CAR_Public/120207.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, February 7, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 26

                             Headlines

APPLE: Plaintiffs May Appeal Equitable Estoppel Ruling
CARNIVAL CORP: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Costa Concordia Accident
DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: Inflates Graduates' Mean Salaries, Suit Says
FACEBOOK: Attorneys Argue Over Likeness Class Action Transfer
FIT INTERNATIONAL: Investors to File RICO Class Action

FULL TILT: Judge Dismisses RICO Class Action
GLG LIFE: Murray Frank Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
HARPER'S BAZAAR: Former Intern Files Wage Class Action
HECLA MINING: Faces Securities Class Action in Idaho
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Recalls 1.17-Mil. Fax Machines Due to Fire Risk

HONDA: Woman Wins Small Claims Action Over Hybrid Car Mileage
ILLINOIS INSTITUTE: Faces Suit Over Chicago-Kent Marketing Fraud
JOHN MARSHALL: Manipulates Employment Statistics, Suit Claims
K12 INC: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action in Virginia
KONICA MINOLTA: Recalls 8,430 Printers Due to Fire Hazard

LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Court Declines Request for Class Action Stay
LTD COMMODITIES: Recalls 2,650 Sleeper Ottomans Due to Fall Risk
MCKESSON CORP: Final Hearing on Kansas AWP Suit Deal on April 17
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $200MM
PEP BOYS: Being Sold to Gores Group for Too Little, Suit Claims

ROYAL BANK: Faces Class Action Over GBP12-Billion Rights Issue
TEMPUR-PEDIC: Jacob's Petition for En Banc Review Still Pending
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Order Dismissed
TUESDAY MORNING: Bid to Certify Class in Alabama Suit Pending
UNITED STATES: Schwab Sues FINRA Over Class Action Waiver

VIVENDI: Investor Class Action Dismissed
WAL-MART STORES: Women Employees File Discrimination Suit
WARNOCK DODGE: Class Action Settlement Obtains Final Approval
WEST ELM: Recalls 5,750 Overarching Floor Lamps Due to Shock Risk

* Robin Ellison Launches Class Action Tort Recovery Association


                          *********

APPLE: Plaintiffs May Appeal Equitable Estoppel Ruling
------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a class that
claimed Apple and AT&T illegally restricted choice of carriers can
appeal Apple's defense strategy as the case proceeds to
arbitration, a federal judge ruled.

Lead plaintiffs Paul Holman and Lucy Rivello filed a federal
complaint against Apple and AT&T Mobility in October 2007,
claiming the companies illegally controlled consumer choices by
limiting iPhone users to AT&T plans.  A San Jose federal judge
certified their class action last year.

Pointing to an arbitration clause in AT&T contracts, however, the
companies rejected the court's jurisdiction.

When the U.S. Supreme Court reached that very conclusion in a
similar case involving AT&T's arbitration contracts, Concepcion v.
AT&T Corp, Judge James Ware disbanded Holman-Rivello class.

"The Supreme Court has specifically considered the very
arbitration agreement at issue in this case, and has determined
that it is enforceable, on the grounds that the agreement
'essentially guarantee[d]' that 'aggrieved customers who filed
claims' would 'be made whole,'" Judge Ware wrote in December.

Though Apple's own contracts with customers pushed for a "court"
decision of claims, Judge Ware said arbitration could resolve its
alleged liability as well since AT&T had the relevant contract.

But in a new decision on Feb. 1, Judge Ware said the plaintiffs
can appeal Apple's invocation of the doctrine of equitable
estoppel.  The appeal claims Apple is not eligible to make this
claim since it never signed AT&T's contract with the arbitration
provision.

In granting leave for the appeal, Judge Ware cited Mundi v. Union
Security Life Insurance Co., which is the controlling 9th Circuit
case that addresses how a nonsignatory to an agreement can compel
a signatory to arbitrate claims.

In that case, the court saw "no basis for extending the concept of
equitable estoppel of third parties in an arbitration context
beyond the very narrow confines [already] delineated."

But Judge Ware said there is room for debate, "given the fact that
the court's December 1 order was premised on an interpretation of
Mundi which requires the court to undertake an extensive analysis
of both that opinion itself and the Second Circuit caselaw to
which the Mundi court looked for guidance, and given the language
in Mundi which indicates that the Ninth Circuit did not mean to
extend the 'concept of equitable estoppel of third parties' beyond
the 'very narrow confines' delineated in previous cases."

This difference of opinion warrants certification of the issue for
immediate appeal.  The plaintiffs' other arguments did not fare as
well, however.

Among them, the plaintiffs argued that AT&T had abandoned its
right to demand arbitration because the company failed to appeal a
previous order, and it was not equitable for the court to allow
Apple to demand arbitration.

A copy of the Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion
for Reconsideration or to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal;
Certifying for Interlocutory Appeal Re. The Assertion of Equitable
Estoppel by a Non-Signatory Defendant by a Non-Signatory Defendant
Against a Signatory Plaintiff; Staying Case in In re Apple & AT&TM
Antitrust Litigation in Case No. 07-cv-05152 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/02/apple.pdf


CARNIVAL CORP: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Costa Concordia Accident
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit in Illinois
over the Costa Concordia accident, the Company disclosed in its
January 30, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended November 30, 2011.

On January 13, 2012, Costa Concordia grounded off the coast of
Isola del Giglio, Italy, and sustained significant damage.  There
were 16 casualties, a number of injuries and 16 people remain
missing, as of January 26, 2012.  The ship remains grounded and
partially submerged off the coast.  The cause of the accident is
currently under investigation by the Italian authorities.  As a
result of this accident, litigation claims, enforcement actions
and regulatory actions and investigations, including but not
limited to those arising from personal injury, loss of life, loss
of or damage to personal property, business interruption losses or
environmental damage to any affected coastal waters and the
surrounding area, may be asserted or brought against various
parties, including the Company.

The Company's Europe, Australia & Asia segment cruise brands
include AIDA Cruises, Costa Cruises, Cunard, Ibero Cruises, P&O
Cruises (Australia) and P&O Cruises (UK).

On January 26, 2012, a purported class action was filed by Gary
Lobaton in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Eastern Division) naming as defendants Costa
Crociere, S.p.A., Carnival Corporation and Carnival plc (Gary
Lobaton v Carnival Corporation, Carnival plc and Costa Crociere
S.p.A. et. al., No. 12-cv-00598).  The plaintiff purports to
represent an alleged class of the passengers and crew of Costa
Concordia who were onboard the ship on January 13, 2012.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Athens
Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their
Luggage by Sea, breached contracts with employees and passengers
and acted negligently.  The plaintiff also alleges unjust
enrichment.  The complaint seeks unspecified monetary and punitive
damages, interests and costs, among other things.


DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: Inflates Graduates' Mean Salaries, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Phillips, Brian Loker, Adam Smestad, Xavier Hailey, Brent
Davidson, Shellye Taylor, Allison Leary, and Ammanual Luba, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. DePaul
University, a/k/a as DePaul University College of Law, and Does 1-
20, Case No. 2012-CH-03523 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., February 1,
2012) alleges that De Paul, in its print and Internet marketing
materials, makes two misrepresentations: (i) De Paul reported that
roughly between 88 and 98 percent of its graduates secured
employment within nine months of graduation, and (ii) De Paul
grossly inflates its graduates' reported mean salaries, by
calculating them based on a small, deliberately selected subset of
graduates, who actually submit their salary information.

The Plaintiffs allege that there is no place where prospective
students can find De Paul's "real" employment numbers.  They
contend that the school supplies the same dubious statistics to
the U.S. News & World Report and the American Bar Association, the
two primary sources of information for law school employment data.

Messrs. Phillips, Luba and Hailey graduated from De Paul in 2010.
Ms. Taylor graduated from De Paul in 2010.  Messrs. Loker, Smestad
and Davidson graduated from De Paul in 2009, while Ms. Leary
graduated in 2011.  The Plaintiffs allege that they paid tens of
thousands of dollars in tuition and fees to the school while
incurring tens of thousands of dollars more in debt.  They argue
that in applying and deciding to remain enrolled at De Paul, they
relied on salary data and employment information posted on De
Paul's Web site, marketing material and disseminated to third-
party data clearinghouses and publications, such as the ABA and US
News.

De Paul is an ABA-accredited law school and an Illinois not-for-
profit corporation with its principal place of business in
Chicago, Illinois, and is part of De Paul University.  The true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown
to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward X. Clinton, Sr., Esq.
          Edward X. Clinton, Jr., Esq.
          THE CLINTON LAW FIRM
          111 West Washington St., Suite 1437
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 357-1515
          E-mail: eclinton@mac.com
                  eclinton@aol.com

               - and -

          David Anziska, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID ANZISKA
          305 Broadway, 9th Fl.
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 822-1496
          Facsimile: (212) 822-1437
          E-mail: david@anziskalaw.com

               - and -

          Jesse Strauss, Esq.
          STRAUSS LAW, PLLC
          305 Broadway, 9th Fl.
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 822-1496
          Facsimile: (212) 822-1437
          E-mail: jesse@strausslawpllc.com


FACEBOOK: Attorneys Argue Over Likeness Class Action Transfer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Maher, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports that
while Facebook hopes to raise as much as $10 billion when it
begins selling shares, attorneys pursuing a class action against
the social network seek to assess billions of dollars in fines.

St. Louis attorney Stephen Tillery sued Facebook last year in the
Southern District of Illinois for parents of two teenagers,
claiming Facebook misappropriated their names and likenesses for
commercial purposes without consent.

The class action suit alleges Facebook improperly advertised what
the teens liked.  Plaintiffs argue that state law prohibits
children from giving Facebook permission to use their names and
pictures in advertisements as Facebook does in its social ads and
sponsored stories.

Facebook is trying to get the case filed here transferred to the
Northern District of California.

Korein Tillery attorney Aaron Zigler, in opposition to Facebook's
motion to transfer, argues that his clients would be
inconvenienced by traveling to California to pursue a class action
against Facebook.

Mr. Zigler wrote that costs of litigation would "needlessly
increase" if the case were transferred.

"Transfer of this action to California would significantly
inconvenience the guardians and effectively prevent them from
adequately supervising the litigation: California counsel would be
required; the guardians would be unable to attend pre-trial
hearings and would be burdened to attend any trial," Mr. Zigler
wrote last month in opposition to Facebook's motion to transfer.

"The cost for the hotels, food, transportation, and local counsel
fees that would be required to litigate this matter in San
Francisco far exceeds the expense of comparable services in St.
Louis."

Mr. Zigler also argued that the interests of justice do not favor
transfer.

"The most recent Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics show the
docket conditions of the Northern District of California to be no
better -- in fact slightly worse -- than this Court," Mr. Zigler
wrote.  "The median time to trial in the Northern District of
California is 25.3 months; here it is 23.0."

Mr. Zigler argues that under California law, "minors are
statutorily forbidden from entering into a contract that purports
to 'give a delegation of power' or that relates to 'any personal
property not in the immediate possession or control of the
minor'."

". . . Facebook devotes significant attention to the argument that
Plaintiffs are bound by the forum-selection clause found in its
Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (SRR)," Mr. Zigler wrote.
"But Facebook's argument deserves little in the way of a response
as it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of
the purported contract."

Facebook attorney Matthew D. Brown of San Francisco fired back at
Mr. Zigler's argument saying that plaintiffs cannot disaffirm the
SRR for two reasons:

"1) Their use of Facebook since filing this lawsuit is
irreconcilable with the 'unequivocal intent to repudiate' the SRR
that would be required to disaffirm it; and 2) Their longstanding
receipt of the SRR's benefits, before and after the lawsuit,
precludes disaffirmance."'

Mr. Brown wrote in December that one of the plaintiffs logged into
Facebook 185 times since the parents sued, and the other logged in
94 times.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen Tillery, Esq.
          Aaron Zigler, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY
          One U.S. Bank Plaza
          505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101-1625
          Telephone: (314) 241-4844
          E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com
                  azigler@koreintillery.com


FIT INTERNATIONAL: Investors to File RICO Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that investors in
an alleged $100 million Ponzi scheme will try again to serve a
Columbian couple with a federal RICO class action that accuses
them of running off with money from 600 victims.

Plaintiffs Manuel Bolivar, Andres Rubio and Janneth Quintero filed
a nearly identical class action in March 2010, which a federal
judge dismissed last August for failure to prosecute.

Neither of the defendants -- Jairo Enrique Sanchez and Dilia
Margarita Baez -- answered the original complaint, U.S. District
Judge Paul Gardephe wrote in his order of dismissal.

The investors claim that when the Ponzi scheme was discovered, the
defendants claimed to be distributing their remaining $12,690.74
"for the 'benefit' of creditors."

According to both lawsuits, the couple's last known address was an
apartment in Bogota, and they used the name Forex International
Team for their scam.

The FIT International Group was the main tool for their
predations, though "No such company has ever been incorporated, as
a corporation or limited liability company, in New York," the
investors say.

Foreign exchange markets trade roughly $3 trillion a day, making
it one of the largest markets in the world, according to the
complaint.  It's fertile ground for Ponzi schemes.

"Because there are no daily limits on trading or the hours for
trades, except weekends, there is nearly always an opportunity to
react to moves in the main currency markets and a low risk of
being caught in an investment without an opportunity to exit," the
complaint states.

Mr. Sanchez and Ms. Baez solicited clients through "social
connections," particularly a dentist in Columbia named Mauricio
Vasquez Uribe, the complaint states.  Mr. Uribe is not a party to
this action.

Though they took more than $100 million from investors over "the
course of several years," Mr. Sanchez and Ms. Baez "never invested
the money in Forex trading as they had promised, but merely
siphoned it away to secret private accounts at HSBC, UBS, and
others," the complaint states.

As the scheme unraveled in December 2008, the dentist Uribe pulled
out, warned investors to withdraw their money, and redeemed the
$2.2 million he added to the enterprise, the complaint states.

Then in March 2009, Mr. Sanchez and Ms. Baez manufactured
"catastrophic losses of purportedly as much as 70 percent to 80
percent to investor accounts," though they never had invested the
money to begin with, the class claims.  Then they fraudulently
filed for bankruptcy in Florida, and deflected "every single
question" from creditors by pleading their Fifth Amendment right,
according to the complaint.

The class seeks damages for fraud, racketeering and other charges.

It is represented by:

          Gaytri Kachroo, Esq.
          KACHROO LEGAL SERVICES, P.C.
          Boston Office
          219 Concord Avenue
          Cambridge, MA 02138
          Telephone: (617) 864-0755

A copy of the Order of Dismissal in Bolivar, et al. v. FIT
International Group Corp., et al., Case No. 10-cv-02128
(S.D.N.Y.), is available at http://is.gd/21Fu4r


FULL TILT: Judge Dismisses RICO Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Jenni Shuttleworth, writing for Intergame, reports that a New York
federal judge has dismissed a first class action law suit brought
against Full Tilt.

US District Judge Leonard B. Sand on Jan. 30 dismissed a civil
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) suit
alleging that Full Tilt Poker and 10 individual defendants
conspired to defraud company account holders of US$150 million by
freezing their accounts.

Website Law360 broke the news on Jan. 31 that the judge had argued
it was unclear at this point whether a conspiracy by the
defendants or the federal government's actions were the reason why
players resulted in being unable to access their funds.

The suit, which targets nine companies, 16 individuals and a
number of defendants over the alleged scheme, stems from the
federal government's probe into and subsequent criminal and civil
suits over the gambling site's activities.  The government's case
focused on allegations of bank and wire fraud and money laundering
at Full Tilt, PokerStars and Absolute Poker.

As a result of the investigation on April 15, prosecutors seized
the assets of the three sites, barring players from accessing
their accounts.  The RICO suit was filed to seeking to recover
those funds.


GLG LIFE: Murray Frank Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Murray Frank LLP has filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case
No. 12 Civ. 0672) on behalf of all individuals and institutions
who purchased securities of GLG Life Tech Corporation during the
period between February 1, 2011 and November 13, 2011, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made false and misleading statements about or knew but
failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's original equipment
manufacturers were experiencing production issues that impacted
the packaging and appearance quality of its products; (2)
consumers were responding poorly to the Company's AN0C and stevia
products; and/or (3) the Company would not meet its earnings
projections.

On October 6, 2011, GLG Life Tech issued a press release
disclosing for the first time a negative outlook concerning its
AN0C and stevia products.  On the news, the Company's stock price
dropped by 42% from a close of $3.45 per share on October 5, 2011
to a close of $1.99 per share on October 6, 2011.

Subsequently, on November 14, 2011, the Company announced
financial results for the period ending September 30, 2011.
Revenue for the period was $1.7 million, versus revenue of $20.9
million for the same period in the previous year.  EBITDA for the
period was negative $8.8 million, versus EBITDA of $6.1 million
for the same period in the previous year.  Following its
announcement of these disappointing results, the Company's
management declined to provide any further formal guidance on
revenues, EBITDA, or capital expenditures.  On the news, the
Company's stock price continued to drop, from a close of $2.32 per
share on November 11, 2011 (the last trading day before the
announcement) to a close of $2.01 on November 14, 2011.

If you purchased GLG Life Tech securities during the period
between February 1, 2011 and November 13, 2011, you may move the
Court, not later than February 13, 2012, to serve as Lead
Plaintiff for the Class.  A Lead Plaintiff is a representative
chosen by the Court who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  You do not need to be a Lead Plaintiff
to be included in the class.  If you purchased GLG Life Tech
common securities and wish to discuss this litigation, or have any
questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact:

          Bridget Hamill, Esq.
          Murray Frank LLP
          Telephone: (800) 497-8076
                     (212) 682-1818
          E-mail at bhamill@murrayfrank.com
          Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com


HARPER'S BAZAAR: Former Intern Files Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Dhani Mau, writing for Fashionista, reports that in news that is
really only surprising because it's never happened before, a major
fashion magazine is getting sued by one of its former interns.

According to the New York Times, Xuedan Wang interned at Harper's
Bazaar from August 2010 through December 2011 for 40 to 55 hours
per week and on Feb. 1 filed a lawsuit against Hearst (the fashion
glossy's publisher) accusing them of violating state and federal
wage and hour laws by not paying her when she was doing the work
of a paid employee.

From the Times:

The lawsuit against Hearst states, "Employers' failure to
compensate interns for their work, and the prevalence of the
practice nationwide, curtails opportunities for employment,
fosters class divisions between those who can afford to work for
no wage and those who cannot, and indirectly contributes to rising
unemployment."


HECLA MINING: Faces Securities Class Action in Idaho
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim in a
federal class action that Hecla Mining Co. failed to disclose
safety problems at its Lucky Friday mine, where repeated accidents
in 2011 killed 2 miners and injured 7, with the share price
sinking from $11.34 on Dec. 29, 2010, to $4.61 this year.

A copy of the Complaint in Bricklayers of Western Pennsylvania
Pension Plan v. Hecla Mining Company, et al., Case No. 12-cv-00042
(D. Idaho), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/02/Hecla.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Gordon, Esq.
          Bruce S. Bistline, Esq.
          GORDON LAW OFFICES
          623 West Hays Street
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: (208) 345-7100
          E-mail: pgordon@gordonlawoffice.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


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Recalls 1.17-Mil. Fax Machines Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Hewlett-Packard Co., of Palo Alto, California, announced a
voluntary recall of about 928,000 HP fax 1040 and 1050 machines in
the U.S. and 240,000 in Canada and Mexico.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The fax machines can overheat due to an internal electrical
component failure, posing fire and burn hazards.

Hewlett-Packard is aware of seven reports of fax machines
overheating and catching fire, resulting in property damage,
including one instance of significant property damage and one
instance of a minor burn injury to a consumer's finger.  Six
incidents were reported in the U.S. and one in Canada.

This recall involves HP Fax 1040 and 1050 models.  The HP logo and
the model number are printed on the front of the fax machine.  The
fax machines are dark gray and measure about 11 inches high x 14
1/2 inches wide.  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12101.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
electronics, computer and camera stores nationwide, and online at
http://www.shopping.hp.com/and other Web site from November 2004
through December 2011 for between $90 and $120.  Some of the
recalled fax machines were replacement units for a previous recall
involving HP fax model 1010 in June 2008.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled fax machines,
disconnect them from the electrical outlet and contact HP for a
rebate on the purchase of an authorized replacement HP fax machine
or a partial rebate of certain HP ink jet printers.  For
additional information, contact HP toll-free at (888) 654-9296
between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Mountain Time Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.hp.com/go/faxrecall/US-en/


HONDA: Woman Wins Small Claims Action Over Hybrid Car Mileage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Deutsch, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
Southern California woman who challenged the legal status-quo by
filing a small-claims action against Honda won her lawsuit on
Feb. 1 when a judge ruled that the automaker misled her about the
potential fuel economy of her hybrid car.

Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Douglas Carnahan awarded
Heather Peters $9,867 -- much more than the couple hundred dollars
cash that a proposed class-action settlement is offering.
"At a bare minimum Honda was aware . . . that by the time
Ms. Peters bought her car there were problems with its living up
to its advertised mileage," Mr. Carnahan wrote in the judgment.

Honda disagrees with the judgment rendered in the case and plans
to appeal the decision, company spokesman Chris Martin said in a
statement.

Ms. Peters, a former lawyer, said she is renewing her legal
license after a 10-year lapse so she can represent other Honda
owners who have the same problems she did.

"Wow! Fantastic.  I am absolutely thrilled," she said when The
Associated Press informed her of the judge's decision.  "Sometimes
big justice comes in small packages.  This is a victory for Honda
Civic owners everywhere."

Mr. Carnahan included in his 26-page decision a long list of
misleading representations by Honda that he said Ms. Peters had
correctly identified.  Among them were that the car would use
"amazingly little fuel," "provides plenty of horsepower while
still sipping fuel," and that it would "save plenty of money on
fuel with up to 50 mpg during city driving."

"Actual performance of plaintiff's vehicle did not live up to
these standards," he said.  He noted that when she began receiving
much less than the advertised mileage, "she knew she had a
problem."

Ms. Peters opted out of the class-action lawsuit so she could try
to claim a larger damage award for her 2006 Honda Civic's failure
to deliver the 50 mpg that was promised.

The proposed class-action settlement would give aggrieved owners
$100 to $200 each and a $1,000 credit toward the purchase of a new
car.  Legal fees in the class action would give trial lawyers $8.5
million, Ms. Peters said.

In small claims court, there are no attorneys' fees, cases are
decided quickly, and individual payments are far greater.

Ms. Peters had hoped to inspire a flood of small-claims lawsuits
by the other 200,000 people whose Honda Civic hybrids are covered
by the proposed settlement.  If all 200,000 owners sued and won in
small claims court, she said, it could cost Honda Motor Co. $2
billion.

Ms. Peters launched a Web site, DontSettleWithHonda.org, and said
she was contacted by hundreds of other car owners seeking guidance
on filing small claims lawsuits if they opted out of the class-
action case.  But legal experts say it's unlikely that many owners
would take the small-claims route because of the time and energy
involved in pursuing such lawsuits.

Mr. Carnahan held two hearings on Ms. Peters' claim in January.
The commissioner noted that Honda had argued the way a car is
driven might affect its gas mileage.  He said that should have
been explained in advertising and elsewhere.

A Honda technical expert testified that the company was required
to post a sticker with the Environmental Protection Agency's
estimate of the highest mileage the car could get.  But
Mr. Carnahan said in his ruling that "this does not seem to be the
case."

"Honda's own testing should be the guideline for how it advertises
its vehicles' mileages, not the generalized work . . . done by the
EPA," he said.  "Can a Honda hybrid driven in careful and tested
ways achieve 50 mpg? No doubt. Did it happen with Peters' car?
No."

The ruling harshly criticized Honda on several points, including
misrepresentations about a software update that was represented as
a cure for the mileage problems.  Ms. Peters said it just made the
situation worse and she could no longer get more than 30 mpg in
the car, which she still owns.

Mr. Carnahan found that Honda did commit fraud, but he could not
find intentional fraud and thus did not award punitive damages.
Most of the damages Ms. Peters was awarded were for extra money
spent on fuel, both in the past and future, the cost of the car
battery, and the decrease in the car's value because of its
problems.

A judge in San Diego County is due to rule in March on whether to
approve Honda's class-action settlement.  Members of the class
have until Feb. 11 to accept or decline the deal.

Small claims courts generally handle private disputes that do not
involve large amounts of money.  In many states, that means small
debts, quarrels between tenants and landlords and contract
disagreements.

The limit for small claims damages in California is $10,000.  In
other states it ranges from $2,500 to $15,000.


ILLINOIS INSTITUTE: Faces Suit Over Chicago-Kent Marketing Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachelle Evans, Alexi Silsbe, Ian Johnson, and Aeric Bauman, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Illinois
Institute of Technology, a not-for-profit corporation, a/k/a
Chicago-Kent College of Law, and Does 1-20, Case No. 2012-CH-03522
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., February 1, 2012) seeks to remedy an
alleged systemic, ongoing fraud that is ubiquitous in the legal
education industry and threatens to leave a generation of law
students in dire financial straits.

Essentially, the Plaintiffs want to bring an element of "sunlight"
or transparency to the way law schools report post-graduate
employment data and salary information, by requiring that they
make material disclosures that will give both prospective and
current students a more accurate picture of their post-graduate
financial situation, as opposed to the status quo where law
schools are incentivized to engage in all sorts of deception when
tabulating employment statistics.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Chicago-Kent consigns the majority of its graduates to years of
indentured servitude, saddling them with tens of thousands of
dollars in crushing, non-dischargeable debt that will take
literally decades to pay off.

Ms. Evans and Ms. Silsbe graduated from Chicago-Kent in 2011 and
are members of the Illinois bar.  Mr. Johnson graduated from
Chicago-Kent in 2009 and is a member of the Illinois bar.  Mr.
Bauman is a current student in Chicago-Kent, who is set to
graduate in May 2012.  The Plaintiff assert that they paid in
total tens of thousands of dollars in tuition and fees to the
school while incurring tens of thousands of dollars more in debt.
In applying and deciding to remain enrolled at Chicago-Kent, they
tell the Court that they relied on salary data and employment
information posted on Chicago-Kent's Web site, marketing material
and disseminated to third-party data clearinghouses and
publications, such as the American Bar Association and the U.S.
News & World Report.

Chicago-Kent is an ABA-accredited law school and an Illinois not-
for-profit corporation with its principal place of business in
Chicago, Illinois.  Chicago-Kent is part of the Illinois Institute
of Technology.  The identities of the Doe Defendants are currently
unknown to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward X. Clinton, Sr., Esq.
          Edward X. Clinton, Jr., Esq.
          THE CLINTON LAW FIRM
          111 West Washington St., Suite 1437
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 357-1515
          E-mail: eclinton@mac.com
                  eclinton@aol.com

               - and -

          David Anziska, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID ANZISKA
          305 Broadway, 9th Fl.
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 822-1496
          Facsimile: (212) 822-1437
          E-mail: david@anziskalaw.com

               - and -

          Jesse Strauss, Esq.
          STRAUSS LAW, PLLC
          305 Broadway, 9th Fl.
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 822-1496
          Facsimile: (212) 822-1437
          E-mail: jesse@strausslawpllc.com


JOHN MARSHALL: Manipulates Employment Statistics, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jorie Johnson, Erum Mohammed and Joseph Reyes, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. The John Marshall
Law School, and Does 1 - 20, Case No. 2012-CH-03494 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty., February 1, 2012) accuses John Marshall of
blatantly misrepresenting and manipulating its employment
statistics to prospective students.

The Plaintiffs allege that John Marshall's deceptions are
perpetuated so as to prevent prospective students from realizing
the obvious -- that attending John Marshall and forking
approximately $120,000 in tuition payments is a terrible
investment, which makes little economic sense and, most likely,
will never pay off.

Ms. Johnson graduated from John Marshall in 2008, while Ms.
Mohammed graduated in 2009.  Mr. Reyes graduated from John
Marshall in 2011.  The Plaintiffs disclose that they paid tens of
thousands of dollars in tuition and fees to the school while
incurring tens of thousands of dollars more in debt.  In applying
and deciding to remain enrolled at John Marshall, the Plaintiffs
assert that they relied on salary data and employment information
posted on the school's Web site, marketing material and
disseminated to third-party data clearinghouses and publications,
such as the American Bar Association and the U.S. News & World
Report.

John Marshall is an ABA-accredited law school.  John Marshall is
an Illinois not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of
business located in Chicago, Illinois.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward X. Clinton, Sr., Esq.
          Edward X. Clinton, Jr., Esq.
          THE CLINTON LAW FIRM
          111 West Washington St., Suite 1437
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 357-1515
          E-mail: eclinton@mac.com
                  eclinton@aol.com

               - and -

          David Anziska, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID ANZISKA
          305 Broadway, 9th Fl.
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 822-1496
          Facsimile: (212) 822-1437
          E-mail: david@anziskalaw.com

               - and -

          Jesse Strauss, Esq.
          STRAUSS LAW, PLLC
          305 Broadway, 9th Fl.
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 822-1496
          Facsimile: (212) 822-1437
          E-mail: jesse@strausslawpllc.com


K12 INC: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action in Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on
behalf of purchasers of shares of common stock of K12 Inc. during
a class period of September 9, 2009 to December 16, 2011.

The class action seeks to recover damages on behalf of plaintiff
and a class of all other individual and institutional investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired K12 common stock during the
class period.  The defendants in the case are K12, Ronald J.
Packard and Harry T. Hawks.  The complaint alleges that defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by concealing material information and making false and
misleading statements relating to K12's business and financial
condition.  On December 12, 2011, The New York Times released an
article titled "Profits and Questions at Online Charter Schools"
chronicling a myriad of improper practices at K12's main virtual
charter schools, including (i) high-pressure sales strategies
aimed strictly at enrolling students, irrespective of the
students' suitability for online education; (ii) administrative
pressure to pass enrolled students, regardless of academic
performance; and (iii) overall failure of K12 students to maintain
grade-level performance in math and reading.  As a result of this
news, the price of K12 stock dropped 34.4%, or $9.89 per share,
from a closing price of $28.79 on December 12, 2011, to a closing
price of $18.90 per share on December 16, 2011.

The complaint specifically alleges that defendants misstated
and/or failed to disclose that K12 had been engaging in abusive
and deceptive student recruiting and flawed academic assessment
practices, thereby increasing K12's student enrollment and
revenues.  The complaint further alleges that facts known by
defendants, but concealed from the investing public, include: (i)
K12 misstated and failed to disclose that it had engaged in
improper and deceptive recruiting and sales strategies, aimed
strictly at enrolling students regardless of the students' ability
to successfully complete the curriculum; (ii) K12 misstated and
failed to disclose the administrative pressure from upper
management levels to pass students despite poor (or nonexistent)
academic performance, so as to maintain high enrollment levels and
in turn continued government payments; and (iii) K12 failed to
maintain overall math and reading performance levels of its
students equal to statewide grade-level performance.

If you purchased K12 common stock between September 9, 2009 and
December 16, 2011, you may, no later than April 2, 2012, request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class.  A
lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.  You must meet
certain legal requirements to serve as a lead plaintiff.

For more information regarding the lawsuit, or to obtain a copy of
the complaint filed in the lawsuit, please contact plaintiff's
counsel:

          Charles A. Germershausen, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          501 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 905-0509
          E-mail: cgermershausen@gardylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.gardylaw.com


KONICA MINOLTA: Recalls 8,430 Printers Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
About 8,430 Konica Minolta Printers were voluntarily recalled by
Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A. Inc., of Ramsey, New
Jersey, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission.  Consumers should stop using the product immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The printers can short circuit and overheat during use, posing a
fire hazard.

The firm is aware of two reports of the printers overheating.  No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves four desktop models of laser color printers:
Magicolor 4750DN, Magicolor 3730DN, Bizhub C35 and Bizhub C35P.
Model numbers are located on the plate attached to the side of the
printer as well as the bottom of the front door.  The printers are
dark and light gray in color and have "Konica Minolta" printed on
the top of the front door.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12717.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
various value-added resellers, direct retail sales and authorized
Konica Minolta dealers from June 2010 through March 2011 for
between $900 and $3,500.

Consumers of Magicolor 3730DN and 4750DN should stop using the
printers immediately and contact Konica Minolta to schedule a free
replacement.  Consumers of Bizhub C35 and C35P will be visited by
an authorized service agent for repair and replacement of the
faulty component.  For additional information, contact Konica
Minolta toll-free at (800) 825-5664 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00
p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.kmbs.konicaminolta.us/


LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Court Declines Request for Class Action Stay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Gusman, writing for PropertyCasualty360.com, reports that the
U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to delay the execution of a
judgment against Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp. while
the last-resort insurer prepares an application for the high court
to hear the case.

The brief answer from the Supreme Court states, "The application
for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a
writ of certiorari in the above-entitled case has bee presented to
Justice Scalia, who on January 31, 2012, denied the application."

Citizens' request stems from a 2009 decision in a class-action
lawsuit that accuses the state-run insurer of failing to start the
claims-adjusting process within the time frame set by law
following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.

The Louisiana Supreme Court reinstated the $93 million judgment
against Citizens in December 2011, paving the way for about 18,575
Citizens policyholders to collect $5,000 each.

Late last month, Citizens asked the state Supreme Court to
reconsider its decision, but the court declined, prompting the
last-resort insurer to take the matter up with the U.S. Supreme
Court.

Citizens has raised constitutional issues with the decision,
including questions about the ability to impose a penalty without
any showing of bad faith or conduct on the part of the insurer.

Additionally, Louisiana Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon has
called the ruling a "potentially devastating event," as the
state's policyholders may foot the bill because Citizens has the
ability to levy assessments.

When the Louisiana Supreme Court refused to reconsider the
decision last month, plaintiffs sought to execute the judgment,
and had the court issue a writ of garnishment, according to
Richard Robertson, chief executive officer of Citizens.

This involves seizing funds from the insurer's bank accounts.
Mr. Robertson says the bank has 15 days to fill out the required
paperwork to comply with the writ of garnishment.

It is this action that Citizens sought to delay with its request
to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now that the high court has rejected Citizens' request for a stay,
Mr. Robertson says the process will continue forward, and if the
money is seized, it will go to the court, which will hear and
approve a plan for distributing the funds.

Mr. Robertson says there are not a lot of appeal avenues left for
Citizens other than the U.S. Supreme Court.  "I'm guessing that in
a couple of weeks, this will either be finished and money will be
paid, or there will be some kind of intervention and I'm not sure
what that will be," he says.

Wiley Beevers, who serves as class counsel representing the
policyholders, says, "It is gratifying to us that the Supreme
Court of the United States denied the stay.  We can now get on
with the process of getting this money to the policyholders. It is
unfortunate that Commissioner Donelon and the Citizens board spent
$150,000 and committed $500,000 to legal action that is likely to
fail and is only meant to further delay the payment to their
insureds."


LTD COMMODITIES: Recalls 2,650 Sleeper Ottomans Due to Fall Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 2,650 Fold-Out Sleeper Ottomans were voluntarily recalled by
importer, LTD Commodities LLC, of Bannockburn, Illinois, and
manufacturer, Perfect Generation World, of Xiamen Fujian, China,
in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The welding joints on the legs can break, posing a fall hazard to
consumers.

The firm has received four reports of ottoman legs that have
broken, including two reports of minor injuries.

This recall involves fold-out sleeper ottomans with a brown
slipcover.  The ottoman unfolds to three cushions on a black,
steel frame.  Velcro straps secure the cushions to the frame when
in the unfolded sleep position.  A tag with the manufacturer's
registration number "VA18265(CN)" is attached to one of the three
cushions.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12718.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold by LTD
Commodities, ABC Distributing and The Lakeside Collection both
online and through catalogs between June 2011 and October 2011 for
about $170.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact
the firm to obtain instructions on how to obtain a full refund.
LTD Commodities is directly notifying known purchasers about the
recall.  For more information, contact LTD Commodities LLC and ABC
Distributing toll free at (866) 736-3654, or The Lakeside
Collection toll-free at (866) 847-4327 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00
p.m. Central Time.  Consumers can also visit the Web site of the
retailers at: http://www.ltdcommodities.com/,
http://www.abcdistributing.com/or http://www.lakeside.com/


MCKESSON CORP: Final Hearing on Kansas AWP Suit Deal on April 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing for the final approval of a settlement of an average
wholesale price-related lawsuit captioned Board of County
Commissioners of Douglas County, Kansas et al. v. McKesson
Corporation will be held on April 17, 2012, according to the
Company's January 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2011.

In the previously reported coordinated public payer Average
Wholesale Price ("AWP") actions, collectively In re McKesson
Governmental Entities Average Wholesale Price Litigation, filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for
Massachusetts and relating to alleged misstatements and
manipulations of a benchmark for drug reimbursement known as AWP,
on November 8, 2011, the court granted preliminary approval of the
previously reported class action settlement in Board of County
Commissioners of Douglas County, Kansas et al. v. McKesson
Corporation, (No. 1:08-CV-11349-PBS) ("Douglas County, Kansas
Action"), and set April 17, 2012, as the hearing date for final
approval of the settlement.

As previously reported, the Company has engaged in ongoing
settlement discussions to resolve potential and pending federal
and state Medicaid program claims relating to AWP.  The Company
has now reached an agreement in principle with the Department of
Justice to resolve the federal share of Medicaid claims related to
AWP for payment by the Company of approximately $187 million.
This agreement is subject to execution of a written settlement
agreement acceptable to all parties.  The Company also has reached
an agreement in principle with a coalition of State Attorneys
General to resolve state Medicaid claims relating to AWP for
payment by the Company of up to approximately $173 million.  This
amount shall be reduced by the total amount allocated to any state
that declines to subscribe to the settlement.  This agreement is
subject to execution of written settlement agreements acceptable
to the Company and each participating state.  Although the Company
believes that there will be substantial participation by the
states, the final level of participation is not yet known.  The
Company will continue to defend vigorously any action pursued by a
non-settling state.  With certain adjustments, the Company has
fully reserved for the financial effect of these agreements in
principle.

On August 25, 2011, as previously reported, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the previously
reported action filed in Mississippi state court by the State of
Mississippi against the Company, State of Mississippi v. McKesson
Corporation, et al., (No. 251-10-862CIV).  The court has still not
ruled on the Company's motion.  On November 30, 2011, the court
entered a scheduling order setting November 26, 2012, as the trial
date.

On November 11, 2011, an action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California by the
State of Oregon against the Company as the sole defendant based on
essentially the same factual allegations as alleged in In re
McKesson Governmental Entities Average Wholesale Price Litigation,
asserting violations of the federal and Oregon Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Acts, and for unjust
enrichment, civil conspiracy, tortious interference with contract,
and fraud, seeking damages, treble damages, punitive damages, a
constructive trust, as well as interest, attorneys' fees and costs
of lawsuit, all in unspecified amounts, State of Oregon v.
McKesson Corporation, No. C11-05384-SI.  The Company filed an
answer to the complaint on January 9, 2012.

On November 29, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss in the previously reported action filed in Michigan state
court by the State of Michigan against the Company, First
DataBank, Inc., and the Hearst Corporation, Bill Schuette ex rel.
State of Michigan v. McKesson Corporation, et al., (11-629-CZ).
No trial date has been set.

On December 6, 2011, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with the State of Oklahoma with respect to the claims it
asserted against the Company on behalf of the Oklahoma State and
Education Employees Group Insurance Board ("OSEEGIB") in the
Douglas County, Kansas Action.  Pursuant to the settlement, on
December 14, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal
with prejudice as to the claims Oklahoma asserted on behalf of
OSEEGIB.

On December 14, 2011, the court entered a judgment denying the
Company's motion to dismiss in the previously reported action
filed in Louisiana state court by the State of Louisiana against
the Company, State of Louisiana v. McKesson Corporation, (No.
C597634 Sec. 23).  On December 19, 2011, the Company filed an
application for a supervisory writ with the Louisiana Court of
Appeals challenging the trial court's ruling that the State of
Louisiana is the proper party to assert damages claims on behalf
of Louisiana's Medicaid program.  No trial date has been set.

On December 15, 2011, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with the San Francisco Health Plan and the City Attorney
of San Francisco in San Francisco Health Plan v. McKesson
Corporation (No. 1:08-CV-10843-PBS) ("San Francisco Action").
Pursuant to the settlement, on December 21, 2011, the court
entered a stipulated judgment and order, dismissing with prejudice
the claims asserted on behalf of the San Francisco Health Plan and
the People of the State of California, and dismissing without
prejudice the causes of action asserted on behalf of the State of
California under the California False Claims Act.

On January 5, 2012, the Company, Oakland County, Michigan, and the
City of Sterling Heights, Michigan, filed a stipulated order of
dismissal, which is contingent on the court granting final
approval of the settlement in the Douglas County, Kansas Action,
in the previously reported action filed in the United States
District Court for Massachusetts by these Michigan public entities
against the Company, Oakland County, Michigan et al. v. McKesson
Corporation, (No. 1:09-CV-10843-PBS).  On January 12, 2012, the
court entered the parties' stipulated order of dismissal.

On January 13, 2012, the court conducted a hearing on the
Company's motion to dismiss in the previously reported action
filed in Indiana state court by the State of Indiana against the
Company and First DataBank, Inc., State of Indiana v. McKesson
Corp. et al., (No. 49D11-1106-PL-021595).  The motion has not been
ruled upon, and no trial date has been set.

As previously reported, as of March 31, 2010, the Company had a
reserve relating to its AWP public entity claims of $143 million.
During the second quarter of 2011, the Company recorded an
additional pre-tax charge of $24 million for the settlement with
the State of Connecticut.  During the third quarter of 2011, the
Company recorded an additional pre-tax charge of $189 million
following a review of the reserve, including consideration of the
pace and progress of discussions relating to state and federal
Medicaid claims.  In 2011, the Company made a payment of $26
million from the reserve, and as of March 31, 2011, the reserve
relating to the Company's AWP litigation was $330 million.

During the second and third quarters of 2012, the Company recorded
pre-tax charges of $118 million and $27 million following a review
of its AWP reserve, including consideration of the Douglas County,
Kansas Action settlement and the pace and progress of discussions
relating to potentially resolving other public entity claims.  In
2012, the Company made payments of $26 million from the reserve,
and as of December 31, 2011, the reserve relating to the Company's
AWP litigation was $449 million.  The Company's AWP litigation
reserve is included in other current liabilities in the condensed
consolidated balance sheets.  Pre-tax charges relating to changes
in the Company's AWP litigation reserve are recorded within its
Distribution Solutions segment.  In view of the number of
outstanding cases and expected future claims, and the
uncertainties of the timing and outcome of this type of
litigation, it is possible that the ultimate costs of these
matters may exceed or be less than the reserve.


MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $200MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that a 2007 securities-fraud class action lawsuit
brought by shareholders against Motorola Solutions Inc. reached a
$200 million settlement, court records show.

The parties entered into the settlement on Jan. 31 in federal
court in Illinois.  The settlement is still subject to court
approval, according to the records.

Shareholders claimed that Motorola had artificially inflated its
stock by hiding information about its ability to compete in the
cellphone market.  Motorola denied the allegation.

The litigation commenced before Motorola Inc. split into two
companies in January last year.  Schaumburg-based Motorola
Solutions inherited the litigation.

"We're pleased to have this behind us as it removes the risks and
distractions of this litigation," said company spokeswoman Tara
McWhinney.  "This enables us to continue to focus on delivering
mission-critical communications solutions to government and
enterprise customers."

In a written statement, plaintiff attorney Samuel Rudman of
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd said the settlement was "an
extraordinary recovery for investors in a case where there was no
financial restatement or SEC investigation."

Mr. Rudman can be reached at:

          Samuel Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com


PEP BOYS: Being Sold to Gores Group for Too Little, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders says Pep Boys is
selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to the Gores
Group, for $15 a share, or $1 billion, in a class action in the
Court of Common Pleas.

A copy of the Complaint in Gutmann v. Odell, et al., Case No.
120104340 (Pa. C.P. Ct., Philadelphia Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/02/Pep.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Telephone: (610) 667-6200
          E-mail: jbrodsky@brodsky-smith.com
                  mackerman@brodsky-smith.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Edward B. Gerard, Esq.
          Justin D. Reiger, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsumeda.com
                  soddo@robbinsumeda.com
                  kmcintyre@robbinsumeda.com
                  jrieger@robbinsumeda.com

               - and -

          Willie Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          8117 Preston Road, Suite 300
          Dallas, TX 75225
          Telephone: (214) 706-9314

               - and -

          Patrick Powers, Esq.
          POWERS TAYLOR LLP
          Campbell Centre II
          8150 N. Central Expressway
          Suite 1575
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 239-8900
          E-mail: patrick@powerstaylor.com


ROYAL BANK: Faces Class Action Over GBP12-Billion Rights Issue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Williams, writing for Herald Scotland, reports that
pensioners and small investors who lost savings after the Royal
Bank of Scotland's disastrous GBP12 billion rights issue three
years ago have taken the first step in bringing proceedings
against the bank, it has emerged.

They have appointed Bird & Bird, the international law firm that
represented Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou in his brand dispute with
easyJet, to prepare a "letter before action", the first legal move
towards a class action.  They have also enlisted renowned QC
Philip Marshall, who is classified in Chambers & Partners as one
of "the stars of the Bar."

Shareholders had said they would continue their legal battle
despite a Financial Services Authority investigation declaring
Fred Goodwin and RBS were not guilty of any fraudulent activity
before the bank failure.

Now it has emerged the shareholders are preparing to take the case
to court and have created a draft timetable that plans for an
eight-week trial which is due to start at the end of 2013.

A letter before action, normally expected to be accompanied by the
draft particulars of the claim, is sent before the proceedings are
issued.

The development will heap further pressure on Mr. Goodwin, who
suffered the ultimate public disgrace on Jan. 31 when the Queen
stripped him of his knighthood for bringing the honors system into
disrepute.

The RBS Shareholders' Action Group is also seeking indemnity
insurance to cover any costs if it loses its claim against RBS.

Shareholders believe the rights prospectus was misleading and gave
no hint that within a few months the company would require the
GBP45.5 billion taxpayer bailout that triggered a banking crisis.

Experts are advising shareholders they could use revelations that
RBS also benefited from an almost identical taxpayer bailout
package in the US months before the rights issue.  It borrowed
$84.5 billion in October 2008 from the US Federal Reserve, which
paid out $1.2 trillion in loans to banks during the financial
crisis, including more than a dozen foreign companies.

Almost half of the Fed's top 30 borrowers were from Europe, and
RBS was the biggest non-US beneficiary.

The action group, in a memo to members, said Bird & Bird were
"highly regarded and known for managing successfully complex
commercial disputes".

It added: "The team is now instructed to prepare a letter before
action and, as necessary, commence proceedings against RBS and its
former directors, and with leading counsel, Philip Marshall, QC,
has commenced that work."

RBS has already faced a class action claim by investors in the US
but it was dismissed in January last year following an earlier US
Supreme Court ruling that effectively ruled investors cannot use
federal courts to raise fraud claims over the purchase of foreign
securities.

At the time, it was said the bank still faced a case regarding
those who purchased US preference shares.

Financier Peter de Vink, a former associate of Mr. Goodwin,
believes the double bailout does not just strengthen the UK
shareholders' case, it shows there is also a case for criminal
proceedings.

Mr. de Vink, now managing director of Edinburgh Financial &
General Holdings, said: "If you are producing a document, where
you are asking people to put GBP12 billion on the table and you
fail to tell them that you have borrowed all that from the
American Treasury, wouldn't you think it makes the document
completely fraudulent, in my view.

"If the bank had said we want you to know we are in hock to the
American Treasury for that amount I don't think anyone would have
subscribed to the GBP12 billion rights issue, which would have
been then just a plaster on the wound."

Mr. Marshall has been acting for BTA Bank in the case of Mukhtar
Ablyazov, the Kazakh businessman accused of perpetrating one of
the biggest banking frauds in history.

Mr. Ablyazov, 47, is accused by BTA Bank, which he ran before
leaving Kazakhstan in January 2009, of "fraud and embezzlement on
an almost unprecedented scale".


TEMPUR-PEDIC: Jacob's Petition for En Banc Review Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
On January 5, 2007, a purported class action was filed against
Tempur-Pedic International Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division (Jacobs
v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North
America, Inc., or the Antitrust Action).  The Antitrust Action
alleges violations of federal antitrust law arising from the
pricing of Tempur-Pedic mattress products by Tempur-Pedic North
America and certain distributors.  The action alleges a class of
all purchasers of Tempur-Pedic mattresses in the United States
since January 5, 2003, and seeks damages and injunctive relief.
Count Two of the complaint was dismissed by the court on June 25,
2007, based on a motion filed by the Company.  Following a
decision issued by the United States Supreme Court in Leegin
Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.  on June 28, 2007, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the remaining two counts of the
Antitrust Action on July 10, 2007.  On December 11, 2007, that
motion was granted and, as a result, judgment was entered in favor
of the Company and the plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed with
prejudice. On December 21, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion to
Alter or Amend Judgment," which was fully briefed.  On May 1,
2008, that motion was denied.  Jacobs appealed the dismissal of
their claims, and the parties argued the appeal before the United
States Circuit Court for the Eleventh Circuit on December 11,
2008.  The Court rendered an opinion favorable to the Company on
December 2, 2010, affirming the trial court's refusal to allow
Jacobs to alter or amend its pleadings and dismissing its claims.
Jacobs has subsequently petitioned the 11th Circuit Court of
Appeals for an "en banc" review of the three judge panel's ruling.

The Company continues to strongly believe that the Antitrust
Action lacks merit, and intends to defend against the claims
vigorously.  Based on the findings of the court to date and an
assessment of the Company's meritorious defenses, the Company
believes that it is remote that it will incur a loss with respect
to this matter.  However, due to the inherent uncertainties of
litigation, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the
Antitrust Action at this time, and can give no assurance that
these claims will not have a material adverse affect on the
Company's financial position or results of operations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's January 30,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Order Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the order approving settlement of a consolidated
lawsuit arising from TIBCO Software Inc.'s public offerings have
been dismissed, according to the Company's January 30, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended November 30, 2011.

The Company, certain of its directors and officers, and certain
investment bank underwriters were named in a putative class action
for violation of the federal securities laws in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
"In re TIBCO Software Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation."  This was one of a number of cases challenging
underwriting practices in the initial public offerings (each, an
"IPO") of more than 300 companies, which have been coordinated for
pretrial proceedings as "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation."  Plaintiffs generally alleged that the underwriters
engaged in undisclosed and improper underwriting activities,
namely the receipt of excessive brokerage commissions and customer
agreements regarding post-offering purchases of stock in exchange
for allocations of IPO shares.  Plaintiffs also alleged that
various investment bank securities analysts issued false and
misleading analyst reports.  The complaint against the Company
claimed that the purported improper underwriting activities were
not disclosed in the registration statements for the Company's IPO
and secondary public offering and sought unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased the Company's
securities or sold put options during the time period from July
13, 1999, to December 6, 2000.

A lawsuit with similar allegations of undisclosed improper
underwriting practices, and part of the same coordinated
proceedings, was filed against Talarian, which the Company
acquired in 2002.  That action was captioned "In re Talarian Corp.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation."  The complaint
against Talarian, certain of its underwriters and certain of its
former directors and officers claimed that the purported improper
underwriting activities were not disclosed in the registration
statement for Talarian's IPO and sought unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased Talarian
securities during the time period from
July 20, 2000, to December 6, 2000.

The coordinated litigation matters, including the actions against
the Company and Talarian, have been resolved by a global
settlement.  Under the settlement, the insurers pay the full
amount of settlement share allocated to the Company (the Company's
financial liability is limited to paying the remaining balance of
the applicable retention under Talarian's directors and officers
liability insurance policy).  The settlement received final
approval from the district court in 2009.  Various objectors to
the settlement filed appeals; those appeals have been dismissed.


TUESDAY MORNING: Bid to Certify Class in Alabama Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
In July 2009, a lawsuit against Tuesday Morning Corporation
alleging failure to pay overtime compensation was filed in Alabama
by a former store manager.  The plaintiff sought to certify a
class action made up of current and former store managers.  In
fiscal 2010, the Company filed a request with the court to deny
this motion.  The court has not ruled, and no trial date has been
set.  The Company says it will rigorously defend its position at
trial, and it does not expect these complaints to have a material
impact on its results of operations or financial position.

No further updates were reported in the Company's January 30,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.


UNITED STATES: Schwab Sues FINRA Over Class Action Waiver
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Charles Schwab & Co. claims
the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority can't sanction it for
its class action waiver in customer arbitration agreements,
because of the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in AT&T Mobility v
Concepcion (2011) and Compucredit Corp. v Greenwood (2012).

A copy of the Complaint for Declaratory and Preliminary and
Permanent Injunctive Relief Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. v.
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-
00518 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/02/Schwab.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gilbert R. Serota, Esq.
          Simona A. Agnolucci, Esq.
          Deborah Schlosberg, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
          Telephone: (415) 434-1600
          E-mail: gilbert.serota@aporter.com
                  simona.agnolucci@aporter.com
                  deborah.schlosberg@aporter.com

               - and -

          Lowell Haky, Esq.
          211 Main Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 667-0622


VIVENDI: Investor Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------
Chris Forrester, writing for Advanced Television, reports that a
class action lawsuit from Vivendi investors who bought into the
company when it was being run by Jean-Marie Messier some 10 years
ago, has been largely dismissed.

The action, before US District Judge Richard Holwell in Manhattan,
argued that Mr. Messier and his CFO at the time (Guillaune
Hannezo) made materially false or misleading statements about the
company's health following Vivendi's three-way merger in 2000 with
Seagram and Canal Plus.

The judge's decision revolved around the precedent established in
1934, and confirmed again in 2010, and which limited actions to
events involving US-based securities.  These actions were based on
statements made covering Paris-based shares, even though many of
the applicants bought US Depository Shares.


WAL-MART STORES: Women Employees File Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and the Impact Fund disclosed
that in a move to protect their right to pursue individual and
class action pay and promotion claims against Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., more than 500 former and current Wal-Mart women employees
who had been part of a national class action lawsuit have filed a
charge of discrimination against the retailer with the U.S. Equal
Employment and Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as of Jan. 27.

That was the deadline for women in five states -- Alabama,
Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and North Carolina -- to pursue
their claims, according to plaintiffs' attorneys Joseph Sellers,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, and Brad Seligman, the Impact
Fund, who represent the women.  The vast majority of the EEOC
charges -- some 430 -- were filed in those states since the June
2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision reversing a lower court ruling
certifying class action against Wal-Mart.  Women in all other
states who previously filed class action claims against Wal-Mart,
and its subsidiary Sam's Club, have until May 25, 2012, to file a
claim with the EEOC.

"The Supreme Court did not give Wal-Mart a free pass to
discriminate.  Filing an EEOC claim is one more way current and
former women employees of Wal-Mart can assert their rights,"
Messrs. Sellers and Seligman said in a statement.  More than
12,000 women have contacted plaintiffs' counsel directly or
through the informational website, www.walmartclass.com, to
discuss pursuing claims of gender-based pay and promotion
discrimination.  Even in the five states with the Jan. 27, 2012,
filing deadline, women with pay and promotion discrimination
charges against Wal-Mart from July 2011-on can file EEOC claims
against the company.

"These EEOC charges are just the down-payment -- we expect to file
thousands of additional charges by the May 25, 2012 deadline.  We
urge women throughout the country who feel they have been
discriminated against by Wal-Mart in pay and promotions to log
onto the www.walmartclass.com site and register," said
Mr. Seligman.

Regional class action lawsuits on behalf of women plaintiffs who
worked in California and Texas region Wal-Mart stores were filed
in federal courts in those states in October 2011.  An expanded
class action was filed in Texas federal court in January 2012.

For information about the case or EEOC discrimination filings
against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., visit http://www.walmartclass.com


WARNOCK DODGE: Class Action Settlement Obtains Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action settlement of more than $3 million against two
Morris County car dealerships, Warnock Dodge and Warnock Ford was
granted final approval on Feb. 2 by Judge David B. Rand, Presiding
Judge Civil Division of the New Jersey Superior Court in
Morristown.  The settlement resolves three consolidated class
actions alleging the dealerships charged customers unlawful fees,
including registration fee overcharges and documentary service
fees.  Class members, who are represented by the Wolf Law Firm,
LLC of North Brunswick and The Law Offices of Glen H. Chulsky of
Ledgewood, will receive cash payments of $40 to $111 per vehicle
purchased depending on the type of unlawful fee allegedly charged.

The settlement follows the New Jersey Supreme Court's 2009
decision in one of the actions, Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, et al.,
in which the Court rejected the dealership's argument that a
business cannot be sued for unlawful overcharges under New
Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act unless the consumer first demands a
refund and is refused.  The Court explained that requiring
consumers to request a refund before filing a lawsuit would mean
that "merchants would be free to violate the [Consumer Fraud Act],
providing refunds only to those consumers savvy enough to request
them . . . "  The Court also noted that a pre-lawsuit request
requirement would also effectively preclude these rare, "savvy"
customers from bringing class actions on behalf of the vast
majority of customers who did not realize they were overcharged,
writing, "When confronted, as we are here, with a plaintiff who
asserts that she was the victim of an overcharge which itself is
small in amount, and who seeks recovery for herself and on behalf
of numerous others with 'nominal' claims, we cannot overlook the
reality that, without the remedy that the CFA affords, all of
these wrongs might go unvindicated."  The Wolf Law Firm and Law
Office of Glen H. Chulsky were also counsel on the appeal.


WEST ELM: Recalls 5,750 Overarching Floor Lamps Due to Shock Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
West Elm, a division of Williams-Sonoma Inc., of San Francisco,
California, announced a voluntary recall of about 5,750
Overarching Floor Lamps.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

A short circuit can occur in the lamp's wiring, posing a shock
hazard to consumers.

The firm is aware of at least 39 reports of short circuits in the
lamp, including three reports of shock, one report of a minor burn
to a consumer's finger and two reports of minor property damage.

The Overarching Floor Lamp is 77 inches tall with a 19-inch
diameter base and a curving arm that extends the lamp about 5 feet
from the base.  The arm and base are made of polished nickel.  It
was sold with a linen shade in the colors natural, white or
charcoal.  The lamp has a three-way on/off switch.  A picture of
the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12100.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold by West
Elm retail stores nationwide, West Elm catalogs and westelm.com
from March 2011 through November 2011 for about $250.

Consumers should immediately stop using the lamp and return it to
West Elm for a full store credit.  For additional information,
contact West Elm toll-free at (855) 236-1941 between 7:00 a.m. and
midnight Eastern Time seven days a week, or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.westelm.com/

    
* Robin Ellison Launches Class Action Tort Recovery Association
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Towler, writing for Professional Pensions, reports that
former chairman of the National Association of Pension Funds Robin
Ellison has launched a group to help pension funds and investment
managers recover their "fair share" of security class actions.

The International Institutional Tort Recovery Association will
allow pension funds and investment managers to join the Europe-
wide group to take part in the lawsuits.

Security class actions have been part of the US legal landscape
for 30 to 40 years and cover investment fraud and
misrepresentation.

Mr. Ellison said UK pension funds have been wary of taking part in
the past, but could be missing out on their share of pay-outs.
Mr. Ellison told PP: "There's money on the table and the problem
with money on the table is if you don't claim it the other guys
get it. For instance with three people -- A, B and C -- if C
doesn't claim it A and B get the extra.  So you might as well put
your claim in if there's money on the table."

He said the iiTRA would bring some respectability to the lawsuits
and would not pursue "specious cases", but members would benefit
through collective access to lawyers and case knowledge.

Mr. Ellison said the group was an exercise in corporate
governance, arguing that pension funds should push for action when
they find a company is misbehaving.

He said: "In America the shareholders have no vote and that's why
as a corporate governance exercise they use litigation more than
they do here."

The iiTRA chairman said he hoped four or five pension funds or
investment managers would join the association in the first year,
reaching a couple of 100 by 2017 or 2018.

He said it would be beneficial for pension funds with more than a
billion pounds under management.

Membership will cost between GBP25,000 and GBP100,000 a year
depending on the size of the fund but Mr. Ellison said schemes
could expect to recover GBP100,000 up into the millions.

In 2011, settlements of class action cases in the US alone topped
GBP100 billion.


                           *********

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  * * *