CAR_Public/120326.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 26, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 60

                             Headlines

ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Lawyer Prepares Silicosis Class Action
ARGUS REALTY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Real Estate Scam
CANADIAN ELECTROLYTIC: Court Allows Environmental Class Action
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Appeals Judgment in Breach of Agreement Suit
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over Cell Sites

CELLCOM ISRAEL: Continues to Defend Suit Over Phone Accessories
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Defends Suit Alleging Insufficient Cell Sites
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Suit Over Cellular Radiation Exposure Pending
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Suits Filed by Customers in Israel Pending
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Unit Faces New Class Suit Over Prepaid Cards

CENTRO: Former Chief Executive Testifies in Class Action
CITIBANK NA: Sued Over Undisclosed Frequent Flyer Miles Tax
DRIVEN SPORTS: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Amphetamine
FIBERON LLC: Faces Class Action Over Deck Mold Warranty Policy
GODADDY.COM: Sued Over Internet Domain Name Registration Charges

GOV'T OF GUAM: Political Status Referendum Class Action Ongoing
GOV'T OF UNITED KINGDOM: May Face Adoption Class Action
H&R BLOCK: Appeal in "Basile" Class Suit Remains Pending
H&R BLOCK: Appeal in "Drake" Class Suit Remains Pending
H&R BLOCK: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Consolidate 7 Class Suits

H&R BLOCK: Civil Conspiracy Claim in "Menezes" Suit Dismissed
H&R BLOCK: Wage and Hour Suits Remain pending in Various Courts
H&R BLOCK: Plea to Decertify in "Barrett" Suit Remains Pending
H&R BLOCK: Says Sum Paid for EquiCo Deal Did Not Exceed Accrual
HALIFAX: May Face Class Action Over Pet Insurance Policies

HSBC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend LIBOR-Related Class Suits
HSBC HOLDINGS: Awaits Final Judgment in "Jaffe" Suit
HSBC HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs Appeal Madoff-Related Claims Dismissal
INTELIUS: Sued Over Unlicensed Private Investigator Business
KRATOS DEFENSE: Last Obj. to IPO Suit Settlement Order Settled

LEIGHTON: Watchdog Calls for Harsher Continuous Disclosure Rules
LEIGHTON: Class Action Bigger Threat Than Disclosure Penalties
MULTILINK: EEOC to Seek Class Action Status in Harassment Suit
NAT'L AUSTRALIA BANK: Dec. 3 Trial Set for Class Action
NEVSUN: Unveils Share Repurchase Program, Faces Shareholders' Suit

PEGASUS WIRELESS: Settles Shareholder Derivative Class Action
R. ALLEN STANFORD: Investor Class Action Can Proceed
SCOTTISH WATER: Seafield Residents Seek Class Action Over Stench
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA: Disputes Mineral Rights Class Action
THESTREET INC: Appeal from IPO Suit Settlement Dismissed in Jan.

THIESS DEGREMONT: Unions Launch Class Action Over Spying Scandal
TREX CO: Continues to Defend Suits Over Defective Products
WELLS FARGO: Laid-Off Visa Workers File Class Action in Calif.
WEST BANCORPORATION: West Bank Continues to Defend Iowa Suit
WESTINGHOUSE LIGHTING: Recalls 7T Ceiling Fans Due to Fire Risk



                          *********

ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Lawyer Prepares Silicosis Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Ed Cropley, writing for Reuters, reports that a South African
lawyer said on March 20 he was preparing a class action lawsuit
against leading gold mining firms on behalf of thousands of former
miners who say they contracted silicosis, a debilitating lung
disease, through negligent health and safety.

Attorney Richard Spoor, whose legal battle against a South African
asbestos-mining company led to a $100 million settlement in 2003,
said he would file class action papers with the High Court in
Johannesburg "within the next few months".

"We have a very important meeting with our advocates on March 19
to thrash out the final form of the application," Mr. Spoor told
Reuters.

He said he had so far signed up 6,876 plaintiffs from South Africa
and Lesotho, the landlocked kingdom that has provided hundreds of
thousands of migrant workers to South Africa's gold mines over the
last century.

The principal targets of the suit would be AngloGold Ashanti, Gold
Fields and Harmony Gold -- South Africa's three biggest gold
miners -- and minor producer DRD Gold, Mr. Spoor said.

Frans Barker, chief operating officer of the Chamber of Mines and
the main industry spokesman on silicosis, declined specific
comment.

"We're continuing with our work on these issues, irrespective of
the class action.  We wouldn't like to respond to the class action
itself because that depends very much on the merit of specific
cases," he said.

The planned suit, which has little precedent in South African law,
has its roots in a landmark ruling by the Constitutional Court a
year ago that for the first time allowed lung-diseased miners to
sue their employers for damages.

The plaintiff in that case, Thembekile Mankayi, had sought ZAR2.6
million (US$342,000) in damages, loss of earnings, medical bills
and pain and suffering caused by silicosis and tuberculosis
allegedly contracted while working for AngloGold from 1979 to
1995.

Mr. Mankayi died days before the ruling.

Spoor would not be drawn on the size of any desired settlement,
but industry research suggests the mining houses could be facing a
bill running into the billions of rand should they lose.

At their height in the 1980s, South Africa's gold mines employed
500,000 men, and some medical research suggests as many as one in
two former gold miners has silicosis.

A 2009 paper by researchers from Johannesburg's Witswatersrand
University and University College, London, estimated that there
were 288,000 cases of compensable silicosis in South Africa.

It also assessed the industry's unpaid compensation liability at
ZAR10 billion at 1998 values.  Today, that is worth ZAR27 billion
-- more than US$3.5 billion. (US$1 = 7.5948 South African rand)


ARGUS REALTY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Real Estate Scam
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that investors claim
in a class action in Orange County, Calif., Superior Court that
Argus Realty Investors and nearly two dozen co-conspirators bilked
them for $6.25 million in a scam involving development of two
office buildings in Texas.

Lead plaintiff Alice Gee, two other people and 24 investment
trusts claim Argus representatives approached them and induced
them to invest in an office complex on the busy Dallas-Fort Worth
freeway.

"The transaction was nothing more than a real estate scam put
together by the defendants to line their own pockets," the
complaint states.

It continues: "The defendants arranged the acquisition of the
property at a price of $13,821,000 which amount included an
undisclosed 'markup' real estate commission paid to an affiliate.
The defendants then, through a series of transactions and
leveraging, sold securities in the form of tenant-in-common (TIC)
interests and separate limited partnership interests to plaintiffs
at the over-promoted equity-plus-debt raise of $16,600,000.

"Defendants represented they had acquired over $500 million of
commercial real estate; had more than 5 million square feet under
management and offered investors 'the opportunity to participate
in the ownership of institutional grade commercial real estate
without the burden of individual property management' through its
'tenants-in common, direct participation, private exchange
programs and real estate investment funds,'" according to the 73-
page complaint.

It continues: "Defendants misrepresented the transaction and the
securities offered and sold, including breaching fiduciary duties
and failure to disclose the actual loads which would have made the
securities a less desirable option than simply paying the capital
gains tax.

"Because the securities and TIC interests in the property were not
represented, as well as defendant's mismanagement, the property is
near foreclosure which will result in the loss of the $6.25
million invested."

The plaintiffs want their $6.25 million back, and punitive damages
for breach of fiduciary duty of real estate broker, legal
malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty of attorney, constructive
fraud, intentional misrepresentation, fraud by concealment,
conversion, and unfair business practices.

A copy of the Complaint in Gee, et al. v. Argus Realty Investors,
L.P., et al., Case No. 30-2012-00554778 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/21/Argus.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth J. Catanzarite, Esq.
          Nicole M. Catanzarite-Woodward, Esq.
          Eric V. Anderton, Esq.
          CATANZARITE LAW CORPORATION
          2331 West Lincoln Avenue
          Anaheim, CA 92801
          Telephone: (714) 520-5544
          E-mail: kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com
                  ncatanzarite@catanzarite.com
                  eanderton@catanzarite.com


CANADIAN ELECTROLYTIC: Court Allows Environmental Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the district of Montreal has authorized the
bringing of the largest environmental class action in Canada's
history.  The court attributed the status of representative to
Francois Deraspe to act on behalf of all the persons who on the
evening of August 9, 2004 had burning eyes, throat ailments,
airways ailments, respiratory ailments, skin rashes, cough, or who
suffered an asthma attack simultaneously with their exposure to
the toxic cloud released by the plant that Canadian Electrolytic
Zinc operates in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, Quebec.

The toxic cloud released by the plant was made up of sulphur
trioxide which is a hazardous substance that transforms itself
into sulfuric acid vapor when it comes into contact with air and
remains airborne for hours and can be carried by the wind over
dozens of kilometers while maintaining its toxicity.

In 2006, Canadian Electrolytic Zinc was acquired by Xstrata which
is the fourth largest diversified mining company in the world with
operating profit of nearly C$7.7 billion in 2011.

Mr. Deraspe will ask the court to condemn the company to pay
between C$5,000 and C$10,000 to each member of the group depending
on the prejudice suffered as well as exemplary damages of C$5,000.
No medical proof is required to make a claim.

Although the authorization to bring a class action amounts to no
more than a procedure that allows a representative to file a
lawsuit on behalf of a group of persons and does not prejudge in
any way the outcome of the trial to come, the attorney for the
company told the court, of his own volition, that his client would
have no defense to offer at trial should the authorization be
granted and that it had been estimated that the lawsuit could cost
his client up to 900 million dollars.

On the evening of the release, the wind blew from West to North
East at a speed of 17 kilometers per hour resulting in the
exposure of all or part of the municipalities and boroughs of
Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, St-Thimothee, Melocheville, Ile Perrot,
Beaconsfield, Dorval, Lachine, Pierrefonds, and Kirkland to the
toxic cloud.  Mr. Deraspe will apply to the court in the coming
days to add to that list the municipalities and boroughs of St-
Laurent, Cote-St-Luc, Ahunstic-Cartierville, Mont-Royal,
Hampstead, Cote-des-Neiges, Notre-Dame-de-Grace; Outremont, Le
Plateau-Mont-Royal, Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie; Villeray-St-Michel-
Parc-Extension; Montreal-Nord, Laval-des-Rapides and Chomedey.
In June of 2006, following a report by Environment Canada that
absolved the company of any misdeeds after an investigation that
took all of twenty minutes, Mr. Deraspe served a formal notice to
the Canadian Environment Minister to have an investigation ordered
pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.  The report
of investigation, which rests partly on the taped testimonies of
fifteen employees of the company, was made public in July of 2009.

In a letter to Environment Canada, the company fully agreed with
the factual conclusions of the report which unequivocally states
that the release was toxic and that the company failed to call the
emergency services.

One can learn from the report that the release was not accidental,
contrary to what the company had claimed in a written report
handed over to Environment Canada in August of 2004.

The report affirms that the company delayed for several days the
replacement of a pump that showed extensive wear. The company kept
the pump running even as a perforation was detected on it 12 hours
before the release happened in spite of the unacceptable risk that
it represented for the population and the environment, in the
words of Environment Canada's expert.

The pump broke down 12 hours later on the evening of August 9,
2004, at which time the sulphur trioxide started to be released in
the atmosphere through an 80 meters high smokestack instead of
being pumped into the sulphuric acid tanks.  The plant should then
have been shut down at once to keep the release to a maximum of
280 kilos as reported by the company's employees to Environment
Canada.

As stated in the report, instead of stopping the plant
immediately, the employees of the company tinkered with the pump
for a good 20 minutes during which the toxic gas was being
released in the environment.  Realizing that their efforts were
pointless, they finally decided to stop the plant, not without
having released approximately 10 tons of toxic gas in the
environment as the foreman and the chief environment of the
company told the firefighters and Environment Canada.

The company not only failed to call the emergency services at the
time of the release, odd as it may seem, it is 911 which,
overwhelmed with calls from citizens complaining about the toxic
cloud, called the company to find out if they had anything to do
with the release.  They were told that a "small problem" had
occurred, as stated in the Fire Department report.

The firefighters, alerted by citizens, had to go the plant of the
company, more than 90 minutes after the beginning of the release,
to see for themselves how "small" the problem was.  Once on the
premises, they learnt that a toxic cloud of 10 tons of sulphur
trioxide had been released in the environment from an 80 meters
high smokestack while the wind was blowing at 17 km/h towards
densely populated areas.  The firefighters ordered the triggering
of the company's emergency plan.

On that warm summer evening, the company's recklessness not only
exposed hundreds of thousands of citizens to the harmful effects
of a toxic cloud in the quiet of their homes, but its pretense
worsened their predicament by preventing them from taking simple
protective measures like remaining inside, closing the doors,
windows and vents, and shutting down any system that draws air
from the outside.

Mrs. Chantal Desjardins, the attorney for Mr. Deraspe, said that
she was very pleased with the authorization since the class action
is the only means that the citizens have to protect their
environment and assert their rights.  She said that she hoped that
the company will assume responsibility since it has no defense
whatsoever to oppose to the class action.  Indeed, in May of 2010,
in a last-ditch attempt to derail the class action, the company
filed a motion to have it dismissed on the grounds that the courts
had already ruled on that matter.  The Superior Court of Quebec
denied the motion in December of 2010 and its ruling was upheld by
the Court of Appeal in February of 2011.  The application filed by
the company for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court
of Canada in September of 2011.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Appeals Judgment in Breach of Agreement Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. appealed from a judgment against it in a class
action lawsuit alleging breach of agreement, according to the
Company's March 7, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In March 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the District Court of Central Region, by plaintiffs
alleging to be the Company's subscribers in connection with
allegations that the Company has unlawfully charged its
subscribers for providing them with call details records.

In August 2009, the District Court of Central Region approved a
request to certify a lawsuit as a class action, relating to an
allegation that the Company breached the agreements with its
subscribers by charging them for a call detail service it
previously provided free of charge, without obtaining their
consent.  The total amount claimed was estimated by the plaintiffs
to be approximately NIS440 million.  In December 2011, the Court
decided against the Company, accepted the allegation and ordered
the Company to repay its customers the sum charged for the service
in the amount of approximately NIS22 million plus interest and
linkage differences from the date of each payment made by the
subscribers, an amount of NIS200,000 to be paid to the plaintiffs
and a fee for the plaintiffs' attorney equal to 10% of the sum to
be repaid plus VAT.

In January 2012, the Company appealed the judgment with the
Supreme Court and the execution of the judgment was stayed until
the appeal is decided.

The Company says it has recorded a provision for the entire sum in
its financial statements.

                      About Cellcom Israel

Established in 1994, Cellcom Israel Ltd. --
http://www.cellcom.co.il-- is an Israeli cellular provider.
Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.391 million
subscribers (as at September 30, 2011) with a broad range of value
added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming
services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and
additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile office
etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced
infrastructure.  As of 2006, Cellcom Israel, through its wholly
owned subsidiary Cellcom Fixed Line Communications L.P., provides
landline telephone communication services in Israel, in addition
to data communication services.  Cellcom Israel's shares are
traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange (CEL).


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over Cell Sites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. continues to defend a class action lawsuit
brought on behalf of plaintiffs living near its cell sites,
according to the Company's March 7, 2012, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In December 2007, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company (and two other cellular operators) in the
District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, by plaintiffs alleging to be
residing next to cell sites of the defendants which the plaintiffs
allege were built in violation of the law.  The plaintiffs allege
that the defendants have created environmental hazards by
unlawfully building cell sites and therefore demand that the
defendants will compensate the public for damages (other than
personal damages, such as depreciation of property and/or health
related damages which are excluded from the purported class
action), dismantle existing unlawfully built cell sites and
refrain from unlawfully building new cell sites.  If the lawsuit
is certified as a class action, the compensation claimed from the
defendants is estimated by the plaintiffs to be NIS1 billion.

                      About Cellcom Israel

Established in 1994, Cellcom Israel Ltd. --
http://www.cellcom.co.il-- is an Israeli cellular provider.
Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.391 million
subscribers (as at September 30, 2011) with a broad range of value
added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming
services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and
additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile office
etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced
infrastructure.  As of 2006, Cellcom Israel, through its wholly
owned subsidiary Cellcom Fixed Line Communications L.P., provides
landline telephone communication services in Israel, in addition
to data communication services.  Cellcom Israel's shares are
traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange (CEL).


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Continues to Defend Suit Over Phone Accessories
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. continues to defend a class action lawsuit
brought on behalf of customers, who buy accessories for carrying
cellular handsets, according to the Company's March 7, 2012, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.

In June 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and three other cellular operators in the District
Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa, by an Israeli citizen, in connection with
the allegation that the defendants mislead customers who buy
accessories for carrying cellular handsets or do not disclose to
them relevant data concerning radiation hazards associated with
the usage of accessories for carrying cellular handsets, allegedly
contrary to the cellular handsets manufacturers' instructions and
warnings and the Israeli Ministry of Health' recommendations.

Thereafter, the plaintiff also requested interim remedies to
prevent further sale of such accessories by the Company and two
other defendants (the forth allegedly doesn't sell such
accessories) or to require them to take necessary precautionary
measures, including by complying with alleged disclosure duties
and by ceasing alleged misleading, which were rejected by the
court in October 2011.  In July 2011, at the request of the
Company, the purported class action was transferred to be heard by
the Judge hearing the purported class action filed against the
Company and three other cellular operators in May 2011, by the
same plaintiff and three other plaintiffs, raising similar
questions.

The total amount claimed from the Company, if the lawsuit is
certified as a class action, is estimated by the plaintiff to be
approximately NIS1 billion (out of a total sum of approximately
NIS2.7 billion against all defendants), substantially all for non
monetary damages.

                      About Cellcom Israel

Established in 1994, Cellcom Israel Ltd. --
http://www.cellcom.co.il-- is an Israeli cellular provider.
Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.391 million
subscribers (as at September 30, 2011) with a broad range of value
added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming
services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and
additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile office
etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced
infrastructure.  As of 2006, Cellcom Israel, through its wholly
owned subsidiary Cellcom Fixed Line Communications L.P., provides
landline telephone communication services in Israel, in addition
to data communication services.  Cellcom Israel's shares are
traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange (CEL).


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Defends Suit Alleging Insufficient Cell Sites
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. continues to defend a class action lawsuit
alleging it does not have sufficient number of cell sites,
according to the Company's March 7, 2012, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In May 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company (and the three other Israeli cellular operators) in
the District Court of Central Region, by four plaintiffs alleging
to be subscribers of the defendants.  The plaintiffs allege that
the defendants unlawfully and in violation of their license and
agreements with their subscribers fail to construct cell sites in
a sufficient quantity, scope and coverage in order to provide
cellular services in the requisite quality; fail to test, repair
and notify the subscribers that non-ionizing radiation level for
repaired handsets may exceed the manufacturer's specifications and
the maximum level allowed by law; fail to inform and caution the
subscribers of the risks related to the manner of carrying the
handset and its distance from the subscriber's body; all of which
allegedly increase the level of non-ionizing radiation and health
risks to which the subscribers are exposed.  In September 2010, at
the Company and two other cellular operators' request, the Court
instructed the transfer of this purported class action to the Tel-
Aviv-Jaffa District Court, to be heard by the Judge hearing the
purported class action filed against the Company in December 2007
(by plaintiffs alleging that the Company and the two other Israeli
cellular operators have created environmental hazards by
unlawfully building cell sites).  If the lawsuit is certified as a
class action, the total amount claimed from the Company is
estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately
NIS3.68 billion (the total amount claimed from the four defendants
is estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS12 billion).

                      About Cellcom Israel

Established in 1994, Cellcom Israel Ltd. --
http://www.cellcom.co.il-- is an Israeli cellular provider.
Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.391 million
subscribers (as at September 30, 2011) with a broad range of value
added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming
services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and
additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile office
etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced
infrastructure.  As of 2006, Cellcom Israel, through its wholly
owned subsidiary Cellcom Fixed Line Communications L.P., provides
landline telephone communication services in Israel, in addition
to data communication services.  Cellcom Israel's shares are
traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange (CEL).


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Suit Over Cellular Radiation Exposure Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. continues to defend a class action lawsuit
alleging damages due to exposure to cellular radiation, according
to the Company's March 7, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In March 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and another cellular operator, in the District Court
of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa by two plaintiffs alleging to be subscribers of
the defendants, in connection with allegations that the defendants
breached their license by failing to purchase insurance against
monetary liability which the defendants may suffer due to bodily
damages that allegedly may be caused by cellular radiation.  The
plaintiffs request the court to award compensation in an amount
equal to the insurance premiums allegedly payable for insuring
such liability (estimated by the plaintiffs to be NIS 300 million
per year per defendant) for the past seven years and to order the
defendants to purchase such insurance coverage in the future.  If
the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount
claimed is estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS4.2
billion, out of which
NIS2.1 billion is attributed to the Company individually.

                      About Cellcom Israel

Established in 1994, Cellcom Israel Ltd. --
http://www.cellcom.co.il-- is an Israeli cellular provider.
Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.391 million
subscribers (as at September 30, 2011) with a broad range of value
added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming
services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and
additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile office
etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced
infrastructure.  As of 2006, Cellcom Israel, through its wholly
owned subsidiary Cellcom Fixed Line Communications L.P., provides
landline telephone communication services in Israel, in addition
to data communication services.  Cellcom Israel's shares are
traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange (CEL).


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Suits Filed by Customers in Israel Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. disclosed in its March 7, 2012, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011, it is defending these class action
lawsuits in Israel:

   * 28 purported class actions have been filed against the
     Company in connection with allegations that it unlawfully,
     in violation of its license or agreements with its
     subscribers, charged or overcharged its subscribers for its
     services, in amounts estimated by the plaintiffs to be from
     approximately NIS5 million to approximately NIS200 million
     or which were not estimated by these plaintiffs, if the
     lawsuits are certified as class actions.  In three of the
     purported class actions (two for a total amount claimed if
     certified as class actions, of approximately NIS14 millions
     and third in which no amount claimed was estimated),
     settlement agreements in immaterial sums were filed with the
     court and the procedures are still pending.  In a class
     action for an estimated amount claimed of NIS28 million, a
     settlement agreement in which the Company guarantees the
     repayment of in-consequential sums by third parties was
     filed with the court and the procedure is still pending;

   * 15 purported class actions were filed against the Company in
     connection with allegations that it misled its subscribers,
     in amounts estimated by the plaintiffs to be from
     approximately NIS21 million to approximately NIS2.7
     billion, if the lawsuits are certified as class actions.  In
     three of the purported class actions (for a total amount
     claimed if certified as class actions, of approximately
     NIS149 million), settlement agreements of immaterial sums
     were filed with the court and the procedures are still
     pending.  One purported class action (for which no amount
     claimed was estimated) was dismissed with prejudice and the
     plaintiffs appealed the ruling and another purported class
     action (for which no amount claimed was estimated) was
     dismissed following plaintiff's request and appealed by the
     Israeli General Counsel regarding a procedural question
     regarding such dismissal;

   * Four purported class actions were filed against the Company
     in connection with allegations that it unlawfully, in
     violation of its license or agreements with its subscribers,
     build and operate its network and sell handsets and related
     equipment, including in relation to alleged hazards relating
     to non ionizing radiation emitted from cell sites and
     end-user equipment in amounts estimated by the plaintiffs to
     be from approximately NIS 1 billion to approximately NIS 3.7
     billion, if the lawsuits are certified as class actions;

   * Three purported class actions were filed against the Company
     in connection with allegations that it unlawfully sent to
     its subscribers and to other parties commercial messages, in
     amounts estimated by the plaintiffs in two purported class
     actions to be approximately NIS 3 million and approximately
     NIS 50 million and which were not estimated by the
     plaintiffs in the third purported class action, if the
     lawsuits are certified as class actions.  In the purported
     class action in which no amount claimed was estimated, a
     settlement agreement for immaterial sums were filed with the
     court and the procedure is still pending;

   * Three purported class actions were filed against the Company
     in connection with allegations that the Company unlawfully,
     in violation of its license or agreements with its
     subscribers discriminate between its subscribers, in amounts
     estimated by the plaintiffs to be from approximately NIS 60
     million to approximately NIS 306 million, if the lawsuits
     are certified as class actions;

   * Two purported class actions were filed against the Company
     in connection with allegations that it unlawfully, in
     violation of its license or agreements with its subscribers
     failed to provide certain services, in amounts estimated by
     the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 20 millions and
     approximately NIS 60 million, if the lawsuits are certified
     as class actions; and

   * Two purported class actions were filed against the Company
     in connection with allegations that it failed to provide
     customer care in accordance with the provisions of its
     license and applicable law, in amounts estimated by the
     plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 107 millions and
     approximately NIS 361 million (which was filled against
     three additional operators without specifying the amount
     claimed from the Company), if the lawsuits are certified as
     class actions.

The Company says it has recorded appropriate provisions for each
of the settlement agreements filed with the courts in the class
action lawsuits.

                      About Cellcom Israel

Established in 1994, Cellcom Israel Ltd. --
http://www.cellcom.co.il-- is an Israeli cellular provider.
Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.391 million
subscribers (as at September 30, 2011) with a broad range of value
added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming
services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and
additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile office
etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced
infrastructure.  As of 2006, Cellcom Israel, through its wholly
owned subsidiary Cellcom Fixed Line Communications L.P., provides
landline telephone communication services in Israel, in addition
to data communication services.  Cellcom Israel's shares are
traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange (CEL).


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Unit Faces New Class Suit Over Prepaid Cards
------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary is facing another class action
lawsuit alleging it misled purchasers of certain international
prepaid cards, according to the Company's March 7, 2012, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

In November 2010, the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa approved a
request to certify a lawsuit as a class action, relating to an
allegation that Netvision Ltd., the Company's wholly owned
subsidiary and two other long distance providers, misled the
purchasers of certain prepaid cards for long distance calls bought
between 2004 and 2008 in relation to certain bonus minutes and
reduced certain minutes in certain circumstances.  The total
amount claimed from all the defendants was estimated by the
plaintiffs to be approximately NIS2.2 billion, of which
approximately NIS818 million was attributed to Netvision.  In
December 2010, the defendants filed a request for appeal with the
Supreme Court challenging the decision and in March 2011 the
district court's decision was stayed.

In February 2012, after the end of the reporting period, a
purported class action lawsuit was filed against Netvision and
certain other long distance operators in the District Court in
Tel-Aviv Jaffa, by a plaintiff alleging that the defendants
mislead the purchasers of certain international prepaid cards in
connection with the amount of minutes included in certain calling
cards.  The total amount which is claimed from the Company was
assessed by the plaintiffs in approximately NIS2.7 billion (and
from any other defendant).  At this early stage, it is not
possible to assess their chances of success.

                      About Cellcom Israel

Established in 1994, Cellcom Israel Ltd. --
http://www.cellcom.co.il-- is an Israeli cellular provider.
Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.391 million
subscribers (as at September 30, 2011) with a broad range of value
added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming
services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and
additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile office
etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced
infrastructure.  As of 2006, Cellcom Israel, through its wholly
owned subsidiary Cellcom Fixed Line Communications L.P., provides
landline telephone communication services in Israel, in addition
to data communication services.  Cellcom Israel's shares are
traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange (CEL).


CENTRO: Former Chief Executive Testifies in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Australian, reports that former
Centro chief executive Andrew Scott has denied suggestions he
bullied staff at the shopping center owner ahead of the release of
the company's erroneous 2007 financial accounts.

Mr. Scott took to the witness stand in the eighth day of the class
action trial relating to the company's 2007 near-collapse, after
the company revealed it was struggling to refinance billions in
debts that were incorrectly classified as non-current.

Under cross-examination by counsel for PricewaterhouseCoopers,
Mr. Scott was asked if he ever discouraged members of the
company's executive team from raising issues at their bimonthly
meetings.

"I suspect some of my actions and language would do so (discourage
people), but that wasn't the intention," Mr. Scott said.

When asked by Richard McHugh, SC, for PwC, if he would shoot the
messenger if there was a problem with the message, Mr. Scott said
that wasn't his intention.

"Did you ever bully anyone?" Mr. McHugh asked.

"If things needed to be done quickly, I suspect some people could
misinterpret it that way, but I don't believe that I did,"
Mr. Scott told the court.

Mr. McHugh pressed Mr. Scott as to why former chief financial
officer Romano Nenna said he felt sickened when he realized the
company's accounts contained a AUD3.1 billion error, asking
Mr. Scott if he had done anything to make Mr. Nenna afraid of him.

Mr. Scott said he had not done anything to cause Mr. Nenna to fear
him, adding: "I thought he might've been embarrassed."

Hundreds of Centro shareholders have joined the two class actions
against the company and PwC, together worth AUD600 million.  The
shareholders claim they were made aware of the 2007 accounting
error only in December that year when the company revealed it was
having refinancing issues.

The company's share price subsequently collapsed.  PwC is count-
claiming against Centro, alleging Centro withheld key documents.
PwC also claims it warned Centro that there might be trouble with
the accounts.

Earlier, Mr. Scott told the court that PwC partner Stephen Cougle
did not raise any issues with the company's accounts in early
August just days ahead of their release to the stock exchange.

"At that meeting, your honor, I recall Stephen Cougle confirmed
that the audit was really done and that PwC had signed off on the
accounts," Mr. Scott said.  "I think he did mention also that
there were some minor amendments but that nothing would be
material."

Centro is also facing allegations from shareholders it failed to
give enough warning to investors that it was having trouble
refinancing its considerable debt pile.

Mr. Scott was presented with minutes taken of the company's board
meeting in March 2007.  They showed former chairman Brian Healey
had voiced concerns the company would become "hostages to fortune"
and there was a "possibility of egg on face".

They also showed Mr. Nenna had told the board in March that nine
months might not be enough to refinance a billion-dollar portion
of the debts.

Mr. Scott defended Centro's use of short-term debt to facilitate
acquisitions as those purchases would grow the company.

"Our raison d'etre was to look after shareholders," he said.

The case continues.


CITIBANK NA: Sued Over Undisclosed Frequent Flyer Miles Tax
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that a customer
claims in a federal class action that Citibank lured him to open a
new account by offering frequent flyer miles on American Airlines,
without explaining the tax obligations of the "value" of the air
miles -- while Citibank got a tax break by calling the miles a
business expense.

Lead plaintiff Amer Safadi claims he signed up after getting a
promotional offer in the mail.  He claims Citibank issued him
60,000 frequent flyer miles after he complied with the terms of
the promo, which included opening new checking and savings
accounts with a certain amount of money, and using the associated
debit card "a certain number of times within a certain time period
thereafter."

But Mr. Safadi says Citibank did not inform him, or the class,
that it would "issue a [federal tax] Form 1099 for receipt of the
airline miles, failed to state that Citibank had already
calculated what it believed was the 'value' of the airline miles
for reporting purposes on the Form 1099; failed to state what that
'value' to be reported on the Form 1099 would be; and failed to
state whether the airline miles would ever expire or otherwise
lose the 'value' that they may have.  Rather, the offer simply
states: 'Customer is responsible for taxes, if any.'"

After he opened his account, Mr. Safadi says, he was "surprised"
to receive a Form 1099 from Citibank, "indicating plaintiff had
received $1,500 worth of 'income' from Citibank for receipt of the
airline miles.  . . .

"This amount far over-states the actual 'value' the airline miles
may have, if indeed they have any 'value' to plaintiff at all.
However, defendant is motivated to over-state the 'value' of the
airline miles issued to plaintiff since the amount reported on the
Form 1099 may qualify as a business expense for defendant, and may
therefore decrease defendant's tax obligation, resulting in a
significant financial benefit to defendant at plaintiff's
expense."

Mr. Safadi says in his complaint that U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown,
D-Ohio, sent a letter to Citigroup's CEO on Jan. 30, requesting
that Citibank stop issuing Form 1099s to its customers.  Mr. Brown
is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee on Financial
Institutions and Consumer Protection.

"In a newspaper interview response, Citibank implied that it would
continue the practice of issuing Form 1099s notwithstanding
consumer complaints and the problem with assigning a 'value' to
the frequent flier miles," the complaint states.

Mr. Safadi seeks an injunction, restitution and punitive damages
for consumer fraud, unfair competition and breach of contract.

A copy of the Complaint in Safadi v. Citibank N.A., Case No.
12-cv-01356 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/21/Citibank.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason E. Baker, Esq.
          Brent Jex, Esq.
          KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP
          6255 Lusk Blvd., Suite 140
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 558-9400

               - and -

          Patrick N. Keegan, Esq.
          KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP
          6870 Embarcadero Lane
          Carlsbad, CA 92011
          Telephone: (760) 929-9303


DRIVEN SPORTS: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Amphetamine
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a diet
supplement maker is selling a mislabeled amphetamine with claims
that it is "safe" and "helps put you in a fantastic mood," a man
claims in a class action in Superior Court.

Lead plaintiff Aaron Karmann sued Driven Sports, claiming its
Craze diet supplement contains amphetamine, "a dangerous
ingredient which is regulated as a controlled substance and a
dangerous stimulant in California and thus cannot be lawfully
included in a dietary supplement.

A visit to Driven Sports' Web site on Tuesday found this ad:
"Imagine having something available that helps you train BEYOND
YOUR LIMITS. Imagine endless energy.  No weight is too great and
no personal record is safe.  That something would give you
unmatched results, where others have failed. That something is
Craze"!, the ultimate in pre-workout power!"

But Mr. Karmann says: "Defendant claims that the product is a
'dietary supplement' which is legal, safe, and efficacious.  In
reality, the product is intentionally tainted with amphetamine,
the illegal and dangerous controlled substance that is not
declared as an ingredient on the product's label."

He claims that defendant's product "is intentionally tainted with
amphetamine, the illegal and dangerous controlled substance that
is not declared as an ingredient on the product's label."

The complaint adds: "Defendant makes representations regarding the
efficacy, safety and legality of the product which are false,
misleading and deceptive.  These include, without limitation, that
Craze is 'safe,' that it 'helps put you in a fantastic mood and
enhances your focus,' that it is 'designed to enhance your
workouts and enhance your progress,' and that it can be used by
students for studying.

"Plaintiff and members of the class relied on defendant's
misrepresentations and would not have paid as much, if at all, for
the products but for defendant's misrepresentations.  As a result,
defendant has wrongfully taken millions of dollars from California
consumers.  Plaintiff brings this lawsuit to enjoin the ongoing
defrauding of thousands of California consumers by defendant, and
to recover the money taken by its illegal practices."

Mr. Karmann seeks an injunction, costs, restitution, disgorgement,
and punitive damages.

A copy of the Complaint in Karmann v. Driven Sports, Inc., et al.,
Case No. RIC 1203768 (Calif. Super. Ct., Riverside Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/21/Craze.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
          895 Dove Street, Suite 425
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com


FIBERON LLC: Faces Class Action Over Deck Mold Warranty Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers, represented by Hagens Berman, who purchased Portico-
brand decking manufactured by Fiberon have filed a class-action
lawsuit alleging that when their decking developed mold and
fungus, the company failed to honor its warranty and pay for the
deck to be repaired or replaced.

The class-action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Fiberon, LLC, also known as Fiber Composites, LLC, manufactured
Portico Series Decking products, which are made from a composite
material comprised of wood fiber and polyethylene.  The material
was marketed as a premium alternative to traditional natural wood
products at more than double the cost, the complaint alleges.

However, according to the lawsuit, the company told consumers that
it expressly warrants Portico products for 20 years, and that the
decking is more resilient to cracks, mold, splinters and other
problems typically associated with traditional natural wood
decking.  The company also implied that Portico products would
require less upkeep, the complaint alleges.

The plaintiffs claim that contrary to the claims made by Fiberon,
Portico decking has a defect that results in extensive molding,
mildew and other fungal growth that discolors the deck.  They also
claim they sought to have their deck repaired or replaced under
Fiberon's 20-year warranty, but the company refused to cover the
damage.

One of the plaintiffs named in the complaint is David Fleisher, of
North Wales, Pennsylvania.  He purchased Portico decking because
he believed it would be a low maintenance alternative to
traditional wood decking.  According to the complaint, his deck
soon developed fungal growth, including large black spots.  He had
the deck cleaned, but the discoloration reappeared, so he sent a
letter to Fiberon asking for relief under the warranty.

Fiberon responded to his letter, admitting that the deck likely
had mildew or mold, but refused to cover the damage under its
warranty, court documents state.

Instead of covering the damage or replacing the decking, the
company tells consumers to clean their decks with chemical
products at their own expense, the lawsuit claims.  However,
consumers say the cleaning methods do not prevent the mold for
reappearing.

Some of Fiberon's competitors offered similar composite decking
products which reportedly have similar problems, and have settled
class-action claims stemming from consumer complaints.  Following
those settlements, Fiberon allegedly removed its Portico products
from the market.

The lawsuit asks the court to award consumers damages, including a
full refund or replacement of their decks.

Hagens Berman invites potential plaintiffs who have suffered
losses as a result of fungal growth on their Portico Decking to
contact an attorney by calling 206-623-7292.  The firm can also be
reached by emailing Portico@hbsslaw.com

More information about this case is available at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/Portico

                       About Hagens Berman

Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP --
http://www.hbsslaw.com-- represents consumers, workers,
whistleblowers and investors in complex litigation.  The firm has
offices in ten cities.


GODADDY.COM: Sued Over Internet Domain Name Registration Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
GoDaddy.com offered free registration of five or more Internet
domain names, then "overbilled and charged the customers for those
ostensibly 'free' services upon the renewal of the customer's
Internet domain names."

A copy of the Complaint in WineStyles, Inc. v. GoDaddy.com, LLC,
Case No. 12-cv-00583 (D. Ariz.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/21/GoDaddy.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Hodkin, Esq.
          Stephen J. Padula, Esq.
          PADULA HODKIN, PLLC
          101 Plaza Real South, Suite 207
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 544-8900
          E-mail: ahodkin@padulahodkin.com


GOV'T OF GUAM: Political Status Referendum Class Action Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Kerrigan, writing for Pacific News Center, reports that the
attorney representing Dave Davis in the Class Action lawsuit
against the Guam Election Commission over the referendum on
political status has given the court a list of 49 names of
prominent island resident who may have "discoverable information"
in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed in Guam District Court last November
alleging that the Guam Election Commission has "illegally and
unconstitutionally" refused to allow Guam voters who do not meet
the definition of "native inhabitant" to register for the non-
binding referendum.

A Rule 26 disclosure filed on March 16 states that some of those
named are said to have information "relating to racial appeals,
statements characterizing the plebiscite as having a racial
character."

Among those in that category are Speaker Judi Won Pat, Senators
Ben Pangelinan and B.J. Cruz, Executive Director of the Guam
Commission on Decolonization, Edward Alvarez, and President of
Chamorro Affairs Joseph Artero-Cameron.

Attorney General Lenny Rapadas has filed a motion to dismiss the
case because it fails to present a "justiciable case or
controversy."  But shortly after the filing, the Attorney General
entered into settlement negotiations with Davis' Attorney,
Christian Adams of the Election Law Center in Washington D.C.

According to the latest scheduling order, also filed on March 16,
"The parties have discussed various ways . . . to ascertain the
political wishes of subsets of the population of Guam . . . and
share at least a measure of theoretical agreement that alternative
registration and electoral structures are available to accomplish
some objectives of the current and challenged system."

But, the scheduling order notes "any settlement would require the
modification of an existing registration system and . . . may
require the Guam Legislature's approval."

Both sides have agreed to submit the case "to a settlement
conference sometime during late September 2012."


GOV'T OF UNITED KINGDOM: May Face Adoption Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Ted Jeory, writing for Express.co.uk, reports that a wealthy
psychiatrist who faces being struck off over claims he
deliberately misdiagnosed parents to please social workers once
tried to persuade a committee of MPs to make his techniques a
national standard, the Sunday Express can reveal.

Porsche driving Dr. George Hibbert is under investigation by the
General Medical Council over claims he falsified psychiatric
reports on parents so he could rake in business from local
authorities.

It is claimed he misdiagnosed parents with mental disorders so
that social services could persuade judges to issue care orders.

It is thought many children have been taken away from their
natural parents and adopted with new families for life in what
could be one of Britain's biggest scandals.

Dr. Hibbert's Assessment in Care business earned hundreds of
thousands of pounds by charging councils around the country
GBP6,000 a week for each parent in his care.

The Sunday Express, which has led the way in exposing dangers of
relying on single expert witness testimony in court proceedings,
can now reveal that such was his confidence in his lucrative work
that he supplied evidence to the Justice Select Committee two
years ago.

Mr. Hibbert and family solicitor Jill Canvin, who lives with him
at his country home in Wiltshire, produced a dossier for MPs in
August 2010 in which they boasted the merits of their methods.

They said the Government would save GBP125 million a year if it
adopted their Tadpole Parenting Assessment software, named after
their Tadpole Cottage assessment centre.

They said their techniques should be the basis for a national
standard for social services so that delays and administration in
the family court system could be reduced.

"We have a proposal which would provide a rational basis for
[Court] Guardians to reduce their workload," they said, adding:
"This would be achieved by enabling social services to make more
consistent, reliable and fair assessments of parenting."

They told MPs that their recognition of the "poor" standard of
social services was "endorsed" by Barnardo's , which was at that
time headed by Martin Narey, who is now the Coalition's Adoption
Tsar and acclaimed by David Cameron.

Dr. Hibbert and Ms. Canvin said their methods should be run in a
pilot scheme that would test the IQs of parents and monitor their
behavior.

They sell their Tadpole Parenting Assessment via their Web site.

As a result of the GMC investigation, a lawyer acting for a mother
known for legal reasons as 'Miss A', who had her child removed
after she says she was misdiagnosed with bipolar by Dr. Hibbert,
now believes a massive class action against the Government is in
store.

Paul Grant, of Bernard Chill & Axtell Solicitors, said he had
already been contacted by several other parents who have been
allegedly misdiagnosed by experts like Dr. Hibbert all over the
country.

He said: "This is a wider problem than just one case.  These
experts start out as clinicians but then they seem to get
corrupted by money and the commercial opportunities."

Lib Dem MP John Hemming has through the pages of the Sunday
Express previously called for a national inquiry into the use of
single expert testimonies in court proceedings because he believes
they can be "hired hands doing their masters' bidding".

Neither Dr. Hibbert nor Ms. Canvin could be contacted, but a
spokesman for the psychiatrist at the Medical Protection Agency,
the indemnity organization for doctors, said professional
confidentiality meant Dr. Hibbert was "unable to comment on
allegations raised in relation to care of a patient".


H&R BLOCK: Appeal in "Basile" Class Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. has been named in a putative class action styled
Sandra J. Basile, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., April Term
1992 Civil Action No. 3246 in the Court of Common Pleas, First
Judicial District Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County,
instituted on April 23, 1993.  The plaintiffs allege inadequate
disclosures with respect to the refund anticipation loan (RAL)
product and assert claims for violation of consumer protection
statutes, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty,
common law fraud, usury, and violation of the Truth In Lending
Act.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.  A Pennsylvania
class was certified, but later decertified by the trial court in
December 2003.  An appellate court subsequently reversed the
decertification decision.  The Company is appealing the reversal.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 7, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended January 31, 2012.

The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable nor has it accrued a loss contingency related
to this matter.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses
to this case and intends to defend the case vigorously, but there
can be no assurances as to the outcome of this case or its impact
on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.


H&R BLOCK: Appeal in "Drake" Class Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc.'s portfolio includes loans originated by Sand
Canyon Corporation, previously known as Option One Mortgage
Corporation, and its subsidiaries (SCC) and purchased by H&R Block
Bank (HRB Bank), which constitute 63% of the total loan portfolio
at January 31, 2012.

On December 9, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California against SCC and H&R Block, Inc. styled Jeanne Drake, et
al. v. Option One Mortgage Corp., et al. (Case No. SACV09-1450
CJC).  Plaintiffs allege breach of contract, promissory fraud,
intentional interference with contractual relations, wrongful
withholding of wages and unfair business practices in connection
with the failure to pay severance benefits to employees when their
employment transitioned to American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.
in connection with the sale of certain assets and operations of
Option One.  Plaintiffs seek to recover severance benefits of
approximately $8 million, interest and attorney's fees, in
addition to penalties and punitive damages on certain claims.

On September 2, 2011, the court granted summary judgment in favor
of the defendants on all claims.  Plaintiffs have filed an appeal,
which remains pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 7, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended January 31, 2012.

The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable nor has it established a loss contingency
related to this matter.  The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to the claims in this case and intends to defend the case
vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to case's outcome or
its impact on the Company's consolidated financial position,
results of operations and cash flows.


H&R BLOCK: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Consolidate 7 Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on plaintiffs' motion
to consolidate seven class action lawsuits before a single court
for pretrial proceedings, according to the Company's
March 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2012.

A series of class action lawsuits were filed against the Company
in various federal courts beginning on November 17, 2011,
concerning the refund anticipation loan (RAL) and refund
anticipation check (RAC) products, styled Anthony Johnson v. H&R
Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 2:11-cv-09577) (C.D. Cal.); Norma
Molina-Servin v. H&R Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 1:11-cv-08244)
(N.D. Ill.); William Wimbley v. H&R Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No.
1:11-cv-24159) (S.D. Fla.); Sandy Morton v. H&R Block, Inc., et.
al. (Case No. 4:11-cv-00859) (E.D. Ark.); Iris Orta v. H&R Block,
Inc., et. al. (Case No. 2:11-cv-01149) (E.D. Wis.); Maggie Murchio
v. H&R Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No.1:12-cv-00063) (W.D. Md.);
and Catherine Gaddy v. H&R Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 1:12-cv-
00052) (M.D. N.C).  The plaintiffs generally allege that the
Company engaged in unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent acts in
violation of various state consumer protection laws by
facilitating RALs that were accompanied by allegedly inaccurate
disclosures under the Truth in Lending Act, and by offering RACs
without any TILA disclosures.  Certain plaintiffs also allege
violation of disclosure requirements of various state statutes
expressly governing RALs and provisions of those statutes
prohibiting tax preparers from charging or retaining certain fees.
Collectively, the plaintiffs seek to represent clients who
purchased RAL or RAC products in up to forty-two states and the
District of Columbia during timeframes ranging from 2007 to the
present.  The plaintiffs seek equitable relief, disgorgement of
profits, compensatory and statutory damages, restitution, civil
penalties, attorneys' fees and costs.  The plaintiffs filed a
motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
December 9, 2011, to consolidate the cases before a single court
for pretrial proceedings (In Re Refund Anticipation Loan
Litigation, MDL No. 2334).  This motion remains pending.

The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable nor has it accrued a loss contingency related
to this matter.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses
to this case and intends to defend the case vigorously, but there
can be no assurances as to the outcome of this case or its impact
on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.


H&R BLOCK: Civil Conspiracy Claim in "Menezes" Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas for Greenville County, South Carolina,
dismissed in February 2012 plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim
against all defendants in a lawsuit commenced by Brian Menezes,
according to H&R Block, Inc.'s March 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended January 31, 2012.

On April 17, 2009, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed by
Brian Menezes, derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant
International Textile Group, Inc. against McGladrey Capital
Markets, LLC (MCM) in the Court of Common Pleas, Greenville
County, South Carolina (C.A. No. 2009-CP-23-3346) styled Brian P.
Menezes, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant,
International Textile Group, Inc. (f/k/a Safety Components
International, Inc.) v. McGladrey Capital Markets, LLC (f/k/a RSM
EquiCo Capital Markets, LLC), et al.  Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint in October 2011 styled In re International Textile Group
Merger Litigation, adding a putative class action claim against
MCM.  Plaintiffs allege claims of aiding and abetting, civil
conspiracy, gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against
MCM in connection with a fairness opinion MCM provided to the
Special Committee of Safety Components International, Inc. (SCI)
in 2006 regarding the merger between International Textile Group,
Inc. and SCI.  Plaintiffs seek actual and punitive damages, pre-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 8, 2012, the court dismissed plaintiffs' civil
conspiracy claim against all defendants.  Plaintiffs' other claims
remain pending.

The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable nor has it accrued a loss contingency related
to this matter.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses
to this case and intends to defend the case vigorously, but there
can be no assurances as to the outcome of this case or its impact
on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.



H&R BLOCK: Wage and Hour Suits Remain pending in Various Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wage and hour class action lawsuits filed against H&R Block, Inc.,
are still pending in various courts, according to the Company's
March 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2012.

The Company has been named in several wage and hour class action
lawsuits throughout the country, including Alice Williams v. H&R
Block Enterprises LLC, Case No. RG08366506 (Superior Court of
California, County of Alameda, filed January 17, 2008) (alleging
improper classification and failure to compensate for all hours
worked and to provide meal periods to office managers in
California); Arabella Lemus, et al. v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC,
et al., Case No. CGC-09-489251 (United States District Court,
Northern District of California, filed June 9, 2009) (alleging
failure to timely pay compensation to tax professionals in
California); Delana Ugas, et al. v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, et
al., Case No. BC417700 (United States District Court, Central
District of California, filed July 13, 2009) (alleging failure to
compensate tax professionals in California for all hours worked
and to provide meal periods); and Barbara Petroski, et al. v. H&R
Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-00075
(United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, filed
January 25, 2010) (alleging failure to compensate tax
professionals nationwide for off-season training).

A class was certified in the Lemus case in December 2010
(consisting of tax professionals who worked in company-owned
offices in California from 2007 to 2010); in the Williams case in
March 2011 (consisting of office managers who worked in company-
owned offices in California from 2004 to 2011); and in the Ugas
case in August 2011 (consisting of tax professionals who worked in
company-owned offices in California from 2006 to 2011).  In
Petroski, a conditional class was certified under the Fair Labor
Standards Act in March 2011 (consisting of tax professionals
nationwide who worked in company-owned offices and who were not
compensated for certain training courses occurring on or after
April 15, 2007). Two classes were also certified under state laws
in California and New York (consisting of tax professionals who
worked in company-owned offices in those states).  A trial date
has been set in the Williams case for April 30, 2012.

The plaintiffs in the wage and hour class action lawsuits seek
actual damages, pre-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, in
addition to statutory penalties under state and federal law, which
could equal up to 30 days of wages per tax season for class
members who worked in California.  A portion of the Company's loss
contingency accrual is related to these lawsuits for the amount of
loss that the Company considers probable and estimable.  The
amounts claimed in these matters are substantial in some instances
and the ultimate liability with respect to these matters is
difficult to predict.  The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to the claims in these cases and intends to defend the
cases vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome
of these cases or their impact on the Company's consolidated
financial position, results of operations and cash flows,
individually or in the aggregate.

To avoid the cost and inherent risk associated with litigation,
the Company reached an agreement to settle the Lemus case in
January 2012, subject to approval by the federal court in
California in which the case is pending.  This settlement would
require a maximum payment of $35 million, although the actual cost
of the settlement would depend on the number of valid claims
submitted by class members.  The federal court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement on February 10, 2012.  A final approval
hearing is scheduled to occur on May 10, 2012.

The Company says it has recorded a liability for its estimate of
the expected loss.  If for any reason the settlement is not
approved, the Company says it will continue to defend the case
vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or
its impact on the Company's consolidated financial position,
results of operations and cash flows.


H&R BLOCK: Plea to Decertify in "Barrett" Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc.'s portfolio includes loans originated by Sand
Canyon Corporation, previously known as Option One Mortgage
Corporation, and its subsidiaries (SCC) and purchased by H&R Block
Bank (HRB Bank), which constitute 63% of the total loan portfolio
at January 31, 2012.

On February 1, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against SCC and other related entities styled Cecil Barrett, et
al. v. Option One Mortgage Corp., et al. (Civil Action No. 08-
10157-RWZ).  Plaintiffs allege discriminatory practices relating
to the origination of mortgage loans in violation of the Fair
Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and seek declaratory
and injunctive relief in addition to actual and punitive damages.
The court dismissed H&R Block, Inc. from the lawsuit for lack of
personal jurisdiction.  In March 2011, the court issued an order
certifying a class, which defendants sought to appeal.  On August
24, 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals declined to hear the
appeal, noting that the district court could reconsider its
certification decision in light of a recent ruling by the United
States Supreme Court in an unrelated matter.  SCC has filed a
motion to decertify the class, which remains pending.

The Company says a portion of its loss contingency accrual is
related to this lawsuit for the amount of loss that it considers
probable and estimable.  The Company believes SCC has meritorious
defenses to the claims in this case and it intends to defend the
case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome
or its impact on the Company's consolidated financial position,
results of operations and cash flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 7, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended January 31, 2012.


H&R BLOCK: Says Sum Paid for EquiCo Deal Did Not Exceed Accrual
---------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. disclosed in its March 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended January 31, 2012, that the amount it paid during its third
quarter did not exceed the amount it had previously accrued with
respect to its settlement of a class action lawsuit involving its
subsidiaries.

The Company's subsidiary, RSM EquiCo, Inc. (EquiCo), its parent
and certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates, are parties to a
class action filed on July 11, 2006, and styled Do Right's Plant
Growers, et al. v. RSM EquiCo, Inc., et al. (the "RSM Parties"),
Case No. 06 CC00137, in the California Superior Court, Orange
County.  The complaint contains allegations relating to business
valuation services provided by EquiCo, including allegations of
fraud, conversion and unfair competition.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified actual and punitive damages, in addition to pre-
judgment interest and attorneys' fees.  On March 17, 2009, the
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on all
claims.  To avoid the cost and inherent risk associated with
litigation, the parties reached an agreement to settle the case
for a maximum payment of $41.5 million, although the actual cost
of the settlement will depend on the number of valid claims
submitted by class members.  The California Superior Court granted
final approval of the settlement on October 20, 2011.

The Company says it previously recorded a liability for its best
estimate of the expected loss.  The Company disclosed that the
amount it paid during its third quarter did not exceed the amount
it had previously accrued.


HALIFAX: May Face Class Action Over Pet Insurance Policies
----------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Latham, writing for Metro, reports that an official review
of possible mis-selling of pet insurance policies is to be
undertaken by the financial watchdog.

It follows a number of complaints from pet owners who claim
Halifax, Lloyds and NIG mis-sold them policies for 'life-long'
cover.

After the policies were withdrawn last month, many customers said
they feared having to put their pets to sleep because they could
not afford costly treatments.

More than 1,000 pet owners have since set up an action group to
consider taking a joint class action against the insurers.
The members of PAWs -- Pets Alliance Watchdogs -- recently met to
seek legal advice about how best to fight for damages.  Marc
Gander, founder of the Consumer Action Group, said an inquiry into
pet insurance was 'long overdue'.

But he added: 'For many pet owners, it will be too late.  A
payment of money to compensate for a dead pet is callous.'

The Financial Ombudsman Service will only look into a customer's
complaint if they have already contacted their insurer and are
unhappy with the response they received.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend LIBOR-Related Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Holdings plc continues to defend certain class action
lawsuits relating to the setting of U.S. dollar LIBOR, according
to the Company's March 7, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

Various regulators and competition and enforcement authorities
around the world including in the UK, the U.S. and the EU, are
conducting investigations related to certain past submissions made
by panel banks in connection with the setting of London interbank
offered rates ('LIBOR') and European interbank offered rates.  As
certain HSBC entities are members of such panels, HSBC and/or its
subsidiaries have been the subject of regulatory demands for
information and are cooperating with their investigations.  In
addition, HSBC and other panel banks have been named in putative
class action lawsuits filed by private parties in the U.S. with
respect to the setting of U.S. dollar LIBOR.

Based on the facts currently known, the Company says it is not
practicable at this time for it to predict the resolution of these
regulatory investigations or putative class action lawsuits,
including the timing and potential impact, if any, on HSBC.

HSBC Holdings plc is the holding company for the HSBC Group.  The
Company provides a variety of international banking and financial
services, including retail and corporate banking, trade,
trusteeship, securities, custody, capital markets, treasury,
private and investment banking, and insurance.  The Group operates
worldwide.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Awaits Final Judgment in "Jaffe" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
HSBC Holdings plc is awaiting a final judgment to be entered by an
Illinois court in a class action lawsuit involving its subsidiary,
according to the Company's March 7, 2012, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

As a result of an August 2002 restatement of previously reported
consolidated financial statements and other corporate events,
including the 2002 settlement with 46 State Attorneys General
relating to real estate lending practices, Household International
(now HSBC Finance Corporation) and certain former officers were
named as defendants in a class action lawsuit, Jaffe v Household
International Inc, et al No 2. C 5893 (N.D. Ill., filed August 19,
2002).  The complaint asserted claims under the US Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, on behalf of all persons who acquired and
disposed of Household International common stock between July 30,
1999, and October 11, 2002.  The claims alleged that the
defendants knowingly or recklessly made false and misleading
statements of material fact relating to Household's Consumer
Lending operations, including collections, sales and lending
practices, some of which ultimately led to the 2002 State
settlement agreement, and facts relating to accounting practices
evidenced by the restatement.  Following a jury trial concluded in
April 2009, which was decided partly in favour of the plaintiffs,
the Court issued a ruling on November 22, 2010 within the second
phase of the case to determine actual damages, that claim forms
should be mailed to class members, and also set out a method for
calculating damages for class members who filed claims.  As
previously reported, lead plaintiffs, in court filings in March
2010, estimated that damages could range 'somewhere between
US$2.4bn to US$3.2bn to class members,' before pre-judgment
interest.

On December 22, 2011, plaintiffs submitted the report of the
Court-appointed claims administrator to the Court.  That report
stated that the total number of claims that generated an allowed
loss was 45,921, and that the aggregate amount of these claims was
approximately US$2.23bn.  Now that the claims administration
process is complete, plaintiffs are expected to ask the Court to
assess pre-judgment interest to be included as part of the Court's
final judgment.  On January 27, 2012, the Court held a status
conference at which it set a schedule for the Company to provide
plaintiffs with objections to the claims and for plaintiffs to
respond to such objections.  The Court also indicated at that
conference that it expects to schedule a further conference in
April 2012.  The Company expects the Court's final judgment to be
entered at some point after this conference.

Despite the jury verdict and the November 22, 2010 ruling, HSBC
continues to believe that it has meritorious grounds for appeal of
one or more of the rulings in the case, and intends to appeal the
Court's final judgment, which could involve a substantial amount
once it is entered.  Upon appeal, HSBC Finance will be required to
provide security for the judgment in order to suspend its
execution while the appeal is ongoing by either depositing cash in
an interest-bearing escrow account or posting an appeal bond in
the amount of the judgment (including any pre-judgment interest
awarded).

Given the complexity and uncertainties associated with the actual
determination of damages, including the outcome of any appeals,
there is a wide range of possible damages.  HSBC believes it has
meritorious grounds for appeal on matters of both liability and
damages and will argue on appeal that damages should be nil or a
relatively insignificant amount.  If the Appeals Court rejects or
only partially accepts HSBC's arguments, the amount of damages,
including pre judgment interest, could be higher, and may lie in a
range from a relatively insignificant amount to somewhere in the
region of US$3.5bn.

HSBC Holdings plc is the holding company for the HSBC Group.  The
Company provides a variety of international banking and financial
services, including retail and corporate banking, trade,
trusteeship, securities, custody, capital markets, treasury,
private and investment banking, and insurance.  The Group operates
worldwide.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs Appeal Madoff-Related Claims Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in class action lawsuits arising from Bernard L.
Madoff's fraud have appealed the dismissal of all remaining claims
against HSBC defendants, according to HSBC Holdings plc's March 7,
2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In December 2008, Bernard L. Madoff ('Madoff') was arrested for
running a Ponzi scheme and a trustee was appointed for the
liquidation of his firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities
LLC ('Madoff Securities'), an SEC-registered broker-dealer and
investment adviser.  Since his appointment, the trustee has been
recovering assets and processing claims of Madoff Securities
customers.  Madoff subsequently pleaded guilty to various charges
and is serving a 150 year prison sentence.  He has acknowledged,
in essence, that while purporting to invest his customers' money
in securities and, upon request, return their profits and
principal, he in fact never invested in securities and used other
customers' money to fulfill requests for the return of profits and
principal.  The relevant U.S. authorities are continuing their
investigations into his fraud, and have brought charges against
others, including certain former employees and the former auditor
of Madoff Securities.

Various non-US HSBC companies provided custodial, administration
and similar services to a number of funds incorporated outside the
U.S. whose assets were invested with Madoff Securities.  Based on
information provided by Madoff Securities, as at November 30,
2008, the purported aggregate value of these funds was US$8.4bn,
an amount that includes fictitious profits reported by Madoff.
Based on information available to HSBC to date, the Company
estimates that the funds' actual transfers to Madoff Securities
minus their actual withdrawals from Madoff Securities during the
time that HSBC serviced the funds totaled approximately US$4bn.

Plaintiffs (including funds, fund investors, and the Madoff
Securities trustee) have commenced Madoff-related proceedings
against numerous defendants in a multitude of jurisdictions.
Various HSBC companies have been named as defendants in lawsuits
in the U.S., Ireland, Luxembourg and other jurisdictions.  Certain
lawsuits (which included four U.S. putative class actions) allege
that the HSBC defendants knew or should have known of Madoff's
fraud and breached various duties to the funds and fund investors.

In July 2010, the U.S. District Court Judge overseeing a putative
class action in the Southern District of Florida dismissed all
claims against the HSBC defendants for lack of personal
jurisdiction and on forum non conveniens grounds.  In August 2011,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the
dismissal.

In November 2011, the US District Court Judge overseeing three
related putative class actions in the Southern District of New
York dismissed all claims against the HSBC defendants on forum non
conveniens grounds, but temporarily stayed this ruling as to one
of the actions against the HSBC defendants -- the claims of
investors in Thema International Fund plc -- in light of a
proposed amended settlement agreement pursuant to which, subject
to various conditions, the HSBC defendants had agreed to pay from
US$52.5m up to a maximum of US$62.5m.  In December 2011, the court
lifted this temporary stay and dismissed all remaining claims
against the HSBC defendants, and declined to consider preliminary
approval of the settlement.  In light of the court's decisions,
HSBC has terminated the settlement agreement.  The Thema plaintiff
contests HSBC's right to terminate.  Plaintiffs in all three
actions have filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.

HSBC Holdings plc is the holding company for the HSBC Group.  The
Company provides a variety of international banking and financial
services, including retail and corporate banking, trade,
trusteeship, securities, custody, capital markets, treasury,
private and investment banking, and insurance.  The Group operates
worldwide.


INTELIUS: Sued Over Unlicensed Private Investigator Business
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that in two class
actions on the frontier of Internet law, people claim that
Intelius and Digimedia dba Peoplefinder work as private
investigators in Missouri without state certification.

Intelius, based in Bellevue, Wash., offers its services through
its Web site intelious.com.

Named plaintiff Michael Brown claims Intelius says its
investigations can get information about crimes threatened or
committed against the United States; the identity, credibility,
habits, business, integrity, credibility, trustworthiness,
loyalty, movements, affiliations, and reputation of certain
individuals; and information on a person's address, phone number
history, social media history, criminal record, family and
financial history.

Mr. Brown says Intelius is working as a private investigator
without a license.

In the second class action, filed by the same law firm, lead
plaintiff Thuy Nguyen makes the same accusation against
Digimedia.com dba Peoplefinder.com

"At no pertinent time has defendant ever held a license [to]
engage in private investigator business in the State of Missouri,
nor has it ever held a license to engage in business in the State
of Missouri as a private investigator agency," Mr. Brown says in
his complaint in St. Louis County Court.  "Moreover, defendant has
never applied for any such licenses.

"At no pertinent time have any of defendant's employees ever been
licensed pursuant to RMSo Sec. 324.1104 to engage in private
investigator business in the state of Missouri.

"At all pertinent times, defendant's failure to hold the
license(s) . . . was information that a reasonable consumer would
consider important in deciding whether to hire defendant for the
purpose of having the defendant or its employees engage in private
investigator business."

The class consists of all Missourians who have bought private
investigations from Feb. 1, 2010 to final judgment.  The law
requiring such a license was passed in 2007, but Mr. Brown's
attorney, Michael Kruse, said the state finally got the mechanisms
to enforce the law on Feb. 1, 2010.

"We were concerned with the value customers are getting in light
of the licensing statue," Mr. Kruse told Courthouse News.

"They have a right to comply with the law.  There is a reason why
the state of Missouri felt it needed such controls and companies
can't be above the law through their business model using the
Internet."

The classes seek an injunction, rescission of contracts,
restitution and actual and punitive damages for breach of
contract, negligent misrepresentation by omission, and violations
of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

Mr. Kruse filed the nearly identical class action against
Digimedia.com dba Peoplefinder.com.

Mr. Kruse said he does not expect his firm to file any more class
actions against private investigation companies.

"We were looking at several different companies and those two were
the most major violators," Mr. Kruse said.

A copy of the Complaint in Brown v. Intelius, Inc., Case No. _____
(Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/21/Intelius.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James G. Onder, Esq.
          Michael S. Kruse, Esq.
          ONDER, SHELTON, O'LEARY & PETERSON, LLC
          110 E. Lockwood, 2nd Floor
          St. Louis, MO 63119
          Telephone: (314) 963-9000
          E-mail: onder@onderlaw.com
                  kruse@onderlaw.com

               - and -

          John F. Medler, Jr., Esq.
          THE MEDLER LAW FIRM, LLC
          7700 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 360
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 727-8777
          E-mail: john@medlerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joel J. Schwartz, Esq.
          ROSENBLUM, SCHWARTZ, ROGERS & GLASS, P.C.
          120 South Central, Suite 130
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 862-4332
          E-mail: jschwartz@rsrglaw.com


KRATOS DEFENSE: Last Obj. to IPO Suit Settlement Order Settled
--------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2012, the last objection to the final approval of the
settlement of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit was
settled, according to Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc.'s
March 7, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 25, 2011.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors were
previously defendants in several parallel class action shareholder
complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, consolidated under the caption In re
Wireless Facilities, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Case 01-CV-4779.  These complaints were consolidated
into an action captioned In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 21 MC 92 (the "IPO Cases").

On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement among
the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter defendants was
submitted to the court for preliminary approval.  The court
granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval and
preliminarily certified the settlement classes on June 10, 2009.
The settlement fairness hearing was held on September 10, 2009.
On October 6, 2009, the Court entered an opinion granting final
approval to the settlement and directing that the Clerk of the
Court close the IPO Cases.  Notices of appeal of this decision
were filed.  In January 2012, the last objection to the decision
was settled.  All remaining appeal rights have expired without any
financial obligation having been incurred by the Company.


LEIGHTON: Watchdog Calls for Harsher Continuous Disclosure Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Butler and Adele Ferguson, writing for The Sydney Morning
Herald, reports that the corporate watchdog has called on big
business to keep the market properly informed after finding
troubled construction giant Leighton was too slow to tell
investors of a AUD900 million hole in its books.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission chairman Greg
Medcraft on March 18 called for harsher continuous disclosure
rules, saying penalties for breaches should be increased.

Leighton has paid ASIC AUD300,000, the maximum possible, after
being hit with infringement notices for failing to tell the market
of losses in three crucial areas: the Victorian desalination
plant, the Brisbane Airport Link and its Dubai offshoot.

The company has also signed a court-enforceable undertaking,
agreeing to employ a consultant who will overhaul the company's
disclosure policies for the next three years.

ASIC's action gives new impetus to a planned class action against
Leighton, with lawyers at Maurice Blackburn now potentially able
to sift through the masses of information gathered by the
regulator during its seven-month investigation.

Mr. Medcraft defended ASIC's use of infringement notices, rather
than legal action, as "timely and efficient".

"The message can be very clear to directors of listed companies in
Australia -- it reinforces the requirements in relation to their
continuous disclosure operations.

"Basically the listing rules require that if a company has
information which a reasonable person would expect to have a
material effect on the price of a company's shares then they
should disclose it."

He said infringement penalties were set by the government.  "I
think they could be more, but that's a matter for government."

By March 18 last year, Leighton management knew that each of its
three problem areas were in hundreds of millions of dollars' worth
of trouble, the corporate regulator said in an outline of facts
released on March 18.  But the company did not disclose the depths
of its woes to the market until nearly a month later, on April 11,
when it announced a AUD907 million slump in its fortunes.

While previously Leighton had expected profit for the year of
AUD480 million, it said it now expected a loss of AUD427 million
-- information ASIC said should have been disclosed earlier.

The admission, and an associated AUD757 million emergency capital
raising, sent Leighton stock into free fall, carving 11.9 per cent
from its price when it came out of a trading halt later that week.


LEIGHTON: Class Action Bigger Threat Than Disclosure Penalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Butler, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
corporate governance professionals have backed the regulator's
call for stiffer penalties when companies fail to keep investors
informed of profit downgrades.

The calls follow a AUD300,000 penalty levied on construction giant
Leighton on March 16 for keeping knowledge of a AUD900 million
hole in its books from investors for a month.

They said the threat of a multi-million dollar class action
lawsuit acted as a bigger brake on corporate misbehavior than the
possibility of action by the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission.

Ian Ramsay, of the University of Melbourne's centre for corporate
law and securities regulation, said the infringement notice system
used to penalize Leighton was failing to meet its aim of being a
quick alternative to legal action.

He said ASIC had issued only 18 infringement notices for failing
to disclose market-sensitive information since they were
introduced in 2004, and it was taking the regulator an average of
about 250 days to issue a notice -- well in excess of its target
of 90 days.

"There's a real problem in the system," Professor Ramsay said.

He said the maximum $100,000 penalty paid by Leighton for each of
its three infringements was "not particularly large", but
cautioned that meaningful penalties that hurt might encourage
companies to fight ASIC in court, draining the regulator's limited
resources.

Dean Paatsch, a corporate governance specialist, backed ASIC's
call for tougher penalties, but said shareholder class actions
were a far greater deterrent to company directors.

A class action could shred a director's reputation and inflict far
more financial pain on a company, he said.

"By all means give the regulator more teeth, but private
enforcement has got far greater force than these fines at the
moment," Mr. Paatsch said.

Andrew Watson, a principal at Maurice Blackburn, said the ASIC
penalties bolstered the law firm's shareholder class action
against Leighton.  "We anticipate being in a position to make an
announcement in the relatively near future," he said.

The manager of strategy and engagement at the Australian Council
of Super Investors, Phil Spathis, said the call by the ASIC
chairman, Greg Medcraft, for tougher penalties at the weekend
suggested the existing laws were similar to hitting offenders
"with wet lettuce".

"The first disincentive should actually be ethics.  While the
majority of people tend to these sort of issues, some of them may
need a second disincentive, which may mean looking at [higher]
fines," he said.

The managing director of White Funds Management, Angus Gluskie,
said the fine was small in the context of a multinational such as
Leighton but it was another black mark against the company's
reputation.

The Australian Institute of Company Directors and the
parliamentary secretary to the Treasury, Bernie Ripoll, did not
comment on March 19.


MULTILINK: EEOC to Seek Class Action Status in Harassment Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The HR Specialist reports that Multilink, an Elyria-based supplier
of computer networking equipment, is fighting off an EEOC sexual
harassment lawsuit that might have been prevented if it had
investigated an employee's initial complaint.

Nancy Noble originally complained about sexual harassment shortly
after she began working there in 2009.  The EEOC alleges that
although Multilink's HR staff and other managers were aware of the
sex-based harassment and abusive work environment, the company
failed to conduct a proper investigation or take action to stop
the misconduct.

Now the EEOC is suing on Ms. Noble's behalf, seeking injunctive
relief, lost wages and benefits.  But that could be the least of
the company's worries.  The EEOC wants class-action status for the
lawsuit, which means it could be open to all other women who
worked in Multilink's Elyria office.  That means the sky's the
limit on the company's potential liability.


NAT'L AUSTRALIA BANK: Dec. 3 Trial Set for Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Dow Jones Newswires reports that an Australian judge has set a
December trial date for a class action brought by a group of
investors seeking around AUD450 million (US$476.6 million) in
compensation against National Australia Bank Ltd.

Both institutional and retail investors have signed up to the
class action, alleging that Australia's fourth-largest lender by
market value breached continuous-disclosure obligations and
behaved in a misleading and deceptive way over its exposure to
AUD1.2 billion in impaired collaterized debt obligations.

CDOs are financial instruments commonly blamed for contributing to
the 2008 global financial crisis.

Justice Gaetano Pagone set the trial date for Dec. 3 in the
Supreme Court of Victoria.  The case is estimated to run for 16
weeks, with lawyers for the class action, claimants and the bank
describing it as complex.


NEVSUN: Unveils Share Repurchase Program, Faces Shareholders' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
MidnightTrader.com reports that Nevsun Resources Ltd. on March 19
announced the initiation of a common share repurchase program
using the normal course issuer bid facility under Toronto Stock
Exchange rules.  Nevsun has received approval from the TSX to
purchase up to 4,009,408 common shares of the Company,
representing approximately 2% of the 200,470,415 common shares
issued and outstanding as at March 15, 2012.

In separate news, the law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has
significant experience representing investors in prosecuting
claims of securities fraud, announced on March 16 that a lawsuit
seeking class action status has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Nevsun between March 31, 2011
and February 6, 2012.

The complaint alleges that Nevsun and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws.  Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i)
Nevsun's mining at the Bisha Mine resulted in a material amount of
waste rock, rather than gold ore; (ii) that gold ore and gold from
the Bisha Mine was materially less than the amount estimated by
the company's model and defendants had reason to know this based
on data routinely collected from the Bisha Mine throughout the
class period; (iii) that Nevsun was progressing through the ore
body much more quickly than planned in order to maintain gold
production at a rate that would not reveal to investors that the
amount of gold at the Bisha Mine was materially less than the
company's model; (iv) that Nevsun was aware that its model was
materially defective because the actual amounts of gold mined at
Bisha did not reconcile with the model previously disseminated;
and (v) Nevsun materially overstated its gold reserves at the
Bisha mine.


PEGASUS WIRELESS: Settles Shareholder Derivative Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fazio | Micheletti LLP has negotiated the settlement of a
shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of former Fremont,
California-based Pegasus Wireless Corporation against several
former members of Pegasus's Board of Directors.

The case is Chen v. Jasper Knabb, et. al. (Alameda County Superior
Court, Case No. RG 07310978).

Plaintiff Chen, a current Pegasus shareholder, alleges that in
June 2006 Pegasus's former President and CEO, Jasper Knabb, agreed
to purchase 1,250,000 shares of Pegasus stock for $8 per share.
In September 2006, the price of Pegasus stock had plummeted to
less than $1 a share, yet the Pegasus Board of Directors voted to
approve the repurchase of 870,375 shares of the stock Mr. Knabb
had purchased for the original price of $8 a share -- roughly
eight times the then-current purchase price -- causing Pegasus to
effectively give away several millions of dollars to Mr. Knabb.
The Defendants who appeared in the action (the "Individual
Defendants") dispute these allegations and deny any liability.

Summary of Proposed Settlement. Following extensive discovery,
litigation, and mediation, the Individual Defendants and their
insurer have agreed to (1) pay a total of $1,450,000 ("Settlement
Fund"), which shall be used to compensate Pegasus, pay the
attorney fees and expenses Plaintiff's counsel incurred as a
result of prosecuting the case, and pay an incentive award to
Plaintiff in amounts to be approved by the Court, and (2) to pay
up to an additional $50,000 in notice/administration costs (with
any costs in excess of $50,000 to be paid from the Settlement
Fund).

In exchange, Pegasus's claims against all Defendants will be
released and the action will be dismissed.

Because the lawsuit is a derivative action brought on behalf of
Pegasus, and is not a class action brought on behalf of
shareholders, no shareholder will be compensated directly by this
settlement and, therefore, there is no claims procedure for
shareholders.

You Have a Right to Object /Comment on the Settlement.  Any
current Pegasus shareholder who wishes to comment on or object to
the proposed settlement has the right to file a comment/objection
and appear at the Settlement Hearing, provided you comply with the
procedures set forth in Section 8 of the Detailed Notice prior to
05-15-12, including filing your objection with the Court Clerk,
Alameda County Superior Court, 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, CA
94612 and serving a copy on all counsel listed below.

Requirements also include the need to establish that you currently
own Pegasus stock.

Notice of Hearing. A hearing will be held on 06-06-12 at 3:00 p.m.
before the Honorable Steven Brick, Department 17, 1221 Oak Street,
Oakland, CA 94612, to determine: (1) whether the Settlement should
be approved as adequate, fair, and reasonable; (2) whether the
action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement; (3) the award of Plaintiff counsels'
attorneys' fees and costs and incentive award to Plaintiff of
$2,500; and (4) any other necessary matters.  Plaintiff's counsel
intend to request a fee of $500,000 plus their litigation costs of
$17,900, which are less than the amounts counsel actually incurred
in prosecuting the case.

If the settlement is approved, shareholders will be bound by the
decision and will be deemed to have released any derivative claims
that have or could have been brought in the Action.  Individual
claims will not be released.

Counsel


   For Plaintiff:               For Individual Defendants:

   Jeffrey L. Fazio, Esq.       Susan S. Muck, Esq.
   Dina E. Micheletti, Esq.     Felix S. Lee, Esq.
   Fazio | Micheletti LLP       Jennifer Bretan
   2410 Camino Ramon, Ste       315 Fenwick & West LLP
   San Ramon, CA, 94583         555 California Street, 12th Floor
   Web site: www.fazmiclaw.com  Telephone: (415) 875-2300
                                Web site: www.fenwick.com


R. ALLEN STANFORD: Investor Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------
Andrew Harris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that R. Allen
Stanford's aggrieved investors can press state court class-action
lawsuits they filed seeking to recover losses in his $7 billion
international fraud scheme, a U.S. appeals court ruled.

The New Orleans based panel on March 19 reversed a lower-court
decision that the claims were barred by a federal law preventing
plaintiffs from pursuing state-law claims arising from the
purchase or sale of federally regulated securities.

A federal court jury in Houston on March 6 found Mr. Stanford
guilty of mail and wire fraud in the sale of certificates of
deposit issued by his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank
Ltd.  He is to be sentenced June 14.

The purchase or sale of securities is only "tangentially related"
to Mr. Stanford's scheme, the unanimous three-judge panel said,
reviving four lawsuits filed against those who sold the CDs and
lawyers and an insurer for the Stanford bank.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sued Mr. Stanford and
two other top executives in his organization in February 2009,
alleging they misled investors about the nature and oversight of
the Antiguan bank and the CDs it issued.

He and other executives were indicted on federal charges four
months later.  Finance chief James Davis pleaded guilty to fraud
in August 2009 and testified against Mr. Stanford in his six-week
trial.

U.S. District Judge David Godbey in Dallas, who has been
overseeing the SEC case and related litigation, took jurisdiction
over the investor claims removed from state to federal court.

                        Lower-Court Ruling

He dismissed them because Mr. Stanford advertised the CDs as being
backed by regulated securities and some investors sold securities
to finance their CD purchases.  Those facts put the CD-related
suits in the ambit of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards
Act, the judge ruled.

The appeals court disagreed.

"We find that the fact that some of the plaintiffs sold some
'covered securities' in order to put their money in the CDs was
not more than tangentially related to the fraudulent scheme," the
New Orleans panel said.

The case is Roland v. Green, 11-10932, U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit (New Orleans).


SCOTTISH WATER: Seafield Residents Seek Class Action Over Stench
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotsman reports that residents who have been plagued for
years by the notorious Seafield Stench are calling for a change in
the law so they can sue Scottish Water over the odor.

Rob Kirkwood, on behalf of Leith Links Residents Association, has
submitted a petition to the Scottish Parliament, arguing people in
Scotland should be able to take collective "class actions" against
companies, as is already the case south of the Border.

A similar case in Liverpool against United Utilities led to an
out-of-court settlement of millions of pounds for residents.

Earlier this month, people living near the Seafield works
complained the smell, which some have endured for decades, had
returned to the area despite a GBP20 million odor improvement
project.  Scottish Water, which owns the plant, blamed weather
patterns.

The Leith residents were forced to drop an earlier attempt to take
legal action against Scottish Water after running into problems
over Scotland's disclosure laws, which do not require firms to
provide information needed for a court case.

A previous petition to the parliament was also abandoned after a
review of Scotland's civil law system by Lord Gill recommended the
present obstacles to multi-party or "class" actions should be
removed.  Mr. Kirkwood said: "We were advised to drop the petition
because something positive was possibly going to happen but
nothing has, so we are back again.

"We hope that by tweaking existing rules, we can ensure people in
Scotland can have the same access to justice as people in England
and Wales."

The Scottish Government said it planned to publish a consultation
on proposed changes to the system, including class actions,
towards the end of the year.  But Mr. Kirkwood said that was
kicking the issue into the long grass.

He said: "The Gill report was a comprehensive review of what could
and could not be done.  What they are now proposing is yet another
review.  These are standard tactics for politicians who want to
shelve proposals for as long as possible."

Edinburgh Northern and Leith Labour MSP Malcolm Chisholm backed
the residents, saying: "Groups of people cannot take civil action
in Scotland and that needs to be corrected."

A Scottish Government spokesman confirmed the Scottish Civil
Justice Council and the Legal Aid Amendment Scotland Bill 2012
would not address class actions.  But he said: "The Scottish
Government fully supports the Scottish Civil Courts Review
recommendations in principle, including the creation of a new type
of class action procedure in Scotland."


STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA: Disputes Mineral Rights Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elijah Nouvelage, writing for Williston Herald, reports that a
class action lawsuit filed in Williams County Court earlier this
month claims the state has made millions of dollars at the expense
of private mineral rights owners along the banks of the Missouri
River in the Williston area.

"I think the rulings in this case has very broad applications,"
said Jan Conlin, an attorney representing local mineral rights
owners in the case.

The class action is comprised of several Williston families,
including Stanford and Amy Reep and the Florence E. Irwin family.
Other plaintiffs on the lawsuit, which includes "all others
similarly situated" are from Minot and elsewhere in North Dakota,
officials said.

Being sued are the State of North Dakota, North Dakota Board of
University and School Lands and North Dakota Trust Lands
Commissioner Lance D. Gaebe.

"Under North Dakota property law dating back to territorial times,
private owners of land along rivers and lakes throughout the state
take rights in that land to the low water mark," according to a
press release from Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, the
Minneapolis-based law firm that filed the lawsuit.  "Individuals
have purchased mineral interests in land above the low water mark
of rivers, lakes, and other waters in North Dakota with the
understanding that they own those mineral interests."

However, the state maintains it owns all land and mineral rights
from the high-water mark of one side of the river to the high-
water mark on the other side, Ms. Conlin said.

"The State of North Dakota and the North Dakota Board of
University and School Lands have wrongfully asserted absolute
title to those privately owned mineral interests in land along
rivers and lakes in North Dakota between the low water mark and
the high water mark," according to the press release.

The lawsuit brings into question about a 50-mile stretch of
riverbank from the Montana border to near New Town.

There are potentially thousands of acres of affected mineral
rights, that may affect hundreds of mineral rights owners or more,
Ms. Conlin said.

There are many mineral rights owners who don't own much acreage
and don't have monetary backing to battle the state on the issue,
she added.

Although the state has not yet responded in court to the lawsuit,
Ms. Conlin said she expects the state to maintain the stance that
it owns the mineral rights.  Ms. Conlin said she expects the court
to schedule in the next few weeks a timeline for the case to
proceed.  No judge has been assigned the case yet, she said.

Similar lawsuits against the state, arguing who owns the mineral
rights along rivers and lakes, where the waterline can move year
by year, have been filed in the past.


THESTREET INC: Appeal from IPO Suit Settlement Dismissed in Jan.
----------------------------------------------------------------
TheStreet, Inc., disclosed in its March 7, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011, that the last remaining appeal from the
settlement of a consolidated lawsuit over its initial public
offering was dismissed in January.

In 2001, the Company, certain of its current or former officers
and directors and certain underwriters were named in a securities
class action related to the Company's initial public offering
("IPO").  Similar lawsuits were filed against approximately 300
other issuers and their underwriters, all of which are included in
a single coordinated proceeding in the district court (the "IPO
Litigations").  The complaints allege that the prospectus and the
registration statement for the IPO failed to disclose that the
underwriters allegedly solicited and received "excessive"
commissions from investors and that some investors in the IPO
allegedly agreed with the underwriters to buy additional shares in
the aftermarket in order to inflate the price of the Company's
stock.  The complaints seek unspecified damages, attorney and
expert fees, and other unspecified litigation costs.  In 2003, the
district court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the claims
against it under Rule 10b-5 but motions to dismiss the claims
under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 were denied as to
virtually all of the defendants in the consolidated cases,
including the Company.  In addition, some of the individual
defendants in the IPO Litigations signed a tolling agreement and
were dismissed from the action without prejudice on October 9,
2002.

In 2003, a proposed collective partial settlement of this
litigation was structured between the plaintiffs, the issuer
defendants in the consolidated actions, the issuer officers and
directors named as defendants, and the issuers' insurance
companies.  The court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement in 2005 but in 2007 the settlement was terminated, in
light of a ruling by the appellate court in related litigation in
2006 that reversed the trial court's certification of classes in
that related litigation.  In 2009, another settlement was entered
into and approved by the trial court.  Under the settlement, the
Company's obligation would be paid by the issuers' insurance
companies.  The settlement was appealed; in May 2011, the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed one appeal and remanded another
appeal to the District Court to determine whether the appellant
has standing; in August 2011, the District Court determined that
the applicable appellant did not have standing, which decision was
appealed.

In January 2012, the appeal was dismissed and the settlement is to
be effected.


THIESS DEGREMONT: Unions Launch Class Action Over Spying Scandal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ewin Hannan, writing for The Australian, reports that unions have
launched a landmark class action against the builders of
Victoria's desalination project, claiming the joint venture
allowed information on thousands of workers to be kept and
accessed by controversial strike breaker Bruce Townsend.

The Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union and other unions
have begun action in the Federal Court in what is the latest
chapter of the spying scandal first exposed by The Australian in
2010.

Bill Oliver, the CFMEU's Victorian secretary, said the legal
action had been taken because workers believed Thiess Degremont
had allowed Mr. Townsend to access information on up to 18,000
workers, including current employees and those no longer employed
at the plant, as well as job applicants.

It emerged on March 19 that Thiess Degremont admitted to the union
on February 15 that Mr. Townsend remained in possession of
personal information supplied by at least 500 individuals.
Lawyers for the unions alleged in court on March 16 that in giving
him access to the information, Thiess had breached the Privacy
Act, the Trade Practices Act and the Competition and Consumer Act.
Mr. Townsend had been ordered to deliver to the court all private
information on the workers by 2.15 p.m. on March 20.

"Everyone in Australia has a right to go to work without being
spied on by their bosses," Mr. Oliver said.  "If information is
desired and collected, there should be consent.  Collecting
information like Townsend did is unlawful, unethical and outside
the bounds of the regular occurrence on construction sites or any
other workplace."

Unions will seek damages and compensation, although specific
amounts to be claimed have not been nominated.

Their lawyer, Marcus Clayton, head of industrial law at Slater &
Gordon, said that "this case could be the first of its kind in
Australia".

"This case will be about what are an employer's obligations in
relation to personal information provided by employees," he said.
"We will also claim in this case that the arrangement between the
joint venture and the covert operatives to spy on workers was
unlawful."

Thiess Degremont spokeswoman Serena Middleton on March 19
acknowledged it took nine months to pass the information to the
union about the accessing of data.

"An investigation by Deloitte Forensic in November 2010 concluded
that knowledge of the engagement of (Mr. Townsend's firm) ASI was
limited to certain project-level managers, who are no longer
employed by the joint venture," Ms. Middleton said.

"The investigation also confirmed that ASI had not carried out any
covert surveillance on the project, and had not accessed any
payroll data.

"In May 2011, TDJV received new information that ASI had accessed
other personal information about employees.

"We shared this information with the CFMEU in February 2012 and
agreed that we would be advising all of the individuals involved
in mid-April.

"Further, we agreed to work with the CFMEU to jointly recover the
information from ASI.

"We offered to share this same information and recovery process
with the Electrical Trades Union and the Australian Manufacturing
Workers Union.

"Thiess Degremont has brought claims in the Supreme Court of
Victoria to recover the information from ASI.

"We welcome Slater & Gordon's claim against ASI, which may
strengthen the prospect of information being recovered."

After The Australian revealed the existence of the operation to
spy on unions and workers at the plant using ASI (Australian
Security & Investigations), the company terminated the employment
of human resources executive Marcus Carroll and the plant's chief,
Greg Miller.

Thiess chief executive Neville Power, who said he was unaware of
the spying, left soon afterwards to become head of the Fortescue
Metals Group.

Thiess has been trying to retrieve more than AUD567,000 it paid
ASI.


TREX CO: Continues to Defend Suits Over Defective Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Trex Company, Inc. continues to defend purported class action
lawsuits alleging certain defects in its products and alleged
misrepresentations relating to mold growth, according to the
Company's March 7, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On January 19, 2009, a purported class action case was commenced
against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Santa
Cruz County, by the lead law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP and certain other law firms (the "Lieff Cabraser
Group") on behalf of Eric Ross and Bradley S. Hureth and similarly
situated plaintiffs.  These plaintiffs generally allege certain
defects in the Company's products, and that the Company has failed
to provide adequate remedies for defective products.  On February
13, 2009, the Company removed this case to the United States
District Court, Northern District of California.  On January 21,
2009, a purported class action case was commenced against the
Company in the United States District Court, Western District of
Washington by the law firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (the
"Hagens Berman Firm") on behalf of Mark Okano and similarly
situated plaintiffs, generally alleging certain product defects in
the Company's products, and that the Company has failed to provide
adequate remedies for defective products.  This case was
transferred by the Washington Court to the California Court as a
related case to the Lieff Cabraser Group's case.

On July 30, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California preliminarily approved a settlement of the
claims of the lawsuit commenced by the Lieff Cabraser Group
involving surface flaking of the Company's product, and on
March 15, 2010, it granted final approval of the settlement.  On
April 14, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm filed a notice to appeal
the District Court's ruling to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.  On July 9, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm
dismissed their appeal, effectively making the settlement final.

On March 25, 2010, the Lieff Cabraser Group amended its complaint
to add claims relating to alleged defects in the Company's
products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth.
The Hagens Berman firm has alleged similar claims in its original
complaint.  In its Final Order approving the surface flaking
settlement, the District Court consolidated the two pending
actions relating to the mold claims, and appointed the Hagens
Berman Firm as lead counsel in this case.  The Company believes
that these claims are without merit, and will vigorously defend
this lawsuit.

On December 15, 2010, a purported class action case was commenced
against the Company in the United States District Court, Western
District of Kentucky, by the lead law firm of Cohen & Malad, LLP
("Cohen & Malad") on behalf of Richard Levin and similarly
situated plaintiffs, and on June 13, 2011, a purported class
action was commenced against the Company in the Marion
Circuit/Superior Court of Indiana by Cohen & Malad on behalf of
Ellen Kopetsky and similarly situated plaintiffs.  On June 28,
2011, the Company removed the Kopetsky case to the United States
District Court, Southern District of Indiana.

On August 11, 2011, a purported class action was commenced against
the Company in the 50th Circuit Court for the County of Chippewa,
Michigan on behalf of Joel and Lori Peffers and similarly situated
plaintiffs.  On August 26, 2011, the Company removed the Peffers
case to the United States District Court, Western District of
Michigan.

The plaintiffs in these purported class actions generally allege
certain defects in the Company's products and alleged
misrepresentations relating to mold growth.  The Company believes
that these claims are without merit, and will vigorously defend
these lawsuits.

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


WELLS FARGO: Laid-Off Visa Workers File Class Action in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that Wells
Fargo laid off H-1B visa workers and denied them tens of thousands
of dollars in severance benefits by falsely claiming the workers
had resigned, a worker claims in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Vinay Karamsetty, a web developer, claims Wells
Fargo owes him $42,415 plus interest.  He claims Wells Fargo, the
nation's second-largest bank, executed its unfair scheme "due to
the economic climate and Wells Fargo's merger with Wachovia Bank,"
and that the bank admitted as much in its layoff notices.

Mr. Karamsetty, whom Wells Fargo hired in 2007, claims the bank
violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by denying
"employee benefits under an employee benefit plan regulated and
governed by ERISA."

He says the bank also violated its own Wells Fargo Co. Salary
Continuation Pay Plan, which also is named as a defendant.

The complaint states: "In April 2009, Wells Fargo made a company-
wide decision to not renew any H-1B visas due to the economic
climate and Wells Fargo's merger with Wachovia Bank.

"As soon as an employee's H-1B visa expires, he loses lawful
immigration status and is required to leave the United States
Immediately."

In doing so, Mr. Karamsetty says, "Wells Fargo explained that it
made a business decision to displace all H-1B visa holders due to
'the current economic climate and the merger with Wachovia.'"

Wells Fargo knew the laid-off workers would have to find another
job immediately or leave the country, and by mischaracterizing
their termination as "voluntary," it denied them severance
benefits, Mr. Karamsetty claims.

"Wells Fargo exploited this predicament by denying H-1B visa
holders any benefits under the plan under the guise that they
'voluntarily' terminated their employment and were thus ineligible
for benefits under the plan," the complaint states.  "This
position was concocted and implemented by a plan administrator
with an undisputed conflict of interest, both as a Wells Fargo
employee and fellow plan participant."

Mr. Karamsetty claims Wells Fargo hired the visa workers with
promises that they would get severance payments, based on years
worked, if they were "displaced" for "business reasons," or
subjected to "position elimination."

Mr. Karamsetty says he and the class are owed benefits under those
terms.

"In April 2009, Karamsetty and the class members suffered a
'position elimination' under the terms of the plan and became
entitled to plan benefits," the complaint states.

Mr. Karamsetty says that under the plan, he "was, and still is,
entitled to a lump sum of $42,415.34, plus interest," since his
last day of work, March 1, 2010.

He seeks class damages and costs for ERISA violations and
discrimination.

A copy of the Complaint in Karamsetty v. Wells Fargo & Company, et
al., Case No. 12-cv-01364 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/21/WellsFargo.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allison H. Goddard, Esq.
          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 398-4760
          E-mail: ali@pattersonlawgroup.com
                  jim@pattersonlawgroup.com


WEST BANCORPORATION: West Bank Continues to Defend Iowa Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
West Bancorporation, Inc.'s subsidiary continues a defend a
purported class action lawsuit brought by Darla and Jason T. Legg,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, in the
Iowa District Court for Polk County, Iowa, according to the
Company's March 7, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On September 29, 2010, West Bank was sued in a purported class
action lawsuit that, as amended, asserts nonsufficient funds fees
charged by West Bank to Iowa resident noncommercial customers on
bank card transactions are impermissible finance charges under the
Iowa Consumer Credit Code, rather than allowable fees, and that
the sequence in which West Bank formerly posted items for payment
violated its duties of good faith under the Iowa Uniform
Commercial Code and Consumer Credit Code.

West Bank believes many of the allegations made in the plaintiffs'
petition are factually and legally inaccurate and that substantial
defenses exist for all of the claims raised in the litigation.
West Bank is vigorously defending this litigation.  The litigation
is still in a very preliminary stage.

The Company believes that the likelihood of a loss as a result of
this lawsuit is "reasonably possible" for disclosure purposes
(i.e., greater than "remote" but less than "probable").  The
amount of potential loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated
now because there are substantial and different defenses
concerning the various claims of potential liability and class
certification.  Even if legal liability is established under some
theory, which West Bank believes would be improper under existing
Iowa law, the amount of each plaintiff's damage claim would likely
require individual determination due to the potential
applicability of different offsets or credits.


WESTINGHOUSE LIGHTING: Recalls 7T Ceiling Fans Due to Fire Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Westinghouse Lighting Corp., of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
announced a voluntary recall of about 7,000 ceiling fans.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The two 60-watt light bulbs included with the ceiling fans exceed
the fan's maximum wattage, which can cause the ceiling fans to
overheat or fail.  This poses fire and shock hazards to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The following Westinghouse Lighting ceiling fans with 24, 30 and
42-inch diameter blades are included in this recall.
"Westinghouse" is printed on the fan's ceiling canopy.  The item
number is printed on the fan's motor housing.

   Item Number   Description
   -----------   -----------
      72243      24-inch ceiling fan gun metal finish with
                 opal-frosted light kit

                 6 blades (black/graphite color)

      78631      24-inch ceiling fan chrome finish with
                 opal-frosted light kit

                 6 blades (dark wood/beech color)

      72245      30-inch ceiling fan espresso finish with
                 opal-frosted light kit

                 3 blades (espresso/dark cherry color)

      78763      30-inch ceiling fan chrome finish with
                 opal-frosted light kit

                 3 blades (dark wood/beech color)

      78764      42-inch ceiling fan gun metal finish with
                 opal-frosted light kit

                 3 blades (black/graphite color)

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12135.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold by home
improvement and hardware stores, home centers and electrical
product suppliers nationwide and online at www.amazon.com from
January 2011 through January 2012 for between $135 and $150.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ceiling fans
and contact Westinghouse Lighting for two free replacement 40-watt
light bulbs.  For additional information, contact Westinghouse
Lighting toll-free at (888) 417-6222 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.westinghouselighting.com/


                           *********

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  * * *