CAR_Public/120328.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, March 28, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 62

                             Headlines

AK STEEL: Suits Over Surviving Spouse Benefits Still Pending
AK STEEL: Pension Plan Appeals $3 Judgment in "Schumacher" Suit
AK STEEL: Still Defends Price-Fixing Class Lawsuits
AK STEEL: Faces Zanesville Retirees Suit, Trial Set for Oct. 2013
AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Suit Over Alleged Defective Accord Vehicles

BEER CAPITOL: Faces Overtime Class Action in Wisconsin
BEST BUY: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action
BRILL SECURITIES: Can't Compel Stockbrokers to Arbitrate Claims
CENTRO: Two Versions of Faulty Final Accounts in 2007 Discovered
CEZ: Xstrata to Vigorously Contest Environmental Class Action

CHARLES RIVER: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Unpaid Employee Wages
CHINA SKY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
CITIZENS PROPERTY: Louisiana Lawmakers Mull Insurer Legislation
CITY OF HARVEY, IL: Sued Over Untested Sexual Assault Kits
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CA: Low-Income Tenants File Class Action

CNO FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Yue" Lawsuits
CNO FINANCIAL: Defends "Nicholas" Contract Breach Suit
CNO FINANCIAL: Trial in "Lifetrend" MDL Set for March 2013
DENNY'S RESTAURANTS: Foreign Workers Win Class Certification Bid
DIAL CORP: Parker Waichman Files Class Action in New Hampshire

EAST LAKE: Sued Over Bed Bug Infestation in Illinois Apartment
FURUKAWA ELECTRIC: Freed Kanner Appointed as Plaintiff Counsel
FURUKAWA ELECTRIC: Barrett Appointed Plaintiff Co-Lead Counsel
GENERAL MILLS: June 5 Trial Set for Yo-Plus(R) Class Action
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Unit Faces Suits on Captive Reinsurance Pacts

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: "Goodman" Securities Suit Still Pending
HEALTH NET: Lawsuits Over Hard Disk Drive Loss Still Pending
HUMAN GENOME: Scott+Scott Appointed as Plaintiff Lead Counsel
KEYCORP: Still Defends ERISA Consolidated Lawsuits in Ohio
KEYCORP: Appeal in Checking Account Overdraft Litigation Pending

KEYCORP: Still Awaits Dismissal Order in Austin-Related Suit
MERRILL LYNCH: Auction Rate Securities Litigation Now Concluded
MERRILL LYNCH: Appeals From Dismissal of Antitrust Suits Pending
MERRILL LYNCH: Bofa Seeks Appeal from Certification in ERISA Suit
MERRILL LYNCH: Unit Reaches Settlement to Resolve IFDA Lawsuits

MERRILL LYNCH: Awaits Final Okay of MBS Claims Suit Settlement
MERRILL LYNCH: Court Says Objector Petition in IPO Suit Untimely
NEUTROGENA: Sued Over False Advertising on Anti-Wrinkle Product
NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL: Judge Dismisses Job Stats Class Action
ONLINE LODGING RESERVATION COS: Tybee Agrees to Tax Settlement

PUBLIC SERVICE: Appeal From BPU Petition Dismissal Pending
PURDUE PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Addictive OxyContin
STATE OF CALIFORNIA: Female Guards Lose Class Certification Bid
STATE OF TEXAS: Court Dismisses Foster Care Class Action

UNITED STATES: Social Services Can't Deny Medicaid, Food Stamps
WALNUT GROVE, MS: Ruling to Transfer Younger Inmates Sought
WEATHERFORD INT'L: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in N.Y.
WELLS FARGO: Accused of Not Paying Plan Benefits to Foreigners
ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky Files Class Action

ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Appeal From Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Dewald Wants to File 2nd Amended ERISA Suit

                          *********

AK STEEL: Suits Over Surviving Spouse Benefits Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation continues to defend itself against
lawsuits over alleged incorrect calculations of surviving spouse
benefits under applicable pension plans, according to the
Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

On October 20, 2005, Judith A. Patrick and another plaintiff filed
a purported class action against AK Steel and the AK Steel
Corporation Benefit Plans Administrative Committee in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No.
1:05-cv-681.  The complaint alleges that the defendants
incorrectly calculated the amount of surviving spouse benefits due
to be paid to the plaintiffs under the applicable pension plan.
On December 19, 2005, the defendants filed their answer to the
complaint.  The parties subsequently filed cross-motions for
summary judgment on the issue of whether the applicable plan
language had been properly interpreted.  On September 28, 2007,
the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued a
Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment be granted and
that the defendants' motion be denied.  The defendants filed
timely objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation.
On March 31, 2008, the court issued an order adopting the
Magistrate's recommendation and granting partial summary judgment
to the plaintiffs on the issue of plan interpretation. The
plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted by the
Court on October 27, 2008.  The case is proceeding with respect to
discovery on the issue of damages.

On May 27, 2009, a case asserting a similar claim was filed
against AK Steel by Margaret Lipker in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Case No. 09-00050.
The Complaint in the Lipker Litigation alleged that AK Steel
incorrectly calculated the amount of Ms. Lipker's surviving spouse
benefits due to be paid under the applicable pension plan (which
was a different plan from that at issue in the Patrick
Litigation).  The parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment.  On February 23, 2010, the Court in the Lipker
Litigation granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and
found that Ms. Lipker is entitled to a surviving spouse benefit of
approximately $463 per month.  AK Steel appealed that
February 23, 2010, decision to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit on March 11, 2010, Case No. 10-5298.  The
issues in the appeal have been fully briefed by the parties.  In
addition, counsel representing the plaintiffs in the Patrick
Litigation filed an amicus curiae brief on July 20, 2010, on the
ground that the decision in the Lipker Litigation could impact the
merits of the issues in the Patrick Litigation.  The amicus curiae
brief requested the Court of Appeals to affirm the district
court's decision in the Lipker Litigation on the issue of plan
interpretation and liability.  Oral argument in the appeal of the
Lipker Litigation occurred on October 5, 2011, but no decision by
the Court of Appeals has been issued yet.  In November 2011, the
plaintiffs submitted an expert report in the Patrick Litigation in
which the expert contends that the total damages, excluding
interest, for the class in that action could total as much as
$28.9.  The defendants believe that the damage calculation in the
plaintiffs' report is incorrect and intend to contest these
matters vigorously, including the damage calculation in the
Patrick Litigation.  Trial was scheduled to commence on March 6,
2012.

AK Steel Holding Corporation's operations consist of seven
steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky,
Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels,
including premium-quality coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled
products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are
sold in hot band, sheet and strip form.


AK STEEL: Pension Plan Appeals $3 Judgment in "Schumacher" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan is
challenging an Ohio federal court order involving a more than $3
final judgment in a class action that allege violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to AK Steel
Holding Corporation's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

On October 20, 2002, William Schumacher filed a purported class
action against the AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation
Pension Plan, or AK RAPP, and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit
Plans Administrative Committee in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:09cv794.  The complaint
alleges that the method used under the AK RAPP to determine lump
sum distributions does not comply with ERISA and the Internal
Revenue Code and resulted in underpayment of benefits to him and
the other class members.  The plaintiff and the other purportedly
similarly situated individuals on whose behalf the plaintiff filed
suit were excluded by the Court in 2005 from similar litigation
previously reported and now resolved (the class action litigation
filed January 2, 2002 by John D. West) based on previous releases
of claims they had executed in favor of the Company.  There were a
total of 92 individuals who were excluded from the prior
litigation and the potential additional distributions to them at
issue in the litigation total approximately $3.0, plus potential
interest.  The defendants filed their answer to the complaint on
March 22, 2010.  On August 11, 2010, the plaintiff filed his
motion for class certification. On January 24, 2011, that motion
was granted.  On March 15, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion for
partial summary judgment.  After being fully briefed, that motion
was granted on June 27, 2011.  On October 12, 2011, the court
issued an opinion addressing the issue of pre-judgment interest in
which it held that pre-judgment interest should be calculated
using the statutory rate under 28 U.S.C. Section 1961(a).  On
December 12, 2011, the Court entered a Final Judgment in an amount
slightly in excess of $3.0, which includes pre-judgment interest
at the statutory rate through that date.  That amount has not been
accrued.  The defendants have filed an appeal from that Final
Judgment and intend to continue to contest the matter vigorously.

AK Steel Holding Corporation's operations consist of seven
steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky,
Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels,
including premium-quality coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled
products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are
sold in hot band, sheet and strip form.


AK STEEL: Still Defends Price-Fixing Class Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation continues to defend itself in several
purported class action lawsuits filed by steel product purchasers
alleging price fixing by steel manufacturers, according to the
Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 11, 2011.

In September and October 2008, several companies filed purported
class actions in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, against nine steel manufacturers, including
AK Holding. The case numbers for these actions are 08CV5214,
08CV5371, 08CV5468, 08CV5633, 08CV5700, 08CV5942 and 08CV6197. An
additional action, case number 10CV04236, was filed in the same
federal district court on July 8, 2010.  On December 28, 2010
another action, case number 32,321, was filed in state court in
the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee.  The plaintiffs are
companies which claim to have purchased steel products, directly
or indirectly, from one or more of the defendants and they purport
to file the actions on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased steel products for delivery or pickup in the United
States from any of the named defendants at any time from at least
as early as January 2005 to the present. The complaints allege
that the defendant steel producers have conspired to restrict
output and to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain artificially high
prices with respect to steel products in the United States.  On
January 2, 2009, the defendants filed motions to dismiss all of
the claims set forth in the Complaints. On June 12, 2009, the
court issued an Order denying the defendants' motions to dismiss.
Discovery has commenced.  No trial date has been set.  AK Holding
intends to contest the matter vigorously.

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

AK Steel Holding Corporation's operations consist of seven
steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky,
Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels,
including premium-quality coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled
products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are
sold in hot band, sheet and strip form.


AK STEEL: Faces Zanesville Retirees Suit, Trial Set for Oct. 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation is defending itself in a class action
complaint over changes to retirees' health benefits, according to
the Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 11, 2011.  Trial in the case is set for October 2013 yet.

On December 15, 2011, four former members of the Zanesville Armco
Independent Organization, now the United Autoworkers Union, filed
a purported class action against AK Steel in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1-
11CV00877, alleging that AK Steel did not have a right to make
changes to their healthcare benefits.  The named plaintiffs in the
Zanesville Retiree Action sought, among other things, injunctive
relief for themselves and the other members of a proposed class,
including an order retroactively rescinding certain changes to
retiree healthcare benefits negotiated by AK Steel with its union.
The proposed class the plaintiffs seek to represent consists of
all individuals, spouses, surviving spouses and/or eligible
dependents of individuals who worked at AK Steel's Zanesville
Works under collective bargaining agreements negotiated between
the union and AK Steel, or a predecessor of AK Steel, and who
retired from such employment between 1960 and May 20, 2006 and
whose negotiated health and related benefits have been or may be
improperly modified, amended or terminated by AK Steel.  On
December 15, 2011, plaintiffs also filed a motion for preliminary
injunction, seeking to prevent certain scheduled January 2012
changes to retiree healthcare for members of the purported class
from taking effect.  Because of timing issues, the proposed
changes were implemented in January 2012.  By mutual agreement of
the parties, however, AK Steel has agreed effective February 1,
2012 and continuing through at least July 31, 2012 to re-institute
the contribution rates in effect in 2011 for all Zanesville
retirees who retired between February 1, 1984 and
May 19, 2006. As a result of that interim agreement, the
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction was dismissed
without prejudice as moot on December 23, 2011.  No discovery has
commenced yet, but the case has been tentatively scheduled for
trial in October 2013.  The Company intends to contest the matter
vigorously.

AK Steel Holding Corporation's operations consist of seven
steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky,
Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels,
including premium-quality coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled
products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are
sold in hot band, sheet and strip form.


AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Suit Over Alleged Defective Accord Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Soto and Vince Eagen, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No.
4:12-cv-01377 (N.D. Calif., March 19, 2012) alleges that the 2008,
2009, and 2010 Honda Accord vehicles suffer from a systemic design
defect that enables oil to enter into the engine's combustion
chamber.

The Plaintiffs argue that this defect is present when the vehicles
are sold and manifests prior to the expiration of several warranty
periods, causing excessive oil consumption, premature spark plug
degradation, and engine malfunction.  As a result of Honda's
practices, the Plaintiffs contend that they and the other members
of the proposed class have suffered injury-in-fact, including
economic damages, and have lost money or property.

Alex Soto is a resident of San Francisco, California, while Vince
Eagen is a resident of Campbell, California.

Honda, a California corporation, is the U.S. sales, marketing, and
distribution subsidiary of its Japanese parent company, Honda
Motor Co., Ltd.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven N. Berk, Esq.
          Matthew J. Bonness, Esq.
          BERK LAW PLLC
          2002 Massachusetts Avenue, Northwest, Suite 100
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 232-7550
          Facsimile: (202) 232-7556
          E-mail: steven@berklawdc.com
                  matt@berklawdc.com

               - and -

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 400
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 350-3528
          E-mail: bterrell@tmdlegal.com


BEER CAPITOL: Faces Overtime Class Action in Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------
Steve Jagler, writing for BizTimes, reports that a beer
merchandiser for Beer Capitol Distributing Inc. filed a federal
class action lawsuit against the Sussex company, alleging that the
firm failed to make required overtime payments to its workers.

Matthew Tobin filed the class action lawsuit in the U.S. Eastern
Wisconsin District Court on behalf of himself and about 60 of his
co-workers.

Beer Capitol Distributing is the largest beer distributor in
Wisconsin and distributes nearly 400 brands of beer in
Southeastern Wisconsin and employs more than 350 employees.

The lawsuit alleges that shortly after Beer Capitol Distributing
acquired another distributor, Miller Brands-Milwaukee LLC, in
2008, the company began paying their merchandisers a salary rather
than on an hourly basis.  With this change, the company stopped
paying their merchandisers overtime compensation, according to the
complaint.

"What is important to understand  is just because an employee is
paid on a salary basis does not mean that he/she is not entitled
to overtime compensation," said Larry Johnson of Cross Law Firm in
Milwaukee, who is Mr. Tobin's attorney.

Mr. Johnson said, "This is a costly misstep for many employers who
try to control their labor costs -- state and federal wage and
hour laws simply do not allow an employer to cut this corner."

Mr. Tobin has worked as a merchandiser since March 2004 and was
originally employed with Miller Brands-Milwaukee, Mr. Johnson
said.

As a merchandiser, Mr. Tobin travels to various retail locations
to stock shelves, hang signage, place sales materials, assemble
displays and rotate product to ensure freshness.  "Although we
cannot confirm the amount of the lost wages and liquidated damages
until records are obtained later in the litigation process, we
estimate the total liability could exceed $700,000," Mr. Johnson
said.

Beer Capitol Distributing merged with Beer Capitol Distributing
Lake Country LLC (formerly W.O.W. Distributing Co., Inc.) in
September 2010.

The defendants in the case include Beer Capitol executives Aldo
Madrigrano, Ronald Fowler and Michael Merriman.

The Waukesha County Business Alliance named Beer Capitol
Distributing its 2011 Business of the Year.


BEST BUY: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Glynis Farrell at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge dismissed with prejudice a securities fraud class action
against Best Buy and three of its executives.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98 led
the class action against Best Buy in Minneapolis, claiming senior
executives mislead investors by, among other things, artificially
boosting its projected earnings.  According to the class,
executives Brian Dunn, Mike Vitelli and Jim Muehlbauer concealed
Best Buy's declining financial outlook and made public statements
before and during the 2010 holiday season that promised a hike in
profits.

Local 98 says its pension fund took a hit when the company's
alleged scheme failed and share prices fell.

U.S. Judge Donovan Frank dismissed the amended complaint on
March 20, noting the class failed to show that the electronics
giant had intentionally misled investors.

"Plaintiffs have not alleged such facts, but rather make general
assertions that defendants, considering declines in store sales
and traffic, could not possibly have reached their guidance
forecasts, and that therefore, their statements must have been
knowingly false," Judge Frank wrote.

"The fact that defendants' predictions of future growth turned out
to be wrong, however, does not itself render Defendants'
projections fraudulent," Judge Frank added.

Local 98 will not get another chance to amend its complaint.

"Plaintiffs have submitted an 89-page amended complaint which took
them five months to complete," he wrote.  "Given the amount of
time plaintiffs took to complete their amended complaint, as well
as the large number of amended allegations, the court cannot
envision a set of facts or circumstances wherein a second amended
complaint could survive a motion to dismiss."

Best Buy's attorney Michael Ciresi said the judge made the right
call.

"We didn't believe that the complaint had merit and the court's
carefully reasoned opinion agreed with us," said Mr. Ciresi, a
partner at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, in a statement to
Courthouse News.

"Indeed, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice because
the court did not believe the plaintiffs could maintain a viable
cause even if allowed to replead."

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in IBEW Local 98
Pension Fund, et al. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 11-
cv-00429 (D. Minn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/23/best%20buy-1.pdf


BRILL SECURITIES: Can't Compel Stockbrokers to Arbitrate Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Graham, writing for Insurance & Financial Advisor, reports
that three stockbrokers for Brill Securities in New York have won
an appeal, freeing them from being forced to arbitrate a suit over
overtime pay.

Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum, the law firm representing
the stockbrokers, said in a statement that the ruling from the New
York State Appellate Division, First Department, was an "enormous
victory" for the stockbrokers, who are seeking lost wages and
damages from the suit.

Matthew Kadushin -- matthew@jhllp.com -- a lawyer representing the
stockbrokers, said the ruling "slams the door on broker-dealers,
who are now without defense."

The court ruled the stockbrokers, part of a class action, could
not be compelled to arbitrate the claims over what they say is
unpaid overtime.  The ruling upholds a lower court ruling, issued
in June 2011 by New York Supreme Court Justice Barbara Kapnick, in
Manhattan, N.Y., which denied Brill Securities' attempt to seek
dismissal of the complaint or force the stockbrokers to arbitrate
their claims.

Brill Securities had argued that by signing FINRA's U4 forms, the
stockbrokers were forced submit to arbitration in the case.

"The agreement between the parties makes it exceedingly clear that
arbitration shall be governed by the rules promulgated by FINRA,"
the court ruled.  "FINRA Rule 13204(d) prohibits arbitration of
class action claims and specifically, prohibits enforcement of
'any arbitration agreement against a member of a . . . putative
class action with respect to any claim that is the subject of the
. . . class action' until certain conditions, inapplicable here,
are met."

The class action alleges that during their employment at Brill
Securities, stockbrokers were compensated solely by commissions
yet consistently worked in excess of 40 hours a week and never
received the legally mandated time-and-a-half overtime pay, a
violation for federal Fair Labors Standards Act.

The class action was filed on behalf of about 50 stockbrokers at
Brill Securities between 2007 and 2010.

The company, according to the law firm, sought to defeat the class
action by arguing that an arbitration agreement in stockbrokers'
U4 forms forced them to arbitrate the claim.

"We are pleased by the court's decision which enforced the
parties' agreement to arbitrate only those claims permitted by the
FINRA rules," said Attorney Michael Palmer, who argued the case on
behalf of the stockbrokers, in a statement.  "FINRA has
consistently recognized that broker-dealers cannot compel
stockbrokers to arbitrate claims which were filed as a class
action.  The court recognized that a defendant cannot breach their
own arbitration agreement to avoid class litigation."

The suit names as defendants Brill Securities, along with Robert
Brown, its CEO and an owner; Nicholas Brown, its chief financial
officer and an owner; Jonathan Kurtin, president and an owner; and
David Nutkis, vice president and chief operating officer of Brill.


CENTRO: Two Versions of Faulty Final Accounts in 2007 Discovered
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Australian, reports that two
different versions of Centro's faulty final accounts were prepared
in 2007, the class action trial into the company's near-collapse
has heard.

The documents were discovered by Maurice Blackburn, one of two
firms bringing the claims against the shopping center owner, in
its preparation for the trial over Centro's AUD3.1 billion
misclassification of short-term debt and refinancing issues.

The first, posted by Centro on its Web site, noted that all
liabilities had been classed as non-current and that any current
liabilities would be refinanced with long-term debt.

The other version, released to the Australian Securities &
Investments Commission, did not include any reference to non-
current liabilities or refinancing, the Federal Court in Melbourne
heard.  The documents were presented to former chief executive
Andrew Scott, who suffered through his fourth day under cross-
examination.

"Why is there a difference?" Michael Lee SC for Maurice Blackburn
asked.  "I do not understand why there is a difference," Mr. Scott
said.

He said he was not aware that the accounts had been amended in
such a way and that the changes were likely to have been made by
senior Centro finance team member Paul Belcher.

Mr. Scott also said he would not have notified the market if he
had been made aware of the misclassification of AUD3.1 billion of
the company's debt as non-current as it would not have been
material to the company's share price.  "Is that a serious
answer?" Mr. Lee asked Mr. Scott.

He replied he hoped every answer he gave was serious.

Hundreds of shareholders have joined the class actions against the
company and its former auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The case continues.


CEZ: Xstrata to Vigorously Contest Environmental Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Jones Newswires reports that Anglo Swiss miner Xstrata PLC on
March 21 said any environmental class action suit against the
Canadian CEZ zinc refinery arising from a court ruling March 20
would be "vigorously contested."

Xstrata said that many of the claims made by the law firm leading
the class action suit weren't authorized by any court.  The CEZ
refinery is majority owned by the Noranda Income Fund; Xstrata
acts as operator with a 25% stake in the refinery.

Canada-based law firm Me Chantal Desjardins said on March 20 it
has received court approval to seek damages of C$1.8 billion
related to a toxic cloud that was emitted from CEZ's plant near
Montreal on Aug. 9, 2004, prior to Xstrata's indirect purchase of
a stake in the plant through its Falconbridge acquisition in 2006.
It said that no medical proof was needed to make a claim.

Xstrata said in a statement that "none of the potential size of
any claim, the number of claimants nor the additional territory in
the claim has been substantiated or 'authorized' by any court."
It said that the court ruling "merely allows the plaintiffs to
issue a statement of claim."

While Xstrata acknowledged the accidental discharge, it noted that
no charges or fines were laid against the company following an
Environment Canada investigation and there were no adverse or
permanent health effects that resulted from the incident.

"Attempts by the plaintiffs to certify a class had previously been
rejected by the Quebec court in 2008 and an appeal was also
overturned in the Quebec Court of Appeal in 2009," it said. "The
merits of the case have not been considered by any court.  We will
vigorously contest any action that arises from [Tues] day's ruling
by the Quebec Supreme Court."


CHARLES RIVER: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Unpaid Employee Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. is defending itself
against a class action complaint over unpaid employee wages,
according to the Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
December 31, 2011.

On January 31, 2012, a putative class action, entitled Irma Garcia
v. Charles River Laboratories, Inc., was filed against the Company
in the San Diego Superior Court, alleging various causes of action
related to failure to make proper and timely payments to employees
in California, failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage
statements, unfair business practices, associated penalties
pursuant to California law, and declaratory relief. While no
prediction may be made as to the outcome of litigation, the
Company says it intends to defend against the proceeding
vigorously and therefore an estimate of the possible loss or range
of loss cannot be made.

Founded in 1947 and headquartered in Wilmington, Massachusetts,
Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. --
http://www.criver.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, provides
research models and associated services, and outsourced
preclinical services to accelerate the drug discovery and
development process.  The company operates in two segments,
Research Models and Services (RMS), and Preclinical Services
(PCS).


CHINA SKY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on March 24 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the
securities of China Sky One Medical, Inc. securities between
April 16, 2009 and February 14, 2012, inclusive.

To join the China Sky One class action and recover your investment
losses, visit the firm's Web site at http://rosenlegal.com or
call Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also
e-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
The action filed by the Rosen Law Firm is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against China Sky One and its officers and directors for issuing
false and misleading information to investors about the Company's
financial and business condition.  Specifically, the Complaint
alleges: (1) the Company overstated earnings; (2) the Company's
gross margins were inflated; and (3) the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls.

The Complaint alleges that when the market learned of the alleged
fraud, the price of China Sky One stock dropped, causing investors
losses.

You can join the class action and seek to recover your losses.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 24, 2012.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at
866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.

CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Jon Horne, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425
         Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com


CITIZENS PROPERTY: Louisiana Lawmakers Mull Insurer Legislation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Hemenway of Propertycasualty360.Com reports that on March 20,
Louisiana lawmakers were considering legislation that could make a
battle between policyholders and Citizens Property Insurance Corp.
over more than $100 million moot.

Citizens, the state's last-resort insurer, is currently on the
hook to pay a class of policyholders about $104 million.

State courts have ruled Citizens did not begin the claims
adjusting process within 90 days following hurricanes in 2005.

The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld a judgment against the insurer
and decided not to reconsider its opinion.  Since then, Citizens
and attorneys for the class of plaintiffs have engaged in
settlement talks, which have not been fruitful.  Citizens has also
sought other options, such as a plea before the U.S. Supreme
Court.

But the issue could be put to rest much sooner. Legislation
proposed by lawmakers could retroactively make it impossible for
the more than 18,500 policyholders in the class to collect a dime.
Bills introduced would make it unlawful to recover penalties in
class-action suits against Citizens.

Plaintiffs' attorneys say Citizens has been stalling and avoiding
payment in order to get legislation passed to make payment
impossible.

The insurer is "just trying to get out of paying [the judgment]
even though they know they owe it," says plaintiffs' attorney Fred
Herman.

"If this bill passes, we will need the legislature's commitment
that this will not affect the premium-paying policyholders'
ability to get the money they have been fighting for these past
few years," says Mr. Herman.

Citizens filed a request with the state's 5th Circuit of Appeal to
halt collection of the judgment.  The court has granted a
temporary stay until it decides whether to hear a full appeal.

The delaying tactics are only hurting policyholders more, says
plaintiffs' attorney Wiley Beevers, who claims Insurance
Commissioner Jim Donelon is "determined to cover up the inadequate
response" by Citizens.

In an interview with NU Online News Service, Mr. Donelon hinted at
a legislative fix and described his determination to stop the
judgment against Citizens.

Mr. Donelon says he does not dispute the fact Citizens delayed the
start of the adjusting process after Katrina.  However, the
commissioner has difficulty accepting the ruling that each class
member receives the maximum penalty, $5,000, regardless of how
many days the adjusting process was delayed.

Additionally, Mr. Donelon points out that policyholders of private
insurers had attempted to form a class and sue, but were told by
judges that they were not deemed applicable for class-action
status.


CITY OF HARVEY, IL: Sued Over Untested Sexual Assault Kits
----------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action claims the City of Harvey failed to submit more than
200 sexual assault kits for testing, evidence and preservation,
and that the city's conspiracy against women was discovered when
the FBI raided the Harvey police department and found hundreds of
untested rape kits.

Jane Doe filed the class action against the City of Harvey and its
Police Commander Andrew Joshua.

Harvey, pop. 30,000, is about 20 miles south of Chicago.

Ms. Doe claims the defendants conspired to spoliate evidence, deny
rape victims due process and equal protection, violated the
Illinois Domestic Violence, and that the "willful and wanton"
abuses were motivated by gender discrimination.

"Defendants have a history of discriminating against females," the
complaint states.  "Defendants treat domestic violence abuse
reports from women with less priority than other crimes not
involving women reporting domestic violence abuse."

Ms. Doe says she was sexually assaulted on May 24, 2007, when she
was a minor, by a man named Dunbar.

The complaint states: "That same day, May 24, 2007, Jane Doe was
taken to Ingalls Memorial Hospital for treatment.  While at
Ingalls Memorial Hospital, medical personnel took body fluid
samples from Jane Doe and placed them into an Illinois State
Police Sexual Assault Evidence Kit.

"An officer from the Harvey Police Department transported the kit
to the Harvey Police Department to be placed into evidence.

"On information and belief, Commander Andrew Joshua was notified
of the allegations against Dunbar.

"On June 15, 2007, the Harvey Police Department arrested Dunbar as
a suspect wanted for criminal sexual assault.  Later that day, the
Harvey Police released Dunbar without charge, pending the results
of the sexual assault evidence kit.

"Defendants never submitted the Illinois State Police Sexual
Assault Evidence Kit for testing.

"The City of Harvey had the police, practice and/or custom of
failing to submit Sexual Assault Evidence Kits for testing.

"a) Over 200 Sexual Assault Evidence Kits went untested for years;

"b) The Illinois State Police and/or FBI seized the Harvey sexual
assault evidence kits during a raid on the Police Department;

"c) Approximately 50 of the 200 sexual assault evidence kits were
viable for scientific testing when discovered by the Illinois
State Police and FBI;

"d) As of 2011, 14 people were charged with crimes in 21 sexual
assaults from the kits seized, including Dunbar;

"e) A disproportionate number of the victims of were women."

In an interview with Courthouse News, Ms. Doe's attorney Yao
Dinizulu said: "Some of the rape kits are not viable, probably
because of age, so we think that in all likelihood, this has been
going on for over 10 years.  The reason why we know that is that
the first lawsuit we filed, that particular victim's rape kit was
done in 1997 and nothing happened with it."

The complaint states: "On information and belief, the failure to
submit Sexual Assault Evidence Kits for testing, the failure to
investigate crimes of sexual assault, and the failure to notify
the Department of Child and Family Services, were consistent with
an institutional practice of the City of Harvey Police Department,
which was known to and ratified by Defendant Andrew Joshua and the
City of Harvey, the Defendants having failed to take any effective
action to prevent City of Harvey police personnel from continuing
to engage in such misconduct."

Ms. Doe adds: "Defendant's deliberate indifference, willfully and
wantonly, created a danger of and increased the risk of harm by
sexual abuse, and/or fostered an environment to exist and continue
in which a victim was sexually abused; and/or in fear of sexual
assault.

"Defendant's conduct was motivated by gender.

"Defendant's conduct was intentional and due to plaintiff's and
the class member's female gender.

"Defendants have a history of discriminating against females.
Defendants treat domestic violence abuse reports from women with
less priority than other crimes not involving women reporting
domestic violence abuse."

Ms. Doe seeks class damages for constitutional violations,
violations of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act, emotional
distress, willful and wanton conduct, and conspiracy.

"We filed a class allegation so it's up to the court to determine
whether or not the court wants to certify a class," Mr. Dinizulu
said.

"We hope that the class will be certified to include all victims,
including those whose rape kits are too old to be tested."

Mr. Dinizulu, of Chicago, is assisted by Todd McLawhorn.

A copy the Complaint in Doe v. The City of Harvey, et al., Case
No. 12-cv-02069 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/23/Harvey.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yao O. Dinizulu, Esq.
          DINIZULU LAW GROUP, LTD.
          221 N. LaSalle, Suite 1100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 384-1920
          E-mail: dinizulu@dinizululawgroup.com

               - and -
          Todd L. McLawhorn, Esq.
          MCLAWHORN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          407 S. Dearborn, Suite 1310
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 419-1941
          E-mail: todd@mcllegal.com


CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CA: Low-Income Tenants File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Moore, writing for 89.3KPCC, reports that some of L.A.'s
low-income public housing tenants have filed a class-action
lawsuit against the city.  They claim the L.A. Housing Authority
has overcharged people in housing projects millions of dollars for
picking up the trash.

Retiree Marco Galindo has lived in the Mar Vista Gardens housing
projects for about 16 years.  Mr. Galindo says he and others who
live in subsidized housing noticed that the city drastically
inflated fees for sanitation services in recent years.

"Seventy percent was increased starting two years ago," said
Mr. Galindo.  "So we found out . . . we started fighting for [the]
Housing Authority to remove those charges to the public housing
residents."

The Western Center on Law and Poverty filed the suit along with
other advocacy groups.

Attorney Navneet Grewal says the Housing Authority of the City of
Los Angeles -- or HACLA for short -- hasn't budged very much.

"HACLA had acknowledged that the tenants are being overcharged,"
maintains Mr. Grewal.  "So they're reducing rents going forward
but they're refusing to refund and they're refusing to do the
direct payments of trash which is what their lease says that they
will do, which is really important for a lot of tenants for a
number of reasons."

Reasons like: they can't afford the costs.

Emma Gullette, 69, is helping her daughter raise three kids in a
three-bedroom apartment at the Pueblo Del Rio projects in South
L.A.  She pays just over $300 a month for rent -- and now, on top
of that, a $24 monthly bill for trash service.

"We didn't know it but I guess they've been charging us all the
time," Ms. Gullette says.  "But it was you know, a couple dollars
here, a couple dollars there and all of a sudden that $24 comes up
on my bill . . . I want to know where it's coming from."

The lawsuit maintains that the Housing Authority owes tenants $8
million for payments they made over the last few years.  Tenants
contend that, under their leases, the city's supposed to pay for
trash removal.

The Housing Authority, which depends on federal dollars, has not
commented on the lawsuit.


CNO FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Yue" Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc. continues to defend itself against two
separate lawsuits filed by Celedonia Yue over increases in
insurance costs, according to the Company's February 27, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On March 4, 2008, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Celedonia
X. Yue, M. D. on behalf of the class of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the General Public v. Conseco Life
Insurance Company, successor to Philadelphia Life Insurance
Company and formerly known as Massachusetts General Life Insurance
Company, Cause No. CV08-01506 CAS.  Plaintiff in the putative
class action owns a Valulife universal life policy insuring the
life of Ruth S. Yue originally issued by Massachusetts General
Life Insurance Company in 1995.  Plaintiff is claiming breach of
contract on behalf of the proposed national class and seeks
injunctive and restitutionary relief pursuant to California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 and declaratory relief.
The putative class consists of all owners of Valulife and Valuterm
universal life insurance policies issued by either Massachusetts
General or Philadelphia Life and that were later acquired and
serviced by Conseco Life.  Plaintiff alleges that members of the
class will be damaged by increases in the cost of insurance (a
non-guaranteed element ("NGE")) that are set to take place in the
twenty first policy year of Valulife nd Valuterm policies.  No
such increases have yet been applied to the subject policies.
During 2010, Conseco Life voluntarily agreed not to implement the
cost of insurance rate increase at issue in this litigation and is
following a process with respect to any future cost of insurance
rate increases as set forth in the regulatory settlement agreement
described below.  Plaintiff filed a motion for certification of a
nationwide class and a California state class.  On December 7,
2009, the court granted that motion.  On October 8, 2010, the
court dismissed the causes of actions alleged in the California
state class.  On January 19, 2011, the court granted the
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to the declaratory
relief claim and on February 2, 2011, the court issued an advisory
opinion, in the form of a declaratory judgment, as to what, in its
view, Conseco Life could consider in implementing future cost of
insurance rate increases related to its Valulife and Valuterm
block of policies.  Conseco Life is appealing the court's January
19, 2011 decision and the plaintiff is appealing the court's
decision to dismiss the California causes of action.  These
appeals are pending.  The Company believes the case is without
merit, and intend to defend it vigorously.

On November 15, 2011, a second complaint was filed by Dr. Yue in
the United States District Court for the Central District on
California, Celedonia X. Yue, M. D. on behalf of the class of all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the General Public v.
Conseco Life Insurance Company, Cause No. CV11-9506 AHM (SHx),
involving the same Valulife universal life policy described in the
preceding paragraph. Plaintiff, for herself and on behalf of
proposed members of a national class and a California class is
claiming breach of contract, injunctive and restitutionary relief
pursuant to California Business & Professions Code Section 17200,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, declaratory
relief, and temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive
relief. The putative class consists of all owners and former
owners of Valulife and Valuterm universal life insurance policies
issued by either Massachusetts General or Philadelphia Life and
that were later acquired and serviced by Conseco Life. Plaintiff
alleges that members of the classes will be damaged by increases
in the cost of insurance (a NGE) that took place on or about
November 1, 2011. Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction and a motion for certification of a California class on
which hearing was set for February 27, 2012.  The Company believes
the case is without merit, and intend to defend it vigorously.

CNO Financial Group, Inc., is a holding company for a group of
insurance companies operating throughout the United States that
develop, market and administer health insurance, annuity,
individual life insurance and other insurance products.  CNO
became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in connection with the
entity's bankruptcy reorganization which became effective on
September 10, 2003.  As of December 31, 2011, the Company had
shareholders' equity of $5.0 billion and assets of $33.3 billion.
For the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company had revenues of
$4.1 billion and net income of $382.5 million.


CNO FINANCIAL: Defends "Nicholas" Contract Breach Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
On February 6, 2012, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Daniel B.
Nicholas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Cause No. 12cv845.  Plaintiff
in the putative class action owns a Valulife universal life policy
insuring Plaintiff's life originally issued by Massachusetts
General Life Insurance Company in 1991.  Plaintiff is claiming
breach of contract on behalf of the proposed national class and
seeks declaratory, injunctive, and supplemental relief. The
putative class consists of all persons who own or have owned one
or more universal life policies issued by Conseco Life Insurance
Company which provide that the cost of insurance rates will be
determined based upon expectations as to future mortality
experience and who have experienced an increase in the cost of
insurance rates. Plaintiff alleges that members of the class will
be damaged by cost of insurance charges that were increased due to
general economic downturn, Conseco Life's diminished investment
yields, and mounting policy losses.

CNO Financial Group, Inc., successor to Conseco, related in its
February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011, that it
believes the case is without merit and intends to defend it
vigorously.

CNO Financial Group, Inc., is a holding company for a group of
insurance companies operating throughout the United States that
develop, market and administer health insurance, annuity,
individual life insurance and other insurance products.  CNO
became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in connection with the
entity's bankruptcy reorganization which became effective on
September 10, 2003.  As of December 31, 2011, the Company had
shareholders' equity of $5.0 billion and assets of $33.3 billion.
For the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company had revenues of
$4.1 billion and net income of $382.5 million.


CNO FINANCIAL: Trial in "Lifetrend" MDL Set for March 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated class action lawsuit against a
subsidiary and the predecessor of CNO Financial Group, Inc. is set
for March 25, 2013, according to the Company's February 27, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

                            Brady Case

On December 24, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Cedric Brady, et. al. individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Conseco, Inc. and Conseco Life Insurance
Company Case No. 3:08-cv-05746.  The plaintiffs allege that
Conseco Life and Conseco, Inc. committed breach of contract and
insurance bad faith and violated various consumer protection
statutes in the administration of various interest sensitive whole
life products sold primarily under the name "Lifetrend" by
requiring the payment of additional cash amounts to maintain the
policies in force and by making changes to certain NGEs in their
policies.  On April 23, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint adding the additional counts of breach of fiduciary
duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conversion and
declaratory relief.  On May 29, 2009, Conseco, Inc. and Conseco
Life filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 29,
2009, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to
dismiss.  The court dismissed the allegations that Conseco Life
violated various consumer protection statutes, the breach of
fiduciary duty count, and dismissed Conseco, Inc. for lack of
personal jurisdiction.

                          McFarland Case

On July 2, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Bill W.
McFarland, and all those similarly situated v. Conseco Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 3:09-cv-598-J-32MCR.  The plaintiff
alleges that Conseco Life committed breach of contract and has
been unjustly enriched in the administration, including changes to
certain NGEs, of various interest sensitive whole life products
sold primarily under the name "Lifetrend."  The plaintiff seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive
damages and attorney fees.

Conseco Life filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL"), seeking the establishment of an
MDL proceeding consolidating the Brady case and the McFarland case
into a single action.  On February 3, 2010, the Judicial Panel on
MDL ordered these cases be consolidated for pretrial proceedings
in the Northern District of California Federal Court.

On July 7, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class
certification of a nationwide class and a California state class.
On October 6, 2010, the court granted the motion for certification
of a nationwide class and denied the motion for certification of a
California state class.  Conseco Life filed a motion to decertify
the nationwide class on July 1, 2011. On December 20, 2011, the
court issued an order denying Conseco Life's motion to decertify
the class as to current policyholders, but granted the motion to
decertify as to former policyholders. Trial in the MDL proceeding
has been set for March 25, 2013.

CNO Financial believes the cases are without merit and intend to
defend them vigorously.

CNO Financial Group, Inc., is a holding company for a group of
insurance companies operating throughout the United States that
develop, market and administer health insurance, annuity,
individual life insurance and other insurance products.  CNO
became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in connection with the
entity's bankruptcy reorganization which became effective on
September 10, 2003.  As of December 31, 2011, the Company had
shareholders' equity of $5.0 billion and assets of $33.3 billion.
For the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company had revenues of
$4.1 billion and net income of $382.5 million.


DENNY'S RESTAURANTS: Foreign Workers Win Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Sandborn, writing for The Hook, reports that over 70 foreign
workers who say they were cheated by their employer after they
were brought to Canada to work at local Denny's restaurants have
won a significant legal victory.  On March 5, Madam Justice
Shelley Fitzpatrick of the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that the
workers can proceed with a class action against Northland
Properties Corporation -- doing business as Denny's Restaurants --
and Dencan Restaurants Inc., the companies that run Denny's
Restaurants in British Columbia.  If successful, the class action
certified by the court could cost Denny's upwards of ten million
dollars.

As previously reported in The Tyee, the workers involved,
recruited in the Philippines for Denny's, said they were
improperly charged for their travel to and from Canada, and were
not properly paid when required to work overtime at the popular
local restaurants.  Further, they alleged, they did not always get
a full 40 hours of work each week.

Denny's spokespeople told The Tyee in 2011 that the firm had done
nothing improper in its dealings with temporary foreign workers.
They said that the company had participated in the Temporary
Foreign Workers program since 2006, and had brought about 200
workers in from other countries during that time.

"We hope that this certification will pave the way for other
groups of temporary foreign workers to effectively and
economically enforce their rights in any other cases where
employers may be taking advantage of their vulnerability," said
Charles Gordon -- gordon@ggclaw.com -- of law firm Fiorillo,
Gordon, Glavin.

Added co-counsel Christopher Foy of Kestrel Workplace Legal
Counsel: "The Court correctly concluded that class certification
here is a vastly superior method of adjudication because the
common issues will only have to be heard and decided once, thereby
promoting judicial efficiency and access to justice."

In her judgment, Madam Justice Fitzpatrick says:

"A class proceeding will substantially advance this litigation in
terms of an overall resolution of the common issues which
addresses the need for judicial economy in its approach.  In
addition, recognizing the vulnerable situation in which these
temporary workers find themselves, a class proceeding will provide
the access to justice that they require in an environment that
will be of assistance to them."

The judge goes on to observe that on some points, earlier attempts
to get Denny's to correct its behavior towards its workers had not
been successful.

"Finally, behavior modification is no doubt required if these
claims are ultimately proven.  One allegation, that relating to
the airfare issue, has already been conceded by the defendants and
to that extent, the proceedings are promoting that objective in
the preliminary stages.

"It bears repeating that the investigations by the Employment
Standards Branch in late 2010 and early 2011 had little effect on
the practices of the defendants regarding payment of overtime and
despite efforts to ensure that overtime was being properly paid,
further breaches were recorded which resulted in a Determination
on June 17, 2011 with penalties."


DIAL CORP: Parker Waichman Files Class Action in New Hampshire
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Waichman LLP has filed a lawsuit against The Dial
Corporation over allegedly unsubstantiated health claims made by
the Defendant in its promotion of the Dial Complete line of
antibacterial soap products.  The Dial Complete lawsuit, which was
filed in U.S. District Court, District of New Hampshire, seeks to
represent consumers in Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois,
Louisiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin
who purchased a Dial Complete product (Case No. 11-md-2263-SM).

The complaint alleges that, through its extensive and
comprehensive nationwide marketing campaign, Dial intends to, and
does, represent to consumers that washing their hands with Dial
Complete -- which contains the active ingredient triclosan -- is
more effective than washing with regular soap and water or with
other liquid soaps that do not contain triclosan.  The lawsuit
further alleges that Dial also deceptively and unfairly represents
that using Dial Complete provides special health benefits,
including, but not limited to, being over 1,000 times more
effective at killing disease-causing germs than other
antibacterial liquid hand soaps, killing 99.99% of bacteria,
killing 99.9% of illness-causing bacteria, reducing disease
transmission by 50% compared to washing with a plain soap, and
killing more germs than any other liquid hand soap.

In an April 8, 2010 "Consumer Update', the FDA stated that it does
not have evidence that triclosan-containing antibacterial soaps
and body washes provide any extra health benefit over soap and
water alone.  Yet despite mounting concerns surrounding triclosan,
Dial has continued to aggressively advertise Dial Complete as
having substantial health benefits and being more effective in its
use than ordinary soap and water, the complaint alleges.

On August 19, 2011, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation consolidated all similar Dial Complete lawsuits in a
multidistrict litigation and transferred them to the District of
New Hampshire, before the Honorable Steven J. McAuliffe (In Re:
Dial Complete Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation - MDL
2263).  Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq., a partner with Parker Waichman
LLP, is serving as a member of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee
in the Dial Complete MDL.

Parker Waichman LLP is a national law firm dedicated to protecting
the rights of consumers.

Contact: Herb Waichman, Esq.
         PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
         Telephone: (800) LAW-INFO
                    (800) 529-4636
         Web site: http://www.yourlawyer.com


EAST LAKE: Sued Over Bed Bug Infestation in Illinois Apartment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lashanda Vassers, Individually and as parent of Adreyonna Banks
and Courtney Harper and as a representative of a class of
similarly situated and aggrieved persons v. East Lake Management
Group, Inc., an Illinois corporation and DRS Limited Partnership,
an Illinois limited liability company, Case No. 2012-CH-09997
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., March 20, 2012) alleges that the
Plaintiff's apartment owned by the Defendants was infested with
cimex lectularis, also known as bed bugs.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants were negligent because
they, among other things, failed to:

   -- prevent one or more of the apartments in their controlled
      premises located at 5052 South Washington Park Court, City
      of Chicago, in the County of Cook, Illinois, from becoming
      infested with bed bugs;

   -- take necessary steps to prevent the infestation from
      spreading, thus, allowing an infestation of bed bugs to
      become established in Apartment, including in Apartment #3,
      which is adjacent to the one occupied by the Plaintiff;

   -- warn the plaintiff of the dangerous condition and
      infestation of an adjacent unit; and

   -- take precautionary measures to prevent infestation of
      plaintiff's unit, and to clean and properly maintain said
      apartment structure so as to protect the structure from
      insect infestation.

Ms. Vassers occupied and resided in Apartment #523 of Apartment.
She alleges that at least as early as August and September 2011,
her Apartment #523 was infested with bed bugs.

East Lake is an Illinois corporation.  DRS Limited is an Illinois
limited liability company.  The Defendants owned, operated,
managed and controlled the Apartment.  The 5052 South Washington
Park Court is one of a series of contiguous buildings commonly
known at 5151 King Drive Apartments, which consist of
approximately 90 units all of which are owned, operated, managed
and controlled by the Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hall Adams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HALL ADAMS
          33 North Dearborn Street, Suite 2350
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 445-4900
          E-mail: hall@adamslegal.net


FURUKAWA ELECTRIC: Freed Kanner Appointed as Plaintiff Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------
Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC on March 23 disclosed that it has
been appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs in a massive price-fixing lawsuit against manufacturers
of wire harnesses and related products, by United States Federal
District Court Judge Marianne Battani.  The case, captioned "In re
Automotive Wire Harness Systems Antitrust Litigation," is pending
in the Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit.

"We are pleased that the Court selected our firm to prosecute this
case on behalf of the victims of a global cartel and we are
committed to vindicating their rights under the United States
Antitrust laws," said Steven A. Kanner, Freed Kanner London &
Millen partner.  Mr. Kanner added that the price-fixing case
potentially impacts thousands of businesses in the United States.

Defendants are alleged to have conspired over a 10-year period to
illegally increase the price of "Wire Harness Systems Products,"
which include wire harnesses, electrical wiring, lead wire
assemblies, cable bond, wiring connectors, wiring terminals,
electronic control units, fuse boxes, relay boxes, junction
blocks, and power distributors.  Notably, in a separate
governmental investigation, two of the named defendants, Furukawa
Electric Co., Ltd. and Yazaki Corporation, as well as some of
their executives, pleaded guilty for their involvement in the
conspiracy and agreed to pay nearly $700 million in criminal fines
and serve prison sentences.

The U.S. Department of Justice has described the investigation
into alleged price fixing by auto-parts suppliers as the most
sweeping in U.S. history.  John Terzaken, director of criminal
enforcement in the antitrust division of the Department of
Justice, announced that "The investigation has now spread to
include six automotive component segments.  The parts involved
were sold both to automakers and in the aftermarket, and the probe
continues to expand."

The criminal investigation has been far reaching with more
prosecutions to follow.  A Department of Justice spokesperson
recently told the Automotive News that "In terms of the breadth of
the investigation and the scope of the commerce involved, there's
certainly nothing on the record that parallels this."

Freed Kanner London & Millen and its co-counsel represent both
small and large businesses that purchased Wire Harness Systems
Products directly from the named defendants between January 1,
2000 and January 31, 2010.  The lawsuit seeks both monetary
damages and injunctive relief.

Freed Kanner London & Millen is also investigating related price-
fixing claims against the manufacturers of Instrument Panel
Clusters, Fuel Senders and Heat Control Panels.  Recently, Denso
Corporation pleaded guilty and agreed to pay a $78 million fine
for price fixing of Heat Control Panels.

Please contact Steven A. Kanner -- skanner@fklmlaw.com -- or
William H. London -- wlondon@fklmlaw.com -- at (224) 632-4500 if
you have relevant information to assist these investigations or if
you directly purchased any of these products and would like to
discuss your potential claims on a confidential basis.  A full
list of defendants in the case can be found at
http://www.fklmlaw.com

              About Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC

Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC -- http://www.fklmlaw.com-- is a
Midwest antitrust, class action law firm.  The firm's practice
involves all aspects of complex antitrust, consumer fraud,
securities, unlawful business practices and insurance fraud cases.


FURUKAWA ELECTRIC: Barrett Appointed Plaintiff Co-Lead Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal District Judge Marianne Battani on March 23 appointed
Interim Co-lead Counsel for automobile dealerships in a class
action against Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd., Yazaki Corporation,
Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC and others, arising out of the
Justice Department's criminal investigation of price-fixing in the
sale of automotive wire harnesses.  The automobile dealers'
complaints allege that a number of automotive component
manufacturers, in Japan, Germany, the United States and elsewhere,
entered into illegal agreements to rig bids and fix prices for
wire harnesses and related products.

The Court appointed Don Barrett of the Barrett Law Group, P.A.,
Jonathan W. Cuneo, of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP and Shawn
Raiter, of Larson -- King, LLP, as Interim Co-Lead Counsel to
automobile dealerships in 31 states and territories: Arizona,
Arkansas, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii,
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia
and Wisconsin.

The same legal team has also filed suit against Yazaki Corporation
and Denso Corporation for fixing prices for four other automotive
components: electronic control units, heater control panels,
instrument panel clusters and fuel senders.

Counsel for the dealerships may be contacted as follows:

        Don Barrett, Esq.
        David McMullan, Jr., Esq.
        Brian Herrington, Esq.
        BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
        P.O. Box 927
        404 Court Square
        Lexington, MS 39095
        Telephone: (662) 834-2488
        E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
                dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
                bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com

        Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
        Joel Davidow, Esq.
        Preetpal Grewal, Esq.
        Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
        CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
        507 C Street, N.E.
        Washington, DC 20002
        Telephone: (202) 789-3960
        E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
                joel@cuneolaw.com
                pgrewal@cuneolaw.com
                Vicky@cuneolaw.com

        Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
        Paul Sand, Esq.
        LARSON - KING, LLP
        2800 Wells Fargo Place
        30 East Seventh Street
        St. Paul, MN 55101
        Telephone: (651) 312-6500
        E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com
                psand@larsonking.com


GENERAL MILLS: June 5 Trial Set for Yo-Plus(R) Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP
on March 20 issued a statement regarding the Johnson v. General
Mills, Inc., Case No. 10-00061-CJC(ANx).

You may be affected by a class action lawsuit about whether
General Mills falsely advertised the digestive health benefits of
its Yo-Plus(R)brand of yogurt.

The lawsuit is called Johnson v. General Mills, Inc., Case No. 10-
00061-CJC(ANx), and is in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.  The Court decided this lawsuit
should be a class action on behalf of a "Class," or group of
people, that could include you.  This notice summarizes your
rights and options before an upcoming trial.  More information is
in a detailed notice available at:

     http://www.gcginc.com/cases/yoplus-class-action

If you're included, you have to decide whether to stay in the
Class and be bound by whatever results, or ask to be excluded and
keep your right to sue General Mills.  There is no money available
now and no guarantee that there will be.

What is This Case About?  The lawsuit claims that General Mills
falsely advertised its Yo-Plus(R) brand of yogurt.  The lawsuit
claims that General Mills advertised that Yo-Plus(R) yogurt
provides digestive health benefits when General Mills didn't have
a scientific basis to make that claim.  The lawsuit seeks the
return of money to the purchasers and a court order prohibiting
the advertising.  General Mills denies it did anything wrong and
says its Yo-Plus(R) advertising was truthful and always
substantiated by scientific evidence.

The Court has not decided whether the Class or General Mills is
right.  The attorneys for the Class will have to prove their
claims at a trial set to begin on June 5, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.

What are my Rights?  The Class, on whose behalf the lawsuit is
brought, is defined as "All persons who purchased Yo-Plus(R) in
the State of California from the date Yo-Plus(R) was first sold in
California to the date notice is first provided to the Class."
You may be a Class Member and, if so, you have a choice of whether
to stay in the Class or not, and you must decide this now.

If you stay in the Class, you will be legally bound by all orders
and judgments of the Court, and you will not be able to sue, or
continue to sue, General Mills in any lawsuit relating to its
advertising and marketing campaign for the Yo-Plus(R) yogurt
products.  If money or benefits are obtained, you will be notified
about how to request it.  To stay in the Class, you do not have to
do anything now.  You may enter an appearance through your own
attorney if you wish, but you do not have to.  The Court appointed
Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP of San Diego, CA, and Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd, LLP of Boca Raton, FL, to represent you as Class
Counsel.

How do I Request Exclusion from the Class?   If you ask to be
excluded from the Class, you cannot get any money or benefits from
this lawsuit if any are awarded, but you will keep any rights to
sue General Mills for these claims, now or in the future, and will
not be bound by any orders or judgments of the Court.  To ask to
be excluded, send a letter to Johnson v. General Mills, Inc., Case
No. 10-00061, Yo-Plus(R) Project Administration c/o The Garden
City Group, Inc., P.O. Box 9763, Dublin, OH 43017-5663, postmarked
by June 1, 2012, that says you want to be excluded from the
Johnson v. General Mills, Inc., Case No. 10-00061, class action.
Include your name, address, and telephone number.

If you have questions or want a detailed notice or other documents
about the litigation, visit:

     http://www.gcginc.com/cases/yoplus-class-action

call 1 (800) 449-4900, or write to the designated address.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Unit Faces Suits on Captive Reinsurance Pacts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Genworth Financial, Inc. is defending itself
against three class action complaints relating to "captive
reinsurance arrangements, according to the Company's February 27,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In December 2011 and January 2012, one of the Company's U.S.
mortgage insurance subsidiaries was named along with several other
mortgage insurance industry participants and mortgage lenders as a
defendant in three putative class action lawsuits captioned as
follows: Samp, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al, United
States District Court for the Central District of California;
White, et al v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., et al,
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania; and Menichino, et al v. Citibank NA, et al, United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Plaintiffs allege that "captive reinsurance arrangements" with
providers of private mortgage insurance whereby a mortgage lender
through captive reinsurance arrangements received a portion of the
borrowers' private mortgage insurance premiums were in violation
of the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act of 1974 (RESPA)
and unjustly enriched the defendants for which plaintiffs seek
declaratory relief and unspecified monetary damages, including
restitution. We intend to vigorously defend these actions.

Genworth Financial Inc. is a financial security company that
provides insurance, wealth management, investment and financial
solutions to more than 15 million customers, with a presence in
more than 25 countries.  It is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia
and have approximately 6,400 employees.  It had $114.3 billion of
total assets and $16.5 billion of stockholders' equity as of
December 31, 2011.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: "Goodman" Securities Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
A putative securities class action lawsuit filed by Michael
Goodman, et al., against Genworth Financial, Inc. remains pending
in New York, according to the Company's February 27, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.

In December 2009, one of Company's non-insurance subsidiaries, one
of the subsidiary's officers and Genworth Financial, Inc. were
named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Michael J.
Goodman and Linda Brown v. Genworth Financial Wealth Management,
Inc., et al, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.  Plaintiffs allege securities law and other
violations involving the selection of mutual funds by the
Company's subsidiary on behalf of certain of its Private Client
Group clients.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.  In response to the Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety, the Court granted on March 30, 2011 the
motion to dismiss the state law fiduciary duty claim and denied
the motion to dismiss the remaining federal claims.  The Company
continues to vigorously defend the action.

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

Genworth Financial Inc. is a financial security company that
provides insurance, wealth management, investment and financial
solutions to more than 15 million customers, with a presence in
more than 25 countries.  It is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia
and have approximately 6,400 employees.  It had $114.3 billion of
total assets and $16.5 billion of stockholders' equity as of
December 31, 2011.


HEALTH NET: Lawsuits Over Hard Disk Drive Loss Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Health Net Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits over
the loss of hard disk drives and the personal information of
approximately two million former and current Health Net members,
employees and health care providers contained in the drives,
according to the Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in three related litigation matters
pending in California state and federal courts relating to
information security issues.  On January 21, 2011, International
Business Machines Corp. ("IBM"), which handles the Company's data
center operations, notified the Company that it could not locate
several hard disk drives that had been used in the Company's data
center located in Rancho Cordova, California.  The Company has
since determined that personal information of approximately two
million former and current Health Net members, employees and
health care providers is on the drives.  Commencing on March 14,
2011, the Company provided written notification to the individuals
whose information is on the drives.  To help protect the personal
information of affected individuals, the Company offered them two
years of free credit monitoring services, in addition to identity
theft insurance and fraud resolution and restoration of credit
files services, if needed.

On March 18, 2011, a putative class action relating to this
incident was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, and similar actions were
later filed against the Company in other federal and state courts
in California.  A number of those actions were transferred to and
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California, and the two remaining actions are currently pending
in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco and
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The consolidated amended complaint in the federal action pending
in the Eastern District of California is filed on behalf of a
putative class of over 800,000 of the Company's current or former
members who received the written notification, and also names IBM
as a defendant.  It seeks to state claims for violation of the
California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and the
California Customer Records Act, and seeks statutory damages of up
to $1,000 for each class member, as well as injunctive and
declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and other relief.  On August
29, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.  On January 20, 2012, the court issued an order
dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked
standing to bring their action in federal court, and gave the
plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint.  On February 22,
2012, the court entered an order approving a stipulation giving
the plaintiffs an additional 60 days, until April 21, 2012, to
file an amended complaint.

The other federal court proceeding was instituted on July 7, 2011
in the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside and is
brought on behalf of a putative nationwide class of all former and
current members affected by this incident, and seeks to state
similar claims against the Company, as well as a claim for
invasion of privacy.  The Company removed the case to the Central
District of California on August 1, 2011.  On August 26, 2011, the
plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court. That
motion was granted on September 30, 2011.  On October 10, 2011,
the Company filed an application for leave to appeal the remand
order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On January 30, 2012, the Court of Appeals granted the motion for
leave to appeal and ordered the parties to submit briefs.  The
appeal was scheduled for oral argument on March 5, 2012.  The
Company has not yet filed a response to the complaint in the
action.

The San Francisco Superior Court proceeding was instituted on
March 28, 2011 and is brought on behalf of a putative class of
California residents who received the written notification, and
seeks to state similar claims against the Company, as well as
claims for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, and
seeks similar relief.  The Company moved to compel arbitration of
the two named plaintiffs' claims.  The court granted the Company's
motion as to one of the named plaintiffs and denied it as to the
other.  The Company is appealing the latter ruling. Thereafter,
the plaintiff as to whom the Company's motion to compel
arbitration was granted filed an application for a writ of mandate
with the California Court of Appeal seeking review of that ruling.
The Company filed an opposition to that application.  On January
26, 2012, the Court of Appeals issued an order indicating it might
issue a peremptory writ regarding the enforceability of the
arbitration agreement and inviting the parties to submit
additional briefing.

The Company has have also been informed that a number of
regulatory agencies are investigating the incident, including the
California Department of Managed Health Care, the California
Department of Insurance, the California Attorney General, the
Connecticut Attorney General, the Connecticut Department of
Insurance, and the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
claims; however, these proceedings are subject to many
uncertainties.  At this time, the Company says it cannot
reasonably estimate the range of loss that may result from these
legal and regulatory proceedings in light of the facts that (i)
legal and regulatory proceedings are inherently unpredictable,
(ii) there are multiple parties in each of the disputes (and
uncertainty as to how liability, if any, may be shared among the
defendants), (iii) the proceedings are in their early stages and
discovery is not complete, (iv) there are significant facts in
dispute, (v) the matters present legal uncertainties, (vi) there
is a wide range of potential outcomes in each dispute and (vii)
there are various levels of judicial review available to the
Company in each matter in the event damages are awarded or fines
or penalties are assessed. Nevertheless, an adverse resolution of
or development in the proceedings could have a material adverse
affect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash
flow and liquidity and could affect the Company's reputation.

Health Net, Inc. -- http://www.healthnet.com/-- through its
subsidiaries, provides managed health care services. The company
offers commercial health care products, such as health maintenance
organization plans through contracts with participating network
physicians, hospitals, and other providers; preferred provider
organization plans that provide coverage for services received
from health care provider; and point of service plans. It also
provides Medicare products.  It serves approximately 6.0 million
individuals in the United States through group, individual,
Medicare, Medicaid, the U.S. Department of Defense that includes
TRICARE, and Veterans Affairs programs.  The Company was founded
in 1979 and is headquartered in Woodland Hills, California.


HUMAN GENOME: Scott+Scott Appointed as Plaintiff Lead Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------------
On March 22, 2012, Scott+Scott LLP was appointed as Lead Counsel
on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Human Genome
Sciences Inc. between July 20, 2009 and November 11, 2010,
inclusive.  The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland and alleges that Human Genome Sciences
Inc. and certain of its officers and directors made false or
misleading statements and/or omissions in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Scott+Scott LLP is investigating claims that the Company and
certain of its officers and directors also violated the Securities
Act of 1933 in connection with registered public stock offerings
that were conducted on July 28, 2009 at $14 per share and on
December 2, 2009 at $15.50 per share, through underwriters Citi,
Goldman Sachs & Co., J.P.Morgan, Morgan Stanley, UBS Investment
Bank and Credit Suisse.  Purchasers of HGSI stock in connection
with the Company's registered public stock offerings or former
employees with information concerning those offerings are
encouraged to contact the firm.

HGSI designs and markets biopharmaceutical products.  The
complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements concerning a potential
new drug, Benlysta, also called belimumab, for the treatment of
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, which is a chronic, life-threatening
autoimmune disease.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that
defendants failed to disclose that in clinical drug trials they
conducted, Benlysta was associated with suicide, and that when
this was first disclosed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
on November 12, 2010, the price of HGSI's common stock dropped
precipitously, causing investor losses. The complaint also alleges
that meanwhile, HGSI had sold 44.5 million shares of its common
stock to the public, receiving approximately $850 million in net
proceeds.

If you purchased HGSI common stock during the Class Period,
including in the Company's registered stock offerings on July 28,
2009 at $14 per share and/or on December 2, 2009 at $15.50 per
share, and would like to discuss your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without any cost or obligation, call
Scott+Scott LLP at (800) 404-7770 or 860/537-5537, or e-mail
scottlaw@scott-scott.com

Scott+Scott LLP is a law firm that specializes in securities,
antitrust and employee retirement plan actions.  The firm
represents pension funds, foundations, individuals and other
entities worldwide.


KEYCORP: Still Defends ERISA Consolidated Lawsuits in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
KeyCorp continues to defend itself against consolidated lawsuits
relating to violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, according to the Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

KeyCorp and certain of its directors and employees were named as
defendants in two putative class actions filed in Ohio federal
court styled: Taylor v. KeyCorp, et al., and Wildes v. KeyCorp, et
al.  The plaintiffs in these cases seek to represent a class of
all participants in the Company's 401(k) Savings Plan and allege
that the defendants in the lawsuit breached fiduciary duties owed
to them under ERISA.  These cases have been substantively
consolidated with each other and are proceeding styled Taylor v.
KeyCorp, et al.  Plaintiffs' consolidated complaint continues to
name certain employees as defendants but no longer names any
outside directors.  Following briefing and argument on the
Company's motion to dismiss, the court dismissed Taylor on August
12, 2010.  As previously reported, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Appeal, and the Company filed a Cross-Appeal, both of which remain
pending.

Following the Court's dismissal of Taylor, two putative class
action cases with similar allegations and causes of action were
filed on September 21, 2010 in Ohio federal court.  These two
putative class action lawsuits were substantively consolidated
with each other and are proceeding styled Thomas J. Metyk, et al.,
v. KeyCorp, et al.  Metyk has been stayed due to the pendency of
the appeals in Taylor.  The Company strongly disagrees with the
allegations asserted in the Taylor and Metyk actions, and intends
to vigorously defend against them.

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

Based in Cleveland, Ohio, KeyCorp is a bank holding company and a
financial holding company.  KeyCorp is the parent holding company
of KeyBank National Association.  Through KeyBank and certain
other subsidiaries, the Company provides a range of retail and
commercial banking, commercial leasing, investment management,
consumer finance and investment banking products and services to
individual, corporate and institutional clients, through two
business groups: Community Banking and National Banking.


KEYCORP: Appeal in Checking Account Overdraft Litigation Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal filed by a KeyCorp unit challenging the denial of a plea
to compel arbitration in a class action complaint relating to
overdraft practices is pending, according to the Company's
February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

KeyBank N.A. was named a defendant in a putative class action
seeking to represent a national class of KeyBank customers
allegedly harmed by KeyBank's overdraft practices. The complaint
alleges that KeyBank unfairly manipulates customer transactions to
maximize the number of overdraft charges. The claims asserted
against KeyBank include breach of contract and breach of covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, common law unconscionability,
conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiffs seek restitution and
disgorgement of overdraft fees paid by plaintiffs since February
2004 as a result of the manipulation of customer transactions,
damages, expenses of litigation, attorneys' fees, and other relief
deemed equitable by the court. The case was transferred and
consolidated for purposes of pretrial discovery and motion
proceedings to a multidistrict proceeding styled In Re: Checking
Account Overdraft Litigation pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida. KeyBank filed a notice
of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit in regard to the denial of KeyBank's motion to compel
arbitration. The case is currently stayed as to KeyBank pending
the appeal.

The Company relates that at this stage of the proceedings, it is
too early to determine if the matter would reasonably be expected
to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition.

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

Based in Cleveland, Ohio, KeyCorp is a bank holding company and a
financial holding company.  KeyCorp is the parent holding company
of KeyBank National Association.  Through KeyBank and certain
other subsidiaries, the Company provides a range of retail and
commercial banking, commercial leasing, investment management,
consumer finance and investment banking products and services to
individual, corporate and institutional clients, through two
business groups: Community Banking and National Banking.


KEYCORP: Still Awaits Dismissal Order in Austin-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
KeyCorp continues to await a court ruling on its motion to dismiss
a consolidated amended complaint related to its subsidiary, Austin
Capital Management Ltd., according to the Company's February 27,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

Austin Capital Management, Ltd., a subsidiary that specialized in
managing hedge fund investments for institutional customers,
determined that its funds had suffered investment losses of up to
approximately $186 million resulting from the crimes perpetrated
by Bernard L. Madoff and entities that he controlled.  The
investment losses borne by Austin's funds stem from investments in
certain Madoff-advised "hedge" funds.

Several lawsuits, including putative class actions and direct
actions, and an arbitration proceeding, are pending against
Austin, KeyCorp, Victory Capital Management and certain employees
and former employees of Key alleging various claims (collectively
the "KeyCorp defendants"), including negligence, fraud, breach of
fiduciary duties, and violations of federal securities laws and
ERISA.  Additionally, an informal demand asserted against Austin
seeks recovery related to certain redemptions of investments made
by Austin funds in Madoff-advised "hedge" funds prior to the
revelation of Madoff's crimes. The lawsuits have been consolidated
into one action styled In re Austin Capital Management, Ltd.,
Securities & Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Litigation ("Austin MDL") pending in federal court in New York.
The KeyCorp defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint is pending in the Austin MDL.  The arbitration
proceeding remains in abeyance.

Also pending is a qui tam action (brought by a plaintiff to
recover on behalf of the state as well as for himself) against
Austin, Victory Capital Management, and KeyCorp as well as certain
employees and former employees of Key in state court in New Mexico
seeking recovery under New Mexico law for alleged losses sustained
by certain New Mexico public investment funds.

KeyCorp is also named as a defendant in an action filed in June
2011 by the former owners of Austin in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The lawsuit seeks
recovery for breach of contract and related claims. The
acquisition-related lawsuit concerns an alleged breach of contract
by KeyCorp of the purchase and sale agreement between the
plaintiffs and KeyCorp, which related to the original purchase of
Austin. On July 22, 2011 KeyCorp filed a motion to dismiss, which
remains pending.

Based in Cleveland, Ohio, KeyCorp is a bank holding company and a
financial holding company.  KeyCorp is the parent holding company
of KeyBank National Association.  Through KeyBank and certain
other subsidiaries, the Company provides a range of retail and
commercial banking, commercial leasing, investment management,
consumer finance and investment banking products and services to
individual, corporate and institutional clients, through two
business groups: Community Banking and National Banking.


MERRILL LYNCH: Auction Rate Securities Litigation Now Concluded
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated lawsuit against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
relating to the sale of auction rate securities has been
concluded, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

ML & Co. and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
(MLPF&S) face a number of civil actions relating to the sales of
Auction Rate Securities and management of ARS auctions, including
two putative class action lawsuits in which plaintiffs seek to
recover the alleged losses in market value of ARS securities
purportedly caused by defendants' actions. Plaintiffs also seek
unspecified damages, including rescission, other compensatory and
consequential damages, costs, fees and interest. The first action,
In Re Merrill Lynch Auction Rate Securities Litigation, is the
result of the consolidation of two class action suits in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  These suits
were brought by two Merrill Lynch customers on behalf of all
persons who purchased ARS in auctions managed by Merrill Lynch,
against Merrill Lynch and MLPF&S.  On March 31, 2010, the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted
Merrill Lynch's motion to dismiss.  Plaintiffs appealed and on
November 14, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal.  Plaintiffs' time
to seek a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court expired on
February 13, 2012, and, as a result, this action is now concluded.
The second action, Bondar v. Bank of America Corporation, was
brought by a putative class of ARS purchasers against Bank of
America and Banc of America Securities LLC.  On February 24, 2011,
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed the amended complaint and directed plaintiffs to state
whether they will file a further amended complaint or appeal the
court's dismissal. Following the Second Circuit's decision in In
Re Merrill Lynch Auction Rate Securities Litigation, plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed their action on January 4, 2012.  The
dismissal is subject to the district court's approval.

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. is a holding company that through its
subsidiaries is a global trader and underwriter of securities and
derivative across a broad range of asset classes.  It serves as a
strategic advisor to corporations, governments, institutions and
individuals worldwide.  It was formed in 1914 and became a
publicly traded company on June 23, 1971.  The Company is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation.


MERRILL LYNCH: Appeals From Dismissal of Antitrust Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals challenging the dismissal of two antitrust class actions
against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and other financial institutions
remain pending, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

ML & Co., Bank of America and other financial institutions were
also named in two putative antitrust class actions in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Plaintiffs
in both actions assert federal antitrust claims under Section 1 of
the Sherman Act based on allegations that defendants conspired to
restrain trade in Auction Rate Securities by placing support bids
in ARS auctions, only to collectively withdraw those bids in
February 2008, which allegedly caused ARS auctions to fail.  In
the first action, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland v.
Citigroup, Inc., et al., plaintiff seeks to represent a class of
issuers of ARS that defendants underwrote between May 12, 2003 and
February 13, 2008.  This issuer action seeks to recover, among
other relief, the alleged above-market interest payments that ARS
issuers allegedly have had to make after defendants allegedly
stopped placing "support bids" in ARS auctions.  In the second
action, Mayfield, et al. v. Citigroup, Inc., et al., plaintiff
seeks to represent a class of investors that purchased ARS from
defendants and held those securities when ARS auctions failed on
February 13, 2008.  Plaintiff seeks to recover, among other
relief, unspecified damages for losses in the ARS' market value,
and rescission of the investors' ARS purchases.  Both actions also
seek treble damages and attorneys' fees under the Sherman Act's
private civil remedy.  On January 25, 2010, the court dismissed
both actions with prejudice and plaintiffs' respective appeals are
currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. is a holding company that through its
subsidiaries is a global trader and underwriter of securities and
derivative across a broad range of asset classes.  It serves as a
strategic advisor to corporations, governments, institutions and
individuals worldwide.  It was formed in 1914 and became a
publicly traded company on June 23, 1971.  The Company is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation.


MERRILL LYNCH: Bofa Seeks Appeal from Certification in ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation is seeking appellate review of a class
certification order in an ERISA lawsuit related to BofA's
acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., according to ML & Co.'s
February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On January 1, 2009, ML & Co. was acquired by Bank of America
through the merger of a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America
with and into ML & Co. with ML & Co. continuing as the surviving
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America.

Since January 2009, Bank of America, ML & Co. and/or certain of
their current and former officers and directors, among others,
have been named as defendants in a variety of securities actions
filed in federal courts relating to Bank of America's acquisition
of Merrill Lynch.  The claims in these actions generally concern
(i) the Acquisition; (ii) the financial condition and 2008 fourth
quarter losses experienced by Bank of America and Merrill Lynch;
(iii) due diligence conducted in connection with the Acquisition;
(iv) the Acquisition agreements' terms regarding Merrill Lynch's
ability to pay bonuses to Merrill Lynch employees up to $5.8
billion; (v) Bank of America's discussions with government
officials in December 2008 regarding Bank of America's
consideration of invoking the material adverse change clause in
the Acquisition agreement and the possibility of obtaining
government assistance in completing the Acquisition; and/or (vi)
alleged material misrepresentations and/or material omissions in
the proxy statement and related materials for the Acquisition.

Plaintiffs in In re Bank of America Securities, Derivative and
Employment Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") Litigation
(the "Securities Plaintiffs"), a putative class action pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
represent all (i) purchasers of the Bank of America common and
preferred securities between September 15, 2008 and January 21,
2009 and its January 2011 options, (ii) holders of Bank of America
common stock as of October 10, 2008, and (iii) purchasers of Bank
of America's common stock issued in the offering that occurred on
or about October 7, 2008.  During the purported class period, Bank
of America had between 4,560,112,687 and 5,017,579,321 common
shares outstanding and the price of those securities declined from
$33.74 on September 12, 2008 to $6.68 on January 21, 2009.
Securities Plaintiffs claim violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC rules
promulgated thereunder.  Bank of America and its co-defendants
filed motions to dismiss, which the court granted in part by
dismissing certain of the Securities Plaintiffs' claims under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Securities
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint which repleaded some
of the dismissed claims as well as added claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf
of holders of certain debt, preferred securities and option
securities.  Securities Plaintiffs' amended complaint also alleges
violations of Sections 11,12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 related to the offering of Bank of America's common stock
that occurred on or about October 7, 2008, and names BAS and
MLPF&S, among others, as defendants on certain claims.  Bank of
America and its co-defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the
court granted in part in August 2010 by dismissing certain of the
Securities Plaintiffs' claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In July 2011, the court granted
in part defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.   As a result of the court's July 2011 ruling, the
Securities Plaintiffs were (in addition to the claims sustained in
the court's August 2010 ruling) permitted to pursue a claim under
Section 10(b) asserting that defendants should have made
additional disclosures in connection with the Acquisition about
the financial condition and 2008 fourth quarter losses experienced
by Merrill Lynch.   Securities Plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary damages, legal costs and attorneys' fees.  On February 6,
2012, the court granted Securities Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  On February 21, 2012, Bank of America filed a
petition requesting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit review the district court's order granting Securities
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Several individual plaintiffs have opted to pursue claims apart
from the In re Bank of America Securities, Derivative, and
Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation and,
accordingly, have initiated individual actions in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York relying on
substantially the same facts and claims as the Securities
Plaintiffs.

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. is a holding company that through its
subsidiaries is a global trader and underwriter of securities and
derivative across a broad range of asset classes.  It serves as a
strategic advisor to corporations, governments, institutions and
individuals worldwide.  It was formed in 1914 and became a
publicly traded company on June 23, 1971.  The Company is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation.


MERRILL LYNCH: Unit Reaches Settlement to Resolve IFDA Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. subsidiary entered into a settlement
to resolve matters relating to the Illinois Funeral Directors
Association, according to Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

                               IFDA

Commencing in 1979, the Illinois Funeral Directors Association
("IFDA"), an Illinois not-for-profit corporation that serves as a
trade association representative for the Illinois funeral
industry, began providing trust services to Illinois consumers for
the deposit of payments for pre-paid funeral services.  Illinois
law regulates the sale of pre-paid funeral goods and services and
requires that proceeds of those sales be held in trust.  In 1986,
the IFDA began offering a tax-advantaged pre-need trust
administered by its subsidiary, IFDA Services, Inc. ("IFDA
Services").  The tax-advantaged pre-need trust invested primarily
in variable universal life insurance ("VUL") policies written
against the lives of "keymen" of IFDA, its members and its
affiliates.  In response to the stated investment objectives of
IFDA's executive director and its board of directors, Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (MLPF&S) recommended
the purchase of the VUL policies to IFDA for the tax-advantaged
pre-need trust, and Merrill Lynch Life Agency, Inc. ("MLLA"), sold
the pre-need trust approximately 270 VUL policies as investment
vehicles.

During IFDA Services' operation of the pre-need trust, it credited
IFDA members with earnings on deposits into the pre-need trust
based on a rate of return set by IFDA Services, even though the
crediting rate sometimes exceeded the actual earnings on the trust
investments.  As a result, a deficit developed between the amounts
that the IFDA credited to IFDA members and the actual earnings of
the trust.  The Illinois Office of the Comptroller, the trust's
regulator, removed IFDA Services as trustee of the trust in 2008,
and asked MLBT-FSB to serve as successor trustee.

On February 10, 2012, the State of Illinois Office of the
Secretary of State, Securities Department ("ISD") entered into a
consent order with MLPF&S to resolve the ISD's investigation of
the sale of life insurance policies to the pre-need trust.  The
consent order provides for payment by MLPF&S of an amount not
material to Merrill Lynch's results of operations as restitution
to the tax-advantaged pre-need trust and its beneficiaries to
mitigate any potential loss or injuries that Illinois pre-need
patrons or funeral homes might otherwise suffer and fund the
anticipated funeral costs of Illinois pre-need patrons.  In
addition, the consent order provides for payment by MLPF&S of the
costs of the ISD's investigation and of administration and
distribution of the ISD settlement funds.

                            Lawsuits

On June 16, 2009, a purported class action on behalf of a proposed
class of pre-need contract holders, David Tipsword as Trustee of
Mildred E. Tipsword Trust, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. I.F.D.A. Services Inc., et al., was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois against MLPF&S, among other defendants.  The complaint
alleges that MLPF&S breached purported fiduciary duties and
committed negligence and seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs.  The court denied MLPF&S'
motion to dismiss.

On June 30, 2009, a purported class action on behalf of a proposed
class of funeral directors, Clancy-Gernon Funeral Home, Inc., et
al. v. MLPF&S, et al., was filed in the Illinois Circuit Court,
Cook County, alleging that MLPF&S and MLLA, among other
defendants, committed consumer fraud, civil conspiracy, unjust
enrichment, and conversion.  MLPF&S and MLLA removed the complaint
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
and the case ultimately transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois.  On November 9, 2010,
plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which added new
parties, including MLBT-FSB, and additional claims for fraud,
breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and aiding and abetting
fiduciary duty against MLPF&S and MLLA, and breach of fiduciary
duty and negligence against MLBT-FSB.  The third amended complaint
seeks disgorgement and remittance of all commissions, premiums,
fees and compensation; an accounting; compensatory damages; pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest; and reasonable attorneys' and
experts' fees and costs.  The court denied MLBT-FSB's motion to
dismiss and permitted MLPF&S and MLLA to withdraw their motions to
dismiss.

On December 9, 2010, a purported class action on behalf of a
proposed class of funeral directors, Pettett Funeral Home, Ltd.,
et al. v. MLPF&S, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois.  The allegations and relief
sought in the Pettett matter are virtually identical to the claims
in Clancy-Gernon.

On July 28, 2010, Charles G. Kurrus, III, P.C., a funeral director
and owner of a funeral home, filed an action in the Illinois
Circuit Court, St. Clair County, against MLPF&S, MLLA and MLBT-
FSB, among others, including present and former Merrill Lynch
employees.  The complaint, entitled Charles F. Kurrus, III, P.C.
v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., et al., asserts
causes of action for breach of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act and civil conspiracy against all
defendants; breach of fiduciary duty against MLPF&S and MLBT-FSB;
and negligence and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty
against MLPF&S.  The complaint seeks declaratory relief;
disgorgement of all commissions, fees and revenues received by
MLPF&S, MLLA and MLBT-FSB; pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest; an accounting; and attorneys' fees.  Defendants filed
motions to dismiss.

On February 15, 2012, the parties to the mentioned litigations
executed a settlement agreement to fully resolve the claims
asserted in the class action litigations and the Kurrus
litigation, and fully release and bar any civil claims against
Merrill Lynch, its employees or affiliates with respect to the
IFDA pre-need trust.  The settlement agreement, which received
preliminary approval by the court on February 17, 2012, provides
for payment by MLPF&S in an amount not material to Merrill Lynch's
results of operations (which amount was fully accrued as of
December 31, 2011).

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. is a holding company that through its
subsidiaries is a global trader and underwriter of securities and
derivative across a broad range of asset classes.  It serves as a
strategic advisor to corporations, governments, institutions and
individuals worldwide.  It was formed in 1914 and became a
publicly traded company on June 23, 1971.  The Company is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation.


MERRILL LYNCH: Awaits Final Okay of MBS Claims Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. is awaiting final approval of a
settlement settling a consolidated class action relating to
mortgage-backed securities (MBS), according to Company's February
24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

ML & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
(MLPF&S), Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors (MLMI) and certain
current and former directors of MLMI are named as defendants in a
consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court in the
Southern District of New York, entitled Public Employees' Ret.
System of Mississippi v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.  Plaintiffs
assert certain MBS Claims in connection with their purchase of
MBS.  In March 2010, the court dismissed claims related to 65 of
84 offerings with prejudice due to lack of standing as no named
plaintiff purchased securities in those offerings.  On November 8,
2010, the court dismissed claims related to one additional
offering on separate grounds.  On December 14, 2011, the court
granted preliminary approval of a settlement providing for a
payment in an amount not material to Merrill Lynch's results of
operations (which amount was fully accrued by Merrill Lynch as of
December 31, 2011).

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. is a holding company that through its
subsidiaries is a global trader and underwriter of securities and
derivative across a broad range of asset classes.  It serves as a
strategic advisor to corporations, governments, institutions and
individuals worldwide.  It was formed in 1914 and became a
publicly traded company on June 23, 1971.  The Company is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation.


MERRILL LYNCH: Court Says Objector Petition in IPO Suit Untimely
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court determined that an objector's petition
opposing settlement in an initial public offering securities
litigation against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. was untimely, the
Company disclosed in its February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2011.

ML & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
(MLPF&S), and Banc of America Securities LLC (BAS) certain of
their subsidiaries, along with other underwriters, and various
issuers and others, were named as defendants in a number of
putative class action lawsuits that have been consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation.  Plaintiffs
contend, among other things, that defendants failed to make
certain required disclosures in the registration statements and
prospectuses for applicable offerings regarding alleged agreements
with institutional investors that tied allocations in certain
offerings to the purchase orders by those investors in the
aftermarket. Plaintiffs allege that such agreements allowed
defendants to manipulate the price of the securities sold in those
offerings in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC
rules promulgated thereunder.  The parties agreed to settle the
matter, for which the court granted final approval, in an amount
that was not material to Merrill Lynch's results of operations.
Certain putative class members filed an appeal in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking reversal of the final
approval.  On August 25, 2011, the district court, on remand from
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dismissed the
objection by the last remaining putative class member, concluding
that he was not a class member.  On January 9, 2012, that objector
dismissed with prejudice an appeal of the court's dismissal
pursuant to a settlement agreement.  On November 28, 2011, an
objector whose appeals were dismissed by the Second Circuit filed
a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court
that was rejected as procedurally defective.   On January 17,
2012, the Supreme Court advised the objector that the petition was
untimely and should not be resubmitted to the Supreme Court.

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. is a holding company that through its
subsidiaries is a global trader and underwriter of securities and
derivative across a broad range of asset classes.  It serves as a
strategic advisor to corporations, governments, institutions and
individuals worldwide.  It was formed in 1914 and became a
publicly traded company on June 23, 1971.  The Company is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation.


NEUTROGENA: Sued Over False Advertising on Anti-Wrinkle Product
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a Los Angeles Superior Court
class action claims that Neutrogena falsely advertises that its
Accelerated Retinol is "clinically proven" to reduce wrinkles in 1
week.


NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL: Judge Dismisses Job Stats Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sloan, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
New York trial judge has dismissed a proposed class action brought
against New York Law School by nine alumni who claimed the school
misrepresented its graduates' success in finding legal jobs.

"In this court's view, the issues posed by this case exemplify the
adage that not every ailment afflicting society may be redressed
by a lawsuit," New York County, N.Y., Supreme Court Judge Melvin
Schweitzer ruled on March 21.

Judge Schweitzer wrote that the nine plaintiffs decided to attend
law school before the "full effects of the [economic] maelstrom
hit, and have now turned their disappointment and angst on their
law school for not adequately anticipating the possibility of the
supervening storm and presenting the most complete job-related
data that could possibly have been compiled."

The suit was one of 14 similar cases brought by a coalition of
plaintiffs' attorneys against law schools around the country, and
the first of those to be considered for dismissal by a judge.
Those attorneys have threatened another 20 law schools with
litigation.  A similar suit against Thomas Jefferson School of Law
brought by different attorneys in California survived an earlier
motion to dismiss.

"I think that for any further cases in New York, it's going to be
very difficult for any plaintiffs' counsel to proceed," said
Venable partner Michael Volpe, who represented New York Law
School.  "We will look at the implications for other
jurisdictions."

David Anziska, who with fellow New York solo practitioners Jesse
Strauss and Frank Raimond represents the New York Law School
plaintiffs, was undaunted.

"Obviously, while we respect the decision, we strongly disagree it
and we will immediately appeal, where we expect the decision to be
reversed," Mr. Anziska said.

Both sides spent two hours in oral arguments before Judge
Schweitzer on March 12 regarding the school's motion to dismiss.

The plaintiffs alleged that that they were lured to enroll by
misleading postgraduate employment statistics published by the
school.  They filed suit in August, claiming that the school
committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation, and violated the
state's general business law regarding deceptive acts and
practices.

In his ruling, Judge Schweitzer wrote that the school's job
statistics were not deceptive and that prospective students had
access to ample information in addition to those data.

"The court does not view these post-graduate employment statistics
to be misleading in a material way for a reasonable consumer
acting reasonably," he wrote.  "By anyone's definition, reasonable
consumers -- college graduates -- seriously considering law school
are a sophisticated subset of education consumers, capable of
sifting through data and weighing alternatives before making a
decision regarding their post-college options, such as applying
for professional school."

Judge Schweitzer wrote that the plaintiffs failed to provide "any
factual reference" in support of their "litany of allegedly false
representations and omission of material fact."

The plaintiffs had argued that damages should be based on the
difference between the amount the students paid in tuition and the
true value of their law degrees; they sought $225 million.

That argument carried little weight with Judge Schweitzer, who
wrote that they failed to demonstrate any injury.  Any attempt to
measure damages in the manner the plaintiffs proposed would be
speculative, he said.

Judge Schweitzer noted that he has encountered many "outstanding"
law graduates who have passed the bar but have been unable to find
legal employment.  "If lawsuits such as this have done nothing
else, they have served to focus the attention of all constituents
on this current problem facing the legal profession," he wrote.

New York Law School issued a formal statement thanking faculty
students and alumni for their support.

"New York Law School works hard to communicate the realities of
the legal job market to current and prospective students," the
school said.  "We will continue to provide an excellent legal
education to our students, and to support our students and
graduates as they embark on their professional careers."

Thomas M. Cooley Law School, which the plaintiffs' team sued at
the same time as New York Law School, has filed a motion to
dismiss and expects a hearing to be scheduled soon, said general
counsel James Thelen.

Despite the setback, Mr. Anziska said that the plaintiffs' team
fully intends to pursue the existing cases.  He pointed to a
California judge's earlier refusal to dismiss the similar
complaint against Thomas Jefferson School of Law.  That judge
ruled that prospective law student did not constitute "reasonable
consumers."

"We fully intend to press forward with all the other litigation,"
Mr. Anziska said.  "This is just one decision."


ONLINE LODGING RESERVATION COS: Tybee Agrees to Tax Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Curl, writing for Savannah Now, reports that the Tybee City
Council agreed on March 22 to the settlement terms of a class-
action lawsuit against multiple online lodging reservation
businesses.  The lawsuit was filed in 2006 to recover hotel tax
revenue that Tybee and 18 other Georgia cities and counties
claimed they were owed.

According to the agreement, Tybee will receive hotel tax revenue
for bookings stemming back to May 16, 2011, as well as additional
revenue in all future transactions.

Mayor Jason Buelterman said that it is not clear how much the city
will get for the retroactive charges, but that the main financial
impact is ahead.

"They are required to pay the full amount of the tax going
forward, which will have much more impact then the last nine
months," Mr. Buelterman said.


PUBLIC SERVICE: Appeal From BPU Petition Dismissal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal challenging the dismissal of a petition with the New
Jersey's Board of Public Utilities (BPU) requesting review and
adjustment to Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated's
recovery of stranded cost charges is pending, according to the
Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

In 2007, PSE&G and PSE&G Transition Funding LLC were served with a
purported class action complaint in New Jersey Superior Court
challenging the constitutional validity of certain stranded cost
recovery provisions of the New Jersey Electric Discount and Energy
Competition Act, seeking injunctive relief against continued
collection from PSE&G's electric customers of the Transition Bond
Charge (TBC) of Transition Funding, as well as recovery of TBC
amounts previously collected. Under New Jersey law, the
Competition Act, enacted in 1999, is presumed constitutional.

Also in 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended Complaint to also
seek injunctive relief from continued collection of related taxes
as well as recovery of such taxes previously collected. In October
2007, the Court granted PSE&G's motion to dismiss the amended
Complaint and in November 2007, the plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal with the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior
Court. In February 2009, the Appellate Division affirmed the
decision of the lower court dismissing the case. In May 2009, the
New Jersey Supreme Court denied a request from the plaintiff to
review the Appellate Division's decision.

In July 2007, the same plaintiff also filed a petition with the
New Jersey's Board of Public Utilities (BPU) requesting review and
adjustment to PSE&G's recovery of the same stranded cost charges.
In September 2007, PSE&G filed a motion with the BPU to dismiss
the petition. In June 2010, the BPU granted PSE&G's motion to
dismiss. In April 2011, the BPU issued a written order
memorializing this decision. In June 2011, the
plaintiff/petitioner filed a notice of appeal of the BPU action
with the Appellate Division. PSE&G is currently in the briefing
stage of this appeal.


PURDUE PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Addictive OxyContin
----------------------------------------------------------
CMAJ reports that a class action was filed against Purdue Pharma
(Canada) over OxyContin.

Fred Coulter traces his decision to sue the pharmaceutical company
Purdue Pharma (Canada) back to 1994, when a heavy roller in the
London, Ontario printing plant where he worked fell and ruptured
his spine.  To help him cope with the pain, Mr. Coulter's
physician prescribed him various painkillers.  But the only thing
that seemed to work was Purdue's opioid analgesic medication,
oxycodone (OxyContin).  Before long, he began to suspect that he'd
become addicted, as he was craving the drug.  That led to efforts
to obtain oxycodone from several physicians.

"In the end, the doctors refused to see me," recalls Mr. Coulter,
who is now 57 and retired.  What followed was a spiralling
disaster in which Mr. Coulter began purchasing OxyContin on the
street, at a daily cost of up C$100, which he could not afford.
"I was addicted to them badly."

These days, Mr. Coulter is off OxyContin, enrolled in a methadone
program, and working with lawyers to launch a class action lawsuit
in Ontario against Purdue Pharma (Canada), based in Pickering,
Ontario.

Filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the class action
suit alleges that Purdue was "negligent in the development,
manufacture, distribution, marketing and sale of OxyContin and
that the Defendants knew at all material times that anyone who
ingests OxyContin would be at significant risk of becoming
addicted to it."

A copy of the complaint is available at http://is.gd/mNNp7c

It also alleges a conspiracy "to market and promote OxyContin in
Canada: a) as less addictive than known to Purdue; and b) for a
wider range of patients and pain treatment than approved by HC
[Health Canada]."  The plaintiffs are seeking roughly C$350
million in damages.  An Ontario court will determine whether to
certify the class action later this year.

Mr. Coulter believes he did not receive adequate warning about the
drug's addictive properties and contends that his physician should
have been better informed by Purdue about the risks associated
with use of OxyContin, which the firm has since discontinued and
replaced with OxyNEO, which is harder to crush and thus,
theoretically, tougher to snort or inject.  "There are a million
other painkillers out there," which could have been prescribed
rather than OxyContin, he says.

The bid for class action status in Ontario is the second in
Canada.  A Nova Scotia court ruled in 2010 that a similar suit
failed to meet jurisdictional requirements.

Michael Peerless, a partner and head of the class actions
department at Siskinds LLP in London, Ontario who helped prepare
the class action, believes the case is bolstered by the US$634.5
million settlement reached between Purdue's United States-based
operation, Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., and the US Attorney's
Office for the Western District of Virginia after it pled guilty
in 2007 to fraudulently marketing OxyContin by "falsely claiming
that it was less addictive, less subject to abuse and less likely
to cause withdrawal symptoms than other pain medications when
there was no medical research to support these claims and the US
Food and Drug Administration had not approved the claims."

"Even in the face of warnings from health care professionals, the
media, and members of its own sales force that OxyContin was being
widely abused and causing harm to our citizens, Purdue, under the
leadership of its top executives, continued to push a fraudulent
marketing campaign that promoted Oxycontin as less addictive, less
subject to abuse, and less likely to cause withdrawal," US
Attorney for the Western District of Virginia John L. Brownlee
stated in a press release.

One of the foundations of Purdue's marketing plan for OxyContin
was to create a database profiling the US physicians who were the
highest prescribers for opioids, according to a review of
oxycodone marketing (Am J Public Health 2009;99:221-27).

Purdue Pharma (Canada) Vice President, Corporate Affairs, Randy
Steffan writes in an e-mail that it would be "inappropriate" for
the firm to comment on legal matters.

"The misuse and abuse of prescription opioids is a societal issue
and the solutions require a systematic approach. Industry is only
one of many stakeholders and Purdue has been making its effort to
contribute to the solution," Mr. Steffan adds.

"Purdue supports a comprehensive strategy to deal with narcotics
abuse, including restrictions for strong opioids in accordance
with the Canadian Guidelines for Opioids Use for Chronic Pain," he
writes, adding that "we advocate for careful patient selection and
appropriate prescribing and we support clinician education for
this purpose."

"Most importantly, we have long advocated easy-to-implement and
common sense measures such as opioid limits that restrict
prescriptions to no more than 30 days as well as programs to take
back and properly destroy unused or expired prescription
medication."

Mr. Steffan added that the firm also stands behind a real-time
database to track opioid prescriptions and use.

But observers suggest Purdue Pharma (Canada) adopted a similar
marketing strategy to that of its American cousin, which was
alleged in the American settlement to have used a marketing
strategy that was premised on the arguments that there is no
ceiling dose for opioids; that addiction is rare in pain patients,
and that it is safe to use opioids.

"The campaign in Canada was exactly the same as in the US," says
Dr. Meldon Kahan, associate professor in the Department of Family
Medicine at University of Toronto in Ontario.  It was "a massive
promotional campaign" that "sought to assuage fears of addiction,"
he adds.

It would be difficult to separate Purdue's activities in the US
and Canada, adds Dr. David Juurlink, associate professor of
medicine, pediatrics, and health policy, management, and
evaluation at the University of Toronto and head of the Division
of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology at Sunnybrook Health
Sciences Centre in Toronto.  "It's called OxyContin in Canada and
the US."

Doctors swallowed the firm's promotional messages "hook, line and
sinker," Dr. Juurlink adds.


STATE OF CALIFORNIA: Female Guards Lose Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that female
corrections officers who say California prisoners have harassed
them for years, and the state has done nothing to stop it, cannot
sue as a class, a federal judge ruled.

Martha Berndt, Marta Hastings, Sophia Curry, Shelly Adcock,
Patricia Moreira, Karen Curry, Lisa Boyd, Kimberley Morin, Raisa
Jeffries and the estate of Judy Longo hoped to represent a class
of current and former female employees of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).  They claim
to have been sexually harassed by inmates at various CDCR
institutions since as early as 1989.

The harassment involves "inmate exhibitionist behavior, including
inmate indecent exposure, masturbation, and ejaculation,"
according to the fifth amended complaint.  Since 1997, there have
allegedly been more than 2,000 of these incidents.  "At least 500
reports of [inmate exhibitionist behavior] have been documented at
Pelican Bay State Prison alone" as of November 1989, according to
the complaint.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton described each plaintiff's
allegations in a 24-page ruling on March 20.

Ms. Longo, now deceased, was forced to retire rather than be
terminated because she refused to give medication to an inmate who
had a history of masturbating in front of both Ms. Longo and
Ms. Berndt.

Ms. Hastings said that Pelican Bay officials repeatedly ignored
her complaints about an exhibitionist inmate, and in fact made
matters worse.  CDCR managing agent Joseph McGrath and then-
Pelican Bay chief deputy warden Teresa Schwartz transferred two
more exhibitionist inmates to her unit after she complained,
according to the suit.

One inmate in a Sacramento unit allegedly attacked Ms. Curry,
"placed her in a headlock, and began cutting the back of her neck
with the end of a metal can lid" after she reported him as "a
threat to all female staff."

The inmate "subsequently grabbed Curry and threw her down the
stairs."  After a co-worker finally stopped the attack by shooting
the inmate with a rubber bullet, the prison searched the inmate's
cell and "uncovered drawings of plaintiff Curry in sexually
explicit and violent poses," according to Hamilton's summary of
the suit.

Ms. Morin, who runs a treatment group for inmates in the
Sacramento facility, alleges that inmates "constantly expose their
genitals, and masturbate and ejaculate during such groups," even
though the inmates are supposed to wear special exposure-control
jumpsuits.  Officials have repeatedly spurned Ms. Morin's requests
to keep repeated offenders from her group, according to the
complaint.

Ms. Boyd says she has had difficulty continuing work as a
recreational therapist since September 2010 when a co-worker was
"assaulted with urine, feces, and blood by an inmate" whom the
therapist had recently written up for exhibitionist behavior.
Nevertheless, prison officials have allegedly let that inmate
return to that therapist's group.

"Collectively, plaintiffs allege that their experiences arise out
of the same policy of discrimination that exists at all CDCR
institutions, which condones and accepts" inmates' indecent
behavior, Judge Hamilton wrote.  "CDCR allegedly continues to
refuse to take prompt or effective remedial action in order to
address this ongoing harassment."

Ultimately, however, the plaintiffs differing claims do not meet
the standard for certification, the ruling states.

Though the complaint says that the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
support certification, Judge Hamilton noted that the "plaintiffs'
moving papers, by contrast, newly assert that certification of two
distinct 'classes' -- each with its own 'subclass' -- is
appropriate" under the rules.

"The court has struggled for several months to resolve this class
certification motion that is so untethered to the operative
complaint," she wrote.  "The lack of fidelity to the complaint,
and the corresponding lack of precision in plaintiffs' motion
papers, makes any Rule 23 analysis almost impossible."

The timeline also works against class certification.

"Plaintiffs seek certification of claims that ago back as far as
1989 -- more than 20 years ago, and nearly 15 years before the
filing of the original complaint in this action," Judge Hamilton
wrote.  "This vast claim period raises the obvious question
whether certain of the putative class members' claims are time-
barred."

There are also administrative bars to the complaint.  A party
alleging workplace discrimination under Title VII must file a
claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300
days of the alleged unlawful practice.

"There is no evidence that any one of them has filed an EEOC
charge on her own behalf, or on behalf of the class," Judge
Hamilton wrote, referring to Ms. Moreira, Ms. Morin and Ms.
Jeffries.

The failure to show that the class representatives have "exhausted
administrative remedies as required by Title VII is fatal to
plaintiffs' request for certification."

There are also "procedural and substantive deficiencies that
ultimately prove fatal" to the request to certify a damages class.

"Applying the relevant limitations period to these allegations
under Title VII, plaintiffs' claims may not date back farther than
May 15, 2002 -- the earliest date that the statute of limitations
began to run [for Berndt and Hastings]," Judge Hamilton wrote.

The only commonality among plaintiffs and class members is that
they each witnessed an inmate exhibitionist behavior incident,
according to the ruling.

Though an inability to calculate damages would not independently
defeat class certification, Judge Hamilton noted that it may prove
impossible in a situation where "the emotional distress damages to
every class member will depend on the individual incidents, and on
the kind and extent of inmate exhibitionist behavior they were
exposed to, as well as the promptness and efficacy, or lack of
efficacy, of defendants' response to any complaint they may have
made."

She added that the potential for multiple mini-trials "further
weakens the case."

Given the problems already stated, it is impossible to make a
concrete finding as to numerosity, and "the court is also hard
pressed to conclude that plaintiffs have or can demonstrate that
the 'commonality' element of Rule 23(a) has been satisfied," the
24-page decision states.

Without an appeal pursuant to Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the trial will proceed as an action brought by
the named plaintiffs only, Judge Hamilton ruled.

A copy of the Order Denying Motion for Class Certification in
Berndt, et al. v. California Department of Corrections, et al.,
Case No. 03-cv-03174 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/23/cdcr.pdf


STATE OF TEXAS: Court Dismisses Foster Care Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Jim Vertuno, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
a federal appeals court on March 23 dismissed a class action in a
lawsuit challenging Texas' foster care system, but it sent the
case back to a lower court to try again.

The lawsuit by New York-based advocacy group Children's Rights
claims the Texas foster care system is unconstitutional and forces
thousands of children to live in poorly supervised institutions,
frequently moving them from one place to another and often
splitting up siblings.

The lawsuit was filed in 2011 on behalf of nine Texas children.

A state district judge in Corpus Christi allowed the class action,
but the March 23 ruling by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals said the plaintiffs had not properly established
a legal class.

Children's Rights Executive Director Marcia Lowry said the group
is confident it can meet the legal standard and will continue to
press its case.

"We are not only pursuing it.  . . .  We still expect to present
our case and get the reforms on behalf of Texas foster children,"
Ms. Lowry said.  The group has continued to collect evidence to
present to the lower court.

Ms. Lowry said the appeals court ruled the class action had
bundled too many issues together.  Those must be separated and
better supported by evidence for each, Ms. Lowry said.

The lawsuit contends that "deficiencies" in the system, including
overburdened case workers and poorly supervised contract
providers, have led to a number of harmful conditions for the
12,000 children in long-term foster care.

It cites statistics showing that, as of 2009, children who had
been in the state's custody more than three years had been placed
in an average of 11 different homes or other settings, such as
shelters or residential treatment centers.

Cycling children through the system in this manner doesn't comply
with "reasonable professional standards," the complaint says.

The lawsuit also is critical of the state's use of foster group
homes that accommodate seven to 12 children.  Those homes can be
"little more than poorly supervised dormitories" and provide
further evidence of how the Texas system differs from conventional
standards, according to the suit.

Much of the lawsuit's narrative was drawn from media accounts,
including an Associated Press story detailing how one foster group
home in East Texas was a collection of mobile homes and how the
state repeatedly ruled out allegations that young girls living
there were sexually abused by their foster father until he was
arrested on those charges.

According to statistics compiled by the agency, the number of
caseworkers in Child Protective Services has risen from about
2,950 in 2005 to about 4,660 in 2011.  The number of adoptions
finalized during that time also increased dramatically, from 2,512
to 4,803.

Patrick Crimmins, spokesman for the Department of Family and
Protective Services, said, "As the Texas agency charged to care
for children who have suffered abuse and neglect, we work every
day to ensure their safety and well-being.  We will continue to
dedicate ourselves to that very vital work."


UNITED STATES: Social Services Can't Deny Medicaid, Food Stamps
---------------------------------------------------------------
IndyStar reports that the Indiana Supreme Court said on March 22
the state Family and Social Services Administration can't deny
Medicaid, food stamps or welfare to people without doing a better
job of telling them why.

The unanimous ruling came in a 4-year-old class-action lawsuit
that challenged the way the outsourcing of the state's welfare
system dealt with clients.  The system has since been modified,
but a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana,
which filed the lawsuit in 2008, said the problem persists.

In a 23-page opinion, the justices said FSSA violated applicants'
due-process rights when it sent them notices that stated their
benefits were denied because they had failed to cooperate without
citing a specific reason.  The 2008 lawsuit argued that the FSSA
sent notices denying or cutting off Medicaid, welfare or food
stamps because of missing documents in clients' applications, but
never told clients which documents were missing.

In one case, the agency cut off Medicaid to a woman with hearing
problems and other disabilities after a telephone interview that
she had trouble understanding, and refused to meet with her in
person.  The justices said the agency's treatment of the woman
violated federal law, including the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

"I think a lot of those issues have likely been resolved by the
fact that they did get away from the modernization effort and
revamped their offices so there is a little more person-to-person
contact," ACLU attorney Gavin Rose said.

The woman whose benefits were cut off sued on behalf of all people
who applied for or received benefits from the FSSA.

FSSA spokesman Neal Moore said the agency was reviewing the ruling
and had no comment.

The state and IBM have gone to trial in dueling lawsuits seeking
compensation after the state's cancellation in 2009 of its
contract with the computer company because of complaints about the
welfare-modernization system.


WALNUT GROVE, MS: Ruling to Transfer Younger Inmates Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Williams, writing for WJTV, reports that inmates and their
parents from Walnut Grove testified on March 22.

They filed a class action lawsuit against the Walnut Grove Youth
Correctional Facility.  They want a judge to issue a decree that
will transfer inmates, 17 years old and younger, to a separate
facility in Rankin County.  The decree will also ban solitary
confinement and will do more to protect inmates between 18 and 22,
the prison's maximum age.

MDOC contracted the GEO Group to privately run and staff the
facility.  In October 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice
launched its own investigation.  They recently released a 47 page
report saying that employees physically and sexually abused
inmates. Some older inmates participated as well.  Investigators
found that inmates were punched, kicked, pepper-sprayed, and
forced to have sex with guards to get better treatment.  The
reports go on to say when the inmates complained, nothing was
done.

Parents say they sometimes went to law enforcement, but it
resulted in very little.  DOJ investigators point to a lack of
supervision and inadequate training.

A lawyer for MDOC officials said in court that his clients agree
with the new decree and changes will be made.  MDOC Commissioner
Chris Epps says he couldn't comment on whether GEO employees will
face criminal prosecution or if MDOC will terminate their contract
with the company.

A copy of the DOJ's report is available at:

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/walnutgrovefl.pdf


WEATHERFORD INT'L: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Case No. 12 Civ. 2121, on behalf of all persons who
purchased Weatherford International, Ltd. common stock between
March 2, 2011 and February 21, 2012 inclusive.

A copy of the complaint can be viewed on the firm's Web site at
http://faruqilaw.com/WFT

Weatherford and certain of its officers and directors are charged
with issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants
knew or recklessly failed to inform investors that (1) the Company
did not properly restate its financial statements from 2007 to
2010; (2) the Company hastily issued its 2010 Form 10-K to give
the market the impression that it remedied its material weakness
in internal controls over financial reporting of income taxes from
2007 to 2010; and (3) the Company failed to properly document an
additional $225 million in adjustments for financial statements
from 2007 to 2010.

On February 21, 2012, the Company disclosed for the first time
that it was going to adjust approximately $225 million to $250
million to previously reported financial results for the years
2010 and prior in relation to the correction of errors identified
with respect to the Company's accounting for income taxes.  This
news caused Weatherford stock to drop approximately 13% by the
close of the business day.

Plaintiff now seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and
all other individual and institutional investors who bought
Weatherford stock between March 2, 2011 and February 21, 2012,
excluding defendants and their affiliates.  Plaintiff is
represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with extensive
experience in prosecuting class actions and actions involving
corporate fraud.

If you wish to obtain information concerning joining this action,
you can do so under the "Join Lawsuit" section of our Web site or
by clicking here: http://faruqilaw.com/WFT

If you purchased Weatherford stock during the Class Period, you
may, not later than May 22, 2012, move the court to serve as lead
plaintiff of the class, if you so choose.  In order to discuss
this action, or if you have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact:

          Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          ATTN: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
                  fmcconville@faruqilaw.com
          Toll Free: (877) 247-4292
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330


WELLS FARGO: Accused of Not Paying Plan Benefits to Foreigners
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vinay Karamsetty, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Wells Fargo & Company, a Delaware corporation; Wells
Fargo Company Salary Continuation Pay Plan, an ERISA Plan; and
Does 1-25, inclusive, Case No. 3:12-cv-01364 (N.D. Calif.,
March 19, 2012) arises from the Defendants' alleged scheme to deny
severance benefits under the Plan to foreign citizens whom the
Defendants sponsored under H-1B visas to work for Wells Fargo in
the United States of America.  The Plan provides for a severance
payment based on the number of years of service to Wells Fargo
employees, who are affected by a reduction in force.

In April 2009, Wells Fargo made a company-wide decision to not
renew any H-1B visas due to the economic climate and its merger
with Wachovia Bank, Mr. Karamsetty related.  He explains that as
soon as an employee's H-1B visa expires, he loses lawful
immigration status and is required to leave the United States
immediately.  He contends that Wells Fargo knew and understood
that if it did not renew these employees' H-1B visas, they would
be forced to seek other employment to maintain a legal immigration
status, and hence, 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, therefore, ineligible for benefits under the Plan.

Mr. Karamsetty has resided in Concord, California, is a citizen of
India, and was present legally in the United States under an H-1B
nonimmigrant visa sponsored by an employer.  From July 2007 to
March 2010, he was employed by Wells Fargo as a Web Developer 5,
Project Lead, on the Performance and Infrastructure Engineering
Team in the Payments Engineering Services Group, under an
employer-sponsored H-1B nonimmigrant visa, and was a Participant
in the Plan.  Mr. Karamsetty brings this action to force Wells
Fargo to abide by its obligations under the Plan to provide him
and others similarly situated severance benefits as a result of
Wells Fargo's "layoff by nonrenewal."

The Plan was an Employee Welfare Benefit Plan, sponsored and
administrated by Wells Fargo in San Francisco, California.  The
Plan offered salary continuation pay and other benefits to
employees of Wells Fargo, who were Plan Participants, including
Mr. Karamsetty and the Class Members.  Wells Fargo is a Delaware
corporation.  At all relevant times, Wells Fargo's Executive Vice
President of Human Resources acted as the Administrator of the
Plan and, therefore, was a fiduciary of the Plan.  Wells Fargo
exercised control over the payment of salary continuation pay and
other benefits that are assets of the Plan.

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
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: ali@pattersonlawgroup.com
                  jim@pattersonlawgroup.com


ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit
against ZELTIQ Aesthetics, Inc. arising out of the sale of the
Company's common stock in an initial public offering which
commenced on October 19, 2011.  The Complaint alleges that the
Company and its senior executives failed to disclose material
adverse facts concerning disruptions in sales and a resulting
deceleration in the Company's growth rate.  These facts were
ultimately and belatedly disclosed on March 6, 2012, causing the
price of the Company's common stock to drop precipitously to close
at $7.36 per share, a decline of more than 40% from the IPO price
of $13.00 per share.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired ZELTIQ common stock in
connection with the IPO and you would like to discuss this action
or have any questions concerning your rights as a potential class
member or lead plaintiff, you may contact:

          Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
          Philip T. Taylor, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (800) 440-8986
          E-mail: jabraham@aftlaw.com
                  ptaylor@aftlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.aftlaw.com


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Appeal From Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals has yet to issue a ruling on an appeal
challenging an Indiana federal court's dismissal of a securities
class action complaint against Zimmer Holdings, Inc., according to
the Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

On August 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Plumbers and
Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Fund v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc.,
et al., naming the Company and two of its executive officers as
defendants. The complaint related to a putative class action on
behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between
January 29, 2008 and July 22, 2008. The complaint alleged that the
defendants violated the federal securities law by allegedly
failing to disclose developments relating to the Company's
orthopaedic surgical products manufacturing operations in Dover,
Ohio and the Durom Cup. The plaintiff sought unspecified damages
and interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief. On December
24, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint that
alleged the same claims and related to the same time period. The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
February 23, 2009. On December 1, 2009, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss, without prejudice. On January 15,
2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the
consolidated complaint.

On January 28, 2011, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend the consolidated complaint and dismissed the case.
On February 25, 2011, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The appellate
court heard oral argument in the appeal on October 18, 2011 but
has not yet ruled.  The Company believes the lawsuit is without
merit, and the Company and the individual defendants intend to
continue to defend it vigorously.

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

Zimmer Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.zimmer.com/-- through its
subsidiaries, engages in the design, development, manufacture, and
marketing of orthopedic reconstructive devices, spinal and trauma
devices, dental implants, and related surgical products in the
Americas, Europe, and the Asia Pacific.  The company was founded
in 1927 and is headquartered in Warsaw, Indiana.


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Dewald Wants to File 2nd Amended ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Dewald is asking permission from an Indiana federal court to file
a second amended complaint against Zimmer Holdings, Inc. related
to violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
according to the Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011.

On November 20, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Dewald v. Zimmer
Holdings, Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and employees as defendants. The
complaint relates to a putative class action on behalf of all
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Company's
U.S. or Puerto Rico Savings and Investment Programs (plans)
between October 5, 2007 and the date of filing and whose accounts
included investments in the Company's common stock. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended, by continuing to offer Zimmer
stock as an investment option in the plans when the stock
purportedly was no longer a prudent investment and that defendants
failed to provide plan participants with complete and accurate
information sufficient to advise them of the risks of investing
their retirement savings in Zimmer stock. The plaintiff seeks an
unspecified monetary payment to the plans, injunctive and
equitable relief, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief. On
January 23, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
alleges the same claims and clarifies that the class period is
October 5, 2007 through September 2, 2008. The defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 23, 2009. On June
12, 2009, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
entered an order transferring the Dewald case to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with the Plumbers & Pipefitters
Local Union 719 Pension Fund case referenced above. On December
23, 2011, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On
January 20, 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint.  That motion is pending with the Court.
The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit, and the Company
and the individual defendants intend to continue to defend it
vigorously.

Zimmer Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.zimmer.com/-- through its
subsidiaries, engages in the design, development, manufacture, and
marketing of orthopedic reconstructive devices, spinal and trauma
devices, dental implants, and related surgical products in the
Americas, Europe, and the Asia Pacific.  The company was founded
in 1927 and is headquartered in Warsaw, Indiana.


                           *********

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  * * *