CAR_Public/120220.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, February 20, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 35

                             Headlines

1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Continues to Defend New York Class Suit
BANK OF HAWAII: Judge Approves $9-Mil. Class Action Settlement
BOSCH SECURITY: Recalls 330 Fire Control Panels
BP: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action Claims
CELANESE CORP: Settlement in Canadian Plumbing Suits Pending

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal in Employees' Suit Pending in Calif.
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Continues to Defend ADA Violations Class Suit
CROWNE PLAZA: Settles Class Action for $1.3 Million
GOV'T OF CANADA: Farmer Group Seeks Class Action Status in Lawsuit
ILLUMINA INC: Faces Suit Over Roche Buyout Rejection

IMPROVEMENTS CATALOG: Recalls 800 Adjustable Ottoman Beds
MERCK: Court Decertifies Class Action Over Vioxx Sales
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Counties to File Class Action
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Awaits Decision in Pension Plan Suit Appeal
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Consolidated ERISA Suit Still Pending in Calif.

OCLARO INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Westley" Suit on March 23
OCLARO INC: Remaining Appeals in IPO Suit Dismissed or Withdrawn
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Consolidated IPO Litigation Concluded
PFIZER INC: Faces Class Action Over Zoloft Antidepressant
PFIZER INC: Clears Remaining Securities Class Action

STATER BROS: Awaits Approval of Deal in "Lunsford" Suit vs. Unit
STATER BROS: Still Awaits Okay of "Martinez" Suit Settlement
STERIS CORP: Gets Final Approval of "Winter Haven" Suit Deal
TD AMERITRADE: Motions to Dismiss "Ross" Suit Remain Pending
WASHINGTON, D.C.: Loses Bid to Dismiss Nursing Home Class Action


                          *********

1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Continues to Defend New York Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
On November 10, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York naming 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. (along with Trilegiant
Corporation, Inc., Affinion, Inc. and Chase Bank USA, N.A.) as
defendants in an action purporting to assert claims against the
Company alleging violations arising under the Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act among other statutes, and for breach of
contract and unjust enrichment in connection with certain post-
transaction marketing practices in which certain of the Company's
subsidiaries previously engaged in with certain third-party
vendors.  Plaintiffs seek to have this case certified as a class
action and seek restitution and other damages, all in an amount in
excess of $5 million.  The Company says it intends to defend this
action vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 10,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended January 1, 2012.


BANK OF HAWAII: Judge Approves $9-Mil. Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a state judge has approved a $9
million settlement between Bank of Hawaii and 160,000 customers in
a class-action lawsuit over improper overdraft charges.

A separate $1.2 million settlement between Central Pacific Bank
and 10,000 class members was approved last month.

Lawyers say customers who were charged at least two overdraft fees
for ATM and debit card transactions on the same day will receive a
portion of the settlements.

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported on Feb. 15 that each Bank of
Hawaii customer could receive about $42, while each Central
Pacific Bank customer could get about $90.  The amounts will vary
depending on amounts of overdraft charges.

The lawsuits stemmed from the method used to maximize debit and
ATM overdraft fees by reordering transactions from the highest
dollar amount to the lowest.


BOSCH SECURITY: Recalls 330 Fire Control Panels
-----------------------------------------------
About 330 units of Fire Alarm Control Panel were voluntarily
recalled by Bosch Security Systems, Inc., of Fairport, New York,
in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

On all systems, when the alarm verification feature of the system
is turned on, the control panel can fail to sound an alarm if a
fire occurs.  In addition, on systems with 50 or more reporting
stations, a delay in sounding an alarm and reporting a fire may
occur if the loop for the alarm system is broken.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The Bosch-branded fire alarm panel is a locking red wall box with
dimensions 22.7" high by 14.5" wide by 4.3" deep.  The status,
date and time can be seen through a glass screen on the panel
door.  The word "BOSCH" is printed on the right corner of the
panel and the model number "FPA-1000-UL" is printed on the bottom
left below the glass screen.  The alarm panels featured software
versions 1.10, 1.11 and 1.12, which can be determined by
installers.  They were designed to be used in small to medium-
sized facilities in both public and residential buildings.
A picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12721.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
authorized distributors and installers nationwide from May 2009
through October 2011 for about $1,200.

All distributors and installers are being sent two technical
bulletins.  One provides instructions for how to implement a
software change that will correct the verification feature.  The
second contains instructions for how to handle warnings from
affected systems with 50 or more stations.  Those who have not
received the bulletins should contact Bosch.  For more
information, contact Bosch Security Systems at (800) 289-0096
between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time or visit
service/customer care on the firm's Web site at
http://www.boschsecurity.us/en-us/for instructions on how to
download software to update the control panels or otherwise
address the problems.


BP: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------
The Am Law Litigation Daily reports that the Houston federal judge
overseeing securities litigation related to the Deepwater Horizon
disaster issued two rulings on Feb. 13 dismissing securities class
action claims by BP ordinary shareholders on Morrison grounds and
trimming claims by purchasers of BP American Depository Receipts.


CELANESE CORP: Settlement in Canadian Plumbing Suits Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuits in Canada involving Celanese Corporation
are subject to a pending class settlement that would result in a
dismissal of those cases, according to the Company's February 10,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

CNA Holdings LLC ("CNA Holdings"), a US subsidiary of the Company,
which included the US business now conducted by the Ticona
business that is included in the Advanced Engineered Materials
segment, along with Shell Oil Company ("Shell"), E.I. DuPont de
Nemours and Company ("DuPont") and others, has been a defendant in
a series of lawsuits, including a number of class actions,
alleging that plastic resins manufactured by these companies that
were utilized by others in the production of plumbing systems for
residential property were defective for this use and/or
contributed to the failure of such plumbing.  Based on, among
other things, the findings of outside experts and the successful
use of Ticona's acetal copolymer in similar applications, CNA
Holdings does not believe Ticona's acetal copolymer was defective
for this use or contributed to the failure of the plumbing.  In
addition, in many cases CNA Holdings' potential future exposure
may be limited by, among other things, statutes of limitations and
repose.

In November 1995, CNA Holdings, DuPont and Shell entered into
national class action settlements in the Cox, et al. v. Hoechst
Celanese Corporation, et al., No. 94-0047 (Chancery Ct., Obion
County, Tennessee) matter.  The time to file claims against the
class has expired and the entity established by the court to
administer the claims was dissolved in September 2010.  In
addition between 1995 and 2001, CNA Holdings was named as a
defendant in various putative class actions.  The majority of
these actions have now been dismissed.  As a result, the Company
recorded $59 million in reserve reductions and recoveries from
associated insurance indemnifications during 2010.  The reserve
was further reduced by $4 million during the year ended
December 31, 2011, following the dismissal of the remaining US
case (St. Croix, Ltd., et al. v. Shell Oil Company d/b/a Shell
Chemical Company, Case No. XC-97-CR-467, Virgin Islands Superior
Court) which was appealed during the three months ended
September 30, 2011.

As of December 31, 2011, the class actions in Canada are subject
to a pending class settlement that would result in a dismissal of
those cases.  The Company does not believe the Possible Loss
associated with the remaining matters is material.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal in Employees' Suit Pending in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. in
California alleging violations of state laws regarding employee
record-keeping, meal and rest breaks, payment of overtime and
related practices with respect to the Company's employees.  The
case originally sought damages, penalties and attorney's fees on
behalf of a purported class of the Company's present and former
employees.  The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion to
certify the purported class and the California Court of Appeals
affirmed that decision, and as a result the action can proceed, if
at all, as an action by a single plaintiff.  The plaintiff has
appealed the court's denial of class certification, and the appeal
remains pending.  Although the limitation to a single-plaintiff
action significantly minimizes the Company's current potential
exposure from the case and the Company has various defenses, due
to the possibility of further appeals and the uncertainties of
litigation it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate
the outcome of, or any potential liability, from this case.

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


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Continues to Defend ADA Violations Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In 2006, Maurizio Antoninetti filed a lawsuit against Chipotle
Mexican Grill, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, primarily claiming that the height of the
serving line wall in the Company's restaurants violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, as well as California
disability laws.  On December 6, 2006, Mr. Antoninetti filed an
additional lawsuit in the same court making the same allegations
on a class action basis, on behalf of himself and a purported
class of disabled individuals, and a similar class action was
filed by James Perkins in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on May 7, 2008.

In the individual Antoninetti action, the district court entered a
ruling in which it found that although the Company's counter
height violated the ADA, the Company provided the plaintiff with
an equivalent facilitation, and awarded attorney's fees and
minimal damages to the plaintiff which the Company has accrued.
The Company and the plaintiff appealed the district court's ruling
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and on July
26, 2010, the appeals court entered a ruling finding that the
Company violated the ADA and did not provide the plaintiff with an
equivalent facilitation, and remanded the case to the district
court.  The district court will now determine the damages and
injunctive relief and final award of attorneys fees to which Mr.
Antoninetti is entitled based on the court of appeals ruling.

The Company says it lowered the height of its serving line walls
throughout California some time ago, which makes injunctive relief
in both the individual and class actions moot, and have the lower
serving line walls in a significant majority of its restaurants
outside of California as well.  The Company will vigorously defend
the class action cases, including by contesting certification of a
plaintiff class.  It is not possible at this time to reasonably
estimate the outcome of, or any additional potential liability
from, these cases.

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


CROWNE PLAZA: Settles Class Action for $1.3 Million
---------------------------------------------------
Anneline Waldman, writing for Jobmouse, reports that the Crowne
Plaza Hotel, owned by the Berkshire Common Corp., has agreed to
settle a class-action lawsuit filed against the hotel on behalf of
150 current and former employees who served customers at the
banquets between November 2006 and June 2010 at the city's largest
hotel.

The $1.3 million settlement, awaiting final approval at a fairness
hearing in May 1, includes legal fees.  Should the settlement be
approved, workers will share about $850,000, depending upon the
amount of time they were employed at the hotel during the period
covered by the lawsuit.

One-third of the 20 percent service charges billed to patrons at
banquets was withheld, according to Anthony Chavarry, the
whistleblower and leading plaintiff on behalf of the workers,
reports the Berkshire Eagle.

According to the class-action settlement documents, the hotel does
not admit liability.

"The defendants deny any liability or wrongdoing and assert they
have strong defenses to the claims [of the plaintiffs] that are
meritorious," according to the public court records.

Although the proposed settlement requires final approval on May 1,
Attorney Paul Holtzman told The Eagle "there's no reason to
believe the settlement won't be approved."

"The resolution of the case reflects the commitment of the Crowne
Plaza that employees receive their full gratuities," said
Mr. Holtzman, "and we commend them for reaching this settlement
and ensuring that the full amount of money left by patrons goes to
the staff."

According to state law, only employees directly involved in
service to customers are entitled to share tips -- waitpersons,
bartenders and buspersons are included.  However, food and
beverage service managers, sales staff and others are not entitled
to any portion of gratuities.


GOV'T OF CANADA: Farmer Group Seeks Class Action Status in Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney McFerron, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that a
farmer group calling itself Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board
said on Feb. 15 it is filing a federal lawsuit seeking class-
action status that aims to reinstate the Wheat Board's grain-
marketing monopoly.

The group said in an e-mailed statement that the lawsuit may seek
$17 billion in damages incurred from the open-market system.

Canada's Conservative government passed a law in December that
will end the Wheat Board's control over marketing in Western
Canada on Aug. 1.  The monopoly has been in place since 1943.

The filing couldn't be immediately confirmed in court records.


ILLUMINA INC: Faces Suit Over Roche Buyout Rejection
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claims Illumina
unreasonably rejected a $5.7 billion, $44.50 per share buyout
offer from (nonparty) Roche Holding, in Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Steven S Weinstein MD PC Profit Sharing
Plan v. Illumina, Inc., et al., Case No. 7242 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/15/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
          P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT& GODDESS, P.A.
          919 North Market Street, Suite 1401
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 656-4433
          E-mail: ckeener@rmgglaw.com
                  bdeleeuw@rmgglaw.com

               - and -

          Marc I. Gross, Esq.
          Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com
                  gfbruckner@pomlaw.com


IMPROVEMENTS CATALOG: Recalls 800 Adjustable Ottoman Beds
---------------------------------------------------------
About 800 Adjustable Ottoman Beds were voluntarily recalled by
distributor, JN Bailey and Associates Inc., of Dayton, Ohio, and
retailer, Improvements Catalog, of Maple Heights, Ohio, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

When the ottoman is converted into a bed and weight is put on it,
it can collapse, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

Improvements Catalog is aware of five reports of the bed
collapsing, including two reports of minor injuries.

The product is an ottoman on casters with a folding metal frame
and a high-density polyfoam mattress.  The ottoman can open out
and be converted into a twin-sized bed.  Fabric covers are sold
separately.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12720.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Improvements and Skymall catalogs and online at
Improvementscatalog.com and Skymall.com from May 2011 to August
2011 for between $150 and $190.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact
Improvements to receive a store credit for the full amount of the
purchase price.  For more information, contact Improvements at
(800) 985-6044, Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.improvementscatalog.com/. Improvements is contacting
all purchasers directly.


MERCK: Court Decertifies Class Action Over Vioxx Sales
------------------------------------------------------
Law.com reports that a Kentucky state appeal court has decertified
a consumer class action against Merck over its Vioxx sales.  It's
a big blow to the plaintiffs, who had been seeking up to $60
million, and welcome news for Merck as it awaits a ruling on
whether a federal judge will certify a similar national class
action.


MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Counties to File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Colleen M. Sullivan, writing for Banker & Tradesman, reports that
Bristol, Plymouth and Norfolk Counties plan to file a class action
suit against the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS),
aiming to recoup land recording fees they believe they are owed.

The counties are being represented by Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a
New York firm specializing in class actions which has already
brought a similar suit on behalf of all the counties of Ohio.

John Mitchell, a Bristol County commissioner, said the board
considered pursuing a claim last year, but decided to hold off
until the national mortgage settlement between the banks and the
states' attorneys general was resolved.

But as it became clear that the vast bulk of the funds in that
settlement would go towards foreclosures and loan modifications,
he said the county decided to pursue the matter.

Bristol County officials estimate the county may have lost out on
millions of dollars in fees over the past decade because of the
alleged use of MERS as a kind of private registry among large
banks.  A rough calculation prepared by county officials last year
came up with a figure of between $3.1 million and $6.5 million
lost, using a conservative estimate of one or two additional non-
recorded assignments per MERS-registered property.

"Over the last month, we were approached by [Bernstein Liebhard]
and other firms . . . . they already had Norfolk and Plymouth, and
we thought it made sense to get as many counties together,"
Mr. Mitchell told Banker & Tradesman.  Mr. Mitchell said he wasn't
sure if the remaining Massachusetts counties with county-level
governance would join the suit.  The relatively small size of
counties like Nantucket and Dukes would mean far smaller sums at
stake.

County-level governance was abolished in Massachusetts in eight of
the state's 14 counties around the turn of the century.  Only
Barnstable, Bristol, Norfolk, Plymouth, and Dukes retain county
boards; Nantucket has a combined city-county government.  The
remaining boards retain the right to bring independent actions in
court.

Calls to the Norfolk and Plymouth County Boards were not
immediately returned.

"We're familiar with their claims, and there's no merit to them,"
said Janis Smith, spokeswoman for MERS.   Ms. Smith said that by
registering under the MERS name, banks fulfill the purpose of
having a registry, that is, alerting the public of any existing
leins on a property.  "MERS does not eliminate or replace county
records, and the recording fees are paid," she said.  "The MERS
business model is legal in all 50 states and has been affirmed by
Massachusetts courts."

"I commend the counties," said John O'Brien, the registrar of
deeds in Essex County, who has been an active critic of MERS for
the past two years.  Mr. O'Brien was the first public official in
Massachusetts to calculate how much the MERS system may have cost
the state in allegedly lost recording fees, coming up with a
figure of $22 million for his county alone.  "If I had the
authority, I would have filed this suit two years ago."

The other registries fall under Secretary of State William
Galvin's jurisdiction.  Mr. O'Brien said he plans to petition the
legislature to recover his ability to bring suit on behalf of
Essex County as one of its elected officials.


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Awaits Decision in Pension Plan Suit Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Northrop Grumman Corporation is awaiting a court decision in
connection with an appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor
of its pension plan, according to the Company's February 8, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On June 22, 2007, a putative class action was filed against the
Northrop Grumman Pension Plan and the Northrop Grumman Retirement
Plan B and their corresponding administrative committees, styled
as Skinner et al. v. Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, etc., et al.,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The putative class representatives alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and breaches of
fiduciary duty concerning a 2003 modification to the Northrop
Grumman Retirement Plan B.  The modification relates to the
employer-funded portion of the pension benefit available during a
five-year transition period that ended on June 30, 2008.  The
plaintiffs dismissed the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, and in
2008, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of all
remaining defendants on all claims.  The plaintiffs appealed, and
in May 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the decision of the District Court and remanded the
matter back to the District Court for further proceedings, finding
that there was ambiguity in a 1998 summary plan description
related to the employer-funded component of the pension benefit.
After the remand, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class.  The parties also filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
On January 26, 2010, the District Court granted summary judgment
in favor of the Plan and denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment.  The District Court also denied the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and struck the trial date of March 23,
2010, as unnecessary given the District Court's grant of summary
judgment for the Plan.  The plaintiffs appealed the District
Court's order to the Ninth Circuit and the Company is awaiting a
decision.  Oral argument was set for February 9, 2012.


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Consolidated ERISA Suit Still Pending in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 27, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California consolidated two Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) lawsuits that had been separately filed on
September 28, 2006, and January 3, 2007, into In Re Northrop
Grumman Corporation ERISA Litigation.  The plaintiffs filed a
consolidated Amended Complaint on September 15, 2010, alleging
breaches of fiduciary duties by the Administrative Committees and
the Investment Committees (as well as certain individuals who
served on or supported those Committees) for two 401(k) Plans
sponsored by Northrop Grumman Corporation.  The company itself is
not a defendant in the lawsuit.  The plaintiffs claim that these
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties caused the Plans to incur
excessive administrative and investment fees and expenses to the
detriment of the Plans' participants.  On
August 6, 2007, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, and the plaintiffs appealed the District
Court's decision on class certification to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On September 8, 2009, the Ninth
Circuit vacated the Order denying class certification and remanded
the issue to the District Court for further consideration.  As
required by the Ninth Circuit's Order, the case was also
reassigned to a different judge.  By order dated March 29, 2011,
the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The District Court held a hearing on May 16, 2011,
on various cross motions for summary judgment.  The supplemental
briefing requested by the District Court has been filed and the
motions have been submitted.  No trial date has been set.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 8,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


OCLARO INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Westley" Suit on March 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oclaro, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit commenced
by Curtis and Charlotte Westley is scheduled to be heard on
March 23, 2012, according to the Company's February 8, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

On May 19, 2011, Curtis and Charlotte Westley filed a purported
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors.  The Court subsequently appointed
the Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund (Pension Fund) as lead
plaintiff for the putative class.  On October 27, 2011, the
Pension Fund filed an Amended Complaint, captioned as Westley v.
Oclaro, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 2448 EMC, allegedly on behalf of persons
who purchased the Company's common stock between May 6 and October
28, 2010, alleging that defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements during this time period regarding the
Company's current business and financial condition, including
projections for demand for the Company's products, as well as its
revenues, earnings, and gross margins, for the first quarter of
fiscal year 2011 as well as the full fiscal year.  The complaint
alleges violations of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, as well as
section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.  The complaint seeks
damages and costs of an unspecified amount.

On December 12, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  That motion is scheduled to be heard on March 23,
2012.  Discovery has not commenced, and no trial has been
scheduled in this action.

The Company says it intends to defend this litigation vigorously.
The Company, however, is unable at this time to estimate the
effects of the lawsuit on its financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.


OCLARO INC: Remaining Appeals in IPO Suit Dismissed or Withdrawn
----------------------------------------------------------------
All remaining appeals contesting a global settlement of a
consolidated class action lawsuit involving subsidiaries of
Oclaro, Inc., were dismissed or withdrawn, according to the
Company's February 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2011.

On June 26, 2001, the first of a number of securities class
actions was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against New Focus, Inc., now known
as Oclaro Photonics, Inc. (New Focus), certain of its officers and
directors, and certain underwriters for New Focus' initial and
secondary public offerings.  A consolidated amended class action
complaint, captioned In re New Focus, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, No. 01 Civ. 5822, was filed on April 20,
2002.  The complaint generally alleged that various underwriters
engaged in improper and undisclosed activities related to the
allocation of shares in New Focus' initial public offering and
sought unspecified damages for claims under the Exchange Act on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of common stock from May
17, 2000, to December 6, 2000.

The lawsuit against New Focus was coordinated for pretrial
proceedings with a number of other pending litigations challenging
underwriter practices in over 300 cases, as In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS), including actions
against Bookham Technology plc, now known as Oclaro Technology Ltd
(Bookham Technology) and Avanex Corporation, now known as Oclaro
(North America), Inc. (Avanex), and certain of each entity's
respective officers and directors, and certain of the underwriters
of their public offerings.  In October 2002, the claims against
the directors and officers of New Focus, Bookham Technology and
Avanex were dismissed, without prejudice, subject to the
directors' and officers' execution of tolling agreements.

The parties reached a global settlement of the litigation under
which the insurers are funding the full amount of the settlement
share allocated to New Focus, Bookham Technology and Avanex, and
New Focus, Bookham Technology and Avanex bear no financial
liability.  New Focus, Bookham Technology and Avanex, as well as
the officer and director defendants who were previously dismissed
from the action pursuant to tolling agreements, receive complete
dismissals from the case.  The settlement was approved by the
Court in 2009 and during the second fiscal quarter of 2012 all
remaining appeals contesting the settlement were dismissed or
withdrawn.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Consolidated IPO Litigation Concluded
-------------------------------------------------------
Openwave Systems Inc. says the litigation over initial public
offerings has been concluded after a court dismissed the remaining
appeal of that lawsuit's settlement, according to the Company's
February 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2011.

On November 5, 2001, a securities fraud class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, In re Openwave Systems Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9744 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.),
related to In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21
MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.).  It is brought purportedly on behalf of
all persons who purchased shares of the Company's common stock
from June 11, 1999, through December 6, 2000.  The defendants are
the Company and five of its present or former officers (the
"Openwave Defendants"), and several investment banking firms that
served as underwriters of the Company's initial public offering
and secondary public offering.  Three of the individual defendants
were dismissed without prejudice, subject to a tolling of the
statute of limitations.  The complaint alleges liability under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act") and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), on the grounds that the registration
statements 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.  The amended complaint also alleges that
false analyst reports were issued by Credit Suisse First Boston,
Hambrecht & Quist, Robertson Stephens, and Piper Jaffray. No
specific damages are claimed.  Similar allegations were made in
over 300 other lawsuits challenging public offerings conducted in
1999 and 2000, and the cases were consolidated for pretrial
purposes.

On April 2, 2009, the parties in all the lawsuits submitted a
settlement for the Court's approval.  Under the settlement, the
Openwave Defendants would not be required to make any cash
payment.  On October 6, 2009, the Court approved the settlement,
under which the Openwave Defendants are not required to contribute
any cash.  Subsequently, the Court entered a judgment on the
settlement.  Several notices of appeal were filed by putative
class members, challenging the settlement and the judgment.
Subsequently, the Court determined that none of the objectors had
standing to appeal.  One of the putative objectors has filed a
notice of appeal of the determination as to him, which appeal has
since been dismissed by the Court.  As a result of this dismissal,
the Company believes the litigation to be concluded.  The Company
believes a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable.
Therefore, no amount has been accrued as of December 31, 2011.

Headquartered in Redwood City, California, Openwave Systems Inc.
(Nasdaq: OPWV) -- http://www.openwave.com/-- is a global software
innovator delivering context-aware mediation and messaging
solutions that enable communication service providers and the
broader ecosystem to create and deliver smarter services.
Building on its mobile data heritage, Openwave mobilizes the
Internet with predictive solutions fueled by real-time analytics
that mediate among different ecosystem elements, comprehensively
permitting the enhancement of IP traffic.  Openwave is a global
company with a blue chip customer base spanning North America,
Latin America, Australia and New Zealand, Asia, Africa, Europe,
and the Middle East.


PFIZER INC: Faces Class Action Over Zoloft Antidepressant
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Dearden, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that a St. Louis woman and a group of mothers like her are suing a
pharmaceutical company that manufacturers a drug that allegedly
caused birth defects in their children.

Shainyah Lancaster filed a class action lawsuit in St. Louis
Circuit Court against Pfizer Inc.

According to the complaint, all of the women were prescribed the
antidepressant Zoloft during their pregnancy despite the alleged
risks to their unborn children.  The mothers claim their children
were later born with severe medical defects, including damage to
their hearts.

The parents allege Pfizer knew the dangers of the drug Zoloft but
hid information that showed all of the risks associated with
taking the antidepressant during pregnancy.  They claim the drug
was defectively designed, inadequately tested and lacked the
proper warnings about birth defects.

The mothers accuse Pfizer of negligence, fraud, failing to warn
the public and unjust enrichment.  They are asking for more than
$200,000 in actual damages, along with punitive damages and court
costs.

Attorneys Jeffrey I. Lowe, of St. Louis, David P. Matthews and
Scott A. Love, of Houston, Tim K. Goss of Dallas and Richard A.
Freese of Birmingham, Al., are representing the women.

St. Louis Circuit Court Case No. 1222-CC00766

Mr. Goss can be reached at:

          Tim K. Goss, Esq.
          FREESE AND GOSS, PLLC
          3031 Allen St., Suite 200
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 761-6610
          E-mail: tim@freeseandgoss.com

Mr. Freese can be reached at:

          Richard A. Freese, Esq.
          FREESE AND GOSS, PLLC
          2031 2nd Ave. N
          Birmingham AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 871-4144
          E-mail: rich@freeseandgoss.com


PFIZER INC: Clears Remaining Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------
David Bario, writing for The American Lawyer, reports that six
months ago a federal judge in New York dismissed claims that a
company that partnered with Pfizer's Wyeth unit duped investors
about a potential blockbuster Alzheimer's drug.  Now, Pfizer has
cleared the decks of the last securities class action remaining
over the drug.


STATER BROS: Awaits Approval of Deal in "Lunsford" Suit vs. Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stater Bros. Holdings Inc. is awaiting court approval of a
settlement resolving a class action lawsuit filed against its
subsidiary, according to the Company's February 8, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 25, 2011.

In May of 2011, Stater Bros. Holdings Inc.'s wholly-owned
subsidiary, Stater Bros. Markets, was served with an Action filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Riverside ("Harold F. Lunsford et al. v. Stater Bros. Markets")
seeking individual and potential class action damages including
associated penalties for Markets' alleged failure to provide meal
periods, rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof and alleged
failure to pay certain wages for terminated employees.  On January
26, 2012, following a mediation, this case was settled subject to
court approval of the settlement and the full settlement amount
has been recorded in the Company's consolidated financial
statements for the fiscal quarter ended December 25, 2011.

Stater Bros. Holdings Inc. -- http://www.staterbros.com/--
through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Stater Bros. Markets,
operates a supermarket chain of 167 stores located throughout
Southern California.


STATER BROS: Still Awaits Okay of "Martinez" Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
On November 5, 2010, an action by Diego De Jesus Martinez was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles against Markets ("Martinez Case") seeking
individual and potential class action monetary damages for alleged
discrepancies between the actual time worked by certain employees
and the amounts recorded on time clock reports of Stater Bros.
Holdings Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Stater Bros. Markets.  On
October 26, 2011, following a mediation, the Martinez Case was
settled subject to court approval of the settlement and the full
settlement amount was recorded in the Company's consolidated
financial statements for the fiscal year ended September 25, 2011.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 8,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 25, 2011.

Stater Bros. Holdings Inc. -- http://www.staterbros.com/--
through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Stater Bros. Markets,
operates a supermarket chain of 167 stores located throughout
Southern California.


STERIS CORP: Gets Final Approval of "Winter Haven" Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
STERIS Corporation's settlement of a class action lawsuit
commenced by Physicians of Winter Haven LLC has been given final
approval, according to the Company's February 8, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 31, 2011.

On February 5, 2010, a complaint was filed by a Customer that
claimed to have purchased two SYSTEM 1 devices from STERIS,
Physicians of Winter Haven LLC d/b/a Day Surgery Center v. STERIS
Corp., Case No. 1:1-cv-00264-CAB (N.D. Ohio).  The complaint
alleged statutory violations, breaches of various warranties,
negligence, failure to warn, and unjust enrichment and Plaintiff
sought class certification, damages, and other legal and equitable
relief including, without limitation, attorneys' fees and an order
requiring STERIS to replace, recall or adequately repair the
product and/or to take appropriate regulatory action.  On February
7, 2011, the Company entered into a settlement agreement in which
it agreed, among other things, to provide various categories of
economic relief for members of the settlement class and not object
to plaintiff's counsel's application to the court for attorneys'
fees and expenses up to a specified amount.  Certification of a
settlement class was approved and final approval of the settlement
was given by the court in the first quarter of fiscal 2012.

During the third quarter of fiscal 2011, the Company recorded in
operating expenses a pre-tax charge of approximately $19,796
related to the settlement of these proceedings.  The assumptions
regarding the amount of this charge included, among others, the
portion of class members participating in the settlement and their
choice of the categories of economic relief available for such
members.  These assumptions may be incorrect and the costs of the
settlement may be higher or lower than the charge recorded.
Estimates of the actual settlement range from as low as $7 million
and as high as $22 million depending on the options selected by
the class members.


TD AMERITRADE: Motions to Dismiss "Ross" Suit Remain Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Clients of TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation's primary introducing
broker-dealer, TD Ameritrade, Inc., continue to hold shares in the
Yield Plus Fund (now known as "Yield Plus Fund -- In
Liquidation"), which is being liquidated.  The Company estimates
that TD Ameritrade, Inc. clients' current positions held in the
Reserve Yield Plus Fund amount to approximately 79% of the fund.

In November 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed with
respect to the Yield Plus Fund.  The lawsuit is captioned Ross v.
Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al. and is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The Ross
lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares of Reserve
Yield Plus Fund.  On November 20, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
first amended complaint naming as defendants the fund's advisor,
certain of its affiliates and the Company and certain of its
directors, officers and shareholders as alleged control persons.
The complaint alleges claims of violations of the federal
securities laws and other claims based on allegations that false
and misleading statements and omissions were made in the Reserve
Yield Plus Fund prospectuses and in other statements regarding the
fund.  The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages including interest, attorneys' fees, rescission, exemplary
damages and equitable relief.  On
January 19, 2010, the defendants submitted motions to dismiss the
complaint.  The motions are pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 8,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

The Company estimates that its clients' current aggregate
shortfall, based on the original par value of their holdings in
the Yield Plus Fund, less the value of fund distributions to date
and the value of payments under the Company's SEC settlement, is
approximately $37 million.  This amount does not take into account
any assets remaining in the fund that may become available for
future distributions.

The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome or the timing
of the ultimate resolution of the Ross lawsuit, or the potential
loss, if any, that may result from this unresolved matter.
However, management believes the outcome of the pending proceeding
is not likely to have a material adverse effect on the financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company.


WASHINGTON, D.C.: Loses Bid to Dismiss Nursing Home Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Annys Shin, writing for The Washington Post, reports that the
District has lost an effort to have a federal judge throw out a
class-action suit brought on behalf of nearly 3,000 nursing home
residents.

Judge Ellen Huvelle on Feb. 14 rejected the city's contention that
it has complied with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) by
providing services to nursing home residents who want to live in
the community.  The ADA requires states and local governments to
provide services to people with disabilities in the most
integrated setting possible.

Judge Huvelle ruled that the District's claims fell short of those
requirements on several fronts, including that the city has no
meaningful plan to integrate nursing-home residents into community
settings.

The case, Day v. the District of Columbia, was brought by
University Legal Services, AARP Foundation Litigation and Arent
Fox LLP.


                           *********

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  * * *