CAR_Public/120315.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, March 15, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 53

                             Headlines

AIG: Judge Wants Witnesses in Securities Class Action Named
APPLE: Admits to Two Allegations in Ebook Antitrust Suit
BLUE SKY SODAS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Marketing
BP: Faces Issue Over Handling of Attorneys' Fees
BP: John Perry Named Mediator in Seafood Claims Settlement

C.R. BARD: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits
CBS CORP: Subsidiary Defends Consolidated Action on E-Books Sales
CBS CORP: Appeal on Dismissal of Securities Action Still Pending
CITY OF LOS ANGELES: DWP Settlement Payment Notices Sent Out
CMS ENERGY: Continues to Defend Gas Index Price Reporting Suits

COCA-COLA CO: Accused of Deceiving Simply Orange(R) Consumers
D.R. HORTON: Appeals NLRB Arbitration Ruling
EBAY INC: Sued in Calif. Over Undisclosed Optional Feature Fees
GOOGLE: Faces Class Action in Maryland Over Safari Web Browser
GREG MORTENSON: Montana AG to Release Charity Probe Results

IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Tobacco Class Action Gets Day in Court
LAKE COUNTY FIELDERS: Stadium Announcer Mulls Class Action
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Still Defends New York Securities Class Action
LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Regions Bank Ordered to Unveil Accounts
LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Hires PR Firm for Crisis Communication

PENGUIN GROUP: Seeks Enforcement of Arbitration in Ebook Suit
POWERCOR: Bushfire Class Action Settlement Nears
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Misrepresents Basis for UCDTR Fee, Suit Claims
STRAYER EDUCATION: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Kinnett" Suit
SYNAPSE GROUP: Third Circuit Dismisses Class Action

TELETRACK: Class Action Over Consumer Credit Reports Can Proceed
TOBACCO COMPANIES: Smoker's Family Gets $41-Mil. Compensation
TRAVELZOO INC: Consolidated Class Complaint Filed in January
UNIT CORP: Appeal From Certification Order Still Pending
UNITED STATES: Veteran Groups Mull Suit v. Over Chemical Tests

WATTS WATER: Faces Class Action Over Defective Toilet Connectors
WELLS FARGO: 7th Cir. Enforce Rights Under HAMP Trial Plans
WIVENHOE DAM: Flood Victims Mull Class Action; Meetings Set
YUM BRANDS: Awaits Ruling on Certification Bid in "Smith" Suit
YUM BRANDS: Court Grants Conditional Cert. in "Whittington" Suit

YUM BRANDS: Discovery on Class Motion in "Moeller" Suit Ongoing
YUM BRANDS: Obligations Under LJS Suit Settlement Paid
YUM BRANDS: "Hines" Wage and Hour Suit Still Stayed in Calif.
YUM BRANDS: Taco Bell Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suit
YUM BRANDS: Taco Bell Filed Response in "Rosales" Suit on Feb. 8

YUM BRANDS: Trial in Consolidated "RGM" Suit Began on Feb. 15


                          *********

AIG: Judge Wants Witnesses in Securities Class Action Named
-----------------------------------------------------------
The American Lawyer reports that a federal judge has ordered
plaintiffs in the sprawling consolidated securities fraud
litigation against AIG and others to fork over the names of three
confidential witnesses, rejecting arguments that the disclosure
would reveal confidential attorney work product and place a chill
on securities litigation.


APPLE: Admits to Two Allegations in Ebook Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Ed Oswald, writing for BetaNews, reports that while Apple and book
publishers may find themselves on the precipice of an antitrust
lawsuit from the Justice Department, filings in a concurrent civil
class-action lawsuit obtained by BetaNews indicate that Apple has
already admitted to two of the most damaging allegations in the
case that the federal government is likely to include.

According to a March 8 report by The Wall Street Journal, at the
heart of the case is the agreement struck with publishers which
changed the way ebooks are sold to retailers.  This in turn caused
prices to increase dramatically, critics argue.  Apple is also
accused of further controlling the market through a clause in its
own contract for iBooks that forbade publishers from permitting
competitors to sell books at a cheaper price than the iBookstore.

Statements by Apple's lawyers in the civil case in an attempt to
have it dismissed seem valid in light of the possible Justice
Department action.  The Cupertino, Calif. company has already
admitted to the central facts of the case, which could strengthen
the government's position should Apple lose in civil court,
although it attempts to argue its decisions, were for competitive
and financial reasons.

                 Apple Didn't Want to Lose Money

In the complaint against Apple, lawyers for the plaintiffs detail
meetings between the publishers and Apple ahead of the iPad
launch.  Apple agreed to adopt a model where the publisher sets a
price and Apple receives a 30 percent cut, called "agency
pricing".  The plaintiff's attorneys argue that previous to
Apple's entrance, ebooks were sold at wholesaler and the retailer
itself set the price.

"Apple knew that if Amazon were allowed to continue to solidify
its position in the ebook market, these network effects would make
it nearly impossible for Apple to dislodge Amazon in the near
term", the filing reads.

Apple responds to these allegations by admitting that meetings did
occur between the two parties, however, the company entered the
market with zero market share and sales. It made a conscious
business decision not to lose money on the sale of ebooks and
agreed to agency pricing as a result.

"It would make perfect sense as a rational and competitive
business strategy for Apple not to enter as a retailer incurring
losses, but instead as an agent on commission with a competitive
offering -- which is exactly what the agency agreements negotiated
by Apple accomplished", Apple responds.

                      'Most Favorite Nation'

While that argument might be sufficient to appease an antitrust
judge, where the picture gets cloudier is the clause in which
Apple essentially forced the publishers to renegotiate its
contracts with competing retailers.  Called "most favorite nation"
status, the practice is coming under increasing fire from
antitrust regulators who see it as anticompetitive.

"The effect of the MFN Clause . . . was to increase prices and
reduce competition for the ebooks of the Publisher Defendants",
the plaintiff's filing reads in part.  "This resulted in
increasing and stabilizing ebook prices and eliminated competitive
pricing".

Apple admits to using the strategy in its filing, but pushed it
back on the publishers.  "The agency agreements left it to each
Publisher to set its eBook prices based on competition among the
various book titles, with a proviso that if certain eBooks were
being sold at a lower retail price elsewhere, the Publisher would
match those prices at Apple's iBookstore", the filing argues.

In the end, that doesn't answer the concerns of the Justice
Department and antitrust regulators that the MFN clauses are
anticompetitive, and begins to build the case that Apple may have
played a part in "fixing" the price of e-books.

           Settling Out of Court May Be The Wisest Move

With Apple all but admitting to what it's being accused of, the
bar is higher to prove that its actions are not illegal.
Especially in the area of MFN clauses, Apple is already fighting
from a position that government antitrust regulators have already
attempted to have invalidated in other antitrust cases. Such a
case is also likely to be lengthy and damaging to Apple's
reputation among consumers, should it occur.

Another certainty is with the amount of regulatory scrutiny, ebook
prices look likely to fall some.  Publishers are obviously more
apt to avoid an antitrust suit, which could have the undesirable
effect of these companies losing control over the pricing of its
content.  Settling out of court would allow them to maintain some
control over pricing.  In the end, that appears to be what the
publishers want.


BLUE SKY SODAS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Marketing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Griswold, writing for KOB.com, reports that soda drinkers in
New Mexico could receive some money as part of a class action
lawsuit against Blue Sky Sodas.

Blue Sky Sodas is accused of deceptive marketing by trying to
accuse people the product is made in Santa Fe.

At one point Blue Sky was made in New Mexico, but it was purchased
in 2000 by Hansen's Natural Corp., which later changed its name to
Monster Beverage Corp.

The California based company is accused of using Santa Fe imagery
to sell Blue Sky.

The lawsuit seeks a 50 percent refund for people who purchased
Blue Sky between May 20022 and June 2006.


BP: Faces Issue Over Handling of Attorneys' Fees
------------------------------------------------
David Hammer, writing for The Times-Picayune, reports that BP
could agree to pay attorneys' fees and costs for class-action
plaintiffs, "over and above the claimants' recoveries," according
to lawyers who recently struck a settlement in principle with BP
over the 2010 Gulf oil spill.  In a summary of the settlement
proposal, a committee of plaintiff lawyers sent mixed signals
about how the important issue of attorneys' fees will be handled.

On the one hand, they said BP and the negotiating plaintiffs "have
not had any fee discussions to date and will not have any such
discussions until authorized to do so by the court."

On the other hand, in the very next sentence, the plaintiff
lawyers said, "The parties contemplate that such discussions will
result in an agree to pay attorneys' fees and costs for the common
benefit of the class as part of the settlement, over and above the
claimants' recoveries, subject to court approval."

The reason for the apparent contradiction in the statement is that
it's unethical to discuss specific legal fees and court costs when
striking such a class-action settlement, but BP made it clear that
it would pay for legal fees and court costs in addition to
economic loss and medical claims, said Stephen Herman, co-lead
counsel for the settlement class.

The plaintiffs' statement went on to explain that claimants who
hired specific attorneys to prepare, submit and establish their
specific claims may still have to pay fees.

BP spokesman Scott Dean declined to comment on the plaintiffs'
interpretation of the settlement terms.

The issue of attorneys' fees is critical because opponents of the
settlement have complained that it was a fee grab by the
plaintiffs' steering committee.  Those committee lawyers had
already succeeded in getting U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier to
order 6 percent of out-of-court settlements since Dec. 30 to be
held back for a plaintiffs' common benefit fund.

But it will be up to the court to decide in the end if those fees
should be paid by BP or taken out of the claimants' payments.

"It is our hope that the funds currently in the holdback account
will be returned to claimants," Mr. Herman said.

BP's estimate that the settlement would cost $7.8 billion already
includes its legal costs.  The settlement is actually an uncapped
agreement and the company has agreed in principle to pay all
legitimate claims as approved and calculated by a new court-
monitored administrator, even if they end up exceeding $7.8
billion.


BP: John Perry Named Mediator in Seafood Claims Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
David Hammer, writing for The Times-Picayune, reports that in the
BP oil spill case, a key component of the proposed class-action
settlement between private plaintiffs and BP is a $2.3 billion
set-aside for seafood claims, the only part of the settlement
that's capped.  That's what BP is willing to pay to compensate
commercial fishing vessel owners, captains and deckhands, as well
as oyster leaseholders and harvesters.

The seafood program will not include processing, use or sales of
seafood.  The $2.3 billion is the only set amount within a larger
proposed settlement that BP estimates will cost it $7.8 billion.
But the details of how seafood program claims will be processed
and calculated are still being worked out.

With that in mind, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier named a Baton
Rouge mediator, John W. Perry Jr., to preside over the negotiation
of remaining details for the seafood program.

In his curriculum vitae, Mr. Perry says he has been mediating for
17 years and is "recognized as a leading authority on the process
and application of alternative dispute resolution."  He has served
as a mediator, arbitrator or special master in more than 4,000
cases since 1995.


C.R. BARD: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits
------------------------------------------------------
C.R. Bard Inc. continues to defend itself in numerous product
liability lawsuits, the Company disclosed in its February 23,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

As of February 16, 2012, approximately 1,923 federal and 1,378
state lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 3,452
plaintiffs, as well as two putative class actions in the United
States and four putative class actions in various Canadian
provinces, have been filed or asserted against the Company with
respect to its Composix(R) Kugel(R) and certain other hernia
repair implant products (collectively, the "Hernia Product
Claims").  One of the U.S. class action lawsuits consolidates 10
previously filed U.S. class action lawsuits.  The putative class
actions, none of which has been certified, seek (i) medical
monitoring, (ii) compensatory damages, (iii) punitive damages,
(iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation and/or (v)
attorneys' fees.  Approximately 1,358 of the state lawsuits,
involving individual claims by a substantially equivalent number
of plaintiffs, are pending in the Superior Court of the State of
Rhode Island, with the remainder in various other jurisdictions.
The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek damages for personal
injury resulting from use of the products.  The company
voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the Composix(R)
Kugel(R) products beginning in December 2005.

In June 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") transferred Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits pending in
federal courts nationwide into one Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island.  The MDL court
subsequently determined to include other hernia repair products of
the company in the MDL proceeding.  The first MDL trial was
completed in April 2010 and resulted in a judgment for the company
based on the jury's finding that the company was not liable for
the plaintiff's damages.  The second MDL trial was completed in
August 2010 and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff of $1.5
million.  On June 30, 2011 the company announced that it had
reached agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms
to settle the majority of its existing Hernia Product Claims.
Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including
requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a
certain minimum number of plaintiffs.  In addition, the company is
engaging in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding
potential resolution of unsettled Hernia Product Claims, and
intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims that do not
settle, including through litigation.  Additional trials are
scheduled throughout 2012.  Based on these events, the company
incurred a charge of $184.3 million ($180.6 million after tax) in
the second quarter of 2011, which recognized the estimated costs
of settling all Hernia Product Claims, including asserted and
unasserted claims, and costs to administer the settlements.  The
charge excludes any costs associated with pending putative class
action lawsuits.  The company cannot give any assurances that the
actual costs incurred with respect to the Hernia Product Claims
will not exceed the amount of the charge together with amounts
previously accrued. The company cannot give any assurances that
the resolution of the Hernia Product Claims that have not settled,
including asserted and unasserted claims and the putative class
action lawsuits, will not have a material adverse effect on the
company's business, results of operations, financial condition
and/or liquidity.

As of February 16, 2012, product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 532 plaintiffs have been filed
or asserted against the Company in various federal and state
jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use
of certain of the Company's surgical continence products for
women, principally its Avaulta(R) line of products (collectively,
the "Women's Health Product Claims"). The Women's Health Product
Claims generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from
use of the products.  With respect to certain of these claims, the
Company believes that one of its suppliers has an obligation to
defend and indemnify the company.  In February 2012, the JPML
expanded the scope of and renamed the MDL pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
to include lawsuits involving all women's surgical continence
products that are manufactured or distributed by the company.  In
total, approximately 411 of the Women's Health Product Claims are
pending in federal courts and have been or will be transferred to
the MDL in West Virginia, with the remainder of the Women's Health
Product Claims in other jurisdictions.  The Company expects the
first trial of a Women's Health Product Claim to take place in the
second quarter of 2012.  While the Company intends to vigorously
defend the Women's Health Product Claims, it cannot give any
assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

As of February 16, 2012, product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 48 plaintiffs have been filed
or asserted against the Company in various federal and state
jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use
of the Company's vena cava filter products.  In addition, a
putative class action lawsuit has been filed against the Company
in California state court on behalf of plaintiffs who are alleged
to have no present injury (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Filter
Product Claims").  The putative class action, which has not been
certified, seeks: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) punitive damages;
(iii) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (iv)
attorneys' fees. The Company expects certain trials of Filter
Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months. While the
Company intends to vigorously defend the Filter Product Claims, it
cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

In most product liability litigations of this nature, including
the Hernia Product Claims, the Women's Health Product Claims and
the Filter Product Claims, plaintiffs allege a wide variety of
claims, ranging from allegations of serious injury caused by the
products to efforts to obtain compensation notwithstanding the
absence of any injury.  In many of these cases, the Company has
not yet received and reviewed complete information regarding the
plaintiffs and their medical conditions, and consequently, is
unable to fully evaluate the claims.  The Company expects that it
will receive and review additional information regarding the
unsettled Hernia Product Claims, the Women's Health Product
Claims, the Filter Product Claims and related matters as these
cases progress.

The Company believes that many settlements and judgments, as well
as legal defense costs, relating to product liability matters are
or may be covered in whole or in part under its product liability
insurance policies with a limited number of insurance carriers. In
certain circumstances, insurance carriers reserve their rights
with respect to coverage, or contest or deny coverage, as has
occurred with respect to certain claims.  When this occurs, the
Company intends to vigorously contest disputes with respect to its
insurance coverage and to enforce its rights under the terms of
its insurance policies, and accordingly, may record receivables
with respect to amounts due under these policies, when
appropriate.  Amounts recovered under the Company's product
liability insurance policies may be less than the stated coverage
limits and may not be adequate to cover damages and/or costs
relating to claims. In addition, there is no guarantee that
insurers will pay claims or that coverage will otherwise be
available.

In connection with the Hernia Products Claims, the Company is in
dispute with one of its excess insurance carriers relating to an
aggregate of $25 million of insurance coverage.  Regardless of the
outcome of this dispute, the company's insurance coverage with
respect to the Hernia Product Claims has been depleted.

No updates were reported in the Company's latest annual results
filing with the SEC.

Founded in 1907 and headquartered in Murray Hill, New Jersey,
C. R. Bard, Inc. -- http://www.crbard.com/-- and its subsidiaries
design, manufacture, package, distribute, and sell medical,
surgical, diagnostic, and patient care devices worldwide.  The
Company markets its products to hospitals, individual healthcare
professionals, extended care facilities, and alternate site
facilities.


CBS CORP: Subsidiary Defends Consolidated Action on E-Books Sales
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation's subsidiary is defending itself against a
consolidated class action complaint relating to e-books sales,
according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

Commencing on August 9, 2011, purported class action complaints
have been filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California regarding the sale of
electronic books pursuant to agency distribution arrangements. On
August 16, 2011, a motion was filed with the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel") by
certain parties seeking to consolidate these actions for pre-trial
proceedings in one venue.  On December 9, 2011, the MDL Panel
issued an order consolidating the actions in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  On January
20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint with the court against Apple Inc., Hachette Book Group,
Inc., HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., Macmillan Publishers, Inc.,
Penguin Group (USA) Inc. and the Company's subsidiary, Simon &
Schuster, Inc.  The plaintiffs, electronic book purchasers, allege
that, among other things, the defendants are in violation of
federal and/or state antitrust laws in connection with the sale of
electronic books pursuant to agency distribution arrangements
between each of the publishers and electronic book retailers.  The
actions generally seek multiple forms of damages for the purchase
of electronic books and injunctive and other relief.  Simon &
Schuster intends to vigorously defend itself in these actions.  In
addition, certain federal and state governmental entities in the
United States and the competition authority in the European
Community are conducting competition investigations of agency
distribution arrangements in this industry and Simon & Schuster is
cooperating with these competition investigations.

Founded in 1986 and headquartered in New York, CBS Corporation --
http://cbscorporation.com/-- together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a mass media company in the United States and
internationally.  The company is composed of an Entertainment
segment, a Cable Networks segment, a Publishing segment, a Local
Broadcasting segment, and an Outdoor segment.


CBS CORP: Appeal on Dismissal of Securities Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal challenging the dismissal of an amended class securities
action by The City of Omaha, Nebraska Civilian Employees'
Retirement System and The City of Omaha Police and Fire Retirement
against CBS Corp. has yet to be ruled on by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 23, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On December 12, 2008, the City of Pontiac General Employees'
Retirement System filed a self-styled class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer, Chief
Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, and Treasurer,
alleging violations of federal securities law. The complaint,
which was filed on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between February 26, 2008 and October 10,
2008, alleges that, among other things, the Company's failure to
timely write down the value of certain assets caused the Company's
reported operating results during the Class Period to be
materially inflated. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory
damages. On February 11, 2009, a motion was filed in the case on
behalf of The City of Omaha, Nebraska Civilian Employees'
Retirement System, and The City of Omaha Police and Fire
Retirement System (collectively, the "Omaha Funds") seeking to
appoint the Omaha Funds as the lead plaintiffs in this case; on
March 5, 2009, the court granted that motion.  On May 4, 2009, the
plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which removes the Treasurer
as a defendant and adds the Executive Chairman.  On July 13, 2009,
all defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action.  On March
16, 2010, the court granted the Company's motion and dismissed
this action as to the Company and all defendants.  On April 30,
2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to serve an amended
complaint.  On September 23, 2010, the court issued an order
granting leave to amend.  On October 8, 2010, the Company was
served with an Amended Complaint, which redefines the Class Period
to be April 29, 2008 to October 10, 2008 and alleges that the
impairment charge should have been taken during the first quarter
of 2008.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss this Amended
Complaint on November 19, 2010.  On May 24, 2011, the court
granted the motion to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of
defendants on May 25, 2011.  On
June 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Founded in 1986 and headquartered in New York, CBS Corporation --
http://cbscorporation.com/-- together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a mass media company in the United States and
internationally.  The company is composed of an Entertainment
segment, a Cable Networks segment, a Publishing segment, a Local
Broadcasting segment, and an Outdoor segment.


CITY OF LOS ANGELES: DWP Settlement Payment Notices Sent Out
------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Pamer, writing for Daily Breeze, reports that a class-
action lawsuit recently settled by the city of Los Angeles shows
that some residents of multifamily buildings have been overcharged
trash fees for years.

In some cases, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power was
billing customers $24 or $36 per month for municipal trash pickup
even when tenants' apartment complexes used private waste haulers,
not city sanitation services.

The City Council in December approved a settlement that could
refund as much as $6 million to more than 8,400 affected
customers.  Residents overcharged for the entire four years and
four months -- the time period covered by the settlement -- could
be owed more than $1,200.

"The city had a very bad billing system that it wasn't keeping up
to date and, as a result, there were many, many, many errors
made," said attorney Timothy Blood, who represented tenants in the
lawsuit.  "Unfortunately, when they made errors, they tended to
charge people."

Notices about the settlement went out to many DWP customers in
recent weeks.  Customers can submit claim forms to ensure they get
paid for overcharges from October 2007 through last month.

Meanwhile, city officials say many have already been reimbursed.
And work is being done now to fix the problem, which had to do
with two separate systems used by DWP, which issues bills with
city trash fees, and the Bureau of Sanitation, which actually
provides the waste service.

"Our systems are incompatible with each other.  That's just the
bottom line," said Cora Jackson-Fossett, a spokeswoman for the
sanitation bureau.

"It's not our desire to overcharge anybody," she added.  "We're
working to resolve concerns."

Deputy City Attorney John Carvalho, one of two lawyers who
defended the city in the lawsuit, said that DWP field workers had
incorrectly inputted codes for sanitation services while at
customers' homes.  So some apartments were labeled single-family
homes, meaning tenants were charged $36.22 per month for trash
service, instead of the $24.33 monthly multifamily rate.

Other apartment-dwellers were inputted as Bureau of Sanitation
customers -- and charged either the multifamily or higher single-
family rate -- even though the city didn't pick up their trash at
all.

The Bureau of Sanitation provides trash pickup to all single-
family homes and apartment buildings with four or fewer units in
Los Angeles.  Some larger complexes are also served by the city,
but most use private waste haulers.

DWP spokesman Joe Ramallo said the utility acts as "solely a
billing agent" that collects and delivers trash fees for the
Bureau of Sanitation.

"The Department of Public Works Bureau of Sanitation is the
responsible party for matters related to its Solid Resource Fee,
including charging and refunding.  . . .  LADWP has no discretion
over setting the amount of trash fees or determining refunds,"
Mr. Ramallo said in a written statement.

Mr. Blood blames both agencies.

"They say it's each other's fault, but I would say it's both of
their faults," Mr. Blood said.  "They were sending out the bills
without worrying if the information is accurate."

News of the overcharges was met with frustration from
organizations representing both renters and apartment owners.

"Tenants have a hard enough time paying the rent, let alone having
to pay charges that they're not responsible for," said Larry
Gross, executive director of the Coalition for Economic Survival,
a tenants' rights group.

Mr. Gross praised the settlement as a victory for renters.

The lawsuit was filed in 2010 after Hollywood resident Lilith
Chakhalyan noticed that she and other elderly tenants in her
building were being charged for trash service, even though their
complex was privately serviced.

The city has thus far determined that about 8,400 of 750,000
trash-service customers were mischarged, Mr. Carvalho said.

In court, the city sought to use a municipal statute that would
have limited the amount of refunds to just one year of overcharges
per affected customer, attorneys for both sides said.

In settlement talks, the sides agreed to cover more than four
years' worth of overcharges, though the problem might have been
going on for much longer.

In 2000, the city settled a much smaller lawsuit for similarly
overcharging for trash fees, Mr. Blood said.  Unlike that
agreement, the current settlement mandates improvements to city
databases, among other changes to try to end billing
discrepancies.  DWP and the Bureau of Sanitation are also required
to hold regular meetings to jointly resolve billing problems.

"There are a lot of corrective measures that the city is going to
engage to make sure the problem is limited down to, hopefully,
nobody," Mr. Carvalho said.  "Hopefully, if you've had a bill for
anything, hopefully, you check it.  Mistakes are made.  Humans are
not infallible."


CMS ENERGY: Continues to Defend Gas Index Price Reporting Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corporation continues to defend itself in the Gas Index
Price Reporting Litigation, according to the Company's February
23, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

CMS Energy, along with CMS Marketing, Services and Trading
Company, CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and
Cantera Gas Company, are named as defendants in various lawsuits
arising as a result of alleged inaccurate natural gas price
reporting to publications that report trade information.
Allegations include manipulation of NYMEX natural gas futures and
options prices, price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade, and
artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in Colorado,
Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin.

  * In 2005, CMS Energy, CMS MST, and CMS Field Services were
named as defendants in a putative class action filed in Kansas
state court, Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et al. The
complaint alleges that during the putative class period, January
1, 2000 through October 31, 2002, the defendants engaged in a
scheme to violate the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act. The
plaintiffs are seeking statutory full consideration damages
consisting of the full consideration paid by plaintiffs for
natural gas allegedly purchased from defendants.

* In 2007, a class action complaint, Heartland Regional Medical
Center, et al. v. Oneok, Inc. et al., was filed in Missouri state
court alleging violations of Missouri antitrust laws. Defendants,
including CMS Energy, CMS Field Services, and CMS MST, are alleged
to have violated the Missouri antitrust law in connection with
their natural gas reporting activities.

* Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC and BBD Acquisition Co.
v. Oneok, Inc., et al., a class action complaint brought on behalf
of retail direct purchasers of natural gas in Colorado, was filed
in Colorado state court in 2006.  Defendants, including CMS
Energy, CMS Field Services, and CMS MST, are alleged to have
violated the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992 in connection with
their natural gas reporting activities.  Plaintiffs are seeking
full refund damages.

* A class action complaint, Arandell Corp., et al. v. XCEL Energy
Inc., et al., was filed in 2006 in Wisconsin state court on behalf
of Wisconsin commercial entities that purchased natural gas
between January 1, 2000 and October 31, 2002.  The defendants,
including CMS Energy, CMS ERM, and Cantera Gas Company, are
alleged to have violated Wisconsin's antitrust statute.  The
plaintiffs are seeking full consideration damages, plus exemplary
damages and attorneys' fees.  After dismissal on jurisdictional
grounds in 2009, plaintiffs filed a new complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. In 2010, the
MDL judge issued an opinion and order granting the
CMS Energy defendants' motion to dismiss the Michigan complaint on
statute-of-limitations grounds and all CMS Energy defendants have
been dismissed from the Arandell (Michigan) action.

* Another class action complaint, Newpage Wisconsin System v. CMS
ERM, et al., was filed in 2009 in circuit court in Wood County,
Wisconsin, against CMS Energy, CMS ERM, Cantera Gas Company, and
others. The plaintiff is seeking full consideration damages,
treble damages, costs, interest, and attorneys' fees.

* In 2005, J.P. Morgan Trust Company, in its capacity as Trustee
of the FLI Liquidating Trust, filed an action in Kansas state
court against CMS Energy, CMS MST, CMS Field Services, and others.
The complaint alleges various claims under the Kansas Restraint of
Trade Act. The plaintiff is seeking statutory full consideration
damages for its purchases of natural gas in 2000 and 2001.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases described were
transferred to the MDL.  CMS Energy was dismissed from the
Learjet, Heartland, and J.P. Morgan cases in 2009, but other CMS
Energy defendants remained parties.  All CMS Energy defendants
were dismissed from the Breckenridge case in 2009.  In 2010, CMS
Energy and Cantera Gas Company were dismissed from the Newpage
case and the Arandell (Wisconsin) case was reinstated against CMS
ERM.  In July 2011, all claims against remaining CMS Energy
defendants in the MDL cases were dismissed based on FERC
preemption.  Plaintiffs have filed appeals in all of the cases.
The issues on appeal are whether the district court erred in
dismissing the cases based on FERC preemption and denying the
plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their complaints to add a
federal Sherman Act antitrust claim.  The plaintiffs did not
appeal the dismissal of CMS Energy as a defendant in these cases,
but other CMS Energy entities remain as defendants.

These cases involve complex facts, a large number of similarly
situated defendants with different factual positions, and multiple
jurisdictions.  Presently, any estimate of liability would be
highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's possible loss would
be based on widely varying models previously untested in this
context.  If the outcome after appeals is unfavorable, these cases
could have a material adverse impact on CMS Energy's liquidity,
financial condition, and results of operations.

Founded in 1987, CMS Energy Corporation -- http://cmsenergy.com/-
- through its subsidiaries, operates as an energy company
primarily in Michigan.  The company operates in three segments:
Electric Utility, Gas Utility, and Enterprises.


COCA-COLA CO: Accused of Deceiving Simply Orange(R) Consumers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Yee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Simply Orange Juice Company and The Coca-Cola Company, Case No.
3:12-cv-01170 (N.D. Calif., March 8, 2012) is a proposed class
action against the Defendants for misleading consumers about the
nature of their citrus juice products, including Simply Orange(R)
and Simply Grapefruit(R) beverages.

During a period of time from March 9, 2008, to the present, the
Defendants engaged in a widespread marketing campaign to mislead
consumers about the nature of the Products, Mr. Yee asserts.
Specifically, he contends, the Defendants made the misleading
statements on their Simply Orange product that it is "Simply
Orange," "100% Pure Squeezed," and "NOT FROM CONCENTRATE."
Unfortunately for consumers, the Products are not pure, natural,
or fresh, and such claims are false and misleading and are
designed to deceive consumers into purchasing the Products, he
alleges.

Mr. Yee is a resident of San Francisco, California.  In deciding
to purchase the Product, he asserts that he relied upon the
statements that the Product was pure, natural, and fresh.

Simply Orange Juice Company is a Florida-based company, and its
parent, Coca-Cola, is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
in Atlanta, Georgia.  Coca-Cola owns and retails the Simply Orange
brand of products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN LLP
          875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reeserichman.com


D.R. HORTON: Appeals NLRB Arbitration Ruling
--------------------------------------------
Michael P. Tremoglie, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
National Labor Relations Board has ruled that requiring employees
to sign arbitration agreements that contain clauses prohibiting
employees from pursuing class or collective actions is a violation
of federal labor law.

The Jan. 3 ruling has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit, New Orleans, La.

The NLRB stated that the agreement used by "nationwide homebuilder
D.R. Horton, requiring employees to waive their right to a
judicial forum and bring all claims to an arbitrator individually
was unlawful."  This prevented employees from engaging in
"concerted activity" an activity protected by the National Labor
Relations Act.

The agreement prohibited the arbitrator from consolidating claims,
fashioning a class or collective action, or awarding relief to a
group or class of employees -- also violations.

The NLRB says it found that the employees' rights in the NLRA were
prohibited by Horton's contract and therefore invalid.  But the
NLRB did emphasize its ruling did not require class actions.  It
merely wanted an agreement making group claims available.  The
NLRB mandated that Horton rescind or revise its employee contract.
It said the company needs to clarify to employees they are not
waiving their right to pursue a class or collective action in all
forums.

One of the issues mentioned by the NLRB in its ruling was that of
the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of AT&T v. Concepcion.
This landmark case has implications for the future of class action
litigation.

Concepcion involved a California state law that contracts barring
class actions were unconscionable.  The USSC held that the Federal
Arbitration Act preempted California's state law and permitted the
clause in the AT&T contract to prohibit a class action.  The USSC
essentially interpreted the ability of the Federal Arbitration Act
to preempt attempts by states to regulate arbitration.

But the NLRB said that the Concepcion case does not apply to them.
Concepcion dealt with a state law being preempted by a federal
law.  The NLRB believes, as a federal entity, its rulings cannot
be preempted by the FAA.

Some have concurred with NLRB because Concepcion is strictly a
matter of a state law squaring with a federal law.  The purpose of
the FAA is to enforce arbitration.  State laws that impose
something inconsistent to arbitration will be preempted.

Andrew Pincus is a partner in the law firm of Mayer Brown,
Washington, D.C.  He argued the Concepcion case before the Supreme
Court.  He has a great deal of experience in arbitration cases in
appellate and trial courts.

He wrote recently in Bloomberg Law, "Does the Supreme Court's
landmark decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion -- holding
that arbitration clauses may not be invalidated on the ground that
they contain class-action waivers apply only when the underlying
cause of action is based on state law? That is what a panel of the
Second Circuit concluded earlier this month in In re American
Express Merchants' Litigation, a ruling that is the subject of a
pending petition for rehearing en banc."

Mr. Pincus said that federal courts are upholding the validity of
class action waivers.  They have done so in more than forty cases.

Professor Hiro Aragaki of the Loyola University Law School, Los
Angeles, believes that the Supreme Court erred in Concepcion.  He
said during an interview, ". . . the (in my view misguided)
holding in Concepcion that class actions are fundamentally
incompatible with arbitration makes it harder to claim that there
is any less of an incompatibility when the source of the class
action is federal rather than state law.

"But technically, there is a difference: when the conflict is with
another federal statute, the conflict is not so clearly resolved
in favor of the FAA.  We also don't have that many precedents for
determining how conflicts between the FAA and other federal laws
should be resolved."

Christopher Drahozal, a professor at the University of Kansas Law
School, said the Horton case is a federal-federal conflict rather
than a federal-state conflict as is Concepcion.

"The case seems to turn on the definition of "concerted activity"
under the NLRA," he said in an interview.

But as Mr. Pincus wrote about in the American Express case -- the
Second Circuit panel's ruling will not be the last word.

"A review of its reasoning indicates why other courts are likely
to disagree with its conclusion that Concepcion is irrelevant to
the enforceability of a class waiver in the context of federal
claims," he said.

Horton and many others wait to see if the NLRB ruling will be
reversed by the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court -- and if it will be
appealed to the Supreme Court.


EBAY INC: Sued in Calif. Over Undisclosed Optional Feature Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that eBay charges sellers who list
stuff with mobile devices for "upgrades that they did not ask for
and were not told about," a woman claims in a federal class
action.

A copy of the Complaint in Keirsey v. eBay, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-
01200 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/12/eBay.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith R. Verges, Esq.
          Parker D. Young, Esq.
          Raymond E. Walker, Esq.
          FIGARI & DAVENPORT, L.L.P.
          901 Main Street, Suite 3400
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 939-2000
          E-mail: kverges@figdav.com
                  parker.young@figdav.com
                  ray.walker@figdav.com

               - and -

          Shawn T. Leuthold, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SHAWN T. LEUTHOLD
          1671 The Alameda #303
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 924-0132
          E-mail: leuthold@aol.com


GOOGLE: Faces Class Action in Maryland Over Safari Web Browser
--------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that two sets of plaintiffs in
the District of Columbia and Maryland have filed complaints in
federal court against Google, accusing the company of unlawfully
tracking users' activity through the Safari Web browser.  The
class actions are among at least 10 similar cases filed against
Google since mid-February.


GREG MORTENSON: Montana AG to Release Charity Probe Results
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gwen Florio, writing for Helenair.com, reports that the Montana
Attorney General's Office will release the results of its
investigation into the charity run by "Three Cups of Tea" author
and mountaineer Greg Mortenson by the end of the month.

"No matter what happens in the next few weeks, we will definitely
have an answer," said spokesman John Doran.

That probe into whether Mr. Mortenson benefited from donations to
his Central Asia Institute -- which builds girls' schools in
Afghanistan and Pakistan -- is winding down amid new filings in an
unrelated lawsuit that names CAI, Mortenson and his MC Consulting
firm, "Three Cups" co-author David Oliver Relin and publisher
Penguin Group.

The class-action suit alleges Mr. Mortenson made up parts of the
best-selling autobiography that recounts his getting lost during
an excursion to K2 and spending time in a remote Pakistani village
whose people inspired him to build a school.  And it accuses him
of "hatching a scheme" to use the books to raise money for CAI,
and then spending some of that money on himself.

The suit seeks reimbursement for the estimated 4 million people
who bought "Three Cups of Tea" and its sequel, "Stones Into
Schools."

Last month, plaintiffs Dan Donovan, a Great Falls attorney, former
teacher Deborah Netter of Illinois, and George and Susie Pfau
argued that the Mortenson case is "stunningly similar" to one
involving James Frey's "A Million Little Pieces."  Mr. Frey's
best-selling memoir turned out to have been largely made up.

Chicago attorney Larry Drury was involved in that case, which
settled out of court, and also is one of the attorneys in the
"Three Cups of Tea" suit.

Penguin responded that any comparisons to that case were
"irrelevant and misleading."

"The AMLP litigation was a nuisance action brought to extract an
early, easy and nominal settlement for the class and a large fee
award for the plaintiffs' attorneys," according to its response.

The settlement originally demanded by the plaintiffs in that case
would have seen a payout of $41.25 million, it said.  But only
about 1,345 people sought reimbursements for the book, "a mere
0.03 percent of the potential 3.5 million claims based on book
sales -- for a total claimed amount of no more than $50,000.
Meanwhile the AMLP attorneys walked away with nearly $800,000."

On March 6, the plaintiffs sought judicial notice "that an
agreement exists between Penguin, Mortenson and Relin, and that
Mortenson and Relin represented and warranted to Penguin,
apparently at Penguin's demand, that 'all statements asserted as
facts (in the books) are based on the author's careful
investigation and research for accuracy.'"

Judicial notice means the court accepts a widely known fact as
true without evidence being introduced to support it.

The "Three Cups of Tea" lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court
in Missoula because one of the original plaintiffs, state Rep.
Michele Reinhart, lives here.  Ms. Reinhart has since dropped out
of the case, citing the demands of law school.

U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy recused himself because he'd
bought the book and discussed it with family members, and also
attended a lecture by Mr. Mortenson.

The case was reassigned to U.S. District Judge Sam Haddon in Great
Falls.


IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Tobacco Class Action Gets Day in Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Sidhartha Banerjee, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
in Montreal in the country next door, tobacco companies have been
convicted in a landmark racketeering case and been forced because
of other lawsuits to pay out at least US$206 billion over a
quarter-century -- a sum bigger than the annual GDP of most
countries.

The legal skies have been somewhat less stormy here than in the
United States.

But that could change this week.

A class-action lawsuit from smokers who claim they were duped for
years by big tobacco companies as they became addicted to
cigarettes, then suffered from serious health problems, will have
its day in court.

Canada's three largest tobacco companies are set to square off
against a group of Quebec smokers in a landmark civil case that is
considered the biggest in Canadian history, with up to $27 billion
in damages and penalties at stake.

The battleground will be a Montreal courtroom and the defendants
are Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.; Rothmans, Benson & Hedges; and
JTI-Macdonald.

The case will mark the first time tobacco companies have gone to
trial in a civil suit in this country -- stemming from two cases
that were filed in 1998, certified and consolidated in 2005 by
Quebec Superior Court, and marked by motions, delays and appeals.

One suit filed by a Quebec anti-tobacco group on behalf of
Jean-Yves Blais seeks $105,000 in compensatory and punitive
damages for smokers who suffered from cancer in their lungs,
larynx or throat, or emphysema or have developed it since the
motion.

Forced to have part of a lung removed because of cancer in 1997,
Mr. Blais has smoked for 57 years and continues to this day.  That
suit was initially worth $5.1 billion.

"I've tried (to quit) five or six times in the last 14 years,"
Mr. Blais said in an interview at his home near Montreal, but he
said some of the remedies triggered depression.  "I smoke a little
more than one package a day -- maybe 30 cigarettes a day."

Mr. Blais began smoking at age 10.  He says it wasn't until the
1970s that he started hearing how harmful it could be.

The other suit, worth $17 billion, was filed by Cecilia Letorneau
on behalf of the province's roughly 1.8 million smokers who were
addicted to nicotine and remained addicted or have died since
without quitting.  Ms. Letorneau, according to the claim, started
smoking at age 19 in 1964.  Despite her repeated attempt to quit,
she said she's unable to do so.  That suit seeks $10,000 in
compensatory and punitive damages per plaintiff.

Since so much time has elapsed since those original filings, the
anti-tobacco lobby believes the amounts sought have changed
accordingly, to between $25 and $27 billion.

The allegations in the cases are similar: that the tobacco
industry knew full well the effect of its products for years but
failed to warn consumers; that it underestimated evidence relating
to the harmful effects of tobacco; and that it engaged in
unscrupulous marketing and destroyed documents.

Francois Damphousse of the Non-Smokers' Rights Association's
Quebec branch says that while the trial will probe actions of the
past, one of the goals is to get the tobacco industry to change
its behavior in the future.

"The tobacco industry knew very well the problems that were caused
by their products . . . but they withheld that information,"
Mr. Damphousse said.

"We don't want them to mislead the public about the hazards of
their products and we also want them to stop misleading the public
about the danger of their products (in the future)."

When the class actions were given the go-ahead by the presiding
judge, Justice Pierre Jasmin, he identified a number of issues
that needed to be considered.

Those questions included whether the companies trivialized the
risks of smoking, or denied them altogether.  Was there a policy
of non-disclosure? Did they intentionally jeopardize the health of
the plaintiffs?

The allegations are all vehemently denied by the companies.

The companies say the health risks associated with smoking are
well known and have been exhaustively documented by governments
and public-health officials.  They say the companies have complied
with government legislation and directives, such as adding big
graphic labeling to packages.

A representative of one of the three companies -- Rothmans, Benson
& Hedges -- said in an interview that there was no conspiracy.

"This case is not about whether cigarettes are harmful or
addictive, clearly they are," said Chris Koddermann, director of
corporate affairs for RBH, in an interview.

"What this case is about is whether Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
misled smokers and former smokers in the province of Quebec about
the health risk of smoking and the difficulty of quitting once you
begin.

"We think it's clear we did not."

Mr. Koddermann says no consumer product is as heavily regulated as
the cigarette industry and the risks associated with smoking have
been common knowledge for years.

He points to government surveys and stories in the media as early
as the 1950s that suggest the risks were common knowledge.

The case is expected to centre on the testimony of numerous
experts, former executives and lawyers.  Millions of pages of
documents are part of the evidence.

High-profile witnesses are also expected to testify including
Jeffrey Wigand, a former tobacco-executive-turned-whistleblower
portrayed by Russell Crowe in the movie "The Insider".

Also expected to testify is Simon Potter -- a former president of
the Canadian Bar Association who represented Imperial Tobacco in
the past -- about alleged destruction of documents.

All of it will provide a view into what goes on inside the
industry.

"There has to be some justice and truth that comes out so that the
public can really understand the scope of the conspiracy,"
Mr. Damphousse said.

"People are going to learn a lot about the behavior of the
industry through this."

Barring any last-minute delays, the case was set to begin on
March 12 in Quebec Superior Court before Justice Brian Riordan.
But it's only the beginning.  After the plaintiffs make their
case, the defendants won't start theirs until 2013.  Eventual
appeals are inevitable at the end.

The federal government is being pursued as a defendant in warranty
-- like a third-party defendant.  The industry says that if it
loses, the companies will seek to recover damages from the federal
government.

The federal government will defend itself during the trial and
deny any liability.

One other civil case that has been certified stems from a 2003
filing in British Columbia, involving light and mild cigarettes.

A trial date hasn't been set in that case and others filed
elsewhere in Canada are nowhere near trial.  The Quebec case took
more than 13 years to make it before a judge after delays, motions
and appeals.

"The most difficult thing is for a class-action is to get
certified and get to court and in this case it has," said
Rob Cunningham, senior policy analyst for the Canadian Cancer
Society.

"It can be expensive and time-consuming to sue the industry and
that's the benefit of a class-action where a large number of
individuals can pool their resources."

Separately, provinces are also seeking the right to pursue tobacco
companies to recoup health-care costs.  Four provinces have filed:
British Columbia, Ontario, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and
Labrador.  The six others have announced their intention to file.

In the United States, the tobacco industry has resolved legal
actions by the states aimed at recovering tobacco-related health-
care costs under the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement.

That agreement, signed in 1998, calls on the companies to pay a
minimum of US$206 billion over the first twenty-five years of the
agreement.  In 2006, the U.S. government won a racketeering suit
against the major tobacco companies.

None of the cases involving the Canadian provinces have yet gone
to trial.


LAKE COUNTY FIELDERS: Stadium Announcer Mulls Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Sagendorph, writing for Grayslake Patch, reports that
Grayslake resident Greg Koeppen won his lawsuit against the Lake
County Fielders, a local baseball team owned by actor Kevin
Costner and entrepreneur Rich Ehrenreich.  He wants to spearhead a
class action lawsuit against the failed team.

The Lake County Fielders, a minor league baseball team based in
Zion, fell short on many of its promises to the community,
players, and even its public address stadium announcer Greg
Koeppen.

Mr. Koeppen filed suit in December against the Lake County
Fielders including team owner Rich Ehrenreich and actor Kevin
Costner for back wages he was owed as team public address
announcer during the 2011 baseball season.

He won his legal challenge before the Lake County Circuit Court
system against the team after Mr. Ehrenreich repeatedly refused to
attend court hearings, Mr. Koeppen said in a statement.  The most
recent summons was served to Mr. Ehrenreich by Lake County
Sheriff's officers at his home in Deerfield.

"This court victory wasn't so much about getting the money I was
owed, but more to show the Fielders organization, Rich Ehrenreich
and actor Kevin Costner that you can't come into a community like
Lake County with a dog and pony show yet refuse to payout money to
those who earned it," says Mr. Koeppen.

"The Lake County Field of Dreams has turned into a field of
nightmares for so many of us," said Mr. Koeppen.

"At the 12th hour, Rich attempted to try and settle this lawsuit
out of court promising he would pay me if I would keep the
settlement confidential from the media and not make any negative
comments to the media or in public about the Fielders
organization.  That request didn't even warrant a reply based on
the numerous written responses I have from Rich promising to pay
nor was he going to take away my right to speak publically about
the team and embarrassment he made of it not only locally but
throughout the baseball world," says Mr. Koeppen.

"While I am happy the judge ruled in my favor, the victory is
bittersweet.  Never in my wildest dreams did I think I would find
myself in a courtroom suing a baseball team partially owned by
actor Kevin Costner to get back payment for something I love
doing," said Mr. Koeppen.

He believes other lawsuits are coming.

"It's my hope former and current Fielders employees and players
follow my lead and file a lawsuit against Rich Ehrenreich, Kevin
Costner and the Fielders in Lake County Circuit Court.  I would
also encourage season ticket holders and sponsors who do not
believe the Fielders lived up to their agreements to file suit as
well," says Mr. Koeppen.

"I am currently working to compile a list of those individuals who
are still owed money as I hope to spearhead a class action lawsuit
against the team in hopes others receive the money they are owed,"
Mr. Koeppen said.  "If individuals or businesses are owed money, I
hope they will contact me."

"There are so many college students, high school kids, players and
even single parents owed thousands of dollars from Mr. Ehrenreich
and the Fielders not to mention the $340,000 owed in back rent to
the City of Zion and $43,251 owed to the Peoria Charter Coach
Company for player transportation for the 2010 season," he said.

"Ehrenreich, Costner and the Fielders need to be sent a clear
message from Lake County residents and the business community.  We
will not support nor tolerate individuals coming into our
community with promises, payments and plans they can't fulfill.
Rich Ehrenreich and Kevin Costner, you are not welcome in Lake
County," says Mr. Koeppen.

Mr. Koeppen would love to return to the press box should another
owner bring a team to Lake County.  "It was a fun experience.  I
loved working behind the microphone.  I made so many friends from
around the United States while doing it and even housed a player I
continue to stay in contact with," adds Mr. Koeppen.

Mr. Koeppen has worked for many major clients in the Chicagoland
area voicing radio and television commercials.

As for the money, Mr. Koeppen anticipates he will have to file a
citation of discovery to get paid or go after the Fielder's bank
account.  "When I receive payment, I plan to donate a portion of
it to the Ryan & Jenny Dempster Family Foundation and the Kerry
Wood Family Foundation," says Mr. Koeppen.

The Dempster Family Foundation was started by Chicago Cubs pitcher
Ryan Dempster and his wife Jenny that lends support to charities
and organizations supporting children with 22q11.2 deletion
(DiGeorge Syndrome/VCFS) through monetary grants, programs and
increased community awareness.  The Wood Family Foundation started
by Cubs pitcher Kerry Wood, works to improve the lives of children
in and around Chicago by raising funds and awareness for
children's charities and the causes they support.  It raises funds
through events, sponsorships and donations.


LOCKHEED MARTIN: Still Defends New York Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lockheed Martin Corporation continues to defend itself in a class
action lawsuit filed by the City of Pontiac General Employees'
Retirement System on behalf of purchasers of Lockheed's common
stock, according to the Company's February 23, 2012 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On July 20, 2011, the City of Pontiac General Employees'
Retirement System filed a class action lawsuit against the Company
and three of its executive officers (Robert J. Stevens, Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer, Bruce L. Tanner, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, and Linda R. Gooden,
Executive Vice President, IS&GS) in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  The complaint was filed on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from April 21,
2009 through July 21, 2009 and alleges that the Company violated
certain sections of the federal securities laws by allegedly
making statements, primarily about the then-expected performance
of our IS&GS business segment, that contained either false
statements of material facts or omitted material facts necessary
to make the statements made not misleading, or engaged in other
acts that operated as an alleged fraud upon class members who
purchased the Company's common stock during that period.  The
complaint further alleges that the statutory safe harbor provided
for forward-looking statements does not apply to any of the
allegedly false statements.  The complaint does not allege a
specific amount of monetary damages.  The Company believes that
the allegations are without merit and are defending against them.

No updates were reported in the Company's latest annual results
filing with the SEC.

Lockheed Martin Corporation is a global security company and
engages in the research, design, development, manufacture,
integration, and sustainment of advanced technology systems and
products.


LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Regions Bank Ordered to Unveil Accounts
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a judge has removed another
legal hurdle for policyholders of Louisiana Citizens Property
Insurance Corp. trying to collect more than $100 million for the
company's failure to handle claims quickly enough following the
2005 hurricanes.

The ruling late on March 6 gives Regions Bank 10 days to tell
plaintiff attorneys in the class-action lawsuit how much of
Citizens' money the bank is holding, said Richard Robertson, chief
executive of the state's property insurer of last resort.

A state district judge rejected a contention by Citizens and
Regions Bank that the original seizure request should have made in
Baton Rouge, rather than in Jefferson Parish.  Mr. Robertson said
the bank now has 10 days to reveal how much of Citizens' money it
has and what accounts the money is in.

"The seizure has not been consummated.  It will not be for at
least 10 more days," Mr. Robertson said on March 7.

Citizens has lost all appeals of a $92.8 million judgment in favor
of about 18,500 policyholders claiming the company did not begin
to adjust their claims for damage from hurricanes Katrina and Rita
within the 30 days required by state law.  Another 6,500 Citizens
policyholders have pending claims.

Since the original decision, the bill has grown to about $105
million with judicial interest.

Citizens has made several offers to reach a settlement that would
cover all 25,000 policyholders with claims.  The latest called for
the insurer to pay $103 million with a cap of $25 million on
attorney fees.  Plaintiff attorneys rejected the offer, saying
those fees should be determined by a court.

The seizure process involves the bank turning over the money to
the Jefferson Parish sheriff and then to the court for supervision
before the judge decides how to distribute the money.

The governing board of Citizens was scheduled to meet on
March 9.

"I'm sure this will be discussed at the next board meeting,"
Mr. Robertson said.

Lead plaintiff attorney Wiley Beevers said his side could have
begun seizing funds on Jan. 29.

"But we waited, offering a bit of a cooling off period to reach an
out-of-court settlement, and though we think it was productive to
a point, it's been 35 days and we were under no obligation to
wait," Mr. Beevers said.  "The longer Citizens waits, the more
money they are costing the company and the longer our clients have
to wait."

Citizens is considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which
has denied an emergency stay to block the seizure.  The high court
does not have to agree to hear the case.


LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Hires PR Firm for Crisis Communication
----------------------------------------------------------
Ed Anderson, writing for The Times-Picayune, reports that the
board that governs the state's insurer of last resort on March 9
hired a public relations firm for "crisis communication" issues
for one year at $36,000.  Without objection, officials of the
Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp. ratified the
March 1 hiring of The Ehrhardt Group of New Orleans to devise
"crisis and-or emergency communications media relations services."
The contract runs through Feb. 28, 2013.

Vice President Ron Eaton said the hire was made because Citizens
needs to improve "our natural disaster plan" for communications.
Citizens President and Chief Executive Officer Richard Robertson
said the company will be used to expedite communications with the
media and the public in emergencies.  "We have to be able to get
our message out in times of storms," he said.  "The best way to do
it is to get someone who has done it in the past."

The firm has worked on a contract basis with other state agencies.
The Citizens board met behind closed doors for an hour to discuss
litigation, including a class-action lawsuit in which the insurer
has been ordered to pay $92.8 million in damages to more than
18,000 policy holders who say Citizens did not adjust their claims
quickly after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Since the judgment was awarded in 2009 and appeals were taken by
the agency, the legal interest of $10,200 a day has pushed the
total owed to $104 million.

Citizens in late February offered a $102.8 million settlement to
more than 25,000 policy holders, including some 7,000 who are not
now part of the class-action lawsuit.  However, the board capped
the attorneys' fees at $25 million, a major drawback in the
negotiations with the plaintiffs' lawyers.

Citizens officials said after the closed discussion on March 9
that the plaintiffs' lawyers have formally rejected the offer.
Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon, whose office oversees
Citizens, said there is "no offer on the table" now.

He said negotiations are still possible but Citizens is exploring
other options, including asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review
the state court rulings upholding the $104 million judgment.
Mr. Donelon said other action is also being explored, including
possibly offsetting the lawsuit in the legislative session that
opens Monday at noon or other state court action. He declined to
be more specific to avoid "telling the other side what we are
doing."

Fred Herman, one of the lead attorneys in the class action, titled
Geraldine Oubre et al., v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan, said he
is "not hopeful" negotiations will resolve the issue.  He said
that no more talks have been scheduled.

Mr. Herman said that Citizens has not designated anyone to be a
point person to continue discussions or have the authority to
craft a settlement without going to the full board.

"It has been 35 days since we began the seizure process" of taking
assets of Citizens to pay the plaintiffs, Mr. Herman said.  "We
deferred that to give negotiations a chance to bear fruit . . . We
have a valid seizure order, and they haven't accepted overtures in
getting together" to talk and reach a settlement.

Mr. Herman said the plaintiffs will probably push the seizure of
Citizens' assets to satisfy the judgment, a process that could be
completed this week or two.  Citizens has indicated it will fight
the seizure.


PENGUIN GROUP: Seeks Enforcement of Arbitration in Ebook Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Roberts, writing for paidContent.org, reports that Penguin
Group, one of the "Big 5" publishers caught up in a lawsuit over
e-book pricing, says customers agreed not to sue them when they
turned on their Nook and Kindle devices.

The publisher, in a memo filed last week, claims that the device
owners signed an agreement -- much like a phone contract -- in
which they accepted that any disputes will go to an arbitrator,
not to court.

These "no lawsuit" contracts gained traction last year after a
divided Supreme Court agreed that phone giant AT&T could force
consumers to waive their rights to sue.

The contracts help companies stamp out expensive class action
lawsuits and instead force consumers to take up grievances on a
one-to-one basis.

In the case of e-books, class action lawyers are claiming that
five publishers entered a conspiracy with Apple that forced Amazon
to change its pricing system.  The Justice Department has
threatened to sue the alleged conspirators for violating the
Sherman Act while European regulators have launched a similar
investigation.

Penguin's legal strategy is a bold one.  The publisher is trying
to step into the shoes of Amazon and Barnes & Noble since the
retailers won't trigger the arbitration provision themselves (in
fact, the retailers are probably cheering on the consumers).

Penguin says it should benefit from the arbitration clause because
it is "linked textually" to the retailers' Terms of Service -- the
contract that people click "yes" to when they first turn on their
device.

For legal types, here is how Penguin sums up its argument:

"In short, plaintiffs' Complaint manifests that plaintiffs
consented to arbitrate when they purchased eBooks and entered into
arbitration agreements with the disclosed sales agents of the
Publishers."

The requirement to arbitrate is not iron-clad.  To ensure the
clause is legal, companies must also let customers sue them in
small claims court.  A California man made the news last month
when he did so -- and won -- against AT&T last month.

Penguin provided the following statement:

"Both Barnes & Noble and Amazon terms of sale contain express
waivers by the customer of the right to seek a class action and
require the customer to instead litigate his/her complaint in
arbitration.  Since B&N and Amazon are our agents, these TOS
protect us, too.  We've moved the court hearing the private class
actions to enforce the arbitration clauses and dismiss the class
claims."


POWERCOR: Bushfire Class Action Settlement Nears
------------------------------------------------
Jono Pech, writing for The Standard, reports that proposed class
action settlement for victims of the Coleraine bushfire on Black
Saturday will likely be finalized in the Supreme Court later this
month.

About 30 south-west claimants are expected to be paid compensation
for loss of income, property and livestock after a live conductor
wire broke from a pole and ignited nearby tree branches,
triggering wider fires on February 7, 2009.

Warrnambool solicitor Brendan Pendergast --
bfp@maddenslawyers.com.au -- of Maddens Lawyers, is leading the
action for Coleraine victims as well as a claim for victims at
Beechworth, Horsham and Pomborneit.

About 750 victims could be eligible to share in an estimated $300
million in compensation for the fires.

Madden's Lawyers has posted a notice of proposed settlement on its
Web site, stating once losses have been assessed, Powercor will
pay compensation equal to 55 per cent of the assessed value, plus
interest calculated in accordance with the "penalty interest"
rates applicable under the Supreme Court Act.  The interest rates
have run at more than 10 per cent annually over the period since
February 2009.

Mr. Pendergast said across Coleraine, Beechworth, Horsham and
Pomborneit, class action payments would exceed $100 million, with
several million dollars paid out to Coleraine victims.

"The settlement has been approved at Horsham and they're rolling
out an assessment of the losses presently," Mr. Pendergast said.
"There are 219 people registered in the Horsham class, and we
expect in excess of 30 people registered at Coleraine.

"You'd always like to achieve more compensation but with any
litigation there are risks for both sides and significant cost
implications if you proceed and are unsuccessful.

"The 55 per cent plus interest is within the range of a proper
outcome."

Mr. Pendergast said the Pomborneit trial was fixed in September
and would be the last of the four settlements, with the Coleraine
matter fronting the Supreme Court at Hamilton on March 29.


SPIRIT AIRLINES: Misrepresents Basis for UCDTR Fee, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harlene Newman, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 2012-CH-08311 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
March 8, 2012) arises from the alleged deceptive and unlawful
practice of Spirit in misrepresenting the basis and reasons for
its "Unintended Consequences of Department of Transportation
Regulations," which it charged to Plaintiff and consumers under
the guise of a fee imposed by the Government upon the consumer.

Rather, the UCDTR Fee was nothing more than a profit-generating
device for Spirit, Ms. Newman alleges.  She contends that Spirit's
conduct in this regard is deceptive and unfair in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud & Deceptive Business Practices Act, and is
a breach of contract.

Ms. Newman is a resident of the state of Illinois.

Spirit, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Miramar, Florida.  Spirit is an airline that claims to
"empower customers to save money on air travel by offering ultra
low base fares with a range of optional services for a fee,
allowing customers the freedom to choose only the extras they
value."

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
          E-mail: ldrurylaw@aol.com


STRAYER EDUCATION: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Kinnett" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Strayer Education, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit, 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.

From time to time, the Company is involved in litigation and other
legal proceedings arising out of the ordinary course of its
business.  On October 15, 2010, a putative securities class action
styled Kinnett v. Strayer Education, Inc., et al., was filed in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.

On January 3, 2012, the U.S. Magistrate Judge to whom the
Company's April 19, 2011 motion to dismiss was referred,
recommended that the court grant the motion and dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a securities law violation.

On April 4, 2011, a shareholder derivative action alleging similar
facts was filed in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia,
which action was stayed on June 27, 2011, pending resolution of
the motion to dismiss in the securities class action lawsuit.

The Company believes these lawsuits to be without merit and will
contest them vigorously.  While the outcome of any legal
proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company does
not expect that these matters will have a material effect on its
financial condition or results of operations.


SYNAPSE GROUP: Third Circuit Dismisses Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Law Journal reports that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has killed a would-be class action
against Synapse Group, a Time Inc. subsidiary that is the largest
marketer of magazine subscriptions in the U.S.  Former subscribers
who say they were deceived into buying automatic renewals have no
standing to sue if they can't show likelihood of future harm, the
court held.


TELETRACK: Class Action Over Consumer Credit Reports Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a credit-
reporting company that specializes in the high-risk market must
face claims that it sold consumers' personal information, a
federal judge ruled.

Teletrack sells consumer credit reports to businesses, such as
payday and high-interest lenders, rental-purchase stores, and no-
prime auto lenders.  Its clients use the reports to determine
whether and how to provide consumers with credit.

Businesses provide Teletrack with personal information about the
consumer they want to investigate, including the individual's
name, home address, Social Security number, phone number and date
of birth.

The lawsuit claims, however, that Teletrack compiles this personal
information into a database and illegally sells the information to
third parties.

Teletrack paid $1.8 million last year to settle claims by the
Federal Trade Commission that this conduct violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

Danita Henry, Terrence Flowers, Alonzo Patterson and Andre Jones
contend that they each obtained a payday or high-interest loan
within the past few years, and that now marketers have their
information.  They say they received solicitations from other
payday or high-interest lenders as well as calls demanding
payments for loans that they did not obtain, and claim that these
solicitations are a result of Teletrack's disclosure of their
personal information.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Coleman refused to dismiss last week,
finding that the plaintiffs have established standing to bring a
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claim.

"The FCRA statute does not authorize suits by the public at large,
but instead, creates an individual right not to have unlawful
practices occur with respect to one's own consumer reports,"
Judge Coleman said.  "Therefore, there is a connection between the
individual plaintiffs and the violation alleged such that, the
plaintiffs have adequately alleged an individual injury in fact
under the FCRA."

Furthermore, "assuming as we must at this stage that plaintiffs'
allegations are true, the plaintiffs constitute a class of people
who were customers of Teletrack and who were likely to be included
in Teletrack's marketing lists," the eight-page decision states.

"Further, plaintiffs have received unsolicited phone calls from
third parties presumed to be customers of Teletrack.  A reasonable
inference can be made that these unsolicited phone calls were the
result of Teletrack furnishing plaintiffs' personal information to
third parties, in violation of the FCRA."

"To establish standing at this stage, a plaintiff need only show
that the injury is 'fairly traceable' to the conduct alleged," the
judge concluded.  "Plaintiffs have done so here."

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion in Henry, et al. v. Teletrack,
Inc., Case No. 11-cv-04424 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/12/Teletrack.pdf


TOBACCO COMPANIES: Smoker's Family Gets $41-Mil. Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Business Review reports that a Miami jury has added $25
million in punitive damages to a $16 million compensatory award to
the family of a smoker who died at 59 of lung cancer.  The case is
one of the Engle progeny cases flowing from a Florida Supreme
Court decision disbanding a statewide class of sick smokers suing
cigarette makers.


TRAVELZOO INC: Consolidated Class Complaint Filed in January
------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated and amended class action complaint was filed in
January 2012 against Travelzoo Inc. and its officers and
directors, 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 August 9, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Tomlinson v. Travelzoo Inc., et al., was commenced against the
Company and certain former and current officers and directors.
Another putative class action lawsuit, Steamfitters Local 449
Pension Fund v. Travelzoo Inc., et al., was also filed in that
court and asserted substantially similar claims against the same
defendants.  Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), the two putative class action lawsuits were
consolidated and a lead plaintiff was selected.

On January 6, 2012, a Consolidated and Amended Class Action
Complaint was filed.  The complaint asserts claims under Section
10(b) and 20(a) pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("Exchange Act") alleging that between March 16, 2011, and
July 21, 2011, the Company and/or the individual defendants
purportedly issued materially false and misleading statements.  In
particular, the complaint asserts, among other things, allegations
challenging certain statements relating to the Company's growth.
The complaint also makes allegations regarding the Company's
Getaways business and asserts that certain officers and directors
sold stock while in possession of materially adverse non-public
information.

The Company says the action seeks unspecified damages and the
Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses
that could potentially result from the action.  The Company
believes that the action is without merit and intends to defend
the lawsuits vigorously.


UNIT CORP: Appeal From Certification Order Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Unit Corporation's appeal from an order certifying a class action
lawsuit filed by royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and
spacing units remains pending, according to the Company's
February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen
Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly,
Melody Culberson and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs in the
case titled Panola Independent School District No. 4, et al., v.
Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-07-215, District Court of Latimer
County, Oklahoma, and are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling
and spacing units for which the Company's exploration segment
distributes royalty.  The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that
the company's exploration segment has underpaid royalty
obligations by deducting post-production costs or marketing
related fees.  Plaintiffs also seek to pursue the case as a class
action on behalf of persons who receive royalty from the Company
for its Oklahoma production.  The Company has asserted several
defenses including that the deductions are permitted under
Oklahoma law.  The Company has also asserted that the case should
not be tried as a class action due to the materially different
circumstances that determine what, if any, deductions are taken
for each lease.  On December 16, 2009, the trial court entered its
order certifying the class.  The Company has appealed the trial
court's order.  It is not currently known when the appeal will be
acted on by the Oklahoma Appellate courts.  Adjudication of the
merits of the Plaintiffs' claims is stayed until the appeal of the
class certification order is decided.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest annual
report.

Unit Corporation -- http://www.unitcorp.com/-- is a contract
drilling company.  Its operations are conducted through its
subsidiaries, Unit Drilling Company, Unit Petroleum Company and
Superior Pipeline Company, L.L.C (Superior).  Unit Drilling
Company is engaged in drilling onshore oil and natural gas wells
for others and for the Company's own account.  Unit Petroleum
Company is engaged in the exploration, development, acquisition
and production of oil and natural gas properties for the
Company's own account (oil and natural gas), and Superior
Pipeline Company, L.L.C. buys, sells, gathers, processes and
treats natural gas for third parties and for its own account
(mid-stream).  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, Unit acquired
interests in approximately 60,000 net undeveloped acres in the
Marcellus Shale Play.


UNITED STATES: Veteran Groups Mull Suit v. Over Chemical Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stars and Stripes reports that three veterans groups are seeking
class-action status for a lawsuit they filed in 2009 against the
Defense Department, the CIA and the Army on behalf of thousands of
soldiers who participated in research programs at Edgewood Arsenal
and Fort Detrick, the trade publication U.S. Medicine reported.

The lawsuit alleges that chemical and biological weapons were
tested on soldiers, that the military failed to provide follow-up
care for the symptoms they developed, and that nearly all
disability claims related to the tests have been denied.

CNN reported about the tests earlier this month, prompting some
former soldiers to share their experiences with the network.  One
was given sarin gas and its antidotes, along with other injections
that remain a mystery, and later was found to have made damage to
his heart.  Another developed Parkinson's disease that he blames
on the numerous injections and pills he was given at Edgewood; he
was never told what they contained.

According to U.S. Medicine, the lawsuit seeks no monetary damages,
but would require the military to notify the test participants
what chemicals they were exposed to, as well as the doses and
methods of administration. It would also require the federal
government to provide healthcare for veterans suffering from
diseases related to the tests.


WATTS WATER: Faces Class Action Over Defective Toilet Connectors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Watts Water Technologies' and others' flexible plumbing toilet
connectors fail, causing catastrophic water damage to property.

A copy of the Complaint in Trabakoolas, et al. v. Watts Water
Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-01172 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/12/Plumb.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
          BERMAN DE VALERIO
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          E-mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com
                  tseaver@bermandevalerio.com

               - and -

          Simon Bahne Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
          One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
          1650 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-3986
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com
                  ckocher@smbb.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
          Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          650 Northstar East
          608 Second Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  mlooby@gustafsongluek.com


               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Anthony D. Shapiro, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  tony@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          E-mail: jeff@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 203
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          E-mail: elain@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Donald L. Perelman, Esq.
          Gerard A. Dever, Esq.
          FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, 28th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          E-mail: dperelman@finekaplan.com
                  gdever@finekaplan.com


WELLS FARGO: 7th Cir. Enforce Rights Under HAMP Trial Plans
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edelson McGuire disclosed that in a landmark decision that
promises hope for millions of distressed homeowners across the
Country, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit has held that borrowers have enforceable rights under
their Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP") Trial Plan
Agreements. Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Appeal No. 11-1423
(7th Cir. Mar. 7, 2012).

Reversing the dismissal of a putative class action complaint
challenging Wells Fargo's HAMP modifications, the Court found that
Plaintiff Lori Wigod -- a Chicago homeowner who had alleged that
Wells Fargo breached her HAMP Trial Plan despite her full
compliance with its terms -- could proceed on her claims for
breach of contract and promissory estoppel.  In the words of the
Court, "In short, Wells Fargo's interpretation of the [Trial Plan]
turns an otherwise straightforward offer into an illusion."  The
Court further upheld Ms. Wigod's claims for statutory and common
law fraud against the bank, stating "Wigod alleges that Wells
Fargo made and broke promises of permanent modifications to her
and to thousands of other potential class members as well.  If
true, such a widespread pattern of deception could reasonably be
considered a scheme under Illinois law and thus actionable as
promissory fraud."

Although over 80 lawsuits had been filed nationwide challenging
the HAMP modification practices of several major banks, relatively
few had made it beyond the pleadings, with District Courts
dismissing cases in light of the HAMP's lack of a private right of
action.  The Wigod panel rejected such arguments, finding that no
"end run" theory prohibited the claims and that Ms. Wigod's claims
were not preempted.

"This is an incredibly important decision for homeowners who have
been subjected to Wells Fargo's home loan modification abuses,"
said attorney Steven L. Woodrow  -- swoodrow@edelson.com -- of
Edelson McGuire LLC, who represents the Plaintiff/Appellant,
Lori Wigod.  "For tens of thousands of homeowners like Ms. Wigod
it's been nothing but a nightmare of lost paperwork, endless hours
on the phone with the bank, inconsistent explanations, and,
ultimately, unjustified denials followed by threats of
foreclosure," he said.  "The Court should be commended for
standing up for the rights of borrowers."

Mr. Woodrow is the Chair of Edelson McGuire's Banking and
Financial Services Practice Group.

The Court itself acknowledged the far-ranging impact of its
decision.  As expressed in the concurring opinion of Senior
Circuit Judge Kenneth Ripple, "Prompt resolution of this matter is
necessary not only for the good of the litigants but for the good
of the Country."

                      About Edelson McGuire

Edelson McGuire -- http://www.edelson.com-- is a national law
firm focusing on plaintiff's class action litigation and providing
strategic and legal advice to start-ups.


WIVENHOE DAM: Flood Victims Mull Class Action; Meetings Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kay Dibben, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that hundreds of
flood victims turned up at meetings in Ipswich and Fernvale on
March 10 to find out how they could join a potential class action
against operators of Wivenhoe Dam.

Many spoke of their losses in the January floods last year, with
some still expressing anger that not all of their property was
covered by insurance.

Two hundred people attended the Ipswich meeting and around 100
turned up at Fernvale to hear Maurice Blackburn lawyers and
representatives of litigation funder IMF explain the proposed
case.

Rod Hodgson of Maurice Blackburn said the Floods Commission of
Inquiry's final report, due to be delivered on March 16, would be
of "significant assistance"to a possible class action.

"We can't pre-empt the results of that inquiry," Mr. Hodgson said.

"But we do believe those results will be helpful.

"Already in evidence there are serious questions to be answered
about the evidence from the operators of the dam."

The flood victims were told that there would need to be more
investigations by expert hydrologists into the cause of the
floods.

More meetings were scheduled to be held at Chelmer's Western
Districts Community and Sporting Club and Wolston Park Golf Club
at Wacol on March 11, with lawyers explaining how a possible no
win, no fee class action case might proceed.

IMF and the law firm claim that about 1,000 people so far have
expressed interest in the case.


YUM BRANDS: Awaits Ruling on Certification Bid in "Smith" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
YUM! Brands, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification in the class action lawsuit
commenced by Mark Smith 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

On July 9, 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v.
Pizza Hut, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The complaint alleged that Pizza Hut
did not properly reimburse its delivery drivers for various
automobile costs, uniforms costs, and other job-related expenses
and seeks to represent a class of delivery drivers nationwide
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Colorado state
law.  On January 4, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for
conditional certification of a nationwide class of current and
former Pizza Hut, Inc. delivery drivers.  However, on March 11,
2010, the court granted Pizza Hut's pending motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, with leave to amend.  On March 31, 2010,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which dropped the uniform
claims but, in addition to the federal FLSA claims, asserts state-
law class action claims under the laws of sixteen different
states.  Pizza Hut filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, and plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint a
second time.  On August 9, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion to amend.  Pizza Hut filed another motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint.  On July 15, 2011, the Court granted
Pizza Hut's motion with respect to plaintiffs' state law claims,
but allowed the FLSA claims to go forward.  Plaintiffs filed their
Motion for Conditional Certification on August 31, 2011, to which
Pizza Hut filed its opposition on October 5, 2011.  A decision on
plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification is expected
during 2012.

Pizza Hut denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of these cases
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM BRANDS: Court Grants Conditional Cert. in "Whittington" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
granted conditional class certification under the Fair Labor
Standards Act in the lawsuit filed by Jacquelyn Whittington,
according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s February 21, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

On August 6, 2010, a putative class action styled Jacquelyn
Whittington v. Yum Brands, Inc., Taco Bell of America, Inc. and
Taco Bell Corp. was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a
nationwide class, with the exception of California, of salaried
assistant managers who were allegedly misclassified and did not
receive compensation for all hours worked and did not receive
overtime pay after 40 hours worked in a week.  The plaintiff also
purports to represent a separate class of Colorado assistant
managers under Colorado state law, which provides for daily
overtime after 12 hours worked in a day.  The Company has been
dismissed from the case without prejudice.  Taco Bell filed its
answer on September 20, 2010, and the parties commenced class
discovery, which is currently on-going.  Taco Bell moved to compel
arbitration of certain employees in the Colorado class.  The court
denied the motion as premature because no class has yet been
certified.  On September 16, 2011, the plaintiffs filed their
motion for conditional certification under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").  The plaintiffs did not move for
certification of a separate class of Colorado assistant managers
under Colorado state law.  Taco Bell opposed the motion.

The court heard the motion on January 10, 2012, granted
conditional certification and ordered the notice of the opt-in
class be sent to the putative class members.  Taco Bell says the
notices will have been sent by the end of February 2012.  Putative
class members will have 90 days in which to elect to participate
in the lawsuit.  After further discovery, Taco Bell plans to seek
decertification of the class.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM BRANDS: Discovery on Class Motion in "Moeller" Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery with respect to plaintiffs' motion to amend a certified
class to include a damages class in the lawsuit captioned Moeller,
et al. v. Taco Bell Corp. is proceeding, according to YUM! Brands,
Inc.'s February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

On December 17, 2002, Taco Bell was named as the defendant in a
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco
Bell Corp.  On August 4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that alleges, among other things, that Taco Bell has
discriminated against the class of people who use wheelchairs or
scooters for mobility by failing to make its approximately 220
company-owned restaurants in California accessible to the class.
Plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and
structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the
path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with mobility-
related disabilities do not comply with the U.S. Americans with
Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the
"Unruh Act"), and the California Disabled Persons Act (the
"CDPA").  Plaintiffs have requested: (a) an injunction from the
District Court ordering Taco Bell to comply with the ADA and its
implementing regulations; (b) that the District Court declare Taco
Bell in violation of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and (c)
monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA.  Plaintiffs, on
behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum statutory damages per
offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh Act or $1,000 under the
CDPA for each aggrieved member of the class.  Plaintiffs contend
that there may be in excess of 100,000 individuals in the class.

On February 23, 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  The class includes claims for
injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages.

On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco
Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific
issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force.  On
August 8, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with
regard to dining room seating.  In addition, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening force at
some restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard
to queue lines.

On December 16, 2009, the court denied Taco Bell's motion for
summary judgment on the ADA claims and ordered plaintiff to file a
definitive list of remaining issues and to select one restaurant
to be the subject of a trial.  The exemplar trial for that
restaurant began on June 6, 2011.  The trial was bifurcated and
the first stage addressed whether violations existed at the
restaurant.  Twelve alleged violations of the ADA and state law
were tried.  The trial ended on June 16, 2011.  On October 5,
2011, the court issued its trial decision.  The court found
liability for the twelve items, finding that they were once out of
compliance with applicable state and/or federal accessibility
standards.  The court also found that classwide injunctive relief
is warranted.  The court declined to order injunctive relief at
this time, however, citing the pendency of Taco Bell's motions to
decertify both the injunctive and damages class.  In a separate
order, the court vacated the December 12, 2011 date previously set
for an exemplar trial for damages on the single restaurant.

On June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued its
ruling in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes.  The Supreme Court held
that the class in that case was improperly certified.  The same
legal theory was used to certify the class in the Moeller case,
and Taco Bell filed a motion to decertify the class on August 3,
2011.  During the exemplar trial, the court observed that the
restaurant had been in full compliance with all laws since March
2010, and Taco Bell argues in its decertification motion that, in
light of the decision in the Dukes case, no damages class can be
certified and that injunctive relief is not appropriate,
regardless of class status.  On October 19, 2011, plaintiffs filed
a motion to amend the certified class to include a damages class.
Discovery regarding the putative damages class is proceeding,
after which the parties will complete briefing on Taco Bell's
motion to decertify and plaintiffs' motion to amend the class.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  Taco Bell has taken steps to
address potential architectural and structural compliance issues
at the restaurants in accordance with applicable state and federal
disability access laws.  The costs associated with addressing
these issues have not significantly impacted the Company's results
of operations.  It is not possible at this time to reasonably
estimate the probability or amount of liability for monetary
damages on a class wide basis to Taco Bell.


YUM BRANDS: Obligations Under LJS Suit Settlement Paid
------------------------------------------------------
Payments associated with the settlement in the lawsuit and
arbitration proceeding commenced by Long John Silver's former
managers have been made after the deal received final approval in
December 2011, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s February 21, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On November 26, 2001, Kevin Johnson, a former Long John Silver's
("LJS") restaurant manager, filed a collective action against LJS
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") on behalf of himself and allegedly similarly-situated LJS
general and assistant restaurant managers.  Johnson alleged that
LJS violated the FLSA by perpetrating a policy and practice of
seeking monetary restitution from LJS employees, including
Restaurant General Managers ("RGMs") and Assistant Restaurant
General Managers ("ARGMs"), when monetary or property losses
occurred due to knowing and willful violations of LJS policies
that resulted in losses of company funds or property, and that LJS
had thus improperly classified its RGMs and ARGMs as exempt from
overtime pay under the FLSA.  Johnson sought overtime pay,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees for himself and his
proposed class.

LJS moved the Tennessee district court to compel arbitration of
Johnson's lawsuit.  The district court granted LJS's motion on
June 7, 2004, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed on July 5, 2005.

On December 19, 2003, while the arbitrability of Johnson's claims
was being litigated, former LJS managers Erin Cole and Nick
Kaufman, represented by Johnson's counsel, initiated arbitration
with the American Arbitration Association (the "Cole
Arbitration").  The Cole Claimants sought a collective arbitration
on behalf of the same putative class as alleged in the Johnson
lawsuit and alleged the same underlying claims.

On June 15, 2004, the arbitrator in the Cole Arbitration issued a
Clause Construction Award, finding that LJS's Dispute Resolution
Policy did not prohibit Claimants from proceeding on a collective
or class basis.  LJS moved unsuccessfully to vacate the Clause
Construction Award in federal district court in South Carolina.
On September 19, 2005, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination
Award, finding, inter alia, that a class would be certified in the
Cole Arbitration on an "opt-out" basis, rather than as an "opt-in"
collective action as specified by the FLSA.

On January 20, 2006, the district court denied LJS's motion to
vacate the Class Determination Award and the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's
decision on January 28, 2008.  A petition for a writ of certiorari
filed in the United States Supreme Court seeking a review of the
Fourth Circuit's decision was denied on October 7, 2008.

An arbitration hearing on liability with respect to the alleged
restitution policy and practice for the period beginning in late
1998 through early 2002 concluded in June, 2010.  On October 11,
2010, the arbitrator issued a partial interim award for the first
phase of the three-phase arbitration finding that, for the period
from late 1998 to early 2002, LJS had a policy and practice of
making impermissible deductions from the salaries of its RGMs and
ARGMs.

On September 15, 2011, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding setting forth the terms upon which the parties had
agreed to settle this matter.  On October 5, 2011, the arbitrator
granted the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of the
Settlement.  On December 12, 2011, the arbitrator granted final
approval of the settlement.  The payments associated with the
settlement have been made.

As the settlement was largely consistent with its previous reserve
position, the Company disclosed, the settlement did not
significantly impact its results of operations in the year ended
December 31, 2011.


YUM BRANDS: "Hines" Wage and Hour Suit Still Stayed in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
On October 2, 2009, a putative class action, styled Domonique
Hines v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., was filed in California state
court on behalf of all California hourly employees alleging
various California Labor Code violations, including rest and meal
break violations, overtime violations, wage statement violations
and waiting time penalties.  Plaintiff is a former non-managerial
restaurant employee of YUM! Brands, Inc.'s KFC.  KFC filed an
answer on October 28, 2009, in which it denied plaintiff's claims
and allegations.  KFC removed the action to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on
October 29, 2009.  Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification on May 20, 2010, and KFC filed a brief in
opposition.  On October 22, 2010, the District Court granted
Plaintiff's motion to certify a class on the meal and rest break
claims, but denied the motion to certify a class regarding alleged
off-the-clock work.  On November 1, 2010, KFC filed a motion
requesting a stay of the case pending a decision from the
California Supreme Court regarding the applicable standard for
employer provision of meal and rest breaks.  Plaintiff filed an
opposition to that motion on November 19, 2010.  On January 14,
2011, the District Court granted KFC's motion and stayed the
entire action pending a decision from the California Supreme
Court.  No trial date has been set.

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.

KFC denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all
claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case cannot be
predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any potential
loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM BRANDS: Taco Bell Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
YUM! Brands, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend itself against
a consolidated wage and hour class action lawsuit pending in
California, 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.

Taco Bell was named as a defendant in a number of putative class
action lawsuits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging
violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime,
failure to pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued
vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and
rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses,
wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or
unlawful business practices in violation of Section 17200 of the
California Business & Professions Code.  Plaintiffs also seek
penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under
California's Private Attorneys General Act and statutory "waiting
time" penalties and allege violations of California's Unfair
Business Practices Act.  Plaintiffs seek to represent a California
state-wide class of hourly employees.

On May 19, 2009, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to
consolidate these matters, and the consolidated case is styled In
Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions.  The In Re Taco Bell Wage and
Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on
June 29, 2009, and on March 30, 2010, the court approved the
parties' stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action.
Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on the
vacation and final pay claims on December 30, 2010, and the class
certification hearing took place in June 2011.  Taco Bell also
filed, at the invitation of the court, a motion to stay the
proceedings until the California Supreme Court rules on two cases
concerning meal and rest breaks.  On August 22, 2011, the court
granted Taco Bell's motion to stay the meal and rest break claims.
On September 26, 2011, the court issued its order denying the
certification of the remaining vacation and final pay claims.  The
plaintiffs have not moved for class certification on the remaining
claims in the consolidated complaint.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM BRANDS: Taco Bell Filed Response in "Rosales" Suit on Feb. 8
----------------------------------------------------------------
YUM! Brands, Inc.'s subsidiary filed on February 8, 2012, its
responsive pleading in the wage and hour class action lawsuit
commenced by Marisela Rosales, 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 September 28, 2009, a putative class action styled Marisela
Rosales v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in Orange County Superior
Court.  The plaintiff, a former Taco Bell crew member, alleges
that Taco Bell failed to timely pay her final wages upon
termination, and seeks restitution and late payment penalties on
behalf of herself and similarly situated employees.  This case
appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions case.  Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss, stay or
transfer the case to the same district court as the In Re Taco
Bell Wage and Hour Actions case.  The state court granted Taco
Bell's motion to stay the Rosales case on May 28, 2010.  After the
denial of class certification in the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions, the court granted the plaintiff leave to amend her
lawsuit, which the plaintiff filed and served on January 4, 2012.
Taco Bell filed its responsive pleading on February 8, 2012.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM BRANDS: Trial in Consolidated "RGM" Suit Began on Feb. 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated class action lawsuit brought by Taco
Bell restaurant general managers began on February 15, 2012,
according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s February 21, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

On August 4, 2006, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco
Bell Corp. styled Rajeev Chhibber vs. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in
Orange County Superior Court.  On August 7, 2006, another putative
class action lawsuit styled Marina Puchalski v. Taco Bell Corp.
was filed in San Diego County Superior Court.  Both lawsuits were
filed by a Taco Bell restaurant general manager ("RGM") purporting
to represent all current and former RGMs who worked at corporate-
owned restaurants in California since August 2002.  The lawsuits
allege violations of California's wage and hour laws involving
unpaid overtime and meal period violations and seek unspecified
amounts in damages and penalties.  The cases were consolidated in
San Diego County as of September 7, 2006.

On January 29, 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs' class
certification motion with respect to the unpaid overtime claims of
RGMs and Market Training Managers but denied class certification
on the meal period claims.  The court has ruled that this case
will be tried to the bench rather than a jury.  Trial began on
February 15, 2012.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  The Company has provided for
a reasonable estimate of the cost of this lawsuit.  However, in
view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, there can be no
assurance that this lawsuit will not result in losses in excess of
those currently provided for in the Company's Consolidated
Financial Statements.

                           *********

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  * * *