CAR_Public/120216.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, February 16, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 33

                             Headlines

ALTOONA, PA: Section 8 Tenants Seek Class Certification
AMERICAN HONDA: Sued Over Defective Civic Motor Assist System
AMERICAN HONDA: Feb. 18 Fuel Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
ASUS COMPUTER: Faces Class Action Over Tablet Computer
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: June 2013 Trial Set for Mine Class Action

BAYER: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Vitamin Sales
CAMBREX CORP: Motions in Lorazepam Suit Appeal Remain Pending
CITIZENS PROPERTY: Donelon Explores Options in Class Action
CITY OF NEWARK, N.J.: Housing Authority Faces Class Action
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Trial in "Pecover" Class Suit to Begin October

EXTREME NETWORKS: Remaining Appeal Dismissed Concluding IPO Suit
FORD MOTOR: Judge Denies Class Certification in Van Suit
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss "Russell" Suit Pending
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Plea to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Class Action Over Skin Surgery Policy

MCGRAW-HILL COS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Reese" Suit
MCGRAW-HILL COS: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration of Dismissal
METABANK: Has Confidential Settlement Deal with Credit Union
PANTRY INC: "Amason" Suit Stayed Pending Ruling in Similar Case
PANTRY INC: Filed Dispositive Bids in Suits Over Fuel Temperature

PERRIGO CO: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Transfer 9 Suits in Israel
PERRIGO CO: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in New York
PERSELS & ASSOCIATES: Class Action Settlement Gets Criticism
RICK'S CABARET: Texas Court Dismissed Declaratory Judgment Suit
SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Defends Consolidated AATI Merger-Related Suit

SUNVIEW VINEYARDS: Workers Get Class Certification in Wage Suit
THIESS DEGREMONT: Slater & Gordon Drops Flood Class Action
TOWERS WATSON: Awaits Ruling on Judgment Bid in Consolidated Suit


                          *********

ALTOONA, PA: Section 8 Tenants Seek Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
William Kibler, writing for The Altoona Mirror, reports that two
former Section 8 families suing the Altoona Housing Authority in
federal court have asked the judge to certify their case as a
class action, but the authority is fighting that attempt.

The "class" would comprise 33 tenants the authority has evicted
over the past three years and any it may evict in the future,
according to plaintiffs' lawyer, Kevin Quisenberry of the
Community Justice Project in Pittsburgh.

"This is to help ensure the relief you would get benefits the
other[s]," Mr. Quisenberry said.

The authority is arguing the case doesn't meet the standard for
class action -- that it lacks plaintiffs who represent issues
common to other potential plaintiffs, who in turn are too numerous
for the court to hear individually.

Plaintiff Ashley Thompson is challenging her eviction for
allegedly allowing the father of two of her children, boyfriend
Brett Andrews, to live with her on the 2300 block of Beale Avenue.

Mr. Andrews touched off the case when he told the authority he'd
been living with Ms. Thompson in violation of her lease.
According to Ms. Thompson's complaint, Mr. Andrews shared the
information in retaliation for her having sought a protection-
from-abuse order against him.

In an eviction hearing, Ms. Thompson produced an affidavit from
Mr. Andrews saying he hadn't lived with her after all.  But that
contradicted Mr. Andrews having listed Ms. Thompson's address on a
Blair County Court probation form, according to the authority.

David and Deborah Sills are challenging their eviction for
allowing Deborah's mother, Josephine Brooker, to live with them
after she was evicted from her own authority-provided public
housing at 11th Street Tower.

According to her complaint, Ms. Brooker had stopped taking
medication for "major depression" and a "psychotic disorder" after
it made her blood pressure rise.  Stopping the medication
triggered hallucinations and "negative thoughts," according to her
complaint.

On May 20, 2010, she locked the door of her apartment and turned
on the hot water and at least one burner of her gas stove.  Police
officers forced their way in and turned off the stove, ending the
crisis.

The authority said Ms. Brooker "tried to blow up the 11th Street
Towers," in its response to her complaint.

Ms. Brooker moved to her daughter's Section 8 apartment after the
incident, which the authority learned of when she applied for
reinstatement.

Granting Ms. Brooker's request for reinstatement would have
eliminated the Sills' lease violation but would have breached an
authority policy disallowing readmission to evicted tenants for
two years -- to say nothing of the alleged security issues
connected to her meltdown.

Ms. Brooker filed a separate suit against the authority for her
eviction, but she isn't asking the court to certify that suit as a
class action.

One could argue the former tenants are slamming the authority for
the diligence the authority should have displayed in the late
1990s, when a failure to screen Section 8 applicants for drug
histories exacerbated the city's crime problem, according to the
Altoona Drug and Crime Commission of 1999.

It's not a contrast authority solicitor Bill Haberstroh supports,
noting the current cases have nothing to do with drugs.

He said the previous ones didn't involve rule-breaking by the
authority, as the commission claimed.

Authority member Scott Brown doesn't accept that there's an ironic
parallel between the plaintiffs' current accusation that the
authority is being over-diligent and the old commission's
accusations that the authority was not being diligent enough.

"To my knowledge, there's no linkage," he said.

But Mr. Brown has no patience with the current lawsuits.

"This is a gross manipulation," Mr. Brown said, saying he spoke
for himself only and not the board.  "It's frustrating, wasteful
and fraudulent."

The Thompson-Sills suit alleges the hearing officer hired by the
authority used "uncorroborated hearsay," gathered evidence outside
the hearings and improperly shifted the burden of proof onto the
tenants.

The hearsay problem went as far as "hearsay within hearsay within
hearsay" -- a worker saying a co-worker received a call reporting
an alleged problem, Mr. Quisenberry said.  "It was almost
shocking," he stated.

Such irregularities are common with authority evictions, according
to Mr. Quisenberry.

The plaintiffs asked the court to enjoin the authority to keep the
tenants' housing subsidies, award "compensatory and punitive
damages" and train hearing officers on correct procedures.

The authority asked the court to dismiss the due process claims,
saying the rules of evidence do not apply to informal hearings.

The authority conceded in court papers that officers have gathered
evidence outside hearings but said it happened only in about 10
percent of cases, which doesn't constitute "general practice."

The authority scheduled new hearings for Ms. Thompson and the
Sills when a problem occurred in their cases, and the problem
hasn't recurred since 2010, the authority stated in court papers.

It also contested allegations that it shifted the burden of proof
in eviction hearings onto tenants as well as the uncorroborated
hearsay claim and asked the court to dismiss the request for
punitive damages, according to court papers.

Hearing officer Jeff Muriceak, a Hollidaysburg attorney, said he
couldn't comment, because the case is ongoing.

Mr. Quisenberry said the authority could have settled the cases
easily.

"I think they will find they will have spent a lot of time, effort
and money defending a practice that is indefensible," he said.

Mr. Haberstroh told the board that the authority has offered to
settle, but the plaintiffs didn't seriously consider it.

Asking the judge for class action status will help ensure the case
will have value as a precedent, Mr. Quisenberry said.  It should
have that even without class action status, "you would think," he
said.  "But there are risks."

If he obtains class action status and wins, the case would stand
as an absolute precedent in the District of Western Pennsylvania
and have "persuasive" effect elsewhere, he said.

Ms. Thompson, 19, a single mom, was living on food stamps, earning
$600 a month for part-time work and not receiving the child
support she was entitled to at the time of the problem that
triggered the lawsuit, according to her complaint.  She was paying
$4 a month toward the $492 rent for her apartment.

The Sills paid $335 of the $650 rent on their apartment.

In her application for reinstatement, Ms. Brooker wrote of her
actions, "I know that was a terrible thing that happened, and I am
very, very sorry it did, but I wasn't in control."

Her lawyers ask for a "reasonable accommodation" for her
disability, with her daughter, son-in-law and medical providers
ensuring continued compliance with her medical regimen.

The authority is denying her reinstatement, saying she no longer
has a disability because her medication has cleared it up.

In November, Judge Kim Gibson of the U.S. District Court in
Johnstown ordered the authority to continue the housing subsidies
for Thompson and the Sills.

Neither live in the housing where they resided when they filed
their suits, based on the Mirror's attempt to locate them for
comment.

"In the 12-15 years I've been here, things have been getting
awfully complex," Mr. Haberstroh said at the end of a recent
meeting in which he discussed the federal lawsuit and a several
other issues.  "I'm beginning to wonder if there's anything you
can do that's right."


AMERICAN HONDA: Sued Over Defective Civic Motor Assist System
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Honda won't back up its warranty for its defective integrated
motor assist system in 2006-08 Civic hybrids.

A copy of the Complaint in Rego, et al. v. American Honda Motor
Co., Inc., Case No. 12-cv-01193 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/13/Honda.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Steve W. Berman, Esq.
         Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
         Seattle, WA 98101
         E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                 toml@hbsslaw.com

              - and -

         Elaine Byszewski, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         700 South Flower Street, Suite 2940
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Telephone: (213) 330-7150
         E-mail: elaine@hsbsslaw.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Feb. 18 Fuel Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dylan Roderick, writing for Automotive Discovery, reports that
$10,000 in damages has been awarded to a Californian woman last
week.  The court case took place in small-claims court and the
lawsuit was because she was getting lower than advertised fuel
economy in your Civic Hybrid.

The deadline for United States residents who bought a Honda Civic
Hybrid between 2003 and 2009 is on Feb. 18.  The class action
lawsuit includes those owners unless they opt out before the
Feb. 18 deadline.  The fuel economy issue is the only issue listed
in the class action case.

By opting out, Honda Civic Hybrid owners will preserve their right
to create their own lawsuit against the automaker.  That is what
Heather Peters, the Californian woman who won $10,000 did.  If
they do not opt out they will be entitled to up to $200 and a
coupon off of their next Honda purchase.  Those that opt out will
not receive that, although they can take their chances at
receiving more if they want to push a case as Ms. Peters did.

Everyone is keeping an eye on what will happen in the class action
suit.  Particularly interested are legal experts, consumer rights
advocates and automakers.  Learning what happens with this suit,
how many remain opted in and how many decide to start individual
lawsuits will both be important factors to watch.

If Honda Civic Hybrid owners want to opt out of the class action
suit, they need to send a certified letter to the settlement
administrator.  This letter will have to have a postmark of the
end of the day on Feb. 13 at the latest.  It may set precedence
for future class action lawsuits.  More information about this
class action lawsuit can be found at http://www.hchsettlement.com


ASUS COMPUTER: Faces Class Action Over Tablet Computer
------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that Asus
Computer (Asustek) designed its Transformer Prime tablet with a
metallic body that makes its GPS and Wifi capabilities useless, a
class action claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Colin Fraser sued Asus Computer International and
its parent company Asustek Computer Inc., which is based in
Taipei, Taiwan.

Mr. Fraser says he ordered a tablet in December 2011, but before
it arrived he became aware of "hardware problems . . . relating to
Transformer Prime's GPS and Wifi capabilities."

"The defect was later confirmed by defendants as the result of the
spun aluminum back panel which effectively blocks GPS signals,"
the complaint states.  The defect was corroborated in a letter
from Asus International's customer service department, according
to the complaint, which cites the Dec. 30, 2011 letter.

Mr. Fraser's says Internet blogs and forums discussed the problems
with the tablet, and an online petition called on Asustek to fix
or replace the product.  "Asus responded that it was only a few in
the first batch that were victims of this design flaw and they
recalled 300 units as a result," the complaint states, citing the
petition.

But, the petition continues: "Upon release, end users have found
that the Wifi issue is much more widespread, in addition we are
finding that GPS and Bluetooth issues are also a likely result of
the same design flaw."

The petition claims that Asus merely removed GPS from its spec
list, and "to make matters worse, Asus announced on 1/10/12 that a
new improved Transformer Prime was near release.  Aside from the
improved screen and front facing camera, it seems the main things
Asus touted with this iteration of the Prime are the improved back
plate that has all but eliminated the problems with wireless
connections such as GPS, Wifi, and Bluetooth."

The petition called on Asus to either replace the back plate on
old units or allow owners to trade in their defective tablets for
the new version, Mr. Fraser says.

He claims Asustek was aware of the problems with the tablet, and
acknowledged and apologized for the defects in a Facebook post.

"The ASUS Transformer Prime is made from a metallic unibody
design, so the material may affect the performance of the GPS when
receiving signals from satellites," Mr. Fraser says, quoting the
company's Facebook post.

"Please note that this product is not a professional GPS device,
and signal performance can be easily influenced by factors
including, but not limited to: weather, buildings, and surrounding
environments.  Please understand there are limitations when using
the GPS function.  To avoid inconveniencing users who demand a
powerful GPS device, we made the decision to remove it from our
specification sheet and marketing communications. We apologize for
any inconvenience this has caused."

Mr. Fraser received his Transformer Prime on Jan. 16.  "Almost
immediately after the purchase of his Transformer Prime, plaintiff
began to experience significantly reduced GPS performance which
rendered the device unreliable and not functional," the complaint
states.

"Upon information and belief, plaintiff's reception problems
relating to the GPS are not unique and individuals across the
country have experienced similar problems following their purchase
of the Transformer Prime.  . . .

"[T]hese problems are, without question, the result of the
Transformer Prime's defective design and/or manufacture ('. . . no
RF window . . .') and there is no foreseeable manner to remedy the
defect on the existing device," Mr. Fraser says (Parentheses and
ellipses in complaint.)

Mr. Fraser seeks an injunction and damages for negligence, defect
in design, manufacture and assembly, breaches of warranty,
violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
business and professions codes, and negligent misrepresentation.

A copy of the Complaint in Fraser v. Asus Computer International,
et al., Case No. 12-cv-00652 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/13/ColinvASUS.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          Dennis J. Herman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
                  dherman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
          Bailie L. Heikkinen, Esq.
          Kathleen L. Barber, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 600
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
                  sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
                  bheikkinen@rgrdlaw.com
                  kbarber@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven R. Jaffe, Esq.
          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          Mark Fistos, Esq.
          FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820
          E-mail: steve@pathtojustice.com
                  seth@pathtojustice.com
                  mark@pathtojustice.com


ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: June 2013 Trial Set for Mine Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Sonner, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
trial is still more than a year away, but a federal judge on
Feb. 13 cleared the way for neighbors of an abandoned, toxic mine
in northern Nevada to move forward with a class-action lawsuit
against Atlantic Richfield Co. and its parent BP America Inc.

The lawsuit filed more than a year ago accuses the companies of
intentionally and negligently concealing the extent of the
pollution for decades at the old Anaconda copper mine near
Yerington.

U.S. District Judge Robert Jones ruled on Feb. 13 that the
plaintiffs can try to prove the companies are liable for damage,
negligence and even trespassing in allowing uranium and other
contaminants to migrate into private wells and essentially storing
it on nearby property without the knowledge of owners.

"This is a huge case," Judge Jones told lawyers during a motions
hearing in Reno.  "You may need at least a year's worth of
discovery."

He tentatively set the trial for June 18, 2013.

Anaconda sold the mine to Atlantic Richfield in 1978.

Judge Jones handed Atlantic Richfield a minor victory by ruling
the 100-plus plaintiffs in the class-action suit cannot seek
damages under the legal theory of unjust enrichment because Nevada
law generally limits that sort of restitution to cases involving
contracts.

Still, lawyers for the plaintiffs said they were pleased with the
overall outcome of the hearing.

"We think he has left us enough legal avenues to get everything
we're after," attorney Allan Kanner told The Associated Press
after the hearing.

Mr. Kanner also said it was important that the judge actually set
a date for the civil trial.

The controversy has dragged on for decades as Nevada -- and more
recently the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -- have worked
with limited success to force Atlantic Richfield to clean up the
site covering 5 square miles about 65 miles southeast of Reno.

"The administrative process to clean up this mine has been going
on for 30 years and nothing really has been done to actually clean
it up," Mr. Kanner said.  "Hopefully, now we are putting
everybody's feet to the fire."

Mr. Kanner was part of the legal team that sued BP for damages
resulting from the Gulf Coast oil spill.

Lawyers for Atlantic Richfield said an unjust enrichment claim
would be possible only if the companies had entered a contract or
pledged something in return in exchange for storing the waste,
said Greg Brower, a Nevada state senator and former federal
attorney who is part of the defendants' legal team.

More than three-quarter of the wells tested since 2010 within 2
miles north of the World War II-era copper mine have registered
dangerous levels of uranium or arsenic or both that make the water
unsafe to drink, according to EPA.

Without admitting any responsibility, BP has been providing
bottled water since 2004 to hundreds of residents whose wells
showed concentrations of uranium greater than 25 micrograms per
liter.  That's below the EPA drinking water standard of 30
micrograms per liter.

BP and Atlantic Richfield maintain that at least some of the
arsenic and uranium in the groundwater is naturally occurring in
rocks and soil in Nevada and much of the West.  The EPA agrees
that is possible, but it established over the past three years
that the source of the majority of the contaminants is the plume
beneath the mine site.


BAYER: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Vitamin Sales
------------------------------------------------------
The American Lawyer reports that a California federal judge has
certified a statewide consumer class action against Bayer over
health claims the company made for its men's multivitamins,
rejecting arguments by Bayer's lawyers that the class claims
couldn't survive the U.S. Supreme Court's Wal-Mart v. Dukes
decision.


CAMBREX CORP: Motions in Lorazepam Suit Appeal Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Several motions are currently pending in connection with an
appeal in the lawsuit over Lorazepam and Clorazepate, according to
Cambrex Corporation's February 7, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In 1998, the Company and a subsidiary were named as defendants
along with Mylan Laboratories, Inc. ("Mylan") and Gyma
Laboratories, Inc. ("Gyma") in a proceeding instituted by the
Federal Trade Commission in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia (the "District Court").  Lawsuits were
also commenced by several State Attorneys General and class action
complaints by private plaintiffs in various state courts.  The
lawsuits alleged violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act
arising from exclusive license agreements between the Company and
Mylan covering two active pharmaceutical ingredients (Lorazepam
and Clorazepate).

All cases have been resolved except for one brought by four health
care insurers.  In the remaining case, the District Court entered
judgment after trial in 2008 against Mylan, Gyma and Cambrex in
the total amount of $19,200,000, payable jointly and severally,
and also a punitive damage award against each defendant in the
amount of $16,709,000.  In addition, the District Court ruled that
the defendants were subject to a total of approximately $7,500,000
in prejudgment interest.  Several motions are currently pending in
connection with the defendant's appeal of the judgment.

Cambrex Corporation -- http://www.cambrex.com/-- is an innovative
life sciences company providing products, services and
technologies to accelerate the development and commercialization
of small molecule therapeutics.


CITIZENS PROPERTY: Donelon Explores Options in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chad Hemenway, writing for Propertycasualty360.com, reports that
Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon says the state's last-resort
insurer has some options left in its pursuit to either stop or
negotiate down a hefty multimillion-dollar judgment against it.

"We still have several arrows left in our quiver," says
Mr. Donelon during an interview.

Citizens Property Insurance Corp. says it will take an $80 million
settlement offer to attorneys currently representing more than
18,500 Citizens policyholders who argue the state-run insurer was
late in adjusting their claims after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
No more than $25 million of the offer is to go to attorneys, says
Mr. Donelon.

The state's last-resort insurer has a class-action lawsuit
judgment against it -- from the state's highest court -- for at
least $104 million.  Add interest accruing each day and the
possibility of more people joining the class, and the payout
increases tens of millions of dollars more.

Mr. Donelon says the state can still make a case for a rehearing
before the state Supreme Court, appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court,
pass a legislative fix, or negotiate the award.

And Mr. Donelon says he'd rather squeeze Citizens' legal budget
dry "before paying a penny to the plaintiffs."  At least not until
all options are tapped because there's too much on the line, he
adds.

Negotiations have not started out well.  Attorneys for the
plaintiffs criticized Citizens and Mr. Donelon for taking their
offer to the press before introducing it to the class of
policyholders, and they reminded state officials that it had a
judgment for much more than $80 million in its pocket.

A settlement offer from the class stands at $123 million -- still
a discount, say the plaintiffs' attorneys.

At stake is the financial stability at Citizens, which means all
policyholders in Louisiana can be affected since Citizens has the
ability to levy assessments so it can pay claims.

Therein lays the point sticking in Mr. Donelon's craw.

Insurers, Citizens included, did not start the adjusting process
within the guidelines of the law following Katrina.  Mr. Donelon
doesn't argue the fact.  Conditions may have played a large role
after the unprecedented storm, but "the law is the law," says
Mr. Donelon, who sued his own insurer.

The difficulty in accepting the ruling against Citizens is the
guaranteed $5,000 each class member is slated to receive.

"That's the maximum penalty," Mr. Donelon says.  "One penalty
doesn't fit each person.  One day over the statute or much more
than that -- you get the same amount under this judgment.  It is
unconscionable."

Policyholders of private insurers had attempted to form a class
and sue, but were told by judges that they were not deemed
applicable for class-action status.

"And they [judges] were right in that ruling," concedes
Mr. Donelon.  "But the same is not being applied here in this
case."

Now, Mr. Donelon says 95% of Louisianans -- many of whom had the
same thing happen to them after Katrina -- are at risk of having
to pay assessments due to a judgment in favor of Citizens
policyholders who are able to pursue a class-action case -- the
same type of case policyholders of private carriers were prevented
from pursuing.

Citizens has the money on hand to satisfy the judgment against it,
Mr. Donelon says, but paying the full amount would mean the
insurer is at risk of not having enough funds to pay claims
following a decent storm this hurricane season -- at least not
without levying assessments.

"We've got our sleeves rolled up trying to figure out a way to
make this right," Mr. Donelon says.  "Right now we think it isn't
right."

A special meeting of the Citizens' board approved Sen. Eric
LaFleur, D-Ville Platte, chairman of the insurer's litigation
committee, to take its $80 million offer to plaintiffs' attorneys.

Mr. Donelon says Citizens is also assisting its bank in efforts
against actions by the class attorneys to seize funds to begin
doling out awards.


CITY OF NEWARK, N.J.: Housing Authority Faces Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C., with the law firm of Cohn
Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP serving as local counsel,
has brought a class action in state court in New Jersey against
the Housing Authority of the City of Newark and U.S. Bank, N.A.,
as trustee (jointly, the "Defendants") for the following bond
issuances:

    * $200,420,000.00 Port Authority - Port Newark Marine Terminal
Additional Rent-Backed Bonds, Series 2004 (City of Newark
Redevelopment Projects) (CUSIP No. 65037RAJ(9),

    * $7,780,000 Housing Authority of the City of Newark Port
Authority - Port Newark Marine Terminal Additional Rent Backed
Bonds, Series 2007 (City of Newark Redevelopment Projects) (CUSIP
No. 65037RCF5), and

    * $168,320,000 Housing Authority of the City of Newark Port
Authority - Port Newark Marine Terminal Additional Rent-Backed
Refunding Bonds, Series 2007 (City of Newark Redevelopment
Projects) (CUSIP No.65037RCJ7) (collectively, the "Bonds").

The case seeks to certify a class that includes all bondholders,
and successors-in-interest, who hold or held the above Bonds on
and through December 5, 2011, and have been damaged thereby.

The complaint alleges state law claims for negligence and breach
of negligence against the Defendants.  Initially, the Debt Service
Reserve Fund for the Bonds was invested in a guaranteed investment
contract ("GIC"), issued by MBIA Insurance Corporation ("MBIA").
In 2009, the GIC was cancelled following the downgrade of MBIA and
the Debt Service Reserve Fund was subsequently invested in a money
market fund which reinvested in U.S. Treasuries.  Investment
earnings on the Debt Service Reserve Fund under the GIC were 5%.
Investment earnings since 2009 from U.S. Treasuries have been
substantially lower than 5%.  According to a December 5, 2011,
report issued by Standard & Poor's ("S&P"), in fiscal 2010, the
investment earnings from the money market fund yielded a return
lower than the amount needed, together with the annual rental
payment, to fully meet the debt service on the Bonds.  To avoid a
default, the Authority directed the trustee, U.S. Bank, to make a
one-time transfer of approximately $82,000.00 from the
construction fund set aside for completion of the projects to
cover the shortfall.  S&P issued a substantial downgrade of the
Bonds on December 5, 2011.  As a result of the eight-notch
downgrade of the bonds from AA- to BB by S&P on December 5, 2011,
the trading prices of the Bonds have been negatively impacted.
Bondholders who sold their Bonds since December 5, 2011, have
incurred losses, and those who continue to hold the Bonds have
seen the value of their holdings diminished as there is a market-
perceived potential for default on the Bonds in the future and
prior to maturity.

Berger & Montague is a nationally-recognized law firm and consists
of over 60 attorneys, mostly representing plaintiffs in complex
litigation.  The Berger firm has extensive experience representing
institutions and other investor plaintiffs in securities
litigation and has played lead roles in major cases over the past
30 years that have resulted in recoveries of billions of dollars
to investors.  The firm has represented institutions and investors
as counsel in such leading securities actions as Lehman, Merrill
Lynch, Revlon, Rite Aid, Sotheby's, CIGNA, Waste Management,
Sunbeam, Boston Chicken and IKON Office Solutions.

If you would like further information on this matter, please feel
free to contact:

          Robin Switzenbaum, Esq.
          Berger & Montague, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (800) 424-6690
                     (215) 875-4679
          E-mail: rswitzenbaum@bm.net
          Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Trial in "Pecover" Class Suit to Begin October
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the antitrust class action lawsuit commenced by Geoffrey
Pecover is set for October 2012, according to Electronic Arts
Inc.'s February 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2011.

In June 2008, Geoffrey Pecover filed an antitrust class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that EA obtained an illegal monopoly in a
discreet antitrust market that consists of "league-branded
football simulation video games" by bidding for, and winning,
exclusive licenses with the NFL, Collegiate Licensing Company and
Arena Football League.  In December 20, 2010, the district court
granted the plaintiffs' request to certify a class of plaintiffs
consisting of all consumers who purchased EA's Madden NFL, NCAA
Football or Arena Football videogames after 2005.  The parties are
in the midst of fact discovery.  The court has set a trial date
for October 2012.  The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory
damages.

The Company says it has not accrued any loss related to this
matter.  The Company believes the claims asserted are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.


EXTREME NETWORKS: Remaining Appeal Dismissed Concluding IPO Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A remaining appeal in a consolidated litigation over initial
public offerings was dismissed, concluding the case, according to
Extreme Networks, Inc.'s February 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 1, 2012.

Beginning on July 6, 2001, purported securities fraud class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The cases were consolidated and
the litigation is now captioned as In re Extreme Networks, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-6143
(SAS) (S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.).  The operative
amended complaint names the Company as defendants; six of the
Company's present and former officers and/or directors, including
its former CEO; and several investment banking firms that served
as underwriters of its initial public offering and October 1999
secondary offering.  The complaint alleges liability under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the
grounds that the registration statement for the offerings did not
disclose that: (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain
customers to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and (2) the
underwriters had arranged for certain customers to purchase
additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices.
Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over
300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes.

The parties to the lawsuits have reached a settlement, which was
approved by the Court on October 6, 2009.  Extreme Networks is not
required to make any cash payments in the settlement.  The Court
subsequently entered a final judgment of dismissal.  Certain
objectors appealed the judgment.  Subsequently, the District Court
ruled that all objectors lacked standing to appeal.  One of the
objectors appealed that ruling.  In January 2012, the Court
dismissed the pending appeal and the case has concluded.  The
Company has no financial liability associated with the settlement.


FORD MOTOR: Judge Denies Class Certification in Van Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Law Journal reports that a federal judge in New Jersey
has denied class certification for claims that a Ford Motor van
model is too prone to rolling over to carry 15 passengers as
advertised.  Class certification is not warranted because
individual issues predominate over common issues of fact and law,
the judge ruled.


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss "Russell" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Russell (the "Russell Plaintiff") filed a complaint on
December 7, 2007, in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia and an amended purported putative class
action complaint on June 2, 2008, against Harman International
Industries, Incorporated and certain of its officers and directors
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 ("ERISA") and seeking, on behalf of all participants in
and beneficiaries of the Savings Plan, compensatory damages for
losses to the Savings Plan as well as injunctive relief,
imposition of a constructive trust, restitution, and other
monetary relief.  The amended complaint alleges that from April
26, 2007, to the present, defendants failed to prudently and
loyally manage the Savings Plan's assets, thereby breaching their
fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by causing the Savings Plan
to invest in the Company's common stock notwithstanding that the
stock allegedly was "no longer a prudent investment for the
Participants' retirement savings."  The amended complaint further
claims that, during the Class Period, defendants failed to monitor
the Savings Plan fiduciaries, failed to provide the Savings Plan
fiduciaries with, and to disclose to Savings Plan participants,
adverse facts regarding Harman and the Company's businesses and
prospects.  The Russell Plaintiff also contends that defendants
breached their duties to avoid conflicts of interest and to serve
the interests of participants in and beneficiaries of the Savings
Plan with undivided loyalty.  As a result of these alleged
fiduciary breaches, the amended complaint asserts that the Savings
Plan has "suffered substantial losses, resulting in the depletion
of millions of dollars of the retirement savings and anticipated
retirement income of the Savings Plan's Participants."

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on
August 5, 2008.  The Russell Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on September 19, 2008, and defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on
October 20, 2008.  The motion is now fully briefed.

As of December 31, 2011, the case remained open with no new
developments, 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.


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Plea to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
On October 1, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by
Cheolan Kim (the "Kim Plaintiff") against Harman International
Industries, Incorporated and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia (the "Court")
seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons
who purchased the Company's common stock between April 26, 2007,
and September 24, 2007 (the "Class Period").  The original
complaint alleged claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the
"Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose
material adverse facts about Harman's financial condition and
business prospects.  The complaint contended that had these facts
not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg
Kravis Roberts & Co. and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners was
entered into, there would not have been a merger agreement, or it
would have been at a much lower price, and the price of the
Company's common stock therefore would not have been artificially
inflated during the Class Period.  The Kim Plaintiff alleged that,
following the reports that the proposed merger was not going to be
completed, the price of the Company's common stock declined,
causing the plaintiff class significant losses.

On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension
Plan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and
certain of its officers in the Court seeking compensatory damages
and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between April 26, 2007, and September 24, 2007.  The
allegations in the Boca Raton complaint are essentially identical
to the allegations in the original Kim complaint, and like the
original Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges claims
for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period through
January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the violations
alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose "significant
problems" relating to its PND sales forecasts, production,
pricing, and inventory" prior to January 14, 2008.  The amended
complaint claimed that when "Defendants revealed for the first
time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would adversely
impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share in fiscal
2008," that led to a further decline in the Company's share value
and additional losses to the plaintiff class.

On February 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing
of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the
consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR).  That
same day, the Court appointed Arkansas Public Retirement System as
lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and approved the law firm Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead counsel.

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint").  The Consolidated
Complaint, which extends the Class Period through February 5,
2008, contends that Harman and certain of the Company's officers
and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and
misleading disclosures regarding the Company's financial condition
in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008.  In particular, the
Consolidated Complaint alleges that defendants knowingly or
recklessly failed to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG
radios, portable navigation devices ("PNDs") and the Company's
capital expenditures.  The Consolidated Complaint alleges that
when Harman's true financial condition became known to the market,
the price of the Company's common stock declined significantly,
causing losses to the plaintiff class.

On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety.  Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2,
2008.  The motion is now fully briefed.

As of December 31, 2011, the case remained open with no new
developments, 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.


KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Class Action Over Skin Surgery Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Johnson at Courthouse News Service reports that a class of
patients alleges in state court that Kaiser refuses to cover
reconstructive skin surgery after procedures for morbid obesity.

Filed in Alameda County Superior Court, they say that the refusal
of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to pay for removal of excess skin
after bariatric surgery, such as a gastric bypass, violates Health
and Safety Code Section 1367.63.

The statute requires health care service plans to cover
reconstructive surgery performed "to correct or repair abnormal
structures of the body" that is necessary "to improve function"
and "to create a normal appearance."

However, rather than investigate whether the proposed
reconstructive surgery is necessary to restore or improve normal
function, according to the complaint, Kaiser automatically denies
those requests on the grounds that such surgery is merely
"cosmetic."  Kaiser then refers its members to its for-profit
cosmetic surgery centers.

Lead plaintiff Wendy Gallimore, who is covered under a Kaiser
health plan as an employee of the Twin Rivers Unified School
District, requested that Kaiser authorize reconstructive surgery
for the mass amounts of excess skin left over from extensive
weight loss following bariatric surgery.  Her surgery was for
repair of "abnormal structures of the body caused by . . .
disease."

There was no other appropriate procedure for plaintiff's
condition, said Ms. Gallimore in her complaint. However, Kaiser
refused to authorize the surgeryess skin was "cosmetic."

Adding insult to that injury, Kaiser incorporated Health and
Safety Code Section 1367.63 into its "evidence of coverage"
contract, said Ms. Gallimore, but did not abide by it.

The plaintiff class seeks an injunction requiring Kaiser to re-
evaluate its prior refusals of reconstructive surgery, as well as
a declaration of rights and duties under Kaiser's contract.

A copy of the Complaint in Gallimore v. Kaiser Foundation Health
Plan, Inc., et al., Case No. RG12616206 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Alameda Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/13/KaiserClass.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Gianelli, Esq.
          Lotte Colbert, Esq.
          GIANELLI & MORRIS
          888 West Sixth Street, 9th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 489-1600


MCGRAW-HILL COS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Reese" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on
its motion to dismiss a putative shareholder class action pending
in New York, according to the Company's February 7, 2012, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

On August 28, 2007, a putative shareholder class action titled
Reese v. Bahash was filed in the District Court for the District
of Columbia, and was subsequently transferred to the Southern
District of New York.  The Company and its CEO and former CFO are
currently named as defendants in the lawsuit, which alleges claims
under the federal securities laws in connection with alleged
misrepresentations and omissions made by the defendants relating
to the Company's earnings and Standard & Poor's business
practices.  On November 3, 2008, the District Court denied Lead
Plaintiff's motion to lift the discovery stay imposed by the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in order to obtain
documents S&P submitted to the SEC during the SEC's examination.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
which was fully briefed and submitted as of May 2009.  The Court
granted a motion by plaintiffs permitting the plaintiffs to amend
the complaint on June 29, 2010, and the Third Amended Complaint
was filed on July 1, 2010.  Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Third Amended Complaint has been fully briefed before the Court.

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


MCGRAW-HILL COS: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration of Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in two shareholder class action lawsuits have
petitioned the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for
reconsideration en banc in connection with the dismissal of their
lawsuits, according to The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.'s
February 7, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On September 10, 2008, a putative shareholder class action titled
Patrick Gearren, et al. v. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., et al.
was filed in the District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company, its Board of Directors, its Pension
Investment Committee and the administrator of its pension plans.
The Complaint alleged that the defendants breached fiduciary
duties to participants in the Company's plans under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") by allowing
participants to continue to invest in Company stock as an
investment option under the plans during a period when plaintiffs
allege the Company's stock price to have been artificially
inflated.  The Complaint also asserted that defendants breached
fiduciary duties under ERISA by making certain material
misrepresentations and non-disclosures concerning the ratings
business in plan communications and the Company's SEC filings.  A
virtually identical complaint was filed on June 12, 2009, in an
action titled Sullivan v. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 09-CV-5450 in the Southern District of New York.  On
February 10, 2010, both actions were dismissed in their entirety
for failure to state a claim under applicable law.  Both
plaintiffs appealed and on October 19, 2011, the Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissals in their entirety.
Both plaintiffs have petitioned the Court of Appeals for
reconsideration en banc.


METABANK: Has Confidential Settlement Deal with Credit Union
------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Sanders, writing for New Hampshire Business Review, reports
that Guardian Angel Credit Union, the Berlin-based lead plaintiff
in a three-year-old class action suit against a larger Iowa bank,
has reached a confidential settlement, according to recent filing
in federal district court in Concord.

The settlement came after U.S. District Court Judge Paul J.
Barbadoro refused to throw out charges in July that MetaBank
breached its contract with Guardian Angel and some 34 other
depository institutions, by negligently allowing a rogue employee
to steal about $4 million in 2005.

MetaBank, which has 13 branches and $686 million in assets, is
traded on the Nasdaq exchange under the ticker CASH.

But Judge Barbadoro's decision did not allow punitive damages or
attorney's fees, so had the case gone to trial the most the
plaintiffs could have hoped for was the $4.95 million that they
claimed their lost.

However, in class action settlements, the lead plaintiff usually
gets a larger award.

Guardian Angel, which has less than $40 million in assets, lost
some $99,000, according to the complaint.

It was a MetaBank investigation that uncovered the fraud.

"The settlement is fair and reasonable," said Christopher T.
Meier, a North Conway attorney who represented the bank.

The lawsuit stems from the criminal actions of Charlene Marie
Pickhinke, an Iowa MetaBank branch office supervisor who was
sentenced in 2009 to seven years in federal prison after pleading
guilty to one count each of wire fraud, making a false statement
in a bank's books and records, money laundering and aggravated
identity theft.

Ms. Pickhinke, an employee for 28 years, was given the authority
to send and receive wire transfers, move money around and open
accounts, as long as the amount involved was less than $100,000.

Ms. Pickhinke, using MetaBank's letterhead, induced Guardian Angel
to purchase what it thought was a $99,000 MetaBank CD in April
2005, but Ms. Pickhinke transferred the money into an account she
controlled under a false name.

MetaBank argued that it didn't make direct representations that
Ms. Pickhinke had the authority to issue the CDs, but because of
her employment by the bank and the letterhead "MetaBank cloaked
her with the apparent authority to act on its behalf," ruled Judge
Barbadoro.

Notice has been sent out to the other plaintiffs with the terms of
the settlement, which still has to be approved by the court.  A
hearing on that settlement has been scheduled for the end of the
March.  The terms might be made public after then.


PANTRY INC: "Amason" Suit Stayed Pending Ruling in Similar Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama stayed a class action lawsuit until a decision is issued
in another case involving a similar issue, according to The
Pantry, Inc.'s February 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 29, 2011.

On October 19, 2009, Patrick Amason, on behalf of himself and a
putative class of similarly situated individuals, filed a lawsuit
against The Pantry in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, Western Division (Patrick Amason v.
Kangaroo Express and The Pantry, Inc. No. CV-09-P-2117-W).  On
September 9, 2010, a first amended complaint was filed adding
Enger McConnell on behalf of herself and a putative class of
similarly situated individuals.  The plaintiffs seek class action
status and allege that The Pantry included more information than
is permitted on electronically printed credit and debit card
receipts in willful violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. Sec 1681c(g).  The amended
complaint alleges that: (i) plaintiff Patrick Amason seeks to
represent a subclass of those class members as to whom the Company
printed receipts containing the first four and last four digits of
their credit and/or debit card numbers; and (ii) Plaintiff Enger
McConnell seeks to represent a subclass of those class members as
to whom the Company printed receipts containing all digits of
their credit and/or debit card numbers.  The plaintiffs seek an
award of statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 for each alleged
willful violation of the statute, as well as attorneys' fees,
costs, punitive damages and a permanent injunction against the
alleged unlawful practice.

On July 25, 2011, the court denied plaintiffs' initial motion for
class certification but granted the plaintiffs the right to file
an amended motion.  On October 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed an amended
motion for class certification seeking to certify two classes.
The first purported  class, represented by Mr. Amason, consists of
(A) all natural persons whose credit and/or debit card was used at
an in-store point of sale owned or operated by the Company from
June 4, 2009, through the date of the final judgment in the
action, (B) where the transaction was in a Company store located
in the State of Alabama; and (C) in connection with the
transaction, a receipt was printed by Retalix software containing
the first four and last four digits of the credit/debit card
number on the receipt provided to the customer.  The second
purported class, represented by Ms. McConnell, consists of (A) all
natural persons whose credit and/or debit card was used at an in-
store point of sale owned or operated by the Company from June 1,
2009, through the date of the final judgment in the action, and
(B) in connection with the transaction, a receipt was printed
containing all of the digits of the credit/debit card numbers on
the receipt provided to the customer.  The Company opposed the
motion for class certification, and also filed a motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' claims on the basis that the plaintiffs lack
standing or alternatively to stay the case until the Supreme Court
of the United States rules in First American Financial Corp. v.
Edwards (the "Edwards case"), another case involving a standing
issue.

On January 19, 2012, the Court issued an order staying the case
until a decision is issued in the Edwards case, and subsequently
administratively terminated plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, subject to plaintiffs' right to refile the motion
after the stay is removed.

At this stage of the proceedings, the Company says it cannot
reasonably estimate the Company's ultimate loss or liability, if
any, related to this lawsuit because there are a number of unknown
facts and unresolved legal issues that will impact the amount of
the Company's potential liability, including, without limitation:
(i) whether the plaintiffs have standing to assert their claims;
(ii) whether a class or classes will be certified; (iii) if a
class or classes are certified, the identity and number of the
putative class members; and (iv) if a class or classes are
certified, the resolution of certain unresolved statutory
interpretation issues that may impact the size of the putative
class(es) and whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to
statutory damages.  An unfavorable outcome in this litigation
could have a material effect on the Company's business, financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows.


PANTRY INC: Filed Dispositive Bids in Suits Over Fuel Temperature
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Pantry, Inc., disclosed in its February 7, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 29, 2011, that it filed dispositive motions
in each of the cases in which it has been sued in a consolidated
litigation over fuel temperature.

Since the beginning of fiscal 2007, over 45 class action lawsuits
have been filed in federal courts across the country against
numerous companies in the petroleum industry.  Major petroleum
companies and significant retailers in the industry have been
named as defendants in these lawsuits.  Initially, the Company was
named as a defendant in eight of these cases, three of which have
been dismissed without prejudice.  The Company remains as a
defendant in five cases: one in North Carolina (Neese, et al. v.
Abercrombie Oil Company, Inc., et al., E.D.N.C., No. 5:07-cv-
00091-FL, filed 3/7/07); one in Alabama  (Cook,et al. v. Chevron
USA, Inc., et al., N.D. Ala., No. 2:07-cv-750-WKW-CSC, filed
8/22/07); one in Georgia (Rutherford, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA,
Inc., et al., No. 4:07-cv-00113-HLM, filed 6/5/07); one in
Tennessee (Shields, et al. v. RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc., et al.,
No. 1:07-cv-00169, filed 7/13/07); and one in South Carolina
(Korleski v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al., D.S.C.,
No 6:07-cv-03218-MDL, filed 9/24/07).  Pursuant to an Order
entered by the Joint Panel on Multi-District Litigation, all of
the cases, including those in which the Company is named, have
been transferred to the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas and consolidated for all pre-trial proceedings.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that they are
retail purchasers who received less motor fuel than the defendants
agreed to deliver because the defendants measured the amount of
motor fuel they delivered in non-temperature adjusted gallons
which, at higher temperatures, contain less energy.  These cases
seek, among other relief, an order requiring the defendants to
install temperature adjusting equipment on their retail motor fuel
dispensing devices.

In certain of the cases, including some of the cases in which the
Company is named, plaintiffs also have alleged that because
defendants pay fuel taxes based on temperature adjusted 60 degree
gallons, but allegedly collect taxes from consumers on non-
temperature adjusted gallons, defendants receive a greater amount
of tax from consumers than they paid on the same gallon of fuel.
The plaintiffs in these cases seek, among other relief, recovery
of excess taxes paid and punitive damages.  Both types of cases
seek compensatory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and
costs, and prejudgment interest.  The defendants filed motions to
dismiss all cases for failure to state a claim, which were denied
by the court on February 21, 2008.  A number of the defendants,
including the Company, subsequently moved to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary
judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims constitute non-
justiciable "political questions."  The Court denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss on political question grounds on
December 3, 2009, and defendants request to appeal that decision
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit was
denied on August 31, 2010.  In May 2010, in a lawsuit ("Kansas
case") in which the Company is not a party, the Court granted
class certification to Kansas fuel purchasers seeking
implementation of automated temperature controls and/or certain
disclosures, but deferred ruling on any class for damages.
Defendants sought permission to appeal that decision to the Tenth
Circuit in June 2010, and that request was denied on August 31,
2010.

On November 12, 2011, Defendants in the Kansas case filed a motion
to decertify the Kansas classes in light of a new favorable United
States Supreme Court decision.  On January 19, 2012, the Judge
denied the Defendants' motion to decertify and granted the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class as to liability and
injunctive relief aspects of Plaintiffs' claims.  The court has
continued to deny certification of a damages class.  The Kansas
case is set for trial in May 2012.  The Company has filed
dispositive motions in each of the cases in which it has been
sued.

At this stage of proceedings, the Company says it cannot estimate
the Company's ultimate loss or liability, if any, related to these
lawsuits because there are a number of unknown facts and
unresolved legal issues that will impact the amount of any
potential liability, including, without limitation: (i) whether
defendants are required, or even permitted under state law, to
sell temperature adjusted gallons of motor fuel and/or disclose
the temperature of the fuel; (ii) the amounts and actual
temperature of fuel purchased by plaintiffs; and (iii) whether or
not class certification is proper in cases to which the Company is
a party.  An unfavorable outcome in this litigation could have a
material effect on the Company's business, financial condition,
results of operations, and cash flows.


PERRIGO CO: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Transfer 9 Suits in Israel
--------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
transfer to one court nine class action lawsuits that were filed
in various courts in Israel, 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.

During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a
class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel
related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication
manufactured by Aspen and distributed by the Company in Israel.
The respondents include Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or
Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd.; Aspen Bad Oldesloe GMBH, Germany;
GlaxoSmithKline (Israel) Ltd, and health care providers who
provide health care services as part of the compulsory health care
system in Israel.

The applications arise from the launch of a reformulated version
of Eltroxin in Israel.  The applications generally allege that
patients were not notified in a timely manner about the change in
the formulation, about the potential for adverse events while
transferring to the new formulation of Eltroxin and the need to
perform blood tests after changing to the new formulation.  The
applications also generally allege that the failure to timely
provide such notifications resulted in: (a) purchases of product
that otherwise would not have been made by patients had they been
aware of the reformulation; (b) injuries to some patients
resulting from an imbalance of thyroid functions that could have
been avoided; and (c) harm resulting from the patient's lack of
informed consent prior to the use of the reformulation.

The Company filed a request to transfer all the applications to
one court which will decide whether to consolidate the
applications and/or dismiss some of the applications.  As this
matter is in its early stages, the Company says it cannot
reasonably predict at this time the outcome or the liability, if
any, associated with these claims.

Perrigo Company -- http://www.perrigo.com/-- is a global
healthcare supplier that develops, manufactures and distributes
over-the-counter and prescription pharmaceuticals, nutritional
products, active pharmaceutical ingredients, and pharmaceutical
and medical diagnostic products.  The company operates in three
segments: Consumer Healthcare, Rx Pharmaceuticals and API.  The
company has other category that consists of the Israel
Pharmaceutical and Diagnostic Products.  The company operates
through wholly owned subsidiaries.  In the United States, its
operations are conducted through L. Perrigo Company, Perrigo
Company of South Carolina, Inc., Perrigo New York, Inc., Perrigo
Holland, Inc. and Perrigo Florida, Inc.  Outside the United
States, its operations are conducted through Perrigo Israel
Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chemagis Ltd., Quimica y Farmacia S.A. de
C.V., Laboratorios Diba, S.A., Wrafton Laboratories Limited,
Brunel Pharma Limited and Galpharm Healthcare Ltd.


PERRIGO CO: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company continues to defend a shareholder class action
lawsuit pending in New York, 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.

On March 11, 2009, a purported shareholder of the Company named
Michael L. Warner (Warner) filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors, including the
President and Chief Executive Officer, Joseph Papa, and the Chief
Financial Officer, Judy Brown, among others.  The plaintiff sought
to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period between November 6, 2008, and February 2, 2009.
The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act).  The
plaintiff generally alleged that the Company misled investors by
failing to disclose, prior to February 3, 2009, that certain
auction rate securities held by the Company, totaling
approximately $18,000 in par value (the ARS), had been purchased
from Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (Lehman).  The plaintiff
asserted that omission of the identity of Lehman as the seller of
the ARS was material because after Lehman's bankruptcy filing, on
September 15, 2008, the Company allegedly became unable to look to
Lehman to repurchase the ARS at a price near par value.  The
complaint sought unspecified damages and unspecified equitable or
injunctive relief, along with costs and attorneys' fees.

On June 15, 2009, the Court appointed several purported
shareholders of the Company, namely CLAL Finance Batucha
Investment Management, Ltd., The Phoenix Insurance Company, Ltd.,
Excellence Nessuah Mutual Funds Management, Ltd. and Excellence
Nessuah Gemel & Pension, Ltd., as Co-Lead Plaintiffs.  On
July 31, 2009, these Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.  The amended complaint dropped all claims against the
individual defendants other than Joseph Papa and Judy Brown, and
added a "control person" claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act against the members of the Company's Audit Committee.  The
amended complaints asserted many of the same claims and
allegations as the original pleading.  It also alleged that the
Company should have disclosed, prior to February 3, 2009, that
Lehman had sold the ARS to the Company and had provided the
allegedly inflated valuation of the ARS that the Company adopted
in its Form 10-Q filing for the first quarter of fiscal 2009,
which was filed with the SEC on November 6, 2008.  The amended
complaint also alleged that some portion of the write-down of the
value of the ARS that the Company recognized in the second quarter
of fiscal 2009 should have been taken in the prior quarter,
immediately following Lehman's bankruptcy filing.  On September
28, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims
against all defendants.  On September 30, 2010, the Court granted
in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.  The Court
dismissed the "control person" claims against the members of the
Company's Audit Committee, but denied the motion to dismiss as to
the remaining claims and defendants.  On
October 29, 2010, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on the grounds that the Co-Lead Plaintiffs (who
were the only plaintiffs named in the amended complaint) lacked
standing to sue under the U.S. securities laws following a recent
decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act does not apply extraterritorially to the
claims of foreign investors who purchased or sold securities on
foreign stock exchanges.  On December 23, 2010, a shareholder
named Harel Insurance, Ltd. (Harel) filed a motion to intervene as
an additional named plaintiff.  Although Harel is a non-U.S.
investor, it claims to have purchased the Company's common stock
on a U.S. exchange.  On January 10, 2011, the original plaintiff,
Warner, filed a motion renewing his previously withdrawn motion to
be appointed as Lead Plaintiff to replace the Co-Lead Plaintiffs.

On September 28, 2011, the Court granted defendants' renewed
motion to dismiss.  The Court (i) dismissed the claims of the
then-Co-Lead Plaintiffs; (ii) ruled that any class that might
ultimately be certified could only consist of persons who
purchased their Perrigo shares on the NASDAQ market or by other
means involving transactions in the United States; (iii) granted
Harel's motion to intervene as a named plaintiff, subject to the
filing by Harel of an amended complaint alleging that Harel's
purchases of Perrigo stock were made in the United States; (iv)
ruled that Warner would be treated as a named plaintiff; and (v)
left for later the selection of Lead Plaintiffs.  On October 7,
2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on behalf of
both Harel and Warner as named plaintiffs, alleging the same
claims as in the amended complaint but on behalf of a purported
class limited to those who purchased Perrigo stock on the NASDAQ
market or by other means involving transactions in the United
States.  The second amended complaint alleges that Harel purchased
Perrigo stock on the NASDAQ market during the purported class
period.  Also on October 7, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
stipulation seeking to appoint Harel and Warner as the new co-lead
plaintiffs, subject to approval of the Court.  On
October 27, 2011, the Court approved this stipulation and issued
an order appointing Harel and Warner as co-lead plaintiffs.  On
November 21, 2011, the defendants answered the second amended
complaint, denying all allegations of wrongdoing and asserting
numerous defenses.  Discovery has not commenced.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to this
lawsuit and is actively pursuing the defense thereof.  The Company
believes the resolution of this matter will not have a material
adverse effect on its financial condition and results of
operations as reported in the accompanying consolidated financial
statements.

Perrigo Company -- http://www.perrigo.com/-- is a global
healthcare supplier that develops, manufactures and distributes
over-the-counter and prescription pharmaceuticals, nutritional
products, active pharmaceutical ingredients, and pharmaceutical
and medical diagnostic products.  The company operates in three
segments: Consumer Healthcare, Rx Pharmaceuticals and API.  The
company has other category that consists of the Israel
Pharmaceutical and Diagnostic Products.  The company operates
through wholly owned subsidiaries.  In the United States, its
operations are conducted through L. Perrigo Company, Perrigo
Company of South Carolina, Inc., Perrigo New York, Inc., Perrigo
Holland, Inc. and Perrigo Florida, Inc.  Outside the United
States, its operations are conducted through Perrigo Israel
Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chemagis Ltd., Quimica y Farmacia S.A. de
C.V., Laboratorios Diba, S.A., Wrafton Laboratories Limited,
Brunel Pharma Limited and Galpharm Healthcare Ltd.


PERSELS & ASSOCIATES: Class Action Settlement Gets Criticism
------------------------------------------------------------
William R. Levesque, writing for Tampa Bay Times, reports that if
they recognized the irony, none of the 12 attorneys gathered in a
Tampa courtroom this month said a word.

The lawyers were arguing about a proposed settlement of a class-
action lawsuit against a Maryland law firm, Persels & Associates.
About 125,000 cash-strapped Americans -- including at least 11,000
Floridians -- had hired Persels to reduce their debt.  But
Persels' hefty fees, the suit said, left many in worse shape.

Now Persels and the lawyers who filed the suit wanted to settle.

Class-action attorneys would get up to $300,000 for legal fees.
But the 125,000 wouldn't get a dime.  One reason cited:

Persels is broke and struggling with its own debt.

The proposed settlement filed in U.S. District Court in Tampa is
now drawing criticism from the attorneys general of five states,
including Florida, and the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.
They say the deal is too chintzy.

They argue that those 125,000 people are being asked to give up
potentially valuable legal claims against Persels and related
parties without getting a penny.

"Ungenerous is putting it mildly," said Public Citizen attorney
Michael Kirkpatrick.

Persels, which says it has helped many consumers climb out of
debt, denies wrongdoing.

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Wilson is now considering whether
he will give final approval to the settlement.  He has not said
when he will rule.

The settlement also calls for a $5,000 payment to Miranda Day of
St. Petersburg, who is the lead plaintiff in the case, and
$100,000 to two organizations uninvolved in the litigation who
provide low-cost legal advice.

The attorneys who filed the suit on behalf of consumers said the
deal is the best they could get, especially given Persels'
finances.

Persels lost $5.8 million in 2010 and 2011 and owes $14 million
for an unrelated Maryland lawsuit, according to an affidavit by a
firm manager.

Here's how the suit said Persels operated:

Persels told clients they could negotiate settlements of their
unsecured debts -- often credit cards -- for a fraction of their
face value.  Clients then made monthly payments to a Persels'
fund.  When enough money accumulated, Persels was supposed to
negotiate settlements with a client's creditors.

But Persels and a related company, CareOne Services, charged fees
amounting to 15 percent of a consumer's total debt, the suit said.

So in reality, the suit said, many customers were not informed by
Persels that they would not have enough cash, after fees were
deducted, to successfully settle their debts.

"The settlement plans were designed to fail," said the lawsuit,
filed in 2010.

In the case of Ms. Day, the lead defendant, she paid $1,274 to
Persels and CareOne, the suit said.  "Every dollar Day paid went
towards the fees" of CareOne and Persels, the suit said.  "Her
debt was not reduced at all."

Lawyers who filed the class action said the suit, while not paying
the 125,000, nonetheless wins important concessions from Persels
that better safeguard consumers.  And they note the uncertainty of
going to trial.

Persels, among other things, agreed to only collect its fees after
negotiating a settlement with a consumer's creditors, not before.
The firm also agreed to provide clients with an estimate of the
fees it will charge and the date their debt will be satisfied.

"We got them to stop what they were doing," Tampa lawyer James
Felman, a plaintiff's attorney, said at a hearing.  "We fixed the
problem nobody else stepped forward to fix.  . . . What I haven't
heard is any better idea."

Others, however, say Persels is simply agreeing to what the law
and legal ethics require.

Those provisions "are so qualified and limited as to provide no
meaningful benefits to class members," the New York Attorney
General's Office said in a court filing.

Judge Wilson said a partial refund to consumers who may have lost
hundreds or even thousands of dollars seemed impractical.  Even
partial refunds by Persels, Judge Wilson said, would total tens of
millions of dollars.

"That ain't going to happen," Judge Wilson told lawyers.  "Is
there any reason to think they have it?"

Mr. Kirkpatrick at Public Citizen, however, said no adequate
investigation of Persels' financial condition has been conducted
and lawyers are accepting on faith the firm's representations
about its ability to pay.

Mr. Kirkpatrick also said other defendants, including attorneys
named individually, may have assets that could be targeted.

"Even if collection would be problem, that doesn't mean it's
better to just wipe the slate clean and force everybody to give up
their claims," he said.

Attorneys for Persels, lead defendant Miranda Day and her
attorneys either declined comment or could not be reached.

About 325 consumers have opted out of the settlement, which would
allow them to file suit individually.  Some praise the company in
letters to the court.

But Michael Corini of New Rochelle, N.Y., is not among the firm's
fans.

Mr. Corini said he paid Persels $3,000 thinking it would be used
to help pay off his debts.  He said the firm took all the money to
pay its own fees, leaving him in debt.

"The settlement's a joke," Mr. Corini said in an interview.  "It's
not right.  We lost our money, and now Persels is walking away
free and clear and we get nothing.  What's fair about that?"


RICK'S CABARET: Texas Court Dismissed Declaratory Judgment Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Texas court dismissed Rick's Cabaret International, Inc.'s
lawsuit against its insurance carrier, which case sought
declaratory judgment for the carrier to provide coverage for two
class action lawsuits, 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.

Two securities class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company in June 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.  The plaintiffs claim to represent recipients
of text messages.  The complaints allege that the Company violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") by sending
unsolicited advertisements by text message to the plaintiff and
other recipients nationwide during the four-year period preceding
the lawsuit without the prior express invitation or permission of
the recipients.  On January 20, 2012, an amended complaint was
filed in one of the cases to add one of the Company's subsidiaries
as a defendant.

In October 2011, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
(Houston division) against the Company's general liability
insurance carrier to provide coverage for these two TCPA cases.
On January 24, 2012, the presiding judge issued an order
dismissing the case against the Company's carrier.  The Company
denies any liability in this matter and is vigorously defending
the allegations.


SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Defends Consolidated AATI Merger-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Skyworks Solutions, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated
merger-related lawsuit in California, 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 30, 2011.

On January 10, 2012, the Company acquired all of the outstanding
shares of Advanced Analogic Technologies, Incorporated ("AATI")
for a total purchase price of approximately $200.0 million in
cash, net of cash acquired.  The Parties previously entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of May 26, 2011, by and
among Skyworks Solutions, Inc., PowerCo Acquisition Corp., and
Advanced Analogic Technologies Incorporated.  AATI is an analog
semiconductor company focused on enabling energy-efficient devices
for consumer electronics, computing and communications markets.

On June 6, 2011, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in California Superior Court in Santa Clara County (Case No.
111CV202403) (the "Bushansky action") naming AATI, the members of
AATI's board of directors, the Company and Merger Sub as
defendants.  The complaint alleges, among other things, (1) that
the members of AATI's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties by (a) failing to take steps to maximize the value of the
merger consideration to AATI's stockholders, (b) taking steps to
avoid competitive bidding, and (c) failing to protect against
conflicts of interest resulting from change-of-control and
transaction-related benefits received by AATI directors in
connection with the merger that are not available to all
stockholders, and (2) that AATI, the members of AATI's board of
directors, the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted these
purported breaches of fiduciary duties.  The complaint seeks to
enjoin consummation of the merger or, if the merger is completed,
to recover damages caused by the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties.  The complaint also seeks recovery of attorney's fees and
costs of the lawsuit.

On June 7, 2011, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in California Superior Court in Santa Clara County (Case No.
111CV202501) (the "Venette action") naming AATI, the members of
AATI's board of directors, the Company and Merger Sub as
defendants. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 14, 2011
(the "Amended Complaint").  The Amended Complaint alleges, among
other things, (1) that the members of AATI's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties by (a) agreeing to the merger for
inadequate consideration on unfair terms, (b) failing to protect
against conflicts of interest resulting from change-of-control and
transaction-related benefits received by AATI directors in
connection with the merger that are not available to all
stockholders, (c) selling the company in response to alleged
pressure from Dialectic Capital Partners, LP ("Dialectic"), (d)
taking steps to avoid competitive bidding (including the entry by
certain AATI officers and directors into agreements with the
Company relating to voting commitments and inclusion in the merger
agreement of non-solicitation provisions and a termination fee),
and (e) by causing the issuance of a materially misleading Form S-
4 Registration Statement which, inter alia, purportedly fails to
disclose material facts surrounding (i) Dialectic's impact on the
proposed merger process, (ii) the AATI board of directors'
evaluation of the Company and its offer for AATI, and (iii)
supporting figures and analysis regarding the fairness opinion
that the AATI Board obtained from its financial advisor, Needham &
Company, LLC, in connection with the transaction and (2) that
AATI, the members of AATI's board of directors, the Company and
Merger Sub aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary
duties.  The Amended Complaint seeks to enjoin consummation of the
merger, and to have the court direct the defendants to implement
procedures and processes to maximize shareholder value.  The
Amended Complaint also seeks recovery of attorney's fees and costs
of the lawsuit.

On July 26, 2011, the Court issued an order consolidating the
Bushansky action and Venette action into a single, consolidated
action captioned In re Advanced Analogic Technologies Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 111CV202403, and designating
the Amended Complaint as the operative complaint in the
litigation.  The Company believes that the claims in the
consolidated action are without merit and intends to defend
against such claims vigorously.

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


SUNVIEW VINEYARDS: Workers Get Class Certification in Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge
has recommended certification of a class of harvest fieldworkers
who say a table-grape grower in Kern County, Calif., paid them
less than minimum wage and made them wash trays at home.

A group of about 50 harvest workers had claimed that Delano-based
Sunview Vineyards of California has violated labor laws for years
by failing to pay workers for before- and after-work meetings and
tray-washing duties.  In addition to allegedly paying less than
minimum wage, the grower also faces claims that it requires
workers to buy their own tools and will not let piece-rate
harvesters take breaks.

Sunview has denied all of the charges, and says its payroll system
ensures payment of the minimum wage to workers.  After tracking
the hours worked by each employee, the system purportedly adds a
"true-up" payment to those who fall below minimum wage.

In recommendation to the trial court last week, U.S Magistrate
Judge Jennifer Thurston in Fresno recommended class certification
for two of the plaintiffs' claims, finding that the others failed
to meet the tough legal standards for class actions.

Judge Thurston granted the plaintiffs' request to certify a class
of workers "who were paid an hourly wage less than minimum wage
plus piece rate from January 2002 to July 2003," and those "non-
supervisory harvest fieldworkers employed by Sunview during the
2001 and 2002 harvests who took trays home overnight and washed
those trays without compensation."

The recommendations must now go before a district judge for final
approval.

Similar claims against table-grape grower El Rancho Farms in
Arvin, Calif., came to an end late last month when Chief U.S.
District Judge Anthony W. Ishi accepted a magistrate judge's
complete denial of class certification to a separate group of
harvest workers.

A copy of the Findings and Recommendations Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in
Rojas, et al. v. Marko Zaninovich, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-
00705 (E.D. Calif.), is available at:

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/13/2-9%20ruling.pdf


THIESS DEGREMONT: Slater & Gordon Drops Flood Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Casey Weekly reports that class action specialist Slater & Gordon
has dropped an action on behalf of Koo Wee Rup and Pakenham
farmers whose land was inundated in the flood of February 4 last
year.

Landowners claimed Thiess Degremont Nacap damaged an important
flood levee in McDonalds Drain Road while laying the pipeline,
leading to thousands of hectares of crops and pasture being
flooded.

Six houses in the area were also flooded.

Thiess Degremont Nacap denied its actions had caused the flooding.

A spokeswoman for Slater & Gordon said last week the company had
decided not to proceed.


TOWERS WATSON: Awaits Ruling on Judgment Bid in Consolidated Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Towers Watson & Co. is awaiting a court decision on its and other
defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims in a
consolidated shareholder lawsuit, 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.

Towers Watson was formed on January 1, 2010, pursuant to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended by Amendment No. 1 (the
"Merger Agreement").  Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Inc. ("Watson
Wyatt") and Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby, Inc. ("Towers
Perrin") combined their businesses through two simultaneous
mergers (the "Merger") and became wholly-owned subsidiaries of
Jupiter Saturn Holding Company, which subsequently changed its
name to Towers Watson & Co.  Since the consummation of the Merger,
Towers Perrin changed its name to Towers Watson Pennsylvania Inc.,
and Watson Wyatt changed its name to Towers Watson Delaware
Holdings Inc.

A putative class action lawsuit filed by certain former
shareholders of Towers Perrin (the "Dugan Action") previously was
reported in Amendment No. 3 to the Registration Statement on Form
S-4/A (File No. 333-161705) filed on November 9, 2009, by the
Jupiter Saturn Holding Company (the "Registration Statement").  As
reported in the Registration Statement, the complaint was filed on
November 5, 2009, against Towers Perrin, members of its board of
directors, and certain members of senior management in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs in this action are former members of Towers Perrin's
senior management, who left Towers Perrin at various times between
1995 and 2000.  The Dugan plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
former Towers Perrin shareholders who separated from service on or
after January 1, 1971, and who also meet certain other specified
criteria.  The complaint does not contain a quantification of the
damages sought.

On December 9, 2009, Watson Wyatt was informed by Towers Perrin of
a settlement demand from the plaintiffs in the Dugan Action.
Although the complaint in the Dugan Action does not contain a
quantification of the damages sought, plaintiffs' settlement
demand, which was orally communicated to Towers Perrin on December
8, 2009, and in writing on December 9, 2009, sought a payment of
$800 million to settle the action on behalf of the proposed class.
Plaintiffs requested that Towers Perrin communicate the settlement
demand to Watson Wyatt.

On December 17, 2009, four other former Towers Perrin
shareholders, all of whom voluntarily left Towers Perrin in May or
June 2005 and all of whom are excluded from the proposed class in
the Dugan Action, commenced a separate legal proceeding (the
"Allen Action") in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging the same claims in
substantially the same form as those alleged in the Dugan Action.
A fifth plaintiff joined this action on August 29, 2011.  These
plaintiffs are proceeding in their individual capacities and do
not seek to represent a proposed class.

On January 15, 2010, another former Towers Perrin shareholder who
separated from service with Towers Perrin in March 2005 when
Towers Perrin and EDS launched a joint venture that led to the
creation of a corporate entity known as ExcellerateHRO ("eHRO"),
commenced a separate legal proceeding (the "Pao Action") in the
United States District Court of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania alleging the same claims in substantially the same
form as those alleged in the Dugan Action.  Towers Perrin
contributed its Towers Perrin Administrative Solutions ("TPAS")
business to eHRO and formerly was a minority shareholder (15%) of
eHRO.  Pao seeks to represent a class of former Towers Perrin
shareholders who separated from service in connection with Towers
Perrin's contribution to eHRO of its TPAS business and who are
excluded from the proposed class in the Dugan Action.  Towers
Watson is also named as a defendant in the Pao Action.

Pursuant to the Towers Perrin Bylaws in effect at the time of
their separations, the Towers Perrin shares held by all plaintiffs
were redeemed by Towers Perrin at book value at the time these
individuals separated from employment.  The complaints allege
variously that there either was a promise that Towers Perrin would
remain privately owned in perpetuity (Dugan Action) or that in the
event of a change to public ownership plaintiffs would receive
compensation (Allen and Pao Actions).  Plaintiffs allege that by
agreeing to sell their shares back to Towers Perrin at book value
upon separation, they and other members of the putative classes
relied upon these alleged promises, which they claim were breached
as a result of the consummation of the Merger between Watson Wyatt
and Towers Perrin.  The complaints assert claims for breach of
contract, breach of express trust, breach of fiduciary duty,
promissory estoppel, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, and
constructive trust, and seek equitable relief including an
accounting, disgorgement, rescission and/or restitution, and the
imposition of a constructive trust.  On January 20, 2010, the
court consolidated the three actions for all purposes.

On February 22, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaints in their entireties.  By order dated September 30,
2010, the court granted the motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claim
for a constructive trust and denied the motion with respect to all
other claims alleged.  Pursuant to the court's September 30 order,
defendants also filed answers to plaintiffs' complaints on October
22, 2010.  The parties have completed fact discovery.  Defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims in all actions
on December 23, 2011.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition to this
motion on February 1, 2012.  Defendants intend to file a motion
seeking permission to file a reply to plaintiffs' opposition.

Given the stage of the proceedings, the Company has concluded that
a loss is neither probable nor estimable, and that the Company is
unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss.

Towers Watson continues to believe the claims in these lawsuits
are without merit and intends to continue to defend against them
vigorously.  However, the cost of defending against the claims
could be substantial and the outcome of these legal proceedings is
inherently uncertain and could be unfavorable to Towers Watson.


                           *********

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  * * *