CAR_Public/120215.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, February 15, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 32

                             Headlines

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal From "Bateman" Suit Settlement Pending
AUTOMATIC DATA: Calif. Suit Settlement Approved in Nov. 2011
BEAZER HOMES: Sued for Selling Defective Homes in California
BECTON DICKINSON: Still Defends Consolidated Antitrust Suits
BOTTOMLINE TECHNOLOGIES: Remaining Appeal in IPO Suit Dismissed

BRIGGS & STRATTON: Horsepower Suits Remain Pending in Canada
BRIGGS & STRATTON: Seeks Leave to Appeal in Retirees Suit
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Plaintiffs Must Submit Fact Sheet Forms
GREG MORTENSON: Judge Has Yet to Schedule Hearing in Book Suit
HONDA: Chattanooga Man Takes Part in Class Action

KEITH S. SHINDLER: Accused of Unlicensed Debt Collection in Ill.
NETFLIX: Settles Video Privacy Class Action for $9 Million
NEW ENERGY: Gainey & McKenna, Egleston File Class Action in N.Y.
POWERWAVE TECH: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
SWEETWATER UNION: Female Athletes Win Title IX Class Action

WELLS FARGO: Faces Suit Over Mortgage Loan Servicing Practices

* LAW SCHOOLS: Moody's Says Class Actions "Credit Negative"
* UK Labour Examines Class Action Proposals for Consumer Redress


                          *********

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal From "Bateman" Suit Settlement Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the approval of a settlement resolving the class
action lawsuit commenced by Michael Bateman is pending, according
to AMC Entertainment Inc.'s February 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended December 29, 2011.

In January 2007, a class action complaint, captioned Michael
Bateman v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (No. CV07-00171), was filed
against the Company in the Central District of the United States
District Court of California (the "District Court") alleging
violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
("FACTA").  FACTA provides in part that neither expiration dates
nor more than the last five numbers of a credit or debit card may
be printed on receipts given to customers.  FACTA imposes
significant penalties upon violators where the violation is deemed
to have been willful.  Otherwise damages are limited to actual
losses incurred by the card holder.

On October 11, 2011, the District Court granted final approval of
the class action settlement.  The settlement did not have a
material adverse impact to the Company's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.  A Notice of Appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from the District Court's final
approval order was filed by a putative class member who objected
to the class settlement in the district court; the appeal is
pending.

On May 14, 2009, Harout Jarchafjian filed a similar lawsuit
alleging that the Company willfully violated FACTA and seeking
statutory damages, but without alleging any actual injury
(Jarchafjian v. American Multi- Cinema, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Case No.
CV09-03434)).  The District Court granted final approval of the
class action settlement on October 3, 2011.  The settlement did
not have a material adverse impact to the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.


AUTOMATIC DATA: Calif. Suit Settlement Approved in Nov. 2011
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the state of California, County of Los
Angeles, entered a final order in November 2011 approving the
settlement of a class action lawsuit against Automatic Data
Processing, Inc., according to the Company's February 7, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

In September 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.  The lawsuit was subsequently
removed to the United States District Court, Central District of
California, Western Division.  The complaint alleges that the
Company unlawfully handled certain client calls and seeks
statutory damages.  The services at issue were performed by an
independent third-party vendor, and the Company believes that it
has the contractual right to full indemnification from this vendor
for any potential losses it might incur with respect to the
matter.  In April 2011, the Company and the third-party vendor
entered into a class action settlement agreement to settle the
matter with the plaintiff, which provides for a release of the
Company from further claims related to this matter, subject to
court approval.  As part of the settlement, the Company was to be
dismissed from the action prior to final court approval of the
settlement agreement, and the third-party vendor will pay all
settlement amounts.  The third-party vendor is also paying all of
the Company's legal fees and costs associated with the defense of
the matter.  In accordance with the settlement agreement, the
Company was dismissed from the action without prejudice on May 2,
2011.  On July 20, 2011 the court granted preliminary approval to
the class action settlement and provisionally certified the
settlement class.  On November 30, 2011, the court entered a final
order approving the class action settlement.


BEAZER HOMES: Sued for Selling Defective Homes in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Eddie Adriano, an individual, Precy Adriano, an individual, Jose
Luis Alzaga, an individual, Fred Aro, an individual, Marie Aro, an
individual, Betty Bourlund, an individual, Roger Dones, an
individual, Veronica Dones, an individual, Pamela Nigh, an
individual, Lolita Ople, an individual, Erika Santamaria, an
individual, and all others similarly situated, v. Beazer Homes
Holding Corp, a California Corporation; and Does 1-1000,
inclusive, Case No. BC478735 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
February 10, 2012) is brought for alleged violation of building
standards as set forth in the California Civil Code, breach of
contract and breach of express warranty.

The subjects of the action are the land with single family
dwellings and other improvements thereon, owned by the Plaintiffs
located in the county of Los Angeles, state of California.  The
Plaintiffs purchased the Property from the Defendants.  The
Plaintiffs allege that the Property was defective and unfit for
its intended purposes because the Defendants did not construct the
Property in a workmanlike manner as manifested by, but not limited
to, numerous defects which have resulted in damage to the homes
and their component parts.

The Plaintiffs are residents of the county of Los Angeles,
California, in the city of Palmdale.

Beazer Homes, a California Corporation, is the developer and
general contractor of the Property and the projects within which
the Property is located.  The names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Luke P. Ryan, Esq.
          Megan M. Chodzko, Esq.
          SHINNICK & RYAN LLP
          1810 State Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-5900
          Facsimile: (619) 239-1833
          E-mail: lryan@ssllplaw.com
                  mchodzko@ssllplaw.com


BECTON DICKINSON: Still Defends Consolidated Antitrust Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company is named as a defendant in the
following purported class action lawsuits brought on behalf of
distributors and other entities that purchase the Company's
products (the "Distributor Plaintiffs"), alleging that the Company
violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of
higher prices for the Company's products to the plaintiffs and
other purported class members:

Case                                Court           Date Filed
----                                -----           ----------
Louisiana Wholesale Drug     U.S. Dist. Court   March 25, 2005
Company, Inc., et al. vs.          Newark, NJ
Becton Dickinson and Co.

SAJ Distributors, Inc.       U.S. Dist. Court    Sept. 6, 2005
et al. vs. Becton            Eastern Dist. of
Dickinson & Co.                  Pennsylvania

Dik Drug Company, et al.     U.S. Dist. Court   Sept. 12, 2005
vs. Becton, Dickinson & Co.        Newark, NJ

American Sales Company,      U.S. Dist. Court     Oct. 3, 2005
Inc. et al. vs. Becton,      Eastern Dist. of
Dickinson & Co.                  Pennsylvania

Park Surgical Co. Inc.       U.S. Dist. Court    Oct. 26, 2005
et al. vs. Becton,           Eastern Dist. of
Dickinson and Company            Pennsylvania

These actions have been consolidated under the caption "In re
Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation."

The Company is also named as a defendant in the following
purported class action lawsuits brought on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's products, such as hospitals (the "Hospital
Plaintiffs"), alleging that the Company violated federal and state
antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for the
Company's products to the plaintiffs and other purported class
members:

Case                                Court           Date Filed
----                                -----           ----------
Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc.,       U.S. Dist. Court     June 7, 2005
et al. v. Becton           Greenville, Tenn.
Dickinson & Company

Drug Mart Tallman Inc.       U.S. Dist. Court    Jan. 17, 2006
et al. v. Becton           Newark, New Jersey
Dickinson and Company

Medstar v. Becton            U.S. Dist. Court     May 18, 2006
Dickinson                  Newark, New Jersey

The Hebrew Home for          U.S. Dist. Court   March 28, 2007
the Aged at Riverdale          Southern Dist.
vs. Becton Dickinson              of New York
and Company

The plaintiffs in each of the antitrust class action lawsuits seek
monetary damages.  All of the antitrust class action lawsuits have
been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) in Federal court in New Jersey.

On April 27, 2009, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the Distributor Plaintiffs in these actions.  The settlement
agreement provided for, among other things, the payment by the
Company of $45,000 in exchange for a release by all potential
class members of the direct purchaser claims under federal
antitrust laws related to the products and acts enumerated in the
complaint, and a dismissal of the case with prejudice, insofar as
it relates to direct purchaser claims.  The release would not
cover potential class members that affirmatively opt out of the
settlement.  On September 30, 2010, the court issued an order
denying a motion to approve the settlement agreement, ruling that
the Hospital Plaintiffs, and not the Distributor Plaintiffs, are
the direct purchasers entitled to pursue damages under the federal
antitrust laws for certain sales of BD products.  The settlement
agreement currently remains in effect, subject to certain
termination provisions, and the federal court of appeals has
granted the Distributor Plaintiffs' request to appeal the trial
court's order on an interlocutory basis.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 7,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

The Company says its currently cannot estimate the range of
reasonably possible losses with respect to these class action
matters beyond the $45 million already accrued and changes to the
amount already recognized may be required in the future as
additional information becomes available.


BOTTOMLINE TECHNOLOGIES: Remaining Appeal in IPO Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The remaining appeal from the settlement of a consolidated
litigation over initial public offerings was dismissed, according
to Bottomline Technologies (de), Inc.'s February 7, 2012, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 31, 2011.

On August 10, 2001, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York: Paul Cyrek v. Bottomline Technologies, Inc.;
Daniel M. McGurl; Robert A. Eberle; FleetBoston Robertson
Stephens, Inc.; Deutsche Banc Alex Brown Inc.; CIBC World Markets;
and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.  A consolidated amended class action
complaint, In re Bottomline Technologies Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, was filed on
April 20, 2002.

On November 13, 2001, a class action complaint was filed against
Optio Software Inc., which the Company acquired in April 2008, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York: Kevin Dewey v. Optio Software, Inc.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Inc.; Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.; FleetBoston
Robertson Stephens, Inc.; Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.; Dain
Rauscher Inc.; U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.; C. Wayne Cape;
and F. Barron Hughes.  A consolidated amended class action
complaint, In re Optio Software, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, was filed on April 22, 2002.

The amended complaints filed in both the actions against the
Company and Optio asserted claims under Sections 11, 12(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The
amended complaints asserted, among other things, that the
descriptions in the Company's and Optio's prospectuses for their
initial public offerings were materially false and misleading in
describing the compensation to be earned by the underwriters of
the offerings, and in not describing certain alleged arrangements
among underwriters and initial purchasers of the common stock from
the underwriters.  The amended complaints sought damages (or, in
the alternative, tender of the plaintiffs' and the class's common
stock and rescission of their purchases of the common stock
purchased in the initial public offering), costs, attorneys' fees,
experts' fees and other expenses.

In July 2002, the Company and Optio joined in an omnibus motion to
dismiss, which challenged the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs'
claims.  The motion was filed on behalf of hundreds of issuer and
individual defendants named in similar lawsuits.  On February 19,
2003, the court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss as
to Bottomline and denying in part the motion to dismiss as to
Optio.  In addition, in October 2002, Daniel M. McGurl, Robert A.
Eberle, C. Wayne Cape and F. Barron Hughes were dismissed from
this case without prejudice.  Both Bottomline and Optio authorized
the negotiation of a settlement of the pending claims, and the
parties negotiated a settlement, which was subject to approval by
the court.  On August 31, 2005, the court issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement.  On December 5, 2006, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned
the District Court's certification of the class of plaintiffs who
are pursuing the claims that would be settled in the settlement
against the underwriter defendants.  Plaintiffs filed a Petition
for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the Second Circuit on
January 5, 2007, in response to the Second Circuit's decision.  On
April 6, 2007, plaintiffs' Petition for Rehearing of the Second
Circuit's decision was denied.  On
June 25, 2007, the District Court signed an order terminating the
settlement.

On September 27, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification in certain designated focus cases in the District
Court.  That motion was withdrawn.  Neither Bottomline nor Optio's
cases are part of the designated focus case group.  On November
13, 2007, the issuer defendants in the designated focus cases
filed a motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended class
action complaints that were filed in those cases.  On
March 26, 2008, the District Court issued an Opinion and Order
denying, in large part, the motions to dismiss the amended
complaints in these focus cases.  On April 2, 2009, the plaintiffs
filed a motion for preliminary approval of a new proposed
settlement between plaintiffs, the underwriter defendants, the
issuer defendants and the insurers for the issuer defendants.  On
June 10, 2009, the Court issued an opinion preliminarily approving
the proposed settlement, and scheduling a settlement fairness
hearing for September 10, 2009.  On
August 25, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval
of the proposed settlement, approval of the plan of distribution
of the settlement fund, and certification of the settlement
classes.  The settlement fairness hearing was held on
September 10, 2009.  On October 5, 2009, the Court issued an
opinion granting plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the
settlement, approval of the plan of distribution of the settlement
fund, and certification of the settlement classes.

An order and final judgment was entered on November 25, 2009.
Various notices of appeal of the Court's order have been filed.
On October 7, 2010, all but two parties who had filed a notice of
appeal filed a stipulation with the court withdrawing their
appeals with prejudice, and the two remaining objectors filed
briefs in support of their appeals.  On December 8, 2010, the
plaintiffs moved to dismiss with prejudice the appeal filed by one
of the two objectors based on alleged violations of the Second
Circuit's rules, including failure to serve, falsifying proofs of
service, and failure to include citations to the record.  On May
17, 2011, the Second Circuit dismissed one of the appeals and
remanded the one remaining appeal to the District Court for
further proceedings to determine whether the remaining objector
had standing.  On August 25, 2011, the District Court concluded
that the remaining objector lacked standing.  On September 23,
2011, the remaining objector filed a Notice of Appeal of the
District Court's August 25, 2011 Order.

On January 10, 2012, the objector withdrew its appeal with
prejudice.  On January 13, 2012, the Second Circuit issued a
mandate dismissing the appeal, thereby ending the case.


BRIGGS & STRATTON: Horsepower Suits Remain Pending in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Two lawsuits over horsepower labeling remain pending in Canada,
according to Briggs & Stratton Corporation's February 7, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended January 1, 2012.

Starting with the first complaint in June 2004, various plaintiff
groups filed complaints in state and federal courts across the
country against the Company and other engine and lawnmower
manufacturers alleging that the horsepower labels on the products
they purchased were inaccurate and that the Company conspired with
other engine and lawnmower manufacturers to conceal the true
horsepower of these engines ("Horsepower Class Actions").  On
December 5, 2008, the Multidistrict Litigation Panel coordinated
and transferred the cases to Judge Adelman of the U. S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (In Re: Lawnmower
Engine Horsepower Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case
No. 2:08-md-01999).

On February 24, 2010, the Company entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement ("Settlement") that resolves all of the Horsepower
Class Actions.  The Settlement resolves all horsepower-labeling
claims brought by all persons or entities in the United States
who, beginning January 1, 1994, through the date notice of the
Settlement is first given, purchased, for use and not for resale,
a lawn mower containing a gas combustible engine up to 30
horsepower provided that either the lawn mower or the engine of
the lawn mower was manufactured or sold by a defendant.  On August
16, 2010, Judge Adelman issued a final order approving the
Settlement as well as the settlements of all other defendants.  In
August and September 2010, several class members filed a Notice of
Appeal of Judge Adelman's final approval order to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  All of those appeals were
settled as of February 16, 2011, with no additional contribution
from Briggs & Stratton.

As part of the Settlement, the Company denies any and all
liability and seeks resolution to avoid further protracted and
expensive litigation.  The settling defendants as a group agreed
to pay an aggregate amount of $51.0 million.  However, the
monetary contribution of the amount of each of the settling
defendants is confidential.  In addition, the Company, along with
the other settling defendants, agreed to injunctive relief
regarding their future horsepower labeling, as well as procedures
that will allow purchasers of lawnmower engines to seek a one-year
extended warranty free of charge.  Under the terms of the
Settlement, the balance of settlement funds were paid, and the
one-year warranty extension program began to run, on March 1,
2011.  As a result of the Settlement, the Company recorded a total
charge of $30.6 million in the third quarter of fiscal year 2010
representing the total of the Company's monetary portion of the
Settlement and the estimated costs of extending the warranty
period for one year.

On March 19, 2010, new plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in Canada (Robert Foster et al. v. Sears
Canada, Inc. et al., Docket No. 766-2010).  On May 3, 2010, other
plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Montreal Superior Court in
Canada (Eric Liverman, et al. v. Deere & Company, et al., Docket
No. 500-06-000507-109).  Both Canadian complaints contain
allegations and seek relief under Canadian law that are similar to
the Horsepower Class Actions.  The Company is evaluating the
complaints and has not yet filed an answer or other responsive
pleading to either one.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.

Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome
of the unresolved legal action or the range of possible loss, the
Company believes the unresolved legal actions will not have a
material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial
position or cash flows.


BRIGGS & STRATTON: Seeks Leave to Appeal in Retirees Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Briggs & Stratton Corporation is seeking leave to appeal a
decision in a class action lawsuit commenced by retirees,
according to the Company's February 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 1, 2012.

On May 14, 2010, the Company notified retirees and certain
retirement eligible employees of various changes to the Company-
sponsored retiree medical plans.  The purpose of the amendments
was to better align the plans offered to both hourly and salaried
retirees.  On August 16, 2010, a putative class of retirees who
retired prior to August 1, 2006, and the United Steel Workers
filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin (Merrill, Weber, Carpenter, et al; United
Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC v.
Briggs & Stratton Corporation; Group Insurance Plan of Briggs &
Stratton Corporation; and Does 1 through 20, Docket No. 10-C-
0700), contesting the Company's right to make these changes.  In
addition to a request for class certification, the complaint seeks
an injunction preventing the alleged unilateral termination or
reduction in insurance coverage to the class of retirees, a
permanent injunction preventing defendants from ever making
changes to the retirees' insurance coverage, restitution with
interest (if applicable) and attorneys' fees and costs.  The
Company moved to dismiss the complaint and believes the changes
are within its rights.  On April 21, 2011, the district court
issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint.  The plaintiffs filed a motion with the court to
reconsider its order on May 17, 2011.  On August 24, 2011, the
court granted the plaintiffs' motion and vacated the dismissal of
the case.  The Company is seeking leave to appeal the court's
decision directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.

Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome
of the unresolved legal action or the range of possible loss, the
Company believes the unresolved legal actions will not have a
material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial
position or cash flows.


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Plaintiffs Must Submit Fact Sheet Forms
-----------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys Fred Pritzker and David Szerlag are strongly urging
people with DePuy ASR XL Acetabular Hip System total hip
replacements to contact them regarding the multidistrict
litigation (MDL) against Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc.  On December 7,
2010, federal lawsuits against DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. were
transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio and assigned to the Honorable David A. Katz (In
re: DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., ASR(TM) Hip Implant Products
Liability Litigation (MDL 2157)).

MDL is not a class action lawsuit because only the pretrial
proceedings are consolidated.  The individual lawsuits maintain
their identity.  MDL is authorized under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 when
federal actions involve common questions of fact and
centralization will "serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation."

In the DePuy ASR hip MDL, the Court found that "The actions share
factual issues as to whether DePuy's ASR XL Acetabular Hip System,
a device used in hip replacement surgery, was defectively designed
and/or manufactured, and whether DePuy failed to provide adequate
warnings concerning the device, which DePuy recalled along with
another ASR device, the ASR Hip Resurfacing System, in August
2010.  Centralization under Section 1407 will eliminate
duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on
discovery and other issues, and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel and the judiciary."

In September of 2011, the Court approved the "Plaintiff Fact
Sheet," a form that each plaintiff in MDL No. 2197 who has
undergone revision surgery must complete and serve within a set
period of time.  Over the last month, Plaintiff Fact Sheets have
been required to be completed for cases filed.  These forms are a
discovery device to allow the parties to get a comprehensive
review of the plaintiff's social, medical and work history and to
verify the lot and serial number of the DePuy ASR implant.
These Plaintiff Fact Sheet forms are quite involved and supporting
documentation is required.  Attorneys Fred Pritzker and David
Szerlag are assisting DePuy ASR hip patients with the completion
of these forms.

Attorneys Fred Pritzker -- fhp@pritzkerlaw.com -- and David
Szerlag -- david@pritzkerlaw.com -- represent patients throughout
the United States injured by medical products.  To contact Messrs/
Pritzker and Szerlag call 1-888-377-8900 (toll free) or visit
their Web site http://www.pritzkerlaw.com

Mr. Pritzker is the founding partner of PritzkerOlsen, P.A., a
national product liability law firm with offices in Minneapolis,
MN.  The law firm's Minneapolis address is PritzkerOlsen, P.A.,
Plaza Seven, Suite 2950, 45 South 7th Street, Minneapolis, MN
55402.


GREG MORTENSON: Judge Has Yet to Schedule Hearing in Book Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Volz, writing for The Huffington Post, reports that attorneys
who accuse Greg Mortenson of defrauding readers in his best-
selling "Three Cups of Tea" say his case is no different from that
of James Frey, who admitted on the "Oprah Winfrey Show" that he
lied in his memoir "A Million Little Pieces."

That lawsuit ended in a settlement that offered refunds to buyers
of the book.

Mr. Mortenson has asked a judge to throw out the civil lawsuit
that says he fabricated portions of his book, saying that if it is
allowed to proceed, other authors could be subjected to similar
claims and the result would be a stifling of the free exchange of
ideas.

"Plaintiffs should not be allowed to create a world where authors
are exposed to the debilitating expense of class action litigation
just because someone believes a book contains inaccuracies,"
attorney John Kauffman wrote in the filing late last month.

But the plaintiffs' attorneys argue in court documents filed on
Feb. 7 that the lawsuit should go forward because of the precedent
set by class-action lawsuit against Mr. Frey.  The two cases are
"nearly identical," they said.

"The facts in the (Frey) case are stunningly close to the facts in
this case, but not nearly as compelling," wrote attorney Alexander
Blewett.

The lawsuit claims Mr. Mortenson lied about how he began building
schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan and fabricated other events in
the books "Three Cups of Tea" and "Stones Into Schools."  The
attorney who led the Frey lawsuit, Larry Drury, is also a
plaintiffs' attorney in the nine-month-old case against
Mr. Mortenson.

Ms. Winfrey chose "A Million Little Pieces," for her book club in
September 2005, boosting its sales, which eventually topped 3.5
million.  But then Mr. Frey acknowledged on Winfrey's show in
January 2006 that he had lied in the memoir of addiction and
recovery.

A judge in 2007 certified a class-action lawsuit by disgruntled
readers against Mr. Frey, and the resulting settlement offered a
refund to anybody who bought the book before the falsehoods were
acknowledged.

Only 1,729 people asked to be reimbursed, costing Random House
$27,348.  The attorneys in the case were paid $783,000 in fees.

Judge Sam E. Haddon has not yet scheduled a hearing on whether to
dismiss the claim against Mr. Mortenson.

The lawsuit accuses the Montana resident of being involved in a
racketeering scheme to turn him into a false hero, defraud
millions of people out of the price of the books and raise
millions in donations to the charity.  The other defendants
allegedly in on the scheme are co-author David Relin, publisher
Penguin Group and Mr. Mortenson's Bozeman-based charity, Central
Asia Institute.

Mr. Mortenson's accusers seek reimbursement of all the money that
was made from his books.  The lawsuit has been amended four times,
with a changing cast of plaintiffs who now number four.

The lawsuit was filed a few weeks after author Jon Krakauer and
"60 Minutes" revealed in April 2011 discrepancies in "Three Cups
of Tea" and questioned whether Mr. Mortenson was benefiting from
his charity.

Meanwhile, Montana prosecutors are moving ahead with their own
investigation into Mr. Mortenson's charity, saying they plan to
update the public about the investigation in the next few weeks.

The Montana attorney general's office is investigating whether the
Central Asia Institute broke any laws that govern non-profits in
Montana.

Assistant Attorney General Jim Molloy said investigators have
reviewed thousands of pages of documents and interviewed Mr.
Mortenson and others connected to the charity.

He declined to say what the investigation has revealed but said
his office would be updating the public within a month.

The state's probe does not involve the merits of the accounts
contained in Mr. Mortenson's books, he said.

Mr. Mortenson has denied wrongdoing and has kept out of the public
eye since having heart surgery last year.  In December, the
Central Asia Institute said in its year-end letter that Mr.
Mortenson would no longer be involved in the charity's day-to-day
management and that it was looking at expanding its three-person
board of directors.


HONDA: Chattanooga Man Takes Part in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
News Channel 9 reports that a Chattanooga man is part of a class
action lawsuit filed against Honda.  The lawsuit was filed on
Feb. 9 in Los Angeles, California . . . the location of Honda's
American headquarters.  It charges that a Honda window defect
poses a safety hazard to drivers and passengers nationwide.

Jeremy Bordelon of Chattanooga is one member of that suit.

Mr. Bordelon is an attorney, but says, "As far as this suit is
concerned, I'm just a plaintiff.  I don't know anything about
class action suits."

The nationwide lawsuit is being handled by the law firm, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.  Mr. Bordelon said the firm
contacted him after he shared his Honda experience with other
attorneys via a computer mailing list.

According to a news release, the suit claims windows in certain
Honda vehicles can, without warning, drop into the door frame and
break or become permanently stuck in the fully-open position.  The
vehicles at issue include the Honda Odyssey, Honda Pilot, Honda
Element, Honda Accord, Honda CR-V, Honda Civic, and Acura MDX from
model years 1994 to 2007.

Mr. Bordelon said, "Had I known I would be faced with serial
replacements of a substandard part, I would not have bought a
Honda Element.  Both of our windows failed during normal driving
-- one failed when we were at a complete stop, in fact.  I have
had to pay to fix my Element twice and am concerned that I will
have to keep fixing it.  That's not what I would want from any
car, much less one from a brand that sells itself on its quality
and reliability."

Chris Martin, a spokesperson for Honda said that attorneys have
not received the lawsuit yet so they have not reviewed the
allegations.  Mr. Martin added however that, "As a matter of
routine we do not comment on pending litigation."

Another plaintiff said she had a similar situation as
Mr. Bordelon.

"The right passenger side window fell into the door of my 2002
Honda Odyssey LX in September 2011," said Phyllis Grodzitsky,
another plaintiff in the class action lawsuit.  "I made a
complaint to Honda. (They) said there is no recall for the window
systems on my vehicle.  I feel that arrogance by a large
corporation in response to a safety issue is unacceptable in this
day and age."


KEITH S. SHINDLER: Accused of Unlicensed Debt Collection in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Bolden, individually and on behalf of the classes defined
herein v. Law Office of Keith S. Shindler, Ltd., and LVNV Funding,
LLC, Case No. 2012-CH-04777 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
February 10, 2012) seeks redress for the alleged conduct of the
Defendants in enforcing judgments obtained by collection agencies
that lacked a license under the Illinois Collection Agency Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Shindler represented LVNV and a number
of other debt buyers, which filed lawsuits or obtained judgments,
without complying with the licensing requirement of the ICAA, and
sought to collect money that their clients were not entitled to
collect as a result of noncompliance with the licensing
requirements of the ICAA.

Ms. Bolden is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.

Shindler is a law firm organized as an Illinois corporation with
its principal office in Schaumburg, Illinois.  Shindler regularly
sought to collect consumer debts originally owed to others.  LVNV,
a limited liability company headquartered in Chicago, Illinois,
purchases or claims to purchase charged-off consumer debts and
enforces the debts against the consumers by filing collection
lawsuits and otherwise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  cmiller@edcombs.com


NETFLIX: Settles Video Privacy Class Action for $9 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Todd Spangler, writing for Multichannel News, reports that Netflix
paid $9 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that accused the
video-subscription company of violating the federal Video Privacy
Protection Act, it disclosed in a regulatory filing on Feb. 10.

Netflix, in an 8-K filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, said it engaged in mediation of the lawsuit, filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The settlement is subject to court approval.

Netflix did not disclose the other terms of the settlement.

"Netflix has settled a lawsuit related to the company's compliance
with the Video Privacy Protection Act with no admission of
wrongdoing," company spokesman Steve Swasey said in an e-mailed
statement.  "This matter is unrelated to the company's concerns
about the ambiguities contained in the VPPA, which keep Netflix
from offering its U.S. members the ability to share their instant
watching information with their Facebook friends, an experience
Netflix members currently enjoy in 46 other countries."

In January 2011, Virginia resident Jeff Milans sued Netflix,
alleging the company of "unlawful retention of his personally
identifiable information and video programming viewing history
after cancellation of his membership."  That violated the federal
Video Privacy Protection Act as well as California's Customer
Records Act and Unfair Competition Law, according to the
complaint.

The suit was seeking an injunction to stop Netflix's current
practices and statutory and punitive monetary damages.


NEW ENERGY: Gainey & McKenna, Egleston File Class Action in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey & McKenna and the Egleston Law Firm disclosed that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of an investor in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of New Energy Systems
Group between April 15, 2010 and November 14, 2011, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from February 10, 2012.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. of Gainey & McKenna at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail
at tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
the Egleston Law Firm at (212) 683-3400, or via e-mail at
egleston@gme-law.com

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

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the Company's financial
statements during the Class Period contained materially false and
misleading statements because (i) the Company did not have loyal
customers; (ii) the Company did not manufacture quality products;
and (iii) there was no basis for the statements that the Company
would continually receive orders from its customers or that the
battery business will be profitable due to an outstanding battery
quality and the strong distribution network.  In addition, the
Company's SEC filings, during the Class Period, were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose that a
significant portion of the Company's battery products were
obsolete; that the quality of the Company's battery products had
declined; that increased competition and counterfeit battery
products were materially cutting into the Company's sales; and
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's battery business
had materially declined and the goodwill associated with the
Company's battery business had become worthless.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
New Energy common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Gainey & McKenna and the Egleston Law Firm --
http://www.gme-law.com-- whose attorneys have decades of
experience in prosecuting securities class actions and investor
class actions throughout the United States.


POWERWAVE TECH: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. between February 1, 2011 and
October 18, 2011, inclusive.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from February 9, 2012.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

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

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

The complaint charges Powerwave and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Powerwave engages in the design, manufacture, marketing, and sale
of wireless solutions for wireless communications networks
worldwide.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects.  Specifically, defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse
facts: (i) that the Company was experiencing a dramatic decline in
demand from customers in its North American markets; (ii) that the
Company was rapidly burning through its free cash flow as revenues
declined and expenses increased; and (iii) that, as a result of
the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their
positive statements about the Company, its operations and
earnings.

On October 18, 2011, Powerwave issued a press release announcing
that "it anticipates that revenues for its fiscal third quarter
ended October 2, 2011 will be in the range of $75 million to $79
million."  Following the issuance of the press release, Powerwave
held a conference call to discuss the announcement.  During the
conference call, defendants admitted that the Company was
performing poorly and burning through a substantial amount of free
cash.  In response to the announcement, on October 19, 2011, the
price of Powerwave common stock declined from $1.46 per share to
$0.85 per share, or 42%, on extremely heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Powerwave common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is active in major
litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the
United States.  It represents defrauded investors, consumers, and
companies, as well as victims of human rights violations.  It is a
180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New
York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta.


SWEETWATER UNION: Female Athletes Win Title IX Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In a potentially precedent-setting decision, Judge James M. Lorenz
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
on Feb. 9 ruled in favor of a group of female athletes in a Title
IX class action lawsuit against the Sweetwater Union High School
District.  The judge determined the school district unfairly
favored boys' sports over girls' sports at Castle Park High School
(CPHS) by giving the boys better athletic facilities, resources
and opportunities.  The parties are to submit the proposed
compliance plan within 45 days of the filing of this order.

The case, Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High School, et al., was
filed in 2007 by the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center,
California Women's Law Center, and Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP.
The student plaintiffs sued for injunctive relief under Title IX
of the 1972 Education Amendments, which bars sex discrimination in
education, including athletic programs.

The case detailed the consistently superior quality of playing and
practice facilities for the boys' football and baseball teams,
compared to those provided for the girls' teams.  The boys had
dedicated locker rooms for just the football team and access to
the best athletic amenities.  Female athletes did not have
comparable facilities.  The fields where the girls were required
to practice and play were overused, rundown and sometimes unsafe.

In his order, Judge Lorenz noted: "The balance of hardships weighs
firmly in plaintiffs' favor.  The inequalities demonstrated at
trial should have been rectified years ago by the district. . . .
plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief. Defendants are
required to comply with Title IX in all aspects of its athletic
programs and activities . . ."

"This victory not only validates the arguments of this group of
students, but equalizes the playing field for future girl athletes
who deserve an equal high school experience to their male
classmates," said Manatt Litigation partner Erin C. Witkow.  "It's
about comparable facilities for boys and girls today -- and
tomorrow. The schools have to comply and continue to comply, and
provide an equal opportunity for student athletes -- no matter
their gender."

When parents and students complained about these Title IX
violations at CPHS, the administration retaliated against the
girls by firing their highly qualified and beloved coach and
refusing to allow qualified parents to assist the new coach,
despite the fact that the baseball team was still allowed to have
parent coaches.

In April 2009, Judge Lorenz issued summary judgment on one of the
claims, ruling that CPHS allowed "significant gender-based
disparity" in sports at the expense of female athletes.  The
Feb. 9 ruling was made in favor of two remaining claims brought by
the class: that the District did not provide both sexes equal
treatment and benefits; and that the District retaliated in
response to complaints of sex discrimination.

"I'm very happy with the outcome of this lawsuit.  I hope this
will mean more athletic opportunities for all students at Castle
Park High School, but especially for girls," said Veronica Ollier,
plaintiff and former CPHS student and softball team member.  "I
hope this will lead to more college-bound female athletes from
Castle Park High School.  The outcome was absolutely worth the
wait."

"With this victory, future generations of girls at Castle Park
High School will get the same opportunities and treatment as boys
at the school," said Naudia Rangel, plaintiff and former CPHS
student and softball team member.  "That's all I wanted from this
lawsuit.  I just wanted things to be fair. I'm proud that we
changed the future for female athletes at Castle Park High
School."

"The Sweetwater Union High School District had numerous
opportunities to solve this problem," said Vicky Barker, Legal
Director of the California Women's Law Center.  "But instead of
addressing the stark discrepancy between the girls and boys
athletic programs, they chose to go to court and continue these
clearly discriminatory practices.  We thank these courageous young
women for coming forward to fight against this unfair treatment at
their school and we thank Judge Lorenz for holding the School
District accountable for its actions."

"Title IX is almost 40 years old, yet we still see this type of
blatant discrimination against young girls all across the
country," said Elizabeth Kristen of The Legal Aid Society-
Employment Law Center.  "And this is not just about athletics or
physical fitness.  High school girls who participate in team
sports are less likely to drop out of school, less likely to smoke
or drink, or become pregnant.  And they are more likely to go on
to college.  The skills that young women gain from sports
participation, including teamwork, leadership, and discipline, are
crucial to their later success in higher education and
employment."

Although Title IX cases filed on the college level are highly
publicized, discrimination is just as likely to occur at the K-12
level.  Discrimination in elementary and high schools often goes
unchecked because younger athletes and their parents may not be
aware that anti-discrimination laws apply to public educational
institutions as well as to most private educational institutions
if they receive federal funding.  Each school system is required
to implement and enforce Title IX.

       About the Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center

The Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center, founded in 1916, is
the oldest legal aid organization in the West.  It is committed to
protecting the rights and economic self-sufficiency of low-income
and disadvantaged workers and their families throughout the Bay
Area, California, and nationwide.  The LAS-ELC provides a
continuum of assistance, including community legal services,
educational materials, technical assistance to other groups, and
direct legal representation.  It is nationally recognized for its
legal advocacy programs that address racial equality; gender
equity; immigration and national origin, and disability rights.

              About the California Women's Law Center

Since its founding in 1989, the California Women's Law Center
(CWLC) has worked to eliminate the barriers that keep women and
girls in poverty.  CWLC advances systemic reforms through gender
discrimination, health, violence against women, and reproductive
justice initiatives, ensuring that life opportunities for women
and girls are free from unjust social, economic, and political
constraints.  CWLC is a leader in Title IX education and
enforcement in California at the high school level.

               About Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP -- http://www.manatt.com-- is a
law firm that represents a client base -- including Fortune 500,
middle-market and emerging companies -- across a range of practice
areas and industry sectors.  Manatt professionals and staff are
actively involved in the firm's pro bono representations.  The
firm annually devotes at least 3% of billable time and resources
to hundreds of not-for-profit organizations and individuals unable
to pay significant legal fees.  It has offices located in
California (Los Angeles, Orange County, Palo Alto, San Francisco
and Sacramento), New York (New York City and Albany) and
Washington, D.C.

Contact:

        Vicky Barker, Esq.
        CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S LAW CENTER
        Telephone: (323) 951-9276
        E-mail: vicky.barker@cwlc.org

             -- or --

        Elizabeth Kristen, Esq.
        THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY-EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER
        Telephone: (510) 501-4692
        E-mail: ekristen@las-elc.org

             -- or --

        Erin C. Witkow, Esq.
        MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
        Telephone: (310) 312-4176
        E-mail: ewitkow@manatt.com


WELLS FARGO: Faces Suit Over Mortgage Loan Servicing Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Latara Bias, Eric Breaux, Nan White-Price, and Diana Ellis,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. Wells Fargo & Company, a Delaware
corporation, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a national association, J.P.
Morgan Chase & Co., a Delaware corporation, J.P. Morgan Chase
Bank, N.A., a national association, and Chase Home Finance LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 4:12-cv-00664 (N.D.
Calif., February 10, 2012) arises from alleged fraudulent and
misleading practices committed by the Defendants in connection
with their home mortgage loan servicing businesses.

Using an automated mortgage loan management system and an
enterprise of subsidiaries and inter-company departments and
divisions, the Defendants have engaged in a scheme to fraudulently
conceal their unlawful assessment of improperly marked-up or
unnecessary fees for default-related services, cheating borrowers
who can least afford it, the lawsuit alleges.

Latara Bias, Eric Breaux and Nan White-Price are citizens of
Louisiana.  Diana Ellis is a citizen of California.

Wells Fargo & Company is a publicly traded Delaware corporation.
Wells Fargo Bank is a subsidiary of Wells Fargo & Company.  J.P.
Morgan is a publicly traded Delaware corporation.  J.P. Morgan
Chase Bank is a subsidiary of J.P. Morgan.  Chase Home Finance is
a subsidiary of J.P. Morgan.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Alberstone, Esq.
          Roland Tellis, Esq.
          Mark Pifko, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD P.C.
          1999 Avenue ofthe Stars, Suite 3450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 860-0476
          Facsimile: (310) 860-0480
          E-mail: dalberstone@baronbudd.com
                  rtellis@baronbudd.com
                  mpifko@baronbudd.com


* LAW SCHOOLS: Moody's Says Class Actions "Credit Negative"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Moira Herbst, writing for Reuters, reports that class-action
lawsuits recently filed against fifteen law schools for fraud are
"credit negative" because they could cause reputational damage and
a decline in tuition revenue, according to a report released last
week by the ratings agency Moody's Investors Service.

The analysis of credit ratings for law-school bonds was released
on Feb. 6 as part of the agency's weekly credit outlook.

Law-school graduates sued three schools in 2011, and twelve more
on Feb. 1, alleging they committed fraud by publishing misleading
job-placement statistics.  The wave of litigation comes at a bad
time for law schools -- especially those that are lower ranked,
the report said.

"The outlook in general is that law schools are looking at fewer
applications," said Emily Schwarz, who authored the report.
"Students are starting to question the value of the degree because
of high tuition rates and more limited job prospects.  They're
concerned they won't get their money's worth."

Moody's maintains credit ratings for eight of the fifteen schools
sued, including: Southwestern Law School; California Western
School of Law; Brooklyn Law School; New York Law School; Golden
Gate University; DePaul University; Hofstra University; and the
University of San Francisco.

None of the fifteen law schools facing lawsuits are among the top
50 in the latest US News & World Report rankings, and six are not
ranked by the magazine at all.

Experts in legal education said they agreed with Moody's findings.

"In general, my sense is that credit agencies are not reliable, as
their track record prior to the Great Recession amply confirms,"
Brian Leiter, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School
who runs a popular blog on legal education, said in an e-mail.
"But in this case, the diagnosis seems to me exactly right."

                    Standalone Schools at Risk

The report noted that standalone law schools -- including New York
Law School and Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles -- are more
likely to suffer the negative effects of the lawsuits than those
that are part of a larger university.  Standalone schools have
less operating revenue and smaller balance sheets than those
attached to universities, the report said.

Brian Tamanaha, a professor at Washington University School of Law
in St. Louis, agreed on this point.

"Standalone law schools are especially vulnerable because there is
no institutional support behind them to help out in difficult
financial times," said Mr. Tamanaha.  "At lower-ranked law schools
. . . the situation can quickly deteriorate if they experience
year-after-year double digit declines in the numbers of
applicants."

There are already troubling signs for some standalone law schools.

In January, Moody's revised its outlook on New York Law School
from "stable" to "negative," reflecting "recent enrollment
volatility" -- a 25-percent decrease in the size of the 2011
entering class -- and uncertainty about the outcome of the pending
lawsuit.  (The agency affirmed an underlying "A3" rating on New
York Law School's bonds, the lowest grade of "A" bonds with above-
average creditworthiness.)

Carol A. Buckler, interim dean of New York Law School, did not
respond specifically to the Moody's reports, but said the lawsuit
filed against the law school last year is without merit.  "We are
vigorously pursuing it in court and believe that we will prevail,"
she wrote in an e-mail.

Leslie Steinberg, associate dean for public affairs at
Southwestern Law School, said that the lawsuit against the school
is also without merit.

"Southwestern carries insurance to protect against financial
instability and to preserve institutional resources,"
Ms. Steinberg said.


* UK Labour Examines Class Action Proposals for Consumer Redress
----------------------------------------------------------------
Labour is examining proposals to better empower consumers by
introducing a class action framework into the UK, allowing
consumers to seek redress collectively.

The procedure, which exists elsewhere including Australia and the
USA means that consumers are able to launch a claim together.
Currently in Britain there are only limited tools for collective
redress, including through the consumer group Which?.  The recent
PIP breast implants scandal highlights the type of case where
class action could give greater redress.

This will form part of Labour's Consumers Investigation, being
launched which is looking at ways of putting consumers in the
driving seat and ensuring markets work fairly for businesses and
consumers alike.

It will address concerns raised by high profile cases of consumers
getting a raw deal, including PPI misselling, hidden fees on
pensions and credit cards, the PIP breast implants scandal, "drip
pricing" where prices are not made clear up front and hikes in
energy bills.

The review will be led by consumer champion Ed Mayo, formerly
Chief Executive of the National Consumer Council who has been
described as "the most authoritative voice in the country speaking
up for consumers".

The investigation will also look at international best practice
and ways of boosting the role of consumer advocacy and advice as
well as areas where enforcement has been lacking.  It includes an
examination of businesses as consumers and how they can be better
protected and supported.

It builds on Ed Miliband's call for fairness in tough times and
for an end to the surcharge culture of consumer rip offs which are
hitting the squeezed middle.  Labour will stand up to vested
interests to ensure healthy and fair competition, break up cosy
cartels and set the rules of the game to supporting responsible
business practice and making markets work better for consumers and
businesses.

The investigation is being launched at Citizens Advice in London
by Shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna and Shadow Consumer
Minister Ian Murray at a seminar on consumer redress.  It will
inform the Shadow Cabinet working group on Business and Enterprise
for Labour's Policy Review.  As part of the investigation, Ed Mayo
will hold a series of Consumer Hearings across the country.

Chuka Umunna MP, Labour's Shadow Business Secretary, said:

"We need to change the rules of the game to stop business and
consumers getting a raw deal.

"Labour's Consumer Investigation, led by consumer champion Ed
Mayo, will look into ways that we can empower consumers, back
responsible business, underpin fair markets and end the rip off
culture which too often has faced consumers.

"We need a fairer deal for consumers and businesses alike and
that's why I'm delighted that Ed Mayo is leading Labour's
Consumers Investigation.  The Tory led government is out of touch
with consumers and has failed to stand up to vested interests to
protect people from rip offs at a time when family budgets are
being squeezed."

Ian Murray MP, Labour's Shadow Consumer Minister said:

"Too many consumers have been exposed to unfair rip offs but
Labour's Consumer Investigation will look at how consumers can
fight back when things go wrong.

"Consumer champion Ed Mayo is taking the lead in investigating the
con culture which is damaging for both consumers and business.
Whilst Labour is working with Ed to look at ways to better stand
up for consumers and back responsible business, the Tory-led
Government has turned a blind eye to protecting consumer
interests."

Consumer Champion Ed Mayo, who will lead the Investigation added:

"The best businesses take the high road and live up to their
promises for consumers, but in tough times, many more are doing
the opposite -- with poor service, new charges and lock-in
contracts designed to cut people's choice.

"The Investigation will hold evidence hearings involving key
stakeholders across the business and consumer landscape with the
aim of looking at the best ways of getting rid of this consumer
con culture and to reward the companies who put their customers
first."



                           *********

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  * * *