---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, February 29, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 42

                             Headlines

3M CO: Awaits Final Approval of "Garcia" Suit Settlement
3M CO: Still Faces Suits Over Exposure to Perfluorochemicals
3M CO: Plea to Dismiss Cogent Shareholders Suit Remains Pending
ALCOA INC: Anticipates Filing of Appeals in Virgin Islands Suit
ALCOA INC: Continues to Defend "Lavoie" Class Suit in Canada

ALCOA INC: ERISA-Violation Suit Remains Pending in Tennessee
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Remains Pending
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Still Defends "Turner" Suit in California
AMERICAN DEBT: Motion to Compel Class Action Arbitration Tossed
ARTHROCARE CORP: Hearing on Consolidated Suit Deal on May 25

ATLAS AIR: To Oppose Certification Bid in Fuel Surcharges Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Black Brokers' Class Action Can Go Ahead
BLUE CROSS: Loses Bid to Appeal Ruling in ABA Therapy Suit
CELL THERAPEUTICS: Settles Consolidated Securities Class Suit
CHINA SKY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York

DOW CHEMICAL: Writ of Certiorari Bid in Suit vs. Unit Pending
FAMILIESFIRST INC: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Suit Over Probiotic & Prebiotic Products
GOOGLE INC: Accused of Unauthorized Tracking of Users' Data
GOVERNMENT OF VICTORIA: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Leak

LABOR BROKERS: More Than 200 Filipino Workers File Class Action
LCD MANUFACTURERS: Lose Bid to Bar Testimony in Antitrust Suit
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: "St. Lucie" Suit Dismissed in November 2011
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Awaits Okay of "Silverman" Suit Settlement
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Will No Longer Report on ERISA Class Cases

N.C. BAPTIST: Judge Approves $5.38-Mil. Class Action Settlement
NETLOGIC MICROSYSTEMS: Still Awaits OK of Shareholder Suits Deal
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Fuel Surcharges MDL Remains Pending in D.C.
POLY IMPLANT: Gold Coast Women Mull Breast Implant Class Action
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Fairmount" Suit Remains Pending

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Still Defends "Cruise" and "Mullaney" Suit
RED ROBIN: Sued Over Unpaid Reporting Time Pay in California
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeal From "Sateriale" Suit Dismissal Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend 6 Canadian Class Suits
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still Awaits Decision in "Tatum" Suit

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Hearing in "Brown" Suit Set for March 21
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Bid for Fees Payment in "Scott" Suit Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Jones" Suit Still Pending in Missouri
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Suit Still Stayed in West Virginia
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still Defends "Lights" Class Action Suits

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in "Smith" Antitrust Suit on July 16
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Suit Still Stayed in Louisiana
SAIC: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York
SEQWATER: Maurice Blackburn Calls on Flood Victims to Join Suit
SILICON LABORATORIES: Consolidated IPO Suit Now Concluded

ST. JOSEPH: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Canada
TOYOTA MOTOR: Arbitration in Acceleration Suit Tentatively Denied
TRANS1 INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Merger-Related Suit Settlement Okayed in Nov.

WEST PUBLISHING: Sued for Unlawful Copying of Attorneys' Works


                          *********

3M CO: Awaits Final Approval of "Garcia" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
3M Company is awaiting final approval of its settlement of a class
action pending in California, known as the Garcia lawsuit,
according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011.

In January 2011, 3M reached an agreement in principle with
plaintiffs' counsel to resolve the Whitaker and Garcia lawsuits.
The Whitaker settlement agreement was signed by all parties in
March 2011.  The court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement on April 6, 2011, and provisionally certified a class
for settlement purposes only.  The final approval hearing occurred
on December 21, 2011, and the court issued its Order and Judgment
on January 5, 2012, approving the settlement.  The Garcia
settlement agreement has been signed by the parties.  All
plaintiffs subject to the Garcia settlement have signed and not
timely revoked individual releases of claims against 3M, and the
parties anticipate filing a stipulation of dismissal, with
prejudice, in that matter following administration of the
settlement, which will occur concurrently with administration of
the Whitaker settlement.  If finalized and approved by the court,
administration of the settlement agreements will take several
months to complete.

In September 2011, 3M reached an agreement in the form of a
proposed Consent Decree with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) to resolve related charges.  The Consent Decree
was filed concurrently with a complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota and has been approved by the court.
The Consent Decree addressed the outstanding charges of age
discrimination in addition to claims on behalf of a class of
certain former employees as defined in the charges and
subsequently in the complaint.  3M agreed, as part of the Consent
Decree, to ensure that its policies and practices further the
objectives of equal employment as set forth in the federal Age
Discrimination in Employment Act and to make certain enhancements
in its employee communications and development programs.  The EEOC
agreed, as part of the Consent Decree, not to take any further
action against 3M in connection with the charges and as otherwise
set forth in the decree.  Administration of the EEOC settlement is
in process and will take several months to complete.  The amount
of each of the proposed settlements is not material to the
Company's consolidated results of operations or financial
condition.

                        Whitaker Lawsuit

In December 2004, one current and one former employee of the
Company filed a purported class action in the District Court of
Ramsey County, Minnesota, seeking to represent a class of all
current and certain former salaried employees employed by the
Company in Minnesota below a certain salary grade who were age 46
or older at any time during the applicable period to be determined
by the Court (the "Whitaker" lawsuit).  The complaint alleges the
plaintiffs suffered various forms of employment discrimination on
the basis of age in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act
and seeks injunctive relief, unspecified compensatory damages
(which they seek to treble under the statute), including back and
front pay, punitive damages (limited by statute to $8,500 per
claimant) and attorneys' fees.

                         Garcia Lawsuit

The Company was served on May 7, 2009, with a purported class
action/collective action age discrimination lawsuit, which was
filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division (the "Garcia lawsuit").  The case
was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.  The allegations in the Garcia lawsuit are
similar to those in the Whitaker lawsuit.

                 EEOC Age-Discrimination Charges

Six former employees and one current employee, all but one of whom
are named plaintiffs in the Garcia lawsuit, also filed age
discrimination charges against the Company with the EEOC and
various pertinent state agencies, alleging age discrimination
similar to the Whitaker and Garcia lawsuits and claiming that a
class of similarly situated persons exists.  These filings include
allegations that the release of claims signed by certain former
employees in the purported class defined in the charges is invalid
for various reasons and assert age discrimination claims on behalf
of certain current and former salaried employees in states other
than Minnesota and New Jersey.


3M CO: Still Faces Suits Over Exposure to Perfluorochemicals
------------------------------------------------------------
A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002
in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama seeking, unstated
damages and alleging that the plaintiffs suffered fear, increased
risk, subclinical injuries, and property damage from exposure to
perfluorochemicals at or near 3M Company's Decatur, Alabama,
manufacturing facility.  The Circuit Court in 2005 granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's personal injury-
related claims on the basis that such claims are barred by the
exclusivity provisions of the state's Workers Compensation Act.
The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November
2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a
purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity
of the Decatur plant.  Also, in 2005, the judge in a second
purported class action lawsuit (filed by three residents of Morgan
County, Alabama, seeking unstated compensatory and punitive
damages involving alleged damage to their property from emissions
of perfluorochemical compounds from the Company's Decatur,
Alabama, manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those
compounds) granted the Company's motion to abate the case,
effectively putting the case on hold pending the resolution of
class certification issues in the first action filed in the same
court in 2002.  Despite the stay, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint seeking damages for alleged personal injuries and
property damage on behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members
of a purported class.  No further action in the case is expected
unless and until the stay is lifted.

In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief based on
the application by the Decatur utility's wastewater treatment
plant of wastewater treatment sludge to farmland and grasslands in
the state that allegedly contain perfluorooctanoate ("PFOA"),
perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS") and other perfluorochemicals.
The named defendants in the case include 3M, its subsidiary Dyneon
LLC, Daikin America, Inc., Synagro-WWT, Inc., Synagro South, LLC
and Biological Processors of America.  The named plaintiff seeks
to represent a class of all persons within the State of Alabama
who have had PFOA, PFOS and other perfluorochemicals released or
deposited on their property.  In March 2010, the Alabama Supreme
Court ordered the case transferred from Franklin County to Morgan
County.  In May, 2010, consistent with its handling of the other
matters, the Morgan County Circuit Court abated this case, putting
it on hold pending the resolution of the class certification
issues in the first case filed there.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 16,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


3M CO: Plea to Dismiss Cogent Shareholders Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company's motion to dismiss all claims of a class action
lawsuit commenced by shareholders of Cogent, Inc., remains
pending, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended
December 31, 2011.

In September 2010, various parties, on behalf of a purported class
of shareholders of Cogent, Inc. ("Cogent"), commenced three
lawsuits against the Company, Cogent, and its directors in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.  Plaintiffs allege that 3M, in
connection with its tender offer for Cogent shares, aided and
abetted the breach of fiduciary duties by Cogent directors and
seek an unspecified amount of damages.  The three cases were
consolidated, expedited discovery was conducted, and Plaintiffs'
motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the acquisition was
denied on October 1, 2010.  On November 15, 2010, plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint that added Cogent directors appointed by 3M,
as named defendants, and asserted additional claims of breach of
fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition and a
subsequent offering period.  3M completed its acquisition of
Cogent in December 2010.  3M moved to dismiss all claims.  In
response to 3M's motion, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint in August 2011.  3M has moved to dismiss all claims of
the second amended complaint.

In September 2010, various parties, again on behalf of a purported
class of Cogent shareholders, commenced six lawsuits against the
Company, Cogent and its directors in the Los Angeles Superior
Court for the State of California that contained similar claims
that 3M had aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties by
Cogent directors.  The parties have reached a resolution of these
matters.  A separate lawsuit was commenced in September 2010 by an
individual, again on behalf of a purported class of Cogent
shareholders, against Cogent and its directors in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California that
raised similar claims; plaintiff later filed an amended complaint
that also named the Company.  The plaintiff has voluntarily
dismissed that lawsuit.

Separately, several purported holders of Cogent shares,
representing a total of approximately 5.8 million shares, have
asserted appraisal rights under Delaware law.  The Company has
answered the appraisal petition and is defending this matter
vigorously.


ALCOA INC: Anticipates Filing of Appeals in Virgin Islands Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc. said in its February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011, that it is anticipating that appeals from the
dismissal of certain claims in a class action lawsuit pending in
the U.S. Virgin Islands will be filed within 60 days following
entry of a settlement resolving that case.

In September 1998, Hurricane Georges struck the U.S. Virgin
Islands, including the St. Croix Alumina, L.L.C. (SCA) facility on
the island of St. Croix.  The wind and rain associated with the
hurricane caused material at the location to be blown into
neighboring residential areas.  SCA undertook or arranged various
cleanup and remediation efforts.  The Division of Environmental
Protection (DEP) of the Department of Planning and Natural
Resources (DPNR) of the Virgin Islands Government issued a Notice
of Violation that Alcoa has contested.  In February 1999, certain
residents of St. Croix commenced a civil lawsuit in the
Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands seeking compensatory and
punitive damages and injunctive relief for alleged personal
injuries and property damages associated with "bauxite or red
dust" from the SCA facility.  The lawsuit, which has been removed
to the District Court of the Virgin Islands (the "Court"), names
SCA, Alcoa and Glencore Ltd. as defendants, and, in August 2000,
was accorded class action treatment.  The class was defined to
include persons in various defined neighborhoods who "suffered
damages and/or injuries as a result of exposure during and after
Hurricane Georges to red dust and red mud blown during Hurricane
Georges."  All of the defendants have denied liability, and
discovery and other pretrial proceedings have been underway since
1999.  Plaintiffs' expert reports claim that the material blown
during Hurricane Georges consisted of bauxite and red mud, and
contained crystalline silica, chromium, and other substances.  The
reports further claim, among other things, that the population of
the six subject neighborhoods as of the 2000 census (a total of
3,730 people) has been exposed to toxic substances through the
fault of the defendants, and hence will be able to show
entitlement to lifetime medical monitoring as well as other
compensatory and punitive relief.  These opinions have been
contested by the defendants' expert reports, that state, among
other things, that plaintiffs were not exposed to the substances
alleged and that in any event the level of alleged exposure does
not justify lifetime medical monitoring.  Alcoa and SCA turned
over this matter to their insurance carriers who have been
providing a defense.  Glencore Ltd. is jointly defending the case
with Alcoa and SCA and has a pending motion to dismiss.

In June 2008, the Court granted defendants' joint motion to
decertify the original class of plaintiffs, and certified a new
class as to the claim of ongoing nuisance, insofar as plaintiffs
seek cleanup, abatement, or removal of the red mud currently
present at the facility.  (The named plaintiffs had previously
dropped their claims for medical monitoring as a consequence of
the court's rejection of plaintiffs' proffered expert opinion
testimony).  The Court expressly denied certification of a class
as to any claims for remediation or cleanup of any area outside
the facility (including plaintiffs' property).  The new class
could seek only injunctive relief rather than monetary damages.
Named plaintiffs, however, could continue to prosecute their
claims for personal injury, property damage, and punitive damages.
In August 2009, in response to defendants' motions, the Court
dismissed the named plaintiffs' claims for personal injury and
punitive damages, and denied the motion with respect to their
property damage claims.  In September 2009, the Court granted
defendants' motion for summary judgment on the class plaintiffs'
claim for injunctive relief.  In October 2009, plaintiffs appealed
the Court's summary judgment order dismissing the claim for
injunctive relief and in March 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit dismissed plaintiffs' appeal of that order.

In September 2011, the parties reached an oral agreement to settle
the remaining claims in the case which would resolve the personal
property damage claims of the 12 remaining individual plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs have indicated that they nevertheless intend to appeal
all of the claim dismissals that have occurred in the trial court
over the life of the case.  The Company anticipates that this
appeal will be filed within 60 days following entry of such
settlement.  Alcoa's share of the settlement is fully insured.


ALCOA INC: Continues to Defend "Lavoie" Class Suit in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit commenced by
Dany Lavoie in Quebec, Canada, according to the Company's February
16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In August 2005, Dany Lavoie, a resident of Baie Comeau in the
Canadian Province of Quebec, filed a Motion for Authorization to
Institute a Class Action and for Designation of a Class
Representative against Alcoa Canada Inc., Alcoa Limitee, Societe
Canadienne de Metaux Reynolds Limitee and Canadian British
Aluminum in the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Baie
Comeau.  Plaintiff seeks to institute the class action on behalf
of a putative class consisting of all past, present and future
owners, tenants and residents of Baie Comeau's St. Georges
neighborhood.  He alleges that defendants, as the present and past
owners and operators of an aluminum smelter in Baie Comeau, have
negligently allowed the emission of certain contaminants from the
smelter, specifically Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or "PAHs",
that have been deposited on the lands and houses of the St.
Georges neighborhood and its environs causing damage to the
property of the putative class and causing health concerns for
those who inhabit that neighborhood.  Plaintiff originally moved
to certify a class action, sought to compel additional remediation
to be conducted by the defendants beyond that already undertaken
by them voluntarily, sought an injunction against further
emissions in excess of a limit to be determined by the court in
consultation with an independent expert, and sought money damages
on behalf of all class members.  In May 2007, the court authorized
a class action lawsuit to include only people who suffered
property damage or personal injury damages caused by the emission
of PAHs from the smelter.  In September 2007, the plaintiff filed
his claim against the original defendants, which the court had
authorized in May.  Alcoa has filed its Statement of Defense and
plaintiff has filed an Answer to that Statement.  Alcoa also filed
a Motion for Particulars with respect to certain paragraphs of
plaintiff's Answer and a Motion to Strike with respect to certain
paragraphs of plaintiff's Answer.  In late 2010, the Court denied
these motions.

At this stage of the proceeding, the Company says it is unable to
reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably
possible loss.


ALCOA INC: ERISA-Violation Suit Remains Pending in Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2006, in Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No.
3:06cv448 (E.D. Tenn.), a class action was filed by plaintiffs
representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of
Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependants of
such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor-Management Relations Act by
requiring plaintiffs, beginning January 1, 2007, to pay health
insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for
certain medical procedures and prescription drugs.  Plaintiffs
alleged these changes to their retiree health care plans violated
their rights to vested health care benefits.  Plaintiffs
additionally alleged that Alcoa had breached its fiduciary duty to
plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their
health benefits would never change.  Plaintiffs sought injunctive
and declaratory relief, back payment of benefits, and attorneys'
fees.  Alcoa had consented to treatment of plaintiffs' claims as a
class action.  During the fourth quarter of 2007, following
briefing and argument, the court ordered consolidation of the
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction with trial,
certified a plaintiff class, bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs'
breach of fiduciary duty claims, struck the plaintiffs' jury
demand, but indicated it would use an advisory jury, and set a
trial date of September 17, 2008.  In August 2008, the court set a
new trial date of March 24, 2009, and, subsequently, the trial
date was moved to September 22, 2009.  In June 2009, the court
indicated that it would not use an advisory jury at trial.  Trial
in the matter was held over eight days commencing September 22,
2009, and ending on October 1, 2009, in federal court in
Knoxville, TN, before the Honorable Thomas Phillips, U.S. District
Court Judge.  At the conclusion of evidence, the court set a post-
hearing briefing schedule for submission of proposed findings of
fact and conclusions of law by the parties and for replies to the
same.  Post trial briefing was submitted on December 4, 2009.

On March 9, 2011, the court issued a judgment order dismissing
plaintiffs' lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice for the reasons
stated in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.  On March
23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for clarification and/or
amendment of the judgment order, which seeks, among other things,
a declaration that plaintiffs' retiree benefits are vested subject
to an annual cap and an injunction preventing Alcoa, prior to
2017, from modifying the plan design to which plaintiffs are
subject or changing the premiums and deductibles that plaintiffs
must pay.  Also on March 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for
award of attorney's fees and expenses.  Alcoa filed its opposition
to both motions on April 11, 2011.  The time for plaintiffs to
appeal from the court's March 9, 2011 judgment will not begin
until the court disposes of these motions.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 16,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Forty-five purported class action lawsuits have been filed in the
U.S. against American Airlines, Inc. and certain foreign and
domestic air carriers alleging that the defendants violated U.S.
antitrust laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and
surcharges on cargo shipments.  These cases, along with other
purported class action lawsuits in which the Company was not
named, were consolidated in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York as In re Air Cargo Shipping
Services Antitrust Litigation, 06-MD-1775 on June 20, 2006.
Plaintiffs are seeking trebled money damages and injunctive
relief.  To facilitate a settlement on a class basis, the Company
agreed to be named in a separate class action complaint, which was
filed on July 26, 2010.  The settlement of that complaint, in
which the Company does not admit and denies liability, was
approved by the court and final judgment was entered on April 6,
2011.  Approximately 40 members of the class have elected to opt
out, thereby preserving their rights to sue the Company
separately.  The Company says any adverse judgment could have a
material adverse impact on it.

                         Canadian Matter

Also, on January 23, 2007, the Company was served with a purported
class action complaint filed against the Company, American, and
certain foreign and domestic air carriers in the Supreme Court of
British Columbia in Canada (McKay v. Ace Aviation Holdings, et
al.).  The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated Canadian
competition laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and
surcharges on cargo shipments.  The complaint seeks compensatory
and punitive damages under Canadian law.  On June 22, 2007, the
plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims against the Company.
The dismissal is without prejudice and the Company could be
brought back into the litigation at a future date.  If litigation
is recommenced against the Company in the Canadian courts, the
Company will vigorously defend itself; however, any adverse
judgment could have a material adverse impact on the Company.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 15,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Still Defends "Turner" Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 52 purported class action lawsuits have been filed
in the U.S. against American Airlines, Inc. and certain foreign
and domestic air carriers alleging that the defendants violated
U.S. antitrust laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and
surcharges for passenger transportation.  On October 25, 2006,
these cases, along with other purported class action lawsuits in
which the Company was not named, were consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California as
In re International Air Transportation Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation, Civ. No. 06-1793 (the Passenger MDL).  On July 9,
2007, the Company was named as a defendant in the Passenger MDL.
On August 25, 2008, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against
the Company in this action.  On March 13, 2008, and March 14,
2008, an additional purported class action complaint, Turner v.
American Airlines, et al., Civ. No. 08-1444 (N.D. Cal.), was filed
against the Company, alleging that the Company violated U.S.
antitrust laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and
surcharges for passenger transportation in Japan and certain
European countries, respectively.  The Turner plaintiffs have
failed to perfect service against the Company, and it is unclear
whether they intend to pursue their claims.

In the event that the Turner plaintiffs pursue their claims, the
Company says it will vigorously defend these lawsuits, but any
adverse judgment in these actions could have a material adverse
impact on the Company.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 15,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


AMERICAN DEBT: Motion to Compel Class Action Arbitration Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge has denied a prominent debt servicer's motion to compel
arbitration of a class action filed by a California woman who says
the company and its affiliates failed to settle her credit card
debts as promised.

Plaintiff Heather Newton, representing the class, says defendant
American Debt Services committed to settle her debts for half the
balance owed.

But, Ms. Newton says, the company and its three affiliates kept a
hefty portion of her fees, allowed her to retrieve only about half
of the funds to pay a bank, and gave her a $70 refund.

Ms. Newton says she originally contacted American Debt Services,
then received a welcome packet from co-defendant Quality Support
Services LLC, and account application and debit instructions from
co-defendants Global Client Solutions and Rocky Mountain Bank &
Trust.

The companies told Ms. Newton to register for a "special purpose
account" with Rocky Mountain, and to authorize Global Client
Solutions to withdraw three, non-refundable fees from her banking
account, her complaint states.

As it turned out, "Plaintiff eventually discovered that defendants
had not contacted any of her creditors [Chase and Bank of America]
in the eight months she had been in the program.  Plaintiff then
terminated defendant ADS's services, requesting a refund of her
money," the ruling states.

The debt servicers refunded only $70 of $4,200 that Ms. Newton
paid them, she says, and she used $2,200 from her special purpose
account to pay Bank of America.  The remaining $1,900 was pocketed
by the servicers, she says.

After the filing of the class action in Northern California
federal court -- which alleges negligence, interference with
contractual relations and violations of the California Business &
Professions Code -- Rocky Mountain and Global Client Solutions
moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in
Ms. Newtown's account application.

According to the clause: "In the event of a dispute or claim
relating in any way to this agreement or our services, you agree
that such dispute shall be resolved by binding arbitration in
Tulsa[,] Okla. utilizing a qualified independent arbitrator of
Global's choosing," the ruling states.

Ms. Newton called the clause unconscionable and asserted that
there was no agreement to arbitrate.

In response, Global Client Solutions and Rocky Mountain Bank &
Trust argued that because Newton complaint challenged the validity
of the agreement as a whole, rather than the specific arbitration
clause, her challenge must be submitted to arbitration.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ruled against the companies'
motion, however, based on three merits.

"[T]he arbitration clause shortens the statute of limitations . .
. the arbitration clause would prevent a customer from recovering
attorney's fees . . . [and] the arbitration clause requires
arbitration in Orange County, Calif., the home town of defendant
ADS," Judge Chen ruled.

"Taken together, the arbitration clause has three provisions that
would impermissibly limit a customer's ability to bring a claim,
whether by shortening the statute of limitations, forcing a
customer to bear attorney's costs they would not have to under the
statutes, or requiring the customer to arbitrate in a distant
forum," he added.

"Accordingly, the court finds that the arbitration clause is both
procedurally and substantively unconscionable; although the degree
of procedural unconscionability is only minimal, the degree of
substantive unconscionability is substantial," Judge Chen
continued.

A copy of the Order Denying Defendants' Motions to Compel
Arbitration in Newton v. American Debt Services, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-03228 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

   http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/24/Newton_American_24.pdf


ARTHROCARE CORP: Hearing on Consolidated Suit Deal on May 25
------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing for final approval of a settlement resolving a
consolidated securities litigation will be held on May 25, 2012,
according to ArthroCare Corporation's February 16, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.

In 2008, two putative securities class actions were filed in
Federal court against the Company and certain of its former
executive officers, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing false and misleading financial statements and
making material misrepresentations regarding the Company's
internal controls, business, and financial results.  On
October 28, 2008, and thereafter, the two putative securities
class actions and certain federal shareholder derivative actions
were consolidated and designated: In Re ArthroCare Corporation
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-00574-SS (consolidated) in
the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas.

The Company reached an agreement to settle the private securities
class action lawsuits consolidated into the action titled In Re
ArthroCare Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-
00574-SS (consolidated) in the U.S. District Court, Western
District of Texas.  The settlement is subject to Court approval.

The settlement would settle all claims arising from the purchase
or sale of ArthroCare securities of a class of all purchasers of
ArthroCare common stock and call options, and sellers of put
options on ArthroCare common stock between December 11, 2007, and
February 18, 2009, inclusive (the Class), except those members of
the Class who opt out, for a payment of $74 million to a
settlement fund to be created for the settlement.  Counsel for the
plaintiff will apply for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses from the settlement fund.

On February 10, 2012, the Court entered an order of preliminary
approval of the settlement, ordered that Notice be sent to all
class members, and set a fairness hearing for final approval of
the settlement on May 25, 2012.


ATLAS AIR: To Oppose Certification Bid in Fuel Surcharges Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its February 15,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011, that it intends
to oppose a motion for class certification in the consolidated
lawsuit alleging manipulation of fuel surcharges and other rate
components for air cargo services.

Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc., is the parent company of its
principal operating subsidiary, Atlas Air, Inc., and of Polar Air
Cargo LLC -- Old Polar.

In 2010, Old Polar entered into a plea agreement with the United
States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") relating to the
previously disclosed DOJ investigation concerning alleged
manipulation by cargo carriers of fuel surcharges and other rate
components for air cargo services (the "DOJ Investigation").
Under the terms of the agreement, approved by the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia, Old Polar will pay a
fine of $17.4 million, payable in five annual installments, of
which the first two payments have been made.  The fine relates to
an alleged agreement by Old Polar with respect to fuel surcharges
on cargo shipped from the United States to Australia during the
time period from January 2000 through April 2003.

As a result of the DOJ Investigation, the Company and Old Polar
have been named defendants, along with a number of other cargo
carriers, in several class actions in the United States arising
from allegations about the pricing practices of a number of air
cargo carriers that have now been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.  The consolidated complaint alleges, among
other things, that the defendants, including the Company and Old
Polar, manipulated the market price for air cargo services sold
domestically and abroad through the use of surcharges, in
violation of United States, state, and European Union antitrust
laws.  The lawsuit seeks treble damages and injunctive relief.

In 2007, the Company and Old Polar commenced an adversary
proceeding in bankruptcy court against each of the plaintiffs in
this class action litigation seeking to enjoin the plaintiffs from
prosecuting claims against the Company and Old Polar that arose
prior to 2004, the date on which the Company and Old Polar emerged
from bankruptcy.  In 2007, the plaintiffs consented to the
injunctive relief requested and the bankruptcy court entered an
order enjoining plaintiffs from prosecuting Company claims arising
prior to 2004.

The court in the antitrust class actions has heard and decided a
number of procedural motions.  Among those was the plaintiffs'
motion to join Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. as an additional
defendant, which the court granted on April 13, 2011.  The case is
currently in the class certification discovery phase.  There has
been substantial pre-trial written discovery and document
production, and a number of depositions have been taken.  The
plaintiffs' motion for class certification was filed on
October 28, 2011, and the Company intends to oppose the motion.
The Company says it is unable to reasonably predict the court's
ruling on the motion or the ultimate outcome of the litigation.

The Company, Old Polar and a number of other cargo carriers have
also been named as defendants in civil class action lawsuits in
the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, Canada that
are substantially similar to the class action lawsuits in the
United States.  The plaintiffs in the British Columbia case have
indicated they do not intend to pursue their lawsuit against the
Company and Old Polar.  The Company says it is unable to
reasonably predict the outcome of the litigation in Ontario and
Quebec.

If the Company or Old Polar were to incur an unfavorable outcome
in connection with one or more of the pending matters, such
outcome is not expected to materially affect the Company's
business, financial condition, results of operations, and/or cash
flows.


BANK OF AMERICA: Black Brokers' Class Action Can Go Ahead
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that black brokers
who accused Bank of America Corp.'s Merrill Lynch unit of bias can
pursue their lawsuit in a class action, a federal appeals court
said, reversing a lower-court ruling.

The decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago
came eight months after the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case
involving Wal-Mart Stores Inc, made it significantly harder to
pursue class-action cases.

Writing for a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit, Judge Richard
Posner said that "we have trouble seeing the downside" of letting
roughly 700 current and former brokers collectively sue Merrill
over alleged discrimination that kept their pay down and impeded
their career growth.

The lawsuit accused the brokerage of steering blacks into clerical
positions, diverting lucrative accounts to white brokers and
creating a hostile work environment.

While recognizing that individual managers' discretion played a
big role in career development -- a key reason the Wal-Mart class
was struck down -- Judge Posner said common issues made it more
efficient to handle the brokers' cases as a group.

"There is no indication that the corporate level of Merrill Lynch
(or its parent, Bank of America) wants to discriminate against
black brokers.  Probably it just wants to maximize profits," Judge
Posner wrote.  "But in a disparate impact case the presence or
absence of discriminatory intent is irrelevant."

Class-action cases can result in higher recoveries and lower costs
than when plaintiffs sue individually.  The Merrill case now
returns to the federal district court in Chicago.

"I'm tickled to death the Court of Appeals agreed with us, and
that we'll be able to go to trial," said George McReynolds, a 28-
year Merrill veteran in Nashville, Tennessee, who brought the
lawsuit in 2005, in a phone interview.

Bank of America bought Merrill on January 1, 2009, and is the
second-largest U.S. bank by assets.

Spokeswoman Shirley Norton said the Charlotte, North Carolina-
based lender disagrees with the ruling, and still believes the
case lacks merit.  She also said Bank of America has "progressive
workplace practices," and diversity and inclusion are part of its
culture and core values.

In the Wal-Mart case, Wal-Mart Stores Inc v. Dukes, a divided
Supreme Court threw out a class-action lawsuit on behalf of as
many as 1.5 million female workers who claimed the retailer gave
them lower pay and fewer promotions than men.

It found that the proposed class raised too many different claims,
often based on decisions at the local store level.

The Merrill case was brought on behalf of brokers and trainees who
had worked in the Global Private Client unit since January 1,
2001.

"We're thrilled," Linda Friedman -- lfriedmanl@sfltd.com -- a
partner at Stowell & Friedman representing the brokers, said in an
interview.

"It is a wonderful victory for the plaintiffs who have for more
than a decade zealously worked to bring change to Merrill and Wall
Street," she continued.  "The Seventh Circuit recognized there is
utility to class treatment where the challenge is to the policy
and the relief sought is reforms."

Mr. McReynolds, 67, said more reform is needed at Merrill.

"I think people from above are directing the managers, and
managers are just doing things the way they are directed to do,"
he said.  "I'm confident that things can get better . . . It's
going to take a little bit of a culture change."

The brokers' case is McReynolds et al v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Inc, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 11-
3639.


BLUE CROSS: Loses Bid to Appeal Ruling in ABA Therapy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Mantese Honigman Rossman and Williamson, P.C on Feb. 24 disclosed
that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on Feb. 24 denied a
Petition by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan which sought to
overturn a ruling that all children who were denied Applied
Behavior Analysis therapy for autism, on the ground that the
therapy was "experimental," may sue as a class action.  The ruling
was issued in the case of Potter v Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Michigan, No. 10-cv-14981 (E.D. Mich. 2011), pending in federal
court in the Eastern District of Michigan, in Detroit.

Previously, on July 14, 2011, Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III,
granted two families' Motion for Class Certification, ruling that
Blue Cross' denial of this therapy presented a common issue
appropriate for class action status.  The court of appeals' denial
today of Blue Cross' Petition to appeal means that the case will
proceed on behalf of all families who were denied this critical
therapy by Blue Cross, even those who never submitted a claim to
Blue Cross in light of Blue Cross' well known policy to deny
claims for ABA therapy.

ABA therapy is provided by prestigious health care providers all
over the United States, including Beaumont Hospital's HOPE Center,
and is approved by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the U.S.
Surgeon General, the National Institutes of Health, and many
others. In particular:

The U.S. Surgeon General states that "30 years of research
demonstrated the efficacy of applied behavioral methods in
reducing inappropriate behavior and increasing communication,
learning and appropriate social behavior."

The National Institute of Mental Health concludes that, "among the
many methods available for treatment and education of people with
autism, applied behavior analysis (ABA) has become widely accepted
as an effective treatment."

The National Institutes of Health concluded that the efficacy of
ABA therapy is "significantly greater" than alternative
interventions for children with autism and that behavioral
treatment such as ABA therapy is an "effective" treatment for
autistic children.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services concluded that
"Applied behavior analysis (ABA) is an exception, in that
controlled trials have shown both the efficacy of programs based
in the principles of ABA . . . . As of the date of this report's
publication, the only established evidence-based practice
available is ABA."

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the National Research
Council both emphatically recommend ABA-based interventions.

Despite the mountain of evidence showing that ABA therapy is well
established and helps children with autism to achieve their
greatest potential, Blue Cross continues to deny the therapy on
the specious ground that it is "experimental."  Yet, in mid-2010,
Blue Cross settled the similar class action case of Johns v. Blue
Cross, No.08-12272 (E.D. Michigan).  In that case, Blue Cross
agreed to reimburse nearly 100 families who were denied coverage
for this therapy.  Yet, after the settlement, Blue Cross persisted
in denying this therapy to children with autism spectrum disorder.
That led to the filing of another case against it, specifically,
Potter v Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.

The attorneys for the families are:

          Gerard Mantese, Esq.
          Mantese Honigman Rossman and Williamson, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083248-457-9200
          Cell: (248) 515-6419 Cell
          Web site: http://www.manteselaw.com

          John J. Conway, Esq.
          John J. Conway, P.C.
          26622 Woodward Avenue, Suite 225
          Royal Oak, MI 48067313-961-6525
          Cell: (313) 574-2148
          E-mail: john@johnjconway.com


CELL THERAPEUTICS: Settles Consolidated Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Therapeutics, Inc. entered into a Stipulation of Settlement
to resolve a consolidated securities class action litigation,
according to the Company's February 15, 2012, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Class Action Litigation was brought on behalf of persons who
purchased the common stock of the Company between March 25, 2008,
and March 22, 2010.

                        Company Statement

     SEATTLE, Washington -- February 15, 2012 -- Cell
Therapeutics, Inc. ("CTI") (NASDAQ and MTA: CTIC) announced that
on February 13, 2012, it entered into a Stipulation of Settlement
(the "Stipulation") pursuant to which CTI and certain of its
current officers and directors (collectively, the "Defendants")
have, subject to certain conditions and approvals, agreed to
settle the previously-disclosed consolidated securities class
action litigation, In re Cell Therapeutics, Inc. Class Action
Litigation., Case No. C10-414 MJP (the "Class Action Litigation"),
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

     If the settlement becomes final, among other things, (i) the
claims against the Defendants will be dismissed with prejudice and
released, such that every member of the settlement class will be
forever barred from asserting against the Defendants any claims
alleged in the complaint or arising from the complaint, and (ii) a
payment of $19 million will be made for the benefit of the
settlement class, which CTI expects to be funded entirely by CTI's
insurance carriers.  The Defendants have denied and continue to
deny each and all of the claims alleged by the plaintiffs in the
Class Action Litigation.  Nonetheless, the Defendants have agreed
to the settlement to eliminate the uncertainty, distraction,
burden and expense of further litigation.

     The proposed settlement is subject to a number of conditions
and approvals, including, among other items, preliminary and final
court approval.  Details regarding any proposed settlement will be
communicated to potential class members prior to the final court
approval.  At this time, there can be no assurance that the
conditions to effect the settlement will be met or that the
settlement of the Class Action Litigation will receive the
required court or other approvals.

                  About Cell Therapeutics, Inc.

     Headquartered in Seattle, CTI is a biopharmaceutical company
committed to developing an integrated portfolio of oncology
products aimed at making cancer more treatable.  For additional
information, please visit http://www.CellTherapeutics.com/


CHINA SKY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a federal
securities class action 12 Civ. 1418 in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who
purchased China Sky One Medical, Inc. securities between April 16,
2009 and February 14, 2012, inclusive.  This class action is
brought under the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased China Sky securities during
the Class Period, you have until April 24, 2012 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free,
x350.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

China Sky manufactures pharmaceutical and medicinal products and
diagnostics kits.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, China Sky made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the Company improperly inflated
earnings; (2) the Company's gross margins were inflated; (3) the
Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4)
as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On February 15, 2012, the Company disclosed the resignation of 26
middle-management level employees, nine of whom worked in the
Company's accounting department.  On that same day, NASDAQ
announced it had halted trading in the stock until it received
adequate "additional information requested" from the Company.  On
these revelations, China Sky's shares declined $0.43 per share or
28%, to close at $1.10 on February 15, 2012.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- specializes
in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation.  It represents victims of securities fraud, breaches
of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  It has offices in
New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.


DOW CHEMICAL: Writ of Certiorari Bid in Suit vs. Unit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in
the class action lawsuit involving a subsidiary of The Dow
Chemical Company remains pending, according to the Company's
February 15, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In December 2005, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana (the "District Court") issued a
decision granting a class of participants in the Rohm and Haas
Pension Plan (the "Rohm and Haas Plan") who had retired from Rohm
and Haas Company, now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company,
and who elected to receive a lump sum benefit from the Rohm and
Haas Plan, the right to a cost-of-living adjustment ("COLA") as
part of their retirement benefit.  In August 2007, the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Seventh Circuit") affirmed the
District Court's decision, and in March 2008, the U.S. Supreme
Court denied the Rohm and Haas Plan's petition to review the
Seventh Circuit's decision.  The case was returned to the District
Court for further proceedings.  In October 2008 and February 2009,
the District Court issued rulings that have the effect of
including in the class all Rohm and Haas retirees who received a
lump sum distribution without a COLA from the Rohm and Haas Plan
since January 1976.  These rulings are subject to appeal, and the
District Court has not yet determined the amount of the COLA
benefits that may be due to the class participants.

The Rohm and Haas Plan and the plaintiffs entered into a
settlement agreement that, in addition to settling the litigation
with respect to the Rohm and Haas retirees, provides for the
amendment of the complaint and amendment of the Rohm and Haas Plan
to include active employees in the settlement benefits.  The
District Court preliminarily approved the settlement on
November 24, 2009, and, following a hearing on March 12, 2010,
issued a final order approving the settlement on April 12, 2010.
A group of objectors to the settlement filed an appeal from the
final order.  In November 2010, the District Court issued an order
approving class counsel's fee award petition in an amount
consistent with the terms of the settlement.  The same objectors
also appealed this order.  On September 2, 2011, the Seventh
Circuit affirmed the approval of the settlement and the award of
attorneys' fees.  A lone objector filed a petition for rehearing,
which was denied on October 17, 2011.  The objector continued the
appeal process by timely filing a petition for a writ of
certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is pending.

The Company says a pension liability associated with this matter
of $185 million was recognized as part of the acquisition of Rohm
and Haas on April 1, 2009.  The liability, which was determined in
accordance with the accounting guidance for contingencies,
recognized the estimated impact of the judicial decisions on the
long-term Rohm and Haas Plan obligations owed to the applicable
Rohm and Haas retirees and active employees.  The Company had a
liability associated with this matter of $189 million at
December 31, 2011, and $186 million at December 31, 2010.


FAMILIESFIRST INC: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cassandra M. Mintzas, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. Familiesfirst, Inc., dba EMQ Familiesfirst
and fka, pre-2009 merger, Eastfield Ming Quong, Inc., and Does 1-
100, Case No. 1-12-CV-219231 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.,
February 23, 2012) alleges that EMQ has improperly failed and
continues to refuse to pay and provide legally mandated employee
benefits, including overtime pay, to Plaintiffs and the members of
the California Classes, in violation of the provisions of the
California Labor Code and California Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders.

EMQ was aware or on notice of the duties assigned to its Family
Specialists and that they routinely worked hours for which they
were illegally not compensated and hours that required payment of
overtime for which no payment was made, Ms. Mintzas alleges.  She
adds that EMQ has a policy and practice of not reimbursing Family
Specialists for certain business-related expenses, effecting
illegal wage deductions.

Ms. Mintzas is a citizen of the state of California.  She was
employed and performed services as a Family Specialist for EMQ
from June 2002 through June 2010.

Familiesfirst, Inc., doing business as EMQ Familiesfirst, a
California corporation, provides services to families with
children with behavioral disorders or mental illness.  EMQ
employed "Family Specialists" as part of the teams for delivery of
these services.  Ms. Mintzas is currently ignorant of the true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Dacey, Esq.
          James M. Sitkin, Esq.
          DACEY & SITKIN
          255 California Street, 10th floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 318-1048
          Facsimile: (415) 362-3268
          E-mail: jsitkin@daceysitkinlaw.com


GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Suit Over Probiotic & Prebiotic Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Alvarez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Gerber Products Company d/b/a Nestle Infant Nutrition
and Nestle USA, Inc., Case No. 5:12-cv-00906 (N.D. Calif.,
February 23, 2012) relates that the Defendants advertised their
baby products as promoting various benefits, such as immunity
protection and digestive health, because of the presence of
probiotic and prebiotic cultures in the foods.

The Plaintiff contends that these claims, however, are unsupported
by scientific evidence.  Ms. Alvarez alleges that she and the
class members were injured when they purchased the Gerber
Probiotic Products in reliance on the false and misleading claims.

Ms. Alvarez is a resident of San Jose, California.

Gerber is a Michigan corporation, while Nestle is a Delaware
corporation.  The Defendants manufacture, market, distribute and
sell infant formula cereal for consumption by individuals between
0 and 24 months old.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregorys S. Weston, Esq.
          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Melanie Persinger, Esq.
          Courtland Creekmore, Esq.
          THE WESTON FIRM
          1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
          San Diego, CA 921l0
          Telephone: (619) 798-2006
          Facsimile: (480) 247-4553
          E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com
                  jack@westonfirm.com
                  mel@westonfirm.com
                  courtland@westonfirm.com


GOOGLE INC: Accused of Unauthorized Tracking of Users' Data
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lourdes Villegas, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Google, Inc., a Delaware Corporation;
and PointRoll, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 5:12-cv-
00915 (N.D. Calif., February 23, 2012) is a consumer class action
lawsuit brought on behalf of a proposed class of individuals, who
were alleged victims of unfair, deceptive and unlawful business
practices, wherein their privacy, financial interests and security
rights were violated by Google and PointRoll.

The Defendants acted individually, and in concert, to gain
authorized access, use and retention of the Plaintiff's and the
Class Members' data contained within their computing devices,
which includes computers and mobile electronic devices used for
communication, Internet and multimedia capabilities, Ms. Villegas
alleges.  She contends that by circumventing her and Class
Members' privacy settings, the Defendants accessed without notice
or consent personally identifiable information by settling
tracking mechanisms within computing devices for subsequent online
tracking by the Defendants.

Ms. Villegas is a resident of Dallas, Texas.  She owns and uses
Apple's Safari and Microsoft's Internet Explorer browsers that
were protected by default privacy settings and higher privacy
settings to restrict the ability of Web sites that use persistent
browser cookies in collecting user's information.

Google and PointRoll are publicly traded Delaware corporations.
Google owns and operates Google.com, and provides advertising
services through doubleclick.net.  PointRoll owns and operates
Pointroll.com and provides digital marketing solutions and
technology for rich media campaigns in interactive advertising.
PointRoll entered into a contract with Google.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian R. Strange, Esq.
          STRANGE & CARPENTER
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-5055
          Facsimile: (310) 826- 3210
          E-mail: LACounsel@earthlink.net

               - and -

          Joseph H. Malley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH MALLEY
          1045 North Zang Boulevard
          Dallas, TX 75208
          Telephone: (214) 943-6100
          E-mail: malleylaw@gmail.com


GOVERNMENT OF VICTORIA: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Leak
----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Alexander, writing for The Standard, reports that a class
action has been launched seeking compensation for businesses in
the wake of the toxic leak in Portland.

The action by legal firm Stringer Clark comes as clean-up efforts
come to an end at the site with the CFA set to begin scaling back
operations.

CFA and other agencies filled over 4,000 sandbags to prevent the
material that had leaked from a ruptured tank escaping and
spreading into the waters of the port.  Due to the expected hot
weather and northerly winds over the next few days the air quality
will be monitored regularly.

Commercial and recreational activity began in the port on Feb. 24
and the roads and the boat ramps are open to traffic apart from a
small section near the damaged tank.

Stringer Clark lawyer John Cramp said the leak shut down a key
part of the central business district of Portland, causing major
inconvenience to business people, tourists and residents.  He said
the economic impact on local businesses was significant and people
who run those businesses are entitled to be compensated for their
losses.


LABOR BROKERS: More Than 200 Filipino Workers File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNA reports that a group of more than 200 Filipino workers have
filed a class-action lawsuit with prosecutors, alleging
exploitation by their labor brokers, an official from the
Philippines Department of Justice said on Feb. 24.

The workers, hired at Hsinchu Science Park, took the step late
last year following months of not receiving their wages, the
official said on condition of anonymity.

Their wages were allegedly withheld to pay off high-interest loans
that were owed to their labor brokers, the official said, without
giving further details.

He said that if the allegations were proven to be true, they would
constitute human trafficking and could affect labor exports to
Taiwan.

A labor broker, meanwhile, said there is a long history of
Filipino workers being exploited by brokers who charge high
interest rates on loans, but added that most workers choose to
endure the abuse and remain silent.

A recent labor fraud case in the US involving Taiwanese diplomat
Jacqueline Liu could encourage workers to fight for their rights,
the broker said, predicting that more suits are likely to follow
if the 200-plus workers succeed in getting compensation.

To secure employment in Taiwan, a Filipino needs to spend
PHP100,000 (US$2,340) on average, said Amadeo Perez Jr., chairman
and chief executive of the Manila Economic and Cultural Office,
which is the Philippines' de facto embassy in Taiwan.

Many people who cannot afford these expenses turn to their brokers
for loans, he said.

Meanwhile, a first round of inspections into companies that
contract out temporary workers found widespread violations, with
half of them breaches of the Labor Standards Act, the Council of
Labor Affairs said on Feb. 24.

From July to September last year, the council conducted
inspections of 60 companies that supply temporary workers -- often
called "dispatch" workers in Taiwan -- to private companies and
public agencies.

Liu Chuan-min, director of the council's Department of Labor
Relations, said 16 temporary manpower agencies fully conformed to
regulations, while the remaining 44 were guilty of a total of 169
violations.

Of the violations, 82 failed to meet the legal requirements,
mainly because they did not set work guidelines, sign contracts
with workers or ensure the workers had a day off every seven days.
Another 35 violations were related to the Labor Pension Act and 52
violations were related to the Labor Insurance Act.

Sixteen companies were found to have five or more violations and
they were asked to make immediate improvements, and turned over to
local authorities for disciplinary action.


LCD MANUFACTURERS: Lose Bid to Bar Testimony in Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that two economists
can testify for a class of electronic retailers that claim seven
manufacturers of liquid crystal display flat screens conspired to
fix the price of TV and computer LCD panels, a federal judge
ruled.

The plaintiffs claim the electronics manufacturers engaged in a
global price-fixing conspiracy to raise prices and restrict
competition on sales of computer monitors, laptops, televisions
and other LCD products.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston previously agreed that
defendants had "secretly conspired" to raise prices on LCD devices
to "supra-competitive" levels.

Defendants in the antitrust case, including Toshiba, Hitachi and
Epson, sought to strike the testimony of plaintiffs' economic
experts, professors Janet Netz and William Comanor.

The experts testified that the defendants conspired to raise the
prices of LCD panels to direct and indirect purchasers.

Ms. Netz estimated that class members were damaged in the amount
of $3.2 billion.  Mr. Comanor estimated $2.2 billion in damages to
the indirect purchaser class.

Judge Illston noted that the defendants' motion to strike the
experts' reports was based on their "continued insistence that
this case is not amenable to class treatment."  She rejected their
argument that the experts must identify the overcharges on every
LCD panel sold during the time of the alleged conspiracy.

"Plaintiffs need not identify the overcharge on each and every
panel sold to direct purchasers, and they need not trace that
specific overcharge through the manufacturing and retail chains to
the ultimate purchaser," Judge Illston wrote.

"The fact that plaintiffs lack perfect proof does not mean that
plaintiffs lack any proof at all."

Judge Illston denied the motion to strike the expert reports.

A copy of the Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert
Testimony of Janet S. Netz and William S. Comanor in In re: TFT-
LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1827 (N.D. Calif.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/24/LCDExperts.pdf


MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: "St. Lucie" Suit Dismissed in November 2011
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced by St. Lucie County Fire
District Firefighters' Pension Fund was dismissed in November
2011, according to Motorola Solutions, Inc.'s February 15, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

A purported class action lawsuit, St. Lucie County Fire District
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Motorola, Inc., et al., was filed
against the Company and certain current and former officers and
directors of the Company on January 21, 2010, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The
complaint was amended on June 11, 2010, and again on December 3,
2010.  The alleged class included purchasers of Motorola
securities between October 25, 2007, and January 23, 2008.  The
complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as, in the case of
the individual defendants, the control person provisions of the
Securities Exchange Act.  The primary factual allegations were
that the defendants knowingly or recklessly made materially
misleading statements concerning Motorola's financial projections
and sales demand for Motorola phones during the class period.  The
complaint sought unspecified damages and other relief relating to
the purported inflation in the price of Motorola shares during the
class period.  On February 28, 2011, the Court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss and dismissed the Second Amended Complaint in
its entirety with prejudice.  The related derivative matter, Waber
v. Dorman, et al., was likewise dismissed with prejudice, and no
appeal was taken.  Plaintiffs in the St. Lucie matter subsequently
filed a notice of appeal with the Seventh Circuit United States
Court of Appeals.  While the appeal was pending, the parties
reached a settlement following mediation with a Court-appointed
mediator.

On November 2, 2011, the District Court granted final approval of
the settlement, entered final judgment, and dismissed the case.


MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Awaits Okay of "Silverman" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola Solutions, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of a class action lawsuit captioned Silverman v.
Motorola, Inc., et al., according to the Company's February 15,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

A purported class action lawsuit on behalf of the purchasers of
Motorola securities between July 19, 2006, and January 5, 2007,
Silverman v. Motorola, Inc., et al., was filed against the Company
and certain current and former officers and directors of the
Company on August 9, 2007, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.  The complaint alleges
violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as well as, in the case of the individual
defendants, the control person provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act.  The factual assertions in the complaint consist
primarily of the allegation that the defendants knowingly made
incorrect statements concerning Motorola's projected revenues for
the third and fourth quarter of 2006.  The complaint seeks
unspecified damages and other relief relating to the purported
inflation in the price of Motorola shares during the class period.
An amended complaint was filed December 20, 2007, and Motorola
moved to dismiss that complaint in February 2008.  On September
24, 2008, the district court granted this motion in part to
dismiss Section 10(b) claims as to two individuals and certain
claims related to forward looking statements, among other things,
and denied the motion in part.  On August 25, 2009, the district
court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification.  On
March 10, 2010, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion to
file a second amended complaint which adds allegations concerning
Motorola's accounting and disclosures for certain transactions
entered into in the third quarter of 2006.

On February 16, 2011, the district court granted summary judgment
to dismiss the remaining claims as to two individual defendants
and the Section 10(b) claim as to a third individual, and denied
the motion in part.  On March 21, 2011, Motorola filed a motion
for summary judgment on the remaining claims against the Company
and other individual defendants.  On July 25, 2011, the district
court denied the motion for summary judgment.

On February 1, 2012, the parties in the Silverman litigation
signed a settlement agreement to resolve all claims in that case.
The agreement has been submitted to the Court and is subject to
preliminary and final approval.


MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Will No Longer Report on ERISA Class Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola Solutions, Inc. said in its February 15, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011, that a consolidated class action
proceeding pending in Illinois is no longer material to it after
class certification was denied, and hence, the Company will no
longer be reporting on the matter.

Two purported class action lawsuits on behalf of all participants
in or beneficiaries of the Motorola 401(k) Plan (the "Plan")
between July 1, 2007, and the present and whose accounts included
investments in Motorola stock, Joe M. Groussman v. Motorola, Inc.
et al. and Angelo W. Orlando v. Motorola, Inc. et al., were filed
against the Company and certain current and former officers,
directors, and employees of the Company, the Motorola 401(k) Plan
Committee, the Advisory Committee of Motorola and other unnamed
defendants on February 10, 2010, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  On May 20, 2010, the
court ordered the cases to be consolidated.  On July 16, 2010, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The amended
complaint added as defendants additional current and former
employees, the Compensation and Leadership Committee of Motorola,
and the Motorola Retirement Benefits Committee, and deleted the
Advisory Committee of Motorola as a defendant.  The amended
complaint also reduced the class period to run from
July 1, 2007, to December 31, 2008.  The consolidated amended
complaint alleges violations of Sections 404 and 405 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").  The
primary claims in the amended complaint are that, in connection
with alleged incorrect statements concerning Motorola's financial
projections and demand for Motorola phones during the class
period, various of the defendants failed to prudently and loyally
manage the Plan by continuing to offer Motorola stock as a Plan
investment option, failed to provide complete and accurate
information regarding the performance of Motorola stock to the
Plan's participants and beneficiaries, failed to avoid conflicts
of interest, and/or failed to monitor the Plan fiduciaries.  The
amended complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief
relating to purported losses to the Plan and individual
participant accounts.

On September 24, 2010, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
the Amended Complaint.  On October 7, 2010, the court dismissed
the Retirement Benefits Committee as a defendant.  On January 18,
2011, the Court denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint.  On March 14, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification, seeking certification of a class of "all persons
who were participants in, or beneficiaries of, the Motorola 401(k)
Plan at any time between July 1, 2007 and December 31, 2008, and
whose accounts included investments in Motorola stock", but
excluding Defendants, members of their immediate families, any
officer, director or partner of any Defendant, any entity in which
a Defendant has a controlling interest, and the heirs, successors
and assigns of the foregoing.

On November 15, 2011, the court denied Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and the Plaintiffs have not appealed that
ruling.  In ruling on the Defendants' motion to strike certain
allegations in the Amended Complaint pertaining to claims "on
behalf of the Plan", the court subsequently confirmed that this
action is now brought only on behalf of individual named
plaintiffs.  Given that limitation, the Company does not believe
the proceedings to be material to it.  Accordingly, the Company
says it will no longer be reporting on this matter.


N.C. BAPTIST: Judge Approves $5.38-Mil. Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that
nearly 15,000 participants in a class-action federal lawsuit
involving N.C. Baptist Hospital should receive their settlement
money by late April.

U.S. District Judge James Beaty Jr. approved on Feb. 24 the final
settlement amount of $5.38 million after there were no objections
by class-action members.

Judge Beaty ruled that the second phase of the settlement was
"fair, reasonable and adequate."  The money is expected to be
mailed within 60 days.

The approval of the settlement concludes a lawsuit filed in
January 2009 involving MedCost, which Baptist co-owns with
Carolinas HealthCare System.

Baptist and certain affiliates' group health plans were accused of
requiring their employees to pay more in fees for health benefits
than other corporate clients paid.

How much compensation class members could receive is based on
several factors:

The amount of time they were enrolled in the plan;
Which year or years they were enrolled
Which benefits package they chose (prime or select)
Whether they had an employee or family plan
The amount of the settlement allocated to the applicable year or
years
The premium amount they paid into the plan each year

Kenneth Johnson, a co-counsel for the five plaintiffs, said during
the hearing that no objections were submitted by class-action
participants related to the settlement, attorney fees or the
$4,000 that each plaintiff will receive.

The lawsuit had said Baptist "violated the duties,
responsibilities and obligations imposed upon them as a fiduciary"
under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  ERISA
prohibits most employers from using companies they own to provide
health benefits for employees unless they can show they are
putting workers' interests first.

Baptist has denied any wrongdoing.  It said the selection of
MedCost was a plan-sponsor function, not a fiduciary function, and
therefore its actions were not governed by ERISA.

"NCBH alleges that cost is only one factor in a prudence analysis
and that MedCost provided superior service or capabilities in
other areas that justified any increase in cost," Baptist said in
June 2009.

However, according to the agreement, the plaintiffs' attorneys
"obtained reliable documentary evidence to suggest that NCBH had a
history of 'self-dealing' with its subsidiary provider network.
Indeed, that evidence indicated NCBH was even offering better
pricing to outside health plans that used the MedCost network than
it was offering its own plan and own employees."

Randy Loftis, an attorney representing Baptist, said during the
hearing, "We did not believe we had done anything wrong.  If we
had, we wanted to make it right for the employees."

Baptist agreed at a July 28 hearing to pay the $5.38 million --
which includes $438,500 in plaintiffs' attorney fees -- to settle
the lawsuit.

The lawsuit involves current and former employees and their
families.  Those eligible for the settlement participated in the
plan from March 6, 2002, to May 7, 2009.  Plan participants made
contributions of $9 million to $13 million a year beginning in
March 2002, the lawsuit said.

Baptist mailed notices and established a Web site --
http://www.wakehealth.edu/erisa-- and a phone number --
(800) 535-8627 -- to disclose how much each class-action
participant would receive from the $4.14 million estimated to be
left in the settlement fund once all attorney fees are paid.

Mr. Johnson said those efforts have failed to locate about 9
percent of the class-action participants, or 1,340 individuals.

In the first phase, reached in October 2009, Baptist agreed to
raise its plan discount and lower the co-payment for inpatient and
outpatient services for 2009 and 2010.  The percentage
participants pay in total premiums cannot be increased through
2014.

Baptist lowered the co-payment for inpatient services from its
provider network by 13 percent, or at least $5, and lowered the
co-payment for outpatient services by 15 percent, or at least $5,
also for 2009 and 2010.  The percentage that participants pay in
total premiums cannot be increased through 2014.

Mr. Johnson said the value of the phase I settlement is about
$600,000 a year through 2014.

The increased discounts and lower co-payments also applied to
members of the hospital's provider network, which at the time
included Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center Community
Physicians; Wake Forest University Physicians; hospitals currently
or formerly affiliated with Baptist in Davie, Stokes and Wilkes
counties; the Downtown Health Plaza in Winston-Salem; and J.R.
Jones Medical Center in King.

The implication of the final settlement on Carolinas HealthCare is
not clear.

In March 2011, the U.S. Labor Department said it was investigating
the medical system regarding MedCost, which provides health
benefits to roughly 30,000 employees.  It confirmed last week it
continues to pursue the investigation and is limiting the
information it provides because it involves law-enforcement
efforts.

Carolinas HealthCare officials have said they did not see any
conflict with MedCost, telling The Charlotte Observer that MedCost
offers good benefits at a competitive price.


NETLOGIC MICROSYSTEMS: Still Awaits OK of Shareholder Suits Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
NetLogic Microsystems, Inc. is still awaiting court approval of
its settlement of two merger-related class action lawsuits,
according to the Company's February 15, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011.

On September 11, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Broadcom Corporation
("Broadcom"), and I&N Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary
of Broadcom ("Merger Sub").  The Merger Agreement provides that,
upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth therein,
Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company (the "Merger"),
with NetLogic Microsystems as the surviving corporation.  As a
result of the Merger, the Company will become a subsidiary of
Broadcom.

On September 16, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit, New Jersey
Carpenters Pension Fund v. Broyles, et al., Case No. 111CV209381,
challenging the Merger was filed in California Superior Court,
County of Santa Clara (referred to as the "California Action")
against Broadcom, Merger Sub and the members of the Company's
board of directors.  On September 20, 2011, another putative class
action lawsuit, Vincent Anthony Danielo v. NetLogic Microsystems,
Inc., et al., CA No. 6881, challenging the Merger was filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (referred to as the
"Delaware Action") against NetLogic, Broadcom, Merger Sub and the
members of the Company's board of directors.  The complaints in
both lawsuits allege that the Company's directors violated their
fiduciary duties to its stockholders by, among other things,
failing to ensure a fair sale process and a fair price in
connection with the Merger, and acting to further their personal
interests and the interests of Broadcom at the expense of
NetLogic's stockholders.  Each lawsuit also alleges that Broadcom
and Merger Sub aided and abetted the Company's directors in
breaching their fiduciary duties.  On October 7, 2011, the
plaintiff in the California Action filed an amended complaint
adding allegations that the preliminary proxy statement filed on
October 5, 2011, contained inadequate and misleading disclosures
under Delaware law by failing to provide additional and more
detailed disclosures regarding the events leading up to the
merger, the analysis and opinion of Qatalyst, and the Company
Projections.  On October 19, 2011, the plaintiff in the Delaware
Action filed his amended complaint adding similar disclosure
claims.  The plaintiffs in both lawsuits seek to enjoin the
consummation of the Merger and seek an award of the costs of the
action, including reasonable allowances for attorneys' and
experts' fees, among other relief.  On October 7, 2011, defendants
in the California Action filed a motion to stay that action
pending the resolution of the Delaware Action.  On October 3,
2011, the Broadcom defendants filed an answer to the original
Delaware Action complaint denying all the substantive allegations
and asserting affirmative defenses.  On October 13, 2011, the
NetLogic defendants filed their answer to the original Delaware
Action complaint denying all the substantive allegations and
asserting affirmative defenses.  On October 19, 2011, the NetLogic
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Delaware Action.

On November 11, 2011, the parties to the Delaware and California
Actions (the "Actions") reached an agreement-in-principle
memorialized in a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") that
provides for a settlement of the Actions.  The MOU provided that
NetLogic would make certain supplemental disclosures regarding the
Merger.  All further proceedings in the Actions (other than those
that relate to the settlement) have been stayed.  The settlement
is contingent upon, among other things, the certification of a
settlement class, notice to the class, a hearing on the
settlement, fairness of the settlement, approval of the settlement
by the Court in the California Action, and the closing of the
Merger.

At December 31, 2011, $0.8 million was recognized associated with
this pending settlement which was considered probable and has been
included in acquisition related costs in the Consolidated
Statements of Operations.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Fuel Surcharges MDL Remains Pending in D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
On November 6, 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against
Norfolk Southern Corporation and other Class 1 railroads in
various Federal district courts regarding fuel surcharges were
consolidated in the District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.  NS believes the allegations in the
complaints are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the
cases.  NS does not believe that the outcome of these proceedings
will have a material effect on its financial position, results of
operations, or liquidity.  A lawsuit containing similar
allegations against NS and four other major railroads that was
filed on March 25, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff
subject to a tolling agreement entered into in August 2008.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 15,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Norfolk Southern Corporation -- http://www.nscorp.com/-- is a
transportation company.  Its Norfolk Southern Railway subsidiary
operates approximately 20,000 route miles in 22 states and the
District of Columbia, serves every major container port in the
eastern United States, and provides efficient connections to other
rail carriers.  Norfolk Southern operates the most extensive
intermodal network in the East and is a major transporter of coal
and industrial products.


POLY IMPLANT: Gold Coast Women Mull Breast Implant Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Bedo, writing for Gold Coast, reports that Gold Coast
woman Natalie Davis is contemplating joining a class action
against the manufacturers of allegedly faulty breast implants.

Ms. Davis goes to bed each night terrified she might damage her
breast implants.

In fact, the 25-year-old's fear is so pervasive she even rejected
an invitation to go rock climbing with friends.

Now she wants something done about it.

Ms. Davis is one of more than 350 Australian women considering a
class action against the manufacturer and/or distributor of the
implants.

The former Gold Coaster is one of more than 9,000 Australian women
-- and 300,000 worldwide -- who have breast implants made by now-
bankrupt French company Poly Implant Prothese.

French authorities recalled the implants in April 2010 after it
was found the product was made with sub-standard silicone and had
a high incidence of rupture.

Ms. Davis had her implants inserted by a Gold Coast doctor in
February 2010.

South Australian law firm Tindall Gask Bentley, which is preparing
the class action, found 20 per cent of women registered are from
Queensland and about 20 are from the Coast.

Partner Tim White -- twhite@tgb.com.au -- believes there could be
dozens more Coast women who are unaware their implants are from
PIP and he wants those women to come forward.

"It seems women aren't being contacted by their medical clinics to
advise them of the brand of implants they have and a lot of women
are unaware," he said.

"Many women who have contacted us initially had no idea that their
implants were the PIP brand until they approached their surgery or
hospital and asked."

Fears over PIP implants spread globally in December after French
health authorities advised 30,000 women to have their implants
removed because of a rupture risk.

Other countries, including Germany, the Czech Republic and
Venezuela, have recommended the routine removal of PIP implants.

In Australia, the Therapeutic Goods Administration suggests there
is no increased rupture rate in Australian-supplied implants.

While Ms. Davis, of Regents Park, is yet to experience a serious
complication, she said she did not want to take the risk.

She asked her Coast doctor to remove and replace the implants when
she learnt of the concerns but, disappointed with his help and
quote, she is now looking for a different surgeon.

"Every day I feel like I need to get these out," she said.

"It affects how I live."

Ms. Davis met with Mr. White on Feb. 24 to discuss the class
action.

Mr. White said the firm was waiting for the outcome of a Senate
Inquiry.

He said who they pursued in the action would depend on the outcome
of the inquiry.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Fairmount" Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
On November 8, 2006, a trustee of Fairmount Park Inc. Retirement
Savings Plan filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
against Principal Financial Group, Inc.  Principal Life's motion
to transfer venue was granted and the case is now pending in the
Southern District of Iowa.  The complaint alleged, among other
things, that Principal Life breached its alleged fiduciary duties
while performing services to 401(k) plans by failing to disclose,
or adequately disclose, to employers or plan participants the fact
that Principal Life receives "revenue sharing fees from mutual
funds that are included in its pre-packaged 401(k) plans" and
allegedly failed to use the revenue to defray the expenses of the
services provided to the plans.  Plaintiff further alleged that
these acts constitute prohibited transactions under ERISA.
Plaintiff sought to certify a class of all retirement plans to
which Principal Life was a service provider and for which
Principal Life received and retained "revenue sharing" fees from
mutual funds.  On August 27, 2008, the plaintiff's motion for
class certification was denied.  On June 13, 2011, the court
entered a consent judgment resolving the claims of the plaintiff.
On July 12, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal related to
the issue of the denial of class certification.  Principal Life
continues to aggressively defend the lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 15,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Still Defends "Cruise" and "Mullaney" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On December 2, 2009, and December 4, 2009, two plaintiffs, Cruise
and Mullaney, each filed putative class action lawsuits in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Principal Financial Group, Inc., Principal Life, Principal
Global Investors, LLC, and Principal Real Estate Investors, LLC
(the "Cruise/Mullaney Defendants").  The lawsuits alleged the
Cruise/Mullaney Defendants failed to manage the Principal U.S.
Property Separate Account ("PUSPSA") in the best interests of
investors, improperly imposed a "withdrawal freeze" on September
26, 2008, and instituted a "withdrawal queue" to honor withdrawal
requests as sufficient liquidity became available. Plaintiffs
allege these actions constitute a breach of fiduciary duties under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").
Plaintiffs seek to certify a class including all qualified ERISA
plans and the participants of those plans that invested in PUSPSA
between September 26, 2008, and the present that have suffered
losses caused by the queue.  The two lawsuits, as well as two
subsequently filed complaints asserting similar claims, have been
consolidated and are now known as In re Principal U.S. Property
Account Litigation.  On April 22, 2010, an order was entered
granting the motion made by the Cruise/Mullaney Defendants for
change of venue to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa.  Plaintiffs filed an Amended
Consolidated Complaint adding five new plaintiffs on November 22,
2010, and the Cruise/Mullaney Defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The court denied the Cruise/Mullaney
Defendants' motion to dismiss on
May 17, 2011.  The Cruise/Mullaney Defendants are aggressively
defending the lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 15,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


RED ROBIN: Sued Over Unpaid Reporting Time Pay in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Brittney Calvert and Kevin McConell, on behalf of themselves, and
all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Red Robin
International, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, Case No. 3:12-cv-
00893 (N.D. Calif., February 23, 2012) is brought on behalf of a
class of California employees defined as "All non-exempt hourly
employees of Red Robin International, Inc., who worked in
California from June 20, 2007 to the present date."

The Plaintiffs allege that during the Class Period, Red Robin
regularly failed to pay its employees, including them and Class
Members, for half of the scheduled day's work when Red Robin
furnished less than half of the employees' usual or scheduled
day's work.  Rather, on such occasions, Red Robin would require
the employees to sign a consent form without paying them reporting
time pay as required by the Industrial Welfare Commission wage
orders, the Plaintiffs assert.

Ms. Calvert and Mr. McConnell are residents of the state of
California.  Both Ms. Calvert and Mr. McConnell were employed by
Red Robin and worked at a Brentwood, California Red Robin
location.

Red Robin is a corporation organized under Colorado law and has
been doing business as Red Robin Burger and Spirits Emporiums in
California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Hoffman, Esq.
          Leonard Emma, Esq.
          HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, LLP
          333 Bush Street, Suite 2250
          Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 362-1111
          Facsimile: (415) 362-1112
          E-mail: mhoffman@employment-lawyers.com
                  lemma@sfemployment-lawyers.com


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeal From "Sateriale" Suit Dismissal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit against a
subsidiary of Reynolds American Inc. remains pending in
California, according to the Company's February 15, 2012, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

In Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a class action filed
in November 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf
of all persons who tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash
certificates from 1991 through March 31, 2007, or who held Camel
Cash certificates as of March 31, 2007.  The plaintiffs allege
that in response to the defendants' action to discontinue
redemption of Camel Cash as of March 31, 2007, customers, like the
plaintiffs, attempted to exchange their Camel Cash for merchandise
and that the defendants, however, did not have any merchandise to
exchange for Camel Cash.  The plaintiffs allege unfair business
practices, deceptive practices, breach of contract and promissory
estoppel.  The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, actual damages,
costs and expenses.  In January 2010, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, which prompted the plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint in February 2010.  The class definition changed
to a class consisting of all persons who reside in the U.S. and
tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash certificates, from
October 1, 2006 (six months before the defendant ended the Camel
Cash program) or who held Camel Cash certificates as of March 31,
2007.  The plaintiffs also brought the class on behalf of a
proposed California subclass, consisting of all California
residents meeting the same criteria.

In May 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the amended complaint
for lack of jurisdiction over subject matter and, alternatively,
for failure to state a claim was granted with leave to amend.  The
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.  In July 2010, RJR
Tobacco's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was
granted with leave to amend.  The plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint, and RJR Tobacco filed a motion to dismiss it in
September 2010.  In December 2010, the court granted RJR Tobacco's
motion to dismiss with prejudice.  Final judgment was entered by
the court and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in January
2011.  Briefing is complete.  Oral argument has not been
scheduled.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend 6 Canadian Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. continues to defend six class action
lawsuits in Canada involving its subsidiary, according to the
Company's February 15, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

The six putative Canadian class actions were filed against various
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR Tobacco") and one of its
affiliates, in courts in the provinces of Alberta, British
Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and Saskatchewan, although the
plaintiffs' counsel have been actively pursuing only the action
pending in Saskatchewan at this time:

   * In Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in July 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiffs
brought the case on behalf of all individuals who were alive on
July 10, 2009, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer,
from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart
disease or cancer, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000
cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed or
distributed by the defendants.

   * In Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in June 2009, in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiffs
brought the case on behalf of all individuals, including their
estates, dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked
cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or distributed by the
defendants.

   * In Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba against
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR
Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiffs brought the case
on behalf of all individuals, including their estates, and their
dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes
manufactured by the defendants.

   * In Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in June 2009 in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia against
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR
Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiffs brought the case
on behalf of all individuals, including their estates, dependents
and family members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes designed,
manufactured, marketed or distributed by the defendants for the
period of January 1, 1954, to the expiry of the opt out period as
set by the court.

   * In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed
in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR
Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiffs brought the case
on behalf of all individuals, including their estates, who were
alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered, or who currently
suffer from chronic respiratory diseases, after having smoked a
minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported,
marketed, or distributed by the defendants.

   * In McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed
in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR
Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiffs brought the case
on behalf of all individuals, including their estates, who were
alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered, or who currently
suffer from heart disease, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000
cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or
distributed by the defendants.

In each of these six cases, the plaintiffs allege fraud,
fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, breach of warranty of
merchantability and of fitness for a particular purpose, failure
to warn, design defects, negligence, breach of a "special duty" to
children and adolescents, conspiracy, concert of action, unjust
enrichment, market share liability, joint liability, and
violations of various trade practices and competition statutes.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory and aggravated damages; punitive
or exemplary damages; the right to waive the torts and claim
disgorgement of the amount of revenues or profits the defendants
received from the sale of tobacco products to putative class
members; interest pursuant to the Pre-judgment Interest Act and
other similar legislation; and other relief the court deems just.
Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of these six actions to Japan Tobacco Inc.  Subject to a
reservation of rights, JTI has assumed the defense of RJR Tobacco
and its current or former affiliates in these actions.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still Awaits Decision in "Tatum" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee
of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an
employee of Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiary, R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company ("RJR Tobacco"), filed a class-action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina,
alleging that the defendants, RJR, RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee
Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee,
violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
referred to as ERISA.  The actions about which the plaintiff
complains stem from a decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco
Holdings Corp., subsequently renamed Nabisco Group Holdings Corp.,
referred to as NGH, to spin off RJR, thereby separating NGH's
tobacco business and food business.  As part of the spin-off, the
401(k) plan for the previously related entities had to be divided
into two separate plans for the now separate tobacco and food
businesses.  The plaintiff contends that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to participants of the RJR 401(k) plan when
the defendants removed the stock funds of the companies involved
in the food business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred to
as Nabisco, as investment options from the RJR 401(k) plan
approximately six months after the spin-off.  The plaintiff
asserts that a November 1999 amendment (the "1999 Amendment") that
eliminated the NGH and Nabisco funds from the RJR 401(k) plan on
January 31, 2000, contained sufficient discretion for the
defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds after
January 31, 2000, and that the failure to exercise such discretion
was a breach of fiduciary duty.  In his complaint, the plaintiff
requests, among other things, that the court require the
defendants to pay as damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount
equal to the subsequent appreciation that was purportedly lost as
a result of the liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds.

In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the
court granted in December 2003.  In December 2004, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient
discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco
funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further
proceedings.  The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot.  In
April 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part,
dismissing all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits Committee
and the RJR Pension Investment Committee.  The remaining
defendants, RJR and RJR Tobacco, filed their answer and
affirmative defenses in June 2007.  The plaintiff filed a motion
for class certification, which the court granted in September
2008.  The district court ordered mediation, but no resolution of
the case was reached.  In September 2008, each of the plaintiffs
and the defendants filed motions for summary judgment, and in
January 2009, the defendants filed a motion to decertify the
class.  A second mediation occurred in June 2009, but again no
resolution of the case was reached.  The district court overruled
the motions for summary judgment and the motion to decertify the
class.

A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010.  During
closing arguments, the plaintiff argued for the first time that
certain facts arising at trial showed that the 1999 Amendment was
not validly adopted, and then moved to amend his complaint to
conform to this evidence at trial.  On June 1, 2011, the court
granted the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and found
that the 1999 Amendment was invalid.

The parties filed their findings of fact and conclusions of law on
February 4, 2011.  A decision is pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 15,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Hearing in "Brown" Suit Set for March 21
-----------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on motions challenging the standing of class
representatives and to decertify the case in the lawsuit captioned
Brown v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., involving a subsidiary of
Reynolds American Inc., is scheduled for March 21, 2012, according
to the Company's February 15, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

On April 11, 2001, in Brown v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case
filed in June 1997 in Superior Court, San Diego County,
California, the court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of a class composed of residents of California who
smoked at least one of the defendants' cigarettes from June 10,
1993, through April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to the
defendants' marketing and advertising activities in California.
The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR
Tobacco") and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. ("B&W"), seeking
to recover restitution, disgorgement of profits and other
equitable relief under California Business and Professions Code
Section 17200 et seq. and Section 17500 et seq.  However, the
underlying substantive claims have been reduced to include
primarily allegations regarding the use of the descriptor "lights"
and statements made during the class period about the health risks
of cigarettes.  Certification was granted as to the plaintiffs'
claims that the defendants violated Section 17200 of the
California Business and Professions Code pertaining to unfair
competition.  The court, however, refused to certify the class
under the California Legal Remedies Act and on the plaintiffs'
common law claims.

In March 2005, the court granted the defendants' motion to
decertify the class, and in September 2006, the California Court
of Appeal affirmed the order decertifying the class.  In November
2006, the plaintiffs' petition for review with the California
Supreme Court was granted, and in May 2009, the court reversed the
decision of the trial court, and the California Court of Appeal
that decertified the class and remanded the case to the trial
court for further proceedings.  In March 2010, the trial court
found that the plaintiffs' "lights" claims were not preempted by
the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and denied the
defendants' second motion for summary judgment.  The plaintiffs
filed a tenth amended complaint in September 2010.  RJR Tobacco
and B&W filed their answers to the complaint.  Subsequently, on
February 24, 2011, the court found that the named class
representatives were not adequate, were not typical, and lacked
standing.  The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was denied.
The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint by
adding new class representatives and denied the defendants' motion
to dismiss.

The plaintiffs filed an eleventh amended complaint adding new
class representatives in July 2011.  Trial is scheduled for
October 5, 2012.  The defendants have filed motions challenging
the standing of the newly named class representatives and to
decertify the case.  A hearing is scheduled for March 21, 2012.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Bid for Fees Payment in "Scott" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' motion for fees and costs in the class action lawsuit
captioned Scott v. American Tobacco Co., against Reynolds American
Inc. subsidiary is pending, and a hearing is scheduled for June
18, 2012, according to the Company's February 15, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

On November 5, 1998, in Scott v. American Tobacco Co., a case
filed in District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the trial
court certified a medical monitoring or smoking cessation class of
Louisiana residents who were smokers on or before May 24, 1996.
The case was brought against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR
Tobacco") and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. ("B&W"), seeking
to recover an unspecified amount of damages to pay for medical
monitoring and smoking cessation programs.  In July 2003, the jury
returned a verdict in favor of the defendants on the plaintiffs'
claim for medical monitoring and found that cigarettes were not
defectively designed.  However, the jury also made certain
findings against the defendants on claims relating to fraud,
conspiracy, marketing to minors and smoking cessation.
Notwithstanding these findings, this portion of the trial did not
determine liability as to any class member or class
representative.  What primarily remained in the case was a class-
wide claim that the defendants pay for a program to help people
stop smoking.

In May 2004, the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $591
million on the class's claim for a smoking cessation program.  In
September 2004, the defendants posted a $50 million bond, pursuant
to legislation that limits the amount of the bond to $50 million
collectively for Master Settlement Agreement ("MSA") signatories,
and noticed their appeal.  RJR Tobacco posted $25 million (the
portions for RJR Tobacco and B&W) towards the bond.  In February
2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeals upheld the class
certification and found the defendants responsible for funding
smoking cessation for eligible class members.  The appellate court
also ruled, however, that the defendants were not liable for any
post-1988 claims, rejected the award of prejudgment interest,
struck eight of the 12 components of the smoking cessation program
and remanded the case for further proceedings.  In particular, the
appellate court ruled that no class member, who began smoking
after September 1, 1988, could receive any relief, and that only
those smokers, whose claims accrued on or before September 1,
1988, would be eligible for the smoking cessation program.  The
plaintiffs had previously expressly represented to the trial court
that none of their claims accrued before 1988 and that the class
claims did not accrue until around 1996, when the case was filed.
The defendants' application for writ of certiorari with the
Louisiana Supreme Court was denied in January 2008.  The
defendants' petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme
Court was denied in June 2008.  In July 2008, the trial court
entered an amended judgment in the case, finding that the
defendants are jointly and severally liable for funding the cost
of a court-supervised smoking cessation program and ordered the
defendants to deposit approximately $263 million together with
interest from June 30, 2004, into a trust for the funding of the
program.  The court also stated that it would favorably consider a
motion to return to defendants a portion of unused funds at the
close of each program year in the event the monies allocated for
the preceding program year were not fully expended because of a
reduction in class size or underutilization by the remaining
plaintiffs.

In December 2008, the trial court judge signed an order granting
the defendants an appeal from the amended judgment.  In April
2010, the court of appeals amended but largely affirmed the trial
court's July 2008 judgment and ordered the defendants to deposit
with the court $242 million with judicial interest from July 21,
2008, until paid.  The defendants' motion for rehearing was
denied.  In September 2010, the defendants' application for writ
of certiorari or review and their emergency motion to stay
execution of judgment with the Louisiana Supreme Court were
denied.  In September 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the
defendant's motion to stay the judgment pending applicants' timely
filing, and the Court's disposition, of a petition for writ of
certiorari.  The defendants filed a petition for writ of
certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court in December 2010.  The court
denied the petition on June 27, 2011.  RJR Tobacco accrued $139
million, the portions of the judgment allocated to RJR Tobacco and
B&W, in the second quarter of 2011.  RJR Tobacco paid the judgment
in August 2011.

In December 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for assessment of
attorneys' fees and costs for the prosecution of the case.
Briefing is underway.  On January 6, 2012, the defendants filed
exceptions and motion to strike.  A hearing on the defendants'
exceptions and a motion to strike occurred on February 3, 2012.  A
hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for fees and costs is scheduled
for June 18, 2012.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Jones" Suit Still Pending in Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------
In Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in December
1998 in Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, the defendants
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri in February 1999.  The action was brought
against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including Reynolds
American Inc.'s subsidiary, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR
Tobacco"), and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. ("B&W"), and
parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR,
by tobacco product users and purchasers on behalf of all similarly
situated Missouri consumers.  The plaintiffs allege that their use
of the defendants' tobacco products has caused them to become
addicted to nicotine.  The plaintiffs seek to recover an
unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages.  The case
was remanded to the Circuit Court in February 1999.  There has
been limited activity in this case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 15,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Suit Still Stayed in West Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in
Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, the plaintiff sued
asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiary, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company ("RJR Tobacco"), and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc.
("B&W"), and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including RJR, seeking to recover $1 million in compensatory and
punitive damages individually and an unspecified amount for the
class in both compensatory and punitive damages.  The class was
brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have personal injury
claims arising from their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers
and cigarette smoke.  The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use
of tobacco products and exposure to asbestos products caused her
to develop lung cancer and to become addicted to tobacco.  In
December 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries, Inc. Pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy
Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to all
defendants.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 15,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still Defends "Lights" Class Action Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. disclosed in its February 15, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011, that it continues to defend
"lights" class-action cases pending against its subsidiary, R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR Tobacco") and Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc. ("B&W").  The cases are pending in Illinois (2),
Missouri (2), Minnesota (2), California (1) and Arizona (1).

The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to
$75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages,
injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W.  In general, the plaintiffs
allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made false and misleading claims
that "lights" cigarettes were lower in tar and nicotine and/or
were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other cigarettes.  The
cases typically are filed pursuant to state consumer protection
and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court.  In
that "lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc.
and Philip Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these
claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to
as FTC, historic regulation of the industry.  Since this decision
in December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active
again.

The seminal "lights" class-action case involves RJR Tobacco's
competitor, Philip Morris, Inc.  Trial began in Price v. Philip
Morris, Inc. in January 2003.  In March 2003, the trial judge
entered judgment against Philip Morris in the amount of $7.1
billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages
to the State of Illinois.  Based on Illinois law, the bond
required to stay execution of the judgment was set initially at
$12 billion.  Philip Morris pursued various avenues of relief from
the $12 billion bond requirement.  On December 15, 2005, the
Illinois Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and
sent the case back to the trial court with instructions to dismiss
the case.  On December 5, 2006, the trial court granted the
defendant's motion to dismiss and for entry of final judgment.
The case was dismissed with prejudice the same day.  In December
2008, the plaintiffs filed a petition for relief from judgment,
stating that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Good v. Altria
Group, Inc. rejected the basis for the reversal.  The trial court
granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' petition
for relief from judgment in February 2009.  In March 2009, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Illinois Appellate
Court, Fifth Judicial District, requesting a reversal of the
February 2009 order and remand to the circuit court.  On February
24, 2011, the appellate court entered an order, concluding that
the two-year time limit for filing a petition for relief from a
final judgment began to run when the trial court dismissed the
plaintiffs' lawsuit on December 18, 2006.  The appellate court
therefore found that the petition was timely, reversed the order
of the trial court, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Philip Morris filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois
Supreme Court.  On September 28, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court
denied Philip Morris' petition for leave to appeal and returned
the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

In Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in February
2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified
a class in November 2001.  In June 2003, RJR Tobacco filed a
motion to stay the case pending Philip Morris's appeal of the
Price v. Philip Morris Inc. case, which the judge denied in July
2003.  In October 2003, the Illinois Fifth District Court of
Appeals denied RJR Tobacco's emergency stay/supremacy order
request.  In November 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR
Tobacco's motion for a stay pending the court's final appeal
decision in Price.  On October 11, 2007, the Illinois Fifth
District Court of Appeals dismissed RJR Tobacco's appeal of the
court's denial of its emergency stay/supremacy order request and
remanded the case to the circuit court.  There is currently no
activity in the case.

In Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., another case filed
in February 2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a
judge certified a class in December 2001.  In June 2003, the trial
judge issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolution
of the Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. case.  The plaintiffs appealed
this stay order to the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals,
which affirmed the Circuit Court's stay order in August 2005.
There is currently no activity in the case.

A "lights" class-action case is pending against each of RJR
Tobacco and B&W in Missouri.  In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co., a case filed in May 2000 in Circuit Court, St. Louis County,
Missouri, a judge in St. Louis certified a class in December 2003.
In April 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
reassign Collora and the following cases to a single general
division: Craft v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. and Black v.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.  In April 2008, the court stayed
the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria
Group, Inc.  A nominal trial date of January 10, 2011, was
scheduled, but it did not proceed at that time.  There is
currently no activity in the case.

In Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in
November 2000 in Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, B&W
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.  The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand,
which was granted in March 2006.  In April 2008, the court stayed
the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria
Group, Inc.  A nominal trial date of January 10, 2011, was
scheduled, but it did not proceed at that time.  There is
currently no activity in the case.

In Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in April 2003,
and pending in District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota, a judge
dismissed the case in May 2005, ruling the "lights" claims are
preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.
In July 2005, the plaintiffs appealed to the Minnesota Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Judicial District.  During the pendency of
the appeal, RJR Tobacco removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.  In February 2007, the Eighth
Circuit remanded the case to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which
in December 2007, reversed the judgment and remanded the case to
the District Court.  In January 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court
issued an order vacating the February 2008 order that granted RJR
Tobacco's petition for review.  In July 2009, the plaintiffs in
this case and in Thompson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., filed a
motion to consolidate for discovery and trial.  In October 2009,
the court companioned the two cases and reserved its ruling on the
motion to consolidate, which it said will be reevaluated as
discovery progresses.  In February 2010, a stipulation and order
was entered to stay proceedings in this case and in Thompson until
completion of all appellate review in Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc.
There is currently no activity in the case.

In Thompson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in
February 2005 in District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota, RJR
Tobacco removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.  In October 2007, the U.S. District Court
remanded the case to state district court.  In May 2009, the court
entered an agreed scheduling order that bifurcates merits and
class certification discovery.  The parties are engaged in class
certification discovery.  In July 2009, the plaintiffs in this
case and in Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. filed a motion to
consolidate for discovery and trial.  In October 2009, the court
companioned the two cases and reserved its ruling on the motion to
consolidate, which it said will be reevaluated as discovery
progresses.  In February 2010, a stipulation and order was entered
to stay proceedings in this case and in Dahl until completion of
all appellate review in Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc.  There is
currently no activity in the case.

In Cleary v. Philip Morris, Inc., a case filed in June 1998, and
pending in Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois, the plaintiffs
filed their motion for class certification in December 2001, in an
action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including RJR Tobacco and B&W.  The case was brought on behalf of
persons who have allegedly been injured by (1) the defendants'
purported conspiracy pursuant to which defendants concealed
material facts regarding the addictive nature of nicotine, (2) the
defendants' alleged acts of targeting their advertising and
marketing to minors, and (3) the defendants' claimed breach of the
public right to defendants' compliance with the laws prohibiting
the distribution of cigarettes to minors.  The plaintiffs
requested that the defendants be required to disgorge all profits
unjustly received through their sale of cigarettes to plaintiffs
and the class, which in no event will be greater than $75,000 per
each class member, inclusive of punitive damages, interest and
costs.  In March 2006, the court dismissed count V, public
nuisance, and count VI, unjust enrichment.  The plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint in March 2009, to add a claim of unjust
enrichment and, to include in the class, individuals who smoked
"light" cigarettes.  RJR Tobacco and B&W answered the amended
complaint in March 2009.  In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed an
additional motion for class certification.  In September 2009, the
court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the
pleadings concerning the "lights" claims as to all defendants
other than Philip Morris.  In February 2010, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification of all three putative
classes.  However, the court ruled that the plaintiffs may
reinstate the class dealing with the conspiracy to conceal the
addictive nature of nicotine if they identify a new class
representative.  In April 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs'
motion to file a fourth amended complaint and withdraw the motion
to reinstate count I by identifying a new plaintiff.  The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' fourth
amended complaint, which was granted in June 2010.  The court
denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider, and in August 2010,
the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  In August 2011, the Seventh
Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment.  The plaintiffs'
petition for rehearing with a suggestion for rehearing en banc was
denied on November 15, 2011.  The deadline to file a petition for
writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court was February 13,
2012.

In Shaffer v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in October
2009 in the Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona against RJR
Tobacco, RAI and other defendants, the plaintiffs brought the case
on behalf of all persons residing in Arizona who purchased, not
for resale, defendants' cigarettes labeled as "light" or "ultra-
light" from the date of the defendants' first sales of such
cigarettes in Arizona to the date of judgment.  The plaintiffs
allege consumer fraud, concealment, non-disclosure, negligent
misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.  The plaintiffs seek a
variety of damages, including compensatory, restitutionary and
punitive damages.  In November 2009, the defendants removed the
case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, and
RJR Tobacco and RAI filed their answers to the complaint.
Discovery is underway.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
summary judgment on the grounds of the purported collateral
estoppel effect of certain findings in United States v. Philip
Morris USA, Inc.

The Company says in the event RJR Tobacco and its affiliates or
indemnitees lose one or more of the pending "lights" class-action
lawsuits, RJR Tobacco could face bonding difficulties depending
upon the amount of damages ordered, if any, which could have a
material adverse effect on RJR Tobacco's, and consequently the
Company's results of operations, cash flows or financial position.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in "Smith" Antitrust Suit on July 16
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the antitrust class action lawsuit against a Reynolds
American Inc. subsidiary is scheduled for July 16, 2012, according
to the Company's February 15, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

A number of tobacco wholesalers and consumers have sued U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
("RJR Tobacco"), and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. ("B&W"), in
federal and state courts, alleging that cigarette manufacturers
combined and conspired to set the price of cigarettes in violation
of antitrust statutes and various state unfair business practices
statutes.  In these cases, the plaintiffs asked the court to
certify the lawsuits as class actions on behalf of other persons
who purchased cigarettes directly or indirectly from one or more
of the defendants.  As of December 31, 2011, all of the federal
and state court cases on behalf of indirect purchasers had been
dismissed, except for one state court case pending in Kansas.

In Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., a case filed in February
2000, and pending in District Court, Seward County, Kansas, the
court granted class certification in November 2001, in an action
brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
RJR Tobacco and B&W, and the parent companies of the major U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover an
unspecified amount in actual and punitive damages.  The plaintiffs
allege that the defendants participated in a conspiracy to fix or
maintain the price of cigarettes sold in the United States.  The
parties are currently engaged in discovery.  In November 2010, RJR
Tobacco and B&W filed a motion for summary judgment.  A hearing on
the motion occurred on January 18, 2012.  A decision is pending.
Trial has been scheduled for July 16, 2012.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Suit Still Stayed in Louisiana
---------------------------------------------------------
In Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in November
1997 in Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the plaintiffs
brought an environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS") class action
against U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including Reynolds American
Inc.'s subsidiary, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR Tobacco")
and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. ("B&W"), and parent
companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, on
behalf of all residents of Louisiana who, though not themselves
cigarette smokers, have been exposed to secondhand smoke from
cigarettes which were manufactured by the defendants, and who
allegedly suffered injury as a result of that exposure.  The
plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory
and punitive damages.  In October 2004, the trial court stayed
this case pending the outcome of the appeal in Scott v. American
Tobacco Co., Inc.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 15,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


SAIC: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that SAIC and three of its top
officers inflated its share price through false and misleading
statements, a shareholding pension plan claims in a federal class
action filed in Manhattan.


SEQWATER: Maurice Blackburn Calls on Flood Victims to Join Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Queensland Times reports that class action lawyers are
targeting flood-hit areas of Ipswich and Brisbane with a direct
marketing campaign to whip up support for a major suit against
Seqwater and the Queensland Government.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers and class action backers IMF (Australia)
have distributed a flyer encouraging victims to register for a
legal class action on a "no win, no cost to you" basis.

Flood victims are urged to sign up for an information pack if they
"suffered loss or damage caused or contributed to by water flowing
from Wivenhoe Dam between January 7, 2011 and January 12, 2011."

Goodna councillor Paul Tully, who lost his family home in the
flood, received the flyer last week and said it was dropped off to
thousands of households across the suburb, in both flood and non-
flood areas.

Goodna was the hardest-hit suburb in south-east Queensland, with
600 homes destroyed.

Cr Tully said it was a bold move to maximize the number of
claimants to put pressure on the government to settle any class
action out of court.

"I support what they are doing because it may be the only
opportunity for flood victims to recover their losses after their
insurance claims were generally denied by most companies," he
said.

The letter to flood victims is signed by John Walker, executive
director of IMF (Australia) Ltd.

"If sufficient support from flood victims exists and IMF's
investigations prove fruitful, then proceedings will be
commenced," it says.

"This project offers a professional and properly resourced
investigation with the costs and risks assumed by IMF, enabling
flood victims access to justice where they have a viable claim."


SILICON LABORATORIES: Consolidated IPO Suit Now Concluded
---------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated lawsuit over initial public offerings involving
Silicon Laboratories Inc. has concluded, according to the
Company's February 15, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On December 6, 2001, a class action complaint for violations of
U.S. federal securities laws was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company, four officers individually and the three investment
banking firms who served as representatives of the underwriters in
connection with the Company's initial public offering of common
stock.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that the
registration statement and prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering did not disclose that (1) the underwriters
solicited and received additional, excessive and undisclosed
commissions from certain investors, and (2) the underwriters had
agreed to allocate shares of the offering in exchange for a
commitment from the customers to purchase additional shares in the
aftermarket at pre-determined higher prices.  The Complaint
alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The action seeks damages in an
unspecified amount and is being coordinated with approximately 300
other nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  A
court order dated October 9, 2002 dismissed without prejudice the
four officers of the Company who had been named individually.  On
December 5, 2006, the Second Circuit vacated a decision by the
District Court granting class certification in six of the
coordinated cases, which are intended to serve as test, or "focus"
cases.  The plaintiffs selected these six cases, which do not
include the Company.  On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied
a petition for rehearing filed by the plaintiffs, but noted that
the plaintiffs could ask the District Court to certify more narrow
classes than those that were rejected.

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
the parties in the case against the Company, reached a settlement.
On October 5, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement.  Judgment was entered on January 10, 2010.  The
settlement approval was appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.  One appeal was dismissed and the
second appeal was remanded to the District Court to determine if
the appellant is a class member with standing to appeal.  The
District Court ruled that the appellant lacked standing.  The
appellant appealed the District Court's decision to the Second
Circuit.  Subsequently, the appellant entered into a settlement
agreement with counsel for the plaintiff class pursuant to which
he dismissed his appeal with prejudice.  As a result, the
settlement among the parties is final and the case is concluded.
The insurers for the issuer defendants in the coordinated cases
will make the settlement payment on behalf of the issuers,
including the Company.  The Company says the settlement did not
have a material impact to its financial position or results of
operations.


ST. JOSEPH: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims in
Orange County Court that the St. Joseph Health System and five of
its hospitals exposed 32,000 patients' medical information on the
Internet.

A copy of the Complaint in Hambric v. St. Joseph Health System, et
al., Case No. 30-2012-00546468 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/24/MedRecs.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          Daniel S. Robinson, Esq.
          Scot D. Wilson, Esq.
          Wesley K. Polischuk, Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS, INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288


THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Theratechnologies Inc. on Feb. 24 disclosed that the Superior
Court of Quebec has authorized the institution of a class action
and an action based on the secondary market liability provisions
of the Quebec Securities Act against Theratechnologies, its
current Chairman of the Board of Directors and its former
president and chief executive officer on behalf of persons who
were shareholders at May 21, 2010, and who sold their common
shares of the Company on May 25 or 26, 2010.

The representative of this class of persons is 121851 Canada Inc.,
a former shareholder of the Company.  This person alleges that
Theratechnologies did not comply with its continuous disclosure
obligations as a reporting issuer by failing to disclose a
material change and will have to prove these allegations on the
merits.

Despite the granting of such a motion, Theratechnologies is of the
view that the allegations against it are entirely without merit
and will take all appropriate actions to vigorously defend its
position.

                     About Theratechnologies

Theratechnologies (TSX: TH) (NASDAQ: THER) --
http://www.theratech.com-- is a specialty pharmaceutical company
that discovers and develops innovative therapeutic peptide
products, with an emphasis on growth-hormone releasing factor
(GRF) peptides.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Arbitration in Acceleration Suit Tentatively Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edvard Pettersson and Bill Callahan, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that a judge ruled tentatively that Toyota Motor Corp.
can't force named plaintiffs in a purported class-action lawsuit
over alleged losses from unintended sudden acceleration to
arbitrate their claims rather than proceed to trial.

U.S. District Judge James Selna in Santa Ana, California, said in
a tentative ruling on Feb. 24 that Toyota waived its right to
compel arbitration for 15 of the 20 plaintiffs and that, for the
remaining five, the carmaker wasn't a party to the arbitration
agreements between the plaintiffs and the Toyota dealers.

A hearing was scheduled Feb. 27 in federal court in Santa Ana,
where Toyota's lawyers may try to persuade the judge to change his
decision.

"By failing to assert a right to compel arbitration until now,
Toyota has encouraged plaintiffs to pursue their current
litigation strategy, including pursuing their claims on a class-
wide basis in a federal forum," Judge Selna said in his tentative
order.  "They would be prejudiced if their claims were required to
be submitted to arbitration now."

Judge Selna has been presiding over the consolidated litigation
since 2010.  He has scheduled three trials for next year that will
serve as bellwether cases to be used by the court and lawyers for
both sides to test evidence and liability theories before moving
on to other trials and a decision by Judge Selna as to whether to
approve a class-action status for the plaintiffs.

                      Arbitration Agreements

Toyota's request that most of the economic loss cases be sent to
arbitration was based on the automaker's argument that customers
who bought or leased Toyota vehicles involved in the litigation
signed arbitration agreements that waive their rights to
participate in a class-action case.

Celeste Migliore, a spokeswoman for Torrance, California- based
Toyota Motor Sales USA, declined to comment on the tentative
order.

The cases are combined as In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended
Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability
Litigation, 8:10-ml-02151, U.S. District Court, Central District
of California (Santa Ana).


TRANS1 INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
RTT News reports that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP on Feb. 25
announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of securities of the medical device company TranS1 Inc.
(TSON), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The suit was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina for the purchasers of the company's
securities between February 21, 2008 and October 17, 2011.

The allegation is that during the period, TranS1 and certain of
its executive officers misrepresented or failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the company's business, operations
and financial performance.

TranS1 is a medical device company that designs, develops and
markets products that implement its proprietary surgical approach
to treat degenerative conditions of spine affecting the lower
lumbar region.


VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Merger-Related Suit Settlement Okayed in Nov.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The $1.5 million settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit
over Viasystems Group, Inc.'s acquisition of Merix Corporation was
approved in November 2011, according to the Company's February 15,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On February 16, 2010, the Company acquired Merix Corporation,
which increased the Company's printed circuit board ("PCB")
manufacturing capacity by adding four additional PCB production
facilities, added North American PCB quick-turn service capability
and added military and aerospace to its already diverse end-user
markets.

On October 13, 2009, and November 5, 2009, respectively, Asbestos
Workers Pension Fund and W. Donald Wybert, both former Merix
shareholders, filed putative class action complaints in Oregon
state court (Multnomah County), on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, against Merix, the members of its board
of directors and Viasystems.  The complaints, which were
substantively identical and sought to enjoin the Merix
Acquisition, alleged, among other things, that Merix' directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Merix' shareholders by
attempting to sell Merix to Viasystems for an inadequate price and
that Viasystems aided and abetted those breaches.

On November 23, 2009, the court entered an order consolidating the
two cases.  On or about December 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended
Complaint"), which largely mirrored the original complaints, but
also added Maple Acquisition Corp. (the merger vehicle) as a
defendant and alleged that Merix' proxy statement for the Merix
Acquisition was materially deficient.

On January 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary
restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction to enjoin the
shareholder vote on the Merix Acquisition, scheduled to take place
on February 8, 2010.  On January 29, 2010, the defendants filed
oppositions to plaintiffs' motion, and, on February 2, 2010,
plaintiffs filed their reply.  On February 5, 2010, following oral
arguments, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion.  The Merix
Acquisition was consummated on February 16, 2010.

After the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to enjoin the
transaction, the plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint, dated
April 19, 2010, naming only Merix' former board members as
defendants (the "Defendants").  In June 2011, the Defendants and
the plaintiffs agreed to settle the case for $1.5 million.  The
settlement was approved by the court at a hearing on November 10,
2011.  The Defendants are insured by Merix' directors and officers
liability insurance (the "D&O Insurance") coverage.  The Company
has exhausted the self-insured retention of the D&O Insurance and
therefore all settlement funds and any expenses related to this
matter were paid by the D&O Insurance.


WEST PUBLISHING: Sued for Unlawful Copying of Attorneys' Works
--------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that attorneys
claim in a federal class action that West Publishing and
LexisNexis engage in "unabashed wholesale copying of thousands of
copyright-protected works created by, and owned by, the attorneys
and law firms who authored them," and bundle and sell access to
the works "for huge profits."

Attorneys Edward L. White and Kenneth Elan sued West Publishing
Corporation dba "West" and Reed Elsevier dba LexisNexis, in a 13-
page complaint with 51 pages of exhibits and attachments.

Mr. White, an Oklahoma attorney specializing in intellectual
property law, and Elan, of New York City, seek to represent all
attorneys and law firms that created works that appear in
LexisNexis and West's searchable databases.

They seek damages on behalf of two classes of attorneys: those who
have a registered copyright in the works, and those who do not.

Messrs. White and Elan claim that West and LexisNexis created
digital copies of attorneys' copyright-protected works, put those
works in their databases, and made them available to subscribers
for a fee.

"The defendants are the largest electronic legal research
providers in the United States," the complaint states.  "West and
LexisNexis have engaged in wholesale unlawful copying of
attorneys' copyrighted work, bundled those works into searchable
databases, and sold access to those works in the form of digitized
text and images for huge profits.  In doing so, West and
LexisNexis are infringing the rights of the very clients they
purport to serve.  West and LexisNexis well know that the
copyright laws of the United States require them to obtain
authorization from the attorneys who created the works they
infringe.  Despite this knowledge, West and LexisNexis have for
years and continue to systematically sell the attorneys' work."
West and LexisNexis offer online access to thousands of legal
documents, including briefs, motions and other materials created
by law firms.

"In order to include the works (as defined above) in their
databases, the defendants copy such works and digitize them in
order to make them text searchable," the complaint states.  "In at
least some instances, the defendants also include images of the
works available for viewing and/or download."

West and LexisNexis sell access to the documents "either as part
of a package subscription, or at an additional per-document
charge," according to the complaint.  And, the attorneys say, they
do not sell it on the cheap.

"The defendants charge substantial fees for access to these
databases of content that they created from the wholesale copying
of the works," the complaint states.  "For example, access to
West's 'All State Briefs' database has been priced at $389.00 per
month for a solo attorney, as is its 'All Federal Briefs'
database.  Access to the All State and Federal Briefs product has
been priced for solo practitioners at $622.00 per month. Lexis's
Briefs, Pleadings, and Motions product costs a single attorney
$960.00 for a twelve month subscription.

"The defendants have neither sought, nor obtained, ownership of
the copyright to the works, or a license to copy, sell, or
otherwise profit from the works.

"The defendants continue to copy, digitize, and sell the class
members' works without their authorization.

"The defendants' infringement of the class members' works has
caused, and will continue to cause, damages and irreparable injury
to plaintiffs and the class.

"The defendants, as the publishers and authors of numerous and
substantial original works of legal analysis -- in which they
claim and vigorously defend their own copyright interests -- knew
or should have known that their actions constitute copyright
infringement."

Messrs. White and Elan, who claim to have substantial earnings
from their copyright-protected documents, say the publishers
intend to continue the infringement.

They seek class certification, damages for copyright infringement,
disgorgement, and they want the publishers barred from continued
infringement of their copyrights.

Messrs. White and Elan are represented by:

          Gregory Blue, Esq.
          GREGORY A. BLUE, P.C.
          The Chrysler Building, 405 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (646) 351-0006
          E-mail: blue@bluelegal.us

West is a wholly owned subsidiary of Thomson Reuters and one of
the most prominent publishers of legal materials in the United
States.

LexisNexis, a subsidiary of Reed Elsevier, serves customers in
more than 100 countries and has more than 15,000 employees
worldwide.

West and LexisNexis own more than 85,000 databases of case law,
statutes, public records, law journals, law reviews and briefs.



                           *********

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  * * *