---

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

             Wednesday, April 11, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 71

                             Headlines

AEROFLOT: Settles Class Action Over 2010 U.S. Flight Delay
ALLIANT ENERGY: Still Faces Pension Plan Participants' Suit
APPLE CANADA: Regina Law Firm Launches Class Action Over Siri
BNSF RAILWAY CO: Consolidated Antitrust Suits Still Pending
CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Bernard M. Gross Files Class Action

CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Robins Geller Rudman Files Class Action
CHEMED CORP: Appeal in Suit v. Unit Pending in California
CHEMED CORP: Suit Over Unpaid Wages Still Pending in New York
CHEMED CORP: Class Action Suit in Minnesota Still Pending
CHEMED CORP: Faces Securities Class Suit in Ohio

CHINA SKY: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
CHUBB CORP: Awaits Approval of Antitrust Suit Dismissal Bid
CRANE CO: New Jersey Homeowners' Class Action Suit Pending
DYNEGY INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in New York
EL PASO NATURAL: "BofA" Suit in Oklahoma Still Pending

FACEBOOK: B.C. Entrepreneur Sues Over "Sponsored Story"
GNC HOLDINGS: Still Faces Hydroxycut-Related Class Action Suits
HOT'S KITCHEN: Sued Over False Advertising on Foie Gras
HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL: Recalls 26,000 Grass and Hedge Trimmers
NEW ENERGY: Gainey & McKenna, Egleston File Class Action

PUBLIC BIKES: Recalls 4,100 Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
PUBLIX SUPER: Morgan & Morgan, Levine Kellog File Class Actions
SEI INVESTMENTS: Bid to Dismiss Lawsuit Over ETFs Pending
SEI INVESTMENTS: Class Action Suits in Louisiana, Texas Pending
SERVICE CORPORATION: Eagan Avenatti Files Class Action

SIRIUS XM: Merlin Agrees to $1.6-Mil. Class Action Settlement
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Garza" Suit Still Pending in Arizona
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Consolidated Suit in Tennessee Pending
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Sheer" Suit Remains Pending in Arizona
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Burnell" Suit Remains Stayed

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Appeal From "Sanders" Suit Dismissal Pending
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Montalvo" and "Ridderbush" Suits Pending
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Slack" Class Action Suit Still Pending
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "FCRA" Suit in Arizona Still Pending
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Bid to Dismiss Discrimination Suit Pending

SWINTON AVENUE: Recalls 319,000 Office Depot Brand Desk Chairs
TICKETMASTER: Settles Class Action Over Inflated Ticket Prices
TODSON INC: Recalls 40,000 Bicycle Child Carrier Seats
TORONTO DOMINION: Judge Certifies Overdraft Fee Class Action
U.S. BANK: Appeals Court Reverses $15-Mil. Class Action Judgment

UNIVERSAL HEALTH: "GCERS" Class Action Suit Still Pending
WEST ELM: Recalls 10,100 Folding Chairs Due to Fall Hazard


                          *********

AEROFLOT: Settles Class Action Over 2010 U.S. Flight Delay
----------------------------------------------------------
Russian Legal Information Agency reports that Aeroflot has reached
a settlement with passengers who sued the company in a U.S. court
after a 30-hour flight delay in 2010, according to the court
records made available to RAPSI.

According to the plaintiffs, they bought tickets for Aeroflot's
March 13, 2010 flight from New York to Moscow, but the flight was
delayed for more than 30 hours due to a storm.

The plaintiffs said Aeroflot violated their rights under the
Russian Aerial Code's Section No. 99 on financing accident
investigations and Section No. 117 on responsibility for
inflicting harm to a passenger's life or health.  The documents do
not specify how their rights were violated.

Russia's flagship airline denied all the claims, stating that it
acted in good faith and gave the plaintiffs no reason to accuse it
of negligence or require compensation.

The settlement details have not been made public.  The litigation
has been terminated.

Earlier, lawyer Sergei Zhorin, who represented the passengers
stranded in Moscow airports during a December 2010 air collapse,
told RAPSI that such arrangements are always confidential.
Mr. Zhorin, whose clients also resolved their dispute with the
airline out of court, added that judging by his experience both
parties are satisfied with the settlement.


ALLIANT ENERGY: Still Faces Pension Plan Participants' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit involving participants under Alliant Energy
Corp.'s pension plan is still pending, according to the Company's
February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

In February 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Plan in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin (Court).  The complaint alleged that certain Plan
participants who received distributions prior to their normal
retirement age did not receive the full benefit to which they were
entitled in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA) because the Plan applied an improper interest
crediting rate to project the cash balance account to their normal
retirement age.  These Plan participants were limited to
individuals who, prior to normal retirement age, received a lump
sum distribution or an annuity payment.  The Court certified two
subclasses of plaintiffs that in aggregate include all persons
vested or partially vested in the Plan who received these
distributions from Jan. 1, 1998 to Aug. 17, 2006 including: (1)
persons who received distributions from Jan. 1, 1998 through Feb.
28, 2002; and (2) persons who received distributions from March 1,
2002 to Aug. 17, 2006.

In June 2010, the Court issued an opinion and order that granted
the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability in the
lawsuit and decided with respect to damages that prejudgment
interest on damages would be allowed.  In December 2010, the Court
issued an opinion and order that decided the interest crediting
rate that the Plan used to project the cash balance accounts of
the plaintiffs during the class period should have been 8.2% and
that a pre-retirement mortality discount would not be applied to
the damages calculation.  In March 2011, the Court issued an
opinion and order that prejudgment interest on damages would be
calculated using the average prime rate from the date that the
Plan failed to make the total payment to a particular participant
through the date of the final judgment (which has not yet been
issued).  In September 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave
to file a supplemental complaint to assert that the 2011 amendment
to the Plan, made to conform with the IRS determination letter was
itself an ERISA violation. In November 2011, the Court allowed the
filing of the Plaintiffs' supplemental complaint and denied a
separate motion for reconsideration filed by the Plan arguing that
certain of Plaintiffs' claims were time-barred. Following the
November 2011 ruling,  Plaintiffs filed a new complaint. The Plan
filed an answer in January 2012, pursuant to the scheduling order
issued by the Court.  Following resolution of the new complaint,
the Plan may appeal the final judgment to the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals.


APPLE CANADA: Regina Law Firm Launches Class Action Over Siri
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barb Pacholik, writing for Postmedia News, reports that a Regina
law firm has launched a proposed class action lawsuit over what it
claims are "misleading messages" about Apple Canada Inc.'s Siri
smart-phone feature.

The suit, filed last week in Regina by Merchant Law Group, notes a
press release introducing Siri lauded it as "an intelligent
assistant."  The voice-activated software responds to questions
such as "Will I need an umbrella this weekend? or "Remind me to
call mom."

The statement of claim notes Apple's video advertisements showed
individuals using Siri, which became available with the iPhone 4S
in October, to "make appointments, find restaurants, and even
learn guitar chords to classic rock songs or how to tie a tie."

But shortly after buying an iPhone 4S, Regina resident Catlin
Hendriks -- the only named plaintiff at this point -- found it
wasn't performing as advertised.

"Siri either did not understand what the plaintiff was asking or,
after a very long wait time, responded with the wrong answer. The
plaintiff quickly recognized the futility of using Siri," contends
the suit.

A statement of claim contains allegations not yet proven in court.
The proposed class is all persons in Canada who bought an Apple
iPhone 4S.  The suit cannot proceed as a class action until it
receives approval by a judge.

A spokesperson with Apple Canada's corporate office said its
company policy is not to comment on litigation.  A statement of
defense has not yet been filed.

The Regina action comes on the heels of a similar claim filed
recently in Quebec by Merchant group over alleged problems with
the iPhone 4, and echoes several lawsuits filed by other firms in
the United States regarding Siri.

The Regina suit claims Apple knew of the Siri's "shortcomings"
before its distribution.  "Indeed, buried in Apple's Web site is
the amorphous sentence: 'Siri is currently in beta and we'll
continue to improve it over time,'" it says.

The suit claims Apple didn't disclose that the Siri transactions
in its commercials are fictitious.


BNSF RAILWAY CO: Consolidated Antitrust Suits Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
BNSF Railway Company continues to defend itself from amended
consolidated class action complaints involving rail shippers who
accused the Company and other Class I railroads of conspiring to
fix fuel surcharges, according to the Company's February 27, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

Beginning May 14, 2007, some 30 similar class action complaints
were filed in six federal district courts around the country by
rail shippers against BNSF Railway and other Class I railroads
alleging that they have conspired to fix fuel surcharges with
respect to unregulated freight transportation services in
violation of the antitrust laws and seeking injunctive relief and
unspecified treble damages.  These cases have been consolidated
and are currently pending in the federal district court of the
District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings. (In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1869).  Consolidated amended class action
complaints were filed against BNSF Railway and three other Class I
railroads in April 2008. The Company believes that these claims
are without merit and continues to defend against the allegations
vigorously.  The Company does not believe that the outcome of
these proceedings will have a material effect on its financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity.


CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Bernard M. Gross Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court, Western District of North
Carolina, 12cv 00215, on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Chelsea Therapeutics Int'l
Ltd. between June 9, 2011 and February 17, 2012, against the
Company, Arthur Hewitt and Simon Pedder for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Chelsea has been developing the drug Northera ("Droxidopa") for
use in treating neurogenic orthostatic hypotension ("NOH") in
patients with primary autonomic failure, including Parkinson's
disease.  This action involves alleged material misstatements and
omissions by Defendants during the Class Period concerning the
safety and efficacy of Droxidopa for patients with NOH, the
results of the Phase III testing of Droxidopa for patients with
NOH, the post-marketing events in Japan and the likelihood of FDA
approval of Droxidopa for patients with NOH in light of the known
adverse material facts concerning Droxidopa for patients with NOH
resulting in artificially inflating the market price of Chelsea
common stock during the Class Period.  It is further alleged that
when the true facts concerning the safety and efficacy of
Droxidopa for patients with NOH were revealed to the market, first
in a press release on February 13, when defendants disclosed they
had received the FDA briefing document, and then on February 21,
when the FDA disclosed the briefing document, the artificial
inflation of Chelsea's common stock was removed and Chelsea's
common stock price declined dramatically.  As a result, on
February 13, 2012, the market price of Chelsea common stock
dropped significantly, declining from $4.99 per share to close at
$3.11 per share, to decline again on Feb. 22, 2012 closing at
$2.41 per share.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 4, 2012.  Any member of the purported class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.  If you wish to discuss this action or any questions
concerning this notice, please contact plaintiff's counsel,

          Susan R. Gross, Esq.
          Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES BERNARD M. GROSS, P.C.
          Telephone: (866) 561-3600
          E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com
                  debbie@bernardmgross.com
          Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com

A copy of the complaint can be viewed at:

           http://www.bernardmgross.com


CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Robins Geller Rudman Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 5 announced that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina on behalf of purchasers of
Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd. common stock during the
period between June 9, 2011 and February 17, 2012.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from April 4, 2012.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/chelsea/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Chelsea and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Chelsea is a biopharmaceutical company that has been developing
the drug Northera ("Droxidopa") for use in treating neurogenic
orthostatic hypotension ("NOH") in patients with primary autonomic
failure, including Parkinson's disease.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued material misstatements and omissions concerning the safety
and efficacy of Droxidopa for patients with NOH. Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose, among other things: (i) the results
of the Phase III testing of Droxidopa for patients with NOH; (ii)
the post-marketing events in Japan (where Droxidopa has been
approved for the same indication since 1989); and (iii) the
likelihood of FDA approval of Droxidopa for patients with NOH in
light of the known adverse material facts concerning Droxidopa.
These false and misleading statements resulted in the artificial
inflation of the market price of Chelsea common stock during the
Class Period.

On February 13, 2012, defendants announced the that FDA had
provided Chelsea with a briefing document that the FDA staff had
prepared for the February 23, 2012 Advisory Committee meeting and
that it had raised questions concerning Droxidopa's risk-benefit
analysis.  On this disclosure, Chelsea stock dropped from $4.99
per share to $3.11 per share.  Then, on February 21, 2012, the FDA
publicly released the briefing document that had been provided to
Chelsea on February 13, 2012.  The FDA recommended that Droxidopa
for patients with NOH not be approved for use in the United
States, stating that Droxidopa had not demonstrated durable
effectiveness in clinical trials and showed worrisome safety
signals in test results and in post-marketing cases in Japan.  As
a result, on February 21, 2012, the market price of Chelsea common
stock dropped again, closing at $2.64 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Chelsea common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a 180-lawyer firm
with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton,
Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta.


CHEMED CORP: Appeal in Suit v. Unit Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court order denying the request for class
certification in a lawsuit filed against CHEMED Corp.'s subsidiary
remains pending, according to the Company's February 27, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

Vitas Healthcare Corporation is party to a class action lawsuit
filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, in
September 2006 by Bernadette Santos, Keith Knoche and Joyce White.
This case alleges failure to pay overtime and failure to provide
meal and rest periods to a purported class of California
admissions nurses, chaplains and sales representatives.  The case
seeks payment of penalties, interest and Plaintiffs' attorney
fees.  Vitas contests these allegations.  In December 2009, the
trial court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification.  In
July 2011, the Court of Appeals affirmed denial of class
certification on the travel time, meal and rest period claims, and
reversed the trial court's denial on the off-the-clock and sales
representation exemption claims.  Plaintiffs have filed an appeal
of this decision.  The Company is unable to estimate its potential
liability or potential range of loss, if any, with respect to this
case.


CHEMED CORP: Suit Over Unpaid Wages Still Pending in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against CHEMED Corp. in New York for
unpaid minimum wages remains pending, according to the Company's
February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On March 1, 2010, Anthony Morangelli and Frank Ercole filed a
class action lawsuit in federal district court for the Eastern
District of New York seeking unpaid minimum wages and overtime
service technician compensation from Roto-Rooter Services Company
and Chemed.  They also seek payment of penalties, interest and
Plaintiffs' attorney fees.  The Company contests these
allegations.  In September 2010, the Court conditionally certified
a nationwide class of service technicians, excluding those who
signed dispute resolution agreements agreeing to arbitrate claims
arising out of their employment.  The Company is unable to
estimate its potential liability, if any, related to this case.


CHEMED CORP: Class Action Suit in Minnesota Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against CHEMED Corp.'s subsidiary over
alleged unnecessary excavation work remains pending, according to
the Company's February 27, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

On November 14, 2011 Luann and Michael Cosgrove and Dawn Mills
filed a class action lawsuit against Roto-Rooter in Minnesota
State District Court for the 4th Judicial District alleging
unnecessary excavation work in Minnesota.  The Company removed the
case to federal court.  Plaintiffs seek damages, injunctive
relief, attorney fees and interest.  Roto-Rooter contests these
allegations.  This lawsuit is in its early stage and the Company
is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any, with
respect to these allegations.


CHEMED CORP: Faces Securities Class Suit in Ohio
------------------------------------------------
CHEMED Corp. is defending itself from a putative class action
lawsuit filed by a pension fund over securities law violations in
Ohio, according to the Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On January 12, 2012, the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension
Fund filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the
Company, Kevin McNamara, David Williams, and Tim O'Toole.  It
alleges violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and violation of
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the
individual defendants.  The suit, Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters
Pension Fund v. Chemed Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-28
(S.D. Ohio), concerns the VITAS hospice segment of the Company's
business.  Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of Chemed Capital Stock between February 15, 2010 and
November 16, 2011, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount
and attorneys' fees and expenses, arising from defendants' failure
to disclose an alleged fraudulent scheme to enroll ineligible
hospice patients and to fraudulently obtain payments from the
federal government.  Defendants believe the allegations are
without merit, and intend to defend vigorously against them.


CHINA SKY: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
-----------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. reminds investors of the important
April 24, 2012 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action lawsuit
on behalf of investors who purchased the securities of China Sky
One Medical, Inc. stock between April 16, 2009 and February 14,
2012.

To join the China Sky One class action, visit the firm's website
at http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at
866-767-3653; you may also e-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.

The Complaint alleges that, in violation of the federal securities
laws: (1) the Company improperly inflated earnings; (2) the
Company's gross margins were inflated; (3) the Company lacked
adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

The Complaint alleges that when this adverse information entered
the market the price of China Sky One securities dropped, causing
investor losses.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 24, 2012.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Jon Horne, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor
          New York, New York 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com

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


CHUBB CORP: Awaits Approval of Antitrust Suit Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit involving purchasers of
insurance who accuse The Chubb Corporation of unlawful use of
commission agreements remains pending, according to the Company's
February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On August 1, 2005, Chubb and certain of its subsidiaries were
named in a putative class action entitled In re Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (N.J. District Court).  This action,
brought against several brokers and insurers on behalf of a class
of persons who purchased insurance through the broker defendants,
asserts claims under the Sherman Act, state law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) arising from the
alleged unlawful use of contingent commission agreements.  On
September 28, 2007, the N.J. District Court dismissed the second
amended complaint filed by the plaintiffs in its entirety.  In so
doing, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' Sherman Act and RICO
claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and it
dismissed the plaintiffs' state law claims without prejudice
because it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
them.  The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their second
amended complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit (Third Circuit).

On August 13, 2010, the Third Circuit affirmed in part and vacated
in part the N.J. District Court decision and remanded the case
back to the N.J. District Court for further proceedings.  As a
result of the Third Circuit's decision, the plaintiffs' state law
claims and certain of the plaintiffs' Sherman Act and RICO claims
were reinstated against the Corporation.  The Corporation and the
other defendants filed on October 1, 2010 motions to dismiss the
reinstated claims.  Since that time, several of the other
defendants entered into settlement agreements with the plaintiffs,
which currently are awaiting final court approval.  In light of
these settlements and their impact on the litigation, the N.J.
District Court on June 17, 2011 dismissed without prejudice the
motions to dismiss filed by the Corporation and the other non-
settling defendants.  On October 21, 2011, the Corporation and the
other non-settling defendants refiled their motions to dismiss and
the plaintiffs filed their statements in opposition.  No date has
yet been set for any further proceedings with respect to these
motions.

Chubb and certain of its subsidiaries also have been named as
defendants in other putative class actions relating or similar to
the In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation that have been
filed in various state courts or in U.S. district courts between
2005 and 2007.  These actions have been subsequently removed and
ultimately transferred to the N.J. District Court for
consolidation with the In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation.  These actions are currently stayed.

In those actions, the plaintiffs generally allege that the
defendants unlawfully used contingent commission agreements and
conspired to reduce competition in the insurance markets.  The
actions seek treble damages, injunctive and declaratory relief and
attorneys' fees.  The Corporation believes it has substantial
defenses to all of those legal proceedings and intends to defend
the actions vigorously.


CRANE CO: New Jersey Homeowners' Class Action Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. continues to defend itself from a class action lawsuit
involving homeowners allegedly affected by the operations of the
Company's manufacturing facility in New Jersey, according to the
Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

Pursuant to recently enacted regulations in New Jersey, the
Company performed certain tests of the indoor air quality of
approximately 40 homes in a residential area surrounding a former
manufacturing facility in Roseland, New Jersey, to determine if
any contaminants (volatile organic compound vapors from
groundwater) from the facility were present in those homes.  The
Company installed vapor mitigation equipment in three homes where
contaminants were found.  On April 15, 2011, those three
homeowners, and the tenants in one of those homes, filed separate
suits against the Company seeking unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages for their lost property value and nuisance.  In
addition, a homeowner in the testing area, whose home tested
negative for the presence of contaminants, filed a class action
suit against the Company on behalf of himself and 142 other
homeowners in the surrounding area, claiming damages in the nature
of loss of value on their homes due to their proximity to the
facility.  It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate
the amount of a loss and therefore, no loss amount has been
accrued for the claims because among other things, the extent of
the environmental impact, consideration of other factors affecting
value have not yet advanced to the stage where a reasonable
estimate can be made.


DYNEGY INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, case no. 12 Civ. 2307, on behalf of all persons who
purchased Dynegy Inc. common stock between September 2, 2011 and
March 9, 2012 inclusive.

The Company, Dynegy's Chief Executive Officer Robert Flexon,
Dynegy's Chief Financial Officer Clint Freeland and Carl C. Icahn
are charged with violations of Section 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants
knew or recklessly failed to inform investors that Dynegy's
wholly-owned subsidiary fraudulently transferred direct ownership
in one of Dynegy's indirectly owned subsidiaries directly to
Dynegy.

On March 9, 2012, a bankruptcy examiner disclosed that Dynegy
improperly acquired direct ownership of the indirectly owned
subsidiary through a fraudulent transfer.  This news caused Dynegy
stock to drop approximately 35% by the close of the business day.
Then, on April 4, 2012, Dynegy announced that it had resolved the
Company's disputes with major creditors.  On this news, Company
stock plummeted by over 25%, closing at $0.39 per share.

If you purchased Dynegy stock between September 2, 2011 and March
9, 2012, you may, not later than May 29, 2012, move the court to
serve as lead plaintiff of the class.


EL PASO NATURAL: "BofA" Suit in Oklahoma Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Natural Gas Company continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit filed by Bank of America asserting royalty
underpayment claims, according to the Company's February 27, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company is a named defendant, along with Burlington Resources,
Inc. (Burlington), now a subsidiary of ConocoPhillips Company, in
a class action lawsuit styled Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso
Natural Gas and Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company, L.P.,
filed in October 2003 in the District Court of Kiowa County,
Oklahoma asserting royalty underpayment claims related to
specified shallow wells in Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico.  The
Plaintiffs assert that royalties were underpaid starting in the
1980s when the purchase price of gas was lowered below the Natural
Gas Policy Act maximum lawful prices.  The Plaintiffs have only
alleged an amount of damages against the Company's co-defendant,
Burlington. The Company believes that its actions in the 1980s
were proper in light of a declining market.  The Company also
contends that it is entitled to an indemnity from Burlington under
its 1992 separation agreement for all claims related to royalty
payments, which Burlington denies. The Plaintiffs assert that
royalties were further underpaid by Burlington as a result of
post-production cost deductions taken starting in the late 1990s.
The Company has no liability for the post-production claims as
they pertain to periods after its separation from Burlington.
This action was transferred to Washita County District Court in
2004.  A tentative settlement reached in November 2005 was
rejected by the court in June 2007. A class certification hearing
occurred in April 2009.  The court certified a Texas and Oklahoma
class of royalty owners and stayed the claims pertaining to New
Mexico wells.  The class certification was upheld by the Oklahoma
Court of Appeals, and a petition for review was denied by the
Oklahoma Supreme Court.  The Plaintiffs have proceeded with
discovery of the post-production claims against Burlington.  The
Company's costs and legal exposure related to this lawsuit are not
currently determinable.


FACEBOOK: B.C. Entrepreneur Sues Over "Sponsored Story"
-------------------------------------------------------
The Montreal Gazette reports that a B.C. entrepreneur is launching
a class action lawsuit against social media giant Facebook over
what she alleges is a "high-handed" and "reckless" breach of
privacy laws.

Deborah Douez, videographer and owner of Video4Web Productions,
filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on behalf
of all B.C. residents who are Facebook members and whose name or
portrait has been used by Facebook in a "sponsored story" without
their consent.

"Facebook's use of the plaintiff and class members' names or
portraits without consent was high-handed, outrageous, wanton,
reckless, callous, disgraceful, wilful and entirely without care
for the plaintiffs and class members' statutory right to control
the use of their own names or portraits, and as such renders
Facebook liable to pay punitive damages," according to the notice
of claim filed on March 29.

The allegations have not yet been proven in court.

The company introduced "sponsored stories" last year as a form of
advertising which uses a Facebook member's name or portrait to
endorse goods or services of a third-party advertiser to a
member's friends without their consent, according to the lawsuit.

Sponsored stories are triggered when a user clicks the "like"
button on Facebook in connection with a group or company and its
goods or services.  "Checking in" on Facebook to a physical
location linked to an advertiser or using an app connected with a
sponsor also generates a "sponsored story" which is featured in a
sidebar on the right-hand side of users' news feeds.

"In so doing Facebook authors and creates a unique and new
advertisement through the rearrangement of text and images which
then features the Member as an endorser, marketer or advertiser of
a third party good or service," it said.

Among damages sought, Ms. Douez is seeking an injunction
preventing Facebook from using users' names and portraits in
advertising without "written consent," and a declaration that its
use of sponsored stories breached British Columbia's privacy laws
which prohibit unauthorized use of an individual's name or
portrait.

In 2009, Facebook added new privacy safeguards after Canada's
privacy commissioner launched an investigation into complaints
about the company sharing users' personal information with
application developers.

In December 2011, there were 845 million monthly active Facebook
users.  About 80 per cent of its monthly active users were outside
Canada and the U.S.


GNC HOLDINGS: Still Faces Hydroxycut-Related Class Action Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. continues to defend itself from six putative
class action lawsuits related to Hydroxycut products, according to
the Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

On May 1, 2009, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning
on several Hydroxycut-branded products manufactured by Iovate.
The FDA warning was based on 23 reports of liver injuries from
consumers who claimed to have used the products between 2002 and
2009.  As a result, Iovate voluntarily recalled 14 Hydroxycut-
branded products. Following the recall, GNC was named, among other
defendants, in approximately 85 lawsuits related to Hydroxycut-
branded products in 13 states.

As of December 31, 2011, there were 75 pending lawsuits related to
Hydroxycut in which GNC had been named: 69 individual, largely
personal injury claims and six putative class action cases,
generally inclusive of claims of consumer fraud,
misrepresentation, strict liability and breach of warranty.  All
of the 216 individual plaintiffs in these lawsuits have either not
asserted or amended their complaints to remove any specific
damages claims.

The six putative class actions generally include claims of
consumer fraud, misrepresentation, strict liability and breach of
warranty:

     * Andrew Dremak, et al. v. Iovate Health Sciences Group,
       Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Southern District of
       California, 09CV1088 (filed May 19, 2009);

     * Enjoli Pennier, et al. v. Iovate Health Sciences, et al.,
       U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana,
       09CV3533 (filed May 13, 2009);

     * Alejandro M. Jimenez, et al. v. Iovate Health Sciences,
       Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
       California, 09CV1473 (filed May 28, 2009);

     * Amy Baker, et al. v. Iovate Health Sciences USA, Inc.,
       et al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama,
       09CV872 (filed May 4, 2009);

     * Kyle Davis and Sara Carreon, et al. v. Iovate Health
       Sciences USA, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Northern
       District of Alabama, 09CV896 (filed May 7, 2009); and

     * Lenny Charles Gunn, Tonya Rhoden, and Nicholas Atelevich,
       et al., v. Iovate Health Sciences Group, Inc., et al., U.S.
       District Court, Southern District of California, 09CV2337
       (filed October 24, 2009).

By court order dated October 6, 2009, the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated pretrial
proceedings of many of the pending actions (including the GNC
class actions) in the Southern District of California (In re:
Hydroxycut Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No.
2087).  Any liabilities that may arise from these matters are not
probable or reasonably estimable at this time.


HOT'S KITCHEN: Sued Over False Advertising on Foie Gras
-------------------------------------------------------
The Animal Protection and Rescue League (APRL) has just filed a
class action lawsuit against Hot's Kitchen and chef Sean Cheney in
Hermosa Beach, after the defendants sent out a national press
release advertising their foie gras burger as "humane" and a way
to support "animal rights."

The suit, San Diego Superior Court case number 2012-95110, alleges
the foie gras sold by the defendants is made by force feeding,
which results in "extreme, unmitigated pain and suffering as well
as crippling injuries to the ducks."

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own
facts," states Bryan Pease, attorney for APRL.  "By claiming the
foie gras they sell is 'humane' as a publicity stunt, these
defendants are deliberately misleading consumers into purchasing a
cruel product."

APRL investigated the two main U.S. foie gras producers in 2002-
2003, and again in 2004, along with a spin-off producer located
near the main producer.  APRL again investigated the producers in
2011 to confirm that they are still force feeding ducks to the
point of organ rupture and death, according to the suit.

The suit quotes Hudson Valley Foie Gras co-owner Michael Ginor,
the source of defendants' foie gras, as stating, "There's no
question that the duck on day 28 of feeding is not as happy as a
duck that hasn't been fed . . . I felt like I was never 100-
percent wholesome with it in the sense that I think you can't be
100-percent wholesome with it . . . I understand the issues.  I
partially agree with the issues."

The suit also states that the National Advertising Division of the
Better Business Bureau already determined in 2009 with respect to
Hudson Valley Foie Gras that the term "humane" is false and
misleading to consumers.

California state law bans sale and production of foie gras made by
force feeding -- which all foie gras is -- effective July 1, 2012.
Only about 300 restaurants in the whole state still carry the
controversial item, and over 100 restaurants have already removed
it, including celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck, who recently sent a
letter to thousands of high-end restaurants in the state urging
them to support the ban.


HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL: Recalls 26,000 Grass and Hedge Trimmers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Husqvarna Professional Products Inc., of Charlotte,
North Carolina, and manufacturer, Husqvarna Machinery
Manufacturing Co. Ltd., of Shanghai, China, announced a voluntary
recall of about 19,500 grass trimmers and 6,500 hedge trimmers.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Fuel can leak from the rubber spacer holding the fuel lines in the
fuel tank, posing a fire hazard.

Husqvarna has received seven reports of fuel leaking.  No injuries
have been reported.

This recall involves the Husqvarna Grass Trimmer Model 122C with
serial numbers that range from 2011 17 00001 to 2011 52 99999.
"Husqvarna" and the model number are written on top of the tool.
The serial number is located on a black plate on the bottom of the
muffler side of the tool.  The recalled Husqvarna Hedge Trimmers
are Models 122HD60 and 122HD45 with serial numbers that range from
2011 17 00001 to 2011 52 99999.  "Husqvarna" and the model number
are written on top of the tool.  The serial number is located on a
black plate on the gear box, which is on the lower portion of the
tool.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12141.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Lowes, Sears and Husqvarna dealers and distributors nationwide for
between $150 and $320 from May 2011 to January 2012.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled products and
return them to the place of purchase for a free repair.  For
additional information, please contact Husqvarna toll-free at
(877) 257-6921 from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.husqvarna.com/,or e-mail recalls@husqvarna.com


NEW ENERGY: Gainey & McKenna, Egleston File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Gainey & McKenna and the Egleston Law Firm filed the original
class action on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of New
Energy Systems Group between April 15, 2010 and November 14, 2011,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

A copy of the original complaint filed by the law firms can be
found at http://www.gme-law.com

Several law firms have issued press releases but have not filed
any action against the defendants.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 10, 2012.  If you wish to discuss this action or
have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiff's attorneys, Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. of Gainey & McKenna at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail
at tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
the Egleston Law Firm at (212) 683-3400, or via e-mail at
egleston@gme-law.com

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
New Energy common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Gainey & McKenna and the Egleston Law Firm.


PUBLIC BIKES: Recalls 4,100 Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Public Bikes Inc. of San Francisco, California, and
manufacturer, Wellgo Pedals Corp. Taiwan (pedals), announced a
voluntary recall of about 4,100 units of 2010 through 2012 Model
Year Bicycles.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The pedals can crack and break, posing a fall hazard to the rider.

Public Bikes has received 24 reports of pedals cracking.  No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves 18 models of women's and men's Public Bikes.
The bicycles are various colors and sizes.  "Public" or
"Publicbikes.com" is printed on either the bicycle chain guard or
the rear fender.  The bicycles have a metal "badge" at the top of
the down tube with a number stamped on it.  Recalled badge numbers
are 1-5843, 5845, 12560, 20743 and 20757.  The "Apple" model,
which has no badge, is also included.  The word "Wellgo" is
embossed on both the top and bottom of the pedals.  All bicycles
with Wellgo pedals are included in this recall.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12145.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
Public Bikes & Gear in San Francisco and other Public Bikes
dealers in 16 states nationwide and publicbikes.com from April
2010 through January 2012 for between $500 and $1,250.

Consumers should immediately stop riding the recalled bicycles and
contact Public Bikes or an authorized Public Bikes dealer for free
replacement pedals.  The recalled pedals have a black spindle, the
replacement pedal spindles are chrome.  For additional
information, please contact Public Bikes toll-free at (855) 840-
1400 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.publicbikes.com/


PUBLIX SUPER: Morgan & Morgan, Levine Kellog File Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan P.A. and Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider +
Grossman LLP have filed four separate class actions against Publix
Super Markets, Inc., Target Corporation, Walgreen Co. and Aldi,
Inc., claiming that the retailers falsely and deceptively label
their "honey" products.

Two Florida consumers sued Publix in Florida state court, Eleventh
Judicial Circuit, over Publix's private-label "Orange Blossom
Honey" and "Pure Clover Honey."  Three other Florida consumers
filed separate federal-court actions in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida against Target, which makes
"Market Pantry" and "Archer Farms" honeys; Walgreens, which makes
Walgreens brand and "Nice" honey; and Aldi, which sells its
"Berryhill Clover Honey" in stores throughout Florida.

The lawsuits allege that Publix, Target, Walgreens and Aldi remove
all traces of naturally occurring pollen from their honey
products, violating Florida's "honey standard of identity," which
requires that no pollen be removed "except where unavoidable in
the removal of foreign matter," such as bug parts, wax and debris.
The plaintiffs allege that the retailers filter their branded
honeys so extensively that all of the pollen is removed
unnecessarily.

Attorneys J. Andrew Meyer of Morgan & Morgan P.A.'s National Class
Action Department in Tampa and Jason Kellogg -- jk@lkllaw.com --
of Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider + Grossman LLP in Miami filed
the suits on behalf of the plaintiffs.

"Any reasonable consumer believes that when they buy a product
labeled 'honey,' it actually is honey," Mr. Meyer said.  "It needs
to meet the legal standard.  If not, the company that sells the
product needs to label it in a way that distinguishes it from real
honey so that consumers aren't misled."

According to the complaints, pollen contains numerous health
benefits and is rich in protein, vitamins and minerals and is used
to trace the plant origin of honey.  Without pollen, the product's
source -- whether it be "orange blossom," "clover" or otherwise --
cannot be verified.

Additionally, pollen is necessary to trace the geographic origin
of honey.  The plaintiffs' lawsuits refer to recent news reports
regarding the large-scale smuggling of Chinese honey into the
United States market, noting that unscrupulous Chinese honey
manufacturers frequently use an ultra-filtration process to
disguise the origin of their honey.  In some instances, the honey
was contaminated with chemicals such as metals and antibiotics.

"Consumers deserve some assurances that the type and source of
their honey can be verified," Mr. Kellogg said.  "Honey without
pollen just isn't honey."

Messrs. Meyer and Kellogg estimate that there may be thousands if
not tens of thousands of potential customers who purchased honey
without pollen from Publix, Target, Walgreens, Aldi and others in
the past four years, and intend to file additional lawsuits
against other retailers who sell honey without pollen.

For more information, visit http://www.lkllaw.com/cases/honey/or
call J. Andrew Meyer toll-free at 800-825-5505 or Jason Kellogg at
(305) 403-8788.

Morgan & Morgan P.A. is a personal injury law firm with offices in
Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee, and Levine Kellogg
Lehman Schneider + Grossman LLP, a Miami-based commercial law
firm.


SEI INVESTMENTS: Bid to Dismiss Lawsuit Over ETFs Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit filed
against SEI Investments Company's subsidiary in connection with
leveraged exchange traded funds advised by ProShares Advisors LLC
is still pending, according to the Company's February 27, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

One of SEI's principal subsidiaries, SEI Investments Distribution
Co., has been named as a defendant in certain putative class
action complaints (the Complaints) related to leveraged exchange
traded funds (ETFs) advised by ProShares Advisors, LLC.  The first
complaint was filed on August 5, 2009.  To date, the Complaints
have been filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland.  The three complaints filed in
the District of Maryland have been voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiffs.  Two of them were subsequently re-filed in the
Southern District of New York. Two of the complaints filed in the
Southern District of New York have also been voluntarily dismissed
by plaintiffs.  The Complaints are purportedly made on behalf of
all persons that purchased or otherwise acquired shares in various
ProShares leveraged ETFs pursuant or traceable to allegedly false
and misleading registration statements, prospectuses and
statements of additional information.  The Complaints name as
defendants ProShares Advisors, LLC; ProShares Trust; ProShares
Trust II, SIDCO, and various officers and trustees to ProShares
Advisors, LLC; ProShares Trust and ProShares Trust II.  The
Complaints allege that SIDCO was the distributor and principal
underwriter for the various ProShares leveraged ETFs that were
distributed to authorized participants and ultimately
shareholders.  The complaints allege that the registration
statements for the ProShares ETFs were materially false and
misleading because they failed adequately to describe the nature
and risks of the investments.  The Complaints allege that SIDCO is
liable for these purportedly material misstatements and omissions
under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The Complaints
seek unspecified compensatory and other damages, reasonable costs
and other relief.  Defendants have moved to consolidate the
complaints, which motion has been granted.  The Court appointed
lead plaintiff on July 13, 2010, and an amended consolidated class
action complaint was filed on September 25, 2010 asserting
substantially the same claims. Defendants moved to dismiss on
November 15, 2010.  On December 16, 2010, lead plaintiff informed
the Court and Defendants that lead plaintiff elected to file a
second amended consolidated complaint, which was filed on January
31, 2011.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second
complaint on March 17, 2011.  Oral argument on this motion was
held on February 2, 2012.  While the outcome of this litigation is
uncertain given its early phase, SEI believes that it has valid
defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend the lawsuits
vigorously.


SEI INVESTMENTS: Class Action Suits in Louisiana, Texas Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company continues to defend itself from lawsuits
pending in Louisiana and Texas courts, according to the Company's
February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

SEI has been named in six lawsuits filed in Louisiana.  Five
lawsuits were filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for the
Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana.  One of the five
actions purports to set forth claims on behalf of a class and also
names SPTC as a defendant.  Two of the other actions also name SEI
Private Trust Company as a defendant. All five actions name
various defendants in addition to SEI, and, in all five actions,
the plaintiffs purport to bring a cause of action under the
Louisiana Securities Act.  The putative class action originally
included a claim against SEI and SPTC for an alleged violation of
the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act.  Two of the other five
actions include claims for violations of the Louisiana
Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy.  In addition, another
group of plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit in the 23rd Judicial
District Court for the Parish of Ascension, State of Louisiana,
against SEI and SPTC and other defendants asserting claims of
negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
violations of the uniform fiduciaries law, negligent
misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of the
Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana Racketeering Act and
conspiracy.  The underlying allegations in all the actions are
purportedly related to the role of SPTC in providing back-office
services to Stanford Trust Company.  The petitions allege that SEI
and SPTC aided and abetted or otherwise participated in the sale
of "certificates of deposit" issued by Stanford International
Bank.  Two of the five actions filed in East Baton Rouge have been
removed to federal court, and plaintiffs' motions to remand are
pending.  These two cases have been transferred by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas.  On August 31, 2011, the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
issued an order and judgment that the causes of action alleged
against SEI and SPTC in the two remanded actions were preempted by
federal law and the Court dismissed these cases with prejudice.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has granted an
expedited appeal of the United States District Court's order and
judgment.  The appeal has been fully briefed, and oral argument
was held on February 7, 2012.  The case filed in Ascension was
also removed to federal court and transferred by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the Northern District of
Texas.  The schedule for responding to that complaint has not yet
been established.  The plaintiffs in the remaining two cases in
East Baton Rouge have granted SEI an extension to respond to the
filings. SEI and SPTC filed exceptions in the putative class
action pending in East Baton Rouge, which the Court granted in
part and dismissed the claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade
Practices Act and denied in part as to the other exceptions.  SEI
and SPTC filed an answer to the East Baton Rouge putative class
action; plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification; and SEI
and SPTC also filed a motion for summary judgment against certain
named plaintiffs which the Court stated will not be set for
hearing until after the hearing on the class certification motion.
Following the decision by the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, the Court in the East Baton Rouge
action issued an order staying the proceedings in the East Baton
Rouge class action pending the outcome of the appeal of the order
and judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.  While the outcome of this litigation is
uncertain given its early phase, SEI and SPTC believe that they
have valid defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the
lawsuits vigorously.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Eagan Avenatti Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Eagan Avenatti, LLP, together with well known South Florida
Attorney Edward M. Ricci, filed a Class Action Lawsuit in the
Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida on April 5 alleging
morally despicable, illegal and unlawful business practices at
Star of David Memorial Gardens Cemetery in North Lauderdale,
Florida.  The Complaint names Service Corporation International
("SCI") and SCI's subsidiary SCI Funeral Services of Florida,
Inc., amongst others, as Defendants. Zinn et al. v. Service
Corporation International, Inc. et al., Case No. 2012CA006532.

The Complaint alleges that SCI and Star of David have engaged in a
pervasive, multi-year practice of losing human remains, burying
individuals in the wrong grave space, crushing burial containers,
secretly digging up human remains and moving them without
notification to the families, and improperly disposing of burial
containers and other burial effects in a lake located at the edge
of the cemetery.

Further, the lawsuit claims that rather than go through the
necessary steps to move a burial container when it is discovered
encroaching on another plot, Defendants' groundskeepers were
repeatedly instructed by management at the cemetery to secretly
break and crush the container in order to make room for new
interments.  According to the Complaint, the Defendants took
considerable steps to conceal their fraudulent and illegal conduct
by literally burying the evidence underground and threatening
employees and witnesses with retaliation and the loss of their
jobs if they told the families affected.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time SCI has faced
allegations of mass grave desecrations in South Florida. In 2001-
2002, SCI was caught engaging in similar conduct in connection
with their operation of two other Jewish cemeteries in South
Florida known as Menorah Gardens.  SCI was later charged
criminally in connection with their conduct at Menorah and was
forced to pay over $100 million in fines, damages, and penalties
to resolve the criminal and civil litigation that resulted,
including numerous cases brought by Mr. Ricci.

In addition, SCI is presently a defendant in another grave
desecration lawsuit pending in Los Angeles, Sands v. Service
Corporation International, which alleges similar conduct
-- http://www.edenclaims.com

Earlier, the judge in that case, the Hon. Anthony Mohr, severely
sanctioned SCI for purposely destroying and tampering with
physical evidence relating to their liability.

"Cemeteries are supposed to provide dignity to the dead and peace
to the families," said Michael Avenatti of Eagan Avenatti, LLP.
"The moving of human remains and dumping of burial containers with
management's knowledge is simply despicable.  One would have
thought that SCI would have learned its lesson after Menorah
Gardens -- they clearly did not.  We look forward to bringing this
case to trial and doing our best to see that SCI is banned from
operating or owning a cemetery in the state."


SIRIUS XM: Merlin Agrees to $1.6-Mil. Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Silicon Republic reports that independent music rights agency
Merlin has agreed to a $1.6 million settlement with the US
satellite radio company Sirius XM.  The class-action lawsuit
centered on the Stiletto device, a receiver that allowed Sirius
subscribers to record audio broadcast on its channels.

The settlement was reached following a long-running copyright
infringement dispute with Sirius over its Stiletto device.

Merlin said that its decision to participate in the class action
was pivotal to the achievement of the $1.6 million settlement for
the entire independent record sector.

The lawsuit applies only to Sirius before its 2008 merger with XM
Satellite Radio.  Merlin separately settled with XM Satellite
Radio in April of last year over its portable device, the Pioneer
Inno recordable radio receiver and other similar recording
devices.

The four major record labels settled with Sirius relating to the
Inno and Sirius back in 2007 and 2008.

The class action means Merlin members and all other independent
record labels that had their sound recordings transmitted by
Sirius Satellite Radio between November 1, 2005 and August 26,
2011, have the opportunity to participate in the settlement.

Charles Caldas, CEO at Merlin, spoke about the importance of the
settlement at a time when market consolidation is "swallowing up
more independent interests" and giving more power to the largest
major labels.

"Actions such as this further underline the enormous value that
Merlin provides to the ever-growing list of independents that have
chosen to enhance their business by joining our organization," he
said.

Merlin itself commenced operations back in 2008.  Since then, it
has struck deals with digital services such as Spotify, YouTube,
Google Music, Rdio and Simfy.

In that time frame, Merlin reached a number of copyright
infringement settlements on behalf of its members with Limewire,
Sirius Satellite Radio, XM Satellite Radio and Grooveshark.

It represents independent record labels, such as Warp Records,
Epitaph, Na‹ve, Tommy Boy, One Little Indian, Yep Roc/Redeye,
Kontor New Media, Beggars Group, Merge, !K7, PIAS, Domino and
Koch/E1.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Garza" Suit Still Pending in Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Co., Inc. continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit involving owner-operators and employees in
Arizona, according to Swift Transportation Company's February 27,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel
Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Garza vs. Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc., Case No. CV07-0472.  The putative class originally involved
certain owner-operators who contracted with the Company under a
2001 Contractor Agreement that was in place for one year.  The
putative class is alleging that Swift should have reimbursed
owner-operators for actual miles driven rather than the contracted
and industry standard remuneration based upon dispatched miles.
The trial court denied plaintiff's petition for class
certification, the plaintiff appealed and on August 6, 2008, the
Arizona Court of Appeals issued an unpublished Memorandum Decision
reversing the trial court's denial of class certification and
remanding the case back to the trial court.  On November 14, 2008,
Swift filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court
regarding the issue of class certification as a consequence of the
denial of the Motion for Reconsideration by the Court of Appeals.
On March 17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court granted Swift's
petition for review, and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona Supreme
Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals opining that
the Court of Appeals lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction to
reverse the trial court's original denial of class certification
and remanded the matter back to the trial court for further
evaluation and determination.  Thereafter, the plaintiff renewed
the motion for class certification and expanded it to include all
persons who were employed by Swift as employee drivers or who
contracted with Swift as owner-operators on or after January 30,
1998, in each case who were compensated by reference to miles
driven.

On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial court entered an
order certifying a class of owner-operators and expanding the
class to include employees.  Upon certification, Swift filed a
motion to compel arbitration as well as filing numerous motions in
the trial court urging dismissal on several other grounds
including, but not limited to the lack of an employee as a class
representative, and because the named owner operator class
representative only contracted with the Company for a three month
period under a one year contract that no longer exists.  In
addition to these trial court motions, Swift also filed a petition
for special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals arguing that
the trial court erred in certifying the class because the trial
court relied upon the Court of Appeals ruling that was previously
overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court.  On April 7, 2011, the
Arizona Court of Appeals declined jurisdiction to hear this
petition for special action and Swift filed a petition for review
to the Arizona Supreme Court.  On August 31, 2011, the Arizona
Supreme Court declined to review the decision of the Arizona Court
of Appeals and Swift will now continue to pursue its original
motions with the trial court that were stayed pending the
foregoing decisions at the appellate court level.

Swift intends to pursue all available appellate relief supported
by the record, which it believes demonstrates that the class is
improperly certified and, further, that the claims raised have no
merit or are subject to mandatory arbitration.  The Maricopa
County trial court's decision pertains only to the issue of class
certification, and Swift retains all of its defenses against
liability and damages.  The final disposition of this case and the
impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at this
time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Consolidated Suit in Tennessee Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit involving former students of
Swift Transportation Company's driving academy in Tennessee is
pending, according to the Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On March 11, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed by Michael
Ham, Jemonia Ham, Dennis Wolf, and Francis Wolf on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated persons against Swift
Transportation: Michael Ham, Jemonia Ham, Dennis Wolf and Francis
Wolf v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. 2:09-cv-02145-
STA-dkv, or the Ham Complaint.  The case was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western Section of Tennessee Western
Division.  The putative class involves former students of Swift's
Tennessee driving academy who are seeking relief against the
Company for the suspension of their Commercial Driver Licenses, or
CDLs, and any CDL retesting that may be required of the former
students by the relevant state department of motor vehicles.  The
allegations arise from the Tennessee Department of Safety, or
TDOS, having released a general statement questioning the validity
of CDLs issued by the State of Tennessee in connection with the
Swift Driving Academy located in the State of Tennessee.  Swift
has filed an answer to the Ham Complaint.  Swift has also filed a
cross claim against the Commissioner of the TDOS, or the
Commissioner, for a judicial declaration and judgment that Swift
did not engage in any wrongdoing as alleged in the complaint and a
grant of injunctive relief to compel the Commissioner to redact
any statements or publications that allege wrongdoing by the
Company and to issue corrective statements to any recipients of
any such publications.  The Commissioner's motion to dismiss
Swift's cross claim has been dismissed by the court.

On or about April 23, 2009, two class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, respectively:
Michael Pascarella, et al. v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.,
Sharon A. Harrington, Chief Administrator of the New Jersey Motor
Vehicle Commission, and David Mitchell, Commissioner of the
Tennessee Department of Safety, Case No. 09-1921(JBS), in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, or
the Pascarella Complaint; and Shawn McAlarnen et al. v. Swift
Transportation Co., Inc., Janet Dolan, Director of the Bureau of
Driver Licensing of The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation,
and David Mitchell, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of
Safety, Case No. 09-1737 (E.D. Pa.), in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, or the McAlarnen
Complaint.  Both putative class action complaints involve former
students of Swift's Tennessee driving academy who are seeking
relief against the Company, the TDOS, and the state motor vehicle
agencies for the threatened suspension of their CDLs and any CDL
retesting that may be required of the former students by the
relevant state department of motor vehicles.  The potential
suspension and CDL re-testing was initiated by certain states in
response to the general statement by the TDOS questioning the
validity of CDL licenses the State of Tennessee issued in
connection with the Swift Driving Academy located in Tennessee.
The Pascarella Complaint and the McAlarnen Complaint are both
based upon substantially the same facts and circumstances as
alleged in the Ham Complaint.  The only notable difference among
the three complaints is that both the Pascarella and McAlarnen
Complaints name the local motor vehicles agency and the TDOS as
defendants, whereas the Ham Complaint does not.  Swift denies the
allegations of any alleged wrongdoing and intends to vigorously
defend its position.  The McAlarnen Complaint has been dismissed
without prejudice because the McAlarnen plaintiff has elected to
pursue the Director of the Bureau of Driver Licensing of the
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for damages. Swift has
filed an answer to the Pascarella Complaint.  Swift has also filed
a cross-claim against the Commissioner for a judicial declaration
and judgment that Swift did not engage in any wrongdoing as
alleged in the complaint and a request for injunctive relief to
compel the Commissioner to redact any statements or publications
that allege wrongdoing by us and to issue corrective statements to
any recipients of any such publications.  The Commissioner's
motion to dismiss Swift's cross claim has been dismissed by the
court.

On May 29, 2009, Swift was served with two additional class action
complaints involving the same alleged facts as set forth in the
Ham Complaint and the Pascarella Complaint.  The two matters are
Gerald L. Lott and Francisco Armenta on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.
and David Mitchell the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of
Safety, Case No. 2:09-cv-02287, filed on May 7, 2009 in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, or
the Lott Complaint; and Marylene Broadnax on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Corporation,
Case No. 09-cv-6486-7, filed on May 22, 2009 in the Superior Court
of Dekalb County, State of Georgia, or the Broadnax Complaint.
While the Ham Complaint, the Pascarella Complaint, and the Lott
Complaint all were filed in federal district courts, the Broadnax
Complaint was filed in state court.  As with all of these related
complaints, Swift has filed an answer to the Lott Complaint and
the Broadnax Complaint.  Swift has also filed a cross-claim
against the Commissioner for a judicial declaration and judgment
that Swift did not engage in any wrongdoing as alleged in the
complaint and a request for injunctive relief to compel the
Commissioner to redact any statements or publications that allege
wrongdoing by us and to issue corrective statements to any
recipients of any such publications.  The Commissioner's motion to
dismiss Swift's cross claim has been dismissed by the court.  The
portion of the Lott complaint against the Commissioner has been
dismissed as a result of a settlement agreement reached between
the approximately 138 Lott class members and the Commissioner
granting the class members 90 days to retake the test for their
CDL.

The Pascarella Complaint, the Lott Complaint, and the Broadnax
Complaint are consolidated with the Ham Complaint in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and
discovery is ongoing.

On July 1, 2011, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee Western division entered an order of court
granting class certification of the consolidated matters.  Swift
believes that the court committed reversible error in granting
class certification and on July 15, 2011 Swift filed a motion for
reconsideration of the class certification determination.
In November 2011 and February 2012, Swift engaged in voluntary
mediation in an attempt to resolve the matter and mitigate costs
and risks of ongoing litigation.

Swift intends to vigorously contest class certification as well as
the allegations made by the plaintiffs should the class remain
certified. Based on its knowledge of the facts (including the
mentioned mediation sessions) and advice of outside counsel, Swift
believes the range of loss to be $1 million to $3 million and
Swift has reserved for such loss within that range; however, the
final disposition of this case and the impact of such final
disposition cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Sheer" Suit Remains Pending in Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc. for allegedly misclassifying owner-operators as independent
contractors is still pending, according to Swift Transportation
Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Swift Transportation and IEL: John Doe 1 and Joseph Sheer v. Swift
Transportation Co., Inc., and Interstate Equipment Leasing, Inc.,
Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No. 09-CIV-10376 filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, or the Sheer Complaint.  The putative class involves owner-
operators alleging that Swift Transportation misclassified owner-
operators as independent contractors in violation of the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA, and various New York and
California state laws and that such owner-operators should be
considered employees.  The lawsuit also raises certain related
issues with respect to the lease agreements that certain owner-
operators have entered into with IEL.

At present, in addition to the named plaintiffs, approximately 200
other current or former owner-operators have joined this lawsuit.
Upon Swift's motion, the matter has been transferred from the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
to the United States District Court in Arizona.  On May 10, 2010,
plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify an FLSA
collective action and authorize notice to the potential class
members.  On June 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Swift and IEL from
collecting payments from plaintiffs who are in default under their
lease agreements and related relief.  On September 30, 2010, the
District Court granted Swift's motion to compel arbitration and
ordered that the class action be stayed pending the outcome of
arbitration.  The court further denied plaintiff's motion for
preliminary injunction and motion for conditional class
certification.  The Court also denied plaintiff's request to
arbitrate the matter as a class.  The plaintiff filed a petition
for a writ of mandamus asking that the District Court's order be
vacated.  On July 27, 2011, the court denied the plaintiff's
petition for writ of mandamus and plaintiff's filed another
request for interlocutory appeal.  On December 9, 2011, the court
permitted the plaintiffs to proceed with their interlocutory
appeal.  Swift intends to vigorously defend against any
arbitration proceedings.  The final disposition of this case and
the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at this
time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Burnell" Suit Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit captioned John Burnell and all others
similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., remains
stayed, according to Swift Transportation Company's February 27,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by John
Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons against Swift Transportation: John Burnell and
all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.,
Case No. CIVDS 1004377 filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of San Bernardino, or the Burnell
Complaint.  On June 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the matter was
removed to the United States District Court for the central
District of California, Case No. EDCV10-00809-VAP.  The putative
class includes drivers who worked for the Company during the four
years preceding the date of filing alleging that Swift failed to
pay the California minimum wage, failed to provide proper meal and
rest periods, and failed to timely pay wages upon separation from
employment.  The Burnell Complaint is currently subject to a stay
of proceedings pending determination of similar issues in a case
unrelated to Swift, Brinker v. Hohnbaum, which is currently
pending before the California Supreme Court.  Swift intends to
vigorously defend certification of the class as well as the merits
of these matters should the class be certified.  The final
disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition
of this case cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Appeal From "Sanders" Suit Dismissal Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed by
Michael Sanders against Swift Transportation Co., Inc. is pending,
according to Swift Transportation Company's February 27, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On July 1, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by Michael
Sanders against Swift Transportation and IEL: Michael Sanders
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Swift
Transportation Co., Inc. and Interstate Equipment Leasing, Case
No. 10523440 in the Superior Court of California, County of
Alameda, or the Sanders Complaint.  The putative class involves
both owner-operators and driver employees alleging differing
claims against Swift and IEL.

Many of the claims alleged by both the putative class of owner-
operators and the putative class of employee drivers overlap the
same claims as alleged in the complaint, styled John Doe 1 and
Joseph Sheer v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., and Interstate
Equipment Leasing, Inc., Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, with
respect to owner-operators, and the complaint, styled John Burnell
and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc., as it relates to employee drivers.

As alleged in the Sheer Complaint, the putative class includes
owner-operators of Swift during the four years preceding the date
of filing alleging that Swift misclassified owner-operators as
independent contractors in violation of FLSA and various
California state laws and that such owner-operators should be
considered employees.  As also alleged in the Sheer Complaint, the
owner-operator portion of the Sanders Complaint also raises
certain related issues with respect to the lease agreements that
certain owner-operators have entered into with IEL.  As alleged in
the Burnell Complaint, the putative class in the Sanders Complaint
includes drivers who worked for us during the four years preceding
the date of filing alleging that Swift failed to provide proper
meal and rest periods, failed to provide accurate wage statement
upon separation from employment, and failed to timely pay wages
upon separation from employment.  The Sanders Complaint also
raises two issues with respect to the owner-operators and two
issues with respect to drivers that were not also alleged as part
of either the Sheer Complaint or the Burnell Complaint.  These
separate owner-operator claims allege that Swift failed to provide
accurate wage statements and failed to properly compensate for
waiting times.  The separate employee driver claims allege that
Swift failed to reimburse business expenses and coerced driver
employees to patronize the employer.  The Sanders Complaint seeks
to create two classes, one which is mostly (but not entirely)
encompassed by the Sheer Complaint and another which is mostly
(but not entirely) encompassed by the Burnell Complaint.  Upon
Swift's motion, the Sanders Complaint has been transferred from
the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  On January 17, 2012, the court entered an order
dismissing plaintiff's case and granting Swift's motion to compel
arbitration.  The plaintiffs have filed an appeal to the January
17, 2012 order.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Montalvo" and "Ridderbush" Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Corporation continues to defend itself from
class action lawsuits involving employees who accused the company
of not paying minimum wage during their orientation phase,
according to Swift Transportation Company's February 27, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On July 12, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Simona
Montalvo on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Montalvo et al. v. Swift
Transportation Corporation d/b/a ST Swift Transportation
Corporation in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego.  The Montalvo matter was removed to federal court on August
15, 2011, case number 3-11-CV-01827-L.  Upon petition by
plaintiffs, the matter was remanded to state court and Swift filed
an appeal to this remand.  On July 11, 2011 a class action lawsuit
was filed by Glen Ridderbush on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation:
Ridderbush et al. v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona LLC and
Swift Transportation Services, LLC in the Circuit Court for the
State of Oregon, Multnomah County.  The Ridderbush matter was
removed to federal court on August 24, 2011, case number 3-11-CV-
01028.  Both putative classes include employees alleging that
candidates for employment within the four year statutory period in
California and within the three year statutory period in Oregon,
were not paid the state mandated minimum wage during their
orientation phase.

The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the
court will address the merits of the case, and Swift retains all
of its defenses against liability and damages pending a
determination of class certification.  Swift intends to vigorously
defend against certification of the class as well as the merits of
this matter should the class be certified.  The final disposition
of this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be
determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Slack" Class Action Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by Washington State-based employee
drivers against Swift Transportation Corporation for unpaid
overtime is still pending, according to Swift Transportation
Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

On September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Troy
Slack on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Troy Slack, et al v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation
Corporation in the State Court of Washington, Pierce County.  The
Slack matter was removed to federal court on October 12, 2011,
case number 11-2-11438-0.  The putative class includes all current
and former Washington State based employee drivers during the
three year statutory period alleging that they were not paid
overtime in accordance with Washington State law and that they
were not properly paid for meal and rest periods.  Swift intends
to vigorously defend certification of the class as well as the
merits of these matters should the class be certified.  The final
disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition
of this case cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "FCRA" Suit in Arizona Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against Swift Transportation
Corporation over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act is still pending, according to Swift Transportation Company's
February 27, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On August 8, 2011, a proposed class action lawsuit was filed by
Kelvin D. Daniel, Tanna Hodges, and Robert R. Bell, Jr. on behalf
of themselves and all similarly situated persons against Swift
Transportation Corporation: Kelvin D. Daniel, Tanna Hodges, and
Robert R. Bell, Jr. et al. v. Swift Transportation Corporation, in
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, case
number 2:11-CV-01548-ROS.  Plaintiffs sought employment with Swift
Transportation of Arizona, LLC and that entity has answered the
complaint.  The putative class includes individuals throughout the
United States who sought employment with Swift and about whom
Swift procured a criminal background report for employment
purposes during the application process.  The complaint alleges
Swift violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  Among the
allegations are that Swift i) did not make adequate disclosures or
obtain authorizations for applicants; ii) did not issue pre-
adverse action notices for in-person applicants who were not hired
in whole or in part because of a background report that contained
at least one derogatory item that would disqualify the person
under Swift's hiring policies; and iii) did not issue adverse
action notifications to applicants who were not hired in whole or
in part because of a background report that contained at least one
derogatory item that would disqualify the person from under
Swift's hiring policies.  In October 2011, in response to a
partial motion to dismiss filed by Swift, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint, to which Swift answered in part, and after the
court denied a partial motion to dismiss, Swift filed an answer
addressing the remaining allegations.  Swift intends to vigorously
defend certification of the class as well as the merits of these
matters should the class be certified.  The final disposition of
this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case
cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Bid to Dismiss Discrimination Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit filed by a
group of African American employee drivers for alleged
discrimination is pending, according to Swift Transportation
Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

On October 3, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Steve C.
Blufordon behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Steve C. Bluford vs. Swift
Transportation, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, case number 1-
11CV-06932.  The putative class includes all African American
employee drivers who worked from the Illinois terminal during the
two year statutory period alleging that Swift failed to treat
similarly situated African American or Black employees in the same
manner as Caucasian employees.  The named plaintiff, Steve
Bluford, previously filed an EEOC complaint raising the same
allegations which was dismissed by the EEOC as having no merit.
Swift has filed a motion to dismiss this action.  Swift intends to
vigorously defend certification of the class as well as the merits
of these matters should the class be certified.  The final
disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition
of this case cannot be determined at this time.


SWINTON AVENUE: Recalls 319,000 Office Depot Brand Desk Chairs
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with importer, Swinton Avenue Trading, of Boca Raton,
Florida, and manufacturer, Wonderful Year Inc., of China,
announced a voluntary recall of about 307,000 units of Office
Depot(R) Brand Biella Leather Desk Chairs in the United States of
America and 12,000 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The weld connecting the seat plate to the gas lift can fail,
causing the chair to separate from the base.  This poses a fall
hazard to consumers.

Office Depot has received 11 reports of the chairs breaking and
consumers falling while seated, resulting in reports of injuries,
including minor contusions and abrasions.

This recall involves Office Depot(R) brand leather desk chairs.
The mid-back height leather chairs were sold in black and have SKU
number 130548.  "REG. No. PA-25498 (CN)" and "Made in China" are
printed on a label located on the underside of the seat.  Pictures
of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12146.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Office Depot retail stores nationwide and online at
www.OfficeDepot.com from January 2002 through December 2008 for
about $55.

Consumers should immediately stop using the chairs and contact
Office Depot's recall hotline to receive a $55 store card that may
be used for a replacement chair or other store merchandise.  For
additional information, contact Office Depot's recall hotline
toll-free at (866) 403-3763 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.officedepot.com/


TICKETMASTER: Settles Class Action Over Inflated Ticket Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashante Infantry, writing for The Toronto Star, reports that
Ticketmaster has settled a class-action lawsuit alleging it
conspired to force Canadians to pay inflated prices.  The
settlement will see concert goers receive a refund of C$36 per
ticket.

The reimbursement applies to any ticket purchased in Ontario on
the ticketing giant's secondary Web site TicketsNow from Feb. 9,
2007, until it ceased operating in the province.  The resolution
also covers varying dates in Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec.

"This is a significant victory for ticket buyers and for
competitiveness in the industry," said Toronto consultant Henryk
Krajewski whose complaint got the ball rolling after he tried to
buy two tickets in Sept. 2008 for a Smashing Pumpkins concert at
Massey Hall.

Unable to purchase the tickets at a face value of C$133 from
Ticketmaster, Mr. Krajewski was automatically forwarded to the
TicketsNow site, where he paid C$533.65.

Windsor lawyer Jay Strosberg of Sutts, Strosberg LLP and Vancouver
lawyer Luciana Brasil of Branch MacMaster launched the suit five
months later, about the same time outraged New Jersey residents
sparked political outcry after similar experiences trying to
purchase Bruce Springsteen tickets.

After The Boss himself denounced Ticketmaster, the company stopped
the TicketsNow redirection.  In 2010, at the behest of U.S.
federal regulators, the company agreed to refund the difference
from face value to thousands of customers who bought marked-up
tickets to 14 Springsteen concerts.

In resolving the Canadian suit, Ticketmaster, which has since
merged with concert promoter Live Nation Inc., did not admit
liability, but said they would refrain from reselling tickets for
above the face value in Ontario and Manitoba, in compliance with
existing legislation. (The laws are different in Alberta and
Quebec.)

"It's the best result that you can ever hope for in terms of a
class action, in terms of not allowing the allegedly wrongful
conduct to continue on," said Mr. Strosberg.

"That (Ontario Ticket Speculation Act) has been on the books for
decades; the problem is you never see anybody prosecuted for it,"
he said.  "I think the government is faced with limited resources;
they have to prioritize."

The $36 refund -- minus up to $8 for lawyers' fees -- was a
"compromise number" arrived at in "hotly contested" negotiations
with the company, Mr. Strosberg said.

"Some people might have overpaid a lot, others might have overpaid
a little bit," he explained.

Only Ticketmaster knows how many people have to be reimbursed and
neither its spokesperson nor lawyer responded to the Star's
request for comment.  About 2,000 complainants registered with
Mr. Strosberg's firm, many of whom said they'd purchased more than
one ticket.

Eligible customers will be notified via the e-mail address they
used to make purchases on TicketsNow.

Mr. Krajewski is sanguine about falling in the overpaid camp.

"To actually have a corporate entity stop doing business in the
province, that's a powerful result that we got and why we got into
this in the first place," said the music lover, noting "I've
bought plenty tickets since we launched the lawsuit from
Ticketmaster, because that's where I have to go to buy my
tickets."

The lawyers will now turn their attention to an outstanding suit
against Ticketmaster over unjust surcharges on event tickets.


TODSON INC: Recalls 40,000 Bicycle Child Carrier Seats
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Todson Inc., of North Attleboro, Massachusetts, announced a
voluntary recall of about 40,000 units of Topeak Babyseat(TM) II
Bicycle Carrier Seats.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

A child can place his or her fingers in the opening at the grab
bar's hinge mechanism.  When the consumer lifts the grab bar to
remove the child from the seat, the child's fingertips can be
caught in the hinge mechanism, posing a laceration and fingertip
amputation hazard to the child.

The firm has received two reports of incidents including near
amputations that resulted in stitches and a crushed finger.

This recall involves Topeak Babyseat II bicycle carrier seats with
model numbers TCS2100, TCS2101 and TCS2102.  Model numbers are
printed on the product's packaging.  The gray, plastic Babyseats
were sold in three styles: Babyseat, Babyseat with disc brake
compatible rack and Babyseat with non-disc brake compatible rack.
The racks are used to mount the seat to the bicycle.  "Topeak" is
embossed on the back of the seat and is also printed on a black
foam protector that covers the grab bar.  A red locking lever on
the side of the blue grab bar locks the bar into place.  A picture
of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12143.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at J&B
Imports, REI, Action and Hawley, independent bicycle dealers,
distributors and other retail stores nationwide and online at
REI.com from January 2009 through April 2012 for between $140 and
$180.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled carrier seats
and contact Todson to receive a free hinge cover retrofit kit.
For additional information, contact Todson at (800) 250-3068
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.todson.com/


TORONTO DOMINION: Judge Certifies Overdraft Fee Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Susannah Nesmith and David Voreacos at Bloomberg News report that
Toronto Dominion Bank (TD) customers who claim they were gouged on
overdraft fees for checking accounts can proceed as a group, ruled
a judge who certified the case as a class-action lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King certified the class in
federal court in Miami, saying it was "eminently manageable."  TD
Bank, Canada's second-largest lender, faces lawsuits by customers
who claim it reordered debits and check withdrawals to maximize
fees when customers overdrew accounts.

"Nearly all of the class members in this case have claims that are
so small that it would cost them much more to litigate an
individual case than they could ever hope to recover in damages,"
Judge King ruled on April 3.  "Concentrating the litigation in
this forum is logical and desirable."

Rebecca Acevedo, a spokeswoman for TD Bank, said the bank wouldn't
comment on pending litigation.  JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), the
biggest U.S. bank by assets, has reached a preliminary agreement
to pay $110 million to settle litigation.  Bank of America Corp.,
the second-biggest U.S. bank by assets, agreed last year to pay
$410 million without admitting liability.

Bruce Rogow, one of the lead attorneys for the customers, said he
was pleased with the ruling.

"From the very beginning, I saw all of these cases as
quintessential class actions," he said in a telephone interview.
"What else could they be?"

                      All TD Bank Customers

TD Bank's attorney, Bill Kayatta --
wkayatta@pierceatwood.com -- argued against the certification in a
March 26 hearing because he said each customer had a different
situation.  Some knew that the bank had a policy of reordering the
overdrafts, some learned after they were charged fees and some may
have never known, he said.

The judge ruled the class included all TD Bank customers who had
paid an overdraft fee as a result of the reordering, from the
statute of limitations until Aug. 13, 2010.  Different statutes of
limitations will apply in different states, he ruled.

TD Bank spent more than $25 billion since 2004 to expand in the
U.S., including the acquisitions of Portland, Maine-based TD
Banknorth and Cherry Hill, New Jersey-based Commerce Bancorp Inc.
(CBH)

The case is In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, 09-md-
02036, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami).


U.S. BANK: Appeals Court Reverses $15-Mil. Class Action Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justice News Flash reports that a California appeals court has
reversed a $15 million wage and hour class action judgment against
the U.S. Bank National Association (USB), which claimed the bank
misclassified 260 current and former employees, thus unlawfully
denying them overtime compensation, reports Los Angeles employment
lawyer Eric Grover of Keller Grover LLP.

The U.S. Bank National Association appealed a bifurcated bench
trial that resulted in a multi-million dollar judgment brought
under Business and Professions Code section 17200, and prevailed.

The appeals court agreed with the defendant's argument that the
trial court's trial management plan deprived it of its
constitutional due process rights preventing the defendants from
defending themselves against the individual claims for over 90
percent of the class.  The court also ruled that the case must be
decertified, and reversed an order to award certain expert witness
fees to the plaintiffs.  In addition, the court remanded the two
named plaintiffs' meal and rest break period violations claims for
reconsideration, court documents stated.

Ramina Rafiqzada, a former business banking officer (BBO), filed
the wage and hour lawsuit on December 26, 2001, claiming that
BBO's were misclassified as exempt outside salespersons, for whom
USB was not obligated to pay overtime and related wages.  The
lawsuit also contended that USB violated Business and Professions
Code section 17200.

On January 6, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to certify the case
as a class action, which was supported by 34 declarations from
current and former BBOs, who maintain they regularly worked
overtime hours and spent less than half their work time engaged in
sales-related activities outside of branch offices, according to
court documents.

That same day USB filed a motion to deny the class certification,
claiming that the plaintiffs could not establish that common
issues predominate.  They further presented declarations from 75
of 83 class members who described their job duties as including
spending more than 50% of their time on outside sales.

Ultimately, on March 16, 2005, the trial court granted the class
action certification, states California employment lawyer Eric
Grover.

Over the next two years, the class representatives were renamed,
witness testimony was heard, and the plaintiffs filed motions to
amend the complaint to include failure to provide meal and rest
periods, failure to pay wages, pay owed wages, pay overtime;
violate maximum hours and failure to comply with labor laws.

On March 1, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to class
certification of their meal and rest break claims, which the court
denied.

After a lengthy bench trial, on May 20, 2009, the trial court
issued its decision that awarded a total of $14,959,565 to the
class.  USB promptly filed an appeal of the trial court's
decision, which they subsequently won and the judgment was
reversed, reports Grover, a Los Angeles wage and hour lawyer.

Plaintiffs are in the process of seeking review from the
California Supreme Court.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: "GCERS" Class Action Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit styled Garden City Employees' Retirement
System v. PSI is still pending, according to Universal Health
Services Inc.'s February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

This is a purported shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
against Psychiatric Solutions Inc., which the Company acquired in
November, 2010, and the former directors in 2009 alleging
violations of federal securities laws.  The Company intends to
defend the case vigorously.

Should it be deemed liable in this matter, the Company believes it
would be entitled to commercial insurance recoveries for amounts
paid by us, subject to certain limitations and deductibles.
Included in the Company's consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2011, is an estimated reserve (current liability) and
corresponding commercial insurance recovery (current asset) which
did not have a material impact on its financial statements.
Although the Company believes the commercial insurance recoveries
are adequate to satisfy potential liability in this matter, it can
provide no assurance that the ultimate liability will not exceed
the commercial insurance recoveries which would make us liable for
the excess.


WEST ELM: Recalls 10,100 Folding Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with West Elm, a division of Williams-Sonoma Inc., of
San Francisco, California, announced a voluntary recall of about
10,000 Folding Chairs in the United States of America and 100 in
Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The chairs can collapse during normal use, posing a fall hazard to
consumers.

West Elm has received 14 reports of collapsed, broken or cracked
chairs.  Two consumers have reported minor injuries after falling
from a collapsed chair.  Medical attention was not required.

This recall involves West Elm solid wood and fully assembled
folding chairs sold in white, red or chocolate.  The chairs were
sold individually and in sets of two and four.  An unfolded chair
measures 17-inches wide by 19-inches deep by 31-inches high.  A
sticker on the underside of the seat reads "West Elm."  Pictures
of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12144.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Malaysia and sold
exclusively at: West Elm stores nationwide, the West Elm catalog
and Web site from September 2011 to January 2012 for between $20
and $40.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chairs and
contact West Elm for instructions on returning the product for a
full refund.  For additional information, contact West Elm toll-
free at (855) 262-9744 between 7:00 a.m. and midnight Eastern Time
daily, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.westelm.com/


                           *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.





                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *