CAR_Public/120208.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, February 8, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 27

                             Headlines

ALLEGHANY CORP: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suits
ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Settled N.Y. Securities Suit in December
BUMBLERIDE INC: Recalls 30,700 Indie & Indie Twin Strollers
CARLYLE GROUP: Abandons Plan to Ban Shareholder Class Action
CHARLES SCHWAB: Finra Balks at Effort to Avoid Class Action

CHINA MEDICAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
CIRCUIT CITY: 4th Cir. Affirms Ruling on Employee Class Claim
DE PAUL UNIVERSITY: Sued for Misrepresenting Grad Work Stats
EBAY INC: StubHub's Appeal in N.C. Class Suit Ruling Pending
EBAY INC: Suits Over PayPal Business Remain Pending in Calif.

GENVEC INC: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action
GOLDEN GATE: Kershaw Files Class Action Over Placement Rates
GOLDMAN SACHS: Judge Certifies Securities Class Action
HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Faces ERISA Class Action in New York

MANNKIND CORP: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Denied in Dec.
MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL: Accused of Deceptive Practices in Calif.
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Suit Over Crest's Alleged False Labels
SEQWATER: Law Firm Mulls Action Over Wivenhoe Dam Flood Crisis
STARBUCKS CORP: Sued by Barista Over Tips Distribution Policy

STUDENT LOAN: Two Law Firms File Securities Class Action in N.Y.
TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
TRANSCENDENT ONE: Sued Over Bogus Credit Card Processing Charge
WARNER MUSIC: Sister Sledge Files Suit Over Digital Royalties
WEEPLAY KIDS: Recalls 128T Infant Bodysuits Due to Choking Hazard

YORK INTERNATIONAL: Reannounce Recall of 226,000 Gas Furnaces


                          *********

ALLEGHANY CORP: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Corporation filed a Form 8-K with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 31, 2012, in connection with
its memorandum of understanding regarding the settlement of
certain litigation relating to, among other things, the Agreement
and Plan of Merger, dated as of November 20, 2011, by and among
Alleghany Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Shoreline Merger
Sub, Inc. (formerly, Shoreline Merger Sub, LLC), a Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Alleghany ("Merger
Sub") and Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation
providing for the merger of Transatlantic with and into Merger
Sub.

As previously disclosed in the definitive joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") by Alleghany on January 6, 2012 (the "joint
proxy statement/prospectus"), five putative stockholder class
action lawsuits were filed in connection with the since-terminated
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Allied World Merger
Agreement"), dated as of June 12, 2011, by and among
Transatlantic, Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, AG
("Allied World") and GO Sub, LLC.  Three of the putative
stockholder class action lawsuits were filed against Transatlantic
and Transatlantic's directors in New York State court.  These
lawsuits assert that the members of the Transatlantic board of
directors breached a fiduciary duty in connection with the
approval of the proposed merger with Allied World and that Allied
World and its subsidiaries aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty.  On October 18, 2011, the parties stipulated
that each of these actions would be discontinued without
prejudice.  The other two putative stockholder class action
lawsuits were filed against Transatlantic and Transatlantic's
directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and
were subsequently consolidated under the caption In re
Transatlantic Holdings, Inc. S'holders Litig.  The lawsuit
generally alleges that Transatlantic's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the approval of the merger
with Allied World, the approval of certain deal protection
measures, the failure to rescind the stockholders rights plan, the
approval of certain payments to Allied World in connection with
the termination of the Allied World Merger Agreement and the
approval of Transatlantic's share repurchase program, and that
Allied World and its subsidiary aided and abetted certain such
breaches of fiduciary duty.  On December 21, 2011, the Delaware
plaintiffs filed their third consolidated amended complaint.  This
third consolidated amended complaint adds Alleghany and Shoreline
Merger Sub, LLC as defendants, and alleges that the members of the
Transatlantic board of directors breached a fiduciary duty in
connection with the approval of the Merger and that Alleghany and
Shoreline Merger Sub, LLC aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty.  In addition, this third consolidated amended
complaint retains its allegations against Allied World and its
subsidiaries.

Two additional putative stockholder class actions were filed
against Transatlantic, Transatlantic's directors, Alleghany, and
Shoreline Merger Sub, LLC in New York State court in connection
with the Merger Agreement: Clark v. Transatlantic Holdings, et
al., Index No. 653256/2011 (Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of New York) (filed November 22, 2011) and Sutton v.
Transatlantic Holdings, et al., Index No 653532/2011 (Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York) (filed
December 20, 2011).  These lawsuits assert that the members of the
Transatlantic board of directors breached a fiduciary duty in
connection with the approval of the merger with Alleghany and that
Transatlantic, Alleghany and Shoreline Merger Sub, LLC aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  On
January 4, 2012, Transatlantic filed a motion to dismiss the Clark
action.

On January 30, 2012, Transatlantic entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of
these putative stockholder class actions against Transatlantic and
Transatlantic's directors, Alleghany, Merger Sub, Allied World and
GO Sub, LLC.

Transatlantic and Alleghany believe that no further disclosure is
required to supplement the joint proxy statement/prospectus under
applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk that the putative
stockholder class actions may delay or otherwise adversely affect
the consummation of the Merger and to minimize the expense of
defending such action, Transatlantic and Alleghany have agreed,
pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, to make certain
supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger.  The
memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
court approval following notice to Transatlantic's stockholders.
In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware will consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement.  If the settlement
is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all
claims in all actions that were or could have been brought
challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger
Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith (but
excluding claims for appraisal under Section 262 of the Delaware
General Corporation Law), among other claims, pursuant to terms
that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of
the settlement.  In addition, in connection with the settlement,
the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a
petition in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Transatlantic
or its successor, which the defendants may oppose.  Transatlantic
or its successor will pay or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees
and expenses awarded by the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.  There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.  In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.


ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Settled N.Y. Securities Suit in December
----------------------------------------------------------
Aspen Technology, Inc. settled in December 2011 the securities
lawsuit commenced by 380544 Canada, Inc., et al. in New York,
according to Aspen's January 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2011.

In March 2006, the Company settled class action litigation,
including related derivative claims, arising out of its originally
filed consolidated financial statements for fiscal 2000 through
2004, the accounting for which the Company restated in March 2005.
Certain members of the class (representing 1,457,969 shares of
common stock [or less than 1% of the shares putatively purchased
during the class action period]) opted out of the settlement and
had the right to bring their own state or federal law claims
against the Company, referred to as "opt-out" claims.  Opt-out
claims were filed on behalf of the holders of approximately 1.1
million of such shares.  All of these actions have been settled
and/or dismissed.

The most recent settlement was entered into in December 2011 in
the matter of 380544 Canada, Inc., et al. v. Aspen Technology,
Inc., originally filed on February 15, 2007, in the federal
district court for the Southern District of New York and docketed
as Civ. A. No. 1:07-cv-01204-JFK in that court.  The claims in
this action included claims against the Company and one or more of
its former officers alleging securities and common law fraud,
breach of contract, deceptive practices and/or rescissory damages
liability, based on the restated results of one or more fiscal
periods included in the Company's restated consolidated financial
statements referenced in the class action.  This action was
brought by persons who purchased 566,665 shares of the Company's
common stock in a private placement.  Pursuant to the settlement,
this case was dismissed with prejudice on December 23, 2011.  The
financial impact related to this matter was recorded during the
three and six month periods ended December 31, 2011.  The Company
says this impact was not material to its financial position or
results of operations during the periods then ended.


BUMBLERIDE INC: Recalls 30,700 Indie & Indie Twin Strollers
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Bumbleride Inc., of San Diego, California,
announced a voluntary recall of about 28,000 Bumbleride Indie &
Indie Twin Strollers in the United States of America and 2,700 in
Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The front wheel can break at the axle hub, causing the stroller to
tip and posing a fall hazard.

There have been 36 incidents of the front wheel cracking,
including two reports of the stroller tipping over resulting in
minor injuries.

The recalled Bumbleride Indie strollers are model numbers I-107,
I-110 and I-205 with a DOM (Date of Manufacture) from January 2009
through August 2011 sold in multiple colors.  The DOM (Date of
Manufacture) can be found on a white rectangular sticker affixed
to the side of the seat frame.  The recalled Bumbleride Indie Twin
strollers are model numbers IT-108, IT-111, and IT-305 with a DOM
(Date of Manufacture) from January 2009 through August 2011 sold
in multiple colors.  The DOM (Date of Manufacture) can be found on
a white rectangular sticker affixed to the underside of the
handle.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12104.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at Buy
Buy Baby and other baby product stores nationwide, online at
Bumbleride.com, and other online retailers between January 2009
and January 2012 for between $500 and $700.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled strollers and
contact Bumbleride to receive a free front wheel retrofit kit.
For additional information, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.support.bumbleride.com/or contact Bumbleride at
support@bumbleride.com or at (800) 530-3930 between 8 a.m. and 4
p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday.

The CPSC also notes that to avoid the risk of strangulation to
children, owners of Indie models (I-110, I-205) and Indie Twin
models (IT-111, IT-305) with an adjustable bumper bar should never
set the bar in the intermediate (car seat) position when a child
is seated in the stroller.  For more information, visit
http://www.bumbleride.com/updates/?p=2175or call (800) 530-3930.


CARLYLE GROUP: Abandons Plan to Ban Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Miles Weiss, Jesse Hamilton and Cristina Alesci at Bloomberg News
report that Carlyle Group LP abandoned a plan to ban shareholders
from filing class-action lawsuits after U.S. regulators threatened
to block a stock sale the private-equity firm is seeking to
complete as soon as April.

The Washington-based firm amended the documents for its initial
public offering on Jan. 10 to include a provision that would have
required future stockholders to resolve any claim against Carlyle
through arbitration rather than in court.  The move provoked
controversy among lawmakers and shareholder rights advocates, who
urged the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission not to approve
the arbitration clause.

The SEC subsequently told Carlyle that it wouldn't sign off on the
IPO as long as the provision was included, according to a
statement the agency issued on Feb. 3.  In addition, the proposal
was likely to draw opposition from public pensions and agencies,
which provided about 40 percent of the capital commitments to
Carlyle's funds as of Sept. 30 and would also have been potential
customers for the IPO.

"My guess is they were getting pushback from investors" on the
arbitration provision, said Stephen Bainbridge, a corporate and
securities law professor at the UCLA School of Law in Los Angeles.
"Probably their underwriters were telling them that the investor
community was not going to go for it."

The American Association for Justice, the primary trade group for
trial lawyers, urged its members to contact public pension funds
and ask them to weigh in with Carlyle and the SEC, according to
Michelle Widmann, a spokeswoman for the Washington-based
association.  The Council of Institutional Investors, an
association of pension funds, endowments and foundations that
oversee more than $3 trillion in assets, had also placed the
Carlyle proposal on its policy committee agenda for review,
according to Jeff Mahoney, the organization's general counsel.

The underwriters Carlyle picked for the IPO, including JPMorgan
Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Credit Suisse Group AG, are
planning a road show early in the second quarter to market the
shares to investors, according to a person with direct knowledge
of the plans, who asked not to be identified because the
information isn't public.  The road show is one of the final steps
before a company goes public.

Carlyle's initiative followed a series of U.S. Supreme Court
(1000L) rulings that said arbitration was the preferred method of
resolving disputes between corporations and their customers and
employees.  That concept could have been extended to U.S.
securities markets had Carlyle succeeded in going public with a
mandatory-arbitration clause.

More than two decades ago, the SEC blocked a stock sale by
Franklin First Financial Corp., a Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania,
savings and loan that had also included a mandatory-arbitration
provision in its corporate charter, according to Carl Schneider, a
former securities attorney who represented the thrift.  John
Nester, an SEC spokesman, said that the agency was prepared to
take similar steps in response to Carlyle's IPO.

"We advised them that the staff was not prepared to clear the
filing with the mandatory-arbitration provision included,"
Mr. Nester said in an e-mailed statement.  "We are pleased they
have announced that they plan to remove this provision."

Carlyle believed that arbitrating claims would have been more
efficient, cost effective and beneficial for its investors, Chris
Ullman, a spokesman for the firm, said in a statement.  The buyout
firm decided to withdraw the proposal "after consultations with
the SEC, Carlyle investors and other interested parties,"
according to the statement.

Democratic Senators Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Al Franken
of Minnesota and Robert Menendez of New Jersey on Feb. 3 urged SEC
Chairman Mary Shapiro not to clear the IPO unless Carlyle drops
the arbitration clause.  Ms. Schapiro also served as one of the
agency's five commissioners in the late 1980s, when the SEC
blocked the Franklin First IPO.

The provision "would unlawfully deprive investors of their ability
to vindicate their statutory rights," the senators wrote.  The SEC
should "maintain its longstanding policy of opposing the inclusion
of provisions requiring mandatory arbitration of shareholder
disputes."

Former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt said the issue probably faced a 3-
2 ideological split on the current commission, which includes two
Republicans, two Democrats and a politically independent chairman
who usually votes with the Democrats.  If it had come to a
different commission, the odds may have been better, he said in an
interview on Feb. 2.

"If somebody tells you that you're going to have a very different
set of remedies if you make this investment, and you still want to
invest, it seems to me government has done its job," said Mr.
Pitt, a Republican.  "It would have passed on my commission."

Carlyle, co-founded by David Rubenstein, William Conway and
Daniel D'Aniello, would be at least the fifth buyout firm to go
public since Fortress Investment Group LLC (FIG) held an IPO in
February 2007, followed by Blackstone Group LP (BX), KKR & Co. and
Apollo Global Management LLC (APOLLZ).  Carlyle would have been
the first to impose an arbitration requirement, according to
copies of the limited-partnership agreements the companies have on
their Web sites or in SEC filings.

Blackstone was named in six 2008 lawsuits that were later
consolidated into a class-action complaint alleging that the
prospectus for the company's IPO was false and misleading, in part
because it overstated the value of the firm's private- equity and
real estate investments.

The plaintiffs seek damages and costs, as well as other relief,
Blackstone said in its latest quarterly report, adding that the
case is "totally without merit" and that the firm intends to
"vigorously" defend itself.

Blackstone shares trade at about 46 percent below the company's
June 2007 IPO price of $31 each.

From 2009 through 2011, Carlyle was targeted in lawsuits tied to
Carlyle Capital Corp (CCC)., a publicly traded bond fund the
buyout firm shuttered at a cost of more than $152 million after
its assets plummeted in value.  The plaintiffs include Carlyle
Capital's liquidators, who sought $1 billion in damages through
four complaints filed in July 2010 in Delaware, New York, the
District of Columbia and Guernsey.  Two of the complaints have
since been dismissed.

The independent Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, in a
November 2006 report requested by then-U.S. Treasury Secretary
Henry Paulson, recommended that public companies be allowed to
hold shareholder votes on the use of arbitration to resolve
securities law and other claims.  The threat of class-action suits
was discouraging private as well as foreign companies from going
public in the U.S., the committee said.

"What's at stake is the competitiveness of our capital markets,"
Hal Scott, a professor at Harvard Law School in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, and the committee's director, said in an interview
on Feb. 3.  "If the SEC is going to take this position, we are all
entitled to know why they think securities class actions are
helpful."

Mr. Wales can be reached at:

          David Wales, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554-1409
          E-mail: dwales@blbglaw.com


CHARLES SCHWAB: Finra Balks at Effort to Avoid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Jamieson, writing for Investment News, reports that the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. and The Charles
Schwab Corp. are engaged in a legal fight over whether a brokerage
firm can avoid customer class-action claims by forcing all
disputes into Finra arbitration forums.

In a complaint filed against Schwab on Feb. 1, Finra claims that
the brokerage is violating rules by including in arbitration
agreements sent to almost 7 million customers a provision
requiring investors to waive their rights to bring or participate
in class actions against the firm.

Schwab has fired back, asking a federal court in California for an
expedited opinion on whether or not a recent U.S. Supreme Court
decision lets it prevent class claims via an arbitration
agreement.

In a statement, Schwab said it added the class-action waiver in
September 2011 after the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility
LLC v. Concepcion, in which the court held that the Federal
Arbitration Act pre-empts laws that ensure rights to file class
actions.

The FAA, passed in 1925, supported the role of private dispute
resolution by ensuring that agreements to arbitrate are upheld.

But Finra does not allow class actions to be filed in its
arbitration system, and it prohibits brokerage firms from limiting
customers' abilities to file claims in court that are not covered
or allowed in arbitration.

Finra also contends that Schwab improperly required customers to
agree that arbitrators could not consolidate multiple claims
against the firm into one proceeding, a process that is allowed.

The outcome will hinge on whether the FAA trumps the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934, which gives the SEC rule-making
authority over Finra, including its arbitration program, said Jill
Gross, director of the Investor Rights Clinic, and a professor at
the Pace Law School.

"I believe the [federal] court will find that the '34 Act will
trump the FAA," she said.

"Finra rules are subject to approval by the Securities Exchange
Commission under authority given by Congress," Schwab said in its
statement.  "But no rule has clearly addressed the issue in
dispute here -- whether a brokerage firm can adopt a class-action
waiver in a customer account agreement."

Class-action litigation "is unduly expensive and time-consuming,
and too often results in little benefit to the class members,"
Schwab said.

In an analyst presentation Feb. 2, Schwab chief executive
Walt Bettinger said the company would reimburse arbitration filing
fees to clients until the issue is resolved.

It appears that Finra wants to get tough on firms that it thinks
skirt arbitration rules.

Last month, Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc. agreed to pay
$1 million to settle allegations that it circumvented Finra rules
requiring arbitration of employee disputes.  The case arose after
Merrill pursued brokers for unpaid promissory notes in New York
state courts, where it enjoys legal advantages.

"My strong suspicion is that Finra is very concerned about the SEC
mandate to examine securities arbitration under [the] Dodd-Frank
reform law," Ms. Gross said.  Finra "wants to demonstrate that
they take very seriously the investor protection function in the
arbitration arena."

Finra spokeswoman Nancy Condon declined to comment.


CHINA MEDICAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on Feb. 3 disclosed that it has filed a
securities class action lawsuit against China Medical
Technologies, Inc. and certain of its senior executives.  The
action (No. 12-CIV-0882), filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, asserts claims under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired CMED's American Depositary Shares
during the expanded period between February 7, 2007 and December
12, 2011, inclusive.

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

China Medical and certain of its senior executives are charged
with issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Specifically,
defendants misstated and failed to disclose that the Company
engaged in suspicious and improper related-party transactions and
misstated its receivables in order to artificially inflate sales
and net income.  As a result of defendants' false and misleading
statements and material omissions, China Medical ADS traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $57.50 per share on February 28, 2008.

On December 6, 2011, the Glaucus Research Group published a report
that revealed that China Medical's Chief Executive Officer engaged
in a related party transaction with the Company pursuant to which
the Company improperly funneled approximately $20 million to the
Company's Chief Executive Officer.  The report also concluded that
the Company's profits, revenue and net income were severely
inflated.  On this news, China Medical's shares declined nearly
24% on unusually high trading volume.  Moreover, on December 13,
2011, China Medical further disclosed that the Company intended to
restructure its debt to improve its balance sheets.  This news
caused China Medical's shares to decline an additional 13% to
close at $2.87 per share, on unusually high trading volume.

The true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed
from the investing public during the Class Period, were as
follows:  (1) several China Medical acquisitions during the Class
Period were the result of suspicious and/or improper related party
transactions with third-party sellers connected to the Company;
(2) the Company significantly overpaid for at least one
acquisition to the detriment of Company shareholders and to the
benefit of China Medical's Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer, defendant Xiaodong Wu; (3) the Company
overstated accounts receivable in order to inflate reported sales,
profit margins and net income; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial performance, expected earnings
and business prospects were false and misleading and lacked a
reasonable basis when made.  As a result, the Complaint alleges
that China Medical violated provisions of the Exchange Act during
the Class Period by issuing false and misleading press releases,
financial statements, filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and statements during investor conference calls.

Plaintiff now seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and
all other investors who purchased or acquired China Medical ADS
during the Class Period, excluding defendants and their
affiliates.  Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a
national securities law firm with extensive experience in
prosecuting class actions involving corporate fraud.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the proposed class in
this action, you must file a motion with the Court no later than
February 17, 2012.

If you purchased China Medical ADS during the Class Period and
wish to obtain information concerning joining this action, you can
do so under the "Join Lawsuit" section of our Web site or by
clicking: http://www.faruqilaw.com/CMED

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, you can also
contact:

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


CIRCUIT CITY: 4th Cir. Affirms Ruling on Employee Class Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld lower
court rulings that barred former employees of Circuit City Stores
Inc. from filing class proofs of claim.  Robert Gentry, Joseph
Skaf, Jonathan Card, and Jack Hernandez filed "class proofs of
claim," each asserting that it was filed for the Named Claimant as
a former employee of Circuit City and on behalf of a class of
other former employees similarly situated.  The Named Claimants
alleged that they, together with the unnamed claimants, were owed
almost $150 million in unpaid overtime wages.

The case is ROBERT GENTRY; JOSEPH SKAF; JONATHAN CARD; JACK
HERNANDEZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALFRED H. SIEGEL, solely in
his capacity as trustee of the Circuit City Stores, Inc.
Liquidating Trust, Defendant-Appellee, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
CONSUMER ADVOCATES; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSUMER BANKRUPTCY
ATTORNEYS, Amici Curiae, No. 10-2418 (4th Cir.).

The panel consists of Circuit Judges Paul V. Niemeyer, Dennis
Shedd, and Andre Davis.  Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in
which Judge Shedd and Judge Davis joined.

A copy of the Fourth Circuit's Feb. 2, 2012 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/kb7Wv6from Leagle.com.

Michael C. Righetti, Esq., at Righetti Glugoski PC, in San
Francisco, California; and Jason Krumbein, Esq. --
jkrumbein@krumbeinlaw.com -- at Krumbein Consumer Legal Services,
Inc., in Richmond, Virginia, represent Gentry et al.

Robert J. Feinstein, Esq. -- rfeinstein@pszjlaw.com -- at
Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, in New York, argues for the
Circuit City trustee.  Gregg M. Galardi, Esq., and Ian S.
Fredericks, Esq., at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, in
Wilmington, Delaware; and Lynn Tavenner, Esq., and Paula S. Beran,
Esq. -- LTavenner@tb-lawfirm.com and PBeran@tb-lawfirm.com -- at
Tavenner & Beran, PLC, Richmond, Virginia, also represent the
Trustee.

Irv Ackelsberg, Esq. -- iackelsberg@langergrogan.com -- at Langer
Grogan & Diver, PC, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Amici
Curiae.

                       About Circuit City

Headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, Circuit City Stores Inc.
(NYSE: CC) -- http://www.circuitcity.com/-- was a specialty
retailer of consumer electronics, home office products,
entertainment software and related services in the U.S. and
Canada.

Circuit City Stores together with 17 affiliates filed a voluntary
petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code
(Bankr. E.D. Va. Lead Case No. 08-35653) on Nov. 10, 2008.
InterTAN Canada, Ltd., which runs Circuit City's Canadian
operations, also sought protection under the Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act in Canada.

Gregg M. Galardi, Esq., and Ian S. Fredericks, Esq., at Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, are the Debtors' general
restructuring counsel.  Dion W. Hayes, Esq., and Douglas M. Foley,
Esq., at McGuireWoods LLP, are the Debtors' local counsel.  The
Debtors also tapped Kirkland & Ellis LLP as special financing
counsel; Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr, LLP, as special
securities counsel; and FTI Consulting, Inc., and Rotschild Inc.
as financial advisors.  The Debtors' Canadian general
restructuring counsel is Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP.  Kurtzman
Carson Consultants LLC is the Debtors' claims and voting agent.
The Debtors disclosed total assets of $3,400,080,000 and debts of
$2,323,328,000 as of Aug. 31, 2008.

Circuit City has opted to liquidate its 721 stores.  It has
obtained the Bankruptcy Court's approval to pursue going-out-of-
business sales, and sell its store leases in Jan. 2009.

In May 2009, Systemax Inc., a multi-channel retailer of computers,
electronics, and industrial products, acquired certain assets,
including the name Circuit City, from the Debtors through a Court-
approved auction.


DE PAUL UNIVERSITY: Sued for Misrepresenting Grad Work Stats
------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian and Dave Tartre at Courthouse News Service
reports that three Chicago law schools published "Enron-style"
post-graduate employment statistics that misrepresent their
chances of getting a job, say students in three class actions.

The separate, but nearly identical complaints against DePaul
University College of Law, John Marshall Law School, and the
Illinois Institute of Technology aka Chicago-Kent College of Law,
in Cook County Chancery Court, are part of a wave of such lawsuits
filed last week all over the country.

Similar class actions were filed last week against Golden Gate
University School of Law and the University of San Francisco
School of Law (both in San Francisco Superior Court), Southwestern
Law School (in Los Angeles Superior Court), the Maurice A. Deane
School of Law at Hofstra University (in Nassau County Court,
Mineola, N.Y.), and Widener University School of Law (in Newark
Federal Court).

"Unless you really, really want to be a lawyer, just don't go to
law school," said David Anziska, a New York attorney who is
coordinating similar lawsuits across the country.

"It's just so hard to secure any type of gainful employment that I
tell people you almost have to be clinically insane to go law
school," Mr. Anziska told Courthouse News in an interview.

Mr. Anziska said 14 lawsuits against 15 law schools have been
filed, in a nationwide effort to close the gap between "the
discrepancy between what law schools report and the reality of the
situation."

"This is one of these lawsuits that should've been brought for a
long time," Mr. Anziska said.  "Finally, people are saying, 'This
is enough.'

"This has been a very longtime industry dirty secret, and finally
they're going to be held accountable.  This has been going on
better part of two decades, and it starts with rankings.
Placement rates constitute 18 percent of the national rankings, so
law schools have an incentive to goose the numbers."

Edward Clinton Jr., lead attorney for the Chicago plaintiffs, told
Courthouse News that the Chicago complaints targeted "those three
schools in particular because the employment data was simply mind-
bogglingly inconsistent with the anecdotal evidence in the
investigations we've conducted, which show that for the recent
classes the vast majority of people are not employed."

"The placement rate is below 50 percent," Mr. Clinton said.  "We
tried to gather as many plaintiffs as we could who had the guts to
fight the system."

Citing Justice Louis Brandeis, who said, "Sunlight is the best
disinfectant," the law student-plaintiffs say they "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 engage in all sorts of deception when tabulating
employment statistics."

The students from DePaul say in their complaint that "far from
giving their graduate 'a competitive edge,' and placing them in
good, secure, well-paying jobs, DePaul consigns the majority of
them 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.  The school has done this while
blatantly misrepresenting and manipulating its employment
statistics to prospective students, by employing 'Enron-style'
accounting techniques.  These deceptions are perpetuated so as to
prevent prospective students from realizing the obvious -- that
attending DePaul and spending well over $120,000 in tuition
payments is a terrible investment which makes little economic
sense and, most likely, will never pay off."

Those students add: "DePaul reported with 'Madoff'-like
consistency that, depending on the year, roughly between 88 and 98
percent of its graduates secured employment within nine months of
graduation.  The context of these representations make it appear
to the reasonable consumer, such as plaintiffs, that the jobs
reported are full-time, permanent positions for which a law degree
is required or preferred.  These numbers are false and materially
misleading because DePaul's reported employment numbers include
any type of employment, including jobs that have absolutely
nothing to do with the legal profession, do not require a JD
degree or are temporary or part-time in nature.  If De Paul were
to disclose the number of graduates who have secured full-time,
permanent positions for which a JD degree is required or
preferred, the numbers would drop dramatically, and could be well
below 50 percent, if not even lower.

"Second, DePaul 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.  If the defendants were to disclose salary data based
on a broad, statistically meaningful representation of its
graduates, including those graduates who have failed to secure
full-time, permanent employment, the reported mean salaries would
decline precipitously.

"There is no place where prospective students can find De Paul's
'real' employment numbers.  The school supplies the same dubious
statistics to the U.S. News & World Report ('US News') and the
American Bar Association ('ABA'), the two primary sources of
information for law school employment data.  These sources also
count as 'employed' those who have secured employment in any
capacity in any kind of job, no matter how unrelated to the legal
profession."

The other Chicago plaintiffs make similar assertions, and say
their schools report even higher percentages of employed alumni.

At Chicago-Kent, the plaintiffs say, "the salary information for
the class of 2010, which was just recently posted, is based on a
response rate of 38.6 percent."

In a statement echoed in the other complaints, DePaul students
claim: "DePaul's reported placement rates and salary information
remained eerily steady following the aftermath of the 'Great
Recession,' as the placement rate for the class of 2009 was a
robust 93 percent and 88 percent for 2010.  Currently, the legal
employment market is highly oversaturated, with law schools
churning out 43,000 JD degrees each year, even though roughly half
as many legal positions are available (26,000).  Yet, with legal
positions becoming increasingly scarce, DePaul, instead of telling
the sobering truth to prospective and current students, continued
to make the false claim that the overwhelming majority of its
graduates are gainfully employed.  The false data was material to
plaintiffs and as members of the class."

In the San Francisco class actions, the graduates say the
University of San Francisco and Golden Gate University law schools
misrepresented their job prospects and saddled them with as much
as $130,000 in student loan debts apiece.

They say the University of San Francisco School of Law claimed
that "the overwhelming majority of its graduates . . . secure
employment within nine months of graduation," but, as in the
Chicago cases, those jobs do not reflect jobs as lawyers.

The students claim USF manipulated its employment data so that its
job placement rate remained steady at 95 percent in 2008 and 96
percent in 2009, despite the Great Recession, which wreaked havoc
on the legal market as well as the general economy.

The Golden Gate University graduates say their school's boasted
employment rate of 80 to 95 percent "could be well below 30
percent, if not lower," if it included only full-time legal jobs.
"By misrepresenting its employment data, GGL created an impression
of bountiful employment opportunity that in reality does not
exist, and caused plaintiffs to take on substantial debt to
finance their GGL education," the complaint states.

All the complaints say the law schools provided U.S. News and
World Report with false and misleading employment and salary data
for the magazine's popular law school rankings.  The same numbers
allegedly went to the American Bar Association too.

All the student-classes seek punitive damages for violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
fraud, and negligent misrepresentation.  They all seek restitution
of tuition, disgorgement of unearned profits, and injunctive
relief, including an independent, third-party audit of post-
graduation employment and salary data.

Mr. Clinton said: "The resolution were looking for is a system
where people who want to go to law school can read this real data
and make a rational decision on whether it's rational to take that
debt.  Truthful disclosure is what we want to see.  Like anyone
seeking reforms of a major industry, we'll have a major fight
ahead of us.  We want to reform the system, and make it so a young
person who is going to acquire a $150,000 debt can have the data
to make rational decisions.

"If we come out of it with the system being more fair and
transparent, I'll take it."

The Golden Gate University plaintiffs are represented by Rosemary
Rivas, with Finkelstein Thompson.

The University of San Francisco plaintiffs are represented by John
Parker Jr., with Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, of Sacramento.

A copy of the Complaint in Phillips, et al. v. De Paul University,
et al., Case No. 12CH03523 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/03/DePaul.pdf

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) 462-0405
          E-mail: eclinton@mac.com
                  eclinton@aol.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


EBAY INC: StubHub's Appeal in N.C. Class Suit Ruling Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2007, two plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit in North Carolina Superior Court alleging that eBay Inc.'s
StubHub business sold (and facilitated and participated in the
sale) of concert tickets to plaintiffs with the knowledge that the
tickets were resold in violation of North Carolina's maximum
ticket resale price law (which has been subsequently amended).  In
February 2011, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment, concluding that immunity under the
Communications Decency Act did not apply.  The trial court further
held that StubHub violated the North Carolina unfair and deceptive
trade practices statute as it pertains to the two named
plaintiffs, and certified its decision for immediate appeal to the
North Carolina Court of Appeals.  StubHub has appealed this
decision.

Some event organizers and professional sports teams have expressed
concern about the resale of their event tickets on the Company's
sites.  Lawsuits alleging a variety of causes of actions have in
the past, and may in the future, be filed against StubHub and eBay
by venue owners, competitors, ticket buyers and unsuccessful
ticket buyers.  The Company says such litigation could result in
damage awards, could require it to change its business practices
in ways that may be harmful to its business, or could otherwise
negatively affect its tickets business.

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


EBAY INC: Suits Over PayPal Business Remain Pending in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the second quarter of 2010, two putative class-action lawsuits
(Devinda Fernando and Vadim Tsigel v. eBay Inc. and PayPal, Inc.
and Moises Zepeda v. PayPal, Inc.) were filed in the U.S. District
Court in the Northern District of California.  These lawsuits
contain allegations related to violations of aspects of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E and violations of a
previous settlement agreement related to Regulation E, and/or
allege that PayPal improperly held users' funds or otherwise
improperly limited users' accounts.  These lawsuits seek damages
as well as changes to PayPal's practices among other remedies.

The Company says a determination that there have been violations
of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Regulation E or violations of
other laws relating to PayPal's practices could expose PayPal to
significant liability.  Any changes to PayPal's practices
resulting from these lawsuits could require PayPal to incur
significant costs and to expend product resources, which could
delay other planned product launches or improvements and further
harm the Company's business.

If PayPal is unable to provide quality customer support operations
in a cost-effective manner, PayPal's users may have negative
experiences, PayPal may receive additional negative publicity, its
ability to attract new customers may be damaged and it could
become subject to additional litigation.  As a result, current and
future revenues could suffer, losses could be incurred and its
operating margins may decrease.

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


GENVEC INC: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, has
filed a class action suit in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland on behalf of all investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired GenVec, Inc. common stock between March 12,
2009 and March 30, 2010, inclusive.  The lawsuit has been filed
against GenVec and certain of its officers for violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.  Members of
the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel
chosen by the lead plaintiff.  Any member of the putative class
may ask the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions in the action.  The lead
plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the
largest loss from investment in the company during the Class
Period.  If you are a GenVec shareholder and you wish to serve as
lead plaintiff, you must seek such appointment no later than 60
days from today.  You are not required to have sold your shares to
seek damages or to serve as a lead plaintiff.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Charles Piven, Esq. of Brower Piven at
410/415-6616 or by e-mail at hoffman@browerpiven.com

GenVec is a biopharmaceutical company developing novel therapeutic
drugs and vaccines.  GenVec uses its proprietary adenovector
technology to develop TNFerade for the treatment of certain
cancers and vaccines for infectious diseases including influenza,
HIV, malaria, foot-and-mouth disease, respiratory syncytial virus
(RSV), and HSV-2.  The complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, GenVec and its most senior officers continuously touted
the clinical success of TNFerade, and that it was the company's
lead product candidate with strategic commercial value.  However,
the complaint alleges, investors began to learn on March 29, 2010
that those statements were knowingly false and misleading when
GenVec announced that it was discontinuing its Phase III clinical
trial of TNFerade in patients with locally advanced pancreatic
cancer.  On this news, the Company's stock price declined $20.10
per share -- from $28.10 per share on March 29, 2010 to close at
$8.00 per share on March 30, 2010 -- a decline of more than 71.5%
on unusually high volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired GenVec common stock between March
12, 2009 and March 30, 2010, inclusive.  The plaintiff is
represented by Brower Piven whose attorneys have combined
experience litigating securities and class action cases of over 60
years.


GOLDEN GATE: Kershaw Files Class Action Over Placement Rates
------------------------------------------------------------
J.R. Parker at Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff in Sacramento is filing
suit against Golden Gate School of Law, the University of San
Francisco School of Law, Southwestern Law School, and California
Western Law School, based upon claims that each of the schools
systematically misrepresented post-graduate employment placement
information.

According to the complaints, each of the schools represented that
80% or more of its graduates have obtained employment within 9
months of graduation.  These numbers, however, include employment
that has nothing to do with law, and could include jobs like
folding shirts at Macy's or serving coffee at Starbucks.  The
schools reported placement numbers do not account for graduates
who do not report their employment information, nor do they
account for the actual number of graduates employed in J.D.
degree-preferred, permanent positions.  Allegedly, the real figure
may be closer to 40%, or less.

"Unfortunately, because these law schools have been
misrepresenting their post-graduate placement rates, thousands of
graduates have been sold a bill of goods -- namely, a $100,000+
law degree from a school where many or most graduates cannot get
full-time, permanent jobs as attorneys," explains Mr. Parker.
"Omitting the most pertinent facts about post-graduate placement
rates has been a disaster for hundreds or thousands of recent
graduates from these schools, who discover after graduation that
the schools' claims of up to 90% post-graduate employment are
bogus."

Each of these four cases seek to remedy the way law schools report
post-graduate employment and salary information by requiring that
they disclose accurate information to prospective and current
students.  The plaintiffs also seek financial relief in the form
of tuition reimbursement for former and current students of each
of the four schools.

San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. 37-2012-00091627-CU-BT-
CTL,

San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-12-517861

Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff is a plaintiff's firm that handles both
complex class actions and individual cases.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Judge Certifies Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Goldman Sachs
Group Inc. was ordered by a federal judge to face a securities
class-action lawsuit accusing it of defrauding investors about a
2006 offering of securities backed by risky mortgage loans from a
now-defunct lender.

U.S. District Judge Harold Baer in Manhattan certified a class-
action lawsuit by investors led by the Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi.

These investors claimed they lost money in the GSAMP Trust 2006-
S2, a $698 million offering of certificates backed by second-lien
home loans made by New Century Financial Corp., a California
subprime mortgage specialist that went bankrupt in 2007.

The Feb. 2 decision is a setback for Goldman, which had sought to
force investors to bring their cases individually.

Class certification lets investors pool resources, which can cut
costs, and can lead to larger recoveries than if investors are
forced to sue individually.

Goldman spokesman Michael Duvally declined to comment.

The bank is one of many accused by Congress, regulators and others
of having fueled the nation's housing crisis and 2008 financial
crisis in part by having misled investors about the quality of
mortgage debt they sold.

Goldman in 2010 agreed to pay $550 million to settle U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission fraud charges over a
collateralized debt obligation it sold, Abacus 2007-AC1 CDO.

The Mississippi fund claimed the GSAMP offering documents were
false and misleading, saying Goldman's boilerplate disclosures
failed to reveal how New Century had ignored its own underwriting
standards and used inflated appraisals.

It blamed Goldman's poor due diligence for the bank's failure to
find these problems when it bought New Century's loans and
packaged them into securities.

Goldman countered that class-action status was inappropriate given
the wide range of certificates offered, the differences among the
"highly sophisticated institutional investors" that bought the
debt, and even that some investors might have had "storm warnings"
about New Century's practices.

Judge Baer rejected the defense, even faulting Goldman's "creative
cutting and pasting" of a 200-page deposition to bolster its claim
that the Mississippi fund was on notice of problems.

"In light of my finding that the common issues predominate, it
does not seem likely questions regarding individual investor
knowledge, statutes of limitation or any other issue will become
unmanageable," Judge Baer wrote.

David Wales, a partner at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann,
which was named lead counsel, declined to discuss Judge Baer's
ruling, but said the plaintiffs plan to proceed toward a possible
October trial.

The case is Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Southern
District of New York, No. 09-01110.


HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on February 2,
2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of Health
Management Associates, Inc. common stock between July 27, 2009 and
January 9, 2012, inclusive.

The action charges HMA and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The
Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Company's
financial results were artificially inflated by virtue of the fact
that HMA was systematically overcharging Medicare, one of its
principal sources of revenue.

HMA, through its subsidiaries, owns and operates hospital and
other health service facilities.  The Complaint alleges that
Defendants asserted that HMA's positive financial results and
increased hospital admissions were due to emergency room
operational improvements, physician recruitment, and market
service development, and failed to disclose that a material
portion of the Company's revenue was derived from reimbursements
improperly obtained from the Medicare Program for hospital
admissions.

The truth about HMA's business practices began to be revealed on
August 3, 2011, when HMA disclosed in its quarterly report for the
second quarter of 2011 that it had received subpoenas from the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector
General.  In reaction to this news, HMA's share price fell by
$0.80 per share, or 9.1 percent, to close at $7.97 per share on
August 4, 2011 on high trading volume.

On October 19, 2011, Paul Meyer, a retired officer of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation who specialized in healthcare fraud and a
former Director of Compliance at HMA, filed a whistleblower suit
against HMA pursuant to Florida's Private Sector Whistle Blower's
Act.  Therein, Mr. Meyer alleged that he was fired in retaliation
for uncovering, reporting, and demanding that HMA rectify systemic
Medicare billing fraud at four HMA-owned and -operated facilities.

On January 9, 2012, equity analyst Sheryl Skolnick of CRT Capital
Group LLC discussed Meyer's lawsuit and allegations in a note to
investors.  As a result of these revelations, HMA's stock price
declined more than seven percent from its Friday, January 6 close
of $7.49 per share, to close on Monday, January 9 at $6.96 per
share on above-average trading volume.

The following day, January 10, 2012, the Company disclosed that on
January 5, 2012, Timothy R. Parry, Senior Vice President, General
Counsel, and Secretary of the Company, had abruptly announced his
intention to immediately resign from the Company.  As a result of
this news, HMA's stock price declined an additional 13.07 percent
in a highly volatile trading session, closing Tuesday, January 10,
at $6.05 per share on extraordinarily high trading volume.

If you are a member of this Class you can view a copy of the
complaint and join this class action online at
http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Newly-Filed-Cases.cfm

If you purchased HMA common stock during the Class Period, you may
be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff
motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida no later than March 26, 2012.  A lead
plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent Class
members.  You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to
share in any Class recovery in this action.  If you are a Class
member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in
that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of
your choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have
any questions about the lawsuit, you may contact one of our
representatives, David C. Erroll, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow LLP, at
(888) 753-2796 or (212) 907-0739, or via e-mail at
derroll@labaton.com

Labaton Sucharow LLP -- http://www.labaton.com-- is a law firm
that represents institutional investors in class action and
complex securities litigation, as well as consumers and businesses
in class actions seeking to recover damages for anticompetitive
practices.  It has offices in New York, New York and Wilmington,
Delaware.


LOWE'S COMPANIES: Faces ERISA Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP, Sapir & Frumkin LLP and the Law
Offices of Patrick F. Lee announced the filing of a class action
lawsuit against Lowe's Companies, Inc., Lowe's Welfare Plan Number
511 and the Lowe's Welfare Plan Committee for violations of their
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA").  This action, filed in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York (12-civ-0724), has been
brought as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf
of all participants in the Group Medical Plan who had their health
coverage terminated and were therefore denied medical benefits by
Lowe's for part or all of the 2011 calendar year.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
modified Lowe's prior practice of automatically re-enrolling
employees in their Group Health Plan, except for seeking any
changes requested in coverage.  Instead, they put into place a
system that required every employee to re-enroll via its computer
system.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the named
Plaintiffs had their insurance cancelled by Lowe's but were not
told about such cancellation until such time as he/she or one of
their family members became ill, and then advised of their
uninsured status only by their physicians or medical care
provider.  They were never advised by Lowe's that their insurance
coverage had been cancelled.  Each named Plaintiff had to actively
seek out the truth regarding the cancellation of their insurance
coverage and were given different stories and excuses from every
Lowe's employee from whom they sought answers.  Lowe's failed to
give notice to any of its employees who lost coverage due to the
modification of the reenrollment procedure or to inform them in
any way of the loss of coverage.

A primary example involved Plaintiff Fred Milling, a 6-year
employee with Lowe's, whose wife had been battling pancreatic
cancer for over 18 months, and was in the midst of receiving
monthly chemotherapy treatments.  Mr. Milling learned that his
medical benefits had been cancelled only after he brought his wife
to the hospital to continue her monthly chemotherapy treatments.
Even though Lowe's continued to deduct the monthly premiums for
medical coverage from his paycheck, the Company insisted that
Mr. Milling had "voluntarily elected to drop his coverage" because
even though he completed the reenrollment process Lowe's told him
that he failed to hit the "submit" key and would not correct the
problem.  Mrs. Milling died of complications from pancreatic
cancer approximately 2 months later.

The complaint alleges that as Plan fiduciaries, Defendants are
required to exercise skill, care, prudence, and diligence in
administering all components of the Plan, and are responsible for
administering the Plan solely in the interest of Plan participants
and beneficiaries.  Plaintiffs allege that in violation of their
fiduciary duties to plan participants and beneficiaries,
Defendants embarked upon a course of conduct that caused many
employees to lose their coverage with the Lowe's Group Medical
Plan.

Plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of all members of the Class in
the form of reinstatement of coverage, recognition of the group
health plan enrollment elections of Class members on file as of
December 31, 2010, equitable restitution to make them whole in the
form of reimbursement of health care expenses incurred by Class
members that would have been covered but for Defendants' unlawful
termination of benefits and reimbursement for premiums for medical
insurance coverage that would not have been incurred had the
proper coverage not been cancelled.

Nancy Kaboolian, Karin E. Fisch, William D. Frumkin and Patrick F.
Lee represent the plaintiffs.

         Nancy Kabooliann, Esq.
         ABBEY SPANIER RODD & ABRAMS, LLP
         E-mail: kaboolian@abbeyspanier.com
         212 East 39th Street
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 889-3700
         E-mail: http://www.abbeyspanier.com

              - and -

         William D. Frumkin, Esq.
         SAPIR & FRUMKIN LLP
         399 Knollwood Road, Suite 310
         White Plains, NY 10603
         Telephone: (914) 328-0366
         E-mail: WFrumkin@sapirfrumkin.com

               - and -

         Patrick F. Lee, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF PATRICK F. LEE
         623 Barracks Street
         New Orleans, LA 70116
         Telephone: (504) 913-2772


MANNKIND CORP: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Denied in Dec.
-------------------------------------------------------------
MannKind Corporation's motions to dismiss a consolidated
shareholder complaint and to strike the expert report attached to
that complaint were denied in December 2011, according to the
Company's January 31, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Beginning January 31, 2011, several complaints were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against
the Company and four of its officers -- Alfred E. Mann, Hakan S.
Edstrom, Dr. Peter C. Richardson and Matthew J. Pfeffer -- on
behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's common stock.  The
complaints include claims asserted under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and have been
brought as purported shareholder class actions.  In general, the
complaints allege that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by making materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and prospects for AFREZZA,
thereby artificially inflating the price of its common stock.  The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.  The complaints have been transferred to a single court
and consolidated for all purposes.  The court appointed a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel and a consolidated complaint was filed
on June 27, 2011.  On August 12, 2011, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint and a motion to strike the expert report
attached to that complaint.  On
December 16, 2011, the Court denied both motions.  The Company
expects discovery to commence shortly, and will vigorously defend
against the claims advanced.


MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL: Accused of Deceptive Practices in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Isabel Robles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG11607807 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Alameda Cty., December 9, 2011) is brought under the Unfair
Competition Law, the California Business & Professions Code and
other applicable laws, to challenge the alleged unlawful, unfair,
and deceptive practices of Mercedes-Benz.

The Plaintiff alleges that Mercedes-Benz failed to provide her
with the statutorily mandated notice of her legal rights and
obligations after Mercedes-Benz repossessed her motor vehicle.
She argues that Mercedes-Benz wrongfully deprived her the right to
reinstate and redeem her conditional sales contract after
repossession, and collected, or sought to collect, a deficiency
from her following repossession for which she is not liable as a
matter of law.

Ms. Robles is a resident of the county of Alameda, California.

Mercedes-Benz provides financing to purchasers of automobiles, and
collects debt on such accounts.  Ms. Robles does not know the true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

Mercedes-Benz removed the lawsuit on February 2, 2012, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of San Alameda,
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The Company argues that the removal is proper because
the allegations place in controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive
of costs and interests.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:12-cv-00550 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan Kemnitzer, Esq.
          Nancy Barron, Esq.
          KEMNITZER, BARRON, & KRIEG, LLP
          445 Bush St., 6th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 632-1900
          Facsimile: (415) 632-1901

               - and -

          William M. Krieg, Esq.
          KEMNITZER, BARRON, & KRIEG, LLP
          2014 Tulare St. # 700
          Fresno, CA 93721
          Telephone: (559) 441-7485
          Facsimile: (559) 441-7488

               - and -

          Alexander B. Trueblood, Esq.
          TRUEBLOOD LAW FIRM
          10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 443-4139
          Facsimile: (310) 234-4023

The Defendants are represented by:

          Donald J. Querio, Esq.
          Erik Kemp, Esq.
          M. Elizabeth Holt, 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: djq@severson.com
                  ek@severson.com
                  meh@severson.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Suit Over Crest's Alleged False Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cherish M. Smith, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble Co., d/b/a Crest, a
Ohio corporation, Case No. 3:12-cv-00557 (N.D. Calif.,
February 2, 2012) alleges that in purchasing Crest Sensitivity
Treatment & Protection toothpaste, Ms. Smith relied on the false
labeling and advertising for the product displayed on its
packaging.

The Plaintiff contends that she has been damaged by her purchase
of the Product because its labeling and advertising is false and
misleading under California law.  She asserts that the Product is
worth less than what she paid for it and she did not receive what
she reasonably intended to receive.

Ms. Smith is a resident of San Francisco, California.  She
purchased Crest Sensitivity Treatment & Protection toothpaste in
September 2011 from a Walgreens located in San Francisco.  She
asserts that she purchased the Product based on its express and
implied claim that it can provide "Relief Within Minutes."

The Defendant, an Ohio corporation, manufacturers, distributes,
markets, advertises, and sells a line of toothpaste known as
"Crest Sensitivity Treatment & Protection Toothpaste."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin M. Lopatin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (888) 560-4480, ext. 2
          Facsimile: (415) 692-6607
          E-mail: blopatin@gmail.com


SEQWATER: Law Firm Mulls Action Over Wivenhoe Dam Flood Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
9News reports that a law firm is investigating a class action
against the Queensland government over the operation of Wivenhoe
Dam during the state's flood crisis.

Maurice Blackburn principal Damian Scattini says evidence at the
reconvened flood inquiry last week raises serious questions about
how the dam was operated before Brisbane and other communities
flooded last year.

The dam is operated by the Queensland government authority
SEQwater.  Any finding of negligence against the authority would
expose the government to an enormous damages claim.

"It is important we get to the truth of the matter so that the
thousands of people who have suffered property loss and damage,
and loss of business revenue and profits get some answers and can
claim compensation if the conduct of the dam operators led
directly to unnecessary flooding," Mr. Scattini said in a
statement on Feb. 3.

He urged flood victims interested in joining the potential action
to contact the firm.

"We will continue to monitor the new evidence, as it emerges over
the course of the commission's hearings," he said.

"There are still complex issues, including the impact of
alternative release strategies on flood levels, which need to be
further investigated to clarify the legal options for affected
households and businesses, which could include a no win, no charge
class action."

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers is representing the interests of the
Fernvale and Surrounding Communities Action Group at the floods
inquiry.

"We have already given advice to hundreds of people with their
rejected insurance claims arising from the 2011 Queensland
floods," Mr. Scattini said.

The inquiry began a new round of hearings on Feb. 2 to re-examine
claims that dam engineers failed to move fast enough to a higher
water release strategy, and whether the inquiry was misled at
prior hearings.

On Feb. 3, SEQwater dam engineer John Tibaldi admitted a report he
wrote about the dam's management during the crisis was incomplete.

But he rejected assertions by counsel assisting the inquiry
Peter Callaghan SC that the report was a work of fiction, and that
it had been written after the flood so that the water-release
strategies matched what was set out in the dam's operating manual.


STARBUCKS CORP: Sued by Barista Over Tips Distribution Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ericka Black and all others similarly situated v. Starbucks
Corporation, Case No. SUCV2012-00377 (Mass. Super. Ct.,
January 30, 2012) is brought on behalf of individuals, who have
worked as baristas at Starbucks stores in Massachusetts since
March 18, 2011.

The lawsuit challenges Starbucks' policy of distributing to shift
supervisors proceeds of tips left by customers, which violates
Massachusetts law.  The Plaintiff alleges that Starbucks' policy
of including shift supervisors in its tip pool violates the
Massachusetts Tips Law, and hence, she seeks restitution for
herself and all other similarly situated employees, who did not
receive all tips to which they are entitled to have received under
the law.

Ms. Black is a resident of Boston, Massachusetts.  She was
employed as a Starbucks barista in Massachusetts from
approximately July 2010 until August 2011.

Starbucks is an international corporation that has stores that
sell coffee and other beverages, as well as food and other
products, around the world, including in Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Brant Casavant, Esq.
          Claret Vargas, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          100 Cambridge Street - 20th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  hschwab@llrlaw.com
                  Bcasavant@llrlaw.com
                  CVargas@llrlaw.com


STUDENT LOAN: Two Law Firms File Securities Class Action in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. and Gardy & Notis, LLP have filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Case No.12-cv-0895, on behalf of
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System, and all
similarly-situated persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities issued by The Student Loan Corporation from
January 15, 2008 through September 23, 2010, inclusive.  The
action alleges that STU, certain of its executive officers, and
certain entities affiliated with Citigroup, Inc. committed
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

STU, which was sold by entities affiliated with Citigroup to
Discover Financial Services at the end of 2010, was one of the
nation's leading providers of education financing products.  The
Company originated, managed and serviced student loans, including
loans made in accordance with federally-sponsored student loan
programs, as well as private education loans, arising under STU's
CitiAssist program.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period STU, and
certain controlling individuals and entities of STU, made
fraudulent material misrepresentations and omissions regarding
STU's business and operations.  Among other things, the complaint
alleges that defendants materially misrepresented and/or failed to
disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that the Company was
experiencing high loan default and charge-off rates; (ii) that the
Company had failed to engage in proper due diligence and
underwriting in extending loans to high risk individuals/students;
(iii) that the Company failed to properly and timely write down
its non-performing loan portfolio assets by taking impairment
charges required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and
(iv) that the Company failed to charge adequate loan loss
provisions for its loan portfolio in accordance with GAAP given
the large, probable losses that were likely to be incurred.

On September 23, 2010, the Company released a statement describing
the transactions pursuant to which STU would be acquired by
Discover.  In connection with this release, STU admitted that it
had to take an impairment charge of almost $1 billion because
certain loan assets had been carried on STU's books at inflated
values.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
STU common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Grant & Eisenhofer and Gardy & Notis, which have
expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive
experience in actions involving financial fraud.

If you purchased or acquired STU securities from January 15, 2008
through September 23, 2010, and you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from today
(no later than April 3, 2012).  Any member of the putative class
may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of
the proposed class.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice, please contact:

          Daniel L. Berger, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue
          29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8522
          E-mail: dberger@gelaw.com
          Web site: http://www.gelaw.com

               - and -

          Meagan Farmer, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          501 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (201) 567-7377
          E-mail: mfarmer@gardylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.gardylaw.com


TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transatlantic Holdings Inc. filed a Form 8-K with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31, 2012, in
connection with its memorandum of understanding regarding the
settlement of certain litigation relating to, among other things,
the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November 20, 2011,
by and among Alleghany Corporation, a Delaware corporation,
Shoreline Merger Sub, Inc. (formerly, Shoreline Merger Sub, LLC),
a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Alleghany
("Merger Sub") and Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
corporation providing for the merger of Transatlantic with and
into Merger Sub.

As previously disclosed in the definitive joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") by Alleghany on January 6, 2012 (the "joint
proxy statement/prospectus"), five putative stockholder class
action lawsuits were filed in connection with the since-terminated
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Allied World Merger
Agreement"), dated as of June 12, 2011, by and among
Transatlantic, Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, AG
("Allied World") and GO Sub, LLC.  Three of the putative
stockholder class action lawsuits were filed against Transatlantic
and Transatlantic's directors in New York State court.  These
lawsuits assert that the members of the Transatlantic board of
directors breached a fiduciary duty in connection with the
approval of the proposed merger with Allied World and that Allied
World and its subsidiaries aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty.  On October 18, 2011, the parties stipulated
that each of these actions would be discontinued without
prejudice.  The other two putative stockholder class action
lawsuits were filed against Transatlantic and Transatlantic's
directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and
were subsequently consolidated under the caption In re
Transatlantic Holdings, Inc. S'holders Litig.  The lawsuit
generally alleges that Transatlantic's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the approval of the merger
with Allied World, the approval of certain deal protection
measures, the failure to rescind the stockholders rights plan, the
approval of certain payments to Allied World in connection with
the termination of the Allied World Merger Agreement and the
approval of Transatlantic's share repurchase program, and that
Allied World and its subsidiary aided and abetted certain such
breaches of fiduciary duty.  On December 21, 2011, the Delaware
plaintiffs filed their third consolidated amended complaint.  This
third consolidated amended complaint adds Alleghany and Shoreline
Merger Sub, LLC as defendants, and alleges that the members of the
Transatlantic board of directors breached a fiduciary duty in
connection with the approval of the Merger and that Alleghany and
Shoreline Merger Sub, LLC aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty.  In addition, this third consolidated amended
complaint retains its allegations against Allied World and its
subsidiaries.

Two additional putative stockholder class actions were filed
against Transatlantic, Transatlantic's directors, Alleghany, and
Shoreline Merger Sub, LLC in New York State court in connection
with the Merger Agreement: Clark v. Transatlantic Holdings, et
al., Index No. 653256/2011 (Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of New York) (filed November 22, 2011) and Sutton v.
Transatlantic Holdings, et al., Index No 653532/2011 (Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York) (filed
December 20, 2011).  These lawsuits assert that the members of the
Transatlantic board of directors breached a fiduciary duty in
connection with the approval of the merger with Alleghany and that
Transatlantic, Alleghany and Shoreline Merger Sub, LLC aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  On
January 4, 2012, Transatlantic filed a motion to dismiss the Clark
action.

On January 30, 2012, Transatlantic entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of
these putative stockholder class actions against Transatlantic and
Transatlantic's directors, Alleghany, Merger Sub, Allied World and
GO Sub, LLC.

Transatlantic and Alleghany believe that no further disclosure is
required to supplement the joint proxy statement/prospectus under
applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk that the putative
stockholder class actions may delay or otherwise adversely affect
the consummation of the Merger and to minimize the expense of
defending such action, Transatlantic and Alleghany have agreed,
pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, to make certain
supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger.  The
memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
court approval following notice to Transatlantic's stockholders.
In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware will consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement.  If the settlement
is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all
claims in all actions that were or could have been brought
challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger
Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith (but
excluding claims for appraisal under Section 262 of the Delaware
General Corporation Law), among other claims, pursuant to terms
that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of
the settlement.  In addition, in connection with the settlement,
the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a
petition in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Transatlantic
or its successor, which the defendants may oppose.  Transatlantic
or its successor will pay or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees
and expenses awarded by the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.  There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.  In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.


TRANSCENDENT ONE: Sued Over Bogus Credit Card Processing Charge
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims
Transcendent One and First National Bank of Omaha charge merchants
a bogus "IRS Processing Charge" for credit-card processing, which
the IRS prohibits, in Douglas County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Corona v. Transcendent One, Inc., et
al., Case No. CI12-867 (Neb. Dist. Ct., Douglas Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/03/BankCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel J. Ewusiak, Esq.
          Christopher Roberts, Esq.
          EWUSIAK & ROBERTS
          101 Main Street, Suite D
          Safety Harbor, FL 34695
          Telephone: (727) 724-5796
          E-mail: joel@erlitigators.com
                  chris@erlitigators.com

               - and -

          Scott E. Schutzman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT E. SCHUTZMAN
          3700 So. Susan St., Suite 120
          Santa Ana, CA 92704
          Telephone: (714) 543-3638
          E-mail: schutzy@msn.com

               - and -

          Gary R. Pearson, Esq.
          PEARSON LAW OFFICES
          221 South 66th Street
          Lincoln, NE 68510
          Telephone: (402) 483-4197
          E-mail: pearsonlaw@nebr.rr.com


WARNER MUSIC: Sister Sledge Files Suit Over Digital Royalties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Belloni, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that
the members of the musical group Sister Sledge have banded
together with an Oscar-nominated actress and songwriter to file a
major class action lawsuit against Warner Music Group alleging
they have been cheated out of millions of dollars based on
improper calculations of revenue from digital music sales.

Debra Sledge, Joan Sledge, Kathy Sledge Lightfoot, Kim Sledge
Allen and Ronee Blakely filed suit in federal court in San
Francisco on Feb. 2 claiming that the music giant's method for
calculating digital music purchases as "sales" rather than
"licenses" on songs such as the band's chart-topping "We Are
Family" cheats artists out of money due to them under recording
contracts, many of them signed decades before music was sold
digitally via iTunes, Amazon, ringtones and other outlets.

"Rather than paying its recording artists and producers the
percentage of net receipts it received -- and continues to receive
-- from digital content providers for 'licenses,' Warner
wrongfully treats each digital download as a 'sale' of a physical
phonorecord . . . which are governed by much lower royalty
provisions than 'licenses' in Warner's standard recording
agreements."

If that claim sounds familiar, it's one of the most hotly-disputed
issues in the music business.  Songwriters typically make much
less money when an album is "sold" than they do when their music
is "licensed" (the rationale derives from the costs that used to
be associated with the physical production of records).  But
record labels have taken the position that music sold via such
digital stores as iTunes should be counted as "sales" rather than
licenses.

The difference in revenue can be significant.  The Sister Sledge
members claim their record deal promises 25 percent of revenue
from licenses but much less from sales.  Ms. Blakely, who is an
Oscar nominated actress (Nashville) as well as songwriter and
performer, alleges that her deal with WMG grants her 50 percent of
licenses, much more than the rate WMG is paying based on its
calculation of sales.

Eminem's publisher brought a nearly identical claim against
Universal Music Group and won a fairly important decision at the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010 (the Supreme Court declined
to hear an appeal).  The 9th Circuit ruled that iTunes' contract
unambiguously provided that the music was licensed.  At the time,
UMG downplayed the ruling as specific to Eminem's contract, but
music lawyers believe more of these cases are going to be filed by
legacy artists (newer contracts have specific language precluding
such suits).

And now there's a full-fledged, 35-page class action lawsuit
seeking to bring together many artists in one proceeding, calling
Warner Music's actions "wide-spread and calculated."  Hundreds of
millions of dollars in revenue is at stake, the complaint alleges.
It should be interesting to see which artists come forward.
Sister Sledge also claims WMG has improperly kept revenue from
"reserves," which is money withheld to offset losses related to
unsold records.  The plaintiffs point out there's no such thing as
unsold inventory in a digital universe.

The suit was filed by four firms: Pearson Simon Warshaw & Penny in
San Francisco, Hausfeld in Washington DC, and Kiesel Boucher
Larson and Johnson & Johnson in Beverly Hills.


WEEPLAY KIDS: Recalls 128T Infant Bodysuits Due to Choking Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Weeplay Kids LLC, of New York, announced a voluntary recall of
about 128,000 units of Carter's Watch the Wear Bodysuits and Sleep
'n Play Garments.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The snaps can detach from the fabric of the garment, posing a
choking hazard to infants and young children.

The firm has received approximately 30 reports of snaps detaching
from the garments.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves H.W. Carter & Sons/Carter's Watch the Wear
bodysuits and sleep 'n play one-piece garments.  "Carter's Watch
the Wear" is printed on the front of the package and on the inside
neckline.  The garments are pastel blue, pink and yellow, and
packaged as solids, stripes and patterns.  They are sold in
packages of two, three or five.  The style numbers are located on
the rear of the packaging, with the following style numbers
affected:

                     Watch the Wear Bodysuit
                             N8963LB
                             N8963LG
                             N8963LN
                             N8964B1
                             N8964B2
                             N8964G1
                             N8964G2
                             N8964LB
                             N8964LG
                             N8964LN
                             N8964N1
                             N8991LW

                  Watch the Wear Sleep 'n Play
                             N8965LB
                             N8965LG
                             N8965LN

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12103.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Bangladesh and sold by
Big Lots, Century 21, Conway, Cookies, Cost Mart, DD's Discount,
Edison Childrenswear, Gabriel Bros., Kiddy Time, Kids Place,
Kidstown, National Stores, Pamida Stores, Real Value, Regine's,
R.H. Reny, Ross, Shoppers World, Valley Wholesale, Variety
Wholesalers and Youngland stores nationwide.  Recalled garments
sold from November 2010 through August 2011 for about $4 to $9.

Consumers should immediately discontinue use of garments and
contact Weeplay to receive free replacement garments.  For
additional information, consumers should contact Weeplay toll-free
at (888) 226-2200 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time
Monday through Friday or by e-mail at info@weeplaykids.com


YORK INTERNATIONAL: Reannounce Recall of 226,000 Gas Furnaces
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Unitary Products Group (UPG), a division of York
International Corp., of York, Pennsylvania, announced a voluntary
recall of about 223,600 units of Coleman, Coleman Evcon and Red T
Gas Furnaces for Manufactured Homes in the United States of
America and 2,400 in Canada (previously recalled in November 2004
[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml05/05047.html]).
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The furnace can overheat and cause the heat-exchanger to crack and
create openings that allow flames to be exposed.  When this
happens, drywall and other nearby combustibles are exposed to the
flames, posing a fire and smoke hazard to consumers.

The firm has received reports of 393 incidents, including some
involving extensive property damage that could be related to these
hazards, 366 of those reports were received after the November
2004 recall announcement.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Coleman, Coleman Evcon and Red T brand
furnaces. The furnaces are silver with white access panels.
"Coleman," "Coleman Evcon" and "Red T" brand names are located on
the middle of the front access panel.  The model number is written
on a faceplate, found by removing both front access panels.  The
faceplate is found mounted on the left inside surface behind the
lower panel.  Models included in the recall are:

     DGAM075BDD    DGAT070BDD    DGAT075BDD    DLAS075BDD
     DGAM075BDE    DGAT070BDE    DGAT075BDE    DLAS075BDE
     DGAM075BDF    DGAT070BDF    DGAT075BDF    DLAS075BDF

A picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12102.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America between 1995 and 2000, and sold nationwide between 1995
and 2000 as original equipment in manufactured homes and as
replacement furnaces in manufactured homes.

Consumers should immediately stop using the furnace until it has
been inspected and repaired.  Consumers should contact UPG to
schedule a free inspection and repair of any furnace involved in
the recall.  For more information, including information about
installation issues that may lead to the hazard, contact UPG toll-
free at (888) 665-4640 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central
Time Monday through Friday or visit their Web site at
http://www.dgatprogram.com/. UPG Technical Services is also
conducting a comprehensive notification and communications program
and working with its distributors to locate owners.


                           *********

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  * * *