CAR_Public/120308.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, March 8, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 48

                             Headlines

AIG INC: Consolidated 2008 Securities Suit Remains Pending
AIG INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated New York ERISA Action
AIG INC: Ontario Securities Class Action Remains Pending
AIG INC: N.Y. and Florida Securities Suit Settlements Pending
AIG INC: Appeals From Settlement of NWCR Actions Pending

AIG INC: Class Cert. Hearing in Caremark Suit Set for March
AMC THEATER: Sued Over High Prices of Food & Drinks
ARLINGTON ASSET: Bid to Dismiss in Securities Suit Pending in N.Y.
BP: U.S. Government Seeks Compensation for Oil Spill Damages
BP: Oil Spill Settlement Is Reasonable Deal, Attorney Says

CAPELLA EDUCATION: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
CARDIONET INC: "West Palm Beach" Settlement Hearing Set for Jun 22
CENTRO: Restructuring Complicates Shareholder Class Action
CITY OF DES MOINES, IA: Mulls Appeal of Franchise Ruling
COMCAST CORP: Expects Philadelphia Case To Go To Trial This Year

COMCAST CORP: Company Expects New Opinion After Death of Judge
COMCAST CORP: Plea to Compel Arbitration Still Pending in MDL
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in Tenn.
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Continues to Defend RICO Suit in New Mexico
EMPIRE STATE: Faces Class Action Over Initial Public Offering

GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Furlough Orders
IKANOS COMMUNICATIONS: IPO Suit Dismissal Appeal Remains Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued Over Collection of Mortgage-Related Claims
METABOLIX: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action in New York
MOTOROLA INC: May 9 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

NORTHLAND PROPERTIES: Foreign Workers' Class Action Can Proceed
NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL: Accused of Illegal Billing Practices
NUTREX RESEARCH: Sued Over Synthetic DMAA in Dietary Supplements
PARKLANE FINANCIAL: Investors at Odds with CRA Over Tax Shelter
RED ROBIN: "Cifuentes" Wage and Hour Class Suit Pending in Calif.

RED ROBIN: Continues to Defend "McConnell" Wage & Hour Class Suit
RED ROBIN GOURMET: "Moreno" Class Action in Calif. Remains Stayed
SARA LEE: Did Not Reimburse Employees' Uniform Costs, Suit Says
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS: Sued Over Negligent Release of Medical Info
SNC-LAVALIN: Disputes Securities Class Action

SPI ELECTRICITY: Class Action Settlement Almost Complete
TALEO CORP: Being Sold for Too Little, California Suit Claims
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: "King Drug" Suit Remains Pending in Penn.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Class Suits vs. Unit
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Settlement in MDL vs. Unit Approved in Dec.

ZIPLOCAL: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Yellow Pages


                          *********

AIG INC: Consolidated 2008 Securities Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated purported securities class action filed between
2008 and 2009 against American International Group, Inc., remains
pending, according to the Company's February 23, 2012 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

Between May 21, 2008 and January 15, 2009, eight purported
securities class action complaints were filed against AIG and
certain directors and officers of AIG and AIGFP, AIG's outside
auditors, and the underwriters of various securities offerings in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the Southern District of New York), alleging claims under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) or claims
under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act).  On
March 20, 2009, the Court consolidated all eight of the purported
securities class actions as In re American International Group,
Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation (the Consolidated 2008 Securities
Litigation).  Subsequently, on November 18, 2011 and January 20,
2012, two separate, though similar, securities actions were
brought against AIG and certain directors and officers of AIG and
AIGFP by the Kuwait Investment Office and various Oppenheimer
Funds, respectively.

On May 19, 2009, lead plaintiff in the Consolidated 2008
Securities Litigation filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of
purchasers of AIG Common Stock during the alleged class period of
March 16, 2006 through September 16, 2008, and on behalf of
purchasers of various AIG securities offered pursuant to AIG's
shelf registration statements.  The consolidated complaint alleges
that defendants made statements during the class period in press
releases, AIG's quarterly and year-end filings, during conference
calls, and in various registration statements and prospectuses in
connection with the various offerings that were materially false
and misleading and that artificially inflated the price of AIG
Common Stock.  The alleged false and misleading statements relate
to, among other things, the Subprime Exposure Issues.  The
consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act.  On August 5, 2009, defendants filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint, and on September 27, 2010, the
Court denied the motions to dismiss.

On November 24, 2010 and December 10, 2010, AIG and all other
defendants filed answers to the consolidated complaint denying the
material allegations therein and asserting their defenses.

On April 1, 2011, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated 2008
Securities Litigation filed a motion to certify a class of
plaintiffs.  On November 2, 2011, the Court terminated the motion
without prejudice to an application for restoration.

As of February 23, 2012, plaintiffs in the Consolidated 2008
Securities Litigation have not specified an amount of alleged
damages, discovery is ongoing and the Court has not determined if
a class action is appropriate or the size or scope of any class.
As a result, AIG is unable to reasonably estimate the possible
loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation.

As of February 23, 2012, the actions initiated by the Kuwait
Investment Office and various Oppenheimer Funds are in their early
stages, no discussions concerning potential damages have occurred
and the plaintiffs have not specified an amount of alleged damages
in their respective actions.  As a result, AIG is unable to
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any,
arising from these litigations.


AIG INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated New York ERISA Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., continues to defend a
consolidated purported class action in New York alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
according to the Company's February 23, 2012 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

Between June 25, 2008, and November 25, 2008, AIG, certain
directors and officers of AIG, and members of AIG's Retirement
Board and Investment Committee were named as defendants in eight
purported class action complaints asserting claims on behalf of
participants in certain pension plans sponsored by AIG or its
subsidiaries.  On March 19, 2009, the Court consolidated these
eight actions as In re American International Group, Inc. ERISA
Litigation II.  On June 26, 2009, lead plaintiffs' counsel filed a
consolidated amended complaint.  The action purports to be brought
as a class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), on behalf of all participants in
or beneficiaries of certain benefit plans of AIG and its
subsidiaries that offered shares of AIG Common Stock.  In the
consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary
responsibilities to plan participants and their beneficiaries
under ERISA, by continuing to offer the AIG Stock Fund as an
investment option in the plans after it allegedly became imprudent
to do so.  The alleged ERISA violations relate to, among other
things, the defendants' purported failure to monitor and/or
disclose certain matters, including the Subprime Exposure Issues.
On September 18, 2009, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

On March 31, 2011, the Court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss with respect to one plan at issue, and denied defendants'
motions to dismiss with respect to the other two plans at issue.

On August 5, 2011, AIG and all other defendants filed answers to
the consolidated complaint denying the material allegations
therein and asserting their defenses.

As of February 23, 2012, plaintiffs have not specified an amount
of alleged damages, discovery is ongoing, and the Court has not
determined if a class action is appropriate or the size or scope
of any class.  As a result, AIG is unable to reasonably estimate
the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the
litigation.


AIG INC: Ontario Securities Class Action Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
A purported securities class action lawsuit filed in an Ontario
court against American International Group, Inc., remains pending,
according to the Company's February 23, 2012 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On November 12, 2008, an application was filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice for leave to bring a purported class
action against AIG, AIGFP, certain directors and officers of AIG
and Joseph Cassano, the former Chief Executive Officer of AIGFP,
pursuant to the Ontario Securities Act.  If the Court grants the
application, a class plaintiff will be permitted to file a
statement of claim against defendants.  The proposed statement of
claim would assert a class period of November 10, 2006 through
September 16, 2008 (later amended to March 16, 2006 through
September 16, 2008) and would allege that during this period
defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions in
quarterly and annual reports and during oral presentations in
violation of the Ontario Securities Act.

On April 17, 2009, defendants filed a motion record in support of
their motion to stay or dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and forum
non conveniens.  On July 12, 2010, the Court adjourned a hearing
on the motion pending a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in
another action with respect to similar issues raised in the action
pending against AIG.

In plaintiff's proposed statement of claim, plaintiff alleged
general and special damages of $500 million, and punitive damages
of $50 million plus prejudgment interest or such other sums as the
Court finds appropriate.  As of February 23, 2012, the Court has
not determined whether it has jurisdiction or granted plaintiff's
application to file a statement of claim and no merits discovery
has occurred.  As a result, AIG is unable to reasonably estimate
the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the
litigation.


AIG INC: N.Y. and Florida Securities Suit Settlements Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Settlements in securities fraud class action lawsuits filed in New
York and Florida against American International Group, Inc., are
pending, according to the Company's February 23, 2012 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

Beginning in October 2004, a number of putative securities fraud
class action suits were filed in the Southern District of New York
against AIG and consolidated as In re American International
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation (the Consolidated 2004
Securities Litigation).  Subsequently, a separate, though similar,
securities fraud action was also brought against AIG by certain
Florida pension funds.  The lead plaintiff in the Consolidated
2004 Securities Litigation is a group of public retirement systems
and pension funds benefiting Ohio state employees, suing on behalf
of themselves and all purchasers of AIG's publicly traded
securities between October 28, 1999 and April 1, 2005.  The named
defendants are AIG and a number of present and former AIG officers
and directors, as well as C.V. Starr & Co., Inc. (Starr), Starr
International Company, Inc. (SICO), General Reinsurance
Corporation (General Re), and PwC, among others.  The lead
plaintiff alleges, among other things, that AIG: (i) concealed
that it engaged in anti-competitive conduct through alleged
payment of contingent commissions to brokers and participation in
illegal bid-rigging; (ii) concealed that it used "income
smoothing" products and other techniques to inflate its earnings;
(iii) concealed that it marketed and sold "income smoothing"
insurance products to other companies; and (iv) misled investors
about the scope of government investigations.  In addition, the
lead plaintiff alleges that Maurice R. Greenberg, AIG's former
Chief Executive Officer, manipulated AIG's stock price.  The lead
plaintiff asserts claims for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 20(a) and Section 20A
of the Exchange Act.

On July 14, 2010, AIG approved the terms of a settlement (the
Settlement) with lead plaintiffs. The Settlement is conditioned
on, among other things, court approval and a minimum level of
shareholder participation.  Under the terms of the Settlement, if
consummated, AIG would pay an aggregate of $725 million.

On July 20, 2010, at the joint request of AIG and lead plaintiffs,
the District Court entered an order staying all deadlines in the
case.  On November 30, 2010, AIG and lead plaintiffs executed
their agreement of settlement and compromise.  On November 30,
2010, lead plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement with AIG.

On October 5, 2011, the District Court granted lead plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement between AIG and
lead plaintiffs.  Notices to class members of the settlement were
mailed on October 14, 2011.  On December 2, 2011, Lead Plaintiff
filed a motion for final approval of the settlement and for
attorneys' fees.  Objections to the settlement and requests to be
excluded from the settlement were due to the District Court by
December 30, 2011.  Only two shareholders objected to the
settlement, and 25 shareholders claiming to hold less than 1.5
percent of AIG's outstanding shares at the end of the class period
submitted timely and valid requests to opt out of the class.  Of
those 25 shareholders, seven are investment funds controlled by
the same investment group, and that investment group is the only
opt-out who held more than 1,000 shares at the end of the class
period.  By order dated February 2, 2012, the District Court
granted lead plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the
Settlement between AIG and lead plaintiffs.  AIG has fully funded
the amount of the Settlement into an escrow account.  On
February 17, 2012, one of the objectors filed a notice to appeal
the District Court's February 2, 2012 order to the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On January 23, 2012, AIG and the Florida pension funds, who had
brought a separate securities fraud action, executed a settlement
agreement.  Under the terms of the settlement agreement, AIG paid
$4 million.


AIG INC: Appeals From Settlement of NWCR Actions Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the settlement of lawsuits filed against American
International Group, Inc., on behalf of participating members of
the National Workers' Compensation Reinsurance Pool, is pending,
according to the Company's February 23, 2012 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On May 24, 2007, the National Council on Compensation Insurance
(NCCI), on behalf of the participating members of the National
Workers' Compensation Reinsurance Pool (the NWCRP), filed a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Northern District of Illinois) against AIG
with respect to the underpayment by AIG of its residual market
assessments for workers' compensation insurance.  The complaint
alleged claims for violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations, breach of contract, fraud and related state law
claims arising out of AIG's alleged underpayment of these
assessments between 1970 and the present and sought damages
purportedly in excess of $1 billion.  On August 6, 2007, the Court
denied AIG's motion seeking to dismiss or stay the complaint or,
in the alternative, to transfer to the Southern District of New
York.  On December 26, 2007, the Court denied AIG's motion to
dismiss the complaint.

On March 17, 2008, AIG filed an amended answer, counterclaims and
third-party claims against NCCI (in its capacity as attorney-in-
fact for the NWCRP), the NWCRP, its board members, and certain of
the other insurance companies that are members of the NWCRP
alleging violations of RICO, as well as claims for conspiracy,
fraud, and other state law claims.  The counterclaim-defendants
and third-party defendants filed motions to dismiss on June 9,
2008.  On January 26, 2009, AIG filed a motion to dismiss all
claims in the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
On February 23, 2009, the Court issued a decision and order
sustaining AIG's counterclaims and sustaining, in part, AIG's
third-party claims.  The Court also dismissed certain of AIG's
third-party claims without prejudice.

On April 13, 2009, third-party defendant Liberty Mutual Group
(Liberty Mutual) filed third-party counterclaims against AIG,
certain of its subsidiaries, and former AIG executives.  On
August 23, 2009, the Court granted AIG's motion to dismiss the
NCCI complaint for lack of standing.  On September 25, 2009, AIG
filed its First Amended Complaint, reasserting its RICO claims
against certain insurance companies that both underreported their
workers' compensation premium and served on the NWCRP Board, and
repleading its fraud and other state law claims.  Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on October 30,
2009.  On October 8, 2009, Liberty Mutual filed an amended
counterclaim against AIG.  The amended counterclaim is
substantially similar to the complaint initially filed by NCCI,
but also seeks damages related to non-NWCRP states, guaranty
funds, and special assessments, in addition to asserting claims
for other violations of state law.  The amended counterclaim also
removes as defendants the former AIG executives.  On October 30,
2009, AIG filed a motion to dismiss the Liberty amended
counterclaim.

On April 1, 2009, Safeco Insurance Company of America (Safeco) and
Ohio Casualty Insurance Company (Ohio Casualty) filed a complaint
in the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of a purported
class of all NWCRP participant members, against AIG and certain of
its subsidiaries with respect to the underpayment by AIG of its
residual market assessments for workers' compensation insurance.
The complaint was styled as an "alternative complaint," should the
Court grant AIG's motion to dismiss the NCCI lawsuit for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.  The allegations in the class action
complaint are substantially similar to those filed by the NWCRP,
but the complaint names former AIG executives as defendants and
asserts a RICO claim against those executives.  On August 28,
2009, the class action plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
removing the AIG executives as defendants.  On October 30, 2009,
AIG filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On July 16,
2010, Safeco and Ohio Casualty filed their motion for class
certification, which AIG opposed on October 8, 2010.

On July 1, 2010, the Court ruled on the pending motions to dismiss
that were directed at all parties' claims.  With respect to the
underreporting NWCRP companies' and board members' motion to
dismiss AIG's first amended complaint, the Court denied the motion
to dismiss all counts except AIG's claim for unjust enrichment,
which it found to be precluded by the surviving claims for breach
of contract.  With respect to NCCI and the NWCRP's motion to
dismiss AIG's first amended complaint, the Court denied the NCCI
and the NWCRP's motions to dismiss AIG's claims for an equitable
accounting and an action on an open, mutual, and current account.
With respect to AIG's motions to dismiss Liberty's counterclaims
and the class action complaint, the Court denied both motions,
except that it dismissed the class claim for promissory estoppel.
On July 30, 2010, the NWCRP filed a motion for reconsideration of
the Court's ruling denying its motion to dismiss AIG's claims for
an equitable accounting and an action on an open, mutual, and
current account.  The Court denied the NWCRP's motion for
reconsideration on September 16, 2010.  The plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification on July 16, 2010.  AIG opposed the
motion.

On January 5, 2011, AIG executed a term sheet with a group of
intervening plaintiffs, made up of seven participating members of
the NWCRP that filed a motion to intervene in the class action for
the purpose of settling the claims at issue on behalf of a
settlement class.  The proposed class-action settlement would
require AIG to pay $450 million to satisfy all liabilities to the
class members arising out of the workers' compensation premium
reporting issues, a portion of which would be funded out of the
remaining amount held in the Workers' Compensation Fund less any
amounts previously withdrawn to satisfy AIG's regulatory
settlement obligations.  On January 13, 2011, their motion to
intervene was granted.  On January 19, 2011, the intervening class
plaintiffs filed their Complaint in Intervention.  On January 28,
2011, AIG and the intervening class plaintiffs entered into a
settlement agreement embodying the terms set forth in the
January 5, 2011 term sheet and filed a joint motion for
certification of the settlement class and preliminary approval of
the settlement.  If approved by the Court (and such approval
becomes final), the settlement agreement will resolve and dismiss
with prejudice all claims that have been made or that could have
been made in the consolidated litigations pending in the Northern
District of Illinois arising out of workers' compensation premium
reporting, including the class action, other than claims that are
brought by any class member that opts out of the settlement.  On
April 29, 2011, Liberty Mutual filed papers in opposition to
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and in opposition
to certification of a settlement class, in which it alleged AIG's
actual exposure, should the class action continue through
judgment, to be in excess of $3 billion.  AIG disputes and will
defend against this allegation.  The Court held a hearing on the
motions for class certification and preliminary approval of the
proposed class-action settlement on June 21 and July 25, 2011.

On August 1, 2011, the Court issued an opinion and order granting
the motion for class certification and preliminarily approving the
proposed class-action settlement, subject to certain minor
modifications that the Court noted the parties already had agreed
to make.  The opinion and order became effective upon the entry of
a separate Findings and Order Preliminarily Certifying a
Settlement Class and Preliminarily Approving Proposed Settlement
on August 5, 2011.  Liberty Mutual sought leave from the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to appeal the
August 5, 2011 class certification decision, which was denied on
August 19, 2011.  Notice of the settlement was issued to the class
members on August 19, 2011 advising that any class member wishing
to opt out of or object to the class -- action settlement was
required to do so by October 3, 2011.  RLI Insurance Company and
its affiliates, which were to receive less than one thousand
dollars under the proposed settlement, sent the only purported
opt-out notice.  Liberty Mutual, including its subsidiaries Safeco
and Ohio Casualty, and the Kemper group of insurance companies,
through their affiliate Lumbermens Mutual Casualty, were the only
two objectors.  AIG and the settling class plaintiffs filed
responses to the objectors' submissions on October 28, 2011.  The
Court conducted a final fairness hearing on November 29, 2011.  On
December 21, 2011, the Court issued an order granting final
approval of the settlement, but staying that ruling pending a
forthcoming opinion.  On January 19, 2012, Liberty Mutual and
Safeco and Ohio Casualty filed notices of their intent to appeal
the Court's order granting class-action settlement approval.

The $450 million settlement amount, which is currently held in
escrow pending final resolution of the class-action settlement,
was funded in part from the approximately $191.5 million remaining
in the Workers' Compensation Fund, after the transfer of the
$146.5 million in fines, penalties, and premium taxes discussed in
the NAIC Examination of Workers' Compensation Premium Reporting
matter into a separate escrow account pursuant to the regulatory
settlement agreement.  In the event that the proposed class action
settlement is not approved, the litigation will resume.  As of
December 31, 2011, AIG has an accrued liability equal to the
amounts payable under the settlement.


AIG INC: Class Cert. Hearing in Caremark Suit Set for March
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class certification hearing in a putative class action lawsuit
involving Caremark Rx, Inc., is set this March, according to
American International Group, Inc.'s February 23, 2012 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

AIG and certain of its subsidiaries have been named defendants in
two putative class actions in state court in Alabama that arise
out of the 1999 settlement of class and derivative litigation
involving Caremark Rx, Inc. (Caremark).  The plaintiffs in the
second-filed action intervened in the first-filed action, and the
second-filed action was dismissed.  An excess policy issued by a
subsidiary of AIG with respect to the 1999 litigation was
expressly stated to be without limit of liability.  In the current
actions, plaintiffs allege that the judge approving the 1999
settlement was misled as to the extent of available insurance
coverage and would not have approved the settlement had he known
of the existence and/or unlimited nature of the excess policy.
They further allege that AIG, its subsidiaries, and Caremark are
liable for fraud and suppression for misrepresenting and/or
concealing the nature and extent of coverage.  In addition, the
intervenors originally alleged that various lawyers and law firms
who represented parties in the underlying class and derivative
litigation (the Lawyer Defendants) were also liable for fraud and
suppression, misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The complaints filed by the plaintiffs and the intervenors request
compensatory damages for the 1999 class in the amount of $3.2
billion, plus punitive damages.  AIG and its subsidiaries deny the
allegations of fraud and suppression, assert that information
concerning the excess policy was publicly disclosed months prior
to the approval of the settlement, that the claims are barred by
the statute of limitations, and that the statute cannot be tolled
in light of the public disclosure of the excess coverage.  The
plaintiffs and intervenors, in turn, have asserted that the
disclosure was insufficient to inform them of the nature of the
coverage and did not start the running of the statute of
limitations.

In November 2007, the trial court dismissed the intervenors'
complaint against the Lawyer Defendants, and the Alabama Supreme
Court affirmed that dismissal in September 2008.  After the case
was sent back down to the trial court, the intervenors retained
additional counsel and filed an Amended Complaint in Intervention
that named only Caremark and AIG and various subsidiaries as
defendants, purported to bring claims against all defendants for
deceit and conspiracy to deceive, and purported to bring a claim
against AIG and its subsidiaries for aiding and abetting
Caremark's alleged deception.  The defendants moved to dismiss the
Amended Complaint in Intervention, and the plaintiffs moved to
disqualify all of the lawyers for the intervenors because, among
other things, the newly retained firm had previously represented
Caremark.  The intervenors, in turn, moved to disqualify the
lawyers for the plaintiffs in the first-filed action.  The cross-
motions to disqualify were withdrawn after the two sets of
plaintiffs agreed that counsel for the original plaintiffs would
act as lead counsel, and intervenors also withdrew their Amended
Complaint in Intervention.  The trial court approved all of those
steps and, in April 2009, established a schedule for class action
discovery that was to lead to a hearing on class certification in
March 2010.  The Court has since appointed a special master to
oversee class action discovery and has directed the parties to
submit a new discovery schedule after certain discovery disputes
are resolved.  Class discovery is ongoing.  A class certification
hearing has been set for March 2012, but it is expected to be
adjourned until later in the Spring.

As of February 23, 2012, the parties have not completed class
action discovery, general discovery has not commenced, and the
court has not determined if a class action is appropriate or the
size or scope of any class.  As a result, AIG is unable to
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any,
arising from the litigation.


AMC THEATER: Sued Over High Prices of Food & Drinks
----------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that on
behalf of all others who find the prices of movie theater
concessions to be outrageous, Michigan resident Joshua Thompson
has filed a class action lawsuit against his local AMC theater.

He's suing because the movie house denied him the ability to bring
his own soda and candy into the local AMC in an alleged violation
of Michigan's Consumer Protection Act.

The plaintiff is a 20-something security technician in Livonia,
Michigan, who according to the Detroit Free Press, was tired of
movie theaters taking advantage of him.  So he's suing.

Both AMC and the National Association of Theatre Owners declined
the paper's request for comment.

Although Mr. Thompson's lawsuit is winning sympathy from like-
minded theatergoers who are being asked in a recession to pay big
markups on wholesale prices, some legal experts doubt the
plaintiffs stand much chance of buttering up a judge.

"It's a loser," said Gary Victor, an Eastern Michigan University
business law professor, citing Supreme Court precedent that has
given businesses an out from consumer protection liability in
well-regulated industries.

If the plaintiffs manage to get around this, they'll force AMC to
face a law that prohibits "charging the consumer a price that is
grossly in excess of the price at which similar property or
services are sold."

Exactly how much do movie theaters make on concessions? According
to one Morningstar equity analyst, of every dollar spent on candy
and soda in movie theaters, 85% is pure profit.  Another review of
the business of selling popcorn reveals that $30 worth of raw
popcorn is worth as much as $3,000 to movie theaters.

Unfortunately, the economics of allowing consumers to bring their
own gummy bears into the theater aren't quite so simple.  If this
lawsuit ever did get to trial, AMC would certainly bring their own
experts that could testify that charging high prices is actually
in the consumers' best interest.

As hard as that is to believe, researchers at the Stanford
Graduate School of Business and the University of California,
Santa Cruz, concluded in 2009 that "by charging high prices on
concessions, exhibition houses are able to keep ticket prices
lower, which allows more people to enjoy the silver-screen
experience."


ARLINGTON ASSET: Bid to Dismiss in Securities Suit Pending in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Arlington Asset Investment Corp.'s motion to dismiss an amended
complaint in a securities class action lawsuit filed in New York
is pending, according to the Company's Feb. 23, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

On August 19, 2011, Hildene Capital Management, LLC filed a
purported class action complaint captioned Hildene Capital
Management, LLC v. Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group, Inc. (d/b/a
Arlington Asset Investment Corp.), FBR Capital Trust VI, FBR
Capital Trust X, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee, and John and
Jane Does 1 through 100, No. 11 Civ. 5832, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
complaint alleges unlawful acts by the Company in connection with
the Company's purchase of preferred securities issued by FBR
Capital Trust VI and FBR Capital Trust X (the FBR Trusts) from two
CDOs, Tropic IV CDO Ltd. and Soloso CDO 2005-1 Ltd. in September
2009.  On November 9, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint on behalf of the itself and the FBR Trusts.  On
December 14, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  In
the amended complaint, the plaintiff added Hildene Opportunities
Master Fund, Ltd. as a plaintiff.  The plaintiffs no longer assert
class action claims, but have asserted derivative claims against
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee for Tropic III CDO Ltd., Tropic
IV CDO Ltd., and Soloso CDO 2005-1 Ltd.  On January 20, 2012, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on behalf
of itself and the FBR Trusts.  Briefing on that motion has not yet
been completed, and the motion remains pending.

The Company says it cannot predict the likely outcome of this
action or its likely impact on the Company and its results of
operations at this time.


BP: U.S. Government Seeks Compensation for Oil Spill Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that the
Department of Justice said it will hold BP accountable for the
disaster that dumped millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of
Mexico, on top of the $7.8 billion BP agreed to pay fishermen and
others.

"While we are pleased that BP may be stepping up to address harms
to individual plaintiffs, this by no means fully addresses its
responsibility for the harms it has caused -- as nothing in the
PSC [plaintiff steering committee]/BP settlement compensates the
public for the significant damages to its natural resources and
environment and BP has yet to pay a penalty for its violations of
law," the Justice Department said in a statement.

Late on March 2, BP and plaintiff steering committee attorneys
announced a $7.8 billion settlement had been reached to compensate
116,000 Gulf Coast fishermen, hotel owners, restaurant workers and
seafood processors who lost income because of the Deepwater
Horizon disaster.

The proposed settlement involves two agreements: one to resolve
claims for economic loss, and another to resolve plaintiffs'
medical claims for up to 21 years.

But the settlement does not account for environmental restoration,
federal punitive fines, if any, for pollution, or claims against
BP from the five Gulf Coast states affected by the oil spill.

The government estimates that 4.1 million barrels, or 172 million
gallons, of oil spilled into the Gulf after the April 20, 2010
explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig that killed 11 and
unleashed the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history.

More than 966 miles of shoreline was contaminated with oil,
fragile marshlands were inundated with oil and white sand beaches
were sullied.

The impact of the oil and toxic dispersants used on it, on marine
life and to the health of the Gulf, has been more difficult to
chart.

BP acknowledged it used 1.8 million barrels of dispersant to break
the oil into drops and help it sink it from the surface.

Susan Shaw, an independent marine toxicologist and director of the
Marine Environmental Research Institute in Blue Hill, Maine, told
Courthouse News previously that from a toxicology standpoint,
dispersed oil is more toxic than oil by itself.  Ms. Shaw said
that dispersants work by breaking the outer membrane of cells of
organs and oil alike.  The effect on marine life is that the oil
can enter the body more readily.

In June 2010, C. Arlen Braud II, a Madisonville, La. attorney,
filed a federal class action on behalf of oystermen against BP and
Nalco, the dispersant manufacturer.  The oystermen claimed BP's
use of more than 1 million gallons of dispersant in the Gulf
caused the poison to become "a permanent part of the seabed and
food chain in the biostructure in the Gulf of Mexico."

The oystermen claimed that BP used such an enormous quantity of
the chemical "to lessen the public reaction to the oil spill by
forcing the oil to the bottom of the Gulf and thereby obviating
the need for shoreline cleanup."

Bloomberg News reported on March 5 that L. Blake Jones, a New
Orleans attorney representing commercial fishermen seeking
compensation for oil-polluted oyster beds, said the BP settlement
may not provide enough money to cover future damages to the
fishing industry.

'"We won't know the true extent of the damage for 5 to 10 years,'"
Mr. Jones told Bloomberg.  "'Oystermen could be facing losses of
as much as $40 billion, depending on the pace of recovery."'

The Department of Justice said in its statement that "the United
States is prepared to hold the responsible parties accountable for
the damages suffered in the Gulf region."

The statement continued: "The United States will continue to work
closely with all five Gulf states to ensure that any resolution of
the federal law enforcement and damage claims, including natural
resource damages, arising out of this unprecedented environmental
disaster is just, fair and restores the Gulf for the benefit of
the people of the Gulf states.  Although we remain open to a fair
and just settlement, we are fully prepared to try the case."

Several factors remain unknown.

The $20 billion fund from which plaintiff attorneys and BP plan to
strike the $7.8 billion settlement was intended to be used in part
for environmental restoration.  If the fund is tapped, it remains
unclear what additional money, if any, will be allotted for
restoration.

Congressional delegates from Louisiana and other Gulf Coast states
are pushing to pass the Restore Act, which would ensure that BP
fines will go to restore Gulf Coast states.  The bill would
dedicate at least 80 percent of Clean Water Act penalties for the
BP spill to Gulf Coast states.

If the Restore Act fails in Congress, the money recovered will go
into the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.  While that money
will stem from damages to the Gulf of Mexico, the federal
government will not be obligated to spend any of it to restore the
Gulf Coast.

Under the Clean Water Act, the Department of Justice may seek a
minimum fine of $1,100 per barrel of oil spilled.

"These are civil penalties -- they're not intended to make the
people whole.  It's intended to punish," Department of Justice
Senior Attorney Steven O'Rourke told U.S. District Judge Carl
Barbier during a January trial status conference.

At $1,100 per barrel, using government estimates of 4.1 million
barrels of oil spilled, BP's minimum fine comes to about $4.5
billion.

If the case ends goes to trial, Judge Barbier will assess the
fines, which under the Clean Water Act could come to as much as
$4,300 per barrel, or $17.6 billion.

To assess the maximum fine, Judge Barbier must find the oil spill
was caused by gross negligence.

What fines Judge Barbier, a Clinton appointee, will assess is
uncertain, but BP has been fined severely in the past.

In 2007, BP Exploration pleaded guilty to negligent discharge of
oil, a misdemeanor, and paid $20 million for spilling more than
212,000 gallons of oil from a broken pipeline in Prudhoe Bay,
Alaska.

That fine amounted to just under $4,000 per barrel.

After BP's 2005 Texas City refinery explosion that killed 15 and
wounded 170, BP was charged with criminal violations of federal
environmental laws.  The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration slapped BP with a then-record fine for hundreds of
safety violations, and subsequently imposed an even larger fine
after claiming that BP had failed to implement safety improvements
following the disaster.

On Oct. 30, 2009, OSHA fined BP $87 million for failing to correct
safety hazards revealed by the 2005 explosion.  OSHA also cited
more than 700 safety violations.  The fine was the largest in OSHA
history.

The Justice Department has declined to say whether criminal
charges will be brought against BP for the oil spill from the
Deepwater Horizon.

In his March 2 order that postponed the trial indefinitely,
Judge Barbier wrote: "The court will schedule a status conference
with liaison counsel to discuss issues raised by the settlement
and to set a new trial date."


BP: Oil Spill Settlement Is Reasonable Deal, Attorney Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Erin Kourkounis, writing for pnj.com, reports that a local
attorney who helped negotiate the BP oil spill settlement says it
is a reasonable deal for the 100,000 people on the Gulf Coast who
filed lawsuits against the oil giant.

Pensacola attorney Brian Barr, a partner with the Levin Papantonio
law firm, was one of four attorneys selected by U.S. District
Judge Carl Barbier to lead the Plaintiffs Steering Committee,
which represents the interests of those affected by the 2010 oil
spill.

Mr. Barr spent the better part of the past three weeks in
negotiation meetings for 16 hours a day.  He said he is pleased
with the deal.

"The goal was to do the most good we could for the most people,"
he said.  "For the vast majority of the people on the Gulf Coast
who have an economic-loss claim, this is a great deal."

BP did not put a cap on the settlement, but estimated it would
have to pay out $7.8 billion.

"The settlement amount is unlimited for economic-loss claims,"
Mr. Barr said.  "Whatever it ultimately costs, BP must pay it."

The amount of money each plaintiff will get is determined by a
formula that calculates losses. It also takes into account where
the business is located and which industry it is part of, Mr. Barr
said.

"We recognized businesses on the Gulf Coast do not fit a one-size-
fits-all formula, so the settlement allows claimants a great deal
of flexibility in both proving their losses were caused by the
spill and proving the full extent of their loss," Mr. Barr said.

The settlement closes down the Gulf Coast Claims Facility and
opens a new "settlement center" that is transparent, flexible and
supervised by the court.

"The new settlement center will open shortly after preliminary
approval of the court," Mr. Barr said.

The settlement goes beyond businesses and workers who lost wages.
There is a provision that calls for paying legitimate claims from
cleanup workers and others who say they suffered illnesses because
of oil fumes.

The settlement also establishes a program to monitor the spill's
health effects for a period of 21 years, allowing people whose
physical symptoms haven't developed yet to pursue claims.


CAPELLA EDUCATION: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Capella Education Company is awaiting a court ruling on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated securities lawsuit captioned
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Capella
Education Company, J. Kevin Gilligan, Lois M. Martin and Amy L.
Ronneberg, according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

On November 5, 2010, a purported securities class action lawsuit
captioned Police Pension Fund of Peoria, Individually, and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Capella Education
Company, J. Kevin Gilligan and Lois M. Martin, was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaint
names the Company and certain senior executives as defendants, and
alleges the Company and the named defendants made false or
misleading public statements about the Company's business and
prospects during the time period from February 16, 2010 through
August 13, 2010 in violation of federal securities laws, and that
these statements artificially inflated the trading price of the
Company's common stock to the detriment of shareholders who
purchased shares during that time. The plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages for the purported class. Since that time,
substantially similar complaints making similar allegations
against the same defendants for the same purported class period
were filed with the federal court. Pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, on April 13, 2011, the
Court appointed Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System as lead plaintiff and Abraham, Fruchter and Twersley, LLP,
as lead counsel. A consolidated amended complaint, captioned
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Capella
Education Company, J. Kevin Gilligan, Lois M. Martin and Amy L.
Ronneberg, was filed on June 27, 2011. The Company filed a motion
to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint on September 2, 2011, and a
hearing on that motion was held December 21, 2011. The District
Court will rule on the motion at some time in the future.

Discovery in this case has not yet begun.  Because of the many
questions of fact and law that may arise, the Company says the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.
Based on information available to the Company at present, the
Company says it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for
this action and, accordingly, have not accrued any liability
associated with this action.


CARDIONET INC: "West Palm Beach" Settlement Hearing Set for Jun 22
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court has set June 22, 2012 as the final fairness hearing date
for CardioNet, Inc.'s agreement to settle the West Palm Beach
Police Pension Fund putative class action litigation filed in
California Superior Court, San Diego County, according to the
Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

On December 12, 2011 the Company announced that it has reached a
preliminary agreement to settle the West Palm Beach Police Pension
Fund putative class action litigation filed in California Superior
Court, San Diego County, which asserted claims against the Company
for violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933. The preliminary agreement is subject to certain conditions,
including court approval of a final settlement agreement. The
parties filed a stipulation of settlement and joint plaintiff
filed a motion for preliminary approval on January 6, 2012. Under
the terms of the preliminary agreement, in consideration for the
settlement and release of all defendants, the amount of $7,250
will be paid by or on behalf of the defendants (of which
management expects approximately $6,000 will be covered by
insurance). The court issued an order preliminarily approving the
settlement on January 13, 2012 and set June 22, 2012 as the date
for the final fairness hearing. The Company has recorded an
accrual of $1,250 for the settlement of this litigation.


CENTRO: Restructuring Complicates Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Carbonell, writing for ABC, reports that one of Australia's
biggest class actions has begun in the Federal Court involving
thousands of shareholders in property investment company Centro.

More than 50 lawyers assembled on March 5 in the Federal Court in
Melbourne to represent the different parties in the class action
against the shopping center owner and funds manager.

Shareholders who lost millions when Centro's share price crashed
in late 2007 are seeking damages.

It is alleged two Centro companies failed to reveal the true state
of their debt, which later led to the share price collapse.

Lawyers for the class action say the failure amounts to misleading
and deceptive conduct and to a breach of the Australian Stock
Exchange continuous disclosure duties.

Martin Hyde, a partner at law firm Maurice Blackburn which is
representing the biggest group in the class action, told the court
investors were not aware of the scale of Centro's debt leading in
the global financial crisis.

"Essentially we're saying that people invested in Centro under the
misapprehension that it was a company that was well-placed against
the backdrop of the emerging global financial crisis, when
actually they were investing the money in entities that had $6
billion of debt due before Christmas time," he said.

The complicated case involves detailed matters of cross ownership,
collateralization and control.

Centro last year restructured its businesses into a new entity.
One of the many issues to be thrashed out in this case, which is
set to take at least 10 weeks, is where the responsibility for
liability for the class action lies.

Mr. Hyde says the case is complicated by restructuring within
Centro.

"I think that there's two different entities, so Centro Properties
is effectively now defunct, and one of the class actions is
against Centro Properties.

The other entity, Centro retail, has now merged and is part of the
new sort of re-vamped Centro," he said.

"And so hard to get money back against an entity that's no longer
really there, but Centro Retail certainly looks to be very
solvent."  Centro's auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers, are also
being sued as part of the class action.

"Our clients say that the clearance that PricewaterhouseCoopers
gave, the thumbs up effectively that PricewaterhouseCoopers gave
to Centro, that their accounts were good to go, was misleading and
deceptive because the accounts were false," Mr. Hyde said.

In a statement, PricewaterhouseCoopers said it would vigorously
defend itself in court.

It says Centro did not disclose all the relevant information about
the status of its financial arrangements.

Professor Ian Ramsay, director of the Centre for Corporate Law at
the University of Melbourne, says the judgment will be watched
closely by the business community.

"There are some very important legal issues at stake here.
And we don't always see that with class actions that have been
brought in the past," he said.

"There are some very important issues to be resolved about
continuous disclosure obligations of Centro.

"The key allegation here is that Centro didn't comply with its
continuous disclosure obligations under the listing rules.
We don't see a lot of litigation, we don't see a lot of court
cases about continuous disclosure rules.

"But because these rules apply to all listed companies they are
important.

We look for decisions of our courts to provide guidance to the
market place."  The directors of the two Centro businesses
involved were found guilty last year of breaching the Corporations
Act when they were taken to court by Australian Securities and
Investment Commission (ASIC).

The class action is being funded by a third party, a litigation
funder.

If successful, it will take 30 to 40 per cent of whatever the
court awards, leaving the balance for the victims of Centro's
share collapse.


CITY OF DES MOINES, IA: Mulls Appeal of Franchise Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Eckhoff, writing for DesMoinesRegister.com, reports that the
City of Des Moines will have to give back more than $35 million to
residents who paid an illegal tax on their electric and natural
gas bills, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled on March 2.

But the decision may prompt an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justices upheld a Polk County judge's ruling in a class-action
lawsuit seeking to force the city to refund most of what was
collected between 2004 and 2009 as part of the city's utility
franchise fee.  A 46-page opinion issued on March 2 adds $423,000
a year to the amount that Des Moines will be able to legally keep
as part of managing its infrastructure for the utilities.

Court papers previously have put the size of a potential refund as
$40 million.

Justices ordered that the case now go back to a Polk County judge
"for findings as to the amounts to be distributed to the members
of the class and for a determination of the appropriate
restitutionary arrangement by which such amounts shall be paid."

"I'm definitely disappointed by the decision," said Des Moines
City Council Member Skip Moore.  "I'm sure we're going to be
weighing all options."

Councilwoman Christine Hensley said the ruling "will not impact
this year's budget.  But we will use the time to evaluate all of
our options.  And one of our options is petitioning the U.S.
Supreme Court."

Lawyers for Lisa Kragnes, the lead plaintiff in the class-action
lawsuit, on March 2 said they will "press for checks" to fully
reimburse anyone who paid utility bills in Des Moines during the
five years in question.

Ms. Kragnes described herself as "very pleased" with the ruling
and completely unresponsible for any financial pain the city might
feel as a result.  She noted that the initial version of the
lawsuit focused on ending the fee's collection more than it did
seeking any kind of refund.

"When we initially started this, there was no money attached to it
whatsoever," Ms. Kragnes said.  "I did not chose this.  They did.
I just told them that they couldn't do it, and they didn't believe
me."

Ms. Kragnes, a Des Moines resident, first filed her lawsuit in
2004 seeking elimination of the city's 5 percent fee on electric
and natural gas bills.  The case, which now fills five bankers
boxes worth of files, made one previous trip to the Iowa Supreme
Court before it was sent back to district court.

In June 2009, a Polk County District court judge ruled that Des
Moines had overcharged utility customers based on the city's real
expenses involved in handling utility lines and infrastructure and
must pay the money back -- not only to Ms. Kragnes but all
similarly situated Des Moines utility customers who had paid the
fees since 2004.

After the June 2009 ruling, Des Moines officials asked the judge
to apply the ruling only to Ms. Kragnes and exclude other city
residents from the refunds.  The judge denied the city's request
and that ruling was appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.

Supreme Court justices on March 2 rejected the city's argument
that Ms. Kragnes has a conflict with other Des Moines residents
since her legal victory now could lead to higher property taxes
for everyone else.

"We decline to engage in the retrospective speculation
undergirding the city's assumption that the singular fiscal
alternative to increasing franchise fees was an increase in
property taxes," justices wrote.

"Other feasible precollection alternatives -- including a decision
against raising additional revenue -- were available to the city
(before the fee was adopted).  Thus, from the precollection
vantage point, the contention that the interests of Kragnes are
misaligned or fundamentally in conflict with those of other class
members is speculative at best."

Justices also upheld the lower court's decision to certify the
case as a class action.

The March 2 opinion notes that Ms. Kragnes' case already has
generated two Iowa Supreme Court decisions and a 49-page district
court decision that was issued following a 14-day trial with 28
witnesses.  Despite all that, court papers say, Ms. Kragnes' claim
standing by itself likely would land below the $5,000 limit on
cases for small claims court.

"We think this case demonstrates the very necessity and importance
of class action litigation both for the plaintiffs and for the
City," justices write.

"The likelihood of a plaintiff bringing such a complex suit
requiring substantial resources to litigate in small claims is
highly unlikely.  And if she, and scores of thousands of others
like her, did bring their claims individually, it could easily
overwhelm the legal department of the City and the resources of
the Polk County district court, and would likely result in
inconsistent adjudications."


COMCAST CORP: Expects Philadelphia Case To Go To Trial This Year
----------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation expects an antitrust lawsuit filed in
Pennsylvania for its Philadelphia Cluster customers to go to trial
this year, according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

Comcast Corporation and its affiliates are defendants in two
purported class actions originally filed in December 2003 in the
United States District Courts for the District of Massachusetts
and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The potential class in
the Massachusetts case, which has been transferred to the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, is the Company's customer base in the
"Boston Cluster" area, and the potential class in the Pennsylvania
case is its customer base in the "Philadelphia and Chicago
Clusters," as those terms are defined in the complaints. In each
case, the plaintiffs allege that certain customer exchange
transactions with other cable providers resulted in unlawful
horizontal market restraints in those areas and seek damages under
antitrust statutes, including treble damages.

Classes of Chicago Cluster and Philadelphia Cluster customers were
certified in October 2007 and January 2010, respectively. The
Company appealed the class certification in the Philadelphia
Cluster case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed
the class certification in August 2011 and denied the Company's
petition for a rehearing en banc in September 2011. While the
Company has given notice to the class, the Company filed a writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court asking that it review the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling. In March 2010, the Company
moved for summary judgment dismissing all of the plaintiffs'
claims in the Philadelphia Cluster. A hearing on the Company's
summary judgment was held in January 2012.

The Company expects that the Philadelphia Cluster case will
proceed to trial in 2012. The plaintiffs' claims concerning the
other two clusters are stayed pending determination of the
Philadelphia Cluster claims.


COMCAST CORP: Company Expects New Opinion After Death of Judge
--------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation is expecting that a new opinion will be
entered in a purported class action filed in California after one
of the judges in the panel died and the court withdrew its opinion
dismissing plaintiffs' complaint, according to the Company's
February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Comcast Corporation is among the defendants in a purported class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California in September 2007. The potential class is
comprised of all persons residing in the United States who have
subscribed to an expanded basic level of video service provided by
one of the defendants. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants
who produce video programming have entered into agreements with
the defendants who distribute video programming via cable and
satellite (including the Company), which preclude the distributor
defendants from reselling channels to customers on an "unbundled"
basis in violation of federal antitrust laws. The plaintiffs seek
treble damages and injunctive relief requiring each distributor
defendant to resell certain channels to its customers on an
"unbundled" basis. In October 2009, the Central District of
California issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint
with prejudice. In June 2011, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals affirmed the District Court's order; however after the
death of one of the judges on the Ninth Circuit panel, the Court
withdrew its June 2011 opinion and, as a result, the Company
expects that a new opinion will be issued.


COMCAST CORP: Plea to Compel Arbitration Still Pending in MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation's motion to compel arbitration of most claims
in a multidistrict litigation alleging antitrust violations
is still pending, according to the Company's February 23, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company and its affiliates are the defendant in 22 purported
class actions filed in federal district courts throughout the
country. All of these actions have been consolidated by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-
trial proceedings. In a consolidated complaint filed in November
2009 on behalf of all plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation,
the plaintiffs allege that the Company improperly "tie" the rental
of set-top boxes to the provision of premium cable services in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state
antitrust laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in
California, Illinois and Alabama. The plaintiffs also allege a
claim for unjust enrichment and seek relief on behalf of a
nationwide class of the Company's premium cable customers and on
behalf of subclasses consisting of premium cable customers from
California, Alabama, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Washington. In
January 2010, the Company moved to compel arbitration of the
plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment and violations of the
unfair/deceptive trade practices acts of Illinois and Alabama. In
September 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging
violations of additional state antitrust laws and unfair/deceptive
trade practices acts on behalf of new subclasses in Connecticut,
Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico and West
Virginia. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs omitted their
unjust enrichment claim, as well as their state law claims on
behalf of the Alabama, Illinois and Pennsylvania subclasses. In
June 2011, the plaintiffs filed another amended complaint alleging
only violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
antitrust law in Washington and unfair/deceptive trade practices
acts in California and Washington. The plaintiffs seek relief on
behalf of a nationwide class of the Company's premium cable
customers and on behalf of subclasses consisting of premium cable
customers from California and Washington. In July 2011, the
Company moved to compel arbitration of most of the plaintiffs'
claims and to stay the remaining claims pending arbitration.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated shareholder federal securities actions are pending in
Tennessee, according to Community Health Systems, Inc.'s
February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Three purported class action shareholder federal securities cases
have been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee; namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v.
Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry Cash,
filed May 5, 2011; De Zheng v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry Cash, filed May 12, 2011; and
Minneapolis Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith, W. Larry Cash and Thomas Mark
Buford, filed June 2, 2011. All three seek class certification on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements
resulted in artificially inflated prices for the Company's common
stock. On September 20, 2011, all three were assigned to the same
judge as related cases. On December 28, 2011, the court
consolidated all three shareholder cases for pretrial purposes,
selected NYC Funds as lead plaintiffs, and selected NYC Funds'
counsel as lead plaintiffs' counsel. The parties are in the
process of negotiating operative dates for these consolidated
shareholder federal securities actions, including dates for the
filing of an operative consolidated complaint and related
briefing.

The Company believes all of these matters are without merit and
will vigorously defend them.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Continues to Defend RICO Suit in New Mexico
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action suit captioned Roswell Hospital Corporation d/b/a
Eastern New Mexico Medical Center vs. Patrick Sisneros and Tammie
McClain (sued as Jane Doe Sisneros) remains pending in New Mexico,
according to Community Health Systems, Inc.'s February 23, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On April 19, 2009, the Company served in Roswell, New Mexico with
an answer and counterclaim in the case of Roswell Hospital
Corporation d/b/a Eastern New Mexico Medical Center vs. Patrick
Sisneros and Tammie McClain (sued as Jane Doe Sisneros). The case
was originally filed as a collection matter. The counterclaim was
filed as a putative class action and alleged theories of breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation, prima facie tort,
Fair Trade Practices Act and violation of the New Mexico RICO
statute. On May 7, 2009, the hospital filed a notice of removal to
federal court. On July 27, 2009, the case was remanded to state
court for lack of a federal question. A motion to dismiss and a
motion to dismiss misjoined counterclaim plaintiffs were filed on
October 20, 2009. These motions were denied. Extensive discovery
has been conducted. A motion for class certification for all
uninsured patients was heard on March 3 through March 5, 2010 and
on April 13, 2010, the state district court judge certified the
case as a class action. Numerous hearings have been conducted to
assess the sufficiency of the methodology used to determine class
damages. On December 5, 2011, the court entered an order approving
the suggested damages methodology.

The Company says it is vigorously defending this action.


EMPIRE STATE: Faces Class Action Over Initial Public Offering
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that an Initial
Public Offering on the Empire State Building has been rigged to
favor owners of its investment trust, with the blessing of Leona
Helmsley's estate, investors claim in a class action.

Real estate titan Anthony Malkin filed for the Art Deco landmark's
initial public offering in February, as president of the Empire
State Realty Investment Trust.

On March 1, six investors cried foul on what they called a "one-
sided, unfair 'roll up' transaction," in a 28-page complaint in
New York County Court.

"Defendants seek to consummate this proposed transaction through
self-interested consent solicitations that fail to provide the
participants with material information sufficient to allow them to
make informed decisions regarding whether to support the proposed
transaction," the complaint states.  "Further, the Malkin
defendants failed to consider reasonable alternatives to the
proposed transaction, which were potentially more beneficial to
the participants but less likely to be economically beneficial to
the defendants."

The proposed class includes thousands of passive investors in
seven private entities formed between 1953 and 1969 to acquire the
Empire State Building and other properties.

If the Empire State Building were to be sold publicly, those
entities would be merged with companies owned by the Malkin family
into a new corporation, the Empire State Realty Trust Inc., a real
estate investment trust (REIT), that will be listed on the New
York Stock Exchange, according to the complaint.

"The Malkin defendants, either by ownership and/or by management
control, control all of the entities to be merged into the REIT,
and, by virtue of the 50:1 'super voting' stock that they will
receive, will control the REIT as well," the complaint states.
"The Malkin defendants, unilaterally and without consulting the
participants, set the terms of the proposed transaction.  Further,
the Malkin defendants instructed the 'independent' valuer how to
allocate value among the various merged entities.  The
'independent' valuation firm was retained and directed exclusively
by the Malkin defendants."

According to the complaint, the Malkin family did not hire anyone
to evaluate the interests of the other investors.

"The proposed transaction's terms and conditions are unfair to
plaintiffs and other participants, inter alia, because: (1) it
provides excessive and unfair 'override' interests to the Malkin
defendants; (2) the 'fifty/fifty' allocation of value between the
Public LLCs (as the property owners) and the property manager
entities is the result of an undisclosed and self-serving
valuation process, performed by the Malkin defendants, that does
not accurately value the public LLCs participants' interests in
the proposed transaction; and (3) it provides for an improper
allocation of almost $16 million to the supervisor and management
companies, all of which are controlled by the Malkin defendants,"
the complaint states.

The plaintiff investors blasted the Helmsley Estate for approving
the "one-sided transaction."

"Finally, the management defendants and the Helmsley estate aided
and abetted the Malkin defendants in their breach of fiduciary
duty by negotiating and agreeing to the terms of this one-sided
transaction, which benefits the management defendants and the
Helmsley estate at the expense of the participants in the public
LLCs and the private entities," the complaint states.

Defendants include the Empire State Realty Trust, Empire State
Realty Op LP, Malkin Holdings LLC, Malkin Properties LLC, Malkin
Properties of New York LLC, Malkin Properties of Connecticut Inc.,
Malkin Construction Corp., Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin and
the estate of Leona M. Helmsley.

The investors seek unspecified damages for breach of fiduciary
duty and an injunction stopping the public offering.

They are represented by Lawrence Kolker, with Wolf Halderstein
Adler Freeman & Herz.

A copy of the Complaint in Meyers, et al. v. Empire State Realty
Trust, Inc., et al., Index No. 650607/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y.
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/05/Empire.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lawrence P. Kolker, Esq.
          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Lydia A. Keaney, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: kolker@whafh.com
                  nespole@whafh.com
                  keaney@whafh.com


GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Furlough Orders
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that state workers challenge the
governor's executive orders eliminating four paid holidays in
fiscal years 2009-10 and 2010-11 and increasing workers' pension
contributions, in a class action in Alameda County Court.

A copy of the Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint
for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and/or Other Appropriate
Relief in Tyler, et al. v. Governor of California, et al., Case
No. RG12619687 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/05/CalBudgie.pdf

The Plaintiffs/Petitioners are represented by:

          Michael P. White, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL P. WHITE
          2420 K Street, Suite 120
          Sacramento, CA 95816
          Telephone: (916) 446-1802
          E-mail: mwhite2230@aol.com


IKANOS COMMUNICATIONS: IPO Suit Dismissal Appeal Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit against Ikanos Communications Inc. remains pending,
the Company disclosed in its Feb. 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2011.

In November 2006, three putative class action lawsuits were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, its directors and two former
executive officers, as well as the lead underwriters for its
initial and secondary public offerings.  The lawsuits were
consolidated and an amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2007.
The amended complaint sought unspecified damages for certain
alleged misrepresentations and omissions made by the Company in
connection with both its initial public offering in September 2005
and its follow-on offering in March 2006.  On June 25, 2007, the
Company filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on
March 10, 2008, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice.  On
March 25, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, and
on June 12, 2008, the District Court denied the motion for
reconsideration.  On October 15, 2008, plaintiffs appealed the
District Court's dismissal of the amended complaint and denial of
its motion for reconsideration to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On September 17, 2009, the Court
of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the amended
complaint, but vacated its judgment on the motion for
reconsideration and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.  On May 13, 2010, the District Court granted
plaintiffs leave to file a motion to amend the pleadings.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint on
June 11, 2010.  The Company opposed on July 11, 2010, and on
November 23, 2010, the District Court denied the motion.  On
January 6, 2011, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and, on
March 18, 2011, filed Appellant's Opening Brief.  The Company
filed its opposition brief on June 17, 2011, and on July 5, 2011,
plaintiffs filed a reply.  Both parties have requested oral
argument before the District Court.  The Company cannot predict
the likely outcome of the appeal, and an adverse result could have
a material effect on its financial statements.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued Over Collection of Mortgage-Related Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Banks and Landon Cowan, individually and on behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., a national
association; and Does 1 through 20, Case No. 12614875 (Calif.
Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., January 30, 2012) is brought on behalf
of persons, who obtained a mortgage secured by a deed of trust on
property located in California (a) to secure payment of the
purchase price of a dwelling, (b) for not more than four families,
and which (c) was occupied entirely or in part by the purchaser.

According to the lawsuit, Chase Home Finance LLC, which was merged
into and succeeded by JP Morgan, obtained servicing rights to both
of the Plaintiffs' first and second mortgages.  The foreclosure
and short sale of the Plaintiffs' properties did not yield
sufficient funds to pay off the balance of the first mortgage or
the second mortgage.  The Defendants sent letters to the
Plaintiffs seeking to collect a claimed deficiency under their
second mortgage.  The Plaintiffs argue that under Section 580b of
the California Code of Civil Procedure, a borrower has no personal
liability on a purchase money mortgage secured by a deed of trust
or mortgage used to purchase owner occupied residential property
for any amount that may remain unpaid after a foreclosure or short
sale.

Jared Banks is a resident of Alameda County, California, while
Landon Cowan is a resident of Los Angeles County, California.

JP Morgan is a national banking association organized under the
laws of the United States and not incorporated under the laws of
any state.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants
are currently unknown to the Plaintiffs.

JP Morgan removed the lawsuit on March 2, 2012, from the Superior
Court of the state of California, County of Alameda, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.  JP
Morgan argues that the removal is proper because the District
Court has original jurisdiction over the action.  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:12-cv-01065 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arthur D. Levy, Esq.
          445 Bush Street, 6th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 702-4550
          E-mail: yes@yesquire.com

               - and -

          Bryan Kemnitzer, Esq.
          Jade Jurdi, Esq.
          KEMNITZER, BARRON & KRIEG, LLP
          445 Bush Street 6m Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 632-1900

               - and -

          Elizabeth S. Letcher, Esq.
          Noah Zinner, Esq.
          HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          PO Box 29435
          Oakland, CA 94604
          Telephone: (510) 271-8443

The Defendants are represented by:

          Peter Obstler, Esq.
          Zachary J. Alinder, Esq.
          BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4067
          Telephone: (415) 393-2000
          Facsimile: (415) 393-2286
          E-mail: peter.obstler@bingham.com
                  zachary.alinder@bingham.com


METABOLIX: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Saidak, writing for Biofuels Digest, reports that in New
York, the law firm Levi & Korsinsky have started a class action
lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased Metabolix common
stock between March 10, 2010 and January 12, 2012.  The complaint
alleges that between those two dates, Metabolix and certain
company officers made materially false and misleading statements
and omissions regarding Metabolix's business and operations.

Specifically alleging that Telles, a Metabolix and ADM joint
venture, would not meet its commercial phase benchmark by mid-2010
or even in 2011, which would have allowed Metabolix to receive
royalty payments and payments from Telles.  Further allegations
include that Metabolix failed to acknowledge that its Mirel
bioplastic was not a commercially viable product.


MOTOROLA INC: May 9 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on March 2 issued a statement:

  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
                       EASTERN DIVISION

ERIC SILVERMAN, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated,

       Plaintiff,

       vs.

MOTOROLA, INC., et al.,

       Defendants.

                   No. 1:07-cv-04507
                    (Consolidated)
                    CLASS ACTION
                    Judge St. Eve
                 Magistrate Judge Mason


SUMMARY NOTICE

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE PUBLICLY
TRADED SECURITIES OF MOTOROLA, INC. ("MOTOROLA") FROM JULY 19,
2006 THROUGH JANUARY 4, 2007, INCLUSIVE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, that a
hearing will be held on May 9, 2012, at 8:30 a.m., before the
Honorable Amy J. St. Eve, at the United States District Court,
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Everett McKinley
Dirksen United States Courthouse, Courtroom 1241, 219 South
Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604, for the purpose of determining
(1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the
Litigation for the principal amount of $200,000,000.00, plus
accrued interest, should be approved by the Court as fair, just,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and Order
of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by the Court
dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) whether the Plan of
Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be
approved; and (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the
payment of attorneys' fees and expenses and Plaintiffs' expenses
in connection with this Litigation should be approved.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED ANY OF THE PUBLICLY TRADED SECURITIES
OF MOTOROLA DURING THE PERIOD FROM JULY 19, 2006 TO JANUARY 4,
2007, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF
THIS LITIGATION.  If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to
Motorola Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi
& Co. LLC, P.O. Box 8040, San Rafael, CA 94912-8040, or on the
internet at http://www.gilardi.com

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 and
Release postmarked no later than May 28, 2012, establishing that
you are entitled to recovery.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Motorola publicly traded
securities and you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion postmarked no later than April 2,
2012, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice
referred to above.  All Members of the Class who do not timely and
validly request exclusion from the Class will be bound by any
judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation of
Settlement.

Any objection to the settlement must be received, not simply
postmarked, by each of the following recipients no later than
April 2, 2012:

       CLERK OF THE COURT
       UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
       NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
       EASTERN DIVISION
       EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN
       UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
       219 South Dearborn Street
       Chicago, IL 60604

Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs:     Counsel for Defendants:

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KEITH F. PARK                    ANNE M. SIDRYS
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900    300 North LaSalle St.
San Diego, CA 92101              Chicago, IL 60654
E-mail: keithp@rgrdlaw.com       E-mail: anne.sidrys@kirkland.com

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed above.

DATED: FEBRUARY 16, 2012

BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOISEASTERN DIVISION


NORTHLAND PROPERTIES: Foreign Workers' Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that more than 70 temporary, foreign
workers can proceed with a C$10-million lawsuit against a company
operating Denny's restaurants in British Columbia.

Supreme Court of B.C. Justice Shelley Fitzpatrick released a
ruling on March 5, certifying a class-action suit against
Northland Properties Corporation, which operates Denny's
Restaurants and Dencan Restaurants Inc.

The lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Herminia Vergara Dominguez who
said she was recruited from the Philippines and came to Canada in
January 2009.

"A class proceeding will substantially advance this litigation in
terms of an overall resolution of the common issues which
addresses the need for judicial economy in its approach," wrote
Justice Fitzpatrick in her ruling.

"In addition, recognizing the vulnerable situation in which these
temporary workers find themselves, a class proceeding will provide
the access to justice that they require in an environment that
will be of assistance to them.

"Finally, behavior modification is no doubt required if these
claims are ultimately proven."

According to court documents, Ms. Dominguez and the other
plaintiffs paid thousands of dollars in recruitment fees to an
employment agency in Richmond, B.C. and were promised work in
Canada.

They allege, however, that when they began working in Canada the
defendants failed to provide the promised work, didn't pay
overtime and failed to reimburse expenses, such as travel fees.

In its defense, the company argued it had no knowledge of and had
not received any recruitment fees.

The company said it had also offered to reimburse the workers'
travel fees and by August 24, 2011, had actually paid 15 people
for their airfare.

Arguing against certification, it said Ms. Dominguez failed to
prove she was an appropriate representative in the suit, didn't
show "sufficient commonality" among the class-action members, and
argued the size of the action was just too small.

Christopher Foy, one of two lawyers who filed the lawsuit,
applauded the March 5 ruling.

"The court correctly concluded that class certification here is a
vastly superior method of adjudication because the common issues
will only have to be heard and decided once, thereby promoting
judicial efficiency and access to justice," he said in a
statement.

Mr. Foy said a document known as a Notice to the Class will
provide information on the case's next steps.


NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL: Accused of Illegal Billing Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Kruse, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Case No. 2012-CH-07786
(Ill. Cir. Ct., March 2, 2012) arises from NMH's alleged unfair,
deceptive and illegal billing practices.

Ms. Kruse sustained an injury while performing her duties at
Sarnoff on December 17, 2010.  She received treatment at NMH on
that day, and her employer's insurer paid NMH in full for her
medical care.  Ms. Kruse, however, received a letter from NMH on
September 21, 2011, seeking a payment for her December 2010
treatment.  She paid the bill in full.

NMH's "balance billing" practices are specifically prohibited by
statute in Illinois, according to the complaint.  If the injured
worker does not pay the balance within a set period of time, the
injured worker is reported to credit bureaus for delinquency, the
complaint adds.

NMH is a not-for-profit, full-service medical center that provides
treatment and care to consumers, including those who seek
treatment for a work-related injury or illness.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          James M. McClintick, Esq.
          Aleksandra M.S. Vold, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 588-1440
          Facsimile: (312) 427-1850
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  jmcclintick@siprut.com
                  avold@siprut.com


NUTREX RESEARCH: Sued Over Synthetic DMAA in Dietary Supplements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen J. Rush, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Nutrex Research, Inc., a Florida
corporation; Jeffrey A. McCarrell, an individual; Jens O.
Ingehohl, in individual, and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 4:12-
cv-01060 (N.D. Calif. March 2, 2012) alleges that Nutrex fails to
inform consumers that DMAA is a dangerous central nervous system
stimulant, and that using the Nutrex products can cause consumers
to test positive for an illegal substance and amphetamine use.

Though DMAA is claimed to be an extract of geranium oil, most of
the DMAA contained in products currently on the market is wholly
"synthetic" DMAA, completely manufactured in laboratories, and is
not derived from the geranium plant in any way whatsoever, Mr.
Rush contends.  He asserts that because DMAA is a wholly synthetic
substance, it is not a "dietary ingredient," and Nutrex's products
are, therefore, not "dietary supplements," as those terms are
defined by the federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act.  Accordingly, he
brings this lawsuit, on behalf of himself and a putative class of
California purchasers of the Products, to enjoin the Defendants
from selling the Products without informing consumers that DMAA is
a potentially dangerous, synthetic, banned stimulant, and from
making illegal and deceptive marketing claims regarding the
effectiveness and safety of the Products.

Mr. Rush and the members of the class purchased one or more of the
Nutrex Products.

Nutrex markets, sells and distributes supplement products,
including Hemo Rage Black Ultra Concentrate and Hemo Rage Black.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Meeker Harnett, Esq.
          GREGORY B. SCARLETT, Esq.
          WASSERMAN, COMDEN, CASSELMAN & ESENSTEN, L.L.P.
          5567 Reseda Boulevard, Suite 330
          Post Office Box 7033
          Tarzana, CA 91357-7033
          Telephone: (818) 705-6800
          Telephone: (323) 872-0995
          Facsimile: (818) 345-0162
          E-mail: mharnett@wccelaw.com
                  gscarlett@wccelaw.com


PARKLANE FINANCIAL: Investors at Odds with CRA Over Tax Shelter
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a Nova Scotia investor is one of nearly
10,000 people who are at odds with the Canada Revenue Agency over
a controversial tax shelter.

Rick Young invested thousands of dollars in Parklane Financial
Group Ltd., a tax shelter that promised large returns to investors
and a payoff to charities.

Mr. Young, who describes himself as a cautious investor, said he
decided to invest in the shelter because his brokerage house
watched the shelter for a year before recommending it to its
investors.

"It's not like it just came on the market and, 'Bang, let's go.'
Even the folks that I dealt with that I bought it from, they
invested in it themselves," Mr. Young told CBC News.

"If you've got registered investment brokers who figure it's valid
enough to invest in, it's usually a pretty good sign that they've
done their homework and they're comfortable with it as well."

Mr. Young invested in Parklane Financial Group Ltd. for three
years and it operated as he was told it would -- he invested a few
thousand dollars each year, then got his receipt and his tax
refund.

He was so pleased with the results, he started telling others --
including his elderly mother -- about the tax shelter.

Then, Mr. Young got a notice from the Canada Revenue Agency,
questioning the three-year-old return from when he first
participated in the tax shelter.

Mr. Young said his return had already been reassessed -- and
passed -- at least once.

"The rules are such that CRA has the ability to go back up to
three years from the date that their initial assessment was issued
and do a reassessment.  So it wasn't until you were within about a
week of that three-year max that all of a sudden you received the
notice of reassessment," he said.

"They not only said, 'By the way, we're not only disallowing this
thing, we're reassessing you.  We're making it effective back to
the original date of assessment.'  So you're starting off with
three years' interest tacked on."

Mr. Young estimates he and his mother owe the Canada Revenue
Agency about $50,000 -- the money they've paid into the shelter,
plus interest.

He is fighting the assessment and has not yet paid the money back.

While many of the investors are fighting their individual
assessments with the Canada Revenue Agency, Mr. Young and several
other Nova Scotian investors are also part of a class action
lawsuit against Parklane Financial Group Ltd.

The lawsuit, which was certified by an Ontario judge in January,
includes all the investors unless they choose to opt out.

One of the defendants named in the class action lawsuit is Edwin
Harris, one of Canada's leading tax lawyers.

A letter from the Halifax-based lawyer was included in Parklane
Financial Group Ltd.'s information package to investors, and Young
said Harris's opinion was one of the reasons he signed on to the
tax shelter.

"We were provided, as part of the Parklane package, sort of a
letter of opinion which I guess is the comfort letter," said
Mr. Young.

"It basically states that [Harris] has looked at everything and in
his opinion, looking at it, everything was above board and legal
and should fly within the tax rules."

Mr. Harris and two law firms he's worked with have said the lawyer
has done nothing wrong, and the case will be vigorously defended.

A spokesperson for the Canada Revenue Agency told CBC News that
while the organization does not comment on specific cases, similar
investment schemes in the past have been ruled inappropriate as
tax shelters.


RED ROBIN: "Cifuentes" Wage and Hour Class Suit Pending in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Red Robin Gourmet Burgers Inc. continues to defend a wage and hour
class action lawsuit brought by Elder E. Cifuentes, according to
the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

On October 20, 2011, the Company was served with a purported wage
and hour class action lawsuit, Elder E. Cifuentes v. Red Robin
International, Inc. The lawsuit was filed in Alameda Superior
Court, California. The Company timely filed its Answer and removed
the case to the United States District Court in the Northern
District of California under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005. The claims are (1) failure to timely pay final wages and (2)
unfair business practices. The plaintiff seeks to certify a class
comprised of all employees in California who were discharged by or
resigned their employment with the Company during the relevant
class period. The plaintiff seeks wages for each class member at
their regular rate of pay for thirty days. Plaintiff further seeks
restitution for unpaid wages as a result of unfair business
practices, and injunctive relief prohibiting such practices.
Finally, Plaintiff seeks pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Company believe this case to be without merit and plan to
vigorously defend against this suit. However, the Company says it
cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it may be
required to pay damages, settlement costs, legal costs or other
amounts that may not be covered by insurance.


RED ROBIN: Continues to Defend "McConnell" Wage & Hour Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., continues to defend itself
against a wage and hour class action complaint commenced by Kevin
McConnell in California, according to the Company's Feb. 23, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2011.

On June 20, 2011, the Company was served with a purported wage and
hour class action lawsuit, Kevin McConnell v. Red Robin
International, Inc.  The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court
in the Northern District of California in the San Francisco
division.  Red Robin filed its Answer on July 11, 2011.  The
claims are (1) failure to provide meal and rest periods; (2)
failure to compensate employees for all hours worked; (3) failure
to furnish wage and hour statements; (4) failure to maintain
employee time records; (5) unfair competition; (6) waiting time
penalties and (7) claims under the Private Attorney General Act.
Plaintiff is seeking class certification, general and punitive
damages, restitution for unlawful business practices, waiting time
and other penalties under the Labor Code, pre- and post- judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Although it plans to vigorously defend against the lawsuit, the
Company cannot predict the outcome of the lawsuit or whether it
may be required to pay damages, settlement costs, legal costs or
other amounts that may not be covered by insurance.


RED ROBIN GOURMET: "Moreno" Class Action in Calif. Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit brought by Marcos R. Moreno
against Red Robin Gourmet Burgers Inc. remains stayed, according
to the Company's Feb. 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2011.

In December 2009, the Company was served with a purported class
action lawsuit, Marcos R. Moreno vs. Red Robin International, Inc.
The case was filed in Superior Court in Ventura County, California
and has been removed to Federal District Court for the Central
District of California under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005.  Red Robin filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses on
February 10, 2010.  The lawsuit alleges failure to pay wages and
overtime, failure to provide rest and meal breaks or to pay
compensation in lieu of such breaks, failure to pay timely wages
on termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and
unlawful business practices and unfair competition.  Plaintiff is
seeking compensatory and special damages, restitution for unfair
competition, premium pay, penalties and wages under the Labor
Code, and attorneys' fees, interest and costs.   On March 24,
2010, the Court granted a stay of the case pending the outcome of
a California case currently pending before the California Supreme
Court for review.  That case involves similar allegations
regarding rest and meal breaks.  It is anticipated that the
California Supreme Court will provide useful guidance on rest and
meal breaks when the opinion in that case is issued.

The Company believes the Moreno suit is without merit.  Although
it plans to vigorously defend against this suit, it cannot predict
the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it may be required to pay
damages, settlement costs, legal costs or other amounts that may
not be covered by insurance.


SARA LEE: Did Not Reimburse Employees' Uniform Costs, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cedric Neal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and the California general public v. Sara Lee
Corporation; Earthgrains Baking Companies, Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-
01070 (N.D. Calif., March 2, 2012) is a civil action seeking
recovery of unpaid reimbursement of expenditures made by Mr. Neal
and the class he represents under the California Labor Code.

From February 19, 2008, through the present, Mr. Neal and the
class members purchased uniforms that the Defendants required them
to wear within the normal course and scope of their employment
with Defendants, the lawsuit disclosed.  Mr. Neal contends that
the Defendants did not reimburse him and the class members for the
expense of purchasing their uniforms.

Mr. Neal is a resident of Oakland, California.  He was an employee
of the Defendants at their San Leandro, California location from
February 19, 2008, to the present.

Sara Lee is a Maryland corporation.  Earthgrains is a California
corporation.  Mr. Neal asserts that Sara Lee and Earthgrains have
a custom and practice of not compensating their employees,
including Mr. Neal and the class members, for expenses incurred in
purchasing unique uniforms, which the employees were required to
purchase in connection with their employment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Feder, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL FEDER
          332 Pine Street, Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 391-9476
          Facsimile: (415) 391-9432
          E-mail: danfeder@pacbell.net


SCIENCE APPLICATIONS: Sued Over Negligent Release of Medical Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ella Deatrick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Science Applications International Corporation, a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:12-cv-01055 (N.D. Calif.
March 1, 2012) alleges that the Company violated the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act when it and TRICARE
Management Authority negligently released personal medical
information on September 12, 2011, by allowing an unauthorized
third party to gain possession of the Plaintiff's personal health
information.

A negligent release of private medical information was committed
through SAIC's failure to protect that information by allowing a
SAIC employee to transport private medical files in an unsecured
passenger vehicle where the patient files were not adequately
secure, Ms. Deatrick contends.  She adds that the Company
negligently released the information by not having an adequate
process or adequate controls to prevent unsecured patient files
from being left in a passenger vehicle, once transported, and left
unattended in a public parking lot.

Ms. Deatrick disclosed that she received a letter from SAIC
informing her that her private medical information had been
released without her authorization.

SAIC, a Delaware corporation, is a government contractor
supporting the military health system.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


SNC-LAVALIN: Disputes Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Olivia D'Orazio, writing for Proactive Investors, reports that
SNC-Lavalin acknowledged a motion to bring a lawsuit against it on
March 5, denying all claims alleged in the suit.

The company said it became aware on March 5 that a "Motion to
Authorize the Bringing of a Class Action and to Obtain the Status
of Representative" has been filed with the Superior Court of
Quebec.  The suit names the company, its current directors,
certain current officers, and certain former employees as
defendants.

The motion, which was filed on behalf of anyone who purchased
securities of the company between March 13, 2009 and February 28,
2012, seeks approval to bring a class action lawsuit against the
company, in connection with "alleged misrepresentations".

Though the suit did not specify, these "misrepresentations" likely
stem from the C$35 million in undocumented payments that the
company booked last year.

Last week, SNC-Lavalin said it launched an accounting probe into
the payments, sending shares down over 20 percent.

The Montreal-based company also said it would delay reporting its
financial results, now expecting to see much lower profits than
originally forecast.

An investigation led by the audit committee of the board of
directors is looking into the circumstances surrounding the
payments that were assigned to projects to which they did not
relate.

In a statement released on Feb. 28, the company said: "The company
is working with its external auditors and legal advisers to
resolve all issues relating to the investigation to permit the
auditors to deliver their audit report on a timely basis."

The investigation comes as SNC-Lavalin cut its 2011 profit
forecast by 18 percent and delayed the release of fourth-quarter
and full-year earnings.  The company said it expects full-year
profits will come about C$80 million lower than previously
expected.

In November, SNC-Lavalin said it expected its earnings for 2011 to
be in line with 2010 after excluding the gains from asset and
investment sales.

SNC-Lavalin earned about C$391 million in 2010 after gains from
the sale of Valener Inc. shares and Trencap Ltd Partnership units,
and a gain on the sale of some technology assets.

In addition to the C$35-million charge for 2011, SNC-Lavalin said
it expected to include a loss of about C$23 million in the fourth
quarter related to its operations in Libya.

SNC-Lavalin said it also expects unfavorable cost changes on
certain projects in its infrastructure and environment, and
chemicals and petroleum businesses.

The engineering company has recently been under fire over its
operations in Libya and has defended itself against allegations it
was excessively cozy with the former Gadhafi regime.

SNC-Lavalin's involvement in Libya included a multimillion-dollar
contract to build a prison, as well as an airport and a massive
irrigation project.

The company parted ways with two of its executives earlier this
year after acknowledging that the conduct of its employees had
been questioned.  Executive vice-president Riadh Ben Aissa and
vice-president of finance Stephane Roy exited the firm.

The company said it hopes to post its financial results "as soon
as reasonably possible" and before March 30.

SNC-Lavalin has denied all of the claims made against it, and said
it intends to vigorously oppose the motion.


SPI ELECTRICITY: Class Action Settlement Almost Complete
--------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that the terms of a class
action settlement over the Black Saturday bushfire in Victoria's
northeast is almost complete.

Residents and landholders affected by the fire sued an electricity
company and government agencies over the February 2009 Beechworth-
Mudgegonga fire.

A trial was due to begin in the Victorian Supreme Court at Wodonga
on March 5, but the court was told it was likely there would be a
settlement.

On March 6, barrister Lachlan Armstrong, for the plaintiffs, said
the terms of the proposed settlement were now "substantially
agreed".

He said some minor adjustments needed to be made, but the
agreement would be similar to a class action settlement last year
over the Horsham Black Saturday bushfires.

Mr. Armstrong said he would be asking Justice John Dixon today,
March 8, to make orders approving a notice to be sent to class
action members informing them of the proposed settlement.

The notice would also inform them of their rights in relation to
the proposed settlement.

The fire burnt 32,000ha, destroyed 38 homes and claimed two lives.

The lead plaintiffs, Paul Mercieca and Amelia Coombes, are
claiming damages for their personal injuries and for property
damage to their rented residential and farm property.

The class action group includes all those who suffered property
damage in the fire.

They are suing SPI Electricity Pty. Ltd., Eagle Travel Tower
Services Pty Ltd, the Department of Sustainability and Environment
and Parks Victoria.

The matter will return to court today, March 8.


TALEO CORP: Being Sold for Too Little, California Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Progress Associates, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Michael P. Gregoire, Jeffrey E. Stiefler, James R.
Tolonen, Patrick W. Gross, Gary L. Bloom, Greg J. Santora,
Jonathan I. Schwartz, Jeffrey Schwartz, Michael P. Tierney, and
Taleo Corporation, Case No. 1-12-CV-219889 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Santa Clara Cty., March 2, 2012) is a shareholder class action
brought on behalf of Taleo's public stockholders.

The lawsuit challenges the Defendants' actions in causing Taleo to
agree to be sold to Oracle Corporation, via Oracle's wholly owned
subsidiaries, for $46.00 per share, in a transaction which
protects and advances the interests of Taleo's directors at the
expense of Taleo's public shareholders, the Plaintiff alleges.
The Plaintiff contends that the Company's Board of Directors
failed to adequately shop the Company and agreed to a sale price
that fails to reflect Taleo's intrinsic value and potential for
future success.  He adds that all of Taleo's directors will
receive extensive personal compensation as a result of the Sale
Agreement -- compensation that they would not otherwise receive at
this time.

Progress Associates is the owner of shares of Taleo's common
stock.

Taleo is a publicly traded corporation headquartered in Dublin,
California.  Taleo is a provider of enterprise staffing management
solutions that enable large organizations to establish, automate
and manage worldwide staffing processes for professional, hourly
and temporary staff.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of Taleo.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake Muir Harper, Esq.
          HULETT HARPER STEWART LLP
          525 B Street, Suite 760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1133
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1139
          E-mail: bmh@hulettharper.com

               - and -

          Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
          Gaitri Boodhoo, Esq.
          Lauren C. Watson, Esq.
          THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 952-0602
          Facsimile: (212) 952-0608
          E-mail: rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com
                  gboodhoo@brualdilawfirm.com
                  lwatson@brualdilawfirm.com


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: "King Drug" Suit Remains Pending in Penn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit commenced by King Drug Company of Florence,
Inc., remains pending in Pennsylvania, according to Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Limited's  February 17, 2012, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited is awaiting a court
decision with respect to certain infringement claims filed by
Apotex, Inc., 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.

In April 2006, Teva and its subsidiary Barr Laboratories were
sued, along with Cephalon, Inc., Mylan Laboratories, Inc., Ranbaxy
Laboratories Ltd. and Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in a class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The case alleges generally that
the settlement agreements entered into between the different
generic pharmaceutical companies and Cephalon, in their respective
patent infringement cases involving finished modafinil products
(the generic version of Provigil(R)), were unlawful because the
settlement agreements resulted in the exclusion of generic
competition.  The case seeks unspecified monetary damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.  The case was brought by King Drug
Company of Florence, Inc. on behalf of itself and as a proposed
class action on behalf of any other person or entity that
purchased Provigil(R) directly from Cephalon from January 2006
until the alleged unlawful conduct ceases.  Similar allegations
have been made in a number of additional complaints, including
those filed on behalf of proposed classes of direct and indirect
purchasers of the product, by an individual indirect purchaser of
the product, certain retail chain pharmacies that purchased the
product and by Apotex, Inc.  The cases seek various forms of
injunctive and monetary relief, including treble damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.  In February 2008, following an
investigation of these matters, the Federal Trade Commission
("FTC") sued Cephalon, alleging that Cephalon violated Section 5
of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits unfair or
deceptive acts or practices in the marketplace, by unlawfully
maintaining a monopoly in the sale of Provigil(R) and improperly
excluding generic competition.  In March 2010, the Court denied
defendants' motions to dismiss the federal antitrust claims and
some of the related state law claims.  In November 2009, another
class action lawsuit with essentially the same allegations was
initiated by an independent pharmacy in Tennessee.  This lawsuit
was dismissed in December 2010.  In May 2010, another independent
pharmacy also filed a lawsuit in Ohio with the same allegations.
This case has been transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

On October 31, 2011, the District Court issued its decision
regarding Apotex's invalidity claims as to Cephalon's Patent No.
RE 37,516, finding the patent to be invalid based on, among other
things, obviousness and unenforceable based on inequitable
conduct.  The District Court indicated it would proceed to rule on
Apotex's infringement claims in a subsequent decision.  Cephalon
intends to appeal the District Court's decision.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Class Suits vs. Unit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited continues to defend class
action lawsuits against a subsidiary over the unit's sales and
marketing practices, 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.

Teva acquired Cephalon, Inc. in October 2011.

In 2008, Cephalon Inc. entered into settlement agreements with the
U.S. government and various parties and states relating to
allegations of off-label promotion of Actiq(R), Provigil(R), and
Gabitril(R).  In connection with the settlements, Cephalon agreed
to plead guilty to one misdemeanor violation of the U.S. Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, pay a fine and settlement, and enter into
a five-year corporate integrity agreement with the Office of the
Inspector General of the Department of Justice.  Cephalon
continues to defend against putative class action complaints
regarding its sales and marketing practices with respect to such
products.  Additionally, Cephalon has received and is responding
to subpoenas related to Treanda(R), Nuvigil(R), Provigil(R) and
Fentora(R).


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Settlement in MDL vs. Unit Approved in Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
granted in December 2011 final approval of a settlement resolving
a multidistrict litigation involving a subsidiary of Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, 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.

Together with many other pharmaceutical manufacturers, Teva and/or
its subsidiaries in the United States, including Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. ("Teva USA"), Sicor Inc. ("Sicor"),
IVAX, and Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, the "Teva
parties"), are defendants in a number of cases pending in state
and federal courts throughout the country that relate generally to
drug price reporting by manufacturers.  Such price reporting is
alleged to have caused governments and others to pay inflated
reimbursements for covered drugs.  These drug pricing cases, which
seek unspecified amounts in money damages, civil penalties, treble
damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, and/or administrative,
injunctive, equitable or other relief, are at various stages of
litigation.

A number of state attorneys general and others have filed various
actions against the Teva parties (either collectively or
individually) relating to reimbursements or drug price reporting
under Medicaid or other programs.  The Teva parties have reached
settlements in most of these cases, and currently remain parties
only to litigation in Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin.
Settlements in principle have been reached in the Missouri and
Oklahoma cases.  The Mississippi action is scheduled for trial in
June 2012.  In addition, Teva is a party to separate actions on
behalf of the Mississippi and South Carolina state health plans.
The Mississippi action relating to its state health plan was
recently settled.  A provision for the cases, including the
settlements, was included in the financial statements.

Additionally, class actions and other cases have been filed
against over two dozen pharmaceutical manufacturers, including
Sicor, regarding allegedly inflated reimbursements or payments
under Medicare or certain insurance plans.  These cases were
consolidated under the federal multi-district litigation
procedures and are currently pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "MDL").  In March
2008, the "Track 2" defendants in the MDL, including Sicor,
entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the MDL.  The court
granted final approval of an amended settlement agreement in
December 2011, and the litigation will be dismissed following
payment of the settlement amount.  A provision for these matters,
including Sicor's share of the MDL settlement payment, is included
in the financial statements.


ZIPLOCAL: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Yellow Pages
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Harvey, writing for The Salt Lake Tribune, reports that a
federal judge has dismissed a proposed class-action lawsuit that
alleged Utah-based publisher Ziplocal purposefully shorted
distribution of its Yellow Pages books in Montana and didn't
inform businesses that bought ads.

But a second proposed class-action suit against the Orem company
based on similar allegations in Utah remains active in state
court.

U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball tossed out the federal lawsuit
that was filed in Montana but transferred to Utah, ruling that
Ziplocal's contract with advertisers allowed it to cut
distribution without notice.

Both lawsuits alleged that Ziplocal sold Yellow Pages ads based on
the understanding that an entire local area would receive copies
of the books, only to cut back 50 percent or more in some cases
without informing advertisers.

The allegations were generally backed by interviews with former
employees and a distributor as well as company documents in a Salt
Lake Tribune story last year.

Judge Kimball, however, pointed to the contract between the
company and advertisers that "states that 100 percent distribution
is not guaranteed and not achievable."

"This is not a case where Ziplocal had any duty of care to
plaintiffs outside the contractural duties set forth in the
service agreement," the judge wrote.

Attorneys for the businesses had argued that Ziplocal had a duty
to distribute books as close to 100 percent of businesses and
residences in a local area as was practical.  The language in the
agreement, they added, did not mean the company could unilaterally
trim distribution by a large percentage at the end of an ad sales
period.

"The company is obviously pleased that the court, after carefully
considering the evidence and arguments presented, found that
plaintiff's claims for breach of contract, fraud and gross
negligence are without merit," Dan Larsen of Snell & Wilmer,
attorneys for Ziplocal, said in an e-mail.

An e-mail seeking comment from attorneys for the businesses who
filed the suit was not returned.

In the state court, 4th District Judge Claudia Laycock last year
dismissed two parts of the proposed class-action lawsuit but
allowed it to go forward on the question of whether Ziplocal had
breached contracts by drastically cutting distribution without
informing clients.


                           *********

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  * * *