CAR_Public/120301.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, March 1, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 43

                             Headlines

CITY OF TULSA, OK: Jail Faces Class Action Over Lax Oversight
CITY OF TULSA, OK: EMSA Sued Over Utility Fee Program
CLEARWIRE CORP: Awaits Order on Arbitration Bid in "Newton" Suit
CLEARWIRE CORP: Awaits Ruling in "Minnick" Class Suit vs. Unit
CLEARWIRE CORP: Evidentiary Hearing in "Kwan" Suit on June 26

CLEARWIRE CORP: To Renew Arbitration Motion in "Dennings" Suit
FELTEX: More Investors Join Class Action in New Zealand
HALLIBURTON CO: Appeals Certification Order in Securities Suit
HALLIBURTON CO: Court Affirms Denial of Sanctions in Macondo MDL
HALLIBURTON CO: Faces Suits Over Operations in Duncan Facility

HOLIDAY INN: Faces Overtime Class Action in New York
HUNTSMAN CORP: Class Suit in Calif. Super. Court Remains Stayed
HUNTSMAN CORP: Cert. Hearing in Polyether Polyol Suits on April 2
HUNTSMAN CORP: Certification Hearing in Maryland Suit on Aug. 16
HUNTSMAN CORP: Dismissed From Direct Cases Over Polyether Polyol

INYX INC: May 4 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
KELLY SERVICES: Awaits Final Okay of "Fuller" Suit Settlement
KELLY SERVICES: Paid 1.9 Mil. Settlement Payment in 4Q of 2011
KENNETH COLE: Being Sold for Too Little, New York Suit Claims

MASTERCARD INC: "Attridge" Suit Remanded to Trial Court in Jan.
MASTERCARD INC: Consumer Suits Pending in New Mexico and Calif.
MASTERCARD INC: Awaits Sept. 12 Trial in Interchange Fee Suit
MASTERCARD INC: Seeks Dismissal of Suits Over ATM Rule Surcharges
MASTERCARD INC: Still Defends Interchange Fee Suits in Canada

MASTERCARD INC: Continues to File Conversion Fee Suit Dismissals
MERRILL LYNCH: Black Brokers Win Class Certification
MONSANTO: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
MONSANTO: Judge Dismisses Farmers' Class Action
OGE ENERGY: "Buser" Suit vs. Unit Dismissed in October 2011

OGE ENERGY: "Price I" Suit Plaintiffs Given More Discovery Time
OGE ENERGY: "Price II" Suit Plaintiffs Given More Discovery Time
OKLAHOMA GAS: "Price I" Plaintiffs Given More Discovery Time
PG&E CORP: Trial in San Bruno Accident Suits to Start on July 23
PPG INDUSTRIES: Briefing in TOI MDL to Be Completed in Late 2012

PPG INDUSTRIES: Settlement Funds Distribution to Occur in 2012
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Limit NJLAD Application Pending
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Awaits Order on NID-Related Suit Dismissal Bid
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Securities Suit vs. Celera Pending in Calif.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Employees Class Suit in New Jersey

REVLON INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over 2009 Exchange Offer
RYDER SYSTEM: Defends Suits Alleging Wage & Hour Law Violations
SYNGENTA AG: Holiday Shores Suit vs. Unit Currently in Discovery
THOMSON REUTERS: Faces Copyright Infringement Class Action
TRAVELERS COS: Awaits Ruling on Asbestos-Related Suit Appeals

TRAVELERS COS: Still Awaits Final OK of Antitrust Suit Deal
TRAVELERS COS: Objectors Appeal Settlement Order in "Safeco" Suit
VENOCO INC: Faces Suits Over Proposed Acquisition by T. Marquez
VIA RAIL: Sutts, Strosberg Mulls Class Action Over Train Crash
WALGREEN CO: Sued Over Unpaid OT Wages for Pharmacists in Calif.

WASTE MANAGEMENT: Awaits Decisions on Motions in ERISA Suit
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Suits Over Fuel & Environmental Charges
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: AWP Suit Settlement Approved in December
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: FTC's Appeal in Androgel Suit Pending
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Hearing in TCPA-Violation Suit on Mar. 21

WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Plea for Review in Cipro Suit Pending
WELLCARE HEALTH: Repurchased $112.5-MM Subordinated Notes in Dec.

* Securities Class Actions Gain Traction in Canada


                          *********

CITY OF TULSA, OK: Jail Faces Class Action Over Lax Oversight
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Harper, writing for Tulsa World, reports that a Tulsa
attorney known for his involvement in class-action federal
lawsuits that brought about change within Oklahoma's prisons and
the Tulsa Police Department is taking a different approach in
trying to improve what he believes to be deficient conditions in
the Tulsa jail.

Louis Bullock, who also played an integral role in the case that
led to the closing of the Hissom Memorial Center in Sand Springs
and the assimilation of its developmentally disabled residents
into the community, is connected to four lawsuits filed in the
last several months that deal with alleged incidents that occurred
at the jail.

The most recent civil case, filed earlier this month, deals with a
purported rape between inmates that allegedly occurred last
September.

A criminal case is pending in Tulsa County District Court against
32-year-old Jessie Earl Johnson, who is accused of raping a 21-
year-old woman in the jail's medical unit last Sept. 27.

The civil case filed in Tulsa federal court on Feb. 16 claims the
alleged sexual assault is "symptomatic of a jail spun out of
control.  Plaintiff fell victim to a culture and system of
inadequate supervision, monitoring, security . . . and
indifference toward the safety of female inmates."

After first-degree rape and sexual battery charges were filed last
October against Mr. Johnson, Sgt. Shannon Clark, a spokesman for
the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office, said jail officials were
conducting an internal investigation of the medical unit and its
operations.

Mr. Clark said recently that the internal investigation has
concluded and the office has taken "corrective measures to protect
against any type of incident of this type in the future."

Tulsa County Undersheriff Brian Edwards said the investigation led
to action being taken against two employees.

The federal lawsuit follows another pending civil case which
alleges that a then-17-year-old female inmate was "repeatedly
sexually assaulted and raped" by a male who was then a detention
officer at the jail -- who has not been criminally charged -- in
early 2010.

The other two lawsuits deal with inmates who evidently committed
suicide in the Tulsa Jail.

The Tulsa law firm of Smolen, Smolen & Roytman is working as co-
counsel with Mr. Bullock's firm on the four lawsuits.  Smolen,
Smolen & Roytman has previously served as plaintiffs' attorneys in
a series of now-settled lawsuits filed by people who claimed they
were victims of racial discrimination while employed by the
sheriff's office.

Attorney Daniel Smolen -- danielsmolen@ssrok.com -- said he hopes
the recent lawsuits against Sheriff Stanley Glanz and others "send
a wake-up call to the sheriff that the conditions within the jail
must change immediately."

Elia Patricia Lara-Williams, the widow of Elliott Williams, filed
her complaint on Nov. 17, just a few weeks after her 37-year-old
husband was found dead in his cell.  She claims in the lawsuit
that jail personnel and medical staff "were clearly on notice of
Mr. Williams's acute suicidal tendencies and serious mental health
issues."

Another still pending federal suit is connected to the July 2009
death of 32-year-old Charles Jernegan, who died after apparently
hanging himself in a cell at Tulsa Jail.

The lawsuit alleges Mr. Jernegan's death "was eminently
preventable.  He fell victim to a culture of delayed and
inadequate treatment and indifference toward inmate mental
illness" at the jail.

Mr. Bullock said the four cases -- and others that are still "in
the pipeline" -- all deal with "what we see as deficiencies"
within the Tulsa Jail.

Yet, Mr. Bullock said, at least at this point, there are no plans
to attempt to convert these individual cases into a class-action
lawsuit that would seek injunctive relief and subsequent court
oversight -- as his most famous cases have featured -- as opposed
to damages.

Mr. Bullock said "hopefully if they see the financial dangers they
will become their own policemen."

Attorney Clark Brewster, whose firm is representing Sheriff Glanz
in two of the lawsuits and who expects to also defend him in a
third one, said the Tulsa Jail is a "first-class operation" that
is "actually a national model."

Mr. Brewster, who said his firm is representing Mr. Glanz at a
"substantially reduced rate," said jail personnel take their
responsibilities very seriously.  He promised to "aggressively"
defend against the claims in the complaints.

He said even if the plaintiffs' side decided to shift strategies,
the lawsuits that have been filed would be poor candidates for
class-action status because they are dissimilar factually and
allege "no general wrong against a class" of people.

Mr. Brewster's co-counsel Guy Fortney said, "There just isn't any
evidence, nor can plaintiffs point to any facts, which would show
the sheriff is deliberately indifferent to the needs of those
individuals in his custody."

Mr. Edwards -- who said the Sheriff's Department has not yet been
served in the Lara-Williams case -- said the jail is regularly
inspected by outside evaluators and received a positive report
from the U.S. Department of Justice in August 2010, showing it to
be one of the nation's best in the category of fewest sexual
assaults.  Still, he said "we constantly look at ways to make
adjustments."


CITY OF TULSA, OK: EMSA Sued Over Utility Fee Program
-----------------------------------------------------
Ziva Branstetter, writing for Tulsa World, reports that two
Tulsans have sued EMSA seeking class-action status for members of
the agency's utility fee program they claim were fraudulently
charged for ambulance service despite paying the fee.

The lawsuit was filed on Feb. 24 in Tulsa County District Court by
Priscilla Johnson and Evan Hughes.  It seeks class-action status
for residents enrolled in EMSA's monthly utility fee program "who
received services provided by EMSA, and who were subsequently
charged for, paid, or were sued by EMSA for fees arising from EMSA
services."

EMSA CEO Steve Williamson said through a spokeswoman that the
agency had not seen the lawsuit.  He declined to comment because
it is a pending legal matter.  EMSA has said its billing practices
are "thorough and can be trusted."

The utility fee program provides ambulance service for all
permanent members of a household enrolled in it.  EMSA bills
insurance and says it will pay any out-of-pocket costs.

Residents in Tulsa pay $3.64 per month on their utility bills
while those in Oklahoma City pay $3.65.  Residents of Tulsa and
Oklahoma City are automatically enrolled in the program unless
they opt out.

The cities of Bixby, Jenks and Sand Springs along with Oklahoma
City suburbs Edmond, Bethany, The Village, Mustang and Warr Acres
have similar programs.

"EMSA has knowingly and intentionally engaged in the practice of
charging Class Members for 'out-of-pocket' expenses . . . and when
payment was not received, has proceeded with collection efforts,"
the lawsuit states.

"EMSA's use of process was primarily for the improper purpose of
extorting money from people EMSA knew were covered by the
TotalCare Program, and thus owed no money to EMSA.  . . . EMSA and
its collections counsel primarily pursued those people least
acquainted with the law and least able to protect themselves from
abuses both by EMSA and its collections counsel," the lawsuit
alleges.

Records show Ms. Johnson was transported by ambulance after a
drunken driver struck her car in October 2007, about four months
after the EMSA utility program started in Tulsa.  EMSA sued Ms.
Johnson in 2009 and won a judgment for more than $1,000.  Records
show she was enrolled in the utility program when it began in 2007
and never opted out of it.

Mr. Hughes, 32, was transported twice in 2010 for an illness and
lived in a condominium owned by his mother, Mary Pezold.  Ms.
Pezold said she had not signed a waiver form opting out of the
program, as required in multifamily housing units that want to opt
out.

Ms. Pezold said her son received bills from EMSA for the
transports and wrote a letter stating the property was enrolled in
the program.  She said EMSA turned the account over to a
collections agency anyway.

The suit claims breach of contract, "unjust enrichment" and
violation of plaintiffs' rights to due process under the 14th
Amendment.  It seeks damages in excess of $75,000.

The suit also seeks an order vacating court judgments against
class members.  It also seeks "disgorgement by EMSA of all profits
realized for EMSA's breaches" and an order requiring the agency
"to ensure that any person to whom a statement for services is
rendered has opted out of EMSA's TotalCare program."

Records show EMSA has filed at least 1,300 small-claims lawsuits
against residents in Tulsa and Oklahoma City since 2009.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Awaits Order on Arbitration Bid in "Newton" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clearwire Corporation is awaiting a court decision on a motion to
compel arbitration in a purported class action lawsuit pending in
California, 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 March 2011, a purported class action was filed against
Clearwire in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.  The case, Newton v. Clearwire, Inc. [sic], alleges
Clearwire's network management and advertising practices
constitute breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair
competition under California's Business and Professions Code
Sections 17200 et seq., and violation of California's Consumers'
Legal Remedies Act.  Plaintiff contends Clearwire's advertisements
of "no speed cap" and "unlimited data" are false and misleading.
Plaintiff alleges Clearwire has breached its contracts with
customers by not delivering the Internet service as advertised.
Plaintiff also claims slow data speeds are due to Clearwire's
network management practices.  Plaintiff seeks class
certification; declaratory and injunctive relief; unspecified
restitution and/or disgorgement of fees paid for Clearwire
service; and unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs.  On
June 9, 2011, Clearwire filed a motion to compel arbitration.  The
Company is awaiting the court's decision on the motion.  This case
is in the early stages of litigation, its outcome is unknown and
the possible loss or range of loss cannot reasonably be estimated
at this time.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Awaits Ruling in "Minnick" Class Suit vs. Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clearwire Corporation is awaiting a supreme court decision
regarding a question of state law in the class action lawsuit
commenced by Chad Minnick against a Company subsidiary, 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 April 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Clearwire U.S. LLC in the Superior Court in King County,
Washington, by a group of five plaintiffs (Chad Minnick, et al.).
The lawsuit generally alleges that the Company disseminated false
advertising about the quality and reliability of its services;
imposed an unlawful early termination fee ("ETF"); and invoked
allegedly unconscionable provisions of the Company's Terms of
Service to the detriment of subscribers.  Among other things, the
lawsuit seeks a determination that the alleged claims may be
asserted on a class-wide basis; an order declaring certain
provisions of the Company's Terms of Service, including the ETF
provision, void and unenforceable; an injunction prohibiting the
Company from collecting ETFs and further false advertising;
restitution of any early termination fees paid by the Company's
subscribers; equitable relief; and an award of unspecified damages
and attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs subsequently amended their
complaint adding seven additional plaintiffs.  The Company removed
the case to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington.  On July 23, 2009, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The Court stayed
discovery pending its ruling on the motion, and on February 2,
2010, granted the Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On
March 29, 2011, the Court of Appeals entered an Order Certifying
Question to the Supreme Court of Washington requesting guidance on
a question of Washington state law.  The parties have briefed the
issue.  Once the Washington Supreme Court issues its opinion, the
Court of Appeals will continue considering the appeal of the
District Court's dismissal of all claims in the First Amended
Complaint.

The Company says this case is in the early stages of litigation,
its outcome is unknown and the possible loss or range of loss
cannot reasonably be estimated at this time.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Evidentiary Hearing in "Kwan" Suit on June 26
-------------------------------------------------------------
An evidentiary hearing will be held on June 26, 2012, in the class
action lawsuit against Clearwire Corporation brought by
representative plaintiff Rosa Kwan, 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 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Clearwire in King County Superior Court, brought by
representative plaintiff Rosa Kwan.  The complaint alleges the
Company placed unlawful telephone calls using automatic dialing
and announcing devices and engaged in unlawful collection
practices.  It seeks declaratory, injunctive, and/or equitable
relief and actual and statutory damages under federal and state
law.  On October 1, 2009, the Company removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.  The parties stipulated to allow a Second Amended
Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on December 23, 2009.  The
Company then filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On
February 22, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss in part, dismissing certain claims with prejudice and
granting plaintiff leave to further amend the complaint.
Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint adding additional state
law claims and joining Bureau of Recovery, a purported collection
agency, as a co-defendant.  On January 27, 2011, the court granted
the parties' stipulation allowing plaintiff to file a Fourth
Amended Complaint adding two new class representatives.  The
Company then filed motions to compel the newly-added customer
plaintiffs to arbitrate their individual claims.

On January 3, 2012, the Court denied without prejudice the
Company's motions to compel arbitration because of factual issues
to be resolved at an evidentiary hearing.  The Court has set
June 26, 2012, as the date for the hearing.

The Company says this case is in the early stages of litigation,
its outcome is unknown and the possible loss or range of possible
loss cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.


CLEARWIRE CORP: To Renew Arbitration Motion in "Dennings" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clearwire Corporation said in its Company's February 16, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011, that it expects to renew its
motion to compel arbitration in the purported class action lawsuit
filed by Angelo Dennings.

In November 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Clearwire by Angelo Dennings in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington.  The complaint generally
alleges the Company slows network speeds when network demand is
highest and that such network management violates the Company's
agreements with subscribers and is contrary to its advertising and
marketing claims.  Plaintiffs also allege that subscribers do not
review the Terms of Service prior to subscribing, and when
subscribers cancel service due to network management, the Company
charges an early termination fee or restocking fee that they claim
is unconscionable under the circumstances.  The claims asserted
include breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing and unjust enrichment.  Plaintiffs seek class
certification; unspecified damages and restitution; a declaratory
judgment that Clearwire's ETF and restocking fee are
unconscionable under the alleged circumstances; an injunction
prohibiting Clearwire from engaging in alleged deceptive marketing
and from charging ETFs; interest; and attorneys' fees and costs.
On January 13, 2011, the Company filed concurrent motions to
compel arbitration and in the alternative, to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.  In response to Clearwire's motions, Plaintiff abandoned
its fraud claim and amended its complaint with fourteen additional
plaintiffs in eight separate jurisdictions.  Plaintiff further
added new claims of violation of Consumer Protection statutes
under various state laws.  On March 31, 2011, Clearwire filed
concurrent motions to (1) compel the newly-added plaintiffs to
arbitrate their individual claims, (2) alternatively, to stay this
case pending the United States Supreme Court's decision in AT&T
Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No. 09-893, and (3) to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.  Plaintiffs did not oppose Clearwire's motion to stay the
litigation pending Concepcion, and the parties stipulated to stay
the litigation.  On April 27, 2011, the US Supreme Court decided
Concepcion, and as a result, the Company expects to renew its
motion to compel arbitration.

The Company says this case is in the early stages of litigation,
its outcome is unknown and the possible loss or range of loss
cannot reasonably be estimated at this time.


FELTEX: More Investors Join Class Action in New Zealand
-------------------------------------------------------
Tamlyn Stewart, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that another 300
former Feltex investors have joined 2,500 others in a class action
against the former directors, sellers and promoters of the failed
carpetmaker.

The former shareholders claim the prospectus accompanying the
Feltex share offer of just more than NZD250 million in shares in
2004 was misleading and contained untrue statements.

Feltex collapsed in late 2006 and shareholders lost their entire
investment.

Collectively the group is claiming losses and interest since 2004
in respect of 60 million shares purchased at an issue price of
NZD$1,70 when Feltex listed.

Counsel for the plaintiffs Austin Forbes QC --
aforbes@clear.net.nz -- said some potential claimants who had not
yet joined the group action had expressed concerns about personal
liability for any adverse costs.

But that had been addressed by obtaining an insurance policy
through London-based Harbour Litigation Funding and by lodging
NZD200,000 in the Christchurch High Court last June as security
for costs, he said.

The second concern was an assumption by some investors that they
were too late to join the action, which was not correct, he said.

The High Court ruled last year that Eric Houghton, the shareholder
taking the action on behalf of others, had stopped the limitation
of time for bringing a claim for all investors he represented by
filing the claim and representative application in February 2008,
Forbes said.

The discovery process was set to begin shortly, however several
interlocutory matters are still to be determined by the Court of
Appeal.


HALLIBURTON CO: Appeals Certification Order in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company has appealed an order certifying a class in a
consolidated securities class action 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 June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company
in federal court alleging violations of the federal securities
laws after the SEC initiated an investigation in connection with
the Company's change in accounting for revenue on long-term
construction projects and related disclosures.  In the weeks that
followed, approximately twenty similar class actions were filed
against the Company.  Several of those lawsuits also named as
defendants several of the Company's present or former officers and
directors.  The class action cases were later consolidated, and
the amended consolidated class action complaint, styled Richard
Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served
upon the Company in April 2003.  As a result of a substitution of
lead plaintiffs, the case was styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee
Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al.  AMSF has
changed its name to Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (the Fund).  The
Company settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004.

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the
court.  In addition to restating the original accounting and
disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of the Company's 1998 acquisition of
Dresser Industries, Inc., including that the Company failed to
timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure.

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
the Fund the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third
consolidated amended complaint and that the Company file its
motion to dismiss.  The court held oral arguments on that motion
in August 2005.  In March 2006, the court entered an order in
which it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims
arising prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to
certain other claims while permitting the Fund to re-plead some of
those claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint.  In
April 2006, the Fund filed its fourth amended consolidated
complaint.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss those portions
of the complaint that had been re-pled.  A hearing was held on
that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered
dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other
than the Company's Chief Executive Officer (CEO).  The court
ordered that the case proceed against the Company and its CEO.

In September 2007, the Fund filed a motion for class
certification, and the Company's response was filed in November
2007.  The district court held a hearing in March 2008, and issued
an order November 3, 2008, denying the motion for class
certification.  The Fund appealed the district court's order to
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed
the district court's order denying class certification.  On
May 13, 2010, the Fund filed a writ of certiorari in the United
States Supreme Court.  In early January 2011, the Supreme Court
granted the writ of certiorari and accepted the appeal.  The Court
heard oral arguments in April 2011 and issued its decision in June
2011, reversing the Fifth Circuit ruling that the Fund needed to
prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification.  The
Court's ruling was limited to the Fifth Circuit's loss causation
requirement, and the case was returned to the Fifth Circuit for
further consideration of the Company's other arguments for denying
class certification.

The Fifth Circuit returned the case to the district court, and in
January 2012, the court issued an order certifying the class which
the Company has appealed.  The Company says the case is at an
early stage, and it cannot predict the outcome or consequences
thereof.  The Company intends to vigorously defend this case.


HALLIBURTON CO: Court Affirms Denial of Sanctions in Macondo MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carl Barbier of the United States Eastern District of
Louisiana affirmed a magistrate judge's decision denying a motion
for sanctions against Halliburton Company filed by BP Exploration
& Production, Inc. and BP p.l.c. in the multidistrict litigation
related to the Macondo well incident, 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.

The semisubmersible drilling rig, Deepwater Horizon, sank on April
22, 2010, after an explosion and fire onboard the rig that began
on April 20, 2010.  The Deepwater Horizon was owned by Transocean
Ltd. and had been drilling the Macondo exploration well in
Mississippi Canyon Block 252 in the Gulf of Mexico for BP
Exploration & Production, Inc. (BP Exploration), the lease
operator and indirect wholly owned subsidiary of BP p.l.c. (BP
p.l.c., BP Exploration, and their affiliates, collectively, BP).
There were eleven fatalities and a number of injuries as a result
of the Macondo well incident.  Crude oil escaping from the Macondo
well site spread across thousands of square miles of the Gulf of
Mexico and reached the United States Gulf Coast.  The Company
performed a variety of services for BP Exploration, including
cementing, mud logging, directional drilling, measurement-while-
drilling, and rig data acquisition services.

Since April 21, 2010, plaintiffs have been filing lawsuits
relating to the Macondo well incident.  Generally, those lawsuits
allege either (1) damages arising from the oil spill pollution and
contamination (e.g., diminution of property value, lost tax
revenue, lost business revenue, lost tourist dollars, inability to
engage in recreational or commercial activities) or (2) wrongful
death or personal injuries.  The Company is named along with other
unaffiliated defendants in more than 400 complaints, most of which
are alleged class actions, involving pollution damage claims and
at least nine personal injury lawsuits involving four decedents
and at least 21 allegedly injured persons who were on the drilling
rig at the time of the incident.  Another six lawsuits naming the
Company and others relate to alleged personal injuries sustained
by those responding to the explosion and oil spill.  Plaintiffs
originally filed the lawsuits in federal and state courts
throughout the United States, including Alabama, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.  Except for certain
lawsuits not yet consolidated (including two lawsuits that are
proceeding in Louisiana state court, one lawsuit that is
proceeding in Louisiana federal court, two lawsuits that are
proceeding in Texas state court, two lawsuits that are proceeding
in Florida federal court, and four lawsuits in Florida state court
for which the Company has not been served), the Judicial Panel on
Multi-District Litigation ordered all of the lawsuits against the
Company consolidated in the MDL proceeding before Judge Carl
Barbier in the United States Eastern District of Louisiana.  The
pollution complaints generally allege, among other things,
negligence and gross negligence, property damages, taking of
protected species, and potential economic losses as a result of
environmental pollution and generally seek awards of unspecified
economic, compensatory, and punitive damages, as well as
injunctive relief.  Plaintiffs in these pollution cases have
brought lawsuit under various legal provisions, including The Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), The Clean Water Act (CWA), The
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (ESA), the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the
Longshoremen and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, general maritime
law, state common law, and various state environmental and
products liability statutes.

Furthermore, the pollution complaints include lawsuits brought
against the Company by governmental entities, including the State
of Alabama, the State of Louisiana, Plaquemines Parish, the City
of Greenville, and three Mexican states.  Complaints brought
against the Company by ten other parishes in Louisiana were
dismissed with prejudice, and the dismissal is being appealed by
those parishes.  The wrongful death and other personal injury
complaints generally allege negligence and gross negligence and
seek awards of compensatory damages, including unspecified
economic damages and punitive damages.  The Company has retained
counsel and are investigating and evaluating the claims, the
theories of recovery, damages asserted, and its respective
defenses to all of these claims.

Judge Barbier is also presiding over a separate proceeding filed
by Transocean under the Limitation of Liability Act (Limitation
Action).  In the Limitation Action, Transocean seeks to limit its
liability for claims arising out of the Macondo well incident to
the value of the rig and its freight.  Although the Limitation
Action is not consolidated in the MDL, to this point the judge is
effectively treating the two proceedings as associated cases.  On
February 18, 2011, Transocean tendered the Company, along with all
other defendants, into the Limitation Action.  As a result of the
tender, the Company and all other defendants will be treated as
direct defendants to the plaintiffs' claims as if the plaintiffs
had sued each of the Company and the other defendants directly.
In the Limitation Action, the judge intends to determine the
allocation of liability among all defendants in the hundreds of
lawsuits associated with the Macondo well incident, including
those in the MDL proceeding that are pending in his court.
Specifically, the judge will determine the liability, limitation,
exoneration and fault allocation with regard to all of the
defendants in a trial, which is scheduled to occur in three
phases, that is set to begin in late February 2012.  The three
phases of this portion of the trial are scheduled to cover the
liabilities associated with the blowout itself, the actions
relating to the attempts to control the flow of hydrocarbons from
the well, and the efforts to contain and clean-up the oil that was
discharged from the Macondo well.  The Company does not believe
that a single apportionment of liability in the Limitation Action
is properly applied, particularly with respect to gross negligence
and punitive damages, to the hundreds of lawsuits pending in the
MDL proceeding.

Damages for the cases tried in the MDL proceeding, including
punitive damages, are expected to be tried following the three-
phase portion of the trial.  Under ordinary MDL procedures, such
cases would, unless waived by the respective parties, be tried in
the courts from which they were transferred into the MDL.  It
remains unclear, however, what impact the overlay of the
Limitation Action will have on where these matters are tried.
Document discovery and depositions among the parties to the MDL
are ongoing.  It is unclear how the judge will address the U.S.
Department of Justice's civil action for alleged violations of the
CWA and the OPA.

In April and May 2011, certain defendants in the proceedings filed
numerous cross claims and third party claims against certain other
defendants.  BP Exploration and BP America Production Company
filed claims against the Company seeking subrogation and
contribution, including with respect to liabilities under the OPA,
and direct damages, and alleging negligence, gross negligence,
fraudulent conduct, and fraudulent concealment.  Transocean filed
claims against the Company seeking indemnification, and
subrogation and contribution, including with respect to
liabilities under the OPA and for the total loss of the Deepwater
Horizon, and alleging comparative fault and breach of warranty of
workmanlike performance.  Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and
Anadarko E&P Company LP filed claims against the Company seeking
tort indemnity and contribution, and alleging negligence, gross
negligence and willful misconduct, and MOEX Offshore 2007 LLC
(MOEX), who has an approximate 10% interest in the Macondo well,
filed a claim against the Company alleging negligence.  Cameron
International Corporation (Cameron) (the manufacturer and designer
of the blowout preventer), M-I Swaco (provider of drilling fluids
and services, among other things), Weatherford U.S. L.P. and
Weatherford International, Inc. (together, Weatherford) (providers
of casing components, including float equipment and centralizers,
and services), and Dril-Quip, Inc. (Dril-Quip) (provider of
wellhead systems), each filed claims against the Company seeking
indemnification and contribution, including with respect to
liabilities under the OPA in the case of Cameron, and alleging
negligence.  Additional civil lawsuits may be filed against the
Company.  In addition to the claims against the Company, generally
the defendants in the proceedings filed claims, including for
liabilities under the OPA and other similar claims, against the
other defendants.  BP has since announced that it has settled
those claims between it and each of MOEX, Weatherford, Anadarko,
and Cameron.

In April 2011, the Company filed claims against BP Exploration, BP
p.l.c. and BP America Production Company (BP Defendants), M-I
Swaco, Cameron, Anadarko, MOEX, Weatherford, Dril-Quip, and
numerous entities involved in the post-blowout remediation and
response efforts, in each case seeking contribution and
indemnification and alleging negligence.  The Company's claims
also alleged gross negligence and willful misconduct on the part
of the BP Defendants, Anadarko, and Weatherford.  The Company also
filed claims against M-I Swaco and Weatherford for contractual
indemnification, and against Cameron, Weatherford and Dril-Quip
for strict products liability, although the court has since issued
orders dismissing all claims asserted against Dril-Quip and
Weatherford in the MDL.  The Company filed its answer to
Transocean's Limitation petition denying Transocean's right to
limit its liability, denying all claims and responsibility for the
incident, seeking contribution and indemnification, and alleging
negligence and gross negligence.

Judge Barbier has issued an order, among others, clarifying
certain aspects of law applicable to the lawsuits pending in his
court.  The court ruled that: (1) general maritime law will apply
and therefore dismissed all claims brought under state law causes
of action; (2) general maritime law claims may be brought directly
against defendants who are non-"responsible parties" under the OPA
with the exception of pure economic loss claims by plaintiffs
other than commercial fishermen; (3) all claims for damages,
including pure economic loss claims, may be brought under the OPA
directly against responsible parties; and (4) punitive damage
claims can be brought against both non-responsible parties under
general maritime law and responsible parties under the OPA.  With
respect to the ruling that claims for damages may be brought under
the OPA against responsible parties, the Company has not been
named as a responsible party under the OPA, but BP Exploration has
filed a claim against the Company for contribution with respect to
liabilities incurred by BP Exploration under the OPA.

In September 2011, the Company filed claims in Harris County,
Texas, against the BP Defendants seeking damages, including lost
profits and exemplary damages, and alleging negligence, grossly
negligent misrepresentation, defamation, common law libel,
slander, and business disparagement.  The Company's claims allege
that the BP Defendants knew or should have known about an
additional hydrocarbon zone in the well that the BP Defendants
failed to disclose to the Company prior to it designing the cement
program for the Macondo well.  The location of the hydrocarbon
zones is critical information required prior to performing
cementing services and is necessary to achieve desired cement
placement.  The Company believes that had BP Defendants disclosed
the hydrocarbon zone to the Company, the Company would not have
proceeded with the cement program unless it was redesigned, which
likely would have required a redesign of the production casing.
In addition, the Company believes that the BP Defendants withheld
this information from the BP Report and from the various
investigations.  In connection with this, the Company also moved
to amend its claims against the BP Defendants in the MDL
proceeding to include fraud.  The BP Defendants have denied all of
the allegations relating to the additional hydrocarbon zone and
filed a motion to prevent the Company from adding its fraud claim
in the MDL.  In October 2011, the Company's motion to add the
fraud claim against the BP Defendants in the MDL proceeding was
denied.  The court's ruling does not, however, prevent the Company
from using the underlying evidence in its pending claims against
the BP Defendants.

In December 2011, BP filed a motion for sanctions against the
Company alleging, among other things, that the Company destroyed
evidence relating to post-incident testing of the foam cement
slurry on the Deepwater Horizon and requesting adverse findings
against the Company.  A magistrate judge in the MDL proceeding
denied BP's motion.  BP appealed that ruling, and Judge Barbier
affirmed the magistrate judge's decision.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend any litigation,
fines, and/or penalties relating to the Macondo well incident and
to vigorously pursue any damages, remedies, or other rights
available to the Company as a result of the Macondo well incident.
The Company has incurred and expects to continue to incur
significant legal fees and costs, some of which it expects to be
covered by indemnity or insurance, as a result of the numerous
investigations and lawsuits relating to the incident.


HALLIBURTON CO: Faces Suits Over Operations in Duncan Facility
--------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company is facing lawsuits alleging that operations at
its Duncan, Oklahoma facility caused releases of pollutants,
including ammonium perchlorate, 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.

Commencing in October 2011, a number of lawsuits were filed
against the Company, including a putative class action case in
federal court in the Western District of Oklahoma and other
lawsuits filed in Oklahoma state courts.  The lawsuits generally
allege, among other things, that operations at the Company's
Duncan facility caused releases of pollutants, including ammonium
perchlorate and, in the case of the federal lawsuit, nuclear or
radioactive waste, into the groundwater, and that the Company knew
about those releases and did not take corrective actions to
address them.  It is also alleged that the plaintiffs have
suffered from certain health conditions, including hypothyroidism,
a condition that has been associated with exposure to perchlorate
at sufficiently high doses over time.  These cases seek, among
other things, damages, including punitive damages, and the
establishment of a fund for future medical monitoring.  The cases
allege, among other things, strict liability, trespass, private
nuisance, public nuisance, and negligence and, in the case of the
federal lawsuit, violations of the U.S. Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, resulting in personal injuries, property damage, and
diminution of property value.

The lawsuits generally allege that the cleaning of the missile
casings at the Duncan facility contaminated the surrounding soils
and groundwater, including certain water wells used in a number of
residential homes, through the migration of, among other things,
ammonium perchlorate.  The federal lawsuit also alleges that the
Company's processing of radioactive waste from a nuclear power
plant over 25 years ago resulted in the release of
"nuclear/radioactive" waste into the environment.

The Company and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) have recently conducted soil and groundwater sampling
relating to the allegations that has confirmed that the alleged
nuclear or radioactive material is confined to the soil in a
discrete area of the onsite operations and is not present in the
groundwater onsite or in any areas offsite.  The radiological
impacts from this discrete area are not believed to present any
health risk for offsite exposure.  With respect to ammonium
perchlorate, the Company has made arrangements to supply affected
residents with bottled drinking water and, if needed, with a
temporary water supply system, at no cost to the residents.  The
Company has worked with the City of Duncan and the DEQ to expedite
expansion of the city water supply to the relevant areas.

The Company says the lawsuits are at an early stage, and
additional lawsuits and proceedings may be brought against it.
The Company cannot predict their outcome or the consequences
thereof.  As of December 31, 2011, the Company had accrued $35
million related to its initial estimate of response efforts,
third-party property damage, and remediation related to the
Duncan, Oklahoma matter.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
the lawsuits and does not believe that these lawsuits will have a
material adverse effect on its liquidity, consolidated results of
operations, or consolidated financial condition.


HOLIDAY INN: Faces Overtime Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------
MMD Newswire reports that in a class action suit filed Feb. 23 in
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in
Central Islip, Mavis Kemper, a native of Jamaica now living in
Cambria Heights, Queens, alleges that the Holiday Inn in Westbury,
Long Island in Westbury, didn't pay overtime to any of its
employees who worked more than 40 hours a week over the last six
years in violation of state and federal labor law.

Ms. Kemper, 43, a housekeeper at the Holiday Inn in Westbury, Long
Island, from June 2005 until January 2012, worked tirelessly,
often working six days per week from about 6:30 a.m. until 3:30
p.m. for $9 to $11 per hour, cleaning the hotel's 152 rooms, but
she was never paid overtime.  Reluctantly, she complained, but
nothing was done.

"I knew that I was working over 40 hours per week and that I was
supposed to be getting overtime, but I needed the job," said
Ms. Kemper, whose average work week was 45-48 hours.

The Fair Labor Standards Act and state law requires businesses to
pay overtime at a rate of 1.5 times the regular rate for all hours
worked over 40 hours over seven consecutive days.

Filed by Leeds Morelli & Brown PC, a law firm in Carle Place, and
Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, a law firm in Manhattan, the lawsuit
seeks class-action status for roughly 100 current and Westbury
Holiday Inn employees. It names Westbury Operating Corp. and
Norman Shapiro, president and chief executive of the company, as
defendants.

"This hotel took advantage of Mavis Kemper and her fellow
workers," said Jeffrey Brown, a Leeds Morelli partner.  "They were
never apprised of their rights to collect overtime, despite
consistently working more than 40-plus hours per week."

The suit also alleges the hotel didn't provide its employees with
paystubs that correctly reflected the hours they worked, the rate
of pay, the amount of deductions and other information required by
law.  According to New York Law workers are entitled to $100 for
every paycheck they received that did not have a stub.  These
provisions are part of the state's almost year-old Wage Theft
Prevention Act -- aimed at curbing wage violations.

"Situations such as this one involving Mavis Kemper are becoming
all too common across the business landscape and we hope that by
filing this suit, workers will realize that they have rights,"
said Len Leeds, also a partner at Leeds, Morelli & Brown.

"It's unfortunate in today's economic times that employees not
only are forced to work long hours, must find it necessary to file
suit to receive the wages for the hours that they worked," said
Lloyd Ambinder of Virginia & Ambinder.

"I even complained to a manager, but they didn't do anything about
it," according to Ms. Kemper.

The case is Mavis Kemper v. Westbury Operating Corp. d/b/a Holiday
Inn Westbury-Long Island, 12-cv-0895, U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of New York (Central Islip).


HUNTSMAN CORP: Class Suit in Calif. Super. Court Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation and its subsidiaries have been named as a
defendant in civil class action antitrust lawsuits alleging that
between 1999 and 2004 the Company conspired with Bayer, BASF, Dow
and Lyondell to fix the prices of MDI, TDI, polyether polyols, and
related systems ("polyether polyol products") sold in the U.S. in
violation of the federal Sherman Act.  These cases are
consolidated as the "Polyether Polyols" cases in multidistrict
litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas.

A purported class action case filed February 15, 2002, by
purchasers in California of products containing rubber and
urethane chemicals and pending in Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco, is stayed pending resolution of the
Kansas multidistrict litigation.  The plaintiffs in this matter
make similar claims against the defendants as the class plaintiffs
in the Kansas multidistrict litigation.

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.

The Company says in all of the antitrust litigation currently
pending against it, the plaintiffs generally are seeking
injunctive relief, treble damages, costs of lawsuit and attorneys
fees.  The Company asserts that it is not aware of any illegal
conduct by the Company or any of its employees.  Nevertheless, the
Company has incurred costs relating to these claims and could
incur additional costs in amounts material to it.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Cert. Hearing in Polyether Polyol Suits on April 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Two similar civil antitrust class action cases against Huntsman
Corporation were filed May 5 and 17, 2006, in the Superior Court
of Justice, Ontario, Canada, and Superior Court, Province of
Quebec, District of Quebec, on behalf of purported classes of
Canadian direct and indirect purchasers of MDI, TDI and polyether
polyols.  The class certification hearing is scheduled for
April 2, 2012.

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.

The Company says in all of the antitrust litigation currently
pending against it, the plaintiffs generally are seeking
injunctive relief, treble damages, costs of lawsuit and attorneys
fees.  The Company asserts that it is not aware of any illegal
conduct by the Company or any of its employees.  Nevertheless, the
Company has incurred costs relating to these claims and could
incur additional costs in amounts material to it.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Certification Hearing in Maryland Suit on Aug. 16
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class certification hearing is scheduled for August 16, 2012, in
the consolidated antitrust lawsuit pending in Maryland, according
to Huntsman Corporation's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

The Company has been named as a defendant in two purported class
action civil antitrust lawsuits alleging that it and its co-
defendants and other co-conspirators conspired to fix prices of
titanium dioxide sold in the U.S. between at least March 1, 2002,
and the present.  The cases were filed on February 9 and 12, 2010,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and a
consolidated complaint was filed on April 12, 2010.  The other
defendants named in this matter are E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, Kronos Worldwide Inc., Millennium Inorganic Chemicals,
Inc. and the National Titanium Dioxide Company Limited (d/b/a
Cristal).

A class certification hearing is scheduled for August 16, 2012,
and trial is set to begin September 9, 2013.  Discovery is
ongoing.

The Company says in all of the antitrust litigation currently
pending against it, the plaintiffs generally are seeking
injunctive relief, treble damages, costs of lawsuit and attorneys
fees.  The Company asserts that it is not aware of any illegal
conduct by the Company or any of its employees.  Nevertheless, the
Company has incurred costs relating to these claims and could
incur additional costs in amounts material to it.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Dismissed From Direct Cases Over Polyether Polyol
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation was dismissed in December 2011 from the
antitrust cases brought by direct purchasers of polyether polyol
products that opted out of the class certified in the Kansas
multidistrict litigation, 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.

The Company was named as a defendant in civil class action
antitrust lawsuits alleging that between 1999 and 2004, the
Company conspired with Bayer, BASF, Dow and Lyondell to fix the
prices of MDI, TDI, polyether polyols, and related systems
("polyether polyol products") sold in the U.S. in violation of the
federal Sherman Act.  These cases are consolidated as the
"Polyether Polyols" cases in multidistrict litigation pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

In addition, the Company and the other Polyether Polyol defendants
were named as defendants in three civil antitrust lawsuits brought
by certain direct purchasers of polyether polyol products that
opted out of the class certified in the Kansas multidistrict
litigation.  The relevant time frame for these cases is 1994 to
2004 and they are referred to as the "direct action cases."  The
class action and the direct action cases were consolidated in the
Kansas court for the purposes of discovery and other pretrial
matters.

In the second quarter of 2011, the Company settled the class
action and was dismissed as a defendant.  On December 29, 2011,
the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the direct
action plaintiffs for an amount immaterial to its financial
statements and was dismissed from those cases on December 30,
2011.

The Company says in all of the antitrust litigation currently
pending against it, the plaintiffs generally are seeking
injunctive relief, treble damages, costs of lawsuit and attorneys
fees.  The Company asserts that it is not aware of any illegal
conduct by the Company or any of its employees.  Nevertheless, the
Company has incurred costs relating to these claims and could
incur additional costs in amounts material to it.


INYX INC: May 4 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven on Feb. 27 issued a statement regarding the INYX,
Inc. Class Action Settlement.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Civil Action No. 08-cv-06857-PKC THE PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE FUNDS,
Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, vs. INYX INC., JACK KACHKAR, STEVEN HANDLEY, RIMA
GOLDSHMIDT, JAY M. GREEN and BERKOVITS & COMPANY, LLP, Defendants.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

All Persons and Entities Who Purchased Inyx, Inc. Common Stock
Between April 1, 2005 and July 2, 2007, Inclusive.

This Summary Notice is given pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"Court"), dated February 9, 2012.  The purpose of this Summary
Notice is to inform you of the proposed settlement of the above-
entitled class action (the "Action") against defendants Inyx,
Inc., Jack Kachkar, Rima Goldshmidt, and Jay M. Green.

A Settlement Hearing will be held before the Hon. P. Kevin Castel,
United States District Judge, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S.
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007, at 11:30 a.m. on
May 4, 2012 in order: (1) to determine whether the Settlement
consisting of no less than $600,000.00 (US) and no more than
$1,100,000 (US) in cash should be approved as fair, reasonable,
and adequate to the Class and the proposed Judgment entered; (2)
to determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for the
proceeds of the settlement is fair and reasonable, and should be
approved by the Court; (3) to determine whether any applications
for attorneys' fees not to exceed 35% of the settlement Fund and
reimbursement of litigation expenses not to exceed $110,000.00
(US) to Class Counsel should be approved; and (5) to rule upon
such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate.

If you purchased the common stock of Inyx, Inc. between April 1,
2005 and July 2, 2007, inclusive, and are not otherwise excluded
from the Class, you are a Class Member.  Class Members will be
bound by the final Judgment of the Court.  If you are a Class
Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked no
later than June 8, 2012, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery.  If you are a Class Member and need a Proof of Claim,
copies may be obtained by telephoning the Claims Administrator at
(800) 231-1815 or by downloading the form on the Internet at
http://www.gcginc.com

If you do not wish to be included in the Class and you do not wish
to participate in the proposed Settlement, you may request to be
excluded in the manner set forth in the full Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), no later than April 9,
2012.  If you are a Class Member, and you do not request exclusion
from the Class, you may make written objection(s) to the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation or Class Counsel's request for
an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses by
following the procedures set forth in the Notice.  If you make a
written objection, you also may appear at the Settlement Hearing.
You must file and serve your written objection, in the manner
specifically set forth in the Notice, no later than April 9, 2012.

This is only a summary notice. The full Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Class Action may be accessed at:
http://www.gcginc.com

You are urged to obtain a copy of the Notice, which includes,
among other things, a description of: (1) the litigation in this
Action prior to the Settlement; (2) the full terms of the proposed
Settlement; (3) the Plan of Allocation for the proceeds of the
Settlement; (4) the rights of Class Members, including the
mandatory procedures to exclude oneself from the Class or appear
at the Settlement Hearing and/or object to the Settlement, the
Plan of Allocation and/or Class Counsel's application for
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses; and (5) the scope
of the release of claims against Defendants.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

        Dated: February 9, 2012 CLERK OF THE COURT
                                UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kaiser Foundation Health Plan
stiffed case managers for overtime, a class action claims in
Alameda County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Holt, et al. v. Kaiser Foundation
Health Plan, Inc., et al., Case No. RG12618562 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Alameda Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/27/KaiserCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David R. Markham, Esq.
          R. Craig Clark, Esq.
          Steven T. Wlodek, Esq.
          CLARK & MARKHAM LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 2130
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-1321
          E-mail: dmarkham@clarkmarkham.com
                  cclark@clarkmarkham.com


KELLY SERVICES: Awaits Final Okay of "Fuller" Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Services, Inc. is awaiting final court approval of a
settlement of a class action lawsuit captioned Fuller v. Kelly
Services, Inc. and Kelly Home Care Services, Inc., according to
the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended January 1,
2012.

The lawsuit is pending in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles, which involves a claim for monetary damages by current
and former temporary employees in the state of California.

The claims are related to alleged misclassification of personal
attendants as exempt and not entitled to overtime compensation
under state law and alleged technical violations of a state law
governing the content of employee pay stubs.  A $1.2 million after
tax charge relating to the settlement was recognized in
discontinued operations during the second quarter 2011.

Kelly Services, Inc. -- http://www.kellyservices.com/-- provides
workforce solutions.  Kelly(R) offers a comprehensive array of
outsourcing and consulting services as well as world-class
staffing on a temporary, temporary-to-hire and direct-hire basis.
Serving clients around the globe, Kelly provides employment to
more than 530,000 employees annually.


KELLY SERVICES: Paid 1.9 Mil. Settlement Payment in 4Q of 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Services, Inc., disclosed in its February 16, 2012, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended January 1, 2012, that during the fourth quarter of
2011, the Company paid $1.9 million to settle a previous legal
matter, Sullivan v. Kelly Services, Inc., which had been pending
in the U.S. District Court Southern District of California.  The
Company established a reserve for this case in 2010.

Kelly Services, Inc. -- http://www.kellyservices.com/-- provides
workforce solutions.  Kelly(R) offers a comprehensive array of
outsourcing and consulting services as well as world-class
staffing on a temporary, temporary-to-hire and direct-hire basis.
Serving clients around the globe, Kelly provides employment to
more than 530,000 employees annually.


KENNETH COLE: Being Sold for Too Little, New York Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Astor BK Realty Trust, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Kenneth D. Cole, Paul Blum, Michael Blitzer,
Robert Grayson, Denis Kelly, Philip Peller, and Kenneth Cole
Productions, Inc., Case No. 650521/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., February
24, 2012) is a class action that arised out of the proposed
acquisition of KCP by its founder, chairman of the Board, and
chief creative officer, Kenneth D. Cole.

On February 23, 2012, Mr. Cole submitted a going-private proposal
to the Board pursuant to which he is seeking to acquire all of the
remaining outstanding shares of KCP that he does not already own
for $15.00 per share, for a total equity value of approximately
$280 million, the Plaintiff relates.  However, the Plaintiff
argues, the $15.00 per share represents wholly inadequate
consideration in light of the Company's intrinsic value and future
prospects.

The Plaintiff is a shareholder of KCP.

KCP, a New York corporation, designs, sources, and markets a broad
range of footwear, handbags, apparel and accessories under the
brand names Kenneth Cole New York, Kenneth Cole Reaction, and
Unlisted, as well as footwear under the proprietary trademark
Gentle Souls.  Mr. Cole is the Company's controlling stockholder,
owning approximately 47% of KCP's common stock, representing
approximately 89% of the voting power of the Company.  The other
Individual Defendants are officers and directors of KCP.

A copy of the Complaint in Astor BK Realty Trust v. Kenneth D.
Cole, et al., Index No. 650521/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/27/KCole.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
          Joseph Levi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          30 Broad Street, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: jlevi@zlk.com
                  shopkins@zlk.com


MASTERCARD INC: "Attridge" Suit Remanded to Trial Court in Jan.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2012, an appellate court reversed a trial court's
settlement approval of the "Attridge" antitrust action and
remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings,
according to MasterCard Incorporated's February 16, 2012, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

In October 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") filed a
lawsuit against MasterCard International Incorporated, Visa
U.S.A., Inc. and Visa International Corp. in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that both
MasterCard's and Visa's governance structure and policies violated
U.S. federal antitrust laws.

In April 2005, a complaint was filed in California state court on
behalf of a putative class of consumers under California unfair
competition law (Section 17200) and the Cartwright Act (the
"Attridge action").  The claims in this action seek to piggyback
on the portion of the DOJ antitrust litigation with regard to the
District Court's findings concerning MasterCard's CPP and Visa's
related bylaw. MasterCard and Visa moved to dismiss the complaint
and the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' Cartwright Act claims but denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Section 17200 unfair competition
claims.  MasterCard filed an answer to the complaint in June 2006
and the parties have proceeded with discovery.  In September 2009,
MasterCard executed a settlement agreement that is subject to
court approval in the California consumer litigations.  The
agreement includes a release that the parties believe encompasses
the claims asserted in the Attridge action.  In August 2010, the
Court in the California consumer actions executed an order
granting final approval to the settlement.  The plaintiff from the
Attridge action and three other objectors filed appeals of the
settlement approval order.

In January 2012, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's
settlement approval and remanded the matter to the trial court for
further proceedings.

The Company says at this time, it is not possible to determine the
outcome of, or estimate the liability related to, the Attridge
action and no incremental provision for losses has been provided
in connection with it.


MASTERCARD INC: Consumer Suits Pending in New Mexico and Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated continues to face consumer lawsuits
pending in New Mexico and California, 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.

Commencing in October 1996, several class action lawsuits were
brought by a number of U.S. merchants against MasterCard
International Incorporated and Visa U.S.A., Inc. challenging
certain aspects of the payment card industry under U.S. federal
antitrust law.  Those lawsuits were later consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  The
plaintiffs claimed that MasterCard's "Honor All Cards" rule (and a
similar Visa rule), which required merchants who accept MasterCard
cards to accept for payment every validly presented MasterCard
card, constituted an illegal tying arrangement in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Plaintiffs claimed that MasterCard
and Visa unlawfully tied acceptance of debit cards to acceptance
of credit cards.  In June 2003, MasterCard International signed a
settlement agreement to settle the claims brought by the
plaintiffs in this matter, which the Court approved in December
2003.  In January 2005, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued
an order affirming the District Court's approval of the settlement
agreement thus making it final.

In addition, individual or multiple complaints have been brought
in nineteen different states and the District of Columbia alleging
state unfair competition, consumer protection and common law
claims against MasterCard International (and Visa) on behalf of
putative classes of consumers.  The claims in these actions
largely mirror the allegations made in the U.S. merchant lawsuit
and assert that merchants, faced with excessive merchant discount
fees, have passed these overcharges to consumers in the form of
higher prices on goods and services sold.  MasterCard has been
successful in dismissing cases in seventeen of the jurisdictions
as courts have granted MasterCard's motions to dismiss for failure
to state a claim or plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their
complaints.  However, there are outstanding cases in New Mexico
and California.  In June 2010, the court issued an order granting
MasterCard's motion to dismiss the complaint in the New Mexico
action.  The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal of that
decision and oral argument on the appeal was held in February
2012.

With respect to the California state actions, in September 2009,
the parties to the California state court actions executed a
settlement agreement which required a payment by MasterCard of $6
million, subject to approval by the California state court.  In
August 2010, the court executed an order granting final approval
of the settlement, subsequent to which MasterCard made the payment
required by the settlement agreement.  The plaintiff from the
Attridge action and three other objectors filed appeals of the
settlement approval order.  In January 2012, the Appellate Court
reversed the trial court's settlement approval and remanded the
matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

At this time, the Company says it is not possible to determine the
outcome of, or, except as indicated in the California consumer
action, estimate the liability related to, the remaining consumer
cases and no provision for losses has been provided in connection
with them.  The consumer class actions are not covered by the
terms of the settlement agreement in the U.S. merchant lawsuit.


MASTERCARD INC: Awaits Sept. 12 Trial in Interchange Fee Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated awaits the September 12, 2012 trial date
for the class action litigation over interchange fees, 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 June 2005, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by a
group of merchants in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut
against MasterCard International Incorporated, Visa U.S.A., Inc.,
Visa International Service Association and a number of member
banks alleging, among other things, that MasterCard's and Visa's
purported setting of interchange fees violates Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, which prohibits contracts, combinations and
conspiracies that unreasonably restrain trade.  In addition, the
complaint alleges MasterCard's and Visa's purported tying and
bundling of transaction fees also constitutes a violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The lawsuit seeks treble damages in
an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.
Since the filing of this complaint, there have been approximately
fifty similar complaints (the majority of which are styled as
class actions, although a few complaints are on behalf of
individual merchant plaintiffs) filed on behalf of merchants
against MasterCard and Visa (and in some cases, certain member
banks) in federal courts in California, New York, Wisconsin,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky and Connecticut.  In
October 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring these cases to Judge Gleeson of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for
coordination of pre-trial proceedings in MDL No. 1720.  In April
2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a First
Amended Class Action Complaint.  Taken together, the claims in the
First Amended Class Action Complaint and in the complaints brought
on the behalf of the individual merchants are generally brought
under both Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 2 of the
Sherman Act, which prohibits monopolization and attempts or
conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry.

Specifically, the complaints contain some or all of the following
claims: (1) that MasterCard's and Visa's setting of interchange
fees (for both credit and off-line debit transactions) violates
Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (2) that MasterCard and Visa have
enacted and enforced various rules, including the no surcharge
rule and purported anti-steering rules, in violation of Section 1
or 2 of the Sherman Act; (3) that MasterCard's and Visa's
purported bundling of the acceptance of premium credit cards to
standard credit cards constitutes an unlawful tying arrangement;
and (4) that MasterCard and Visa have unlawfully tied and bundled
transaction fees.  In addition to the claims brought under federal
antitrust law, some of these complaints contain certain unfair
competition law claims under state law based upon the same
conduct.  These interchange-related litigations seek treble
damages, as well as attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.  In
June 2006, MasterCard answered the complaint and moved to dismiss
or, alternatively, moved to strike the pre-2004 damage claims that
were contained in the First Amended Class Action Complaint and
moved to dismiss the Section 2 claims that were brought in the
individual merchant complaints.  In January 2008, the district
court dismissed the plaintiffs' pre-2004 damage claims.  In May
2008, the court denied MasterCard's motion to dismiss the Section
2 monopolization claims.  Fact discovery has been proceeding and
was generally completed by November 2008.  Briefs have been
submitted on plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The
court heard oral argument on the plaintiffs' class certification
motion in November 2009.  The parties are awaiting a decision on
the motion.

In January 2009, the class plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated
Class Action Complaint.  The allegations and claims in this
complaint generally mirror those in the first amended class action
complaint although plaintiffs have added additional claims brought
under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act against MasterCard, Visa
and a number of banks alleging, among other things, that the
networks and banks have continued to fix interchange fees
following each network's initial public offering.  In March 2009,
MasterCard and the other defendants in the action filed a motion
to dismiss the Second Consolidated Class Action Complaint in its
entirety, or alternatively, to narrow the claims in the complaint.
The parties have fully briefed the motion and the court heard oral
argument on the motion in November 2009.  The parties are awaiting
decisions on the motions.

In July 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a
supplemental complaint alleging that MasterCard's initial public
offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the "IPO") and
certain purported agreements entered into between MasterCard and
its member financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1)
violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act because their effect
allegedly may be to substantially lessen competition, (2) violate
Section 1 of the Sherman Act because they allegedly constitute an
unlawful combination in restraint of trade and (3) constitute a
fraudulent conveyance because the member banks are allegedly
attempting to release without adequate consideration from the
member banks MasterCard's right to assess the member banks for
MasterCard's litigation liabilities in these interchange-related
litigations and in other antitrust litigations pending against it.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and an order reversing and
unwinding the IPO.  In September 2006, MasterCard moved to dismiss
all of the claims contained in the supplemental complaint.  In
November 2008, the district court granted MasterCard's motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' supplemental complaint in its entirety
with leave to file an amended complaint.  In January 2009, the
class plaintiffs repled their complaint directed at MasterCard's
IPO by filing a First Amended Supplemental Class Action Complaint.
The causes of action in the complaint generally mirror those in
the plaintiffs' original IPO-related complaint although the
plaintiffs have attempted to expand their factual allegations
based upon discovery that has been garnered in the case.  The
class plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive relief
including, but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding
the IPO.  In March 2009, MasterCard filed a motion to dismiss the
First Amended Supplemental Class Action Complaint in its entirety.
The parties have fully briefed the motion to dismiss and the court
heard oral argument on the motion in November 2009.  The parties
are awaiting a decision on the motion.

In July 2009, the class plaintiffs and individual plaintiffs
served confidential expert reports detailing the plaintiffs'
theories of liability and alleging damages in the tens of billions
of dollars.  The defendants served their expert reports in
December 2009 rebutting the plaintiffs' assertions both with
respect to liability and damages.  In February 2011, both the
defendants and the plaintiffs served a number of dispositive
motions seeking summary judgment on all or portions of the claims
in the complaints.  The parties have fully briefed on the motions
and oral argument on the motions occurred on November 2, 2011. The
parties are awaiting decision on the motions.  The court has
scheduled a trial date of September 12, 2012.  The trial date is
subject to further delay based upon the timing of any rulings on
the outstanding motions by the parties and any objections or
appeals of those decisions along with other factors.

On February 7, 2011, MasterCard and MasterCard International
Incorporated entered into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing
and settlement sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc.
and Visa International Service Association and a number of member
banks; and (2) a MasterCard settlement and judgment sharing
agreement with a number of member banks.  The agreements provide
for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities which
MasterCard, the Visa parties and the member banks may incur,
jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or
settlement of one or all of the cases in the interchange merchant
litigations.  Among a number of scenarios addressed by the
agreements, in the event of a global settlement involving the Visa
parties, the member banks and MasterCard, MasterCard would pay 12%
of the monetary portion of the settlement.  In the event of a
settlement involving only MasterCard and the member banks with
respect to their issuance of MasterCard cards, MasterCard would
pay 36% of the monetary portion of such settlement.

MasterCard and the other defendants have been participating in
separate court-recommended mediation sessions with the individual
merchant plaintiffs and the class plaintiffs. Based on progress to
date in the mediation, MasterCard recorded a $770 million pre-tax
charge, or $495 million on an after-tax basis, in the fourth
quarter of 2011.  This charge represents MasterCard's estimate for
the financial portion of a settlement in these cases. The charge
does not represent an estimate of a loss if the parties to the
matter litigate, in which case MasterCard cannot estimate the
potential liability, if any.  MasterCard's estimate involves
significant judgment and may change depending on progress in
settlement negotiations, or if the case is not settled, if the
matter is litigated.


MASTERCARD INC: Seeks Dismissal of Suits Over ATM Rule Surcharges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated asks the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia to dismiss lawsuits over ATM rule surcharges
for failure to state a claim, 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.

On October 12, 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators
filed a proposed class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia against both MasterCard and Visa.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM
terminals that operate ATM terminals in the United States with the
discretion to determine the price of the ATM access fee for the
terminals they operate.   Plaintiffs allege that MasterCard and
Visa have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules
that require ATM operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM
surcharges for transactions processed over MasterCard's and Visa's
respective networks that are not greater than the surcharge
charged for transactions over other networks accepted at the same
ATM.  Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to
treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the
alleged violations and their costs of lawsuit, including
attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages
although they allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of
millions of dollars.

Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against MasterCard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services.  The claims
in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in the ATM
operators' complaint, although this complaint seeks damages on
behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly inflated ATM
fees at both bank and non-bank ATM operators as a result of the
defendants' ATM rules.  Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and
monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have
sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of
lawsuit, including attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs have not
quantified their damages although they allege that they expect
damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars.

In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and
the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints
that largely mirror their prior complaints.  MasterCard has moved
to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim.

At this time, and at this early stage of the cases, the Company
says it is not possible to determine the outcome of, or, estimate
the liability related to, the cases and no provision for losses
has been provided in connection with them.


MASTERCARD INC: Still Defends Interchange Fee Suits in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2010, the Canadian Competition Bureau (the "CCB")
filed an application with the Canadian Competition Tribunal to
strike down certain MasterCard Incorporated rules related to
interchange fees, including the "honor all cards" and "no
surcharge" rules.  Also in December 2010, MasterCard learned that
a purported class action lawsuit had been commenced against it in
Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants and consumers.  That
lawsuit essentially repeats the allegations and arguments of the
CCB application to the Canadian Competition Tribunal and seeks
compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, as well
as injunctive relief.  In March 2011, a second purported class
action lawsuit was commenced in British Columbia against
MasterCard, Visa and a number of large Canadian banks, and in May
2011 a third purported class action lawsuit was commenced in
Ontario against the same defendants.  These lawsuits allege that
MasterCard, Visa and the banks have engaged in a price fixing
conspiracy to increase or maintain the fees paid by merchants on
credit card transactions and that MasterCard's and Visa's rules
force merchants to accept all MasterCard and Visa credit cards and
prevent merchants from charging more for payments with MasterCard
and Visa premium cards.  The second lawsuit seeks compensatory
damages in unspecified amounts, and the third lawsuit seeks
compensatory damages of $5 billion.  The second and third lawsuits
also seek punitive damages in unspecified amounts, as well as
injunctive relief, interest and legal costs.

If the CCB's challenges and/or the class action lawsuits were
ultimately successful, the Company says such negative decisions
could have a significant adverse impact on the revenues of
MasterCard's Canadian customers and on MasterCard's overall
business in Canada and, in the case of the private lawsuits, could
result in substantial damage awards.

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.


MASTERCARD INC: Continues to File Conversion Fee Suit Dismissals
----------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated's operating subsidiary, MasterCard
International Incorporated, together with Visa U.S.A., Inc. and
Visa International Corp., are defendants in a state court lawsuit
in California. The lawsuit alleges that MasterCard and Visa
wrongfully imposed an asserted one percent currency conversion
"fee" on every credit card transaction by U.S. MasterCard and Visa
cardholders involving the purchase of goods or services in a
foreign country, and that such alleged "fee" is unlawful.  This
action, titled Schwartz v. Visa Int'l Corp., et al. (the "Schwartz
action"), was brought in the Superior Court of California in
February 2000, purportedly on behalf of the general public.
MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International
Corp., several member banks including Citibank (South Dakota),
N.A., Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A. (USA),
MBNA, and Citicorp Diners Club Inc. are also defendants in a
number of federal putative class actions that allege, among other
things, violations of federal antitrust laws based on the asserted
one percent currency conversion "fee."  Pursuant to an order of
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the federal
complaints have been consolidated in MDL No. 1409 (the "MDL
action") before Judge William H. Pauley III in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

In July 2006, MasterCard and the other defendants in the MDL
action entered into agreements settling the MDL action and related
matters, as well as the Schwartz matter.  Pursuant to the
settlement agreements, MasterCard paid approximately $72 million
to be used for the defendants' settlement fund to settle the MDL
action and approximately $13 million to settle the Schwartz
matter.  In November 2009, Judge Pauley signed a Final Judgment
and Order of Dismissal granting final approval to the settlement
agreements.  A number of appeals of the final settlement approval
were filed.  All the appeals of the approval have now been
withdrawn and the settlement is now final.

With regard to other state court currency conversion actions,
MasterCard has reached agreements with the plaintiffs for a total
of approximately $4 million, which has been accrued.  Settlement
agreements have been executed with plaintiffs in the Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Arizona, New
York, Minnesota, Illinois and Missouri actions.  Now that all
appeals of the final approval of the MDL settlement action are
extinguished, MasterCard and the plaintiffs in the state actions
have or are in the process of filing dismissals of the actions
with prejudice.

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.


MERRILL LYNCH: Black Brokers Win Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
Joe Celentino at Courthouse News Service reports that Merrill
Lynch financial advisors who claim they were denied pay and
promotions because they are black can sue the investment firm as a
class, a decision that could cost the investment firm dearly, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled.

The 700-person class, led by Nashville financial advisor George
McReynolds, alleged that Merrill Lynch's company policies result
in unintentional discrimination, known as disparate effect,
against black bankers.  Specifically, the class challenged the
company's "teaming" and "account distribution" policies under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

At each Merrill Lynch branch, brokers are encouraged to divide
themselves into client-sharing teams.  "The aim in forming or
joining a team is to gain access to additional clients, or if one
is already rich in clients to share some of them with brokers who
have complementary skills that will secure the clients' loyalty
and maybe persuade them to invest more with Merrill Lynch," the
7th Circuit summarized.

While not all brokers join teams, teaming up allegedly presents
substantial benefits.

But white brokers tend to form all-white teams, according to the
complaint.  Though brokers probably focus simply on the bottom
line and "would doubtless ask a superstar broker to join their
team regardless of his or her race . . . there is bound to be
uncertainty about who will be effective in bringing and keeping
shared clients; and when there is uncertainty people tend to base
decisions on emotions and preconceptions, for want of objective
criteria," Judge Richard Posner wrote for the three-judge panel.

The class alleged that discrimination also occurs in account
distribution, the process by which Merrill Lynch assigns accounts
after the departure of a broker.  These assignments consider the
past financial success of the competing brokers and the number and
type of the client's investments.

But black advisors say that consideration of brokers' track
records favors those who are able to join successful teams,
creating a "vicious cycle" of low performance.

"Team participation and account distribution can affect a brokers'
performance evaluation, which under company policy influences the
broker's pay and promotion," Judge Posner summarized.  "The
plaintiffs argue that these company-wide policies exacerbate
racial discrimination by brokers."

Though U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman denied class
certification, the class filed a renewed motion after the Supreme
Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores v Dukes.

In the Wal-Mart case, the court decertified a class of 1.6 million
women who claimed sex discrimination.

Mr. McReynolds claimed that the justices' definition of a "uniform
company policy" warrants certification of his class.  Judge
Gettleman again denied the motion, but indicated in his notes that
the 7th Circuit should review the decision.

The three-judge appellate panel unanimously reversed on Feb. 24.
"We have trouble seeing the downside of the limited class action
treatment that we think would be appropriate in this case," Judge
Posner wrote.

"A denial of class certification often dooms the suit -- the class
members' claims may be too slight to justify the expense of
individual suits," the decision states.

"Because class actions are cumbersome and protracted, an early
appellate decision on whether a suit can be maintained as a class
action can speed the way to termination of the litigation by
abandonment, summary judgment, or settlement," Judge Posner added.

The plaintiffs presented evidence black Merrill Lynch brokers earn
less on average than their white counterparts.  Because most
Merrill Lynch brokers earn at least $100,000 per year, any award
of backpay could place a substantial financial burden on the
investment firm.

A copy of the decision in McReynolds, et al. v. Merrill Lynch, et
al., No. 11-3639 (7th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/FY17VJAL.pdf


MONSANTO: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports
that a "comprehensive" settlement agreement in a class action
lawsuit filed against Monsanto and related companies over its old
plant in Nitro was given preliminary approval on Feb. 24 by a West
Virginia circuit court judge.

Judge Derek Swope approved an agreement that will establish a 30-
year medical monitoring program at a local hospital for those who
lived, worked or went to school in the Nitro area during the
period of time covered by the lawsuit.

A primary fund of $21 million will pay for the testing of those
eligible class members, and up to $63 million in additional
funding will be available over the 30-year life of the program.

Also, the agreement will set aside up to $9 million to
professionally clean homes in the Nitro area.

About 4,500 homes are located in the areas where individual
remediation "may be desirable," according to the company.

Monsanto also agreed to pay for court-approved legal fees and
litigation costs incurred by the class members over the last seven
years.

The settlement resolves all claims in pending litigation, as well
as class actions, filed in West Virginia.

"These settlements ensure that both individual and community
concerns are addressed, and services are made available for the
people of Nitro," Scott Partridge, vice president of Monsanto,
said in a statement on Feb. 24.

"We are pleased to resolve this matter and end any concerns about
historic operations at the Nitro plant."

The residents' lawyer, Stuart Calwell, said he was pleased with
the agreement.

"The settlements provide needed medical benefits and remediation
services to the people of Nitro and broader community.  The
principal goal of the litigation was to provide long-term medical
monitoring and to provide professional cleaning of individual
homes," he said in a statement.

The trial, held in Putnam County Circuit Court, began on Jan. 3
after attorneys for Monsanto and the residents could not come to a
settlement.

According to complaints filed in the Putnam court in October 2007,
during the years that Monsanto was operating its trichlorophenol
plant, it adopted an unlawful practice of disposing of dioxin
waste materials by a continuous process of open "pit" burning.

The dioxin in question -- known as 2,4,5 trichlorophenoxyacidic
acid or 2,4,5-T -- was used by the military as part of the
herbicide "Agent Orange" in Vietnam.

Monsanto, which has denied the burning practice, instead described
it as an "incineration" process when questioned by regulatory
authorities.

The residents' complaints called the process "dusty" and said the
company's dust control was "haphazard," causing more than 3,000
pounds of the dioxin to be released into the Nitro air.

Sampling showed levels of 2,200 parts per trillion, while U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency standards require a level less
than 4 parts per trillion.

The Nitro plant was operated by Monsanto until 1995 when the plant
merged with Akzo Nobel, a Dutch company, and began operating as
Flexsys America Inc.

In 1997, Monsanto renamed a subsidiary as Solutia Inc. and the
Nitro plant was distributed to Solutia.  The plant eventually
closed in 2004.

In August, West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Margaret Workman
appointed Swope, of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, to preside in the
lawsuit.

Swope, a member of the Mass Litigation Panel, is sitting in for
Twenty-Ninth Judicial Circuit Judge O.C. Spaulding, who stepped
aside from the case due to illness.

Judge Spaulding announced that he has amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis, or ALS, a degenerative motor neuron disease.

Judge Swope had postponed the trial, which was supposed to begin
on Sept. 6.

According to Monsanto, the class action resolutions will now be
fully reviewed by Judge Swope to "ensure the fairness" of the
class action settlement agreement.

Before the agreement is finalized, class members must be notified
of the settlement and given a chance to object.

The Charleston Gazette reported Feb. 24 that a "fairness" hearing
has been set for June 18.

Monsanto noted on Feb. 24 that, for fiscal year 2012, the
settlement will not affect ongoing earnings per share, but the
one-time expense will reduce as-reported earnings per share by
about five cents.


MONSANTO: Judge Dismisses Farmers' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Julia Moskin, writing for The New York Times, reports that a
federal class-action lawsuit brought last year by a consortium of
farmers against the agricultural and chemical company Monsanto was
dismissed on Feb. 27 by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of Federal
District Court.

The plaintiffs, none of whom use Monsanto's products, are seeking
to have the company's agricultural patents invalidated.  They said
they were concerned that Monsanto would sue them if the company's
patented strains of soybeans, corn or alfalfa, which make up a
majority of American crops, appeared in their fields.  In January,
oral arguments in the case brought hundreds of farmers and
advocates to Lower Manhattan to protest the power wielded by
Monsanto in American agriculture.

In the Feb. 27 ruling, the judge said the farmers consortium, the
Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, had no standing to
bring such a suit, had not been harmed by the company, and had
engaged in "a transparent effort to create a controversy where
none exists."

The lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Daniel B. Ravicher of the
Public Patent Foundation, said the decision "to deny farmers the
right to seek legal protection from one of the world's foremost
patent bullies is gravely disappointing."  But Monsanto's general
counsel, David F. Snively, called it "a win for all farmers as it
underscores that agricultural practices such as ag biotechnology,
organic and conventional systems do and will continue to
effectively coexist in the agricultural marketplace."

Mr. Ravicher said the plaintiffs would probably take the case to
the Federal Court of Appeals.


OGE ENERGY: "Buser" Suit vs. Unit Dismissed in October 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of OGE
Energy Corp. commenced by Farris Buser in Oklahoma was dismissed
in October 2011, 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.

On July 22, 2005, OGE Enogex Holdings, LLC ("Enogex"), a wholly-
owned subsidiary of OGE Energy, along with certain other
unaffiliated co-defendants was served with a purported class
action which had been filed on February 7, 2005, by Farris Buser
and other named plaintiffs in the District Court of Canadian
County, Oklahoma.  The plaintiffs own royalty interests in certain
oil and gas producing properties and alleged they have been under-
compensated by the named defendants, including Enogex and its
subsidiaries, relating to the sale of liquid hydrocarbons
recovered during the transportation of natural gas from the
plaintiffs' wells.  The plaintiffs asserted breach of contract,
implied covenants, obligation, fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment,
conspiracy and fraud causes of action and claim actual damages,
plus attorneys' fees and costs, and punitive damages.  Enogex and
its subsidiaries filed a motion to dismiss which was granted on
November 18, 2005, subject to the plaintiffs' right to conduct
discovery and the possible re-filing of their allegations in the
petition against the Enogex companies.  On September 19, 2005, the
co-defendants, BP America, Inc. and BP America Production Company
filed a cross claim against Enogex Products LLC ("Products"), a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Enogex LLC, seeking indemnification
and/or contribution from Products based upon the 1997 sale of a
third-party interest in one of Products natural gas processing
plants.  On May 17, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended petition
against Enogex and its subsidiaries.  Enogex and its subsidiaries
filed a motion to dismiss the amended petition on August 2, 2006.
The hearing on the dismissal motion was held on November 20, 2006,
and the court denied Enogex's motion.  Enogex filed an answer to
the amended petition and BP America, Inc. and BP America
Production Company's cross claim on
January 16, 2007.

On October 14, 2011, this case was dismissed without prejudice.
While this lawsuit could be re-filed, Enogex considers the claims
and cross claim associated with this lawsuit to be without merit,
based upon Enogex's investigation to date.  Enogex now considers
this case closed.


OGE ENERGY: "Price I" Suit Plaintiffs Given More Discovery Time
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit captioned Will Price, et
al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al. involving OGE Energy
Corp.'s subsidiaries were granted additional time to perform
discovery prior to the consideration of motions for summary
judgment, 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.

On September 24, 1999, various subsidiaries of OGE Energy were
served with a class action petition filed in the District Court of
Stevens County, Kansas, by Quinque Operating Company and other
named plaintiffs alleging the mismeasurement of natural gas on
non-Federal lands.  The lawsuit is captioned Will Price, et al. v.
El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al. ("Price I").  On April 10, 2003,
the court entered an order denying class certification.  On May
12, 2003, the plaintiffs (now Will Price, Stixon Petroleum, Inc.,
Thomas F. Boles and the Cooper Clark Foundation, on behalf of
themselves and other royalty interest owners) filed a motion
seeking to file an amended class action petition, and the court
granted the motion on July 28, 2003.  In its amended petition,
OG&E and Enogex Inc. were omitted from the case but two of OGE
Energy's other subsidiary entities remained as defendants.  The
plaintiffs' amended petition seeks class certification and alleges
that 60 defendants, including two of OGE Energy's subsidiary
entities, have improperly measured the volume of natural gas.  The
amended petition asserts theories of civil conspiracy, aiding and
abetting, accounting and unjust enrichment.  In their briefing on
class certification, the plaintiffs seek to also allege a claim
for conversion.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest.  The plaintiffs also reserved the right to seek punitive
damages.

On September 18, 2009, the court entered its order denying class
certification.  On October 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed for a
rehearing of the court's denial of class certification.  On
March 31, 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for
rehearing. On July 20, 2011, Enogex LLC and its subsidiary, OGE
Energy Resources LLC ("OER") filed motions for summary judgment.

On January 25, 2012, the court denied portions of the motions for
summary judgment related to the legal issue of the plaintiffs'
claims regarding civil conspiracy.  In an order dated January 23,
2012, the court granted the plaintiffs additional time to perform
discovery prior to the consideration of the motions for summary
judgment as they relate to the plaintiffs' other claims.

OGE Energy says it intends to vigorously defend this action.  At
this time, OGE Energy does not believe the outcome will have a
material impact on its financial position.


OGE ENERGY: "Price II" Suit Plaintiffs Given More Discovery Time
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned Will Price, et al. v. El Paso
Natural Gas Co., et al. ("Price II") were granted additional time
to perform discovery prior to the consideration of motions for
summary judgment, according to OGE Energy Corp.'s February 16,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs, which are the same as those in
the amended petition in Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas
Co., et al. ("Price I") filed a new class action petition in the
District Court of Stevens County, Kansas, naming the same
defendants and asserting substantially identical legal and/or
equitable theories as in the amended petition of the Price I case.
The lawsuit is captioned Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas
Co., et al. ("Price II").  Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company
("OG&E") and Enogex Inc. were not named in this case, but two of
OGE Energy's other subsidiary entities were named in this case.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants mismeasured the British
thermal unit content of natural gas obtained from or measured for
the plaintiffs.  In their briefing on class certification, the
plaintiffs seek to also allege a claim for conversion.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs
and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.  The plaintiffs also
reserved the right to seek punitive damages.

On September 18, 2009, the court entered its order denying class
certification.  On October 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed for a
rehearing of the court's denial of class certification.  On
March 31, 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for
rehearing.  On July 20, 2011, Enogex LLC and OGE Energy Resources
LLC ("OER") filed motions for summary judgment.

On January 25, 2012, the court denied portions of the motions for
summary judgment related to the legal issue of the plaintiffs'
claims regarding civil conspiracy.  In an order dated January 23,
2012, the court granted the plaintiffs additional time to perform
discovery prior to the consideration of the motions for summary
judgment as they relate to the plaintiffs' other claims.

OGE Energy says it intends to vigorously defend this action.  At
this time, OGE Energy does not believe the outcome will have a
material impact on its financial position.


OKLAHOMA GAS: "Price I" Plaintiffs Given More Discovery Time
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit involving Oklahoma Gas and
Electric Company were granted additional time to perform discovery
prior to the consideration of motions for summary judgment,
according to its February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

On September 24, 1999, various subsidiaries of the Company's
parent, OGE Energy Corp., were served with a class action petition
filed in the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas, by Quinque
Operating Company and other named plaintiffs alleging the
mismeasurement of natural gas on non-Federal lands.  The lawsuit
is captioned Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al.
("Price I").  On April 10, 2003, the court entered an order
denying class certification.  On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs (now
Will Price, Stixon Petroleum, Inc., Thomas F. Boles and the Cooper
Clark Foundation, on behalf of themselves and other royalty
interest owners) filed a motion seeking to file an amended class
action petition, and the court granted the motion on July 28,
2003.  In its amended petition, OG&E and Enogex Inc. were omitted
from the case but two of OGE Energy's other subsidiary entities
remained as defendants.  The plaintiffs' amended petition seeks
class certification and alleges that 60 defendants, including two
of OGE Energy's subsidiary entities, have improperly measured the
volume of natural gas.  The amended petition asserts theories of
civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, accounting and unjust
enrichment.  In their briefing on class certification, the
plaintiffs seek to also allege a claim for conversion.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs
and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.  The plaintiffs also
reserved the right to seek punitive damages.

On September 18, 2009, the court entered its order denying class
certification.  On October 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed for a
rehearing of the court's denial of class certification.  On
March 31, 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for
rehearing.  On July 20, 2011, Enogex LLC and its subsidiary, OGE
Energy Resources LLC ("OER") filed motions for summary judgment.

On January 25, 2012, the court denied portions of the motions for
summary judgment related to the legal issue of the plaintiffs'
claims regarding civil conspiracy.  In an order dated January 23,
2012, the court granted the plaintiffs additional time to perform
discovery prior to the consideration of the motions for summary
judgment as they relate to the plaintiffs' other claims.

OGE Energy says it intends to vigorously defend this action.  At
this time, OGE Energy does not believe the outcome will have a
material impact on its financial position.


PG&E CORP: Trial in San Bruno Accident Suits to Start on July 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date of July 23, 2012, has been set for the first of
numerous cases arising from an accident in San Bruno, California,
according to PG&E Corporation's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company conducts its business principally through Pacific Gas
and Electric Company ("Utility"), a public utility operating in
northern and central California.  The Utility is regulated by the
California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") and the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC").

On September 9, 2010, an underground 30-inch natural gas
transmission pipeline (Line 132) owned and operated by the
Utility, ruptured in a residential area located in the City of San
Bruno, California ("San Bruno accident").  The ensuing explosion
and fire resulted in the deaths of eight people, numerous personal
injuries, and extensive property damage.

Approximately 100 lawsuits involving third-party claims for
personal injury and property damage, including two class action
lawsuits, have been filed against PG&E Corporation and the Utility
in connection with the San Bruno accident on behalf of
approximately 370 plaintiffs.  The lawsuits seek compensation for
personal injury and property damage, and other relief, including
punitive damages.  The Utility stated publicly that it is liable
for the San Bruno accident and will take financial responsibility
to compensate all of the victims for the injuries they suffered as
a result of the accident.

These cases have been coordinated and assigned to one judge in the
San Mateo County Superior Court and a trial date of July 23, 2012,
has been set for the first of these cases.  During the case
management conference on January 19, 2012, the court addressed,
among other topics, mandatory settlement conferences.  The court
expressed its preference that generally households suffering a
death or serious injury should proceed first.  The Company says it
is likely the mandatory settlement conferences will start in late
March or early April 2012.  The next case management conference is
scheduled for March 2, 2012.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Briefing in TOI MDL to Be Completed in Late 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing with respect to class certification in the antitrust
multidistrict litigation against a subsidiary of PPG Industries,
Inc., is expected to be completed in late 2012, 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 2010, Transitions Optical, Inc. ("TOI"), a consolidated
subsidiary of the Company, entered into a settlement agreement,
without admitting liability, with the Federal Trade Commission,
which had alleged that TOI violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act.  Following the announcement of the settlement with
the Federal Trade Commission, 30 private putative class cases were
filed against TOI, alleging that it has monopolized and/or
conspired to monopolize the market for photochromic lenses.  All
of the federal actions have been transferred and centralized in
the Middle District of Florida (the "MDL Action").  Amended
complaints in the MDL Action were filed in November and December
2010.  In late 2011, the court ruled on TOI's motion to dismiss
and allowed the plaintiffs to file new or further amended
complaints.

Plaintiffs in the MDL Action include Insight Equity A.P. X, LP,
d/b/a Vision-Ease Lens Worldwide, Inc., which has sued on its own
behalf, and putative classes of "direct purchasers," including
laboratories and retailers (the "Lab/Retailer Plaintiffs"), and
"indirect purchasers," consisting of end-user consumers.

Plaintiffs in the MDL Action generally allege that TOI's exclusive
dealing arrangements resulted in higher prices and seek lost
profits and damages determined by the price premium attributable
to wrongful exclusive deals.  The damages sought are subject to
trebling.  The Lab/Retailer Plaintiffs also allege that TOI and
certain affiliates of Essilor International SA conspired with
respect to the wrongful exclusive dealing arrangements.  Briefing
with respect to class certification is expected to be completed in
late 2012.  TOI believes it has meritorious defenses and continues
to defend all of the actions vigorously.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Settlement Funds Distribution to Occur in 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of the funds with respect to the settlement of
antitrust lawsuits against PPG Industries, Inc. is expected to
occur in 2012, 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.

Several complaints were filed in late 2007 and early 2008 in
different federal courts naming PPG and other flat glass producers
as defendants in purported antitrust class actions.  The
complaints alleged that the defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the price and the terms and conditions of
sale of flat glass in the United States in violation of federal
antitrust laws.  In June 2008, these cases were consolidated into
one federal court class action in Pittsburgh, Pa.  In the
consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs sought a permanent
injunction enjoining the defendants from future violations of the
federal antitrust laws, unspecified compensatory damages,
including treble damages, and the recovery of their litigation
costs.  Many allegations in the complaints were similar to those
raised in proceedings by the European Commission in which fines
were levied against other flat glass producers arising out of
alleged antitrust violations.  PPG is not involved in any of the
proceedings in Europe.  PPG divested its European flat glass
business in 1998.  A complaint containing allegations
substantially similar to the U.S. litigation and seeking
compensatory and punitive damages in amounts to be determined by
the court was filed in the Superior Court in Windsor, Ontario,
Canada, in August 2008 regarding the sale of flat glass in Canada.
In the third quarter of 2010, the other defendants in these cases
agreed to settlements.  Although PPG is aware of no wrongdoing or
conduct on its part in the operation of its flat glass business
that violated any antitrust laws, in order to avoid the ongoing
expense of this protracted case, as well as the risks and
uncertainties associated with complex litigation involving jury
trials, in the third quarter of 2010 PPG reached an agreement in
principle to resolve these flat glass antitrust matters for
approximately $6 million.  Final settlement agreements were
executed in the fourth quarter of 2010.  The court has approved
the settlements and distribution of the funds is expected to occur
in 2012.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Limit NJLAD Application Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is awaiting a court decision on its
motion seeking to limit the application of the New Jersey Law
Against Discrimination to only those members of the purported
class, who worked in New Jersey, 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 November 2010, a putative class action entitled Seibert v.
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al. was filed against the
Company and certain former officers of the Company in New Jersey
state court, on behalf of the Company's sales people nationwide
who were over forty years old and who either resigned or were
terminated after being placed on a performance improvement plan.
The complaint alleges that the defendants' conduct violates the
New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD"), and seeks, among
other things, unspecified damages.  The defendants removed the
complaint to the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey.  The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds
claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA").  The Company filed a motion seeking to limit the
application of the NJLAD to only those members of the purported
class who worked in New Jersey.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Awaits Order on NID-Related Suit Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit over NID's test kits,
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 April 2010, a putative class action was filed against the
Company and NID, a test kit manufacturing subsidiary which was
closed in 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of entities that allegedly
purchased or paid for certain of NID's test kits.  The complaint
alleges that certain of NID's test kits were defective and that
defendants, among other things, violated the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act and state consumer protection laws.
The complaint alleges an unspecified amount of damages.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Securities Suit vs. Celera Pending in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated's subsidiary continues to defend
itself against a securities class action lawsuit pending in
California, 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 2010, a purported class action entitled In re Celera Corp.
Securities Litigation was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against Celera
Corporation and certain of its directors and current and former
officers.  An amended complaint filed in October 2010 alleges that
from April 2008 through July 22, 2009, the defendants made false
and misleading statements regarding Celera's business and
financial results with an intent to defraud investors.  The
complaint was further amended in 2011 to add allegations regarding
a financial restatement.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages
on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of Celera's stock
during the period in which the alleged misrepresentations were
made.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Employees Class Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is facing a putative class action
lawsuit filed in New Jersey by certain employees, 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 2012, a putative class action entitled Beery v. Quest
Diagnostics Incorporated was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and a
subsidiary, on behalf of all female sales representatives employed
by the defendants from February 17, 2010, to the present.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants discriminate against these
female sales representatives on account of their gender, in
violation of the federal civil rights and equal pay acts, and
seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and monetary damages.


REVLON INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over 2009 Exchange Offer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Revlon, Inc., continues to defend itself against class action
lawsuits over its 2009 voluntary exchange offer, 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.

On October 8, 2009, the Company consummated its voluntary exchange
offer in which, among other things, Revlon, Inc. issued to
stockholders who elected to exchange shares (other than MacAndrews
& Forbes) 9,336,905 shares of its Preferred Stock in exchange for
the same number of shares of Revlon, Inc. Class A Common Stock
tendered in the Exchange Offer (the "Exchange Offer").  On April
24, 2009, May 1, 2009, May 5, 2009, and May 12, 2009,
respectively, four purported class actions were filed by each of
Vern Mercier, Arthur Jurkowitz, Suri Lefkowitz and T. Walter
Heiser in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the
"Chancery Court").  On May 4, 2009, a purported class action was
filed by Stanley E. Sullivan in the Supreme Court of New York, New
York County.  Each such lawsuit was brought against Revlon, Inc.,
Revlon, Inc.'s then directors and MacAndrews & Forbes, and
challenged a merger proposal made by MacAndrews & Forbes on April
13, 2009, which would have resulted in MacAndrews & Forbes and
certain of its affiliates owning 100% of Revlon, Inc.'s
outstanding Common Stock (in lieu of consummating such merger
proposal, the Company consummated the aforementioned Exchange
Offer).  Each action sought, among other things, to enjoin the
proposed merger transaction.  On June 24, 2009, the Chancery Court
consolidated the four Delaware actions (the "Initial Consolidated
Action"), and appointed lead counsel for plaintiffs.  As announced
on August 10, 2009, an agreement in principle was reached to
settle the Initial Consolidated Action, as set forth in a
Memorandum of Understanding (as amended in September 2009, the
"Settlement Agreement").

On December 24, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the
Sullivan action alleging, among other things, that defendants
should have disclosed in the Company's Offer to Exchange for the
Exchange Offer information regarding the Company's financial
results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009.  On
January 6, 2010, an amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs in
the Initial Consolidated Action making allegations similar to
those in the amended Sullivan complaint.  Revlon initially
believed that by filing the amended complaint, plaintiffs in the
Initial Consolidated Action had formally repudiated the Settlement
Agreement, and on January 8, 2010, defendants filed a motion to
enforce the Settlement Agreement.

In addition to the amended complaints in the Initial Consolidated
Action and the Sullivan action, on December 21, 2009, Revlon,
Inc.'s current directors, a former director and MacAndrews &
Forbes were named as defendants in a purported class action filed
in the Chancery Court by Edward Gutman.  Also on December 21,
2009, a second purported class action was filed in the Chancery
Court against Revlon, Inc.'s current directors and a former
director by Lawrence Corneck.  The Gutman and Corneck actions make
allegations similar to those in the amended complaints in the
Sullivan action and the Initial Consolidated Action.  On January
15, 2010, the Chancery Court consolidated the Gutman and Corneck
actions with the Initial Consolidated Action (the Initial
Consolidated Action, as consolidated with the Gutman and Corneck
actions, is hereafter referred to as the "Consolidated Action").
A briefing schedule was then set to determine the leadership
structure for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action.

On March 16, 2010, after hearing oral argument on the leadership
issue, the Chancery Court changed the leadership structure for
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action.  Thereafter, newly
appointed counsel for the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action
and the defendants agreed that the defendants would withdraw their
motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement and that merits
discovery would proceed.  Defendants agreed not to withdraw any of
the concessions that had been provided to the plaintiffs as part
of the Settlement Agreement.

On May 25, 2010, plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action
filed an amended complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duties
arising out of the Exchange Offer and that defendants should have
disclosed in the Company's Offer to Exchange information regarding
the Company's financial results for the fiscal quarter ended
September 30, 2009.  On January 10, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel
filed a motion for class certification.  That motion is not yet
fully briefed.  Merits discovery is proceeding in the Consolidated
Action.

On December 31, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by John Garofalo
against Revlon, Inc., Revlon, Inc.'s current directors, a former
director and MacAndrews & Forbes alleging federal and state law
claims stemming from the alleged failure to disclose in the Offer
to Exchange certain information relating to the Company's
financial results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009.
On July 29, 2011, the plaintiff in this action filed an amended
complaint.  On January 31, 2012, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in the Garofalo action.  That motion
is not yet fully briefed.  Defendants previously reached an
agreement with the plaintiff in the Garofalo action to permit the
plaintiff to participate in merits discovery in the Consolidated
Action, and have agreed to permit plaintiff to continue to
participate in the merits discovery while the motion to dismiss is
pending.  An agreement has also been reached with the plaintiff in
the Sullivan action to stay proceedings in that action, including
any response to the amended complaint, until June 29, 2012, so
that the plaintiff can participate in the merits discovery in the
Consolidated Action.

The Company believes the allegations contained in the amended
Sullivan complaint, the amended complaint in the Consolidated
Action, the amended Garofalo complaint and the Smutek complaint
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.
The Company believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses
to the claims at issue and believes that it would prevail at
trial.  However, in an effort to mitigate the utilization of time
and resources on these matters, the Company has had discussions
regarding settlement of these matters.  Based on the current state
of discussions, it appears that the likelihood of a settlement is
remote at this time.


RYDER SYSTEM: Defends Suits Alleging Wage & Hour Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryder System, Inc. continues to defend class action lawsuits
alleging violations of wage and hour laws, 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.

The Company is a defendant in a few lawsuits containing various
class-action allegations of wage-and-hour violations and improper
pay practice claims.  The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege,
among other things, that they were not paid for certain hours
worked, were not paid overtime or were not provided work breaks or
other benefits.  The complaints generally seek unspecified
monetary damages, injunctive relief, or both.  Ryder denies
liability and is defending the actions, and although these matters
have not been definitively resolved, the Company does not believe
that any resolution will materially affect its consolidated
operating results or financial position.


SYNGENTA AG: Holiday Shores Suit vs. Unit Currently in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced by the Holiday Shores Sanitary
District against a subsidiary of Syngenta AG is currently in the
discovery phase, according to the Company's February 16, 2012,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

The Holiday Shores Sanitary District in Madison County, Illinois,
filed a class action complaint against Syngenta Crop Protection,
Inc. ("SCPI") and its distributor Growmark, Inc. in July 2004
purportedly on behalf of a class consisting of all Illinois
community water systems ("CWS") who have, allegedly, suffered
contamination of their water sources on account of the presence at
any measurable level of the product atrazine, a herbicide
manufactured since the late 1950s by SCPI and its predecessors in
interest, Novartis Crop Protection, Inc., Ciba-Geigy and Geigy
Chemical Corporation.  The name of SCPI is now Syngenta Crop
Protection, LLC, but the former name of the company continues to
be used in this litigation and in other proceedings.  The Holiday
Shores Complaint alleges that the product atrazine and/or its
degradant chemicals are harmful to humans as consumed through
dietary water, and that run-off from the soil where atrazine has
been applied has damaged the CWS' property and contaminated its
surface waters, used as a source of drinking water for Illinois.
It alleges claims of trespass, nuisance, negligence, strict
liability and violation of the Illinois Environmental Protection
Act and seeks monetary damages, including the past and future
costs of purchase, installation, maintenance and operation of
granular activated carbon ("GAC") filtration systems, costs of
testing and monitoring for atrazine, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.  SCPI filed a Motion to Dismiss which in July
2008 was denied by the court (except as regards those parts of the
Motion which sought dismissal of the punitive damage and
remediation claims -- those claims have been dismissed although
plaintiff may attempt to re-assert the punitive damage claim at a
later date).  Since the denial of that Motion, Holiday Shores
amended its Complaint to add seven additional CWS as named
plaintiffs and has stipulated that its purported class will
consist of no more than ninety-nine CWS.

Shortly before the hearing in February 2010 of SCPI's Motion to
Transfer the claims of those plaintiffs not located in Madison
County to their home counties, plaintiffs' counsel filed a
voluntary dismissal of all of plaintiffs' property damage-related
claims, and based primarily on this action the judge in April 2010
entered an Order denying the Motion to Transfer.  The hearing was
held in June 2010, of a further Motion to Dismiss filed by SCPI,
as well as a Motion to have the lawsuit stayed or dismissed
without prejudice in the light of the filing of the parallel
federal City of Greenville lawsuit.  In August 2010, the judge
issued an Order denying both of those Motions.  The Plaintiffs
filed a series of subpoenas against third parties, including
growers' associations, academic institutions and external advisers
to SCPI, and SCPI, and a number of the recipients filed Motions to
Quash those subpoenas.  In September 2010, the judge issued an
Order denying in part the Motions to Quash and ruling that
information concerning SCPI and its relationship to those third
parties, and communications between SCPI and those third parties
were relevant and discoverable.  An application for leave to
appeal against this Order was filed with the judge, and in October
2010, the judge entered a further Order certifying certain
questions for interlocutory appeal to the Illinois Fifth District
Appellate Court and staying discovery on the issues which were the
subject of the September 2010 Order pending resolution of any
appeal.  The application for leave to appeal was denied by the
Appellate Court on January 13, 2011.  SCPI then filed a writ
regarding the matter with the Illinois Supreme Court which has
also been denied.  The case is now in the discovery phase and SCPI
has filed answers to interrogatories as well as produced many
pages of documents; depositions are sought to be scheduled by
plaintiff's counsel with seventeen current or former SCPI
employees.  No trial timetable has yet been defined for the
lawsuit.

                        Greenville Matter

In March 2010, plaintiffs' counsel in Holiday Shores filed a new
federal lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois (City of Greenville et al. v. Syngenta Crop
Protection, Inc. and Syngenta AG) on behalf of seventeen CWS
located in six mid-Western states; an Amended Complaint filed late
in March 2010 adds seven new plaintiffs, five of which are
subsidiaries of American Water Company, a large private utility,
in five of the six states implicated in the litigation.  The
claims in this lawsuit essentially repeat those causes of action
which have survived motion practice in Holiday Shores and seek
compensatory and punitive damages for all past and future costs
incurred by the plaintiffs in the removal of atrazine from raw
water supplies, and certification of a class of all public water
providers in the six states which use surface water as their water
source and which have had consistently detectable levels of
atrazine in their raw drinking water.  SCPI in May 2010 filed a
Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit on grounds including lack of
standing and of cause of action and Syngenta AG on May 18, 2010,
filed a Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs' claims for lack of personal
jurisdiction, in response to which plaintiffs in June 2010 filed a
Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery to which the
Court agreed.  At a hearing held in July 2010 this Order was
modified, the period for limited discovery was extended to October
26, 2010, and the deadline for plaintiffs' responses to Syngenta
AG's Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction set to November
15, 2010.  In September 2010 the Magistrate Judge issued an Order
further amending the scope of jurisdictional discovery.  In
November 2010, the federal court judge issued a Memorandum and
Order denying the Motion to Dismiss filed by SCPI save as to the
claims in the Complaint of strict liability for manufacturing,
marketing and selling an unreasonably dangerous product to the
extent that those claims were asserted by two Indiana-based
plaintiffs.  In December 2010, plaintiffs filed their Opposition
to Syngenta AG's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction and a Motion to Strike parts of the Affidavits filed
by Syngenta AG in support of its Motion, to which Syngenta AG
filed its Reply on January 17, 2011.

The Magistrate Judge ordered the parties to the lawsuit to take
part in a settlement conference held on April 11, 2011, but this
was unproductive.  The oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss for
lack of Personal Jurisdiction was held before the federal course
judge on July 27, 2011.  On November 23, 2011, the court denied
Syngenta AG's motion and on December 15, 2011, Syngenta AG filed a
motion to reconsider, which is pending.  Plaintiffs have also
recently filed a Motion to Amend their Complaint in the lawsuit to
add counts for Declaratory Judgment relief specifying that
atrazine is harmful to human health, that atrazine is a defective
product, and that Syngenta is responsible for reimbursing
plaintiffs for all future costs that plaintiffs incur in testing
for and removing atrazine from their water, and SCPI on
October 10, 2011, filed a Motion to Dismiss the claims for
declaratory relief.  SCPI is in process of taking deposition
evidence from representatives of the plaintiff CWS.

On November 30, 2011, Syngenta filed motions for summary judgment
on the claims of plaintiffs City of Greenville, Illinois, and City
of Marion, Kansas.  In response on December 9, 2011, plaintiffs
filed a motion to extend the time for them to respond to summary
judgment motions until after they disclose on July 16, 2012, their
experts on the merits of the case.

Depositions of fact witnesses for class certification must be
completed by April 2, 2012.  Plaintiffs' class expert disclosures
are due April 2, 2012, while defendants' class expert disclosures
are due May 2, 2012.  Plaintiffs' motion to class certification is
due June 15, 2012.  Plaintiffs' trial expert disclosures are due
July 16, 2012, while defendants' trial expert disclosures are due
August 15, 2012.  All discovery must be completed by
October 8, 2012.  The previously set trial date of December 3,
2012, has been vacated and no new trial date has been set.

As the plaintiffs in the cases have not quantified their claims,
nor has the number of plaintiffs in the actions been determined,
it is not possible to estimate individually or in total the
amounts in dispute nor to quantify the likely outcome.  However,
Syngenta intends to vigorously defend these cases.  Atrazine is a
long-standing successful product of the Company and its
predecessors, which has been repeatedly scrutinized for safety
over the years by government agencies.  No amounts have been
provided for a settlement.

                        SCPI vs. Insurers

In a related lawsuit (Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Insurance
Company of North America et al.) filed by SCPI in September 2008,
in the State of New Jersey, and amended in November 2008, July
2009 and April 2010, SCPI is seeking a declaratory judgment under
the Ciba-Geigy legacy insurance policies that the defense costs
and potential damages in the Holiday Shores case and the City of
Greenville case, as well as any other product liability claims
against SCPI alleging harm in connection with the use of or
exposure to atrazine or atrazine-containing products, are covered
under said policies and that the insurers are obligated to defend
SCPI.  Certain of the insurer defendants in the litigation,
comprising the Insurance Company of North America, Century
Indemnity Company and ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Company
(the "INA Claimants") initiated an arbitration proceeding against
SCPI, Novartis Corporation and Ciba Corporation (the
"Respondents") under the commercial arbitration rules of the
American Arbitration Association, seeking a determination as to
whether insurance claims that SCPI is pursuing against them in the
litigation were previously released pursuant to a Settlement
Agreement dated January 13, 1999, between the INA Claimants, on
the one hand, and Novartis Corporation and Ciba Specialty
Chemicals Corporation (now Ciba Corporation) on the other hand
(the "INA Settlement Agreement").  The arbitration proceeding,
purportedly brought pursuant to the arbitration provision of the
INA Settlement Agreement, was commenced in March 2009 and the
hearing of the arbitration took place on June 14 and 15, 2011.
The Arbitrator ordered the filing of post-hearing briefs by the
parties the last of which was submitted by the INA Claimants on
August 26, 2011.  On October 7, 2011 the Arbitrator issued a Final
Award in favor of the INA Claimants.  Everest Reinsurance Company,
Mt. McKinley Insurance Company and eight other insurers have filed
Motions for Summary Judgments also claiming to have been released
from coverage with respect to the insurance claims which SCPI is
pursuing against them in the litigation, under Environmental
Settlement Agreements with Novartis and/or Ciba-Geigy and SCPI has
filed Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment dismissing the striking
insurers' affirmative defenses and on December 16, 2011, filed a
sur-reply in further opposition to the Summary Judgment Motions
and in support of the Cross-Motions.  Oral argument on the Motions
was scheduled for February 9, 2012.  Discovery is proceeding in
the declaratory action lawsuit.

While SCPI intends to pursue its claims vigorously against the
insurers for any costs and losses associated with the Holiday
Shores or City of Greenville litigation or any other atrazine-
related claims, the amount that is or may ultimately be
recoverable from the insurers with respect to such claims cannot
be predicted with certainty at this time.


THOMSON REUTERS: Faces Copyright Infringement Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Lawyers Weekly reports that a novel "mass copyright
infringement" class action, which contends that lawyers enjoy
copyright in the court documents they create, has been given the
green light to proceed.

At press time, defendant Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. had yet to
announce whether it would seek leave to appeal to Ontario's
Divisional Court.

Superior Court Justice Paul Perell's Feb. 21 decision certifies a
$51-million-plus national class action, but leaves a number of
potentially contentious issues to be determined on an individual,
rather than a class basis.

The class action, which breaks new ground in Canada, was launched
in 2010 by prominent Toronto immigration lawyer Lorne Waldman.  He
alleges that Thomson's Westlaw Litigator service infringed his
copyright and moral rights, and those of other lawyers, by
reproducing in various downloadable formats, and making available
for a fee online, more than 100,000 pleadings, court motions,
affidavits and facta the defendant has copied from court files
across Canada.  There are 12,000 to 13,000 lawyers' names, and
about 6,500 firm names, on the court documents in Litigator.

Thomson Reuters, which says it has invested substantially in
Litigator (including paying more than $1-million to courts for
file access fees and photocopying charges), disputes the
plaintiff's allegations on the merits.  It denies infringing
copyright, and raises defenses based on fair dealing, public
policy, implied consent and the Charter guarantee of freedom of
expression.

The case's central question is the extent to which lawyers enjoy
copyright protection for their open-court filings.

"The copyright in legal documents is not a settled matter,"
Justice Perell observed in his decision.  "There are serious
policy questions about how much, if any, [copyright] protection
. . . legal documents, including court documents, should have."

Thomson Reuters counsel Wendy Matheson of Toronto's Torys told The
Lawyers Weekly the company "has not reached a conclusion on a
potential appeal" but "whatever the outcome of this procedural
step, Thomson Reuters is confident in its position on the merits,
and will be vigorously defending the claim."

Counsel for the representative plaintiff, Louis Sokolov --
lsokolov@sgmlaw.com -- and Jordan Goldblatt --
jgoldblatt@sgmlaw.com -- of Toronto's Sack Goldblatt Mitchell,
said they don't anticipate problems as a result of the court's
decision to leave a number of issues to be sorted out on an
individual basis, if the plaintiff succeeds on the common issues
certified by the court.

"We think that the disputes in individual cases are going to be
minimal, if in fact they happen at all," Mr. Sokolov said.  "How
many individual issues trials do you actually see in certified
class proceedings? I can think of few, if any.  And we don't think
that this will be any different."

He noted that, from the plaintiff's point of view, "no one is
saying that making legal documents publicly available isn't a good
thing, and nobody is saying that the service that [Thomson
Reuters] is providing doesn't have commercial and social utility
-- that's not the issue.  The issue is whether they're entitled to
do what they're doing without asking permission, and without
license."

In opposing the certification of class proceedings, Thomson
Reuters argued that Mr. Waldman is trying to limit access to
publicly filed court documents, asserting this is antithetical to
the open court system, access to justice, behavior modification
and judicial economy.

But Justice Perell ruled there were common issues that should be
determined on a class basis, albeit not all of the issues
presented for certification by the plaintiff.

He pointed out that the test for certification presents a "very
low bar" for plaintiffs.  Therefore, his function as a gatekeeper
was "limited to ensuring that the technical and procedural
elements of the test are satisfied, which, subject to some
adjustments, is the situation for the case at Bar."

"Viewed globally, the class action will not be unmanageable and
indeed may not have to be managed much, if Thomson is correct that
class members are not interested in pursuing claims," he wrote.

The judge certified two common issues relating to Thomson's
alleged conduct.  Did the company through its Litigator service:
(1) "reproduce, publish, telecommunicate to the public, sell,
rent, or hold itself out as the author or owner of court
documents?" or (2) "authorize subscribers to reproduce, publish,
telecommunicate to the public, sell, rent, translate, or hold
themselves out as the author or owner of court documents?"

The judge also certified common issues raised by Thomson's
defenses: "Does Thomson have a public policy defense to copyright
infringement or to the violation of moral rights based on (a) fair
dealing, (b) the open court principle, (c) freedom of expression,
(d) the necessity of using the idea of the court document as it is
expressed, or (e) a business or professional custom or public
policy reason that would justify reproducing, publishing,
telecommunicating to the public, selling, renting, translating, or
holding itself out as the author or owner of court documents?"

Moreover, "did Thomson have the copyright owner's implicit consent
to reproduce, publish, telecommunicate to the public, sell, rent,
translate, or hold itself out as the author or owner of court
documents?"

Certified as common issues as well: "are class members entitled to
injunctive relief" under s. 34(1) of the Copyright Act; and "does
Thomson's conduct justify an award of aggravated, exemplary, or
punitive damages?'


TRAVELERS COS: Awaits Ruling on Asbestos-Related Suit Appeals
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc. is awaiting a court decision in
connection with appeals from a judgment that denied a request for
an order of contempt and for sanctions, 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 October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action
lawsuits (Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed
against Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC) and other insurers
(not including The St. Paul Companies, Inc. (SPC)) in state court
in West Virginia.  These and other cases subsequently filed in
West Virginia were consolidated into a single proceeding in the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia.  The plaintiffs
allege that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade
practices in violation of state statutes by inappropriately
handling and settling asbestos claims.  The plaintiffs seek to
reopen large numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose
liability for damages, including punitive damages, directly on
insurers.  Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and
settling of asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii
state courts.  These lawsuits are collectively referred to as the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state
court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant,
alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to
certain users of asbestos products.  The plaintiffs seek damages,
including punitive damages.  Lawsuits seeking similar relief and
raising similar allegations, primarily violations of purported
common law duties to third parties, have also been asserted in
various state courts against TPC and SPC.  The claims asserted in
these lawsuits are collectively referred to as the Common Law
Claims.

The federal bankruptcy court that had presided over the bankruptcy
of TPC's former policyholder Johns-Manville Corporation issued a
temporary injunction prohibiting the prosecution of the Statutory
Actions (but not the Hawaii Actions), the Common Law Claims and an
additional set of cases filed in various state courts in Texas and
Ohio, and enjoining certain attorneys from filing any further
lawsuits against TPC based on similar allegations. Notwithstanding
the injunction, additional common law claims were filed against
TPC.

In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions.  This settlement includes a lump-sum
payment of up to $412 million by TPC, subject to a number of
significant contingencies.  In May 2004, the parties reached a
settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future
Common Law Claims against TPC.  This settlement requires a payment
of up to $90 million by TPC, subject to a number of significant
contingencies.  Among the contingencies for each of these
settlements is a final order of the bankruptcy court clarifying
that all of these claims, and similar future asbestos-related
claims against TPC, are barred by prior orders entered by the
bankruptcy court ("the 1986 Orders").

On August 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order
approving the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders
barred the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially
all Common Law Claims pending against TPC ("the Clarifying
Order").  The Clarifying Order also applies to similar direct
action claims that may be filed in the future.

On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order
while vacating that portion of the order that required all future
direct actions against TPC to first be approved by the bankruptcy
court before proceeding in state or federal court.

Various parties appealed the district court's March 29, 2006
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On
February 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating
on jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the
Clarifying Order.  On February 29, 2008, TPC and certain other
parties to the appeals filed petitions for rehearing and/or
rehearing en banc, requesting reinstatement of the district
court's judgment, which were denied.  TPC and certain other
parties filed Petitions for Writ of Certiorari in the United
States Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit's
decision, and on December 12, 2008, the Petitions were granted.

On June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of TPC,
reversing the Second Circuit's February 15, 2008 decision,
finding, among other things, that the 1986 Orders are final and
generally bar the Statutory and Hawaii actions and substantially
all Common Law Claims against TPC.  Further, the Supreme Court
ruled that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue the
Clarifying Order.  However, since the Second Circuit had not ruled
on certain additional issues, principally related to procedural
matters and the adequacy of notice provided to certain parties,
the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Second Circuit for
further proceedings on those specific issues.  On October 21,
2009, all but one of the objectors to the Clarifying Order
requested that the Second Circuit dismiss their appeal of the
order approving the settlement, and that request was granted.

On March 22, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in which
it found that the notice of the 1986 Orders provided to the
remaining objector was insufficient to bar contribution claims by
that objector against TPC.  On April 5, 2010, TPC filed a Petition
for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the Second Circuit,
requesting further review of its March 22, 2010 opinion, which was
denied on May 25, 2010.  On August 18, 2010, TPC filed a Petition
for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking
review of the Second Circuit's March 22, 2010 opinion, and a
Petition for a Writ of Mandamus seeking an order from the Supreme
Court requiring the Second Circuit to comply with the Supreme
Court's June 18, 2009 ruling in TPC's favor.  The Supreme Court
denied the Petitions on November 29, 2010.

The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii actions and the Common
Law Claims actions filed Motions to Compel with the bankruptcy
court on September 2, 2010, and September 3, 2010, respectively,
arguing that all conditions precedent to the settlements have been
met and seeking to require TPC to pay the settlement amounts.  On
September 30, 2010, TPC filed an Opposition to the plaintiffs'
Motions to Compel on the grounds that the conditions precedent to
the settlements, principally the requirement that all contribution
claims be barred, have not been met in light of the Second
Circuit's March 22, 2010 opinion.  On December 16, 2010, the
bankruptcy court granted the plaintiffs' motions and ruled that
TPC was required to fund the settlements.  On
January 20, 2011, the bankruptcy court entered judgment in
accordance with its December 16, 2010 ruling and ordered TPC to
pay the settlement amounts plus prejudgment interest.  On
January 21, 2011, TPC filed an appeal with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York from the bankruptcy court's
January 20, 2011 judgment.  On January 24, 2011, certain of the
plaintiffs in the Common Law Claims actions appealed that portion
of the bankruptcy court's January 20, 2011 judgment that denied
their request for an order of contempt and for sanctions.  Oral
argument on the appeals took place on January 9, 2012, and the
parties await the court's decision.

SPC, which is not covered by the Manville bankruptcy court rulings
or the settlements, is a party to pending direct action cases in
Texas state court asserting common law claims.  All such cases
that are still pending and in which SPC has been served are
currently on the inactive docket in Texas state court.  If any of
those cases becomes active, SPC intends to litigate those cases
vigorously.  SPC was previously a defendant in similar direct
actions in Ohio state court.  Those actions have all been
dismissed following favorable rulings by Ohio trial and appellate
courts.  From time to time, SPC and/or its subsidiaries have been
named in individual direct actions in other jurisdictions.

Currently, the Company says it is not possible to predict legal
outcomes and their impact on the future development of claims and
litigation relating to asbestos and environmental claims.  Any
such development will be affected by future court decisions and
interpretations, as well as changes in applicable legislation.
Because of these uncertainties, additional liabilities may arise
for amounts in excess of the current related reserves.  In
addition, the Company's estimate of ultimate claims and claim
adjustment expenses may change.  These additional liabilities or
increases in estimates, or a range of either, cannot now be
reasonably estimated and could result in income statement charges
that could be material to the Company's results of operations in
future periods.


TRAVELERS COS: Still Awaits Final OK of Antitrust Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In 2005, four putative class action lawsuits were brought against
a number of insurance brokers and insurers, including The
Travelers Companies, Inc., by plaintiffs who allegedly purchased
insurance products through one or more of the defendant brokers.
The plaintiffs alleged that various insurance brokers conspired
with each other and with various insurers, including the Company,
to artificially inflate premiums, allocate brokerage customers and
rig bids for insurance products offered to those customers.  To
the extent they were not originally filed there, the federal class
actions were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey and were consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings with other class actions under the caption In re
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.  On August 1, 2005,
various plaintiffs, including the four named plaintiffs in the
class actions, filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint naming various brokers and insurers, including the
Company, on behalf of a putative nationwide class of
policyholders.  The complaint included causes of action under the
Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO), state common law and the laws of the various states
prohibiting antitrust violations.  The complaint sought monetary
damages, including punitive damages and trebled damages, permanent
injunctive relief, restitution, including disgorgement of profits,
interest and costs, including attorneys' fees.  All defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
After giving plaintiffs multiple opportunities to replead, the
court dismissed the Sherman Act claims on August 31, 2007, and the
RICO claims on September 28, 2007, both with prejudice, and
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law
claims.  The plaintiffs appealed the district court's decisions to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  On August 16,
2010, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of
all Sherman Act and RICO claims against certain defendants,
including the Company, except for Sherman Act and RICO claims
involving the sale of excess casualty insurance through a single
defendant broker, as well as all state law claims, which they
remanded to the district court for further proceedings.  On
October 1, 2010, defendants, including the Company, filed renewed
motions to dismiss the remanded claims.  On March 18, 2011, the
Company and certain other defendants entered into an agreement
with the plaintiffs to settle the lawsuit.  The settlement, under
which the Company agreed to pay $6.75 million, is subject to court
approval.  Preliminary approval of the settlement was granted on
June 27, 2011.  On September 14, 2011, the court conducted a final
fairness hearing and the settling parties await the court's
decision.

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.


TRAVELERS COS: Objectors Appeal Settlement Order in "Safeco" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Objectors took an appeal from orders approving a settlement
agreement of a class action lawsuit, in which a subsidiary of The
Travelers Companies, Inc., is a class member, 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.

The Travelers Indemnity Company is one of the Settlement Class
plaintiffs and a class member in a class action lawsuit captioned
Safeco Insurance Company of America, et al. v. American
International Group, Inc. et al. (U.S. District Court, N.D. Ill.)
in which the defendants are alleged to have engaged in the under-
reporting of workers' compensation premium in connection with a
workers' compensation reinsurance pool in which several
subsidiaries of the Company participate.  On July 26, 2011, the
court granted preliminary approval of a class settlement pursuant
to which the defendants agreed to pay $450 million to the class.
The settlement includes a plan of allocation of the settlement
proceeds among the class members.  On December 21, 2011, the court
entered an order granting final approval of the settlement.  On
January 19, 2012, three parties who objected to the settlement
filed notices of appeal from the court's orders approving the
settlement with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The Company anticipates that its allocation from the settlement
fund, in the event the court's approval of the class settlement is
affirmed, will be approximately $90 million.  This amount is
treated for accounting purposes as a gain contingency in
accordance with FASB Topic 450, Contingencies, and accordingly has
not been recognized in the Company's consolidated financial
statements.


VENOCO INC: Faces Suits Over Proposed Acquisition by T. Marquez
---------------------------------------------------------------
Venoco, Inc. disclosed 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 facing several class action
lawsuits over its chief executive officer and chairman, Timothy
Marquez's proposed acquisition of the Company.

On August 26, 2011, Timothy Marquez, the Chairman and CEO of the
Company, submitted a nonbinding proposal to the board of directors
of the Company to acquire all of the shares of the Company he does
not beneficially own for $12.50 per share in cash (the "Marquez
Proposal").  As a result of that proposal, four lawsuits were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery in 2011 against the
Company and each of its directors by shareholders alleging that
the Company and its directors had breached their fiduciary duties
to the shareholders in connection with the Marquez Proposal.  A
fifth lawsuit filed in 2011, also in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, named only Mr. Marquez as a defendant.  On January 16,
2012, the Company announced it had entered into a merger agreement
with Mr. Marquez and certain of his affiliates pursuant to which,
at closing, each of the shareholders other than Mr. Marquez and
his affiliates would receive $12.50 for each share of Company
stock (the "Merger").  Following announcement of the merger
agreement, three additional lawsuits were filed in Delaware and
three lawsuits were filed in federal court in Colorado naming as
defendants the Company and each of its directors.  Each action
seeks certification as a class action.  Plaintiffs in both the
Delaware and Colorado actions challenge the Merger and allege,
among other things, that the consideration to be paid is
inadequate.  The complaints seek, among other relief, to enjoin
defendants from consummating the Merger and to direct defendants
to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is
in the best interests of the shareholders.  The Company has
reviewed the allegations contained in the complaints and believes
they are without merit.


VIA RAIL: Sutts, Strosberg Mulls Class Action Over Train Crash
--------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Stechyson, writing for Postmedia News, reports that a law
office that successfully led a class-action lawsuit against Via
Rail and CN after a 1999 derailment has been contacted by injured
passengers from the Feb. 26 deadly train crash near Burlington,
Ont.

Sutts, Strosberg LLP will likely move forward on a multi-million
dollar class-action lawsuit later this week, said Windsor, Ont.,
lawyer Sharon Strosberg.

"We're inclined to start a class proceeding on behalf of all the
individuals who were on that train, and we have a lot of
experience in that area," Ms. Strosberg said.

"We think it's a very good case that has some merit and we would
be privileged to start it."

Via Rail train 92 derailed on a straight track in good weather
Sunday afternoon near Burlington, a community about 60 kilometers
southwest of Toronto.  Three Via Rail employees -- two senior
locomotive engineers and a trainee -- were killed when the
locomotive and five cars jumped the tracks as the train switched
from one track to another -- what should have been a normal
procedure akin to changing lanes.

A total of 45 passengers were taken to hospital, where eight
remained on Feb. 27.  The three most seriously injured suffered a
broken leg, a back injury and a heart attack.

Typically, Ms. Strosberg said, people in class-action lawsuits are
compensated based on any inconvenience or injuries sustained.

"Of course, the more serious the injury, people would be
compensated for that."

She encouraged any passengers on board to contact Sutts, Strosberg
LLP in Windsor or Falconer Charney LLP in Toronto.

Sutts, Strosberg LLP reached a settlement with Via Rail and CN in
2002 over a class-action suit after a Via Rail train derailed in
Thamesville, Ont., in 1999.  Seventy-seven of the 186 passengers
and crew on board were treated in hospital.

Two crew members died.  CN and Via Rail agreed to settle and to
pay damages.


WALGREEN CO: Sued Over Unpaid OT Wages for Pharmacists in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Choi, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Walgreen Co., an Illinois corporation, and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 112CV216291 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Santa Clara Cty., January 6, 2012) is brought on behalf of a
putative class of Walgreen's non-exempt pharmacists in California.

The Plaintiff alleges that Walgreen failed to pay him and the
class members overtime wages in violation of the California Labor
Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 7-2001.  The
Plaintiff also contends that Walgreen failed to timely pay wages
earned during employment, to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, to timely pay all wages due at the time of termination
and to pay for reimbursable business expenses.

Mr. Choi a resident of California.

Walgreen is an Illinois corporation, with its principal place of
business in Illinois.

The Company removed the lawsuit on February 24, 2012 from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of Santa Clara,
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  Walgreen argues that the removal is proper because
the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive
of interest and costs, and the action is a class action in which
at least one class member is a citizen of a state different from
that of Walgreen.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:12-cv-00938 to the proceeding.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Diana Tabacopoulos, Esq.
          Jill Porcado, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: dtabacopoulos@seyfarth.com
                  jporcado@seyfarth.com
               - and -

          Candace S. Bertoldi
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1406
          Telephone: (213) 270-9600
          Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
          E-mail: cbertoldi@seyfarth.com


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Awaits Decisions on Motions in ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc. is awaiting court decisions on certain
motions that, if granted, would resolve the few remaining claims
against it in the lawsuit filed under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, 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 April 2002, certain former participants in the ERISA plans of
Waste Management Holdings, Inc. ("WM Holdings") filed a lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a case
entitled William S. Harris, et al. v. James E. Koenig, et al.  The
lawsuit attempts to increase the recovery of a class of ERISA plan
participants on behalf of the plan based on allegations related to
both the events alleged in, and the settlements relating to, the
securities class action against WM Holdings that was settled in
1998, the litigation against Waste Management, Inc. ("WM") in
Texas that was settled in 2002, as well as the decision to offer
WM common stock as an investment option within the plan beginning
in 1990, despite alleged knowledge by at least two members of the
investment committee of financial misstatement by WM during the
relevant time period.

During the second quarter of 2010, the Court dismissed certain
claims against individual defendants, including all claims against
each of the current members of the Company's Board of Directors.
Previously, plaintiffs dismissed all claims related to the
settlement of the securities class action against WM that was
settled in 2002, and the court certified a limited class of
participants who may bring claims on behalf of the plan, but not
individually.  During the third quarter of 2011, the Court ruled
in favor of WM and two former employees dismissing all claims
brought by the plaintiffs related to the decision to offer WM
stock as an investment option within the plan.  The Court still
has under consideration additional motions that, if granted, would
resolve the few remaining claims against WM and its Committees.
The outcome of this lawsuit cannot be predicted with certainty.
The defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously in this
litigation.

Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/-- is a waste
management, comprehensive waste, and environmental services
company in North America.  Its subsidiaries provide collection,
transfer, recycling, and disposal services.  The Company is also a
developer, operator and owner of waste-to-energy and landfill gas-
to-energy facilities in the United States.  Its customers include
residential, commercial, industrial and municipal customers
throughout North America.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Suits Over Fuel & Environmental Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc. is facing two purported class action
lawsuits in Florida and Alabama over its fuel and environmental
charges in customer service agreements, 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 October 2011 and January 2012, the Company was named as a
defendant in a purported class action in the Circuit Court of
Sarasota County, Florida, and the Circuit Court of Lawrence
County, Alabama, respectively.  These lawsuits were filed by the
same law firm that brought a lawsuit in Alabama, which was
dismissed in the third quarter of 2011, and these cases also
primarily pertain to the Company's fuel and environmental charges
in its customer service agreements, generally alleging that such
charges were not properly disclosed, were unfair and were contrary
to the contracts.

The Company says it will vigorously defend this matter.  Given the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the ultimate outcome of
these cases cannot be predicted at this time, nor can possible
damages, if any, be reasonably estimated.

Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/-- is a waste
management, comprehensive waste, and environmental services
company in North America.  Its subsidiaries provide collection,
transfer, recycling, and disposal services.  The Company is also a
developer, operator and owner of waste-to-energy and landfill gas-
to-energy facilities in the United States.  Its customers include
residential, commercial, industrial and municipal customers
throughout North America.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: AWP Suit Settlement Approved in December
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
entered in December 2011 a final order and judgment granting final
approval of a settlement resolving a consolidated class action
lawsuit involving Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its
subsidiaries, 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.

Beginning in July 2002, the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies,
were named as defendants in various state and federal court
actions alleging improper or fraudulent reporting practices
related to the reporting of average wholesale prices and wholesale
acquisition costs of certain products, and that the defendants
committed other improper acts in order to increase prices and
market shares.  Some of these actions have been consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (In re:
Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL
Docket No. 145).  The consolidated amended Class Action complaint
in that case alleges that the defendants' acts improperly inflated
the reimbursement amounts of certain drugs paid by various public
and private plans and programs.  Certain defendants, including the
Company, have entered into a settlement agreement resolving all
claims against them in the Consolidated Class Action (the "Track
Two Settlement").  The total amount of the settlement for all of
the settling defendants is $125 million.  The amount to be paid by
each settling defendant is confidential.  On July 2, 2008, the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
preliminarily approved the Track Two settlement.  On December 8,
2011, the Court entered a final order and judgment granting final
approval of the Track Two Settlement.  The settlement is not
expected to materially adversely affect the Company's business,
results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: FTC's Appeal in Androgel Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission's appeal from the dismissal of
its complaint in the Androgel antitrust litigation remains
pending, according to Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s February 16,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On January 29, 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the
State of California filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California (Federal Trade
Commission, et. al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., USDC
Case No. CV 09-00598) alleging that the Company's September 2006
patent lawsuit settlement with Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
related to AndroGel(R) 1% (testosterone gel) CIII is unlawful.
The complaint generally alleged that the Company improperly
delayed its launch of a generic version of Androgel(R) in exchange
for Solvay's agreement to permit the Company to co-promote
Androgel(R) for consideration in excess of the fair value of the
services provided by the Company, in violation of federal and
state antitrust and consumer protection laws.  The complaint
sought equitable relief and civil penalties.  On February 2 and 3,
2009, three separate lawsuits alleging similar claims were filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California by various private plaintiffs purporting to represent
certain classes of similarly situated claimants (Meijer, Inc., et.
al., v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., USDC Case No. EDCV
09-0215); (Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. v. Unimed
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al., Case No. EDCV 09-0226); (Louisiana
Wholesale Drug Co. Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al,
Case No. EDCV 09-0228).  On April 8, 2009, the Court transferred
the government and private cases to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  On April 21, 2009,
the State of California voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against
the Company without prejudice.  The Federal Trade Commission and
the private plaintiffs in the Northern District of Georgia filed
amended complaints on May 28, 2009.  The private plaintiffs
amended their complaints to include allegations concerning conduct
before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, conduct in connection
with the listing of Solvay's patent in the Food and Drug
Administration's "Orange Book," and sham litigation.  Additional
actions alleging similar claims have been filed in various courts
by other private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain
classes of similarly situated direct or indirect purchasers of
Androgel(R) (Stephen L. LaFrance Pharm., Inc. d/b/a SAJ Dist. v.
Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-1507); (Fraternal
Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund v.
Unimed Pharms. Inc., et al.,D. NJ Civ. No. 09-1856 ); (Scurto v.
Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-1900); (United
Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health
Benefits Fund v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. MN Civ. No. 09-
1168); ( Rite Aid Corp. et al. v. Unimed Pharms., Inc. et al.,
M.D. PA Civ. No. 09-1153); (Walgreen Co., et al. v. Unimed
Pharms.,LLC, et al., MD. PA Civ. No. 09-1240); (Supervalu, Inc. v.
Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al, ND. GA Civ. No. 10-1024); (LeGrand v.
Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., ND. GA Civ. No. 10-2883); (Jabo's
Pharmacy Inc. v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al ., Cocke
County, TN Circuit Court Case No. 31,837).

On April 20, 2009, the Company was dismissed without prejudice
from the Stephen L. LaFrance action pending in the District of New
Jersey.  On October 5, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred all actions then pending outside of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
to that district for consolidated pre-trial proceedings (In re:
AndroGel(R) Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL Docket No. 2084),
and all currently-pending related actions are presently before
that court.  On February 22, 2010, the judge presiding over all
the consolidated litigations related to Androgel(R) then pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia granted the Company's motions to dismiss the complaints,
except the portion of the private plaintiffs' complaints that
include allegations concerning sham litigation.  On July 20, 2010,
the plaintiff in the Fraternal Order of Police action filed an
amended complaint adding allegations concerning conduct before the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, conduct in connection with the
listing of Solvay's patent in the Food and Drug Administration's
"Orange Book," and sham litigation similar to the claims raised in
the direct purchaser actions.  On October 28, 2010, the judge
presiding over MDL 2084 entered an order pursuant to which the
LeGrand action, filed on September 10, 2010, was consolidated for
pretrial purposes with the other indirect purchaser class action
as part of MDL 2084 and made subject to the Court's February 22,
2010 order on the motion to dismiss. Discovery in the private
actions is ongoing.  Final judgment in favor of the defendants was
entered in the Federal Trade Commission's action on April 21,
2010.  On June 10, 2010, the Federal Trade Commission filed a
notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals,
appealing the district court's dismissal of its complaint.  The
appeal is pending.

The Company believes that these actions are without merit and
intends to defend itself vigorously.  However, these actions, if
successful, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Hearing in TCPA-Violation Suit on Mar. 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on the class certification motion in a lawsuit
alleging Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s subsidiary violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act is scheduled for March 21, 2012,
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 2008, Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, filed a
purported class action complaint against the Company alleging
conversion and alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.  The lawsuit is captioned Medical West
Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, et al. v. Anda, Inc., (Circuit Court of the
County of St. Louis, State of Missouri, Case No. 08SL-CC00257).
In April 2008, plaintiff filed an amended complaint substituting
Anda, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, as the defendant.  The
amended complaint alleges that by sending unsolicited facsimile
advertisements, Anda misappropriated the class members' paper,
toner, ink and employee time when they received the alleged
unsolicited faxes, and that the alleged unsolicited facsimile
advertisements were sent to the plaintiff in violation of the TCPA
and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
The TCPA allows recovery of minimum statutory damages of $500 per
violation, which can be trebled if the violations are found to be
willful.  The complaint seeks to assert class action claims on
behalf of the plaintiff and other similarly situated third
parties.  In April 2008, Anda filed an answer to the amended
complaint, denying the allegations.  In November 2009, the court
granted plaintiff's motion to expand the proposed class of
plaintiffs from individuals for which Anda lacked evidence of
express permission or an established business relationship to "All
persons who on or after four years prior to the filing of this
action, were sent telephone facsimile messages advertising
pharmaceutical drugs and products by or on behalf of Defendant."
In November 2010, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
further expanding the definition and scope of the proposed class
of plaintiffs.

On November 30, 2010, Anda filed a petition with the Federal
Communications Commission ("FCC"), asking the FCC to clarify the
statutory basis for its regulation requiring "opt-out" language on
faxes sent with express permission of the recipient.  The FCC's
ruling on Anda's petition may determine whether fax recipients who
expressly agree to receive faxes may assert claims for receipt of
such faxes pursuant to the TCPA.  On December 2, 2010, Anda filed
a motion to dismiss claims the plaintiff is seeking to assert on
behalf of putative class members who expressly consented or agreed
to receive faxes from Defendant, or in the alternative, to stay
the court proceedings pending resolution of Anda's petition to the
FCC.  On April 11, 2011, the court denied the motion.  On May 19,
2011, the plaintiff's filed their motion for class certification.
Anda filed its opposition to the motion on July 13, 2011.  The
hearing on the class certification motion is scheduled for March
21, 2012.  No trial date has been set.

Anda believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the
action, including but not limited to its receipt of consent to
receive facsimile advertisements from many of the putative class
members, and intends to defend the action vigorously.  However,
this action, if successful, could have an adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Plea for Review in Cipro Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' petition for review in connection with a judgment in
an antitrust lawsuit in California remains pending, according to
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011.

Beginning in July 2000, a number of lawsuits were filed against
Watson, The Rugby Group, Inc. ("Rugby") and other company
affiliates in various state and federal courts alleging claims
under various federal and state competition and consumer
protection laws.  Several plaintiffs have filed amended complaints
and motions seeking class certification.  Approximately 42 cases
have been filed against Watson, Rugby and other Watson entities.
Twenty-two of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (In re:
Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No.
001383).  On May 20, 2003, the court hearing the consolidated
action granted Watson's motion to dismiss and made rulings
limiting the theories under which plaintiffs can seek recovery
against Rugby and the other defendants.  On March 31, 2005, the
court hearing the consolidated action granted summary judgment in
favor of the defendants on all of plaintiffs' claims and denied
the plaintiffs' motions for class certification.  On May 7, 2005,
three groups of plaintiffs from the consolidated action (the
direct purchaser plaintiffs, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs and
plaintiffs Rite Aid and CVS) filed notices of appeal in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing, among
other things, the May 20, 2003 order dismissing Watson and the
March 31, 2005 order granting summary judgment in favor of the
defendants.  On November 7, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit ordered the appeal by the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit.  On October 15, 2008, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the
indirect purchasers' claims, and on December 22, 2008, denied the
indirect purchaser plaintiffs' petition for rehearing and
rehearing en banc.  On June 22, 2009, the Supreme Court denied the
indirect purchaser plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari.
On April 29, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed the ruling of the District Court granting
summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and on September 7,
2010, denied the appellants' petition for rehearing en banc.

On March 7, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari.  Other actions are
pending in various state courts, including California, Kansas,
Tennessee, and Florida.  The actions generally allege that the
defendants engaged in unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in
connection with alleged agreements, entered into prior to Watson's
acquisition of Rugby from Sanofi Aventis ("Sanofi"), related to
the development, manufacture and sale of the drug substance
ciprofloxacin hydrochloride, the generic version of Bayer's brand
drug, Cipro(R).  The actions generally seek declaratory judgment,
damages, injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf
of certain purported classes of individuals and other entities.
In the action pending in Kansas, the court has administratively
terminated the matter pending the outcome of the appeals in the
consolidated case.  In the action pending in the California
Superior Court for the County of San Diego (In re: Cipro Cases I &
II, JCCP Proceeding Nos. 4154 & 4220), on July 21, 2004, the
California Court of Appeal ruled that the majority of the
plaintiffs would be permitted to pursue their claims as a class.
On August 31, 2009, the California Superior Court granted
defendants' motion for summary judgment, and final judgment was
entered on September 24, 2009.  On
November 19, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

On October 31, 2011, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the
Superior Court's judgment.  On December 13, 2011, the plaintiffs
filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court.  The
petition has been fully briefed and remains pending.  In addition
to the pending actions, Watson understands that various state and
federal agencies are investigating the allegations made in these
actions.  Sanofi has agreed to defend and indemnify Watson and its
affiliates in connection with the claims and investigations
arising from the conduct and agreements allegedly undertaken by
Rugby and its affiliates prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby,
and is currently controlling the defense of these actions.


WELLCARE HEALTH: Repurchased $112.5-MM Subordinated Notes in Dec.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WellCare Health Plans, Inc. repurchased in December 2011 all of
the $112.5 million subordinated notes it previously issued in
accordance with its settlement agreement resolving a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit, 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 2010, WellCare entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation Agreement") with the
lead plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action
Eastwood Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Farha, et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-
1940-VMC-EAJ.  The Stipulation Agreement included two
contingencies to which WellCare remains subject.  First, it
provides that if, within three years following the date of the
settlement agreement, WellCare is acquired or otherwise
experiences a change in control at a share price of $30.00 or
more, the Company will pay to the class an additional $25,000.
Second, the Stipulation Agreement provides that the Company will
pay to the class 25% of any sums the Company recovers from Todd
Farha, Paul Behrens and/or Thad Bereday as a result of claims
arising from the same facts and circumstances that gave rise to
the consolidated securities class action.

In connection with the settlement agreement that the Company
reached with the lead plaintiffs to resolve certain putative class
action complaints, which was approved by the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida in May 2011, the
Company delivered to the escrow agent on behalf of the class, a
$35.0 million non-negotiable, non-interest bearing, promissory
note that was due and payable in full on July 31, 2011.  This
liability was previously accrued as part of amounts accrued
related to the investigation resolution and this amount was paid
in full on July 28, 2011.  In March 2011, the Company paid $52.5
million.

On September 30, 2011, the Company issued tradable unsecured
subordinated notes having an aggregate par value of $112.5
million, with a fixed coupon of 6% and a maturity date of December
31, 2016.  These notes were issued in connection with the
stipulation and settlement agreement.  On December 15, 2011, the
Company repurchased all of the $112.5 million subordinated notes
at 90% of face value.  The Company recorded a gain on the
repurchase of subordinated notes in the amount of $10.8 million.
Interest of approximately $4.1 million was incurred on these notes
in 2011, including amounts retroactive to May 2011, and was paid
at the time of repurchase.


* Securities Class Actions Gain Traction in Canada
--------------------------------------------------
Ashby Jones, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that
unfavorable court rulings and legislation have helped damp filings
of securities class-action lawsuits in the U.S., but these suits
are starting to gain traction in Canada, prompting some U.S.
lawyers to increasingly look for opportunities up north.

One high-profile U.S. plaintiffs' firm has already gone north.
Milberg LLP has teamed up with Canada's Kim Orr Barristers P.C.,
in order to mine the burgeoning Canadian class-action market.
Class-action lawsuits allow thousands of individuals to group
their claims together in a single action against a company.

Michael Spencer -- mspencer@milberg.com -- a seasoned New York-
based lawyer at Milberg, who last year passed the Ontario bar exam
and has a case pending in Canada, said he hoped the market for
litigation would become more fertile as the domestic law related
to class action develops.

By U.S. standards, the activity in Canada is small.  Last year,
lawyers in Canada filed 15 securities class-action lawsuits, the
most ever in a calendar year, according to a recent study by the
Toronto office of global consulting firm National Economic
Research Associates Inc., also known as NERA.  In the U.S., by
contrast, lawyers filed 188 securities class actions in 2011,
according to a study issued by Stanford Law School and Cornerstone
Research.

But there were 45 active cases in Canada as of the end of 2011,
more than twice the number pending at the end of 2007 and more
than four times the number active in 2000, according to the NERA
report.  The 45 cases represent more than 24 billion Canadian
dollars (US$24 billion) in outstanding claims.

Part of the interest in Canada among U.S. lawyers -- who are
watching Milberg's move closely -- follows a 2010 U.S. Supreme
Court ruling that plaintiff classes in securities cases should be
restricted to investors who purchased shares on U.S. exchanges.
The ruling, called Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.,
reined in the number of participants -- and dollar values -- of
some class actions, and is causing some plaintiffs' lawyers to
look for business opportunities abroad, including in Canada.

The genesis of the miniboom in Canada traces to a 2005 tweak to an
Ontario law known as Bill 198 that imposed tougher disclosure
requirements on Canadian companies and made it easier for
investors to sue publicly traded Canadian companies.  The change
was prompted partly by a late 1990s scandal involving a Calgary-
based mining company called Bre-X Minerals Ltd., whose investors
lost billions in a fraud involving a purported gold deposit in
Indonesia.

In late 2009, an Ontario judge made a ruling allowing a class of
shareholders to proceed in a case against Imax Corp., the
Mississauga, Ontario-based entertainment company.  A spokeswoman
for Imax called the lawsuit "meritless," and said the company
would continue to "vigorously defend the matter."

That decision, followed by a 2011 ruling in a case involving the
parent company of Winnipeg, Manitoba-based ice maker and
distributor Arctic Glacier Inc., opened wide the door for
securities class actions, according to Dimitri Lascaris, a
plaintiffs' lawyer at Siskinds LLP in London, Ontario.

"We have meaningful standards now," he said.  "It's a big part of
why you're seeing more suits."

Whether lawyers' interest in building an industry in Canada will
last is unclear.  The country's legal system poses some unfamiliar
challenges for plaintiffs.

Unlike the U.S., Canada follows a "loser pays" system, which means
the loser in a lawsuit has to pick up the legal tab for the
winner.  And under Bill 198, most recoveries are limited to 5% of
a defendant's market capitalization.  "There's less upside and
with loser pays, a good bit of downside risk," said Siskinds's
Mr. Lascaris.  "As a result, you tend to be a little more
selective up here."

As in the U.S., securities class-actions in Canada have so far
tended to settle, rather than to go to trial.  To date, 10 class
actions brought under Bill 198 have settled at an average of $10
million a case, according to the NERA study.  The Arctic Glacier
case settled earlier this month for about $13.8 million.  Several
high-profile cases are still pending, including the Imax case and
one against Sino-Forest Corp., a Chinese forestry company that
trades on the Toronto exchange.


                           *********

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  * * *