/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120124.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, January 24, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 17


012 SMILE: Receives Motion for Recognition of Class Action
ABC: Former Bachelor Contestants Mull Class Action
BANK OF THE OZARKS: Faces Overdraft Fee-Related Suit in Arkansas
EMPIRE SCAFFOLD: Faces Class Action Over Bonus Pay
NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Locks Law Firm Files Class Action

PROVINCE OF OAKALLA, CANADA: Class Action Settlement Tossed
SECURITIES AMERICA: Distributes $80-Mil. Ponzi Scheme Settlement
SHELL VACATIONS: Sued Over False Claims on Timeshare Memberships
SIEMENS HEARING: Hausfeld Files Securities Class Action in N.J.
SIX FLAGS: Faces Class Action Over 2088 Norovirus Outbreak

ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL: Ex-Workers Seek $10.8MM in Class Action
STATE OF MINNESOTA: Sued for Violating Genetic Privacy Act
TRAILER BRIDGE: Puerto Rico-Related Antitrust Suits Pending
WARREN COUNTY, OH: Another Plaintiff to Be Added in Class Action
WINN-DIXIE STORES: Recalls Leasa Sprouts Due to Salmonella Risk

* Securities Fraud Class Action Filings Up Slightly in 2011


012 SMILE: Receives Motion for Recognition of Class Action
Partner Communications Company Ltd. on Jan. 19 disclosed that its
fully owned subsidiary, 012 Smile Telecom Ltd., was served with a
lawsuit and a motion for the recognition of this lawsuit as a
class action, filed against 012 Smile and other telecommunication
operators on January 11, 2012, in the Nazareth District Court.

The claim alleges that the defendants operate certain information
and premium services through international dialing codes and apply
tariffs, not in accordance with their licenses and the regulation
requirements applicable to such services.

The total amount claimed against 012 Smile, if the lawsuit is
recognized as a class action is not estimated by the plaintiff.

012 Smile is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and 012 Smile and
Partner are unable, at this preliminary stage, to evaluate, with
any degree of certainty, the probability of success of the lawsuit
or the range of potential exposure, if any.

                  About Partner Communications

Partner Communications Company Ltd. is an Israeli provider of
telecommunications services (cellular, fixed-line telephony and
Internet services) under the orange(TM) brand.  The Company
provides mobile communications services to over 3 million
subscribers in Israel.  Partner's ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ
Global Select Market(TM) and its shares are traded on the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange (nasdaq and tase:PTNR).

Partner is an approximately 45%-owned subsidiary of Scailex
Corporation Ltd.

                   About 012 Smile Telecom Ltd.

012 Smile is a wholly owned subsidiary of Partner Communications
which provides international long distance services, Internet
services and local telecommunication fixed-line services
(including telephony services using VOB) under the 012 Smile
brand.  The completion of the purchase of 012 Smile by Partner
Communications took place on March 3, 2011.

ABC: Former Bachelor Contestants Mull Class Action
Cupids Pulse reports that in a move that would be the first-of-
its-kind in reality television history, former contestants of the
ABC hit reality television shows, "The Bachelor" and "The
Bachelorette" have spoken to attorneys and are in discussion to
file a class action lawsuit, against creators Mike Fleiss and Elan
Gale.  This information was disclosed to us in an exclusive
interview by former contestant and "Bachelorette Season 4" winner,
Jesse Csincsak.

"Once you're on the show, they own you," Mr. Csincsak said.  "Even
when your contract is up, they still interfere in your life and
prevent you from promoting other brands and making money."

Mr. Csincsak notes that the last straw for him came when Gale
contacted his business partners and other companies telling them
not to work with him.  He says that the producers have also
contacted former "Bachelor," "Bachelorette" and "Bachelor Pad"
contestants threatening to blacklist them if they participate in
any of Mr. Csincsak's events.

Since appearing on "The Bachelorette" Mr. Csincsak has remained in
the spotlight by hosting annual bachelor reunion gatherings with
the former contestants and most recently he launched the
successful web show "Reality Smackdown."

Discussion about a class action lawsuit surfaced this month after
Mr. Csincsak was reviewing his rights with his attorneys.

"I had planned to file my own lawsuit last month but after
discussions with numerous people and former Bachelor contestants,
we realized that this issue is much bigger than me," he said.

This isn't the first time ABC has been to court regarding the hit
show.  In 2003, the show's producers filed suit against former
"Bachelor" Season 4 star, Bob Guiney for breaking his contract by
promoting his new CD "3 Sides," and his music video.  Mr. Guiney
won the case.

Last month, spoiler blogger, Steve Carbone (a.k.a Reality Steve)
was slapped with a lawsuit by the producers of ABC for coercing
former contestants to breach their confidentiality contracts to
help reveal spoiler activities for his Web site.

Mr. Csincsak, a retired pro snowboarder, who won the heart of
DeAnna Pappas on Season 4 of "The Bachelorette" is now married to
former "Bachelor" Season 13 contestant Ann Leuders.

BANK OF THE OZARKS: Faces Overdraft Fee-Related Suit in Arkansas
Bank of the Ozarks, Inc., is facing a class action lawsuit in
Arkansas alleging improper assessment and collection of excessive
overdraft fees, according to the Company's January 18, 2012, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On January 5, 2012, the Company and its subsidiary, Bank of the
Ozarks (the "Bank"), were served with a summons and complaint
filed on December 19, 2011, in the Circuit Court of Lonoke County,
Arkansas, Division III, styled Robert Walker, Ann B. Hines and
Judith Belk vs. Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. and Bank of the Ozarks,
No. CV-2011-777.  The complaint alleges that the defendants have
harmed the plaintiffs, former customers of the Bank, by improper,
unfair and unconscionable assessment and collection of excessive
overdraft fees from the plaintiffs.

According to the complaint, plaintiffs claim that the Bank employs
sophisticated software to automate its overdraft system, and that
this system unfairly and inequitably manipulates and alters
customers' transaction records in order to maximize overdraft
penalties, particularly utilizing a practice of posting of items
in "high-to-low" order, despite the actual sequence in which such
items are presented for payment.  Plaintiffs claim that the Bank's
deposit agreements with customers do not adequately disclose the
Bank's overdraft assessment policies and are ambiguous, deceptive,
unfair and misleading.  Plaintiffs' complaint also alleges that
these actions and omissions constitute breach of contract, breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
unconscionable conduct, conversion, unjust enrichment and
violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  The
plaintiffs seek to have the case certified by the court as a class
action for all Bank account holders similarly situated, and seek a
declaratory judgment as to the wrongful nature of the Bank's
overdraft fee policies, restitution of overdraft fees paid by the
plaintiffs and the putative class as a result of the actions cited
in the complaint, disgorgement of profits as a result of the
alleged wrongful actions and unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, together with pre-judgment interest, costs and
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

The Company and the Bank have not yet responded to the complaint,
but believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
intend to vigorously contest their claims.

EMPIRE SCAFFOLD: Faces Class Action Over Bonus Pay
David Yates, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports that
individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, Jorge
Garcia has filed a class action lawsuit against Empire Scaffold,
alleging the company owes him and others for bonus pay for work at
Motiva's expansion project.

The suit was filed Jan. 12 in Jefferson County District Court and
claims the amount in controversy does not exceed $5 million for
all class members.

According to the lawsuit, Empire Scaffold employed several hundred
people to work at the Motiva Crude Expansion Project at its Port
Arthur refinery.  The job was a massive undertaking and required
"ramp up" and "step down" labor over a number of years.  As peak
labor demand waned, so did the desire to work the project.

Accordingly, Motiva and its contractors instituted a program
entitling workers to a deferred additional pay bonus in the face
of inevitable layoffs.

The additional bonus pay included $1 per hour for straight time
and $1.50 for overtime for all helpers and labors.  All other
crafts would be paid $2 for straight time and $3 for overtime, the
suit states.

In December 2011, Mr. Garcia was part of a reduction in force but
did not receive the agreed upon compensation.

In addition to his back pay, Mr. Garcia is seeking exemplary

Beaumont attorney John Werner of the Reaud, Morgan & Quinn law
firm represents him.

Judge Milton Shuffield, 136th District Court, is assigned to the

Case No. D191-658

Mr. Werner can be reached at:

          John Werner, Esq.
          REAUD, MORGAN & QUINN, L.L.P.
          801 Laurel Street
          Beaumont, TX 77701
          Telephone: (409) 838-1000

NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Locks Law Firm Files Class Action
Locks Law Firm attorneys Gene Locks, Michael Leh, and David
Langfitt filed a class action lawsuit on Jan. 18 in Philadelphia
against the NFL on behalf of all former NFL players, including
seven named players and four spouses, all of whom are the class
representatives.  The named players include former Philadelphia
Eagles Ron Solt, Joe Panos, and Rich Miano.  The suit charges that
the NFL and other defendants intentionally and fraudulently
misrepresented and/or concealed medical evidence about the short-
and long-term risks regarding repetitive traumatic brain injury
and concussions and failed to warn players that they risked
permanent brain damage if they returned to play too soon after
sustaining a concussion.

Ron Solt, age 50, was an all-star guard for the Eagles from 1988
to 1991 and also played for the Indianapolis Colts, playing 10
seasons in all from 1984 to 1993.  He suffered at least one
concussion during an NFL game while with the Eagles, as well as
multiple head traumas and concussions during practice that were
never medically diagnosed.  He now suffers from substantial memory
loss and persistent ringing in his ears.

Joe Panos, age 41, played as an offensive lineman in the NFL from
1994 to 2000 and was with the Eagles from 1994 to 1997.  He
sustained concussions while with the Eagles and Buffalo Bills.  He
currently experiences headaches, memory loss, irritability, rage,
mood swings, and, sleeplessness.

Rich Miano, age 49, played as a defensive back for 10 seasons in
the NFL between 1985 and 1995 and was with the Eagles from 1991 to
1994. He is now associate head coach of the University of Hawaii
football team.  He sustained at least one concussion while playing
but is currently asymptomatic.

Gennaro DiNapoli, age 36, was an NFL center and guard from 1998 to
2004 who sustained repeated head impacts during his NFL career.
He suffers from severe depression, memory loss, headaches, anxiety
and mood swings.

Adam Haayer, age 34, was an offensive lineman from 2001 to 2006
for four teams.  He had at least four concussions or concussion-
like symptoms and deals with memory loss, depression, and anxiety.

Daniel Buenning, age 30, played as an offensive lineman in the NFL
for four seasons from 2005 to 2008.  He suffers from substantial
memory loss, depression, trouble with concentration, short
attention span, and mood swings.

Craig Heimburger, age 34, played on the offensive line for four
teams between 1999 and 2002.  He sustained multiple head impacts
and concussions and suffers from dizziness, memory loss, and
intense headaches.

Also named in the complaints were the wives of several players
including Lori Miano, Summer Haayer, Ashley Buenning, and Dawn

"This action is necessary because the NFL knew about the
debilitating and permanent effects of head injuries and
concussions that regularly occur among professional players, yet
ignored and actively concealed the risks," according to Locks.

The suit from Locks Law attorneys Gene Locks, Michael Leh and
David Langfitt charges that the NFL voluntarily joined the
scientific research as well as public and private discussions
regarding the relationship between concussions and brain
impairment when it created the Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (MTBI)
Committee in 1994.  Rather than naming a noted neurologist to
chair this committee, it appointed Dr. Elliott Pellman, a
rheumatologist who was a paid physician and trainer for the New
York Jets, a conflict of interest, and had training in the
treatment of joints and muscles, not head injuries.  While the
committee was established with the stated purpose of researching
and lessening the impact of concussions on NFL players, it failed
to inform them of the true risks associated with head trauma.

"Although athletes who suffered brain trauma in other professional
sports were restricted from playing full games or even seasons,
NFL players with similar head injuries were regularly returned to
play with devastating consequences," according to Locks.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.  It seeks medical monitoring, compensation, and
financial recovery for the short-term, long-term, and chronic
injuries, financial and intangible losses, and expenses for the
individual former and present NFL players and their spouses.

Locks Law Firm also plans to file additional suits on behalf of
other NFL players in the upcoming weeks.

With a litigation team of 23 personal injury attorneys and nearly
100 legal professionals and auxiliary staff members, Locks Law
Firm -- http://www.lockslaw.com-- serves plaintiffs and is
dedicated to victims of corporate neglect and malfeasance.  The
firm has offices in Philadelphia, New York, Cherry Hill, NJ.

The Plaintiffs' lawyers can be reached at:

          Gene Locks, Esq.
          Michael Leh, Esq.
          David Langfitt, Esq.
          LOCKS LAW FIRM
          The Curtis Center
          601 Walnut Street, Suite 720 East
          Philadelphia, PA 19106

PROVINCE OF OAKALLA, CANADA: Class Action Settlement Tossed
Charmaine de Silva, writing for Vancouver/CKNW(AM980), reports
that sexual abuse victims from the old Oakalla Prison Farm in
Burnaby will not have a class action settlement with the Province.
This, after a Judge dismissed the agreement's terms.

Lawyer Jim Poyner says the Judge didn't like the limitation period
the settlement placed on victims.

But, what happens to victims now, depends on whether there's an
appeal, "Whether there's an appeal or not, I can't say at this
stage.  But if there isn't and if nothing happens, then where
they're left is they're gonna have to go to Court and present
their case and try to find a resolution that way."

Mr. Poyner says going to Court would open victims to a serious
loss of privacy, and also come at a major financial cost.

Mr. Poyner can be reached at:

          Baxter LLP
          #408-145 Chadwick Court
          North Vancouver, BC V7M 3K1
          Telephone: (604) 210-3651

SECURITIES AMERICA: Distributes $80-Mil. Ponzi Scheme Settlement
The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP on Jan. 19 announced that two
years after bringing a class action case against Securities
America, Inc., its corporate parent Securities America Financial
Corporation and Ameriprise Financial, Inc., over 2,000 investors
throughout the U.S. are receiving checks totaling $80 million.
Investors will recover an average of over $30,000 per person.

The distribution represents the last chapter of a lawsuit filed by
Securities America customers who purchased private placement
investments in Medical Capital Notes and Provident Royalties,
which were both revealed to be Ponzi schemes.  Girard Gibbs and
associated counsel represented the investors and won final
approval of the $80 million settlement in Federal District Court
in Dallas, Texas on July 25, 2011.

"We are pleased that our clients will recover a substantial
percentage of their losses within two years of the date this
litigation got underway," said Daniel Girard, senior partner at
Girard Gibbs.  "We commend our adversaries for coming to the
settlement table in good faith and negotiating a fair compromise
with all the affected investors."

The settlement allows investors to recoup losses independent of
any recovery obtained through receiverships.

In July 2009, the SEC formally charged Provident Royalties LLC,
Provident Asset Management LLC and its founders with securities
fraud in connection with an alleged $485 million Ponzi scheme to
defraud natural gas and oil investors.  The SEC civil complaint
charges that Provident made a series of fraudulent offerings of
preferred stock and limited partnership interests and sold them to
approximately 7,700 investors.  It is alleged that Provident
promised investors annual returns of up to 18 percent from
investments in oil and gas real estate, leases, and mineral
rights, but failed to disclose that a significant portion of
investors' funds were being used to pay previous investors.

The class action lawsuit alleged, among other things, that private
placement memoranda for the Medical Capital offerings
misrepresented and omitted material facts, and that the defendants
violated federal securities laws.

                      About Girard Gibbs LLP

Girard Gibbs LLP -- http://www.GirardGibbs.com-- is a law firm
that represents individual and institutional investors in
securities fraud class actions and litigation.

Mr. Gibbs can be reached at:

          Daniel Girard, Esq.
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com

SHELL VACATIONS: Sued Over False Claims on Timeshare Memberships
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal
class action, investors say a timeshare company "sells false
dreams" by charging thousands of dollars in hidden fees after
luring in customers with false promises.

The lead plaintiffs claim they spent $14,000 on Shell Vacations
"club points" that they later saw members selling on eBay for $1.

Lead plaintiff Megan Putnam sued Shall Vacations LLC dba Shall
Vacations Club, Shell Holdings and SVC West.

Ms. Putnam and Erin Medina claim Shell Vacations describes its
timeshare memberships as a "fixed cost," though prices continually
increase.  Ms. Putnam and Ms. Medina say they paid thousands of
dollars in maintenance fees.

"Although plaintiffs purchased 2,500 points for approximately
$14,224 (and thousands in hidden fees), there are numerous Shell
Vacations members selling their Shell Vacations points on Ebay, as
many as 9,700 points, for $1," the complaint states.

"Plaintiffs and the class members are not provided the exclusive
or priority access to the timeshare resorts they were promised.
Rather, defendants, among other things, attempt to sell
reservations to the timeshare resorts to non-members at a profit.
As a result of this practice, the number of reservations available
to members is significantly depleted, leaving fewer and less
desirable timeshares for members to choose from and redeem their
club points toward."

The plaintiffs say an Internet search show "endless complaints
nationwide" against Shell Vacations.

"In the next 10 years we will be paying $50,000 to go on vacation
10 times, and that only covers the condo, not airfare, etc," one
man wrote on an online complaint forum, according to the
complaint.  "How is that a great investment?"

Another customer complained of "one unpleasant surprise after
another" and "many lies and conveniently concealed information."

Shell Vacations is a Delaware LLC that operates out of Northbrook,
Ill., according to the complaint, which says its subsidiary, SVC-
West, operates out of San Francisco.

The class seeks punitive damages for breach of contract, breach of
faith, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, false promises,
deceptive business practices and violations of the Vacation
Ownership and Time-Share Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Putnam, et al. v. Shell Vacations LLC
(d/b/a Shell Vacations Club, L.P.), et al., Case No. 12-cv-00242
(N.D. Calif.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          E-mail: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq.
          Michelle H. Blauner, Esq.
          Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
          53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 439-3939
          E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com

SIEMENS HEARING: Hausfeld Files Securities Class Action in N.J.
Hausfeld LLP has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf
of those who sold HearUSA common stock between January 18, 2011
and July 31, 2011, inclusive.  The lawsuit, filed January 18,
2012, seeks to pursue remedies against Siemens Hearing
Instruments, Inc. for violations of Sections 10(b), 9(a)(2) and
18(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. 78j(b),
78i(a)(2), and 78r(a)] and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
the Securities and Exchange Commission [17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5].
Siemens is engaged, in part, in the manufacture of hearing
products, and HearUSA was involved in the distribution of Siemens'
hearing products.  The complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey and is captioned MTB
Investment Partners, LP vs. Siemens Hearing Instruments, Inc.

The complaint alleges that Siemens engaged in a fraudulent scheme
to drive down the price of HearUSA common stock in an attempt to
acquire HearUSA's assets for less than their fair market value by,
in part, filing false and misleading statements with the SEC.  The
result of Siemens' false and misleading statements, according to
the complaint, was to drive down the market price of HearUSA
common stock from 90c/share on January 18, 2011 to 35c/share on
July 28, 2011.

According to the complaint, Siemens made a number of false and/or
misleading statements in its public filings which caused HearUSA
stock to plummet.  These public filings stated that Siemens at no
point had the intention to acquire HearUSA, despite the fact that
it had been in the advanced stages of a negotiated buyout process
for HearUSA.  The public filings further stated that Siemens, if
it wanted to acquire HearUSA, could do so at no consideration to
shareholders because of debts owed to Siemens by HearUSA.  The
complaint alleges that this assertion misrepresented the status
and extent of the debt owed to Siemens by HearUSA and Siemens'
ability to acquire HearUSA pursuant to the credit agreement
entered into between the two companies.  The complaint alleges
that, in making these statements, Siemens effectively told the
market that HearUSA stock was worthless, and that the market
responded accordingly.

The complaint further alleges: (1) that despite Siemens' best
efforts, it was unable to acquire HearUSA for less than its fair
market value; (2) that although HearUSA was driven into bankruptcy
as a result of Siemens' actions, HearUSA was able to interest a
Siemens' rival in its acquisition; (3) that as a result, Siemens
eventually acquired HearUSA in August 2011 at its market value
prior to Siemens' public filings (between 93c and $1.09/share);
and (4) that as a result of Siemens' actions, many investors had
sold HearUSA stock in the interim at greatly reduced prices. The
lawsuit seeks recovery from Siemens on behalf of those investors.

If you sold HearUSA common stock between January 18, 2011 and July
31, 2011, inclusive, and as a result sustained damages, you may
move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the Class no later
than 60 days from today, if you so choose.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. In order to serve as lead plaintiff,
however, you must meet certain legal requirements.  The ability to
share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision of
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain
Hausfeld LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your
counsel in this action.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, William Butterfield of Hausfeld LLP at
(202)540-7200 or via e-mail at wbutterfield@hausfeldllp.com

Hausfeld LLP is an international firm specializing in claimant-
side litigation.

SIX FLAGS: Faces Class Action Over 2088 Norovirus Outbreak
Jon Alexander, writing for The Post-Star, reports that attorneys
representing more than 100 people filed a class-action lawsuit on
Jan. 18 in state Supreme Court in Warren County against the Six
Flags Great Escape Lodge & Indoor Waterpark over a 2008 norovirus

The state Department of Health documented more than 600 cases of
norovirus in March 2008, apparently stemming from contaminated
food and pool water at the park's hotel complex.

"Here, many people, especially children, suffered brief but
violent periods of illness," said Don Boyajian, one of two
attorneys representing those who were infected.

Those infected experienced brief but violent fits of vomiting and

Dozens of people filed lawsuits following the incident.  Those
claims were consolidated into a single case -- the class-action
lawsuit, which has been in the works since 2009.

Mr. Boyajian did not specify the amount of damages being sought.
He said damages would depend on the virus' impact on each

Attorneys representing Great Escape were not available on Jan. 18
for comment.

Mr. Boyajian alleges that Great Escape, and its parent company Six
Flags Inc., failed to maintain proper sanitary conditions and
didn't warn guests once the outbreak became known.

"Guests reported that entire floors of the hotel were sick,"
Mr. Boyajian said.  "Yet, Six Flags continued to keep their doors
open and charge admission."

The outbreak resulted in the hotel and indoor water park
temporarily closing two of its restaurants, installing hand-
sanitizing stations and implementing more rigorous disinfection
measures at its indoor water park.

State Supreme Court Justice David Krogmann has ruled that anyone
who experienced gastrointestinal illness while visiting the park
during the outbreak, or within 72 hours of departing, can be party
to the case.

Mr. Boyajian can be reached at:

          Donald W. Boyajian, Esq.
          75 Columbia Street
          Albany, NY 12210
          Telephone: (518) 478-2762
          E-mail: dboyajian@dreyerboyajian.com

ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL: Ex-Workers Seek $10.8MM in Class Action
Lawrence Smith, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that
plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against a Wood County
hospital are asking they be awarded more than $10 million for lost
benefits, and the hospital's former parent company put its
remaining hospitals currently on the auction block up as

Last year, nine former St. Joseph's Hospital employees -- Carole
S. Caplinger, Carol S. Dearman, Earlene Workman, Mark Workman,
Beverly J. Flanagan, Mary Kathleen Moore, Ed Rardin, Shannon M.
Nelson and K.C. Stalnaker -- filed suit alleging they and their
co-workers were not paid their accumulated sick leave following
their termination from St. Joseph's prior to its merger with
Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital.

The two officially became Camden-Clark Medical Center on March 1,
and is now an affiliate of West Virginia United Health System.
Prior to the merger, St. Joseph's was owned by the Houston, Texas-
based Signature Hospital Corporation, which is named as a co-
defendant in the suit.

In April, Wood Circuit Judge Robert A. Waters granted a motion by
the employees' attorneys, Ginny A. Conley and George Cosenza, to
give the suit class-action status so as to enable the remaining
St. Joseph's employees the ability to become a party to it, and
share in any proceeds.  Records show, between 630 and 700 people
are potential plaintiffs in the suit.

In a filing made Nov. 16, Ms. Conley and Mr. Cosenza put a dollar
amount they believe Signature owns their clients.  They maintain
all members of the class "are entitled to recover in excess of
$10,800,000, plus attorneys' fees and costs."

The dollar figure quoted came as part of a petition Ms. Conley and
Mr. Cosenza made for an order of attachment.  Believing Signature
does have $10 million, they asked Judge Waters to "order a
prejudgment attachment to any assets or property necessary to
secure the expected recovery in this action until the litigation
is completed."

Specifically, they asked the attachment be made to the two
remaining hospitals it owns in Texas, the Gulf Coast Medical
Center in Wharton, and the Pampa Regional Medical Center.  The
petition came following a deposition taken of Steve Peterson,
Signature's chief financial officer, and one if its general
partners, that the company had intentions of selling the two
facilities and possible suitors, but no firm commitments.

In a response dated Nov. 23, Mr. Peterson asked that Judge Waters
deny Conley and Cosenza's petition.  In his response, he said an
attachment would not only interfere with Signature's ability to
sell the hospitals, but also "would result in substantial damage
and undermine even what the Plaintiffs want to do in this case."

As of presstime, Judge Waters had yet to rule on the petition.
Trial in the case is scheduled to begin Monday, Jan. 30.

Wood Circuit Court case number 11-C-98

Ms. Conley can be reached at:

          Ginny Conley, Esq.
          610 Market Street, Suite 3
          Parkersburg, WV 26101
          Telephone: (304) 485-3333

Mr. Cosenza can be reached at:

          George Cosenza, Esq.
          Parkersburg, WV 26102
          Telephone: (304) 485-0990

STATE OF MINNESOTA: Sued for Violating Genetic Privacy Act
Dionne Cordell-Whitney at Courthouse News Service reports that
Minnesota collects DNA samples from newborn children, then
illegally keeps the genetic information and shares it with third
parties without informed consent of the parents, parents say in a
class action.

Lead plaintiffs Nathan and Katrina Anderson sued the state, the
Minnesota Department of Health, and its commissioner, in Hennepin
County Court.

They claim that the state violated its own Genetic Privacy Act by
collecting, storing and disseminating their children's genetic
information without informed consent.

The Genetic Privacy Act took effect Aug. 1, 2006.

"Under Minnesota's 'Newborn Screening' program, within five days
of each minor plaintiff's birth . . . defendants removed blood
from each minor plaintiff, which contains the genetic information
of the minor plaintiff," the complaint states.

"Defendants similarly collect a sample of genetic information from
all babies born in Minnesota.

"Blood from the minor plaintiffs contains genetic information from
the minor plaintiff and its biological parents."

The state tests the infants' blood for "disorders," according to
the complaint.

However, "After testing the minor plaintiffs' blood for disorders,
defendants did not destroy the blood sample, but instead stored or
retained the blood sample," the complaint states.  The parents say
the state did this without their informed consent, and that the
state then "disseminated the genetic information, and conducted
tests and research on the genetic information belonging to
numerous other persons in Minnesota," also without consent.

The parents say that state's Genetic Privacy Act was enacted to
protect the "genetic privacy and the DNA property rights of all
Minnesotans, including newborns."

"The Genetic Privacy Act states that genetic information may be
used only for the purposes for which an individual has given
written and informed consent, may be stored only for the period of
time that the individual has given written informed consent, and
may not be disseminated without an individual's written informed
consent," according to the complaint.

It adds: "The MNDOH and the State, through and under the direction
of the Commissioner shared and disseminated the plaintiffs'
genetic information with third-parties without obtaining
plaintiffs' informed written consent."

They seek damages and punitive damages.

A copy of the Complaint in Anderson, et al. v. State of Minnesota,
et al., Case No. _____ (Minn. Dist. Ct., Hennepin Cty.), is
available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen J. Foley, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Klobucar, Esq.
          Jared D. Kemper, Esq.
          250 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 338-8788
          E-mail: sfoley@foleymansfield.com

               - and -

          John R. Climaco, Esq.
          Scott D. Simpkins, Esq.
          Patrick G. Warner, Esq.
          55 Public Square, Suite 1950
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 621-8484
          E-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com

TRAILER BRIDGE: Puerto Rico-Related Antitrust Suits Pending
Antitrust lawsuits that previously involved Trailer Bridge, Inc.,
remain pending, according to the Company's January 18, 2012, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On April 17, 2008, Trailer Bridge, Inc. received a subpoena from
the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (the
"DOJ") seeking documents and information relating to a criminal
grand jury investigation of alleged anti-competitive conduct by
Puerto Rico ocean carriers.  The Company representatives have met
with United States Justice Department attorneys and pledged its
full and complete cooperation with the DOJ investigation.  The
Company has made document submissions to the DOJ in response to
the subpoena.  Neither the Company nor any of its employees has
been charged with any wrongdoing in this investigation and will
continue to cooperate with government officials.

Following publicity about the DOJ investigation, beginning on
April 22, 2008, shippers in the Puerto Rico trade lane, and in one
case indirect consumer purchasers within Puerto Rico, have filed
at least 40 purported class actions against domestic ocean
carriers, including Horizon Lines, Sea Star Lines, Crowley Liner
Services and the Company.  The actions alleged that the defendants
inflated prices and engaged in other allegedly anti-competitive
conduct in violation of federal antitrust laws and seek treble
damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.  The actions,
which were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, and the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico, were consolidated into a
single multi-district litigation proceeding (MDL 1960) in the
District of Puerto Rico for pretrial purposes.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the last operative
consolidated complaint with the court.  On April 30, 2010, in a
non-final order, the court granted the Company's motion to be
dismissed with prejudice as to the claims of the named plaintiffs.
The order became final and non-appealable in the third quarter of
2011.  Horizon Lines, Crowley Liner Services, Sea Star Lines, LLC,
Saltchuck Resources, an affiliate of Sea Star Lines, LLC, and
their related companies entered into settlement agreements with
certain named direct purchaser plaintiffs on behalf of a purported
class of claimants in the MDL 1960 proceeding, while denying any
liability for the underlying claims.

Plaintiffs who have opted-out are likely to pursue claims against
the settling defendants.  It is not clear whether an individual
opt-out plaintiff would attempt to bring an action against the
Company in such a proceeding or even whether they could do so in
light of the Company's dismissal with prejudice from the
underlying MDL.  Moreover, it is not clear what, if any, impact
these settlements, whether or not finally approved, will have on
further prosecution of the MDL 1960 or other claims on the
Company, or on the trade, in general.  Although legal fees have
been substantially reduced in 2011, significant legal fees and
costs could still be incurred in connection with the DOJ
investigation, the class actions, and other related matters.
During the three month periods ended June 30, 2011, and 2010,
costs were approximately $9,400 and $145,500, respectively.
During the six month periods ended June 30, 2011, and 2010, costs
were approximately $34,600 and $525,400, respectively.

On October 15, 2009, the Company commenced legal action against
its insurer for a judicial declaration that the insurer owes and
has breached its duty to defend the Company in an antitrust
lawsuit captioned: "In re Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust
Litigation", U.S.D.C., Puerto Rico, Case No. 3:08-md-01960-DRD
(MDL 1960), and for judgment requiring the insurer to defend and
to reimburse the Company's defense expenses.  The case was held in
the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, and was
captioned: "Trailer Bridge, Inc. v. Illinois National Insurance
Debtor".  On July 23, 2010, the court denied the Company's motion
and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant.  The
Company appealed this decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals on August 19, 2010.  The district court decision was
upheld on appeal and the Company chose not to seek appeal to the
United States Supreme Court.

The Company says it is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or
cost of the DOJ investigation, the civil class actions, or other
related matters.  However, should this result in an unfavorable
outcome for the Company or continued legal expense, it could have
a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position and
future operations.

WARREN COUNTY, OH: Another Plaintiff to Be Added in Class Action
Michael Gossum, writing for WBKO, reports that a local attorney is
adding another person to his case.

Gary Logsdon plans to file for another plaintiff to be added to
his class action suit.

Mr. Logsdon is adding Ronda Keabler to his argument after she
claimed to have a social security disabilities check taken from
her while an inmate in Warren County Regional Jail.

"I didn't sign a power of attorney or anything for the jail to use
my signature, so I didn't think it was right," said Ms. Keabler.

"There is nothing legal about taking a check from an individual
and endorsing that check without that's person authorization or
authority, permission or otherwise," said Mr. Logsdon.

Mr. Logsdon filed the class action suit in December claiming the
jail was unlawfully endorsing and misusing inmates checks.

Now, the newest part of his case deals with a federal check.

"The benefits are sacrosanct.  They are strictly for the person to
whom the checks are directed," said Mr. Logsdon.

Mr. Logsdon cites his argument in a law pertaining to the social
security act that congress passed more than 70 years ago.

"They are not to be intercepted, they are not to be seized, not to
be executed on, not to be garnished, not to be taken in anyway,"
said Mr. Logsdon.

Local attorney Mike Breen who deals with social security cases
said a judge is going to have to make a decision.

"Is there some law, regulation, or rule that would allow a jailer
to take any sort of a check from an inmate, and place into a
commissary fund or to a bank account, and if there is no such law
or regulation, then what is the legal basis for the jailer doing
that," said Mr. Breen.

Both Mr. Logsdon and Ms. Keabler believe the jail is overstepping
its authority.

"I just think that they take their authority to an extreme in
there," said Ms. Keabler.

WBKO contacted Jailer Jackie Strode, who said he could not comment
due to pending litigation.

The Social Security Administration's public affairs office in
Atlanta responded to the issue saying "only the persons name whose
name is on the social security check can cash the check."

Also, it said if anyone has concerns with social security checks
to contact them immediately at 1-800-772-1213.

Mr. Logsdon can be reached at:

         Gary Logsdon, Esq.
         Main Cross St.
         Bowling Green, KY 42102
         Telephone: (270) 597-2134

Mr. Breen can be reached at:

         Mike Breen, Esq.
         870 Fairview Avenue, Suite 5
         Bowling Green, KY 42101
         Telephone: (270) 782-3030

WINN-DIXIE STORES: Recalls Leasa Sprouts Due to Salmonella Risk
Tess Stynes at Dow Jones Newswires reports that Winn-Dixie Stores
Inc. is voluntarily recalling some Leasa brand sprouts due to
potential exposure to salmonella.

Winn-Dixie, which operates about 480 retail grocery stores in the
Southeast, said as a precautionary measure it will recall Leasa's
broccoli sprouts, gourmet sprouts, spicy sprouts and onion sprouts
from all of its stores.  The recall affects sprouts sold from
January 7 to January 18 with expiration dates between February 1
and March 15.

Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, elderly people or others with
weakened immune systems.

It is the third recall in less than two months for the Company.
Winn-Dixie last month recalled its store-brand Italian green beans
because of the potential for peanuts mixed in with the green
beans, posing a potential allergy risk for some people.  It also
recalled a brand of gummy candies sold in five of its stores amid
the potential risk of metal contamination.

Products at closely held Leasa Industries Inc. include fresh
vegetables, sprouts, tofu and noodles and won ton wrappers.  The
products are distributed to retailers in Florida, Georgia,
Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, the Caribbean and Alaska,
according to Leasa's Web site.

Winn-Dixie, which has stores in Florida, Alabama, Louisiana,
Georgia and Mississippi, said it hasn't received any reports of
illness related to the sprouts.

Last month, grocery-store operator BI-LO LLC agreed to take Winn-
Dixie Stores Inc. private in a deal that values the grocery chain
at about $560 million.

* Securities Fraud Class Action Filings Up Slightly in 2011
Federal securities fraud class action filing activity increased
slightly in 2011, according to Securities Class Action Filings--
2011 Year in Review, a semiannual report prepared by the Stanford
Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse in cooperation
with Cornerstone Research.  A total of 188 federal securities
class actions were filed in 2011 compared with 176 filings in
2010, with an equal number of actions (94) being filed in the
first and second halves of the year.  The number of class actions
filed was 3.1 percent below the annual average of 194 filings
observed between 1997 and 2010.

Consistent with a trend first observed in 2010, filings related to
merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions continued to constitute
a large percentage of total filings, accounting for 22.9 percent
of 2011 activity.  There were 20 such filings in the first half of
2011 and 23 filings in the last six months of the year.  In 2010,
M&A filings constituted 22.7 percent of all filings.

Litigation against Chinese issuers listed on U.S. exchanges
through reverse mergers represented a major component of filings
activity during 2011, although evidence indicates that this type
of litigation is subsiding.  In 2011, 33 such actions were filed,
constituting 17.6 percent of all federal securities class actions.
This activity occurred predominantly in the first half of the
year, when 24 of these actions were filed; only nine were brought
in the last six months, including five filed in the last three
months of the year.  In contrast, there were only nine such cases
filed during 2010, suggesting both a rapid peak and decline in
this type of litigation activity.  Compared to other class action
securities fraud complaints, Chinese reverse merger filings are
more likely to allege violations of generally accepted accounting
principles and financial restatements and are less likely to
allege insider trading.

The number of filings related to the credit crisis continued to
decline.  There were only three such filings in 2011, a decrease
from 13 in 2010 and 53 in 2009.  Overall filings in the financial
sector also decreased, as financial companies were defendants in
13.3 percent of filings in 2011 compared with 24.4 percent in
2010.  The Heat Maps of S&P 500 Securities Litigation(TM) show
that in 2011, only 1.2 percent of S&P 500 companies in the
Financials sector were named defendants in a class action compared
with 11.7 percent, the 10-year historical average ending December
2010.  These companies represented 6.9 percent of the Financials
sector's market capitalization, well below the historical average
of 24.3 percent.  There also was very little activity in the
Health Care sector of the S&P 500 in 2011, with only 2.0 percent
of Health Care companies subject to new filings.

A notable development in 2011 was the finalization of the rules of
the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program.  The SEC published its
annual report on the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program in November
2011, indicating that the SEC had received 334 tips since the
rules were finalized on August 12, 2011.  These tips spanned 37
states and 11 different foreign countries.  About 9.6 percent of
the tips received were related to tips involving foreign

The market capitalization declines associated with end-of-class-
period announcements have increased from 2010 levels but remain
below the historic average.  The total Disclosure Dollar Loss
(DDL) of $106 billion in 2011 represented a 47.2 percent increase
from 2010 but remained 17.8 percent below the average of $129
billion observed between 1997 and 2010.  There were four "mega
DDL" filings in 2011 associated with end-of-class market
capitalization losses exceeding $5 billion. These filings
represented 58.9 percent of the DDL Index(TM) in 2011.

The total Maximum Dollar Loss (MDL) of $493 billion in 2011 was
4.0 percent above the total MDL in 2010 and 27.5 percent below
$680 billion, the average MDL observed between 1997 and 2010.  The
number of "mega MDL" filings with losses of more than $10 billion
decreased in number in 2011 but increased in dollar value.  Nine
mega MDL filings represented 80.2 percent of the MDL Index(TM) in
2011, while 14 mega MDL filings represented 79.1 percent of the
MDL Index(TM) in 2010.


Professor Joseph Grundfest, Director of the Stanford Law School
Securities Class Action Clearinghouse in cooperation with
Cornerstone Research:

"This corner of the litigation market continues to run at a pace
well below historic norms.  The rapid run-up and subsequent
decline of litigation against Chinese issuers that entered the
U.S. market through reverse mergers suggest that this form of
litigation may be close to having run its course.  The decline in
financial crisis claims further depressed the overall statistics.
It's only the growth of merger-related litigation, which has
historically been brought in state courts, that inflates the
aggregate statistics so that they even approach historic norms.
Taken together, these data suggest that there are far fewer claims
of traditional securities fraud by U.S. issuers than has been the
case since the mid-1990s."

Dr. John Gould, Senior Vice President of Cornerstone Research:

"While the number of securities class action filings in 2011
increased slightly compared with 2010, the number of filings and
the associated market capitalization losses are still well below
historical levels.  Filings related to the financial crisis have
continued to decrease, but we are seeing increases in the number
of M&A filings.  The upward trend of Chinese reverse merger
filings peaked in the first half of 2011 and now appears to be

"At mid-year, I noted that 'We saw the lowest level of class
action filing activity in S&P 500 companies since we began
tracking this sector of the market in 2000.'  This remained true
when all filings for the year were examined.  The two historically
most active sectors of the S&P 500, Financials and Health Care,
had the fewest number of new filings compared with any year
between 2000 and 2010."

Key Findings

   -- In the second half of 2011, the median lag between the end
of the alleged class period and the filing date of the lawsuit
rose to 20 days, more than double the median lag of nine days in
the first half of 2011.  This represented the first increase in
median lag since the second half of 2009. Despite the increase, it
is still below the historical median lag of 27 days for the 14
years ending December 2010.  This increase is associated with an
increase in the number of filings with a six-month or longer lag.

   -- The total number of unique issuers, whose exchange-traded
securities were involved in class actions, increased by 13.3
percent.  Multiple filings against the same issuer continued to
decline in 2011.  Unique issuers as a percentage of total 2011
filings increased to 86.2 percent from 81.3 percent in 2010,
continuing to rebound from a historic low in 2009.  From 1997 to
2010, the average ratio of unique issuers to total filings was
89.1 percent.

   -- Filings against foreign issuers as a percent of total
filings sharply increased in 2011. From 2008 to 2010, the average
percent of total filings against foreign issuers was 13.4 percent;
however, filings against foreign issuers rose to 36.2 percent in
2011.  This large increase can be attributed primarily to the
number of filings against Chinese firms, which accounted for 41 of
the 68 filings against foreign issuers.

   -- About one out of every 31 companies in the S&P 500 Index at
the beginning of 2011 was a defendant in a class action filed
during the year compared with an average of about one out of every
16 companies between 2000 and 2010.

   -- New analysis tracked the probability of a class action
advancing through different stages of litigation.  Using a sample
of 2,415 "Classic Filings" from 1996 to 2011 that have been
resolved, we found that for cases from all circuits, 75 percent of
filings reached a ruling on motion to dismiss.  After the first
ruling on motion to dismiss, 32 percent of all cases were
dismissed at that point or subsequently, 35 percent settled
thereafter but before a ruling on summary judgment, and 8 percent
proceeded to a ruling on summary judgment.

   -- New analysis of the number of federal judges who presided
over a specified number of class actions revealed that 329 judges
in our database presided over only one case between 1996 and 2011.
Only 65 judges presided over more than 10 class actions.  Even
fewer judges presided over multiple cases that reached a ruling on
summary judgment.  For judges that presided over cases that
reached this stage, 133 presided over only one case.  No judge
presided over more than three federal class actions that reached a
ruling on summary judgment during this period.

   -- New analysis of the plaintiff law firms most frequently
named lead counsel indicated that Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd was
named lead or co-lead counsel more often than any other firm from
2009 to 2010.

   -- In 2011, 60 class actions were filed against firms listed on
NYSE or Amex and 105 against firms listed on NASDAQ.  However, the
market capitalization losses in filings related to issuers listed
on NYSE or Amex continued to be larger than filings related to
issuers listed on NASDAQ.  While NASDAQ filings accounted for 63.6
percent of the total number of filings against issuers listed on
major exchanges, these filings only represented 41.4 percent of
the total DDL and 24.9 percent of the total MDL in 2011.

   -- As in 2010, the three circuits with the highest number of
filings in 2011 were the Ninth Circuit, Second Circuit, and Third
Circuit, with 54, 51, and 14 filings, respectively.  The Ninth
Circuit surpassed the Second Circuit in 2010 for most filings and
maintained that position in 2011, at least partially due to the
decline in credit-crisis filings, which tend to be concentrated in
the Second Circuit.

Professor Grundfest and Dr. Gould are available to speak to the
media about the report titled Securities Class Action Filings--
2011 Year in Review.  The full text of the report is available at
the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse
(securities.stanford.edu) and Cornerstone Research
(http://www.cornerstone.com/securities)Web sites.

The Securities Class Action Clearinghouse is an authoritative
source of data and analysis on the financial and economic
characteristics of federal securities fraud class action

Cornerstone Research -- http://www.cornerstone.com-- provides
economic and financial consulting and expert testimony in
litigation and regulatory proceedings and cosponsors the Stanford
Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse.


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 L. Toledo, 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  * * *