CAR_Public/120228.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, February 28, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 41

                             Headlines

BALDWIN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Suits Over Merger with Forsyth Unit
BERNARD CHAUS: "Braun" Shareholder Class Suit Remains Pending
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE: Sued Over Refusal to Process MDR Requests
CENTRO PROPERTIES: New Entity Won't Assume Class Action Claims
CHINA ADVANCED: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suits

CITY OF MT VERNON, WA: Public Defense Suit Wins Certification
DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Rigs Price of Auto Wire Harnesses, Suit Says
ECHO INC: Recalls 16,000 Backpack Blowers Due to Fire Hazard
EGAIN COMMUNICATIONS: IPO-Related Litigation Now Concluded
EMCORE CORP: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in New Mexico

FOCUS MEDIA: Appeal From Consolidated Suit Dismissal Pending
FOCUS MEDIA: Faces "Palny" Securities Class Suit in New York
GOV'T OF AUSTRALIA: Margaret River Bushfire Victims Mull Suit
GOV'T OF SOUTH AFRICA: Savrala Mulls Class Action Over Tolls
HALLIBURTON: Bid to Narrow Asbestos Claims Challenged

HOSPIRA INC: 7th Cir. Upholds Trial Court Verdict in ERISA Suit
HOSPIRA INC: Faces Two Securities Class Suits in Illinois
IMPERIAL SUGAR: Deadline to File Amended Complaint on March 16
JTH TAX: Faces Class Action Over Exorbitant Interest Rates
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Awaits Ruling in Missouri Suit Appeal

K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Defends Three Securities Suits in Missouri
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Product Liability Suit Dismissed in Dec.
KELTY: Recalls 3T Jogging Strollers Due to Fall & Injury Hazards
KENTUCKY FIRST: Faces Class Suits Over Proposed CKF Merger
LIVEDEAL INC: Hearing on Class Certification Motion on April 27

META FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
META FINANCIAL: Awaits Okay of Settlement in Suit vs. MetaBank
META FINANCIAL: Continues to Face MetaBank ATM Lawsuits
MONSANTO CO: Settlement Proposed for Pollution Class Action
MUNICH RE: Court Tosses Armenian Genocide Insurance Class Action

OPTI INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Suit in California
PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Faces Suits Over Proposed Perfumania Merger
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Actions Over Tariff Plans
PCS EDVENTURES!: Awaits Okay of Shareholder Suit Settlement
SAIC INC: Robins Geller Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.

SERVICE CORPORATION: Antitrust Suit Dismissal Appeal Pending
SERVICE CORPORATION: Appeal in "Garcia" Suit Remains Pending
SERVICE CORPORATION: Continues to Defend "Sands" Suit in Calif.
SERVICE CORPORATION: Continues to Face Wage and Hour Class Suits
SIGMA-ALDRICH CORP: Ohio Class Suit vs. Unit Now Closed

SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Has to Meet $9.6MM Injunction Costs Threshold
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Defendants Seek Dismissal of Florida Suit
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Schedule Suspended in Antitrust Suit vs. Unit
STRYKER CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Michigan
SUNTECH AMERICA: Recalls 300 SolarBlend Roof Tile Installations

TESLA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Employees' Stock Options
TODD WHITE: Faces Class Action Over Art Reproductions
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ingenix-Related Class Suits Still Pending
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS: UMPD Officers File Class Action
WARNER MUSIC: Faces Suit Over Improper Accounting of Royalties

WHITNEY BANK: To Settle Overdraft Fee Class Action for $6.8 Mil.
WMS INDUSTRIES: Has Until March 7 to Reply in "Conlee" Suit
WORTHINGTON CYLINDERS: Recalls 30.4-Mil. Propylene Gas Cylinders
ZICO: Faces Class Action Over Xing Tea Product Labels


                          *********

BALDWIN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Suits Over Merger with Forsyth Unit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Baldwin Technology Company, Inc. is facing class action lawsuits
over its proposed merger with a subsidiary of Forsyth Capital
Investors, LLC, according to the Company's February 14, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

On December 22, 2011, the Company entered into a merger agreement
(the "Merger Agreement") providing for the acquisition of the
Company by Forsyth Baldwin, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Merger
Sub") and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Forsyth Capital
Investors, LLC, a Missouri limited liability company ("FCI").  The
acquisition will be effected by the merger of Merger Sub, an
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of FCI, with and into Baldwin,
with Baldwin surviving as an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of
FCI (the "Merger").  If the Merger is completed, stockholders will
be entitled to receive $0.96 per share in cash, without interest
and less any applicable withholding taxes, subject to adjustments,
for each share of the Company's Class A Common Stock, par value
$0.01 per share, or Class B Common Stock, par value $0.01 per
share.

On December 29, 2011, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Baldwin, the Forsyth Parties and the individual members of
the Company's Board of Directors in the Delaware Court challenging
the Merger.  On January 10, 2012, a putative class action
complaint was filed against Baldwin, the Forsyth Parties and the
individual members of the Company's Board of Directors in the
Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm
Beach County, Florida, challenging the Merger.  Additional similar
lawsuits may be filed in the future.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of
the Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties
owed to the Company's stockholders by entering into the Merger
Agreement, approving the proposed Merger, and failing to take
steps to maximize the Company's value to its stockholders and that
Baldwin and the Forsyth Parties aided and abetted such breaches of
fiduciary duties.  In addition, each complaint alleges that
certain provisions of the Merger Agreement unduly restrict the
Company's ability to negotiate with other potential bidders.  Each
complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief prohibiting
the defendants from consummating the proposed Merger and damages.

One of the conditions to the closing of the Merger is that no
order by any governmental entity shall be in effect that enjoins
or prevents the consummation of the Merger or that makes the
consummation of the Merger illegal.  As such, if the plaintiffs in
either lawsuit are successful in obtaining an injunction
prohibiting the defendants from completing the Merger on the
agreed-upon terms, then such injunction may prevent the Merger
from becoming effective, or from becoming effective within the
expected timeframe.  In addition, although the Company has
insurance against claims of this type, its insurance policy
requires the payment of a deductible of between $75,000 to
$150,000.

Any costs that the Company incurs in contesting these lawsuits
will be included in the formula for adjustment of the Merger
Consideration and, therefore, may result in a reduction of the
Merger Consideration.

While these cases are in the early stages and there can be no
assurance regarding the resolution of the litigation, the
defendants believe that the claims asserted therein are without
merit and intend to contest the lawsuits vigorously.


BERNARD CHAUS: "Braun" Shareholder Class Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The shareholder class action lawsuit commenced by Kenneth Braun
against Bernard Chaus, Inc., remains pending in New York,
according to the Company's February 14, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended December 31, 2011.

On September 15, 2011, the Company received a cash merger proposal
from Camuto Consulting, Inc., doing business as Camuto Group,
pursuant to which shareholders other than members of the Chaus
family, China Ting Group Holdings Limited ("CTG") and Camuto would
receive $0.13 per share.  The proposal is subject to a number of
conditions including, among other things, the negotiation and
execution of definitive agreements, the approval of the
transaction by Chaus' Board and shareholders, the receipt of a
fairness opinion, the approval of the transaction by the Boards of
Camuto and CTG, the conversion of the debt owed to CTG from
accounts payable into a term debt obligation and the entry by
Chaus into a new financing agreement with CIT on terms
satisfactory to all parties.  The proposal from Camuto must be
approved by 2/3 of the Company's shareholders and is currently
being considered by the Company's independent directors, assisted
by legal and financial advisers.

On September 29, 2011, the Company was served with a summons and
complaint in connection with a purported shareholder class action
lawsuit relating to the Camuto proposal.  The lawsuit was filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York by Kenneth Braun and
alleges, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties by certain
current and prior directors of the Company.  The Company filed for
an extension of time to submit its response, and the plaintiff
agreed to an extension.

The Company says the proposal received from Camuto on
September 15, 2011, is only a proposal and has not yet been fully
considered by the Board of Directors of the Company nor approved
by the shareholders of the Company.  There is no assurance that
any transactions or agreements contemplated by the Camuto proposal
will take place or be entered into by the Company.


CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE: Sued Over Refusal to Process MDR Requests
---------------------------------------------------------------
National Security Counselors, 1200 South Courthouse Road, Suite
124, Arlington, VA 22204, and Kathryn Sack, 111 David Terrace,
Charlottesville, VA 22903, and Jeffrey Stein, 4547 Grant Road, NW,
Washington, DC 20016, and Mark Zaid, 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW,
Suite 200, Washington, DC 20036, and All Similarly Situated
Parties v. Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC 20505, Case
No. 1:12-cv-00284 (D.D.C., February 22, 2012) is brought on behalf
of anyone who submitted to CIA since September 23, 2011, a request
for Mandatory Declassification Review seeking classification
review of records under the control and authority of CIA and whose
request CIA refused to process by way of reliance upon an
unlawfully-promulgated requirement that the individual commit
upfront to pay applicable fees.

The Plaintiffs contend that common questions of law and fact that
relate to and affect the rights of each member of the class
include whether the CIA failed to properly promulgate its new
regulation authorizing it to refuse to process MDR requests
without an upfront commitment to pay all applicable fees, as well
as whether that new policy itself is unlawful.

NSC is a non-profit organization under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia and has the ability to disseminate
information on a wide scale.  Ms. Sack is a resident of the
Commonwealth of Virginia and a Ph.D. student at the University of
Virginia working on her dissertation on polygraph bias.  She is
authorized to file requests under the Freedom of Information Act
as a representative of her institution.  Mr. Stein is a resident
of the District of Columbia and is a representative of the news
media.  Mr. Zaid is a resident of Maryland.

CIA is a U.S. Government agency and is in possession and control
of the records requested by the Plaintiffs, and all similarly
situated individuals.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kelly B. McClanahan, Esq.
          NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS
          1200 South Courthouse Road, Suite 124
          Arlington, VA 22204
          Telephone: (301) 728-5908
          Facsimile: (240) 681-2189
          E-mail: Kel@NationalSecurityLaw.com

               - and -

          Bradley P. Moss, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK S. ZAID, P.C.
          1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 454-2809
          Facsimile: (202) 330-5610
          E-mail: Brad@MarkZaid.com


CENTRO PROPERTIES: New Entity Won't Assume Class Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that just two weeks before the
start of an epic class action over Centro Properties' 2007
accounting debacle, the Federal Court has heard the newly
reformulated group will argue it is not liable for any potential
payout.

The revelation comes amid final preparations for a trial in which
Centro shareholders are seeking more than AUD200 million over the
property group's near-fatal collapse.

It emerged as the lawyers for Centro's former auditors,
Price-waterhouseCoopers, demanded to know in court if Centro
Retail Australia (CRA), the new responsible entity for the Centro
group, would "stand in the shoes" of the old one and assume its
liabilities.

When pressed by Justice Michelle Gordon, the counsel for CRA,
Norman O'Bryan, SC, said it was "highly likely" the new entity
would argue that it was excluded from certain liabilities of the
old Centro.

But Michael Lee, SC, counsel for the Centro investors represented
by Maurice Blackburn, replied that CRA's proposed defense was "a
matter of potentially extraordinary significance" as the logical
ramification was that any future judgment might be made "against
an entity that would have no assets".

Mr. Lee said that had not been disclosed to the court during the
approval process on Centro's restructure.

The new responsible entity, he said, was discovered "by
happenstance" by the lawyers acting for PricewaterhouseCoopers,
who ran repeated corporate searches of the new Centro group
structure after it was approved in October by Justice Ian Barrett
in the NSW Supreme Court.

Two sets of shareholders, represented by Maurice Blackburn and
Slater & Gordon, are suing the old Centro Properties group and
Centro Retail as well as the former auditors,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, over events in late 2007 when the company
failed to disclose as much as AUD3.1 billion of short-term debt.

PricewaterhouseCoopers has been joined as a co-defendant by Centro
Properties and Centro Retail, and in turn PricewaterhouseCoopers
has counter-claimed against Centro.  PricewaterhouseCoopers last
week joined Centro Retail Australia to the action.


CHINA ADVANCED: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
China Advanced Construction Materials Group, Inc. continues to
defend stockholder class action lawsuits in Delaware, according to
the Company's February 13, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December
31, 2011.

Since July 29, 2011, multiple class action complaints (the
"Stockholder Actions") have been filed against the Company and its
Board of Directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, generally alleging that the Company and all of its
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
receipt by the Company of a preliminary, non-binding offer from
Xianfu Han, the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
and Weili He, the Company's Vice Chairman and Chief Operating
Officer, to acquire all of the outstanding shares of the Company's
common stock not currently owned by them in a going private
transaction at a proposed price of $2.65 per share in cash (the
"Proposed Transaction").  The Stockholder Actions have been
consolidated under the caption In re China Advanced Construction
Materials Group Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 6729-CS.  The
Stockholder Actions seek, among other things, to declare that the
Proposed Transaction is unfair, unjust and inequitable, to enjoin
the Company from taking any steps necessary to accomplish or
implement the Proposed Transaction, and damages in the event the
Proposed Transaction is consummated.

China Advanced Construction Materials Group, Inc. --
http://www.china-acm.com-- through its subsidiaries, produces and
supplies ready mix concrete materials and related technical
services for large scale, high-speed rail, and other complex
infrastructure projects primarily in the People's Republic of
China.  The Company was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in
Beijing, China.


CITY OF MT VERNON, WA: Public Defense Suit Wins Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Kreamer, writing for Seattle Times, reports that a
potentially precedent-setting federal lawsuit accusing two cities
of providing constitutionally inadequate public defense for people
charged with misdemeanors was certified as a class action on
Feb. 23.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, alleges that
two public defenders for the cities of Mount Vernon and Burlington
carry misdemeanor caseloads of more than 2,100 despite working
only part-time on the cases.  The state Bar Association recommends
misdemeanor caseloads of no more than 400 for full-time lawyers.

U.S. District Court judge Robert Lasnik on Feb. 23 denied requests
by Mount Vernon and Burlington to dismiss the case and granted
class certification.  If successful, the lawsuit could require
cities to boost public defense spending in misdemeanor cases.

"The judge is saying the whole system is being put on trial," said
Toby Marshall, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers.  Trial is scheduled
for October.


DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Rigs Price of Auto Wire Harnesses, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Barron, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Delphi Automotive LLP, Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd.,
Lear Corp., Leoni AG, Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd, S-Y
Systems Technologies GmbH, Yazaki Corp., and Yazaki North America
Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-00839 (N.D. Calif., February 21, 2012)
arises out of an alleged long-running conspiracy from at least
January 1, 2000, through at least January 1, 2010, among the
Defendants and their co-conspirators, with the purpose and effect
of rigging bids for and fixing, raising, maintaining and
stabilizing prices of automotive wire harnesses and related
products sold indirectly to the Plaintiff and other indirect
purchasers throughout the United States.

The Defendants and their co-conspirators formed an international
cartel illegally to restrict competition in the automotive wire
harness and related products market, Ms. Barron alleges.  She
contends that the conspiracy included communications and meetings
in which the Defendants agreed to eliminate competition and to rig
bids for, and to fix the prices of automotive wire harnesses and
related products, thus, the plaintiff and class members have been
injured in their business and property by paying more for
automotive wire harnesses and related products that they would
otherwise have paid in the absence of the Defendants' conspiracy.

Ms. Barron is a resident of California, who indirectly purchased
one or more automotive wire harness systems manufactured and sold
by one or more of the Defendants during the Class Period, for end
use and not for resale.

Delphi and Lear are Delaware corporations, while Yazaki North
America is an Illinois corporation.  Furukawa, Sumitomo, S-Y
Systems, and Yazaki Corp. are Japanese corporations.  Leoni is a
German corporation.  The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell
Automotive Wire Harness Systems throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terry Gross, Esq.
          Adam C. Belsky, Esq.
          Sarah Crowley, Esq.
          GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 3670
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-0200
          Facsimile: (415) 544-0201
          E-mail: terry@ggba-law.com
                  adam@gba-law.com
                  sarah@gba-law.com


ECHO INC: Recalls 16,000 Backpack Blowers Due to Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
ECHO Inc., of Lake Zurich, Illinois, announced a voluntary recall
of about 16,000 units of Gas Powered Backpack Blowers.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The fuel line between the fuel tank and carburetor could have been
damaged during assembly leading to fuel leakage, posing a fire
hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves two models of the ECHO 2-cycle gas powered
backpack blowers.  The 25.4 cc blowers are orange and black in
color and "ECHO" is printed on the pull starter housing and blower
tube.  Model numbers are on a label near the pull starter handle.
Serial numbers are on a label near the gas filler cap.  Models and
corresponding serial numbers included in this recall:

      Model                   Serial Numbers
      -----        -----------------------------------
      PB-265L      P093121 35519 through P093121 50152
      PB-265L      P078110 20732 through P078110 22309

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12118.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at Home Depot and authorized ECHO dealers from
August 2011 through January 2012 for about $270.

Consumers should immediately stop using the backpack blowers and
return them to an authorized ECHO servicing dealer for a free
repair.  For additional information, contact ECHO toll-free at
(800) 432-3246 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Central Time Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.echo-
usa.com/


EGAIN COMMUNICATIONS: IPO-Related Litigation Now Concluded
----------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated litigation over eGain Communications
Corporation's initial public offering has concluded, the Company
disclosed in its February 14, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December
31, 2011.

Beginning on October 25, 2001, a number of securities class action
complaints were filed against the Company, and certain of its then
officers and directors and underwriters connected with its initial
public offering of common stock.  The class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaints alleged generally that the prospectus under which
such securities were sold contained false and misleading
statements with respect to discounts and excess commissions
received by the underwriters as well as allegations of "laddering"
whereby underwriters required their customers to purchase
additional shares in the aftermarket in exchange for an allocation
of IPO shares.  The complaints sought an unspecified amount in
damages on behalf of persons who purchased the common stock
between September 23, 1999, and December 6, 2000.  Similar
complaints were filed against 55 underwriters and more than 300
other companies and other individuals.  The over 1,000 actions
were consolidated into a single action called In re Initial Public
Offering Sec. Litig.  In 2003, the Company and the other issuer
defendants (but not the underwriter defendants) reached an
agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve the cases as to the
Company's liability and that of its officers and directors.  The
settlement involved no monetary payment or other consideration by
the Company or its officers and directors and no admission of
liability.  On August 31, 2005, the Court issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement.  On April 24, 2006, the
Court held a public hearing on the fairness of the proposed
settlement.  Meanwhile the consolidated case against the
underwriters proceeded.  In October 2004, the Court certified a
class.  On December 5, 2006, however, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the class
certified by the District Court could not be certified, In re
Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig., 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006),
modified F 3d 70 (2d Cir. 2007).  The Second Circuit's holding,
while directly affecting only the underwriters, raised doubt as to
whether the settlement class contemplated by the proposed issuer
settlement could be approved.  On June 25, 2007, the district
court entered a stipulated order terminating the proposed issuer
settlement.  Thereafter pretrial proceedings resumed.

In March 2009, all parties agreed on a new global settlement of
the litigation; this settlement included underwriters as well as
issuers.  Under the settlement, the insurers would pay the full
amount of settlement share allocated to the Company, and it would
bear no financial liability.  The Company, as well as the officer
and director defendants, who were previously dismissed from the
action pursuant to a stipulation, would receive complete
dismissals from the case.  On June 10, 2009, the Court entered an
order granting preliminary approval of the settlement.  On
October 5, 2009, the Court issued an order finally approving the
settlement.  Starting on or about October 23, 2009, some would-be
objectors to the certification of a settlement class (which
occurred as part of the October 5, 2009 order) petitioned the
Court for permission to appeal from the order certifying the
settlement class, and on October 29 and November 2, 2009, several
groups of objectors filed notices of appeal seeking to challenge
the Court's approval of the settlement.

On November 24, 2009, the Court signed, and on, December 4, 2009,
the Court entered final judgment pursuant to the settlement
dismissing all claims involving the Company.  The appeals remain
pending and briefing on the appeals was set to begin in October
2010 and end in the spring of 2011.  On October 7, 2010, lead
plaintiffs and all but two of the objectors filed a stipulation
pursuant to which these objectors withdrawing their appeals with
prejudice.  The remaining two objectors, however, are continuing
to pursue their appeals and have filed their opening briefs.  On
December 8, 2010, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeals.  On
March 2, 2011, one of the two appellants, appearing pro se, filed
a stipulated dismissal of his appeal with prejudice.  On May 17,
2011, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeals of two of the
three remaining appellants, and directed the district court to
determine whether the third and final appellant had standing.  On
August 25, 2011, the district court determined that the final
appellant lacked standing.

On January 9, 2012, the remaining parties entered into a
settlement.  In accordance with the settlement agreement the
appeal and all related matters were dismissed with prejudice.
This litigation has concluded.  The Company says it did not accrue
any liability in connection with this matter as it did not expect
the outcome of this litigation to have a material impact on its
financial condition.


EMCORE CORP: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in New Mexico
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed by
stockholders against EMCORE Corporation remains pending in New
Mexico, according to the Company's February 14, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 31, 2011.

On December 23, 2008, Plaintiffs Maurice Prissert and Claude
Prissert filed a purported stockholder class action (the "Prissert
Class Action") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
allegedly on behalf of a class of Company shareholders against the
Company and certain of its present and former directors and
officers (the "Individual Defendants") in the United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico captioned, Maurice
Prissert and Claude Prissert v. EMCORE Corporation, Adam Gushard,
Hong Q. Hou, Reuben F. Richards, Jr., David Danzilio and Thomas
Werthan, Case No. 1:08cv1190 (D.N.M.).  The Complaint alleges that
the Company and the Individual Defendants violated certain
provisions of the federal securities laws, including Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the
Company's disclosure regarding its customer Green and Gold Energy
("GGE") and the associated backlog of GGE orders with the
Company's Photovoltaics business segment.  The Complaint in the
Prissert Class Action seeks, among other things, an unspecified
amount of compensatory damages and other costs and expenses
associated with the maintenance of the action.

On February 12, 2009, a second purported stockholder class action
(Mueller v. EMCORE Corporation et al., Case No. 1:09cv 133
(D.N.M.)) (the "Mueller Class Action"), together with the Prissert
Class Action, the "Class Actions") was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico against the same
defendants named in the Prissert Class Action, based on
substantially the same facts and circumstances, containing
substantially the same allegations and seeking substantially the
same relief.

On September 25, 2009, the court issued an order consolidating
both the Prissert and Mueller class actions into one consolidated
proceeding, but denied plaintiffs motions for appointment of a
lead plaintiff or lead plaintiff's counsel.  On July 15, 2010, the
court appointed IBEW Local Union No. 58 Annuity Fund to serve as
lead plaintiff ("IBEW"), but denied, without prejudice, IBEW's
motion to appoint lead counsel.  On August 24, 2010, IBEW filed a
renewed motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval
of its selection of counsel.  IBEW filed a renewed motion for
appointment of counsel on May 13, 2011, which the Company did not
oppose.  By Order dated September 30, 2011, the court appointed
counsel to act on behalf of the purported class.

On November 14, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint, again alleging violations of the federal securities
laws arising out of the Company's disclosure regarding its
customer GGE and the associated backlog of GGE orders with the
Company's Photovoltaics business segment (the "Amended
Complaint").  The Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other costs and
expenses associated with the maintenance of the action.  The
Amended Complaint again names the Company and the Individual
Defendants, with the exception of former officer and director
Thomas Werthan.  On January 9, 2012, EMCORE filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs' response is due
February 23, 2012.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the
allegations of the Class Actions.


FOCUS MEDIA: Appeal From Consolidated Suit Dismissal Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated class action
lawsuit against Focus Media Holding Limited remains pending,
according to the Company's February 13, 2012, Form 20-F/A filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

On November 27, 2007, Eastriver Partners, Inc. filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Focus Media Holding Limited
and the underwriters of its follow-on offering of November 2007.
On or about December 21, 2007, Scott Bauer filed a purported class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and the underwriters of its follow-on
offering of November 2007.  Both complaints allege that the
Company's registration statement on Form F-1 on November 1, 2007,
as amended, and the related prospectus contained inaccurate
statements of material fact.

On April 24, 2008, the court consolidated the Eastriver Partners,
Inc. and Scott Bauer actions into an action captioned In re Focus
Media Holding Limited Litigation and named Iron Workers Local No.
25 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action.  On
June 23, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  Specifically, the complaints allege that the Company
failed to disclose reduced gross margins in the Company's Internet
advertising business division due to acquisitions it made.  The
complaint filed by Scott Bauer also alleges that the Company
issued a press release concerning its second quarter 2007
financial results that contained inaccurate statements of material
fact.  On September 5, 2008, the Company, certain of its officers
and directors, and the underwriters filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  On November 5, 2008, the lead
plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss.  A reply
brief was filed on December 5, 2008.

On March 29, 2010, the court issued an opinion granting the
Company's motion to dismiss.  On March 30, 2010, the court entered
a judgment dismissing the case.  The plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal on April 29, 2010, appealing the judgment granting the
Company's motion to dismiss.

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

The Company says it intends to continue to defend against these
lawsuits vigorously as it believes it has meritorious defenses to
the claims alleged.  However, there can be no assurance that the
Company will prevail in the lawsuit on appeal and any adverse
outcome of these cases could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business or results of operations.


FOCUS MEDIA: Faces "Palny" Securities Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Focus Media Holding Limited is facing a putative class action
lawsuit in New York commenced by Tom Palny, according to the
Company's February 13, 2012, Form 20-F/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

On December 12, 2011, Plaintiff Tom Palny filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of
its current or former officers and directors.  The complaint
relates to certain allegations made by the firm Muddy Waters about
the Company in a series of releases in November 2011, and alleges
that the Company's public filings, including the Company's 2006,
2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 Form 20-Fs, the Form F-1 and Prospectus
filed in connection with the Company's November 2007 secondary
offering, and the Q3 2011 earnings press release, contain material
misstatements and omissions.  The complaint's allegations,
include, but are not limited to, alleged misrepresentations
relating to the Company's acquisition, write-down and divestiture
of certain assets (including, without limitation, Allyes Online
Media Holdings Limited, OOH Ltd., and certain mobile handset
companies), and the size and composition of the Company's LCD
display network.  Defendants have not yet been served with the
complaint.  The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit
vigorously as it believes it has meritorious defenses to the
claims alleged.  However, there can be no assurance that the
Company will prevail in the lawsuit and any adverse outcome could
have a material adverse effect on its business or results of
operations.


GOV'T OF AUSTRALIA: Margaret River Bushfire Victims Mull Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Trenwith, writing for WA Today, reports that a class
action on behalf of about 70 people affected by the Margaret River
bushfire is still on the cards despite the state government
offering financial assistance.

Lawyers acting for the residents and business people have
described the government's maximum payout of AUD190,000 for a
fully destroyed home as "grossly inadequate".

It also did not extend to those whose homes were not damaged but
they had suffered a significant drop in the value of their land.

"Many property owners are likely to be left with losses many times
the maximum amount available under the scheme," Slater & Gordon
commercial and project litigation general manager James Higgins
said.

"Others should not be fooled by the headline figure because in our
experience the particular conditions that are applied by
government mean that people end up with less than promised.

"Now that the government has formally accepted responsibility for
the fire, it should be doing everything it can to fully compensate
those who have suffered."

An independent inquiry into what caused a Department of
Environment and Conservation prescribed burn to become out of
control, destroying more than 40 properties and causing hundreds
to flee the area, found a series of omissions and mistakes were
made by the department.

Premier Colin Barnett on Feb. 23 accepted government
responsibility for the blaze and apologized to those affected.

He said admitting responsibility was not the same as negligence
and would not open up the government to large compensation claims.

Augusta-Margaret River Mayor Ray Colyer said there would be a
mixed response from the community over the inquiry's findings and
the compensation package offered.

"The findings support the view of the community that there was
mismanagement that led up to the fire by DEC and that's why the
controlled burn became uncontrolled," he said.

"I'm pleased that the government has agreed to implement those 10
recommendations [in the inquiry report]."

He expected mixed reactions to the compensation offer.

"Some people we'll still go through the legal process and try to
get more money," Mr. Colyer said.

"I'm happy that the offer is there and it's up to individual
people who own property to make the assessment [on whether or not]
to still have a class action."

Concerns new fire risk office just more bureaucracy

The state government will establish an Office of Bushfire Risk
Management under the Fire and Emergency Services Authority in
response to the findings by former Australian Federal Police
commissioner Mick Keelty.

Independent firefighters would be responsible for assessing all
risks before approving the commencement and progression of a
prescribed burn and for ensuring there were sufficient resources
available to manage any contingency should the fire get out of
control.

FESA chief executive Wayne Gregson has already conceded the new
layer of bureaucracy could slowdown the prescribed burns program,
making it more difficult for annual targets to be met.

"We have got to suck that and see," he said.

"It's about getting the balance right and I think the
establishment of this office does bring a modicum of independence
of the risk decision making.

"If you're involved in the activity and you're involved in the
risk management . . . there's a tendency to be perhaps a little
less risk adverse."

United Firefighters Union of WA branch secretary Graeme Geer
welcomed the additional safety net as "essential" but warned
additional resources would be required to run the office.

"We don't see it as a layer of bureaucracy as long as the people
in that office are independent and have the capacity to make those
decisions.

The Bushfire Front chairman Roger Underwood said more details were
needed on how the office would work.

He was concerned about the government's move to gazette one FESA
bushfire district for the entire cape-to-cape region, which would
cross over jurisdictions of the Conservation Commission in
relation to parks and local shires in relation to private land.


GOV'T OF SOUTH AFRICA: Savrala Mulls Class Action Over Tolls
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeanette Clark, writing for Moneyweb, reports that vice-president
of the Southern African Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association
(Savrala), Wayne Duvenhage said the government's role is to
provide road infrastructure at the cheapest and most efficient
cost to the citizens of the country.  If they don't, then they
need to be challenged.

He told Moneyweb the association's next step following the
announcement by the minister of transport and the minister of
finance at the budget speech on Feb. 22 that e-tolling of
Gauteng's roads will commence at the end of April, is to prepare
for possible legal action to contest the decision.

"Our industry is considering legal action.  It might be a joint
action by a couple of players in the industry as it would be
unwise to bring various actions at the same time.  We need to take
this to the next level," he said.

"We don't want to do this blindly.  We have already had legal
consultations and an initial high-level assessment is that there
are strong merits for a case," he said.

Responding to a question on whether there is still enough time to
put together a case with the commencement of e-tolls now imminent,
he said that if an urgent interdict has to be brought "then that
is fine.

"It could be that our case can be put together in the next two
weeks and put to Sanral (the South African National Roads Agency)
and the minister."

Mr. Duvenhage indicated that its legal counsel mentioned that it
has grounds for legal action in terms of the Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act.

The Act aims to promote an efficient administration and good
governance.

"If Sanral said it did a proper impact assessment, then our simple
response is that they failed in this exercise.  It is clear when
you look at the reaction from the public that they were not
informed of the implications of the improved freeways,"
Mr. Duvenhage said.

One of Savrala's main concerns is the inefficient method of
administrating the tolls.

"It will take between R1.6bn to R2bn per year in administration
costs for the system.  This is an extra burden on the taxpayer
where using the fuel levy would've been administratively cheaper,"
Mr. Duvenhage said.

"Our roads in South Africa are funded by hybrid methods.  There
are long-distance routes that are tolled and the general public
accept that.  In those cases there are alternative routes or
flights and you don't travel on these roads every day.  To,
however, start with urban tolling creates a nightmare and we have
to pay the inefficient costs related to it."

Mr. Duvenhage believes that the toll road gantries can still be
put to good use even if it is not for tolling purposes -- such as
policing through the automated number plate recognition system.

He said that it will consult with other industry players like the
Automobile Association, the Road Freight Association, the National
Automobile Dealers' Association, the Retail Motor Industry
Organisation and even Cosatu to see what legal avenues they can
follow.

Cosatu indicated that it would still go ahead with protest action
against the tolls.

Kenneth Morare, Moody's lead analyst for Sanral, who is currently
heading a credit rating review for the state agency, said that
Moody's took note of the pronouncement that was made by the
finance minister at the budget event.

"Generally there were some positive developments coming from those
pronouncements, but we can't really say how far those positive
developments will contribute to the rating outcome," he said.

Moody's originally said that it would take between four to six
weeks to finalize the review and Mr. Morare said it would stick to
that timeframe.


HALLIBURTON: Bid to Narrow Asbestos Claims Challenged
-----------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reports that a group of past
and present Halliburton shareholders filed a legal brief last week
with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas, asking that the
company's latest efforts to minimize its asbestos liabilities be
rejected.

The brief, according to a Reuters News & Insight Report, stems
from an original federal securities class action suit brought by a
group of shareholders who purchased common stock of the
Halliburton Company from June 3, 1999 through Dec. 7, 2001.  They
contend that Halliburton intentionally misrepresented its exposure
to future asbestos liability.

Halliburton repeatedly has tried to block the certification of the
asbestos class action, contending that shareholders have not
proved the subsequent drop in stock price was tied directly to the
misrepresentation of asbestos.  Its latest attempt came earlier
this month.

Halliburton's stock price dipped dramatically several years ago
when the company made disclosures to correct its previous
statements about asbestos, but after the shareholders of the suit
had made their purchases.

Halliburton paid almost $5 billion in 2005, according to the
Washington Post, as part of a reorganization plan to settle an
estimated 400,000 asbestos and silica liability claims, most
stemming from its earlier and ill-fated purchase of Dresser
Industries, Inc. for $7.7 billion in 1998.

The purchase of Dresser came under CEO Dick Cheney, who later was
elected Vice President under George H.W. Bush.  It was during
Mr. Cheney's tenure as VP that Halliburton won multi-billion
contracts  in Kuwait and Iraq to provide a variety of services for
U.S. troops, later attracting an investigation of alleged
overbilling and favoritism because of Mr. Cheney's past.

Halliburton is a multi-billion dollar energy services conglomerate
with operations in more than 70 countries.  It has hundreds of
divisions and subsidiaries worldwide.  It is based in both
Houston, where it is incorporated in the U.S., and in Dubai.

The shareholder brief contends Halliburton already has had its
asbestos efforts rejected five times in court, twice before a U.S.
District judge, twice at the 5th Circuit Court in Texas and once
by the United States Supreme Court.

Halliburton contends that in previous appeals it produced evidence
that the alleged misrepresentation of asbestos did not distort
market price of the stock, which would have rebutted the class
certification.

Those contentions were rejected.  Shareholders still contend that
they were misled about Halliburton's financial state at the time
of purchase, which constitutes a violation of the Securities
Exchange Act.

The case still is pending.

"Halliburton has every right to try to take another bite out of
the apple," attorney Neil Rothstein, who represents the
plaintiffs, told Reuters News & Insight.  "But perhaps they're
just trying to postpone the inevitable -- a trial on the merits of
our claim."

Asbestos is the cause of a myriad of respiratory illnesses,
including asbestosis and mesothelioma cancer.  It is the subject
of the largest class-action tort in United States history.

There is an estimated $36 billion in a combined 60 asbestos-
liability trusts from companies that are no longer in existence.


HOSPIRA INC: 7th Cir. Upholds Trial Court Verdict in ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued
its opinion upholding a trial court's verdict in favor of Hospira,
Inc., according to the Company's February 14, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

Hospira has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit alleging
generally that the spin-off of Hospira from Abbott Laboratories
resulted in a mass termination of employees so as to interfere
with the future attainment of benefits in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").  The
lawsuit was filed on November 8, 2004, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, and is captioned: Myla
Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories
and Hospira, Inc.  Plaintiffs generally seek reinstatement in
Abbott benefit plans, disgorgement of profits and attorneys fees.
On November 18, 2005, the complaint was amended to assert an
additional claim against Abbott and Hospira for breach of
fiduciary duty under ERISA.  Hospira has been dismissed as a
defendant with respect to the fiduciary duty claim.  By Order
dated December 30, 2005, the Court granted class action status to
the lawsuit.  As to the sole claim against Hospira, the court
certified a class defined as: "all employees of Abbott who were
participants in the Abbott Benefit Plans and whose employment with
Abbott was terminated between August 22, 2003 and April 30, 2004,
as a result of the spin-off of the HPD [Hospital Products
Division] /creation of Hospira announced by Abbott on August 22,
2003, and who were eligible for retirement under the Abbott
Benefit Plans on the date of their terminations."  Trial of this
matter has concluded.  On April 22, 2010, the court issued a
ruling in favor of Hospira and Abbott on all counts.  Plaintiffs
appealed that verdict.

On February 3, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit issued its opinion upholding the trial court's
verdict in favor of Hospira and Abbott.

In 2008, Hospira received notice from Abbott requesting that
Hospira indemnify Abbott for all liabilities that Abbott may incur
in connection with this litigation.  Hospira denies any obligation
to indemnify Abbott for the claims asserted against Abbott in this
litigation.


HOSPIRA INC: Faces Two Securities Class Suits in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. is facing two securities class action lawsuits in
Illinois, according to its February 14, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011.

Hospira and three of its corporate officers are defendants in two
lawsuits that allege violations of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934.  The cases are City of Sterling Heights General
Employees' Retirement System, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated vs. Hospira, Inc., F. Michael Ball,
Thomas E. Werner and Christopher B. Begley, filed November 21,
2011, and pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois; and IUE-CWA Local 475 Pension Plan,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs.
Hospira, Inc., F. Michael Ball, Thomas E. Werner and Christopher
B. Begley, filed December 9, 2011, and pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  Both
lawsuits allege, generally that the defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements regarding Hospira's financials and
business prospects and failed to disclose material facts affecting
Hospira's financial condition.  Both lawsuits allege a class
period from March 24, 2009 (the announcement of Project Fuel)
through October 17, 2011 (Hospira announced preliminary financial
results for Q3 2011 on
October 18, 2011).  The lawsuits seek class action status and
damages including interest, attorneys' fees and costs.


IMPERIAL SUGAR: Deadline to File Amended Complaint on March 16
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carpenter's Pension Fund of Illinois has until March 16, 2012, to
file an amended consolidated complaint against Imperial Sugar
Company, according to Imperial Sugar's February 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 31, 2011.

On August 30, 2011, a shareholder of the Company filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, styled as Dawes v. Imperial Sugar
Company, et al., Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-03250, alleging that the
Company, its current President and Chief Executive Officer, and
its current Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,
violated the federal securities laws.  On September 22, 2011,
another shareholder filed a nearly identical putative class action
lawsuit against the Company, its current President and Chief
Executive Officer and its current Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas styled as Hassan v. Imperial Sugar
Company, et al., Civil Action No 4:11-cv-03457.  On October 28,
2011, these cases were consolidated by the court. The complaints
assert fraud claims under Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and allege that the defendants made
misleading statements and/or omissions about the Company's sales
and business prospects, which purportedly were disclosed on August
5, 2011, when the Company announced its third fiscal quarter
results.

On October 31, 2011, Carpenter's Pension Fund of Illinois moved
for appointment as lead plaintiff.

On January 16, 2012, plaintiff Hassan filed a motion to dismiss
his individual claims without prejudice on the basis that his
interests are adequately represented in the class action.  At an
initial pre-trial conference held on January 31, 2012, the Court
entered an order appointing Carpenter's Pension Fund of Illinois
as lead plaintiff and dismissing plaintiff Hassan's individual
action.  Pursuant to the Court-ordered schedule, the lead
plaintiff will have until March 16, 2012, to file an amended
consolidated complaint.


JTH TAX: Faces Class Action Over Exorbitant Interest Rates
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
JTH Tax Inc. dba Liberty Tax Services "aggressively markets and
facilitates refund anticipation loan products at exorbitant
triple-digit interest rates to the working poor and minorities."

A copy of the Complaint in Patterson v. JTH Tax, Inc., d/b/a
Liberty Tax Services (E.D. Wis.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/23/Tax.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Guri Ademi, Esq.
          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          David J. Syrios, Esq.
          Corey Mather, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY LLP
          3620 East Layton Ave.
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com
                  sademi@ademilaw.com
                  dsyrios@ademilaw.com
                  cmather@ademilaw.com

               - and -

          Darrin L. Williams, Esq.
          Hank Bates, Esq.
          CARNEY WILLIAMS BATES PULLIAM & BOWMAN, PLLC
          11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72212
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          E-mail: dwilliams@carneywilliams.com
                  hbates@carneywilliams.com


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Awaits Ruling in Missouri Suit Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
K-V Pharmaceutical Company is awaiting a court decision on an
appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities lawsuit in
Missouri, according to the Company's February 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 31, 2011.

On December 2, 2008, plaintiff Joseph Mas filed a complaint
against the Company, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Mas v. KV Pharma. Co., et al.  On
January 9, 2009, plaintiff Herman Unvericht filed a complaint
against the Company also in the Eastern District of Missouri,
Unvericht v. KV Pharma. Co., et al.  On January 21, 2009,
plaintiff Norfolk County Retirement System filed a complaint
against the Company, again in the Eastern District of Missouri,
Norfolk County Retirement System v. KV Pharma. Co., et al.  The
operative complaints in these three cases purport to state claims
arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), on behalf of a
putative class of stock purchasers.  On April 15, 2009, the
Honorable Carol E. Jackson consolidated the Unvericht and Norfolk
County cases into the Mas case already before her.  The amended
complaint for the consolidated action, styled Public Pension Fund
Group v. KV Pharma. Co., et al., was filed on May 22, 2009.
Defendants, including the Company and certain of its directors and
officers, moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 27, 2009.
The court granted the motion to dismiss the Company and all
individual defendants in February 2010.  On March 18, 2010, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from the order of dismissal
and to amend their complaint, and also filed a notice of appeal.
On October 20, 2010, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for
relief from the order of dismissal and to amend pleadings.  On
November 1, 2010, plaintiffs' filed a notice of appeal.  On
September 21, 2011, an appeal was argued before the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals on the matter.  The Company is currently awaiting
the court's decision.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Defends Three Securities Suits in Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------
K-V Pharmaceutical Company is defending three class action
lawsuits in Missouri alleging violations of the anti-fraud
provisions of the federal securities laws, according to its
February 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

On October 19, 2011, plaintiff Frank Julianello filed a complaint
against the Company, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, alleging violations of the anti-
fraud provisions of the federal securities laws on behalf of all
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the Company
between February 14, 2011, and April 4, 2011.  The complaint
alleges class members were damaged by paying artificially inflated
stock prices due to the Company's purportedly misleading
statements regarding Makena(R) related to access and exclusivity.

On October 31, 2011, plaintiff Ramakrishna Mukku filed a complaint
against the Company, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, alleging violations of the anti-
fraud provisions of the federal securities laws on behalf of all
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the Company
between February 14, 2011, and April 4, 2011.  The complaint
alleges class members were damaged by paying artificially inflated
stock prices due to the Company's purportedly misleading
statements regarding Makena(R) related to access and exclusivity.

On November 2, 2011, plaintiff Hoichi Cheong filed a complaint
against the Company, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of the Company, who purchased or otherwise acquired K-V
securities between February 14, 2011, and April 4, 2011, seeking
to pursue remedies under the Exchange Act.  The complaint alleges
class members were damaged by purchasing artificially inflated
stock prices due to the Company's purportedly misleading
statements regarding Makena(R) related to access and exclusivity.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Product Liability Suit Dismissed in Dec.
------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit styled Polk v. K-V
Pharmaceutical Company, et al., was dismissed in December 2011,
according to K-V Pharmaceutical's February 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 31, 2011.

The Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, ETHEX Corporation,
are named defendants in at least 20 pending product liability or
other lawsuits that relate to the voluntary product recalls
initiated by the Company in late 2008 and early 2009.  The
plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege damages as a result of the
ingestion of purportedly oversized tablets allegedly distributed
in 2007 and 2008.  The lawsuits are pending in federal and state
courts in various jurisdictions.  Four of the 20 pending lawsuits
have settled but have not yet been dismissed.  Of the remaining 16
pending lawsuits, two plaintiffs allege economic harm, 12
plaintiffs allege wrongful death, and the remaining lawsuits
allege non-fatal physical injuries.  Plaintiffs' allegations of
liability are based on various theories of recovery, including,
but not limited to strict liability, negligence, various breaches
of warranty, misbranding, fraud and other common law and/or
statutory claims.  Plaintiffs seek substantial compensatory and
punitive damages.  Two of the lawsuits are putative class actions
seeking economic damages with respect to recalled products, one of
the lawsuits has four unrelated plaintiffs, and the remaining
lawsuits are either individual lawsuits or have two plaintiffs.
The Company possesses third party product liability insurance,
which the Company believes is applicable to many of the pending
lawsuits and claims.

One of these putative class actions, styled Polk v. KV
Pharmaceutical Company, et al., seeks economic damages with
respect to recalled metoprolol succinate product.  During January
2011, the decision of the U.S. District Court dismissing the case
in favor of the Company was reversed on appeal.  The Company
requested reconsideration by the appellate court, which was denied
in March 2011, and the Company filed a motion for appellate review
en banc, which was denied by the court on
May 12, 2011.  The case was returned to the district court for
further proceedings.  The district court granted the Company's
second motion to dismiss on December 15, 2011.

The other putative class action, styled Herndon v. KV
Pharmaceutical Company, et al., is pending in state court in
Missouri.  Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was heard by
the court on August 16, 2011.  The court issued an order denying
class certification on December 15, 2011.  In addition to the 20
pending lawsuits, there is one pending pre-litigation claim, which
involves a death, that may or may not eventually result in a
lawsuit.


KELTY: Recalls 3T Jogging Strollers Due to Fall & Injury Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Kelty, of Boulder, Colorado, a division of American Recreation
Products, announced a voluntary recall of about 3,000 Kelty Single
and Double Jogging Strollers.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The front wheel can come loose during use and cause the stroller
to tip over, posing a fall and injury hazard to children in the
stroller and adults pushing the stroller.

There have been three reported incidents with these recalled
strollers, including cuts, scrapes and fractured bones to adults,
and minor cuts and scrapes to children.

This recall involves Kelty Speedster Swivel Deluxe single jogging
strollers and Swivel Deuce double jogging strollers.  The
strollers have an aluminum frame and a cloth seat with a canopy.
They were sold in color combinations blue/gray and orange/gray.
"Kelty Kids" is embroidered on the front of the stroller in the
child's leg area.  The following model numbers are included in
this recall.  The model number and stroller name are printed on a
tag inside the stroller's seat area.

      Kelty Swivel Deluxe           Kelty Swivel Deuce
   (single jogging stroller)    (double jogging stroller)
          Model Number                 Model Number
   -------------------------    -------------------------
         20090116                       20090216
         20090116B                      20650611
         20650411BLU
         20650411CU

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12116.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the Philippines and
sold at juvenile product stores and sporting goods stores
nationwide and by Web retailers, including http://www.kelty.com/,
from January 2010 through February 2012 for between $375 and $475.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled strollers and
contact Kelty to receive free updated assembly and maintenance
instructions.  For additional information, contact Kelty toll-free
at (866) 349-7225 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Mountain Time,
or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.kelty.com/


KENTUCKY FIRST: Faces Class Suits Over Proposed CKF Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky First Federal Bancorp is facing putative class action
lawsuits over its proposed merger with CKF Bancorp, Inc.,
according to the Company's February 14, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended December 31, 2011.

On November 3, 2011, the Company announced that it had signed a
definitive merger agreement with CKF Bancorp, Inc.  At
September 30, 2011, CKF Bancorp had assets of $131.1 million,
including loans of $109.0 million (net of $1.7 million in
allowance for loan losses) and deposits of $103.5 million.  The
consideration to be given includes both cash and the Company's
common stock.  The completion of the merger is subject to approval
of the shareholders of CKF Bancorp and receipt of regulatory
approvals.  The transaction is expected to be closed in the third
quarter of 2012.

On December 7, 2011, CKF Bancorp stockholders filed putative class
action lawsuits on behalf of CKF Bancorp stockholders in the Boyle
Circuit Court against CKF Bancorp, the CKF Bancorp board and
Kentucky First Federal Bancorp.  The cases are captioned Cassidy,
et. al. v. CKF Bancorp, Inc., et al., Civ. Act. No. 11-C1-587 and
DeMartini, et al. v. CKF Bancorp, Inc., et al., Civ. Act. No. 11-
C1-588.  Each complaint alleges that the CKF board breached its
fiduciary duties by approving the merger agreement because the
merger consideration is inadequate, the CKF Bancorp directors
failed to conduct a thorough and proper sales process to maximize
stockholder value and the transaction unfairly benefits the CKF
Bancorp board to the disadvantage of the CKF Bancorp stockholders.
The complaints also allege that Kentucky First Federal Bancorp
aided and abetted the CKF Bancorp board's breach of fiduciary
duties.  CKF Bancorp and Kentucky First Federal Bancorp believe
both complaints to be without merit and intend to vigorously
defend against these claims.


LIVEDEAL INC: Hearing on Class Certification Motion on April 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on a motion for class certification in the class action
lawsuit against LiveDeal, Inc., is scheduled for April 27, 2012,
according to the Company's February 14, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended December 31, 2011.

On June 6, 2008, Plaintiff Global Education Services, Inc. ("GES")
filed a consumer fraud class action lawsuit, captioned Global
Education Services, Inc. v. LiveDeal, Inc., against the Company in
King County (Washington) Superior Court alleging that the
Company's use of activator checks violated the Washington Consumer
Protection Act.  GES seeks injunctive relief against the Company's
use of the checks, as well as judgment in an amount equal to three
times the alleged damages sustained by the members of the class.
LiveDeal denied the allegations and is defending the litigation.
Early in 2010, the Court denied both parties' dispositive motions
after oral argument.  After settlement discussions failed to
result in resolution, the parties resumed the litigation in the
fall of 2011.  GES' motion for class certification is briefed and
scheduled to be heard on April 27, 2012.  The parties continue to
discuss settlement pending hearing on the motion.

LiveDeal, Inc. provides local customer acquisition services for
small businesses.  LiveDeal, through its two primary wholly owned
subsidiaries (Velocity Marketing Concepts, Inc. and Local
Marketing Experts, Inc.), offers an affordable way for businesses
to extend their marketing reach to local, relevant customers via
the Internet.


META FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Meta Financial Group, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of a consolidated securities lawsuit entitled In re
Meta Financial Group, Inc., Securities Litigation; Case No. C10-
4108MWB, according to the Company's February 14, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 31, 2011.

Two former stockholders filed separate purported class action
lawsuits against the Company and certain of its officers alleging
violations of certain federal securities laws.  The cases were
filed on October 22, 2010, and November 5, 2010, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa
purportedly on behalf of those who purchased the Company's stock
between May 14, 2009, and October 15, 2010.  On January 12, 2011,
Judge Mark W. Bennett appointed The Eden Partnership lead
plaintiff and on March 14, 2011, Eden Partnership filed its
amended complaint.  The amended complaint alleges that the named
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 in connection with certain
allegedly false and misleading public statements made between
May 14, 2009, and October 15, 2010, by the Company and its
officers.  Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in
its entirety but on July 18, 2011, the court denied the motion and
ordered that discovery proceed.  The parties conducted a mediation
on December 5, 2011, and reached a tentative settlement of the
matter.  A definitive settlement agreement has been presented to
the court for its review.  Following review by the court, the
settlement must be submitted to the class members for their
consideration and comment, and finally approved by the court
before the matter can be dismissed with prejudice.

As of February 14, 2012, provided that the amount of the tentative
settlement is approved by the court, as expected, and the amount
of the settlement is paid by the Company's insurance as expected
by the Company, the Company does not expect to incur losses in
addition to the amounts that it has previously expensed which
would be material to its consolidated financial statements.


META FINANCIAL: Awaits Okay of Settlement in Suit vs. MetaBank
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meta Financial Group, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of the remaining lawsuit over its subsidiary's
certificates of deposit, according to the Company's February 14,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

All lawsuits against the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary,
MetaBank(TM), involving the sale of purported Bank certificates of
deposit ("CDs") have now been settled, pending approval of the
Court.  The final lawsuit relating to this matter, Airline Pilots
Assoc Federal Credit Union v. MetaBank, filed in the Iowa District
court for Polk County, Case No. CL-118792, was settled in January
2012.  The underlying matter was first disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report for the period ended December 31, 2007, which
stated that an employee of the Bank had sold fraudulent CDs for
her own benefit.  The unauthorized and illegal actions of the
employee have since prompted a number of demands and lawsuits to
be filed against the Bank seeking recovery on the fraudulent CDs,
which have been disclosed in subsequent filings.  The employee was
prosecuted, convicted and, on June 2, 2010, sentenced to more than
seven years in federal prison and ordered to pay more than $4
million in restitution.  Notwithstanding the nature of her crimes,
which were unknown by the Bank and its management, plaintiff in
the remaining case sought to impose liability on the Bank under a
number of legal theories with respect to the $99,000 fraudulent CD
that was issued by the former employee.


META FINANCIAL: Continues to Face MetaBank ATM Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Meta Financial Group, Inc. continues to face class action lawsuits
concerning ATMs sponsored by the Company's wholly-owned
subsidiary, MetaBank(TM), according to the Company's February 14,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

In addition to the previously disclosed ATM lawsuits filed in
2011, there were two lawsuits filed in the fourth quarter of
fiscal year 2011 and four additional lawsuits in the first quarter
of fiscal year 2012, concerning ATMs sponsored by the Company's
wholly-owned subsidiary, MetaBank(TM), each involving claims that
a notification required to be placed upon an automated teller
machine was absent on a specific date, in violation of Regulation
E of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act:  Wallace Stilz, III. v.
Meta Financial Group, Inc., Case No. 1:11-cv-04531, filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division; and Spencer Webb, Individually and on
Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. MetaBank, Meta Payment
Systems, and Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. 3:11-cv-02178-H-NLS,
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California; Tamara Vance, on behalf of herself and a
class v. MetaBank, N.A. and Does 1-5, Case No. 1:11-cv-06972,
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division; Ian Collins, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Mission Gorge
Liquor, MetaBank, Meta Payment Systems, and Does 1-10, Inclusive,
Case No. 3:11-cv-02345-L-POR, filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California; Spencer Webb,
Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v.
MetaBank, Meta Payment Systems, Swipe USA, LLC, and Does 1-10,
Inclusive, Case No. 3:11-cv-02240-MMA-BLM, filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California; and
Matthew Johns v. MAF Systems ATM, MetaBank, ATM Express Inc., Does
1-10 and XYZ Corporation, Case No. 2011-25436, filed in the Court
of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.  The Company
denies liability in these matters, and will contest these lawsuits
with the ATM operators, which are each obligated to indemnify the
Company for losses, costs and expenses in these matters.  An
estimate of a range of possible loss cannot be made at this stage
of the litigation because the extent of the Company's
indemnification by the ATM operators is unknown.


MONSANTO CO: Settlement Proposed for Pollution Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a West Virginia class-action
lawsuit pollution lawsuit against Monsanto Co. could be resolved
before it goes to trial.

The Charleston Gazette reports that there's a proposed settlement
but Judge Derek Swope has questions about it.  A hearing was
scheduled on Feb. 24 in Putnam County Circuit Court.

A gag order remains in effect.  The newspaper says Judge Swope has
sealed all documents pertaining to the proposed settlement.

The lawsuit seeks medical monitoring for at least 5,000 current
and former Nitro residents.  It alleges a former Monsanto plant
unsafely dispersed dioxin, exposing residential properties and
streams to unsafe levels of the toxic chemical.

During a court proceeding on Feb. 23, Judge Swope raised questions
about several items, including a cleanup of residences.


MUNICH RE: Court Tosses Armenian Genocide Insurance Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Egelko, writing for San Francisco Chronicle, reports that a
California law allowing heirs of victims of the Armenian genocide
to sue in state courts for unpaid insurance benefits is invalid
because it intrudes into sensitive foreign policy questions that
are the exclusive domain of the federal government, a federal
appeals court ruled on Feb. 23.

In an 11-0 decision that tiptoed around the use of the word
"genocide," the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco said the law, passed in 2000, "establishes a particular
foreign policy for California" that exceeds any state's authority.

The court ordered dismissal of a class-action suit filed in 2003
by several hundred Armenian Americans against a German insurance
group and two subsidiaries.  The ruling effectively kills all
suits filed under the law, since a lawyer for the plaintiffs, Lee
Crawford Boyd, said there's little chance that the Supreme Court
would agree to review an appeal.

It was the latest in a series of federal rulings that have barred
California and other states from allowing victims of decades-old
foreign atrocities, like the Nazi Holocaust and the alleged use of
slave labor by the Japanese military, to seek redress in their
courts.

As many as 1.5 million Armenians were killed in the Ottoman Empire
between 1915 and 1923.  Most historians consider it a genocide,
but the Turkish government protests use of the term and has urged
U.S. administrations to prevent any endorsement by Congress.

President Obama, in annual speeches condemning the killings, has
refrained from describing them as a genocide.  The Obama
administration took no position in the case.

The California law allows descendants of Armenians killed or
deported during that period, or of anyone who escaped to avoid
persecution, to sue insurers until 2016, long after the normal
legal deadlines would have expired.

A three-judge appeals court panel upheld the law in 2010, saying
it did not conflict with any explicit federal policy.  But after
the full appeals court granted a rehearing, the 11-judge panel on
Feb. 23 said foreign affairs are an exclusive federal preserve,
even if the government has no defined policy on the subject.

California's law was "intended to send a political message on an
issue of foreign affairs by providing (monetary) relief and a
friendly forum to a perceived class of foreign victims," Judge
Susan Graber said in the ruling.  She said the law "imposes the
politically charged label of 'genocide'" -- a term about which,
she said in a footnote, the court expresses no opinion.

Mr. Boyd, the plaintiffs' lawyer, said the ruling was
disappointing but sent a strong message, along with other cases,
that U.S. courts will not permit such laws.  In a dispute between
private parties, with the Obama administration voicing no
objection, she said, "I think the fears (of interfering with
foreign policy) are overblown."

Neil Postman, lawyer for German insurance company Munich Re, said
the court properly recognized that "the interests of the United
States as a whole are more important than the particular interests
of any small group."

The ruling can be viewed at

www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/23/07-56722.pdf


OPTI INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
OPTi Inc. is facing a shareholder class action lawsuit in
California, according to its February 14, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended December 31, 2011.

On February 9, 2012, a shareholder class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the Plan of Liquidation and violated
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-
9 in connection with issuing the consent solicitation with the
intention of obtaining shareholder approval.  The action also
alleges that the Company aided and abetted in the director's
breach of fiduciary duties.  The Company and directors believe
that this action is without merit and will defend it vigorously.


PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Faces Suits Over Proposed Perfumania Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parlux Fragrances, Inc. is facing class action lawsuits arising
from its proposed merger with Perfumania Holdings Inc., according
to the Company's February 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2011.

Following the announcement of a proposed merger between the
Company and Perfumania Holdings Inc., its principal customer, a
lawsuit was filed on behalf of a purported shareholder, Shirley
Anderson.  The lawsuit names the Company and its Board of
Directors and alleges breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty.  Service has now been
effectuated.  Arthur Weill, the plaintiff serving a long-standing
derivate action, then sought to intervene in the Anderson case and
be named as "lead plaintiff."  That motion was opposed by counsel
representing the Company and the Board of Directors and was
defeated.  A second lawsuit of a very similar nature was filed in
Chancery Court in Delaware.  Service has just been effected.
Class action treatment has been requested.  It is anticipated that
similar, if not identical, cases will be filed alleging the same
claims.  These lawsuits are obviously in their infancy.  They
cannot yet be usefully evaluated since it is not clear what bases
the Plaintiffs will rely upon to substantiate their claims.  Based
on information known to date and discussions with Management and
the Board, it appears that the cases are without merit.  They are
of a kind that frequently follow the announcement of mergers or
other major corporate activities and appear to be filed solely for
the purpose of obtaining attorneys' fees for the named plaintiffs.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Actions Over Tariff Plans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. on Feb. 23 disclosed that it
was served with two lawsuits and motions for the recognition of
these lawsuits as class actions, filed against Partner on
February 7, 2012, in the Tel-Aviv District Court.

The first lawsuit alleges that Partner breached a statutory duty
and did not comply with the provisions of the Israeli Consumer
Protection Law by unlawfully charging "initiation fees" when
changing tariff plans.

If the first lawsuit is recognized as a class action the total
amount claimed against Partner is estimated by the plaintiffs to
be approximately NIS158 million.

The second lawsuit alleges that Partner misled its customers by
misrepresenting to them the balance of unused minutes of the
package of minutes, while in fact it charged them for minutes that
exceeded the package.

If the second lawsuit is recognized as a class action the total
amount claimed against Partner is estimated by the plaintiffs to
be approximately NIS475 million.

Partner is reviewing the lawsuits and is unable, at this
preliminary stage, to evaluate, with any degree of certainty, the
probability of success of the lawsuits or the range of potential
exposure, if any.

Partner Communications Partner Communications Company Ltd. is an
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular, fixed-
line telephony and internet services) under the orange(TM) brand.
The Company provides mobile communications services to over 3
million subscribers in Israel.  Partner's ADSs are quoted on the
NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its shares are traded on the
Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (nasdaq and tase:PTNR).

Partner is an approximately 45%-owned subsidiary of Scailex
Corporation Ltd.  Scailex's shares are traded on the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange under the symbol SCIX and are quoted on "Pink
Quote" under the symbol SCIXF.PK.  Scailex currently operates in
two major domains of activity in addition to its holding in
Partner: (1) the sole import, distribution and maintenance of
Samsung mobile handset and accessories products primarily to the
major cellular operators in Israel (2) management of its financial
assets.


PCS EDVENTURES!: Awaits Okay of Shareholder Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
PCS Edventures!.com, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of a shareholder class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's February 14, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2011.

The Company, along with its former CEO and former CFO, was named
in a class action lawsuit (Niederklein v. PCS Edventures!.com,
Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, Case
1:10-cv-00479-CWD).  The class action was brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock
during the period between March 28, 2007, and August 15, 2007.  In
September, the Company announced that it had entered into an
agreement to settle the class action lawsuit, subject to further
proceedings and approval by the Court.  While the Company denies
the allegations made in the class action lawsuit, the settlement
was entered to eliminate the burden and expense of further
litigation.  On October 5, 2011, the Court granted preliminary
approval to the settlement, approved the notices that were sent to
potential class members and scheduled the Settlement Fairness
Hearing for February 22, 2012, at which time the Court will decide
whether to grant final approval.  If the settlement receives final
approval the Company and its insurance carrier are obligated to
pay the sum of $665,000 in full settlement of the class action.
The Company established a reserve in Other Expense during the
quarter ended September 30, 2011 of ($78,000) to cover its
anticipated portion of the proposed settlement of the Class Action
suit against the Company.  The insurance carrier will pay the
remainder of the balance due.  The Company has recorded a
receivable for the amount to be funded by the insurance carrier
and the full amount of the anticipated settlement remaining to be
funded.


SAIC INC: Robins Geller Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Feb. 23 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of SAIC, Inc. common stock during
the period between April 11, 2007 and September 1, 2011.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from February 23, 2012. I f you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/saic/
Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges SAIC and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Company focuses its business on providing defense,
intelligence, homeland security, logistics, energy, environment,
and heath solutions and services to federal, state and local
government agencies, foreign governments and customers in select
commercial markets.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and future prospects.
Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose
the following adverse facts: (a) that SAIC had overbilled New York
City hundreds of millions of dollars on the CityTime Project, a
project associated with the modernization of New York City's
employee payroll system, over a multi-year period; (b) that, as a
result of SAIC's known, but undisclosed, overbilling practices,
its operating results during the Class Period were materially
misstated; (c) that SAIC's overbilling practices subjected the
Company to numerous undisclosed risks, including monetary risks
and reputational risks, particularly because government agencies
are SAIC's primary customers and any harm to its reputation and/or
relationships with such agencies would adversely affect its future
revenues and growth prospects; (d) that, as a result of the
foregoing circumstances, SAIC violated applicable accounting
standards associated with the recognition of revenue and the
disclosure and accounting for loss contingencies; (e) that the
Company's financial statements were not fairly presented in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles and were
materially false and misleading; (f) that certifications issued by
defendants Kenneth C. Dahlberg and Mark W. Sopp associated with
the Company's internal and disclosure controls were materially
false and misleading; and (g) that, based on the foregoing,
defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements
about the Company and its business and prospects.

On August 31, 2011, SAIC issued a press release announcing its
financial results for its 2012 second quarter, the period ended
July 31, 2011.  For the quarter, SAIC reported an approximate 6%
decline in revenue and a 23% decline in operating margin.

Following the Company's 2012 fiscal second quarter earnings
announcement, defendants held a conference call with analysts and
investors wherein defendants disclosed that the Company's revenues
were, in part, adversely impacted by the "wind[ing] down" of the
CityTime contract and that, while the Company could not quantify
the amount, it believed that it was "probable" that SAIC would
have to make restitution to New York City for wrongful conduct on
CityTime.

The revelation that SAIC would incur a probable loss on CityTime
was significant because, pursuant to applicable accounting rules,
it served as an acknowledgement that, once the Company could
reasonably estimate the amount, SAIC would incur a charge against
its earnings for the wrongful conduct alleged herein on CityTime.

In response to this revelation, shares of SAIC common stock
plummeted nearly 14%, from $15.00 per share on August 31, 2011 to
$12.97 on September 1, 2012, as the artificial inflation came out
of the Company's stock price.

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

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


SERVICE CORPORATION: Antitrust Suit Dismissal Appeal Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their antitrust claims
against Service Corporation International remains pending,
according to the Company's February 13, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011.

The Company is named as a defendant in an antitrust case filed in
2005.  The case is Cause No 4:05-CV-03394; Funeral Consumers
Alliance, Inc. v. Service Corporation International, et al.; in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas -- Houston ("Funeral Consumers Case").  This was a purported
class action on behalf of casket consumers throughout the United
States alleging that the Company and several other companies
involved in the funeral industry violated federal antitrust laws
and state consumer laws by engaging in various anti-competitive
conduct associated with the sale of caskets.  Based on the case
proceeding as a class action, the plaintiffs filed an expert
report indicating that the damages sought from all defendants
range from approximately $950 million to $1.5 billion before
trebling.  However, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion
to certify the case as a class action.  The Company denies that it
engaged in anticompetitive practices related to its casket sales,
and the Company has filed reports of its experts, which vigorously
dispute the validity of the plaintiffs' damages theories and
calculations.  The trial court dismissed plaintiffs' claims on
September 24, 2010, and the plaintiffs filed an appeal on October
19, 2010.  The Company says it cannot quantify its ultimate
liability, if any, in this lawsuit.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Appeal in "Garcia" Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International's appeal from a ruling
certifying a class in the lawsuit commenced by Reyvis Garcia and
Alicia Garcia remains pending, according to the Company's February
13, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Reyvis Garcia and Alicia Garcia v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., Osiris
Holding of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Graceland
Memorial Park South, f/k/a Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc., was
filed in December 2004, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case No.
04-25646 CA 32.  Plaintiffs are the son and sister of the
decedent, Eloisa Garcia, who was buried at Graceland Memorial Park
South in March 1986, when the cemetery was owned by Paradise
Memorial Gardens, Inc.  Initially, the lawsuit sought damages on
the individual claims of the plaintiffs relating to the burial of
Eloisa Garcia.  Plaintiffs claimed that due to poor recordkeeping,
spacing issues and maps, and the fact that the family could not
afford to purchase a marker for the grave, the burial location of
the decedent could not be readily located.  Subsequently, the
decedent's grave was located and verified.  In July 2006,
plaintiffs amended their complaint, seeking to certify a class of
all persons buried at this cemetery whose burial sites cannot be
located, claiming that this was due to poor recordkeeping, maps,
and surveys at the cemetery.  Plaintiffs subsequently filed a
third amended class action complaint and added two additional
named plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary
damages, as well as equitable and injunctive relief.  On May 4,
2011, the trial court certified a class and the Company is
appealing that ruling.  the Company says it cannot quantify its
ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any damages.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Continues to Defend "Sands" Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International continues to defend a putative
class action lawsuit commenced by F. Charles Sands, according to
the Company's February 13, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

The lawsuit captioned F. Charles Sands, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. Eden Memorial Park, et al.;
Case No. BC421528; in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles -- Central District, was
filed in September 2009 against SCI and certain subsidiaries
regarding its Eden Memorial Park cemetery in Mission Hills,
California.  The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of cemetery
plot owners and their families.  The plaintiff seeks compensatory,
consequential and punitive damages as well as the appointment of a
receiver to oversee cemetery operations.  The plaintiff claims the
cemetery damaged and desecrated burials in order to prepare
adjoining graves for subsequent burials.  The Company says it
cannot quantify its ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of
any damages.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Continues to Face Wage and Hour Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International continues to face wage and hour
class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, according to the Company's February 13, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.

Prise, et al., v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., and Service Corporation
International; Cause No. 06-164; in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the "Wage and Hour
Lawsuit") was filed by two former Alderwoods (Pennsylvania), Inc.
employees in December 2006 and purports to have been brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on behalf of all Alderwoods
and SCI-affiliated employees who performed work for which they
were not fully compensated, including work for which overtime pay
was owed.  Although the court initially conditionally certified a
class of claims as to certain job positions for Alderwoods
employees, the court granted the Company's motion to decertify the
class on September 9, 2011.

Plaintiffs allege causes of action for violations of the FLSA,
failure to maintain proper records, breach of contract, violations
of state wage and hour laws, unjust enrichment, fraud and deceit,
quantum meruit, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence.
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, unpaid wages, liquidated,
compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, attorneys' fees
and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.  The Company says
it cannot quantify its ultimate liability, if any, in this
lawsuit.

Bryant, et al. v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., Service Corporation
International, et al.; Case No. 3:07-CV-5696-SI; in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, was filed
on November 8, 2007, against SCI and various subsidiaries and
individuals.  It is related to the Wage and Hour Lawsuit, raising
similar claims and brought by the same attorneys.  This lawsuit
has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania and is now Case No. 08-CV-00891-JFC.  The
Company says it cannot quantify its ultimate liability, if any, in
this lawsuit.

Bryant, et al. v. Service Corporation International, et al.; Case
No. RG-07359593; and Helm, et al. v. AWGI & SCI; Case No. RG-
07359602; in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Alameda, were filed on December 5, 2007, by counsel for
plaintiffs in the Wage and Hour Lawsuit.  These cases assert state
law claims similar to the federal claims asserted in the Wage and
Hour Lawsuit.  These cases were removed to federal court in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco/Oakland Division.  The Bryant case is now Case No. 3:08-
CV-01190-SI and the Helm case is now Case No. C 08-01184-SI.  On
December 29, 2009, the court in the Helm case denied the
plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action.  The
plaintiffs modified and refiled their motion for certification.
On March 9, 2011, the court denied plaintiffs' renewed motions to
certify a class in both of the Bryant and Helm cases.  The
plaintiffs have also (i) filed additional lawsuits with similar
allegations seeking class certification of state law claims in
different states, and (ii) made a large number of demands for
arbitration.  The Company says it cannot quantify its ultimate
liability, if any, in these lawsuits.

Counsel for plaintiffs in the Wage and Hour Lawsuit filed the case
captioned Stickle, et al. v. Service Corporation International, et
al.; Case No. 08-CV-83; in the U.S. District Court for Arizona,
Phoenix Division, on January 17, 2008, against SCI and various
related entities and individuals asserting FLSA and other
ancillary claims based on the alleged failure to pay for overtime.
In September 2009, the Court conditionally certified a class of
claims as to certain job positions of SCI affiliated employees.
On April 20, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion to
decertify the class.  The Company says it cannot quantify its
ultimate liability, if any, in this lawsuit.

Southern, et al. v. SCI Kentucky Funeral Services, Inc.; Case No.
11CIO6501; in the Jefferson Circuit Court, Division Eight,
Kentucky, was filed on October 6, 2011, against an SCI subsidiary
and purports to have been brought on behalf of employees who
worked in Kentucky as funeral directors.  The plaintiffs allege
causes of action for various violations of Kentucky wage and hour
laws, and breach of contract.  Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages,
compensatory and exemplary relief, damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, and pre- and post judgment interest.   The Company says it
cannot quantify its ultimate liability, if any, in this lawsuit.


SIGMA-ALDRICH CORP: Ohio Class Suit vs. Unit Now Closed
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit against Sigma-Aldrich Corporation's
subsidiary is now closed, according to the Company's February 13,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

A class action complaint was filed against a subsidiary of the
Company in the Montgomery County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas,
related to a 2003 explosion at the Company's facility in
Miamisburg, Ohio.  The case was partially certified as a class
action in 2005, and proceedings, including two jury trials and an
appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, continued into 2011.  The
parties reached a settlement of the entire case in an amount which
is not material to the Company's consolidated financial condition,
results of operations or liquidity.  The settlement agreement was
approved by the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County in Ohio
on October 28, 2011.  There have been no appeals of the decision
and payment has been made to the claims administrator which has
closed out this matter.


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Has to Meet $9.6MM Injunction Costs Threshold
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In connection with the September 2010 settlement of certain class
action litigation (the "Humboldt County Action") against Skilled
Healthcare Group, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries, including
twenty-two California nursing facilities operated by Skilled's
subsidiaries, Skilled and its defendant subsidiaries entered into
settlement agreements with the applicable plaintiffs and agreed to
an injunction.  The settlement was approved by the Superior Court
of California, Humboldt County on November 30, 2010.  Under the
terms of the settlement agreements, the defendant entities
deposited a total of $50.0 million into escrow accounts to cover
settlement payments to class members, notice and claims
administration costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and
certain other payments.  The court subsequently approved payments
from the escrow of up to approximately $24.8 million for
attorneys' fees and costs and $10,000 to each of the three named
plaintiffs.  In addition, approximately $9.3 million of settlement
proceeds have been distributed to approximately 3,900 of an
estimated 43,000 class members.  Pursuant to the injunction, the
twenty-two defendants that operate California nursing facilities
must provide specified nurse staffing levels, comply with
specified state and federal laws governing staffing levels and
posting requirements, and provide reports and information to an
auditor.  The injunction will remain in effect for a period of
twenty-four months unless extended for additional three-month
periods as to those defendants that may be found in violation.
Defendants demonstrating compliance for an eighteen-month period
may petition for early termination of the injunction.

The Company is required to demonstrate over the term of the
injunction that the costs of the injunction meet a minimum
threshold level pursuant to the settlement agreement, which level,
initially $9.6 million, is reduced by the portion attributable to
any defendant in the case that no longer operates a skilled
nursing facility during the injunction period.  The injunction
costs include, among other things, costs attributable to (i)
enhanced reporting requirements; (ii) implementing advanced
staffing tracking systems; (iii) fees and expenses paid to an
auditor and special master; (iv) increased labor and labor related
expenses; and (v) lost revenues attributable to admission
decisions based on compliance with the terms and conditions of the
injunction.  To the extent the costs of complying with the
injunction are less than the agreed upon threshold amount, the
defendants will be required to remit any shortfall to the
settlement fund.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 13,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Defendants Seek Dismissal of Florida Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the settlement and dismissal of other merger-
related lawsuits, the defendants in the consolidated action
pending in Florida are currently in the process of seeking
dismissal of that lawsuit, according to Southwest Airlines Co.'s
February 9, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On May 2, 2011, the Company acquired all of the outstanding equity
of AirTran Holdings, Inc., now known as AirTran Holdings, LLC.
AirTran is currently subject to pending antitrust litigation, and
if judgment were to be rendered against AirTran in the litigation,
such judgment could adversely affect the Company's operating
results.

From September 28, 2010, to January 18, 2011, various purported
class action lawsuits were filed by stockholders of AirTran
Holdings, Inc. that challenged the acquisition of AirTran by the
Company.  While the Company believes that each of these lawsuits
was without merit, all but two were settled and dismissed during
the third quarter of 2011, which resolved and released on behalf
of the entire class of former AirTran stockholders all claims that
were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the
merger, the merger agreement, and any disclosure made in
connection therewith, among other claims.  An additional action
was dismissed during the fourth quarter of 2011, and one action
remains pending.

The one remaining action is a consolidation of four purported
AirTran shareholder class action lawsuits that were filed in the
Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange
County, Florida.  Harry Hoffner filed a purported class action
lawsuit on September 30, 2010, against AirTran, Robert L. Fornaro,
AirTran's Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, each
member of the AirTran board of directors, and the Company.  This
was followed by lawsuits filed by Robert Debardelan on October 8,
2010, Thomas A. Rosenberger on
October 12, 2010, and Robert Loretitsch on October 15, 2010,
against the same defendants plus Guadalupe Holdings Corp. ("Merger
Sub").  On November 15, 2010, these actions were consolidated into
one action styled In re AirTran Shareholder Litigation (the
"consolidated Florida action"), which on
December 2, 2010, was stayed in its entirety pending resolution of
the earlier filed merger-related lawsuits.

The consolidated Florida action generally alleges that the
consideration received by AirTran's stockholders in the merger was
unfair and inadequate and that the AirTran officers and directors
named as defendants (the "individual AirTran defendants") breached
their fiduciary duties by approving the merger agreement through
an unfair and flawed process and by approving certain deal
protection mechanisms contained in the merger agreement.  The
consolidated Florida action further alleges that AirTran, the
Company, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the individual AirTran
defendants in the breach of their fiduciary duties to AirTran's
stockholders.  The consolidated Florida action sought injunctive
relief to (i) enjoin the defendants from consummating the merger
unless AirTran adopted and implemented a procedure or process to
obtain the highest possible price for AirTran's stockholders and
disclosed all material information to AirTran's stockholders, (ii)
direct the individual AirTran defendants to exercise their
fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction in the best interests of
AirTran's stockholders, and (iii) rescind the merger agreement,
including the deal protection devices that may have precluded
premium competing bids for AirTran.  The consolidated Florida
action also seeks plaintiffs' costs and disbursements, including
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, and such other and
further equitable relief as the court may deem just and proper.

As a result of the settlement and dismissal of the other merger-
related lawsuits, the defendants in the consolidated Florida
action are currently in the process of seeking dismissal of that
action.  The plaintiffs in the consolidated Florida action have
filed a motion seeking an award of attorneys' fees in the amount
of $350,000, which the defendants have opposed.  No hearing is
currently set.

On January 18, 2011, William Nesbit filed a purported AirTran
shareholder class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada against the same defendants as in
the consolidated Florida action.  The allegations and claims set
forth in the Nesbit lawsuit, as well as the relief requested, were
generally the same as those set forth in the consolidated Florida
action.  The Nesbit lawsuit additionally alleged, as part of its
breach of fiduciary duty claim, that the individual AirTran
defendants received greater benefits under the merger agreement
than other former AirTran stockholders.  The Nesbit lawsuit also
included claims for alleged violations of Sections 14 and 20 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for allegedly providing
misleading and incomplete information in the Form S-4 Registration
Statement filed with the SEC on November 19, 2010.  Specifically,
it alleged that the disclosures contained in the Form S-4
Registration Statement omitted or misrepresented material
information regarding the process of approving the merger
agreement, the merger consideration, and the intrinsic value of
AirTran.  On May 16, 2011, the Nesbit lawsuit was stayed pending
resolution of earlier filed merger-related complaints, and on
October 26, 2011, pursuant to the settlement and dismissal of
those complaints, the Nesbit lawsuit was similarly dismissed.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Schedule Suspended in Antitrust Suit vs. Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The schedule for summary judgment motions in the consolidated
antitrust class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of Southwest
Airlines Co. has been suspended until discovery issues are
resolved, according to the Company's February 9, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

On May 2, 2011, the Company acquired all of the outstanding equity
of AirTran Holdings, Inc., now known as AirTran Holdings, LLC.
AirTran is currently subject to pending antitrust litigation, and
if judgment were to be rendered against AirTran in the litigation,
such judgment could adversely affect the Company's operating
results.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta
Air Lines, Inc. ("Delta") and AirTran in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta on
May 22, 2009.  The complaint alleged, among other things, that
AirTran attempted to monopolize air travel in violation of Section
2 of the Sherman Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-
per-bag fees for the first item of checked luggage in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The initial complaint sought treble
damages on behalf of a putative class of persons or entities in
the United States who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees
on domestic flights beginning
December 5, 2008.  After the filing of the May 2009 complaint,
various other nearly identical complaints also seeking
certification as class actions were filed in federal district
courts in Atlanta, Georgia; Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas,
Nevada.  All of the cases were consolidated before a single
federal district court judge in Atlanta.  A Consolidated Amended
Complaint was filed in the consolidated action on February 1,
2010, which broadened the allegations to add claims that Delta and
AirTran conspired to reduce capacity on competitive routes and to
raise prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  In
addition to treble damages for the amount of first baggage fees
paid to AirTran and to Delta, the Consolidated Amended Complaint
seeks injunctive relief against a broad range of alleged
anticompetitive activities, as well as attorneys' fees.

On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that
AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the
Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the
imposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and
pricing decisions.  On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to certify a class, which AirTran and Delta have opposed.
The Court has not yet ruled on the class certification motion.
The scheduled period for fact and expert discovery has ended, but
plaintiffs have sought to reopen discovery because Delta
discovered that it had not produced certain documents.  Plaintiffs
have also sought discovery sanctions against Delta but not against
AirTran.  The Court has not yet ruled on the sanctions motion or
plaintiffs' request to reopen discovery.  The schedule for summary
judgment motions has been suspended until the discovery issues are
resolved.

While AirTran has denied all allegations of wrongdoing, including
those in the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and intends to defend
vigorously any and all such allegations, results of legal
proceedings such as this one cannot be predicted with certainty.
Regardless of its merit, this litigation and any potential future
claims against the Company or AirTran may be both time consuming
and disruptive to the Company's operations and cause significant
expense and diversion of management attention.  Should AirTran and
the Company fail to prevail in this or other matters, the Company
may be faced with significant monetary damages or injunctive
relief that could materially adversely affect its business and
might materially affect its financial condition and operating
results.


STRYKER CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2010, a purported class action lawsuit against Stryker
Corporation was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased the
Company's common stock between January 25, 2007, and
November 13, 2008, inclusive.  The lawsuit seeks remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In May 2010, the lawsuit was
transferred to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Michigan Southern Division.  The Company says it is
defending itself vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 13,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


SUNTECH AMERICA: Recalls 300 SolarBlend Roof Tile Installations
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 300 installations of SolarBlend(TM) Roof Tiles were
voluntarily recalled by importer, Suntech America Inc., of San
Francisco, California, and manufacturer, Wuxi Suntech Power Co.
Ltd., of Wuxi, China, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission.  Consumers should stop using the
product immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The connectors between the solar roof tiles can become loose,
posing a fire hazard.

Suntech has received one report of one fire involving six
SolarBlend roof tiles.  Only the tiles were damaged and no one was
injured.

SolarBlend roof tiles replace conventional roof tiles to provide
solar energy to the building.  This recall involves all SolarBlend
roof tiles with model numbers STP050D-5/ZCB (brown), STP050D-5/ZCF
(terra cotta), and STP050D-5/ZCG (gray).  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12725.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold by
roofing retailers and installers in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Florida, Kansas and Nevada from October 2009 through March 2011.
Depending on the solar energy system size, installation cost can
range from $15,000 to $100,000.

Suntech has been notifying consumers directly.  Consumers who have
not been contacted by Suntech should turn off their solar energy
systems immediately.  Consumers should contact Suntech to schedule
a free inspection and repair of the solar energy system.  Suntech
will repair the solar energy system at no cost to the consumer.
For additional information and to schedule a free inspection and
repair of the solar energy systems, contact Suntech toll-free at
(888) 770-7122 between 5:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday
through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.suntech-
power.com/product-safety/


TESLA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Employees' Stock Options
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Tesla Motors did not vest
employees' stock options upon their first day of employment, as
promised, a former employer claims in a class action in San Mateo
County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Zilincik, et al. v. Tesla Motors, Inc.,
et al., Case No. CIV511676 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/23/Tesla.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yosef Peretz, Esq.
          Emily Knoles, Esq.
          Michael Burstein, Esq.
          PERETZ & ASSOCIATES
          22 Battery Street, Suite 202
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 732-3777
          E-mail: yperetz@peretzlaw.com
                  eknoles@peretzlaw.com
                  mburstein@peretzlaw.com


TODD WHITE: Faces Class Action Over Art Reproductions
-----------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that Todd
White, the former SpongeBob SquarePants lead designer whose wacky
observational stylings have made him a favorite among celebrities,
has gotten into a quirky legal situation.  The artist is now the
defendant in a $5 million class action lawsuit that claims he
deceived thousands of art buyers into buying reproductions of his
art.  Mr. White is said to have acknowledged he was selling
reproductions but the class action asserts there's a difference
between an authentic and an inauthentic copy of an original.

Mr. White got his start working at Warner Bros. on the animated
series Tiny Toons.  Later, he was lead character designer on
SpongeBob SquarePants, where he was credited as being one of the
prime influencers behind the visual style that made the
Nickelodeon show a mega-hit.  He then broke out on his own, having
international gallery shows, becoming the official artist of the
Grammy Awards in 2007, and creating "Rat-Pack meets Picasso" art
that attracted a number of celebrity-buyers.  Among those who have
reportedly purchased his work are Catherine Zeta Jones, Larry
King, Vin Diesel and Drew Carey.

Lately, Mr. White has become just as famous for his legal problems
as his art.  In particular, he was sued by his art dealer, who
claimed Mr. White sent ninjas to take over her gallery.  Mr. White
then countersued, alleging the gallery made a fortune selling
copies of his work.

Mr. White is now being sued over making his own copies of his
work.

According to a class action lawsuit filed by Carole Harris on
behalf of herself and others, Mr. White issued numerous limited-
edition "giclees," a high-resolution digital scan of an original
piece, substituting it onto a substrate, and applying a protective
varnish sealant.

No problem so far.  Mr. White advertised the works were gilcees,
and according to the complaint filed in California federal court,
"consumers nationwide were willing to pay thousands of dollars for
mere reproductions of original art."

But the plaintiffs say that the reproductions weren't authentic.
Each was supposed to be hand-signed by Mr. White himself, but
instead Mr. White had others, including his former manager
"trained to 'paint' Mr. White's signature."  It's further alleged
that Mr. White never personally touched many of the giclees, said
to number somewhere between 600 and 1200.

The lawsuit, which claims at least $5 million in damages, goes on
to say, "Had art purchasers and the public at large known the
actual facts surrounding the 'authenticity' of the limited edition
giclees at issue, they never would have paid such high prices for
mere digital reproductions untouched by the artist."

Of course, even if the allegations are true, Mr. White wouldn't be
the first artist to direct underlings to make art under a false
signature.  That stuff has been going on for centuries, from
painter apprentices during the Renaissance age to Andy Warhol's
factory in the 1960s.  Still, since art has become a big business,
warranties under the Uniform Commercial Code get routinely
discussed among art lawyers these days.  This particular lawsuit
claims violations of California's Business & Professional Code as
well as California's Consumers Legal Remedy Act, section 1770.
Mr. White couldn't be reached for comment.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ingenix-Related Class Suits Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
In 2000, a group of plaintiffs including the American Medical
Association filed a lawsuit against UnitedHealth Group
Incorporated asserting a variety of claims challenging the
Company's determination of reimbursement amounts for non-network
health care services based on the Company's use of a database
previously maintained by Ingenix, Inc. (now known as
OptumInsight).  The parties entered into a settlement agreement in
2009 and this class action lawsuit, along with a related industry-
wide investigation by the New York Attorney General, is now
resolved.  The Company remains a party to a number of other
lawsuits challenging the determination of out of network
reimbursement amounts based on use of the same database, including
putative class actions and multidistrict litigation brought on
behalf of members of Aetna Inc. and WellPoint Inc.  The Company
was dismissed as a party from a similar lawsuit involving Cigna
Corporation and its members.  These lawsuits allege, among other
things, that the database licensed to these companies by Ingenix
was flawed and that Ingenix conspired with these companies to
underpay their members' claims and seek unspecified damages and
treble damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, interest, costs
and attorneys fees.  The Company is vigorously defending these
lawsuits.  The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of
loss, if any, that may result from these matters due to the
procedural status of the cases, motions to dismiss that are
pending in several of the cases, the absence of class
certification in any of the cases, the lack of a formal demand on
the Company by the plaintiffs, and the involvement of other
insurance companies as defendants.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 9,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS: UMPD Officers File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Creamer and Dan Glaun, writing for The Massachusetts Daily
Collegian, report that as University of Massachusetts Police Chief
Johnny Whitehead prepares to leave his position at the University
by February's end, a class action lawsuit has been filed against
him, the University and the UMPD by officers within the UMPD.  The
lawsuit was prompted after the discovery of audio surveillance
equipment that was recording on-duty officers from a number of the
police station's ceilings at all hours.

Mark Schlosser, a UMass police officer, on behalf of other members
of the UMPD has filed a class action lawsuit against the
University, UMass President Robert Caret, the UMass Board of
Trustees, the UMPD, Whitehead, Deputy Police Chief Patrick
Archbald, and former Police Chief Barbara O'Connor, alleging that
undisclosed placements of audio-recording security cameras within
the new police station have violated his civil rights and others'
under both state and federal law.

The lawsuit, filed on Feb. 3 in Hampshire Superior Court on behalf
of Mr. Schlosser and other UMPD patrolmen, accuses UMass and UMPD
administrators of the "surreptitious placement" of at least 13
cameras which had been intercepting audio since UMPD moved into
its new building in March 2011.

The lawsuit states that while there was a sign in the building's
booking area warning of audio and video recording, officers were
allegedly not informed of audio surveillance devices that were in
operation throughout the department, particularly in areas of the
department they had never known to have surveillance equipment
installed before.

Submitted by attorneys Thomas A. Kenefick and Mary H. Patryn, the
lawsuit alleges several violations involving both Massachusetts
General Laws and the United States Constitution.

The lawsuit asserts that the recording devices violated plaintiff
rights under the Massachusetts Wiretap Act, the Fourth Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution and Article XII of the Massachusetts
Declaration of Rights.  It also alleges the installation of these
recording devices without consent constitutes an invasion of
privacy, citing Mass. Gen. Law chapter 214 section 1B and the U.S.
Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment.

The lawsuit asks that the court prevent further audio
surveillance, declare the operation of the audio devices a
violation of the plaintiffs' civil rights and privacy, and award
monetary damages to the plaintiffs.

"The audio devices were extremely sensitive and . . . one device,
placed outside a restroom, could actually pick-up conversation and
sound occurring inside the restroom," states the lawsuit.

Mr. Schlosser said he and other officers had "private
conversations of a personal nature" within range of audio
interception, according to the lawsuit.

The officers involved in the suit are dissatisfied and in
disbelief of a claim by Mr. Archbald that "no hallway cameras have
been recording conversations since we moved here to the present
time."

"Based on [Schlosser's] knowledge of the audio/video device used
in the booking area, the audio transmissions from the devices are
recorded and stored and/or archived," states the lawsuit.

Mr. Whitehead, who will be leaving his post at the UMPD after two
years to assume a role as police chief at Rice University in
Houston, was not available for comment on the lawsuit by press
time.  Calls on Feb. 23 to University spokesman Ed Blaguszewski
were also not returned in time for publication.

On Feb. 22, as reported on by the New England Center for
Investigative Reporting, Hampshire Superior Court Associate
Justice Mary-Lou Rup issued an injunction order to the UMPD to
stop the recording of conversations within its headquarters.

However, according to an internal UMPD memorandum sent from
Mr. Archbald on Jan. 24 -- which has now been used as evidence as
part of the lawsuit -- the audio surveillance had ceased
immediately upon its discovery by the department on Jan. 22.

The lawsuit states "On or about January 15, 2012 the plaintiff
learned for the first time, that there was an audio function to
some of the surveillance cameras in place within the facility."
However, it does not make clear whether Schlosser or others among
the plaintiffs immediately reported these findings to the rest of
the department.

Mr. Archbald's memorandum stated that officials within the
department were unaware of the department's ceiling cameras' live
microphones and their recording capabilities until Jan. 22.

In his memo, he said, "No one within UMPD requested in the bid
specifications or had prior knowledge that these cameras were
enabled for audio."

Jim Meade, the manager of Residence Hall Security, who, according
to the memo, "administers the [audio] system" at the police
station, was asked by Mr. Archbald to conduct a review of the
cameras the day after their discovery, and he found that the
cameras were indeed functioning with their "Enable Microphone
Power" settings "on."

The memo continues to add: "Now knowing they were enabled Jim
deactivated the audio at each hallway camera.  This will remain
the status for these cameras indefinitely."

Mr. Archbald closes the memo reiterating that, "no one in the
administration had knowledge that hallway cameras could be
accessed to listen to live audio or to record conversations.  As
soon as the matter was brought to our attention the capability was
disabled and will remain disabled indefinitely."

The lawsuit, however, disputes Mr. Archbald's account of the
circumstances surrounding the department's discovery of the
cameras.

It states: "It is [Schlosser's] belief that 'the administration,'
indeed, knew of the operation of the audio-intercepting devices."

The lawsuit alleges that because of their involvement 'with the
planning phases for the facility," Messrs. O'Connor, Whitehead and
Archbald "knew of, should have known of, and/or deliberately chose
to have audio devices installed and operational within the
facility in areas not designated as subject to audio
surveillance."

The lawsuit continues to add that Mr. Schlosser believes that the
stations' dispatchers, who are accountable to Mr. Whitehead and
Mr. Archbald, "had known that the audio-video devices were
engaged."

According to the lawsuit, which is signed by Mr. Schlosser, "At no
time did [Schlosser] or the class know of or consent to the use of
audio surveillance."

Massachusetts General Law prohibits the nonconsensual audio
surveillance of individuals without lawful warrants or other
limited exemptions.  Under such strict guidelines, the lawsuit
alleges it cannot find any situation under which the surveillance
cameras placed within the department could be considered within
these limited exemptions.

"The defendants had installed, operated and/or allowed the devices
to operate despite that they had no warrant to do so, or any other
justifiable basis," states the lawsuit.

According to Massachusetts Wiretap Act, "a person who permits an
intercepting device to be used or employed for an interception not
permitted or authorized" by the law is guilty of a misdemeanor.

People whose rights have been violated under the Mass. Wiretap Act
can sue for damages.

In addition to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the
lawsuit also cites federal and Massachusetts Constitutional
protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and
violations of liberty without due process of law.

The UMPD currently has 81 employees, including 62 sworn officers,
10 dispatchers, nine administrative staff, plus 26 police cadets,
according to a University press release issued in September on the
police station's ribbon-cutting.


WARNER MUSIC: Faces Suit Over Improper Accounting of Royalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Wright, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Warner Music Group Corp., Case No. 4:12-cv-00870 (N.D.
Calif., February 22, 2012) is brought on behalf of a nationwide
class for breach of contract and statutory violations of
California law against Warner and its divisions.

Warner cheats musical artists of royalties for downloads and
ringtones, Mr. Wright claims in the class action.

The Plaintiff alleges that Warner has failed to properly account
to him and Class members for royalties stemming from the licensing
of their musical performances or recordings that were utilized by
"Music Download Providers," "Music Streaming Providers." and
"Ringtone Providers" for digital download, streaming, and
distribution.  He asserts that Warner has failed to properly pay
royalties to its artists for electronic transmission of their
works, and hence, he seeks monetary damages, injunctive, and
declaratory relief against Warner for its willful violation of
contracts between itself and recording artists and music producers
through which Warner obtained recording artists' and producers'
master recordings in exchange for the payment of certain royalties
to these artists and producers.

Mr. Wright is a musician, recording artist, and performing artist,
and a resident of Palos Verdes Estates, California.  Beginning in
1974, he embarked on a solo career, and in 1976, he released his
album The Dream Weaver, which has been certified as multi-platinum
by the Recording Industry Association of America.  He continued to
make albums throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

Warner is a Delaware corporation and does extensive business in
the state of California, where its recorded music business offices
are located.  Mr. Wright alleges that Warner was and continues to
be in the business of exploiting the sound recordings of musical
performances and the audio-visual recordings of such performances.
Warner's exploitation includes, producing, manufacturing,
distributing, licensing, and selling these recordings.

A copy of the Complaint in Wright v. Warner Music Group Corp.,
Case No. 12-cv-00870 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/23/WarnerMusic.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          Bruce J. Wecker, Esq.
          Arthur N. Bailey, Jr., Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
                  bwecker@hausfeldllp.com
                  abailey@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
                  jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Clifford H. Pearson, Esq.
          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNY, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          E-mail: cpearson@pswplaw.com
                 dwarshaw@pswplaw.com

               - and -

          Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
          William J. Newsom, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNY, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000
          E-mail: bsimon@pswplaw.com
                  asheanin@pswplaw.com
                  wnewsom@pswplaw.com


WHITNEY BANK: To Settle Overdraft Fee Class Action for $6.8 Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Margie Manning, writing for Tampa Bay Business Journal, reports
that Whitney Bank said it would pay $6.8 million to settle claims
that it improperly assessed overdraft fees.

The proposed settlement would resolve a pending class action
lawsuit filed in August in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida in Tampa.

In the lawsuit, plaintiff Angelique LaCour alleged that Whitney
Bank's practices for posting debit and ATM charges resulted in
excessive overdraft fees.

In a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
Hancock Holding Co., which acquired Whitney Holding Corp. in June,
said it wanted to resolve the litigation and avoid the significant
costs and expenses that would be involved in defending the case as
well as the distraction caused by the litigation.  The company
admitted no wrongdoing, the filing said.

The proposed settlement is contingent on final court approval and
sufficient class participation.  Hancock Holding said it accrued
for the proposed settlement in the fourth quarter of 2011.

Hancock Holding, a $19.8 billion company headquartered in
Gulfport, Miss., is expected to rebrand the Whitney Bank branches
in the Tampa Bay area later this year.  As of June 30, the most
recent date for which information is available from the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corp., there were 19 Whitney Bank branches with
$494.5 million in deposits in the Bay area.

Margie Manning's beats include health care, banking and
technology.


WMS INDUSTRIES: Has Until March 7 to Reply in "Conlee" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
WMS Industries Inc.'s has until March 7, 2012, to reply to
objections to its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit
commenced by Wayne C. Conlee in Illinois, according to the
Company's February 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2011.

On May 25, 2011, a putative class action was filed against the
Company and certain of its executive officers in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Wayne C. Conlee
(the "Conlee lawsuit").  On October 13, 2011, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint in the Conlee lawsuit.  As amended, the
lawsuit alleges that, during the period from September 21, 2010,
to August 4, 2011, (the date the Company announced its fiscal 2011
financial results), the Company made material misstatements and
omitted material information related to its fiscal year 2011
guidance.  Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of stockholders who
purchased stock between these dates.  The lawsuit specifically
alleges violations of (i) Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the " 34 Act"), and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and (ii) Section 20(a) of the 34 Act.  The
amended complaint seeks unspecified damages.  Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 8, 2011.  Lead
plaintiff's opposition to the motion to dismiss was due on
February 6, 2012, and Defendant's reply is due on March 7, 2012.

WMS Industries Inc. is engaged in the design, manufacture and sale
of coin-operated and home video games, pinball and novelty games
and video lottery terminals and gaming devices.


WORTHINGTON CYLINDERS: Recalls 30.4-Mil. Propylene Gas Cylinders
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Worthington Cylinders Wisconsin, LLC, of Chilton,
Wisconsin, announced a voluntary recall of about 29,026,000 units
of Map Pro, Propylene and MAPP Gas Cylinders in the United States
of America and 1,371,100 units in Canada.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The seal on the cylinders can leak after torches or other fuel
consuming equipment are disconnected from them, posing a fire
hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The cylinders contain propylene gas and are used for soldering,
brazing, cutting and welding.  They contain 14.1 oz Map-Pro, 14.1
oz Propylene or 16 oz MAPP (Methyl Acetylene Propadiene
Stabilized).  The cylinders are approximately 3" in diameter and
11" tall and are either yellow or black in color.  They were sold
alone and in kits that include a torch and a cylinder.  The
cylinders and torch kits have a variety of labels, including:

   * ACE
   * ASCO
   * BENCHMARK(R)
   * BERNZOMATIC(R)CRAFTSMAN(R)
   * EMC
   * EXPRESS
   * Firepower(R)
   * GENTEC(R)
   * GOSS(R)
   * HOTERY
   * Jones Stephens Corp
   * LENOX(R)
   * Mag-Torch(R)
   * MAGNA(R)
   * Mastercraft(R) and TURNER(R)
   * Master Mechanic(R)
   * MAPP
   * NAPA BERNZOMATIC(R)
   * PREST-O-LITE(R)
   * RONA
   * ROTHENBERGER
   * SUPER-EGO
   * SureFire(TM)
   * TurboTorch(R)
   * UNIWELD(R)
   * WORTHINGTON MAPP(R) GAS
   * WORTHINGTON MAP/Pro(TM)
   * WORTHINGTON PROPYLENE

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12117.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at various plumbing/HVAC distributors, Home
Depot, Lowes and Ace Hardware Stores nationwide and in Canada from
October 2004 through January 2012 for about $7 to 13 for cylinders
and $45 to 75 for the torch kits.

Remedy:

   -- Unused cylinders: If the cylinder has never been connected
      to a torch or other device, do not use cylinder.  Return
      cylinder to store where it was purchased for exchange or
      full refund.

   -- Partially-used cylinder currently connected to torch or
      other device: Do not disconnect torch or other device.
      Take outdoors and ignite the torch and burn off entire
      contents* of the cylinder.  Disconnect the torch from empty
      cylinder and dispose of empty cylinder per cylinder label
      instructions or return it to store where it was purchased
      for exchange or a full refund.

   -- Partially-used cylinder NOT connected to a torch or other
      device now: Take cylinder outdoors.  Leak test top of the
      cylinder with soapy water.  If bubbles develop, attach the
      torch.  Ignite the torch and burn off entire contents* of
      the cylinder.  Remove the torch from empty cylinder and
      dispose of empty cylinder per cylinder label instructions
      or return it to the store where it was purchased for
      exchange or a full refund.  If no bubbles develop, do not
      use cylinder.  Return it to the store where it was
      purchased for exchange or a full refund.

      * NEVER LEAVE LIT TORCH AND CYLINDER UNATTENDED.  USE TORCH
        ONLY IN A WELL-VENTILATED AREA.

For additional information, contact Worthington Cylinders
Wisconsin toll free at (866) 511-8967 between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00
p.m. ET Monday through Friday, e-mail the manufacturer at
MapCylinderRecall@WorthingtonIndustries.com.com, or go to
http://www.MAPCylinderRecall.com/


ZICO: Faces Class Action Over Xing Tea Product Labels
-----------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Klineman, writing for Bevnet, reports that just days after
news that rival coconut water company Vita Coco had settled a
class action lawsuit surrounding the functional claims of its
coconut waters, its chief rival, Zico, is facing a new lawsuit
over the quality of its fast-growing concentrated line.

Additionally, another rising beverage company, Xing Tea, has also
been named as a defendant in a separate class action suit.  What
the Zico and Xing suits have in common, however, is that they are
class action suits filed under the California Consumer Protection
Law, the same law that has given rise to a number of other recent
lawsuits filed against consumer products companies.  Frequently,
the basis for the claim is that the plaintiffs allege that the
manufacturer in some way lied about the functional capabilities or
natural origins of the product.

For Zico, the case, filed in late October, is based on claims that
the "from concentrate" nature of one of the company's dual product
lines, a Tetra Pak carton line with pure coconut water and a from-
concentrate line packaged in plastic bottles, is an inferior
product.  According to the suit, Zico's use of terms like
"natural", "pure premium" and "coconut water" fail to disclose
that some of it is made from concentrate; additionally, the
lawsuit charges Zico with failing to indicate in large enough
letters on the front of the label that the PET products are made
from concentrate.

"The suit is baseless," said Zico founder and CEO Mark Rampolla.

Meanwhile, at Xing Tea, co-founder Tom LeBon also made it clear he
planned to fight the claims against his company in court as well.

In the case of Xing, the suit focuses on the company's use of
citric acid in its ingredients -- one that the lawsuit claims is
not "all natural" even though Xing products are labeled as such.
Additionally, the company is being sued for deceptive marketing
practices over some of the fruit flavors that the green-tea based
products employ; while the product comes in varieties like Green
Tea with Pomegranate or Green Tea with Mango, according to the
lawsuit, they do not contain actual fruit or actual juice.  Xing's
ingredient panel does note that the products have "natural
flavors" but according to the plaintiffs' case, the consumer
protection law requires more disclosure.

"The label does not say 'green tea with natural pomegranate
flavor,' but states unqualifiedly that it is 'green tea with
pomegranate,'" according to the lawsuit, which called it a
misleading claim.

Mr. Lebon called the lawsuit "frivolous" and said that he had
recently had his ingredient supplier, Archer Daniels Midland Co.,
supply a letter indicating that the citric acid used in the tea
was all-natural.  As for the flavorings, according to Mr. Lebon, a
similar complaint had been filed with the FDA and that agency had
not found fault with the company.

"It's really a frivolous suit and our lawyers think it will go
away very quickly," Mr. Lebon said.

Meanwhile, the general statutes under which both suits were filed,
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California's Unfair
Competition Law, are fast becoming issues for food and beverage
manufacturers, who believe that they are opening the door to even
more lawsuits.  According to one lawyer familiar with the statute,
a suit in California also opens the door to actions in other
states, creating a situation in which plaintiff's attorneys are
able to use the threat of legal action to extract settlements from
defendants who are unwilling to pay for long court battles.

Recently, other companies like Muscle Milk and even big company-
owned companies like Alexia Foods (ConAgra) and Kashi (Kellogg)
have been named in similar state and, in some cases, federal
claims.


                           *********

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  * * *