class period.
Briefing on the class certification motion was completed in May
2008.  That motion was withdrawn without prejudice on October 10,
2008.

On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement among
the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter defendants was
submitted to the Court for preliminary approval.  The Court
granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval and
preliminarily certified the settlement classes on June 10, 2009.
The settlement fairness hearing was held on September 10, 2009.
On October 5, 2009, the Court entered an opinion granting final
approval to the settlement and directing that the Clerk of the
Court close these actions.  Appeals of the opinion granting final
approval were filed, all of which were disposed of except certain
appeals were remanded to the district court to determine standing
to appeal.  On August 25, 2011, the district court issued an order
holding that the remaining objector had no standing to appeal.
The August 25, 2011 order has been appealed.

The Company says it intends to dispute these claims and defend the
lawsuit vigorously.  However, due to the inherent uncertainties of
litigation and because the district court's August 25, 2011 order
remains subject to appeal, the ultimate outcome of the litigation
is uncertain.


SENEX SERVICES: Accused of Illegal Debt Collection in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria D. Robinson, individually and on behalf of the class
defined herein, and People of the state of Illinois ex rel. Gloria
D. Robinson v. Senex Services Corporation and Jaffe & Berlin,
L.L.C., Case No. 2012-CH-00556 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
January 6, 2012) seeks redress for the conduct of Senex in taking
collection actions prohibited by the Illinois Collection Agency
Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that although unlicensed, Senex collected
debts from debtors located in Illinois, including her, in
violation of the ICAA.  She asserts that Sections 14 and 14b of
the ICAA make it a crime to engage in the business of a collection
agency without a license.

Ms. Robinson is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.

Senex is an Indiana corporation doing business in Illinois.  Senex
purchases or claims to purchase charged-off consumer debts and
enforcing the debts against the consumers by filing collection
lawsuits and otherwise.  Jaffe & Berlin, an Illinois law firm,
represented Senex in its collection lawsuits against the Plaintiff
and other Illinois residents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  cmiller@edcombs.com


SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Class Action Oral Arguments Set for Jan. 10
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kitsap Peninsula Business Journal reports that the United States
Supreme Court was set to hear oral arguments on Jan. 10 in a
class-action lawsuit initiated by eight California civil servants
against the Service Employees International Union Local 1000, a
state affiliate of the SEIU.

In 2005, Local 1000 union officials imposed a "special assessment"
to raise money from all state employees covered by a union
monopoly bargaining contract for a union "Political Fight-Back
Fund," regardless of their union membership status.  The political
fund was used to defeat several ballot proposals supported by
then-California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, including one that
revoked public employee unions' special privilege of using forced
union dues and fees for political contributions without employee
consent.  California government employees were given no chance to
opt out of Local 1000's political fund.

Attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation -- the
nation's leading advocate for workers who suffer from the abuses
of compulsory unionism -- was set to argue before the Supreme
Court on Jan. 10 that the workers should not have been forced to
pay for the SEIU union officials' political spending spree.  It is
the 15th time Foundation attorneys would appear before the Court.


SYNOVIS LIFE: Faces Shareholder Suits Over Proposed Baxter Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Synovis Life Technologies, Inc. is facing two shareholder class
action lawsuits arising from its proposed merger with a Baxter
International Inc. subsidiary, according to Synovis' January 6,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended October 31, 2011.

On December 12, 2011, Synovis, Baxter International Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("Baxter"), and Twins Merger Sub, Inc., a
Minnesota corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Baxter
("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which Baxter will acquire all of
the outstanding shares of Synovis for $28.00 per share in cash,
without interest, and pursuant to which Merger Sub will be merged
with and into the Company with the Company continuing as the
surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Baxter (the
"Merger").

Beginning December 14, 2011, two putative shareholder class action
complaints challenging the proposed Merger were filed in Ramsey
County District Court, Second Judicial District, State of
Minnesota, against Baxter, Merger Sub, Synovis and individual
members of the Company's board of directors.  The complaints
generally allege, among other things, that the members of the
Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed
to the shareholders of Synovis by entering into the Merger
Agreement, approving the proposed Merger, failing to take steps to
maximize the value of Synovis to its shareholders, making
materially inadequate disclosures regarding the proposed merger,
and that Synovis, Baxter and Merger Sub aided and abetted such
breaches of fiduciary duties.  In addition, the complaints allege
that the transaction improperly favors Baxter and that certain
provisions of the Merger Agreement unduly restrict Synovis'
ability to receive a topping bid or negotiate with rival bidders.
The complaints seek, among other things, declaratory and
injunctive relief concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches,
injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from consummating the
Merger and other forms of equitable relief.

The Company believes that the claims asserted against it in these
proceedings are without merit; however, there can be no assurance
as to the outcome or timing of the resolution of these
proceedings.  The Company, therefore, is unable to estimate the
amount or potential range of any loss that may arise out of these
proceedings.  The possible resolutions could include a delay or
prohibition of consummation of the Merger, a determination and
judgment against the Company or a settlement that requires a
substantial payment by the Company that could have a material
adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows.


TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Chrome 6 Exposure Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
In late April 2008, a lawsuit was filed in Riverside County
Superior Court of the State of California styled Virginia
Shellman, et al. v. Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al.  The
lawsuit against three of Texas Industries, Inc.'s subsidiaries
purports to be a class action complaint for medical monitoring for
a putative class defined as individuals who were allegedly exposed
to chrome 6 emissions from the Company's Crestmore cement plant.
The complaint alleges an increased risk of future illness due to
the exposure to chrome 6 and other toxic chemicals.  The lawsuit
requests, among other things, establishment and funding of a
medical testing and monitoring program for the class until their
exposure to chrome 6 is no longer a threat to their health, as
well as punitive and exemplary damages.

Since the Shellman lawsuit was filed, five additional putative
class action lawsuits have been filed in the same court.  The
putative class in each of these cases is the same as or a subset
of the putative class in the Shellman case, and the allegations
and requests for relief are similar to those in the Shellman case.
As a consequence, the court has stayed four of these lawsuits
until the Shellman lawsuit is finally determined.

Since August 2008, additional lawsuits have been filed in the same
court against Texas Industries, Inc. or one or more of the
Company's subsidiaries containing allegations of personal injury
and wrongful death by approximately 3,000 individual plaintiffs
who were allegedly exposed to chrome 6 and other toxic or harmful
substances in the air, water and soil caused by emissions from the
Crestmore plant.  The court has dismissed Texas Industries, Inc.
from the lawsuits, and the Company's subsidiaries operating in
Texas have been dismissed by agreement with the plaintiffs.  Most
of the Company's subsidiaries operating in California remain as
defendants.  The court has dismissed from these lawsuits
plaintiffs that failed to provide required information, leaving
approximately 2,000 plaintiffs.

Since January 2009, additional lawsuits have been filed against
Texas Industries, Inc. or one or more of its subsidiaries in the
same court involving similar allegations, causes of action and
requests for relief, but with respect to the Company's Oro Grande,
California cement plant instead of the Crestmore plant.  The
lawsuits involve approximately 300 individual plaintiffs.  Texas
Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries operating in Texas have been
similarly dismissed from these lawsuits.  The court has dismissed
from these lawsuits plaintiffs that failed to provide required
information, leaving approximately 250 plaintiffs.  Prior to the
filing of the lawsuits, the air quality management district in
whose jurisdiction the plant lies conducted air sampling from
locations around the plant.  None of the samples contained chrome
6 levels above 1.0 ng/m3.

The plaintiffs allege causes of action that are similar from
lawsuit to lawsuit.  Following dismissal of certain causes of
action by the court and amendments by the plaintiffs, the
remaining causes of action typically include, among other things,
negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional
distress, trespass, public and private nuisance, strict liability,
willful misconduct, fraudulent concealment, unfair business
practices, wrongful death and loss of consortium. The plaintiffs
generally request, among other things, general and punitive
damages, medical expenses, loss of earnings, property damages and
medical monitoring costs.  As of January 6, 2012, none of the
plaintiffs in these cases has alleged in their pleadings any
specific amount or range of damages.  Some of the lawsuits include
additional defendants, such as the owner of another cement plant
located approximately four miles from the Crestmore plant or
former owners of the Crestmore and Oro Grande plants.

The Company says it will vigorously defend all of these lawsuits
but it cannot predict what liability, if any, could arise from
them.  The Company also cannot predict whether any other lawsuits
may be filed against it alleging damages due to injuries to
persons or property caused by claimed exposure to chrome 6.

No further updates were reported in the Company's January 6, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended November 30, 2011.


UNITED STATES: DSS Sued Over Pending Medicaid Applications
----------------------------------------------------------
Christine Stuart, writing for CT News Junkie, reports that the
Department of Social Services, having been "systematically
stripped of workers," failed to process Medicaid applications in a
timely manner, a federal class action lawsuit filed on Jan. 9 by
legal aid attorneys says.

One of the two named plaintiffs is just one of the nearly 5,000
Connecticut residents whose applications for Medicaid have been
pending well beyond the 45-day period generally required for
processing applications, the lawsuit says.

"At the end of November, 2011, nearly 55 percent of all of the
Medicaid applications were pending beyond the federally-mandated
time limits," the lawsuit says.

As a result, Paul Shafer, the lead plaintiff, "has been unable to
access Medicaid coverage for his anti-seizure medication."

The second named plaintiff Joshua Harder, is one of hundreds of
individuals whose applications have been approved, but is subject
to the spend-down requirement.

Although Mr. Harder provided his medical bills in compliance with
the spend-down requirement for the six month period between July 1
to December 2011, he was not provided Medicaid benefits and has
been unable to receive further medical treatment.

DSS workers not only cannot timely process applications, but they
also cannot timely process Medicaid annual reviews, legal aid
attorneys said in a press release.  As a result, individuals who
continue to be eligible for Medicaid and have timely submitted
their annual redetermination forms are nevertheless routinely cut
off of Medicaid.

But the Department of Social Services spokesman said filing a
lawsuit may not have been the best way to handle this situation.

"We are disappointed that legal services has chosen to file a
lawsuit that will consume precious time and resources, rather than
working with us on practical approaches to re-investing in DSS,"
David Dearborn, DSS spokesman, said in a statement.  "It's common
knowledge that the agency has dealt with major, double-digit
percentage staffing losses over the last decade and increasing
monthly Medicaid (19.5%) and SNAP (81.0%) caseloads over the past
five years. To meet these critical needs, we are working with the
Office of Policy and Management to refill existing vacancies and
hire additional staff; and we have begun the process of upgrading
the entire IT infrastructure."

"We realize of course that the state has had budgetary problems,"
Shelley White, an attorney representing Mr. Shafer, said.  "But
even under these circumstances, states must comply with federal
law if they want to continue to receive hundreds of millions of
dollars of federal reimbursement under Medicaid.  One of the most
basic requirements of federal law is that applications for
Medicaid must be processed timely, in a specified number of days,
so that Medicaid is actually available when needed."

Sheldon Toubman, another one of the attorneys with New Haven Legal
Assistance Association, noted that "previous administrations
seemed to not value the essential benefit programs administered by
DSS and thus severely cut back on its staffing in successive
budgets.  It is unfortunate that Governor Malloy's Administration
and his Commissioner of Social Services inherited such a severely
hobbled agency."

"However, given his commitment to preserving the safety net, we
are optimistic that Governor Malloy will step up to the plate and
recognize the need to reverse these cutbacks and thus avoid
jeopardizing federal funds," Mr. Toubman said.

"As Commissioner Rod Bremby has emphasized, we can't correct and
resolve issues resulting from lack of investment over the past
decade in a matter of months," Mr. Dearborn said.  "However, the
Commissioner and agency are committed to doing so as promptly and
as cost-effectively as possible."

Mr. Toubman bristled at the notion that the lawsuit would tie up
resources, since this has been an issue for years.  As for the IT
system, he said the earliest those improvements will be made is 16
months from now, "how does that help someone on Jan. 9 can't get
onto Medicaid?" he wondered.  He said what they need now is more
staff.  He suggested a bunch just retired in October and could
easily be hired back.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Lemberg Files Amended Class Action Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Lemberg & Associates LLC has filed an amended class action
complaint on behalf of a client that alleges that Whirlpool
Corporation, which has merged with Maytag Corporation, and Service
Net Warranty engaged in deceptive and unfair trade practices
regarding the companies' service contracts.  According to attorney
Sergei Lemberg, "Thousands of consumers -- or perhaps hundreds of
thousands -- were ripped off by Whirlpool and Service Net when
those companies did not repair or replace faulty appliances per
the terms of the service contracts."

According to the amended class action complaint, when he purchased
his Maytag clothes dryer, the plaintiff also bought a three-year
service contract that promised to repair or replace the appliance
if it failed.  The complaint states that it also gave the
warrantor the option of "buying out" the contract by either
refunding the original purchase price less the amount of claims
paid, or replacing the dryer with a comparable product.  Instead
of refunding the original purchase price or replacing the dryer,
the complaint alleges that the defendants told the plaintiff that
he was only entitled to a refund for the present value of the
dryer, minus the cost of the repairman's visit.  According to
Lemberg, "That is absurd, since the point of buying a service
contract is to avoid the cost of repair."

The plaintiff alleges that Maytag, which was subsequently
purchased by Whirlpool, and Service Net Warranty, which
administers the service contracts, failed to fulfill the terms of
the service contract by improperly administering buy-outs.  As
such, the suit alleges that the his dryer's buy-out, and buy-outs
given to similarly situated consumers, constituted breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and a violation of the federal
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Lemberg concludes, "Consumers purchase service contracts to ensure
that they will be protected should an appliance need repair or
replacement. Corporations and service contract providers need to
be held accountable to the terms of the service contracts. On
behalf of our client, we are determined to do whatever it takes to
give consumers who have been victimized an avenue of redress."

This release references Sherman v. Maytag Corporation, Whirlpool
Corporation, and Service Net Warranty, LLC (U.S. District Court,
District of Connecticut, 3:11-cv-01010-JBA).

                 About Lemberg & Associates, LLC

The attorneys at Lemberg & Associates, LLC practice in New York,
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Maine,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, California, Maryland, Illinois, and
Washington, D.C. Sergei Lemberg can brief you about consumer law,
remedies available to consumers who are victims of service
contracts, and other relevant issues.

Sergei Lemberg can be reached at:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG & ASSOCIATES
          1100 Summer Street
          Stamford, CT 06905
          Telephone: 855-301-2100
          E-mail: esponseteam@lemberglaw.com


                           *********

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, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and
Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  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 Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.





                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *