CAR_Public/120222.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, February 22, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 37

                             Headlines

APPLE: Settles Class Action Over iPhone 4 Antenna Issue
ARTHROCARE CORP: Settles Securities Class Action for $74 Mil.
BRETT BROS: Sued Over False Claims on Necklaces & Bracelets
CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Journey Brakes
CHRYSLER GROUP: Keefe Bartels Law Firm Files Class Action

COUNTRYWIDE FIN'L: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Diversity Suit
DELL INC: 5th Circuit Upholds Securities Class Settlement Approval
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Bid to Dismiss Patient Class Action Tossed
EXPEDIA INC: Appeal in "Findlay" Suit Remains Pending in Ohio
EXPEDIA INC: Awaits Decision in Gallup, New Mexico Class Suit

EXPEDIA INC: Awaits Decision in Suit by City of Rome, Georgia
EXPEDIA INC: Certification Hearing in "Magill" Suit in May 2012
EXPEDIA INC: "Chiste" Consumer Suit Still Pending in N.Y. Court
EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Nassau County, New York Suit
EXPEDIA INC: Bluff/Jefferson Class Suit Remains Pending

EXPEDIA INC: San Antonio, Texas Suit Still Pending
EXPEDIA INC: Defends Consolidated Suit by California Cities
EXPEDIA INC: Dismissal of "Lyndhurst" Suit Affirmed in August
EXPEDIA INC: Seattle, Wash. Suit Entirely Settled as of Dec. 31
EXPEDIA INC: Trial in "Goodlettsville" Suit Set for March 13

FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Plaintiff Files Motion to Withdraw
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Silverado Truck Electric Seat Warmers
HAPPINESS IS PETS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Puppy Mills
HOOTERS: Judge Allows Servers' Class Action to Proceed
K12 INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Fraud Class Action

KINROSS GOLD: To Fight Potential Class Actions
LOCUSTWOOD MEMORIAL: Faces Class Action Over Stolen Urns
MAGMA DESIGN: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits in Calif.
METABOLIX INC: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS: 7th Cir. Vacates Certification Denial

NATIONAL DATA: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
NESTLE HOLDINGS: 8th Cir. Remands Ralston Suit to Mo. State Court
NETFLIX INC: Appeal From Judgment in Antitrust Suit Pending
NETFLIX INC: Faces Two Shareholder Class Suits in California
NETVISION: Faces Class Action Over Prepaid Phone Cards

OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Remaining Appeal in IPO Suit Dismissed
POM WONDERFUL: Sued Over False Claims on Pomegranate Juice
POWER BUYING: Sued for Retaining Funds Owned by Store Owners
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Over Defective TVs
STATE OF IOWA: Decision Expected in Hiring Bias Class Action

U.S. BANK: Trial Mgmt. Plan in Wage Suit Flawed, Says App. Ct.
VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Ord. Share Purchaser Claims Not Ripe for Appeal
WAL-MART STORES: Final Hearing Set for Workers Compensation Suit
WILINE NETWORKS: Sued Over Undisclosed "Local Access Fee"


                          *********

APPLE: Settles Class Action Over iPhone 4 Antenna Issue
-------------------------------------------------------
Josh Ong, writing for Apple Insider, reports that a new settlement
reached between Apple and members of a class-action lawsuit over
an antenna issue with the iPhone 4 will offer U.S residents who
purchased the device $15 in cash or a free bumper case.

CNet reported on Feb. 17 that preliminary approval for the
settlement had been reached in the deal.  The class-action
complaint, which drew together 18 separate suits, accused Apple of
"misrepresenting and concealing material information in the
marketing, advertising, sale, and servicing of its iPhone 4--
particularly as it relates to the quality of the mobile phone
antenna and reception and related software."

Ira Rothken, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, told the
publication: "We believe that the Apple iPhone 4 settlement is
fair, adequate and reasonable.  We believe that it allows members
of the class to choose, and they can get $15 of cash or a bumper,
so we believe that type of choice is proportional to the
circumstances."

It's not immediately clear what limit Apple has set on the total
settlement payout, but, given the success of the iPhone 4 over the
past year and a half, the company could face requests for hundreds
of million of dollars from tens of millions of eligible customers.
Of course, any settlement is unlikely to make much of a dent in
Apple's savings, as the company has stockpiled close to $100
billion in cash.

Not long after the iPhone 4 was released in June 2010, reports
emerged that the handset was subject to a loss in signal when held
a certain way due to Apple's antenna design, which divided the
steel band around the side of the device into multiple antennas.

The issue quickly snowballed and was informally dubbed
"Antennagate" by some pundits.  A number of lawsuits cropped up
over the issue just a week after the launch of the iPhone 4.

Apple held a press conference that July to address the problem and
offered free bumper cases for iPhone 4 units purchased through
Sept. 30, 2010.

Apple instituted its 2010 free Bumper program via its App Store
app.

Interested parties will eventually be able to get more information
about the settlement at http://www.iPhone4Settlement.combut the
Web site is not up yet and is expected to go live in the coming
weeks, according to the report.  Eligible customers will also be
notified of the settlement by e-mail before April 30.

Apple redesigned the antenna for the iPhone 4S in order to resolve
the previous generation's reception issues.  The company promises
better reception and fast data transfer speeds with the new
design.  The iPhone 4S includes new intelligent-switching
technology that allows the device to transmit and receive on dual
GSM and CDMA antennas.


ARTHROCARE CORP: Settles Securities Class Action for $74 Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that shares of ArthroCare Corp.
dropped on Feb. 17 after the medical product maker reported its
fourth-quarter results and forecast low sales growth in 2012.

After the markets closed on Feb. 16, ArthroCare said it lost $29.3
million, or $1.06 per share, during the fourth quarter.  During
the quarter ArthroCare agreed to pay $74 million to settle a
securities class action lawsuit against the company and two former
officers.  The Austin, Texas company reported a profit of $10.1
million, or 30 cents per share, in the fourth quarter of 2010.
Its revenue slipped to $92.4 million from $92.6 million a year ago

Analysts expected ArthroCare to report a profit of 22 cents per
share and $97.5 million in revenue, according to FactSet.  Analyst
estimates generally exclude one-time items like the proposed
settlement costs, which ArthroCare disclosed in November.

The company said revenue from its sports medicine business rose
4.2 percent to $62.4 million, but sales of ear, nose, throat and
other products declined.

In 2011, ArthroCare lost $4.3 million, or 16 cents per share.  It
posted a profit of $33.8 million, or $1.02 per share, in 2010.
Revenue declined to $354.9 million from $355.4 million.

In a conference call, the company said it expects revenue growth
in the low single digits in 2012.

"There remains great uncertainty here in the United States and
abroad, particularly in Europe.  As a result, we think it is more
likely that 2011's market condition of weak underlying procedure
growth will continue into 2012," said President and CEO David
Fitzgerald.

Analysts had forecast revenue of $377.4 million in revenue, which
represents growth of 6 percent.

ArthroCare stock lost $5.78, or 18.8 percent, to $24.99 in
afternoon trading on Feb. 17.  Earlier in trading shares set a 52-
week low of $23.54.


BRETT BROS: Sued Over False Claims on Necklaces & Bracelets
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
that Brett Bros. Sports, run by baseball Hall of Famer George
Brett, pushes its necklaces and bracelets with false claims about
their health-giving effects.

A copy of the Complaint in Carlberg v. Brett Bros. Sports
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-00259 (W.D. Wash.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/17/Brett.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey C. Jones, Esq.
          KRUTCH LINDELL BINGHAM JONES, PS
          One Union Square
          600 University Street, Suite 1701
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-1505
          E-mail: jcj@krutchlindell.com

               - and -

          Michael Louis Kelly, Esq.
          Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
          Heather M. Peterson, Esq.
          KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
          2361 Rosecrans Avenue, Fourth Floor
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 356-1000
          E-mail: mlk@kirtlandpackard.com
                  bvp@kirtlandpackard.com
                  hmp@kirtlandpackard.com


CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Journey Brakes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Javier R. Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Chrysler Group LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, and Doe 1 through and including Doe 100, Case
No. RG11610317 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., December 30,
2011) involves the alleged defective design and false advertising
of the 2009 and 2010 Dodge Journey, which vehicle was Dodge's
first attempt at building and selling what is popularly referred
to as a cross-over vehicle.

The Braking System, however, is inadequate for the size and weight
of the Journey, Mr. Garcia contends.  He explains that
specifically, it has been widely reported that the brake pads and
rotors are too small and thin to handle the braking duties
required by the size and weight of the Journey.  He alleges that
Chrysler became aware of this defect from countless owner
complaints and dealer records, but despite this knowledge, Dodge
has done nothing systematically to remedy the defect or to provide
notification to owners or lessees of the Journey.

Mr. Garcia is a resident of the state of California.

Chrysler is a Delaware limited liability company, with its
principal place of business in Auburn Hills, Michigan.  The
Plaintiff is currently ignorant of the true names and capacities
of the Doe Defendants.

Chrysler removed the lawsuit on February 16, 2011, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of Alameda, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The Company argues that the removal is proper because
the state action arises under, arises on, and is related to, the
bankruptcy case of In re Old Carco LLC, formerly known as,
Chrysler LLC.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:12-cv-
00758 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          6424 Santa Monica Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90038
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777
          Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
          E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com

               - and -

          Darryl A. Stallworth, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF DARRYL A. STALLWORTH
          2355 Broadway, Suite 303
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 271-1900
          Facsimile: (510) 271-1902
          E-mail: dstallworth@your-defense.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Wayne A. Wolff, Esq..
          SEDGWICK LLP
          333 Bush Street, 30th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104-2806
          Telephone: (415) 781-7900
          Facsimile: (415) 781-2635
          E-mail: wayne.wolff@sedgwicklaw.com

               - and -

          Kathy A. Wisniewski, Esq.
          John W. Rogers, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          One US Bank Plaza
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552-6000
          Facsimile: (314) 552-7000
          E-mail: kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com
                  jrogers@thompsoncoburn.com


CHRYSLER GROUP: Keefe Bartels Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The trial lawyers of Keefe Bartels, LLC have, with Poulos
LoPiccolo PC and the Law Offices of Peter Lucas LLC, filed a class
action complaint against Chrysler Group, LLC (Case 3:12-cv-00760-
PGS-DEA).

Brought on behalf of plaintiffs Jay Miller and Brooke Willman, the
complaint fundamentally alleges that the Chrysler 300 series, and
the Jeep Patriot, Liberty, Compass, Commander, Cherokee and Grand
Cherokee models for the years 2006 to the present, have defective,
leaking sunroofs.  These leaks result, plaintiffs believe, from
design errors, faulty materials, substandard installation
practices, and manufacturing defects.  The vehicles' owners and
lessees suffer substantial financial losses from repair costs;
lost use and enjoyment of their vehicles; lost time in arranging
and obtaining repairs; and reduced resale and trade-in values.
Among other wrongs, plaintiffs allege, Chrysler violated the
federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and New Jersey's Consumer Fraud
Act.  Seeking an award of damages, costs and attorneys' fees, the
plaintiffs' Complaint also asks the Court to order Chrysler to
notify class members of the defects and fix the vehicles, at
Chrysler's expense.

Chrysler and its agents have refused to address and correct the
faulty drainage tubes.  Chrysler has claimed the leaks result from
factors beyond Chrysler's control.  Chrysler has refused to honor
warranty claims for these sunroofs.  But, between 1999 and 2010
Chrysler issued no fewer than 7 Technical Service Bulletins about
its vehicles' faulty drainage tubes and leaking sunroofs.

Advertised as well-designed and soundly constructed -- and, for
the Jeeps, as rugged off-road vehicles capable of handling just
about any harsh conditions -- these Chrysler vehicles' sunroofs
leak even in routine conditions.  Exposure to rain, snow and sleet
causes leaking. So does a routine car wash.  Merely parking under
a dripping tree can mean the driver comes back to a soaked
interior.  Unsightly water stains, unhealthy mold, and rank smells
result.  So do damages to electric circuitry and structural
components.

"Chrysler, an iconic American brand, should live up to its name
and heritage, accept its responsibility, fix these problems and
compensate those who got less than that for which they paid," said
Steve Grygiel and John Keefe of Keefe Bartels.  John Poulos and
Joe LoPiccolo said "Chrysler's advertisements of brawny, tough
well-made vehicles bear little relationship to the soggy
experience of many Chrysler customers."  Peter Lucas, agreeing,
noted: "Chrysler claims its products, especially the Jeeps, can
handle all sorts of terrible conditions, churning through muddy
swamps, climbing mountains, and crossing rivers.  Turns out they
cannot even handle a car wash."

If you bought or leased one of the Jeep or Chrysler vehicles
described above and have sustained water damage to your vehicle
from a leaking sunroof, please contact Keefe Bartels at 1-877-
ATTY-24-7, or e-mail info@keefebartels.com to discuss your claim.

Keefe Bartels, L.L.C. -- http://www.keefebartels.com-- is a law
firm based in New Jersey that is dedicated to restoring the lives
of those who have suffered from serious or fatal injuries.


COUNTRYWIDE FIN'L: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Diversity Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a district
court ruling dismissing the diversity action entitled CAPITOL WEST
APPRAISALS LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP, et al., Case No. 10-35984
(9th Cir.)

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's Feb. 3, 2012 Memorandum is available
at http://is.gd/2wuTvcfrom Leagle.com.


DELL INC: 5th Circuit Upholds Securities Class Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a
district court order certifying a class, and approving a class
action settlement, in the securities lawsuit captioned UNION ASSET
MANAGEMENT HOLDING A.G. v. DELL, INC., Case Nos. 08-51163 and 10-
50688 (5th Cir.).

The class settlement provided for a $40 million settlement fund to
be allocated among the class members and their attorneys.

Two groups -- Stephen G. Schuleman, et al., and Brian F. Murphy
Rev. Trust, et al. -- appealed the district court rulings,
claiming numerous deficiencies.

Upon review, the Fifth Circuit finds that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in entering its rulings on the class
certification and class settlement.  The Fifth Circuit also
doesn't find abuse of discretion in the district court's $7.2
million fee award to the class counsel.

A copy of the Fifth Circuit's Feb. 7, 2012 Order is available at
http://is.gd/ZprKznfrom Leagle.com.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Bid to Dismiss Patient Class Action Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge has denied the District of Columbia's motion to dismiss a
class action alleging the city was unnecessarily confining people
with mental disabilities in nursing facilities to avoid having to
pay for them to have home care.

In December 2010, five patients suffering from a variety of mental
and physical disabilities and receiving Medicaid funding for long-
term care sued the city in an attempt to transfer the money used
to confine them in institutions to programs where they could be
treated at home.

"Federal law requires that the District of Columbia provide
services to people with disabilities in the most integrated
setting appropriate to their needs," the five patients stated in
their class complaint.  "But the District has failed to comply
with this obligation, leaving between 500 and nearly 3,000 people
with disabilities unnecessarily institutionalized in nursing
facilities, segregated and isolated from their family and
friends."

In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle said the city
spent more than $494 million in 2010 on all long-term care
services, with 44.6 percent of that cash going toward home and
community-based services under waiver programs.

"The annual average cost of community-based mental health services
is less than treatment in a psychiatric hospital," the judge
stated.

The city filed a motion to dismiss the claims, arguing that the
patients failed to state a claim, that the city is entitled to
summary judgment because they have a plan in place and because the
individual defendants (former Mayor Adrian Fenty and other city
officials) are duplicative of the city.

Though Judge Huvelle agreed on the city's last notion that the
claims against the defendants are duplicative, she concluded "that
plaintiffs' allegation that 'health-care professionals' have
determined that community-based treatment is appropriate is
sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss."  "To allege the
necessary 'causal connection' between the District's actions and
plaintiffs' injury, it is sufficient to allege, as plaintiffs do,
that the District provides, administers and/or funds the existing
service system through which plaintiffs receive long-term care
services and/or that the District, in so doing, has utilized
criteria or methods of administration that have 'caused
[plaintiffs] . . . to be confined unnecessarily in nursing
facilities in order to obtain long-term care services, rather than
facilitate their transition to the community with appropriate
services and supports,'" Judge Huvelle wrote.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion in Day, et al. v. District of
Columbia, Case No. 10-cv-02250 (D.D.C.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/17/MentalHomeCare.pdf


EXPEDIA INC: Appeal in "Findlay" Suit Remains Pending in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a judgment in favor of Expedia, Inc. and other
online travel companies in the consolidated lawsuit filed by
certain Ohio cities 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.

On October 25, 2005, the city of Findlay, Ohio, filed a purported
statewide class action in state court against a number of Internet
travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia, City
of Findlay v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., No. 2005-CV-673 (Court of
Common Pleas of Hancock County, Ohio).  On
August 8, 2006, the city of Columbus, Ohio, and the city of
Dayton, Ohio, filed a putative statewide class action in federal
court against a number of Internet travel companies, including
Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia Washington, City of Columbus, et
al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., 2:06-CV-00677 (United States
District Court, Southern District of Ohio).  The complaints allege
that the defendants have failed to pay to the city hotel occupancy
taxes as required by municipal ordinance.  The complaints include
claims for violation of hotel occupancy tax ordinances, violation
of the consumer protection act, conversion, imposition of a
constructive trust and declaratory relief.  The Findlay lawsuit
was removed to federal court and consolidated with the case
brought by Columbus and Dayton.  On July 26, 2006, the court held
that defendants were not subject to the payment of taxes under the
hotel occupancy tax ordinances and granted in part and denied in
part defendants' motion to dismiss.  The cities of Toledo,
Northwood, Rossford, Maumee, the Franklin County Convention
Facilities Authority and the Perrysburg Township and Springfield
Township have been added as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.  Class
certification was never granted.  On November 18, 2010, the court
ruled on the remaining claim and held that defendants have not
collected taxes that have not been remitted and entered judgment
in favor of the online travel companies.  Plaintiffs have
appealed.

The Company believes that the claims in the proceedings relating
to hotel occupancy taxes lack merit and will continue to defend
vigorously against them.


EXPEDIA INC: Awaits Decision in Gallup, New Mexico Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its and other
defendants' motion for summary judgment in the class action
lawsuit commenced by the city of Gallup, New Mexico, 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 May 17, 2006, the city of Gallup, New Mexico, filed a putative
statewide class action in state court against a number of Internet
travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia, City
of Gallup, New Mexico, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., CIV-06-
0549 JC/RLP (United States District Court, District of New
Mexico).  The case was removed to federal court on June 23, 2006.
The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the city hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinances.  The complaint asserts claims for violation of those
ordinances, conversion, and declaratory judgment.  The complaint
seeks damages in an unspecified amount, restitution and
disgorgement.  On April 18, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion to dismiss its own lawsuit.  On
July 6, 2007, the city of Gallup refiled its lawsuit.  Plaintiff
filed its first amended complaint on January 16, 2009.  The court
certified the class on July 7, 2009.  On March 1, 2010, the court
denied the city's motion for summary judgment and held that the
online travel companies do not have tax obligations under the
city's ordinance and that defendants have not collected taxes that
have not been remitted.  On February 18, 2011, defendants filed a
motion for summary judgment.

The Company believes that the claims in the proceedings relating
to hotel occupancy taxes lack merit and will continue to defend
vigorously against them.


EXPEDIA INC: Awaits Decision in Suit by City of Rome, Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its and other
defendants' motion for summary judgment in the class action
lawsuit commenced by the city of Rome, Georgia, 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 November 18, 2005, the city of Rome, Georgia, Hart County,
Georgia, and the city of Cartersville, Georgia filed a purported
statewide class action in federal court against a number of
Internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and
Expedia, City of Rome, Georgia, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et
al., No. 4:05-CV-249 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Georgia, Rome Division).  The complaint alleges that the
defendants have failed to pay to the county and cities the hotel
accommodations taxes as required by municipal ordinances.  The
complaint asserts claims for violation of excise and sales and use
tax ordinances, conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition of a
constructive trust, declaratory relief and injunctive relief.  The
complaint seeks damages and other relief in an unspecified amount.
On May 9, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss.  On June 8, 2006, plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint adding sixteen more municipalities and
political subdivisions as named plaintiffs.  On May 10, 2007, the
court stayed the litigation, concluding that the plaintiffs must
exhaust their administrative remedies before continuing to
litigate their tax claims.  On July 10, 2009, the court lifted the
stay of the litigation.  The court granted in part plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  On September 23, 2011, defendants
filed a motion to deposit funds into the court for the payment of
future hotel occupancy taxes.  Defendant online travel companies
have filed a motion for summary judgment.


The Company believes that the claims in the proceedings relating
to hotel occupancy taxes lack merit and will continue to defend
vigorously against them.


EXPEDIA INC: Certification Hearing in "Magill" Suit in May 2012
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class certification hearing is scheduled for May 23 to 25, 2012,
in the class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of Expedia, Inc.
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 June 26, 2009, a class action lawsuit against Expedia Canada
Corporation was filed in Ontario, Canada, alleging that
disclosures related to "taxes and service fees" were deceptive.
See Magill v. Expedia Canada Corporation and Expedia.ca, CV-09-
381919-00LP (Ontario Superior Court of Justice).  The complaint
asserts claims under the Competition Act and Consumer Protection
Act as well as claims of unjust enrichment, restitution,
constructive trust, accounting and disgorgement and breach of
contract.  It seeks damages in the amount of CA$50 million for the
class as well as interest, fees and alternate damages measures.
On September 24, 2010, the court added Expedia, Inc. as a
defendant and dismissed many of the plaintiff's claims with leave
to amend.  The class period was also limited.  The plaintiff filed
an amended statement of claim on January 7, 2011.

A class certification hearing is scheduled for May 23-25, 2012.

The Company believes that the claims in the proceedings relating
to hotel occupancy taxes lack merit and will continue to defend
vigorously against them.


EXPEDIA INC: "Chiste" Consumer Suit Still Pending in N.Y. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consumer class action lawsuit commenced by Matthew R. Chiste
against Expedia, Inc. remains pending in New York, 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 December 8, 2008, a putative class action was filed in federal
court in New York State against Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire.
Similar lawsuits were filed at or about the same time against
Priceline and Travelocity.  See Matthew R. Chiste, et al. v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et al., No. 08 CV 10676 (United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York).  The complaint
alleges that the defendants are improperly charging and/or failing
to pay hotel occupancy taxes and engaging in other deceptive
practices in charging customers for taxes and fees.  The complaint
seeks certification of a nationwide class of all persons who
booked a hotel room in New York City through the defendants.  The
complaint asserts claims for deceptive business practices,
conversion, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract and
seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and damages in an
unspecified amount, but exceeding $5 million.  On November 15,
2010, defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in part and the
bulk of the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.  Expedia filed a
Motion for Reconsideration seeking to have the remainder of the
case dismissed, which was denied.


The Company believes that the claims in the proceedings relating
to hotel occupancy taxes lack merit and will continue to defend
vigorously against them.


EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Nassau County, New York Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit commenced
by Nassau County, New York, 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 October 24, 2006, the county of Nassau, New York, filed a
putative statewide class action in federal court against a number
of Internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire, and
Expedia, Nassau County, New York, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et
al., (United States District Court, Eastern District of New York).
The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay hotel
accommodation taxes as required by local ordinances to certain New
York cities, counties and local governments in New York.  The
complaint asserts claims for violations of those ordinances, as
well as claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, and imposition
of a constructive trust, and seeks unspecified damages.  On August
17, 2007, the court granted defendants' motion dismissing the
lawsuit due to the plaintiff's failure to exhaust its
administrative remedies.  On August 11, 2009, the Second Circuit
remanded the case for the district court to determine whether
class certification is appropriate.  The district court has
ordered the parties to proceed with class certification.  The
county subsequently dismissed its case on
May 13, 2011, for lack of jurisdiction and refiled in state court,
captioned County of Nassau v. Expedia, Inc., et al., (In the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau).

The Company believes that the claims in the proceedings relating
to hotel occupancy taxes lack merit and will continue to defend
vigorously against them.


EXPEDIA INC: Bluff/Jefferson Class Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit commenced by Pine Bluff Advertising and
Promotion Commission and the County of Jefferson, Arkansas,
against Expedia, Inc., is still 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.

On September 25, 2009, Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion
Commission and Jefferson County filed a class action against a
number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Inc.,
Hotels.com, and Hotwire, Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion
Commission, Jefferson County, Arkansas, and others similarly
situated v. Hotels.com LP, et. al. CV-2009-946-5 (In the Circuit
Court of Jefferson, Arkansas).  The complaint alleges that
defendants have failed to collect and/or pay taxes under hotel tax
occupancy ordinances.  The court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss.  Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification.
On January 12, 2012, the court entered an order staying the case
for thirty days while it considers again whether the plaintiff
should be required to exhaust administrative remedies.

The Company believes that the claims in the proceedings relating
to hotel occupancy taxes lack merit and will continue to defend
vigorously against them.


EXPEDIA INC: San Antonio, Texas Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit commenced
by the city of San Antonio, Texas, 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 May 8, 2006, the city of San Antonio filed a putative statewide
class action in federal court against a number of Internet travel
companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire, and Expedia.  See City
of San Antonio, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., SA06CA0381
(United States District Court, Western District of Texas, San
Antonio Division).  The complaint alleges that the defendants have
failed to pay to the city hotel accommodations taxes as required
by municipal ordinance.  The complaint asserts claims for
violation of that ordinance, common-law conversion, and
declaratory judgment.  The complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount, restitution and disgorgement.  On October 30,
2009, a jury verdict was entered finding that defendant online
travel companies "control hotels," and awarding approximately $15
million for historical damages against the Expedia companies.  The
jury also found that defendants were not liable for conversion or
punitive damages.  The final amount of the judgment against the
Expedia companies has not been determined.  On
July 1, 2011, the court entered findings of fact and conclusions
of law holding defendant online travel companies liable for hotel
occupancy taxes.

The Company believes that the claims in the proceedings relating
to hotel occupancy taxes lack merit and will continue to defend
vigorously against them.


EXPEDIA INC: Defends Consolidated Suit by California Cities
-----------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated lawsuit commenced
by the city of Los Angeles and other cities of California,
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 December 30, 2004, the city of Los Angeles filed a purported
class action in California state court against a number of
Internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Expedia and
Hotwire, captioned City of Los Angeles, California, on Behalf of
Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Hotels.com, L.P. et
al., No. BC326693 (Superior Court, Los Angeles County).  The
complaint alleges that the defendants are improperly charging
and/or failing to pay hotel occupancy taxes.  The complaint seeks
certification of a statewide class of all California cities and
counties that have enacted uniform transient occupancy-tax
ordinances effective on or after December 30, 1990.  The complaint
alleges violation of those ordinances, violation of Section 17200
of the California Business and Professions Code, and common-law
conversion. The complaint also seeks a declaratory judgment that
the defendants are subject to hotel occupancy taxes on the hotel
rate charged to consumers and imposition of a constructive trust
on all monies owed by the defendants to the government, as well as
disgorgement, restitution, interest and penalties.  On July 26,
2007, the court signed an order staying the lawsuit until the
cities have exhausted their administrative remedies.  The case is
coordinated with the cases in San Diego, Anaheim, Santa Monica and
San Francisco.  On September 9, 2009, the City of Los Angeles
issued assessments totaling $29.5 million against Expedia
companies (Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire).  An administrative
hearing challenging the assessments was held on December 3, 2009.
On September 16, 2010, the assessment review officer approved the
assessments.  A second level administrative review hearing was
held in December 2010.  On August 16, 2011, the Board of Review
entered a decision holding Hotels.com, Expedia and Hotwire liable
for hotel occupancy taxes.  The city of Los Angeles' claims will
now be heard by the trial court in the consolidated action
involving claims brought by other cities in California, including
Anaheim, Santa Monica, San Diego and San Francisco.

The Company believes that the claims in the proceedings relating
to hotel occupancy taxes lack merit and will continue to defend
vigorously against them.


EXPEDIA INC: Dismissal of "Lyndhurst" Suit Affirmed in August
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit affirmed in August
2011 the dismissal of claims in the class action lawsuit commenced
by the Township of Lyndhurst, New Jersey, according to Expedia,
Inc.'s February 10, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On June 18, 2008, the township of Lyndhurst filed a putative class
action in federal court against a number of Internet travel
companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, and Hotwire, Township of
Lyndhurst v. Priceline.com, Inc., et al., 2:08-CV-03033-JLL-CCC
(United States District Court for District of New Jersey).  The
complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the
township hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinance.  The complaint asserts claims for violation of the
local ordinance, as well as claims for unjust enrichment and
conversion.  The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.
On March 18, 2009, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
for lack of standing.  Plaintiff appealed.  On
August 2, 2011, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal of plaintiff's claims.


EXPEDIA INC: Seattle, Wash. Suit Entirely Settled as of Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of December 31, 2011, Expedia, Inc.'s obligations with respect
to a class action lawsuit filed in Seattle, Washington, were
settled in their entirety, 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.

The Company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in
Seattle, Washington, alleging that certain practices related to
its service fees breached its Terms of Use and violated
Washington's Consumer Protection Act from 2001 through 2008.  In
May 2009, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment on their breach of contract claim, without the benefit of
an actual trial on the merits, and denied the plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment on their Consumer Protection Act claim.  The
Company entered into a Settlement Agreement, initially estimated
at a cost of $19 million, providing for the settlement of all
claims alleged in the lawsuit, which was approved by the court on
December 1, 2009.  The court's order approving the Settlement
Agreement was appealed by third parties but dismissed by the court
on April 14, 2010.

The Company denied and continues to deny all of the allegations
and claims asserted in the lawsuit, including claims that the
plaintiffs have suffered any harm or damages.  The Company does
not admit liability or the truth of any of the allegations in the
lawsuit and settled the case to avoid costly and time-consuming
litigation.  The terms of the Settlement Agreement provided the
class members the option to elect settlement in cash.  For those
not electing cash, amounts were settled in coupons.  As of
December 31, 2010, the majority of the estimated settlement
accrual was settled with either cash payments or coupon
redemptions.  The remaining settlement liability included an
estimated coupon redemption rate, which was increased during 2011
and 2010 by approximately $2 million and $3 million, and as of
December 31, 2011, was settled in its entirety.


EXPEDIA INC: Trial in "Goodlettsville" Suit Set for March 13
------------------------------------------------------------
Trial is scheduled for March 13, 2012, in the class action lawsuit
originally commenced by the cities of Goodlettsville and
Brentwood, Tennessee, according to Expedia, Inc.'s February 10,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On June 2, 2008, the cities of Goodlettsville and Brentwood,
Tennessee, filed a putative class action in federal court against
a number of Internet travel companies, including Expedia,
Hotels.com, and Hotwire, City of Goodlettsville and City of
Brentwood v. Priceline.com, Inc., et al., 3-08-0561 (United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee).  The
complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the
cities hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinance.  The complaint asserts claims for violation of the
local ordinance, as well as claims for unjust enrichment and
conversion, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount.
Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed the City of Brentwood.
Class certification has been granted.  The parties have filed
cross-motions for summary judgment.  Trial is scheduled for
March 13, 2012.


FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Plaintiff Files Motion to Withdraw
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Miller, writing for The Recorder, reports that Seattle
seamstress Angel Fraley sued Facebook Inc. for allegedly violating
her privacy.  She doesn't want the company to do it again.

Attorneys for Facebook at Cooley said in court papers filed on
Feb. 16 that they have been trying unsuccessfully since last
September to depose Ms. Fraley, a named plaintiff in a purported
class action first filed in California state court and moved to
the Northern District in March 2011.  Ms. Fraley claims the site
used her image and name to advertise products to her Facebook
friends without her permission.

Ms. Fraley is so worried about what Facebook's lawyer will ask
during a deposition that her lawyers have filed a motion asking to
withdraw her and fellow plaintiff Paul Wang as class
representatives.

"I did not expect that every single post I had ever made on
Facebook would be potentially rehashed in an interrogatory
responses [sic] and deposition," Ms. Fraley said in court
documents filed on Feb. 13.  "Answering questions regarding my
private posts or my decisions to click 'Like' buttons on certain
pages or posts would subject me to embarrassment and invade my
privacy."

A hearing on that motion is scheduled for May 31.  Facebook's
attorneys at Cooley said on Feb. 16 that until the motion is
heard, Ms. Fraley is subject to discovery.  And even if the court
does dismiss her as a representative, "such a dismissal can and
should be conditioned on her completed deposition."

Her testimony will be critical in deciding whether the plaintiff's
upcoming motion to certify a class should be denied.  Facebook's
lawyers said they want to ask Ms. Fraley about the pseudonym she
used on the site, "Angel Frolicker," as well as her use of the
"Like" button and what information she voluntarily shared with
friends.

"While Facebook casts no judgment on the veracity of Ms. Fraley's
privacy concerns, it was Ms. Fraley's decision to bring this suit
and thus voluntarily put both her activity on Facebook and the
reasoning behind it at issue," wrote Cooley partner Matthew Brown.

Cooley litigation chair Michael Rhodes, who is lead counsel,
declined to comment.  Ms. Fraley is represented by partners Robert
Arns and Jonathan Davis, along with of counsel Steven Weinmann,
from The Arns Law Firm in San Francisco, and Jonathan Jaffe at
Jonathan Jaffe Law in Berkeley.  They did not immediately respond
to requests for comment.

The Plaintiff's lawyers can be reached at:

          Robert S. Arns, Esq.
          Jonathan Davis, Esq.
          Steven Weinmann, Esq.
          ARNS LAW FIRM
          515 Folsom, 3rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 495-7800
          E-mail: rsa@arnslaw.com
                  srw@arnslaw.com
                  jed@arnslaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Silverado Truck Electric Seat Warmers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
electric seat warmers in General Motors Silverado trucks reach
"dangerously high temperatures sufficient to bum human skin and
tissue."

A copy of the Complaint in Hedlind, et ux. v. General Motors, LLC,
Case No. 12-cv-00277 (D. Or.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/17/GMCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arthur C. Johnson, Esq.
          Douglas G. Schaller, Esq.
          JOHNSON, JOHNSON, LARSON & SCHALLER, P.C.
          975 Oak Street, Suite 1050
          Eugene, OR 97401-3176
          E-mail: ajohnson@jjlslaw.com
                  dschaller@jjlslaw.com


HAPPINESS IS PETS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Puppy Mills
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that six puppy
owners claim in a class action that the Happiness Is Pets chain
store misrepresents that its puppies come from small-scale
breeders, though they actually come from "some of the most
despicable and horrendous puppy mills in the Midwest."

Lead plaintiff Jane Clifford seeks punitive damages from 18
Happiness Is Pets branches in the Chicagoland area, and their
owner Ronald Berning.

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

It adds: "On information and belief, many puppies, no more than 8
weeks old, arrive at Happiness in crowded vans, packed in crates
covered with feces and urine, shaking and visibly stressed, many
sick.  Happiness employees are directed to bathe and groom the
puppies and administer antibiotics and deworming treatments daily,
in an effort to mask the unhealthy condition of the puppies to
unsuspecting consumers and of which dangerously jeopardizes the
puppy's immune system."

The plaintiffs' attorney Edward Clinton Jr. said in an interview
with Courthouse News: "We received so many calls from so many
people who had problems with Happiness pets that we thought it
incumbent on us to file a lawsuit."

The plaintiffs claim that "the breeders used by Happiness fit
perfectly within the definition of 'puppy mill' as defined by
Happiness.  Many of Happiness' breeders are cited by the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for violations including
but not limited to failure to provide veterinary care, lack of
exercise, and improper housing enclosures.  For example, the USDA
reported that 'Breeder A,' a main breeder used by Happiness,
failed to provide veterinary care to a blind dog with crusty eye
discharge and to another dog with no teeth."

The class claims that "the USDA reported an inventory count of
another breeder used by Happiness, 'Breeder B,' of 890 dogs and
315 puppies.  . . .

"'Breeder B' is not a private, small-scale breeder as Happiness
falsely represents, and it is a mass producing dog facility.

"An investigation by the Companion Animal Protection Society
(CAPS), a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting companion
animals, further revealed a burn pile of puppies at 'Breeder B,'"
according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs say: "These deceptions are perpetrated so as to
prevent plaintiffs from realizing the obvious -- that purchasing a
puppy from Happiness is a terrible idea and is financially and
emotionally burdensome."

Plaintiff Bryan Phillips says he bought his puppy, Dakota, from
Happiness in December 2011 for about $809.

"Shortly after Phillips' purchase, Dakota tested positive for
distemper," the complaint states.  "Dakota showed signs of illness
immediately.  He took Dakota to Happiness' recommended vet who
dismissed her symptoms as a common cold and gave her a drug.
Dakota's symptoms quickly worsened and Phillips took Dakota to his
family vet, who noticed the signs of distemper instantly.  A
further X-ray showed Dakota had pneumonia as well.  Dakota
suffered from tremors, seizures, vomiting, severe diarrhea,
coughing, eye and nose discharge, sneezing, respiratory problems,
conjunctivitis and corneal ulcers."

Plaintiffs Lissett Dzieglo and Mark Jillich say they bought their
puppy, Gunner, from Happiness in January this year, for $976.

"Gunner showed signs of illness immediately, including a severe
cough, difficulty breathing and congestion," the complaint states.
"Gunner was taken to the vet approximately five times in a matter
of weeks.  The coughing quickly worsened and elevated to
bronchitis, eye and nose discharge, increased breath, clumsiness,
lack of energy, and yelping in pain."

The other plaintiffs say their puppies suffered similar health
problems.

"Our first goal is to get a class certified," Mr. Clinton said.

The plaintiffs seek punitive damages for fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and breach of implied warranty, and want
Happiness enjoined from continuing its allegedly deceptive
practices.  They also seek refunds of the price of the puppies,
including all items associated with the purchases, and veterinary
expenses.

A copy of the Complaint in Clifford, et al. v. Happiness is Pets
of Arlington Heights, Inc., et al., Case No. 12CH05089 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/17/Puppies.pdf

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


HOOTERS: Judge Allows Servers' Class Action to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
Paul T. Rosynsky, writing for Oakland Tribune, reports that
Hooters servers who claim they were unlawfully cheated out of tip
money, forced to purchase their own uniforms and, among other
violations, not given proper lunch breaks can continue a class-
action lawsuit against a Bay Area restaurant franchise, an appeal
court ruled last week.

The class-action covers Hooters employees who worked at Hooter
restaurants in Fremont, Campbell, and Dublin and the now-closed
Hooters in San Francisco.

Judges in the state's 1st Appellate District ruled on Feb. 14 that
local Hooters franchise Hot Wings Inc. did not demand, in a timely
manner, that the case move to arbitration, a legal move that would
have limited future litigation and made all proceedings private.

Hot Wings Inc. asked for arbitration based on standard employment
agreements it makes each worker sign upon being hired by the
company.  While the court ruled that the agreements were valid, it
said attorneys for Hot Wings waited too long to demand the case be
settled through arbitration.

As a result, the 19 named plaintiffs in the case and any other
Hooters worker who is covered by the class-action lawsuit can
continue to sue Hot Wings in Alameda County Superior Court.

The class-action claims that the local Hooters franchise illegally
forced servers to enter a tip pool, failed to provide rest and
meal breaks, failed to provide uniforms, failed to pay minimum
wage and, among other violations, failed to pay proper
compensation when an employee was terminated.


K12 INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, filed the first, and only, class action
lawsuit against K12, Inc. for securities fraud on January 30, 2012
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia.  Faruqi & Faruqi reminds current and former shareholders
of K12 that they have until April 2, 2012 to move for appointment
as lead plaintiff in the case.  The Complaint asserts claims under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in K12
common stock during the period between September 9, 2009 and
December 16, 2011, inclusive.

The class action lawsuit filed by the firm focuses on whether the
Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by
failing to disclose that: (1) according to various academic
benchmarks, K12 students were chronically underperforming their
peers at traditional schools; (2) K12 has aggressively recruited
students to their schools, regardless of how well-suited they
might be to the Company's curriculum; (3) as a result of K12's
haphazard recruiting process, the Company experiences student
retention problems and K12 students are characterized by high
rates of withdrawal (or "churn rates"); (4) K12 schools often have
far larger student-to-teacher ratios than the Company advertises;
and (5) K12 teachers have been pressured to allow students to pass
regardless of poor academic performance, in order for the Company
to receive federal funds.

If you purchased K12 securities between September 9, 2009 and
December 16, 2011 and wish to join this litigation as a plaintiff,
please contact our office as soon as possible.  We encourage
investors who would like to discuss their legal rights to visit
http://www.faruqilaw.com/LRNXor contact us by calling Richard
Gonnello or Francis McConville toll free at 877-247-4292 or at
212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.com or
fmcconville@faruqilaw.com

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a national securities law firm, also
encourages anyone with information regarding K12's conduct to
contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees,
shareholders and others. Our firm seeks to recover damages on
behalf of the Class.

Request more information now by clicking here:
http://www.faruqilaw.com/LRNX


KINROSS GOLD: To Fight Potential Class Actions
----------------------------------------------
Matthew Hill, writing for miningweekly.com, reports that Kinross
Gold, which reported a C$2.9-billion write-down on Feb. 15, said
it will "vigorously" fight class action suits US law firms said
they were investigating on Feb. 10.

The claims related to the impairment hit Kinross took at its
Tasiast mine in Mauritania mine, with Harwood Feffer LLP alleging
the company made "materially false and misleading statements".

Spokesperson for the Toronto-based gold producer, Canada's third-
largest, Steve Mitchell said in an interview such class actions
were not uncommon after a company's share price showed volatility
such as Kinross' had.

The stock plunged 21% on Jan. 17 after the Toronto-listed firm
said it would write down a significant amount of the goodwill at
Tasiast, which it bought for around C$7-billion in 2010 through
its Redback acquisition.

"We believe the claims are without merit and we will vigorously
defend against them," Mr. Mitchell said.

Reuters earlier reported at least four US law firms were
investigating legal claims against Kinross and some of its
officers for possible violation of fiduciary duties.


LOCUSTWOOD MEMORIAL: Faces Class Action Over Stolen Urns
--------------------------------------------------------
Joe Cooney, writing for Courier-Post, reports that a proposed
class action suit has been filed against the owner of Locustwood
Memorial Park alleging the cemetery is liable to replace hundreds
of graveside urns that were stolen by an employee.

The suit was filed on behalf of Patricia Lyford of Voorhees and
Barbara Myers of Pine Hill.  Both have family members buried at
Locustwood.

The women -- and dozens of other people with relatives interred at
the Route 70 cemetery -- had noticed the urns missing from
headstones last December.  By early January, Cherry Hill police
had received more than 50 reports of stolen vases.

"We have sent a request to the Cherry Hill police department to
get copies of the complaints they received," said attorney Stephen
DeNittis of the Marlton law firm of Shabel & DeNittis.

"At some point we will file a motion with the court to classify
this as a class action.  Usually we need more than 40 people who
are in a similar situation."

The suit seeks either the replacement of the bronze urns, or their
cash value.  The urns are valued at approximately $250 each,
according to attorney Joe Osefchen, who is representing the women
along with Mr. DeNittis.

"There is a New Jersey statute that requires all nonreligious
cemeteries to have a maintenance and preservation fund," Mr.
Osefchen said.  "We don't know if that covers missing urns, but we
have made a claim against that."

Ms. Myers hopes everyone that has been hurt by this can have find
some kind of closure.  "We want the vases to be replaced so the
graves can look pretty again," she said.

Ms. Lyford could not be reached for comment on Feb. 16.

The complaint, filed on Feb. 15 in Camden County Superior Court,
cites Osiris Management, Inc., as the owner of Locustwood.  Osiris
is based in the Iselin section of Woodbridge in Middlesex County.

Mr. DeNittis said the Locustwood office was served with the
complaint on Feb. 15.  A process server delivered the complaint to
Osiris on Feb. 16.

A worker at the Locustwood office would not comment early
Thursday.  On her computer screen was an Excel spreadsheet titled
"Families With Missing Vases."  Site Manager Dennis Cangiarella
did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. DeNittis can be reached at:

          Stephen DeNittis, Esq.
          SHABEL & DENITTIS
          5 Greentree Centre, Suite 302
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797-9951
          E-mail: sdenittis@shabeldenittis.com
          Web site: http://www.shabeldenittis.com


MAGMA DESIGN: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magma Design Automation, Inc. entered into a memorandum of
understanding to resolve merger-related class action lawsuits
pending in California, according to the Company's February 10,
2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On November 30, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Synopsys Inc. and
Lotus Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Synopsys ("Merger Sub").  The Merger Agreement
provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set
forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into
the Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Synopsys (the
"Merger").  The Merger is expected to close in the first half of
calendar year 2012.

Between December 5, 2011, and December 19, 2011, Magma, the
members of its board of directors, Synopsys and, in certain
instances, Merger Sub were named as defendants in three purported
stockholder class action lawsuits that were filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, which the
Company refers to as the California actions, and one additional
lawsuit filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
the Delaware action.  The lawsuits allege, among other things,
that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
its stockholders in negotiating and entering into the merger
agreement and by agreeing to sell Magma at an unfair price,
pursuant to an unfair process and pursuant to unreasonable terms,
and that Magma, Synopsys and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  On January 20, 2012, the
plaintiffs in the Delaware action requested a temporary stay of
the Delaware action, which the court granted, and began
coordinating with the plaintiffs in the California actions.

On February 10, 2012, counsel for the parties entered into a
memorandum of understanding in which they agreed on the terms of a
proposed settlement of the California actions and the Delaware
action, which would include the dismissal with prejudice of all
claims against all of the defendants.  The proposed settlement is
conditional upon, among other things, the execution of an
appropriate stipulation of settlement and final approval of the
proposed settlement by the court presiding over the California
actions.  In addition, in connection with the settlement and as
provided in the memorandum of understanding, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will seek an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses as part of the settlement.  There can
be no assurance that the parties ultimately will enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the
settlement even if the parties enter into such stipulation.  In
such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the
memorandum of understanding may be terminated.  The proposed
settlement will not affect the amount of the merger consideration
that the Company's stockholders are entitled to receive in the
merger.

The defendants deny all liability with respect to the facts and
claims alleged in the lawsuits and specifically deny that any
supplemental disclosure was or is required under any applicable
rule, statute, regulation or law.

However, to minimize the expense of defending the lawsuits, to
avoid the risk of delaying or adversely affecting the merger and
the related transactions, and to provide additional information to
the Company's stockholders at a time and in a manner that would
not cause any delay of the special meeting or the merger, the
Company has determined to provide the supplemental disclosures, as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding and proposed
settlement.


METABOLIX INC: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of Metabolix, Inc. from
March 10, 2010 through January 12, 2012, inclusive.  The action
alleges that Metabolix and certain of its executive officers
committed violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Metabolix is a bioscience company focused on bringing
environmentally friendly solutions to the plastics, chemicals and
energy industries.  The Company has core capabilities in microbial
genetics, fermentation process engineering, chemical engineering,
polymer science, plant genetics and botanical science.  The
Company's largest platform, which it commercialized through
Telles, its joint venture with Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, is
a large-scale microbial fermentation system for producing a
versatile family of polymers known as PHA's which it had branded
under the name Mirel.  Through Telles, Metabolix was promoting
these bioplastics as biobased and biodegradable, but functionally
equivalent, alternatives to petroleum-based plastics.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Metabolix, and
certain controlling individuals of the Company, made fraudulent
material misrepresentations and omissions regarding Metabolix's
business and operations.  Among other things, the complaint
alleges that defendants materially misrepresented and/or failed to
disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that the Telles joint
venture would not meet its commercial phase benchmark as early as
mid-2010, or even in 2011, which would allow the Metabolix to
receive royalty payments and payments from services from Telles;
(ii) that Mirel was not a commercially viable product that would
offer value to Metabolix and its shareholders; and (iii) that, as
a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis
for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.

On January 12, 2012, Metabolix issued a press release announcing
that ADM had given notice of termination of the Telles joint
venture.  ADM disclosed it terminated the Telles joint venture
because uncertainty about projected capital and production costs,
combined with the rate of market adoption, led to projected
financial returns for ADM that were too uncertain.  On the same
day, ADM further disclosed that the Telles joint venture was not
delivering sufficient results now and was not expected to deliver
sufficient results in a reasonable timeframe.  Upon this news,
Metabolix shares declined approximately 57%, to reach a multi-year
low of $2.54.

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

If you purchased or acquired Metabolix securities from March 10,
2010 through January 12, 2012, and you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
February 17, 2012 (no later than April 17, 2012).  Any member of
the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain a member of the proposed class.

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

          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          Meagan Farmer, Esq.
          501 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, New York 10017
          Telephone: 212-905-0509
          E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com
                  mfarmer@gardylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.gardylaw.com


MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS: 7th Cir. Vacates Certification Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit was asked in
consolidated appeals to review multiple procedural and substantive
orders in a long-running class action lawsuit captioned "JAMIE S.,
on behalf of herself and other similarly situated persons v.
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al., Case Nos. 09-2741, 09-3274 (7th
Cir.)," seeking structural reform of special education in the
Milwaukee public school district.

The class action was brought by seven students with disabilities
against Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) and the Wisconsin
Department of Public Instruction (DPI), alleging widespread
violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA).

The district court rejected the plaintiffs' proposed class but
certified a somewhat more modest one: students eligible to receive
special education from MPS who are, have been or will be denied or
delayed entry into or participation in the Individualized
Education Programs progress.

DPI then settled with the class by agreeing to order MPS to meet
certain compliance benchmarks; the district court approved the
settlement over MPS's objection.  In June 2009, the district court
ordered a complex remedial scheme requiring MPS to set up a system
to identify disabled children who were delayed or denied entry
into the IEP process.

Upon review, the Seventh Circuit:

  -- dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal of the denial of their
     original class-certification motion for lack of appellate
     jurisdiction;

  -- denied the motion to dismiss MPS's appeal of the remedial
     order; and

  -- vacated the district court's class certification order, its
     liability order following Phase II of the trial, its order
     approving DPI's settlement, and its remedial order following
     Phase III of the trial.

The Seventh Circuit remands the case for further proceedings
consistent with its Feb. 3, 2012 Opinion, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/vwmQsKfrom Leagle.com.


NATIONAL DATA: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
National Data Research dba Integrascan fails to update its
information on criminal records that have been expunged or sealed,
in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Wanamaker v. National Data Research,
Inc. dba Integrascan, Case No. 12-cv-06077 (W.D.N.Y.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/17/CrimRecs.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward P. Hourihan, Jr., Esq.
          BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC
          350 Linden Oaks, Suite 310
          Rochester, NY 14625-2825
          Telephone: (585) 362-4712
          E-mail: ehourihan@bsk.com

               - and -

          Matthew A. Dooley, Esq.
          Dennis M. O'Toole, Esq.
          Anthony R. Pecora, Esq.
          STUMPHAUZER, O'TOOLE, MCLAUGHLIN,
          MCGLAMERY & LOUGHMAN CO., LPA
          5455 Detroit Road
          Sheffield Village, OH 44054
          Telephone: (440) 930-4001
          E-mail: mdooley@sheffieldlaw.com
                  dotoole@sheffieldlaw.com
                  apecora@sheffieldlaw.com


NESTLE HOLDINGS: 8th Cir. Remands Ralston Suit to Mo. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld a district
court order remanding the putative class action captioned John M.
Rowling v. Nestle Holdings, Inc., Case No. 11-3445 (8th Cir.) to
the jurisdiction of the state courts of Missouri.

In March 2001, Mr. Rowling filed the class action on behalf of
himself and all other Ralston book-entry shareholders alleging
that the class is entitled to interest on Nestle's delinquent
payments relating to a merger agreement between Nestle Holdings
and Ralston Purina Company.  Nestle paid Ralston shareholders a
total of $8.880 million for their 265,098,799 outstanding common
shares in Ralston.

Nestle removed the case to a federal court on May 17, 2011.  Mr.
Rowling then moved to remand the case to Missouri state court,
arguing that the amount in controversy was not in excess of
$5 million as required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).

The Eighth Circuit held that Mr. Rowling has shown that it is
legally impossible for the amount in controversy in the case to
meet Class Action Fairness Act of 2005's threshold, and remand
based on CAFA's amount-in-controversy requirement was appropriate.

A copy of the Eighth Circuit's Feb. 2, 2012, Order is available at
http://is.gd/BSYVpefrom Leagle.com.


NETFLIX INC: Appeal From Judgment in Antitrust Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Netflix, Inc., in
connection with a consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit
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 January through April of 2009, a number of purported anti-trust
class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in various
United States Federal Courts.  Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and
Walmart.com USA LLC (collectively, Wal-Mart) were also named as
defendants in these lawsuits.  These cases have been consolidated
in the Northern District of California and have been assigned the
multidistrict litigation number MDL-2029.  A number of
substantially similar lawsuits were filed in California State
Courts, and have been consolidated in Santa Clara County.  The
plaintiffs, who are current or former Netflix customers, generally
alleged that Netflix and Wal-Mart entered into an agreement to
divide the markets for sales and online rentals of DVDs in the
United States, which resulted in higher Netflix subscription
prices.  A number of other cases had been filed in Federal and
State courts by current or former subscribers to the online DVD
rental service offered by Blockbuster Inc., alleging injury
arising from similar facts.  These cases have been related to MDL
2029 or, in the case of the California State cases, coordinated
with the cases in Santa Clara County.  The complaint(s) sought
unspecified compensatory and enhanced damages, interest, costs and
fees and other equitable relief.  On November 22, 2011, the court
granted the Company's motion for summary judgment.  On December
22, 2011, plaintiff appealed the summary judgment ruling.

Management has determined a potential loss is reasonably possible;
however, based on its current knowledge, management does not
believe that the amount of such possible loss or a range of
potential loss is reasonably estimable.


NETFLIX INC: Faces Two Shareholder Class Suits in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Netflix, Inc. is facing two purported shareholder class action
lawsuits in California, 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 January 27, 2012, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors.  The complaint alleges that the Company
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business practices and its contracts with content
providers, which lead to artificially inflated stock prices.  The
complaint alleges violation of the federal securities laws and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.  A second
lawsuit was filed on January 27, 2012, alleging virtually
identical claims.  Management has determined a potential loss is
reasonably possible however, based on its current knowledge,
management does not believe that the amount of such possible loss
or a range of potential loss is reasonably estimable.


NETVISION: Faces Class Action Over Prepaid Phone Cards
------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. on Feb. 19 disclosed that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed against Netvision, a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company, and certain other long distance Israeli
operators, in the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, by a plaintiff
alleging that the defendants misled the purchasers of prepaid
cards for international calls in relation to certain bonus
minutes.

The total amount claimed from Netvision (and from each of the
other defendants), if the lawsuit is certified as a class action,
is estimated by the plaintiff to be at least NIS2.7 billion.

At this preliminary stage, Netvision is unable to assess the
lawsuit's chances of success.

For additional details regarding a similar purported class action,
filed against the defendants in 2008, approved to be tried as a
class action in November 2010 in relation to certain prepaid cards
and appealed by the defendants see the Company's current report on
the Company's results of operations in the third quarter of 2011
on Form 6-K, filed on November 15, 2011, under the financial
statements as at September 30, 2011- Note 8(4).

                       About Cellcom Israel

Established in 1994, Cellcom Israel Ltd. --
http://www.cellcom.co.il-- is an Israeli cellular provider.
Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.391 million
subscribers (as at September 30, 2011) with a broad range of value
added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming
services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and
additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile office
etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced
infrastructure.  The Company operates an HSPA 3.5 Generation
network enabling advanced high speed broadband multimedia
services, in addition to GSM/GPRS/EDGE and TDMA networks.  As of
2006, Cellcom Israel, through its wholly owned subsidiary Cellcom
Fixed Line Communications L.P., provides landline telephone
communication services in Israel, in addition to data
communication services.  Cellcom Israel's shares are traded both
on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv Stock
Exchange (CEL).


OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Remaining Appeal in IPO Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The last of the appeals from the settlement of a consolidated
securities litigation over initial public offerings was dismissed
with prejudice, according to Oplink Communications, Inc.'s
February 10, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 1, 2012.

In November 2001, the Company and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in a class action shareholder
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  In the amended complaint, the
plaintiffs alleged that the Company, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering ("IPO") violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933
based on allegations that the Company's registration statement and
prospectus failed to disclose material facts regarding the
compensation to be received by, and the stock allocation practices
of, the IPO underwriters.  Similar complaints were filed by
plaintiffs against hundreds of other public companies that went
public in the late 1990s and early 2000s and their IPO
underwriters (collectively, the "IPO Lawsuits").  During the
summer of 2008, the parties engaged in a formal mediation process
to discuss a global resolution of the IPO Lawsuits.  Ultimately,
the parties reached an agreement to settle all 309 cases against
all defendants, and entered into a settlement agreement in April
2009.  The settlement provides for a $586 million recovery in
total, divided among the 309 cases.  The Company's share of the
settlement is roughly $327,458, which is the amount the Company
will be required to pay if the settlement is finally approved.  In
October 2009, the Court certified the settlement class in each
case and granted final approval to the settlement.  A number of
appeals have been filed with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,
challenging the fairness of the settlement.  A number of
shareholder plaintiffs have also filed petitions for leave to
appeal the class certification portion of Judge Scheindlin's
ruling.

On January 12, 2012, the last of these appeals was dismissed with
prejudice.

Incorporated in 1995, Oplink Communications --
http://www.oplink.com/-- is a provider of design, integration and
optical manufacturing solutions (OMS) for optical networking
components, modules and subsystems.  Oplink offers advanced and
cost-effective optical-electrical components and subsystem
manufacturing through its facilities in Zhuhai and Shanghai,
China.  In addition, Oplink maintains optical-centric front-end
design, application, and customer service functions at its offices
in Fremont and Woodland Hills, California and has research
facilities in Zhuhai and Wuhan, China and Hsinchu Science-Based
Industrial Park in Taiwan.


POM WONDERFUL: Sued Over False Claims on Pomegranate Juice
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that POM Wonderful, which
aggressively defends its trademarks, is accused of pushing its
pomegranate juice with false claims about its health-giving
effects, in a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Templeton Jr. v. POM Wonderful, LLC,
Case No. 12-cv-00053 (S.D. Ga.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/17/POM.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Tate, Esq.
          C. Dorian Britt, Esq.
          TATE LAW GROUP, LLC
          2 East Bryan Street, Suite 600
          Post Office Box 9060
          Savannah, GA 31412
          Telephone: (912) 234-3030
          E-mail: marktate@tatelawgroup.com
                  dbritt@tatelawgroup.com


POWER BUYING: Sued for Retaining Funds Owned by Store Owners
------------------------------------------------------------
Hiway 87 Stop, Inc., Borgfield Investment, Inc., West Ave Express,
Inc., Garden Investment, Inc., on behalf of themselves and a class
of similarly situated corporations v. Power Buying Dealers, USA,
Inc., and Samer Odeh, Individually, Case No. 2012-CH-05452 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., February 16, 2012) disclosed that Defendant
PBD implemented a National Tobacco Program system that essentially
pooled hundreds of independent convenience store owners, thus,
allowing PBD to negotiate with the tobacco companies to open the
program to "member stores" that would otherwise be ineligible to
participate in the program.  To become a member store, each
independent convenience store was required to pay a membership fee
and sign a three-year contract with PBD, entitled the "Vision
21(TM) Master Agreement."

From the third quarter of 2008 through the second quarter of 2009,
the Plaintiffs say they purchased and sold packs of cigarettes
that entitled them to receive money from the tobacco manufacturers
in the form of buy-down rebates and marketing funds.  Pursuant to
the PBD Agreement, PBD, as their agent, owed the Plaintiffs duties
to collect, administer, and remit these rebate and funding
payments.  However, PDB has failed to do so, and has wrongfully
retained the funds, the Plaintiffs allege.  As a result, the
Plaintiffs assert they have been unable to recoup the losses
sustained from selling the cigarettes at below-retail prices.

The Plaintiffs are Texas corporations.  The Plaintiffs and
proposed class are members of one of three merchant associations:
South Texas Merchants Association, Tri-State Trade Association,
and Alabama Merchants Association.  The individual members of the
Class are independent owner/operators of convenience stores, which
are typically co-located with gas stations.

PBD is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business
in Downers Grove, Illinois.  PBD's registered agent for service of
process is Defendant Samer Odeh.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Karl W. Roth, Esq.
          William P. Foley, Esq.
          ROTH LAW GROUP, LLC
          35 E. Wacker Dr., 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 419-9599


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Over Defective TVs
----------------------------------------------------------
Yonhap News reports that U.S. consumers have filed class action
suits against Samsung Electronics Co. as some of its TV models
sold in the U.S. are found to have problems with power failures,
the South Korean firm said on Feb. 16.

U.S. consumers have been complaining about some types of Samsung's
flat-screen TVs sold between 2006 and 2008 as they found problems
with a power storage device called a capacitor, making it
difficult for the TVs to power up.

U.S. consumers have lodged class action lawsuits against the
world's largest TV maker in New Jersey, California and Oklahoma,
it added.

Under a preliminary court settlement in the state of Oklahoma,
Samsung said it will continue to provide free repairs that have
already been offered to affected consumers, according to the Web
site of CBS Miami.

The report said more than 7 million Samsung TVs have been plagued
by the defective power problems, but Samsung said the number of
affected consumers is far smaller than the figures while declining
to comment on specific numbers.

Regarding the issue, Samsung said since early 2010, the company
has voluntarily offered free repairs for U.S. consumers with
affected TVs.

"There are no problems with recently released TV models," a
Samsung spokesman said.  "No failure has been reported on TV sets
in the domestic market as they are different from TV models sold
in the U.S."

The Korean firm said it aims to sell around 50 million units of
flat-screen TVs this year, 50 percent of which it hopes will be
smart TVs.


STATE OF IOWA: Decision Expected in Hiring Bias Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan J. Foley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that in a
case closely watched by civil rights activists, an Iowa judge will
soon decide whether to grant thousands of black employees and job
applicants monetary damages for hiring practices used by Iowa
state government that they say have disadvantaged them.

Experts say the case is the largest class-action lawsuit of its
kind against an entire state government's civil service system,
and tests a legal theory that social science and statistics alone
can prove widespread discrimination.

The plaintiffs -- up to 6,000 African-Americans passed over for
state jobs and promotions dating back to 2003 -- do not say they
faced overt racism or discriminatory hiring tests in Iowa, a state
that is 91 percent white.  Instead, their lawyers argue that
managers subconsciously favored whites across state government,
leaving blacks at a disadvantage in decisions over who got
interviewed, hired and promoted.

Judge Robert Blink's decision, expected in coming weeks, could
award damages and mandate changes in state personnel policies or
dismiss a case that represents a growing front of discrimination
litigation.

"Whenever there is a case like this that goes to trial, it's of
interest to all of us," said Jocelyn Larkin, executive director of
the Impact Fund, a Berkeley, Calif.-based nonprofit that supports
employment discrimination lawsuits and has followed the case.

Similar cases against local governments have failed because
proving broad bias is extraordinarily difficult, with a myriad of
possible factors to explain disparities, said David Friedland, a
California human resources consultant who is an expert on
discrimination in hiring.  Success in Iowa could encourage similar
lawsuits elsewhere, he said.

University of Washington psychology professor Anthony Greenwald,
an expert on implicit bias who testified on behalf of the
plaintiffs, said the decision will be important nationally because
similar cases against corporations have usually been dismissed or
settled before trial.

Scholars and employment lawyers have shown a growing interest in
implicit bias in the last several years, after Mr. Greenwald and
other scientists developed the Implicit Association Test to test
racial stereotypes.  Their research found an inherent preference
for whites over blacks -- in up to 80 percent of test-takers and
among many people who do not consider themselves racist.

The theory hit a legal obstacle last year when the U.S. Supreme
Court disqualified a class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart's pay
and promotion practices for women.  The court found the class was
too broad and failed to challenge a specific hiring practice as
discriminatory.

Lawyers defending the state have cited that decision in asking
Judge Blink to dismiss the case.  But the high court's decision
did not specifically reject the theory of implicit bias, and
dissenting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that such claims can
be allowed.

Class attorney Thomas Newkirk said the science and other evidence
that shows disadvantaged groups such as blacks face employment
discrimination in subtle ways "is becoming overwhelming."


U.S. BANK: Trial Mgmt. Plan in Wage Suit Flawed, Says App. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Following a bifurcated bench trial in the wage and hour class
action styled as SAM DURAN, et al. v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, Case Nos. A125557, A126827 (Calif. App. Ct.), the
defendant appealed the resulting $15 million judgment in the
lawsuit brought under Business and Professions Code (section
17200).  The plaintiffs in the class action are 260 current and
former business banking officers who claimed they were
misclassified by U.S. Bank as outside sales personnel exempt from
California's overtime laws, and were, thus, unlawfully denied
overtime pay.  In addition to arguing the case should not have
been certified as a class action, U.S. Bank contended that the
trial court's trial management plan deprived it of its
constitutional due process rights in that the plan prevented it
from defending against the individual claims for over 90% of the
class.

The Court of Appeals of California, First District, agrees that
the trial management plan was fatally flawed and reverses the
judgment.  The Court of Appeals also concludes the case must be
decertified, and reverses an order awarding certain expert witness
fees to plaintiffs.

Moreover, the Court of Appeals remands the two named plaintiffs'
meal and rest break period violation claims for reconsideration in
light of the California Supreme Court's ruling in Brinker
Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 25,
review granted October 22, 2008 (S166350).

Timothy M. Freudenberger, Esq. -- tfreud@cdflaborlaw.com ; Alison
L. Tsao, Esq. -- atsao@cdflaborlaw.com ; Kent J. Sprinkle, Esq. --
ksprinkle@cdflaborlaw.com of CARLTON DiSANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP
serve as counsel to U.S. Bank.

Ellen Lake, Esq.; and Edward J. Wynne, Esq. and J.E.B. Pickett,
Esq. of WYNNE LAW FIRM serve as counsel to Sam Duran, et al.

A copy of the Court of Appeals' Feb. 6, 2012 Order is available at
http://is.gd/eTNYmFfrom Leagle.com.


VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Ord. Share Purchaser Claims Not Ripe for Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned In re Vivendi Universal
S.A., Securities Litigation, Case No. 02 Civ 5571 (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Richard J. Howell said he is not convinced that the ordinary
share purchasers' claims have been fully adjudicated and are ripe
for appellate review.

The district court, thus, denied the plaintiffs' request that it
enter a judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure as an appropriate alternative method of appeal.

The class, composed of persons from the U.S., France, England and
the Netherlands who acquired ordinary shares or American Deposit
Shares of Vivendi Universal, alleges that the defendants violated
certain securities laws.

A copy of the District Court's Feb. 6, 2012 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at http://is.gd/ChSB7jfrom Leagle.com.


WAL-MART STORES: Final Hearing Set for Workers Compensation Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Ceniceros, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a
final court hearing has been set for next month on the proposed
settlement of a class action lawsuit alleging Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
and its workers compensation providers improperly withheld medical
treatment from injured Colorado employees.

The suit, Josephine Gianzero et al. vs. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. et
al., filed in 2009 also alleged that the defendants violated the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Plaintiffs alleged that Claims Management Inc., American Home
Assurance Co., and Concentra Health Services Inc. conspired though
their claims management practices to restrict or deny benefits
otherwise available under Colorado's workers comp law.

Bentonville, Ark.-based Claims Management administers claims for
Bentonville-based Wal-Mart.  American Home is a part of New York-
based Chartis Inc. and provides Wal-Mart with workers comp
insurance.  Addison, Texas-based Concentra, a unit of Humana Inc.,
provides Wal-Mart with treating physicians, court documents state.

The settlement agreement calls for Wal-Mart, Claims Management and
Concentra to pay up to $8 million to cover payments to a class of
Wal-Mart and Sam's Club employees who were injured from Jan. 1,
2001, through Nov. 1, 2011.

After a November hearing in Denver federal court at which the
settlement received preliminary approval, a hearing has been set
for March 23 at which a judge is to decide on final approval of
the settlement.

The settlement also would cover $4 million in attorneys fees and
$625,000 for legal expenses.

Injured workers treated at a Concentra-run facility are eligible
for up to $520 each, while those treated at other facilities are
eligible for up to $50 apiece.

Wal-Mart and the other defendants denied all wrongdoing, but the
settlement agreement also calls for them to undertake specific
actions.

Wal-Mart and Claims Management, for example, will be enjoined for
four years from "implementing, imposing, circulating, enforcing
and/or using any written protocol or directives that are
inconsistent" with Colorado's workers comp law and medical
treatment guidelines, according to court documents.

Concentra, meanwhile, will provide its marketing and sales staff
in Colorado with training "regarding the prohibition of dictation
of care provisions" in the state's workers comp law.

The settlement also includes $10,000 each for the two class
representatives -- Ms. Gianzero, who alleged that she sustained
injuries while working at a Sam's Club in 2005, and Jennifer
Jensen, who alleged she was struck by a wood pallet while working
at a Wal-Mart store in 2007.

Both were referred to Concentra for treatment.


WILINE NETWORKS: Sued Over Undisclosed "Local Access Fee"
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Wiline Networks charges an
undisclosed monthly $8.90 "local access fee," a class action
claims in Alameda County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Lopez v. WiLine Networks, Inc., et al.,
Case No. RG12617395 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/17/Wiline.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 277-7235
          E-mail: helland@nka.com

               - and -

          Adam W. Hansen, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER LLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          E-mail: ahansen@nka.com


                           *********

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  * * *