CAR_Public/120221.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, February 21, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 36

                             Headlines

AMERICAN HONDA: State of Iowa May Object to Hybrid Car Settlement
BANK OF MONTREAL: Foreign Exchange Fee Class Action Can Proceed
CITIBANK: Faces Class Action Over Taxable Airline Miles
CITY OF GRANITE, IL: Disputes Class Action Over Towing Fees
CITY OF VICTORVILLE, CA: Faces Red Light Camera Class Action

CONSOL ENERGY: "Addison" Class Suit vs. Unit Remains Stayed
CONSOL ENERGY: CNX Gas Shareholder Suit Trial May Begin This Year
CONSOL ENERGY: Continues to Defend "Hall" Suit in Pennsylvania
CONSOL ENERGY: "Hale" Suit vs. Unit Remains Stayed in Virginia
CONSOL ENERGY: New "Comer" Suit Still Pending in Mississippi

DELTA AIR: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Illinois Suit
DELTA AIR: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suits in Canada
DELTA AIR: Certification Bid Remains Pending in Antitrust Suit
EXPRESS LLC: Ex-Employees Get Conditional Class Certification
GANZ USA: Recalls 2,270 Dancing Teapots Due to Burn Hazard

GENERAL NUTRITION: Sued in Calif. for Selling Dangerous Drug
GOV'T OF CANADA: FWCB File Class Action Over Bill C-18
GROUPON INC: Expects to Complete Settlement by March 12
HAPPINESS IS PETS: Sells Sick Pets From Puppy Mills, Suit Says
INTERNATIONAL PLAYTHINGS: Recalls 31,000 Tumblekins Toys

KENNEDY DATA: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Fax Advertisements
LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES: Recalls 900 Slalom Glider Children Slides
LEBANON CITIZENS: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
MORRELL CATERERS: Faces Class Action Over Gratuities
SALLIE MAE: Class Action Over Student Loan Late Fees Can Proceed

SIX FLAGS: Faces Class Action Over 2008 Norovirus Outbreak
STATE OF OREGON: HEM Program Not Voluntary, Class Action Claims
TNUVA: Faces NIS334-Million Consumer Class Action
TSC GLOBAL: Rosner Law Firm, Outten & Golden Launch Class Suit
VANCOUVER: Class Action Over Summer School Fees Certified

VISA INC: Court Approved "Marenco" Suit Settlement in November
VISA INC: Interchange MDL Escrow Account Now Has $4.28 Bil.
VISA INC: Plaintiffs Amend Complaint Over ATM Access Fee Rules
VISA INC: Two Consumer Suits Over ATM Access Fees Consolidated
WALT DISNEY: June 5 Trial Set for Blind Visitors' Class Action


                          *********

AMERICAN HONDA: State of Iowa May Object to Hybrid Car Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WOWT & The Associated Press report that the attorneys general from
Iowa and four other states are considering whether to object to a
proposed class-action settlement between Honda and some car
owners.  At issue is Honda's claim of high gas mileage with some
hybrid cars.

Nebraska's attorney general is not part of the possible class-
action settlement.

San Diego Superior Court Judge Timothy Taylor on Feb. 14 gave the
five state attorneys general until Feb. 29 to declare any
opposition to the settlement.

California Deputy Attorney General Albert Shelden tells reporters
that his state is undecided on whether to enter the fray.  Iowa,
Massachusetts, Texas and Washington have also asked for more time
to consider.

The states' sudden interest in the case comes shortly after Honda
owner Heather Peters won a nearly $10,000 judgment against Honda
in Los Angeles small-claims court.  In contrast, the class-action
settlement would give each owner $100 to $200.

Ms. Peters chose not to join a class-action lawsuit, deciding to
seek help in a small-claims court.  She sued after her 2006 Honda
Civic Hybrid did not get the 50 miles per gallon that Honda said
she should expect.

Honda insists that actual mileage depends on a number of factors
including how you drive.


BANK OF MONTREAL: Foreign Exchange Fee Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Critchley, writing for Financial Post, reports that five and
a half years on, a group of plaintiffs can do a little celebrating
given that a class action lawsuit they brought against various
entities of the Bank of Montreal has just been certified.

The next stage is for the bank to file a statement of defense
(assuming it doesn't appeal) in the matter that was started in
August 2006 by James MacDonald, a former investment advisor at BMO
Nesbitt Burns and which focuses on registered accounts held at the
bank, the conversion of foreign currency in those accounts and the
fees charged.

"This case is important because it brings to the court the
practices of a significant financial institution on how they deal
with registered accounts when doing foreign exchange transactions.
We are hoping to prove our case and bring better transparency to
the process and hopefully better pricing to the consumer," said
Kenneth Rosenberg, a partner at the law firm Paliare Roland
Rosenberg Rothstein.

Along with Jeffrey Larry, Rosenberg, acted for the four plaintiffs
Mr. MacDonald, John Zoppas, Lynn Zoppas and Tamas Varga in the
matter that was put on hold for about four years to allow a
similar action (but one that dealt with non-registered accounts)
by other parties to proceed.  About 15 months back work on the
matter renewed and two weeks ago Justice Carolyn Horkins of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice made a 41-page ruling.

In her opinion, the matter can proceed as a class action -- with
an estimated value of around C$100-million -- and will cover the
period June 2001 to September 2011.

The dates are significant: prior to June 2001, Canadians could not
hold foreign currency in registered accounts and in September
2011, BMO started offering registered accounts in foreign
currency.  Between those dates, the plaintiffs allege that when
the currency conversions were made, "the defendants charged the
account holder an exchange rate more favorable to the defendants
than the rate at which the defendants purchased the currency,"
wrote Justice Corkins.

Justice Corkins wrote that "the plaintiffs allege that the foreign
exchange fees were not disclosed to the account holder and were
unnecessary and unauthorized."  Because of that, the plaintiffs
argue the defendants breached their contracts, fiduciary duties,
duties as trustees and have been "unjustly enriched."

Accordingly, instead of acting as agent and trying to secure the
best deal for the customer, the allegation is that the bank acted
as principal by "selling you their own foreign exchange without
declaring to you that they were doing it," said Mr. Rosenberg.

The claim for damages follows because, Mr. Rosenberg alleges, the
bank "could have done it cheaper," making reference to a number of
transactions where fees were paid.

Some of those were transactions done by Mr. MacDonald, who, after
finding out that foreign currency could be held in a registered
account, wrote to senior management asking why conversion was
still occurring "without his authorization."  Mr. MacDonald didn't
receive a reply but wrote again and duly received a response on a
"without prejudice" basis.

Mr. Rosenberg added while "people understand that money is made on
this, we say that there has to be proper disclosure and
transparency and you are entitled to know how much they are
charging."

Justice Corkins spends considerable time on the gaps between what
BMO disclosed and what it practiced.

"There are no fees listed that deal with the conversion of foreign
currency," she wrote in a section titled "What did Nesbitt Burns
disclose"?

Calls to BMO seeking a comment weren't returned.


CITIBANK: Faces Class Action Over Taxable Airline Miles
-------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that irate
customers claim in a federal class action that Citibank lured them
in by offering 40,000 frequent-flier miles to open an account --
but didn't tell them they had to report 2 1/2 cents per mile as
income to the IRS.

Lead plaintiffs Bertram Hirsch and Igor Romanov say that Citibank
grossly overvalued the miles, which have no actual value to
customers and should not be taxable.

"Citibank regularly offers promotional American Airlines miles to
induce customers to open up checking or savings accounts at
Citibank, usually with a minimum deposit of $25,000," the
complaint states.

"What Citibank does not disclose to customers who take advantage
of the American Airlines miles promotions is that Citibank will
file with the Internal Revenue Service ('IRS') a 1099-MISC
reporting that they received miscellaneous income, in the amount
of 2.5 cents per mile, for the American Airlines miles provided to
such customers.

"It is widely understood in the marketplace that airline miles are
not reported to the IRS as being taxable for income tax purposes.
Indeed, Citibank expressly informed plaintiff Hirsch that the
American Airlines miles that he would receive for opening up
Citibank checking and savings accounts were not taxable.

"Even if the airline miles were taxable, Citibank's practice of
valuing the airline miles at 2.5 cents per mile is grossly unfair
and deceptive.  Airline miles have no value to Citibank customers
that can be fixed at the time they are awarded.  If redeemed,
these miles typically have an average value to customers of
between .76 cents per mile and 1.2 cents per mile.  At least one
study recently concluded that American Airlines miles in
particular are only worth about .76 cents per mile.
"Citibank failed to make these material disclosures because it
knew that very few customers, if any, would take advantage of the
airline miles offers because they did not make economical sense.
Citibank benefits from this practice by gaining additional banking
business and savings deposits from which it could lend out at much
higher interest rates than the low interest rates paid to
plaintiffs and the members of the class.

"On Jan. 30, 2012, United States Senator Sherrod Brown, Chairman
of the U.S. Senate Banking Subcommittee on Financial Institutions
and Consumer Protection, sent a letter to Citigroup's CEO,
requesting that Citibank stop issuing 1099 forms to customers and
noted that Citibank 'arbitrarily calculates the value of each
frequent flyer mile at 2.5 cents.'  In a newspaper interview
response, Citibank stated that it is required by law to issue 1099
forms to customers, and implied that it would continue the
practice notwithstanding it was grossly misstating the value of
the airline miles."

Messrs. Hirsch and Romanov say they each received 40,000 frequent
flyer miles for opening Citibank accounts with minimum deposits of
$25,000, in New York and California.

Mr. Hirsch, a semi-retired lawyer, says he became concerned when
he read the fine print on Citibank's offer letter, which states:
"Customer is responsible for taxes, if any."

Mr. Hirsch says he asked a local Citibank employee if the miles
were taxable, to make sure he did not exceed a certain income
threshold, so he could keep his retirement benefits.  He says the
employee assured him the miles were tax-free.

However, "In January 2012, Mr. Hirsch received a 1099 form from
Citibank stating that he must report $1,000 as miscellaneous
income," the complaint states.  "Mr. Hirsch did not understand
what the 1099 was for and went back to his local branch.  At the
branch, Citibank representatives also did not know what the 1099
was for, again confirmed that the 40,000 American Airlines miles
that Mr. Hirsch received were not taxable, and stated that he
should initiate an internal investigation with Citibank in an
attempt to resolve the issue.  Mr. Hirsch did so.

"Finally, Mr. Hirsch received a letter from Citibank stating that
the American Airlines miles were taxable under federal law and
that the bank was correct in reporting the income to the IRS.  No
Internal Revenue Code provision or associated regulation was
referenced.

"Citibank valued the 40,000 miles that Mr. Hirsch received at 2.5
cents per mile, or $1,000."

Since a 2002 ruling by the IRS, consumers have not been asked to
pay income tax on frequent flyer miles.  Though the IRS did not
clearly side with Citibank, spokeswoman Michelle Eldridge said:
"When frequent-flyer miles are provided as a premium for opening a
financial account, it can be a taxable situation subject to
reporting under current law," according to Investment News.
Mr. Hirsch says he has not used any of the miles.

He says he never would have opened an account with Citibank had he
known the miles were taxable.

Mr. Romanov, who also took advantage of Citibank's frequent-flyer
offer, says he received a similar 1099 form from Citibank,
claiming that he owed $1,000.  He says he offered to sell the
miles back to the bank and asked for Citibank's help in paying the
taxes, but the bank blew him off.

The plaintiffs say that since 2009, the bank has sent 1099 forms
to many other customers who signed up for the airline miles
promotion.  They claim Citibank's miles have no value to customers
because many go unused and expire within a short time.

"Citibank's actions are causing customers to not only be liable
for taxes on the American Airlines miles that they should not be,
but also to pay more than double the income tax because Citibank
values the miles at more than double their typical redemption
worth," the complaint states.  "For example, a typical promotion
would provide Citibank customers with 40,000 American Airlines
miles, and the 1099 form sent to customers would state that the
customer must report $1,000 as additional income, amounting to 2.5
cents per mile.  Applying an average federal and state tax rate of
approximately 35 percent, customers are required to pay $350 in
taxes for the receipt of said 40,000 airline miles.  Plaintiffs
take the position that the airline miles do not have a value at
all upon receipt for tax reporting purposes, and therefore,
Citibank should not have issued 1099 forms to the IRS or its
customers.  However, even if they did have a value, and Citibank
had valued the American Airlines miles at 1 cent per mile, which
is still overvalued according to a recent study, the tax would
have been $140, based on additional income of $400," the complaint
states.

"Citibank does not disclose in its American Airlines promotional
offering materials that Citibank will report to the IRS that its
customers received miscellaneous income as the result of the
receipt of airline miles, or that the American Airlines miles
would be valued at 2.5 cents per mile by Citibank, because
Citibank knew that very few customers, if any, would take
advantage of the offer if the disclosures were made."

Messrs. Hirsch and Romanov seek class certification, restitution
and compensatory and punitive damages for unfair trade practices,
breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and unjust
enrichment.  And they want Citibank enjoined from using the trick.

They are represented by:

          James Kelly, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES C. KELLY
          477 Madison Avenue, Sixth Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 920-5042
          E-mail: jkelly@jckellylaw.com

Citibank is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup, an
international financial conglomerate serving more than 200 million
clients.  Citibank has 1,400 outlets in more than 100 countries
and territories around the world.


CITY OF GRANITE, IL: Disputes Class Action Over Towing Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ann Maher, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports that
an attorney for the City of Granite says the plaintiff in a
proposed class action over certain towing fees failed to exhaust
administrative remedies before filing suit.

The proposed class includes drivers ticketed for DUI or driving
with a suspended or revoked license and who were made to pay a
premium fee to retrieve their impounded cars.

City attorney Brian Konzen wrote that plaintiff David Funkhouser
-- who claims he had to pay the higher of two authorized
administrative towing fees of $400 versus $150 to retrieve his car
after a July 10, 2011 arrest -- was entitled to a hearing to
contest the fee, but failed to avail himself to it.

Six cities in Madison and St. Clair counties, including Granite
City, were sued in December by plaintiffs who propose to lead
classes of individuals who seek refunds for administrative fees
plus costs and other relief.

"The Tow Ordinance of the City of Granite City . . . specifically
provides for an administrative hearing available to the
plaintiff," Mr. Konzen wrote in a recent motion to dismiss.

"There is no allegation in plaintiff's complaint (that) the named
plaintiff, nor any purported class member, availed himself or
herself of the statutory right to an administrative hearing . . .
Therefore, plaintiff's complaint fails to state a cause of action,
and must be dismissed."

Eric D. Holland -- eholland@allfela.com -- and Steven L. Groves --
sgroves@allfela.com -- of Holland, Groves, Schneller and Stolze in
St. Louis and Brian L. Polinske of Polinske and Associates in
Edwardsville represent plaintiffs in the proposed classes.

Those attorneys have filed class certification motions in each of
the four Madison County class actions.

"This fee is not a tow charge (that is paid separately to the
towing company) and has no rational basis in accomplishing the
means of what the ordinance purports to do," Mr. Polinske wrote in
the certification motion.  "This is a violation of the Class' due
process rights . . ."

The plaintiffs claim that the cities' administrative processing
fee is not a tow fee but merely a receipt and is not related to
the cost of towing, towing services or actual services provided.

Messrs. Polinske and Holland ask that a ruling on the
certification motion be delayed "until such time as sufficient
discovery has been conducted for the court to have a reasonably
(sic) opportunity to consider this motion."

Circuit Judge Andy Matoesian presides in the case against Granite
City.

Edwardsville, Alton and Collinsville are also targets of nearly
identical class action litigation in Madison County.

In the case against Edwardsville, Allan Lewis claims he was cited
and arrested on May 20, 2011.  As a result, his car was towed and
he was required to pay an administrative processing fee of $300,
his suit states.

Attorney Alvin C. Paulson represents the City of Edwardsville.  On
Feb. 3, he asked the court to file an order dismissing the
complaint.

Circuit Judge Bill Mudge presides in the Edwardsville case.

In the case against Alton, Matthew E. Carter claims he was
arrested on June 26, 2011.  He claims he was forced to pay a level
one administrative fee to Alton of $500.

James Schrempf -- jschrempf@skndlaw.com -- of Schrempf, Kelly,
Napp & Darr of Alton represents the city.

On Feb. 1, Mr. Schrempf wrote in a motion to dismiss,
"[P]laintiff's class action complaint must be dismissed in its
entirety.  The ordinance clearly states the purpose of the fee is
to recoup costs expended by the city in connection with towing and
impoundment of the vehicles."

Circuit Judge Dennis Ruth presides.  On Feb. 3, he continued a
hearing on a plaintiff's motion for class certification until
parties request that it be set.

In the case against Collinsville, Amy Kopesky claims she was
arrested on Dec. 2, 2010.  In order to retrieve her car from the
tow company, she was required to pay a level one administrative
fee to Collinsville of $500.

Paulson and attorney Steven Giacoletto represent the City of
Collinsville.

Collinsville has until Feb. 16 to file a responsive pleading,
according to an order signed by Associate Judge Thomas Chapman,
who presides.

Mr. Giacoletto wrote in a motion for extension of time to file,
"the Defendant has two insurance companies that may be responsible
for providing it a defense and indemnification in this action.

"[O]ne of the Defendant's insurers has denied a defense of the
claim and the other has yet to make a decision on its defense of
the claim."

Collinsville Mayor John Miller remarked that the city's ordinance
that sets the fees is justifiable and will be upheld in legal
challenges.

The cities of O'Fallon and Fairview Heights are being sued over
similar claims in St. Clair County.

Madison County case numbers: 11'-L-1304, 11-L-1305, 11-L-1306 and
11-L-1307.


CITY OF VICTORVILLE, CA: Faces Red Light Camera Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Press reports that a Barstow attorney has filed a class
action lawsuit in San Bernardino County Superior Court claiming
Victorville's red light camera system violates due process rights.

Attorney Robert Conaway, representing Victorville resident Michael
Curran and others, is hoping to recover more than $9 million in
damages on behalf of 4,300 people who've received tickets from
Victorville's red light cameras since they were installed in 2008.

Both the city of Victorville and Redflex Traffic Systems are named
in the suit, which was filed through the Victorville courthouse on
Feb. 14.

The claim states the camera system "violates the long standing
legal rule that for an officer to cite a citizen for an
infraction, it must be done 'In the Presence' of the officer."
And, since employees with Redflex -- a private company
headquartered in Phoenix -- are the ones first viewing the alleged
violations, it states testimony from local deputies should be
inadmissible as evidence.

The Victorville City Council denied Conaway's claim at its Feb. 7
meeting, with city attorney Andre de Bortnowsky stating he doesn't
believe the suit has legal merit.

Councilwoman Angela Valles cast the sole vote against the denial,
suggesting they consider some of the alternatives Conaway had
proposed -- dropping the cameras or hiring deputies to watch the
live video feed and issue tickets as they occur -- rather than
face a potentially pricey legal battle.


CONSOL ENERGY: "Addison" Class Suit vs. Unit Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of CONSOL Energy Inc.
remains stayed in a federal court in Virginia, 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.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010, in
Federal court in Virginia styled Addison v. CNX Gas Company LLC.
The case involves two primary claims: (i) the plaintiff and
similarly situated CNX Gas lessors identified as conflicting
claimants during the force pooling process before the Virginia Gas
and Oil Board are the owners of the coalbed methane (CBM) and,
accordingly, the owners of the escrowed royalty payments being
held by the Commonwealth of Virginia; and (ii) CNX Gas Company
failed to either pay royalties due these conflicting claimant
lessors or paid them less than required because of the alleged
practice of improper below market sales and/or taking alleged
improper post-production deductions.  Plaintiffs seek a
declaratory judgment regarding ownership and compensatory and
punitive damages for breach of contract; conversion; negligence
(voluntary undertaking), for force pooling coal owners after the
Ratliff decision declared coal owners did not own the CBM;
negligent breach of duties as an operator; breach of fiduciary
duties; and unjust enrichment.  The Company filed a Motion to
Dismiss in this case, and the Magistrate Judge recommended
dismissing some claims and allowing others to proceed.  The
District Judge affirmed the Magistrate Judge's Recommendations in
their entirety.  The plaintiffs and CNX Gas Company have agreed to
stay this litigation.

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

CONSOL Energy believes that the case is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously.  Consequently, the Company has not
recognized any liability related to these actions.


CONSOL ENERGY: CNX Gas Shareholder Suit Trial May Begin This Year
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. disclosed in its February 10, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011, that the consolidated lawsuit over
its acquisition of CNX Gas Corporation will likely go to trial
this year.

CONSOL Energy has been named as a defendant in five putative class
actions brought by alleged shareholders of CNX Gas Corporation
(CNX Gas) challenging the tender offer by CONSOL Energy to acquire
all of the shares of CNX Gas common stock that CONSOL Energy did
not already own for $38.25 per share.  The two cases filed in
Pennsylvania Common Pleas Court have been stayed and the three
cases filed in the Delaware Chancery Court have been consolidated
under the caption In Re CNX Gas Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No.
5377-VCL).  All five actions generally allege that CONSOL Energy
breached and/or aided and abetted in the breach of fiduciary
duties purportedly owed to CNX Gas public shareholders,
essentially alleging that the $38.25 per share price that CONSOL
Energy paid to CNX Gas shareholders in the tender offer and
subsequent short-form merger was unfair. Among other things, the
actions sought a permanent injunction against or rescission of the
tender offer, damages, and attorneys' fees and expenses.  The
lawsuit will likely go to trial, possibly in 2012.

CONSOL Energy believes that these actions are without merit and
intends to defend them vigorously.  For that reason, the Company
has not accrued a liability for this claim; however, if liability
is ultimately imposed, based on the expert reports that have been
exchanged by the parties, the Company believes the range of loss
could be up to $221,000,000.


CONSOL ENERGY: Continues to Defend "Hall" Suit in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit was filed on December 23, 2010,
styled Hall v. CONSOL Gas Company in Allegheny County Pennsylvania
Common Pleas Court.  The named plaintiff is Earl D. Hall.  The
purported class plaintiffs are all Pennsylvania oil and gas
lessors to Dominion Exploration and Production Company, whose
leases were acquired by CONSOL Energy Inc.  The complaint alleges
more than 1,000 similarly situated lessors.  The lawsuit alleges
that CONSOL Energy incorrectly calculated royalties by (i)
calculating line loss on the basis of allocated volumes rather
than on a well-by-well basis, (ii) possibly calculating the
royalty on the basis of an incorrect price, (iii) possibly taking
unreasonable deductions for post-production costs and costs that
were not arms-length, (iv) not paying royalties on gas lost or
used before the point of sale, and (v) not paying royalties on oil
production.  The complaint also alleges that royalty statements
were false and misleading.  The complaint seeks damages, interest
and an accounting on a well-by-well basis.

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.

CONSOL Energy believes that the case is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously.  Consequently, the Company has not
recognized any liability related to these actions.


CONSOL ENERGY: "Hale" Suit vs. Unit Remains Stayed in Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of CONSOL Energy Inc.
remains stayed in Virginia, 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.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010
in U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia, styled Hale v. CNX
Gas Company LLC et. al.  The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff
class consists of oil and gas owners, that the Virginia Supreme
Court has decided that coalbed methane (CBM) belongs to the owner
of the oil and gas estate, that the Virginia Gas and Oil Act of
1990 unconstitutionally allows force pooling of CBM, that the Act
unconstitutionally provides only a 1/8 royalty to CBM owners for
gas produced under the force pooling orders, and that the Company
only relied upon control of the coal estate in force pooling the
CBM notwithstanding the Virginia Supreme Court decision holding
that if only the coal estate is controlled, the CBM is not thereby
controlled.  The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of ownership
of the CBM and that the entire net proceeds of CBM production
(that is, the 1/8 royalty and the 7/8 of net revenues since
production began) be distributed to the class members.  The
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she
recommended that the District Judge decide that the deemed lease
provision of the Gas and Oil Act is constitutional as is the 1/8
royalty, and that CNX Gas need not distribute the net proceeds to
class members.  The Magistrate Judge recommended against the
dismissal of certain other claims, none of which are believed to
have any significance The District Judge affirmed the Magistrate
Judge's Recommendations in their entirety.  The plaintiffs and CNX
Gas have agreed to stay this litigation.

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

CONSOL Energy believes that the case is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously.  Consequently, the Company has not
recognized any liability related to these actions.


CONSOL ENERGY: New "Comer" Suit Still Pending in Mississippi
------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005, plaintiffs Ned Comer and others filed a purported class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi against a number of companies in energy,
fossil fuels and chemical industries, including CONSOL Energy
Inc., styled, Comer, et al. v. Murphy Oil, et al.  The plaintiffs,
residents and owners of property along the Mississippi Gulf coast,
alleged that the defendants caused the emission of greenhouse
gases that contributed to global warming, which in turn caused a
rise in sea levels and added to the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina,
which combined to destroy the plaintiffs' property.  The District
Court dismissed the case and the plaintiffs appealed.  The Circuit
Court panel reversed and the defendants sought a rehearing before
the entire court.  A rehearing before the entire court was
granted, which had the effect of vacating the panel's reversal,
but before the case could be heard on the merits, a number of
judges recused themselves and there was no longer a quorum.  As a
result, the District Court's dismissal was effectively reinstated.
The plaintiffs asked the U.S. Supreme Court to require the Circuit
Court to address the merits of their appeal.

On January 11, 2011, the Supreme Court denied that request.
Although that should have resulted in the dismissal being a
finality, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on May 27, 2011, in the
same jurisdiction against essentially the same defendants making
nearly identical allegations as in the original lawsuit.  The
defendants intend to seek an early dismissal of the 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.


DELTA AIR: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Illinois Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Delta Air Lines, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit pending in Illinois, 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.

In February 2011, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking to
represent all US residents who were passengers on flights during
the period from February 2009 to the present who are allegedly
entitled to compensation under EU Regulation 261 because their
flight was cancelled or delayed by more than 3 hours.  Plaintiffs
allege that Delta has incorporated a duty to pay this compensation
into its contract of carriage, and assert a claim for breach of
contract as the basis for their cause of action.  The complaint
seeks recovery of the EU Regulation 261 compensation of EU600 for
each US resident on a flight qualifying for such compensation.
Delta disputes the allegations in the Complaint, has filed a
motion to dismiss all claims, and intends to vigorously defend the
matter.


DELTA AIR: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Air Lines, Inc. continues to defend two antitrust class
action lawsuits pending in Canada, 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.

On July 31, 2009, two parallel putative class actions were filed
against a number of Canadian, Asian, European, and U.S. carriers
(including Delta) in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  Both
allege that the defendants colluded to fix the price of passenger
surcharges, in Canada-Asia and Canada-Europe markets respectively.
There are no allegations in the complaints of any specific act by
Delta in furtherance of either conspiracy.  The complaints seek
damages in excess of $100 million.  The Company believes the
allegations against it are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend these cases.


DELTA AIR: Certification Bid Remains Pending in Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class in a consolidated antitrust
lawsuit against Delta Air Lines, Inc., remains pending, 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.

In May, June and July 2009, a number of purported class action
antitrust lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Courts for the
Northern District of Georgia, the Middle District of Florida, and
the District of Nevada, against Delta and AirTran Airways
("AirTran").  In these cases, the plaintiffs originally alleged
that Delta and AirTran engaged in collusive behavior in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act in November 2008 based upon
certain public statements made in October 2008 by AirTran's CEO at
an analyst conference concerning fees for the first checked bag,
Delta's imposition of a fee for the first checked bag on November
4, 2008, and AirTran's imposition of a similar fee on November 12,
2008.  The plaintiffs sought to assert claims on behalf of an
alleged class consisting of passengers who paid the first bag fee
after December 5, 2008, and seek injunctive relief and unspecified
treble damages.  All of these cases have been consolidated for
pre-trial proceedings in the Northern District of Georgia by the
Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") Panel.

In February 2010, the plaintiffs in the MDL proceeding filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint which substantially
expanded the scope of the original complaint.  In the consolidated
amended complaint, plaintiffs add new allegations concerning
alleged signaling by both Delta and AirTran based upon statements
made to the investment community by both carriers relating to
industry capacity levels during 2008-2009.  Plaintiffs also add a
new cause of action against Delta alleging attempted
monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act,
paralleling a claim previously asserted against AirTran but not
Delta.

In August 2010, the District Court issued an order granting
Delta's motion to dismiss the Section 2 claim, but denying its
motion to dismiss the Section 1 claim.  Plaintiffs have filed a
motion to certify the Section 1 class, which remains pending.

Delta believes the claims in these cases are without merit and is
vigorously defending these lawsuits.


EXPRESS LLC: Ex-Employees Get Conditional Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge granted conditional certification to a class that says that
the retailer Express owes retail assistants for time spent
delivering bank deposits.

Express is the sixth largest specialty clothing retailer in the
United States, with 573 stores nationwide and more than $1 billion
in annual sales.

Prior to Oct. 15, 2010, Express permitted some stores to deliver
their bank deposits at night, rather than in the morning.

The policy read: "Stores with a bank depository in the mall may
make their deposit at night.  A few stores have to make deposits
at locations which are a short drive from the mall.  These
deposits should only be made in the morning, never at night."

"For all deposits, at least two people must be present," the
policy continued.  "Even if your drop is in the mall, at least two
associates must walk to the depository with the deposit discretely
concealed in an Express poly bag."

Express changed its policy effective Oct. 15, 2010, requiring all
bank deposits to be made in the morning.

Three former Express employees who were required to make bank
deposits at night filed a suit, alleging that they were not paid
for the time they spent delivering the stores' bank deposits after
they clocked out at night.

U.S. District Judge James Holderman conditionally certified the
class for certain claims last week.

He certified a conditional class of "all persons who worked for
defendant as non-exempt employees without the United States at any
time between July 28, 2008 and October 15, 2010 and who made a
night bank deposit after clocking out for the day."

The court said it "agrees with Express that a potentially large
group of Express employees worked at stores that never performed
night bank deposits.  Another potentially large group, although
working at stores requiring some employees to perform night bank
deposits, never performed night bank deposits themselves.

Express's contentions on those points are irrelevant, however,
because the proposed class is already limited to '[a]ll persons
who worked for defendant . . . and who made a night bank
deposit.'"

Judge Holderman noted substantial evidence that "employees at a
broad selection of stores across the country" made night bank
deposits after clocking out, without compensation.

"It is reasonable to assume that at least a large segment of
employees making night bank deposits at other stores also did so
after clocking out without compensation," Judge Holderman wrote.

The court declined, however, to determine whether co-managers
should be excluded from the proposed class.

Express says that these workers may be executive or administrative
employees exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

"As the plaintiffs point out, Express categorizes co-managers as
nonexempt employees," Judge Holderman wrote, saying he will look
closer at this group in the next stage of the certification
process.

Feb. 27, 2012, is the deadline for additional briefs "on the
question of whether it is appropriate to send court-approved
notice to a significantly larger group of individuals than have
been conditionally certified in the proposed class."

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in Wynn, et al. v.
Express, LLC, Case No. 11-cv-04588 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/16/Express.pdf


GANZ USA: Recalls 2,270 Dancing Teapots Due to Burn Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Ganz U.S.A. LLC, of Cheektowaga, New York,
announced a voluntary recall of about 2,100 Dancing Teapots in the
United States of America and 170 in Canada.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The teapot's handle can get extremely hot when there is hot water
in the teapot, posing a burn hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Ganz ceramic teapots that are tilted to
appear as if they are dancing.  Only 32-ounce teapots that measure
about 10 inches tall and 8 inches wide are included in this
recall.  Recalled teapots have SKU number "ER19252" and UPC
"661371626062" printed on a sticker on the bottom of the teapot.
They were sold in the following colors: blue, yellow, green,
orange, pink and black.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12110.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at tea
and coffee specialty stores, gift stores, drug stores, kitchen
supply stores, hospital gift shops and other retailers nationwide
from December 2011 through January 2012 for about $30.

Consumers should stop using the recalled teapots immediately and
contact Ganz for instructions on returning the teapot for a full
refund.  For additional information, contact Ganz at (800) 724-
5902 between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Thursday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.ganz.com/


GENERAL NUTRITION: Sued in Calif. for Selling Dangerous Drug
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
General Nutrition Centers and others sell a dangerous drug, 1,3
dimethylamylamine, which is synthetic, and not derived from
geraniums, as advertised.

A copy of the Complaint in Bates v. General Nutrition Centers, et
al., Case No. 12-cv-01336 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/16/DietSupp.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          E-mail: mgodino@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Kari E. Fisch, Esq.
          Stephanie Amin-Giwner, Esq.
          ABBEY SPANIER RODD & ABRAMS, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          E-mail: kfisch@abbeyspanier.com
                  samin@abbeyspanier.com


GOV'T OF CANADA: FWCB File Class Action Over Bill C-18
------------------------------------------------------
Alberta Farmer Express reports that the farmers who sought and got
a court ruling declaring the federal government's deregulation of
the Canadian Wheat Board "an affront to the rule of law" have now
formally filed for a class action to roll back the government's
plans.

Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board (FCWB) on Feb. 15 announced it
has launched a new action in Federal Court in Ottawa seeking to
"restore the Canadian Wheat Board and recover damages farmers have
suffered as a result of Ottawa's tampering with western grain
marketing."

The group's Winnipeg lawyer Anders Bruun will act as co-counsel
with lawyers from Toronto- and Ottawa-based Sack Goldblatt
Mitchell (SGM) to bring the new action against the federal
government.

While other court cases already in the works seek either to undo
the federal government's Bill C-18 or to require the government to
compensate farmers for the end of the CWB's single marketing desk
for Prairie wheat and barley, the FCWB said its action will place
"new and significant constitutional arguments in front of the
courts."

"Our primary objective is to restore democratic farmer control of
the Wheat Board and the right of producers to collectively market
their grain," Steven Shrybman, an SGM lawyer in Ottawa, said in
FCWB's release.  "We are also seeking compensation from the
government for damages it has caused to the interests of
producers."

The four representative plaintiffs for the proposed class action
include farmers Harold Bell of Fort St. John, B.C.; Andrew Dennis
of Brookdale, Man.; Nathan Macklin of DeBolt, Alta.; and Ian
McCreary, a former CWB director at Bladworth, Sask.

Their statement of claim seeks a declaration that C-18 is "of no
force and effect" as an infringement of farmers' Charter rights; a
stay or suspension of C-18's implementation; a declaration that
Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz infringed on farmers' Charter
rights by not holding a producer vote in advance of introducing C-
18; and C$3.75 billion in damages from "a diminishment of the fair
market value of the (CWB's) assets and good will."

Alternately, the action would seek C$17.062 billion in damages
from diminishment of those assets, loss in profits to producers,
and "conversion of assets, funds and revenues including the
(CWB's) contingency fund" that "should have subsequently been
transferred to the (CWB's) 2011-12 pool accounts but were not"
after C-18's passage.

"Damages already done"

The suit alleges "misfeasance in public office" and "breach of
trust" and that Mr. Ritz's failure to comply with the Canadian
Wheat Board Act and put the government's plans to a producer vote
was "deliberate and in bad faith."

From a constitutional perspective, the suit also claims C-18 was
an "interference with producers' rights to freedom of association"
and "rights to freedom of expression" under the federal Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, as well as "unlawful interference with
(farmers') economic relations."

"SGM has a successful track record on similar cases so we feel
confident that we will ultimately reverse Ottawa's unlawful
actions and we expect our members will receive substantial
compensation for the damages already done," Mr. Dennis said in
FCWB's release.

Lined up to support the FCWB and its four representative
plaintiffs are the eight farmer-elected CWB directors who the
federal government fired after the passage of Bill C-18 into law;
the Producer Car Shippers of Canada; the Canadian Wheat Board
Alliance; the National Farmers' Union; and "various civil society
groups."

"Rejecting (C-18) is about more than the Canadian Wheat Board, it
is about due process and the rule of law itself and that affects
everyone in Canada," Mr. Bruun said in the same release.

The proposed "class" for the suit filed on Feb. 15 would include
"all grain producers, or their estates, who sold grain through the
Canadian Wheat Board on or after Jan, 1, 2006, and who were
entitled to be included in the voters' list in respect of the
election of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board at any time
since that date."

The FCWB's previous court action earned a declaration from a
Federal Court judge in Winnipeg in December that Mr. Ritz's
actions in introducing C-18 were an "affront to the rule of law,"
but Judge Douglas Campbell's declaration didn't include a ruling
on the validity of C-18 itself.

Among other legal actions taken since then, the eight fired CWB
directors have filed in Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench for a
separate order to invalidate C-18.

The federal government, for its part, plans to appeal Judge
Campbell's ruling -- while the eight former directors are seeking
separately to quash Ottawa's appeal, on the grounds that the
government can't ignore and appeal Campbell's ruling at the same
time.

In a separate class-action suit proposed last month, Woodrow,
Sask. farmer Duane Filson, working with Regina class-action lawyer
Tony Merchant, said he and a proposed "class" of Prairie farmers
would seek damages of C$15.42 billion from Ottawa, alleging the
CWB's assets "cannot simply be subsumed by the federal
government."

Merchant has said Mr. Filson's proposed suit "does not challenge
whether or not dismantling the CWB is a good idea."


GROUPON INC: Expects to Complete Settlement by March 12
-------------------------------------------------------
Edvard Pettersson, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
Groupon Inc., the biggest seller of so-called daily deals, said it
expects to complete by March 12 settlement of a group of
consolidated class-action lawsuits alleging the expiration dates
on its coupons are improper.

Lawyers for Groupon and the plaintiffs said in a Feb. 13 filing in
federal court in San Diego that they have resolved disagreements
about the settlement terms and anticipate filing settlement
documents for the judge's approval next month.  The terms of the
settlement weren't disclosed.

Seventeen lawsuits against Chicago-based Groupon were consolidated
before U.S. District Judge Dana M. Sabraw in San Diego.  The
plaintiffs claim Groupon and various retailers violate federal and
state consumer protection laws with improper expiration dates and
other provisions for the vouchers, such as the requirement that
they be used in a single transaction.

"Groupon effectively creates a sense of urgency among consumers to
quickly purchase 'groupon' gift certificates by offering 'daily
deals' for a short amount of time," according to the first case
filed last year.  "Consumers therefore feel pressured and are
rushed into buying the gift certificates and unwittingly become
subject to the onerous sales conditions."

Julie Mossler, a spokeswoman for Groupon, and John Stoia Jr., a
lawyer representing the plaintiffs, didn't immediately return
calls seeking comment on the settlement.

The cases are In re Groupon Inc. Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, 11-MD-2238, U.S. District Court, Southern District of
California (San Diego.)


HAPPINESS IS PETS: Sells Sick Pets From Puppy Mills, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Clifford, Stephanie Castillo, Jessica Kernan, Lissett
Dzieglo, Mark Jillich, and Bryan Phillips, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Happiness Is Pets of
Arlington Heights, Inc., Happiness Is Pets of Chicago, Inc.,
Happiness Is Pets of Downers Grove, Inc., Happiness Is Pets I of
Chicago, Inc., Happiness Is Pets II Inc., Happiness Is Pets !!
Inc., Happiness Is Pets IV, Inc., Happiness Is Pets of Lansing,
Inc., Happiness Is Pets of Matteson, Inc., Happiness Is Pets of
Naperville, Inc., Happiness Is Pets of Oak Lawn, Inc., Happiness
Is Pets of Orland Park, Inc., Happiness Is Pets of Saugatuck,
Inc., Happiness Is Pets of Schaumburg, Inc., Happiness Is Pets, V,
Inc., Happiness Is Pets, VI, Inc., Happiness Is Pets, VII, Inc.,
Happiness Is Pets, VIII, Inc., Ronald Berning, and Does 1 thorugh
20, inclusive, Case No. 2012-CH-05089 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
February 14, 2012) seeks to remedy a systemic, ongoing fraud that
is prevalent at Happiness by bringing transparency to the way it
operates and the true health condition and breeding history of its
puppies.

The Plaintiffs allege that they purchased sick puppies sold by
Happiness, which falsely represented that its puppies were healthy
and came from private and reputable breeders.  In fact, the
Plaintiffs argue, the puppies at Happiness are often sick and come
from some of the most despicable and horrendous puppy mills in the
Midwest.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Illinois.  They had purchased
puppies from Happiness.  The Plaintiffs assert that they were
deceived into buying sick puppy mill puppies and have suffered
significant financial and emotional damages as a result.

Happiness is a pet store chain located throughout the Chicagoland
area.  Mr. Berning owns Happiness and his three sons, Jonathan,
Justin and Christian, run the various Happiness locations.  The
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the
Plaintiffs at this time.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


INTERNATIONAL PLAYTHINGS: Recalls 31,000 Tumblekins Toys
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
distributor, International Playthings LLC, of Parsippany, New
Jersey, and manufacturer, Lishui Treetoys Trading Co. Ltd., of
China, announced a voluntary recall of about 31,000 Tumblekins
Toys.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The toys can break into small pieces with sharp points, posing
choking and lacerations hazards to children.

The firm has received one report of a toy breaking into small
pieces.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves all Tumblekins toy vehicles and playsets,
including the farm playset, fire station, police car, roadster,
off-roader, fire truck and school bus.  The toys are wooden,
painted in bright colors.  The toys range from 6 to 12 inches long
and 4 to 9 1/2 inches tall.  "Tumblekins," "Made in China" and
manufacturing code "171111461502" or "346101461502" are printed on
the toys.  The item number and UPC are printed on the toy's
packaging.

        Tumblekins Toy    Item Number        UPC
        --------------    -----------    -----------
        Fire Station         T05000      20373050006
        Farm Playset         T05001      20373050013
        Police Car           T05002      20373050020
        Roadster             T05003      20373050037
        Off-Roader           T05004      20373050044
        Fire Truck           T05005      20373050058
        School Bus           T05006      20373050061

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12111.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold by
Juvenile product stores, mass merchandisers and other stores
nationwide and on various websites from March 2011 through
December 2011 for between $14 and $35.

Consumer should take the recalled toys away from children
immediately and contact International Playthings to receive a free
replacement toy.  For additional information, contact
International Playthings at (800) 445-8347 between 8:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or e-mail the firm
at recall@intplay.com


KENNEDY DATA: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Fax Advertisements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Able Home Health, LLC, on behalf of itself and a class v. Kennedy
Data Systems, Inc., and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2012-CH-05330
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., February 15, 2012) is brought to secure
redress for the actions of Kennedy in sending or causing the
sending of unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile
machines in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and the common law.

The Plaintiff alleges that Kennedy either negligently or willfully
violated the rights of the Plaintiff and other recipients in
sending the unsolicited faxes.  The Plaintiff says that it had no
prior relationship with the Defendant and had not authorized the
sending of fax advertisements.

Able Home is a limited liability company chartered under Illinois
law with offices in Illinois, where it maintains telephone
facsimile equipment.

Kennedy is a Texas corporation with offices in Houston, Texas.
The Plaintiff does not know the identities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Michelle R. Teggelaar, Esq.
          Heather A. Kolbus, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com


LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES: Recalls 900 Slalom Glider Children Slides
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Landscape Structures Inc., of Delano, Minnesota, announced a
voluntary recall of about 900 Slalom Gliders.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The Slalom Glider is a playground slide that lacks a transition
platform on the top and sides of the chute.  Children can fall
when moving from the ladder to the slide and when descending the
chute.

CPSC and the firm have received 16 reports of injuries to children
under 8-years old, including one bruised arm, 14 fractures to arms
and legs, one fractured collar bone and one bruised spleen.

The Slalom Glider is a distinctive 6-foot high playground slide
that is curved in shape and made from molded plastic.  It includes
an arched, tubular steel access ladder.  The recalled product
comes as a stand-alone slide or as an attachment to other
playground equipment.  The recalled products have model numbers
156456 and 172627 and were sold in combinations of colors,
including red, blue, tan, green, granite and white.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12109.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold to schools and other facilities with playground
equipment nationwide between January 2006 and December 2011 for
about $2,300.

Consumers should immediately stop children from using the recalled
gliders and owners will be contacted by Landscape Structures
regarding removal instructions.  Customers will be given the
option of replacing the Slalom Glider with another piece of
playground equipment, receiving a refund, or receiving credit
towards a future purchase.  For additional information, contact
Landscape Structures toll-free at (888) 438-6574 Monday through
Friday between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Central Time, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.playlsi.com/


LEBANON CITIZENS: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted
preliminary approval to a class action settlement for unlawful
debt collection practices by a law firm based in Lebanon, Ohio.

The class action lawsuit was brought by the law firm of Minnillo &
Jenkins, Co. LPA on behalf of Zachary Langendorfer.

The complaint alleges that the Lebanon law firm of Kaufman &
Florence filed collection suits in the Lebanon Municipal Court on
behalf of Lebanon Citizens National Bank and against consumers who
lived in other counties, which violates the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA") and a parallel state law requiring
consumer collection actions to be brought in the county where the
consumer resides or where they signed the contract sued on.  The
defendants deny liability but have agreed to a settlement under
which each individual who was sued or had other legal action taken
against them in the wrong county during the two years prior to the
filing of the class action will receive $600.00.

Because the case was settled, the court did not determine the full
extent of the defendants' liability, however, the court did issue
a significant preliminary ruling holding that an FDCPA violation
occurs when a debt collector takes any legal action against a
consumer (including filing motions for summary judgment, seeking
to conduct a debtor examination or pursuing garnishment) in the
wrong jurisdiction, and not just when the debt collector first
files a collection lawsuit.

This ruling is important because the FDCPA has a short, one-year,
statute of limitations and consumers sued in the wrong
jurisdiction like the affected individuals in this case often do
not learn they have been sued for months or even years, sometimes
more than a year after the debt collection was filed.  The FDCPA
is a federal law that applies to debt collectors who are
collecting consumer debts.

Minnillo & Jenkins, Co. LPA -- http://www.mjbankruptcy.com-- is a
regional firm emphasizing consumer protection litigation and
bankruptcy with offices in Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton and West
Chester Ohio.


MORRELL CATERERS: Faces Class Action Over Gratuities
----------------------------------------------------
CBSNewYork reports that lawyers representing 500 current and
former busboys, waiters and bartenders are filing a class action
lawsuit claiming Morrell Caterers on Long Island withheld $10
million in gratuities.

"I've known about it for a long time but there's nothing I could
really say about it.  I love my job, you become accustomed to
living a certain way and I just didn't want to rock the boat,"
William Cataldo, a former maitre d', said.

The lawsuit alleges that owner Scott Morrell charged his clients
an 18 percent gratuity but didn't share the money with employees.

"He would have recommended tips in the contract . . . bottom line
is he deceived the public, he left the patron with the impression
that the gratuity and these recommended tips were going to the
service employees and he kept everything," Jeffrey Brown, the lead
attorney in the class action case, said.

"Morrell just had a complete sales tax audit and found that they
distributed the service charge money to the employees so there can
be no validity to their claim whatsoever," Morrell Caterer's
attorney Steve Schlesinger told 1010 WINS.

The lawsuit comes just days after two former employees, general
manager Tom Cataldo and executive chef Micheal Savitsky, accused
the caterer of preparing non-kosher food in kosher kitchens.

Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice is investigating.

Mr. Morrell has denied the allegations and claims the initial
whistle blowers were being paid off by someone he is suing in an
unrelated case.

"This is part of a long, complicated extortion attempt by former
people involved with Morrell and has no basis in reality,"
Mr. Schlesinger said.

Morrell Caterers operates at Temple Beth Torah in Melville, Temple
Israel in Lawrence, and the Woodbury Jewish Center in Woodbury.


SALLIE MAE: Class Action Over Student Loan Late Fees Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge has advanced class-action claims that Sallie Mae's parent
company double-dipped on student loan late fees.

Lead plaintiff Tina Ubaldi sued SLM dba Sallie Mae and Sallie Mae
Servicing for unfair business practices and unjust enrichment over
the $22,796 loan she took for culinary school.

Unlike most fixed-term installment loans, Sallie Mae allegedly
computes and charges daily interest on its private education
loans.  "In addition to the daily interest on the outstanding
principal that Sallie Mae earns every day, the promissory note
provides that if a payment is not received within the 15 day
period, Sallie Mae may assess a late charge of the greater of
$5.00 or 5 percent of the payment amount not received," according
to the Northern District of California's summary of Ms. Ubaldi's
complaint.

"Plaintiff alleges that as a result of assessing a $5.00 or 5
percent fee for nonpayment and also continuing to charge the
borrower daily interest for use of the funds, the borrower pays
Sallie Mae twice -- in two different ways -- for being late on a
single loan payment," violating California's business and
professions codes.

Ms. Ubaldi says the late charges constitute improper liquidated
damages under California law, exceeding the actual costs
associated with a late payment.

In a motion to dismiss, SLM claimed that the National Bank Act
pre-empts Ms. Ubaldi's suit, which did not allege state-law
claims.

Loans that originate from national banks are allowed under the act
to include late charges and other forms of interest at the rate
allowed by the laws of the state where the bank is located.

Ms. Ubaldi's Sallie Mae loan names Stillwater National Bank and
Trust Co. as the lender, and SLM says this Stillwater, Okla., bank
is allowed under Oklahoma law to make the late charges on
Ms. Ubaldi's loan.

"[SLM] contends that because Stillwater National Bank, located in
Oklahoma, is identified as the lender on the loan documents,
Section 85 [of the National Bank Act] expressly preempts
plaintiff's state law claims," U.S. District Judge Elizabeth
Laporte explained.

But Ms. Ubaldi countered that Stillwater is the lender in name
only, and that Sallie Mae is the de facto actual lender since it
rents Stillwater's bank charter.

"Sallie Mae pays to use the name of the bank so that it may evade
and violate California law," according to Ms. Ubaldi's first
amended complaint (FAC).

"Plaintiff argues that because Sallie Mae is not a national bank,
the NBA does not preempt plaintiff's claims," Judge Laporte
summarized.  "Thus, the issue of whether Section 85 expressly
preempts plaintiff's claims turns on whether the imprimatur of a
national bank on the loan documents automatically triggers
preemption, foreclosing inquiry into the real nature of the loan,
or whether the debtor may invoke the protection of state consumer
laws if she proves that the actual lender in substance is not a
national bank."

What's more, Stillwater Bank's parent company has allegedly
acknowledged that Stillwater is "substantially dependent" upon
Sallie Mae, which provides all of the servicing and funding for
the loans, and insures Stillwater against loss on the loans.

"The FAC alleges that Sallie Mae has carried out all interactions
with the borrowers applying for the private education loans, has
established and controlled the terms and conditions under which
the private education loans were offered, has approved or decided
not to approve private education loan applications in accordance
with its own underwriting policies, has used its own copyrighted
forms, promissory notes, brands and platforms, and has disbursed
the payments to those borrowers whom it approved for private
education loans," Judge Laporte wrote.

"The FAC also alleges that Sallie Mae has collected and kept the
vast majority of fees and interest on the loans, has borne the
credit risk on all the private education loans, provided credit
lines to fund the loans, has insured and/or guaranteed the private
education loans so that Sallie Mae bears the risk of loss on the
loans even prior to purchasing them, and has assumed the risk of
loss directly when it executes the assignments of the private
education loans," she added.

Judge LaPorte said the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit has never before determined a de-facto relationship
between lenders in a national bank case, and neither of the
parties squarely addressed the issue for summary judgment.

"On the legal issue presented, neither party offers persuasive
authority as to whether Section 85 of the NBA expressly preempts
state law claims against a loan servicer that is alleged to have
actually 'made' the loan, rather than the bank named on the loan
documents," Judge LaPorte wrote.  "At this early pleading stage,
where plaintiff contends that the national bank may have retained
no significant interest in her student loan, presenting a factual
dispute over the identity of the actual lender, the court will
permit plaintiff to conduct discovery on this limited issue to
determine whether her de facto lender theory has factual support."

SLM also failed to dismiss the allegations under California's
Unfair Competition Law.  "Plaintiff contends that Sallie Mae's
late fees amount to liquidated damages prohibited by civil code,"
Judge LaPorte wrote.

"Because the validity of the late charges may not be governed by
the NBA, the motion to dismiss the UCL claims for unlawful and
unfair business practices is denied," she added.

The judge dismissed Ms. Ubaldi's claim of unjust enrichment with
prejudice since, "under California law, there is no claim for
unjust enrichment; rather, it is an equitable remedy."

A copy of the Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to
Dismiss in Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation, Case No. 11-cv-01320 (N.D.
Calif.), is available at http://is.gd/AFnFap


SIX FLAGS: Faces Class Action Over 2008 Norovirus Outbreak
----------------------------------------------------------
Kendra Koze, writing for Aquatics International, reports that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the state of New York,
potentially involving as many as 2,700 people who allegedly were
sickened from a 2008 norovirus outbreak at the Six Flags Great
Escape Lodge & Indoor Waterpark in Queensbury.

This lawsuit follows an ongoing case involving a 2005
cryptosporidium outbreak at a New York spraypark, considered the
first aquatics-related class action.

Operators at the Queensbury facility "failed to implement, monitor
and ensure proper sanitary conditions and safeguards at the park,
including a failure to properly train their employees and
negligently allowing sick food service workers to continue
working," alleges a press release from Dreyer Boyajian, LLP, the
firm representing the plaintiffs.  It's unclear if recreational
water was a carrier of the pathogen.

"The facility remained opened during the entire month despite
reports of gastrointestinal illness by guests between March 3 and
March 28, 2008, which included over 500 guests reporting illness
from 32 counties in New York state, eight other states, and
Canada.  The number of reports peaked on March 16, when 100
persons reported illness," said James R. Peluso, Esq., an attorney
with Dreyer Boyajian, LLP.

The New York State Department of Health said testing of persons
who reported illness confirmed a norovirus.  Noroviruses cause
acute gastroenteritis, and symptoms include vomiting, diarrhea and
weakness.

Health officials can't say what role the waterpark played in the
outbreak, but norovirus can be transmitted through recreational
water that is not properly maintained with recommended levels of
free chlorine.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
reported five norovirus-related RWI outbreaks in the September
2011 Morbidity and Mortality Report.

However, "no violations of New York state Sanitary Code for
Swimming Pools or Recreational Aquatic Spraygrounds were found,"
said Peter Constantakes, a representative of the NYSDOH Public
Affairs Group.

It was the 2005 cryptosporidium outbreak that spurred additions to
that code, and the outcome of the related class action lawsuit is
still pending.

"The implications of these two class actions are that owners and
operators of recreational water facilities should consult with
professionals in recreational water design, maintenance and
operation, as well as professionals in public health and safety
management, prior to opening their doors to the public,"
Mr. Peluso said.  "[This is] to ensure that the design,
construction, operation, maintenance and management of their
facilities have addressed the risk of recreational water illness,
and that appropriate safeguards are in place to prevent and
mitigate the risks associated with RWI."

Great Escape Lodge had no comment on the litigation, but
communications manager Rebecca Close did say "the safety and well-
being of our guests is always our top priority and, in fact, it
has never been determined that this illness originated at our
property."


STATE OF OREGON: HEM Program Not Voluntary, Class Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that employees say in a federal
class action that the Oregon Department of Corrections charges
them $20 to $35 a month if they opt out of a so-called "voluntary
wellness program."

A copy of the Complaint in van Patten, et al. v. State of Oregon,
et al., Case No. 12-cv-00263 (D. Ore.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/16/Voluntary.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas K. Doyle, Esq.
          Aruna Masih, Esq.
          BENNETT, HARTMAN, MORRIS & KAPLAN, LLP
          210 SW Morrison St., Ste. 500
          Portland, OR 97204-3149
          Telephone: (503) 227-4600
          E-mail: doylet@bennetthartman.com
                  masiha@bennetthartman.com


TNUVA: Faces NIS334-Million Consumer Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
According to Diamond News, Globes reports that an NIS334 million
class action suit against Tnuva was filed in the Petah Tikva
District Count on Feb. 16.

The consumers are claiming that Tnuva imports eggs from Turkey and
other countries and markets them as Israeli, which they allege
presents a health risk.


TSC GLOBAL: Rosner Law Firm, Outten & Golden Launch Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
TRENA WATSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. TSC GLOBAL, LLC a/k/a MONOMOY HOLDINGS III, LLC,
BARJAN, LLC, BARJAN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, and TSC PARTNERS, LLC,
Defendants, Adv. Pro No. 12-_____ (Bankr. D. Del.), was brought on
behalf of 500 or so other similarly-situated former employees who
were terminated in a mass layoff or plant closing from the
Defendants' facilities from about Nov. 15, 2011 to about Jan. 23,
2012, and in the months thereafter.  The lawsuit alleges the
employees were not provided 60 days advance written notice of
their terminations by Defendants, as required by the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2101 et
seq.  The Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees seek to
recover 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec.
2104, from the Defendants.  The Plaintiff asserts that the
WARN claims are entitled to priority status pursuant to the Sec.
507(a)(4)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Ms. Watson worked at the Defendants' facility in Rock Island,
Illinois, until her termination on Jan. 23, 2012.

Non-debtor Defendant TSC Partners, LLC whose principals include
John Wiesehan, Todd Millard, and Daniel Collin, owns a 81.5%
interest in TSC Global.  TSC Global's five-person Board of
Managers includes John Wiesehan, and Todd Millard, principals of
TSC Partner.

Jay Galletly is a principal of TSC Partners and President of TSC
Global, and with John Wiesehan and Todd Millard, controlled and
operated TSC Global and its subsidiaries, including non-debtor
Barjan LLC.

TSC Global wholly owns non-debtor Barjan LLC which from Nov. 15,
2011 to Jan. 23, 2012, employed the Plaintiff and all similarly-
situated employees, who worked at or reported to one of its
Facilities of TSC Global, in particular, the Illinois and
Charlotte Facilities Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the putative
Class are:

         Frederick B. Rosner, Esq.
         Scott J. Leonhardt, Esq.
         THE ROSNER LAW GROUP LLC
         824 Market Street, Suite 810
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: 302-777-1111

              - and -

         Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
         Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
         OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
         3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 245-1000

Charlotte, North Carolina-based TSC Global, LLC, aka Monomoy
Holdings III, LLC, and 10 affiliates filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 12-10505) on
Feb. 13, 2012, in order to deleverage their capital structure and
restructure operations.  TSC Global estimated $10 million to $50
million in assets and liabilities as of the Chapter 11 filing.

TSC claims to be a leading distributor of consumer brand products
to America's top retailers, travel centers and convenience stores.

The Debtors have tapped McDonald Hopkins LLC as restructuring
counsel, Polsinelli Shugart PC as Delaware local counsel;
Realization Services, Inc., as financial and restructuring
advisors, and Livingston Partners LLC as investment bankers.


VANCOUVER: Class Action Over Summer School Fees Certified
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Macpherson, writing for NEWS1130, reports that a class
action lawsuit involving summer school fees in Vancouver has been
certified, and it could eventually include all other districts in
BC.

Right now, there are notices out to 13,000 people in the city, but
that number could reach over 30,000 if the entire province is
included.

Lawyer Jim Poyner says the argument is that the charges were
unlawful and they should be paid back to families.

He says people were charged $200 to $300 for a course that leads
to graduation.  "There are some courses that are offered by the
schools that are properly chargeable, but courses that are
required for graduation have to be provided free of charge."

"The notice that's just been sent out -- the notice of
certification -- that has to go out to each of the claimants who
are in that class that's been certified.  So, they have a right to
consider whether they're going to opt-out, continue on or call us
for information," adds Mr. Poyner.

Fees from July 2003 to May of 2012 will be looked into.


VISA INC: Court Approved "Marenco" Suit Settlement in November
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
entered in November 2011 a final order approving the settlement of
the class action lawsuit commenced by Francisco Marenco, according
to Visa Inc.'s February 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December
31, 2011.

On April 28, 2011, Francisco Marenco filed a request in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to amend his
class action complaint to name Visa Inc. as the defendant.  The
court granted the request and Marenco filed the amended complaint
on May 6, 2011.  The lawsuit alleges that Visa recorded telephone
calls to call center representatives without providing a
disclosure that the calls may be recorded, in alleged violation of
state law in California and several other states.  On May 31,
2011, the parties executed a settlement agreement in an amount
that is not material to Visa's consolidated financial statements.
The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on July
20, 2011, and set a final approval hearing for November 28, 2011,
after the class notice process is complete.  This matter relates
to and resolves the previously reported contractual indemnity
claim tendered to Visa by a processing client in October 2010.

On November 30, 2011, the court entered a final order approving
the settlement and entering judgment in the case.


VISA INC: Interchange MDL Escrow Account Now Has $4.28 Bil.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. deposited an additional $1.57 billion in December 2011
into its covered litigation escrow account in connection with the
multidistrict litigation over interchange reimbursement fees,
increasing the uncommitted balance of the account from $2.72
billion to $4.28 billion, the Company disclosed in its
February 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

Beginning in May 2005, approximately 55 complaints, all but 10 of
which were styled as class actions, have been filed in U.S.
federal district courts on behalf of merchants against Visa
U.S.A., Inc. and/or MasterCard International Incorporated, and in
some cases, certain Visa member financial institutions.  Visa
International Service Association was also named as a defendant in
more than 30 of these complaints.  The cases allege, among other
things, that Visa's and MasterCard's purported setting of
interchange reimbursement fees, their "no surcharge" rules, and
alleged tying and bundling of transaction fees violate federal
antitrust laws.  On October 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring these cases
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
for coordination of pre-trial proceedings (MDL 1720).  On April
24, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a First
Amended Class Action Complaint.  Taken together, the claims in the
First Amended Class Action Complaint and in the 10 complaints
brought on behalf of individual merchants are generally brought
under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.  In addition, some of
these complaints contain certain state unfair competition law
claims.  These interchange-related cases seek money damages
(alleged in the consolidated class action complaint to range in
the tens of billions of dollars), subject to trebling, as well as
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

As part of the retrospective responsibility plan, Visa U.S.A. and
Visa International entered into a judgment sharing agreement with
certain member financial institutions of Visa U.S.A. on July 1,
2007.

On January 8, 2008, the district court adopted the recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge and granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the class plaintiffs' claims for damages incurred prior to January
1, 2004.

On January 29, 2009, class plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint.  Among other things, this
complaint: (i) added new claims for damages and injunctive relief
against Visa and the bank defendants regarding interchange
reimbursement fees for Visa PIN-debit cards; (ii) added new claims
for damages and injunctive relief against Visa and the bank
defendants since the time of Visa's IPO regarding interchange
reimbursement fees for Visa's credit, offline debit, and PIN-debit
cards; (iii) eliminated claims for damages relating to the so-
called "no-surcharge" rule and "anti-steering" rules; (iv)
eliminated claims for damages based on the alleged tie of network
processing services and payment guarantee services to the payment
card system services; and (v) added Visa Inc. as a defendant.

In addition, class plaintiffs filed a Second Supplemental Class
Action Complaint against Visa Inc. and several financial
institutions challenging Visa's reorganization and IPO under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act.  In
the Supplemental Complaint, class plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief, including
an order that the IPO be unwound.

On May 8, 2008, class plaintiffs served on defendants a motion
seeking to certify a class of merchants.  Visa, jointly with other
defendants, moved to dismiss the Supplemental Complaint and the
Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on
March 31, 2009.

On February 7, 2011, Visa entered into an omnibus agreement that
confirmed and memorialized the signatories' intentions with
respect to the loss sharing agreement, the judgment sharing
agreement and other agreements relating to certain interchange
litigation.  Under the omnibus agreement, the monetary portion of
any settlement of the interchange litigation covered by the
omnibus agreement would be divided into a MasterCard portion at
33.3333% and a Visa portion at 66.6667%.  In addition, the
monetary portion of any judgment assigned to Visa-related claims
in accordance with the omnibus agreement would be treated as a
Visa portion. Visa would have no liability for the monetary
portion of any judgment assigned to MasterCard-related claims in
accordance with the omnibus agreement, and if a judgment is not
assigned to Visa-related claims or MasterCard-related claims in
accordance with the Omnibus agreement, then any monetary liability
would be divided into a MasterCard portion at 33.3333% and a Visa
portion at 66.6667%.  The Visa portion of a settlement or judgment
covered by the omnibus agreement would be allocated in accordance
with specified provisions of the Company's retrospective
responsibility plan.  The litigation provision on the consolidated
statements of operations is not impacted by the execution of the
omnibus agreement.

The parties filed motions for summary judgment on a number of
issues on February 11, 2011.  Visa, jointly with other defendants,
moved for summary judgment against the claims in the Supplemental
Complaint and the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint.  Visa and other defendants also moved for summary
judgment against the claims in the individual plaintiffs'
complaints.  The class plaintiffs sought summary judgment on all
of their intra-network damages claims under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act in the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint, including by arguing that Visa's post-IPO conduct
constitutes a continuing conspiracy.  Finally, the individual
plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on their claims that
(i) agreements by banks to enforce certain Visa rules are per se
unlawful under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and (ii) Visa's
imposition of those rules post-IPO constitutes a continuing
conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The parties have exchanged expert reports and taken expert
discovery.  The court asked the parties to identify any objections
to a trial date of September 12, 2012, and no party has objected
to that date.

The Company says it remains actively involved in settlement
discussions under the auspices of the court and believes the
parties are making progress.  Many material uncertainties exist,
however, including, among other things, uncertainties regarding
the level of support for a settlement agreement, and numerous
motions pending before the court.  Accordingly, under generally
accepted accounting principles, the Company believes some loss is
reasonably possible, but not probable and reasonably estimable.

On December 29, 2011, the Company deposited an additional $1.57
billion into its covered litigation escrow account, increasing the
uncommitted balance of the account from $2.72 billion to $4.28
billion.  The uncommitted balance of $4.28 billion is consistent
with the Company's estimate of its share of the lower end of a
reasonably possible loss in the event of a negotiated settlement
for the entire matter.  While this estimate is consistent with the
Company's view of the current status of mediation discussions, the
estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of such loss
could materially vary if a negotiated settlement cannot be reached
that resolves all financial and business practice claims.  The
Company will continue to consider and reevaluate this estimate in
light of the substantial uncertainties and mediation obstacles
that persist.  The Company is unable to estimate a potential loss
or range of loss, if any, at trial if a negotiated resolution of
the matter cannot be reached.


VISA INC: Plaintiffs Amend Complaint Over ATM Access Fee Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
National ATM Council and other plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint in their class action lawsuit over ATM access fee rules,
according to Visa Inc.'s February 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2011.

On October 12, 2011, the National ATM Council and thirteen non-
bank ATM operators filed a class action lawsuit against Visa (Visa
Inc., Visa International Service Association, Visa USA, and Plus
System, Inc.) and MasterCard International Incorporated in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.  The complaint
challenges Visa's rule (and a similar MasterCard rule) that if an
ATM operator chooses to charge consumers an access fee for a Visa
or Plus transaction, that fee cannot be greater than the access
fee charged for transactions on other networks.  The plaintiffs
claim that the rule prevents non-bank ATM operators from
attracting customers through lower prices, allegedly in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The complaint requests
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and damages "in an amount not
presently known, but which is tens of millions of dollars, prior
to trebling."

On January 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint against the same defendants.  Like the original
complaint, the amended complaint alleges that the ATM access fee
rule prevents non-bank ATM operators from attracting customers to
use other networks in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
The amended complaint also alleges that Visa's rule has enabled
Visa to charge artificially high network fees for ATM
transactions, to compensate ATM operators inadequately, and to
compensate member banks excessively.  Plaintiffs request
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and treble damages.


VISA INC: Two Consumer Suits Over ATM Access Fees Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The "Bartron" and "Genese" complaints were combined into a single
amended complaint, now captioned "Mackmin," according to Visa
Inc.'s February 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2011.

In October 2011, three consumer class actions were filed against
Visa and MasterCard in the same federal court challenging the same
ATM access fee rules.  One case, Genese, adds three financial
institutions as defendants.  All three cases purport to represent
classes of consumers in claims brought under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.  Stoumbos adds claims under antitrust and/or consumer
protection statutes in certain states and the District of
Columbia, and Bartron adds claims on behalf of sub-classes of
consumers under such state laws.  The consumer lawsuits seek
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and treble damages; Bartron
and Stoumbos also seek restitution where available under state
law.

On December 1, 2011, the plaintiff in the Stoumbos case filed a
corrected complaint, asserting the same claims as in the original
complaint.

On January 10, 2012, the Bartron and Genese complaints were
combined into a single amended complaint, now captioned Mackmin.
The amended complaint challenges the same ATM access fee rules and
names Visa, MasterCard, and three financial institutions as
defendants, but the putative class representatives are different
from those in the original Bartron and Genese complaints.  Mackmin
purports to represent classes and sub-classes of consumers in
claims brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the
antitrust and/or consumer protection statutes in certain states
and the District of Columbia.  The amended complaint seeks
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, treble damages, and
restitution where available under state law.


WALT DISNEY: June 5 Trial Set for Blind Visitors' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
On June 5, 2012, trial will commence in an action brought against
Walt Disney Parks & Resorts by a class consisting of all blind
visitors to the Disneyland and Walt Disney World resorts.  In
Shields v. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts, the class action pending
in Los Angeles, the class alleges that the Disneyland and Walt
Disney World theme parks refuse to accommodate the needs of blind
visitors, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  An
attorney for the nationwide class, Andy Dogali of Forizs & Dogali,
P.A., Tampa, Florida, summarizes the Plaintiffs' claims, which are
stated in their Amended Complaint and further described in the 45-
page Class Certification Order entered by Judge Dolly M. Gee,
United States District Judge, as follows:

    * Disney does not provide park schedules, park maps, or dining
menus in formats which are accessible to blind persons, such as in
electronic form, Braille, or large print;

    * Disney does not accommodate the needs of guide dogs or their
owners in the parks;

    * Disney's Web sites do not accommodate blind persons who use
screen reader programs to access information;

    * Disney does not accommodate the needs of blind persons
during live parades and shows;

    * Disney provides neither sighted guides for blind visitors
nor discounted admission for sighted companions who accompany and
support blind persons in the parks;

    * Disney's costumed characters discriminate against blind
visitors who are accompanied by guide dogs;
    * Lockers at Disneyland are inaccessible for disabled persons;

    * Parking garages at Disneyland are inaccessible for disabled
persons.

On April 1, 2011, the blind plaintiffs and Disney commenced an
extended mediation, through which they attempted to settle the
various claims, and the court allowed a number of postponements of
the lawsuit while the negotiations continued.  On Friday, February
10, the most recent deadline established by the Court, the blind
plaintiffs and Disney reported to the Court that their negotiation
efforts have failed.  As a result, the parties have been ordered
to trial on June 5.

The two plaintiffs who have been certified to represent the class
of blind visitors to Disney's theme parks are Cari Shields of
Temecula, California and Amber Boggs of Northridge, California.
Ms. Shields and Ms. Boggs may be contacted through either of their
attorneys: Mr. Dogali, who has prosecuted and defended a number of
class actions around the country, and Gene Feldman, who operates a
boutique disability law practice in L.A. Contact information for
Mr. Dogali is available at http://www.forizs-dogali.com and for
Mr. Feldman at http://www.californiadisabilitylawfirm.com

Shields v. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts is Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-
FMO in United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  The parties' February 10 report to the Court of the
impasse in their settlement negotiations is available at:

     http://is.gd/38uXri

The 45-page certification order entered by the Court on June 29,
2011 is available at http://is.gd/S2cprF


                           *********

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  * * *