CAR_Public/120314.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, March 14, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 52

                             Headlines

APPLE: Wants E-Book Conspiracy Class Action Tossed
ARCHIPELAGO LEARNING: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Texas
BARNES-JEWISH HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Undisclosed Fees
BAY GRENVILLE: Faces Class Actions Over Falling Glass
CH ENERGY: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholder Suit Claims

CITY OF ATLANTA, GA: To Pay Legal Fees in Firefighter Test Suit
EMPIRE STATE: Sued Over One-Sided "Roll Up" Transaction
MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA: Wins Dealers' Class Action in Missouri
MASCO CORP: Trial in Columbus Drywall Class Suit Set for July
MEDCO HEALTH: Class Certification Bids Remain Pending in PBM MDL

MEDCO HEALTH: Hearing on Merger-Related Suits Deal on April 16
MEDCO HEALTH: Still Defends "Alameda" Class Suit in California
MONSANTO: Details of $93-Mil. Class Action Settlement Unveiled
MYLAN INC: Unit Awaits Final OK of Class Suit Settlement
NCAA: Athletes Challenge Order to Pay Legal Fees in Fox Suit

NOVARTIS PHARMA: Faces RICO Class Action Over "Kickbacks"
PACKAGING CORP: Continues to Defend Containerboard Class Suit
PANERA BREAD: Negotiates Terms of Consolidated Suit Settlement
PANERA BREAD: Still Defends Employees' Class Suit in Florida
RADIOSHACK CORP: "Brookler" Suit On hold Pending "Brinker" Ruling

RADIOSHACK CORP: Certification Bids in Ill. Suit Held in Abeyance
RADIOSHACK CORP: Still Defends Song-Beverly Act-Violations Suits
RADIOSHACK CORP: Parties Agree to Stay "Ordonez" Class Suit
SILVER LINING: Faces Class Action Over Alleged HOA Conspiracy
SONY BMG: Settles Class Action Over Digital Music Revenue

SPIRIT AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Bogus "UCTDR" Fee
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA: Landowners File Files Class Action
STATE OF WISCONSIN: May Face Class Action Over Voter ID Law
STERLING FAMILY: Sued for Ignoring Fire-Safety Regulations
SURGERYLOANS.COM INC: Faces Fraud Class Action in Illinois

WAL-MART STORES: Settlement in Retirement Suit Gets Final Okay
WELLS FARGO: Accused of Charging Improper Tax Service Fees

* Price Gouging Bill May Spur More Movie Popcorn Class Actions


                          *********

APPLE: Wants E-Book Conspiracy Class Action Tossed
--------------------------------------------------
Daniel Eran Dilger, writing for Apple Insider, reports that Apple
has asked that a class action lawsuit claiming the company
conspired with book publishers to raise the price of ebooks be
thrown out, stating that the plaintiffs' arguments didn't make
sense and that "this allegation just strings together antitrust
buzzwords."

According to a report by PaidContent.org, Apple argued "that its
business plan was to sell as many e-books as possible and that it
had no incentive to raise prices.  It also claims that is was a
new and inexperienced player in a business in which Amazon
dominated with 90 percent marketshare."

The plaintiffs in the case have based their claims largely upon
Steve Jobs' comment to Walt Mossberg of the Wall Street Journal,
which suggested that publishers "unhappy" with Amazon's efforts to
mandate a standard $10 ebook price would likely just withhold
their titles from Amazon's store.

Apple's attorneys say Mr. Jobs' words were being
"mischaracterized" by the plaintiffs, explaining that Mr. Jobs
simply thought Apple's business strategy was more attractive than
Amazon's.

The plaintiffs in the case argue that Apple conspired with
publishers to raise the price of ebooks in order to blunt the
impact of Amazon's Kindle on the tablet market, something Apple's
attorneys described as a nonsensical "Kindle Theory."

This "Kindle theory," Apple's filing stated, does not "make sense
on its own terms.  For example, if Amazon was a 'threat' that
needed to be squelched by means of an illegal conspiracy, why
would Apple offer Amazon's Kindle app on the iPad?"

Sarcastically alluding to Amazon's loss leader book pricing,
Apple's legal argument added the zinger, "Why would Apple conclude
that conspiring to force Amazon to no longer lose money on eBooks
would cripple Amazon's competitive fortunes?"

The filing further asked, "And why would Apple perceive the need
for an illegal solution to the 'Kindle threat' when it had an
obvious and lawful one which it implemented -- namely, introducing
a multipurpose device (the iPad) whose marketing and sales success
was not centered on eBook sales?"

Apple pioneered the concept of selling digital content at a fixed
low price in iTunes with 99 cent songs, followed by similarly low
standard pricing of videos and movies, all prices the music labels
and studios balked at supporting.  Apple has since relaxed its
standard pricing to allow publishers to sell their content at
variable prices.

In ebooks however, Apple found such resistance for pushing the
price of digital titles down to the $9.99 price set by Amazon that
it allowed publishers to adopt their own pricing from the start,
often closer to $12.99, under a model known as "agency pricing,"
the same model Amazon uses to sell Android apps.

Under Apple's agency pricing model, publishers selling titles in
its iBookstore couldn't also sell their same titles at a lower
price elsewhere, another term Amazon similarly sought to use to
prevent Android app developers from undercutting its own sales.

Amazon Kindle users and other readers upset by the $2 difference
in ebook prices set by Amazon and publishers working with Apple
have asked the US Department of Justice to get involved, which has
announced plans to sue Apple and book publishers Simon & Schuster,
Hachette, Penguin, Macmillan and HarperCollins over the Kindle
Theory conspiracy.


ARCHIPELAGO LEARNING: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim
Archipelago Learning is selling itself too cheaply to Plato
Learning, for $11.10 a share or $291 million, in Dallas County
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Bushansky v. Archipelago Learning,
Inc., et al., Case No. CC-12-01531-C (Dallas, Tex. Cty. Ct.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/09/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
          Martin Woodward, Esq.
          Scott Kitner, Esq.
          STANLEY IOLA, LLP
          3100 Monticello Avenue, Suite 750
          Dallas, TX 75205
          Telephone: (214) 443-4300
          E-mail: marcstanley@mac.com
                  mwoodward@stanleyiola.com
                  skitner@stanleyiola.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
          Joshua M. Rubin, Esq.
          Julia J. Sun, Esq.
          WEISS & LURIE
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          E-mail: jweiss@weisslurie.com
                  jrubin@weisslurie.com
                  jsun@weisslurie.com


BARNES-JEWISH HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Undisclosed Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action
in city court claims Barnes-Jewish Hospital, BJC Health System and
Washington University charge patients pricey, undisclosed fees for
treatment.

Named plaintiff Adam Flath claims he learned of the fees after
being treated at the Center for Advanced Medicine, an outpatient
facility at the Washington University Medical Center, on Oct. 3,
2011.

"The treatment was a simple outpatient procedure that took three
minutes at most," the complaint states.  "But because this simple
treatment was performed in a doctor's office next to Barnes-Jewish
Hospital, the charges were $1,004.00, including a $420.00 facility
fee from Barnes-Jewish Hospital, even though it was a non-
hospital, outpatient procedure performed in a doctor's office,
which could have been performed in any doctor's office, whether or
not it was next to a hospital.

"Defendants never disclosed to plaintiff before the treatment that
this simple procedure would include a facility fee from Barnes-
Jewish Hospital to patients who receive services at doctor's
offices and outpatient clinic next to or affiliated with Barnes-
Jewish Hospital, even though the services are non-hospital
outpatient services."

The class consists of all patients who received services at a
doctor's office or outpatient clinic affiliated with Barnes-Jewish
Hospital and BJC who were charged a facility fee for non-hospital,
outpatient services.  It seeks actual and punitive damages for
violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Flath v. Barnes-Jewish Hospital, et
al., Case No. 1222-CC01280 (Mo. Cir. Ct., City of St. Louis), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/09/Barnes.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason A. Charpentier, Esq.
          GROWE EISEN KARLEN
          7733 Forsyth, Suite 325
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 721-1228
          E-mail: jason@groweeisen.com

               - and -

          Ryan M. Furniss, Esq.
          THE FURNISS LAW FIRM, LLC
          1509 Washington Avenue, Suite 660
          St. Louis, MO 63103
          Telephone: (314) 914-2522
          E-mail: rfurniss@furnisslaw.com


BAY GRENVILLE: Faces Class Actions Over Falling Glass
-----------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that shattering balcony glass has
prompted downtown condo owners to launch class-action suits
against the developers, contractors and others, the plaintiffs'
lawyers said on March 8.

The proposed actions in Ontario Superior Court allege negligence
in the construction of two separate condo developments in which
glass shattered and crashed to the streets below.

The falling-glass issue prompted sealing of the balconies months
ago.

"(The plaintiffs) have not been able to access their balconies,
thereby suffering from the loss of enjoyment of their units and
the common areas," according to the statement of claim.

In addition, the loss of use of the balconies has meant lower
rental income and unit values, the plaintiffs claim.

Each of the suits seek C$20 million in general and other damages.

The action on behalf of owners and renters of the units in the
Murano Towers names Bay Grenville Properties and Lanterra
Developments among others.

The proposed suit against Festival Tower located in the city's
entertainment district names King and John Festival Corp. and the
Daniels Corp.

The class actions have yet to be certified and none of the
allegations has been tested in any court.

The defendants could not be reached immediately for comment.

Murano plaintiffs say the first balcony glass shattered on the
north tower in April 2010, and by last September, there had been
at least 14 similar incidents.

In one case last summer, tempered glass rained down from a 29th
floor Murano balcony onto Bay Street, causing minor injuries to a
pedestrian.

In August, the sliding glass doors to the balconies were sealed
and notices posted prohibiting opening the doors or using the
balconies, the statement of claim says.

The Festival Tower arguments are similar to those made in the
Murano suit, with the plaintiffs saying they have suffered damages
because their balconies were sealed after glass shattered and
fell.

"One or more of the defendants clad the entire facade of Festival
Tower in black mesh," the suit says.

Lawyer Ted Charney said the aim of the suits was to "compensate
the class members for the loss of use of their outdoor living
space and to motivate the builders to correct the problem as soon
as possible."

Among others named as defendants are architects Alliance and Toro
Aluminum Railings, which installs glass panels.


CH ENERGY: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholder Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
NECA-IBEW Pension Trust Fund, On Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. CH Energy Group, Inc., Steven Lant,
Margarita Dilley, Steven Fetter, Stanley Grubel, Manuel Iraola, E.
Michel Kruse, Edward Tokar, Jeffery Tranen, Ernest Verebelyi,
Fortis, Inc., FortisUS, Inc., Cascade Acquisition Sub, Inc., Case
No. 650697/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 7, 2012) is a shareholder
class action brought on behalf of CH Energy's shareholders to
enjoin the proposed acquisition of the publicly owned shares of CH
Energy common stock by Fortis Inc.

In pursuing this unlawful plan to sell CH Energy for inadequate
consideration and negotiating the terms of the Proposed
Transaction through a flawed process, each of the Defendants
violated applicable law by directly breaching and aiding and
abetting the Individual Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary
duties of loyalty, due care, independence, good faith and fair
dealing, the Plaintiff contends.  The Plaintiff adds that the
Proposed Transaction is the product of a flawed process that is
designed to ensure the sale of CH Energy to Fortis on terms
preferential to Fortis, but detrimental to the Plaintiffs and the
other public stockholders of CH Energy.

The Plaintiff is a shareholder of CH Energy.

CH Energy, a New York corporation, provides electricity, natural
gas, propane, fuel oil and other petroleum products to
approximately 375,000 customers throughout New York's Mid-Hudson
River Valley.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the CH Energy.  Fortis is a corporation organized
under the Corporations Act of Newfoundland and Labrador.  Fortis
is a distribution utility in Canada serving over 2,000,000
customers with gas and electricity.  FortisUS is a Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Fortis.  Cascade is a
New York corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Fortis.
Cascade was formed for the purpose of facilitating the Proposed
Transaction and will cease to exist upon consummation of the
Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas M. Skelton, Esq.
          David C. Harrison, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C.
          One North Broadway
          White Plains Plaza, 5th Floor
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          E-mail: tskelton@lowey.com
                  dharrison@lowey.com

               - and -

          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Christopher S. Jones, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Stein, Esq.
          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
          E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                  cjones@saxenawhite.com
                  jstein@saxenawhite.com
                  lhooker@saxenawhite.com


CITY OF ATLANTA, GA: To Pay Legal Fees in Firefighter Test Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that the City of Atlanta
will have to pay three of its firefighters $320,000 for legal fees
from a class action lawsuit claiming city officials did nothing to
address allegations of cheating on a fire department promotion
test, a judge ruled on March 7.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Kelly A. Lee also ruled that
five Atlanta firefighters who scored higher than a 90 on the
city's written test for lieutenant will be stripped of their
provisional promotions and corresponding pay until an independent
retest can be given.

The lawsuit, filed last year, alleged the city didn't fully
investigate cheating allegations raised against an undisclosed
number of firefighters who took the April 2010 exam.

Last month, a jury ruled in favor of three firefighters who
claimed, on behalf of 160 other fire employees who took the test,
that two assistant chiefs provided answers to several firefighters
before the exam.

Deputy City Attorney Eric Richardson objected to the jury verdict
and the judge's decision.  He said the city intends to appeal the
ruling.

"There's been no proof . . . no direct evidence of cheating,"
Mr. Richardson said.

The jury didn't indicate which individuals cheated, but Judge Lee
on March 7 pointed at the top scorers when she made her decision
to invalidate their promotions.

"If the people who scored the top scores -- who never scored them
before -- didn't cheat, then who did?" she asked during the
hearing.

In addition to stripping the titles, Judge Lee ruled that about
110 employees who scored 60 or more on the exam will be eligible
to retest and that the exam will be administered by an independent
testing agency.

It remained unclear if an independent testing agency will become
an ongoing requirement.  All firefighters who retake and pass the
test and are promoted will be paid retroactively to the date of
the first test.

About 80 firefighters were promoted from the first exam.
Lee Parks, the attorney for the firefighters who brought the
lawsuit, echoed demands of the Atlanta chapter of the
International Association of Fire Fighters that the city conduct
an investigation of who cheated and who enabled the cheating.
Mr. Parks suggested that criminal charges be sought.

"Right now, Atlanta Public School teachers are sitting in the
district attorney's office because they did what these fire
department members did," he said.  "This is not an administrative
issue.  We're talking about criminal activity."

Mr. Richardson said the city wouldn't pursue an internal
investigation until the lawsuit is closed.

Judge Lee was set to finalize her judgment, including details for
the company to conduct the retest and the cost, on March 9.
Mr. Richardson had said he would ask at that time that she change
her decision to reverse the promotions.


EMPIRE STATE: Sued Over One-Sided "Roll Up" Transaction
-------------------------------------------------------
Laurence Reinlieb, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., Empire
State Realty Op, L.P., Malkin Holdings L.L.C., Malkin Properties,
L.L.C., Malkin Properties of New York, L.L.C., Malkin Properties
of Connecticut, Inc., Malkin Construction Corp., Anthony E.
Malkin, Peter L. Malkin, and Estate of Leona M. Helmsley, Case No.
650691/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 7, 2012) is brought on behalf of
the "Participants," who are the passive investors in certain
entities, including Empire State Building Associates L.L.C., 60
East 42nd St. Associates L.L.C, Marlboro Building Associates,
L.L.C., and 1350 Broadway Associates L.L.C.  The Entities were
initially formed between 1953 and 1969 for the purpose of
acquiring and operating certain real property, including the
Empire State Building as well as several other properties in New
York.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Malkin Defendants are scheming to
convert the equity interests owned by the class members in the
Entities into cash or interests in the Company through a one-
sided, unfair "roll up" transaction.  He contends that the
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.

Mr. Reinlieb is a Participant in 60 East 42nd St. Associates
L.L.C. and the Empire State Building Associates L.L.C.

The Company is a Maryland corporation.  Empire State Realty Op is
a Delaware limited partnership and the operating partner of the
Company.  Malkin Holdings, Malkin Properties, L.L.C. and Malkin
Properties of New York are New York corporations, while Malkin
Properties of Connecticut and Malkin Construction are Connecticut
corporations.  Messrs. Malkins are principals of Malkin Holdings.
The Helmsley Estate owns an interest in several of the Entities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc I. Gross, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS, LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017-5516
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS, LLP
          One North LaSalle Street, Suite 2225
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA: Wins Dealers' Class Action in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
Domain-b reports that the International Arbitration Panel (IAP)
has rejected claims of damages by Global Vehicles USA Inc for
alleged violation of distribution agreement by Mahindra &
Mahindra, as the panel found no violation of state or federal
rules by the global vehicle manufacturer.

The sports-utility vehicle maker also won a class action suit
filed by a group of dealers in the United States district court
for the eastern district of Missouri against the company and its
proposed US distributor, Global Vehicles.

The arbitrators held that the distribution agreement with Global
Vehicles had terminated according to its own terms and M&M did not
violate the agreement or any laws in the US in its dealings with
Global Vehicles.

The arbitrators, while rejecting the claims of Global Vehicles for
damages, awarded to M&M costs of arbitration, including M&M's
legal fee and expenses, the company said in its filings with the
Bombay Stock Exchange.

Rejecting the class action suit by a group of dealers against M&M,
the arbitration panel said its dealings with potential dealers,
Global Vehicles was not the agent of M&M and, therefore, it could
not be liable for any actions of Global Vehicles.


MASCO CORP: Trial in Columbus Drywall Class Suit Set for July
-------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date in the class action lawsuit against insulation
contractors, including Masco Corporation and its subsidiaries, has
been scheduled for July 2012, according to the Company's February
21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

A lawsuit was brought against the Company and a number of its
insulation installation companies alleging that certain of their
practices violated provisions of the federal antitrust laws.  The
case was filed in October 2004 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia by Columbus Drywall &
Insulation, Inc., Leo Jones Insulation, Inc., Southland
Insulators, Inc., Southland Insulators of Maryland, Inc. d/b/a
Devere Insulation, Southland Insulators of Delaware LLC d/b/a
Delmarva Insulation, and Whitson Insulation Company of Grand
Rapids, Inc. against the Company, its subsidiaries Masco
Contractors Services Group Corp., Masco Contractor Services
Central, Inc. ("MCS Central") and Masco Contractor Services East,
Inc., and several insulation manufacturers (the "Columbus Drywall
case").  In February 2009, the court certified a class of 377
insulation contractors.  A trial date in this case has been
scheduled for July 2012.

Another lawsuit filed in March 2003 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia by Wilson Insulation
Company, Wilson Insulation of Augusta, Inc. and The Wilson
Insulation Group, Inc. against the Company, Masco Contractor
Services, Inc., and MCS Central lleged anticompetitive conduct.
This case has been removed from the court's active docket.

In March 2007, Albert Von Der Werth and Valerie Good filed a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company, its subsidiary Masco
Contractor Services, and several insulation manufacturers seeking
class action status and alleging anticompetitive conduct.  This
case was subsequently transferred to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia and has been
administratively stayed by the court.  An additional lawsuit,
which was filed in September 2005 and alleged anticompetitive
conduct, was dismissed with prejudice in December 2006.

The Company says it is vigorously defending the Columbus Drywall
case.  Based upon the advice of its outside counsel, the Company
believes that the conduct of the Company and its insulation
installation companies, which is the subject of the lawsuits, has
not violated any antitrust laws.  The Company is unable at this
time to reliably estimate any potential liability which might
occur from an adverse judgment.  There cannot be any assurance
that the Company will ultimately prevail in these lawsuits, or, if
unsuccessful, that the ultimate liability would not be material
and would not have a material adverse effect on its businesses or
the methods used by its insulation installation companies in doing
business.


MEDCO HEALTH: Class Certification Bids Remain Pending in PBM MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2003, a lawsuit captioned Brady Enterprises, Inc., et
al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
Merck & Co., Inc. ("Merck") and Medco Health Solutions, Inc.  The
plaintiffs, who seek to represent a national class of retail
pharmacies that had contracted with the Company, allege that the
Company has conspired with, acted as the common agent for, and
used the combined bargaining power of plan sponsors to restrain
competition in the market for the dispensing and sale of
prescription drugs.  The plaintiffs allege that, through the
alleged conspiracy, the Company has engaged in various forms of
anticompetitive conduct, including, among other things, setting
artificially low reimbursement rates to such pharmacies.  The
plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act and seek
treble damages and injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs' motion for
class certification is currently pending before the Multidistrict
Litigation Court.

In October 2003, a lawsuit captioned North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc.,
et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against
Merck and the Company.  In their Second Amended Complaint, the
plaintiffs allege that Merck and the Company engaged in price
fixing and other unlawful concerted actions with others, including
other pharmacy benefit managements ("PBMs"), to restrain trade in
the dispensing and sale of prescription drugs to customers of
retail pharmacies who participate in programs or plans that pay
for all or part of the drugs dispensed, and conspired with, acted
as the common agent for, and used the combined bargaining power of
plan sponsors to restrain competition in the market for the
dispensing and sale of prescription drugs.  The plaintiffs allege
that, through such concerted action, Merck and the Company engaged
in various forms of anticompetitive conduct, including, among
other things, setting reimbursement rates to such pharmacies at
unreasonably low levels.  The plaintiffs assert claims for
violation of the Sherman Act and seek treble damages and
injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs' motion for class certification
has been granted, but this matter has been consolidated with other
actions where class certification remains an open issue.

In December 2005, a lawsuit captioned Mike's Medical Center
Pharmacy, et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed
against the Company and Merck in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The plaintiffs seek to represent
a class of all pharmacies and pharmacists that had contracted with
the Company and California pharmacies that had indirectly
purchased prescription drugs from Merck and make factual
allegations similar to those in the Alameda Drug Company action.
The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act,
California antitrust law and California law prohibiting unfair
business practices.  The plaintiffs demand, among other things,
treble damages, restitution, disgorgement of unlawfully obtained
profits and injunctive relief.

In April 2006, the Brady plaintiffs filed a petition to transfer
and consolidate various antitrust actions against PBMs, including
North Jackson, Brady, and Mike's Medical Center before a single
federal judge.  The motion was granted in August 2006. These
actions are now consolidated for pretrial purposes in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The
consolidated action is known as In re Pharmacy Benefit Managers
Antitrust Litigation.  The plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in certain actions is currently pending before the
Multidistrict Litigation Court.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 21,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


MEDCO HEALTH: Hearing on Merger-Related Suits Deal on April 16
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing is scheduled for April 16, 2012, for the final approval
of Medco Health Solutions, Inc.'s settlement of merger-related
class action lawsuits, according to the Company's February 21,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On July 20, 2011, the Company entered into a definitive Merger
Agreement with Express Scripts, Inc. and certain of its
subsidiaries (as amended on November 7, 2011, by Amendment No. 1
thereto, the "Merger Agreement") providing for the combination of
Express Scripts and Medco under a new holding company, New Express
Scripts.  As a result of the transactions contemplated by the
Merger Agreement, former Medco shareholders and Express Scripts
shareholders will own stock in New Express Scripts.  The
shareholders approved the Merger on December 21, 2011.

Twenty-two lawsuits have been filed since the announcement of the
merger on July 21, 2011, that name as defendants the Company, the
Company's Board of Directors, and Express Scripts.  The purported
class action complaints allege, among other things, a breach of
fiduciary duty in connection with the approval of the pending
Merger Agreement between the Company and Express Scripts.

On November 7, 2011, Express Scripts and Medco Health Solutions,
Inc. entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with plaintiffs to
settle the shareholder litigation pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey and the Delaware
Court of Chancery regarding their proposed merger.  Pursuant to
the Memorandum of Understanding, Express Scripts and Medco agreed
to enter into the Amendment and to hold the special meetings of
their respective stockholders to vote on the proposed mergers on
such date or dates as determined by Medco and Express Scripts, but
in no event prior to December 21, 2011.  The shareholder meetings
subsequently took place on December 21, 2011, at which time the
respective stockholders voted to approve the merger.

Also pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties
entered into a Stipulation of Settlement, which was preliminarily
approved by the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on December 21, 2011, subject to further consideration
by the District Court at a Settlement Hearing scheduled to take
place on April 16, 2012.  Under the terms of the Stipulation of
Settlement, plaintiffs must file papers in support of their
application for attorneys' fees no later than forty-five (45) days
prior to the Settlement Hearing, making any such papers due on
March 2, 2012.


MEDCO HEALTH: Still Defends "Alameda" Class Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2004, a lawsuit captioned Alameda Drug Company, Inc.,
et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed against
Medco Health Solutions, Inc. and Merck & Co., Inc. in the Superior
Court of California.  The plaintiffs, which seek to represent a
class of all California pharmacies that had contracted with the
Company and that had indirectly purchased prescription drugs from
Merck, allege, among other things, that since the expiration of a
1995 consent injunction entered by the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, if not earlier, the Company
failed to maintain an Open Formulary (as defined in the consent
injunction), and that the Company and Merck had failed to prevent
nonpublic information received from competitors of Merck and the
Company from being disclosed to each other.  The plaintiffs
further allege that, as a result of these alleged practices, the
Company had been able to increase its market share and
artificially reduce the level of reimbursement to the retail
pharmacy class members, and that the prices of prescription drugs
from Merck and other pharmaceutical manufacturers that do business
with the Company had been fixed and raised above competitive
levels.  The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of California
antitrust law and California law prohibiting unfair business
practices.  The plaintiffs demand, among other things,
compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement of unlawfully
obtained profits and injunctive relief.  In the complaint, the
plaintiffs further allege, among other things, that the Company
acted as a purchasing agent for its plan sponsor customers,
resulting in a system that serves to suppress competition.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 21,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


MONSANTO: Details of $93-Mil. Class Action Settlement Unveiled
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Caswell, writing for Daily Mail, reports that details of
the $93 million settlement in the Monsanto class-action lawsuit
are now available, and documents confirm that thousands of Nitro
area residents will be eligible for medical testing and property
cleanup.

The documents were obtained by the Charleston Gazette through the
Freedom of Information Act.  The newspaper also made the documents
available online.

The company settled two weeks ago with hundreds of plaintiffs in
the lawsuit just prior to the start of what could have been a six-
month trial in Putnam Circuit Court.

According to the settlement documents, a fund will be established
within 30 days to begin paying the costs of the testing of those
affected residents and people who worked in the plant area.

Thomas Memorial Hospital and its affiliated health programs will
conduct the testing and reporting.

Medical testing will be done to determine levels of chemicals that
resulted from production and waste disposal at the plant from 1948
to 1969, but will include those lived, worked or attended school
in the area until the present time.

Plaintiffs claimed they sustained "significant exposure" to the
relative general population to dioxin. A screening period to
determine who will be tested will begin within 60 days.

Monsanto and its successors will pay $3 million into the fund
every 10 years for 30 years, and possibly more if test results
reveal high levels of dioxin. Those affected will be tested every
five years, or every two years if levels are found to be high.

That testing will involve a physical examination and blood tests.

The settlement also provides funding for property cleanup of up to
4,500 residences suspected of contamination.  The cleanup program
will be conducted for up to three years at a cost of $9 million.

Those eligible for medical testing or property cleanup include
children aged 1 to 7 who lived at least three years in the plant
area from 1948 to 1968; children or adults up to age 31 who lived
in the area for at least six years; adults over 18 who lived in
the area at least six years; children attending Nitro schools for
at least 13 years; adults who worked full time in the covered area
for at least six years.

Former Monsanto employees are not eligible for the medical
monitoring in this case.

Monsanto also has agreed to pay nearly $30 million in legal fees
and costs.  The court documents indicate Charleston attorney
Stuart Calwell will ask a judge to approve $22.5 million in fees
and $7 million in costs.

Before the settlement is finalized, members of the class are to be
notified and given a chance to object to the terms. The court
documents indicate they are to be notified by April 5.

At a hearing set for June 18, people who sign up in advance will
be given a chance to speak for or against the settlement.

Class members also can object by writing to the Putnam County
circuit clerk in Winfield.


MYLAN INC: Unit Awaits Final OK of Class Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Mylan Inc. is awaiting final approval of a settlement resolving
class action lawsuits filed against its subsidiary, according to
the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

Mylan Inc.'s specialty pharmaceutical business subsidiary, Dey
Pharma, L.P., is currently a defendant in several class actions
brought by consumers and third-party payors.  Dey has reached a
settlement of these class actions, which has been preliminarily
approved by the court.  Additionally, a complaint was filed under
seal by a plaintiff on behalf of the United States of America
against Dey in August 1997.  In August 2006, the Government filed
its complaint-in-intervention and the case was unsealed in
September 2006.  The Government asserted that Dey was jointly
liable with a codefendant and sought recovery of alleged
overpayments, together with treble damages, civil penalties and
equitable relief.  Dey completed a settlement of this action in
December 2010.

These cases all have generally alleged that Dey falsely reported
certain price information concerning certain drugs marketed by
Dey, that Dey caused false claims to be made to Medicaid and to
Medicare, and that Dey caused Medicaid and Medicare to make
overpayments on those claims.

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


NCAA: Athletes Challenge Order to Pay Legal Fees in Fox Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that former college
athletes have asked for relief from orders to pay the attorneys'
fees of entities could shed light on whether the NCAA steamrolled
over their image-ownership rights and hoarded all the profits.

In a 2009 class action, former UCLA basketball star Edward
O'Bannon claimed the National Collegiate Athletic Association
forced students to sign the misleading "Form 08-3a" if they wanted
to play NCAA sports.  This form allegedly "commercially exploits
former student athletes" by giving the NCAA the right to profit
from their images without compensation, long after the athletes
have left school.

The athletes say the NCAA, Electronic Arts and Collegiate
Licensing Company violated federal antitrust laws and conspired to
restrain trade by fixing their compensation to $0.

The athletes served subpoenas to The Big Ten Conference, The Big
Ten Network and Fox Broadcasting Company, which are not defendants
in the action.

Big Ten and Fox objected to the requests as overly broad, and the
athletes narrowed the scope of the documents they requested.

But U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins denied that narrowed
request as well in February, finding it still too broad.

The Big Ten Network and Fox agreed to produce television broadcast
and licensing agreements that involve NCAA Division I football and
basketball, as well as documents about athletes' contract
negotiations that mention publicity rights.

Judge Cousins found that compromise to be reasonable, "given the
confidential nature of the agreements."

"The document requests . . . are not tailored to minimize the
potential prejudice that the nonparties could suffer by releasing
such information," the judge wrote.

He also ordered the athletes to pay Big Ten and Fox sanctions,
covering the costs of their litigation based on the claim that
negotiating would be "fruitless."

In a motion on March 8, the athletes appealed Judge Cousins'
sanction order to U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken.

The athletes took issue with Judge Cousins' view that they showed
an "unwillingness to compromise during the meet and confer
process," "refused to narrow the scope of their document
requests," "rejected reasonable attempts to compromise" and "did
not take advantage of the discovery they obtained from other
sources in tailoring their requests."

"Even if these findings were supported by the record (and they are
not), they are not tantamount to bad faith and cannot justify an
award of sanctions," the motion says.

"This is especially true in this case because plaintiffs won
significant portions of the disputes at issue," according to the
motion authored by Michael Lehmann with the San Francisco firm
Hausfeld LLC.  "Judge Cousins granted discovery as to television
contracts and exemplar release forms. He did not accept the third
parties' arguments that copyright laws, First Amendment privileges
or principles or amateurism barred the requested discovery."

The athletes asked the court to set aside Judge Cousins' order and
sanctions award.

A copy of the Antitrust Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief From Non-
Dispositive Order of Magistrate Judge Imposing Sanctions on
Plaintiffs and Denying Motions to Compel in In re NCAA Student-
Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation, Case No. 11-mc-
80300-CW (N.D. Calif.), is available at http://is.gd/RsVAQR


NOVARTIS PHARMA: Faces RICO Class Action Over "Kickbacks"
---------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Armstrong at Courthouse News Service reports that giant
pharmaceutical companies are overcharging consumers more than $3
billion a year by paying undisclosed kickbacks to induce insured
people to buy brand-name drugs rather than less-expensive
alternatives, according to six RICO class actions filed last week
in four federal courts.

The class actions: two in New Jersey, two in Philadelphia, and two
in Brooklyn, make similar claims.  The plaintiff unions and their
pension plans claim: "Defendant has paid, and continues to pay,
undisclosed kickbacks to privately insured individuals so that
those health plan members choose defendant's branded drugs . . .
instead of less-expensive alternatives.  Defendant knowingly
caused health benefit providers to pay for more prescriptions of
these drugs than they otherwise would have, and caused falsely
inflated drug reimbursement rates to be reported to, and imposed
on the members' health benefit providers for these subsidized
prescriptions."

All citations in this article come from a 52-page complaint in
Newark, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 572 Health and Welfare Fund
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

The union claims Novartis paid "undisclosed kickbacks to privately
insured individuals so that those health plan members choose
defendant's branded drugs, Diovan and Diovan HTC, instead of less-
expensive therapeutic alternatives."

The same plaintiff also sued Merck in Trenton, N.J., citing its
brand-name drugs Janumet, Janumet XR, Januvia, Nasonex, Vytorin
and Zetia.

The Philadelphia class actions were filed by the New England
Carpenters Health and Welfare Fund against AstraZeneca (citing
Crestor and Nexium) and GlaxoSmithKline (citing Avodart and
Lovaza).

In the Brooklyn class actions, the American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health &
Security Plans; and the Sergeants Benevolent Association Health
and Welfare Fund sued Amgen and Pfizer (citing Celebrex, Chantiz,
Lipitor and Sensipar) and Bristol-Myers Squibb and Otsuka American
(citing Abilify).

The Newark complaint states: "Branded drug manufacturers have
attacked the private prescription drug co-pay system by
subsidizing plan members' co-pays in order to undermine cost-
sharing arrangements between health benefit providers and those
they insure.  These co-pay subsidy programs reduce or eliminate
individuals' co-pays regardless of financial need.  Whether
characterized as coupons, rebates, subsidies, or kickbacks, these
payments to plan members interfere with health plans' cost-sharing
provisions and intentionally influence prescription drug choices.
The programs are designed, quite specifically, to reduce or
eliminate privately-insured individuals' personal payment
obligations so that they choose the brand name drugs and their
health benefit providers foot the bill.

"Although co-pay subsidy programs vary as to the drugs covered and
the specific amount of the subsidy or rebate, all programs work
the same way.  Individuals enroll in drug specific programs
online. Individuals provide basic information . . . and the drug
company mails them a wallet-size card that includes instructions
to pharmacists regarding how to process covered prescriptions.
Some drug companies allow individuals to immediately print cards
using their home computers."

After presenting their card to the pharmacy, primary insurance
information is entered and the pharmacists enter the co-pay card
system information in the secondary insurance area.

"Information regarding the extent of the co-pay subsidy or rebate
is similarly computed, but only after the patient's primary
insurance is processed (and billed).

"The pharmacist and PBM [pharmacy benefit manager] use the
reimbursement benchmark, which the brand name drug company
provides to the reporting agency, to calculate the usual charge
(i.e., unreduced by the amount of the subsidy) to the health
benefit insurer for the procurement of that prescription drug.
The pharmacist and PBM do so without advising the insurer that, at
the same time, the plan member's personal cost share obligation is
being picked up by the drug's manufacturer.  As a result, the
private health benefit provider pays for the medication at its
usual (but in fact now inflated) cost, and it does so without
being told that the usual cost-share obligation has not been paid
by the enrollee, but rather by the brand manufacturer.

"In effect, defendant bribes plan members to choose its branded
drugs over less-expensive therapeutic alternatives in order to get
the health benefit plan to pay for the bulk of the cost of its
more expensive branded drugs.  From the member's perspective, the
branded drug and therapeutic alternatives cost close to, if not
exactly, the same amount.  But the price of the health benefit
plan's share of the therapeutic alternative with the lower co-pay
and the branded drug with the higher co-pay may differ by a factor
of ten."

The complaint adds: "A recent study estimated that these kickbacks
will increase health benefit providers' prescription drug costs by
$32 billion over the next ten years.  . . .

"For example, Illinois plans are expected to spend nearly $1.4
billion extra on prescription drug costs as a result of co-pay
coupons or programs during that time; Florida, New York,
California and Texas will spend an extra $2 billion each in the
next decade as a result of the same programs."

The Newark and Trenton classes seek damages for RICO violations
and commercial bribery.

They are both represented by Lisa Rodriguez with Trujillo
Rodriguez & Richards, of Haddonfield.

The Philadelphia plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey Kodroff
with Spector Roseman, as are the Brooklyn plaintiffs in the
complaint against Amgen-Pfizer.

AFSCME is represented by Jason Zweig with Hagens Berman in its
complaint against Bristol-Myers Squibb.

A copy of the Complaint in Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 572
Health and Welfare Fund v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Case
No. 12-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 14267 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on
March 7, 2012 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/09/NovartisKick.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq.
          Nicole M. Acchione, Esq.
          TRUJILLO RODRIGUEZ & RICHARDS, LLC
          258 Kings Highway East
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Telephone: (856) 795-9002
          E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Barbara M. Mahoney, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eight Ave., Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  barbaram@hbsslaw.com
               - and -

          Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
          Lauren Guth Barnes, Esq.
          Kristen Johnson Parker, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
                  lauren@hbsslaw.com
                  kristen@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Bethany R. Turke, Esq.
          Dawn M. Goulet, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe St., Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  brt@wexlerwallace.com
                  dmg@wexlerwallace.com
                  aek@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: jkodroff@srkaw-law.com


PACKAGING CORP: Continues to Defend Containerboard Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
During September and October 2010, Packaging Corporation of
America and eight other U.S. and Canadian containerboard producers
were named as defendants in five purported class action lawsuits
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Sherman Act.  The
lawsuits have been consolidated in a single complaint under the
caption Kleen Products LLC v Packaging Corp. of America et al.
The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants conspired
to limit the supply of containerboard, and that the purpose and
effect of the alleged conspiracy was to artificially increase
prices of containerboard products during the period from August
2005 to the time of filing of the complaints.  The complaint was
filed as a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of all
purchasers of containerboard products during such period.  The
complaint seeks treble damages and costs, including attorney's
fees.  The defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint were
denied by the court in April 2011.

PCA believes the allegations are without merit and will defend
this lawsuit vigorously.  However, as the lawsuit is in the early
stages of discovery, PCA is unable to predict the ultimate outcome
or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 21,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


PANERA BREAD: Negotiates Terms of Consolidated Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The terms and conditions of a definitive settlement agreement
resolving a consolidated purported class action lawsuit in
California are under negotiation, according to Panera Bread
Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 27,
2011.

On December 9, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and one of its subsidiaries by Nick Sotoudeh,
a former employee of a subsidiary of the Company.  The lawsuit was
filed in the California Superior Court, County of Contra Costa.
On April 22, 2011, the complaint was amended to add another former
employee, Gabriela Brizuela, as a plaintiff.  The complaint
alleged, among other things, violations of the California Labor
Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest
periods and termination compensation and violations of
California's Business and Professions.  The complaint sought,
among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit,
unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as the Court might find just and
proper.

On November 17, 2011, the parties reached a Memorandum of
Agreement regarding the class action lawsuits and the class action
filed by David Carter.  Under the terms of the Memorandum of
Agreement, the Company agreed to pay a maximum amount of $5.0
million to purported class members, plaintiff's attorneys' fees,
and costs of administering the settlement.  The Memorandum of
Agreement contains no admission of wrongdoing.  The terms and
conditions of a definitive settlement agreement are under
negotiation and such agreement is subject to the final approval by
the California Superior Court.  The agreement of $5.0 million is
included in accrued expenses in the Company's Consolidated Balance
Sheets as of December 27, 2011.

                           Carter Suit

On July 22, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and one of its subsidiaries by David Carter, a
former employee of a subsidiary of the Company, and Nikole
Benavides, a purported former employee of one of the Company's
franchisees.  The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior
Court, County of San Bernardino.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, violations of the California Labor Code, failure to
pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods and
termination compensation and violations of California's Business
and Professions Code.  The complaint seeks, among other relief,
collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified
damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such
other relief as the Court might find just and proper.  This matter
against the Company's subsidiary was consolidated with the
Sotoudeh lawsuit and is expected to be resolved under the
Memorandum of Agreement.


PANERA BREAD: Still Defends Employees' Class Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
On December 16, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by
Denarius Lewis, Caroll Ruiz, and Corey Weiner, former employees of
a subsidiary of the Company.  The lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for Middle District of Florida.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  The complaint seeks, among other relief,
collective, and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified
damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and such
other relief as the Court might find just and proper.

The Company believes it and the other defendant have meritorious
defenses to each of the claims in this lawsuit and the Company is
prepared to vigorously defend the lawsuit.  There can be no
assurance, however, that the Company will be successful, and an
adverse resolution of the lawsuit could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements in the
period in which the lawsuit is resolved.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 21,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 27, 2011.


RADIOSHACK CORP: "Brookler" Suit On hold Pending "Brinker" Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit captioned Brookler v. RadioShack
Corporation is on hold pending a supreme court ruling in the
similar case of Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court,
according to the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011.

On April 6, 2004, plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Los
Angeles Superior Court, Brookler v. RadioShack Corporation,
claiming that the Company violated California's wage and hour laws
relating to meal and rest periods.  The meal period portion of the
case was originally certified as a class action in February 2006.
The Company's first Motion for Decertification of the class was
denied in August 2007.  After a favorable decision at the
California Court of Appeals in the similar case of Brinker
Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court, the Company again sought
decertification of the class.  Based on the California Court of
Appeals decision in Brinker, the trial court granted the Company's
second motion for class decertification in October 2008.  The
plaintiffs in Brookler appealed this ruling.  Due to the unsettled
nature of California law regarding the obligations of employers in
respect of meal periods, the Company and the Brookler plaintiffs
requested that the California Court of Appeals stay its ruling on
the plaintiffs' appeal of the class decertification ruling pending
the California Supreme Court's decision in Brinker.  The appellate
court denied this joint motion and then heard oral arguments in
the case on August 5, 2010.  On August 26, 2010, the California
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decertification of the
class, and the Company's Petition for Rehearing was denied on
September 14, 2010.  On September 28, 2010, the Company filed a
Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court, which
granted review and placed the case on hold pending its decision in
Brinker.

On November 8, 2011, the California Supreme Court heard oral
arguments in Brinker.  It is expected that a decision will be
rendered by the Court sometime in April 2012.  The outcome of this
case is uncertain and the ultimate resolution of it could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
statements in the period in which the resolution is recorded.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Certification Bids in Ill. Suit Held in Abeyance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions for class certification in a consolidated class action
lawsuit pending in Illinois have been held in abeyance, according
to RadioShack Corporation's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011.

On September 26, 2011, Scott D.H. Redman filed a putative class
action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  Mr. Redman claims
that the Company violated certain provisions of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA"), which amended
the Fair Credit Reporting Act, by displaying the expiration dates
of the Company's customers' credit or debit cards on
electronically printed transaction receipts.  Mr. Redman filed a
motion seeking to certify a class that includes all persons to
whom the Company provided an electronically printed transaction
receipt, in transactions occurring after June 3, 2008, that
displayed the expiration date of the person's credit or debit
card.  On November 3, 2011, Mario Aliano and Vitoria Radavicuite
filed a similar putative class action lawsuit against the Company,
also in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, alleging similar violations of FACTA.  Mr. Aliano and
Ms. Radaviciute initially filed a motion seeking to certify a
class that includes all persons to whom the Company provided an
electronically printed transaction receipt, in transactions
occurring in Illinois after June 3, 2008, that displayed the
expiration date of the person's credit or debit card.  On December
28, 2011, Mr. Aliano and Ms. Radaviciute filed an amended
complaint and an amended motion seeking to certify a class that
was not limited to transactions occurring in Illinois.

On January 11, 2012, the Aliano lawsuit was reassigned to the
judge presiding over the Redman lawsuit on the basis of
relatedness, and the two cases were consolidated for all purposes.
On January 25, 2012, the presiding judge referred the matter to
the magistrate judge assigned to the consolidated cases for
mediation, extended the time by which the Company must respond to
the pending complaints to such time as the magistrate judge shall
order, and is holding the motions for class certification in
abeyance.

The Company says it is defending these cases, but is currently
unable to reasonably estimate the loss, if any, that may result
from them.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Still Defends Song-Beverly Act-Violations Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corporation continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Credit
Card Act, according to the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

In November 2010, RadioShack received service of process with
respect to the first of four putative class action lawsuits filed
in California (Sosinov v. RadioShack, Los Angeles Superior Court;
Bitter v. RadioShack, Federal District Court, Central District of
California; Moreno v. RadioShack, Federal District Court, Southern
District of California; and Grant v. RadioShack, San Francisco
Superior Court).  The plaintiffs in all of these cases seek
damages under California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act (the
"Act").  Plaintiffs claim that under one section of the Act,
retailers are prohibited from recording certain personal
identification information regarding their customers while
processing credit card transactions unless certain statutory
exceptions are applicable.  The Act provides that any person who
violates this section is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$250 for the first violation and $1,000 for each subsequent
violation.  In each of the cases, plaintiffs allege that the
Company violated the Act by asking them for personal
identification information while processing a credit card
transaction and then recording it.

The Company says it is defending these cases, but is currently
unable to reasonably estimate the loss, if any, that may result
from them.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Parties Agree to Stay "Ordonez" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Parties in Ordonez v. RadioShack Corporation agreed to stay the
lawsuit pending a California Supreme Court decision in Brinker
Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court, according to the
Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

In May 2010, Daniel Ordonez, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated current and former employees, filed a Complaint
against the Company in the Los Angeles Superior Court.  In July
2010, Mr. Ordonez filed an Amended Complaint alleging, among other
things, that the Company failed to provide required meal periods,
provide required rest breaks, pay overtime compensation, pay
minimum wages, and maintain required records.  In September 2010,
the Company removed the case to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California.  The proposed putative
class in Ordonez consists of all current and former non-exempt
employees for a period within the four (4) years preceding the
filing of the case.  The meal period claims raised in Ordonez are
similar to the claims raised in Brookler case.  Pursuant to a
motion filed by the Ordonez parties, the court recently granted a
Stipulation and Order to Stay Proceedings pending the decision of
the California Supreme Court in Brinker case.

The Company says the outcome of this case is uncertain and the
ultimate resolution of it could have a material adverse effect on
its consolidated financial statements in the period in which the
resolution is recorded.


SILVER LINING: Faces Class Action Over Alleged HOA Conspiracy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports that homeowners'
associations conspired to use straw purchasers to wrest control of
their boards of directors, and hired attorneys "who were also part
of the conspiracy" to file construction-defect lawsuits in which
co-conspirator contractors made inadequate repairs, a class action
claims in Clark County Court.

"Once the lawsuits were brought, defendants conspired to pay
construction contractors to make superficial repairs that did not
address the real underlying defects in the buildings," according
to the complaint.

Lead plaintiff Kimberly Karol sued 11 people, at least one
contractor, eight named HOAs, and other Roe HOA's, property
management companies and others.

Since 2006, defendants "set up a variety of corporations or
companies in order to purchase various units in the communities
known as Chateau Versailles, Sunset Cliffs, Palmilla, Vistana,
Terrasini, Chateau Nouveau, Park Avenue and Pebble Creek," the
complaint states.

"Co-conspirators would then transfer fractional interests to straw
purchasers in order to allow these purchasers to run for HOA board
elections."

The complaint states: "The straw purchaser defendants would then
run for election to the HOA board at their respective community,
and once elected, breached their fiduciary duty to the homeowners
by accepting from co-conspirators compensations, gratuities and
other remuneration that improperly influenced, or reasonably
appeared to influence, their decisions, resulting in a conflict of
interest.  After being elected to the board and accepting payments
from co-conspirators, the straw purchaser defendants then voted in
a manner directed by and favorable to the co-conspirators,
including voting to hire a law firm and construction company
designed by the co-conspirators to handle legal and construction
work at the condominium."

Defendants David Amesbury and his law firm "then gave access to
the supposedly 'legitimate' election ballots in order to further
the conspiracy and manipulate the outcome of the HOA board
elections," the complaint states.

The class claims the defendants manipulated votes to award
construction contracts to defendants Silver Lining Construction,
Platinum Community Services and a third unknown property
management company, and then "retain attorneys whom were also part
of the conspiracy."

The class claims that defendant attorney Nancy Quon "would then
litigate alleged construction defect suits against the contractors
responsible for building the defective buildings, then ultimately
attempted to settle out of court for millions of dollars."

Defendant Leon J. Benzer and Silver Lining Construction "would
then do very minor and superficial repairs on the home and
distribute the settlement money to other co-conspirators," the
complaint states.

The class claims the superficial repairs hurt homeowners' property
values "due to a combination of negative publicity, which left a
negative stigma on their properties, issues with the title of
their home, and the diminution of the values of their home by at
least 5 percent due to the instigation of frivolous construction
defect lawsuits."

Plaintiff Karol owns a condo in the community known as Vistana.
Co-plaintiff Louise Mumby owns a condo in the Chateau Nouveau
community.

Defendants Darryl Scott Nichols, Marcella Z. Triana, Angela
Esparza, Daniel J. Solomon and Steven Wark are accused of acting
as "straw purchasers" who ran for HOA board elections.

Defendants Mary Ann Watts, Deborah Genato and Denise Keser were
community and property managers for the various communities
accused of participating in the scheme, according to the
complaint.

Leon J. Benzer, a HOA board member, is accused of awarding
construction contracts to defendant Silver Lining Construction.

Plaintiffs seek punitive damages for conspiracy and negligence.

A copy of the Complaint in Karol, et al. v. Benzer, et al., Case
No. A-12-657729-C (NeV. Dist. Ct., Clark Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/09/HOAs.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew Q. Callister, Esq.
          Mitchell S. Bisson, Esq.
          CALLISTER + ASSOCIATES, LLC
          823 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Fifth Floor
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Telephone: (702) 385-3343
          E-mail: mqc@call-law.com


SONY BMG: Settles Class Action Over Digital Music Revenue
---------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that the
list of musicians suing major record labels over digital music
revenue has grown during the past few months.  At issue in these
cases is what musicians should get when a customer on a digital
outlet like iTunes buys a song or album.  Soon, in a breakthrough
case involving Eminem's producers, a trial will be held to
determine what damages look like when a court has determined that
digital downloads should be treated as a "license" instead of a
"sale," as many musicians argue is proper.

In the meantime, one case has just settled.  It's actually one of
the oldest cases on this front, a five-year battle between Sony
BMG and musicians including The Allman Brothers, Cheap Trick, and
The Youngbloods.  Here's the details on Sony's deal.

The attorney for the class of musicians revealed the settlement in
a filing on March 7.  According to the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement -- necessary and by no
means guaranteed -- Sony will pay its recording artists (and the
lawyers) a total $7.95 million to resolve outstanding claims in
the case.  The deal also provides for a 3 percent bump in artists'
royalty rates with respect to digital income.

A substantial portion of the pot, if approved, will go to artists
who had at least 28,500 total downloads off of Apple's iTunes.
The lawyers will take home more than $2.5 million of the
settlement money.  A small fraction has been set aside for artists
whose download levels weren't very significant.

Perhaps most crucial is who will be eligible to make a claim on
the money.  Class members include many older musicians whose
contracts were signed between 1976 and 2001, include clauses where
50 percent of net revenue is shared from licensed music, don't cap
net receipts paid, don't include express rates for digital
exploitation and were not later modified to entail digital
exploitation.

Is it a fair deal? Hard to say, but the plaintiffs in the case
originally requested at least $25 million in damages and pointed
out that artists such as The Youngbloods were getting 4.7 cents
for a 99 cent download when the plaintiffs believed it should be
in excess of 30 cents.  The types of artists eligible to make
claims and the 3 percent royalty bump for the bigger artists also
will guide the fairness calculus.

If the judge approves the deal, it will be legally binding on Sony
BMG musicians who qualify as class members unless they expressly
opt out.  That's important because there are many other lawsuits
pending over the issue of digital music exploitation, including a
recent one against Sony by Toto.  More lawsuits are expected to be
filed, too.  By making the deal, Sony could escape the future
legal wrath of many musicians.  The original suit estimated that
more than 100 class members were involved, but during the
litigation, several thousand smaller musicians also spoke up about
their own potential claims.

The deal comes after the plaintiffs' lawyer reports two years of
"extensive, intense settlement negotiations," with assistance from
a mediator and the named plaintiffs.

"We believe that the settlement is in the best interest of the
class," says Brian Caplan at Caplan & Ross, who represented the
plaintiffs.


SPIRIT AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Bogus "UCTDR" Fee
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Spirit
Airlines charges a bogus $2 "Unintended Consequences of Department
of Transportation Regulations" fee, which is "nothing more than a
profit-generating device," in Cook County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Newman v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., Case
No. 12CH08311 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/09/Airline.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry D. Drury, Esq.
          LARRY D. DRURY, LTD.
          100 North LaSalle St., Suite 1010
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 346-7950


STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA: Landowners File Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Thornton, writing for Minnesota Lawyer, reports that
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi filed a class action suit on
behalf of a group of landowners in North Dakota, claiming actions
by the North Dakota Board of University and School Lands, the
State of North Dakota, and the Commissioner of the Trust Lands
Department have deprived them of their mineral interests without
just compensation.  The suit claims the actions violate both the
U.S. Constitution and the North Dakota Constitution, as well as
North Dakota eminent domain statutes.

Under North Dakota property law, private owners of land along
rivers and lakes throughout the state take rights in that land to
the low water mark.  Individuals have purchased mineral interests
in land above the low water mark of waters in North Dakota with
the understanding that they own those mineral interests.

As oil and other minerals have been discovered in those lands,
companies have used horizontal and hydraulic fractured drilling to
access the oil.  The state has issued leases to private companies
to extract the oil regardless of the private ownership of the
mineral rights, the lawsuit claims and in doing so, the North
Dakota Board of University and School Lands has received millions
of dollars from leasing mineral interests it does not own.

Jan Conlin -- jmconlin@rkmc.com -- a partner at Robins, Kaplan,
Miller & Ciresi and former resident of Williston, is representing
the plaintiffs along with co-counsels Charles L. Neff of Neff
Eiken & Neff, in Williston, ND., Thomas J. Conlin --
tom@conlinlawfirm.com -- of the Conlin Law Firm, LLC in
Minneapolis and David Bossart of the Bossart Law Firm in Fargo.


STATE OF WISCONSIN: May Face Class Action Over Voter ID Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
WTMJ reports that four groups fighting against Wisconsin's voter
ID law could file a class action lawsuit.

While the NAACP and Voces de la Frontera argued their suit in
state court, the ACLU of Wisconsin already has a federal lawsuit
pending, and is now considering taking it one step further.

"One of the steps we could be taking this spring is to certify our
federal lawsuit as a class action suit," said Stacy Harbaugh of
the ACLU.  "We're both arguing that there's going to be a
disproportionate impact on minorities.  In a federal lawsuit under
the federal constitution we're hoping to continue the discussion
we started all the way up to the supreme court."

Meanwhile, the League of Women Voters has also filed a suit, in
state court.  "Our lawsuit argues that our legislature never had
the authority to enact this law," said Andrea Kaminski of the
League of Women Voters.

While Judge David Flanagan temporarily blocked the law, the
attorney general says he will fight to get it back on the books
for the April elections.

The state's Republican Party has filed a complaint against Judge
Flanagan.  Neither the ACLU nor the League of Women Voters thinks
the fact that Judge Flanagan signed a recall petition will affect
their case.

"Judges have first amendment rights so they can sign petitions
like that," said Stacy Harbaugh.

The League of Women Voters is asking for a similar temporary
injunction.  That case was set to be heard on March 9 by a
different Dane County judge.

The Gov. Walker administration plans to get the law back in time
for the April election.

Meanwhile, the attorney general's office hasn't filed that appeal
yet and a spokeswoman told TODAY'S TMJ4 they plan to file that
appeal this week.


STERLING FAMILY: Sued for Ignoring Fire-Safety Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that L.A.
Clippers basketball team owner Donald Sterling willfully ignored
fire-safety regulations at his "unsafe and dangerously maintained"
West Hollywood apartment building, three tenants claim in a
Superior Court class action.

"In an effort to save a few dollars," Mr. Sterling let fire alarms
and smoke detectors at his 54-unit multistory building fall into
disrepair, according to the complaint.

Lead plaintiffs Troy Robinson, Tina Ghods Djourabchi and Beth Fox
say Sterling then failed to take immediate action to fix the
system, even after a fire broke out.

The complaint names Donald T. Sterling dba Beverly Hills
Properties, his wife Rochelle Sterling, the Sterling Family Trust
and Does 1-100 as defendants.

"Despite the reality of the reckless and indifferent manner in
which 'defendants' own, operate and manage their 'properties,'
they run advertisements with weekly and sometimes daily frequency,
usually in the Los Angeles Times, touting their 'luxury
apartments' and '50,000 satisfied tenants,'" the complaint states.
"Defendant Sterling also seeks to promote his philanthropic
efforts by advertisements touting his purported philanthropy in an
effort to create good will in the community to enhance the image
of the 'properties.'  In truth, upon information and belief,
defendants' apartments are unsafe and dangerously maintained, and
defendant Sterling is a landlord who regularly overcharges for
rent, while secretly and unknown to the tenants, not conducting,
nor causing them to be conducted, required routine fire safety
equipment maintenance on the 'properties.'  Moreover, 'defendants'
have developed across the board, company wide practices and follow
said practices for the operation of the 'properties' that put
profit before the safety of their tenants; an integral part of
this plan involves intentionally refraining from complying with
fire safety laws and regulations and the inspections required by
law and regulation.  By engaging in said conduct the 'defendants'
can keep the cost of operating and managing the properties below
that of the competition that regularly comply with the fire safety
laws and regulations."

Beverly Hills Properties told Courthouse News that the lawsuit is
frivolous.

"All Beverly Hills Properties managed buildings are inspected and
have been maintained at the highest level for 50 years," house
counsel Douglas Walton said in an e-mail. "Its records and those
of third parties confirm that all fire regulations are complied
with, to the letter."

But the tenants say Mr. Sterling waited four weeks to inspect
faulty smoke detectors and fire alarms after a September 2009 fire
"caused serious personal injury and substantial property damage
losses."

"During this four-week time period, defendants falsely informed
tenants of the building that the premises were safe and habitable
when defendants knew the smoke detectors and fire alarm system was
not working rendering unsafe the occupancy of the building," the
complaint states.  "'Defendants' finally performed an inspection
of the building's fire and smoke alarm system on October 26, 2009.
This inspection uncovered widespread failure to comply of each and
every single piece of fire protection equipment-including alarms,
hoses and water pressure-at the building including the fact that
the mini-horn alarms were not working in 52 or the 54 apartments
within the building."

Then, after the inspection, it allegedly took another five months
to fix the system.

Tellingly, Philomena Wong, property director of Mr. Sterling's
Beverly Hills Properties, replied, "I don't know," when lawyers
asked her during a deposition if it was important to maintain a
fire-detection system, according to the lawsuit.  Ms. Wong is not
a named defendant.

This is not the first time Mr. Sterling has run into legal
troubles over his properties.

In late 2005, the Clippers owner paid $5 million to settle claims
that he drove blacks and Latinos out of his Koreatown apartments.

In 2009, Mr. Sterling settled with the Justice Department for more
than $2.7 million in a housing-discrimination case related to
apartments in the same neighborhood.

The Los Angeles Times reported that Mr. Sterling had said: "Black
tenants smell and attract vermin."

The class seeks exemplary and punitive damages for breach of the
warranty of habitability, tortious breach of warranty, violation
of the Business and Professions Code, and unjust enrichment.

Neither Messrs. Sterling nor Levine immediately responded to
requests for comment.

A copy of the Complaint in Robinson, et al. v. Sterling, et al.,
Case No. BC480447 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/09/Sterling.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Albert J. Gopin, Esq.
          Peter K. Levine, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER K. LEVINE
          5455 Wilshire Blvd Suite No. 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (323) 934-1234


SURGERYLOANS.COM INC: Faces Fraud Class Action in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
Juan G. Boyce and Tempestt M. Boyce, on behalf of themselves and a
class v. SurgeryLoans.com, Inc., doing business as
MedicalFinancing.com and MFC; Highlands Financial Services LLC;
Oak Rock Financial, LLC; Shape Cosmetic Surgery, LLC; and Dr.
Bhanoo Sharma, Case No. 2012-CH-08148 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
March 7, 2012) is brought to secure redress for the Defendants'
alleged unlawful credit practices, in violation of the Truth in
Lending Act, the Illinois Sales Finance Agency Act, and the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The Boyces, who sought a loan for cosmetic surgery, claim in their
class action that the online financing service nearly doubled the
amount of the loan request in the contract, and was not licensed
to make such a loan at all.

The complaint states: "In December 2011-January 2012, Mrs. Boyce
desired elective surgery procedures from Shape Cosmetic Surgery,
LLC.

"Shape Cosmetic Surgery, LLC offered to arrange financing.

"SurgeryLoans.com, Inc. authorized the disbursement of $4,320.48
to Shape Cosmetic Surgery, LLC, on account of such procedure."

The Boyces say SurgeryLoans.com "assists patients seeking cosmetic
or elective surgery with financing for their desired procedure."
It allegedly extends credit to more than 26 consumers per year.

But the Boyces say their loan documents contained some peculiar
language.

"In the 'retail installment contract,' the 'service provider' was
Dr. Sharma rather than Shape Cosmetic Surgery, LLC, even though
the disbursement is to Shape Cosmetic Surgery," the complaint
states.

It continues: "The 'amount financed on the TILA disclosures was
stated as $8,000, even though only $4,320.48 was disbursed to
Shape Cosmetic Surgery, LLC.

"The 'retail installment contract' did not contain a promise to
pay Dr. Sharma or Shape Cosmetic Surgery, LLC, as is appropriate
for a retail installment contract, but instead directed payment to
Highlands Financial Services, LLC, 7921 Southpark Plaza, Suite
108, Littleton, CO 80120 'or to the current assignee holding your
contract."

The assignment had Dr. Sharma assign his rights to
SurgeryLoans.com Inc., and SurgeryLoans.com, Inc., assign its
rights to Highlands Financial Services LLC.

"The 'retail installment contract' also provided for 'interest,'
although there is no 'interest' in a true retail installment
contract.  Only a loan has 'interest.'"

An addendum to the finance agreement "authorized SurgeryLoans.com,
Inc., or its assignee, in the event of default, to charge a credit
card or execute a 'shadow check' (also known as a telephone check)
on the consumer's bank account," the Boyces say.

The complaint continues: "Because of the ambiguous and
inconsistent nature of the documents, it is unclear whether the
'creditor' is Dr. Sharma, Shape Cosmetic Surgery, LLC, or
SurgeryLoans.com, Inc."

The Boyces add: "SurgeryLoans.com, Inc. has never been licensed to
make loans at over 9 percent or purchase retail installment
contracts by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional
Regulation."

Nor are Highlands Financial Services or Oak Rock Financial
licensed to make loans at more than 9 percent, the Boyces say.

They seek damages under the Truth in Lending Act, punitive damages
under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and injunctive relief under
the Sale Finance Agency Act.  They claim a lien upon defendants'
assets for at least one-third of damages sought.

Plaintiffs are husband and wife and residents of Cook County,
Illinois.

SurgeryLoans.com is a California corporation and uses the trade
names MedicalFinancing.com and MFC.  SurgeryLoans.com extends
credit to more than 26 consumers and documents transactions as
loans, in some as retail installment contracts, and in others as
revolving credit accounts.  Highlands Financial is a limited
liability company with its principal offices in Colorado.
Highlands Financial is the party to whom the promise to pay in the
"retail installment contract" signed by the Plaintiffs was
payable.  Oak Rock, a Delaware limited liability company,
purchases "retail installment contracts" and collects them from
consumers.  Shape Cosmetic is a limited liability company with
offices in Hazel Crest, Illinois.  Dr. Sharma is the principal of
Shape Cosmetic.

A copy of the Complaint in Boyce, et ux. v. SurgeryLoans.com,
Inc., et al., Case No. 12CH08148 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/09/Surgery.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com


WAL-MART STORES: Settlement in Retirement Suit Gets Final Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thom Weidlich, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Wal-Mart
Stores Inc., the largest U.S. private employer, and Merrill Lynch
(MER) won a judge's final approval to pay $13.5 million to settle
claims the retailer's employees were charged excessive 401(k)
fees.

U.S. District Judge Gary A. Fenner in Missouri approved the accord
at a hearing on March 7, according to the court docket.  Merrill
Lynch, the plan's trustee now part of Bank of America Corp., will
pay $10 million and Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal- Mart will pay
$3.5 million.

The docket entry said the "court orally grants motion for approval
of class action settlement" and "written order to be issued."

In 2009, a U.S. appeals court overturned Judge Fenner's decision
the previous year throwing out the suit.  Wal-Mart was accused in
the suit of failing to offer retirement plans that limit the
amount of fees and expenses that are charged when employees make
investments.

The complaint also included an allegation that the improper
administration of the plans cost participants more than $60
million.  The class-action, or group, lawsuit was filed by Wal-
Mart employee Jeremy Braden.

"We're pleased to have settled the matter," Greg Rossiter, a Wal-
Mart spokesman, said in a phone interview.

Bill Halldin, a spokesman for Charlotte, North Carolina- based
Bank of America, said the bank was pleased to resolve the case
"and continue to provide a high-quality plan for Walmart
employees."

Gretchen Obrist, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, didn't immediately
respond to an e-mail seeking comment.
The case is Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 08-cv-3109, U.S.
District Court, Western District of Missouri.


WELLS FARGO: Accused of Charging Improper Tax Service Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Ronald M. Gutierrez, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. d/b/a Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
and Wells Fargo Real Estate Tax Services, LLC, Case No. 3:12-cv-
01135 (N.D. Calif., March 7, 2012) accuses Wells Fargo of charging
the Plaintiff and the other class members "Tax Service Fee," even
though it provides no tax service.  The action is brought to
recover this alleged improperly assessed fee.

Mr. Gutierrez relates that the Tax Service Fee is collected by
Wells Fargo at the close of escrow to cover its costs of handling
payment of real estate taxes assessed on property financed by
loans it originated.  However, he asserts, about 10% of borrowers
with a Wells Fargo home loan directly pay their own real property
taxes, and that for these borrowers, including him and the class
members, Wells Fargo does not establish an escrow account for the
payment of taxes and does not pay the borrowers' real estate
taxes.  Nonetheless, he contends, Wells Fargo charges and collects
the Tax Service Fee from these borrowers, while providing no tax
service.

Mr. Gutierrez is a resident of San Francisco, California.  During
the class period, Wells Fargo issued two home loans to the
Plaintiff on his real property located at 514 4th Avenue, San
Francisco, California.

Wells Fargo markets, sells, and services residential home mortgage
loans throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Leslie E. Hurst, Esq.
          Paula M. Roach, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  lhurst@bholaw.com
                  proach@bholaw.com


* Price Gouging Bill May Spur More Movie Popcorn Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a New York
legal reform says the movie popcorn class action lawsuit that is
gaining headlines could be a preview of the state's class action
future if a pending bill passes the state Senate.

The class action lawsuit filed by Joshua Thompson of Michigan says
it is unfair for movie theaters to force patrons to buy their
food.  He filed the lawsuit after his local theater stopped
allowing outside food.

Mike Seinberg of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York wrote on
March 8 that the case reminds him of legislation pending in the
state Senate.  The Private Right of Action for Price Gouging bill
puts power currently held by the Attorney General's Office into
private individuals represented by trial lawyers.

The bill passed the state Assembly on March 7.

"If this legislation were to pass, a lawsuit could be brought
against a gas station inadvertently overcharging by $0.03 per
gallon of gas," Mr. Seinberg wrote.

"If they had 1000 customers who bought ten gallons of gas, they
would have inadvertently overcharged their customers by $300.
With this new law in place they could face $1,000,000.00 in
potential lawsuits."

The bill provides for a minimum recovery of $1,000 per plaintiff
and allow for an additional recovery of $5,000 per plaintiff if
the defendant is found to have committed a willful violation of
the law.

Mr. Seinberg says the bill doesn't clearly define price gouging
and relies on courts to define it on a case-by-case basis.

"If this power, designed for the Attorney General, got into the
hands of private attorneys, we could see a flood of lawsuits like
these hurting the business climate in our state," he wrote.


                           *********

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  * * *