---

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

              Tuesday, April 3, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 66

                             Headlines

BANK OF AMERICA: May 7 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
BLUE CROSS: Sup. Ct. Refuses to Review Class Decertification
CARBO CERAMICS: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
CENTRO: Finance Executive Unaware of Debt Levels
CITY OF NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over Operation Clean Halls

CONMED HEALTH: Merger-Related Class Settlement Terminated
DEUTSCHE BANK: Settles Mortgage Class Action for $32.5 Million
DOMUS HOLDINGS: Hearing on Cendant Class Settlement Set for June
DUKE ENERGY: Merger-Related Class Suits Dismissed
DYNEX CAPITAL: Awaits Approval of Teamsters Class Settlement

E.C.G.: CPA Urges Electricity Consumers to Join Class Action
EMERSON ELECTRIC: Sued Over False Claims on Ridgid Vacuums
FANNIE MAE: Owes Tax in 81 of Michigan Counties, Judge Finds
GOV'T OF ALBERTA: Faces Foster Care Class Action
HSBC FINANCE: Mediation Ongoing in Antitrust MDL in New York

HSBC FINANCE: Continues to Defend Debt Cancellation Lawsuits
HSBC FINANCE: Expects a Final Ruling in Securities Suit Soon
JPMORGAN CHASE: Force-Placed Insurance Class Action Can Proceed
LIVE NATION: Granted Summary Judgment in Antitrust Class Action
MERRILL LYNCH: Judge Dismisses Black Brokers' Class Action

METABOLIX INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Faces Concussion-Related Class Action
NEIMAN MARCUS: Continues to Defend Hour & Wage Suit in Calif.
NRG ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit vs. Unit
PATH INC: Faces Class Action Over Mobile Apps Privacy Breach

PETROHAWK ENERGY: Awaits Final OK of Merger-Related Suits Deal
PIEDMONT OFFICE: Bid to Dismiss Georgia Securities Suit Pending
PIEDMONT OFFICE: Md. Securities Suit Removed From Court Calendar
POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Suit in California
RM&G PRODUCTS: Sneakily Enrolls Customers in Programs, Suit Says

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE: Federal Prosecutors Intervene in ADA Suit
TATA SONS: Court Grants Class Cert. Bid in Non-U.S. Citizens' Suit
UMB FINANCIAL: Three Suits Over Unit's Posting Practices Resolved
WELLS FARGO: Securities-Lending Program Class Action Can Proceed
WILLIAMS COS: Awaits Rulings on Judgment Motions in "West" Suit

WILLIAMS COS: Continues to Defend Suits Over Gas Price Indices
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC: Expects to Get "Downes" Suit Deal OK in April

                          *********

BANK OF AMERICA: May 7 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP on March 29 issued a
statement regarding the Bank of America Corp. Securities
Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE BANK OF AMERICA CORP. SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE, AND EMPLOYEE
RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT (ERISA) LITIGATION

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Consolidated Securities Action

Master File No. 09 MD 2058 (PKC)ECF CASE

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

To: All persons and entities who (1) held Bank of America
Corporation ("BoA") common stock as of October 10, 2008, and were
entitled to vote on the merger between BoA and Merrill Lynch &
Co., Inc. ("Merrill") that was consummated on January 1, 2009; (2)
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of BoA during the
period from September 18, 2008 through January 21, 2009,
inclusive, excluding shares of BoA common stock acquired by
exchanging Merrill common stock for BoA common stock through the
merger between the two companies; (3) purchased or otherwise
acquired January 2011 call options on BoA common stock during the
period from September 18, 2008 through January 21, 2009,
inclusive; and (4) purchased BoA common stock issued under the
Registration Statement and Prospectus and October 7, 2008
Supplemental Prospectus of BoA in the common stock offering that
occurred on or about October 7, 2008.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above-
captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class
action.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THIS ACTION.  A full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action is
currently being mailed to known Class Members.  If you have not
yet received the full printed Notice, you may obtain copies of
this document by contacting:

          In re Bank of America Corp. Securities Litigation
          c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
          PO Box 9876Dublin, Ohio 43017-5776
          Telephone: (855) 733-8308
          Web site: http://www.boasecuritieslitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to
Class Counsel:

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Ave, 14th Fl.
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980

          Max W. Berger, Esq.
          Steven B. Singer, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400

          David Kessler, Esq.
          Gregory Castaldo, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class.  If you choose to remain a member of
the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than
to retain your documentation reflecting your transactions and
holdings in BoA common stock or January 2011 call options on BoA
common stock.  You will automatically be included in the Class.
If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the
Class, you will be bound by the proceedings in this Action,
including all past, present and future orders and judgments of the
Court, whether favorable or unfavorable.

If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by
any order or judgment of this Court, and you will not be eligible
to receive a share of any money which might be recovered for the
benefit of the Class.  To exclude yourself from the Class, you
must submit a written request for exclusion postmarked no later
than May 7, 2012 in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the full printed Notice.  Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(4) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, it is within the Court's discretion as
to whether a second opportunity to request exclusion from the
Class will be allowed if there is a settlement or judgment in the
Action.  The trial in this action has been scheduled by the Court
to begin at 10:00 a.m. on October 22, 2012.

Further information may be obtained by directing your inquiry in
writing to the Notice Administrator.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

United States District Court For the Southern District of New York


BLUE CROSS: Sup. Ct. Refuses to Review Class Decertification
------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Halcom, writing for Crain's Detroit Business, reports that an
eight-year lawsuit that could have yielded an eight-figure
judgment for more than 500 Michigan businesses is more likely to
net just $284,000 in damages against Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Michigan, after the U.S. Supreme Court turned away the case.

The high court without comment denied a petition by trustees of
the Pipefitters Local 636 Insurance Fund to hear the Detroit
lawsuit, involving a fee the Blues allegedly charged hundreds of
Michigan self-insured employers to help subsidize insurance
coverage for senior citizens.

A federal judge in Detroit originally certified a class action on
behalf of 550 to 875 self-insured businesses, retirement funds,
nonprofits and other customers who use the Blues network of
physicians and treatment centers.  But the 6th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals in Cincinnati decertified that class last year, finding
that the lower court did not adequately review whether the Blues
was a fiduciary managing fund assets for every single member of
the self-insured class.   The Supreme Court now has refused to
review that decision -- meaning no class action exists, and the
Insurance Fund can seek its own damages only.

Those amount to $284,970.30 in "other than group" fees billed
between late 2002 and early 2004, according to records the Blues
have furnished to the fund.

Southfield-based Sullivan, Ward, Asher & Patton PC, which
represents the Insurance Fund, is now trying to add the Sheet
Metal Workers No. 80 Insurance Fund board of trustees as an
additional plaintiff in the case before U.S. District Judge Arthur
Tarnow in Detroit.  Blue Cross opposes that request.

Kevin Russell, a partner at Washington-based Goldstein & Russell
PC and appellate counsel for the fund, declined to comment.
Helen Stojic, corporate affairs director for Blue Cross, also
would not comment.

But the win could be the most significant yet for Blue Cross,
which is juggling more than two dozen federal lawsuits over past
fees in administrative services contracts with its self-insured
customers.

About 20 local governments around the state that have had
administrative services contracts with the Blues -- and alleged
hidden fees in lawsuits -- have yielded at least $13 million in 10
verdicts and settlements since 2009.  Fees can include a provider
network fee, a contingency fee used to help insurers maintain
mandated levels of capitalization or the other-than-group fee that
Blue Cross uses to help subsidize its Medigap coverage for
seniors.

But the governments were not part of the class action before it
was decertified, and the new ruling is being interpreted to mean
every private sector employer that alleges it was improperly
charged the other-than-group fee is on its own.

Late last year in federal court, Grand Rapids-based Varnum LLP
filed 10 individual lawsuits alleging hidden fees on behalf of
self-insured Blues customers, including Rochester Hills-based Hi-
Lex Controls Inc. and Troy-based Magna International of America
Inc.

Administrative services contracts allow self-insured employers,
retirement funds, unions and others to use the Blue Cross network
and administrative services to process claims.


CARBO CERAMICS: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC on March 27 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Carbo Ceramics Inc. common stock who purchased shares between
October 27, 2011 and January 26, 2012, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the
Company knew but failed to timely disclose that it was
experiencing a decline in proppant sales in the Haynesville
region.  Further, the lawsuit alleges the Company concealed
information relating to logistical problems it was experiencing
which, according to the complaint, negatively impacted Carbo
Ceramics' ability to effectively shift its resources.

If you purchased Carbo Ceramics common stock during the Class
Period, you have the legal right to petition the Court to be
appointed a "lead plaintiff."  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Any such request must satisfy certain
criteria and be made no later than April 9, 2012.  Any member of
the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you are a Carbo Ceramics
investor and would like to discuss a potential lead plaintiff
appointment, or your rights and interests with respect to the
lawsuit, you may contact Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., or Marshall
P. Dees, Esq. via e-mail at mfistel@holzerlaw.com  or
mdees@holzerlaw.com or via toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832.

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com-- is an
Atlanta, Georgia law firm that represents shareholders and
investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class
action and derivative litigation.


CENTRO: Finance Executive Unaware of Debt Levels
------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Australian, reports that Centro's
general manager of finance, Paul Belcher, says he was not fully
abreast of the company's short-term debt levels when preparing the
company's erroneous 2007 accounts, a class action trial into the
company's near collapse later that year has heard.

Under cross-examination by lawyers for shareholders, Mr. Belcher
said he did not know in August 2007, ahead of the release of the
company's erroneous accounts, that a "bridging loan" referred to
short-term financing.

Centro's error-riddled 2007 accounts misclassified as non-current
a series of tranches of short-term debt totalling AUD3.1 billion
that fell due in December of that year.

Mr. Belcher, who remains a senior member of Centro's management
team, at the time worked closely with former auditor
PricewaterhouseCoopers in preparing the company's accounts.

Mr. Belcher conceded, when pressed, that bridge financing tended
to suggest short-term debt.

About AUD1.1 billion worth of incorrectly classified short-term
debt was to a bridging loan from JPMorgan that was used by Centro
to buy a number of US shopping centers in the first half of 2007.

Mr. Belcher told the court he was not aware at the time of
preparing the company's accounts with PwC whether short-term or
longer-term debt was used by Centro to purchase US assets in 2007.

"I was not au fait with the nature of the debt facility,"
Mr. Belcher said.

The court also heard that, just days before the company revealed
it was struggling to refinance a short-term debt pile that was
$3.1 billion larger than shareholders were expecting due to
accounting errors, it was warned by PwC that market participants
were aware the company was in trouble.

Company records show that PwC forwarded Mr. Belcher an e-mail from
a Goldman Sachs JBWere analyst that said: "CNP (Centro Properties)
looking like its going to drop a bomb . . . The music has stopped
and the party is over. CNP has locked itself in the bathroom and
won't come out."

Mr. Belcher said he could not remember the e-mail.

Mr. Belcher said he did not think the bomb was that AUD3.1 billion
in short-term debts had been classed as non-current in the
company's accounts.

He said it was likely the e-mail referred to the company's
refinancing issues.

Centro and PwC are being sued by hundreds of shareholders over the
company's near-collapse in 2007 and the wipe-out of millions of
dollars in shareholder value.

The shareholders claim they were only made aware of the accounting
error in December 2007 and were not warned that the company might
face refinancing difficulties because of the credit market
squeeze.

PwC is counter-claiming against Centro, alleging Centro withheld
key documents.

Cameron Moore SC, for PwC, challenged Mr. Belcher later on the
procedures and processes he had in place when arranging the
accounts.  The case continues.


CITY OF NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over Operation Clean Halls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that New York
City's Operation Clean Halls, which lets landlords put city police
patrols in privately owned buildings, puts hundreds of thousands
of mostly minority New Yorkers "under siege" in their own homes,
residents say in a federal class action.

The 52-page complaint filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union
relates tales of a 17-year-old detained after buying ketchup for
his mother; a woman's call to 911 after her boyfriend, a police
sergeant, was detained for bringing Chinese take-out into her
building; and a high school junior arrested for "trespassing" in
his own home.

The NYCLU sued the NYPD in January, demanding records on the
program, which the rights group says has raised alarms for its
members ever since it was established in 1991.

"Operation Clean Halls has placed hundreds of thousands of New
Yorkers, mostly black and Latino, under siege in their own homes,"
NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman said in a statement.
"For residents of Clean Halls buildings, taking the garbage out or
checking the mail can result in being thrown against the wall and
humiliated by police.  Untold numbers of people have been wrongly
arrested for trespassing because they had the audacity to leave
their apartments without IDs or visit friends and family who live
in Clean Halls buildings."

Shortly before releasing that statement, attorneys filed the class
action on behalf of 12 New Yorkers and one former resident who say
they were stopped in their own homes.

Of the plaintiffs, three are 17-year-olds represented by their
mothers.

In an e-mail, NYPD Deputy Commissioner Paul J. Browne defended the
program, which he compared to having a doorman.

"By challenging uninvited individuals, police are providing a
level of safety to tenants that residents of doormen buildings
take for granted," Mr. Browne wrote.

But unlike doormen, the police patrols often stop and frisk
residents and guests -- invited and "uninvited" -- without
reasonable suspicion, the plaintiffs say.

"For residents of Clean Halls Buildings and their visitors, merely
exiting a Clean Halls Building frequently leads to being stopped,
searched, and interrogated by NYPD officers on public sidewalks
and in exterior courtyards," the complaint states.  "These stops
typically involve full searches and questioning as to the person's
reason for having been inside the building, and frequently result
in arrest or the issuance of a summons if the person cannot
affirmatively justify his presence to the police officer's
satisfaction.

"Such seizures also take place in the lobbies, vestibules,
stairwells, hallways, and other public areas of Clean Halls
Buildings, where residents are often illegally stopped, searched,
questioned, issued summonses, and even arrested without cause for
allegedly trespassing inside in their own buildings.  They are
frequently stopped and forced to produce identification while
engaged in completely innocuous activities like checking their
mail or taking out their garbage.  To avoid arrests or summonses
for trespassing, many residents of Clean Halls Buildings are
compelled to carry identification with them whenever they exit
their apartments for any purpose-including trips to the laundry
room or to visit a neighbor.

"Illegal stops inside Clean Halls Buildings sometimes occur during
floor-by-floor sweeps by NYPD officers, known as vertical patrols.
Upon information and belief, hundreds of thousands of vertical
patrols take place annually in Clean Halls Buildings.  For
instance, testimony before the New York City Council Committee on
Public Safety by Inspector Michael C. Phipps, the Commanding
Officer of the NYPD's Housing Borough Manhattan, indicates that
the NYPD conducted approximately 240,000 vertical patrols in
privately owned buildings in 2003 alone.

"Residents of some Clean Halls Buildings are stopped, questioned,
and searched by NYPD officers on a regular basis -- sometimes
multiple times a week.  For many young men of color in particular,
being searched and seized by NYPD officers in and around their
homes has become normalized and is simply a routine part of their
lives."

There are 3,895 Clean Halls buildings in Manhattan alone, the
NYCLU says.

In one Bronx apartment, lead plaintiff Jeanean Ligon, 40, said she
sent her 17-year-old son, J.G., out for ketchup last August, then
found he had been detained by four unidentified officers.

Ms. Ligon says she was "[t]errified that J.G. was injured or dead"
when an officer buzzed her intercom to have her identify him
downstairs.  She says she "collapsed and began weeping" when she
saw him surrounded.

"One officer began laughing, asked Ms. Ligon if J.G. was her son,
and handed her the ketchup," the complaint states.

Plaintiff Jovan Jefferson, 20, says he is stopped "two to three
times every month" outside his building, and was arrested for
trespassing in his building three years ago, when he was a high
school junior.

Even a police sergeant is not safe from arrest for walking into a
Clean Halls building, according to the complaint.

"In October 2006 NYPD Sergeant Reginald McReynolds was stopped in
the stairwell of his girlfriend's apartment building, which is
enrolled in Operation Clean Halls, while returning to her
apartment with a take-out Chinese food order," the complaint
states.  "One officer asked Sergeant McReynolds, 'What fucking
apartment are you going to?' McReynolds indicated that he was
going to his girlfriend's apartment, and the officers threatened
to arrest him for trespassing.  Ivelisse Cruz, McReynolds'
girlfriend, took pictures of the incident as it unfolded and
called 911.  Sergeant McReynolds's arrest was reported by major
media outlets, including the New York Daily News, and CNN."

Sergeant McReynolds is not a plaintiff in the complaint.

Defendants include New York City, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly,
Officers Johnny Blasini, Gregory Lomangino, Joseph Koch, Kieron
Ramdeen, Joseph Bermudez and Miguel Santiago, and 12 John Doe
officers.

The plaintiffs say that Clean Halls violates their First Amendment
rights to free speech and assembly; Fourth Amendment rights
prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure; 14th Amendment due
process guarantees; Fair Housing Act protections against
discrimination, and other state and civil rights laws.

They seek a judgment ending the program, establishing citywide
standards, monitoring police around Clean Halls homes, and
compensatory damages.

A copy of the Complaint in Ligon, et al. v. City of New York, et
al., Case No. 12-cv-02274 (S.D.N.Y.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/29/PrivatePatrols.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexis Karteron, Esq.
          Christopher Dunn, Esq.
          Daniel Mullkoff, Esq.
          New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation
          125 Broad Street, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 607-3300
          E-mail: akatieron@nyc1u.org

               - and -

          J. McGregor Smyth, Jr., Esq.
          Mariana Kovel, Esq.
          THE BRONX DEFENDERS
          860 Courtlandt Avenue
          Bronx, NY 10451
          Telephone: (718) 838-7878

               - and -

          Juan Cartagena, Esq.
          Foster Maer, Esq.
          Roberto Concepcion, Esq.
          LATINOJUSTICE PRLDEF
          99 Hudson Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 219-3360

               - and -

          M. Chris Fabricant, Esq.
          360 Clinton Avenue, #3F
          Brooklyn, NY 11238
          Telephone: (917) 496-7859


CONMED HEALTH: Merger-Related Class Settlement Terminated
---------------------------------------------------------
A settlement resolving a stockholder lawsuit against Conmed
Healthcare Management, Inc. has been terminated following
termination of the Company's merger deal, the Company disclosed in
its March 2, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On July 15, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, captioned Noble Equity
Fund, LP v. Conmed Healthcare Management, Inc., et. al., Case No.:
02-C-11-162695, on behalf of a putative class of the Company's
stockholders and naming as defendants the Company, all members of
the Company's board of directors, Ayelet Investments LLC and
Ayelet Merger Subsidiary, Inc ("Merger Sub"). The plaintiffs
generally allege that, in connection with the approval of the
definitive Merger Agreement, dated July 11, 2011, by and among the
Company, Ayelet, Merger Sub, and James H. Desnick, MD, the members
of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties owed to the Company's stockholders and that Ayelet and
Merger Sub aided and abetted the members of the Company's board of
directors in the alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.  On
September 6, 2011, the Company and the other parties to the
lawsuit reached a proposed settlement, which was subject to a
number of conditions, including, consummation of the proposed
merger. Following termination of the proposed merger on November
16, 2011, the proposed settlement automatically terminated.

Headquartered in Hanover, Maryland, Conmed Healthcare Management,
Inc. -- http://www.conmedinc.com-- provides correctional
healthcare services to county and municipal detention centers in
the United States.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Settles Mortgage Class Action for $32.5 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thom Weidlich, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Deutsche
Bank AG, Germany's biggest lender, agreed to pay $32.5 million to
settle claims in U.S. litigation that it lied about the quality of
home loans underlying securities it sold.

The investors that sued, including the Massachusetts Bricklayers
and Masons Trust Funds, filed a motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement in federal court in Central Islip, New York, on
March 26.

"The proposed settlement will provide a substantial monetary
benefit to the settlement class," lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote
in the filing. U.S. District Judge Leonard D. Wexler must approve
the deal.

Pools of home loans securitized into bonds were a central part of
the housing bubble that, once burst, helped push the U.S. into the
biggest recession since the 1930s.  The market for mortgage-backed
securities peaked at $2.3 trillion in 2007.  Investors have filed
class-action, or group lawsuits against at least 16 private
issuers of securities backed by mortgages.

The banks have argued the housing collapse, rather than any
misrepresentation on their part, caused investor losses.
"We are pleased to have resolved this matter," Renee Calabro, a
spokeswoman for Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank, said in a telephone
interview.

                        Other Settlements

The Deutsche Bank settlement amount is less than two previously
announced agreements in cases brought by investors against banks.
Bank of American Corp. reached a $315 million settlement with a
group of investors who sued its Merrill Lynch unit claiming they
were misled about mortgage-backed securities, according to a
December court filing.

Wells Fargo & Co. agreed to settle litigation against it for $125
million two weeks before a scheduled class-certification hearing
in July.  That case concerned $27.3 billion of certificates sold
by the San Francisco-based bank.

In 2006, the plaintiffs bought from Deutsche Bank so-called pass-
through certificates that gave them the right to the payments on
the underlying home loans.  The offering documents contained
misstatements about loan underwriting standards, property
appraisals, loan-to-value ratios and credit ratings on the
certificates, according to the complaint.

At the same time Deutsche Bank was selling the securities, it was
profiting from credit-default swaps by wagering that loans like
those underlying the certificates would decline in value, the
investors said.

                         Principal Losses

More than 49 percent of the loans underlying one certificate
series were delinquent or foreclosed on, the investors said.  The
tranche the Massachusetts Bricklayers and Masons Trust Funds, the
lead plaintiff, bought "has already realized cumulative principal
losses," according to the complaint.

A sale when the suit was filed in 2008 would have netted between
70 and 80 cents on the dollar, according to the investors.

"The certificates are no longer marketable at prices anywhere near
the price paid," according to the complaint.

The case is Massachusetts Bricklayers and Masons Trust Funds v.
Deutsche Alt-A Securities Inc., 08-cv-3178, U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of New York (Central Islip).


DOMUS HOLDINGS: Hearing on Cendant Class Settlement Set for June
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider final approval of a settlement in a class
action lawsuit against Cendant Corporation and its subsidiary is
set for June, according to Domus Holdings Corp.'s March 2, 2012
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Domus Holdings is responsible for certain of Cendant's contingent
and other corporate liabilities.

In 2002, Frank K. Cooper Real Estate #1, Inc. filed a putative
class action against Cendant Corporation and Cendant's subsidiary,
Century 21 Real Estate Corporation.  The complaint alleges breach
of certain provisions of the Real Estate Franchise Agreement
entered into between Century 21 and the plaintiffs, breach of the
implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and breach of certain express and
implied fiduciary duties.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, that Cendant diverted money and resources from Century 21
franchisees and allotted them to NRT owned brokerages and
otherwise improperly charged expenses to marketing funds.  The New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, if applicable, provides for treble
damages, attorney's fees and costs as remedies for violation of
the Act.  On August 17, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs'
renewed motion to certify a class.  The certified class includes
Century 21 franchisees at any time between August 1, 1995 and
April 17, 2002 whose franchise agreements contain New Jersey
choice of law and venue provisions and who have not executed
releases releasing the claim (unless the release was a provision
of a franchise renewal agreement).  A case management order
entered on November 29, 2010 established, among other things, a
trial date of April 16, 2012.  All expert reports have been
produced and expert depositions have commenced.

As of January 24, 2012, Realogy Corporation, a subsidiary of the
Company, entered into a memorandum of understanding memorializing
the principal terms of a proposed settlement of this action.  The
structure of the proposed settlement involves both monetary and
non-monetary consideration as well as contributions from insurance
carriers.  The non-monetary consideration includes but is not
limited to waivers and modifications of certain fees and payments
of incentive fees.  On February 16, 2012, the parties executed a
Stipulation of Settlement finalizing the terms of the settlement
reflected in the memorandum of understanding.  The Stipulation of
Settlement and related settlement documents were submitted to the
Court on February 17th by the plaintiffs to obtain preliminary
approval.  The court granted preliminary approval on February
22nd.  Notice of the settlement will go to the class in the next
30 days.  A fairness hearing will be held on June 4, 2012 when the
court will determine whether to grant final approval of the
settlement.  Realogy has reserved for funding that would be
required beyond carrier contributions and that amount is reflected
in the Company's financial results for the year ended December 31,
2011.

This class action involves substantial, complex litigation.  Class
action litigation is inherently unpredictable and subject to
significant uncertainties.  If the proposed settlement is not
finalized and approved by the court, the resolution of this
litigation could result in substantial losses and there can be no
assurance that such resolution will not have a material adverse
effect on the Company's results of operations, financial condition
or liquidity.


DUKE ENERGY: Merger-Related Class Suits Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
A consolidated purported class action lawsuit filed in a state
court and a separate purported class action lawsuit filed in a
federal court challenging Duke Energy Corporation's merger with
Progress Energy, Inc., were dismissed in 2011, according to the
Company's March 2, 2012 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

During January and February 2011, Progress Energy and its
directors were named as defendants in 11 purported class action
lawsuits with 10 lawsuits brought in the Superior Court, Wake
County, N.C., and one lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, each in
connection with its merger with Duke Energy (the Company refers to
these lawsuits as the "actions").  The complaints in the actions
alleged, among other things, that the Merger Agreement was the
product of breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual
defendants, in that it allegedly did not provide for full and fair
value for Progress Energy's shareholders; that the Merger
Agreement contained coercive deal protection measures; and that
the Merger Agreement and the Merger were approved as a result,
allegedly, of improper self-dealing by certain defendants who
would receive certain alleged employment compensation benefits and
continued employment pursuant to the Merger Agreement.  The
complaints in the actions also alleged that Progress Energy aided
and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.  As relief, the plaintiffs in the actions sought,
among other things, to enjoin completion of the Merger.

Additionally, the complaint in the federal action was amended in
early April 2011 to include allegations that the defendants
violated federal securities laws in connection with statements
contained in the registration statement filed on Form S-4 by Duke
Energy related to the Merger (the Registration Statement).  On
March 31, 2011, counsel for the federal action plaintiff sent a
derivative demand letter to Mr. William D. Johnson, Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Progress Energy,
demanding that the Progress Energy board of directors desist from
moving forward with the Merger, make certain disclosures and
engage in an auction of the company.  Also on March 31, 2011, the
same counsel sent Mr. Johnson a substantially identical derivative
demand letter on behalf of two other purported Progress Energy
shareholders.

On April 13, 2011, counsel for the federal action plaintiff sent
another derivative demand letter to Mr. Johnson further demanding
that the Progress Energy board of directors desist from moving
forward with the Merger unless certain changes are made to the
Merger Agreement and additional disclosures are made.  Also on
April 13, 2011, the same counsel sent Mr. Johnson a substantially
identical derivative demand letter on behalf of two other
purported Progress Energy shareholders.

On April 25, 2011, the Progress Energy board of directors
established a special committee of disinterested directors to
conduct a review and evaluation of the allegations and legal
claims set forth in the derivative demand letters.  The special
committee investigated the allegations and legal claims and
determined there was no basis to pursue the claims.

By order dated June 17, 2011, the court consolidated the state
court cases.  On June 21, 2011, the plaintiffs in the state court
actions filed a verified consolidated amended complaint in the
consolidated state court actions alleging breach of fiduciary duty
by the individual defendants, and that Progress Energy aided and
abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty.  The verified consolidated amended complaint further alleged
that the Registration Statement and amendments filed on April 8,
April 25, and May 13, 2011, failed to disclose material facts,
giving rise to plaintiffs' claims.

On July 11, 2011, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and to allow its shareholders
to vote on the proposals required in connection with the Merger at
its special meeting of its shareholders, Progress Energy entered
into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs in the
consolidated state court actions and other named defendants to
settle the consolidated action and all related claims that were or
could have been asserted in other actions, subject to court
approval.  The details of the settlement were set forth in a
notice sent to Progress Energy's shareholders of record that were
members of the class as of July 5, 2011.

On November 29, 2011, the court entered a final order and judgment
approving the settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate and
awarded legal fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel of
$550,000.  The court dismissed the action with prejudice and
released and fully discharged all claims, including federal
claims, which had been or could be in the future asserted in the
action or in any court, tribunal or proceeding.  On December 8,
2011, the federal action was voluntarily dismissed.


DYNEX CAPITAL: Awaits Approval of Teamsters Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Dynex Capital, Inc., is awaiting final court approval of a
settlement reached in a class action lawsuit filed by a unit of
the Teamsters, according to the Company's March 2, 2012 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.

Dynex Capital, Inc., MERIT Securities Corporation, a subsidiary of
Dynex ("MERIT"), and the former President/Chief Executive Officer
and current Chief Operating Officer/Chief Financial Officer of
Dynex Capital, Inc., (together, the "Defendants") are defendants
in a class action brought by the Teamsters Local 445 Freight
Division Pension Fund (the "Teamsters") in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"District Court").  The original complaint alleging violations of
the federal securities laws was filed on February 7, 2005, and was
purportedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers between
February 2000 and May 2004 of MERIT Series 12-1 and MERIT Series
13 securitization financing bonds (the "Bonds"), which are
collateralized by manufactured housing loans.  After a series of
court rulings, the case proceeded to discovery on the basis of a
second amended complaint filed August 6, 2008.  The amended
complaint sought unspecified damages and alleged, among other
things, fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the
issuance of and subsequent reporting related to the Bonds.  On
March 7, 2011, the District Court granted the Teamsters' motion to
certify a class of purchasers of the Bonds from February 2000
through May 2004.  In September, 2011, the Defendants entered into
a memorandum of understanding with the Teamsters, reflecting an
agreement in principle to settle all claims asserted in the
action, as well as any claims that could have been asserted in the
action, for $7.5 million, and in December 2011, the Defendants and
the Teamsters entered into a definitive settlement agreement.  The
Company has funded an escrow account in the amount of $7.5 million
for the benefit of the class.  The escrow will be disbursed upon
final approval of the settlement by the District Court, and
satisfaction of any other conditions contained in the definitive
settlement agreement.  The Court was to consider final approval of
the settlement at a hearing scheduled for March 13, 2012.  The
Company continues to deny that it violated any federal securities
laws and has agreed in principle to this settlement solely to
eliminate the expense, burden, and uncertainty of the litigation.


E.C.G.: CPA Urges Electricity Consumers to Join Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Kofi Kapito, CEO of the Consumer Protection Agency, said in a
press statement on March 26 that "for some few years now,
customers of E.C.G, has experienced increase in tariffs, for as
high as 84%, however whenever this increases occur, we are told
that the supply will be very much improved."

"Unfortunately this is not what it seems to pertain at the moment.
It has become very obvious that businesses and individuals who
uses electricity have had their equipment and house hold
appliances destroyed by the erratic supply of electricity.

"The CPA is calling on all Electricity Consumers, who feels
'ENOUGH IS ENOUGH' of this poor services, to join the CPA which is
embarking upon a class action suit against the ECG.

"It was very unfortunate that after 50 years of our independence
to have lost three people at the Emergency Accident Unit at the
Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital because of the nationwide power
outage.

"To make the action effective, the CPA is urging all Electricity
consumers who have their names on meter bills or who represent the
house hold, to contact the CPA'S offices at 33 Farrah Avenue
Sikkens Building at Adabraka or call 0302255666 to sign the form."


EMERSON ELECTRIC: Sued Over False Claims on Ridgid Vacuums
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Emerson Electric's Ridgid
WD1450 brand Wet/Dry Vacuums do not really have 6 horsepower, as
advertised, a class action claims in St. Louis County Court.

A copy of Venhaus v. Emerson Electric Company, Case No. 1222-
CC01476 (Mo. Cir. Ct., City of St. Louis), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/29/Vacuum.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Campbell, Esq.
          Ryan Keane, Esq.
          Tim Cronin, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jcampbell@simonlawpc.com
                  rkeane@simonlawpc.com


FANNIE MAE: Owes Tax in 81 of Michigan Counties, Judge Finds
------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Gray, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that
Michigan's school aid fund could get a windfall of up to $100
million, and 82 of Michigan's 83 counties could collectively claim
millions more under a judge's ruling that mortgage giants Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac illegally withheld payments of transfer taxes
in property sales.

The federally backed mortgage companies had claimed they were
exempt from the tax, which amounts to $860 on every $100,000 of a
real estate sale.

Initial reports indicated that only the state and Oakland County,
which initiated the lawsuit, would benefit from U.S. District
Judge Victoria Roberts' ruling on March 23.

But in a separate class action, Judge Roberts found that Fannie
and Freddie owe the tax in 81 other Michigan counties.

"The state's share is going to be at least $50 million, and it
wouldn't surprise me if it was $100 million," said Bill Horton, an
attorney in both the Oakland case and the class action. "We're
pretty happy today."

Under Michigan's real estate transfer tax, real estate sellers pay
$8.60 for every $1,000 of sale price -- $1.10 going to the county
and $7.50 going to the state's school aid fund.

When the foreclosure crisis hit, Fannie and Freddie eventually
became owners of tens of thousands of homes in Michigan.  When
those homes sold, the mortgage companies, which are privately
owned but federally backed, didn't pay the tax, claiming they were
exempt as a quasi-governmental entity.

Judge Roberts disagreed in her rulings.

Each county -- except Oakland, which filed the original case, and
Macomb County, which opted out of the class action -- must review
its records to see what it is owed.

"This is the latest example of work the Attorney General's Office
does to protect taxpayers, who in this case were clearly
victimized," said Joy Yearout, spokeswoman for the Attorney
General's Office, which represented the state.

The ruling is expected to be appealed, Mr. Horton said.

Attorneys for Fannie and Freddie did not return phone calls for
comment on March 26, but Mr. Horton said, "No one involved in this
case was coy.  We all said that the loser would appeal."

Instead of joining the class action, Macomb chose to start
charging Fannie and Freddie the transfer tax in September.

The mortgage companies did so "under protest," which preserves
their right to sue the county to recoup those funds, which totaled
more than $155,000 from September through Feb. 29.

Macomb officials said they will bill the companies for unpaid
transfer taxes back to 2006.

"We decided to take the more conservative route and not have to
pay any legal fees," said Macomb County Clerk Carmella Sabaugh.
"If regular people selling their homes have to pay the tax, then
these mortgage companies should have to pay, too.

"We look like we'll collect more than $100,000 a year."

The $155,886 already collected in Macomb translates into a $1.2-
million share for the state.

Oakland County Treasurer Andy Meisner said he hopes the county's
share of the transfer taxes can be used to demolish blighted homes
and hire housing counselors to help families avoid foreclosure.

"We just want to help make the taxpayers whole," he said.


GOV'T OF ALBERTA: Faces Foster Care Class Action
------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a massive lawsuit claiming the Alberta
government failed to take legal action or seek compensation on
behalf of children in its care is moving towards trial.

The suit claims the province failed to apply for victims-of-crime
compensation or file personal injury claims for children abused
prior to or while in the care of Alberta Child Welfare.

A very preliminary estimate of the unresolved claims has been set
as high as C$890 million.

The suit includes children who were placed in provincial care from
July 1, 1966 to Feb. 19, 2008.

"They didn't protect me," said one woman who spoke to CBC News,
but cannot be named.  "So while they're protecting themselves now,
they should have protected me."

The woman was sexually abused by her foster-mother's boyfriend,
Thomas Svekla, who's now a convicted murderer, when she was five-
years-old.

"It hurts," she said.  "It hurts that it's my government that's
not doing anything for me and really not caring."

The woman is now suing Ms. Svekla, her former foster mother and
the Province of Alberta for C$2.5 million in a separate suit.

The province was the woman's legal guardian and should have taken
legal action for her, said Edmonton lawyer Robert Lee.

"They should have applied for crimes compensation for her," he
said.  "At a minimum they should have told her grandmother that
that needed to be done."

"They didn't do any of those things," he said.  "Pure negligence;
pure incompetence."

Mr. Lee believes more than half of all children in care over the
last five decades are in the same boat and are eligible to join
the class action lawsuit.

Lawyers in Calgary and Edmonton are urging victims to come
forward.

"There's been advertisements in the papers now," said Mr. Lee.
"That's for people to be aware of the class action for this
failure to sue for these kids."

All children who suffered personal injury while in provincial care
are automatically included in the lawsuit and must ask to be left
out if they do not want to be part of the lawsuit.

"If they don't want to be in the class action, if they don't want
to be part of any lawsuit, they can opt out."

The government won't comment while the case is before the courts,
where it's expected to be for a number of years yet.

"We just have to keep fighting for something that we know is
right," said the woman abused by her mother's boyfriend.  "And
just keep doing it no matter how long it's taking."

"We just have to keep fighting for something we know we should win
and hopefully we will."


HSBC FINANCE: Mediation Ongoing in Antitrust MDL in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation is ongoing in In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y.,
according to HSBC Finance Corporation's February 27, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

Since June 2005, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC North America, and
HSBC, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. and Master Card
Incorporated, have been named as defendants in four class actions
filed in Connecticut and the Eastern District of New York; Photos
Etc. Corp. et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al. (D. Conn. No. 05-
CV-01007 (WWE)): National Association of Convenience Stores, et
al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.(E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV 4520 (JG));
Jethro Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al.
(E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-4521 (JG)); and American Booksellers Ass'n v.
Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-5391 (JG)). Numerous
other complaints containing similar allegations (in which no HSBC
entity is named) were filed across the country against Visa Inc.,
MasterCard Incorporated and other banks. These actions principally
allege that the imposition of a no-surcharge rule by the
associations and/or the establishment of the interchange fee
charged for credit card transactions causes the merchant discount
fee paid by retailers to be set at supracompetitive levels in
violation of the Federal antitrust laws.  These suits have been
consolidated and transferred to the Eastern District of New York.
The consolidated case is: In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. ("MDL
1720"). A consolidated, amended complaint was filed by the
plaintiffs on April 24, 2006 and a second consolidated amended
complaint was filed on January 29, 2009.

On February 7, 2011, MasterCard Incorporated, Visa Inc., the other
defendants, including HSBC Finance Corporation, and certain
affiliates of the defendants entered into settlement and judgment
sharing agreements (the "Agreements") that provide for the
apportionment of certain defined costs and liabilities that the
defendants, including HSBC Finance Corporation and its affiliates,
may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse
judgment or global settlement of one or all of these actions. The
Agreements also cover any other potential or future actions that
are transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings with MDL
1720.

While the Company continues to believe that it has substantial
meritorious defenses to the claims in the action, the parties are
engaged in a mediation process at the direction of the District
Court.  Based on progress to date in mediation, the Company
increased its litigation reserves in the fourth quarter of 2011 to
an amount equal to its estimated portion of a potential settlement
of the matter.


HSBC FINANCE: Continues to Defend Debt Cancellation Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance Corporation continues to defend itself from lawsuits
in connection with its marketing, selling and administering of
debt cancellation and suspension products to consumers, according
to the Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

Between July 2010 and May 2011, eight substantially similar
putative class actions were filed against the Company's
subsidiaries, HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. and HSBC Card Services Inc.:
Rizera et al v. HSBC Bank Nevada et al. (D.N.J. No. 10-CV-03375);
Esslinger et al v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al. (E.D. Pa. No. 10-
CV-03213); McAlister et al. v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al. (W.D.
Wash. No. 10-CV-05831); Mitchell v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al.
(D. Md. No. 10-CV-03232); Samuels v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al.
(N.D. III. No. 11-CV-00548); McKinney v. HSBC Card Services et al.
(S.D. III. No. 10-CV-00786); Chastain v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A.
(South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, 13th Circuit) (filed as a
counterclaim to a pending collections action); Colton et al. v.
HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al. (C.D. Ca. No. 11-CV-03742). These
actions principally allege that cardholders were enrolled in debt
cancellation or suspension products and challenge various
marketing or administrative practices relating to those products.
The plaintiffs' claims include breach of contract and the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, unjust
enrichment, and violations of state consumer protection and
deceptive acts and practices statutes. The Mitchell action was
withdrawn by the plaintiff in March 2011. In July 2011, the
parties in Rizera, Esslinger, McAlister, Samuels, McKinney and
Colton executed a memorandum of settlement and filed notices of
settlement of all claims in each respective court. The parties
have memorialized the terms and conditions of the settlement in a
formal agreement, and submitted the settlement on a consolidated
basis for approval by the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On February 23, 2012, the
District Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and
scheduled the final approval hearing for October 1, 2012. The
Company is adequately reserved for the proposed settlement.  A
motion for class certification and a motion to defer consideration
of class certification pending completion of the settlement were
recently heard in the Chastain action.  The motion to defer was
granted and the case placed on stay pending progression of the
consolidated settlement.

In October 2011, the Attorney General for the State of West
Virginia filed a purported class action in the Circuit Court of
Mason County, West Virginia, captioned State of West Virginia ex
rel. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr. et al v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al.
(No. 11-C-93-N), alleging similar claims in connection with the
marketing, selling and administering of debt cancellation and
suspension products to consumers in West Virginia.  In addition to
damages, the Attorney General is seeking civil money penalties and
injunctive relief.  The action was removed to Federal Court and
the Attorney General's motion to remand is pending.  The Company
has received a similar inquiry from another state's Attorney
General, although no action has yet been filed.


HSBC FINANCE: Expects a Final Ruling in Securities Suit Soon
------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance Corporation anticipates an Illinois trial court to
enter a final judgment in a securities class suit against its
predecessor company at some point after April 12, according to the
Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

As a result of an August 2002 restatement of previously reported
consolidated financial statements and other corporate events,
including the 2002 settlement with 46 states and the District of
Columbia relating to real estate lending practices, Household
International, the predecessor of the Company and certain former
officers were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit, Jaffe
v. Household International, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill. No. 02 C5893),
filed August 19, 2002. The complaint asserted claims under Section
10 and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on
behalf of all persons who acquired and disposed of Household
International common stock between July 30, 1999 and October 11,
2002. The claims alleged that the defendants knowingly or
recklessly made false and misleading statements of material fact
relating to Household's Consumer Lending operations, including
collections, sales and lending practices, some of which ultimately
led to the 2002 state settlement agreement, and facts relating to
accounting practices evidenced by the restatement. A jury trial
concluded on April 30, 2009, and the jury rendered a verdict on
May 7 partially in favor of the plaintiffs with respect to
Household International and three former officers. A second phase
of the case was to proceed to determine the actual damages, if
any, due to the plaintiff class and issues of reliance. On
November 22, 2010, the Court issued a ruling on the second phase
of the case. On the issue of reliance, the Court ruled that claim
forms would be mailed to class members and that class members who
file claims would be asked to check a "YES" or "NO" box to a
question that asks whether they would have purchased Household
stock had they known false and misleading statements inflated the
stock price. As for damages, the Court set out a method for
calculating damages for class members who file claims. As
previously reported, in Court filings in March 2010, plaintiff's
lawyers have estimated that damages could range 'somewhere between
$2.4 billion to $3.2 billion to class members', before pre-
judgment interest. The defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration from the Court's November 22 ruling. On January
14, 2011, the Court partially granted that motion, slightly
modifying the claim form, allowing defendants to take limited
discovery on the issue of reliance and reserving on the issue
whether the defendants would ultimately be entitled to a jury
trial on the issues of reliance and damages. On January 31, 2011
and April 7, 2011, the Court issued other rulings clarifying the
scope of discovery. Plaintiffs mailed the claim forms with the
modified language to class members.

On December 22, 2011, plaintiffs submitted the report of the
Court-appointed claims administrator to the Court.  That report
stated that the total number of claims that generated an allowed
loss was 45,921, and that the aggregate amount of these claims was
approximately $2.23 billion. Now that the claims administration
process is complete, plaintiffs are expected to ask the Court to
assess pre-judgment interest to be included as part of the Court's
final judgment.

On January 27, 2012, the Court held a status conference at which
it set a schedule for the Company to provide plaintiffs with
objections to the claims and for plaintiffs to respond to such
objections.  The Court also indicated at that conference that it
expects to schedule a further conference in April 2012.  The
Company expects the Court's final judgment to be entered at some
point after that April 2012 conference.

The timing and outcome of the ultimate resolution of the matter is
uncertain. When a final judgment is entered by the District Court,
the parties have 30 days in which to appeal the verdict to the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Company continues to
believe that it has meritorious grounds for appeal of one or more
of the rulings in the case and intend to appeal the Court's final
judgment, which could involve a substantial amount once it is


JPMORGAN CHASE: Force-Placed Insurance Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that former
customers of JPMorgan Chase can pursue a class action challenging
overpriced, "force-placed" hazard insurance policies that the
banking giant forced on certain borrowers, a federal judge ruled.

The ability to force-place hazard insurance is a typical clause in
most mortgage loan contracts, as it is considered a method of
protecting the lender's interest in the secured property.

However, the plaintiffs charge that Chase purchases force-placed
insurance (FPI) "from insurers that provide a financial benefit to
defendants and/or their affiliates and at rates that far exceed
borrower-purchased hazard insurance (while providing substantially
less coverage)."

Lead plaintiffs Patricia McNearny-Calloway, Colin MacKinnon,
Terrie MacKinnon, Andrea North and Sheila Mayko also allege that
Chase backdates the FPI policies to collect premiums for periods
that have already passed and duplicates coverage by purchasing FPI
policies immediately following the termination of the homeowners'
coverage, even though the bank is temporarily protected under
Lender's Loss Payable Endorsement language under homeowner
policies.

Ms. McNearny-Calloway claims that after her husband died and
financial difficulties forced her to stop paying the $1,640 annual
premium for hazard insurance in August 2009, JPMorgan Chase
purchased a policy in January 2010, backdated to August, with an
annual premium of $4,233 and charged the policy to her escrow
account.  Chase's policy provided less coverage than her own
policy, according to the plaintiff.

The bank then automatically renewed Ms. McNearny-Calloway's policy
at the same rate on August 26, 2010.  She purchased her own
policy, for $1,103 on September 1.  Chase cancelled its FPI
policy, "but charged her escrow account for retroactive coverage
for the period extending from August 26, 2010 to September 1,
2010," according to the complaint.

After plaintiff Andrea North's $1,084 policy was cancelled for
non-payment after she became seriously ill in 2009, Chase
purchased a backdated policy for $5,377 in December 2009 and then
renewed the policy at the same rate six months later.  Ms. North
obtained her own insurance coverage after that renewal notice for
$1,134, and claims that the bank has never refunded the charges
for the FPI policy.

All plaintiffs state that there were no damages or losses at any
of their properties from the time their own policies lapsed and
Chase procured backdated policies for them, according to US
Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero's ruling.

In the class action, the plaintiffs claim that JPMorgan Chase
violated RESPA's prohibition on accepting kickbacks, breached
contracts with the plaintiffs, engaged in unlawful business
practices under California law and violated New Jersey's Consumer
Fraud Act.  Plaintiff Mayko is a New Jersey resident.

Judge Spero dismissed the plaintiffs' RESPA claim, ruling that
they failed to state a claim.  "Because RESPA covers only the
provision of services 'in connection with' the closing of a loan,
the court cannot conclude that providing hazard insurance years
after settlement qualifies as a settlement service," Judge Spero
said.

The plaintiffs do succeed in stating their breach of contract and
breach of implied covenant claims, the magistrate said.

"Broad discretion is not unlimited discretion.  Nothing in the
contract necessarily authorizes charges regardless of amount and
regardless of whether defendants receive a portion of the
premiums.  Nor does anything in the contract authorize backdating
FPI policies to cover periods of time where no loss occurred.
Because the court cannot say that the contracts' terms
unambiguously authorize defendants' alleged behavior, the court
denies defendants' motion to dismiss the California plaintiffs'
breach of contract claim," Judge Spero wrote.

New Jersey plaintiff Ms. Mayko, though her contract contains
slightly different wording than the California plaintiffs, may
proceed with her breach claims on the same grounds, Judge Spero
said.

While the plaintiffs fail to state unlawful business practices
under the unlawful and fraudulent prongs of the statute, Judge
Spero ruled that the unfair prong could not be ruled out at this
stage.

"Plaintiffs allege that Defendants unfairly force-placed
exorbitantly priced hazard insurance on their property and
backdated the policy despite no damage to the property or claims
arising out of the property during the backdated period.  This
practice was disadvantageous to Plaintiffs and unsupported by any
apparent reason other than the fact that Defendants stood to
benefit financially from the high-priced, backdated policy.
Moreover, Defendants' arrangement with ASIC resulted in financial
gains to Defendants, at Plaintiffs' expense, and created
incentives for Defendants to seek policies with the highest
premiums.  The Court cannot say that this allegation fails as a
matter of law," he wrote.

Ms. Mayko's claim under New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) can
also move forward, Judge Spero said.

"The allegations of the scheme, and its profitability for
Defendants, is sufficient to plead an intent by Defendants to
conceal its FPI practice.  The Court concludes that these
allegations are sufficient to meet the pleading requirements of
Rule 9(b) and adequately plead an "unlawful practice" under the
CFA," he wrote.

The plaintiffs also stated valid claims for restitution in the
complaint, but claims for injunctive and declaratory relief will
have to satisfy the legal standard later in the proceedings,
Judge Spero said.  The plaintiffs have 30 days to file an amended
complaint to address the RESPA inadequacies, the magistrate said.

A copy of the Order Granting in Part an Denying in Part
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in McNeary-Calloway, et al. v. JP
Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 11-cv-03058 (N.D.
Calif.), is available at http://is.gd/OBS7Tp


LIVE NATION: Granted Summary Judgment in Antitrust Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. was recently granted summary
judgment in the first two cases that are part of the Live Concert
Antitrust Litigation, a set of class action lawsuits originally
commenced in 2002 and later consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.  While the order
relates specifically to those two cases, Live Nation fully
anticipates that the result ultimately will be applied to the
remaining cases as well, effectively ending the litigation.

"We are extremely pleased with the judge's ruling in these cases,
which validates our long-standing belief that they are without
merit," said Michael Rapino, Chief Executive Officer of Live
Nation Entertainment.  "We've spent a considerable amount of time
and money to prove that we're right in this litigation.  We
refused to be held hostage by frivolous class action lawsuits, and
now we've been vindicated.  At this point, we're looking forward
to putting these lawsuits behind us and continuing to focus on
innovating the live music experience for artists and fans."

The allegations in the complaints relate exclusively to the period
from 2001 to 2005, during which much of the business that is now
Live Nation Entertainment was then the live entertainment division
of Clear Channel Communications.  In issuing summary judgment in
the Los Angeles and Denver cases, the court invalidated key
elements of the plaintiffs' expert testimony, effectively
rejecting allegations that Live Nation had harmed consumers or
engaged in anti-competitive behavior.  The full text of the order
can be found at http://www.wsgr.com/PDFs/clearchannel.pdf

                 About Live Nation Entertainment

Live Nation Entertainment -- http://www.livenation.com-- is a
live entertainment and ecommerce company, comprised of:
Ticketmaster.com, Live Nation Concerts, Front Line Management
Group and Live Nation Network.


MERRILL LYNCH: Judge Dismisses Black Brokers' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Abigail Rubenstein, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois
federal judge on March 27 tossed a putative class action brought
by black Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. financial advisers who claimed
that Bank of America Corp. paid them smaller retention bonuses
than their white counterparts after the companies merged.

Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois dismissed the suit, saying the
plaintiffs failed to prove the bonus system was established with
discriminatory intent.


METABOLIX INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP has filed a securities class action on behalf
of investors who purchased Metabolix, Inc. stock during the period
March 10, 2010 through January 12, 2012.  The lawsuit, captioned
Coyne v. Metabolix, Inc., et al.,1:12-cv-10318-DPW is pending in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC.  The complaint asserts that Metabolix, its
Chief Executive and its Financial Officers made materially false
and misleading statements during the Class Period regarding the
Company's prospects and success of its Telles joint venture with
Archer Daniels Midland ("AMD").

More specifically, the lawsuit charges that Defendants withheld
from investors, and misled them, as to the truth regarding the
continuing commercial viability of the Telles joint venture
project.  Metabolix's stock price plummeted on January 13, 2012 by
57% after it was revealed that ADM was withdrawing from the joint
venture because the project was "not delivering sufficient results
now or [is] not expected to deliver sufficient results within a
reasonable time frame."

If you purchased Metabolix shares during the Class Period, you
may, no later than April 17, 2012, request that the court appoint
you as Lead Plaintiff.  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 LLP -- http://www.blockesq.com-- is a Boston-
based law firm representing investors nationwide,

        Contacts: Whitney E. Street, Esq.
                  Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
                  Telephone: 617-398-5600
                  E-mail: Jeff@blockesq.com
                          Whitney@blockesq.com


NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Faces Concussion-Related Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
NFL.com reports that former Washington Redskins quarterback Mark
Rypien, winner of Super Bowl XXVI, is the lead plaintiff in the
latest class-action lawsuit against the NFL that alleges long-term
health damage from repeated head injuries.

The suit was filed March 23 in the U.S. District Court of the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to The Washington
Post.  Mr. Rypien is one of 127 former players in what is the
latest in a rising number of concussion-related class-action suits
against the league.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has said repeatedly that his goal
is to lower the risk of head injuries in the league. He has handed
out hefty fines and suspended players for helmet-to-helmet hits
over the last several seasons.

In addition to changing rules to further protect quarterbacks and
wide receivers, the NFL last season moved kickoffs up to the 35-
yard line, which led to more touchbacks and decreased the number
of concussions by 40 percent, the league said last week.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Continues to Defend Hour & Wage Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus, Inc., continues to defend itself from an hour and
wage class action lawsuit pending in a California federal court,
according to the Company's March 2, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 28, 2012.

On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and
Equitable Relief was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California by Sheila Monjazeb,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, against the Company, Newton Holding, LLC, TPG
Capital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus, LLC.  On July 12, 2010, all
defendants except for the Company were dismissed without
prejudice, and on August 20, 2010, this case was refiled in the
Superior Court of California for San Francisco County.  This
complaint, along with a similar class action lawsuit originally
filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007, alleges that the Company
has engaged in various violations of the California Labor Code and
Business and Professions Code, including without limitation 1)
asking employees to work "off the clock," 2) failing to provide
meal and rest breaks to its employees, 3) improperly calculating
deductions on paychecks delivered to its employees, and 4) failing
to provide a chair or allow employees to sit during shifts.  On
October 24, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion to compel
Ms. Monjazeb and a co-plaintiff to participate in the Company's
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, foreclosing a class action in
that case.  The court then determined that Ms. Tanguilig could not
represent employees who are subject to the Company's Mandatory
Arbitration Agreement, thereby limiting the putative class action
to those associates who were employed between December 2004 and
July 15, 2007 (the effective date of the Company's Mandatory
Arbitration Agreement).  Ms. Monjazeb filed a demand for
arbitration as a class action, which is prohibited under the
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement.  In response to Ms. Monjazeb's
demand for arbitration as a class action, the American Arbitration
Association (AAA) referred the resolution of such request back to
the arbitrator.  The Company is in the process of filing a motion
to stay the decision of the AAA pending a ruling by the trial
court.  The Company intends to continue vigorously defending its
interests in these matters.  Currently, the Company cannot
reasonably estimate the amount of loss, if any, arising from these
matters.  The Company will continue to evaluate these matters
based on subsequent events, new information and future
circumstances.


NRG ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit vs. Unit
------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. is awaiting a court ruling on a motion to dismiss
a class action lawsuit filed against its subsidiary, 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 18, 2011, plaintiff filed a purported class action
lawsuit, captioned Wise v. Energy Plus Holdings, LLC, on behalf of
New York consumers against the Company's subsidiary, Energy Plus
Holdings LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.  Claiming statutory damages in excess of $5 million,
the plaintiff alleges violations of New York business laws as well
as unjust enrichment.  Specifically, the plaintiff claims that
Energy Plus misrepresents that its rates are competitive in the
market;  fails to disclose that its rates are substantially higher
than those in the market and that Energy Plus has engaged in
deceptive practices in its marketing of energy services.
Plaintiff seeks that this matter be certified as a class action,
with treble damages, interest, costs, attorneys fees, and any
other relief that the court deems just and proper.  On January 11,
2012, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which they added
another co-plaintiff, made additional claims as to how they became
customers of Energy Plus and made some additional allegations as
to alleged representations on the Energy Plus Web site.

On February 1, 2012, Energy Plus filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was
scheduled to be heard on March 23, 2012.


PATH INC: Faces Class Action Over Mobile Apps Privacy Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that a man
claims in a federal class action that the Path social networking
app for mobile phones spies on customers, gleans sensitive data
such as his location and contact information about their minor
children, and stores it so insecurely that it's accessible to
"even an unsophisticated hacker."

Oscar Hernandez, of Texas, claims that Path Inc. "gained access
to, and use of, plaintiff's and class members' mobile devices,
without authorization and consent, to obtain and store contact
address data, including personally identifiable information of
minor children that was within the contact address book, bypassing
the technical and code-based barriers intended to limit access, in
addition to bypassing plaintiff's and class members' privacy
settings, including offsite social network settings."

Path "individually and in concert with Path Affiliates, has been
systematically engaged in and facilitated a covert operation of
surveillance of class members in violation of the following, to
wit: 1) Violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act;
2) Violations of California Computer Crime Law; 3) Violations of
California's Invasion of Privacy Act; 4) Violations of California
Unfair Competition Law; 5) Violations of California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act; 6) Violations of California Customer Records Act; 7)
Invasion of Privacy and Seclusion and Public Disclosure of Private
Facts; 8) Conversion; 9) Trespass to Personal Property/Chattels;
and 10) Unjust enrichment," the complaint states.

Mr. Hernandez says he used the Path app to upload and share
digital photos, audio and video, to visit other social network
sites and to interact with people both in and outside of his
address book.

Path describes its app in the iTunes App Store as "the smart
journal that helps you share life with the ones you love - your
thoughts, the music you're listening to, where you are, who you're
with, when you wake and when you sleep."  The app allows users to
interact on public networks such Twitter, Foursquare and Facebook.

Mr. Hernandez claims that Path's intent behind its app is to
"provide a platform which permitted uploads of digital content to
allow a 'GPS filtering process.'  This process includes, but is
not limited to, digital content geo-tagging to correlate such with
users' content, including contact address book data, for mobile
tracking of online social network 'interactions' with contacts, a
tracking mechanism referred to herein as 'filter cookies.'

"While Path's practices include the unauthorized interception,
use, and storage of contact address data, a review of Path's
provisional patent application reveals a higher level of tracking
than that carried out by other apps.  Path's 'uncommon practices'
include tracking its users' interactions with users' contacts in
online social networks, correlating the user's contact address
data with digital media content that has been altered
('fingerprinted') to include exact GPS latitude and longitude
coordinates, as revealed in its tracking protocol," according to
the complaint.

Mr. Hernandez claims that while Path's business model is different
from other social networking sites, the company's business plan is
the same: Provide a nominal service to attract users in order to
collect and sell user data.

"The dilemma for app developers is how to obtain substantial
amounts of user data without a user's knowledge," the complaint
states.

"It is well known that users who are asked to opt-in to provide
personal info will not agree to such due to privacy concerns. Such
hesitation will ultimately cause users not to provide data, which
will terminate VC [venture capitalist] funding, and then the apps
would cease to exist," according to the complaint.

Mr. Hernandez claims Path's app design "is a simple but quite
effective way to provide the mechanisms required for substantial
user data collection, precise tracking of the user, and an ability
to 'turn on' the device for data collection and monitoring without
the user's involvement.  Path's ability to have continuous network
access to the users' device is marketed to the public as a service
to notify users' friends if the user is asleep or awake by the
use/non-use of the mobile device."

While most social networking apps mine data about contacts, they
do so by using a "Find Friends" pop-up after the user initiates an
action within the app, Mr. Hernandez says.  But he claims that
Path obtains "contact address data immediately after the app was
downloaded, without any user activity.

Mr. Hernandez claims that Path's membership has grown quickly,
expanding by 1 million people in two months at the end of 2011.
He claims there was no explanation for this growth until a
researcher discovered that the company was uploading its users'
entire contact address book to its servers, without the users'
knowledge or permission.

This violates Apple's iOS Developer Agreement, which states that
apps cannot transmit data about a user without prior permission
and without providing the user detailed information about how and
where the data will be used, according to the complaint.

Mr. Hernandez says that Path apologized to its users when the
researcher's information became public, and promised to delete all
user information it had gathered and to update the app to require
users to opt in or out of sharing their address books with Path.

"Path's storage of user data was vital to its immediate and
continued growth, since it did not want to delay building its
platform slowly while prospective users spent time locating the
app, experimenting with its functions to determine if they would
remain a user, and prompting its users to assist in referring
users' contacts," the complaint states.

But Mr. Hernandez says Path's deletion of user data from its own
servers is only part of the problem.  He claims that Path has
hidden tracking devices within users' digital content, which was
downloaded onto their mobile devices and computers.

"Like a toxic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico causing loss and
damage to the area residents, embedded 'toxic filter cookies' now
require a 'toxic filter cookie cleanup,'" Mr. Hernandez says.

He claims class members' digital content files "are personal
property that cannot be replicated.  Plaintiff and class members
cannot delete the tracking mechanism now contained within the
photos merely by selecting a browser cleaner like that used to
clean cookies.  . . . Plaintiff and class members demand that
defendant return the digital content within their mobile devices
and computing devices to the state that existed prior to any and
all activity implemented by Path and Path Affiliates, including
but not limited to removal of all GPS coordinates attached to
their digital content."

Mr. Hernandez says the class will have to hire a computer
forensics service to go through every byte of data looking for
traces of Path's tracking mechanisms.  Costs for the service range
from $50 to $850 for a mobile phone, $150 to $1,500 for a tablet,
and up to $12,250 for a computer, according to the complaint.

"Defendant's business practices unfairly wrest control from
plaintiff and class members who choose to block and delete any
mobile tracking device on their mobile devices in order to avoid
being tracked.  Plaintiff and class members who are aware of being
tracked may attempt to delete any and all tracking devices
periodically, believing that this will eliminate the tracking
functions and hinder the ability to track their behavior across
sites and apps," the complaint states.  "However, this is not the
case.  Path's activities, individually and in concert with third
parties including Path Affiliates, override this attempt, with
little available redress for users.

"Defendant failed to disclose that it applied technologies to
surreptitiously intercept, access, and collect electronic
communications and information from an unsuspecting plaintiff and
class members, nor its tracking of plaintiff's and class members'
interactions with individuals within their contact address books,
thereby obtaining personally identifiable information, monitoring
their internet activity, and creating detailed personal profiles
based on such information."

Mr. Hernandez claims that Path "has obtained, compiled, and used
this personal information for its own commercial purposes and
benefit," and that "(s)uch conduct constitutes a highly offensive
and dangerous invasion of plaintiff's and class members' privacy."

Mr. Hernandez seeks class certification, a permanent injunction
prohibiting the unlawful activities described in the complaint,
disgorgement, damages and restitution.

A copy of the Complaint in Hernandez v. Path, Inc., Case No. 12-
cv-01515 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/29/Path.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Brian R. Strange, Esq.
         STRANGE & CARPENTER
         12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Telephone: (310) 207-5055
         E-mail: lacounsel@earthlink.net

              - and -

         Joseph H. Malley, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY
         1045 North Zang Boulevard
         Dallas, TX 75208
         E-mail: malleylaw@gmail.com


PETROHAWK ENERGY: Awaits Final OK of Merger-Related Suits Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Petrohawk Energy Corporation is awaiting court approval of its
stipulation settling merger-related class action lawsuits,
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 July 14, 2011, the Company entered into an agreement and plan
of merger (Merger Agreement) with BHP Billiton Limited
(Guarantor), BHP Billiton Petroleum (North America) Inc. (Parent),
a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Guarantor,
and North America Holdings II Inc., a Delaware corporation
(Purchaser) and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.  Pursuant to
the Merger Agreement, on August 20, 2011, Purchaser accepted for
payment all of the outstanding shares of the Company's common
stock, par value $0.001 per share, validly tendered and not
validly withdrawn pursuant to the tender offer for $38.75 per
share, net to the seller in cash.  Additionally, and pursuant to
the Merger Agreement, on August 25, 2011, Purchaser merged with
and into Petrohawk, with Petrohawk continuing as the surviving
corporation in the merger and as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent (the BHP Merger).

Subsequent to its execution of the Merger Agreement, the Company
and the members of its board prior to the BHP Merger were named as
defendants in purported class action lawsuits brought by the
Company's stockholders challenging the proposed transaction (the
Stockholder Actions).  The Stockholder Actions were filed in: the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Astor BK Realty Trust
v. Petrohawk Energy Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6675-CS, Grossman v.
Petrohawk Energy Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6688-CS, Marina
Gincherman, IRA v. Petrohawk Energy Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6700,
and Binkowski v. Petrohawk Energy Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6706; in
the District of Harris County, Texas, Iron Workers District
Counsel of Tennessee Valley & Vicinity Pension Plan v. Petrohawk
Energy Corp., et al., C.A. No. 42124, Iron Workers Mid-South
Pension Fund v. Petrohawk Energy Corp., et al., C.A. No. 42590,
and L.A. Murphy v. Wilson, et al., C.A. No. 42772; and in United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Rob
Barrett v. Floyd C. Wilson, et al., C.A. No. 4:11-cv-02852.  The
Stockholder Actions seek certification of a class of the Company's
former stockholders and generally allege, among other things,
that: (i) each member of the board prior to the BHP Merger
breached his fiduciary duties in connection with the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement by failing to maximize
stockholder value, agreeing to preclusive deal protection
provisions, and failing to protect against conflicts of interest;
(ii) the Company aided and abetted the Company's directors'
purported breaches of their fiduciary duties; and/or (iii) the
Guarantor, Parent and Purchaser parties aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duties by the Company's directors.
The Stockholder Actions seek, among other relief, rescission of
the consummated transactions, damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

Barrett has been settled and dismissed by the Southern District of
Texas with prejudice.  Guarantor agreed to pay $125,000 to
Plaintiff's counsel for the attorney's fees and expenses incurred.
On August 11, 2011, the parties to the Stockholder Actions entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding wherein the Defendants
acknowledged that the Stockholder Actions were a causal factor
leading to the issuance of certain supplemental disclosures
included in the Company's supplemental form 14D-9, filed on August
10, 2011.  The parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement of
Compromise, Settlement, and Release ("Stipulation"), dated
November 30, 2011, that provides that, subject to court approval,
the Stockholder Actions shall be dismissed on the merits with
prejudice.  The Stipulation further includes an agreement to pay,
subject to court approval, $775,000 to Plaintiffs' counsel for
their attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.  On December
30, 2011, the court preliminarily approved the Stipulation.

The court had scheduled a settlement hearing for March 19, 2012,
in part to determine whether the court should grant final approval
of the Stipulation.


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Bid to Dismiss Georgia Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. is awaiting a ruling on its and
other defendants' motion to dismiss a third amended complaint of a
securities class action lawsuit filed in Georgia, 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 25, 2007, the same stockholder that filed a securities
class action lawsuit against the Company in Maryland filed a
second purported class action in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia against Piedmont and its
board of directors.  The lawsuit is captioned In Re Piedmont
Office Realty Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:07-cv-02660-CAP.  The complaint attempts to assert class action
claims on behalf of (i) those persons who were entitled to tender
their shares pursuant to the tender offer filed with the SEC by
Lex-Win Acquisition LLC, a former stockholder, on May 25, 2007,
and (ii) all persons who are entitled to vote on the proxy
statement filed with the SEC on October 16, 2007.

As subsequently amended and dismissed in part, the complaint
alleges, among other things, violations of the federal securities
laws, including Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act and
Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) promulgated thereunder based upon
allegations regarding (i) the failure to disclose certain
information in the Company's amended response to the Lex-Win
tender offer and (ii) purported misstatements or omissions in the
Company's proxy statement concerning then-existing market
conditions, the alternatives to a listing or extension that were
explored by the defendants, the results of conversations with
potential buyers as to the Company's valuation, and certain
details of its share redemption program.

On June 10, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on March 10, 2010.  Defendants sought and received
permission from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal
the class certification order on an interlocutory basis.  On April
11, 2011, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the
district court's order certifying a class and remanded the case to
the district court for further proceedings.

On October 21, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint.  The plaintiffs filed their response in
opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on November 15,
2011.  The defendants filed their reply in support of their motion
to dismiss on December 9, 2011.  The defendants' motion to dismiss
is currently pending before the court.

Discovery is currently stayed pending resolution of the
defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Company believes that plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit, and it will continue to vigorously defend this action.  Due
to the uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, the
Company's assessment of the merits of the claim notwithstanding,
the risk of material financial loss does exist.


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Md. Securities Suit Removed From Court Calendar
----------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit pending in Maryland has been
removed from the court's trial calendar pending resolution of a
request for interlocutory appellate review of certain legal
rulings made by the court, Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc.
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 March 12, 2007, a stockholder filed a class action and
derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland against, among others, Piedmont, Piedmont's
previous advisors, and certain officers and directors of Piedmont.
Upon motion by the defendants, the case was transferred to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
on April 17, 2007.  The lawsuit is captioned In Re Wells Real
Estate Investment Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action
No. 1:07-cv-00862-CAP.

As subsequently amended and dismissed in part, the complaint
alleges violations of Section 14(a), including Rule 14a-9
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), based upon allegations that
the proxy statement for Piedmont's 2007 internalization
transaction (the "Internalization") contains false and misleading
statements or omits to state material facts.  On February 9, 2011,
the plaintiff dismissed its claim for violation of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.

As subsequently amended and dismissed in part, the complaint
seeks, among other things, (i) certification of the class action;
(ii) a judgment declaring the proxy statement false and
misleading; (iii) unspecified monetary damages; (iv) to nullify
any stockholder approvals obtained during the proxy process; (v)
to nullify the Internalization; (vi) cancellation and rescission
of any stock issued as consideration in the Internalization, or,
in the alternative, rescissory damages; and (vii) the payment of
reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees.  On September 16,
2009, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

On December 4, 2009, the parties filed motions for summary
judgment.  On August 2, 2010, the court entered an order denying
the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting, in part,
the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.

On November 17, 2011, the court issued rulings granting several of
the plaintiff's pre-trial motions to prohibit the defendants from
introducing certain evidence, including evidence of the
defendants' reliance on advice from their outside legal and
financial advisors, and limiting the defendants' ability to relate
their subjective views, considerations, and observations during
the trial of the case.

On February 23, 2012, the court granted several of defendants'
motions, including a motion for reconsideration regarding a motion
plaintiff had filed seeking exclusion of certain evidence
impacting damages, and motions seeking exclusion of certain
evidence proposed to be submitted by plaintiff.  The lawsuit has
been removed from the court's trial calendar pending resolution of
a request for interlocutory appellate review of certain legal
rulings made by the court.

The Company believes that plaintiff's allegations are without
merit, and it will continue to vigorously defend this action.  Due
to the uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, the
Company's assessment of the merits of the claim notwithstanding,
the risk of material financial loss does exist.  Plaintiff is
seeking damages of approximately $159 million plus prejudgment
interest, which defendants dispute.  There are a number of
defendants in this case and the allocation of damages, if any, to
Piedmont versus the other defendants (including any
indemnification rights or obligations of Piedmont with respect to
the other defendants) is indeterminable at this time.  In
addition, up to $15 million of any damages may be recoverable by
Piedmont under its insurance policies.


POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Powerwave Technologies, Inc. is facing a purported shareholder
class action lawsuit in 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 January 1, 2012.

In the first quarter of 2012, a purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California against the Company, its President
and Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer.  The
complaint, Pawel I. Kmiec v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc. et. al.
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The complaint purports to state claims
on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's Common Stock
between February 1, 2011, and October 18, 2011, and seeks
compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants made misleading statements
or omissions concerning the Company's operations and projected
sales revenues.  The Company believes that the purported
shareholder class action is without merit and intends to defend it
vigorously.

On February 23, 2012, one additional lawsuit that relates to the
purported Kmiec shareholder class action was filed.  The lawsuit,
Yin Shen v. Buschur, et al., filed in the Superior Court of
California, is a shareholder derivative action, purported to be
brought by an individual shareholder on behalf of Powerwave,
against certain executive officers and the current directors of
Powerwave.  Powerwave is also named as a nominal defendant.  The
allegations of the derivative complaint closely resemble those in
the class action and pertain to the time period of February 1,
2011, through October 18, 2011.  Based on those allegations, the
derivative complaint asserts various claims for breach of
fiduciary duty under state law.


RM&G PRODUCTS: Sneakily Enrolls Customers in Programs, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. R. M. & G. Products, Inc., an Ohio corporation, and
Bernheim & Rice, Inc., a California corporation, Case No. 2012-CH-
10584 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., March 23, 2012) is brought
against the Defendants, doing business as "Medicus" and "Medicus
Golf," on behalf of a Class and two Sub-Classes of similarly
situated individuals, who were charged without authorization for
Medicus membership programs.

The Defendants have turned to a well-worn method of shoring up
revenues -- unlawfully enrolling their customers in negative
option memberships without properly disclosing the details or even
existence of the charges at the time of enrollment, Mr. Klein
alleges.  Adding to the injury, he notes, even when consumers like
him attempted to cancel these unwanted memberships and the
Defendants agreed to cancel the memberships, the Defendants
nevertheless continued to charge them anyway.

Mr. Klein is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.

RM&G is an Ohio corporation, while Bernheim is a California
corporation.  RM&G, in conjunction with Bernheim, operates several
retail Web sites selling golf related products under the brand
name "Medicus Golf."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Christopher L. Dore, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  cdore@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com


STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE: Federal Prosecutors Intervene in ADA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Landrigan, writing for Nashua Telegraph, reports that
Obama administration prosecutors jumped in with both feet on
March 27 seeking to join a class action lawsuit against the state
for "costly and traumatic" institutionalization of citizens with
severe mental disabilities.

In an alarming development for the Lynch administration, the U.S.
Justice Department has asked to intervene in the suit that the
Disabilities Rights Center and associate groups launched against
it two months ago.

The federal government clearly has been following a controversy it
started last April with a critical report charging the state with
violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Attorney General Michael Delaney had called that report
"erroneous" and if not taken back, rightly predicted it would lead
to federal litigation.

Health and Human Services Commissioner Nick Toumpas and Delaney
had declared the system was "broken" and "in crisis."

State officials maintained that within a very tight state budget,
they were making progress with a 10-year plan to improve the
mental health system.

But in court papers filed in Washington on March 27, prosecutors
cited the findings two weeks ago from the New Hampshire Community
Behavioral Health Association that gave the state a failing grade
for backing up the lofty improvement goals with state spending.

"States are obligated by the ADA to provide services to people
with disabilities in appropriate, integrated settings, so they can
live and work in the community, just like people who do not have
disabilities," said Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general
for the Civil Rights Division.

"People with mental illnesses in New Hampshire are currently
denied this right and are instead forced to receive costly
services in inappropriate settings, like state institutions, as
well as local hospital emergency rooms, rather than in more
therapeutic and less expensive community settings."

What's telling here is for the federal government, in an election
year, to try to put its full weight before a judge in federal
court to, as prosecutors said, "vindicate the rights of those with
disabilities."

The suit could proceed to a hearing even quicker as a result and
as voters go to the polls, this case would highlight state budget
cuts that failed to finance promises for more community mental
health beds and intervention teams to work with the most
troublesome cases.

"Individuals with mental illness who experience a crisis in New
Hampshire often spend days in local emergency rooms that are ill-
equipped to address their needs, at great expense, and are then
transported to the state's psychiatric hospital, sometimes by the
police," said John P. Kacavas, NH's U.S. attorney.

"This costly and traumatic process could be avoided if New
Hampshire offered proven and effective services in the community
to prevent and de-escalate crises, help people maintain safe
housing and assist them in finding and holding employment."

The suit charges the state's treatment of adults at the New
Hampshire Hospital and the Glencliff Home are in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
and the Nursing Home Reform Act.

New Hampshire Hospital has an admission rate 40 percent higher
than the national average.  Its re-admission rate is nearly double
the national average.

In 2010, more than 15 percent of the patients discharged by the
hospital were readmitted within 30 days.  Nearly one-third were
re-admitted within 180 days, and some patients are essentially in
and out of the hospital all year.

Federal officials also noted that people in psychiatric crisis can
wait for hours in a hospital nursing room before they receive
help, which is both costly and inadequate care.

The federal report further pointed out the state could treat these
adults in the community for much lower cost than it now spends to
treat them.

In 2010, the lawsuit notes there were 1,100 admissions of adults
to New Hampshire Hospital in Concord and 15 percent were re-
admitted after release within 30 days; a third of all cases
returned within six months.

Joining the DRC in this lawsuit are the Bazelon Center for Mental
Health Law, the Center for Public Representation and the New
Hampshire Disabilities Rights Center.  Devine Millimet, one of the
largest private law firms in the state, has assigned lawyers to
assist the plaintiffs.

"With our efforts [Tues]day to intervene, we hope to vindicate the
rights of people with disabilities and prompt the state to take
the necessary steps to meet their needs in more appropriate
community settings," federal prosecutor, Mr. Perez, added.


TATA SONS: Court Grants Class Cert. Bid in Non-U.S. Citizens' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announced that U.S.
District Court Judge Claudia Wilken issued an order today granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the groundbreaking
litigation against Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd. and its parent
corporation Tata Sons, Ltd. (collectively referred to as "Tata"),
on behalf of its non-U.S. citizen employees who were sent to the
United States from India to work in information technology jobs.

"More than ten thousand current and former Indian nationals
working for Tata in America now may have their day in court,"
stated Kelly M. Dermody of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, and co-lead class counsel.  "We look forward to demonstrating
at trial that Tata breached the standard employment contract with
these employees and violated California labor laws."

"Tata IT employees in America are a significant step closer to
obtaining justice and receiving compensation for wrongfully-
withheld wages and payments for their work," added Steven M.
Tindall of Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall, co-lead class counsel.

In their complaint, plaintiffs Gopi Vedachalam and Kangana Beri,
both former employees of Tata, charge that Tata uniformly:  (1)
breached the standard employment contract for its employees by
forcing all non-U.S. citizen employees to sign over their federal
and state tax refunds to Tata and by deducting their Indian salary
from their compensation; and (2) deprived its employees in
California of earned wages and accurate wage statements in
violation of the California Labor Code.  Tata is one of India's
largest corporations with a major multinational presence.

Plaintiff Gopi Vedachalam commented, "I am very happy with the
Court's decision today.  It means that my former colleagues and I
are one step closer to holding Tata accountable."

The Court certified the following classes:

1) a National class asserting breach of contract, consisting of
all non-U.S. citizens who were employed by Tata in the United
States at any time from February 14, 2002 through June 30, 2005,
and who were sent to the United States after January 1, 2002;

2) a California class asserting California Labor Code violations,
consisting of all non-U.S. citizens who were employed by Tata in
California at any time from February 14, 2002 through June 30,
2005, and who were sent to California after January 1.

Further information about this lawsuit, including a copy of the
Court's April 2, 2012, order, can be found at
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/cases.php?CaseID=149


UMB FINANCIAL: Three Suits Over Unit's Posting Practices Resolved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Three class action lawsuits over UMB Bank, N.A.'s deposit account
posting practices are now resolved, according to UMB Financial
Corporation's February 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

During 2010, two lawsuits were filed against UMB Bank, N.A. (the
"Bank") in Missouri state court alleging that the Bank's deposit
account posting practices resulted in excessive overdraft fees in
violation of Missouri's consumer protection statute and the
account agreement.  Both lawsuits sought class-action status for
the Bank's Missouri customers who may have been similarly
affected.  The Bank removed the first of the two lawsuits
(Johnson, et. al. vs. UMB Bank N.A.) to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri.  The action was then
transferred to the multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, where similar claims
against other financial institutions are pending.  The second
lawsuit (Allen, et. al. vs. UMB Bank N.A., et. al.) was also filed
in Missouri state court by another Bank customer alleging
substantially identical facts.  The Allen lawsuit was subsequently
amended to add the Company and all of its other bank subsidiaries
as defendants, and to seek to include customers of all of the
defendant banks in a class action.  During the first quarter of
2011, a third lawsuit (Downing vs. UMB Bank N.A., et. al.) was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma by another bank customer alleging similar facts and also
seeking class action status.

On May 13, 2011, the Company and all of its bank subsidiaries
entered into an agreement to settle the Allen lawsuit.  To resolve
the litigation, and without admitting any wrongdoing, the Company
agreed to establish a $7.8 million escrow settlement fund, and
recognized the related expense in its consolidated statements of
income for the period ended June 30, 2011.  The settlement was
subject to approval by the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri.  The court gave preliminary approval to the settlement
agreement on June 27, 2011, and gave final approval to the
settlement agreement at a fairness hearing on October 31, 2011.
The Johnson lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice on August 31,
2011.  The Downing lawsuit was dismissed on November 2, 2011, and
the time to appeal the Allen lawsuit settlement has passed.


WELLS FARGO: Securities-Lending Program Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that more than
100 investors who claim that Wells Fargo Bank played fast and
loose with money meant for safe, short-term investments can sue as
a class, a federal judge ruled.

The City of Farmington Hills Employees Retirement System, which is
the lead plaintiff in the case, claims that they executed lending
agreements with Wells Fargo that said "the prime consideration for
the investment portfolio shall be safety of principal and
liquidity requirements."  But the bank nevertheless invested their
money in long-term, high-risk investments that resulted in
significant losses.

In a motion to certify their class action, the investors noted
that each party entered into an investment agreement based on the
aforementioned language, which stipulated that safe, short-term
investments would be used to generate a return.

But Wells Fargo argued the fiduciary duty claims of each investor
was distinctly different because the investors were divided into
trust and non-trust pools.

U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank in Minneapolis sided with the
investors on March 27, finding that "a common mandate to ensure
liquidity and safety of principal existed across all of the
funds."

Judge Frank also rejected the bank's claim that the withdrawal
times of each investor required separate lawsuits.  "The time
frame in which individual class members sold their securities may
be an issue when determining damages, but the class members are
pursuing the same legal theories and will likely utilize the same
evidence regarding Wells Fargo's monitoring of the investments and
alleged failure to invest the collateral in accordance with the
investment guidelines," he wrote.

Wells Fargo owed the same duties to all of the investors involved
in its lending agreements, the court found.

Therefore, "Wells Fargo's actions and conduct, not the conduct of
any individual class member, is the focal point of the fiduciary
duty claim," Judge Frank wrote.

"Thus, the court concludes that class members can rely on
generalized evidence to prove that Wells Fargo breached its
fiduciary duty to the class as a whole," he added.

The investors' consumer fraud claims also meet the criteria for
class certification, Judge Frank found, rejecting Wells Fargo's
insistence on individual reliance to prove such claims.

Generalized evidence can be used on behalf of the class to prove
the fraud claim, according to the decision.  In this case, each
investor has agreement with the bank that said: "The prime
consideration for the investment portfolio shall be safety of
principal and liquidity requirements."

The class intends to include all participants in Wells Fargo's
securities-lending program from Jan. 1, 2006, to the present, who
suffered losses because of the bank's purchase of high-risk
investments.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in The City of
Farmington Hills Employees Retirement System v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., Case No. 10-cv-04372 (D. Minn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/29/Wells%20Fargo.pdf


WILLIAMS COS: Awaits Rulings on Judgment Motions in "West" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. is awaiting court decisions on
motions for summary judgment in the lawsuit captioned James West
v. Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc., et al., 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 January 2010, the plaintiff originally filed a class action
lawsuit in state court in Fairbanks, Alaska, on behalf of
individual property owners whose water contained sulfolane
contamination allegedly emanating from the Flint Hills Oil
Refinery in North Pole, Alaska.  The lawsuit named the Company's
subsidiary Williams Alaska Petroleum Inc. (WAPI) and Flint Hills
Resources Alaska, LLC (FHRA) as defendants.  The Company owned and
operated the refinery until 2004 when the Company sold it to FHRA.
The Company and FHRA have made claims under the pollution
liability insurance policy issued in connection with the sale of
the North Pole refinery to FHRA.  The Company and FHRA also filed
claims against each other seeking, among other things, contractual
indemnification alleging that the other party caused the sulfolane
contamination.

In August 2010, the court denied the plaintiff's request for class
certification.  On May 5, 2011, the Company and FHRA settled the
James West claim, leaving FHRA and WAPI claims.  On November 17,
2011, the Company filed motions for summary judgment on FHRA's
claims against the Company, but the motions are unlikely to
resolve all the outstanding claims.  Similarly, FHRA has filed
motions for summary judgment that would resolve some, but not all,
of the Company's claims against it.  The Company awaits the
court's ruling on those motions and the new scheduling order.

While significant uncertainty still exists due to, among other
things, ongoing proceedings and expert evaluations, the Company
currently estimates that its reasonably possible loss exposure in
this matter could range from an insignificant amount up to $32
million.  The Company might have the ability to recover any such
losses under the pollution liability policy if FHRA has not
exhausted the policy limits.


WILLIAMS COS: Continues to Defend Suits Over Gas Price Indices
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. continues to defend itself from
lawsuits alleging manipulation of published gas price indices,
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 December 1, 2011, the Company announced that its Board of
Directors approved a tax-free spinoff of 100 percent of its
exploration and production business, WPX Energy, Inc. (WPX), to
the Company's shareholders.  On December 31, 2011, the Company
distributed one share of WPX common stock for every three shares
of Williams common stock.  As a result, with the exception of the
December 31, 2011 balance sheet which no longer includes WPX, the
Company's consolidated financial statements reflect the results of
operations and financial position of WPX as discontinued
operations.

Civil lawsuits based on allegations of manipulating published gas
price indices have been brought against WPX and others, in each
case seeking an unspecified amount of damages.  WPX is currently a
defendant in class action litigation and other litigation
originally filed in state court in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri and
Wisconsin brought on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of
natural gas in those states.  These cases were transferred to the
federal court in Nevada.  In 2008, the court granted summary
judgment in the Colorado case in favor of WPX and most of the
other defendants based on plaintiffs' lack of standing.  In 2009,
the court denied the plaintiffs' request for reconsideration of
the Colorado dismissal and entered judgment in WPX's favor.  The
court's order became final on July 18, 2011, and the Colorado
plaintiffs might appeal the order.

In the other cases, on July 18, 2011, the Nevada district court
granted WPX's joint motions for summary judgment to preclude the
plaintiffs' state law claims because the federal Natural Gas Act
gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) exclusive
jurisdiction to resolve those issues. The court also denied the
plaintiffs' class certification motion as moot.  On July 22, 2011,
the plaintiffs' appealed the court's ruling to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals, and the parties are briefing the issues.

Because of the uncertainty around these current pending unresolved
issues, including an insufficient description of the purported
classes and other related matters, the Company says it cannot
reasonably estimate a range of potential exposures at this time.
However, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of
these items and the Company's related indemnification obligation
could result in future charges that may be material to its results
of operations.


WISCONSIN ELECTRIC: Expects to Get "Downes" Suit Deal OK in April
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Electric Power Company expects to get final approval
this month of a settlement of a class action lawsuit commenced by
Alan M. Downes against its retirement plan, 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, a lawsuit was filed by Alan M. Downes, a former
employee, against the The Wisconsin Energy Corporation Retirement
Account Plan (Plan) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.  The complaint alleged that Plan
participants who received a lump sum distribution under the Plan
prior to their normal retirement age did not receive the full
benefit to which they were entitled in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and were owed
additional benefits, because the Plan failed to apply the correct
interest crediting rate to project the cash balance account to
their normal retirement age.  In September 2010, the plaintiff
filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint alleging additional
claims under ERISA and adding the Company's parent, Wisconsin
Energy Corporation, as a defendant.

In November 2011, the Plan entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs for $45.0 million, and the court promptly
issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement.  As part
of the settlement agreement, the Plan agreed to class
certification for all similarly situated plaintiffs.

The Company says the resolution of this matter resulted in a cost
of less than $13 million for 2011 after considering insurance and
reserves established in the prior year.  The Company does not
anticipate further charges as a result of the settlement, other
than certain process-related costs it expects to incur to
implement the settlement.  The Company expects the court to
provide final approval of the settlement agreement in April 2012,
and to pay additional benefits to class members promptly after
receiving this approval.

                           *********

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  * * *