---

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

              Monday, April 9, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 69

                             Headlines

A123 SYSTEMS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
ACE LIMITED: Commercial Insurance Complaint in N.J. Still Pending
ACE LIMITED: Class Action Suit vs. Illinois Union Pending
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Defends $3-Mil. Strip Search Suit Settlement
AMERICAN CAPITAL: June 7 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

ANIXTER INT'L: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action
BANCORPSOUTH BANK: July 9 Deadline Set for Settlement Claims
BANK OF HAWAII: Received Final Okay of $9-Mil. Class Settlement
BAYER AG: Judge Allows Gender Bias Class Action to Proceed
BEER SUPER: Faces Class Action Over ATM Fees

CANADA: Vancouver Jail Faces Class Action Over Strip-Search Policy
CITIGROUP: Fact Discovery Under Way in N.Y. Class Action Suit
CITIGROUP: Bond Litigation Still Pending in New York Court
CITIGROUP: Claims Dismissal Bid in Suit Over VFACA Plan Pending
CITIGROUP: Continues to Defend ERISA Lawsuits in New York

CITIGROUP: LIBOR-Related MDL Pending in New York Court
CITIGROUP: Consolidated Suit Over Sherman Act Violations Pending
CITIGROUP: Appeal from Dismissal Ruling in Customer Suit Pending
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Arbitration Case in Michigan Still Pending
GROUPON INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Illinois Over IPO

GROUPON INC: Agree to Settle Class Action for $8.5 Million
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Awaits Final Approval of ERISA Suit Deal
HCA HOLDINGS: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in Tennessee
MACERICH CO: Got Court OK of Wage and Hour Class Suit Deal in Dec.
MERRILL LYNCH: Bid to Review Brokers' Class Certification Denied

NCO PORTFOLIO: Accused of Illegal Debt Collection in Illinois
NEW ORLEANS, LA: OPP Sued Over Vile Jail Conditions
NOVELLUS: Continues to Face Lam Research Merger-Related Lawsuits
PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Settles Antitrust Class Action
PIER SIXTY: Settles Service Charge Class Action for $8.5 Million

SEACOR HOLDINGS: Appeal From Antitrust Suit Ruling Pending
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Appeal From "Robin" Suit Ruling Still Pending
SEACOR HOLDINGS: "Wunstell" Suit in Louisiana Still Stayed
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Units Required to File Motions by May 18
SWISHER HYGIENE: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action

SWISHER HYGIENE: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
TATA CONSULTANCY: Responds to IT Workers' Class Action
WHOLE FOODS: Kottaras Appeals Denial of Class Certification Bid


                          *********

A123 SYSTEMS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a federal
securities class action (1:12-cv-10591) in the United States
District Court, District of Massachusetts, on behalf of all
persons who purchased A123 Systems, Inc. securities between
February 28, 2011 and March 23, 2012 inclusive (the "Class
Period").  This class action is brought under Sections (10)b and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased A123 securities during the
Class Period, you have until June 1, 2012 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free,
x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

A123 designs, develops, manufactures and sells advanced,
rechargeable lithium ion batteries and battery systems.  The
Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, or failed to disclose
material information regarding manufacturing flaws in its Livonia,
Michigan facility.

On March 26, 2012, the Company disclosed that it would incur costs
of over $55 million in the next several quarters to replace
battery modules and packs that might be defective.  Specifically,
five auto customers received parts that likely contained defective
prismatic cells.

The $55 million represents approximately one quarter of the
Company's projected annual revenue for 2012, which A123 has
estimated to be between $230 million and $300 million.  On these
revelations, A123 shares declined $0.21 per share or more than
12%, to close at $1.49 per share on March 26, 2012.

On March 28, 2012, an analyst at Deutsche Bank wrote that the
Company may be unable to raise capital as a result of this charge
and could lose contracts as a result of the recall.  As a result
of this news, the Company's stock declined an additional $0.18 per
share or nearly 13%, to close at $1.22 per share on March 28,
2012.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- is a law firm
that specializes in the areas of corporate, securities, and
antitrust class litigation.  The firm represents victims of
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate
misconduct.  It has offices in New York, Chicago, and Washington,
D.C.


ACE LIMITED: Commercial Insurance Complaint in N.J. Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Limited continues to defend itself from a putative class
action lawsuit filed in New Jersey by insurance policyholders,
according to the Company's February 24, 2012, 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

ACE Limited, ACE INA Holdings Inc., and ACE USA, Inc., along with
a number of other insurers and brokers, were named in a series of
federal putative nationwide class actions brought by insurance
policyholders.  The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPML) consolidated these cases in the District of New Jersey.  On
August 1, 2005, plaintiffs in the New Jersey consolidated
proceedings filed two consolidated amended complaints -- one
concerning commercial insurance and the other concerning employee
benefit plans. The employee benefit plans litigation against ACE
Limited has been dismissed.

In the commercial insurance complaint, the plaintiffs named ACE
Limited, ACE INA Holdings Inc., ACE USA, Inc., ACE American
Insurance Co., Illinois Union Insurance Co., and Indemnity
Insurance Co. of North America.  They allege that certain brokers
and insurers, including certain ACE entities, conspired to
increase premiums and allocate customers through the use of "B"
quotes and contingent commissions.  In addition, they allege that
the broker defendants received additional income by improperly
placing their clients' business with insurers through related
wholesale entities that acted as intermediaries between brokers
and insurers.  Plaintiffs also allege that broker defendants tied
the purchase of primary insurance to the placement of such
coverage with reinsurance carriers through the broker defendants'
reinsurance broker subsidiaries.  The complaint asserts the
following causes of action against the ACE defendants: Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), federal
antitrust law, state antitrust law, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

In 2006 and 2007, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' first two
attempts to properly plead a case without prejudice and permitted
plaintiffs one final opportunity to re-plead.  The amended
complaint, filed on May 22, 2007, purported to add several new ACE
defendants: ACE Group Holdings, Inc., ACE US Holdings, Inc.,
Westchester Fire Insurance Company, INA Corporation, INA Financial
Corporation, INA Holdings Corporation, ACE Property and Casualty
Insurance Company, and Pacific Employers Insurance Company.
Plaintiffs also added a new antitrust claim against Marsh, the ACE
defendants, and other insurers based on the same allegations as
the other claims but limited to excess casualty insurance. In
2007, the Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiffs'
antitrust and RICO claims with prejudice.  The Court also declined
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law
claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice.  Plaintiffs
appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

On August 16, 2010, the Third Circuit affirmed, in part, and
vacated, in part, the District Court's previous dismissals with
instructions for further briefing at the District Court on remand.
Defendants renewed their motions consistent with the Third
Circuit's instructions.  On June 28, 2011, the District Court
administratively terminated defendants' motions without prejudice
to re-file after adjudication of issues related to a proposed
class settlement involving a number of other parties and stayed
the case.  On October 17, 2011 the Court lifted the stay and
indicated that it will issue a new scheduling order in the coming
months.  The Court has not yet finally approved the proposed class
settlement, and has not yet indicated when it will finally resolve
all issues such that the ACE defendants may re-file their motions
to dismiss.

As of February 23, 2012, plaintiffs have not specified an amount
of alleged damages and the Court has not decided defendants'
renewed motions to dismiss.  The Court has also not determined if
this case may proceed as a class action and has, therefore, not
determined the size or scope of any class.  As a result, ACE is
unable to reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of
losses, if any, arising from this litigation.


ACE LIMITED: Class Action Suit vs. Illinois Union Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against Illinois Union Insurance
Company is still pending, according to ACE Limited's February 24,
2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

Van Emden Management Corporation v. Marsh & McLennan Companies,
Inc., et al. (Case No. 05-0066A; Superior Court of Massachusetts),
a class action in Massachusetts, was filed on January 13, 2005.
Illinois Union Insurance Company is named.  The Van Emden case has
been stayed pending resolution of the consolidated proceedings in
the District of New Jersey or until further order of the Court.


ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Defends $3-Mil. Strip Search Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that attorneys for western
Pennsylvania's largest county jail are defending their decision to
pay $3 million to settle a class action involving 1,600 inmates
who were strip searched before doing time for minor offenses, even
though the U.S. Supreme Court decided such searches are legal.

The 2010 settlement involving the Allegheny County Jail included
payments to any inmates strip searched for a minor offense between
July 13, 2004 and March 18, 2008.  About 12,000 inmates were
believed to have been eligible for the money, but only a fraction
responded with class action claims.  Those inmates divided the
money remaining after deducting $1 million in attorneys' fees and
another $265,000 went to pay a firm that processed the claims.

At the time of the settlement, seven federal circuit appeals
courts had ruled strip searches unconstitutional except for felony
inmates or those suspected of hiding contraband.

County attorneys tell the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review they could
have lost tens of millions at trial, though county Councilman
Vince Gastgeb, a Republican representing Pittsburgh's South Hills
suburbs, said he "thought the county kind of jumped the gun in
settling the case."

Former county solicitor Michael Wojcik said the settlement made
sense, despite the April 2's 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in a New
Jersey case.  The majority opinion said security concerns make it
OK to strip search even jail inmates doing time for minor
offenses, like traffic citations or unpaid fines.

"We were faced with an adverse ruling by the trial court saying,
'You are liable,'" Mr. Wojcik said.  "The only question then, had
we gone to trial, was how much would the county owe and that was
left in the hands of a jury, which you can never predict."

Mr. Wojcik said he estimated a jury might have awarded more than
$30 million, based on similar cases elsewhere in the country.

Andrew Szefi, the current solicitor, agreed, saying the county
couldn't have anticipated the Supreme Court's eventual ruling.

"We don't have the advantage of a crystal ball to predict these
things," Mr. Szefi said.


AMERICAN CAPITAL: June 7 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Izard Nobel LLP and Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, on
April 2 issued a statement regarding the American Capital Class
Action Settlement.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

WARD KLUGMANN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN CAPITAL, LTD., MALON, WILKUS,
JOHN R. ERICKSON, IRA WAGNER, SAMUEL A. FLAX, and RICHARD E.
KONZMANN, Defendants. Civil Action No. 8:09-CV-00005-PJM

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF PROPOSEDSETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
AND SETTLEMENT HEARING

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED SHARES OF THE PUBLICLY-
TRADED COMMON STOCK OF AMERICAN CAPITAL, LTD. (THE "SHARES")
BETWEEN OCTOBER 31, 2007 AND NOVEMBER 7, 2008, INCLUSIVE (THE
"SETTLEMENT CLASS" AND THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS PERIOD").

You are hereby notified, pursuant to Court Order, that a hearing
will be held on June 7, 2012, at 10:30 a.m., before the Honorable
Peter J. Messitte, United States District Court Judge, United
States District Court, District of Maryland, Courtroom 4C, 6500
Cherrywood Lane, Greenbelt, MD 20770 (the "Settlement Hearing") to
determine (1) whether the settlement of the Litigation in the
amount of $18,000,000, plus any accrued interest thereon (the
"Settlement") should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate
to the Settlement Class; (2) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the
motion of Co-Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class ("Co-Lead
Counsel") for an award of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses (the
"Fee and Expense Motion") and for an award to Plaintiffs relating
to their representation of the Settlement Class ("Plaintiffs'
Expense Motion") should be approved; and (4) whether the
Litigation and the claims of the Members of the Settlement Class
against Defendants should be dismissed on the merits and with
prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement (the
"Settlement Stipulation") filed with the Court.

If you purchased Shares during the period from October 31, 2007
through November 7, 2008, inclusive, your rights may be affected
by the proposed Settlement and release of claims, as set forth in
the Notice of Pendency of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and
Settlement Hearing (the "Notice").  To share in the distribution
of the Settlement Fund, Members of the Settlement Class must
establish their rights and submit the Proof of Claim and Release
form accompanying the Notice, which must be postmarked on or
before July 20, 2012.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion by May 24, 2012, in the manner and
form explained in the detailed Notice.  All members of the
Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the
Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the
Litigation pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation between the
parties.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, the Fee
and Expense Motion, or the Plaintiffs' Expense Motion must be
filed with the clerk of the Court and served upon each of the
following law firms no later than May 24, 2012, at the addresses
listed below:

          Clerk of the United States District Court
          District of Maryland
          6500 Cherrywood Lane
          Greenbelt, MD 20770

          Jeffrey S. Nobel, Esq.
          IZARD NOBEL LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 215
          West Hartford, CT 06107

          Charles Piven, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN,A Professional Corporation
          1925 Old Valley Road
          Stevenson, MD 21153

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and have not yet
received the Notice, you may obtain a copy by visiting
http://www.AmericanCapitalSecuritiesLitigation.comor by writing
to:

          American Capital, Ltd.
          Securities LitigationClaims Administrator
          c/o GCGP.O. Box 9868
          Dublin, OH 43017-5768

For further information, you may also contact a representative of
Co-Lead Counsel:

          Jeffrey S. Nobel, Esq.
          Izard Nobel LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 215
          West Hartford, CT 06107,
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          E-mail: jnobel@izardnobel.com

          Charles Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          1925 Old Valley Road
          Stevenson, MD 21153
          Telephone: (410) 332-0030
          E-mail: piven@browerpiven.com

PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE OR
DEFENDANTS REGARDING THIS NOTICE

Dated: March 14, 2012

By Order of the United States District Court, District of Maryland


ANIXTER INT'L: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
RTTNews.com reports that Anixter International Inc., a distributor
of communication and security products, on April 2 said that on
March 29, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the company's
motion to dismiss the purported securities class action suit
brought against it by Plaintiffs Garden City Employees' Retirement
System et al.  The case was dismissed in its entirety with
prejudice, resulting in a termination of all claims.

Robert Eck, President and CEO of Anixter, said, "We are pleased
with the Court's ruling to dismiss the shareholder lawsuit as it
was our belief from the beginning that this case had no
foundation.  We have always been proud of our strong, disciplined
external reporting and disclosure processes, so it is rewarding to
see that the Court has rejected the plaintiffs' unfounded claims."


BANCORPSOUTH BANK: July 9 Deadline Set for Settlement Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
A notification program began on April 3, as ordered by the United
States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, to
alert people who have or had a bank account with BancorpSouth Bank
about a proposed class action settlement.

The lawsuit alleges that BancorpSouth improperly assessed non-
sufficient funds fees and overdraft fees for insufficient funds on
debit card and check purchases and ATM withdrawals in a number of
ways that were unlawful, including by "re-sequencing" transactions
in order to maximize the number of non-sufficient funds fees and
overdraft fees.  BancorpSouth denies all of the Plaintiffs' claims
and says that it did nothing wrong.

The Settlement Class includes all persons in the United States who
currently have or in the past had a BancorpSouth account on which
at least one non-sufficient funds fee or overdraft fee was charged
and collected between May 1, 2004 through and including
December 31, 2011. Each of these persons is a Settlement Class
Member.  In order to receive a refund of one or more overdraft
fees, you must be a "Refund Eligible Class Member."

BancorpSouth will pay $1.75 million to a settlement fund and make
certain overdraft practice changes.  Payments to Refund Eligible
Class Members may be up to three times the overdraft fees they
paid in any continuous 45 day period between May 1, 2004 through
and including December 31, 2011.  Settlement Class Members may
submit claims online at http://www.BancorpOverdraftSettlement.com
or by completing and mailing a claim form.

Notices will be sent to Settlement Class Members and are scheduled
to appear in selected local newspapers leading up to a hearing on
July 30, 2012, when the Court will consider whether to grant final
approval to the settlement.

The Court has appointed Scott E. Poynter --
scott@emersonpoynter.com -- Corey D. McGaha, Christopher D.
Jennings -- cjennings@emersonpoynter.com -- William T. Crowder --
wcrowder@emersonpoynter.com -- Emerson Poynter LLP, Little Rock,
Arkansas and John G. Emerson -- jemerson@emersonpoynter.com --
Emerson Poynter LLP, Houston, Texas as Class Counsel to represent
Settlement Class Members.

Those affected by this settlement can submit a claim for benefits,
or they can ask to be excluded from or object to, the settlement
and its terms.  The deadline for exclusions and objections is
July 9, 2012.  Claim forms must be postmarked by September 13,
2012.

A toll-free number, 1-877-841-8162, has been established in the
case known Melvin L. Thomas III and Billy D. Lawson, Jr., et al.
v. BancorpSouth Bank and BancorpSouth, Inc., Case No. 1:2012-cv-
1016, along with a Web site --
http://www.BancorpOverdraftSettlement.com-- where the notice,
claim form and settlement agreement may be obtained.  Those
affected may also write to:

          BancorpSouth Overdraft Settlement
          PO Box 3207
          Portland, OR 97208-3207


BANK OF HAWAII: Received Final Okay of $9-Mil. Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of Hawaii Corporation last month received final approval of
its $9.0 million settlement of a class action lawsuit over
overdraft fees, 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 February 15, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, by
customers who claimed that the Bank had improperly charged
overdraft fees on debit card transactions.  The lawsuit was
similar to industry lawsuits filed against other financial
institutions pertaining to overdraft fee debit card transactions.
On July 15, 2011, the Company reached a tentative settlement with
the plaintiffs subject to documentation and court approvals.  The
tentative settlement provides for a payment by the Company of $9.0
million into a class settlement fund, the proceeds of which will
be used to refund class members and to pay attorneys' fees and
administrative and other costs, in exchange for a complete release
of all claims asserted against the Company.  As of
June 30, 2011, the $9.0 million tentative settlement amount was
fully accrued for by the Company.  On September 2, 2011, the court
gave its initial approval to the settlement, and on September 19,
2011, the $9.0 million settlement amount was paid to the Fund
Administrator.  On February 14, 2012, the court gave its final
approval to the settlement.


BAYER AG: Judge Allows Gender Bias Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
David Voreacos, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that U.S.
units of German drugmaker Bayer AG failed to prevent eight women
from pursuing a group lawsuit claiming the company discriminated
in pay and promotions, and showed bias based on pregnancy and
family responsibilities.

A judge on April 2 denied Bayer's request to bar the case from
being considered for a class-action, a decision that will be made
later in the litigation.  The complaint, filed in federal court in
Newark, New Jersey, claims women endure "disregard and
indifference for concerns or complaints about discrimination and
sexual harassment pervades every corner of the company."

The women, suing under the U.S. Equal Pay Act, cited promotions
and disparities in pay compared with men in similar positions to
survive Bayer's motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge Dennis
Cavanaugh ruled.  He also said the women met their burden so far
in showing Bayer may have violated Title VII of the U.S. Civil
Right Act of 1964.

The complaint "as a whole sufficiently shows that female employees
felt adverse effects at work especially in terms of opportunities
for promotion and the privilege of maternity leave, despite the
existence of facially neutral policies," Judge Cavanaugh ruled on
March 30.

The women sued Pittsburgh-based Bayer Corp., as well as Bayer
Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Healthcare Consumer Care, and 12
individuals.  A spokesman for Bayer, Bryan Iams, didn't
immediately return a call seeking comment on the ruling.

"What the defendants were asking the court was premature," said
Katherine Kimpel -- kkimpel@swhlegal.com -- an attorney at Sanford
Wittels & Heisler LLP who represents the women.  "They were trying
to get rid of the class-action portion of the case, and they lost
it at this stage."

The case is Victoria Barghout v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals,
11-cv-1576, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey (Newark).


BEER SUPER: Faces Class Action Over ATM Fees
---------------------------------------------
Terrie Morgan-Besecker, writing for Times Leader, reports that two
people have filed a class-action lawsuit against a local beer
distributor and an automatic teller machine operator, alleging the
businesses violated federal law by failing to post a notice that a
$2.50 fee would be charged to withdraw money.

Attorney Joseph Sucec, of Gardners, Pa., filed the suit on behalf
of Gerald Riviello of Peckville and Christina Prukala, no address
listed, relating to transactions they made at a Star Network ATM
located at the Beer Super store on Scott Street in Wilkes-Barre.
The ATM machine is owned and operated by First Data Inc., of
Atlanta, Ga.

The lawsuit, filed in February, is among at least eight lawsuits
raising similar claims that Mr. Riviello has filed against several
banks since November 2010, according to a review of federal docket
sheets filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania.

At least three of those lawsuits were resolved by settlements
reached between Mr. Riviello and the banks.  Two others were
dismissed by agreement of the parties, but court documents do not
indicate if the cases settled or were dismissed for other reasons.
Two others remain pending.

In the latest lawsuit, Mr. Riviello and Ms. Prukala allege the ATM
located at the Beer Super did not have an external notice posted
advising them they would be charged a fee when they made
withdrawals on Dec. 26, 2011 and Jan. 7, 2012.

The Electronic Funds Transfer Act requires ATMs to contain an
external notice posted in a conspicuous place, as well as a screen
that advises the consumer of any fee.

Kim Graber, a spokesperson for First Data, declined to comment on
the lawsuit.  Dave Shipula, owner of the Beer Super, said he was
not aware the lawsuit had been filed until contacted by a reporter
on April 2.

After being notified, Mr. Shipula checked the ATM and said it did
contain a notice posted on the outside corner of the machine.  In
addition, a screen pops up notifying the customer a $2.50 fee will
be charged prior to the transaction going through, Mr. Shipula
said.

"I don't feel there are any hidden fees.  You can't proceed unless
you push a button to agree to the fee," Mr. Shipula said.

Mr. Shipula said he was frustrated to learn he's being sued given
that he does not own the ATM and does not make any money off of
it.

"I've never gotten a penny out of that machine," he said.  "It's a
convenience for my customers and nothing else."

The lawsuit seeks to certify the case as a class action that would
include all persons who incurred a charge for utilizing the ATM
without being advised of the fee by an external notice.

Mr. Shipula said he was frustrated to learn he's being sued given
that he does not own the ATM and does not make any money off of
it.


CANADA: Vancouver Jail Faces Class Action Over Strip-Search Policy
------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for The Province, reports that a bid by two
people to have their claim of being wrongly strip-searched at the
Vancouver jail certified as a class-action lawsuit opened in B.C.
Supreme Court on April 2.

If successful, the case would apply to thousands of others who
have been strip-searched over the years.

Christopher Jacob and Elise Thorburn, who were strip-searched at
the jail in 2003, say the jail wrongly strip-searched thousands of
people between 2001 and 2006.

Outside court, their lawyer, Jason Gratl, noted that in December
2001, the Supreme Court of Canada prohibited strip-searches as a
routine police practice.

The court found the searches were inherently demeaning and
degrading and that there must be reasonable and probable grounds
that the search is needed to discover weapons or prevent the loss
of evidence related to a valid arrest.

Mr. Gratl said the jail, operated jointly by the city and the B.C.
government, didn't listen to the Supreme Court and carried on
strip-searching everyone arrested and brought to the jail until
December 2006.

About 15,000 strip-searches were conducted per year, meaning some
75,000 searches were done between 2001 and 2006, he said.  "To my
mind that represents a significant atrocity," said Mr. Gratl.

Jacob and Thorburn, both students, were arrested following a
protest against the Iraq War at the U.S. consulate in April 2003.

At the time the suit was launched in 2003, Thorburn, 24, described
the experience as "really unpleasant, especially because I had my
period at the time."

She said she hoped the lawsuit would force a change in policy so
that others would not be subjected to the same treatment.

"They took my body and made it something to be ashamed of and I
don't want people to have to go through that."

Since 2006, the jail has adopted a different protocol, but it
still results in the strip-searching of 42 per cent of all
detainees, said Mr. Gratl.

The suit claims the search policy at the jail violated the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms' provisions against unreasonable search and
seizure.

The certification hearing, expected to run four days in B.C.
Supreme Court in Vancouver, is before B.C. Supreme Court Justice
Miriam Gropper.

A similar lawsuit filed on behalf of thousands of New Yorkers
unlawfully strip-searched in jail was settled in 2001 when the
city agreed to pay damages of $50 million to be shared among them.


CITIGROUP: Fact Discovery Under Way in N.Y. Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fact discovery is under way in the consolidated securities class
action filed against Citigroup Inc. in New York, according to the
Company's February 24, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2011.

Citigroup and its affiliates and subsidiaries and current and
former officers, directors and employees have been named as
defendants in four putative class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  On
August 19, 2008, these actions were consolidated under the caption
In Re Citigroup Inc. Securities Litigation.

The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims arising under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Citigroup common stock
from January 1, 2004 through January 15, 2009.  On November 9,
2010, the district court issued an opinion and order dismissing
all claims except those arising out of Citigroup's exposure to
CDOs for the time period February 1, 2007 through April 18, 2008.
Fact discovery is underway.  Plaintiffs have not yet quantified
the putative class' alleged damages.


CITIGROUP: Bond Litigation Still Pending in New York Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against Citigroup Inc. connected with
various offerings of its securities is still pending, according to
the Company's February 24, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

Citigroup and its affiliates and subsidiaries and current and
former officers, directors and employees have been named as
defendants in two putative class actions filed in New York state
court, but since removed to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of Sections
11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with
various offerings of Citigroup securities.  On December 10, 2008,
these actions were consolidated under the caption In Re Citigroup
Inc. Bond Litigation.

In the consolidated action, lead plaintiffs assert claims on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of corporate debt
securities, preferred stock and interests in preferred stock
issued by Citigroup and related issuers over a two-year period
from 2006 to 2008.  On July 12, 2010, the district court issued an
opinion and order dismissing plaintiffs' claims under Section 12
of the Securities Act of 1933, but denying defendants' motion to
dismiss certain claims under Section 11.  Fact discovery is
underway.  Plaintiffs have not yet quantified the putative class's
alleged damages.


CITIGROUP: Claims Dismissal Bid in Suit Over VFACA Plan Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss claims filed against Citigroup Inc. in the
class action filed on behalf of a putative class of participants
in Citigroup's Voluntary Financial Advisor Capital Accumulation
Plan New York is pending, according to the Company's February 24,
2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

Citigroup and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. have been named as
defendants in two putative class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California, but
since transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  In the consolidated action, lead plaintiffs
assert claims on behalf of a putative class of participants in
Citigroup's Voluntary Financial Advisor Capital Accumulation Plan
from November 2006 through January 2009.  On June 7, 2011, the
district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint
and subsequently entered judgment.  On November 14, 2011, the
district court granted in part plaintiffs' motion to alter or
amend the judgment and granted plaintiffs leave to amend the
complaint.  On November 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint alleging violations of Section 12 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims
on December 21, 2011.


CITIGROUP: Continues to Defend ERISA Lawsuits in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. continues to face putative class action lawsuits
filed in New York by former employees asserting claims under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to the
Company's February 24, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2011.

Beginning in November 2007, numerous putative class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York by current or former Citigroup employees
asserting claims under ERISA against Citigroup and its affiliates
and subsidiaries and current and former officers, directors and
employees alleged to have served as ERISA plan fiduciaries.  On
August 31, 2009, the district court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action complaint, captioned In Re
Citigroup ERISA Litigation.  Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal
and, on October 19, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing
the case.

Beginning on October 28, 2011, several putative class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York by current or former Citigroup employees
asserting claims under ERISA against Citigroup and its affiliates
and subsidiaries and current and former officers, directors and
employees alleged to have served as ERISA plan fiduciaries from
2008 to 2009.


CITIGROUP: LIBOR-Related MDL Pending in New York Court
------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit filed against Citigroup Inc.'s
subsidiaries related to the setting of London interbank offered
rate is still pending, according to the Company's February 24,
2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

Beginning in April 2011, a number of purported class actions and
other private civil suits were filed in various courts against
banks that served on the LIBOR panel and their affiliates,
including certain Citigroup subsidiaries.  The actions, which
assert various federal and state law claims relating to the
setting of LIBOR, have been consolidated into a multidistrict
litigation proceeding before Judge Buchwald in the Southern
District of New York.


CITIGROUP: Consolidated Suit Over Sherman Act Violations Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. continues to defend itself from a consolidated
class action lawsuit filed by a group of merchants over alleged
violations of the Sherman Act, according to the Company's February
24, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

Beginning in 2005, several putative class actions were filed
against Citigroup and its affiliates and subsidiaries and current
and former officers, directors and employees, together with Visa,
MasterCard and other banks and their affiliates, in various
federal district courts.  These actions were consolidated with
other related cases in the Eastern District of New York and
captioned In Re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount
Antitrust Litigation.  The plaintiffs in the consolidated class
action are merchants that accept Visa- and MasterCard-branded
payment cards, as well as membership associations that claim to
represent certain groups of merchants.  The pending complaint
alleges, among other things, that defendants have engaged in
conspiracies to set the price of interchange and merchant discount
fees on credit and debit card transactions in violation of Section
1 of the Sherman Act.  The complaint also alleges additional
Sherman Act and California law violations, including alleged
unlawful maintenance of monopoly power and alleged unlawful
contracts in restraint of trade pertaining to various Visa and
MasterCard rules governing merchant conduct (including rules
allegedly affecting merchants' ability, at the point of sale, to
surcharge payment card transactions or steer customers to
particular payment cards).  In addition, supplemental complaints
filed against defendants in the class action allege that Visa's
and MasterCard's respective initial public offerings were
anticompetitive and violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and
that MasterCard's initial public offering constituted a fraudulent
conveyance.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief as well as joint and several
liability for treble their damages, including all interchange fees
paid to all Visa and MasterCard members with respect to Visa and
MasterCard transactions in the U.S. since at least January 1,
2004.  Certain publicly available documents estimate that Visa-
and MasterCard-branded cards generated approximately $40 billion
in interchange fees industry wide in 2009.  Defendants dispute
that the manner in which interchange and merchant discount fees
are set, or the rules governing merchant conduct, are
anticompetitive.  Fact and expert discovery has closed.
Defendants' motions to dismiss the pending class action complaint
and the supplemental complaints are pending.  Also pending are
plaintiffs' motion to certify nationwide classes consisting of all
U.S. merchants that accept Visa- and MasterCard-branded payment
cards and motions by both plaintiffs and defendants for summary
judgment.  The parties have been engaged in mediation for several
years, including recent settlement conferences held at the
direction of the court.


CITIGROUP: Appeal from Dismissal Ruling in Customer Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court order dismissing all class action claims
asserted in a lawsuit filed against Citigroup Inc.'s affiliates in
Illinois is still pending, according to the Company's February 24,
2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

In March 2004, a putative research-related customer class action
alleging various state law claims arising out of the issuance of
allegedly misleading research analyst reports concerning numerous
issuers was filed against certain Citigroup affiliates in Illinois
state court.  On October 13, 2011, the court entered an order
dismissing with prejudice all class-action claims asserted in the
action on the ground that the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act of 1998 precludes those claims.  The court granted
leave for the putative representative plaintiff to file an amended
complaint asserting only his individual claims within 21 days.  An
amended complaint was not filed within the 21-day period.  The
putative representative plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal
from the court's October 13, 2011 order.


CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Arbitration Case in Michigan Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Acceptance Corporation continues to defend itself from an
arbitration proceeding filed before the American Arbitration
Association in Michigan, according to the Company's February 24,
2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On November 22, 2011, an arbitration proceeding against the
Company was commenced before the American Arbitration Association
("AAA") in Southfield, Michigan.  The arbitration demand was
brought by a Dealer-Partner and seeks unspecified money damages
for alleged breach of the dealer servicing agreement.  The
claimant purports to proceed on behalf of a putative class of
similarly situated Dealer-Partners.  On or about January 3, 2012,
the Company filed an answer, denying the allegations in the demand
and opposing claimant's attempt to proceed on a class-wide basis
based on the terms of the parties' arbitration agreement, which
does not authorize classwide arbitration, and recent controlling
Supreme Court authority.  The arbitration panel has not yet been
appointed and various procedural matters relating to the
arbitration, including whether the matter will proceed as a class
action, have not yet been adjudicated.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend itself against the allegations made in this
proceeding.


GROUPON INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Illinois Over IPO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shares of Groupon fell 41
percent after its $658 million initial public offering because of
misrepresentations by executives and financial institutions, a
class claims.

A copy of the Complaint in Zhang v. Groupon, Inc., et al., Case
No. 12-cv-02450 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/04/groupon.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Barz, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 674-4674
          E-mail: jbarz@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  davew@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Francis A. Bottini, Esq.
          CHAPIN FITZGERALD SULLIVAN & BOTTINI LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 241-4810
          E-mail: fbottini@cfsblaw.com


GROUPON INC: Agree to Settle Class Action for $8.5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Edvard Pettersson, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
Groupon Inc., the biggest seller of so-called daily deals, agreed
to pay $8.5 million to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging the
expiration dates on its coupons are illegal.

Customers who bought Groupon vouchers before Dec. 1, 2011 can
either redeem these past their expiration date or, if they are
unable to do so, obtain a refund from the $8.5 million fund,
according the proposed settlement filed March 29 in federal court
in San Diego.  Residents in some states can seek refunds only for
vouchers sold after Aug. 22, 2010, according to the filing.

Groupon also agreed for three years not to sell more than 10
percent of its daily deals with an expiration date of less than 30
days after their issue date, according to the fling.

Julie Mossler, a spokeswoman for Chicago-based Groupon, said the
company doesn't comment on litigation.

Groupon disputes the plaintiffs' claims, according to the proposed
settlement.

The settlement pertains to 17 lawsuits against Groupon that were
consolidated before U.S. District Judge Dana M. Sabraw in San
Diego.  The plaintiffs claimed Groupon and various retailers
violate federal and state consumer protection laws with improper
expiration dates and other provisions for the vouchers, such as
the requirement that they be used in a single transaction.

"Groupon effectively creates a sense of urgency among consumers to
quickly purchase 'groupon' gift certificates by offering 'daily
deals' for a short amount of time," according to the first case
filed last year.  "Consumers therefore feel pressured and are
rushed into buying the gift certificates and unwittingly become
subject to the onerous sales conditions."

The cases are In re Groupon Inc. Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, 11-MD-2238, U.S. District Court, Southern District of
California (San Diego.)


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Awaits Final Approval of ERISA Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., is awaiting final
approval of a settlement resolving a consolidated amended class
action complaint, according to the Company's February 24, 2012,
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

In November and December 2008, following a decline in the share
price of the Company's common stock, seven putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut on behalf of certain participants in the
Company's Investment and Savings Plan, which offers the Company's
common stock as one of many investment options.  These lawsuits
have been consolidated, and a consolidated amended class-action
complaint was filed on March 23, 2009, alleging that the Company
and certain of its officers and employees violated ERISA by
allowing the Plan's participants to invest in the Company's common
stock and by failing to disclose to the Plan's participants
information about the Company's financial condition.  The lawsuit
seeks restitution or damages for losses arising from the
investment of the Plan's assets in the Company's common stock
during the period from December 10, 2007 to the present.  In
January 2010, the district court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  In February 2011, the
parties reached an agreement in principle to settle on a class
basis for an immaterial amount.  The settlement was preliminarily
approved by the court in January 2012, and is contingent upon
final court approval.


HCA HOLDINGS: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed against HCA
Holdings Inc. in connection with its initial public offering
remains pending, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On October 28, 2011, a shareholder action, Schuh v. HCA Holdings,
Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee seeking monetary relief.  The case
seeks to include as a class all persons who acquired the Company's
stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the March 9,
2011 initial public offering.  The lawsuit asserts a claim under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company,
certain members of the board of directors, and certain
underwriters in the offering.  It further asserts a claim under
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the same members
of the board of directors.  The action alleges deficiencies in the
Company's disclosures in the Registration Statement relating to:
(1) accounting for its 2006 recapitalization and 2010
reorganization; (2) the Company's failure to maintain effective
internal controls relating to its accounting for such
transactions; and (3) the Company's revenue growth rate.

Subsequently, two additional class action complaints, Kishtah v.
HCA Holdings, Inc. et al. and Daniels v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et
al., setting forth substantially similar claims against
substantially the same defendants in addition to Ernst & Young,
LLP were filed in the same federal court on November 16, 2011 and
December 12, 2011, respectively.  All three of the cases have been
consolidated, and the parties have agreed to initial scheduling
matters.


MACERICH CO: Got Court OK of Wage and Hour Class Suit Deal in Dec.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Macerich Company obtained in December court approval of an
agreement to settle a putative class action lawsuit filed against
the Company, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

A putative class action complaint was filed on September 1, 2010
involving a single plaintiff based on alleged wage and hour
violations.  The Company denied all material allegations asserted
in this complaint.  The parties reached a court approved
settlement on December 9, 2011, which was not material to the
Company's Consolidated Financial Statements.


MERRILL LYNCH: Bid to Review Brokers' Class Certification Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Celentino at Courthouse News Service reports that a class of
Merrill Lynch financial advisers who claim the firm denied them
pay and promotions because they are black won another legal
victory when the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit declined to review its earlier order to certify the class.

The 700-person class, led by Nashville financial advisor George
McReynolds, alleged that Merrill Lynch's company policies result
in unintentional discrimination, known as disparate effect,
against black bankers.  Specifically, the class challenged the
company's "teaming" and "account distribution" policies under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

At each Merrill Lynch branch, brokers are encouraged, but not
required, to divide themselves into client-sharing teams.  Teaming
up allegedly presents substantial benefits.  White brokers tend to
form all-white teams, according to the complaint, so black brokers
were left out to dry.

Merrill Lynch's system of account distribution, the process by
which Merrill Lynch assigns accounts after the departure of a
broker, allegedly compounded the teaming policy's discriminatory
effects.  Because accounts are distributed based on the past
financial success of the competing brokers, the policy favors
those who are able to join successful teams, creating a "vicious
cycle" of low performance.

U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman initially denied the proposed
class, but the 7th Circuit revived its certification.  The
appellate panel granted certification in the wake of the Supreme
Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, surprisingly drawing
on the language of the case, which is widely considered employer-
friendly, as grounds for certifying the class.

"We have trouble seeing the downside of the limited class action
treatment that we think would be appropriate in this case," Judge
Richard Posner wrote in the earlier opinion.

Merrill Lynch petitioned for a rehearing en banc by the full 7th
Circuit Court of Appeals.  But the court denied the request
because the original panel -- comprised of Judges Richard Posner,
Diane Wood, and David Hamilton -- voted against the petition, and
no other judge called for a full-circuit vote.

The plaintiffs presented evidence they said supported their claim
that black Merrill Lynch brokers earn less on average than their
white counterparts.

Because most Merrill Lynch brokers earn at least $100,000 per
year, any award of backpay could place a substantial financial
burden on the investment firm.

A copy of the Order in McReynolds, et al. v. Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., No. 05C6583 (7th Cir.), is available
at:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/03/7thCircuitLynchOrder.pdf


NCO PORTFOLIO: Accused of Illegal Debt Collection in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clifford Sobers individually and on behalf of the class defined
herein, and People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Clifford
Sobers v. NCO Portfolio Management, Inc., and NCOP Capital, Inc.
and Weltman Weinberg & Reis Co. LPA, Case No. 2012-CH-11155 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., March 28, 2012) seeks redress for the conduct
of the NCO Defendants in taking collection actions prohibited by
the Illinois Collection Agency Act.

NCO, which claims to acquire defaulted debts originally owed to
others, became regulated by the ICAA no later than January 1,
2008, and was required to be licensed under the ICAA, the
Plaintiff asserts.  The Plaintiff contends that neither NCO
Portfolio nor NCOP Capital has a license under the ICAA.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.

NCO Portfolio is a Delaware corporation and a subsidiary of a
public company, NCO Group, Inc.  NCOP Capital is a Nevada
corporation.  The NCO Defendants purchase charged-off consumer
debts and enforcing the debts against the consumers.  Weltman
Weinberg, an Ohio corporation, is a collection law firm and
regularly seeks to collect consumer debts originally owed to
others.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW ORLEANS, LA: OPP Sued Over Vile Jail Conditions
---------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that ten
people say in a federal class action that conditions inside
Orleans Parish Prison are so vile they create a "public safety
crisis that affects the entire City of New Orleans" -- so
dangerous that the federal government will no longer house its
prisoners there.

The suit against Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin Gusman and other
jail officials claims, "Sheriff Gusman demonstrates deliberate
indifference to the basic rights of the people housed at OPP by
implementing constitutionally deficient security, staffing,
classification and mental health policies and practices."

Violent guards are a problem, as well, the lawsuit claims.

The federal government withdrew its per diem funding for the
prison, according to the complaint.  The defendants "previously
received a per diem from the federal government, but the U.S.
Marshals announced that they have pulled all of their prisoners
from OPP [Orleans Parish Prison] due to concerns about conditions
and safety," the complaint states.

The class, of inmates and people who will be inmates, says most
people incarcerated in Orleans Parish Prison are pre-trial
detainees.

"Individuals housed at the jail are at imminent risk of serious
harm.  Rapes, sexual assaults, and beatings are commonplace
throughout the facility.  Violence regularly occurs at the hands
of sheriffs' deputies, as well as other prisoners.  The facility
is full of homemade knives, or 'shanks.'  People living with
serious mental illnesses languish without treatment, left
vulnerable to physical and sexual abuse.  These conditions have
created a public safety crisis that affects the entire City of New
Orleans."

Conditions are so bad that "a 2009 findings letter by the United
States Department of Justice concluded that conditions in Orleans
Parish Prison are unconstitutional.  Violations found included
inadequate protection from harm, including specifically inadequate
classification and staffing.  The DOJ also found inadequate mental
health and medical care, including staffing and an express finding
of a failure to follow-up on mental health issues at intake
screening," the complaint states.

It adds: "Recent Department of Health and Hospital (DHH) budget
cuts have made OPP the largest psychiatric unit in the City of New
Orleans.  National statistics indicate that 64 percent of
incarcerated people suffer from mental illness, and Orleans
Parish's numbers are higher."

The class claims: "Sheriff [Marlin] Gusman demonstrates deliberate
indifference to the basic rights of the people housed at OPP by
implementing constitutionally deficient security, staffing,
classification and mental health policies and practices."

For instance: "Upon admission to OPP, defendants have a policy of
suspending medication for 30 days, and sometimes longer.  This
makes people living with mental illness particularly susceptible
to abuse, because symptoms of their mental illness begin to
manifest acutely when they are denied medication. Unsurprisingly,
this practice causes some individuals to experience suicidal
ideation.

"Suicidal prisoners with mental health needs are transferred to a
direct observation cell, in which they are held almost naked for
days. Once they no longer express a desire to injure themselves,
they then are transferred to the psychiatric tiers -- where they
are locked down in their cells for 23 hours a day and deprived of
mental health interventions.  People living there are not allowed
to go outside or visit with their families.  Overhead lights are
on 24 hours per day, and the tier contains actively psychotic
people living on the ground in overcrowded cells.  Deputies do not
walk the tiers.  Rape is rampant.  The conditions have been well
documented, by the U.S. Department of Justice, the federal Prison
Rape Elimination Act Commission, the U.S. Marshals, the media, by
individual civil lawsuits and by motions in criminal cases.  In
spite of widespread public knowledge about the conditions within
the facility, the defendants have failed to correct known
deficiencies, and, indeed, recently opened an additional 400 bed
temporary detention facility.

"An expert hired by the City of New Orleans has recommended a jail
with 1,438 beds, based upon New Orleans' population and crime
rates.  OPP currently has 3,400 beds.  The defendants are not
adequately staffing or supervising a facility of this size.  As
additional beds are opened up, more lives are placed in danger.
The City of New Orleans has made some efforts to reduce the number
of people incarcerated in OPP for low-level offenses, but over
35,000 people are processed through intake annually."

The class claims that a "2009 findings letter by the United States
Department of Justice concluded that conditions in Orleans Parish
Prison are unconstitutional.  Violations found included inadequate
protection from harm, including specifically inadequate
classification and staffing.  The DOJ also found inadequate mental
health and medical care, including staffing and an express finding
of a failure to follow-up on mental health issues at intake
screening."

In addition, the class says: "people who need mental health
services are discouraged from seeking necessary care because they
are charged a three-dollar copayment for submitting a sick call
form.  The prisoners' accounts are charged as soon as the form is
filled out, whether or not the individual is seen by medical
personnel.  If a condition worsens or becomes more severe,
prisoners are hesitant to submit additional forms, which will
debit money from their account, without assurance that they will
actually be treated."

Lead plaintiff LaShawn Jones is diagnosed as bipolar and manic
schizophrenic, according to the complaint.

"She was arrested and placed in OPP on March 21, 2012.  Her
charges are unknown to both her and her family," the complaint
states.

"LaShawn has struggled with her mental health issues for years.
She knows when she hears voices that she needs to go to the mental
health center.  She went there on March 21, 2012.

"It is unclear what happened, but somehow LaShawn was arrested.
Her family has been informed by the health service provider that
LaShawn was arrested because the facility could not take care of
her due to budget cuts.

"LaShawn was brought to the psychiatric floor of OPP, in the House
of Detention.  Other prisoners on the tier saw her brought in.
They heard the female deputy who brought her in, say 'You wanna
fu**in' fight me one on one? You wanna fu**in' play with me?'

"At this point the deputy proceeded to beat and attack LaShawn.
LaShawn sustained lacerations and bruising to her face and body.
Other women attest that the beating was severe and lasted awhile.
LaShawn was seen immediately afterwards, bleeding all over herself
from lacerations to her face and wearing nothing but her
underwear.  LaShawn was left on the tier for days without medical
care.  Eventually she was transported to the hospital.

"As of this filing, LaShawn has a bloody, blackened eye, from the
attack that occurred over a week ago."

The class claims that "in much of the prison, it appears that
often only one officer is assigned to supervise each floor.  This
is consistent with the DOJ findings letter, which noted that there
often is one deputy per 88 man tent, or one guard per floor in the
HOD, which would be one individual deputy supervising 60
prisoners."

In the event of an emergency, prisoners have to administer first
aid to one another, and often have to call 911 for assistance,
according to the complaint.

"In addition to the DOJ letter referenced above, Sheriff Gusman
has been the defendant in over 200 lawsuits in the three years
since that letter came out," the complaint states.  "Many of those
suits involved excessive violence in the facility.  Likewise, many
criminal defense attorneys have filed motions in their clients'
criminal cases that detailed the brutality their clients suffered
while in Sheriff Gusman's custody.  In many of these cases, the
state court judges ordered transfer of vulnerable or victimized
detainees.  The media has widely reported criminal defendants
showing up for court with wounds from the prison.  In January of
this year, undersigned counsel placed defendants on notice of
violent conditions in certain areas of the jail.  Still, the
conditions persist.  A review of the routes from OPP to University
Hospital for the month of February 2012 show 23 transports to the
hospital from OPP for fractures, puncture wounds, lacerations,
trauma and the like.  This does not include medical emergencies
handled in-house at OPP."

The class claims that "officers who enter the prison at night are
not searched.  This allows correctional officers to smuggle in
drugs and contraband.  Defendants are aware that the contraband-
smuggling takes place, but they have not taken reasonably adequate
measures to halt the practice, including adequate measures to
ensure that correctional officers are properly searched before
entering the facility.  The presence of contraband in the facility
increases violence."

Class member Leonard Lewis claims he needs protection because he
is testifying against a man in a criminal case.

"Despite this known affiliation, Leonard has been threatened, beat
up and stabbed in multiple buildings at OPP.  Defendants have
failed to take reasonable measure to provide him with adequate
protection.

"Leonard was first attacked in August of 2010, when a deputy put
him in a cell with a person who knew the man Leonard is testifying
against.  The deputy knew Leonard was at risk, but placed him in
the cell anyway.  Leonard was stabbed multiple times," the
complaint states.

More attacks followed.  "In November, while on protective custody,
Leonard was jumped again on his way back from court."

The class could be as large as 35,000 people, as that is how many
people pass through the prison each year.

Named as defendants are Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin Gusman,
House of Detention Warden Carlos Louque, Old Parish Prison Warden
Kevin Winfield, Templeman Phase V Warden Bonita Pittman, Warden of
Temporary Jails Charles Ezeb, Conchetta Warden Jerrod Spinney,
Medical Director Samuel Gore, and Psychiatric Director Charles
Higgins.

The class is represented by Katie Schwartzmann with the Southern
Poverty Law Center.

A copy of the Complaint in Jones, et al. v. Gusman, et al., Case
No. 12-cv-00859 (E.D. La.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/04/OrleansPrison.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Katie M. Schwartzmann, Esq.
          Sheila A. Bedi, Esq.
          THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          4431 Canal Street
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 486-8982

                       Sheriff's Statement

In a statement late on April 2, Mr. Gusman said his office had not
been served with the lawsuit.

"The OPSO has addressed the SPLC's specific allegations in recent
days, and we will not speculate about what is contained in their
complaint," the statement said.  "The deputies and staff of the
OPSO are working daily to address the care, custody and control of
the inmates in our custody."

"The OPSO has consistently stated that we have a zero tolerance
policy regarding sexual activity and assault in our facilities.
The OPSO investigates every incident and allegation of sexual
assault and violent behavior immediately and thoroughly.  Where
warranted, the OPSO vigorously pursues prosecution of any
individual who violates these policies," Mr. Gusman said.

Orleans Parish Prison and the people who run it have been targeted
for years by critics who describe conditions there as dangerous
and unconstitutional.  The April 2 lawsuit echoes complaints in a
Justice Department report issued in September 2009.  It, too, said
the prison was understaffed, had violent guards and that prisoners
often lacked adequate mental health treatment.  At the time,
Mr. Gusman said the Justice Department report ignored improvements
at the prison and called the report "a terribly dated,
fundamentally flawed work."

Mr. Gusman said the health care provided within the jail system is
"recognized for the work it does every day."  He said the
sheriff's office is one of three facilities in the state that's
accredited by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care.

"The OPSO has achieved 100 percent compliance with the NCCHC
standards for accreditation.  Our ongoing accreditation, earned
after Hurricane Katrina, verifies that the OPSO maintains an
efficient, well-managed health care system in our jail, in
accordance with national standards."


NOVELLUS: Continues to Face Lam Research Merger-Related Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------

Novellus Systems, Inc. continues to defend itself from class
action lawsuits filed in connection with its merger with Lam
Research Corp.'s subsidiary, according to the Company's February
24, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On December 15, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
in California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara, by
Marla Skroch, an alleged Novellus shareholder who seeks to
represent a class comprised of Novellus shareholders.  The
complaint in this action, names as defendants Novellus, the
members of Novellus' Board of Directors, and Lam Research.  The
Skroch complaint alleges that the director defendants breached
fiduciary duties allegedly owed to Novellus' shareholders by
entering into the Merger Agreement; that Lam Research and Novellus
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty; and that
if the transaction is allowed to proceed, the shareholders will
suffer damages because their shares will be acquired for less than
their actual value.  The plaintiff seeks an order in the State
Court certifying the action as a class action; rescinding the
transaction and/or preliminarily enjoining the defendants from
consummating the transaction, and/or awarding attorneys' fees and
costs.

On December 19, 2011 a second purported class action was filed in
the State Court by Michael Resing, an alleged Novellus
shareholder, who seeks to represent the same purported class.  The
complaint in this action names as defendants the members of
Novellus' Board of Directors, Novellus, Lam Research and the
Merger subsidiary.  The allegations contained in the Resing
complaint are largely similar to the allegations contained in the
Skroch complaint, except that the Resing complaint also alleges
that BLMS aided and abetted alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by
the director defendants.  The plaintiff seeks similar relief to
that sought by the Skroch complaint.

On December 20, 2011 and December 28, 2011, two additional
purported class action lawsuits were filed by the State Court by
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System and
Nanette Ramsay, alleged Novellus shareholders that seek to
represent the same purported class.  The complaints in these
actions names as defendants the same parties named in the Resing
complaint.  The allegations and relief sought in these complaints
are largely similar to the allegations and relief sought in each
of the preceding complaints, except that the LMPERS complaint
alleges that Novellus breached fiduciary duties allegedly owed to
Novellus' shareholders, rather than aiding and abetting the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  Both the LMPERS complaint and
the Ramsay complaint also seek damages.

Attorneys for the parties in the four actions filed in the State
Court have agreed, and the State Court has ordered, that these
actions be consolidated into one action titled In re Novellus
Systems, Inc. Litigation.  On February 10, 2012, the Superior
Court appointed LMPERS as lead plaintiff.

On January 5, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court by Sunil Nagpal, an alleged
Novellus shareholder, who seeks to represent the same purported
class.  The complaint in this action names as defendants the same
parties as the complaints in the Resing, LMPERS and Ramsay
actions, as well as one former Novellus director, and the
allegations and relief sought in this complaint are largely
similar to the allegations and relief sought in each of the
preceding complaints.

While the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted with
certainty, the Company does not believe that the ultimate
disposition of these matters will have a material adverse effect
on its business, financial condition, operating results or cash
flows.


PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Settles Antitrust Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Jeff Manning, writing for The Oregonian, reports that an anti-
trust lawsuit against Clackamas-based Pacific Seafood group was
settled that could have broken up the company.

Pacific Seafood Group has successfully fought off a class-action
lawsuit by Oregon commercial fishermen that once seemed a major
threat to the Clackamas-based company.

The fisherman claimed that Pacific used its immense market clout
to suppress the price it paid for groundfish, Dungeness crab,
shrimp and other products.  They initially sought as much as $520
million in damages and that Pacific be broken up.

What they will get instead is no monetary damages whatsoever and a
Pacific that remains intact.  Pacific did make several "pro-
competitive" pledges such as a promise not to concentrate its in-
house fleet of fishing vessels in a single port or on a single
commodity.

"Rather than go through the risk of trial and appeal, we decided
that securing this deal helps establish more competitive
conditions immediately rather than three years from now," said
Mike Haglund, the Portland lawyer who conceived of and led the
fishermen's case.

Todd Whaley, the Brookings fisherman who along with his father,
Lloyd, was initially the only named plaintiff, said the settlement
is "bittersweet."

"I'm pleased that we obtained the pro-competitive aspects that we
did," Mr. Whaley said.

In an unusual and carefully negotiated statement, the fishermen
acknowledged that the evidence they collected in the 22 months
since the case was filed did not support some of their suspicions
about Pacific.

"Extensive discovery revealed that some of what fueled the
antitrust concerns in this case has arisen out of mistrust and a
lack of understanding between fishermen and seafood processors,"
the fisherman said in a written statement.  "Plaintiffs also
acknowledge that Pacific Seafood Group and Ocean Gold Seafoods
(another processor initially included as a defendant) have made
substantial investments that contributed to the development of
international markets for West Coast seafood products that benefit
the industry."

The settlement is a big win for Frank Dulcich, who built Pacific
from a single fish shop in Southeast Portland to one of the
largest processors and wholesalers in the country.

Even as he was fighting the class-action alleging Pacific was
already too large and powerful, Mr. Dulcich led continued
expansion.  Last October, Pacific bought Coast Seafoods of South
Bend, Wash., one of the largest oyster companies in the country.

U.S. District Court Judge Owen Panner granted the plaintiff's
class status in February, a key legal victory for the fishermen.
But there were also clear signs the fisherman's case had big
holes.

They reduced their damage claims to between $50 million and $75
million. The fishermen opted to drop the enormous Dungeness crab
market out of their case altogether after determining that Pacific
Seafood's share of the market was not large enough to warrant an
antitrust claim.

Mr. Haglund said on April 2 he remains confident his fishermen
clients would have won at trial.  Mike Esler, a Portland lawyer
who represented Pacific, disagreed.  As the months of discovery
progressed, Mr. Esler said, it became increasingly apparent that
despite Pacific's huge presence, Northwest fishermen have other
options.  Many spend part of each season in Alaska, where Pacific
has much more limited operations.

"Processors don't have market power over fishermen because
fishermen have propellers," Mr. Esler said.

The litigants agreed in February to mediate the case before U.S.
District Court Judge Michael Hogan.  The Eugene judge has
established a reputation for successfully resolving complex legal
disputes.

"This case could have gone on for years, including appeals,"
Judge Hogan said in a press release.  "The fishermen and the
processors, especially Pacific Seafood Group, are to be commended
for taking a statesmanlike approach to resolving this complicated
case."

Judge Panner must approve the settlement.  He will hold a hearing
on the matter in May.

Mr. Haglund and his law firm will get $2.9 million in legal fees
and expenses under the agreement.  Mr. Haglund said his firm
agreed to reduce its normal fees by a third.  The money will come
from Pacific Seafood's insurer.

The pro-competitive measures agreed to by Pacific include:

* Ending its relationship with Ocean Gold Seafoods in 2016.
Westport, Wash.-based Ocean Gold sold all its product to Pacific.
Fishermen hope the end of that contract will increase competition.

* Pacific and Ocean Gold will report average wholesale prices to a
seafood market reporting service if other processors do the same.
Increasing transparency would help fishermen negotiate better
prices, they believe, particularly in the shrimp market.

* Pacific and Ocean Gold will accept fish scrap from new
processors. Disposing of fish waste is a major barrier to entry in
the processing industry.

Pacific and Ocean Gold also agreed for 10 years not to retaliate
against Todd and Lloyd Whaley and their two fellow named
plaintiffs, Jeff Boardman of Depoe Bay and Brian Nolte of
Brookings.


PIER SIXTY: Settles Service Charge Class Action for $8.5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sumathi Reddy, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
The Pier Sixty banquet hall has agreed to an $8.5 million
settlement in a class-action lawsuit brought by workers who
claimed they were owed money from a service charge the hall
required of customers.

The settlement, pending federal court approval in Manhattan, is
believed to be the largest of its kind in an industry increasingly
hit by class-action lawsuits.

Attorneys for Pier Sixty and the workers declined to comment.
Both sides said separately: "The matter has been resolved to the
satisfaction of all parties."

Those in the restaurant industry say the tide of service-charge-
related lawsuits was sparked by a February 2008 ruling by New
York's highest court, the Court of Appeals.  That ruling
determined that the "service charge" usually added to contracts
for large parties must be passed on to employees who receive tips
if the customer is led to believe it's a gratuity.

Known as the "World Yacht" case because it came about as a result
of a suit filed against the cruise company, the ruling led to a
flurry of litigation because it was retroactive for six years,
said attorney Felice Ekelman -- EkelmanF@jacksonlewis.com -- of
Jackson Lewis LLP, who represents many restaurants.

"If you were attentive and you modified your practices after the
World Yacht decision, you could still be sued for the six years
prior," Ms. Ekelman said.

Legislation was introduced in January to amend the state's labor
law so that any liability is not retroactive.

A group of catering and restaurant owners lobbying for the bill
met at the Long Island office of Jackson Lewis on April 2 to
discuss the legislation.  The bill is pending.

The Pier Sixty suit was filed in 2008 on behalf of servers and
bartenders who alleged that the catering space charged customers a
20% to 22% service fee, which was not distributed fully to
employees.

The settlement affects about 2,500 employees who worked at Pier
Sixty dating back to 2002.

Overlooking the Hudson River, Pier Sixty is located in Chelsea
Piers, a sports and entertainment complex. The 20,000-square-foot
space accommodates up to 2,000 people.

The Pier Sixty settlement follows one last month in which
celebrity chef Mario Batali and his business partner agreed to a
$5.25 million payment to staffers who alleged that a portion of
their tips were absorbed by their employers.  In 2009, Sparks
Steak House settled a similar lawsuit for $3.15 million.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Appeal From Antitrust Suit Ruling Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court ruling in the class action filed by
Superior Offshore International, Inc., is pending, according to
SEACOR Holdings Inc.'s February 24, 2012, 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

On June 12, 2009, a purported civil class action was filed against
the Company, Era Group Inc., Era Helicopters LLC and three other
defendants in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware, Superior Offshore International, Inc. v. Bristow Group
Inc., et al., No. 09-CV-438 (D. Del.).  The Complaint alleges that
the Defendants violated federal antitrust law by conspiring with
each other to raise, fix, maintain or stabilize prices for
offshore helicopter services in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico during the
period January 2001 to December 2005.  The purported class of
plaintiffs includes all direct purchasers of such services and the
relief sought includes compensatory damages and treble damages.
The Company believes that the claims set forth in the Complaint
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.

On September 4, 2009, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint.  On September 14, 2010, the Court entered an order
dismissing the Complaint. On September 28, 2010, the plaintiffs
filed a motion for reconsideration and amendment and a motion for
re-argument.  On November 30, 2010, the Court granted the Motions,
amended the Court's September 14, 2010 Order to clarify that the
dismissal was without prejudice, permitted the filing of an
Amended Complaint, and authorized limited discovery with respect
to the new allegations in the Amended Complaint.  Following the
completion of such limited discovery, on February 11, 2011, the
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the
Amended Complaint with prejudice.  On June 23, 2011, the Court
granted summary judgment for the Defendants.  On July 22, 2011,
the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.  On August 9, 2011, Defendants
moved for certain excessive costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1927.  That motion is fully briefed and a
decision is pending.  On October 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed
their opening appeal brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.  That motion is fully briefed and oral argument is
calendared for March 20, 2012.  The Company is unable to estimate
the potential exposure, if any, resulting from these claims but
believes they are without merit and will continue to vigorously
defend the action.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Appeal From "Robin" Suit Ruling Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc. is awaiting the outcome of an appeal taken
from final judgments entered in favor of the Company in the
lawsuit over the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of
Mexico, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2011.

On July 14, 2010, a group of individuals and entities purporting
to represent a class commenced a civil action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Terry G. Robin, et
al. v. Seacor Marine, L.L.C., et al., No. 2:10-cv-01986 (E.D.
La.), in which they assert that support vessels, including vessels
owned by the Company, responding to the explosion and resulting
fire that occurred aboard the semi-submersible drilling rig, the
Deepwater Horizon, were negligent in their efforts to save lives
and put out the fire and contributed to the sinking of the
Deepwater Horizon and subsequent oil spill.  The action now is
part of the overall multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill by
the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179.

The complaint seeks compensatory, punitive, exemplary, and other
damages.  In response to this lawsuit, the Company filed petitions
seeking exoneration from, or limitation of liability in relation
to, any actions that may have been taken by vessels owned by the
Company to extinguish the fire.  Pursuant to the Limitation of
Liability Act, those petitions imposed an automatic stay on the
Robin Case, and the court set a deadline of April 20, 2011 for
individual claimants to assert claims in the limitation cases.
Approximately 66 claims were submitted by the deadline in all of
the limitation actions.  On June 8, 2011, the Company moved to
dismiss these claims (with the exception of one claim filed by a
Company employee) on various legal grounds.  On October 12, 2011,
the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety,
dismissing with prejudice all claims that had been filed against
the Company in the limitation actions (with the exception of one
claim filed by a Company employee that was not subject to the
motion to dismiss).  The Court entered final judgments in favor of
the Company in the Robin case and each of the limitation actions
on November 21, 2011.  On December 12, 2011, the claimants
appealed each of those judgments to the Unites States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  A briefing schedule for the
appeals has not yet been established.  The Company is unable to
estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from this
matter but believes it is without merit and will continue to
vigorously defend the action.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: "Wunstell" Suit in Louisiana Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed by John Wunstell, Jr. and Kelly Blanchard in
Louisiana remains stayed, according to SEACOR Holdings Inc.'s
February 24, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On July 20, 2010, two individuals purporting to represent a class
commenced a civil action in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, John Wunstell, Jr.
and Kelly Blanchard v. BP, et al., No. 2010-7437 (Division K), in
which they assert, among other theories, that Mr. Wunstell
suffered injuries as a result of his exposure to certain noxious
fumes and chemicals in connection with the provision of
remediation, containment and response services by O'Brien's
Response Management Inc., a subsidiary of SEACOR.  The action now
is part of the overall multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill
by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon," MDL No. 2179.  The complaint
also seeks to establish a "class-wide court-supervised medical
monitoring program" for all individuals "participating in BP's
Deepwater Horizon Vessels of Opportunity Program and/or Horizon
Response Program" who allegedly experience injuries similar to Mr.
Wunstell.  The Company believes this lawsuit has no merit and will
seek its dismissal.  Pursuant to contractual agreements with the
responsible party, the responsible party has agreed, subject to
certain potential limitations, to indemnify and defend O'Brien's
in connection with the Wunstell Action and claims asserted in the
MDL.

By court order, the Wunstell Action has been stayed as a result of
the filing of the master complaint in the overall MDL against
SEACOR subsidiaries O'Brien's and National Response Corporation on
December 15, 2010.

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


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Units Required to File Motions by May 18
---------------------------------------------------------
O'Brien's Response Management Inc. and another SEACOR Holdings
Inc. subsidiary are required to file on May 18 motions re-
asserting their derivative immunity and implied preemption
arguments in connection with the master complaint filed in a
multi-district litigation, according to the Company's February 24,
2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On December 15, 2010, SEACOR subsidiaries O'Brien's and National
Response Corporation were named as defendants in one of the
several consolidated "master complaints" that have been filed in
the overall multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill by the Oil
Rig "Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179.  The master complaint
naming O'Brien's and NRC asserts various claims on behalf of a
putative class against multiple defendants concerning the clean-up
activities generally, and the use of dispersants specifically.

The Company believes that the claims asserted against its
subsidiaries in the master complaint have no merit and on February
28, 2011, O'Brien's and NRC moved to dismiss all claims against
them in the master complaint on legal grounds.  On September 30,
2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to
dismiss that O'Brien's and NRC had filed (an amended decision was
issued on October 4, 2011 that corrected several grammatical
errors and non-substantive oversights in the original order).

Although the Court refused to dismiss the referenced master
complaint in its entirety at that time, the Court did recognize
the validity of the "derivative immunity" and "implied preemption"
arguments that O'Brien's and NRC advanced and has directed
O'Brien's and NRC to (i) conduct limited discovery to develop
evidence to support those arguments and (ii) then re-assert the
arguments.  A schedule for such limited discovery and future
motion practice has been established by the Court and currently
contemplates that O'Brien's and NRC will file motions re-asserting
their derivative immunity and implied preemption arguments on
May 18, 2012. The Court did, however, dismiss all state-law claims
and certain other claims that had been asserted in the referenced
master complaint, and dismissed the claims of all plaintiffs that
have failed to allege a legally-sufficient injury. Finally, the
Court stated that the plaintiffs could file an amended master
complaint and the plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to do
so.

In addition to the indemnity provided to O'Brien's, pursuant to
contractual agreements with the responsible party, the responsible
party has agreed, subject to certain potential limitations, to
indemnify and defend O'Brien's and NRC in connection with these
claims in the MDL.


SWISHER HYGIENE: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of Swisher
Hygiene Inc., has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased Swisher securities between May 16, 2011 and March 28,
2012, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Swisher provides hygiene and sanitation solutions in North America
and internationally.  The Complaint charges Swisher and certain of
the Company's executive officers with violations of federal
securities laws.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that
throughout the Class Period the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about Swisher's business, operations and prospects,
including: (1) that the Company was improperly accounting for
business acquisitions; (2) that the Company was improperly
calculating its allowance for doubtful accounts receivable; (3)
that, as a result, the Company's income was overstated; (4) that,
as such, the Company's financial results were not prepared in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (5) that
the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and
(6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.  Until a
class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you
retain one.  If you purchased Swisher securities between May 16,
2011 and March 28, 2012, you have until May 29, 2012, to move for
lead plaintiff status.  To be a member of the class you need not
take action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or
take no action and remain an absent class member.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215)638-4847
          Toll-Free: (888)638-4847
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com


SWISHER HYGIENE: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jen Wilson, writing for Charlotte Business Journal, reports that
Rigrodsky & Long, a law firm based in Delaware, has filed a class-
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Swisher Hygiene Inc., alleging
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The class includes those who purchased shares of Swisher between
May 16, 2011, and March 28 of this year.  The suit alleges that
throughout that period, Swisher made false and misleading
statements concerning the company's publicly reported financial
statements for the first, second and third quarters of 2011.

Specifically, the complaint refers to Swisher's March 28
announcement that it would file for an extension to release its
fourth-quarter financial results.

In that statement, Swisher said its audit committee is reviewing
prior quarterly reports for 2011, which investors should no longer
rely upon.

Rigrodsky & Long's complaint contends that as a consequence of the
disclosure, Swisher's common stock price dropped dramatically on
unusually heavy trading volume.

A spokeswoman for Swisher declines to comment, citing pending
litigation.

Rigrodsky & Long's suit is the latest in a string of complaints
triggered by Swisher's disclosure.

Charlotte-based Swisher provides hygiene and sanitation services
and products to customers in the food-service, hospitality,
retail, industrial and health-care industries.  In recent years,
it has grown rapidly through a series of acquisitions.


TATA CONSULTANCY: Responds to IT Workers' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
IANS reports that Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) on April 3 said
the claims made in a class action suit for violating rights of its
non-US citizen workers in the US were "without merit."

"We have received the order of the US District Court.  This is an
order only on one procedural matter and does not address the
merits of this case," India's biggest software outsourcer said in
a e-mail response to IANS.

"TCS continues to believe that when this matter concludes, the
court will find that the plaintiff's claims are without any
merit," it added.

A judge in District Court in California on April 2 approved a
class action lawsuit, accusing TCS of breaching employee contracts
and violating California labor laws.

The petitioner has sought compensation and damages for current and
former employees who were not paid what they were promised and
were deprived of their US tax refunds.

A class action status means that the result of a lawsuit by one or
more plaintiffs would be binding for a larger group of people.
The ruling allows all non-US citizens employed in the US between
February 14, 2002, and June 30, 2005, and those sent to the US
after January 1, 2002, to take part in the lawsuit.

Earlier this year, the IT bellwether expanded its presence in the
U.S., opening a customer collaboration center in California to
serve as the worldwide headquarters of the firm's mobility
solutions unit.

The firm has about 214,000 employees across 42 countries, and had
a revenue of $8.2 billion in the financial year ending March 31,
2011.


WHOLE FOODS: Kottaras Appeals Denial of Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a putative class action lawsuit against Whole
Foods Market Inc. appealed the denial of her motion for class
certification, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended January 15, 2012.

On October 27, 2008, Whole Foods Market was served with the
complaint in Kottaras v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., a putative
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, seeking treble damages, equitable,
injunctive, and declaratory relief and alleging that the
acquisition and merger between Whole Foods Market and Wild Oats
violates various provisions of the federal antitrust laws.  During
the sixteen weeks ended January 15, 2012, the federal district
judge denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
Currently that decision is being appealed.  The Company has not
accrued any loss related to the outcome of this case as of January
15, 2012.


                           *********

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  * * *