CAR_Public/120130.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, January 30, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 20

                             Headlines

AMERICAN WATER: Transfer of Class Suit to PUC Upheld
BAXTER INT'L.: San Mateo Federal Claim Dismissed in Antitrust Suit
BLOUNT INT'L: Recalls 950 Replacement Blades for Ariens Lawnmower
CHINA ORGANIC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
CLOROX CO: Sued Over False Claims on Fresh Step Cat Litter

COLLECTIVE BRANDS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Kansas
EBAY INC: Faces Class Action Over "Featured Plus!" Service
EURO ASIA: Recalls 2,070 Bicycle Handlebars Due to Fall Hazard
HONDA: Commissioner Delays Ruling on Hybrid Small Claims Lawsuit
INTRUST BANK: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $2.7 Mil.

L&T INFOTECH: Pregnant Women Employees File Discrimination Suit
MGIC INVESTMENT: Faces RESPA-Violations Suits in Penn. & Calif.
MGIC INVESTMENT: Still Awaits Ruling in Consolidated Class Suit
MGIC INVESTMENT: Still Defends Housing Discrimination Suits
MONSANTO CO: Jury Pool Chosen for Dioxin Class Action

NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Resolves Wage & Hour Class Action
PROVINCE OF OTTAWA, CANADA: Wins Appeal in "Sixties Scoop" Suit
RIGHT AWAY: Sued Over Illegal "Foreclosure Rescue" Fees
STATE OF OREGON: People with Disabilities File Class Action
TRANS1 INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action

WIVENHOE DAM: Flood Victims Mull Class Action Amid Inquiry


                          *********

AMERICAN WATER: Transfer of Class Suit to PUC Upheld
----------------------------------------------------
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a trial court
order transferring a class action complaint over the practices of
Pennsylvania American Water Company to the Pennsylvania Public
Utility Commission.

The class action captioned C. Leslie Pettko, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Pennsylvania American Water
Company, Case No. 1061 C.D. 2011, was filed in the Court of Common
Pleas of Washington County.  It sought to challenge PAWC's billing
practices, including practices relating to certain rate increases
approved by the PUC, and PAWC's alleged practice of rounding up,
rather than down, amounts for the various components of its bills.

Upon review, the Commonwealth Court agreed with the trial court's
finding that the PUC has primary jurisdiction over the general
question of the propriety of PAWC's billing practices.

A copy of the Commonwealth Court's Jan. 13, 2012 order is
available at http://is.gd/q2CjzZfrom Leagle.com.


BAXTER INT'L.: San Mateo Federal Claim Dismissed in Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joan B. Gottschall concluded that the County of San Mateo
has standing to pursue its state law claim, but lacks antitrust
standing to pursue its federal claim in the lawsuit captioned In
re Plasma-Derivative Protein Therapies Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 2109, Case No. 09-C-7666 (N.D. Ill.).

The federal claim is therefore dismissed, the District Court
ruled, and the remaining issues are held in abeyance pending the
completion of briefing as to the Court's subject matter
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act and the
proprietary of keeping the case as part of the multi-district
referral.

The suit was filed by the County of San Mateo against defendants
CSL Limited, CSL Behring LLC, and CSL Plasma, Baxter International
Inc., and Plasma Protein Therapeutics Association ("PPTA"),
alleging that the defendants violated Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act,
15 U.S.C. Sec. 1, as well 25 states' antitrust laws and 14 states'
unfair competition or consumer protection laws, by virtue of a
conspiracy to "restrict output to artificially raise, fix,
maintain and/or stabilize the prices of Plasma-Derivative Protein
Therapies in the United States."

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that San
Mateo lacks standing to pursue its claims, and that certain of San
Mateo's state law claims fail for various reasons.

A copy of the District Court's Jan. 9, 2012 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at http://is.gd/r6fGSafrom Leagle.com.


BLOUNT INT'L: Recalls 950 Replacement Blades for Ariens Lawnmower
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Blount International Inc., of Kansas City, Missouri, announced a
voluntary recall of about 950 Oregon(R) Replacement Lawnmower
Blades.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The replacement lawnmower blades can break during normal use,
posing a laceration hazard to the user and bystanders.

Blount has received seven reports of replacement blades breaking
during use.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Blount lawnmower replacement blades for
Ariens 48-inch lawnmowers.  The replacement blades are sold under
the Oregon(R) brand name.  "Oregon(R)," part number "91-003" and
"PA" or "PJ" are printed on the surface of the recalled blades.
Picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12094.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at independent lawn and garden sales and service
stores nationwide from January 2010 through September 2011 for
about $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using lawnmowers with the
recalled blades and return the blades to the store where purchased
or directly to Blount for a free replacement.  For additional
information, contact (866) 685-5449 between 6:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.blount.com/


CHINA ORGANIC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, 12 Civ. No. 0597, on behalf of all persons who transacted in
China Organic Agriculture, Inc. common stock between the expanded
class period of November 12, 2008 and May 17, 2011 inclusive.

A copy of the complaint can be viewed on the firm's Web site at
http://www.faruqilaw.com/CNOA

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, China
Organic misled investors by (1) improperly announcing the sale of
a subsidiary in 2008, when the transaction was actually completed
in the second half of 2009; (2) knowingly or recklessly
disregarding the reality that the Company's disclosure controls
were ineffective; and (3) knowingly or recklessly disregarding the
fact that the 2008 Form 10-K overstated pre-tax income by
$3,015,387.

Despite China Organic's continuous restatements and officer
resignations, on May 17, 2011, the Company announced that it would
be filing its Form 10-Q five days late and misled the market to
believe that it would ultimately be in compliance with the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934's reporting requirements.
However, once the market realized that the Company would not make
the requisite filings, China Organic's common stock dropped to
$0.01 per share.

Plaintiff now seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and
all other individual and institutional investors who transacted in
China Organic common stock between November 12, 2008 and May 17,
2011, excluding defendants and their affiliates.  Plaintiff is
represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with extensive
experience in prosecuting class actions and actions involving
corporate fraud.

If you wish to obtain information concerning joining this action,
you can do so under the "Join Lawsuit" section of our Web site or
by clicking here: http://www.faruqilaw.com/CNOA

If you transacted in China Organic common stock during the Class
Period, you may, not later than January 30, 2012, move the court
to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose.  In
order to discuss this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please
contact:

          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue
          10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Attn: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
          Francis McConville, Esq.
          E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
                  fmcconville@faruqilaw.com
          Telephone: (877) 247-4292
                     (212) 983-9330


CLOROX CO: Sued Over False Claims on Fresh Step Cat Litter
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Clorox misrepresents that its
Fresh Step cat litter contains odor-eliminating carbon that does
the job better than baking-soda-based products, a class claims.

A copy of the Complaint in Luszcz v. The Clorox Company, Case No.
12-cv-00356 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/25/clorox.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
          Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Esq.
          Anthony D. Phillips, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          E-mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com
                  cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com
                  aphillips@bermandevalerio.com

               - and -

          Hollis Salzman, Esq.
          Kellie Lerner, Esq.
          Gregory Asciolla, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          E-mail: hsalzman@labaton.com
                  klerner@labaton.com
                  gasciolla@labaton.com


COLLECTIVE BRANDS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Jan. 25 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor
in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas on
behalf of purchasers of Collective Brands, Inc. common stock
during the period between December 1, 2010 and May 24, 2011.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from Jan. 25.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins
of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail
at djr@rgrdlaw.com

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

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Collective Brands and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. Collective Brands is the holding company for three
lines of business: Payless ShoeSource, Collective Brands
Performance + Lifestyle Group, and Collective Licensing.  The
Company was formerly known as Payless ShoeSource, Inc. and changed
its name to Collective Brands in August 2007.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  As a result of
defendants' false statements, Collective Brands stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $23.44 per share on February 18, 2011.

On May 24, 2011, after the market closed, the Company announced
its financial results for its first fiscal quarter ended April 30,
2011.  The Company reported earnings of $26.4 million or $0.42
diluted earnings per share for the first quarter, which was nearly
50% less than the $0.82 diluted earnings per share expected by
analysts.  The Company further reported that net sales declined
1.1% to $869.0 million, due in substantial part to the Company's
7.4% comparable store sales decline in its Payless domestic
segment, offset by sales growth of 22.5% in PLG.  On this news,
Collective Brands stock collapsed $3.06 per share to close at
$15.31 per share on May 25, 2011, a one-day decline of nearly 17%.


EBAY INC: Faces Class Action Over "Featured Plus!" Service
----------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that EBay
didn't deliver on its promises to sellers who paid $39.95 for its
"Featured Plus!" service that was supposed to bump their ads to
the top of a search page, customers say in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Custom LED, of New Jersey, says the service was
"completely nonfunctional" for certain periods, particularly in
the second half of 2011, because of bugs in the program.

But it says eBay continued to promote and charge for the service
on its eBay Motors Web site, even after it acknowledged that "a
known bug" had caused the service to stop working.

EBay sold Featured Plus! as a way for sellers to have their items
appear in a separate section at the top of the search results
page.  Priority in search results can dramatically improve the
likelihood that a prospective buyer will see an item and purchase
it, since it is not unusual to have thousands of matches for a
search.

But the class claims that only searches done within eBay's eBay
Motors website were given priority treatment, and prospective
buyers had to select "Best Match" in the sort-by box for their
listings to appear in the featured section, or the listing would
not come up at the top of the results.

If a potential buyer searched for "high-intensity headlights" -- a
product Custom LED has listed for sale and for which it paid the
$39.95 Featured Plus! Fee -- the company's product listing would
be prioritized only if the buyer had begun the search within eBay
Motors and had selected the appropriate one of the seven filtering
options, according to the complaint.

"Consequently, many listings placed for free get higher priority
than listings for which sellers paid for the Featured Plus!
option," Custom LED says.

Typical listing fees are often free, and always are less than $1,
according to the complaint.

Custom LED seeks punitive damages for breach of contract, unfair
business practices, false advertising and fraud.

A copy of the Complaint in Custom LED, LLC v. eBay Inc., et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-00350 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/25/eBay.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith R. Verges, Esq.
          Parker D. Young, Esq.
          Raymond E. Walker, Esq.
          FIGARI & DAVENPORT, L.L.P.
          901 Main Street, Suite 3400
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 939-2000

               - and -

          Shawn T. Leuthold, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SHAWN T. LEUTHOLD
          1671 The Alameda #303
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 924-0132
          E-mail: leuthold@aol.com


EURO ASIA: Recalls 2,070 Bicycle Handlebars Due to Fall Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with importers, Euro Asia Imports, of La Crescenta,
California, The Merry Sales Co., of South San Francisco,
California, and Bicycle Technologies Intl., of Santa Fe, New
Mexico, and manufacturer, Nitto Co. Ltd., of Japan, announced a
voluntary recall of about 2,000 Bicycle Handlebars in the United
States of America and 70 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The recalled bicycle handlebars can break while the user is riding
the bike, resulting in loss of control and a fall hazard.

Two incidents of the handlebars breaking have been reported,
including one involving a fall and a cut to the rider's leg.

This recall involves Nitto aluminum bicycle handlebars with model
number B259AA.  They were sold in the following colors: red, blue,
black, gold, green, pink and silver.  "NITTO" and "B259" are
printed at the end of the handlebars.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12095.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Japan and sold by
bicycle specialty stores and dealers nationwide from January 2008
through July 2011 for between $60 and $80.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled handlebars
and contact Euro Asia Imports to receive free replacement
handlebars.  For additional information, contact Euro Asia Imports
toll-free at (888) 662-1814 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. PT
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.euroasiaimports.com/


HONDA: Commissioner Delays Ruling on Hybrid Small Claims Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Deutsch, writing for The Associated Press, reports that an
unusual small claims lawsuit by a Honda hybrid owner took another
complicated turn on Jan. 25 with additional arguments that
prompted a commissioner to delay a ruling for more consideration.

Superior Court Commissioner Douglas Carnahan said he was aware of
"a media blitz on this case," and wanted to be clear on all of the
issues raised by Honda owner Heather Peters.

Ms. Peters told the court she was anxious to get the matter
resolved and did not want to waste the court's time.

"You're not wasting the court's time," said Mr. Carnahan.  "These
are serious issues affecting more people than just you."

Honda representative Neil Schmidt showed up for the hearing with a
stack of envelopes that the commissioner estimated as 8 inches
high, purportedly containing letters from satisfied Honda owners.

Mr. Carnahan declined to open the envelopes, saying it would just
prolong the hearing that has already gone on longer than most
small claims court actions.

Ms. Peters said she did not want to see the letters and had
submitted her own testimonials from those who are dissatisfied
with the cars.

"I'll stipulate there are people who love their cars," she said as
she pointed to the audience where six other disappointed Honda
owners were seated, including a woman who drove from Sacramento to
attend the hearing.

The woman, Kathy Wood, of Elk Grove said outside court, "I drove
from Sacramento because if she can do all this that's the least I
can do."

Ms. Peters, a former lawyer, has been using the Internet to try to
rally other Honda hybrid owners to follow her example and go to
small claims court rather than accept a proposed class-action
settlement by Honda.

Ms. Peters bought her car in April 2006.

Ms. Peters claimed the car never came close to the 50 miles per
gallon (21.26 kilometers per liter) promised and that it got no
more than 30 miles per gallon (12.75 kilometers per liter) when
the battery began deteriorating.  She still owns the car and wants
to be compensated for money lost on gas, as well as punitive
damages.

She bolted from a class-action lawsuit in order to sue for $10,000
rather than agree to a proposed settlement by Honda with thousands
of car owners that would give each owner $100 to $200 and a $1,000
credit on the purchase of a new Honda.

She has said that if all owners of the problem cars won in small-
claims court, it could cost Honda $2 billion

Ms. Wood said she is planning to opt out of a class-action suit.

"I'm never buying a Honda again," Ms. Wood said.

Mr. Schmidt presented charts that he said showed that even with
the decreased mileage, Ms. Peters benefited from having the car.
She called his calculations "laughable."

"If Honda snuck into my garage and siphoned gas out of my car,
that's a crime," Ms. Peters told the commissioner.  "That's what
they're doing."

Honda also sent Darren Johnson, its manager in charge of
certifications, to explain how Honda tests its vehicles in
relation to tests by the environmental protection agency.

Mr. Schmidt claimed there was no fraud and said "we're being sued
for telling the truth and she actually benefited from having the
hybrid."

Mr. Carnahan said he was taking the matter under submission and
would have a ruling probably next week or at least before the Feb.
11 deadline for people to opt out of the class action case.

Outside court, Ms. Peters said, "I feel great.  I did my best.
However he decides it I'm happy I did it.  It's brought to light a
lot of background stuff that people should know.

"I'm the trailblazer here," she said, "and everyone else can
follow what I did."


INTRUST BANK: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $2.7 Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Stearns, writing for Wichita Business Journal, reports that
Intrust Bank has agreed to pay $2.7 million to settle a class-
action lawsuit concerning overdraft fees.

Theresa Molina sued Intrust on Sept. 17, 2010, alleging that the
bank posted checking account transactions in an order different
from the order in which they were made, causing customers to incur
additional and excessive overdraft fees, according to a Sedgwick
County District Court document seeking preliminary approval of the
settlement.

"Intrust denies all wrongdoing and maintains that its account
posting procedures were proper," the court document says.

In an e-mailed statement, Lyndon Wells, Intrust's division
director-public affairs, says: "Intrust Bank has agreed to a $2.7
million settlement of a class-action lawsuit related to overdraft
fees charged by the bank to customers in Kansas.  The bank, while
admitting no wrongdoing, agreed to the settlement in order to
resolve the litigation and avoid further expense."

The class in the suit covers "all Intrust account customers who
maintained an Intrust account while residing within the state of
Kansas and who from Oct. 1, 2005, to June 30, 2010, incurred more
than one overdraft fee on a single banking day, at least one of
which was on a debit card transaction," according to the
settlement agreement.

A final fairness hearing on the settlement, which a Sedgwick
County District Court has given preliminary approval to, is
scheduled for May 21.


L&T INFOTECH: Pregnant Women Employees File Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
N Shivapriya, writing for The Economic Times, reports that a top
Indian software exporter L&T Infotech, a subsidiary of engineering
and construction conglomerate L&T, has been accused of
discriminating against pregnant women employees.

A former employee, Deepa Shanbhag, has brought a class action suit
against its wholly owned US subsidiary citing sexual harassment
and discrimination, and has sought compensation in a US district
court.

The suit alleges the company terminated her employment a day after
she told her immediate superior that she was expecting.

Ms. Shanbhag was employed with L&T Infotech's US arm as a
contractor since October 2010, and the company praised her
performance and hired her as an employee in January 2011.  She was
sacked 38 days later, according to the class action complaint
filed in a New Jersey district court.

An L&T Infotech official said Ms. Shanbhag lost her job because
the "position had expired, and there was no mala fide intention in
the termination".  "We have not violated any employment law
provisions. The company has a strong written code and believes in
providing a workplace free of any kind of harassment," the person
said.

L&T Infotech has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint to which
Ms. Shanbhag will have to respond, following which the judge will
give a ruling.  Two prior complaints made by Ms. Shanbhag to the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and New Jersey Federal
Court have been struck down, the L&T Infotech official said.

He termed the charges as baseless and frivolous and said the
company intends to defend its actions vigorously.  L&T Infotech
employs around 16,000 people of which around 30% are women.

The complaint, being brought on behalf of a class of all past,
present and future female employees, has alleged that during her
employment, there was systematic discrimination against her and
the class by wrongfully and unlawfully terminating employees under
false pretences, on the basis of sex or pregnancy.  She also
alleges being subjected to what the suit terms an unrelenting
barrage of sexual harassment and criticism of other female
employees from managers.

The class action complaint alleges an intensely hostile work
environment permeated with harassment and verbal abuse, which the
company by failing or refusing to act or take remedial action,
condoned.

The L&T Infotech spokesperson said the claims were 'totally
untrue'.  "The company believes there is no merit to Shanbhag's
claims," he said, adding that the company has regular training for
managers and supervisors to sensitize them to workplace issues and
behavior and has laid down policies for the same.  "Anti-
harassment policy is part of the employment offer and handbook,"
he said.

So far, the only high profile US lawsuit involving an Indian firm
in a sexual harassment case was by Reka Maximovitch against
Infosys and Phaneesh Murthy, who was head of global sales in
Infosys.

"We want to affect a corporate change," he said.  "Usually,
affected employees don't come forward because they are afraid they
will lose their jobs.  There is also a certain stigma and
hesitation attached to such cases, so we don't expect people to
come forward at this stage," he said.

The class action compliant asks that "not less that $20 million,
as may be determined after discovery and trial including without
limitation back pay, front pay, benefits, and such other amounts"
be awarded to Mr. Shanbhag and the class members.  It also asks
for reinstatement of all class members who may be desirous of it,
and that the company "institute and implement policies, practices
and programs to provide equal employment opportunities for women."


MGIC INVESTMENT: Faces RESPA-Violations Suits in Penn. & Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation is facing two class action lawsuits
filed against it and other mortgage insurers alleging violations
of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, according to the
Company's January 24, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Consumers are bringing a growing number of lawsuits against home
mortgage lenders and settlement service providers.  Mortgage
insurers, including MGIC, have been involved in litigation
alleging violations of the anti-referral fee provisions of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, which is commonly known as
RESPA, and the notice provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
which is commonly known as FCRA.  MGIC's settlement of class
action litigation against it under RESPA became final in October
2003.  MGIC settled the named plaintiffs' claims in litigation
against it under FCRA in December 2004, following denial of class
certification in June 2004.  Since December 2006, class action
litigation has been brought against a number of large lenders
alleging that their captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements
violated RESPA.

On December 11, 2011, seven mortgage insurers (including MGIC) and
a large mortgage lender (which was the named plaintiffs' lender)
were named as defendants in a complaint, alleged to be a class
action, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  On December 30, 2011, a similar complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania by different plaintiffs against the same seven
mortgage insurers and another large lender.  The complaints in
both cases alleged various causes of action related to the captive
mortgage reinsurance arrangements of these two mortgage lenders,
including that the defendants violated RESPA by paying excessive
premiums to the lenders' captive reinsurer in relation to the risk
assumed by that captive.  The named plaintiffs' loans were not
insured by MGIC.

MGIC denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend itself
against the allegations in the lawsuits.  There can be no
assurance that the Company will not be subject to further
litigation under RESPA (or FCRA) or that the outcome of any such
litigation, including the recent lawsuits, would not have a
material adverse effect on the Company.


MGIC INVESTMENT: Still Awaits Ruling in Consolidated Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation is still awaiting a court decision on
a motion for relief from a judgment dismissing a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's
January 24, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Five previously-filed purported class action complaints filed
against the Company and several of its executive officers were
consolidated in March 2009 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Fulton County Employees'
Retirement System was appointed as the lead plaintiff.  The lead
plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the
"Complaint") in June 2009.  Due in part to its length and
structure, it is difficult to summarize briefly the allegations in
the Complaint but it appears the allegations are that the Company
and its officers named in the Complaint violated the federal
securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material
information about (i) loss development in the Company's insurance
in force, and (ii) C-BASS (a former minority-owned,
unconsolidated, joint venture investment), including its
liquidity.  The Complaint also named two officers of C-BASS with
respect to the Complaints' allegations regarding C-BASS.  The
Company's motion to dismiss the Complaint was granted in February
2010.

In March 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint.  Attached to this motion was a proposed Amended
Complaint (the "Amended Complaint").  The Amended Complaint
alleged that the Company and two of its officers named in the
Amended Complaint violated the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about
C-BASS, including its liquidity, and by failing to properly
account for the Company's investment in C-BASS.  The Amended
Complaint also named two officers of C-BASS with respect to the
Amended Complaint's allegations regarding C-BASS.  The purported
class period covered by the Amended Complaint began on
February 6, 2007, and ended on August 13, 2007.  The Amended
Complaint sought damages based on purchases of the Company's stock
during this time period at prices that were allegedly inflated as
a result of the purported violations of federal securities laws.
In December 2010, the plaintiffs' motion to file an amended
complaint was denied and the Complaint was dismissed with
prejudice.

In January 2011, the plaintiffs appealed the February 2010 and
December 2010 decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit; during oral argument before the Appeals Court
regarding the case on January 12, 2012, the plaintiffs confirmed
the appeal was limited to issues regarding C-BASS.  In June 2011,
the plaintiffs filed a motion with the District Court for relief
from that court's judgment of dismissal on the ground of newly
discovered evidence consisting of transcripts the plaintiffs
obtained of testimony taken by the Securities and Exchange
Commission in its now-terminated investigation regarding C-BASS.
The Company is opposing this motion and the matter is awaiting
decision by the District Court.

The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of the
consolidated case or estimate its associated expenses or possible
losses.  The Company notes that other lawsuits alleging violations
of the securities laws could be brought against it.


MGIC INVESTMENT: Still Defends Housing Discrimination Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
In September 2010, a housing discrimination complaint was filed
against MGIC Investment Corporation with the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") alleging that MGIC violated
the Fair Housing Act and discriminated against the complainant on
the basis of her sex and familial status when MGIC underwrote her
loan for mortgage insurance.  In May 2011, HUD commenced an
administrative action against MGIC and two of its employees,
seeking, among other relief, aggregate fines of $48,000.  The HUD
complainant elected to have charges in the administrative action
proceed in federal court and in July 2011, the U.S. Department of
Justice ("DOJ") filed a civil complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania against MGIC and these
employees on behalf of the complainant.  The complaint seeks
redress for the alleged housing discrimination, including
compensatory and punitive damages for the alleged victims and a
civil penalty payable to the United States.  MGIC denies that any
unlawful discrimination occurred and disputes many of the
allegations in the complaint.

In October 2010, a separate purported class action lawsuit was
filed against MGIC by the HUD complainant in the same District
Court in which the DOJ action is pending alleging that MGIC
discriminated against her on the basis of her sex and familial
status when MGIC underwrote her loan for mortgage insurance.  In
May 2011, the District Court granted MGIC's motion to dismiss with
respect to all claims except certain Fair Housing Act claims.

MGIC says it intends to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations in both the class action lawsuit and the DOJ lawsuit.
Based on the facts known at this time, the Company does not
foresee the ultimate resolution of these legal proceedings having
a material adverse effect on it.

No further updates were reported in the Company's January 24,
2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.


MONSANTO CO: Jury Pool Chosen for Dioxin Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Kevin Howell, writing for 13 News, reports that a pool of 28
jurors has been chosen for the massive Monsanto class-action
lawsuit to be tried in Putnam County, according to a spokeswoman
for the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Six jurors and six alternates will be picked from the pool for
Bibb et al v. Monsanto Co.

Judge Derek Swope has adjourned the trial until Feb. 13, at the
earliest, since a number of pre-trial motions are still to be
filed.

The case involves current and former Nitro residents who claim
dioxin from a former Monsanto plant polluted residential
properties and streams.  The lawsuit seeks medical monitoring for
at least 5,000 people.

The state Supreme Court appointed Mercer County Circuit Court
Judge Derek Swope to preside over the trial after Putnam County
Circuit Court Judge O.C. Spaulding stepped aside.

Judge Spaulding was diagnosed with ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease.


NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Resolves Wage & Hour Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (NPC) and Sanford Wittels &
Heisler, LLP, Counsel to the Plaintiffs and the Class, on Jan. 25
announced an agreement to resolve the nationwide Wage and Hour
class action against NPC currently pending in the US District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

NPC has agreed to end the ongoing proceedings and provide a
payment of up to $99 million for eligible class members.  This
settlement resolves the wage and hour claims brought in 2006, as
well as additional wage and hour claims covering a more recent
time period.

"We believe this settlement is in the best interest of our
employees and the Company," said Andre Wyss, President of Novartis
Pharmaceuticals Corporation.  "We have been litigating this case
for nearly six years and the Company has determined that it is
time to resolve these wage and hour claims.  We consistently
compensate all employees fairly in accordance with the US Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and applicable state laws.  We remain
confident that sales representatives should continue to be
classified as exempt from overtime because their autonomy and
incentive compensation are typical of exempt employees as defined
by US law."

"We are pleased to have secured a 99 million dollar settlement
wherein Novartis compensates its sales representatives for years
of overtime pay," explained David Sanford, lead counsel for the
Plaintiffs.  "While we remain confident that the United States
Supreme Court later this year will uphold the Department of
Labor's interpretation of wage and hour law, the risks of further
litigation are great.  We are proud that over seven thousand
current and former Novartis sales representatives will be able to
participate in this settlement.  It is a fair and equitable result
and can serve as an exemplar for companies around the United
States that face wage and hour litigation."

The agreement remains subject to final court approval, which may
take several months.

                          About Novartis

Located in East Hanover, New Jersey, Novartis Pharmaceuticals
Corporation -- http://www.novartis.com-- is an affiliate of
Novartis AG, which provides innovative healthcare solutions that
address the evolving needs of patients and societies.
Headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, Novartis offers a diversified
portfolio to best meet these needs: innovative medicines, eye
care, cost-saving generic pharmaceuticals, preventive vaccines and
diagnostic tools, over-the-counter and animal health products.
Novartis is the only global company with leading positions in
these areas.  In 2010, the Group's continuing operations achieved
net sales of $50.6 billion, while approximately $9.1 billion ($8.1
billion excluding impairment and amortization charges) was
invested in R&D throughout the Group.  Novartis Group companies
employ approximately 121,000 full-time-equivalent associates and
operate in more than 140 countries around the world.

               About Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP

The Plaintiffs and the Class are represented by Sanford Wittels &
Heisler, LLP.  Sanford Wittels & Heisler --
http://www.swhlegal.com-- is a law firm with offices in
Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco that specializes in
employment discrimination, wage and hour, consumer and complex
corporate class action litigation and has represented thousands of
individuals in some of the major class action cases in the United
States.  The firm also represents individual clients in
employment, employment discrimination, sexual harassment,
whistleblower, public accommodations, commercial, medical
malpractice, and personal injury matters.


PROVINCE OF OTTAWA, CANADA: Wins Appeal in "Sixties Scoop" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Diebel, writing for Toronto Star, reports that the federal
government has won its appeal in Divisional Court against a class-
action lawsuit on behalf of 16,000 aboriginal children taken from
reserves in Ontario in what's known as the "Sixties Scoop."

The decision is seen as a major setback for aboriginal plaintiffs,
now adults, who allege Ottawa stripped them of their cultural
identity by sending them off as children to non-aboriginal homes.
Many told stories of abuse, alienation and isolation in foster and
adoptive homes in Canada and the U.S.

"Canada's strategy is to get us out of the way," lead plaintiff
Marcia Brown, 48, said on Jan. 25 from Beaverhouse First Nation in
northeastern Ontario.  "It's an injustice.  What I truly feel is
that this isn't a fair system for First Nations' people."

Ms. Brown, an Ojibwa who was taken when she was 4, says her non-
aboriginal mother tried to wash away her "dirty brown color" and
burned a stuffed tiger full of "Indian bugs."

However, their Toronto lawyer Morris Cooper vows the battle isn't
over.

Mr. Cooper, who represents the plaintiffs with fellow lawyer
Jeffery Wilson, points out the residential schools case dragged on
for years before a historic settlement was reached in 2005 for
victims of a Canadian system that took hundreds of thousands of
children from reserves and sent them to church-run schools.

Ottawa has deep pockets, says Mr. Cooper, and its strategy is to
drag out legal proceedings at great cost in taxpayer dollars.

The federal government is responsible for aboriginal people.
Therefore, the class action suit was brought against the attorney
general of Canada, although children were removed by provincial
authorities.

The ruling orders lead plaintiffs Brown and Robert Commanda to pay
C$25,000 in costs and stipulates that any new motion for
certification of the class action lawsuit must be brought before a
different judge other than Superior Court Justice Paul Perell.  He
granted conditional certification for the class action suit --
which Ottawa then appealed.

"The worst part is they ordered (Brown and Commanda) to pay.  It's
very sad," said Cooper, emphasizing the decision was totally at
the court's discretion.  "This class action suit was not for the
personal benefit of either Brown or Commanda but for everybody."

Said Ms. Brown: "I personally don't have that kind of money.  They
are just trying to discourage everybody from challenging the
federal government."

Messrs. Cooper and Wilson will take their fee from any final
judgment.

"We were surprised and very disappointed over (Perell's
exclusion)," said Mr. Cooper.  "He was just doing what he was
supposed to do."

Mr. Perell certified the class action case with the provision the
plaintiffs file an amended statement of claim.  But the Divisional
Court said he "appears to have preapproved the amendments
necessary to satisfy him" there were indeed grounds for class
action.  That was seen as unfair to the federal government.

The Divisional Court ruling has caused quite a stir and, in the
careful language of the law, whipped up controversy.

"With respect, the Divisional Court erred in overturning Perell's
conditional certification order," Kirk Baert wrote last week in
Canadian Lawyer Magazine.

An experienced class action lawyer, Mr. Baert said "appropriate
case management involves the wide discretion of a motions judge
(Perell) to advance the proceedings and to avoid the potentially
prohibitive costs and excessive delays associated with certifying
a class proceeding.

"In the circumstances, Perell was merely exercising this
discretion to modify the proposed class proceeding."

The setback means that Messrs. Cooper and Wilson must now win two
battles in order to get back to court on their class action suit.
They must first win the right to appeal the ruling by the
Divisional Court and then, if victorious, win the appeal itself.

If they don't, Mr. Cooper says the setback would put them back
three years, almost back to the beginning.

It's ironic, he says, given that "copycat" class action suits on
behalf of "Sixties Scoop" children are in the works in B.C.,
Alberta and New Brunswick.


RIGHT AWAY: Sued Over Illegal "Foreclosure Rescue" Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action in Broward
County Court claims these defendants collected "hundreds of
thousands of dollars" in illegal, upfront fees for so-called
"foreclosure rescue" services: Right Away Home Loans, of Santa Fe
Springs, Calif.; Garry Hamwi; Solutions Now Loan Modification;
Mahmoud Elachkar; and Zeinab Donner.

A copy of the Complaint in Corey v. Right Away Home Loans
Corporation, et al., Case No. 12001597 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/25/Foreclose.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq.
          Chad E. Levy, Esq.
          Marc S. Reiner, Esq.
          WHITELOCK & LEVY, L.L.C.
          300 Southeast Thirteenth Street
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 763-5722


STATE OF OREGON: People with Disabilities File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Cole, writing for The Oregonian, reports that the United
Cerebral Palsy Association of Oregon and Southwest Washington
along with eight individuals representing thousands of Oregonians
with intellectual or physical disabilities filed a class action
lawsuit on Jan. 25 against Gov. John Kitzhaber and top managers at
the Department of Human Services.

Advocates hope the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in
Portland, will set a national precedent and end the practice of
having people with disabilities to spend their days in "sheltered
workshops," where they complete repetitive or rote tasks for a
sub-minimum wage and without the opportunity for training or
advancement.

At any given time, according to the lawsuit, more than 2,300
Oregonians are "stuck in long-term, dead-end, facility based
sheltered workshops that offer virtually no interaction with non-
disabled peers."

This group of workers includes 48-year-old Paula Lane, who has an
intellectual disability, autism and an anxiety disorder.  In March
2000, Ms. Lane began working at a sheltered workshop in Beaverton
where, according to the lawsuit, she spends her time working on an
assembly line in a large room with more than 100 others.  Her
current tasks include putting parts into boxes, folding bags,
packaging gloves and putting bits into slots in a tool holder.

"The worksite is segregated, crowded and distracting," the lawsuit
claims.  Between February 2010 and March 2010, the highest amount
Ms. Lane earned was $53.66 for 81 hours in September 2010.  The
lowest was $26.82 for 66 hours in March 2010, or approximately 40
cents an hour.

Ms. Lane has received high marks for her work, according to papers
filed in court, and she has repeatedly asked the state's
vocational agency for help finding an outside job.  She likes to
spend money on pizza parties and had wanted to attend a country
music concert, however lawyers note that she "cannot afford to
participate in as many community activities."

"Ms. Lane believes she can work competitively and would like the
opportunity to do so."

The lawsuit argues that confining people in segregated workshops
violates the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Rehabilitation Act.

The state of Oregon currently spends $30 million a year on
sheltered workshops for people with disabilities.  Over time it
would be much cheaper for taxpayers and better for individuals for
the state to fund programs that help people with disabilities work
in jobs that pay minimum wage or better, said Bob Joondeph,
executive director of Disability Rights Oregon and an attorney for
the plaintiffs.

Last August, advocates sent a letter to Human Services director
Erinn Kelley-Siel asking that the state take steps to help people
with disabilities find and keep real jobs.  On Jan. 24, The
Oregonian requested a copy of the response under the state's
public records law.  Human Services spokesman Gene Evans said he
could not comment.

Advocates tried to "negotiate a way to avoid filing the case,"
Mr. Joondeph said, "but we were not successful."

Suzanne Stevens, writing for Portland Business Journal, reports
that the Oregon Department of Justice on Jan. 25 responded to a
class action lawsuit filed against Gov. John Kitzhaber and other
state officials regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In an e-mailed statement, the justice department said that Oregon
is committed to improving services to disabled residents and that
a stakeholder planning process to improve employment-related
services was scheduled to begin last week.

According to the statement, "This lawsuit was filed just two days
before that process is scheduled to begin.  The stakeholders
invited to participate in that process represent a spectrum of
views on disability issues.  One of the plaintiffs, the local
chapter of United Cerebral Palsy, has been invited to participate
in the stakeholder process, and so has Disability Rights Oregon,
whose attorneys filed this lawsuit."


TRANS1 INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit against TranS1 Inc., and certain of its officers.  The
class action (7:12-cv-00023-F), filed in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased
TranS1 securities during the period between February 21, 2008 and
October 17, 2011, inclusive.  This class action is brought under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a); and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

If you are a shareholder who purchased TranS1 securities during
the Class Period, you have until March 26, 2012 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free,
x350.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

TranS1 designs, develops, and markets medical devices to treat
degenerative disc disease affecting the lower lumbar region of the
spine.  The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
TranS1 made false and/or misleading statements or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company was not in compliance with federal
healthcare fraud and false claim statutes; (2) the Company engaged
in improper reimbursement practices; (3) the Company lacked
adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On October 18, 2011, after the market closed, TranS1 disclosed
that it had received a subpoena from the Department of Health and
Human Services Office of Inspector General.  The subpoena requests
documents for the period January 1, 2008 through October 6, 2011.
Upon these revelations, TranS1 shares declined $1.27 or more than
40%, to close at $1.85 on October 18, 2011.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- specializes
in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation.  It has offices in New York, Chicago and Washington,
D.C.


WIVENHOE DAM: Flood Victims Mull Class Action Amid Inquiry
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Solomons and Tuck Thompson, writing for Courier Mail, report
that flood victims are gearing up for action should renewed
scrutiny of the operations of Wivenhoe Dam by the flood inquiry
provide grounds for class-action lawsuits.

Insurers are also taking a close interest because further hearings
might provide new evidence of the timing of dam releases that
could affect disputed flood claims.

The moves come as questions continue to be raised about why the
top-level Commission of Inquiry overlooked crucial documents about
the management of Wivenhoe Dam in the days before last year's
inundation of Brisbane.

The documents, revealed in The Australian, indicate that on the
crucial weekend of January 8-9 last year, the dam's managers were
operating under a low-level release strategy rather than a more
urgent strategy to prevent flooding, contradicting evidence given
to the inquiry.

Announcing the election would occur after the final flood report
was released in March, Premier Anna Bligh said it was only fair
that voters had a chance to know whether candidates they were
voting for had adverse findings against them.

She said "the full force of the law" should apply to anyone found
responsible for any cover-up or having given false evidence but
stopped short of criticizing the inquiry for failing to fully
scrutinize evidence.

"Every flood victim" deserved the truth, she said.

LNP leader Campbell Newman said it was right that the hearings
were taking place amid suggestions of a cover-up.

"These suggestions need to be put to bed and it is a good thing
they are going to be investigated," he said.

One insurance company said on January 25 it was already receiving
legal advice on the extended inquiry "in case it changes any of
the fundamental premises . . . about the timing of the floods".

A spokesman for RACQ, the second-biggest domestic insurer in
Queensland, which dealt with thousands of claims after the floods,
said: "We're evaluating these latest developments and will be
watching the hearings with interest."

In the flood-hit Brisbane Valley, members of The Fernvale Action
Group, the Mid-Brisbane Irrigators and other local residents were
meeting in Lowood to decide whether to engage lawyers to pursue
action against the dam operators.

Pine Mountain nurseryman and flood victim John Craigie, who was
attending the meeting, predicted it would be difficult to fund
such an action because "there are lots of people out there still
doing it tough".

The inquiry's report was unlikely to be a sufficient basis for a
legal action and "hard evidence" would have to be found to put to
a court, he said.

But in Rocklea, a group of flood-hit businesses and households
expected evidence of negligence would emerge.

David Stark of Flood Affected Businesses and Homes said: "If it
doesn't come out at the inquiry, it's going to come out at the
class action."


                           *********

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  * * *