CAR_Public/120131.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, January 31, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 21

                             Headlines

AFFYMETRIX INC: Settles "Tang" Class Suit in California Court
ALLY FINANCIAL: Sued for Secretly Recording Phone Calls in Calif.
AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Latent Defect
APPLE INC: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Dismissed in December
APPLE INC: iPod & iTunes Antitrust Suits Remain Pending in Calif.

BJ'S WHOLESALE: Recalls 41,000 LED Flashlight and Battery Sets
COLLECTIVE BRANDS: Sued in Kansas for Misleading Shareholders
COLUMBIA PARCAR: Recalls 1,400 Golf, Service, Utility Vehicles
COMMONWEALTH LIMOUSINE: Faces Wage and Hour Class Suit in Mass.
EXOBOX TECHNOLOGIES: Investors Can Amend Fraud Class Action

KYMCO USA: Recalls 1,876 Utility Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard
NOVARTIS AG: Awaits Okay of Settlement in Wage and Hour Suit
NOVARTIS AG: Dismissal of Texas Suits Finalized in March 2011
REALOGY CORP: In Discussions to Settle "Cooper" Litigation
STATE OF OREGON: Faces Class Action Over "Sheltered Workshops"

TIME WARNER: Sued for Failing to Deliver Promised Cable Services
TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE: Judge Narrows Scope of Toll Class Action
UNITED RENTALS: Faces RSC Acquisition-Related Suit in Arizona


                          *********

AFFYMETRIX INC: Settles "Tang" Class Suit in California Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Affymetrix, Inc. settled a class action lawsuit commenced by
holders of its 3.50% Senior Convertible Notes Due 2038, according
to the Company's January 25, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On January 21, 2012, Affymetrix, Inc. (the "Company) entered into
an agreement to settle the purported class action litigation
brought against the Company by holders of the Company's 3.50%
Senior Convertible Notes Due 2038 in the Superior Court of
California, County of Santa Clara.  As part of the settlement, the
Company has agreed that within two weeks it will commence a tender
offer to repurchase the entire $95.5 million aggregate principal
amount of Notes currently outstanding at par plus accrued
interest.  Tang Capital Partners, LP, which owns approximately
$78.3 million principal amount of the Notes, has agreed to tender
all of its Notes into the offer.  The Notes are in any case
redeemable at the option of the holders on
January 15, 2013.

In addition, based on discussions with the lenders who provided
the financing commitments for the Company's proposed acquisition
of eBioscience Holding Company, Inc. ("eBioscience"), the Company
now expects that it would be required to restructure the financing
arrangements in order to be able to complete the acquisition.  The
Company has not reached any agreements or understandings with its
lenders or other financing sources.


ALLY FINANCIAL: Sued for Secretly Recording Phone Calls in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Trompeter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Ally Financial, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Does
1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. CGC-11-513955 (Calif. Super.
Ct., San Francisco Cty., December 7, 2011) arises out of the
Defendants' policy and practice of secretly recording telephone
calls with persons located in California without their consent.

The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants' policy and practice of
surreptitiously recording telephone calls violates the California
Penal Code and the California's Invasion of Privacy Act.  Hence,
the Plaintiff brings the action to seek liquidated damages for
himself and on behalf of the members of the proposed classes.

Mr. Trompeter is a resident of San Francisco County, California.

Ally Financial is a Delaware corporation that has "qualified" to
do business in the state of California.  The names and identities
of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to Mr. Trompeter.

Ally Financial removed the lawsuit on January 27, 2012, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of San
Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Company argues that the removal is
proper because the action involves more than 100 alleged class
members in which at least one member is a citizen of a state
different than Ally Financial.  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:12-cv-00392 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Kearney, Esq.
          Paul Alvarez, Esq.
          Prescott Littlefield, Esq.
          KEARNEY ALVAREZ LLP
          633 W. Fifth Street, 28th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 473-1900
          Facsimile: (213) 473-1919
          E-mail: tkearney@kearneyalvarezllp.com
                  palvarez@kearneyalvarezllp.com
                  plittlefield@kearneyalvarezllp.com

               - and -

          Susan Yoon, Esq.
          Law Offices of Susan Yoon
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (818) 554-7317
          Facsimile: (818) 698-8214

The Defendants are represented by:

          John B. Sullivan, Esq.
          Rebecca S. Saelao, Esq.
          Erik Kemp, Esq.
          SEVERSON & WERSON
          A Professional Corporation
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415)398-3344
          Facsimile: (415)956-0439
          E-mail: jbs@severson.com
                  rss@severson.com
                  ek@severson.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Latent Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
the paint delaminates on Honda 2003-07 vehicles.

A copy of the Complaint in Matthews v. American Honda Motor
Company, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-00661 (C.D. Calif.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/26/HondaCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
          THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM, PLLC
          12707 High Bluff Drive, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 350-4342
          E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          10680 W. Pico Blvd., Suite 280
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com


APPLE INC: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Dismissed in December
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed in December 2011 a consolidated antitrust
lawsuit against Apple Inc., according to the Company's
January 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

In re Apple & ATTM Antitrust Litigation (brought on behalf of
named plaintiffs Kliegerman, Holman, Rivello, Smith, Lee,
Macasaddu, Morikawa, Scotti and Sesso) is a purported class action
filed against the Company and AT&T Mobility in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
Consolidated Complaint alleges that the Company and AT&T Mobility
violated the federal antitrust laws by monopolizing and/or
attempting to monopolize the "aftermarket for voice and data
services" for the iPhone and that the Company monopolized and/or
attempted to monopolize the "aftermarket for software applications
for iPhones."  Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages for the class, treble damages, injunctive relief
and attorneys fees.  On July 8, 2010, the Court granted in part
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  Following a favorable
Supreme Court ruling for AT&T Mobility in its case against
Concepcion, defendants have filed Motions to Compel Arbitration
and to Decertify the Class.

On December 1, 2011, the Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint and decertify the class, then it closed the
case finding that plaintiffs would have to pursue any claim in an
arbitration proceeding.


APPLE INC: iPod & iTunes Antitrust Suits Remain Pending in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The related cases captioned The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust
Litigation (formerly Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Tucker
v. Apple Computer, Inc.); and Somers v. Apple Inc. have been filed
on January 3, 2005, July 21, 2006, and December 31, 2007, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a purported class of direct and indirect
purchasers of iPods and iTunes Store content, alleging various
claims including alleged unlawful tying of music and video
purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and
unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power and
unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power under
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Cartwright Act, Section
17200 of the California Business & Professions Code (unfair
competition), the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
California monopolization law.  Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages for the class, treble damages,
injunctive relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and
attorneys fees.  Plaintiffs are also seeking DRM free versions of
any songs downloaded from iTunes or an order requiring the Company
to license its DRM to all competing music players.  The cases are
currently pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's January 25,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.


BJ'S WHOLESALE: Recalls 41,000 LED Flashlight and Battery Sets
--------------------------------------------------------------
About 41,000 LED Flashlight and Battery Sets were voluntarily
recalled by BJ's Wholesale Club Inc., of Westborough,
Massachusetts, in cooperation with the CPSC.  Consumers should
stop using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The flashlights can heat up, smoke or melt when turned on, posing
fire and burn hazards.

BJ's has received two reports of incidents with the flashlights,
including one unit overheating and one unit burning and making a
loud noise.  One minor injury to a consumer's hand has been
reported.

The recall involves Superex SAFETO GO LED flashlight and battery
sets.  The flashlight sets include one 9.5-inch flashlight with 10
LEDs, two 7.5-inch flashlights with seven LEDs and two 6-inch
flashlights with five LEDs.  The sets also include seven "D" size
batteries and four "AA" size batteries.  The flashlights in the
sets are made of either red or black plastic with black or gray
rubber around the handles and light bases.  The words "Superex,"
"SAFETO GO Family Pack," and "Bright White LED Flashlights" appear
on the front of the packaging.  The UPC 0-56986-01008-3 is printed
on the back of the packaging along with the SKU number 700935.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12714.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at BJ's
Wholesale Clubs from July 2011 through December 2011 for about
$15.

Consumers should immediately stop using all of the flashlights and
return them to any BJ's Wholesale Club for a full refund.
Consumers should properly dispose of the batteries before
returning the flashlights to the store.  For additional
information, contact BJ's at 800-BJS-CLUB between 9:00 a.m. and
7:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or between 9:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time Saturday and Sunday, or visit the
company's Web site at http://www.bjs.com/contact/. BJ's is
contacting its customers directly.


COLLECTIVE BRANDS: Sued in Kansas for Misleading Shareholders
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Collective Brands, holding
company for Payless ShoeSource, inflated its share price with
false and misleading financial statements, and the price sank by
17% in a day when the truth came out, shareholders claim in a
federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Local 191 I.B.E.W. Joint Trust Funds v.
Collective Brands, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-02046 (D. Kan.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/26/Payless.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel E. Schwartz, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7125
          E-mail: schwartz@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          Catherine J. Kowalewski, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  davew@rgrdlaw.com
                  katek@rgrdlaw.com


COLUMBIA PARCAR: Recalls 1,400 Golf, Service, Utility Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------
About 1,400 golf, service and utility vehicles were voluntarily
recalled by Columbia ParCar Corporation, of Reedsburg, Wisconsin,
in cooperation with the CPSC.  Consumers should stop using the
product immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The lower steering yoke can loosen where it attaches to the
steering rack and pinion, causing the driver to lose control of
the vehicle and crash.

No injuries have been reported.

The recalled items are 2009, 2010 and 2011 Columbia ParCar golf
carts, low-speed service and utility vehicles.  They are 36- or
48-volt electric vehicles manufactured from July 1, 2008, through
June 30, 2011.  Vehicles can be identified by their Vehicle
Identification Numbers (VINs) located either on the passenger's
side left kick panel, in the driver's side storage compartment or
on the steering wheel beneath the center cap.  The following
Columbia vehicles are being recalled:

   Eagle (P4E) Golf Vehicle:
   -------------------------
   2008 Models VIN Range: P4*** - **G0231 through G0562
   2009 Models VIN Range: P4*** - **H0112 through H0302
   2010 Models VIN Range: P4*** - **I0101 through I0105
   2010 Models VIN Range: P4*** - **J0115 through J0420
   2011 Models VIN Range: P4*** - **K0101 through K0343

   Shuttle (C6E) Personnel Carrier:
   --------------------------------
   2008 Models VIN Range: TC6** - **G0143 through G0212
   2009 Models VIN Range: TC6** - **H0102 through H0129
   2010 Models VIN Range: TC6** - **I0101 through I0106
   2010 Models VIN Range: TC6** - **J0107 through J0135
   2011 Models VIN Range: TC6** - **K0101 through K0106

   Tram (C10E) Personnel Carrier:
   ------------------------------
   2008 Models VIN Range: TC1E4 - *WG0142 through WG0206
   2009 Models VIN Range: TC1E4 - *WH0101 through WH0132
   2010 Models VIN Range: TC1E4 - *WJ0108 through WJ00112
   2011 Models VIN Range: N/A

   Summit (SM/SUV) Utility Vehicle:
   --------------------------------
   2010 Models VIN Range: SU*F4 - 4*J0109 through J0116
   2011 Models VIN Range: S**F4 - 4*K0101 through K0106

   Utilitruck (EU4, EU24) Utility Vehicle:
   ---------------------------------------
   2008 Models VIN Range: U#*** - **G0156 through G0253
   2009 Models VIN Range: U#*** - **H0102 through H0175
   2010 Models VIN Range: U#*** - **I0102 through I0102
   2010 Models VIN Range: U#*** - **J0106 through J0154
   2011 Models VIN Range: U#*** - **K0101 through K0124

   (Note: # after U represents either a 2 or a 4.)

   Scout (S10E) Utility Vehicle:
   -----------------------------
   2008 Models VIN Range: US1E* - *ZG0157 through ZG0241
   2009 Models VIN Range: US1E* - *ZH0117 through ZH0178
   2010 Models VIN Range: US1E* - *ZI0101 through ZI0103
   2010 Models VIN Range: US1E* - *ZJ0104 through ZJ0147
   2011 Models VIN Range: US1E* - *ZK0102 through ZK0126

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12715.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold by ParCar dealers from July 1, 2008, to July 31,
2011, for between $5,000 and $12,000.

Consumers should contact a local ParCar dealer for a free
inspection and repair as required.  For additional information,
contact Columbia ParCar Corp. at (800) 222-4653 between 8:00 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.parcar.com/


COMMONWEALTH LIMOUSINE: Faces Wage and Hour Class Suit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Botero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Commonwealth Limousine Service, Inc. d/b/a
Commonwealth Worldwide Transportation and Dawson A. Rutter, Jr.,
as President of Commonwealth Limousine Service, Inc. and
Individually, Case No. SUCV2012-00186 (Mass. Super. Ct.,
January 17, 2012) is a wage and hour class action in which the
Plaintiff seeks an award of damages, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs arising out of the Defendants'
violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Commonwealth failed to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated chauffeurs for all the
hours they worked.  He asserts that Commonwealth required the
chauffeurs to work a particular shift, yet only paid them for the
time that they were actually transporting customers of
Commonwealth or waiting on duty with customers of Commonwealth at
their designated locations.  Despite this fact, he adds,
Commonwealth deducted 30 minutes from the chauffeurs' work time
for lunch, even though the chauffeurs were not allowed to eat
lunch when they were with customers.

Mr. Botero is a resident of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Commonwealth is a Massachusetts corporation.  Mr. Rutter is the
president and treasurer of Commonwealth.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip J. Gordon
          Kristen M. Hurley
          GORDON LAW GROUP LLP
          585 Boylston Street
          Boston, Massachusetts 02116
          Telephone: (617) 536-1800
          E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com
                  khurley@gordonllp.com


EXOBOX TECHNOLOGIES: Investors Can Amend Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Barron at Courthouse News Service reports that a group of
investors can amend their class-action claims against the Texas
attorney who allegedly defrauded them with a sham corporation, a
federal judge ruled.

Seventeen investors across the United States filed a class action
for fraud against Exobox Technologies in Harris County, Texas.
The 2010 complaint also named 18 alleged co-conspirators as
defendants.

"Exobox was created and operated by defendants as a sham
corporation designed to provide benefit to the attorneys,
officers, directors and brokers that participated in and
orchestrated the reverse merger and 'operations' of the
corporation," according to the complaint.  "Defendants also
controlled the float of Exobox stock in the marketplace, failed to
make proper disclosures to the class, and engaged in insider
transactions, among other things, all designed to provide
financial benefit to defendants to the detriment of Exobox and the
class members."

With the case now underway in the Southern District of Texas,
Exobox remains as a defendant alongside just seven individuals:
attorney Robert Sonfield; Donald Bradley; Jeffrey Bradley;
attorney Jason Landess; Marc Lane; Roger Brewer; and Alexanderia
Blankenship.

On Jan. 23, U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison dismissed the
investors' state-law claims for fraud, misrepresentation and
conspiracy.  In addition to tossing claims of aiding and abetting,
Ellison also dismissed the claim that Mr. Landess violated federal
securities law.

Mr. Sonfield must still face claims that he lied in public filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission and that he
misrepresented Exobox tradability in an opinion letter to Pink
Sheets.

The investors can file an amended complaint, but Ellison limited
their focus to bolstering claims about Mr. Sonfield's tradability
letter and his alleged misstatements in Exobox's public filings.

Judge Ellison said the allegations must conform with the Supreme
Court's 2011 ruling in Janus Capital Group v. First Derivative
Traders, which "held that 'the maker of a statement is the person
or entity with ultimate authority over the statement, including
its content and whether and how to communicate it.'"

A 2008 SEC complaint that characterizes the Exobox scheme as a
$3.91 million fraud also remains pending in the Southern District
of Texas.

So far, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes has only issued final
judgment in the SEC action against Donald Bradley, and his son,
Jeffrey Bradley, holding them jointly and severally liable for the
disgorgement of $204,000 plus prejudgment interest.

Noting evidence of the Bradleys' finances, however, Judge Hughes
waived payment.

The orders enjoin the Bradleys from violating Section 5 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and permanently bar them from participating
in stock offers with a share price under $5.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order in Kerr, et al. v. Exobox
Technologies Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-04221 (S.D.
Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/26/Exobox%20Order.pdf


KYMCO USA: Recalls 1,876 Utility Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
About 1,876 utility vehicles were voluntarily recalled by KYMCO
USA, of Spartanburg, South Carolina, in cooperation with the CPSC.
Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

An exposed portion of the exhaust system can allow debris such as
leaves, brush or other flammable materials to enter the opening
and ignite, posing a fire hazard.

KYMCO USA has received three reports of vehicles catching on fire
and being damaged.  No reports of injuries have been received.

The recall involves 2009 through 2012 KYMCO utility task vehicles
(UTVs).  The vehicles are gasoline-powered, off-road vehicles with
two side-by-side seats, a cargo bed and a steering wheel.  The
vehicles come in red, blue, black, gray, orange, silver and green
and have the model and brand name "KYMCO" on both sides of the
rear fender area and the front of the hood.  The following UTVs
are being recalled:

                                   Vehicle Identification
   Models          Model Year        Number (VIN) Range
   ------          ----------      ----------------------
   UXV 500            2009                RFBUS37A
   UXV 500 LE         2010                09B100101
   UXV 500 SE         2011                through
                      2012                9CB490364

   UXV 500i                               RFBUS33A
   UXV 500i LE        2012                4CB100101
   UXV 500i SE                            through 8CB230205

The VIN is located on the frame behind the right front wheel.  The
tenth alphanumeric character of the VIN is the model year of the
vehicle (i.e. 9 = 2009, A = 2010, B = 2011, C = 2012).

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12713.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold by
KYMCO dealers nationwide from June 2008 to October 2011 for
between $7,600 and $10,100.

Consumers should stop using these vehicles and return them to a
KYMCO dealer for the free installation of a repair kit.  For more
information, contact KYMCO USA at (888) 235-3417 between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, by e-mail at
info@kymcousa.com, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.kymcousa.com/


NOVARTIS AG: Awaits Okay of Settlement in Wage and Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Novartis AG is awaiting court approval of a settlement resolving a
consolidated wage and hour class action lawsuit filed against its
subsidiary, according to the Company's January 25, 2012, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

Certain pharmaceutical sales representatives filed a lawsuit in a
state court in California and in the US District Court for the
SDNY against the Company's U.S. affiliate, Novartis
Pharmaceuticals Corporation (NPC) alleging that NPC violated wage
and hour laws by misclassifying the pharmaceutical sales
representatives as "exempt" employees, and by failing to pay
overtime compensation.  These actions are part of a number of
lawsuits pending against pharmaceutical companies that challenge
the industry's long-term practice of treating pharmaceutical sales
representatives as salaried employees.  After the California state
court action had been removed to the US District Court for the
Central District of California, these collective and class action
lawsuits were consolidated in the US District Court for the SDNY
for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.  A class was certified.

In January 2009, after the case had been bifurcated into a
liability and a damages phase, the US District Court for the SDNY
granted NPC's summary judgment motion holding that NPC's
pharmaceutical sales representatives were not entitled to overtime
pay under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and corresponding
state wage and hour laws.  Plaintiffs appealed that judgment to
the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit).
Amicus briefs supporting plaintiffs' position were filed by the
National Employment Lawyers Association and by the US Department
of Labor, and the US Chamber of Commerce filed a brief in support
of NPC.  On July 6, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment
of the lower court.  On October 4, 2010, NPC filed its petition
for a writ of certiorari with the US Supreme Court.  Amicus briefs
in support of NPC's certiorari petition were filed on November 5,
2010, by the US Chamber of Commerce and Pharmaceutical Research
and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).

On February 28, 2011, NPC was informed that the US Supreme Court
decided not to take this case.  The case has been remanded to the
US District Court for the SDNY for pre-trial proceedings relating
to damages.  NPC has agreed with the plaintiffs 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.  The agreement is
subject to certain conditions, including final court approval.


NOVARTIS AG: Dismissal of Texas Suits Finalized in March 2011
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dismissal of shareholder lawsuits arising from Novartis AG's
acquisition of Alcon Inc. became final in March 2011, according to
the Company's January 25, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

Beginning on January 7, 2010, shareholder class action complaints
relating to the Alcon Inc. acquisition transactions announced on
January 4, 2010, were filed against Novartis AG and others by
minority shareholders of Alcon, Inc.  These actions were filed in
the US Federal District Courts for the SDNY, Eastern District of
New York (EDNY) and the Northern District of Texas (NDTX) and in
several Texas state courts.  The case in the EDNY was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiffs on March 18, 2010.
The case in the NDTX was transferred to the SDNY and formally
consolidated with the actions pending there on June 25, 2010.  In
the SDNY, Novartis AG's motion to dismiss all cases pending there
based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens (FNC) was granted on
May 24, 2010, and the case was formally dismissed on July 2, 2010.

On July 14, 2010, plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Second
Circuit.  On January 5, 2011, plaintiffs moved to dismiss this
appeal.  On January 6, 2011, the Second Circuit granted
plaintiffs' motion and dismissed this appeal.  The actions pending
in Texas state courts were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings
in a Multi District Litigation on April 16, 2010.  Novartis AG's
motion to dismiss the consolidated Texas state court actions based
on FNC was filed on June 30, 2010.  On November 17, 2010, Novartis
AG's motion was granted and all Texas state court class actions
were dismissed.  On December 17, 2010, plaintiffs appealed this
decision to the Texas Fifth District Court of Appeals.  On March
21, 2011, upon a motion made by plaintiffs, the Texas Fifth
District Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.  The dismissals of
both the federal and Texas state class actions based on FNC are
final after plaintiffs dismissed their appeals.  The case,
therefore, is concluded.


REALOGY CORP: In Discussions to Settle "Cooper" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Corporation is currently engaged in mediated settlement
discussions to avoid further expense in the litigation against
Cendant Corporation, according to the Company's January 25, 2012,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Realogy Corp. was incorporated on January 27, 2006, to facilitate
a plan by Cendant to separate Cendant into four independent
companies -- real estate services (Realogy), travel distribution
services (Travelport), hospitality services (Wyndham Worldwide)
and vehicle rental businesses (Avis Budget Group).

In 2002, Frank K. Cooper Real Estate #1, Inc. filed a putative
class action against Cendant Corporation ("Cendant") and Cendant's
subsidiary, Century 21 Real Estate Corporation ("Century 21").
The complaint alleges breach of certain provisions of the Real
Estate Franchise Agreement entered into between Century 21 and the
plaintiffs, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and breach
of certain express and implied fiduciary duties.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that Cendant diverted money and
resources from Century 21 franchisees and allotted them to NRT
owned brokerages and otherwise improperly charged expenses to
advertising funds.  The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, if
applicable, provides for treble damages, attorney's fees and costs
as remedies for violation of the Act.  On August 17, 2010, the
court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion to certify a class.  The
certified class includes Century 21 franchisees at any time
between August 1, 1995, and April 17, 2002, whose franchise
agreements contain New Jersey choice of law and venue provisions
and who have not executed releases releasing the claim (unless the
release was a provision of a franchise renewal agreement).  A case
management order entered on November 29, 2010, established, among
other things, a trial date of April 16, 2012.  All expert reports
have been produced and expert depositions have commenced.

Realogy currently is engaged in significant mediated settlement
discussions to avoid further litigation expense.  The structure of
the proposal under discussion involves both monetary and non-
monetary consideration and would involve contributions from
insurance carriers.  Realogy has reserved funding that would be
required beyond carrier contributions and that amount is reflected
in preliminary full year 2011 financial results set forth in the
Form 10-K filing.  If a memorandum of understanding is reached in
recent discussions, the Company expects the court to stay further
proceedings during the approval process.  There can be no
assurance, however, that these settlement discussions will reach a
successful conclusion or that such a settlement, if reached, would
receive all necessary approvals.

This class action involves substantial, complex litigation.  Class
action litigation is inherently unpredictable and subject to
significant uncertainties.  The resolution of this litigation
could result in substantial losses and there can be no assurance
that such resolution will not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's results of operations, financial condition or
liquidity.


STATE OF OREGON: Faces Class Action Over "Sheltered Workshops"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Oregon is unnecessarily, and illegally, segregating "thousands" of
people with developmental disabilities in "sheltered workshops,"
and denying them "virtually all contact with nondisabled persons,"
in the state's employment service system.

Lead plaintiff Paula Lane claims: "Thousands of other similarly
situated individuals in the State of Oregon also are unnecessarily
segregated because of DHS's [the Department of Human Services]
over-reliance on sheltered workshops, and its failure to timely
develop and adequately fund integrated employment services,
including supported employment programs.

"A sheltered workshop is a segregated employment setting that
employs people with disabilities or where people with disabilities
work separately from others.  Sheltered workshops are usually
located in a large, institutional facility.  Workers with
disabilities in these settings have virtually no contact with
their non-disabled peers, other than agency staff, and are
typically paid sub-minimum wage.

"By contrast, integrated employment is a real job in a community-
based business setting, where employees have an opportunity to
work alongside non-disabled co-workers and earn at least minimum
wage.  Supported employment services are vocational training
services that prepare and allow people with intellectual and
developmental disabilities to participate in integrated
employment.

"The named plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent are
harmed by their placement in segregated sheltered workshops.
Without meaningful supported employment services, the named
plaintiffs and the plaintiff class are stuck in long-term, dead-
end, facility based sheltered workshops that offer virtually no
interaction with non-disabled peers, that do not provide any real
pathway to integrated employment, and that provide compensation
that is well below minimum wage.

"The needless segregation of the named plaintiffs and the
plaintiff class is a violation of their rights under federal law.
The defendants are violating the Americans with Disabilities Act,
42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq. (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, 29
U.S.C. Sec. 794 (Sec. 504), by unnecessarily segregating the named
plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff class in sheltered
workshops.

"Through this action, the named plaintiffs and the plaintiff class
seek injunctive and declaratory relief for the defendants' ongoing
violation of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.  They seek an
order from this Court directing the defendants to end their
needless segregation in sheltered workshops and to provide them
with supported employment services so they can participate in
competitive employment in integrated settings."

The eight named individuals are joined as plaintiffs by the United
Cerebral Palsy Association of Oregon and Southwest Washington.
Their lead counsel is Kathleen Wilde with Disability Rights
Oregon.

A copy of the Complaint in Lane, et al. v. Kitzhaber, et al., Case
No. 12-cv-00138 (D. Or.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/26/Oregon.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kathleen L. Wilde, Esq.
          James A. Wrigley, Esq.
          Theodore E. Wenk, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON
          620 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 243-2081
          E-mail: kwilde@disabilityrightsoregon.org
                  jwrigley@disabilityrightsoregon.org
                  ted@disabilityrightsoregon.org

               - and -

          Bruce A. Rubin, Esq.
          Justin C. Sawyer, Esq.
          Jennifer J. Roof, Esq.
          MILLER NASH LLP
          111 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 3400
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 224-5858
          E-mail: bruce.rubin@millernash.com
                  justin.sawyer@millernash.com
                  jennifer.roof@millernash.com

               - and -


          Stephen F. English, Esq.
          Lawrence H. Reichman, Esq.
          Nathan R. Christensen, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
          Portland, OR 97209
          Telephone: (503) 727-2000
          E-mail: senglish@perkinscoie.com
                  lreichman@perkinscoie.com
                  nchristensen@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Steven J. Schwartz, Esq.
          Cathy E. Costanzo, Esq.
          Bettina Toner, Esq.
          CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION
          22 Green Street
          Northampton, MA 01060
          Telephone: (413)586-6024
          E-mail: sschwartz@cpr-ma.org
                  ccostanzo@cpr-ma.org
                  btoner@cpr-ma.org

  
TIME WARNER: Sued for Failing to Deliver Promised Cable Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Time
Warner Cable stopped delivering Knicks, Rangers, Islanders and
N.J. Devils games on its MSG and MSG+ networks in December, in
Bergen County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Hoffman v. Time Warner Cable Inc., Case
No. BER-L-665-12 (N.J. Super. Ct., Bergen Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/26/Cable.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip C. Chronakis, Esq.
          CHRONAKIS SIACHOS, LLC
          50 Harrison Street, Suite 315
          Hoboken, NJ 07030
          Telephone: (201) 792-7777
          E-mail: phil@cslawllc.com

               - and -

          Harold M. Hoffman, Esq.
          240 Grand Avenue
          Englewood, NJ 07631
          Telephone: (201) 569-0086
          E-mail: hoffman.esq@verizon.net


TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE: Judge Narrows Scope of Toll Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge narrowed the scope of a class action against the Triborough
Bridge and Tunnel Authority for selective discounts on New York
City tolls for E-ZPass drivers.

The class was previously so broad that it included dead people,
the judge found.

Four plaintiffs, led by Riva Janes, claimed the policy
unconstitutionally withheld discounts from certain drivers, in
violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

They moved for class certification on Sept. 2, 2010, to include
New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania residents who
paid regular rates while crossing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge,
the Cross Bay Veterans Memorial Bridge or the Marine Parkway Gil
Hodges Memorial Bridge.

U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones granted certification on Oct. 5,
2011.

Days later, the case was reassigned to her colleague, Judge Paul
Engelmayer, who agreed to revisit the ruling.

In an 11-page order, Mr. Engelmayer said the terms of the previous
class certification were so broad they included dead and
unlicensed drivers.

"(D)efendants argue, persons who are deceased, or who no longer
have driver's licenses, lack a personal stake in forward-looking
relief," the order summarized.  "The Court agrees."

The previous class also included drivers who had not crossed the
bridges in question for years.

"(D)efendants argue, persons who have not driven over any one of
the three bridges during the two years prior to the Court's
October 5, 2011 certification order lack standing to seek
injunctive or declarative relief.  The Court agrees," the order
states.  "Although an out-of-state resident who crossed one of the
bridges years ago conceivably may do so again, where the resident
has not done so in the past two years, it is not persuasive to
classify such a person among those 'realistically threatened' with
injury from the differential toll policy."

Mr. Engelmayer revised the definition to encompass "all users of
E-ZPass who, while residing in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
or Connecticut, and who, since January 17, 2000, paid tolls at the
Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, the Cross Bay Veterans Memorial Bridge,
or the Marine Parkway Gil Hodges Memorial Bridge without the
benefit of the resident discount that has been made available by
defendants for residents of specific locations in New York State.
Excluded from the class are: (1) current residents of Staten
Island, the Rockaway Peninsula, and Broad Channel; (2) persons who
no longer have a driver's license or who are no longer living; and
(3) persons who have not crossed any of the bridges at issue
within the two years preceding October 5, 2011.  Also excluded
from the class are defendants and any and all of their respective
affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees,
or assignees."

A copy of the Opinion & Order in Janes, et al. v. Triborough
Bridge and Tunnel Authority, Case No. 06-cv-01427 (S.D.N.Y.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/26/EZPass.pdf


UNITED RENTALS: Faces RSC Acquisition-Related Suit in Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------------
United Rentals, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit in Arizona
arising from its proposed acquisition of RSC Holdings, Inc.,
according to the Company's January 25, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On December 15, 2011, the Company entered into a definitive merger
agreement with RSC Holdings, Inc. ("RSC"), pursuant to which the
Company has agreed to acquire RSC in a cash-and-stock transaction
that ascribes a total enterprise value of $4.2 billion to RSC.
RSC is one of the largest providers of rental equipment in North
America, focusing on industrial, maintenance and non-residential
construction markets, with approximately $2.7 billion of equipment
at original cost as of September 30, 2011.

On December 28, 2011, a complaint was filed in Arizona Superior
Court, entitled Israni v. RSC Holdings Inc., CV2011-020579, on
behalf of a putative class of RSC's stockholders against RSC, each
member of the RSC board, certain of RSC's officers, and the
Company challenging the Company's proposed merger with RSC.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors and
officers of RSC breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly
agreeing to sell RSC at an unfair and inadequate price and by
allegedly failing to take steps to maximize the sale price of RSC.
The complaint also alleges that RSC and the Company aided and
abetted in RSC's directors' and officers' breach of their
fiduciary duties.  The complaint seeks injunctive relief and other
equitable relief as well as money damages.  The Company believes
that this lawsuit lacks merit and intends to vigorously defend
against these claims.

                           *********

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  * * *