---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, March 21, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 57

                             Headlines

ANGELS BASEBALL: Settlement Final Approval Set for April 2
BANKWEST: Class Action Lawyer Welcomes Banking Sector Probe
BENEFIS HEALTH: Judge Certifies Overbilling Class Action
BIOCHAIN BIOTECH: Faces Class Action Over Plasticizer Food Scare
BLUELINX HOLDINGS: Cerberus-Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed

CAMPO DE FIORI RISTORANTE: Faces Class Action Over Employee Tips
CENTRO: Lawyers Criticize PwC Over "Botched Audit"
CHARLES ROSE: Interns File Minimum Wage Class Action in New York
CIT GROUP: Seeks Approval of $75-Million Class Action Settlement
CORFU-TASTY GYROS: Sued for Sending Unsolicited Facsimiles

FIRST AMERICAN: Continues to Defend Suits Over Business Practices
FULTONDALE GAS: Sued for Overcharging Gas Prices
GENERAL MOTORS: Appeal in Canadian Dealer Suit Remains Pending
GENERAL MOTORS: Awaits OK of Canadian Export Antitrust Suits Deal
GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert. Denied in Dec. in Suit vs. OnStar

GENERAL MOTORS: Unit Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Canada
GINN DEVELOPMENT: Gilman Law Firm Files Fraud Class Action
GOV'T OF QUEENSLAND: Flood Victims Urged to Wait
HEARTWARE INT'L: Signs MOU to Settle Preferred Stockholders Suit
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Judge Refuses to Certify Printer Class Action

PERSELS & ASSOCIATES: Judge Approves Debt-Relief Settlement
PHARMAPRIX: Judge Allows Points Program Class Action to Proceed
PINNACLE WEST: Faces Consumer Class Suit Over Power Outage
PORTLAND GENERAL: Awaits Ruling on Appeal From 2008 OPUC Order
SAIC INC: Faces Class Action Over CityTime Payroll System

STATE OF ILLINOIS: DHS Sued Over Unfair Collection Actions
STATE OF IOWA: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Sent to Prison
SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeal From Dismissal of S.C. MDL Still Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeals in ERISA-Violations Suit Still Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: Awaits Appeal Ruling in ATM Fee Antitrust Suit

SUNTRUST BANKS: Awaits Order on Bid to Reconsider in TRUPs Suit
SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Colonial Securities Suit Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: Court Granted Arbitration Bid in "Krinsk" Suit
SUNTRUST BANKS: "Lehman Brothers" Suit Settlement Okayed in Dec.
SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion in Classic Mutual Funds Suit Still Pending

SUNTRUST BANKS: Still Awaits Ruling on Suit Over Overdraft Fees
SUNTRUST BANKS: Unit Faces Two Captive Reinsurance-Related Suits
UMG RECORDINGS: Sued in Calif. Over Digital Download Royalties
UNITED BANCORP: Unit Continues to Defend Suit Over ATM fees
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Have Yet to Seek S.C. Review

VISTAR CORP: Delivery Drivers' Meal Break Class Action Dismissed
WEST PUBLISHING: Faces Class Action Over Copyright Infringement
WILSHIRE BANCORP: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
XCEL ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss 2nd "Comer" Suit


                          *********

ANGELS BASEBALL: Settlement Final Approval Set for April 2
----------------------------------------------------------
On March 9, 2012, the United States District Court of the Central
District of California granted preliminary approval of the class
action settlement agreement in the lawsuit (Case No. SACV 10-0853
DOC (ANx)) filed by J. Paul Charlebois against Angels Baseball LP
and the City of Anaheim on behalf of a nationwide class of
wheelchair users.

On March 14, 2012, notices were sent to class members who have
previously purchased wheelchair accessible tickets in the last two
years advising them of the improved accommodations, amenities and
online ticket access.  Final Approval of the accessibility
component of the settlement will be heard on April 2, 2012.

As a result of the settlement, Angel Stadium of Anaheim, known for
its fan friendly experience throughout the baseball community, is
taking enhanced measures for 2012 to provide additional benefits
and amenities to guests who require the use of a wheelchair and
their companions in prime locations of the ballpark.

The following changes will be implemented:

1.    Two wheelchair accessible locations will be added within the
current configuration of the Diamond Club, with in-seat food and
beverage service provided. Each additional wheelchair location
will have one companion seat next to it.

2.    Diamond Club Accessible Tickets will be sold at a discounted
rate of $50 per game for fans who prequalify as having a need. To
pre-qualify to purchase the discounted tickets, fans must submit
written documentation from a licensed physician verifying need or
sign an affidavit of need for use of a wheelchair.

3.    In-seat food and beverage service is being added to 32
accessible locations and companion seats in select areas of the
Terrace Level. Pricing for these tickets will remain the same.

4.    Four additional wheelchair accessible tickets and companion
seats will be available in the Knothole Club and offered for sale
until 24 hours prior to the scheduled start of a game.

5.    Wheelchair accessible and companion seating, for the first
time, will now be available for purchase on-line, in the same
manner available to the general public.

At the same time, the organization will coordinate training for
ushers, ticket sales and customer service representatives with
personnel from the Disability Rights Legal Center in making
certain they have a complete and thorough knowledge of all
wheelchair accessible seating and pricing options, as well as
information regarding in-seat food and beverage services.
Plaintiff's counsel V. James DeSimone of Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow
Harris Hoffman & Harrison, LLP, says, "This settlement levels the
playing field for baseball fans who use wheelchairs and their
companions.  We are particularly pleased that wheelchair users
will have access to the best seats in the house at a reduced price
and for the first time will enjoy in-seat dining on the Terrace
Level of the Stadium.  Play ball!"


BANKWEST: Class Action Lawyer Welcomes Banking Sector Probe
-----------------------------------------------------------
Madeleine Heffernan, writing for Smart Company, reports that the
lawyer spearheading a class action against Bankwest has welcomed
the announcement of a broad-ranging parliamentary inquiry into the
banking sector.

Slater & Gordon commercial litigation lawyer Van Moulis, who is
working on a class action on behalf of dozens of aggrieved
borrowers, says he looks on with "great interest" to see what the
Senate investigation uncovers.

"I'm very pleased," Mr. Moulis said.

The inquiry, announced on March 14, will look into:

   -- the impact of borrowing and lending practices in the banking
sector both during and since the global financial crisis;
the need for further consideration of the state of the broader
finance and banking sector;

   -- the impact of international regulatory changes on the
Australian banking sector;

   -- the impact on relative shares of specific banking markets;
and the current cost of funds for lending purposes.

The Slater & Gordon case is centered on the idea that Bankwest
customers were victimized by "improper" lending and recovery
practices in 2008.

Of particular interest is a provision that allowed buyer
Commonwealth Bank to "claw back" bad and doubtful debts from
vendor HBOS.

A Bankwest spokesperson said on March 15 that the bank would
cooperate fully with the inquiry if called upon.

The Senate inquiry has been spearheaded by Nationals Senator John
Williams, who raised the alarm at reports that banks were pulling
loans to small business clients, including farmers, leading to
assets being sold at rock-bottom levels.

He said on March 14 the inquiry would allow "developers and
investors who have complaints about the way they have been treated
a chance to have their say."

"This inquiry will also be able to scrutinize the role of
receivers and valuers to see whether they are doing the right
thing when valuing and selling properties."

"I have heard some horror stories about their actions."

"We need to know if everyone is and has been treated fairly.  We
need to know the vulnerable are protected."

"Ultimately we need our banking sector to be strong, but if there
are concerns they need to be addressed."

The Australian Bankers' Association said it would "provide a
submission to the Senate Inquiry and will seek to appear to give
evidence."

"It will be a good opportunity for the ABA to explain why banks'
funding costs have increased relative to the Reserve Bank's cash
rate and why that has meant home loan interest rates have
increased."

"Also we will be talking about why solid, reliable and profitable
banks are important for the Australian economy."


BENEFIS HEALTH: Judge Certifies Overbilling Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
John S. Adams, writing for greatfallstribune.com, reports that a
Cascade County District Court certified a class-action lawsuit
against Benefis Health System in Great Falls over the hospital's
billing practices.

The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, Shannon Conway of Great Falls,
claims Benefis owes him money the hospital collected over and
above the amount his health insurance company was contractually
obligated to pay for treatment he received last year.

District Judge Kenneth Neill granted class-action status to
Mr. Conway's lawsuit March 7, meaning other potential members of
the class who claim Benefis collected medical payments in excess
of their insurance carrier's negotiated payments can join the
lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Conway was injured in a car accident
on July 29, and received medical treatment from Benefis Health
System at a cost of $2,073.65.  At the time of his treatment,
Conway was covered by TRICARE, the health insurance program for
military personnel and retirees.

According to the complaint, Benefis, in an effort to attract more
customers, entered into a contract with TRICARE in 2008 to
establish reduced rates at which the insurer would reimburse
Benefis for providing care.

Mr. Conway said in the suit that Benefis, through preferred
provider agreements, accepts reduced reimbursement rates from
health insurers because doing so increases the number of people
the hospital treats at its facility, thereby helping the
hospital's bottom line.

Under the preferred provider agreement, TRICARE paid Benefis
$662.74 for Mr. Conway's care, which was the negotiated amount the
company would pay to settle the bill under the terms of its
contract with Benefis.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Conway also had purchased "Med Pay"
insurance coverage through his auto insurance carrier, Kemper
Preferred Insurance, and was entitled to receive $1,866.29 from
Kemper as a result of the accident.

Mr. Conway asked Kemper to pay the money directly to him, but,
according to the lawsuit, Kemper mistakenly paid the $1,866.29 to
Benefis instead.  Benefis then returned the $662.74 to TRICARE,
and kept the difference of $1,203.55.

Mr. Conway argues that the terms of the contract between TRICARE
and Benefis dictate that TRICARE was on the hook for settling the
bill, regardless of whether a third-party payer, in this case
Kemper, stepped in and paid.  The lawsuit claims Benefis defrauded
Conway by keeping the $1,203.55 that he believes he was entitled
to, while returning the $662.74 to TRICARE that should have
covered the medical claim.

"While we obliviously disagree with the allegations that have been
made, it is our belief and position that cases should not be
litigated in the press," said David M. McLean, one of the
attorneys representing Benefis in the lawsuit.  "We believe the
case should proceed through the judicial process and that a final
order, once obtained, will then speak for itself.

"Until a final order is issued, I think we believe it would be
inappropriate to comment any further," he added.

According to Conway's attorney, Great Falls lawyer Alexander
"Zander" Blewett, the question before the court is whether Benefis
is entitled to receive medical payments in excess of the
negotiated reimbursement rates contained in preferred provider
agreements.

Mr. Blewett said the hospital violated the contact it negotiated
with TRICARE when it kept the $1,866.29 from Kemper.

"The hospital agreed in the preferred provider agreement that it
would never take money from the patient greater than the
reimbursement rate," Mr. Blewett said.  "It's just like they took
money from him out of his pocket.  The law says he paid the
premiums for Med Pay, and that's his money -- he should get that
from the insurance company because he's entitled to it."

Mr. Conway claims he is entitled to the additional money that
Benefis accepted over and above the TRICARE reimbursement rate,
specifically $1,203.55.

Under the contract with TRICARE, Benefis specifically agreed that
when treating a TRICARE beneficiary, it would never accept more
than the TRICARE reimbursement rate, regardless of whether a
third-party payer satisfied the bill.

Benefis previously argued that Conway does not have standing to
bring the claim against Benefis because he is not an intended
third-party beneficiary.  The judge ruled in August that
Mr. Conway is the third-party beneficiary.

Benefis has 30 days to appeal the court's ruling granting class-
action status to the case.


BIOCHAIN BIOTECH: Faces Class Action Over Plasticizer Food Scare
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Li and Jamie Wang, writing for The Central News Agency,
report that the Consumers' Foundation filed a class-action
complaint with the Banciao District Court on March 15, alleging
that 37 downstream food distributors were liable in a plasticizer-
contamination food scare that erupted last year.

The foundation filed the complaint on World Consumer Rights Day on
behalf of 568 consumers, who are seeking NT$7.87 billion (US$266
million) in compensation, the biggest amount ever sought by the
foundation in a lawsuit.

A total of 143 people are seeking damages from BioChain Biotech, a
health supplement manufacturer, while Taiwan's largest convenience
store chain 7-Eleven is being asked to pay NT$1.5 billion for
selling plasticizer-tainted food, the foundation said.

Foundation chairwoman Joann Su said the group of consumers had
appealed to the foundation for help during the period of November
last year to January 2012 and she hoped the action would prompt
businesses to improve food safety for consumers.

Vice chairwoman Hsu Tse-yu added that under Taiwan's Consumer
Protection Act, food distributors are also liable for damages if
their products cause harm to consumers.

The discovery of toxic plasticizers in food additives in May last
year resulted in widespread recalls and affected food exports as
well as the local food market.

Lai Chun-chieh, owner of Yu Shen Chemical Co., the largest
emulsifier supplier in Taiwan, and Pin Han Perfumery Co. boss Chen
Che-hsiung were sentenced to 18 and 13 years in prison,
respectively, for adding toxic plasticizers to clouding agents,
which are used in many food products.


BLUELINX HOLDINGS: Cerberus-Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
All of the shareholder class action lawsuits against BlueLinx
Holdings Inc. have been voluntarily dismissed as a result of the
expiration of Cerberus ABP Investor LLC's tender offer, according
to the Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

BlueLinx Holdings Inc., its directors, and Cerberus ABP Investor
LLC ("CAI") were named as defendants in the following putative
shareholder class actions filed in the Superior Courts of Fulton
and Cobb Counties, Georgia, the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia, the Chancery Court for the State
of Delaware, and the Supreme Court of the State of New York in
connection with the proposed tender offer announced by CAI on July
21, 2010 and commenced by CAI on August 2, 2010: Habiniak, et al.
v. Cohen, et al., Fulton County Superior Court, Georgia, filed
July 23, 2010, voluntarily dismissed August 11, 2010; Hindermann,
et al. v. BlueLinx Holdings Inc., et al., Cobb County Superior
Court, Georgia, filed July 27, 2010, dismissed December 14, 2010;
Markich, et al v. BlueLinx Holdings Inc., et al., Cobb County
Superior Court, Georgia, filed July 30, 2010, dismissed December
14, 2010; Jerszynski v. BlueLinx Holdings Inc., et al., Cobb
County Superior Court, Georgia, filed August 3, 2010, dismissed
December 14, 2010; Winter v. Cerberus ABP Investor LLC, Cobb
County Superior Court, Georgia, filed August 4, 2010, dismissed
December 14, 2010; Stadium Capital Qualified Partners, LP, et al.
v. Cerberus ABP Investor LLC, etc al., Delaware Chancery Court,
filed August 10, 2010, voluntarily dismissed October 20, 2010;
Habiniak, et al. v. Cohen, et al., Delaware Chancery Court, filed
August 13, 2010, voluntarily dismissed February 10, 2011; Lang et
al v. Cohen, et al., Delaware Chancery Court, filed August 13,
2010; Kajaria, et al. v. Cohen, et al., U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Georgia, filed September 30, 2010, motion for
fees filed on June 16, 2011, opposition filed on June 30, 2011;
and Centonze, et al. v. Judd, et al., Supreme Court of New York,
New York County, filed on October 4, 2010.  Certain of the
complaints also named Cerberus Capital Management L.P. as a
defendant.  The complaints sought to enjoin the proposed tender
offer, alleging that the Company's directors and CAI breached
their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to make
certain disclosures and maximize the value to be received by the
Company's stockholders.  The complaints also asserted claims of
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.  In addition to an
order enjoining the transaction, the complaints variously sought,
among other things: additional disclosures regarding the proposed
transaction; imposition of a constructive trust in favor of
plaintiffs for any improper benefits received by defendants;
rescission of the transaction, if consummated, or an award to
plaintiffs of rescissory damages; and attorneys' fees and
expenses.  As a result of the expiration of the tender offer, all
of these matters have been voluntarily dismissed and did not have
a material effect on the Company's financial statements.


CAMPO DE FIORI RISTORANTE: Faces Class Action Over Employee Tips
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Carroll, writing for The Aspen Times, reports that Three
restaurants in Aspen and one in Vail are now the targets of two
class-action lawsuits that accuse them of operating illegal tip
pools.

The attorney for the Cache Cache restaurant on Hopkins Avenue, the
first of the four high-end dining establishments to be sued, on
Jan. 14, filed a court brief asking the federal suit to be
dismissed.  The brief was a formal response to the suit and claims
that Cache Cache acted in "good faith and full compliance with all
federal and state laws" when Sandro Torres, who filed the
complaint, worked at the restaurant.

Mr. Torres is the only plaintiff so far in the suit against Cache
Cache, which says he was employed there as a back waiter and food
runner from February 2004 to March 2008 and from January 2011 to
April.

But Mr. Torres is joined by three other plaintiffs -- Marcello
Liberona, Kenneth Robison and Joseph Quigley -- in a suit filed
Feb. 14 against I Scoppiati Inc., which does business as Campo de
Fiori Ristorante on Hopkins Avenue in Aspen as well as Vail, and
Giba Inc., which runs Gisella Restaurant on Aspen's Main Street.

"Defendants are a chain of three high-end Italian restaurants in
Vail and Aspen," the suit says, adding they "violated state and
federal law by taking the 'tip credit' while also misusing
employee tips.  In particular, Defendants required service staff,
including Plaintiffs, to share a significant portion of their tips
with management personnel."

The suits, which were both filed in U.S. District Court in Denver,
are similar in nature to a high-profile one that was settled last
week.  TV celebrity chef Mario Batali, a frequent guest of the
well-heeled and popular Food & Wine Classic in Aspen festival,
settled a suit in which he agreed to pay $5.25 million to his
eight restaurants' workers who, among their allegations, said that
his eateries skimmed money from their tip pools to pay other
expenses.

The suit claimed that Batali's tip-pool operations violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act, a claim also made in the Aspen cases,
which additionally allege violation of the Colorado Wage Claims
Act and breach of contract.

Both Aspen tip-pool suits were filed by Fort Collins attorney
Brian Gonzales, who has not responded to telephone messages
seeking comment.

The suits claim that the four restaurants paid the defendants less
than minimum wage, a standard practice in the restaurant industry
for regularly tipped employees.  But for restaurants to take a tip
credit against the minimum wage, they must adhere to state labor
laws, which allow for tip pools, the suits say.

By Colorado law, the suits allege, the only employees who can
collect from a tip pool are "front of the house" workers such as
servers and hostesses.  But at Cache Cache, such employees as
chefs, dishwashers and food preparers -- who were not regularly
tipped -- also participated in the tip pool, the suit says.

And at Campo de Fiori and Gisella, the regularly tipped employees
were required to contribute to a pool that dispersed tips to other
workers.  The pool also helped "pay other restaurant expenses,"
the suit says.  The suit does not say when the four plaintiffs
worked at either Gisella or Campo de Fiori or what their actual
positions were.

"Defendants are liable for, among other things, paying a sub-
minimum wage to current and former employees and for all tips
diverted improperly," the suit says.

Both suits aim to achieve class-action status for "all current and
former employees of defendants for whom defendants took the tip
credit."

The Campo De Fiori/Gisella De Fiori suit says the class size
exceeds 150 members; the Cache Cache complaint says the class size
is "numerous."  The suits have yet to receive class-action
certification from the court.

Cache Cache attorney Peter Thomas argued that the suit against
Cache Cache should not receive class-action status because it does
not meet the requirements to do so.

Thomas did not return a telephone left at his Aspen office Tuesday
seeking comment.

Judge Lewis T. Babcock is presiding over the Cache Cache suit.
Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel has been assigned the Campo De
Fiori/Gisella complaint.


CENTRO: Lawyers Criticize PwC Over "Botched Audit"
--------------------------------------------------
The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that lawyers for the Centro
property group have lambasted the work done by the property
group's former auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, in 2007, telling
the Federal Court it resulted in a "botched audit" that
highlighted incompetence, carelessness and a lack of supervision
inside PwC.

The strong criticism during a class action case on March 15 marks
the first time Centro has attacked its former auditor for errors
that resulted in misclassifications of billions of dollars of
short-term debts and failures to disclose post-balance date items.

"No doubt PwC will try to put a benign spin on it," Centro Retail
Trust's counsel, Peter Jopling, QC, told the court on March 15.
"This was a botched audit.  PwC made some errors that in this case
can only be described as extremely basic."

Mr. Jopling said while audits could be easy or mundane or complex,
the PwC audit team assigned to examine the Centro Properties and
Centro Retail groups "simply did not perform in their role in a
careful or professional manner".

In lively and extended criticism of the audit firm, Mr. Jopling
told the court that the senior audit partner in charge of the
Centro file, Stephen Cougle, was the sole witness PwC would offer
the court, which is hearing a complex, multi-party class action.

He said this was far from satisfactory as the court had a right to
hear from the more junior members of the PwC team who compiled
Centro's flawed 2006-07 accounts and who, he said, had
participated in errors and mistakes that compounded.

"There may well be consequences for PwC," Mr. Jopling told the
court.  "No one is saying that Mr. Cougle should not be called,
but when it comes to issues of professional negligence, omissions,
misleading conduct and the like, a number of people came to some
mistakes, particularly junior staff, graduates and the like."

"It is not good enough for Mr. Cougle to enter the witness box and
say he did not know about a particular audit step or that he
relied on others."

Mr. Jopling said PwC's audit team completely missed information
that was "right in front of their noses, staring at them", when
they had inadequate information they lacked the initiative, time
and inclination to follow it up or ask questions, and the work
they did was "undertaken in a careless way".

Mr. Jopling said the court would hear that Mr. Cougle did not
adequately supervise his team, especially the younger members, and
Centro Retail suspected he had become overly complacent because he
was coming to the end of his five years of examining Centro's
accounts.

Mr. Jopling also rejected PwC's suggestion that Centro had failed
to tell the audit team everything, including that the property
group's bankers were getting testy about refinancing.  He said it
was instead "an open and transparent audit and any suggestion that
PwC was kept in the dark about anyone must really be rejected."

He said documents the court would see in coming weeks included
PwC's internal criticisms of Centro, including poor communication
inside Centro, poor management and lack of certain skills and lack
of mentoring.

Mr. Jopling noted that while the document was "damning" of Centro,
"it will be our case that PwC does not seem to share this view in
any normal way" with Centro.


CHARLES ROSE: Interns File Minimum Wage Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glynis Farrell at Courthouse News Service reports that in a class
action, a former intern at "The Charlie Rose Show" claims the talk
show host's use of a "substantial number of unpaid interns"
violates state labor law.

Lucy Bickerton sued Charles Rose and his production company,
Charles Rose Inc., in New York County Court, on behalf of all
interns who were paid less than minimum wage.  She claims the
cheap budget for Rose's show depends upon the use of unpaid
interns.

The complaint states: "Charles Rose hosts a prominent and long-
running nightly talk show on PBS called 'The Charlie Rose Show.'
The show airs on over 200 PBS affiliates throughout the country
and claims to 'engage the world's best thinkers, writers,
politicians, athletes, entertainers, business leaders, scientists
and other newsmakers.'  The show operates on an annual budget of
approximately $3.5 million, which is low for a television program
airing five nights per week.

"Central to the shows lean production are the substantial number
of unpaid interns who work on The Charlie Rose Show each day, but
are paid no wages.  The show's own Web site makes clear that
'[i]nterns are highly involved with every aspect of running [the]
daily television show.'  Interns perform background research from
print and online sources to prepare Mr. Rose for guest interviews,
escort guests through the studio and set, and break down the set
and clean up the 'green room,' the area where guests await their
interviews, after each taping.  Despite the significant work they
perform, Charlie Rose interns are not compensated for any of their
work, in violation of New York Labor Law."

Ms. Bickerton says she worked as an unpaid "editorial intern" from
June 2007 to August 2007 for about 25 hours per week.  She says
she worked alongside 10 other unpaid interns.

Ms. Bickerton claims that though unpaid interns are a crucial
labor force on "The Charlie Rose Show," it does not provide them
with academic or vocational training.  She also claims the
production company failed to keep accurate records of how many
hours interns work.

She claims Mr. Rose misclassified hundreds of workers as unpaid
interns, denying them unemployment insurance, workers'
compensation, Social Security contributions and the right to earn
a fair day's wage.

"Unpaid internships have proliferated among white collar
professions, especially in fields like politics, film, fashion,
journalism and book publishing," the complaint states.  "However,
the practice of classifying employees as 'interns' to avoid paying
wages runs afoul of state wage and hour laws, which require
employers to pay all workers who are 'permitted or suffered to
work' the minimum wage and overtime.  Employers' failure to
compensate interns for their work, and the prevalence of the
practice nationwide, curtails opportunities for employment,
fosters class divisions between those who can afford to work for
no wage and those who cannot, and indirectly contributes to rising
unemployment."

Ms. Bickerton seeks class damages for minimum wage and
recordkeeping violations.

A copy of the Complaint in Bickerton v. Rose, et al., Index No.
650780/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/16/CharlieRose.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam T. Klein, Esq.
          Rachel Blein, Esq.
          Elizabeth Wagoner, Esq.
          Sandra E. Pullman, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          E-mail: rmb@outtengolden.com


CIT GROUP: Seeks Approval of $75-Million Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Basil Katz, writing for Reuters, reports that CIT Group Inc. on
March 13 asked a federal judge to approve a $75 million settlement
proposal with former CIT shareholders in a class-action securities
fraud lawsuit over actions preceding the large commercial lender's
2009 bankruptcy.

The preliminary settlement, which was submitted for Manhattan
federal court Judge Barbara Jones' approval, would put an end to a
lawsuit brought on behalf of purchasers of CIT securities from
December 12, 2006 to March 5, 2008.

CIT once lent to 1 million small- and mid-sized businesses, but
filed one of the five largest bankruptcies in U.S. history on
November 1, 2009, after loan losses surged.  The New York-based
company emerged in 2010 after a prepackaged reorganization.

CIT and the plaintiffs called the settlement a "very good result"
and urged the judge to grant her initial approval of the proposed
deal.  The deal calls for CIT to pay $75 million in cash to be
distributed among class members.

"Given the complexities and the continued risk the parties would
face if the litigation were to proceed, the settlement represents
a reasonable resolution to the parties' disputes and eliminates
the risk that the settlement class might recover nothing, or a
vastly smaller amount, following trial and inevitable appeals,"
the proposed agreement said.

In refusing to dismiss the case two years ago, Judge Jones said
the investors had sufficiently alleged they were misled by CIT
officials.  The plaintiffs had accused CIT of failing to disclose
a lowering of credit standards, misrepresenting the performance of
subprime mortgage and student loan portfolios.

The plaintiffs, the judge said, had also adequately shown CIT
directors sometimes approved the lowered lending standards while
touting a "conservative" and "disciplined" approach to subprime
lending, and learned of the weakened loan portfolios while
publicly saying CIT would suffer "minimal" losses.

CIT's bankruptcy filing caused the government to lose the $2.3
billion in bailout money it had injected into CIT in December
2008.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Pensioenfonds Horeca & Catering,
a pension fund for the Dutch hospitality and catering industry.
Former CIT Chief Executive Jeffrey Peek is named as a defendant in
the lawsuit.

Mr. Peek was replaced by John Thain, who previously held the same
role at Merrill Lynch & Co and NYSE Euronext

The case is In re: CIT Group Inc Securities Litigation, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 08-06613


CORFU-TASTY GYROS: Sued for Sending Unsolicited Facsimiles
----------------------------------------------------------
Old Town Pizza of Lombard, Inc., individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, v. Corfu-
Tasty Gyros, Inc., Vasilios S. Memmos, Sophia Maroulis and John
Does 1-10, Case No. 2012-CH-07696 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., March
2, 2012) challenges the Defendants' practice of sending
unsolicited facsimiles, in violation of the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiffs contend that unsolicited faxes damage their
recipients because a junk fax recipient loses the use of its fax
machine, paper, and ink toner.  Unsolicited faxes prevent fax
machines from receiving authorized faxes, prevent their use for
authorized outgoing faxes, cause undue wear and tear on the
recipients' fax machines, and require additional labor to attempt
to discern the source and purpose of the unsolicited message, the
complaint adds.

Old Town Pizza is an Illinois corporation.

Corfu-Tasty Gyros is an Illinois corporation.  The Individual
Defendants are officers, directors, shareholders and control
persons of the Company.  The identities of the Doe Defendants are
not presently known.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK & HATCH, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500


FIRST AMERICAN: Continues to Defend Suits Over Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation continues to defend class
action lawsuits challenging practices in its title insurance
business, according to the Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company and its subsidiaries are parties to a number of non-
ordinary course lawsuits.  Frequently these lawsuits are similar
in nature to other lawsuits pending against the Company's
competitors.

For those non-ordinary course lawsuits where the Company has
determined that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable,
a liability representing the best estimate of the Company's
financial exposure based on known facts has been recorded.  Actual
losses may materially differ from the amounts recorded.

For a substantial majority of these lawsuits, however, it is not
possible to assess the probability of loss.  Most of these
lawsuits are putative class actions which require a plaintiff to
satisfy a number of procedural requirements before proceeding to
trial.  These requirements include, among others, demonstration to
a court that the law proscribes in some manner the Company's
activities, the making of factual allegations sufficient to
suggest that the Company's activities exceeded the limits of the
law and a determination by the court -- known as class
certification -- that the law permits a group of individuals to
pursue the case together as a class.  If these procedural
requirements are not met, either the lawsuit cannot proceed or, as
is the case with class certification, the plaintiffs lose the
financial incentive to proceed with the case (or the amount at
issue effectively becomes de minimus).  Frequently, a court's
determination as to these procedural requirements is subject to
appeal to a higher court.  As a result of, among other factors,
ambiguities and inconsistencies in the myriad laws applicable to
the Company's business and the uniqueness of the factual issues
presented in any given lawsuit, the Company often cannot determine
the probability of loss until a court has finally determined that
a plaintiff has satisfied applicable procedural requirements.

Furthermore, because most of these lawsuits are putative class
actions, it is often impossible to estimate the possible loss or a
range of loss amounts, even where the Company has determined that
a loss is reasonably possible.  Generally class actions involve a
large number of people and the effort to determine which people
satisfy the requirements to become plaintiffs -- or class members
-- is often time consuming and burdensome.  Moreover, these
lawsuits raise complex factual issues which result in uncertainty
as to their outcome and, ultimately, make it difficult for the
Company to estimate the amount of damages which a plaintiff might
successfully prove.  In addition, many of the Company's businesses
are regulated by various federal, state, local and foreign
governmental agencies and are subject to numerous statutory
guidelines.  These regulations and statutory guidelines often are
complex, inconsistent or ambiguous, which results in additional
uncertainty as to the outcome of a given lawsuit -- including the
amount of damages a plaintiff might be afforded -- or makes it
difficult to analogize experience in one case or jurisdiction to
another case or jurisdiction.

Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and
its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses.  These lawsuits
include, among others, cases alleging, among other assertions,
that the Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its
agents:

   -- charged an improper rate for title insurance in a refinance
      transaction, including:

      * Boucher v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on May 16, 2007, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the Western District of Washington,

      * Loef v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
        August 16, 2008, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the District of Maine,

      * Hamilton v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on August 22, 2007, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the Northern District of Texas,

      * Hamilton v. First American Title Insurance Company, et
        al., filed on August 25, 2008, and pending in the
        Superior Court of the State of North Carolina, Wake
        County,

      * Haskins v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on September 29, 2010, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the District of New Jersey,

      * Johnson v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on May 27, 2008, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the District of Arizona,

      * Levine v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on February 26, 2009, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,

      * Lewis v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
        November 28, 2006, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the District of Idaho,

      * Raffone v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on February 14, 2004, and pending in the Circuit Court,
        Nassau County, Florida,

      * Slapikas v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on December 19, 2005, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania,
        and

      * Tello v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
        July 14, 2009, and pending in the United States District
        Court for the District of New Hampshire.

      All of these lawsuits are putative class actions.  A court
      has granted class certification in Loef, Hamilton (North
      Carolina), Johnson, Lewis, Raffone and Slapikas.  An appeal
      to a higher court is pending with respect to the granting
      of class certification in Hamilton (North Carolina).  For
      these reasons, the Company has been unable to assess the
      probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the
      range of loss or, where the Company has been able to make
      an estimate, the Company believes the amount is immaterial
      to the financial statements as a whole.

   -- purchased minority interests in title insurance agents as
      an inducement to refer title insurance underwriting
      business to the Company or gave items of value to title
      insurance agents and others for referrals of business, in
      each case in violation of the Real Estate Settlement
      Procedures Act, including:

      * Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation, filed on
        June 12, 2007, and pending in the United States District
        Court for the Central District of California, and

      * Galiano v. First American Title Insurance Company, et
        al., filed on February 8, 2008, and pending in the United
        States District Court for the Eastern District of New
        York.

      Galiano is a putative class action for which a class has
      not been certified.  In Edwards a narrow class has been
      certified.  The United States Supreme Court is reviewing
      whether the Edwards plaintiff has the legal right to sue.
      The Company has been unable to assess the probability of
      loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss.

   -- conspired with its competitors to fix prices or otherwise
      engaged in anticompetitive behavior, including

      * Barton v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al,
        filed March 10, 2008, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the Northern District of California,

      * Holt v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
        filed March 11, 2008, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,

      * Katz v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
        filed March 18, 2008, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,

      * McCray v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
        filed October 15, 2008, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the District of Delaware and

      * Swick v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
        filed March 19, 2008, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the District of New Jersey.

      All of these lawsuits are putative class actions for which
      a class has not been certified.  The Company has not yet
      been able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the
      possible loss or the range of loss.

   -- engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, including:

      * Gale v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
        filed on October 16, 2006, and pending in the United
        States District Court for the District of Connecticut and

      * Katin v. First American Signature Services, Inc., et al.,
        filed on May 9, 2007, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

      Katin is a putative class action.  A class has been
      certified in Gale.  The Company has not yet been able to
      assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible
      loss or the range of loss.

   -- misclassified employees and failed to pay overtime,
      including:

      * Bartko v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on November 8, 2011, and pending in the Superior Court of
        the State of California, Los Angeles.

      Bartko is a putative class action for which a class has not
      been certified.  The Company has not yet been able to
      assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible
      loss or the range of loss.

   -- overcharged or improperly charged fees for products and
      services provided in connection with the closing of real
      estate transactions, denied home warranty claims, recorded
      telephone calls, acted as an unauthorized trustee and gave
      items of value to developers, builders and others as
      inducements to refer business in violation of certain other
      laws, such as consumer protection laws and laws generally
      prohibiting unfair business practices, and certain
      obligations, including:

      * Carrera v. First American Home Buyers Protection
        Corporation, filed on September 23, 2009, and pending in
        the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
        Los Angeles,

      * Chassen v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
        filed on January 22, 2009, and pending in the United
        States District Court for the District of New Jersey,

      * Coleman v. First American Home Buyers Protection
        Corporation, et al., filed on August 24, 2009, and
        pending in the Superior Court of the State of California,
        County of Los Angeles,

      * Eberhard v. First American Title Insurance Company, et
        al., filed on April 4, 2011, and pending in the Court of
        Common Pleas Cuyahoga County, Ohio,

      * Eide v. First American Title Company, filed on
        February 26, 2010, and pending in the Superior Court of
        the State of California, County of Kern,

      * Gunning v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on July 14, 2008, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,

      * Kaufman v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
        filed on December 21, 2007, and pending in the Superior
        Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

      * Kirk v. First American Financial Corporation, filed on
        June 15, 2006, and pending in the Superior Court of the
        State of California, County of Los Angeles,

      * Sjobring v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
        filed on February 25, 2005, and pending in the Superior
        Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

      * Smith v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
        November 23, 2011, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the Western District of Washington,

      * Tavenner v. Talon Group, filed on August 18, 2009, and
        pending in the United States District Court for the
        Western District of Washington, and

      * Wilmot v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
        filed on April 20, 2007, and pending in the Superior
        Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

      All of these lawsuits, except Sjobring, are putative class
      actions for which a class has not been certified.  In
      Sjobring a class was certified but that certification was
      subsequently vacated.  The Company has not yet been able to
      assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible
      loss or the range of loss.

While some of the lawsuits may be material to the Company's
operating results in any particular period if an unfavorable
outcome results, the Company does not believe that any of these
lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
overall financial condition or liquidity.


FULTONDALE GAS: Sued for Overcharging Gas Prices
------------------------------------------------
Robert Carter, writing for North Jefferson News, reports that a
lawsuit which charges that the Fultondale Gas Board has
overcharged customers may get class-action status, if plaintiff's
attorneys get their way.

The suit, filed in January in Jefferson Circuit Court by
plaintiffs Michael Watson and John Douglas, alleges that the
utility violated its franchise agreement with the City of
Gardendale, charging more than 2.5 percent above the rate charged
to similar customers by Alagasco.

"We discovered the Gas Board was charging more for gas than they
were allowed under various ordinances and other agreements," said
Jim Roberts, one of the attorneys representing Messrs. Watson and
Evans.  "We looked at bills people were getting versus those from
Alagasco and other sources, and found they were overcharging."

Mr. Watson lives in Gardendale, while Douglas lives in Mt. Olive
and was formerly a Fultondale resident.

Mr. Roberts said the Gas Board is allowed to charge up to 2.5
percent of Alagasco's rate, but some customers were being charged
anywhere from a one to ten dollars over that, some even more.
"I'm not sure there's a pattern to this without more discovery,"
he said.

Discovery is the legal process by which attorneys acquire
information from the adverse party in the case to help them
prepare motions and line up witnesses, among other things.

Mr. Roberts want Judge Michael Graffeo to grant the case class-
action status.  If Judge Graffeo agrees, virtually all of the Gas
Board's customers in Fultondale, Gardendale, Mt. Olive and some
unincorporated areas would all become plaintiffs, and ostensibly
share in any judgment won against the board.  Mr. Roberts said
there are about 13,000 customers.

Mayor Jim Lowery, who is superintendent of the Gas Board by virtue
of his office, discounted the claims of overcharging and said the
lawsuit smacks of political motives in an election year.

"It smells," Mr. Lowery said.  "We were rocking along, the rates
were good, and there weren't any issues I could see.  I think
someone has talked some attorneys into doing this to make some
money.  There are people involved with other issues who are
politically motivated."

Mr. Lowery wouldn't name names, but attorneys replaced original
plaintiff Charles E. Evans with Douglas, who is the owner of Home
Field Sports Grill, which was located on Decatur Highway; it was
heavily damaged by the April 2011 tornado and has been closed
since.

Mr. Douglas has been feuding with Mr. Lowery and the city over his
property, claiming the mayor wants to force him out so that the
city can use the location for other redevelopment purposes.
Mr. Douglas has run a public battle with Mr. Lowery through the
Internet, particularly a Facebook group with more than 2,000 fans.

"The [franchise] agreement was entered under the purest of
motives.  We wanted to do that agreement -- we weren't forced into
it," Mr. Lowery said.  "We're not regulated by the Public Service
Commission on rates.  We pay Gardendale a franchise fee, based on
what their customers pay.  It's a very complex, involved case to
look at."

The original franchise agreement was set up by John McCain and
Bill Noble, who were then mayors of Fultondale and Gardendale,
respectively.  That agreement was designed to level rates charged
to customers in the two cities.  Fultondale City Attorney Charlie
Waldrep said the mayors entered the agreement almost 20 years ago.

"A tariff is issued by the state [for Alagasco], and the Gas Board
has 60 days to adjust its rates," Mr. Waldrep said.  "I can
understand why, looking forward, they took an arbitrary rate [as a
benchmark] and abided by that."

Mr. Lowery said that if there are issues with overcharging, the
Gas Board has reserves to pay back customers.

"If anyone is due any amount of money, it's set aside to take care
of it.  We want to be open about it," Mr. Lowery said.

Judge Graffeo's hearing to determine class-action status is
scheduled for March 22.

"We requested this status conference, because we don't think there
is any liability here, and under Alabama law class-action
ratepayer cases against non-investor-owned utilities aren't
allowed," Mr. Waldrep said.


GENERAL MOTORS: Appeal in Canadian Dealer Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal by General Motors Company's subsidiary from an order
certifying a class of Canadian dealers remains pending, according
to the Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

On February 12, 2010, a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL)
for damages on behalf of a purported class of 215 Canadian General
Motors dealers (the Plaintiff Dealers) which entered into wind-
down agreements with GMCL in May 2009.  GMCL offered the Plaintiff
Dealers the wind-down agreements to assist the plaintiffs' exit
from the GMCL Canadian dealer network upon the expiration of their
GM Dealer Sales and Service Agreements (DSSAs) on October 31,
2010, and to assist the plaintiffs in winding down their dealer
operations in an orderly fashion.  The Plaintiff Dealers allege
that the DSSAs have been wrongly terminated by GMCL and that GMCL
failed to comply with franchise disclosure obligations, breached
its statutory duty of fair dealing and unlawfully interfered with
the dealers' statutory right to associate in an attempt to coerce
the class member dealers into accepting the wind-down agreements.
The Plaintiff Dealers claim that the wind-down agreements are
rescindable.  GMCL has vigorously defended the claims.

On March 1, 2011 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved
certification of a class for the purpose of deciding a number of
specifically defined issues, including: (1) whether GMCL breached
its obligation of "good faith" in offering the wind-down
agreements; (2) whether GMCL interfered with the Plaintiff
Dealers' rights of free association; (3) whether GMCL was
obligated to provide a disclosure statement and/or disclose more
specific information regarding its restructuring plans in
connection with proffering the wind-down agreements; and (4)
assuming liability, whether the Plaintiff Dealers can recover
damages in the aggregate (as opposed to proving individual
damages).  On June 22, 2011 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
granted GMCL permission to appeal the class certification
decision.

The Company says the current prospects for liability are
uncertain, but because liability is not deemed probable, the
Company has no accrual relating to this litigation.  The Company
cannot estimate the range of reasonably possible loss in the event
of liability, as the case presents a variety of different legal
theories, none of which GMCL believes are valid.


GENERAL MOTORS: Awaits OK of Canadian Export Antitrust Suits Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company is awaiting court approval of a $21 million
settlement to resolve state court antitrust actions over Canadian
car exports, according to the Company's February 27, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.

Approximately 80 purported class actions on behalf of all
purchasers of new motor vehicles in the U.S. since January 1,
2001, have been filed in various state and federal courts against
General Motors Corporation, General Motors of Canada Limited
(GMCL), Ford Motor Company, Chrysler, LLC, Toyota Motor
Corporation, Honda Motor Co., Ltd., Nissan Motor Company, Limited,
and Bavarian Motor Works and their Canadian affiliates, the
National Automobile Dealers Association, and the Canadian
Automobile Dealers Association.  The nearly identical complaints
alleged that the defendant manufacturers, aided by the association
defendants, conspired among themselves and with their dealers to
prevent the sale to U.S. citizens of vehicles produced for the
Canadian market and sold by dealers in Canada.  The complaints
alleged that new vehicle prices in Canada are 10% to 30% lower
than those in the U.S., and that preventing the sale of these
vehicles to U.S. citizens resulted in the payment of higher than
competitive prices by U.S. consumers.  The complaints, as amended,
sought injunctive relief under U.S. antitrust law and treble
damages under U.S. and state antitrust laws, but did not specify
damages.  The complaints further alleged unjust enrichment and
violations of state unfair trade practices act.  The federal court
actions were consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings
under the caption In re New Market Vehicle Canadian Export
Antitrust Litigation Cases in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maine, but on July 2, 2009, the federal court granted
summary judgment in favor of the defendants which concluded the
federal actions.  The more than 30 California cases have been
consolidated in the California Superior Court in San Francisco
County under the case captions Belch v. Toyota Corporation, et al.
and Bell v. General Motors Corporation.  General Motors
Corporation's potential liability in these matters was not assumed
by General Motors Company as part of the 363 Sale, but GMCL
remains subject to lawsuit in all matters.  General Motors Company
(the Company) acquired on July 10, 2009, substantially all of the
assets and assumed certain liabilities of General Motors
Corporation (Old GM) under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code.

In the California state court cases, the court certified a state-
wide class after a class certification hearing on April 21, 2009.
Defendants' appeal to the appropriate appellate court was denied.
Defendants filed other substantive motions for summary judgment,
some of which were heard in January 2011 and others of which were
heard in March 2011 and at later dates.  As a result, the Honda
and Nissan entities have been dismissed.  The disposition of
GMCL's motion for summary judgment remains undecided.  In the
Minnesota state court cases, the court granted summary judgment in
the defendants' favor on September 16, 2010.  Plaintiffs did not
appeal.  In the Arizona state court cases, the court granted
summary judgment in the defendants' favor on February 28, 2011.
The plaintiffs in the Arizona cases have appealed.

Without conceding liability, GMCL has agreed with plaintiffs to
settle all remaining state court cases in the amount of $21
million with the settlement to be apportioned among the claimants,
their lawyers and administrative costs.  Lawyers representing the
plaintiffs sought approval of the settlement by the state courts
in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Tennessee, Wisconsin and
Florida in late 2011.


GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert. Denied in Dec. in Suit vs. OnStar
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
denied in December 2011 a motion for class certification filed by
plaintiffs of a multidistrict litigation against a subsidiary of
General Motors Company, according to the Company's February 27,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company's wholly-owned subsidiary OnStar Corporation is a
party to more than 20 putative class actions filed in various
states, including Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and
California.  All of these cases have been consolidated for
pretrial purposes in a multi-district proceeding under the caption
In re OnStar Contract Litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan.  The litigation arises out of
the discontinuation by OnStar of services to vehicles equipped
with analog hardware.  OnStar was unable to provide services to
such vehicles because the cellular carriers which provide
communication service to OnStar terminated analog service
beginning in February 2008.  In the various cases, the plaintiffs
are seeking certification of nationwide or statewide classes of
owners of vehicles currently equipped with analog equipment,
alleging various breaches of contract, misrepresentation and
unfair trade practices.  On December 19, 2011, the court denied
plaintiff's motion for class certification.


GENERAL MOTORS: Unit Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company's Canadian subsidiary continues to defend
an antitrust class action lawsuit pending in Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, according to the Company's February 27, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On September 25, 2007, a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL)
and General Motors Corporation (Old GM) on behalf of a purported
class of actual and intended purchasers of vehicles in Canada
claiming that a similar alleged conspiracy was now preventing
lower-cost U.S. vehicles from being sold to Canadians.  The
plaintiffs have delivered their certification materials.  An order
staying claims against Motors Liquidation Company (MLC) was
granted in November 2009.  The defendants filed their expert
reports in July 2011 and have not yet received reply materials
from the plaintiffs.  In September 2011, the plaintiffs offered to
settle with GMCL for $15 million.  GMCL rejected offer on the
basis that it is premature to consider settlement at this stage.
A certification hearing has not yet been scheduled.  No
determination has been made that the case may be maintained as a
class action, and it is not possible to determine the likelihood
of liability or reasonably ascertain the amount of any damages.

In January 2012, Honda reached an agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs to discontinue the Ontario class action against Honda
without prejudice and without costs.  A settlement approval
hearing has not yet been scheduled.


GINN DEVELOPMENT: Gilman Law Firm Files Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Gilman Law LLP on March 15 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Ginn Development and others alleging Bobby
Ginn and other Defendants engaged in a massive real estate and
mortgage fraud involving fraudulent real estate appraisals
throughout the state of Florida.  The lawsuit names affiliates,
Ginn Development, Ginn Title, The Ginn Company, and Ginn & Co.,
along with Lubert-Adler, LP and as-of-yet unnamed co-conspirators
as Defendants.  The complaint was filed on March 12, 2012 in the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court, Collier County, Florida.
(Thompson v. Ginn Development, LLC, et al, Case No. 12-CA-931)
According to the class action lawsuit, the alleged fraud consisted
of false representations, and deceptively created impressions of
false values.  The complaint alleges that Ginn and the other
Defendants artificially created scarce supply of properties and
memberships and artificially high demand based upon fake illusory
sales of real estate.  The lawsuit accuses Defendants Lubert-Adler
Partners, LP and Bobby Ginn of forming joint venture partnerships
and defrauding investors and purchasers at the following
properties:

   -- Single-family Naples homes and land at Ginn-LA, Quail West,
in Naples Florida;

   -- Pine Island homes and land at Ginn-LA Pine Island;

   -- Orlando homes and land at Ginn-LA Orlando;

   -- Hammock Beach and Yacht Harbor Village homes and land at
Ginn-LA, in Palm Coast, Florida;

   -- Hammock Beach Resort in Palm Coast, Florida;

   -- Hutchinson Island homes and land at Ginn-LA Hutchinson
Island, Florida;

   -- Saint Lucie, Florida homes and land at Tesoro Preserve in
Port St. Lucie, Florida;

   -- Orlando homes and land in Reunion Resort in Orlando,
Florida;
Bella Collina homes and land in Montverde, Florida;

  -- Conservatory homes and land at Hammock Beach in Palm Coast,
Florida.

"We are seeking to recover the losses of such persons and entities
related to the Ginn properties," stated Kenneth Gilman, managing
partner of Gilman Law LLP.

The class action complaint alleges that Bobby Ginn, his
affiliates, Lubert-Adler and the unnamed co-conspirators used
mails and wires with the intention of inducing class members to
purchase property in the Ginn properties and Ginn resorts at
fraudulently inflated prices.  Among other things, the complaint
accuses the Defendants of violating the Florida Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by facilitating the sale
of property and memberships at artificially inflated prices based
upon false appraisal reports and false and illusory comparable
sales.  The lawsuit further alleges that Bobby Ginn and his
affiliates provided kickbacks to Ginn employees and bank employees
in order to further the overall objective of selling and financing
properties at values that were artificially inflated from 2004
through 2009.

                      About Gilman Law LLP

Gilman Law LLP is national law firm with offices in Florida and
Massachusetts.  It represents clients across a broad range of
claims stemming from consumer product injury, mass tort, and class
action lawsuits.


GOV'T OF QUEENSLAND: Flood Victims Urged to Wait
------------------------------------------------
Kieran Banks, writing for Fraser Coast Chronicle, reports that
flood victims are being urged to hold off signing up for a class
action against the state, with more legal firms expected to make
offers in coming weeks.

The call for patience come after legal firm Maurice Blackburn held
meetings in Ipswich and Fernvale at the weekend to garner interest
for a class action law suit funded by IMF Australia.

Fernvale flood victim Brad Zanow, a member of Flood Affected
Businesses and Homes, said more law firms may put together group
actions.

Mr. Zanow's business, Zanow's Sand and Gravel, is situated in
Fernvale, and water takes just two hours to pass the site when
released from Wivenhoe Dam.

Last year's floods tore through his property.

He said playing the waiting game was key for all those left
searching for remittance from the Queensland Government.

"Maurice Blackburn has suggested they want to get as many people
to sign up as possible.  All we want to do is let people know
there are other options," he said.

"There are other class action lawyers that are waiting until the
inquiry has handed down their findings.

"There are no deadlines to be met at the moment and there is a
fair amount of time before anyone has to sign.  We have plenty of
time to evaluate each law firm."

Maurice Blackburn and IMF Australia told flood victims at the Mach
10 meeting that fees from a successful law suit could reach 30% of
the total payout.

Mr. Zanow said any flood victims who have signed the Maurice
Blackburn agreement could back out of the deal before the 21-day
cooling off period ended.

"My opinion is anyone who has signed up should exercise the
cooling off period and sit back and wait," Mr. Zanow said.

"Everybody has time."

Flood Affected Businesses and Homes spokesman David Stark backed
Mr. Zanow's advice.

Mr. Stark said with a possible change of government on the
horizon, it was too early to be locked into the first available
option.

"I'm sure many people would have signed up thinking 65 cents in
the dollar is better than nothing and I don't want to miss out,"
he said.

The Queensland Flood Inquiry was set to hand down its findings on
March 16.


HEARTWARE INT'L: Signs MOU to Settle Preferred Stockholders Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
HeartWare International, Inc. entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle a class action lawsuit brought on behalf
of Series A Preferred Stockholders, according to the Company's
February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On June 27, 2011, HeartWare International, Inc. and HeartWare,
Inc., along with HeartWare's directors, certain officers and a
significant stockholder, were named as defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit filed in Massachusetts state court by two
other Series A Preferred Stockholders on behalf of all holders of
Series A Preferred Stock.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants breached their fiduciary and contractual obligations to
Series A Preferred Stockholders by preventing them from receiving
a payment of the liquidation preference in connection with certain
corporate transactions, including a transaction in 2005 in which
HeartWare, Inc. was acquired by HeartWare Limited, a subsidiary of
HeartWare International, Inc.  The plaintiffs seek monetary
damages, interest, costs and limited equitable relief.  The
Company does not believe HeartWare International, Inc., HeartWare,
Inc. or any of its directors, officers or stockholders have
abrogated the rights, or in any way failed to satisfy obligations
owed to, any of the Company's stockholders, including holders of
Series A Preferred Stock.  On September 12, 2011, the defendants
served on plaintiffs a motion to dismiss the complaint with
prejudice.

On February 3, 2012, counsel for plaintiffs and defendants entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle the matter.
Defendants have agreed to pay up to $1.125 million to
participating putative class members in exchange for a full and
unconditional release of all claims asserted in the litigation,
including any and all claims arising from any right to receive a
payment upon any liquidation or deemed liquidation event that has
arisen or may arise in the future.  The Company expects insurance
to fund a significant portion of the settlement amount, although
coverage is not assured.  The settlement must be finally approved
by the court following notice to putative class members.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Judge Refuses to Certify Printer Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge refused to certify a class action that claims Hewlett-
Packard knew about a page-skipping defect in one of its multiuse
printers.

Lead plaintiff Chaim Kowalsky said HP's Office Jet Pro All-in-One
printer of the 8500 series "has a defect that causes the printer
to randomly skip pages when copying, scanning and faxing."

As a result, the document feeder can only take "two to three
sheets at a time," though it is advertised as being able to hold
50 sheets.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh dismissed the complaint in April
2011, finding the proposed class failed to raise facts that would
suggest that HP knew about the alleged defect in the printer.

Mr. Kowalsky filed an amended complaint the next month, saying
"HP's claims regarding the 'core functions' of the 8500 printer
'could only be verified as accurate through testing of the
printer.'"

Mr. Kowalsky, who bought his printer in July 2009, also said
consumers began to complain about the "recurring page-skipping
problem" as early as April 2009.

When HP moved again to dismiss, the San Jose, Calif., court found
that Mr. Kowalsky raised a "plausible inference" that the
manufacturer knew about the defect.

On March 15, however, Judge Koh concluded that the action cannot
be certified on a classwide basis, based on the 9th Circuit's
recent decision in Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co.

In that action, the circuit decertified a nationwide class because
its members bought their cars in different jurisdictions with
different consumer-protection laws.

"Plaintiff offers no argument, other than asserting that Mazza was
wrongly decided, to circumvent Mazza's holding, which precludes
the certification of a nationwide class asserting claims under the
Unfair Competition Law and the California Legal Remedies Act,"
Judge Koh wrote.

The court granted Mr. Kowalsky leave to amend the complaint.

A copy of the Order Denying Without Prejudice Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification: Order Re Related Administrative Motions
in Kowalsky v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al., Case No. 10-cv-
02176 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/16/hp%20printer.pdf


PERSELS & ASSOCIATES: Judge Approves Debt-Relief Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
William R. Levesque, writing for Tampa Bay Times, reports that a
federal judge last week approved a controversial settlement in a
class-action lawsuit against a law firm accused of misleading and
charging excessive fees to clients around the nation seeking debt
relief.

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Wilson ruled a proposed
settlement paying attorneys who filed suit up to $300,000 but
giving nothing to 125,000 clients of the Maryland firm, Persels &
Associates, was "fair, reasonable and adequate."

A problem in securing a financial award for consumers, the judge
said, was one the Maryland firm, Persels & Associates, shared with
its cash-strapped clients.

It's broke.

"Unfortunately, there just weren't funds available to distribute,"
said Tampa attorney Katherine Earle Yanes on March 14.  She is one
of several attorneys who filed the suit.

The firm said it lost nearly $6 million in 2010 and 2011 and had a
$14 million judgment against it from an unrelated court case.

But Ms. Yanes said the suit forced Persels to reform its behavior
toward clients, so she said it did much good.

Still, the settlement was opposed by the attorney generals of five
states, including Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, because it
did not compensate consumers.  Ms. Bondi's office did not return a
call seeking comment.

The only person aside from lawyers who will be paid any money is
St. Petersburg resident Miranda Day, who as the lead plaintiff
will be paid $5,000.

The settlement also calls for Persels to pay $100,000 to two
organizations uninvolved in the litigation who provide low-cost
legal advice to consumers.

Judge Wilson said Persels was unable to pay even a relatively
small award to its 125,000 clients.

"These circumstances . . . demonstrate the futility of the
plaintiff taking this case to trial since any judgment would be
uncollectable," the ruling said.

The judge also said a settlement was fair because every member of
the class had the option of withdrawing from the case.  That would
have allowed them to file suit separately.

"It is easy enough for the objectors to criticize the (settlement)
from the sidelines," Judge Wilson said.  "They do not have to deal
with the legal hurdles in this case."

Attorneys for Persels, which has denied all wrongdoing, could not
be reached for comment.

Here's how the suit said Persels operated:

Persels told clients it could negotiate settlements of their
unsecured debts -- usually credit cards -- for a fraction of their
face value.  Clients then made monthly payments to a Persels'
fund. When enough money accumulated, Persels was supposed to
negotiate settlements with a client's creditors.

But Persels and a related company, CareOne Services, charged fees
amounting to 15 percent of a client's total debt, the suit said.

So in reality, the suit said, many customers were not informed by
Persels that they would not have enough cash, after fees were
deducted, to successfully settle their debts.


PHARMAPRIX: Judge Allows Points Program Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that yet another class-action lawsuit
has been authorized in Quebec over changes to a points program
that has some angry customers arguing they've been short-changed.

Members of Pharmaprix's popular points plan say they were betrayed
when the pharmacy chain changed its program halfway through 2010.

Now they'll get to argue, as part of a class-action suit to be
heard in Quebec Superior Court, that the Quebec pharmacy chain
unilaterally devalued the points accumulated under its popular
Optimum program.

A judge signed off on a class-action suit on behalf of Option
Consommateurs, a consumer lobby group in Quebec, and of lead
plaintiff Pierre Gaumond; a similar suit has already been approved
against the Aeroplan travel program.

The pharmacy suit says members saw the value of their points drop
after changes were instituted to the program on July 1, 2010, by
the parent company, Shoppers Drug Mart Corp.

The company operates under the Pharmaprix name in Quebec.

The changes to the program devalued accumulated points -- for
example, 8,000 points now will get customers C$10 worth of
merchandise while, before July 2010, it was 7,000 points for C$10
worth of merchandise.

Mr. Gaumond said in his statement of claim that he was unaware of
the change in the program until it was too late and his points
were worth far less.

Marie-Anais Sauve, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, called
the company actions illegal.

"The modification in the value of the points by Pharmaprix without
the consent of consumers is abusive and therefore illegal," said
Ms. Sauve, a lawyer with the firm Sylvestre Fafard Painchaud, in a
statement.

A similar action filed in Ontario has not yet been certified.

But it's the second time this month that a class-action suit over
changes to a rewards program is green-lighted in Quebec.  A Quebec
judge has also authorized a lawsuit against Aeroplan over the
company's decision to put an expiry date on points.

Both companies say they will be ready to battle to court.

According to the Optimum program rules, the company reserves the
right to change the program without warning.

"We will be reviewing the judgment and we'll defend our position,"
said Tammy Smitham, director of communications and corporate
affairs for Shoppers Drug Mart Corp., in an interview on March 15.

The class-action suit aims to compensate members for the loss of
the value of their points as well as reinstituting the old values.
The suit also seeks C$50 in exemplary damages for each member.

The class includes all Pharmaprix Optimum members who were living
in Quebec on June 30, 2010, of which there are an estimated 1.4
million people.

Optimum club users will not have to sign up -- they are
automatically included in the class-action.

The initial suit sought a national member class for program
members everywhere, but was pared back to Quebec due to concerns
over jurisdiction.

About 9.7 million people are part of the Optimum program across
Canada.

It will be at least two years before a Quebec trial will be held.


PINNACLE WEST: Faces Consumer Class Suit Over Power Outage
----------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation and its subsidiary is facing a
consumer class action lawsuit in California, according to the
Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On September 12, 2011, two purported consumer class action
complaints were filed in Federal District Court in San Diego,
California, naming a subsidiary of the Company, Arizona Public
Service Company, Pinnacle West and San Diego Gas & Electric
Company as defendants and seeking damages for loss of perishable
inventory as a result of interruption of electrical service.  On
December 22, 2011, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed both
lawsuits.  In January 2012, one of the cases was refiled in
California Superior Court in San Diego, California.  APS and
Pinnacle West have numerous defenses against any such complaints,
and do not believe that any potential impact will be material.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Awaits Ruling on Appeal From 2008 OPUC Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company is awaiting a court decision
relating to an appeal from a September 2008 order entered by the
Public Utility Commission of Oregon, according to the Company's
February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In January 2003, two class action lawsuits, captioned Dreyer,
Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland General Electric
Company, Marion County Circuit Court, Case No. 03C 10639; and
Morgan v. Portland General Electric Company, Marion County Circuit
Court, Case No. 03C 10640, were filed in Marion County Circuit
Court against PGE.  The Dreyer case seeks to represent current PGE
customers that were customers during the period from April 1,
1995, to October 1, 2000 (Current Class), and the Morgan case
seeks to represent PGE customers that were customers during the
period from April 1, 1995, to October 1, 2000, but who are no
longer customers (Former Class, together with the Current Class,
the Class Action Plaintiffs).  The lawsuits seek damages of $190
million plus interest for the Current Class and $70 million plus
interest for the Former Class, from the inclusion of a return on
investment of Trojan in the rates PGE charged its customers.

In April 2004, the Class Action Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment and in July 2004, PGE also moved for
Summary Judgment in its favor on all of the Class Action
Plaintiffs' claims.  In December 2004, the Judge granted the Class
Action Plaintiffs' motion for Class Certification and Partial
Summary Judgment and denied PGE's motion for Summary Judgment.  In
March 2005, PGE filed two Petitions with the Oregon Supreme Court
asking the Court to take jurisdiction and command the trial Judge
to dismiss the complaints, or to show cause why they should not be
dismissed, and seeking to overturn the Class Certification.

In August 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling on PGE's
Petitions abating these class action proceedings until the Public
Utility Commission of Oregon ("OPUC") responded with respect to
the certain issues that had been remanded to the OPUC by the
Marion County Circuit Court in a proceeding arising from PGE's
request for approval to recover through rates future
decommissioning costs and full recovery of, and a rate of return
on, its Trojan investment.

In October 2006, the Marion County Circuit Court issued an Order
of Abatement in response to the ruling of the Oregon Supreme
Court, abating the class actions for one year.

In October 2007, the Class Action Plaintiffs filed a Motion with
the Marion County Circuit Court to lift the abatement.  In
February 2009, the Circuit Court judge denied the Motion to lift
the abatement.

In September 2008, as a result of its reconsideration of a
settlement order, OPUC required PGE to refund $33.1 million to
customers.  The Company completed the distribution of the refund
to customers, plus accrued interest, as required.

In October 2008, the Dreyer Class Action Plaintiffs appealed the
September 2008 OPUC order to the Oregon Court of Appeals.  Oral
arguments were made on February 3, 2012, and a decision by the
Oregon Court of Appeals remains pending.

Because the matters involve unsettled legal theories and have a
broad range of potential outcomes, management cannot estimate a
range of potential loss.  Management believes, however, that these
matters will not have a material impact on the financial condition
of the Company, but may have a material impact on the results of
operations and cash flows in future reporting periods.


SAIC INC: Faces Class Action Over CityTime Payroll System
---------------------------------------------------------
Joe Cogliano, writing for Dayton Business Journal, reports that
a law firm with a Dayton office has filed a class action lawsuit
against SAIC Inc., one of the biggest defense firms with offices
in the Dayton region.

Cincinnati-based Statman, Harris & Eyrich LLC alleges that SAIC's
investors were hurt when the company admitted it might be forced
to take a deduction from earnings because it overbilled the city
of New York by millions of dollars for a project to update its
city employee payroll system.

On March 14, SAIC announced it reached a settlement with the U.S.
Attorney for the Southern District of New York and the city of New
York concerning the CityTime automated workforce management
system.

Under the settlement, SAIC will pay $500.4 million in restitution
and penalties, and an independent monitor will be appointed by the
United States Attorney's Office for three years to review certain
company policies and practices.

The United States Attorney's Office has charged the company with a
single criminal count related to CityTime, but will defer
prosecution based upon, among other things, the company's
cooperation with the investigation, remediation efforts and
acceptance of responsibility.  The government has agreed to
dismiss the charge without prosecution in three years if SAIC
complies with the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement.

"We welcome this settlement as an important step in our efforts to
move forward as a better, stronger company dedicated to the
highest standards of ethics and performance for our customers,"
said John Jumper, chief executive officer of SAIC, in a statement.
"We have implemented strong improvements to our compliance program
and have new leadership in place.  Our financial position is
solid, with a strong balance sheet and strong, predictable
cashflow."


STATE OF ILLINOIS: DHS Sued Over Unfair Collection Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Ann Maher, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports that
a Madison County single mother and childcare benefit recipient has
filed suit against the Illinois Department of Human Services
(IDHS) claiming it unfairly files collection actions in Cook
County Circuit Court, an inconvenient forum.

Belinda Scoggins seeks to lead a class action on behalf of other
non-Cook County residents who have been sued or have faced the
possibility of suit involving overpaid benefits.

Ms. Scoggins, represented by Wood River attorney Thomas Maag,
claims she participated in a program through IDHS from December
2008 through November 2009, according to her complaint filed
March 5 in Madison County Circuit Court.

In August 2010, IDHS sued Ms. Scoggins in Cook County seeking to
recover $22,247.74.

According to Ms. Scoggins' complaint, the IDHS action remains
pending as Ms. Scoggins has never entered an appearance and has
not been lawfully served with the suit.

"That the Circuit Court of Cook County is approximately 295 miles
from Plaintiff Scoggins' home, and when a call is placed to the
Circuit Court in Cook County, the phone is answered by a recording
that directs a message to be left, followed by a statement that no
message can be left because the voice mail is full of other
messages from other callers," the complaint states.

The head of IDHS, Michelle R.B. Saddler, also is named as a
defendant.

Ms. Scoggins' suit states that the department's interest in
bringing all collection and post judgment suits in one single
county is not great because the state attorney general is required
to represent IDHS and other state agencies in every county of
Illinois.

Madison County case number 12-L-285


STATE OF IOWA: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Sent to Prison
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the lead plaintiff in a class-
action discrimination lawsuit has been sentenced to 4 years in
prison for embezzling unemployment benefits.

The U.S. attorney's office says Linda Pippen, of Fairfax, was
sentenced on March 14 in federal court.  She pleaded guilty in
December to one count of embezzlement from a program receiving
federal funds and one count of aggravated identify theft.

Ms. Pippen admitted embezzling $43,000 in unemployment insurance
funds from May 2008 to November 2009 while employed as an adviser
at Iowa Workforce Development in Cedar Rapids.

The discrimination lawsuit was filed on behalf of black Iowans who
were denied state jobs and promotions.

Lawyers are seeking to remove Ms. Pippen from the lawsuit because
of the conviction.  Online court records show the motion filed in
Polk County is pending.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeal From Dismissal of S.C. MDL Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two putative class action lawsuits have been filed against
SunTrust Banks, Inc. by former customers of LandAmerica 1031
Exchange Services, Inc, ("LES"), a subsidiary of LandAmerica
Financial Group, Inc. ("LFG").  The first of these actions, Arthur
et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al., was filed on January 14,
2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.  The second of these cases, Terry et al. v. SunTrust
Banks, Inc. et al., was filed on February 2, 2009, in the Court of
Common Pleas, Tenth Judicial Circuit, County of Anderson, South
Carolina, and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina.  On June 12, 2009, the Multi-
District Litigation ("MDL") Panel issued a transfer order
designating the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina, Anderson Division, as MDL Court for IRS Section 1031 Tax
Deferred Exchange Litigation (MDL 2054).  Plaintiffs' allegations
in these cases are that LES and certain of its officers caused
them to suffer damages in connection with potential 1031 exchange
transactions that were pending at the time that LES filed for
bankruptcy.  Essentially, Plaintiffs' core allegation is that
their damages are the result of breaches of fiduciary and other
duties owed to them by LES and others, fraud, and other improper
acts committed by LES and certain of its officers, and that the
Company is partially or entirely responsible for such damages
because it knew or should have known about the alleged wrongdoing
and failed to take appropriate steps to stop the same.

The Company believes that the allegations and claims made against
it in these actions are both factually and legally unsupported and
has filed a motion to dismiss all claims.  The Court granted this
motion to dismiss with prejudice on June 15, 2011.  Plaintiffs
have appealed this decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 24,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeals in ERISA-Violations Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in July 2008, the Company, officers and directors of
SunTrust Banks, Inc., and certain other Company employees were
named in a putative class action alleging that they breached their
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 ("ERISA") by offering the Company's common stock as an
investment option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the
"Plan").  The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the Company stock in their Plan
accounts from May 2007 to the present and seek to recover alleged
losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their
investment in Company stock.

The Company Stock Class Action was originally filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, but was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia, Atlanta Division, (the "District Court") in November
2008.

On October 26, 2009, an amended complaint was filed.  On
December 9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted in part
and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. Defendants and plaintiffs filed separate motions for
the District Court to certify its October 25, 2010 order for
immediate interlocutory appeal. On January 3, 2011, the District
Court granted both motions.

On January 13, 2011, defendants and plaintiffs filed separate
petitions seeking permission to pursue interlocutory appeals with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ("the Circuit
Court").  On April 14, 2011, the Circuit Court granted defendants
and plaintiffs permission to pursue interlocutory review in
separate appeals.

On September 6, 2011, briefing in the separate appeals concluded.
The Circuit Court has not set a date for oral arguments.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 24,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Awaits Appeal Ruling in ATM Fee Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on an appeal
from the dismissal of the remaining claim in the consolidated
lawsuit known as In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation, according to
the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in a number of antitrust actions that
have been consolidated in federal court in San Francisco,
California, under the name In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation,
Master File No. C04-2676 CR13.  In these actions, Plaintiffs, on
behalf of a class, assert that Concord EFS and a number of
financial institutions have unlawfully fixed the interchange fee
for participants in the Star ATM Network.  Plaintiffs claim that
Defendants' conduct is illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Plaintiffs initially asserted the Defendants' conduct was illegal
per se.  In August 2007, Concord and the bank defendants filed
motions for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' per se claim.  In
March 2008, the Court granted the motions on the ground that
Defendants' conduct in setting an interchange fee must be analyzed
under the rule of reason.  The Court certified this question for
interlocutory appeal, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit rejected Plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal on
August 13, 2008.  Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second Amended
Complaint in which they asserted a rule of reason claim.  This
complaint was dismissed by the Court as well, but Plaintiffs were
given leave to file another amended complaint.  Plaintiffs filed
yet another complaint and Defendants moved to dismiss the same.
The Court granted this motion in part by dismissing one of the
Plaintiffs two claims -- but denied the motion as to one claim.
On September 16, 2010, the Court granted the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment as to the remaining claim on the grounds that
Plaintiffs lack standing to assert that claim.  Plaintiffs have
filed an appeal of this decision with the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals and the parties are awaiting that court's decision.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Awaits Order on Bid to Reconsider in TRUPs Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion
for reconsideration in a consolidated lawsuit over its sale of
$690 million of SunTrust Capital IX 7.875% Trust Preferred
Securities, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

Beginning in May 2009, the Company, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey,
Inc. ("STRH"), SunTrust Capital IX, officers and directors of the
Company, and others were named in three putative class actions
arising out of the offer and sale of approximately $690 million of
SunTrust Capital IX 7.875% Trust Preferred Securities ("TRUPs") of
SunTrust Banks, Inc.  The complaints alleged, among other things,
that the relevant registration statement and accompanying
prospectus misrepresented or omitted material facts regarding the
Company's allowance for loan and lease loss reserves, the
Company's capital position, and its internal risk controls.
Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged losses in connection with their
investment in the TRUPs or to rescind their purchases of the
TRUPs.  These cases were consolidated under the caption Belmont
Holdings Corp., et al., v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, and on November 30, 2009, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed.  On January 29, 2010, Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  This motion
was granted, with leave to amend, on September 10, 2010.  On
October 8, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in
an attempt to address the pleading deficiencies identified in the
Court's dismissal decision.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint on
March 21, 2011.  The District Court denied the motion to dismiss
as to Plaintiff's claims that the Company misrepresented the
adequacy of its loan loss reserves for 2007 but dismissed all
other claims against the Company and limited discovery in the
initial stages of the case to the question of SunTrust's
subjective belief as to the adequacy of those reserves at the time
of the offering.  SunTrust subsequently filed a motion for
reconsideration of this decision and a motion to stay discovery
pending resolution of that motion.  The Court granted the motion
to stay and the parties are awaiting a decision on the motion for
reconsideration.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Colonial Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in July 2009, SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s broker-dealer
affiliate, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. ("STRH"), certain
other underwriters, The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. ("Colonial
BancGroup") and certain officers and directors of Colonial
BancGroup were named as defendants in a putative class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama, Northern District entitled In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc.
Securities Litigation.  The complaint was brought by purchasers of
certain debt and equity securities of Colonial BancGroup and seeks
unspecified damages.  Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11
and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and
misleading disclosures in the relevant registration statement and
prospectus relating to Colonial BancGroup's goodwill impairment,
mortgage underwriting standards, and credit quality.  On August
28, 2009, The Colonial BancGroup filed for bankruptcy.  The
Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied in May 2010, but the
Court subsequently has ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint.  This amended complaint has been filed and the
defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 24,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Court Granted Arbitration Bid in "Krinsk" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted
SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration in a class
action lawsuit captioned Krinsk v. SunTrust Bank, according to the
Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

The lawsuit Krinsk v. SunTrust Bank is a lender liability action
in which the borrower claims that the Company has taken actions in
violation of her home equity line of credit agreement and in
violation of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA").  Plaintiff filed
this action in March 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida as a putative class action.  The Court
dismissed portions of Plaintiff's first complaint, and she
subsequently filed an amended complaint asserting breach of
contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and violation of TILA.  Plaintiff has filed a motion
seeking to certify a class of all Florida borrowers.  The Company
filed its answer to the complaint, has opposed class
certification, and has filed a motion to compel arbitration.  The
Court denied the motion to compel arbitration and this decision
was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  The
Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court's ruling that
SunTrust had waived its right to compel arbitration and remanded
the case back to the District Court to decide the merits of
SunTrust's motion to compel arbitration.

In January 2012, the District Court granted SunTrust's motion to
compel arbitration in this matter.


SUNTRUST BANKS: "Lehman Brothers" Suit Settlement Okayed in Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a multidistrict litigation over debt and
preferred stock offerings of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. was
approved in December 2011, according to SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s
February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Beginning in October 2008, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc.
("STRH"), along with other underwriters and individuals, were
named as defendants in several individual and putative class
action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and state and federal courts in
Arkansas, California, Texas and Washington.  Plaintiffs allege
violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 for
allegedly false and misleading disclosures in connection with
various debt and preferred stock offerings of Lehman Brothers
Holdings, Inc. ("Lehman Brothers") and seek unspecified damages.
All cases have now been transferred for coordination to the multi-
district litigation captioned In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt
Securities Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss all claims asserted in the class action.  On July 27,
2011, the District Court granted in part and denied in part the
motion to dismiss the class claims against STRH and the other
underwriter defendants.

A settlement with the class plaintiffs was approved by the Court
on December 15, 2011.  The class action now will go through a
notice and opt-out process in which members of the class,
including many of the plaintiffs in the pending individual
lawsuits, will have to decide whether to participate in the class
settlement or not.  In the individual lawsuits for which the
plaintiff decides to opt out of the class settlement, if any, the
cases will move forward each on its own schedule.  Motions to
dismiss are either pending or will be filed in each of these
cases.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion in Classic Mutual Funds Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit over SunTrust Banks,
Inc.'s Classic Mutual Funds remains pending, according to the
Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On March 11, 2011, the Company, officers and directors of the
Company, and certain other Company employees were named in a
putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") by offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as
investment options in the Plan.  The plaintiff purports to
represent all current and former Plan participants who held the
STI Classic Mutual Funds in their Plan accounts from April 2002
through December 2010 and seeks to recover alleged losses these
Plan participants supposedly incurred as a result of their
investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds.

The Affiliated Funds Class Action is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the
"District Court").  On June 6, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.  On June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint.  On July 25, 2011, briefing on the motion
to dismiss concluded, and the motion remains pending.

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


SUNTRUST BANKS: Still Awaits Ruling on Suit Over Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on its
motion to compel arbitration in one of the two class action
lawsuits filed in connection with the imposition of overdraft
fees, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company has been named as a defendant in two putative class
actions relating to the imposition of overdraft fees on customer
accounts.  The first such case, Buffington et al. v. SunTrust
Banks, Inc. et al. was filed in Fulton County Superior Court on
May 6, 2009.  This action was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on
June 10, 2009, and was transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida for inclusion in Multi-District
Litigation Case No. 2036 on December 1, 2009.  Plaintiffs assert
claims for breach of contract, conversion, unconscionability, and
unjust enrichment for alleged injuries they suffered as a result
of the method of posting order used by the Company, which
allegedly resulted in overdraft fees being assessed to their joint
checking account, and purport to bring their action on behalf of a
putative class of "all SunTrust Bank account holders who incurred
an overdraft charge despite their account having a sufficient
balance of actual funds to cover all debits that have been
submitted to the bank for payment, "as well as" all SunTrust
account holders who incurred one or more overdraft charges based
on SunTrust Bank's reordering of charges."  Plaintiffs seek
restitution, damages, expenses of litigation, attorneys' fees, and
other relief deemed equitable by the Court.  The Company filed a
Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Compel Arbitration and both
motions were denied.  The denial of the motion to compel
arbitration was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Eleventh Circuit remanded this matter back to the District
Court with instructions to the District Court to review its prior
ruling in light of the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility
LLC v. Concepcion.  The District Court has since denied SunTrust's
motion to compel arbitration for different reasons and SunTrust is
in the process of appealing this decision to the Eleventh Circuit.

The second of these cases, Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank, was filed
in the Fulton County State Court on July 12, 2010, and an amended
complaint was filed on August 9, 2010.  Plaintiff asserts that all
overdraft fees charged to his account which related to debit card
and ATM transactions are actually interest charges and therefore
subject to the usury laws of Georgia.  Plaintiff has brought
claims for violations of civil and criminal usury laws,
conversion, and money had and received, and purports to bring the
action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who have incurred such
overdraft fees within the last four years where the overdraft fee
resulted in an interest rate being charged in excess of the usury
rate.  SunTrust has filed a motion to compel arbitration and that
motion is pending.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Unit Faces Two Captive Reinsurance-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
A SunTrust Banks, Inc. subsidiary is facing two putative class
action lawsuits alleging it entered into illegal "captive
reinsurance" arrangements with private mortgage insurers,
according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011.

SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. ("STM") and Twin Rivers Insurance Company
("Twin Rivers") have been named as defendants in two putative
class actions alleging that the companies entered into illegal
"captive reinsurance" arrangements with private mortgage insurers.
More specifically, plaintiffs allege that SunTrust's selection of
private mortgage insurers who agree to reinsure loans referred to
them by SunTrust with Twin Rivers results in illegal "kickbacks"
in the form of the insurance premiums paid to Twin Rivers.
Plaintiffs contend that this arrangement violates the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") and results in unjust
enrichment to the detriment of borrowers.  The first of these
cases, Thurmond, Christopher, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et
al., was filed in February 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  This case currently has been
stayed by the Court pending the outcome of Edwards v. First
American Financial Corporation, a captive reinsurance case
currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.  The second of
these cases, Acosta, Lemuel & Maria Ventrella et al. v. SunTrust
Bank, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California in December
2011.  The Company intends to seek to have this case stayed
pending a decision in the Edwards case also.


UMG RECORDINGS: Sued in Calif. Over Digital Download Royalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in two federal class actions,
former members of The Temptations claim UMG Recordings owes them
and other artists royalties on digital downloads and ringtones.

A copy of the Complaint in Williams, et al. v. UMG Recordings,
Inc., Case No. 12-cv-01289 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/16/Temptations.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Raymond P. Boucher, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Koncious, Esq.
          KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 854-4444
          E-mail: boucher@kbla.com

               - and -

          Clifford H. Pearson, Esq.
          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNY, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          E-mail: cpearson@pswplaw.com
                  dwarshaw@pswplaw.com

               - and -

          Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
          William J. Newsom, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNY, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000
          E-mail: bsimon@pswplaw.com
                  asheanin@pswplaw.com
                  wnewsom@pswplaw.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
                  jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          Bruce J. Wecker, Esq.
          Arthur N. Bailey, Jr., Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
                  bwecker@hausfeldllp.com
                  abailey@hausfeldllp.com


UNITED BANCORP: Unit Continues to Defend Suit Over ATM fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
United Bancorp, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend a class
action lawsuit over ATM fees, according to the Company's
February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

A class action lawsuit was filed against United Bank & Trust (the
"Bank") in early 2011 that alleges the Bank violated the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1693 et
seq., by allegedly failing to provide adequate notice of automated
teller machines ("ATMs") fees at the Bank's ATMs.  The plaintiff
is seeking class certification of the lawsuit, statutory damages,
payment of costs of the lawsuit and payment of reasonable
attorneys' fees.  This case is in the discovery stage, and the
class has not been certified.

The Company says it is unable to determine potential liability in
this case.  Although the Bank intends to vigorously defend the
lawsuit, the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is neither
probable nor remote, and as such, no conclusion can be made at
this time.  The Bank believes this complaint is a routine legal
proceeding occurring in the ordinary course of its business as an
operator of ATMs.  The Company believes that this lawsuit is
without merit, but that disclosure of the potential liability is
prudent.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Have Yet to Seek S.C. Review
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated class action lawsuit alleging Verizon
Communications Inc. participates in intelligence-gathering
activities have not petitioned the United States Supreme Court to
review the affirmation of the dismissal of the lawsuit, but their
time to do so has not yet expired, according to the Company's
February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Verizon and a number of other telecommunications companies, have
been the subject of multiple class action lawsuits concerning
their alleged participation in intelligence-gathering activities
allegedly carried out by the federal government, at the direction
of the President of the United States, as part of the government's
post-September 11 program to prevent terrorist attacks.
Plaintiffs generally allege that Verizon has participated by
permitting the government to gain access to the content of its
subscribers' telephone calls and/or records concerning those calls
and that such action violates federal and/or state constitutional
and statutory law.  Relief sought in the cases includes injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees, and statutory and punitive damages.

On August 9, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(Panel) ordered that these actions be transferred, consolidated
and coordinated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Panel subsequently ordered that a
number of "tag along" actions also be transferred to the Northern
District of California.  Verizon believes that these lawsuits are
without merit.

On July 10, 2008, the President signed into law the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) Amendments Act of
2008, which provides for dismissal of these lawsuits by the court
based on submission by the Attorney General of the United States
of a specified certification.  On September 19, 2008, the Attorney
General made such a submission in the consolidated proceedings.
Based on this submission, the court ordered dismissal of the
complaints on June 3, 2009.  Plaintiffs appealed this dismissal,
and by decision issued December 29, 2011, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal.
Plaintiffs have not petitioned the United States Supreme Court to
review the decision, but their time to do so has not yet expired.


VISTAR CORP: Delivery Drivers' Meal Break Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Tanner, writing for Land Line, reports that federal courts
dealt a blow to delivery drivers in California who claimed the
company they worked for pressured them to work through meal breaks
and without accounting for the additional time on their paychecks.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
ruled against the truckers by dismissing their class action.

The plaintiffs, led by a group of delivery drivers for Performance
Food Group Inc., in a case titled Henry Esquivel et al. v. Vistar
Corp., said their employer failed to provide off-duty meal breaks
as required under California law, and failed to compensate them
for the extra time they worked.

"Plaintiffs claim that they were prevented from taking meal breaks
because of the time pressure that they were under to make
deliveries by a certain time of day," U.S. District Court Judge
Jacqueline H. Nguyen wrote Feb. 8 in the case description.

Judge Nguyen ended up ruling against the truckers, however, saying
the federal law known as the FAAAA, or the Federal Aviation
Administration Authorization Act, overrules the meal-break law in
California.

The judge wrote in her decision that the FAAAA allows certain
competitive market forces to trump specific considerations to
employees.  The decision granted a motion by the defendant company
to dismiss the truckers' class action.


WEST PUBLISHING: Faces Class Action Over Copyright Infringement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Coughlin at Courthouse News Service reports that West
Publishing commits mass copyright infringement of attorney-
produced legal documents through its Westlaw service, a West
Hartford attorney claims in a federal class action.

"West Publishing Corporation . . . is in the business of selling
and marketing online legal services to legal professionals through
its products, Westlaw and WestlawNext (collectively 'Westlaw'),"
lead plaintiff David Heinlein says in the complaint.

Mr. Heinlein claims he wrote several legal documents for a lawsuit
against The Home Depot.

"Under 17 U.S.C. Sec. 201 of the Copyright Act, the plaintiff is
the author and owner of Work, which is an original work of
authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression pursuant to
Under 17 U.S.C. Sec. 102," the complaint states.
He says he registered a copyright for the Work, which gives him
"exclusive right to copy, reproduce, sell, distribute, and
or/publicly display" it.

He says West Publishing scanned copies of his court filings and
uploaded them onto its Westlaw database.

"The defendant charges subscription fees and/or document-based
fees for the defendant's customers to access, view, and/or
download any document on Westlaw, including court-filed attorney
documents such as the plaintiff's work," the complaint states.

"The plaintiff did not authorize the defendant to copy, reproduce,
sell, distribute, and/or display the Work on Westlaw or anywhere
else.

"The defendant's infringement of the plaintiff's Work is ongoing
and continuous."

Mr. Heinlein seeks actual damages and/or Westlaw's profits, costs,
and an injunction barring the publisher from infringing his or
other attorneys' works.

A similar class action was filed in late February in Manhattan
Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Henlein v. West Publishing Corporation,
Case No. 12-cv-00386 (D. Conn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/16/WestPub.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Starble, Esq.
          STARBLE & HARRIS LLC
          Avon Park South
          One Darling Drive
          Avon, CT 06001
          Telephone: (860) 678-7775
          E-mail: jstarble@starbleharris.com


WILSHIRE BANCORP: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilshire Bancorp, Inc., the holding company for Wilshire State
Bank, announced on March 15 that the securities class action
lawsuit filed against Wilshire Bancorp and certain of its current
and former executives in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California has been dismissed and the
plaintiffs have been denied the right to re-file the action.

Separately, Wilshire Bancorp announced that in the Annual Report
on Form 10-K filed on March 15 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company
reported that it has remediated the previously disclosed material
weakness in internal controls on loan underwriting, approval, and
renewal processes for certain loan originations and asset sales.

"With the dismissal of the class action lawsuit and the
remediation of the material weakness, we are very pleased to have
resolved two issues that required significant attention from the
management team and board of directors," said Jae Whan (J.W.) Yoo,
President and CEO of Wilshire Bancorp.  "Now that these issues are
behind us, we can increase our focus on other initiatives that
will more directly contribute to the profitable growth of the
Company."

Headquartered in Los Angeles, Wilshire State Bank --
http://www.wilshirebank.com-- operates 24 branch offices in
California, Texas, New Jersey and New York, and eight loan
production offices in Dallas and Houston, TX, Atlanta, GA, Aurora,
CO, Annandale, VA, Fort Lee, NJ, Newark, CA, and Bellevue, WA, and
is an SBA preferred lender nationwide.  Wilshire State Bank is a
community bank with a focus on commercial real estate lending and
general commercial banking, with its primary market encompassing
the multi-ethnic populations of the Los Angeles Metropolitan area.


XCEL ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss 2nd "Comer" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Xcel Energy Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a second class action lawsuit relating to carbon dioxide
emissions captioned Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc. et al., according
to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

On May 27, 2011, less than a year after their initial lawsuit was
dismissed, plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit,
captioned Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc. et al., filed a second
lawsuit against more than 85 utility, oil, chemical and coal
companies in U.S. District Court in Mississippi.  The complaint
alleges defendants' carbon dioxide ("CO2") emissions intensified
the strength of Hurricane Katrina and increased the damage
plaintiffs purportedly sustained to their property.  Plaintiffs
base their claims on public and private nuisance, trespass and
negligence.  Among the defendants named in the complaint are Xcel
Energy Inc., Southwestern Public Service Co. ("SPS"), Public
Service Company of Colorado ("PSCo"), Northern States Power
Company, a Wisconsin corporation ("NSP-Wisconsin") and Northern
States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ("NSP-Minnesota").
The amount of damages claimed by plaintiffs is unknown.

The defendants, including Xcel Energy Inc., believe this lawsuit
is without merit and have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
It is uncertain when the court will rule on this motion.  While
Xcel Energy believes the likelihood of loss is remote, given the
nature of this case and any surrounding uncertainty, it may have a
material impact on Xcel Energy's consolidated results of
operations, cash flows or financial position.  No accrual has been
recorded for this matter.

Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Xcel Energy Inc.
distributes electricity to 3.4 million customers and natural gas
to 1.9 million in eight states; Colorado and Minnesota account for
the majority of its customers.


                           *********

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  * * *