CAR_Public/120402.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 2, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 65

                             Headlines

APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Mobile Apps Privacy Breach
BJ's RESTAURANTS: To Seek Approval of Deal in Ex-Servers' Suit
BJ's RESTAURANTS: To Seek OK of Ex-Managers' Suit Deal This Year
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Answered "Marchese" Complaint in February
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Appeal in "Brantley" Suit Remains Pending

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Suit
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Class Suit in New York
CHINA SKY: Newman Ferrara Pursues Securities Fraud Claims
CITY OF TULSA, OK: EMSA Seeks Dismissal of Class Action
CLERCS DE ST. VIATEUR: Court Okays Sexual Abuse Class Action

COVENTRY HEALTH: Consolidated ERISA Suit Remain Pending
COVENTRY HEALTH: Still Defends Securities Suit in Maryland
CYMETRIX CORP: Accused of Making Unlawful Debt Collection
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Awaits Appellate Ruling in "Dillon" Class Suit
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Continues to Defend Hertz Merger-Related Suits

DOLLAR THRIFTY: Parties in "Shames" Suit Agree to Prelim. Deal
FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal From Dismissal of Hawaiian Suit Pending
FRESH DEL MONTE: Continues to Defend Suits in Tenn. and Calif.
FRESH DEL MONTE: Suit in Fla. Over Extra Sweet Pineapples Pending
GE HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Nuclear Imaging Agent Monopoly

GOV'T OF CANADA: RCMP Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action
GREENBERG TRAURIG: Judge Approves Securities Scam Class Action
HOMEDICS INC: Sued Over False Claims on "Magnetic Wave" Products
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Awaits Final Okay of "Budeprion" Suit Deal
LEXMARK INT'L: Appeal From Awards in "Molina" Suit Still Pending

LG ELECTRONICS: Sued in Nev. Over Defective Plasma & LCD TVs
LINCOLN EDUCATIONAL: Plaintiffs Did Not Appeal Suit Dismissal
META FINANCIAL: June 29 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Stay "Kramer" Suit
MONEYGRAM INT'L: "Pittman" Suit Trial Set for 2nd Quarter of 2012

NERVE CONTRACTING: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Fees in N.Y.
NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
OAKLAND COUNTY, CA: Protesters Can Proceed with Class Action
OPPENHEIMER GLOBAL: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
QUEST SOFTWARE: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware

RON WILSON: Paperwork Filed in Investor Class Action
SEARS ROEBUCK: Judge Refuses to Certify Craftsman Class Action
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Hospice Gets $300,000 Settlement Funds
SUPPORT.COM INC: Consolidated IPO-Related Class Suit Concluded
SUPPORT.COM INC: Faces Two Class Suits Over Software Products

WARNER MUSIC: Faces Class Action Over Download Royalties
WHEATFIELDS: Former Employee Files Overtime Class Action
YAZAKI CORP: Faces Class Actions Over Auto Parts Price-Fixing
ZALE CORP: Appeal From Consolidated Suit Dismissal Still Pending
ZIPCAR INC: Still Defends Class Suit Over Late Fees in Mass.


                          *********

APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Mobile Apps Privacy Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Apple sells apps that secretly upload personal information,
including contact lists, despite Apple's "purported" privacy
protections for its mobile devices.

A copy of the Complaint in Pirozzi v. Apple Inc., Case No. 12-cv-
01529 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/28/Apple.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James S. Notis, Esq.
          Kira German, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 3085
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 567-7377
          E-mail: jsarnelli@gardylaw.com

               - and -

          Martin S. Bakst, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARTIN S. BAKST
          15760 Ventura Boulevard, 16th Floor
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 981-1400
          E-mail: msb@mbakst.com


BJ's RESTAURANTS: To Seek Approval of Deal in Ex-Servers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc. disclosed in its February 28, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended January 3, 2012, that it will seek court approval
of its settlement of a class action lawsuit this year.

On February 4, 2009, a former team member filed a putative class
action complaint in the Superior Court for the County of Fresno,
California, on behalf of himself and other current and former
servers working in the Company's California restaurants.  The
complaint alleged causes of action for failure to pay wages for
on-call time in violation of the California Labor Code, unfair
competition in violation of the California Business and
Professional Code, and associated penalties for failure to pay
wages in a timely manner.  The complaint sought unspecified
damages, a constructive trust, restitution, injunctive relief,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.  On August 14, 2009, a first
amended complaint was filed, in which two other former team
members joined the action as plaintiffs.  The Company answered the
operative complaint denying the allegations.  The parties reached
a settlement in principle of this action in September 2011 for
which court approval will be sought during 2012.

The Company says the terms of this settlement are not considered
by the Company to be material to its consolidated financial
position.


BJ's RESTAURANTS: To Seek OK of Ex-Managers' Suit Deal This Year
----------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc. will seek approval this year of its
settlement of a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of
restaurant managers, according to the Company's February 28, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended January 3, 2012.

On August 25, 2009, a former team member filed a putative class
action in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles,
California, on behalf of himself and other current and former
restaurant managers in California.  The complaint, as amended,
alleged that the Company's California kitchen managers were
misclassified as exempt from overtime and other California law
requirements and alleged causes of action for failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure
to pay wages in a timely manner, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, failure to keep accurate payroll records, penalties
associated with these claims, and failure to reimburse class
members for business expenses in violation of the California Labor
Code and unfair competition in violation of the California
Business and Professions Code.  The complaint sought unspecified
damages, restitution, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.  In January 2010, on the Company's motion, the Court
ordered the venue of the case transferred to Orange County.  The
Company responded to the third amended complaint, the operative
complaint, denying the allegations.  The parties reached a
settlement in principle of this action in July 2011, for which
court approval will be sought in 2012.

The Company says the terms of this settlement are not considered
by the Company to be material to its consolidated financial
position.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Answered "Marchese" Complaint in February
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation filed its answer to the third
amended complaint in the class action lawsuit captioned Marchese,
et al. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC,
in February 2012, according to the Company's February 28, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey by several present and former
Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a class of iO
video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and New York.  After
three versions of the complaint were dismissed without prejudice
by the District Court, Plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Company violated
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying the sale
of interactive services offered as part of iO television packages
to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by Cablevision,
and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly
seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevision-compatible
set-top boxes.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary
damages, attorney's fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory
relief.  On September 23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint.

On January 10, 2012, the District Court issued a decision
dismissing with prejudice the Section 2 monopolization claim, but
allowing the Section 1 tying claim and related state common law
claims to proceed.  Cablevision's answer to the third amended
complaint was filed on February 13, 2012.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit and
intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to
predict the outcome of the lawsuit with certainty or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Appeal in "Brantley" Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit captioned
Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc. et al., remains pending,
Cablevision Systems Corporation disclosed in its February 28,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On September 20, 2007, individual cable and satellite subscribers,
purportedly on behalf of a nationwide class of cable and satellite
subscribers, filed an antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against Cablevision and
several other defendants, including other cable and satellite
providers and programming content providers.  The complaint, as
amended, alleges that the defendants violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act by agreeing to the sale and licensing of
programming on a "bundled" basis and by offering programming in
packaged tiers rather than on an "a la carte" basis.  Plaintiffs
seek unspecified treble monetary damages and injunctive relief.
On June 12, 2009, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
third amended complaint.  On October 15, 2009, the District Court
granted the defendants' motions and dismissed the third amended
complaint with prejudice for failure to plead foreclosure of any
non-defendant programmers, which the Court held to be a necessary
element of the alleged antitrust injury.

On April 19, 2010, Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On June 3, 2011,
the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the
action.  On July 7, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a petition for panel
rehearing and rehearing en banc with the Ninth Circuit.  In an
order issued on October 31, 2011, following the death of a member
of the original panel, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its decision,
denied the petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc as
moot, and directed that the three-judge panel be reconstituted
with a new third member.

The Company says it intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but
is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit with certainty or
reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation is awaiting a court decision on
its motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit pending
in New York, according to the Company's February 28, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.

Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of
certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on
October 16, 2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the
programming feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations
and networks were unavailable on the Company's cable television
systems.  On October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an
agreement on new affiliation agreements for these stations and
networks, and carriage was restored.  Several class action
lawsuits were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's
customers seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming.  Those
lawsuits were consolidated in an action before the U. S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, and a consolidated
complaint was filed in that court on February 22, 2011.  The
plaintiffs have asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and consumer fraud, and seek unspecified compensatory
damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.  The Company has
filed a motion to dismiss this action.  The Court's decision is
pending.

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

The Company believes that these claims are without merit and
intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to
predict the outcome of these lawsuits with certainty or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation is facing a securities class
action lawsuit in New York, according to the Company's
February 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On January 26, 2012, a securities lawsuit, captioned Livingston v.
Cablevision Systems Corporation, et al., was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company and certain current and former officers, by a Cablevision
shareholder, purportedly on behalf of a class of individuals who
purchased Cablevision common stock between February 16, 2011, and
October 28, 2011.  The complaint alleges that the Company and the
individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act by allegedly issuing materially false and misleading
statements regarding (i) the Company's customer retention and
advertising costs, and (ii) the Company's loss of video customers,
especially in the New York area.  The complaint also alleges that
the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act for the same alleged conduct.  Plaintiff seeks
unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and equitable
relief.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit and
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict
the outcome of this lawsuit with certainty or reasonably estimate
a range of possible loss.


CHINA SKY: Newman Ferrara Pursues Securities Fraud Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Newman Ferrara LLP on March 26 disclosed that a securities class
action was filed on behalf of investors in China Sky One Medical,
Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

Investors who purchased shares of the Company's common stock
between April 16, 2009, and February 14, 2012, and lost more than
$100,000, are encouraged to contact Newman Ferrara partner Jeffrey
M. Norton at (212) 619-5400 or jnorton@nfllp.com to discuss this
action, the lead plaintiff process, or any questions concerning
this notice.  To serve as lead plaintiff, you must apply to be
appointed by April 24, 2012.  The lead plaintiff will direct the
litigation and participate in important decisions including
whether to accept a settlement and how much of a settlement to
accept for the Class in the action.  Lead plaintiffs are selected
from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in
the Company during the Class Period.

According to the complaint, China Sky One failed to reveal to its
shareholders that the company inflated its earnings and gross
margins, while failing to implement proper internal and financial
controls within the company.  On February 15, 2012, the Company
announced that 26 middle-management level employees had resigned,
and NASDAQ announced that trading of all China Sky One shares was
suspended indefinitely until China Sky One released more
information.  China Sky One's shares fell over 28% that same day,
to close at $1.10 per share.

Whistleblowers: Persons with knowledge that may aid in the
investigation of this matter are encouraged to contact the firm.
Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Bill, whistleblowers are
protected from employer retaliation and may be entitled to as much
as 30 percent of the recovery if the information provided leads to
a successful action.

Newman Ferrara -- http://www.nfllp.com-- maintains a multifaceted
practice based in New York City with attorneys specializing in
complex commercial and multi-party litigation with an emphasis on
securities, ERISA, consumer fraud, products liability, civil
rights and real estate.


CITY OF TULSA, OK: EMSA Seeks Dismissal of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
KTUL reports that a motion was filed in district court on March 27
by the Emergency Medical Services Authority, or EMSA, seeking to
dismiss a class action lawsuit that alleges it wrongly charged
patients enrolled in the City of Tulsa's utility fee TotalCare
program.

The lawsuit was filed last month by patients who say they were
billed for transport, despite paying a monthly fee on their
utility bills.  It's part of EMSA's TotalCare program, meant to
keep people from "paying out of pocket".

It's supposed to be hassle-free, but some customers said EMSA came
after them, even though they had signed up for the service.  The
attorney for the service says the plaintiffs' allegations aren't
what they claim.

"The facts of these individuals' cases do not support what they
claim," said EMSA attorney Kris Koepsel.  "Four of the five
individuals have not even paid any money to EMSA, so there are
plainly no refunds or damages to obtain.  Two of these individuals
were clearly opted out of the program at the time of their
transport and two plaintiffs were transported before the city
utility fee program began."

The program began in 2007 and residents pay $3.64 per month on
their water bill to enroll.  Residents can also choose to opt out
of the program.


CLERCS DE ST. VIATEUR: Court Okays Sexual Abuse Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Monique Beaudin, writing for The Montreal Gazette, reports that a
Quebec Superior Court judge has authorized a class-action lawsuit
over allegations of sexual and physical abuse at a Montreal school
and residence for deaf and mute children.

It is one of the most important sexual-abuse cases in North
America, said Pierre Boivin, the Montreal lawyer representing a
man who alleges he was physically and sexually abused for years
while attending the school on St. Laurent Blvd.

"I have never had a case with so many serious allegations of abuse
of handicapped, vulnerable children," Mr. Boivin said in an
interview on March 26.

Serge D'Arcy alleges that beginning at age 9 he was physically and
sexually abused by the brothers of the Clercs de St. Viateur, the
Catholic religious order that ran the school until 1982.

Mr. Boivin said 75 people have contacted him, alleging they, too,
were abused by religious and lay staff at the school between the
years 1940 and 1982.  During that time, about 280 deaf boys lived
at the school each year.

Mr. Boivin said he expects there are more alleged victims.

"We think this is just the tip of the iceberg, unfortunately," he
said.

Mr. D'Arcy's request for permission to launch the class-action
lawsuit included allegations from several victims, detailing how
they were taken from their beds at night and sexually abused,
forced to perform sexual acts in the school kitchens, infirmary
and confessionals, and told not to tell anyone about what had
happened.  There are allegations the children were physically
punished for using sign language to communicate.

In court documents, Mr. D'Arcy said he was abused by six brothers
as well as two other staff members.

The abuse caused him psychological, financial and emotional
difficulties, Mr. D'Arcy said.  He has tried three times to commit
suicide.

The class-action lawsuit will examine whether religious and lay
staff at the school abused children living or studying there,
whether they worked together to hide the abuse and whether they
were negligent in their role of protecting vulnerable children.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Consolidated ERISA Suit Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Coventry Health Care, Inc. continues to defend itself against a
consolidated class action lawsuit under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), according to the Company's
February 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On October 13, 2009, two former employees and participants in the
Coventry Health Care Retirement Savings Plan filed a putative
class action lawsuit under ERISA against the Company and several
of its current and former officers, directors and employees in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  Plaintiffs
allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA
by offering and maintaining Company stock in the Plan after it
allegedly became imprudent to do so and by allegedly failing to
provide complete and accurate information about the Company's
financial condition to plan participants in SEC filings and public
statements.  Three similar actions by different plaintiffs were
later filed in the same court and were consolidated on December 9,
2009.  An amended consolidated complaint has been filed.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  By Order, dated
March 31, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss
the amended complaint.  The Company filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's March 31, 2011 Order and filed an
Alternative Motion to Certify the Court's March 31, 2011 Order For
Interlocutory Appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Both
of those motions were denied.

The Company says it will vigorously defend against the allegations
in the consolidated lawsuit.  Although it cannot predict the
outcome, the Company believes this lawsuit will not have a
material adverse effect on its financial position or results of
operations.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Still Defends Securities Suit in Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------
On September 3, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative securities
class action against Coventry Health Care, Inc. and three of its
current and former officers in the federal district court of
Maryland.  Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, three other
shareholders and/or investor groups filed motions with the court
for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of
lead and liaison counsel.  By agreement, the four shareholders
submitted a stipulation to the court regarding appointment of lead
plaintiff and approval of selection of lead and liaison counsel.
In December 2009, the court approved the stipulation and ordered
the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated and amended complaint.
The purported class period is February 9, 2007, to October 22,
2008.  The consolidated and amended complaint alleges that the
Company's public statements contained false, misleading and
incomplete information regarding the Company's profitability,
particularly the profit margins for its Medicare Advantage
Private-Fee-For-Service ("Medicare PFFS") products.  The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  By Order, dated
March 31, 2011, the court granted in part, and denied in part, the
Company's motion to dismiss the complaint.  The Company has filed
a motion for reconsideration with respect to that part of the
court's March 31, 2011 Order which denied the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint.  The motion for reconsideration was denied
but the court did rule that the class period was further
restricted to April 25, 2008, to June 18, 2008.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 28,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company says it will vigorously defend against the allegations
in the lawsuit.  Although it cannot predict the outcome, the
Company believes this lawsuit will not have a material adverse
effect on its financial position or results of operations.


CYMETRIX CORP: Accused of Making Unlawful Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------
Katerina Spyratos, on behalf of herself and the classes defined
below, and People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Katerina
Spyratos v. Cymetrix Corporation, doing business as Healthcare
Recovery Solutions, Case No. 2012-CH-10469 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty., March 22, 2012) seeks redress from Cymetrix's alleged
unlawful collection practices, in violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, the Illinois Collection Agency Act, and
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The FDCPA broadly prohibits (i) unfair or unconscionable
collection methods, (ii) conduct which harasses, oppresses or
abuses any debtor, and (iii) any false, deceptive or misleading
statements, in connection with the collection of a debt, Ms.
Spyratos contends.  She asserts that at no time has Cymetrix held
a collection agency license under the ICAA, either under its
correct name or "Healthcare Recovery Solutions."

Ms. Spyratos is a resident of Carol Stream, Illinois.  She asserts
that she was aggravated and annoyed by the Defendant's
communicating with her directly.

Cymetrix, a Delaware corporation based in Irvine, California, does
business in Illinois.  Cymetrix Corporation is engaged in the
business of using mails and telephone to collect consumer debts
originally owed to others.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Awaits Appellate Ruling in "Dillon" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. is awaiting a court decision
on an appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit
commenced by Susan and Jeffrey Dillon, according to the Company's
February 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On September 22, 2009, a purported class action complaint was
filed in Illinois state court by Susan and Jeffrey Dillon,
individually and on behalf of all persons who rented a vehicle
from Thrifty Car Rental in Colorado from September 22, 2006,
forward, who signed a rental agreement which obligated them to pay
for loss of use of a vehicle if damaged, and who were charged for
loss of use or an administrative fee related to the vehicle damage
claim.  Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract,
violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and for
declaratory judgment under the Colorado Uniform Declaratory
Judgment Law related to the assessment of loss of use and
administrative fees in connection with vehicle damage claims
against renters.  The case is styled: Susan and Jeffrey Dillon v.
DTG Operations, Inc. d/b/a Thrifty Car Rental (Case No. 09CH34874,
Cook County Circuit Court, Chancery Division, Illinois).  On July
23, 2010, the action was dismissed with prejudice.  The plaintiffs
filed their notice of appeal on
August 19, 2010.  Appellate briefing was completed on May 16,
2011, and oral argument on the appeal occurred on December 6,
2011, and the parties are awaiting a ruling.


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Continues to Defend Hertz Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. continues to defend class
action lawsuits arising from the now terminated proposed merger
transaction with Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., according to the
Company's February 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

Various class action complaints relating to the now terminated
proposed merger transaction with Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.
("Hertz") have been filed in Oklahoma state court, Oklahoma
federal court, and Delaware Chancery Court against the Company,
its directors, and Hertz by various plaintiffs, for themselves and
on behalf of the Company's stockholders, excluding defendants and
their affiliates.  These complaints allege that the consideration
the Company's stockholders would have received in connection with
the proposed transaction with Hertz is inadequate and that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
stockholders in negotiating and approving the merger agreement.
These complaints also allege that the proxy materials that were
sent to the Company's stockholders to approve the merger agreement
are materially false and misleading.  The cases and their current
status are as follows: 1) Henzel v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive
Group, Inc., et al. (Consolidated Case No. CJ-2010-02761, Dist.
Ct. Tulsa County, Oklahoma) -- this case has not been dismissed
but is currently inactive and 2) In Re: Dollar Thrifty Shareholder
Litigation (Consolidated Case No. 5458-VCS, Delaware Court of
Chancery) -- on October 18, 2011, plaintiffs sought permission to
amend their pleadings to assert additional claims that members of
the Company's board of directors (the "Board") breached their
fiduciary duties concerning the following matters: (a) the Board's
response to a merger proposal by Avis Budget Group, Inc. ("Avis
Budget") in September, 2010; (b) the Board's use of defensive
measures, including the adoption of a poison pill, in response to
the Exchange Offer made by Hertz; (c) the Board's response to the
failure of Hertz to submit an improved final offer meeting certain
Board criteria by October 10, 2011; and (d) the Board's alleged
failure to make full material disclosures to the Company's
stockholders concerning the Hertz offer, the Company's stand-alone
plan, and the Company's negotiations with Hertz regarding a
business combination.  The court has not ruled on the plaintiffs'
request to amend.  On November 1, 2011, the plaintiffs advised the
court that the parties have agreed to stay further activity
pending the outcome of the Hertz antitrust review process.

Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company says
the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be predicted at this
time, nor can the amount of ultimate loss, if any, be reasonably
estimated.

Various other legal actions, claims and governmental inquiries and
proceedings have been in the past, or may be in the future,
asserted or instituted against the Company, including other
purported class actions or proceedings relating to the Hertz
transaction terminated in October 2010 or a potential acquisition
transaction, and some that may demand large monetary damages or
other relief which could result in significant expenditures.
Litigation is subject to many uncertainties and is inherently
unpredictable.  The Company is also subject to potential liability
related to environmental matters.  The Company establishes
reserves for litigation and environmental matters when the loss is
probable and reasonably estimable.  It is reasonably possible that
the final resolution of some of these matters may require the
Company to make expenditures in excess of established reserves.
The term "reasonably possible" is used herein to mean that the
chance of a future transaction or event occurring is more than
remote but less than probable.  The Company evaluates developments
in its legal matters that could affect the amount of previously
accrued reserves and makes adjustments as appropriate.
Significant judgment is required to determine both likelihood of a
further loss and the estimated amount of the loss.  With respect
to outstanding litigation and environmental matters, based on
current knowledge, the Company believes that the amount or range
of reasonably possible loss will not, either individually or in
the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its business or
consolidated financial statements.  However, the outcome of such
legal matters is inherently unpredictable and subject to
significant uncertainties.


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Parties in "Shames" Suit Agree to Prelim. Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action lawsuit commenced by Michael Shames
and Gary Gramkow agreed to a preliminary settlement in January
2012, according to Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc.'s
February 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On November 14, 2007, a purported class action was filed against
the Company, by Michael Shames and Gary Gramkow, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, in the Southern
District Court of California, claiming that the pass through of
the California Trade and Tourism Commission and airport concession
fee authorized by legislation effective in January 2007 constitute
antitrust violations of the Sherman Act and the California Unfair
Competition Act.  The case is styled Michael Shames; Gary Gramkow,
on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. The Hertz Corporation, Dollar Thrifty Automotive
Group, Inc., Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA,
Inc., Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, Fox Rent-A-Car, Inc., Coast
Leasing Corp., The California Travel and Tourism Commission and
Caroline Beteta (No. 07 CV 2174 H BLM (S.D. Cal.)).  The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and on
July 25, 2008, the Court issued an order denying the motion as to
the antitrust claims but granting the motion to dismiss state law
claims.

On November 21, 2011, the court ordered a stay of proceedings,
this time until December 21, 2011, and on December 21, 2011, the
court extended the stay on all proceedings until February 8, 2012.
Mediation was held in December 2011 and again in January 2012 at
which time the parties agreed to a preliminary settlement.  The
Company has accrued a contingency related to the preliminary
settlement.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal From Dismissal of Hawaiian Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
In 1997, plaintiffs from Costa Rica and Guatemala named certain of
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc.'s U.S. subsidiaries in a purported
class action in Hawaii.  On June 28, 2007, plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed the Company's U.S. subsidiaries named in the action
without ties to Hawaii.  At a hearing held on June 9, 2009, the
court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company's remaining
U.S. subsidiaries with ties to Hawaii, holding that the claims of
the remaining plaintiffs are time-barred.  A final judgment
dismissing all remaining claims and terminating the action was
entered on July 28, 2010.  On
August 24, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.  The appeal
is fully briefed and remains pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 28,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 30, 2011.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Continues to Defend Suits in Tenn. and Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. continues to defend itself from
lawsuits over its Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples in
Tennessee and California, according to the Company's February 28,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 30, 2011.

On March 5, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company's subsidiaries in the
state court of Tennessee on behalf of consumers who purchased
(other than for resale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples
in Tennessee from March 1, 1996, to May 6, 2003.  The complaint
alleges violations of the Tennessee Trade Practices Act and the
Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.  On February 18, 2005, the
Company's subsidiaries filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On May 15, 2006, the court granted the motion in part, dismissing
plaintiffs' claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.

Between March 17, 2004, and March 18, 2004, three alleged
individual consumers separately filed putative class action
complaints against the Company and its subsidiaries in the state
court of California on behalf of residents of California who
purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet
pineapples between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003.  On
November 9, 2005, the three actions were consolidated under one
amended complaint with a single claim for unfair competition in
violation of the California Business and Professional Code.  On
September 26, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class
action.  On August 20, 2009, the court denied class certification.
On October 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
court's order denying class certification, a hearing was scheduled
for February 29, 2012, for oral argument on the appeal.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Suit in Fla. Over Extra Sweet Pineapples Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed in Florida over Fresh Del Monte
Produce Inc.'s Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples is
pending, according to the Company's February 28, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 30, 2011.

On April 19, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company's subsidiaries in the
state court of Florida on behalf of Florida residents who
purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet
pineapples between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003.  The only
surviving claim under the amended complaint alleges violations of
the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act relating only
to pineapples purchased since
April 19, 2000.  The Company's subsidiaries filed an answer to the
surviving claim on October 12, 2006.  On August 5, 2008,
plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class action.  The
Company's subsidiaries filed an opposition on January 22, 2009, to
which plaintiffs filed a reply on May 11, 2009.

On November 29, 2011, the court denied the motion to certify a
class action.


GE HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Nuclear Imaging Agent Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class of "nuclear
pharmacies" say GE and Cardinal run a monopoly that has blocked
them from buying Myoview, a nuclear cardiac imaging agent used in
diagnostic procedures.

The suit is captioned Pharmarx Pharmaceutical v. GE Healthcare;
Cardinal Health (C.D. Calif.).

A copy of the Complaint in PharmaRx Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. GE
Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-02594 (C.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/28/pharmarx.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq.
          Gabriel S. Barenfeld, Esq.
          Jacob H. Mensch, Esq.
          KREINDLER & KREINDLER LLP
          707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4100
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 622-6469
          E-mail: gnelson@kreindler.com
                  gbarenfeld@kreindler.com
                  jmensch@kreindler.com


GOV'T OF CANADA: RCMP Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Greer at Courthouse News Service reports that a former
member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police claims in a class
action that the R.C.M.P. harasses women so badly it has forced
several to quit, tarnishing the reputation of the police force
long touted as a symbol of the nation's virtue.

Lead plaintiff Janet Merlo served as an R.C.M.P. constable for
nearly 20 years, stationed at the Nanaimo detachment on Vancouver
Island.  She claims she was "subject to persistent and ongoing
gender-based discrimination and harassment" throughout her career,
from male colleagues and higher-ups.  For instance, she says a
male officer once told her future husband" "Janet is the right
height because you can lay a six-pack of beer on her head while
she gives you a blow job."

Ms. Merlo claims a supervisor often placed an inflatable naked
female blow-up doll near his desk while on shift, and invited her
to stand next to it.

When she became pregnant with her first child, she says, she left
a meeting with a supervisor in tears after he chastised her and
told her to "keep her fucking legs closed," to choose whether she
wanted a career with the police force or to "pop out kids" her
whole life.

Ms. Merlo claims male officers subjected her to derogatory
comments while she was pregnant, and she had to numb herself to
the ongoing bullying out of a feeling of powerlessness.  She says
she brought her complaints to supervisors, who told her to forget
about them or "walk away," or sometimes investigated and dismissed
her complaint.

She claims male officers were given special treatment, including
more flexibility with scheduling and being allowed to play three-
hour hockey games while on shift, while female members were not
allowed to attend aerobics classes on lunch breaks.

Ms. Merlo says the harassment gave her medical problems, including
post-traumatic stress, depression, insomnia and irritable bowel
syndrome.  She says she attempted suicide due to the anguish
caused by the harassment.

She seeks class certification and damages from the provincial and
federal governments, for negligence, breach of contract and breach
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A copy of the Complaint in Merlo v. The Attorney General of
Canada, et al., Case No. S-122255 (B.C. Sup. Ct.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/28/RCMP.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Klein, Esq.
          KLEIN LYONS
          400-1385 West 8th Avenue
          Vancouver, BC V6H 3V9
          Telephone: (604) 874-7180

          Sandy Alexander Zaitzeff, Esq.
          WATKINS LAW PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          Telephone: (807) 345-4455
          E-mail: szaitzeff@watkinslawtbay.com


GREENBERG TRAURIG: Judge Approves Securities Scam Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge
in Arizona approved a class action accusing the law firms
Greenberg Traurig and Quarles & Brady of adding "a facade of
legitimacy" to a $900 million Ponzi scheme.

Lead plaintiff Robert Facciola claimed the firms helped Mortgages
Ltd. and its financier, Radical Bunny, run a securities scam that
collected nearly $1 billion from about 2,000 investors between
2005 and 2008.  Both companies collapsed in 2008, and Mortgages
Ltd. CEO Scott Coles committed suicide the same year.

"Although Radical Bunny represented that it sold mortgage-backed
securities, the investments were in fact unsecured, the securities
were not registered, and the Radical Bunny principals were not
licensed to sell securities -- all in violation of Arizona
securities law," wrote U.S. District Judge Frederick Martone, in a
summary of plaintiffs' claims.

Mr. Facciola claimed Mortgages Ltd. "adopted a Ponzi scheme in
order to hide its insolvency and remain in business by finding new
investors through RB to pay its existing debt."

And Mr. Facciola accused Greenberg Traurig, which represented
Mortgages Ltd., and Quarles & Brady, which represented Radical
Bunny, of creating "a fa‡ade of legitimacy, enabling the Ponzi
scheme and the ongoing illegal securities sales to continue."

Greenberg Traurig denied the claims in an e-mail message sent to
Courthouse News.

"We empathize with the investors who lost money but their
investments were in loans that, unfortunately, fell victim to the
collapse of the real estate market," the firm wrote.  "We are
disappointed with the procedural decision but we continue to
believe that when the facts are fully presented, they will show
that our firm and its lawyers acted appropriately and that the
claim against them is without merit," the firm wrote.

Judge Martone certified two classes: the first includes about 975
people who invested some $600 million in Mortgage Ltd.,
represented by Tiffany & Bosco.  The second is composed of about
779 Radical Bunny investors, who handed the company approximately
$197 million, and are represented by Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman
& Balint.

A copy of the Order in Facciola, et al. v. Greenberg Traurig LL,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-01025 (D. Ariz.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/wGeUNN


HOMEDICS INC: Sued Over False Claims on "Magnetic Wave" Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Homedics sells "Magnetic Wave
Technology" devices for "magnetic therapy," though they are
medically useless, a customer claims in a Superior Court class
action.

A copy of the Complaint in Post v. Homedics, Inc., Case No.
RIC1204417 (Calif. Super. Ct., Riverside Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/28/SnakeOil.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Awaits Final Okay of "Budeprion" Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. is awaiting final approval of its
settlement of the Budeprion XL Litigation, according to the
Company's February 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In June 2009, the Company was named a co-defendant in class action
lawsuits filed in California state court in an action titled Kelly
v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus. Ltd, et al., No. BC414812 (Calif.
Superior Crt. L.A. County).  Subsequently, additional class action
lawsuits were filed in Louisiana (Morgan v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
Indus. Ltd, et al., No. 673880 (24th Dist Crt., Jefferson Parish,
LA.)), North Carolina (Weber v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus., Ltd.,
et al., No. 07 CV5002556, (N.C. Superior Crt., Hanover County)),
Pennsylvania (Rosenfeld v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al.,
No. 2:09-CV-2811 (E.D. Pa.)), Florida (Henchenski and Vogel v.
Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., et al., No. 2:09-CV-470-FLM-
29SPC (M.D. Fla.)), Texas (Anderson v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
Indus., Ltd., et al., No. 3-09CV1200-M (N.D. Tex.)), Oklahoma
(Brown et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Inds., Ltd., et al., No. 09-
cv-649-TCK-PJC (N.D. OK)), Ohio (Latvala et al. v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals Inds., Ltd., et al., No. 2:09-cv-795 (S.D. OH)),
Alabama (Jordan v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus. Ltd et al., No.
CV09-709 (Ala. Cir. Crt. Baldwin County)), and Washington (Leighty
v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus. Ltd et al., No. CV09-01640 (W. D.
Wa.)).  All of the complaints involve Budeprion XL, a generic
version of Wellbutrin XL(R) that is manufactured by the Company
and marketed by Teva, and allege that, contrary to representations
of Teva, Budeprion XL is less effective in treating depression,
and more likely to cause dangerous side effects, than Wellbutrin
XL.  The actions are brought on behalf of purchasers of Budeprion
XL and assert claims such as unfair competition, unfair trade
practices and negligent misrepresentation under state law.  Each
lawsuit seeks damages in an unspecified amount consisting of the
cost of Budeprion XL paid by class members, as well as any
applicable penalties imposed by state law, and disclaims damages
for personal injury.  The state court cases were removed to
federal court, and a petition for multidistrict litigation to
consolidate the cases in federal court was granted.  These cases
and any subsequently filed cases will be heard under the
consolidated action entitled In re: Budeprion XL Marketing Sales
Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2107, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to certify that
order for interlocutory appeal, both of which were denied.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and the Company
filed an opposition to that motion.  The class certification
hearing was held on May 17, 2011.  In September 2011, the Company
filed a summary judgment motion on the grounds of plaintiffs'
claims are preempted under federal law based on the United States
Supreme Court decision in PLIVA v. Mensing.

On January 6, 2012, the Company and co-defendant Teva entered into
a classwide settlement agreement for all the actions included in
the multidistrict litigation.  Pursuant to that settlement, the
Company has agreed to take certain actions related to the subject
product, to pay for class notice and settlement administration,
and to reimburse any attorney's fees or costs awarded by the Court
to plaintiffs up to a capped amount.  The Company has accrued
estimated costs related to the settlement of this matter as of
December 31, 2011.  The settlement was preliminarily approved by
the Court on February 1, 2012, and remains subject to final
approval following notice to the class.


LEXMARK INT'L: Appeal From Awards in "Molina" Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lexmark International, Inc.'s appeal from a $7.8 million award to
class members and a $5.7 million award in attorneys' fees in the
lawsuit captioned Molina v. Lexmark, remains pending, according to
the Company's February 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

On August 31, 2005, former Company employee Ron Molina filed a
class action lawsuit, captioned Molina v. Lexmark, in the
California Superior Court for Los Angeles, under a California
employment statute which in effect prohibits the forfeiture of
vacation time accrued.  This statute has been used to invalidate
California employers' "use or lose" vacation policies.  The class
is comprised of less than 200 current and former California
employees of the Company.  The trial was bifurcated into a
liability phase and a damages phase.  On May 1, 2009, the trial
court Judge brought the liability phase to a conclusion with a
ruling that the Company's vacation and personal choice day's
policies from 1991 to the present violated California law.  In a
Statement of Decision, received by the Company on August 27, 2010,
the trial court Judge awarded the class members approximately $8.3
million in damages which included waiting time penalties and
interest but did not include post judgment interest, costs and
attorneys' fees.  On November 17, 2010, the trial court Judge
partially granted the Company's motion for a new trial solely as
to the argument that current employees are not entitled to any
damages.  On March 7, 2011, the trial court Judge reduced the
original award to $7.8 million.  On October 28, 2011, the trial
court Judge awarded the class members $5.7 million in attorneys'
fees.

The Company filed a notice of appeal with the California Court of
Appeals objecting to the trial court Judge's award of damages and
attorneys' fees.  The appeal is pending.

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

The Company believes an unfavorable outcome in the matter is
probable.  The range of potential loss related to this matter is
subject to a high degree of estimation.  In accordance with the
accounting guidance for contingencies, if the reasonable estimate
of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is a
better estimate, the minimum amount of the range is accrued.
Because no amount within the range of potential loss is a better
estimate than any other amount, the Company has accrued $1.8
million for the Molina matter, which represents the low-end of the
range.  At the high-end of the range, the class has sought $16.7
million in damages along with $5.7 million in attorneys' fees,
plus post judgment interest.  Thus, it is reasonably possible that
a loss exceeding the $1.8 million already accrued may be incurred
in this matter, ranging from $0 to $22.4 million, excluding post
judgment interest, costs and any additional attorneys' fees which
may be assessed against the Company.

Established in 1991, Lexmark International, Inc. --
http://www.lexmark.com/-- is a developer, manufacturer and
supplier of printing, imaging and document workflow solutions for
the office.  The Company also operates in the office imaging and
ECM markets.  Lexmark's products include laser printers, inkjet
printers, multifunction devices, dot matrix printers and
associated supplies, solutions and services and ECM software
solutions and services.


LG ELECTRONICS: Sued in Nev. Over Defective Plasma & LCD TVs
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
that circuit boards in LG Electronics plasma and LCD TVs fail
prematurely.

A copy of the Complaint in Drover v. LG Electronics USA, Inc.,
Case No. 12-cv-00510 (D. Nev.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/28/LG.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dennis L. Kennedy, Esq.
          Joseph A. Liebman, Esq.
          BAILEY KENNEDY
          8984 Spanish Ridge Avenue
          Las Vegas, NV 89148-1302
          Telephone: (702) 562-8820
          E-mail: dkennedy@baileykennedy.com
                  jliebman@baileykennedy.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


LINCOLN EDUCATIONAL: Plaintiffs Did Not Appeal Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Educational Services Corporation disclosed in its
March 9, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011, that
plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal of their consolidated
securities class action lawsuit.

The Company and several executive officers were named as
defendants in two purported securities class action lawsuits.  The
complaints, which were both filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, alleged that the Company and the other
defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business and
prospects in violation of federal securities laws.  The plaintiff
sought damages for the purported class.  The complaints were filed
on August 13, 2010, and September 19, 2010, and were respectively
captioned, Donald J. and Mary S. Moreaux v. Lincoln Educational
Services Corp., et al., and Robert Lyathaud v. Lincoln Educational
Services Corp., et al.  On November 24, 2010, the Court
consolidated the two actions under the caption In re Lincoln
Educational Services Corp. Securities Litigation and appointed a
lead plaintiff.  A consolidated amended complaint was filed on
February 14, 2011.  On April 15, 2011, defendants filed a motion
to dismiss all of the claims asserted therein.  On September 6,
2011, the Court entered an order granting defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint with prejudice.
Plaintiffs did not appeal.


META FINANCIAL: June 29 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC on March 27 disclosed that the United
States District Court Northern District of Iowa approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of publicly-traded common stock of Meta
Financial Group, Inc.

TO: ALL PERSONS and entities WHO purchased or otherwise acquired
the publicly-traded COMMON STOCK of META FINANCIAL GROUP, Inc.
between MAY 14, 2009, and OCTOBER 18, 2010, INCLUSIVE:

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Western
Division, that a hearing will be held on June 29, 2012 at 9:00
a.m. (CST), before the Honorable Mark W. Bennett at the United
States Courthouse, 320 Sixth Street, Sioux City, IA 51101, for the
purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Class[1] can be
certified for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23; (2) whether the proposed Settlement for the
sum of $2,100,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable and adequate; (3) whether, after the hearing, this
Action should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms
and conditions set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated as
of January 5, 2012; (4) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair,
reasonable and adequate and should be approved; (5) whether the
application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses incurred in this Action should be
approved; and (6) whether the reimbursement to Lead Plaintiff for
reasonable time, costs and expenses incurred related to
representation of the Class should be approved.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly-traded common
stock of Meta Financial Group, Inc. between May 14, 2009 and
October 18, 2010, inclusive, your rights may be affected by the
Settlement of this Action.  If you have not received a detailed
Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement with
all Defendants, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Settlement Fairness
Hearing and a copy of the Proof of Claim, you should obtain copies
by writing to:

     In re Meta Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation
     c/o Strategic Claims Services
     600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3
     Media PA 19063

or by visiting the Web site of the Claims Administrator at:

     http://www.strategicclaims.net/metafinancialgroup

The Notice contains details about this Action and Settlement,
including what you must do to exclude yourself from the
Settlement, object to the terms of the Settlement, or file a Claim
Form.  If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim
Form postmarked no later than July 30, 2012, establishing that you
are entitled to recovery.

If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
Request for Exclusion postmarked by June 1, 2012, in the manner
and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above.  All
Class Members who have not timely and validly requested exclusion
from the Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action
pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Stipulation.  Your
objection must be postmarked on or before June 1, 2012 and mailed
to the Court; Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, Lead Counsel for Lead
Plaintiff and the Class; and Counsel for the Defendants at the
following addresses:

COURT:

          Clerk of Court
          United States Courthouse
          320 Sixth Street
          Sioux City, IA 51101

FOR LEAD PLAINTIFF:

          Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          206 Covington Street
          Madisonville, LA 70447

          Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Class

FOR DEFENDANTS:

          Carl Volz, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          525 West Monroe Street
          Chicago IL 60661-3693

          Counsel for Defendants

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs and the Class at the
address listed above.

DATED: MARCH 27, 2012

BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF IOWA


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Stay "Kramer" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on a
motion to stay a class action lawsuit commenced by Hilary Kramer
in Texas, according to the Company's March 9, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

Following shareholder approval on May 18, 2011, the Company
completed its recapitalization transaction in accordance with the
Recapitalization Agreement dated as of March 7, 2011, as amended,
by and among the Company, affiliates and co-investors of Thomas H.
Lee Partners, L.P. and affiliates of Goldman, Sachs & Co. Pursuant
to the Recapitalization Agreement, (i) THL converted all of its
shares of Series B Participating Convertible Preferred Stock, par
value $0.01 per share into 286.4 million shares of common stock
and (ii) Goldman Sachs converted all of its shares of Series B-1
Participating Convertible Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 per
share into 157,686 shares of Series D Participating Convertible
Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 per share and (iii) THL received
28.2 million additional shares of common stock and $140.8 million
in cash, and Goldman Sachs received 15,503 additional shares of D
Stock and $77.5 million in cash.

On May 12, 2011, a complaint was filed in the County Court at Law
No. 3 in Dallas County, Texas, by Hilary Kramer purporting to be a
class action complaint on behalf of all shareholders and a
shareholder derivative complaint against the Company, THL, Goldman
Sachs and each of the Company's directors.  Ms. Kramer alleges in
her complaint that she is a stockholder of the Company and
asserts, among other things, (i) breach of fiduciary duty claims
against the Company's directors, THL and Goldman Sachs and (ii)
claims for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties against
Goldman Sachs.  Ms. Kramer purports to sue on her own behalf and
on behalf of the Company and its stockholders.  Ms. Kramer sought
to, among other things, enjoin the 2011 Recapitalization.  The
defendants have moved for the Texas court to stay this litigation
in favor of the litigation commenced by Willie R. Pittman in
Delaware, which has an overlapping class definition.


MONEYGRAM INT'L: "Pittman" Suit Trial Set for 2nd Quarter of 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in a shareholder class action lawsuit originally commenced
by Willie R. Pittman is scheduled to begin in the second quarter
of 2012, according to MoneyGram International, Inc.'s March 9,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Following shareholder approval on May 18, 2011, the Company
completed its recapitalization transaction in accordance with the
Recapitalization Agreement dated as of March 7, 2011, as amended,
by and among the Company, affiliates and co-investors of Thomas H.
Lee Partners, L.P. and affiliates of Goldman, Sachs & Co. Pursuant
to the Recapitalization Agreement, (i) THL converted all of its
shares of Series B Participating Convertible Preferred Stock, par
value $0.01 per share into 286.4 million shares of common stock
and (ii) Goldman Sachs converted all of its shares of Series B-1
Participating Convertible Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 per
share into 157,686 shares of Series D Participating Convertible
Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 per share and (iii) THL received
28.2 million additional shares of common stock and $140.8 million
in cash, and Goldman Sachs received 15,503 additional shares of D
Stock and $77.5 million in cash.

On April 15, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware by Willie R. Pittman purporting to be a
class action complaint on behalf of all shareholders and a
shareholder derivative complaint against the Company, THL, Goldman
Sachs and each of the Company's directors.  Ms. Pittman alleges in
her complaint that she is a stockholder of the Company and
asserts, among other things, (i) breach of fiduciary duty and
disclosure claims against the Company's directors, THL and Goldman
Sachs, (ii) breach of the Company's certificate of incorporation
claims against the Company, THL and Goldman Sachs, and (iii)
claims for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties against
Goldman Sachs.  Ms. Pittman purports to sue on her own behalf and
on behalf of the Company and its stockholders.  Pittman sought to,
among other things, enjoin or rescind the 2011 Recapitalization.
On April 29, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint to add
two additional plaintiffs, Susan Seales and Stephen Selzer.  On
May 16, 2011, a hearing to enjoin or rescind the 2011
Recapitalization was held in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, and at the hearing, the plaintiffs' request for a
preliminary injunction was denied.  The 2011 Recapitalization was
completed on May 18, 2011.  Since that time, Ms. Pittman has
withdrawn as a putative class representative; Ms. Seales and Mr.
Selzer remain as plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs seek to recover
damages of some or all of the cash and stock payments made to THL
and Goldman Sachs by the Company in connection with the
recapitalization transaction.  This litigation is ongoing and is
scheduled for trial in the second quarter of 2012.


NERVE CONTRACTING: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Fees in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marek Grabowiec and Alva Smith on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nerve Contracting Co.
Inc., Robert Anazagasti, Robert Anazagasti, Jr., Isabel Roman,
Case No. 650894/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., (March 22, 2012) is brought
to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid prevailing
wages and supplemental benefits, liquidated damages and reasonable
attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiffs alleged that they and others similarly situated
were employed by Nerve and worked over 40 hours per week, but were
not compensated properly for all hours they worked and for the
overtime hours, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

The Plaintiffs are residents of New York.  Plaintiff Grabowiec
resides in Kings County and Plaintiff Smith resides in Queens
County.  The Plaintiffs have been employed by Nerve as tradesmen
performing tasks as carpenters, painters, plastermen and other
similar duties.

Nerve, a New York corporation, provides construction, maintenance
and repair services, both new construction and renovation
construction, within the New York area.  The Individual Defendants
are the officers, shareholders, managers and majority owners of
Nerve.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Wisniewski, Esq.
          ROBERT WISNIEWSKI P.C.
          225 Broadway, Suite 1020
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 267-2101


NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Novelos Therapeutics, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its and
other defendants' motion to dismiss an amended securities class
action lawsuit pending in Massachusetts, according to the
Company's March 9, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

A putative federal securities class action complaint was filed on
March 5, 2010, in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts by an alleged shareholder of Novelos, on
behalf of himself and all others who purchased or otherwise
acquired Novelos common stock in the period between December 14,
2009, and February 24, 2010, against Novelos and its President and
Chief Executive Officer, Harry S. Palmin.  On October 1, 2010, the
court appointed lead plaintiffs (Boris Urman and Ramona McDonald)
and appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel.  On October 22, 2010, an
amended complaint was filed.  The amended complaint claims, among
other things, that Novelos violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder in connection with alleged misleading
disclosures related to the progress of the Phase 3 clinical trial
of NOV-002 for non-small cell lung cancer.  On December 6, 2010,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with
prejudice.  On January 20, 2011, the plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the Company's motion and on March 3, 2011, the
defendants filed their response to the opposition.  On June 23,
2011, the motion to dismiss was granted and the case was dismissed
without prejudice.  Because the dismissal was without prejudice,
the plaintiffs could reinstitute the proceeding by filing an
amended complaint.

On August 5, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
realleging that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 in connection with alleged misleading
disclosures related to the Phase 3 clinical trial for NOV-002 in
non-small cell lung cancer.  On September 9, 2011, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.  The
plaintiffs' opposition to the motion was filed on October 14,
2011, and the defendants filed a reply brief on November 4, 2011.

The Company and Mr. Palmin believe the allegations are without
merit and intend to continue to vigorously defend against them.


OAKLAND COUNTY, CA: Protesters Can Proceed with Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Artz, writing for Oakland Tribune, reports that a federal
judge is allowing protesters to proceed with a class-action
lawsuit against Oakland and Alameda County.

U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson granted class
certification on March 23 for the 150 plaintiffs arrested Nov. 5,
2010, while protesting the sentence given to Johannes Mehserle,
the former BART police officer who shot and killed Oscar Grant
III.

The plaintiffs, represented by the National Lawyers Guild, said
Oakland police herded them into a residential block where they
were arrested, denied bathroom access for eight hours and later
placed into crowded county jail cells.

"California law requires most misdemeanor arrestees to be released
at the scene or at the police station, but in Alameda County, even
very minor charges often result in extended periods of time in
jail," said the plaintiff's attorney Rachel Lederman.

The Nov. 5 protest was largely peaceful, although a prior protest
following the verdict in the Mehserle case did become violent with
some protesters damaging property in downtown Oakland.


OPPENHEIMER GLOBAL: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP filed a securities class action lawsuit on
March 26 against Oppenheimer Global Resource Private Equity Fund
I, L.P. and others.  The lawsuit, captioned Brockton Retirement
Board v. Oppenheimer Global Resource Private Equity Fund I, L.P.,
et al. Case No. 1:12-cv-10552 is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  To obtain a
copy of the complaint, contact Block & Leviton LLP.

The lawsuit alleges violations of United States securities laws on
behalf of the OGR Fund's investors since its inception in July,
2008.  The lawsuit alleges that the OGR Fund and others violated
Sections 12(a)(2) and/or 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
rules promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The complaint asserts that the solicitation documents used to
entice investments in the OGR Fund contained materially untrue and
misleading statements regarding: (i) the purported value of the
OGR Fund's holdings, (ii) the profitability and performance of the
OGR Fund, and (iii) the policies and procedures to be used by the
OGR Fund in conducting due diligence into the performance and
valuation of its assets. Specifically, the Solicitation Documents
overstated the value of the OGR Fund's holdings as well as the OGR
Fund's profitability and financial performance due to a failure of
the OGR Fund's procedures and in violation of applicable laws and
standards.

On February 24, 2012, an article in The Wall Street Journal
reported that the United States Attorney's Office for the District
of Massachusetts, the SEC and the Massachusetts Attorney General's
Office have been investigating the OGR Fund since the fall of
2011, sending multiple subpoenas to the OGR Fund's employees. The
investigations have focused on whether the OGR Fund has been
incorrectly valuing its investments.

If you are a member of the Class, you may, no later than May 25,
2012, request that the court appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
Class.  You may contact the attorneys at Block & Leviton to
discuss your rights in the case.  You may also retain counsel of
your choice and you need not take any action at this time to be a
class member.

Block & Leviton -- http://www.blockesq.com-- is a Boston-based
law firm representing investors for violations of securities laws.
The firm's lawyers have collectively been prosecuting securities
cases on behalf of investors for over 50 years.


QUEST SOFTWARE: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim Quest
Software is selling itself too cheaply to Insight Venture
Management, for $23 a share or $2 billion, in Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Quest
Software, Inc., et al., Case No. 7357 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/28/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
          P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
          Citizens Bank Center
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
          Telephone: (302) 656-4433
          E-mail: ckeener@rmgglaw.com
                  bdeleeuw@rmgglaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Stein, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                  jstein@saxenawhite.com


RON WILSON: Paperwork Filed in Investor Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Mike Ellis, writing for Independent Mail, reports that paperwork
to begin a class-action lawsuit has been filed against Ron Wilson,
his business and an Easley financial planning company and its
operators.

The complaint came on the same day that state investigators
fielded questions from about 200 investors during a meeting in a
Tri-County Technical College classroom in Easley.

The filing in a Pickens County court on March 26 by Covington
Patrick, a Greenville law firm, names Professional Planning Inc.
of Easley as a key accomplice to Mr. Wilson's business.

The civil action comes in addition to a civil complaint from the
state attorney general's office which alleges fraud by Mr. Wilson
and his Atlantic Bullion & Coin, which took about $71 million in
investments from hundreds of investors in 25 states since 2009.
Mr. Wilson has not been arrested or charged.

Attorneys from the Covington Patrick firm, along with Easley
attorney and investor Candy Kern-Fuller, hosted a meeting March 19
with investors to begin the class-action suit.  The filing
identifies William Strewing as the plaintiff acting on behalf of
others and names Mr. Wilson, his business, Professional Planning
Inc., Tracy Atwell and Ed Atwell.  Tracy Atwell is identified as
the principal of Professional Planning and Ed Atwell is named as
either a current or former principal.

Tracy Atwell and her financial company have not responded to
requests for comment.  The Atwells and Professional Planning Inc.
have not been charged or named in any filings that have been made
public by state or federal officials.

At the investors' meeting on March 26, South Carolina Senior
Assistant Attorney General Tracy Meyers was asked whether
Professional Planning Inc. had any involvement in an alleged Ponzi
scheme.  The lawyer carefully danced around the question.

"They haven't been named in any complaint by our office but if you
talk to enough people in this room you'll know the answer," she
said.

Professional Planning Inc., a financial planning company, has had
a small sign outside its Easley offices, saying it is closed, for
two weeks, about the time Mr. Wilson was publicly identified in a
complaint by the state attorney general's office.

The March 26 meeting was set up by state Rep. Joshua Putnam of
Powdersville and state Sen. Kevin Bryant of Anderson, Republicans
who have each received $1,000 from Mr. Wilson but have vowed to
return those donations when a victims' fund is established.  Mr.
Putnam said that he's only talked to Mr. Wilson twice and Sen.
Bryant said that he and Mr. Wilson had a split many years ago.

Messrs. Putnam and Bryant brought officials from the attorney
general's office, the U.S. Secret Service and the South Carolina
Law Enforcement Division to the March 26 meeting.  The legislators
have introduced bills to require public notifications of cease-
and-desist notices such as the one Mr. Wilson received in 1996.

Thomas Griffin, resident agent in charge of the U.S. Secret
Service's Greenville office, said it was exceedingly rare for his
agency to even confirm the existence of an ongoing investigation.
He confirmed an investigation into Atlantic Bullion & Coin.

Mr. Griffin was circumspect with investors at the meeting who
repeatedly challenged him on why Mr. Wilson had not been arrested.

"I'm from Greenville," Mr. Griffin said.  "I have very little
patience or tolerance for this type of crime, if it happened.
We're going to be thorough, and leave no stone unturned."

He and other officials said it is difficult to arrest someone in
such a complicated case but said investors' interests are being
protected by state and federal officials.

Sen. Bryant said at the end of the meeting that he still wasn't
sure why Mr. Wilson had not been arrested but that he understood
it was an ongoing investigation.

Mr. Meyers defended the attorney general's office, which had
issued a cease-and-desist order to Mr. Wilson in 1996.  She said
she was the only attorney overseeing securities back then and had
dealt with the 1996 order.  Mr. Meyers has previously been
identified by the state agency as being integral in bringing the
current complaint to light.

Mr. Meyers said the 1996 order had little to support it; an
anonymous person had reported that Mr. Wilson was trading
securities rather than simply selling gold or silver.  Mr. Wilson
told her that he was selling physical metals and did not have any
investors.

Selling the precious metal would be commodity dealing while Mr.
Wilson is accused of selling certificates for silver investment,
making it a security.

Mr. Meyers said attorneys working on the current case, which
records indicate began at least late last year, have been
heartbroken over the individual investors' stories.

"But don't blame yourself," she told investors.  "There are
doctors, lawyers, financial planners, people who were successful.
Ponzi schemers who can keep it going are good at what they do.
They refine the approach they use and become better and better."

Mr. Meyers said a 92-year-old man began the case and he drove to
an interview with her despite caring for his wife with
Alzheimer's.  Mr. Meyers said the man had pulled his money out, or
had attempted to do so, and his was the complaint that began the
case anew against Mr. Wilson.

All of the officials stressed that the case was ongoing, which
limited their responses.

Mr. Meyers said it was the first, and likely last, time that the
attorney general's office would be commenting in such a public
manner on the case while it was still in progress.

"Just don't assume that if you don't see anything, that it's not
happening," she said.

Mr. Meyers said Mr. Wilson's attorney had talked to investigators
and appears to be supportive of using a receiver to control the
money during the investigation.

Jeffrey Merriam, a Greenville attorney representing Mr. Wilson,
told the Independent Mail on March 26 that he would not comment on
the case but he disputed statements made by the attorney general's
office, which said that Mr. Wilson had filed a motion to oppose
the state's closure of his bank account.

"We are not opposed to that," Mr. Merriam said.  "We have not
filed such a motion and have no intention of doing so."


SEARS ROEBUCK: Judge Refuses to Certify Craftsman Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge declined to certify a class against Sears which alleged the
department store falsely advertised its Craftsman line of tools as
"Made in the U.S.A." to charge higher prices.

In multidistrict litigation, plaintiffs claim that the department
store Sears, Roebuck & Company deceptively advertised its line of
Craftsman tools as manufactured in the U.S., when in fact many of
the tools are foreign-made.

Of the seven cases involved in the multi-district litigation, four
were voluntarily dismissed, one was remanded to California state
court, and one settled after the court declined to certify a
class.

In the last remaining case pending before the Northern District of
Illinois, Jeffrey Greenfield claimed that he bought a Craftsman
ratcheting screwdriver from a Florida Sears store in 2004.  He
said he recalled in-store signage that stated: "Craftsman Quality,
Guaranteed for life, Made in the USA, only $19.95."

In fact, Mr. Greenfield alleged that, in 2000, 20 percent of
Craftsman products were not made in the U.S., a percentage that
rose to 70 percent by 2005.  "Sears chose not to make it known
that such a high percentage of its tools were not made in the
U.S.A., despite the actual knowledge that its customers believed
Craftsman products were made in the U.S.A., because such a
disclosure would force Sears to reduce the profit margin on its
Craftsman line of products," Mr. Greenfield's complaint stated.

Last week, U.S. District Judge John Grady denied Greenfield's
motion for class certification, finding that "each plaintiff in
Greenfield's putative class will have to show that the alleged
'Made in the U.S.A.' misrepresentation caused him or her damage,
which would necessitate individualized proof."

Referring to other cases in the multi-district litigation, Judge
Grady said that "the proposed Florida class suffers from the same
problems we previously identified.  It is overbroad because it
contains a great many individuals who were not deceived and could
not have been injured, and plaintiff has not shown that his claim
is typical of those of the putative class."

Judge Grady stated that he refused class certification in a
related case because the "plaintiffs' proposed class definition
was improper; it included many class members who were not deceived
and therefore could not have suffered any damage."

He continued: "Another reason for denying class certification was
plaintiffs' failure to demonstrate that their claims were
sufficiently typical of the putative class.  The evidence is that
advertising for Craftsman tools varies greatly and is disseminated
through a host of different media; plaintiffs themselves alleged
that they saw or heard a number of different Craftsman
advertisements.  The putative class was exposed to a varied mix of
representations, communicated through different channels and
absorbed in different ways and to different degrees, and causation
would also be different for each plaintiff; therefore, typicality
was lacking."

Mr. Greenfield relied on "Sears-commissioned marketing research in
the years 2003-2005 showing that if it became known among
Craftsman customers that Craftsman products were made overseas,
nearly half of those customers 'would expect to pay 10% to 25%
less for such products,' and 25 percent would not buy the products
at all."

However, Judge Grady ruled that "the results of the marketing
research -- what some customers said they would expect to pay --
are not relevant to Sears's actual pricing practices.  Plaintiff
has no evidence (and Sears's witnesses deny) that the buyers knew
about or considered the research."

Additionally, "it does not require much 'experience regarding the
calculation of damages in actions involving consumer fraud' to
conclude that plaintiff's attempt to demonstrate a likely class-
wide damages methodology is a wholesale failure," the court said.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion in In re Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Tools Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 05-cv-
04742 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/28/Sears.pdf


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Hospice Gets $300,000 Settlement Funds
----------------------------------------------------------
The Times-Standard reports that as part of the settlement of a
class action case brought on behalf of some 32,000 residents of
understaffed skilled nursing facilities, including those in
Humboldt County, the parties agreed to the disbursement of
$300,000 of settlement funds to Hospice of Humboldt.

The class action suit was brought by several firms, including the
local law firm of Janssen Malloy LLP with offices in Eureka.

On July 6, 2010, after a seven-month trial, a Humboldt County jury
returned a $677 million verdict against one of the nation's
largest nursing home chains, Skilled Healthcare, for violations of
California's Health and Safety Code at 22 of its skilled nursing
facilities throughout the state, five of which were located in
Humboldt County.  The parties then settled the case before the
jury heard evidence about punitive damages.

"It is our honor to be able to give these funds to Hospice of
Humboldt.  Our work on behalf of nursing home residents has shown
us that hospice provides heartfelt care and services to people
facing the end of their lives," said Michael Crowley, a partner at
Janssen Malloy.

"Hospice serves patients wherever they live, including skilled
nursing facilities," said Marylee Bytheriver, executive director
of Hospice of Humboldt.  "We are so appreciative of this gift and
we will use it to help pay for the construction of the Ida
Emmerson Hospice House, an inpatient facility dedicated to
providing specialized end-of-life care to the whole person."

Hospice of Humboldt has been serving families locally for over 32
years and has a staff of over 80 employees and 125 volunteers.
Hospice provided end of life care to 584 patients last year who,
as a result, were able to die with dignity and in comfort.


SUPPORT.COM INC: Consolidated IPO-Related Class Suit Concluded
--------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated litigation over Support.com, Inc.'s initial
public offering has been concluded, according to the Company's
March 9, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In November 2001, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, two of its former officers and certain underwriters in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  Similar complaints were filed against 55 underwriters and
more than 300 other companies and other individual officers and
directors of those companies; the consolidated case is In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.).  The lawsuit, which sought unspecified damages, fees
and costs, alleged that the Company's registration statement and
prospectus dated July 18, 2000, for the issuance and initial
public offering of 4,250,000 shares of the Company's common stock
contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions related to
alleged inflated commissions received by the underwriters of the
offering.  On April 1, 2009, all parties entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement that would resolve all
claims and dismiss the case against the Company and its former
officers, without any payment by the Company or its former
officers.  On October 5, 2009, the court issued an order approving
the settlement.

Certain other parties appealed the settlement, and the appeal was
subsequently dismissed by stipulation of the other parties on
January 9, 2012.  This concludes the litigation.


SUPPORT.COM INC: Faces Two Class Suits Over Software Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Support.com, Inc. is facing two class action lawsuits over its
software products, according to the Company's March 9, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.

On February 7, 2012, a lawsuit seeking class-action certification
was filed against the Company in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, No. 12-CV-00609, alleging
that the design of one the Company's software products and the
method of promotion to consumers constitute fraudulent inducement,
breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, and
unjust enrichment.  On the same day the same plaintiffs' law firm
filed another action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, No. 12-CV-0963, involving similar
allegations against a subsidiary of the Company and one of the
Company's channel partners who distributes the Company's software
products, and that channel partner has requested indemnification
under contract terms with the Company.  The law firm representing
the plaintiffs in both cases has filed unrelated class actions in
the past year against a number of major software providers with
similar allegations about those providers' products.

At this time, the Company believes a loss is neither probable nor
estimable and based on available information regarding this
litigation, the Company is unable to determine an estimate, or a
range of estimates, of potential losses.


WARNER MUSIC: Faces Class Action Over Download Royalties
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Tower of Power claims in a
federal class action that Warner Music Group owes royalties on
downloads and ringtones.

A copy of the Complaint in Castillo, et al. v. Warner Music Group
Corp., Case No. 12-cv-01531 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/28/TowerPower.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William M. Audet, Esq.
          Joshua C. Ezrin, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          221 Main Street, Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Anthony R. Lopez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES LOPEZ & ASSOCIATES
          9025 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 276-4700
          E-mail: alopez@musicatty.com

               - and -

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, #820
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-4949
          E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com


WHEATFIELDS: Former Employee Files Overtime Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
KETV NewsWatch 7 reports that the Omaha bakery and restaurant
Wheatfields is the target of a class action lawsuit that alleges
wrongful termination, unpaid overtime, and falsified records by a
former employee.

Wheatfields and its ownership firmly deny the allegations.

The KETV NewsWatch 7 I-Team learned that the man who initiated the
lawsuit first sought advice from a New York City law firm that has
a track record of suing restaurants in New York.

According to court documents, 37 people have joined the lawsuit
against Wheatfields which was filed in August 2011.

The case starts with a man named Joseph Morris, who said he worked
at the Wheatfields location in Omaha's Old Market district between
March 2010 and July 21, 2011.

"I was a waiter, a server," Mr. Morris said in an interview with
KETV NewsWatch 7 Investigator Ryan Luby.

Mr. Morris described the downtown Wheatfields as a busy
restaurant.

"I'd start at 6 a.m., and we'd get done at 3:00 p.m., and we're
still full," Mr. Morris said.

Over time, Mr. Morris said he grew suspicious of how Wheatfields
management paid him.  He said he started to keep tabs.

"The clock in, clock out times every single day," Mr. Morris said.
Mr. Morris showed the I-Team some of his pay slips he collected,
which are now part of the evidence in the lawsuit.

"I would keep all my slips, and kind of keep track of my hours,
and when two and two wasn't adding up to four, when I would get my
paychecks, that's when I initially started asking questions,"
Mr. Morris said.

Mr. Morris said he questioned Wheatfields management about why he
wasn't paid for overtime he said he worked, and about lunch breaks
he didn't take that he said were deducted from his pay regardless.

Mr. Morris alleges he was fired when management found out he was
planning to sue the restaurant.

One month after Mr. Morris was terminated he filed the lawsuit
against Wheatfields, accusing the restaurant of violating the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to court documents, the allegations amount to "unlawful
deductions" from wages, failure to pay the federal minimum wage,
unlawful appropriation of tip money, and for taking pictures of a
Wheatfields manager allegedly altering an employee's work hours in
the restaurant's payroll system database.

"There are anti-retaliation provisions within the FLSA that
protect workers if they make wage complaints to their supervisors,
to their managers, to the Department of Labor.  The law does
protect workers if they complain," attorney Kelly Brandon said.

Ms. Brandon is representing Mr. Morris in Nebraska after she came
recommended by Berke-Weiss & Pechman in New York City.  The firm
successfully sued Sparks Steakhouse in Manhattan in 2009 and
settled for $3.2 million.  The lawsuit alleged Sparks Steakhouse
management of misappropriating tip money and taking advantage of
wait staff.

Mr. Morris found Berke-Weiss & Pechman on a Web site that caters
to the concerns of waiters and waitresses.  The firm runs its own
Web site that profiles waiters' rights.

"My feeling is, the more people are educated, the better it is,"
attorney Lou Pechman said in an interview from his New York City
office via Skype.

"I think it's important for your viewers to know that there is an
epidemic of wage and hour violations in a lot of different
industries, but particularly in the restaurant industry,"
Mr. Pechman said.

The owners of Wheatfields, Ron and Ruth Popp, declined the I-
Team's request for an interview.

In a statement, the Popps said they "dispute the allegations
against them, deny that they violated the law, and intend to
vigorously defend themselves."

The Popps also made a point of noting the connection to Berke-
Weiss & Pechman, and a publicized quote from attorney Lou Pechman
in which he said, "These restaurant cases are easy money."
Mr. Pechman said the quote has been regularly taken out of
context.

"So the context is, either you pay people the right way, or you
don't pay people the right way. In that respect, these cases are
easier, all right, it's oftentimes simple math," Mr. Pechman said.

Mr. Morris and his attorney vowed to press forward with the case
and said they expect more people to join them.

"The goal is to redress the rights of the workers that haven't
been paid properly," Ms. Brandon said.  "That's the law!"

Mr. Morris found other work until the case is resolved.  He
cautioned other waiters and waitresses, in all types of
restaurants, to be wary of their work environments.

"Know your rights, and know what you can do to protect yourself,
and keep your records," Mr. Morris said.


YAZAKI CORP: Faces Class Actions Over Auto Parts Price-Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sotos LLP on March 26 disclosed that three class action lawsuits
have been launched in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
seeking over $700 million in damages on behalf of Canadian auto
dealers over alleged price fixing on parts used in the manufacture
of automobiles.

The lawsuits name several major parts manufacturers recently
implicated in an international price-fixing probe including Yazaki
Corporation, Denso Corporation, Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd.,
Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd., Delphi Automotive LLP, and
Fujikura Ltd. among others.

The parts which were the subject of the alleged price fixing are
essential components found in all modern motor vehicles, including
wire harnesses, fuel senders, instrument panel clusters,
electronic control units and heater control panels.

The auto dealers assert in the lawsuits that the defendants
entered into illegal backroom agreements to artificially inflate
the prices of the auto parts throughout the 00's.  This led to
higher overall prices for motor vehicles charged to the dealers.

The lawsuits follow a series of international price-fixing
investigations involving the same parties.  The defendants,
Yazaki, Denso and Furukawa, have agreed to plead guilty and pay a
total of US$748 million in criminal fines in the United States for
their role in price-fixing and bid-rigging conspiracies in the
sale of the auto parts to automobile manufacturers.

"The scope of these lawsuits is enormous," says David Sterns, one
of the lawyers for the lead plaintiffs.  "Because of the alleged
conduct, Canadian auto dealers selling certain makes of cars and
trucks may have been overcharged for every vehicle they purchased
over a ten year period."

The proposed representative plaintiffs for the class actions are
Sheridan Chevrolet Cadillac Ltd. and Pickering Auto Mall Ltd.,
both owned and operated for years by Jerry Gazarek, a now-retired
auto dealer from Pickering, Ontario.  Mr. Gazarek sold cars and
trucks manufactured by GM, Suzuki, Isuzu and Saab throughout the
period of the alleged conspiracy.

The representative plaintiffs brought the actions under Ontario's
Class Proceedings Act, 1992.  The claims seek court certification
to represent all similarly affected auto dealers in Canada.

Copies of the court filed statements of claim are available at:
http://www.sotosllp.com/class-actions/auto-parts/


ZALE CORP: Appeal From Consolidated Suit Dismissal Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2009, Zale Corporation and four former officers, Neal
L. Goldberg, Rodney Carter, Mary E. Burton and Cynthia T. Gordon,
were named as defendants in two purported class-action lawsuits
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.  On August 9, 2010, the two lawsuits were
consolidated into one consolidated lawsuit, which alleged various
violations of securities laws arising from the financial statement
errors that led to the restatement completed by the Company as
part of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
July 31, 2009.  The lawsuit requests unspecified damages and
costs.  On August 1, 2011, the Court dismissed the lawsuit with
prejudice.  The plaintiffs have appealed the decision.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 9, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended January 31, 2012.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend the dismissal;
however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the lawsuit and
cannot estimate the damages, if any, that it may incur in
connection with this matter.


ZIPCAR INC: Still Defends Class Suit Over Late Fees in Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------
On July 27, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Zipcar, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Reed v. Zipcar, Inc., Case No. 1:11-cv-
11340-RGS.  The lawsuit alleges that the Company's late fees are
unlawful penalties.  The lawsuit purports to assert claims against
the Company for unjust enrichment, money had and received, for
declaratory judgment, and for unfair and deceptive trade practices
under Massachusetts General Laws ch. 93A and requests
certification of a class consisting of all Zipcar members who have
incurred late fees at the presently imposed rates.  The plaintiff
seeks unspecified amounts of restitution and disgorgement of the
revenues and/or profits that the Company allegedly received from
imposing late fees, as well as a declaration that such late fees
are void, unenforceable, and/or unconscionable, and an award of
treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  While the Company says
it intends to contest the plaintiff's claims vigorously, neither
the outcome of this litigation nor the amount and range of
potential damages or exposure associated with the litigation can
be assessed at this time.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 9, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Zipcar, Inc. -- http://www.zipcar.com/-- and its subsidiaries
comprise a membership organization that provides self-service
vehicle use by the hour or by the day.  The Company places
vehicles in convenient parking spaces throughout major
metropolitan areas and universities in North America and in the
United Kingdom.  Through the use of the Company's proprietary
software, members are able to reserve vehicles online, through a
wireless mobile device or by phone, access the vehicle with an
electronic pass card or mobile device, and receive automatic
billings to their credit card.


                           *********

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  * * *