CAR_Public/120307.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, March 7, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 47

                             Headlines

BP: U.S. Gov't Not Part of $7.8-Bil. Oil Spill Settlement
CENTRO: Class Action Trial Opens in Melbourne
CENTRO: Class Action Lawyers Balk at "No Liability" Defense
CH ENERGY: Being Sold for Too Little, New York Suit Claims
CITNALTA CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Wages for Work in Wall Street

DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: North Jersey Attorney Files Class Action
GLK FOODS: Mexican Workers Sue Over Employment Termination
GOVERNMENT OF GUAM: Objects to Tax Refund Class Action
NETFLIX INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Suit in California
QBE: Faces Class Actions Over "Force-Placed Insurance" Product

QUICKTRIM: Kardashian Sisters Face $5-Mil. Class Action
SKECHERS USA: Faces Class Action Over "Shape-Ups" Toning Shoes
SNC-LAVALIN: Siskinds, Desmueles Files Class Action
SUPERIOR CORP: Accused of Not Paying Employees' Overtime Wages
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Petition for Review in "Cipro" Suit Pending

WORLD SAVINGS: Sued Over Real Property in San Jose, California

* Directors of Australian Companies Worry Over Settlements


                          *********

BP: U.S. Gov't Not Part of $7.8-Bil. Oil Spill Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that attorneys for 116,000 Gulf
Coast plaintiffs hurt by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill have
agreed to a $7.8 billion settlement from BP, but the federal
government is not a part of the deal, and is expected to go to
trial -- though the trial has been postponed again.  The proposed
settlement would satisfy claims for economic damage and pay for
occasional medical monitoring of some plaintiffs for the next 21
years.

BP set up a $20 billion fund, from which the $7.8 billion will be
paid, at President Obama's suggestion, in August 2010.  The money
has been and will be used to pay claims from hundreds of thousands
of Gulf Coast fishermen, seafood processors and hotel- and other
property-owners who were hurt by the April 20, 2010 spill.

The explosion of BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig killed 11, dumped
5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico and caused the
worst environmental disaster in U.S. history.

The first trial in the massive litigation was postponed for a
week, during which speculation raged that plaintiff attorneys and
BP might settle with the $14 billion that remains in the fund.

On Feb. 24, BP said in a statement that just $7.8 billion will be
paid out.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier, who is overseeing the massive
consolidated oil spill litigation, said in an order Feb. 24 that
the trial will be postponed again.  He gave no date for its
opening.

"The Court will schedule a status conference with liaison counsel
to discuss issues raised by the settlement and to set a new trial
date," Judge Barbier's 1-page order states.

The order says the trial was postponed again because "such a
settlement would likely result in a realignment of the parties in
this litigation and require substantial changes to the current
Phase I trial plan, and in order to allow the parties to reassess
their respective positions."

The announced settlement will satisfy only the economic claims
brought by Gulf Coast residents and businesses.

Other claims brought by the federal government and the states are
still pending.

But BP's statement that announced the settlement indicated the
rest of the $14 billion fund might be used, in part, to satisfy
state and federal government interests in the litigation.

BP said the $20 billion was originally set aside to fund such
interests.

BP's oil spill compensation fund has been held by the Gulf Coast
Claims Facility and has been overseen by attorney Kenneth
Feinberg.

Fourteen billion dollars remain in the fund.  BP will pay a bit
more than half of that to settle with plaintiff steering committee
attorneys, who were appointed by the court to handle the
litigation.

Anthony Buzbee, a Houston plaintiff attorney not on the plaintiff
steering committee, who has 12,000 oil spill clients, said he was
surprised the settlement was for just half of what remains in the
fund.

"I don't know enough to criticize it at this point, but based on
what I know I can't see the benefit, other than benefiting the
lawyers on the committee," Mr. Buzbee told Courthouse News on
Feb. 25.

BP's press release said that the settlement amount is just an
estimate.

"While BP has sought to reliably estimate the cost of this
proposed settlement, it is possible that the actual cost could be
higher or lower than this estimate depending on the outcomes of
the court-supervised claims processes," BP said in its statement.

"In accordance with its normal procedures, BP will re-evaluate the
assumptions underlying this estimate on a quarterly basis as more
information, including the outcomes of the court-supervised claims
processes, becomes available."

BP said in its statement that the fund was never meant to pay just
economic damage claims, but all claims arising from the spill.  It
indicated that the rest of the fund will be used to satisfy state
and federal claims.

"Other costs to be paid from the trust include state and local
government claims, state and local response costs, natural
resource damages and related claims, and final judgments and
settlements.  It is not possible at this time to determine whether
the $20 billion trust will be sufficient to satisfy all of these
claims as well as those under the proposed settlement.  Should the
trust not be sufficient, payments under the proposed settlement
would be made by BP directly," BP said in its statement.

The BP statement added: "The proposed settlement does not include
claims against BP made by the United States Department of Justice
or other federal agencies (including under the Clean Water Act and
for Natural Resource Damages under the Oil Pollution Act) or by
the states and local governments."

The base fine for Clean Water Act penalties is $1,100 per barrel
of oil spilled.  If gross negligence is found by the judge, the
fine could be as high as $4,300 per barrel.

The BP oil spill dumped 4.9 million barrels into the Gulf of
Mexico.

Those potential damages, then, could come to $21 billion, if the
federal government seeks the maximum penalty.

The proposed settlement involves two separate agreements: one to
resolve claims for economic loss, and another to resolve medical
claims.

BP said in its statement that the "proposed agreement to resolve
medical claims involves payments based on a matrix for certain
currently manifested physical conditions, as well as a 21-year
medical consultation program for qualifying class members."

A copy of the Order in In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater
Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL No. 2179
(E.D. La.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/03/BP.pdf


CENTRO: Class Action Trial Opens in Melbourne
---------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that a Federal Court trial has opened in
Melbourne in the class action against property investment firm
Centro.

Centro's directors have already been found guilty of breaching the
Corporations Act for failing to notice billions of dollars in
short term debt when they signed off on the company's accounts in
2007.

The class action on behalf of Centro shareholders alleges its
directors engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by not
disclosing the debts.

Shareholders are seeking more than AUD200 million in damages.


CENTRO: Class Action Lawyers Balk at "No Liability" Defense
-----------------------------------------------------------
Greg Roberts, writing for The Australian Associated Press, reports
that the Lawyers for a AUD200 million-plus class action against
the Centro group say it is unrealistic for the restructured
company to say it is not liable for losses of the old entity.

More than four years since the shopping centre owner and funds
manager nearly collapsed under AUD5.7 billion in debt, what may be
the biggest court case in Australia this year begun in Melbourne
on March 5.

The civil action is expected to run in the Federal Court sitting
in Melbourne for at least 10 weeks.

About 5,000 investors accuse Centro of misleading and deceptive
conduct for not disclosing in 2007 that it had at least
AUD3 billion of interest-bearing debt falling due within 12
months.

When it did disclose the current debt its shares plunged -- by 76
per cent in one day on December 17, 2007 -- with many people
losing their life savings.

Centro has since restructured itself as listed retail property
trust Centro Retail Australia, involving an amalgamation of the
Centro Retail Group and Centro Properties Group.

Senior Counsel Noel Hutley, representing the class action,
ridiculed the new Centro entity's "no liability" defense for the
actions of the old Centro on March 5.

"There is a degree of unreality to sever knowledge about what's
happening," he told Justice Michelle Gordon.

"One group would have known what the investment group was
considering."

A common board and executive had overseen the two Centro groups,
Mr. Hutley said.

The court heard Centro dramatically increased its funds under
management by AUD14 billion to AUD25.5 billion in the year leading
up to its near collapse.

It greatly expanded its operations, the court heard, with its debt
gearing (debt to equity) increasing above its own recommended 35-
40 per cent to about 74 per cent by the end of 2008.

At least 50 lawyers packed into extra benches in the court on
March 5, while more lawyers filled the public gallery.

Maurice Blackburn and Slater and Gordon are representing
shareholders in the class action.

The two Centro companies' debt problems were exacerbated by the
tightening of credit during the global financial crisis, when it
had been unable to refinance billions of dollars of debt.

Publicly listed companies such as Centro must fulfill obligations
of continuous disclosure to the ASX; these include timing around
maturing debt obligations; the risk of not being able to refinance
or meeting profit forecasts.

Maurice Blackburn and Centro are separately taking action against
Centro's auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) for failing to
detect errors regarding Centro's debts in its financial accounts.


CH ENERGY: Being Sold for Too Little, New York Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Vivas, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. CH Energy Group, Inc., Steven V. Lant, Margarita K.
Dilley, Steven M. Fetter, Stanley J. Grubel, Manuel J. Iraola, E.
Michael Kruse, Edward T. Tokar, Jeffrey D. Tranen, Ernest R.
Verebelyi, Cascade Acquisition Sub Inc., FortisUS Inc., and Fortis
Inc., Case No. 650583/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., February 29, 2012) is a
shareholder class action lawsuit arising out of the Defendants'
February 20, 2012 agreement to sell CH Energy to Fortis at a
transaction valued at approximately $1.5 billion.

The Plaintiff argues that in pursuing the Proposed Transaction,
each of the Defendants has violated applicable law by directly
breaching and aiding breaches of fiduciary duties of loyalty and
due care owed to the Plaintiff and the proposed Class.  The
Plaintiff contends that the Proposed Transaction is the product of
a flawed process that is designed to ensure the sale of CH Energy
to Fortis on terms preferential to Fortis, but detrimental to the
Plaintiff and the other public stockholders of CH Energy.
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Proposed Transaction.

Ms. Vivas is a CH Energy shareholder.

CH Energy, a New York Corporation, is the holding company of
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, a regulated electric
and natural gas subsidiary and Central Hudson Enterprises
Corporation, the parent company of CH Energy's unregulated
businesses and investments.  FortisUS is a Delaware Corporation
and wholly-owned subsidiary of Fortis Inc., a Canadian corporation
and is the largest investor-owned distribution utility in Canada.
Cascade is a New York corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of
FortisUS.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of
CH Energy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          James S. Notis, Esq.
          Kira German, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          501 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 905-0509
          Facsimile: (212) 905-0508
          E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com
                  jnotis@gardylaw.com
                  kgerman@gardylaw.com

               - and -

          Patricia C. Weiser, Esq.
          Joseph M. Profy, Esq.
          James M. Ficaro, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22 Cassatt Ave.
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 225-2677
          Facsimile: (610) 408-8206
          E-mail: pw@weiserlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
          995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (484) 588-5516
          Facsimile: (484) 450-2582
          E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com


CITNALTA CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Wages for Work in Wall Street
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Pieta and Tadeusz Lagowski, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated who were employed by New York
Stone Company, Inc., with respect to certain Public Works Projects
awarded by The City of New York, The State of New York, The MTA
New York City Transit Authority, The New York City and other
government entities v. Citnalta Construction Corp., and New York
Stone Company, Case No. 650582/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., February 29,
2012) is brought on behalf of a putative class of individuals who
performed construction work for NY Stone to recover wages and
benefits, which the Plaintiffs and the members of the class were
statutorily and contractually entitled to receive for work they
performed for certain projects.

The Plaintiffs disclosed that he and the class members worked as
tile setters and in related construction trades upon the Wall
Street and Fulton Street stations for the 2, 3, 4, and 5 trains
(the "Public Works Projects") while NY Stone was under contract or
subcontract with the Metropolitan Transit Authority ("MTA")
pursuant to various contracts or subcontracts.  The Plaintiffs
contend that NY Stone willfully breached the Public Works
Contracts and Subcontracts by failing to pay Plaintiffs and the
other class members the prevailing rates of wages and supplemental
benefits for all labor performed upon the sites of the Public
Works Projects.

The Plaintiffs are residents of the state of New York, and were
formerly employed by NY Stone to perform work upon one or more of
the Public Works Projects.

Citnalta, a New York corporation, entered into contracts to
perform construction work on projects known as Wall Street station
and Fulton Street station for the 2, 3, 4, and 5 trains (all in
the Borough of Manhattan), work under which was subcontracted to
NY Stone.  NY Stone employed the Plaintiffs to perform work on the
Public Works Projects.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          Trinity Centre
          111 Broadway, Suite 1403
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: North Jersey Attorney Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
North Jersey defective medical device attorney Samuel L. Davis,
founding partner of the Davis, Saperstein & Salomon, P.C. law firm
of Teaneck, has filed a lawsuit against DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.,
the manufacturer of metal-on-metal hip replacement implants.

The lawsuit alleges that the devices cause "irreparable harm from
undiagnosed metal disease."  DePuy should pay for patients'ongoing
medical monitoring, which involves yearly orthopedic examinations,
MRIs and blood and urine tests, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit, filed Feb. 28, is Rodham and Gray v. DePuy
Orthopaedics, Inc. (Case No. BER-L-1691-12; Bergen County Superior
Court).

"The industry has known about the harmful effects of cobalt for at
least 25 years and left the American people in the dark about the
downside of exposure to toxic levels of cobalt shed from these
devices," Mr. Davis said in an interview.

Mr. Davis is a New Jersey personal injury and products liability
attorney who has litigated knee- and hip-replacement cases since
1989.

An investigative report published in BMJ, formerly known as
British Medical Journal, says thousands of hip implants made by
DePuy Orthopaedics have leaked high levels of toxic cobalt and
chromium ions.

The toxic metals have destroyed patients' muscle and bone, and
will potentially leave some patients with long-term disability,
the study says.

"Metal-on-metal hip prostheses like the DePuy ASR XL can and do
create three to five-fold increases in blood levels of the heavy
metals chromium and cobalt," the court filing states.

"Toxicity from these metals causes metallosis, a disease that
destroys the tissues surrounding the artificial joint.  Left
unresolved, metallosis creates irreparable harm to the patient
from the progressive destruction of the joint tissues."

According to the court document, other health issues related to
failure of the ASR XL hip implant includes "immediate irreparable
harm from undiagnosed metal disease and the effect it has on the
joint, even after revision and on other targeted organs, such as
the brain, heart, liver, and kidneys."

In the Rodham complaint, Mr. Davis has asked that a class be
certified and that DePuy be ordered to establish a fund to pay the
costs of medical monitoring over the lifetime of all ASR XL
Acetabular System hip implant patients.  Those costs include
annual blood and urine tests and medical imaging such as
ultrasound and MRI examinations.

"Someone with a well-placed and functioning hip replacement needs
to have it removed and replaced if cobalt levels are in the toxic
range," Mr. Davis said.  "Revision surgery is more complex,
riskier and more likely to lead to a permanent disability."

In addition to risk of infection and blood clots in a second
implant surgery, revisions will not last as long as the 20 to 30
years the original hip implants were expected to last, Mr. Davis
said.

The BMJ report cites longstanding "evidence of risk from metal-on-
metal hips, the manufacturers' inadequate response, and how
regulatory bodies failed to give doctors and patients the
information they need to make informed decisions."

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned in 2011 about
metal ions that shed minute particles of the metal implant that
migrate into the bloodstream and damage bone or tissue surrounding
the implant and joint.

BMJ quotes an internal DePuy memo from July 2005 that says, "In
addition to inducing potential changes in immune function, there
has been concern for some time that wear debris may be
Carcinogenic . . .  One study suggested threefold risk of lymphoma
and leukemia 10 years after joint replacement."

BMJ says it's likely there are more than 500,000 "at risk large
diameter" metal-on-metal hips implanted in American patients since
2003 which require monitoring.

"We haven't even begun to see all of the problems that victims of
the DePuy hip replacement are likely to face in the years ahead,"
Mr. Davis said.

Mr. Davis said many patients may not even realize they have a
metal hip implant.  He said artificial hip recipients should
contact their doctors immediately to determine whether they have
metal-on-metal hips.  Those who do should obtain a copy of the
operative report from the original implant procedure.  It will
document exactly what they received, including the lot and batch
numbers.

Patients' doctors should order blood and urine tests and a special
MRI, called MARS (metal artifact reducing), to check for
metallosis damage, including the formation of pseudotumors around
the hip, Mr. Davis added.

"So-called 'Silent Metal Disease,' is found in upwards of 30% of
patients with no symptoms.  Cobalt and chromium poisoning can only
be diagnosed promptly through a program of universal and
comprehensive monitoring of the entire population of ASR XL
patients," according to the complaint.

Hip implant patients should contact an attorney experienced in
medical products liability cases to learn about their legal right
to compensation for damage from the device, Mr. Davis said.  They
should contact an attorney quickly, Mr. Davis said, because the
statute of limitations is relatively short and time may already be
running out.

             About Davis, Saperstein & Salomon, P.C.

Davis, Saperstein & Salomon, P.C.'s practice areas include
personal injury, auto accidents, drunk driving accidents, motor
vehicle accidents, medical malpractice, premises liability,
product liability, slip and fall, truck accidents and workers'
compensation.


GLK FOODS: Mexican Workers Sue Over Employment Termination
----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Buchmeier at Courthouse News Service reports that in a
federal class action, 66 Mexican citizens with visas to work in
the United States claim the world's largest sauerkraut factory
fired them when faced with the prospect that it might have to pay
them higher wages.

Lead plaintiff Alejandro Jurado Jimenez sued GLK Foods and its
owner and president Ryan A. Downs.  GLK Foods (Great Lakes Kraut
Foods), of Bear Creek, Wisc., "considers itself to be the largest
sauerkraut producer in the world, and maker of America's top
selling brands of sauerkraut," according to the complaint.
Mr. Jurado says GLK fired him and his 65 co-workers when the
cannery believed it would have to increase their pay, under a U.S.
Department of Labor rule on foreign guest workers.

Congress blocked the Labor Department from implementing the wage
increase, but Mr. Jurado says GLK fired him and his class and
replaced with a migrant work crew provided by a farm labor
contractor from Florida.

The sauerkraut workers trimmed, cut and prepared raw cabbage. They
were in the United States with H-2B work visas.  To get the visas,
GLK Foods had to certify to the Labor Department that "there are
insufficient available workers within the United States to perform
the job, and the employment of aliens will not adversely affect
the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S.
workers."

The visa rules also required that GLK pay a wage during the entire
certification period that "equals or exceeds the highest of the
most recent prevailing wage, the applicable federal, state, or
local minimum wage"; provide at least 40 hours per week of work
for each worker; provide work for the entire certified period of
employment; comply with all federal, state, and local employment
laws and regulations; and provide or pay for return transportation
from the job site to the workers' homes if workers are terminated
before the end of the certified period of employment.  GLK also
had to certify that it did not seek or collect payment "from an
employee for any activity related to obtaining labor
certification, including payment of recruiting costs," according
to the complaint.

GLK Foods certified its workers for H-2B visas from 2006 to 2011.
Mr. Jurado seeks certification of two classes: 2006-2008 workers
and 2010-2011 workers.

The 2006-2008 class claims it was not provided with required
disclosures and written employment agreements, and that deductions
were taken illegally from their paychecks for room and board.

The 2010-2011 class claims it was not paid the prevailing wage
rate, was stiffed for overtime pay, and was not given 40 hours
work per week during the entire certified period of employment.

The 2010-2011 class also claims that they had to pay numerous
expenses, including "recruitment fees of between $1,000 and
$1,500; the costs of Mexican passports; travel expenses from their
respective homes in Mexico to the United States Consulate in
Matamoros, Mexico; visa application fees and other expenses
necessary to obtain the H-2B visas; lodging expenses in Matamoros,
Mexico pending approval of visa applications and before
transportation to Wisconsin was arranged; travel expenses from the
lodging in Matamoros, Mexico to the border with the United States;
and border crossing fees charged by the United States Citizenship
and Immigration Services."

The workers say they were not reimbursed for any of these costs.

They seek damages under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural
Worker Protection Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Wisconsin's
Migrant Labor Act, and the Wisconsin Wage Payments, Claims and
Collections Act.

A second class action was filed by two class members.

Jose Enriquez Ramirez and Isidro Enriquez Ramirez say they were
told 2 hours before their first sauerkraut shift began that they
were no longer needed.  They say they paid for all the costs of
their recruitment, immigration documents, and travel expenses to
and from Mexico, but GLK Foods' Ryan Downs never reimbursed them.

A copy of the Complaint in Jurado Jimenez, et al. v. GLK Foods, et
al., Case No. 12-cv-00209 (E.D. Wis.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/02/Sauerkraut.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
          Mary M. Rowland, Esq.
          Jose J. Behar, Esq.
          Jenna Miara, Esq.
          HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
          70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 580-0100
          E-mail: mpiers@hsplegal.com
                  mrowland@hsplegal.com
                  jbehar@hsplegal.com
                  jmiara@hsplegal.com

               - and -

          Weeun Wang, Eq.
          FARMWORKER JUSTICE
          1126 16th Street, N.W., Suite 270
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 293-5420 ext. 308
          E-mail: wwang@farmworkerjustice.org


GOVERNMENT OF GUAM: Objects to Tax Refund Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Mindy Aguon, writing for Kuam News, reports that the Government of
Guam has objections to the proposed class definition in the
ongoing tax refund lawsuit in the District Court.  Jeffrey and Rea
Paeste and Sharon Zapanta filed a class action lawsuit against the
government for the payment of tax refunds.  They've asked that the
court certify the class, or the group of individuals who the
lawsuit would cover.

The government however contends that the designation of
individuals proposed by the plaintiffs is too broad and that there
is a conflict within the class since it includes taxpayers who
benefit from the Expedited Refund Program.  The plaintiffs
responded to the objections stating that every taxpayer who
submits a claim for a refund shares an interest in having his or
her claim fully administered in a timely and equitable manner.

The court meanwhile has yet to set a trial date for the case.


NETFLIX INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frank J. Fish, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Netflix, Inc., Reed Hastings, David B. Wells, Theodore
A. Sarandos, Leslie J. Kilgore and Neil D. Hunt, Case No. 5:12-cv-
01030 (N.D. Calif., February 29, 2012) is a securities class
action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Netflix during the period
from December 20, 2010, to October 24, 2011, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
and Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that although the Defendants knew that the
Company was being threatened with devastating cost increases, they
did not disclose the threat, but instead spoke publicly about its
ability to grow.  He contends that the Defendants failed to
disclose that the extent of the increasing prices for streaming
content would have the opposite effect of the Company's "virtuous
cycles," either through higher cost of subscriptions for customers
which would lead to negative user sentiment, or less available
content, which would lead subscribers to look to Netflix's new
streaming competitors with more content.

Mr. Fish is a shareholder of the Company.  He asserts that he
purchased Netflix securities at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period and has been damaged thereby.

Netflix is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Los Gatos,
California.  Netflix is subscription video-content service that
delivers its product both streaming via the Internet and as DVDs
and Blu-Ray discs via mail.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
                  wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
          Matthew M. Houston, Esq.
          HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
          488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 935-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 753-3630
          E-mail: rharwood@hfesq.com
                  mhouston@hfesq.com


QBE: Faces Class Actions Over "Force-Placed Insurance" Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Butler, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that legal
pressure is mounting on embattled insurer QBE over a controversial
product forced on struggling home owners in the repossession-hit
US.

In two class actions in Florida, lawyers acting on behalf of tens
of thousands of home owners have made serious allegations of
profiteering, collusion and kickbacks in cosy deals between
lenders and QBE.

While the allegations have yet to be tested in court, a judge
recently allowed one class action over the product, known as
"force-placed insurance", to go ahead and is considering whether
the second should proceed.

At the same time, QBE is among insurers that New York authorities
are investigating over force-placed insurance, while insurance
market Lloyd's recently warned participants -- including QBE -- to
comply with US laws covering the product.

Lenders take out force-placed insurance to protect their
investment when home owners fail to keep their property insured,
often because they are also struggling to meet mortgage payments.

The cost, which is alleged to be up to 14 times more than
equivalent insurance on the open market, is then passed on to the
home owner.

With about US$50 million in premiums reported to be at stake in
Florida, QBE is vigorously fighting both cases.

A QBE spokesman said there had been no findings of insurer fault
or wrongdoing.

"QBE believes that its approach to the pricing of force-placed
insurance in Florida appropriately reflects the risks,
particularly in relation to catastrophes that prevail in this
market," he said.

QBE has already had a partial victory in the first action,
limiting the potential class of litigants to residents of Florida.

In that proceeding, QBE has admitted it did not use an actuary to
set the price of force-placed insurance.

Instead, it "simply added 20 per cent to the rates of another
insurance company", Southern District of Florida judge Robert
Scola said in a ruling.

In the other class action, QBE subsidiary Balboa, which the
company bought just last year, is accused of conspiring with GMAC
in "abusive forced-placed insurance practices".

Lead plaintiff Christina Ulbrich alleges she was paying $US890 a
year for hazard insurance through her insurer.  She alleges that
despite having a valid policy in place, in January last year GMAC
made an "unfair, unconscionable, unjustified, and unlawful"
attempt to force-place her with insurance that cost 14 times as
much -- more than $US12,700.

Ms. Ulbrich also alleges that GMAC received a kickback for force-
placing windstorm and flood insurance with Balboa.

Judge Scola is considering whether to allow the case to proceed or
agree to a motion by GMAC to throw the case out.


QUICKTRIM: Kardashian Sisters Face $5-Mil. Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Benge Nsenduluka, writing for Christian Post, reports that
Kim Kardashian and her sisters Khloe and Kourtney have been
slapped with a $5 million class action lawsuit for their roles in
endorsing the weight loss product QuickTrim.

The suit charges that QuickTrim is "marketed by the defendants as
a clinically proven formula that will increase metabolism, curb
appetite and promote weight loss.  In reality, QuickTrim's main
ingredient is a large dose of caffeine, which the U.S. Food and
Drug Administrator has determined is not a safe or effective
treatment for weight control," the Manhattan federal court filing
states, according to the New York Post.

The reality TV personalities, who are renowned for endorsing
countless products, have reportedly angered a number of QuickTrim
consumers for what critics allege is false advertising and may be
forced to pay damages if the court finds any wrong doing.

The court documents also state that QuickTrim products "generally
feature . . . photos of one or more of the Kardashian sisters in a
bikini or other revealing attire," which some argue is
deliberately misleading.

Kim, 31, and Khloe, 27, who reportedly earn anywhere up to $10
million per single tweet, have also previously tweeted about their
alleged 15-pound weight loss which they both attribute to using
QuickTrim, and which legal experts argue is further proof of false
advertising.

The class-action lawsuit could potentially add yet another blow to
the Kardashian empire, which has suffered immensely since Kim
filed for divorce from NBA star Kris Humphries after just 72 days
of marriage.

Viewers of their reality TV show "Keeping Up With the Kardashians"
accused Kim of staging her lavish nuptials to 26-year-old
Humphries for financial gain after it was reported that she had
earned a substantial amount of money after selling her wedding
photos, which she has denied.

In December, reports swirled linking Kardashian products to
Chinese sweatshops, which resulted in further backlash with
thousands of consumers uniting to boycott Kardashian products.

The Kardashian sisters have not yet addressed the pending lawsuit.



SKECHERS USA: Faces Class Action Over "Shape-Ups" Toning Shoes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore product liability lawyer Robert K. Jenner --
rjenner@myadvocates.com -- has teamed up with the Kentucky law
firm of Schachter, Hendy & Johnson, P.S.C., in filing a class-
action lawsuit on behalf of consumers who allege misleading
advertising influenced their decision to buy Skechers "Shape-Ups"
toning shoes.

The attorneys filed the complaint on February 15, 2012, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.
(Boatright, et al. v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al. Case No.
3:12-cv-00087-CRS).

The lawsuit seeks money damages for consumers who paid a "premium
price" for Skechers "Shape-Ups" based on TV, print and Internet
ads that touted the toning shoes' health benefits.

In reality, the complaint alleges, the shoes provide no additional
health benefits. Instead, they pose a risk of injury due to their
pronounced rocker bottom sole, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit seeks money damages and an order that would stop
Skechers from "deceptive and unlawful advertising."

According to the lawsuit, the shoes are marketed, sold and
promoted by Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., and its subsidiaries.

"If you've bought a pair of Skechers 'Shape-Ups shoes for the
health benefits, you've been misled," Mr. Jenner said in a
statement.  "You deserve not only to get mad, but to get your
money back."

Mr. Jenner is a Maryland defective product lawyer who has been at
the forefront of toning shoe injury litigation.  His Maryland
personal injury firm, Janet, Jenner & Suggs, LLC, currently
provides information to consumers on its Toning Shoes Injury
Web site and Facebook page.

The complaint states that Skechers is currently being investigated
for its toning shoes marketing claims by the Federal Trade
Commission.  In September, the FTC reached a $25 million
settlement with Reebok for making similar fitness claims about its
own brand of toning shoes, the lawsuit states.  Footwear News
estimates that Skechers will face a fine of $75 million.

In particular, the lawsuit alleges that Skechers promoted that its
"Shape-Ups" would provide health benefits "without setting foot in
a gym."

However, the plaintiffs claim, the company has produced no valid
scientific proof that the toning shoes provide any greater benefit
than regular athletic shoes.

The complaint cites an American Council on Exercise study that
concluded, "There is simply no evidence to support the claims that
these shoes will help wearers exercise more intensely, burn more
calories or improve muscle strength and tone.'

However, the lawsuit alleges, the shoes do pose health risks.
Because the rocker bottom soles create instability and change gait
mechanics, they can trigger chronic injuries and cause wearers to
fall and suffer injuries, the plaintiffs claim.

Ronald E. Johnson, Jr. of Schachter, Hendy & Johnson, P.S.C.,
pointed to a May 2011 Consumer Reports article stating that toning
shoes had produced more injury reports than any other product in
its database.  The reported injuries included tendinitis and foot,
leg and hip pain.  The more severe reported injuries included
broken bones.

"Skechers needs to be held accountable," Mr. Johnson said.  "And
consumers need a refund."

                 About Janet, Jenner & Suggs, LLC

Janet, Jenner & Suggs, LLC, is a national personal injury and
product liability law firm with offices in Baltimore, MD, and
Columbia, SC.  Robert K. Jenner has more than 27 years of
experience representing injured consumers nationwide against the
manufacturers of defective products, including medical devices and
dangerous drugs.


SNC-LAVALIN: Siskinds, Desmueles Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
The Quebec law firm of Siskinds, Desmeules on March 2 announced
the filing in the Quebec Superior Court of a proposed class action
against SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., and certain of SNC's current and
former officers and directors.

The proposed class includes all persons, wherever resident, who
acquired securities of SNC from March 13, 2009 to February 28,
2012 inclusive, whether in a prospectus offering or in the
secondary market, and seeks C$250 million in damages.

The action alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
statements that were materially false and misleading in regard to
SNC-Lavalin's code of conduct, legal compliance, and internal
controls.  It is further alleged that SNC and certain members of
its senior management team were engaged in unlawful activities in
Libya during the Class Period, contrary to the defendants' Class
Period statements.

If you acquired securities of SNC from March 13, 2009 to
February 28, 2012 inclusive, please complete the online
information form at:

     http://www.classaction.ca/joinaction.aspx?action=snclavalin


SUPERIOR CORP: Accused of Not Paying Employees' Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enrique Orozco, individually, and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Superior Corporation of Illinois, and
Nicholas Kautz, individually, and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case
No. 2012-L-002243 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., February 29, 2012)
alleges that the Defendants improperly classified the Plaintiff
and all class members as independent contractors, and were paid a
piece rate contingent on the amount of installations completed by
each installer.

The Defendants improperly deducted monies from wages of the
Plaintiff and class members, the Plaintiff alleges.  He adds that
Defendants permitted him and class members to regularly work more
than 40 hours per week without proper overtime compensation.

Mr. Orozco is a resident of Illinois and worked as a non-exempt
installer for the Defendants in Illinois.

Superior is an Illinois corporation with its offices in Elk Grove
Village, Illinois.  Mr. Kautz is the president and owner of
Superior.  Home Depot is the world's largest home improvement
specialty retailer and service provider.  The Defendants are in
the business of retailing and installing home improvement
specialty items in the state of Illinois.  Home Depot employs the
services of Superior on a contractual basis.  Superior and Mr.
Kautz, in turn, employed the Plaintiff and class members, and
classified them as independent contractors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. Miller, Esq.
          MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1051 Perimeter Drive, Suite 400
          Schaumburg, IL 60173
          Telephone: (847) 995-1205
          E-mail: Richard.Miller@Millerlawfirm.org

               - and -

          Scott C. Polman
          LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT C. POLMAN
          8130 N. Milwaukee Ave.
          Niles, IL 60714
          Telephone: (847) 292-1989


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Petition for Review in "Cipro" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited is awaiting a court
decision on plaintiffs' petition for review in a class action
lawsuit pending in California filed against a Company subsidiary,
according to the Company's February 17, 2012, Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011.

The Company's subsidiary Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has been named
as a co-defendant with Bayer Corporation, The Rugby Group, Inc.
and others in approximately 38 class action complaints filed in
state and federal courts by direct and indirect purchasers of
ciprofloxacin (Cipro(R)) from 1997 to the present.  The complaints
allege that a 1997 Bayer-Barr patent litigation settlement
agreement was anti-competitive and violated federal antitrust laws
and/or state antitrust and consumer protection laws.  In March
2005, the court in the federal multi-district litigation granted
summary judgment in Barr's favor and dismissed all of the federal
actions before it.  Following unsuccessful appeals and petitions
for certiorari that were denied by the United States Supreme
Court, the federal actions have effectively ended. In addition,
all but three state cases (California, Kansas and Florida) have
been dismissed.  In the California case, the trial court granted
defendants' summary judgment motions, and the California Court of
Appeal affirmed in October 2011.  Plaintiffs have petitioned for
review by the California Supreme Court, which has discretion
whether to accept the appeal.  Barr has opposed the petition.  The
Kansas action is stayed, and the Florida action is in the very
early stages, with no hearings or schedule set to date.

Teva believes that the agreements at issue in the matters are
valid settlements to patent lawsuits and cannot form the basis of
an antitrust claim.


WORLD SAVINGS: Sued Over Real Property in San Jose, California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Conchita V. Roy and Serafin F. Padlan, individuals, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated vs. World Savings
Bank, FSB, as the Original Lender; Golden West Savings Association
Service Co., a California corporation, as the Original Trustee;
Financial Title Company Title Company; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as
the PSA Master Servicer; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. PSA Sponsor and
Seller; Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation, as PSA
Depositor; HSBC Bank USA, N.A., as PSA Trustee; Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. PSA Custodian; The Wells Fargo Mortgage Backed Securities
2007-14 Trust, as the PSA Trust Issuing Entity; Cal-Western
Reconveyance Corporation, as the Foreclosing Trustee; Joe
Krasovic, as Assistant Secretary of MERS, Inc., Rosalyn Hall the
Notary of the Assignment of Deed of Trust; and Does 1 through 10,
Inclusive, Case No. 111CV213643 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara
Cty., November 21, 2011) is an action brought for declaratory
judgment, injunctive and equitable relief, and for compensatory,
special, general and punitive damages.  At all times relevant to
the action, the Plaintiffs assert that they own the property
located at 1407 Gordy Drive, San Jose, California 95l31.

The Plaintiffs dispute the title and ownership of the real
property in question in that the originating mortgage lender, and
others, alleged to have ownership, have unlawfully sold, assigned
and transferred their ownership and security interest in a
Promissory Note and Deed of trust related to the Property, and
thus, do not have lawful ownership or security interest in
Plaintiffs' home.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
cannot show proper receipt, possession, transfer, negotiations,
assignment and ownership of the borrower's original Promissory
Note and Deed of Trust, resulting in imperfect security interests
and claims.

The Plaintiffs are residents of the County of San Santa Clara,
California.

World Savings Bank is the originator of a loan involving the
Property and a purported participant in the imperfect
securitization of the Note.  Financial Title, as the title
company, and Golden West as the original trustee, oversaw the
recording and processing of both Deed of Trust and Promissory
Note.  Wells Fargo Bank, as PSA Sponsor and Seller, is the present
purported securitization seller of a portion of mortgage loans.
Wells Fargo Bank, as PSA Servicer, is the present purported Master
Servicer of the mortgage.  Wells Fargo Asset, as Depositor, is the
present purported securitization depositor of the mortgage.  HSBC,
as Trustee, is the present purported PSA Trustee and Custodian of
the mortgage.  Wells Fargo Bank, as PSA Custodian, is the present
purported PSA Trustee and Custodian of the mortgage.  Wells Fargo
Mortgage is the present purported PSA Issuing Trust.  Cal-Western
is the present purported foreclosing trustee of the mortgage.  Joe
Krasovic, as Executor of the recorded Substitution of Trustee as
Assistant Secretary of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,
Inc., suspected as Robo-Signor for and is a purported participant
in the imperfect securitization of the Note and the Deed of Trust.
Rosalyn Hall, as the Notary of the recorded Substitution, is a
purported participant in the imperfect securitization of the Note
and the Deed of Trust.  The Plaintiffs do not know the true names
and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Defendants removed the lawsuit on February 29, 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.  The Defendants argue that the removal is proper
because the citizenship of the parties is entirely diverse and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:12-cv-01034 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are not represented by any law firm.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert A. Bailey, Esq.
          Grace B. Kang, Esq.
          ANGLIN, FLEWELLING, RASMUSSEN, CAMPBELL & TRYTTEN LLP
          199 South Los Robles Avenue, Suite 600
          Pasadena, CA 91101-2459
          Telephone: (626) 535-1900
          Facsimile: (626) 577-7764
          E-mail: rbailey@afrct.com
                  gkang@afrct.com


* Directors of Australian Companies Worry Over Settlements
----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Schneider, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Australian
class-action lawsuit settlements worry company directors because
of their size even as such suits account for less than 1 percent
of federal court cases, according to a report by law firm King &
Wood Mallesons.

About 14 class-action suits are filed each year, two decades after
the nation allowed such actions, the firm said on March 1 in its
review of 2011.

Among cases initiated last year, Australia & New Zealand Banking
Group Ltd. (ANZ) customers are seeking to recoup AUD50 million
($54 million) in fees they deem illegal.  A suit against Centro
Properties Ltd., whose shareholders want to recover more than
AUD200 million from the collapsed mall operator in a trial
starting March 5, is a key case to watch in 2012, the firm said.

"Class actions remain a significant concern for both directors and
in-house counsel alike due to the scale of many of these claims,"
the authors of the report wrote.  The total value of settlements
in shareholder class actions in 2011 surpassed AUD500 million,
they said.

The Centro lawsuit is "significant because the applicants seek to
get around the common law position that shareholders cannot sue
auditors for negligence," the law firm said.

Centro shareholders allege the company misled them by failing to
disclose the full extent of its debts.

                         Unresolved Issue

The case may also resolve whether each member of the class has to
prove they were misled and incurred damages or the group as a
whole is entitled to compensation because the market was misled,
Roger Forbes, a partner at King & Wood Mallesons and a co-author
of the report, said in a telephone interview.

"That's a great unresolved issue," he said.

In a class-action suit, one applicant files on behalf of a group
of plaintiffs, rather than individuals pursuing claims separately.
Plaintiffs have been more willing to include advisers as
defendants in class-action lawsuits, recognizing they may be more
willing to settle because they often have professional indemnity
insurance and reputations to protect, King & Wood Mallesons said.

Adding defendants boosts the costs of the litigation, said King &
Wood Mallesons, whose 21 office locations include Beijing, Hong
Kong and Sydney.  It also carries the risk the plaintiffs may have
to pay the defendants' legal bills, the law firm said.

                         Company Directors

"One development that was predicted but has not been common, is
the inclusion of company directors as individual defendants to
class actions," the authors wrote.  "This reflects the belief that
it is the company that has the deeper pockets and reputation to
protect."

Canada, whose legal system, like Australia's, typically requires
the losing side to pay litigation costs, has seen 10 shareholder
class-action suits settled for a total of C$100 million ($101
million) since 2005, according to NERA Economic Consulting Ltd.

There were 45 Canadian securities class actions under litigation
as of Dec. 31, with plaintiffs seeking a total of about C$24.5
billion in damages, NERA said.

"We haven't seen that dramatic a spike" in claims in Australia,
Mr. Forbes said.

He said he expects "a slight and steady increase" in the number of
Australian class action lawsuits filed in the future as more law
firms enter the field.

The Australian and Canadian settlements remain a fraction of those
in the U.S., where trials are generally quicker and held before
juries who determine damages.

The biggest verdicts in U.S. securities class action were for $7.1
billion and $6.1 billion resulting from the collapse of Enron
Corp. and WorldCom Inc. respectively.  Both settlements took place
in 2005.


                           *********

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  * * *