CAR_Public/120125.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, January 25, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 17

                             Headlines

1100 LLC: Sued Over Insurance Policies Issued by Mt. Hawley
AIR CANADA: No Immunity From Provincial Consumer Law, Judge Says
APPLE: Hagens Berman Amends E-Book Price-Fixing Class Action
ARMTEC: Sutts Strosberg Gets Court OK to Handle Class Action
BALDWIN TECHNOLOGY: Faces 2nd Suit Over Proposed Sale to Forsyth

BP: May Face Up to $20 Billion in Fines Over Oil Spill
CARRIER IQ: Accused of Wiretapping by Installing Covert Software
CITY OF OTTAWA, CANADA: Faces Class Action Over EI Benefits
COSTA CROCIERE: Codacons to Launch Class Action
FUEL DOCTOR: Continues to Defend Class Suit in California

GOV'T OF AUSTRALIA: Judge Certifies Steel Plant Class Action
MADISON-KIPP CORP: Faces Class Action Over Chemical Pollution
MERCK FROSST: Settles Vioxx Class Action in Canada
MICROSOFT CORP: Appeal Remains Pending in Canadian Supreme Court
PERKINELMER INC: Caliper Settles Acquisition-Related Class Suit

ROYAL CANADIAN: Former Female Members to File Class Action
SEQUENOM INC: New York Court Approves IPO Suit Settlement
SEQUENOM INC: To Raise Capital After Class Action Settlement
SIX FLAGS: Court Allows Norwalk Virus Class Action to Proceed
VANCOUVER SCHOOL: To Send Out Class Action Notice to Students


                          *********

1100 LLC: Sued Over Insurance Policies Issued by Mt. Hawley
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mt. Hawley Insurance Company v. 1100 L.L.C. a/k/a 1100 Dearborn
LLC; Berger Realty Group, L.L.C.; and Hailee Bloom, Individually
and as Representative of Similarly Situated Persons, Case No.
2012-CH-01968 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., January 19, 2012) seeks a
declaration that Mt. Hawley owes no insurance coverage obligations
to 1100 Dearborn and Berger Realty.

This is in connection with a putative class action lawsuit filed
against them by the underlying plaintiff in the case styled Hailee
Bloom, Individually and as Representative of a class of similarly
situated persons v. 1100 LLC a/k/a 1100 Dearborn LLC & Berger
Realty Group, LLC, Case No. 11 CH 2509, in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division under
certain policies of insurance that Mt. Hawley issued to 1100
Dearborn and Berger Realty.

The Complaint filed in the Underlying Action alleges that Berger
Realty was the lessor and authorized management agent for the
building's owner and served as the "landlord" of the Plaintiff's
dwelling unit.  The Complaint alleges that 1100 Dearborn and
Berger Realty violated the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant
Ordinance, Chicago Municipal Code, by failing to provide the
Underlying Plaintiff with an RLTO summary and separate summary of
security deposit interest rates at the time the Underlying
Plaintiff's rental agreement was initially offered or renewed in
accordance with the RLTO.

Mt. Hawley is an insurance company with its principal place of
business in Peoria, Illinois.

1100 Dearborn and Berger Realty are Illinois limited liability
companies, which conduct business in Cook County, Illinois.
Hailee Bloom is a resident of Cook County, Illinois, and is a
tenant of a building located at 1100 N. Dearborn, in Chicago,
Illinois.  The Underlying Plaintiff has been named as an
interested party in this lawsuit to be bound by the judgment
herein.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Duffy, Esq.
          Elizabeth M. McGarry, Esq.
          TRESSLER, LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, 22nd Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 627-4000
          Facsimile: (312) 627-1717
          E-mail: mduffy@tresslerllp.com
                  emalone@tresslerllp.com


AIR CANADA: No Immunity From Provincial Consumer Law, Judge Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steffan Ileman, writing for Digital Journal, reports that a BC
Supreme Court judge dismissed on Jan. 18 Air Canada's claim that
provincial consumer law is inapplicable to Air Canada as a
federally regulated undertaking.  Other airlines are also affected
by the decision in the fuel surcharge class action.

After about eight months of deliberation Madam Justice Adair of
the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed Air Canada's
motion that the Business Practices & Consumer Protection Act
(BPCPA) is inapplicable to Air Canada, or its partner Lufthansa.
The airlines are being sued by passenger B.Unlu in a class action
on allegations that they misrepresented a fuel surcharge as a tax
on his tickets.  Similar class actions have been filed under BC's
provincial consumer protection law by other passengers against
British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Delta Airlines and Japan Airlines
through the North Vancouver law firm Poyner Baxter.

At a hearing held May 9 to 11, 2011, the airlines' legal counsel
David Neave argued that the Canada Transportation Agency has
exclusive jurisdiction over aviation and all matters related to
air tariffs and surcharges.  Airlines' claim to immunity from the
reach of provincial consumer law under the constitutional
doctrines of federal paramountcy and interjurisdictional immunity
was vehemently opposed by the Government of British Columbia who
sent two lawyers from Victoria to Vancouver to fight the motion.
Federal government did not respond to the airlines' Notice of
Constitutional Question.

James Poyner representing the plaintiff said the airlines made a
last ditch effort on January 13 by bringing to the judge's
attention the federal government's recent initiative to regulate
airline advertising.  In dismissing the motion, Madam Justice
Adair stated, however, that the plaintiff's claim is not about
advertising, or tariffs, or the plaintiff's challenge to the
airlines' right to collect a fuel surcharge, but about the
misrepresentation of the surcharge.  She found some of their
arguments to be based on a false premise, and some "bordering on
absurd."  She directed the parties to move forward to a
certification hearing.  A class action must be certified by the
court before it can go to trial.

Fuel surcharge is coded as "YQ" or "YR" on an airline ticket.  In
its Response to Civil Claim filed November 23, 2010 with the BC
Supreme Court, Air Canada blames its agents for the alleged
misrepresentation and claims that Air Canada did not receive or
retain the YQ amount from the Plaintiff.  Any amount collected
from the passenger was collected on behalf of its agent Intair,
and not on behalf of Air Canada, claims the airline.

Airline tickets are issued electronically by what is called in the
travel industry a CRS (Computer Reservation System) or GDS (Global
Distribution System) from information fed into the system by the
airlines.  Travel agents have no control over the contents or
representation of this information.


APPLE: Hagens Berman Amends E-Book Price-Fixing Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Ong, writing for Apple Insider, reports that even as Apple
unveiled new partnerships with publishers focusing on ebooks and
digital textbooks earlier last week, lawyers have amended a class-
action lawsuit against Apple and five of the six big publishers
accusing them of "deep antagonism" toward Amazon and its pricing
scheme.

Law firm Hagens Berman filed the original lawsuit last August on
behalf of a group of consumers who allege Apple and most of the
publishing industry colluded to introduce an agency e-book pricing
model for the iBookstore to disrupt Amazon's wholesale model.

HarperCollins, Hachette, Macmillan, Penguin and Simon & Schuster
were named in the legal action.  Random House was the only "big
six" publisher left off the lawsuit, as it had elected not to sell
its books using the agency model on iBooks for nearly a year
before eventually caving last March.

The updated complaint, submitted on Jan. 20, contains new
allegations, as well as information believed to support its case,
such as quotes from late Apple CEO Steve Jobs and a number of
publishing executives.

"The information we've included in this new filing shows the deep
antagonism that publishers had toward Amazon for its consumer-
friendly pricing," said Steve W. Berman, managing partner at the
firm and lead counsel on the case.  "Since we began the action
last August we've uncovered statements from executives at several
publishers that demonstrate they viewed Amazon as a significant
threat to the long-term survival of their profitability."

Mr. Berman went on to assert that publishers took drastic and
illegal action to protect their profits as their traditional
business models were threatened.

"We intend to show that the big publishers saw the sea change in
the delivery of books, and agreed to a price-fixing conspiracy as
a last-gasp attempt to maintain profit margins," he said.

The amended complaint gathered several possibly incriminating
quotes from publishing CEOs.  For instance, David Young, Chairman
and CEO of Hatchett Book Group, said on record in 2009 that
Amazon's $9.99 e-book pricing could represent "game over" for the
publishing industry if it was "allowed to take hold in the
consumer's mind."

Macmillan CEO John Sargent stated in a blog post that the agency
model had made the market "stable and rational" by righting a
"fundamentally unbalanced" situation.  Meanwhile, Hatchett
executive Arnaud Noury allegedly told an Amazon executive that a
small price increase of two to three dollars would alleviate the
"industry" problem.

"Noury's meeting with Amazon is just one piece of a growing body
of evidence that that the publishers were coordinating a plan to
force Amazon to increase e-book prices, one way or another,"
Mr. Berman said.

The lawsuit even drew upon Walter Isaacson's biography on Jobs by
including the following excerpt as supposed evidence of a price-
fixing conspiracy:

"Amazon screwed it up.  It paid the wholesale price for some
books, but started selling them below cost at $9.99.  The
publishers hated that -- they thought it would trash their ability
to sell hard-cover books at $28.  So before Apple even got on the
scene, some booksellers were starting to withhold their books from
Amazon.

"So we told the publishers, "We'll go to the agency model, where
you set the price, and we get our 30%, and yes, the customer pays
a little more, but that's what you want anyway."  But we also
asked for a guarantee that if anybody else is selling the books
cheaper than we are, then we can sell them at the lower price too.
So they went to Amazon and said, "You're going to sign an agency
contract or we're not going to give you the books."

"Given the situation that existed, that was best for us was to do
this aikido move and end up with the agency model.  And we pulled
it off."

According to the complaint, following the release of the iPad and
iBooks, the five publishers raised e-book prices by 30 to 50
percent and "completely changed the competitive pricing landscape
that had existed for decades in the industry."

"As a direct result of this anticompetitive conduct as intended by
the conspiracy, the price of eBooks has soared," the filing
alleged.  "The price of an eBook in many cases now approaches --
or even exceeds -- the price of the same book in paper even though
there are almost no incremental costs to produce each additional
eBook unit."

The lawsuit is asking for "damages for the purchasers of e-books,
an injunction against pricing e-books with the agency model and
forfeiture of the illegal profits received by the defendants."

From Kindle 1 to iBooks 2

Amazon made waves in November 2007 when it released its Kindle e-
reader. The device was billed as the "iPod of reading" and quickly
sold out.  Adoption of e-books was aided by the fact that Amazon
was willing to sell some titles at a loss in order to satisfy both
customers' expectations and publishers' profit margins.

However, publishers chafed at Amazon's insistence on low-priced e-
books.  They also reportedly feared that the online retailer would
eventually use its market power to reduce their share of profits
for both e-book and physical book sales.

Recognizing a market opportunity, Apple stepped in to offer its
upcoming iPad tablet and accompanying iBooks app as a possible
alternative to Amazon.  The tablet and accompanying e-reader
software were unveiled in January 2010.

At the time, Jobs credited Amazon with pioneering the e-book
market, while noting that Apple intended to improve on its model.
"We're going to stand on their shoulders and go a bit further," he
said.

According to one survey, 2010 e-book revenue jumped up more than
1200 percent from publishers' 2008 numbers.  Net sales increased
to 114 million in 2010 as the Kindle and iPad installed bases
grew.

Amazon, in turn, stood on Apple's shoulders late last year to
release the $199 Kindle Fire tablet.  The device represented
Amazon's first foray into the tablet industry, quickly selling
millions of copies.  The online retailer is looking to join the
iPad in offering colorful, interactive and multimedia e-books.

Mr. Jobs reportedly communicated to publishing executives last
June that he had a vision to revolutionize the textbook industry
with the iPad, but he unfortunately did not live to see it
realized.

Apple on Jan. 19 held a media event in New York City to announce
several new e-book and education initiatives.  The Cupertino,
Calif., iPad maker released iBooks 2 with additional features for
e-books.  It also announced an iBooks Author tool that can create
digital books to either sell on iBooks or distribute for free.

The company also succeeded in bringing the major publishers on
board with its plan for interactive digital textbooks.  iBooks 2
launched with several textbooks priced at $14.99 or less, a
significant discount from traditional paper textbooks.


ARMTEC: Sutts Strosberg Gets Court OK to Handle Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Sacheli of The Windsor Star reports that a Windsor law firm
has won the right to represent plaintiffs in a class-action suit
against an Ontario construction materials company, despite its
legendary main litigator being partially sidelined by a stroke.

A Superior Court judge on Jan. 20 ruled that Sutts Strosberg will
have carriage of the lawsuit against Armtec Infrastructure Inc., a
company based in Guelph that makes drainage pipes and precast
concrete products used in bridges, road barriers, sports venues
and parking garages.  Both Sutts Strosberg and London, Ont. firm
Siskinds had begun lawsuits against Armtec.  While the two firms
have collaborated on class-action suits in the past, in this case
they could not come to such an agreement.

"The reasons for their failure to work together are of no
importance to me," said Superior Court Justice Bruce Thomas in a
written decision delivered on Jan. 20.  He made a chart weighing
the pros and cons of each firm handling the case, and ruled that,
in the final analysis, Sutts Strosberg had the advantage.

One of the central issues in analysis was the ability of the
Windsor firm to handle the case without class-action pioneer
Harvey Strosberg at the helm.  Mr. Strosberg suffered a stroke
last year that, for a period, left him unable to speak, much less
work.  He has mostly recovered, but is not handling the same
caseload as in the past.

In the Armtec suit, Sutts Strosberg proposed that Harvey's son,
Jay, who has been a lawyer for nine years but specializes in
securities class actions, be lead counsel on the case.

Siskinds questioned whether "the best interests of the class would
be served by that 'passing of the torch,'" the judge noted.

"Counsel have tastefully skirted an issue that I believe I must
take on directly.  In the past, Harvey T. Strosberg was lead
counsel for the firm in class action proceedings.  His expertise
is legendary. Because of a debilitating stroke his ability to
practise at his previous torrid pace has been affected."

But, said the judge, "it is not as if Jay Strosberg is being
thrown to the lions on his own. He has a talented, supportive
litigation team which includes his father."

Jay Strosberg said he is heartened by the judge's decision.

"We are pleased that the court has expressed its confidence in the
entire class action team at Sutts, Strosberg LLP in the aftermath
of Harvey's recent stroke," he said.  Plaintiffs in the case claim
Armtec made misrepresentations before the public offering of
shares in March 2011.  The company raised $57.7 million in the
offering, and, after suspending its dividends in June, saw its
share price plummet by 58%.  It is alleged that investors lost
tens of millions of dollars.

The allegations have not been proven in court.

Mr. Strosberg can be reached at:

          Harvey Strosberg, Esq.
          SUTTS, STROSBERG LLP
          600-251 Goyeau Street
          Windsor, ON N9A 6V4
          Telephone: (519) 258-9333


BALDWIN TECHNOLOGY: Faces 2nd Suit Over Proposed Sale to Forsyth
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baldwin Technology Company, Inc., is facing a second class action
lawsuit in connection with its proposed sale to Forsyth Baldwin,
LLC, according to the Company's January 19, 2012, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On January 17, 2012, Baldwin Technology Company, Inc. (the
"Company") was served with a summons in connection with a class
action complaint filed on January 10, 2012, in the Circuit Court
of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County,
Florida, naming as defendants the Company, Forsyth Capital
Investors, LLC, Forsyth Baldwin Mezzanine, Inc., Forsyth Baldwin,
LLC, Forsyth Baldwin, Inc. and each member of the Board of
Directors (the "Board") of the Company, such members being Claes
Warnander, Paul J. Griswold, Samuel B. Fortenbaugh III, Rolf
Bergstrom, Mark T. Becker, Gerald A. Nathe and Ronald B. Salvagio,
regarding the proposed acquisition of the Company by Forsyth
Baldwin, LLC (the "Proposed Transaction").  The complaint purports
to be on behalf of a putative class of the stockholders of the
Company, other than the defendants and their affiliates.  The
complaint alleges that the individual members of the Board
breached their fiduciary duty in connection with the Proposed
Transaction, and that the Company, Forsyth Baldwin, LLC, Forsyth
Capital Investors, LLC, Forsyth Baldwin, Inc. and Forsyth Baldwin
Mezzanine, Inc. aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary
duty. The complaint seeks: a declaration that the Proposed
Transaction and related agreement and plan of merger are
unenforceable; to enjoin the Proposed Transaction or, in the event
the Proposed Transaction is consummated, rescission of the
Proposed Transaction or an award of rescissory damages;
compensatory damages; and costs and attorneys' fees.

The defendants believe that the allegations in the class action
complaint are without merit and intend to defend the lawsuit
vigorously, including opposing any efforts to enjoin the Proposed
Transaction; however there can be no assurance regarding the
ultimate outcome of this lawsuit.

As reported by the Company in its current report on Form 8-K filed
on January 4, 2012, a similar class action complaint was filed on
December 29, 2011, in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.


BP: May Face Up to $20 Billion in Fines Over Oil Spill
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a government attorney told
the federal judge overseeing the Gulf of Mexico oil-spill
litigation that BP, Anadarko and Transocean could be subject to $5
billion to $20 billion in punitive fines under the Clean Water
Act.

"These are civil penalties -- they're not intended to make the
people whole.  It's intended to punish," Department of Justice
Senior Attorney Steven O'Rourke told U.S. District Judge Carl
Barbier.

Mr. O'Rourke said the Clean Water Act is simple: "any person who
is the owner, operator, or person in charge of any vessel . . . or
offshore facility from which oil is discharged" will face Clean
Water Act fines.

Mr. O'Rourke said the company punished simply has to be owner of
the vessel or platform that contributes to an oil spill.  This
would include BP, as part owner of the lease to the well and
operator of the Deepwater Horizon rig; Anadarko, as part owner of
the lease to the well, and rig owner Transocean.

"Each defendant admits that the oil came out of the well through
the blowout preventer riser and was discharged into the Gulf of
Mexico," Mr. O'Rourke said.  "They've admitted they were owners
and they've admitted the discharge from the well."

The government wants a declaration before the start of the first
liability trial that the companies are each liable for more than
200 million gallons of spilled oil.

The first trial is scheduled to begin on Feb. 27

The base fine applicable under the Clean Water Act is $1,100 per
barrel.

There are 42 gallons in a barrel of oil, so 200 million gallons is
4,761,905 barrels.

If Judge Barbier finds that a party's gross negligence led to the
April 20, 2010 spill, which killed 11 and caused the worst oil
spill in U.S. history, he could raise the fine per barrel to as
much as $4,300.

A $1,100 fine for each of barrel would come to $5.24 billion.

A $4,300 fine per barrel would come to $20.48 billion.

Mr. O'Rourke told the court: "Transocean is saying it came from
the well so BP and Anadarko are liable; Anadarko and BP are saying
it came from the vessel so Transocean is liable.  The government
says all of them are correct. They're all liable."

Mr. O'Rourke said fines can apply jointly and severally under the
Clean Water Act.  The companies "all acted in separate ways so
they're likely to all get different penalties," he said.  "These
are civil penalties -- they're not intended to make the people
whole.  It's intended to punish."

Mr. O'Rourke said the fines will be subject to Judge Barbier's
"equitable discretion," meaning the judge can reduce fines for
certain companies as he sees fit.  But whether the fines apply is
not in dispute.

"So in your view the oil was discharged both from an offshore
facility and the well?" Judge Barbier asked.

"Yes," said Mr. O'Rourke.  "The fines are indisputable.  Clean
Water Act fines are a punishment.  On the penalty side, you get to
tailor the punishment to the activity."

The courthouse was full.  The court strained to hear Mr. O'Rourke.
In Judge Barbier's words, the attorney is extremely "soft spoken."

Anadarko attorney David Salmons told the court that Anadarko as
part-lease holder to the well cannot be held liable for the
discharge of oil because the discharge happened on the Deepwater
Horizon.

Anadarko was a partial owner of the well but had no ownership in
the Deepwater Horizon and no control of the well, Mr. Salmons
said.

Mr. Salmons said the discharge of oil had to have come from either
the vessel or the well -- but not both.

Later, BP attorney Andrew Langan told the judge BP agrees with
Anadarko.

"We adopt Anadarko's point: It has to be one or the other and here
we say it has to be the vessel," Mr. Langan said.

But Transocean attorney Kerry Miller disagreed "Between April 20
when the incident occurred and July 15 when it stopped, if you
were to look at who was trying to contain the leak, it was all of
the parties," Ms. Miller said.

Transocean maintains it is liable only for any oil that made it to
the surface of the Gulf of Mexico.

Citing the Oil Pollution Act, Ms. Miller told the judge that BP,
as well lessee, is liable for all subsea oil.

Mr. O'Rourke reiterated liability under the Clean Water Act.

"Plain language of the statute: any person, any vessel, any
entity," that discharges oil can be held liable, Mr. O'Rourke
said.

Judge Barbier did not say when he will rule on the issue.

The hearing followed the regular monthly status conference.

During the status conference, Judge Barbier addressed several
recently filed motions in limine and several motions in
opposition.

Among motions filed last week is a U.S. opposition to BP's request
to keep particular company documents confidential.

Among BP's requests for confidentiality is a statement made by Sir
William Castell, of BP's Safety, Ethics, and Environment Assurance
Committee.

According to the opposition filed by the United States, BP has
asked that the following statement be kept confidential under the
pretext that it contains "highly sensitive information about the
company's recruitment and promotion" efforts:

"1. Met with Paul Anderson [another BP senior non-executive
director] at Sofitel Hotel 8 to 9 a.m. Paul felt that the company
needed a fundamental change in culture and that it would need to
move from doing things the BP way to the best way."

The United States opposed another BP motion in limine that seeks
to exclude employee salary information.

The government said it suspects that BP paid a legal assistant
with no legal training "an astounding $107,000 per month, which
annualizes to a 'consulting fee' of $1,284,000," probably to keep
the employee from cooperating at deposition.

"As a general matter, the United States has no interest in setting
out the compensation of BP employees.  However, there are
instances where employee compensation is relevant to bias,
credibility, or other issues, such as active efforts by BP -- or
certainly the appearance of such efforts -- to hide evidence under
the guise of faux privilege," the government document states.

Judge Barbier said he will rule on as many of the motions in
limine as he can before trial, but since it is not a jury trial he
does not consider it crucial to rule on all beforehand.
The next status conference, which is also the pre-trial
conference, is set for Feb. 3.

Mr. O'Rourke can be reached at:

          Steven O'Rourke, Esq.
          Environmental Enforcement Section
          Environment & Natural Resources Division
          U.S. Department of Justice
          P.O. Box 7611
          Washington, DC 20044-7611
          Telephone: (202) 514-2779
          E-mail: steve.orourke@usdoj.gov


CARRIER IQ: Accused of Wiretapping by Installing Covert Software
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Branson, Kathryn Graffman, Jason Simons, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Carrier IQ, Inc.,
HTC Corporation, and HTC America, Inc., Samsung Electronics
America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Case No.
5:12-cv-00305 (N.D. Calif., January 19, 2012) seeks monetary and
equitable relief pursuant to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968, also known as the Federal Wiretap Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that Carrier IQ preinstalled its software in
over 141 Million mobile devices, which software enables the
Defendants to unlawfully access, intercept, and collect personal
electronic communications and information obtained from private
mobile devices, including mobile phones, handsets, and smartphones
belonging to the Plaintiffs and members of the Class.  The
Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants violated the Federal Wiretap
Act by covertly accessing, intercepting, collecting and using
personal electronic communications and information belonging to
customers using the Defendants' Mobile Devices.

The Plaintiffs and the members of the Class own or have owned HTC
and Samsung Mobile Devices.  Mr. Branson is a resident of
Jefferson County, Colorado.  Ms. Graffman and Mr. Simons are
residents of Arapahoe County, Colorado.

Carrier IQ, a provider of mobile services intelligence solutions,
is a privately-owned company headquartered in Mountain View,
California.  HTC America, a Washington corporation, designs,
manufactures and sells mobile devices.  HTC Corp., a Taiwanese
corporation and the parent company of HTC America, designs,
manufactures and sells mobile devices.  Samsung Electronics
America is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Samsung Electronics Co.
Ltd., a Korean corporation and an established leader in the
worldwide electronics market.  Samsung Telecommunications, which
was founded in 1996 by Samsung Electronics Corporation, is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.  STA researches, develops, and
markets a variety of personal and business communications products
throughout North America, including Mobile Devices.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
          GOLDFARB BRANHAM LLP
          2501 N. Harwood, Suite 1801
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 583-2233
          Facsimile: (214) 583-2234
          E-mail: hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com

               - and -

          Allan Steyer, Esq.
          Gabriel D. Zeldin, Esq.
          STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
          One California Street, Third Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 743-2808
          Facsimile: (415) 421-2234
          E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com
                  gzeldin@steyerlaw.com


CITY OF OTTAWA, CANADA: Faces Class Action Over EI Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Monsebraaten, writing for Toronto Star, reports that a
Toronto mother's successful battle to win EI sickness benefits
while on maternity leave has sparked a C$450 million class action
lawsuit against the federal government.

Two Calgary women, inspired by Natalya Rougas' precedent-setting
case last summer, are taking the legal action to ensure no other
new mother who becomes seriously ill during maternity leave has to
fight for sickness benefits.

The hefty financial claim is intended to compensate an estimated
30,000 mothers whose EI sickness claims have been denied since
2002.  That is when Ottawa amended EI legislation to extend EI
sickness benefits to working women who become ill during pregnancy
or while they are on maternity and parental leave.

Ms. Rougas, who was diagnosed with breast cancer during maternity
leave in 2010, was awarded the maximum 15 weeks of sickness
benefits in addition to her combined 50 weeks of maternal and
parental benefits.  The award amounted to about C$6,000, or C$400
a week.

In their claim filed on Jan. 19, Calgary mothers Jennifer McCrea
and Carissa Kasbohm say the EI Commission failed to fully
implement the 2002 amendments that were unanimously adopted by
Parliament.

"We're doing this to force (Ottawa) to change the legislation,"
Ms. said McCrea, 35.  She was diagnosed with breast cancer while
on maternity leave last July, the day Ms. Rougas won her appeal.
But despite the ruling, McCrea's claim was denied two months
later.

"We don't want any other mother to have to hire a lawyer and go
through all that for a couple of thousand dollars," she said.

"It's also for all the other women so they will get what they
should have received in the first place," she added.  Ms. McCrea,
who had a double mastectomy, has since returned to work and is
training to run a half-marathon in May.

Toronto lawyer Stephen Moreau, who represented Ms. Rougas and is
acting for Ms. McCrea and Ms. Kasbohm, argues that the EI
commission's "narrow" reading of the 2002 legislation meant that
only women who claimed sickness benefits during pregnancy were
deemed eligible.

Implementation has been "confused and inconsistent," the claim
says.  The government's Web site has "consistently contained
inaccurate information" and EI staff were never advised they must
accept a sickness leave claim by someone on parental leave, it
says.

A government spokesperson refused to comment on the lawsuit on
Jan. 19.  But last summer a spokesperson said legislative changes
are needed to fix the problem.

Mr. Moreau thinks the existing legislation is clear and that EI
officials are the problem.  However, legislation won't likely
correct the injustice to thousands of women who have lost out, he
said.

"I would support the government doing something to help people
going forward, but what does that do for all of those individuals
who have been denied over the past 10 years," Mr. Moreau said in
an interview.

"We are talking about individuals who were ill, sometimes quite
seriously, while trying to take care of their children, he said.
"It is quite shocking."

Mr. Moreau can be reached at:

          Stephen Moreau, Esq.
          CAVALLUZZO HAYES SHILTON MCINTYRE & CORNISH LLP
          474 Bathurst Street, Suite 300
          Toronto, ON M5T 2S6
          Telephone: (416) 964-5541
          E-mail: smoreau@cavalluzzo.com


COSTA CROCIERE: Codacons to Launch Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Agence France-Presse reports that an Italian consumer rights'
association said on January 21 it is launching a class action suit
against U.S. cruise ship operator Carnival for at least $160,000
(EUR123,000) per passenger.

"Codacons has decided to join two U.S. law firms to bring this
class action against Carnival," the association's co-head Marco
Ramadori told AFP, adding that over 100 people "of all
nationalities" had joined.

"The claim will be filed by Codacons and US firms Proner and
Proner and Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik on either Jan. 24 or Jan. 25
in Miami," he said.

"We want to get at least $160,000 compensation per passenger, but
it could be from two to three times that much considering the fear
suffered, the holidays ruined and the serious risks endured," he
added.

The Costa Concordia was carrying more than 4,200 people when it
ran aground on the night of January 13 shortly after starting a
seven-day Mediterranean cruise, leaving at least 12 dead and a
score still missing.

Codacons has already announced plans to file a class action suit
of 70 passengers in Italy, but Mr. Ramadori said "it is not clear
what outcome to expect because the Italian justice system does not
work and is counterproductive."

Costa Crociere's boss, Pier Luigi Foschi, who estimated the
economic impact of the disaster at $93 million, expressed
confidence that the group would be able to "find a solution that,
in the material sense, would satisfy" the passengers.


FUEL DOCTOR: Continues to Defend Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Doctor Holdings, Inc. is a defendant in a matter entitled
Drinville, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
Fuel Doctor, LLC and DOES 1-20, Inclusive filed March 16, 2011, in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles.  This purported class action alleges violation of
various violations of California statutes principally related to
false advertising and consumer protection in that the Company's
products are alleged not to provide the benefits claimed.  The
lawsuit seeks class certification, unspecified damages and
exemplary damages, among other things.  The lawsuit is in an early
stage and the Company will vigorously defend the same.

No further updates were reported in the Company's January 19,
2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.


GOV'T OF AUSTRALIA: Judge Certifies Steel Plant Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
A Nova Scotia Supreme Court justice has formally certified a
class-action lawsuit against the former operators of the Sydney
steel plant and coke ovens sites, something a lawyer involved in
the case calls a monumental event.

Justice John Murphy had issued an oral ruling last year saying
that he would certify the suit against the provincial and federal
governments, but his 46-page written decision only came on
Jan. 19, some six months later.  It was released to the public on
Jan. 20.  In it, Justice Murphy expanded upon his reasoning for
certifying the suit.

"The decision of Justice Murphy recognizes that this class action
grants access to justice for all those impacted by the pollution
which resulted from the steel operations in Sydney," lawyer Ray
Wagner said in a news release.  "This monumental event allows
individuals who have been affected to have their cases heard
together at one time."

The representative plaintiffs -- Neila MacQueen, Joe Petitpas, Ann
Ross and Iris Crawford -- are seeking financial compensation and a
medical monitoring fund for contamination associated with the
operation of the sites between 1967 to 2000.  They are not seeking
compensation for personal injury.

Now that the suit has been certified, Mr. Wagner said they can
work toward resolving it.  He noted it allows a legal avenue for
individuals who couldn't afford to pursue lawsuits on their own.
The certification comes eight years after the lawsuit was first
filed.

Justice Murphy approved the plaintiff's proposed boundaries, which
follow the deposition of lead, for the neighborhoods of Whitney
Pier, Ashby and north end Sydney.  He ruled that south end Sydney,
where data regarding lead levels is not as extensive, will not be
included in the class definition.

The class could include about 6,000 properties and 15,000 to
20,000 people.

It is only the second contested certification approved under Nova
Scotia's Class Proceedings Act, and is the first environmental
class action certified in the province.

None of the plaintiff's claims have yet been proven in court.
Mr. Wagner has said it could take three-four more years for the
matter to go to trial.

A provincial government spokesperson said on Jan. 20 that Justice
Murphy's decision is being reviewed and it's too early to say
whether it will be appealed.


MADISON-KIPP CORP: Faces Class Action Over Chemical Pollution
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Schneider, writing for The Capital Times, reports that a
federal lawsuit seeking damages from east-side Madison-Kipp Corp.
for contamination of neighboring properties may get a whole lot
bigger.

Neighbors of the plant off of Atwood Avenue are asking the
District Court of Western Wisconsin to certify a class action in
their lawsuit against the metal fabricator.

At least 34 residential properties neighboring the Kipp
manufacturing plant are contaminated or threatened with
contamination from chemicals leaching off Kipp's property, claims
Shawn Collins, an attorney in Naperville, Ill., who specializes in
environmental lawsuits.

Mr. Collins represents the owners of seven homes on South
Marquette Street who filed suit in October, claiming that vapors
containing tetrachloroethylene, or PCE, have moved through the
soil to their properties, decreasing their property values and
exposing them to hazardous substances.  They asked the court to
order Kipp to identify where vapor from chemicals on its property
have spread, to clean up contaminated areas, and for unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages.

Test results released last month by the Department of Natural
Resources show concentrations of PCE vapor exceeding health
guidelines in the soil of seven backyards on Marquette Street.

An amended complaint filed on Jan. 20 in federal court seeks to
add to the lawsuit additional property owners and residents living
on Marquette and Waubesa Streets who face problems similar to
those claimed by the original litigants.  "All these families are
in the same boat," Mr. Collins says.

The way it works, he says, is that two of the plaintiffs in the
original lawsuit, Kathleen McHugh and Deanna Schneider, are
bringing the amended suit.  If the court certifies a class action,
some 80 people who own or live in the additional properties will
have the right to join the lawsuit if they wish.

The amended lawsuit charges that Kipp failed to investigate and
address the migration of chemical vapors off its property and
failed to warn neighbors of the contamination or threatened
contamination of their properties.  It seeks cleanup of
contaminated property plus compensatory and punitive damages.
"We're seeking punitive damages because we allege that the company
was reckless in allowing this problem to occur," Mr. Collins says.

Kipp spokesman Mark Meunier says a class action won't change what
the company is doing already to determine the extent of
contamination off its property.

"We're doing what the DNR has asked us to do, and we're
voluntarily doing testing without anyone telling us to do it,"
Mr. Meunier says.

While a formal plan for testing and cleanup in and around Kipp
property is being finalized with the Department of Justice,
testing of additional properties for PCE vapors will be sought,
state officials say.


MERCK FROSST: Settles Vioxx Class Action in Canada
--------------------------------------------------
Will Chabun, writing for Postmedia News, reports that
pharmaceutical giant Merck Frosst has settled a class-action
lawsuit by Canadians who used its controversial heart drug Vioxx.

"We're very happy," said Regina lawyer Tony Merchant, whose firm
represented about 1,000 clients.  Merchant Law Group was one of 18
firms representing clients in this case.

"This agreement is structured to provide certainty and finality
toward resolving Vioxx cases in Canada for a fixed amount," said a
notice by executive vice president and general counsel Bruce N.
Kuhlik which was posted on New Jersey-based Merck Frosst
corporation's Web site on Jan. 19.  "Under the agreement, there
will be an orderly, documented and objective process to examine
individual claims to determine qualification."

Under terms of the settlement, Merck will pay a total of between
C$21.8 million and C$36.8 million to resolve all actions and
claims against Vioxx in Canada.  The settlement includes fixed
costs of C$6 million in legal fees, C$3.5 million for provinces
and territories and C$1 million for administrative expenses
involved in the settlement.

The amount for Vioxx users in Canada will be between C$11.3
million and C$26.4 million, with the amount determined by the
final number of eligible claimants.

All amounts are in Canadian dollars.

"Claims for myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death will be
evaluated on an individual basis by an independent administrator
based on objective criteria related to various factors, including
duration of Vioxx use, age and presence of risk factors.
Individual awards for ischemic stroke claims will be a uniform
amount not to exceed C$5,000," the posting said.

Putting a human face on this legal issue, Mr. Merchant said he was
recently thinking of one client, an dedicated amateur athlete who
was taking Vioxx for long-distance running "and ended up with a
debilitating heart attack that put him in a wheelchair."

"For a person like that, the harm was huge and the harm on his
family was huge. You ask for a remedy and then you just give up."

Because the lawsuits go back to 2004 and reflect medical problems
before then, the clients to whom Merchant has been talking share
an attitude of, "Oh, God, finally!"

As well, "the compensation isn't individually large enough for
people to feel that they got this wonderful compensation," Mr.
Merchant said Thursday afternoon.

"They've got a good conclusion, but not a wonderful conclusion."


MICROSOFT CORP: Appeal Remains Pending in Canadian Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in a class action lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation
remains pending in the Canadian Supreme Court, according to the
Company's January 19, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2011.

A large number of antitrust and unfair competition class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company in various state, federal,
and Canadian courts on behalf of various classes of direct and
indirect purchasers of its PC operating system and certain other
software products.  The Company obtained dismissals or reached
settlements of all claims that have been made to date in the
United States.

All settlements in the United States have received final court
approval.  Under the settlements, generally class members can
obtain vouchers that entitle them to be reimbursed for purchases
of a wide variety of platform-neutral computer hardware and
software.  The total value of vouchers that the Company may issue
varies by state.  The Company will make available to certain
schools a percentage of those vouchers that are not issued or
claimed (one-half to two-thirds depending on the state).  The
total value of vouchers the Company ultimately issue will depend
on the number of class members who make claims and are issued
vouchers.  The maximum value of vouchers to be issued is
approximately $2.7 billion.  The actual costs of these settlements
will be less than that maximum amount, depending on the number of
class members and schools that are issued and redeem vouchers.
The Company estimates the total cost to resolve all of the state
overcharge class action cases will range between $1.9 billion and
$2.0 billion.  At December 31, 2011, the Company has recorded a
liability related to these claims of approximately $524 million,
which reflects its estimated exposure of $1.9 billion less
payments made to date of approximately $1.4 billion mostly for
vouchers, legal fees, and administrative expenses.

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


PERKINELMER INC: Caliper Settles Acquisition-Related Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated stockholder class action lawsuit filed in
connection with PerkinElmer, Inc.'s acquisition of Caliper Life
Sciences, Inc. has been settled, according to the Company's
January 19, 2012, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On November, 7, 2011, PerkinElmer, Inc. completed its acquisition
of Caliper Life Sciences, Inc. ("Caliper") by merging one of its
indirect, wholly-owned subsidiaries with and into Caliper such
that Caliper became an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of
PerkinElmer.

On September 12, 2011, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against Caliper, the board of directors of Caliper, PerkinElmer,
Inc. and PerkinElmer Hopkinton Co.  This action, styled Betty
Greenberg v. Caliper Life Sciences, Inc., E. Kevin Hrusovsky,
Kathryn A. Tunstall, David W. Carter, Van Billet, Robert C.
Bishop, David V. Milligan, Allan L. Comstock, PerkinElmer, Inc.
and PerkinElmer Hopkinton Co., Case No. 6853 (the "Greenberg
Action"), alleges that each of the defendants violated applicable
law by directly breaching and/or aiding breaches of fiduciary
duties owed to the plaintiff and other public stockholders of
Caliper.  The plaintiff in this lawsuit seeks to enjoin the
consummation of the proposed merger (the "Merger") of Caliper with
PerkinElmer Hopkinton Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of
PerkinElmer, Inc., pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated as of September 7, 2011.  The plaintiff also seeks an award
of the costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees, and the grant of other and further
equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper.

On September 16, 2011, a second plaintiff filed a putative
stockholder class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware against the board of directors of Caliper,
Caliper, PerkinElmer, Inc. and PerkinElmer Hopkinton Co. This
action, styled James Dalton v. E. Kevin Hrusovsky, Robert Bishop,
Van Billet, David Carter, Allan Comstock, David Milligan, Kathryn
Tunstall, Caliper Life Sciences, Inc., PerkinElmer, Inc. and
PerkinElmer Hopkinton Co., Case No. 6871 (the "Dalton Action"),
contains allegations that are substantially similar to those
alleged in the previously-filed complaint-namely, that each of the
defendants breached and/or aided in breaches of fiduciary duties
owed to Caliper's stockholders.  The plaintiff in this lawsuit
seeks to enjoin the consummation of the Merger, an award of the
costs of the action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys'
and experts' fees, and the grant of further relief as the Court
deems just and proper.

On October 5, 2011, a third plaintiff, also purportedly a Caliper
stockholder, filed a putative stockholder class action complaint
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Caliper,
certain directors and officers of Caliper, PerkinElmer, Inc. and
PerkinElmer Hopkinton Co. This action, styled Elizabeth Chaney v.
E. Kevin Hrusovsky, Robert Bishop, Van Billet, David Carter, Allan
Comstock, David Milligan, Kathryn Tunstall, Caliper Life Sciences,
Inc., PerkinElmer, Inc. and PerkinElmer Hopkinton Co., Case No.
6911, (the "Chaney Action"), contains allegations that are
substantially similar to those alleged in the previously-filed
complaints-namely, that each of the defendants breached and/or
aided in breaches of fiduciary duties owed to Caliper's
stockholders.  The plaintiff in this lawsuit seeks to enjoin the
consummation of the Merger, an award of the costs of the action,
including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees,
and the grant of further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.

On October 6, 2011, Plaintiff Chaney filed a Motion for
Preliminary Injunction with this Court as well as a Proposed
Amended Order of Consolidation, following which, on October 7,
2011, the Court entered an amended consolidation order,
consolidating the Chaney Action into the Dalton Action and the
Greenberg Action and designating the Chaney complaint as the
operative complaint.

The three actions are collectively referred to as the "Stockholder
Actions."  On October 25, 2011, the parties to the Stockholder
Actions, without the defendants admitting any wrongdoing or
liability of any kind, reached an agreement in principle providing
for the withdrawal of the plaintiffs' pending motion for a
preliminary injunction and to resolve all claims asserted in the
Stockholder Actions.  Caliper has agreed, pursuant to the terms of
the proposed settlement, to make certain supplemental disclosures
related to the proposed Merger, which was filed with the SEC on
October 26, 2011.  The agreement in principle contemplates that
the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement.  The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to Caliper's
stockholders.  In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy
of the settlement.  If the settlement is finally approved by the
Court, it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that
were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the
proposed Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in
connection therewith (but excluding claims for appraisal under
Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law).  In
addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the
Court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by
Caliper or its successor, which the defendants may oppose.
Caliper or its successor will pay or cause to be paid any
attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court.  There can be
no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.  In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the agreement in principle may be terminated.


ROYAL CANADIAN: Former Female Members to File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Gary Mason, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that lawyers
are in the final stages of drafting documents to be filed in court
as early as this week that are expected to set in motion a class-
action lawsuit that threatens to further destabilize one of the
most iconic institutions in the country -- the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police.

At this point, 94 current and former female members of the force
from every province have asked to join the suit that is seeking
damages potentially in the tens of millions of dollars for alleged
maltreatment on the job.

It's expected the number of women involved in the action will
eventually be well over 100.

Regardless of its outcome, the lawsuit, and the vast array of ugly
harassment-related charges contained within it, is likely to
provoke profound changes within the walls of an organization whose
reputation has been shattered in recent years.  New RCMP
Commissioner Bob Paulson has vowed to investigate all harassment
complaints thoroughly and take a zero-tolerance attitude towards
workplace abuse going forward.

Lawyers in British Columbia and Ontario have been working on the
case for months.  The lawsuit will be filed in either B.C. Supreme
Court or federal court on behalf of a couple of as-yet-unnamed
officers.  It will seek certification as a class action, which
will allow others to join as plaintiffs.

It generally takes judges between one and two years before
rendering a certification decision.

Vancouver lawyer David Klein, of Klein Lyons, said there are five
tests a judge uses to determine whether the case qualifies for
class-action status, including whether there are "questions of
fact and law" common to all of the plaintiffs.  He said in that
regard, any female who joins the force is "guaranteed an
environment that is free from gender-based discrimination and
harassment."

A pledge all the potential plaintiffs assert was broken.

Mr. Klein, a class-action specialist, said this case is more
complex because it involves a federal agency which receives legal
protections that non-governmental agencies do not.

But Alexander Zaitzeff, a lawyer from Thunder Bay involved in the
case, says it's difficult to imagine a judge not certifying the
case given the universal nature of the complaints.

Mr. Zaitzeff, a claims lawyer for 36 years, has been interviewing
the past and present RCMP members looking to join the lawsuit.
Over the course of his career, he says he's handled just about
every type of personal injury case imaginable.

"And I have to tell you these are some of the saddest stories I've
ever heard," he said in an interview.  "We're talking about
horribly broken lives here.  What you often don't think about is
the toll harassment takes on the families.  Spouses are impacted,
relationships and marriages can end.  Kids are impacted.

"Some of the kids start drinking at younger ages.  You see early
onset anti-social behavior.  They see what's happening to their
parent and they take on some of the same symptoms -- it's known as
referred post-traumatic stress disorder."

Mr. Zaitzeff, who represented families affected by the Dryden air
crash of 1989 which killed 24 people, and the Vioxx drug case in
the last decade, said the allegations range from sexual assault
and harassment to bullying and daily intimidation.  He said the
members' stories will reveal workplace abuse so egregious it had
some considering suicide.

Most class-action suits are settled out of court.  Mr. Zaitzeff
said the courts have awarded individuals anywhere from less than
$100,000 to more than $1-million in harassment-related cases in
the past.  But he said not one person who has contacted the
lawyers about joining the suit has asked how much money they stand
to make.

They have, however, expressed fear of reprisals from co-workers
should it be discovered they are part of the suit.

Mr. Klein said the identities of the women are protected, if that
is their wish.  He said the only way they could be revealed is if
the case proceeds to court and there are individual adjudications.
But before that happened, the plaintiffs would have the
opportunity to decide if they wanted to carry on or stop and
protect their identity.

That could be four or five years after the action is commenced, as
class-action lawsuits can take an excruciatingly long time to
conclude.

Either way, Mike Webster, a psychologist who has treated some of
the women who are joining the lawsuit, said he is impressed by
their courage.

"They are coming from an organization that creates a culture of
fear and intimidation," Mr. Webster said.  "Those in command use
their authority to intimidate others and discourage them from
speaking out.  It's all part of the para-militaristic hierarchy
that exists.  That's why so few step outside the group and
criticize those in authority.

"But now these women have strength in numbers.  And that is very
assuring."

Mr. Klein can be reached at:

          David Klein, Esq.
          KLEIN LYONS
          1385 West 8th Avenue, Suite 400
          Vancouver, BC, V6H 3V9
          Telephone: (604) 874-7171

Mr. Zaitzeff can be reached at:

          Alexander Zaitzeff, Esq.
          ZAITZEFF LAW OFFICE
          395 Fort William Rd.
          Thunder Bay, P7B-2Z5
          Ontario, Canada
          Telephone: (807) 346-9000


SEQUENOM INC: New York Court Approves IPO Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
formally approved a settlement of a consolidated class action
lawsuit arising from initial public offerings, according to
Sequenom, Inc.'s January 19, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On January 10, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York formally approved a settlement of the class
action captioned In re Sequenom, Inc. IPO Securities Litigation
(Case No. 01-CV-10831) relating to allegations that the Company,
its underwriters, and certain of its officers and directors
violated the federal securities laws because its registration
statement and prospectus in connection with its initial public
offering contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted
material facts regarding the compensation to be received by and
the stock allocation practices of the underwriters.  Similar
complaints were filed in the same District Court against hundreds
of other public companies that conducted initial public offerings
of their common stock in the late 1990s and 2000, or the IPO
Cases.  Accordingly, all claims against the Company and its
officers and directors in the IPO Cases will be dismissed with
prejudice, and its pro rata share of the settlement fund will be
fully funded by insurance.


SEQUENOM INC: To Raise Capital After Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
24/7 Wall St. reports that the public is getting to take yet one
more bet on Sequenom Inc. at a discount.  The diagnostics company
has never fully recovered from its Down's Syndrome test blunders
of the past and shares have languished.  The company has disclosed
that it plans to sell an undisclosed number of shares in a public
secondary offering, but may have priced down around $4.15 or $4.20
per share.

Sequenom put out a filing on Jan. 19 noting that the company's
cash, cash equivalents and current marketable securities were
approximately $84.2 million as of December 31, 2011.  The company
also noted, "On January 10, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York formally approved a settlement of
the class action captioned In re Sequenom, Inc. IPO Securities
Litigation(Case No. 01-CV-10831) relating to allegations that our
underwriters, certain of our officers and directors and we
violated the federal securities laws because our registration
statement and prospectus in connection with our initial public
offering contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted
material facts regarding the compensation to be received by and
the stock allocation practices of the underwriters . . .
Accordingly, all claims against us and our officers and directors
in the IPO Cases will be dismissed with prejudice, and our pro
rata share of the settlement fund will be fully funded by
insurance."


SIX FLAGS: Court Allows Norwalk Virus Class Action to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leigh Hornbeck, writing for Times Union, reports that lawyers
working on behalf of people who fell ill during their stay at the
Six Flags Great Escape Lodge and Indoor Waterpark in March 2008
have permission to move ahead with a lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed years ago, but Six Flags filed for
bankruptcy in 2009 and it created an automatic stay on the
proceedings, said George Szary, a lawyer for the victims.

In 2009, Warren County state Supreme Court Justice David Krogmann
ruled the case could go forward as a class action.  Mr. Szary said
the class could exceed 600 people.

After hundreds of people fell ill at the lodge with severe
vomiting and diarrhea, the state Department of Health determined
the cause as the Norwalk virus, a bug that can be spread by
contaminated food, surfaces or direct contact with an infected
person.  It is highly contagious, but it is rarely serious for
healthy people.

According to Don Boyajian, whose firm Dreyer Boyajian is working
with Mr. Szary's firm, DeGraff, Foy & Kunz, the theme park
remained open even as all the guests on certain floors of the
hotel became sick and the lodge ran out of towels because so many
people were vomiting.  The class action alleges Six Flags "failed
to implement, monitor and ensure proper sanitary conditions and
safeguards at the park."

The lawsuit seeks unspecified financial damages.  People who wish
to opt out of the class must do so by March 30.  A legal notice to
this effect was set appear on Jan. 20 in the Times Union.

Not everyone who stayed at the lodge or fell ill will qualify for
the class action.  Specific language agreed upon by the lawyers on
both sides and the court states potential plaintiffs must have had
a gastrointestinal illness while visiting or within 72 hours of
leaving, and must have contacted the DOH.

Representatives of Six Flags could not be reached for comment.


VANCOUVER SCHOOL: To Send Out Class Action Notice to Students
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Baziuk, writing for CKNW, reports that the Vancouver School
Board will send out notice soon to students who paid to attend
summer school between 2004 and 2006.

The B.C. Supreme Court has ordered the district to do so, as part
of a class action lawsuit brought by a Vancouver couple.

Lawyer Jim Poyner says the notice will let students know if they
are eligible and how they can join or opt out of the suit.

"Once the notice goes out, then we'll be in a position to start
dealing with individual claims."

A notice will also be published in local newspapers.

The B.C. government declared fees for summer school illegal in
2007 after a ruling by the court.


                           *********

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  * * *