CAR_Public/120412.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 12, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 72

                             Headlines

ALPHA NATURAL: Awaits Order on Bid to Further Stay Delaware Suit
ALPHA NATURAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
ALPHA NATURAL: Plea for Award of Attorneys' Fees Pending in Va.
ASSURED GUARANTY: AGM Still Defends Jefferson, Alabama Suit
ASSURED GUARANTY: "MDL 1950" Remains Pending in New York

AVON PRODUCTS: Sued Over Board's Failure to Negotiate With Coty
BANCORPSOUTH: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $1.75 Mil.
BANKERS LIFE: Elderly People's Class Certification Bid Tossed
CAVALRY SPV: Accused of Illegal Debt Collection in Illinois
CCH INC: Deceptively Sells High-Interest Loans, Suit Claims

CELL THERAPEUTICS: July 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
COGDELL SPENCER: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suits
CYTOSPORT: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
DELPHI FINANCIAL: Mississippi Okays Settlement of Suit vs. Unit
DEWAAY FINANCIAL: Judge Weighs Merits of Class Action

EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Midwest Gen. Faces Class Suits in Illinois
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Suit vs. Units Pending in Mississippi
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Unit May Face New Suit Over CAA Violations
FACEBOOK INC: Request to Transfer Class Action to Calif. Granted
FIFTH THIRD: Faces Class Action Over Alleged "Kickbacks"

GAP INC: Faces Suit Over Gift Certificates' Value Reduction
GOOGLE: 2nd Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Copyright Class Action
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Discovery in Consolidated Nevada Suit Ongoing
LEBANON TOWNSHIP, NJ: Committee Urged to Join Tax Lien Suit
MALAYSIA: Klang Residents Mull Class Suit vs. Gov't. Agencies

MBIA INC: 2008 Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed in Dec.
MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Faces Class action Over Cliq XT Mobile Phone
N.C. BAPTIST: Bid to Avoid Taxes on MedCost Settlement Denied
OIL COMPANIES: Agree to Settle Hot Fuel Class Actions
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Consolidated Suit for $3.1-Million

PROSHARES TRUST: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York
SIOUX HONEY: Sued Over False Advertising of Sue Bee Clover Honey
SONY: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over PSN Terms of Service
STATE FARM: WLF Urges Court to Review Class Certification Ruling
STATE OF ARIZONA: June 4 Hearing Set for Immigration Law Case

STREAM GLOBAL: "Batmanghelich" Class Suit vs. Sirius Concluded
SUMMER INFANT: Final Hearing on Suit Settlement Set for May 16
U.S. CELLPHONE CARRIERS: Sued Over Mass Text Message Conspiracy
UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Sued Over False Claims on Lipton Tea
UNITED STATES: Veterans' Discovery Bid in Suit v. CIA Approved

VULCAN MATERIALS: "Addair" Suit Remains Pending in West Virginia
VULCAN MATERIALS: Awaits July Trial in Suits vs. Florida Rock
VULCAN MATERIALS: Faces Four Suits Over Martin Marietta Offer
WEBMD HEALTH: Has Until April 16 to Respond to Consolidated Suit
WYETH CANADA: About 100 Women Join Premarin Class Action

ZHONGPIN INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Suit in Delaware


                          *********

ALPHA NATURAL: Awaits Order on Bid to Further Stay Delaware Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to extend an order staying the proceedings in a
consolidated lawsuit pending in Delaware Chancery Court through
August 1, 2012, according to the Company's February 29, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.

On June 1, 2011, the Company completed its acquisition of Massey
Energy Company ("Massey") for approximately $6.7 billion, of which
approximately $1.0 billion was paid in cash and $5.7 billion was
paid in common stock and other equity.  Massey, together with its
affiliates, was a major U.S. coal producer with approximately 2.4
billion tons of proven and probable reserves operating mines and
associated processing and loading facilities in Central
Appalachia.  Massey is now the Company's subsidiary Alpha
Appalachia Holdings, Inc.

On April 5, 2010, before the acquisition of Massey by the Company,
an explosion occurred at the Upper Big Branch ("UBB") mine,
resulting in the deaths of 29 miners and serious physical injuries
and/or alleged psychiatric injuries to two others.  The Federal
Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA"), the Office of
Miner's Health, Safety, and Training of the State of West Virginia
("State"), and the Governor's Independent Investigation Panel
("GIIP") initiated investigations into the cause of the UBB
explosion and related issues.  Additionally, the U.S. Attorney for
the Southern District of West Virginia (the "Office") commenced a
grand jury investigation.  The GIIP published its final report on
May 19, 2011; MSHA released its final report on December 6, 2011;
and the State released its final report on February 23, 2012.

On December 6, 2011, the Company, the Office and the United States
Department of Justice entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement
(the "Agreement") resolving the criminal investigation against
Massey and its affiliates relating to the UBB explosion and other
health and safety related issues at Massey, and the Company also
reached a comprehensive settlement with MSHA resolving outstanding
civil citations, violations, and orders related to MSHA's
investigation arising from the UBB explosion and other non-UBB
related matters involving legacy Massey entities prior to the
Massey Acquisition.  The Agreement does not resolve individual
responsibilities related to the UBB explosion.

Under the terms of the Agreement and settlement, the Company has
agreed to pay outstanding MSHA fines, and has agreed to invest in
additional measures designed to improve miner health and safety,
provide restitution to the families of the fallen miners and two
individuals injured in the UBB explosion, and create a charitable
organization to research mine safety.  The Company has further
agreed to cooperate fully with all governmental agencies in all
continuing investigations and prosecutions against any individuals
that arise out of the UBB explosion and related conduct described
in the Agreement until such investigations and prosecutions are
concluded.

A number of purported former Massey stockholders have brought
lawsuits derivatively, purportedly on behalf of Massey, in West
Virginia and Delaware state courts, in connection with the
April 5, 2010 explosion at the UBB mine and related claims.
Certain of these former stockholders have also initiated contempt
proceedings in West Virginia state court in connection with
alleged violations of the settlement of a previous derivative
lawsuit.  In addition, these and other purported former Massey
stockholders have asserted class action claims allegedly arising
out of the Massey Acquisition in Delaware and West Virginia state
courts and Virginia federal court.

In a case filed on April 23, 2010, in Delaware Chancery Court, In
re Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation
("In re Massey"), a number of purported former Massey stockholders
(the "Delaware Plaintiffs") allege, purportedly on behalf of
Massey, that certain former Massey directors and officers breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to monitor and oversee Massey's
employees, allegedly resulting in fines against Massey and the
explosion at UBB, and by wasting corporate assets by paying
allegedly excessive and inflated amounts to former Massey Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer Don L. Blankenship as part of his
retirement package.  The Delaware Plaintiffs also allege, on
behalf of a purported class of former Massey stockholders, that
certain former Massey directors breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to the Massey Acquisition.  The Delaware Plaintiffs
allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing
to secure the best price possible, by failing to secure any
downside protection for the acquisition consideration, and by
purportedly eliminating the possibility of a superior proposal by
agreeing to a "no shop" provision and a termination fee.  In
addition, the Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants agreed to
the Massey Acquisition to eliminate the liability that defendants
faced on the Delaware Plaintiffs' derivative claims.  Finally, the
Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to fully
disclose all material information necessary for Massey
stockholders to cast an informed vote on the Massey Acquisition.

The Delaware Plaintiffs also name the Company and Mountain Merger
Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary
created for purposes of effecting the Massey Acquisition, which,
at the effective time of the Massey Acquisition, was merged with
and into Massey, as defendants.  The Delaware Plaintiffs allege
that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted the former
Massey directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and agreed to
orchestrate the Massey Acquisition for the purpose of eliminating
the former Massey directors' potential liability on the derivative
claims.

The Delaware Plaintiffs seek an award against each defendant for
restitution and/or compensatory damages, plus pre-judgment
interest; an order establishing a litigation trust to preserve the
derivative claims asserted in the complaint; and an award of
costs, disbursements and reasonable allowances for fees incurred
in this action.  The Delaware Plaintiffs also sought to enjoin
consummation of the Massey Acquisition.  The court denied their
motion for a preliminary injunction on May 31, 2011.

Two additional putative class actions were brought against Massey,
certain former Massey directors and officers, the Company and
Merger Sub in the Delaware Court of Chancery following the
announcement of the Massey Acquisition.  Silverman v. Phillips, et
al., filed on February 7, 2011 ("Silverman"), and Goe v. Massey
Energy Company, et al., filed on February 14, 2011 ("Goe"), assert
allegations that are nearly identical to those made by the
Delaware Plaintiffs in In re Massey.  Silverman and Goe were
consolidated for all purposes with In re Massey on February 9,
2011, and February 24, 2011, respectively.

On June 10, 2011, Massey moved to dismiss the Delaware Plaintiffs'
derivative claims on the ground that the Delaware Plaintiffs, as
former Massey stockholders, lacked the legal right to pursue those
claims, and the Company and Alpha Appalachia Merger Sub moved to
dismiss the purported class action claim against them for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  On June 10 and
13, 2011, certain former Massey director and officer defendants
moved to dismiss the derivative claims and filed answers to the
remaining direct claims.

On September 14, 2011, the parties submitted a Stipulation Staying
Proceedings, which stays the matter until March 1, 2012, without
prejudice to the parties' right to seek an extension or a
termination of the stay by application to the court.  The court
approved the stipulation and entered the stay that same day.  On
January 31, 2012, the Company and Alpha Appalachia requested that
the Delaware Plaintiffs consent to a six month extension of the
stay order (the "Stay Order"); the Delaware Plaintiffs refused to
do so.

On February 21, 2012, the Company and Alpha Appalachia filed a
motion to extend the Stay Order for an additional five months
through August 1, 2012.  The motion remains pending.


ALPHA NATURAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on a
motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
arising from its acquisition of Massey Energy Company, according
to the Company's February 29, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

On June 1, 2011, the Company completed its acquisition of Massey
Energy Company ("Massey") for approximately $6.7 billion, of which
approximately $1.0 billion was paid in cash and $5.7 billion was
paid in common stock and other equity.  Massey, together with its
affiliates, was a major U.S. coal producer with approximately 2.4
billion tons of proven and probable reserves operating mines and
associated processing and loading facilities in Central
Appalachia.

On April 29, 2010, and May 28, 2010, two purported class actions
that were subsequently consolidated into one case were brought
against, among others, Massey, now the Company's subsidiary Alpha
Appalachia Holdings, Inc. ("Massey" or "Alpha Appalachia"), in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia in connection with alleged violations of the federal
securities laws.  The lead plaintiffs allege, purportedly on
behalf of a class of former Massey stockholders, that (i) Massey
and certain former Massey directors and officers violated Section
10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by intentionally
misleading the market about the safety of Massey's operations and
that (ii) Massey's former officers violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by virtue of their control over persons alleged to
have committed violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.
The lead plaintiffs seek a determination that this action is a
proper class action; certification as class representatives; an
award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial,
including interest thereon; and an award of reasonable costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

On February 16, 2011, the lead plaintiffs moved to partially lift
the statutory discovery stay imposed under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").  On March 3, 2011, the
United States moved to intervene and to stay discovery until the
completion of criminal proceedings allegedly arising from the same
facts that allegedly give rise to this action.  On April 15, 2011,
the United States and the lead plaintiffs informed the court that
they had reached an agreement regarding the United States' motions
and jointly requested that if the court decided to lift the
statutory discovery stay, the court limit the discovery to be
provided by Massey in certain respects.

On April 25, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss the operative
complaint.  On June 9, 2011, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in
opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss.  The defendants'
motion to dismiss is currently pending.

On September 28, 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to
partially lift the PSLRA discovery stay, granted the United
States' motion to intervene and imposed the conditions on
discovery requested by the United States and plaintiffs.

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


ALPHA NATURAL: Plea for Award of Attorneys' Fees Pending in Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement
of expenses and incentive awards, which Alpha Natural Resources,
Inc. opposed, remains pending, according to the Company's February
29, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On June 1, 2011, the Company completed its acquisition of Massey
Energy Company ("Massey") for approximately $6.7 billion, of which
approximately $1.0 billion was paid in cash and $5.7 billion was
paid in common stock and other equity.  Massey, together with its
affiliates, was a major U.S. coal producer with approximately 2.4
billion tons of proven and probable reserves operating mines and
associated processing and loading facilities in Central
Appalachia.  Massey is now the Company's subsidiary Alpha
Appalachia Holdings, Inc.

In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, purported former Massey stockholder Benjamin Mostaed
("Mostaed") alleges in a lawsuit filed on February 2, 2011, and
amended thereafter, purportedly on behalf of a class of former
Massey stockholders, that Massey, Alpha and certain former Massey
directors violated Sections 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
14a-9 thereunder by filing a false and misleading preliminary
proxy statement in connection with the then-proposed Massey
Acquisition; that Massey and certain former Massey directors
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of their
control over persons alleged to have committed violations of
Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act; that certain former Massey
directors violated their fiduciary duties by causing Massey to
enter into the Merger Agreement with Alpha pursuant to an unfair
process that resulted in an unfair offer with preclusive deal
protection devices that allegedly inhibited superior proposals;
and that Massey and Alpha aided and abetted the former Massey
directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  Mostaed sought an
injunction preventing the consummation of the Massey Acquisition;
rescission of the Merger Agreement; and an award of the costs and
disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys' and
experts' fees.

On February 4, 2011, William D. Perkins ("Perkins"), another
purported former Massey stockholder, filed a lawsuit in the
Eastern District of Virginia similar to Mostaed's.  On
February 17, 2011, Mostaed requested that the court consolidate
the two pending actions, along with any subsequently filed actions
challenging the proposed transaction.  Defendants did not oppose
the motion.  On June 3, 2011, the court granted the motion.

On June 24, 2011, Mostaed informed the court that, aside from a
motion for an award of attorneys' fees, he did not intend to
prosecute the action further and would voluntarily dismiss his
claims.

On July 13, 2011, Mostaed and Perkins moved for an award of
attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses and incentive awards,
contending that voluntary remedial measures implemented by
defendants and sought by Mostaed (i.e., additional disclosure) had
mooted Mostaed's claims.  On July 26, 2011, defendants filed their
opposition and on August 4, 2011, Mostaed and Perkins filed their
reply brief.  The court subsequently denied plaintiffs' request
for oral argument.  The motion remains pending.


ASSURED GUARANTY: AGM Still Defends Jefferson, Alabama Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In August 2008, a number of financial institutions and other
parties, including Assured Guaranty Ltd.'s subsidiary, Assured
Guaranty Municipal Corp. ("AGM"), and other bond insurers, were
named as defendants in a civil action brought in the circuit court
of Jefferson County, Alabama, relating to the County's problems
meeting its debt obligations on its $3.2 billion sewer debt:
Charles E. Wilson vs. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al (filed the
Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama), Case No. 01-CV-2008-
901907.00, a putative class action.  The action was brought on
behalf of rate payers, tax payers and citizens residing in
Jefferson County, and alleges conspiracy and fraud in connection
with the issuance of the County's debt.  The complaint in this
lawsuit seeks equitable relief, unspecified monetary damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.  On January, 13, 2011,
the circuit court issued an order denying a motion by the bond
insurers and other defendants to dismiss the action.  Defendants,
including the bond insurers, have petitioned the Alabama Supreme
Court for a writ of mandamus to the circuit court vacating such
order and directing the dismissal with prejudice of plaintiffs'
claims for lack of standing.  The Company says it cannot
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may
arise from this lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 29,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


ASSURED GUARANTY: "MDL 1950" Remains Pending in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Assured Guaranty Ltd. continues to defend antitrust class action
lawsuits involving its subsidiaries in the consolidated litigation
known as the MDL 1950, according to the Company's February 29,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

During 2008, nine putative class action lawsuits were filed in
federal court alleging federal antitrust violations in the
municipal derivatives industry, seeking damages and alleging,
among other things, a conspiracy to fix the pricing of, and
manipulate bids for, municipal derivatives, including guaranteed
investment contracts ("GICs").  These cases have been coordinated
and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York as MDL 1950, In re
Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-2516
("MDL 1950").

Five of these cases named both Assured Guaranty Municipal Holdings
Inc.("AGMH") and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. ("AGM"): (a)
Hinds County, Mississippi v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (b) Fairfax
County, Virginia v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (c) Central Bucks School
District, Pennsylvania v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (d) Mayor and City
Council of Baltimore, Maryland v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; and (e)
Washington County, Tennessee v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. In April 2009,
the MDL 1950 court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on
the federal claims, but granted leave for the plaintiffs to file a
second amended complaint.  In June 2009, interim lead plaintiffs'
counsel filed a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint; although the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint currently describes some of AGMH's and AGM's activities,
it does not name those entities as defendants.  In March 2010, the
MDL 1950 court denied the named defendants' motions to dismiss the
Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.  The
complaints in these lawsuits generally seek unspecified monetary
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.  The Company
cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that
may arise from these lawsuits.

Four of the cases named AGMH (but not AGM) and also alleged that
the defendants violated California state antitrust law and common
law by engaging in illegal bid-rigging and market allocation,
thereby depriving the cities or municipalities of competition in
the awarding of GICs and ultimately resulting in the cities paying
higher fees for these products: (f) City of Oakland, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; (g) County of Alameda, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; (h) City of Fresno, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; and (i) Fresno County Financing
Authority v. AIG Financial Products Corp.  When the four
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in September 2009, the
plaintiffs did not name AGMH as a defendant.  However, the
complaint does describe some of AGMH's and AGM's activities.  The
consolidated complaint generally seeks unspecified monetary
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.  In April
2010, the MDL 1950 court granted in part and denied in part the
named defendants' motions to dismiss this consolidated complaint.

In 2008, AGMH and AGM also were named in five non-class action
lawsuits originally filed in the California Superior Courts
alleging violations of California law related to the municipal
derivatives industry: (a) City of Los Angeles, California v. Bank
of America, N.A.; (b) City of Stockton, California v. Bank of
America, N.A.; (c) County of San Diego, California v. Bank of
America, N.A.; (d) County of San Mateo, California v. Bank of
America, N.A.; and (e) County of Contra Costa, California v. Bank
of America, N.A.  Amended complaints in these actions were filed
in September 2009, adding a federal antitrust claim and naming AGM
(but not AGMH) and Assured Guaranty US Holdings Inc. ("AGUS"),
among other defendants.  These cases have been transferred to the
Southern District of New York and consolidated with MDL 1950 for
pretrial proceedings.

In late 2009, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named in
six additional non-class action cases filed in federal court,
which also have been coordinated and consolidated for pretrial
proceedings with MDL 1950: (f) City of Riverside, California v.
Bank of America, N.A.; (g) Sacramento Municipal Utility District
v. Bank of America, N.A.; (h) Los Angeles World Airports v. Bank
of America, N.A.; (i) Redevelopment Agency of the City of Stockton
v. Bank of America, N.A.; (j) Sacramento Suburban Water District
v. Bank of America, N.A.; and (k) County of Tulare, California v.
Bank of America, N.A.

The MDL 1950 court denied AGM and AGUS's motions to dismiss these
eleven complaints in April 2010.  Amended complaints were filed in
May 2010.  On October 29, 2010, AGM and AGUS were voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice from the Sacramento Municipal Utility
District case only.  The complaints in these lawsuits generally
seek or sought unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and other expenses.  The Company cannot reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from
the remaining lawsuits.

In May 2010, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named in
five additional non-class action cases filed in federal court in
California: (a) City of Richmond, California v. Bank of America,
N.A. (filed on May 18, 2010, N.D. California); (b) City of Redwood
City, California v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on May 18, 2010,
N.D. California); (c) Redevelopment Agency of the City and County
of San Francisco, California v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on
May 21, 2010, N.D. California); (d) East Bay Municipal Utility
District, California v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on May 18,
2010, N.D. California) ; and (e) City of San Jose and the San Jose
Redevelopment Agency, California v. Bank of America, N.A (filed on
May 18, 2010, N.D. California).  These cases have also been
transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated
with MDL 1950 for pretrial proceedings.  In September 2010, AGM
and AGUS, among other defendants, were named in a sixth additional
non-class action filed in federal court in New York, but which
alleges violation of New York's Donnelly Act in addition to
federal antitrust law: Active Retirement Community, Inc. d/b/a
Jefferson's Ferry v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on September 21,
2010, E.D. New York), which has also been transferred to the
Southern District of New York and consolidated with MDL 1950 for
pretrial proceedings.  In December 2010, AGM and AGUS, among other
defendants, were named in a seventh additional non-class action
filed in federal court in the Central District of California, Los
Angeles Unified School District v. Bank of America, N.A., and in
an eighth additional non-class action filed in federal court in
the Southern District of New York, Kendal on Hudson, Inc. v. Bank
of America, N.A.  These cases also have been consolidated with MDL
1950 for pretrial proceedings.  The complaints in these lawsuits
generally seek unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and other expenses.  The Company says it cannot
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may
arise from these lawsuits.

In January 2011, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named
in an additional non-class action case filed in federal court in
New York, which alleges violation of New York's Donnelly Act in
addition to federal antitrust law: Peconic Landing at Southold,
Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A.  This case has been consolidated
with MDL 1950 for pretrial proceedings.  The complaint in this
lawsuit generally seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses.  The Company says it
cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that
may arise from this lawsuit.

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


AVON PRODUCTS: Sued Over Board's Failure to Negotiate With Coty
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ira Gaines as trustee for The Paradise Wire & Cable Defined
Benefit Pension Plan Dated 11/1/84 and the Sunshine Wire and Cable
Defined Benefit Pension Plan Trust dated 01/01/92, on behalf of
all those similarly situated v. Andrea Jung, W. Don Cornell, V.
Ann Hailey, Fred Hassan, Maria Elena Lagomasino, Ann S. Moore,
Gary M. Rodkin, Paula Stern, Lawrence A. Weinbach, Dougla R.
Conant, and Avon Products, Inc., Case No. 651098/2012 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., April 4, 2012) arises from Avon Board of Directors' alleged
breaches of its fiduciary duties.

The Plaintiff asserts that Avon failed to enter into serious
negotiations with Coty, Inc. relating to buyout proposals by Coty,
and to take other steps which would lead to a value maximizing
transaction for the Company and proposed Class members.  The
Plaintiff adds that the Board has steadfastly refused to negotiate
or even meet with Coty, despite the fact that the last offer of
approximately $10 billion represents a substantial premium of 27%
over the three month volume weighted average price for Avon
shares.

The Plaintiff, as trustee for the Paradise Wire & Cable Defined
Benefit Pension Plan dated 11/1/84 and the Sunshine Wire And Cable
Defined Benefit Pension Plan Trust dated 01/01/92, have owned
shares of Avon common stock.

Avon, a New York corporation, manufactures and markets beauty and
related products worldwide.  Avon offers beauty products, such as
color cosmetics, fragrances, skin care, and personal care
products; fashion products comprising fashion jewelry, watches,
apparel, footwear, accessories, and children's products.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
          THE GRANT LAW FIRM, PLLC
          521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10175
          Telephone: (212) 292-4441
          Facsimile: (212) 292-4442
          E-mail: lgrant@grantfirm.com


BANCORPSOUTH: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $1.75 Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press, citing The Northeast Mississippi Daily
Journal, reports that Bancorpsouth will pay $1.75 million to
settle a class action lawsuit related to improper overdraft fees.

The Tupelo-based bank also will make changes to its overdraft
practices.

BancorpSouth says in a statement that it's pleased with the
federal court's preliminary approval of the settlement.  The bank
says it did nothing wrong.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Arkansas, alleged
BancorpSouth assessed non-sufficient funds fees and overdraft fees
on debit card and check purchases and ATM withdrawals in a number
of ways that were "unlawful."

The lawsuit said BancorpSouth processed the largest transaction
first instead of processing the transactions as they are received.
The lawsuit alleges the action was taken to maximize the number of
non-sufficient funds fees and overdraft fees.


BANKERS LIFE: Elderly People's Class Certification Bid Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge refused to certify a class that claims an insurance company
preyed on elderly people and induced them to make poor
investments.

Estella Rowe claims that Bankers Life and Casualty called her
unsolicited in July 2007 and arranged an in-home meeting to
discuss long-term care insurance.  Though court filings simply
state that Mrs. Rowe was over 65 at the time of the call, her now
late husband would have been about 80.

After learning that the Rowes had a variable annuity with another
company with a cash value of $105,000, the two Bankers agents
persuaded the Rowes to liquidate that annuity and buy one of
Banker's annuities instead.

But Mrs. Rowe now claims she and her husband would not have bought
the annuity if they knew all of "the undisclosed and concealed
risks and infirmities of their investment."

The Bankers annuity that the Rowes purchased for $101,985 had a
maturity date of July 16, 2025, meaning that the Rowes would not
receive any return on the annuity until Samuel Rowe was 99 years
old.  Because it also started with a 10 percent surrender charge,
Bankers charged the Rowes $10,198 when they dipped into the
account in December 2007.

Mrs. Rowe filed a class action alleging that Bankers conspired
with its sales agents to induce elderly consumers to buy equity-
indexed deferred annuities that are unsuitable investments for
anyone older than 65.

Mrs. Rowe may be able to certify a California subclass because she
showed that all Bankers' California customers received the same
allegedly misleading disclosure form, according to the 24-page
decision.

But U.S. District Judge Robert Dow Jr. refused to certify the
class initially proposed.

"While Rowe makes sweeping allegations and charges in her second
amended complaint and her brief, she has not provided evidence
suggesting that Bankers' agents used 'uniform, scripted, and
standardized sales presentations,'" Judge Dow wrote "Instead, the
evidence before the court demonstrates that each of Bankers' 4,600
independent sales agents located in over 200 nationwide sales
offices had the discretion to conduct their home visits -- where
the actual sales transactions occurred -- as they saw fit."

"Because Rowe has failed to demonstrate that potential members of
the nationwide class received uniform written or oral
misrepresentations or omissions, she cannot show predominance on
the element of racketeering activity," he added.

Judge Dow was also not convinced that equity-indexed deferred
annuities are absolutely unsuitable for elderly investors.

"Seniors buy equity-indexed deferred annuities for a multitude of
reasons, including saving for retirement, saving for some other
purpose, or keeping money safe during the purchaser's lifetime so
that it can be passed on to his or her heirs," the March 29
decision states.  "Additionally, people age sixty-five and over
have varying degrees of need for liquidity and, while some seniors
may need to keep all of their assets liquid, that is not the case
for all seniors.  Thus, because the court is not convinced that
there is no logical reason for a person over the age of sixty-five
to purchase one of Bankers' annuities other than the fact that she
was misled, it is not appropriate to infer class-wide reliance or
causation in this case."

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in Rowe v. Bankers Life
and Casualty Company, et al., Case No. 09-cv-00491 (N.D. Ill.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/09/Annuity.pdf


CAVALRY SPV: Accused of Illegal Debt Collection in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Morgan and Jill Woods-Primous, individually and on behalf
of the class defined below, and People of the State of Illinois ex
rel. Bonnie Morgan and Jill Woods-Primous, pursuant to 225 ILCS
425/14a v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Cavalry SPV I, LLC,
and The Shindler Law Firm, Case No. 2012-CH-12522 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty., April 6, 2012) accuses the Defendants of violating the
Illinois Collection Agency Act and the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that Cavalry SPV has never been licensed as
a collection agency by the state of Illinois.  Because it was
never licensed, Cavalry SPV's purchases and collections of debts
in Illinois were a crime, the Plaintiffs contend.  Even though
Cavalry SPV could not directly or indirectly collect any debt that
it purchases when it was unlicensed, it retained Cavalry Portfolio
and the Shindler Law Firm to collect the debts on its behalf, the
Plaintiffs assert.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Cook County, Illinois.

Cavalry Portfolio, an Arizona Corporation, Cavalry SPV, a New York
corporation, and the Shindler Law Firm, an Illinois corporation,
collect consumer debts allegedly owed to others and regularly use
the telephone and United States mail for that purpose.  Cavalry
SPV purchases or claims to purchase charged-off consumer debts and
enforces the debts against the consumers by assigning the debt to
other agencies for collection and otherwise.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Craig Shapiro, Esq.
          Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          101 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 605
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: Keith@Keoghlaw.com


CCH INC: Deceptively Sells High-Interest Loans, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin J. Palmer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CCH Incorporated, a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 2012-CH-12181 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., April 4, 2012)
alleges that CCH, an online tax preparation company, has for years
been engaging in a scheme to deceptively market and sell to its
customers short-term, extremely high-interest loans backed by a
security interest in a customer's anticipated tax refund.

CCH, for a period of eight to 15 days, defers a customer's payment
of CCH's online tax preparation and software fees for an
additional $29.95 fee, but fails to construe the fatter fee for
what it is -- a finance charge, Mr. Palmer alleges.  Thus, he
contends, consumers are not properly provided information as to
the annual percentage rate on these loans, which often run into
the thousands of percent.

Mr. Palmer is a citizen of Colorado.  He utilized the Defendant's
online tax preparation services and software (CompleteTax) and the
Defendant facilitated a Refund Anticipation Loan for him.  On
March 1, 2012, he entered into an agreement with CCH for the
purchase of its online tax preparation services and loan products.

CCH is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
and nerve center in the greater Chicago, Illinois.  CCH is a
provider of software and information services for tax, accounting,
and audit workers.  CCH is also in the business of tax
preparation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dom J. Rizzi, Esq.
          Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq.
          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP
          30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
          E-mail: drizzi@caffertyfaucher.com
                  JSprengel@caffertyfaucher.com
                  doherra@caffertyfaucher.com

               - and -

          Hank Bates, Esq.
          CARNEY WILLIAMS BATES PULLIAM & BOWMAN, PLLC
          11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72212
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: hbates@carneywilliams.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          Ruben Honik, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK
          1515 Market St., #1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177

               - and -

          Brian T. Ku, Esq.
          M. Ryan Casey, Esq.
          KU & MUSSMAN, PA
          12250 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 406
          Miami, FL 33181
          Telephone: (305) 891-1322
          Facsimile: (305) 891-4512
          E-mail: brian@kumussman.com
                  ryan@kumussman.com


CELL THERAPEUTICS: July 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven on April 6 issued a statement regarding the proposed
settlement of the Cell Therapeutics, Inc. class action.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

In re CELL THERAPEUTICS, INC.
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION
This Document Relates To: All Actions

Master Docket No. C10-414 MJP
(consolidated with Nos. C10-480 MJP and C10-559MJP)
CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

To: All persons and entities who purchased the common stock of
Cell Therapeutics, Inc. between March 25, 2008 and March 22, 2010,
both dates inclusive.

This Summary Notice is given pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington (the
"Court"), dated March 16, 2012.  The purpose of this Summary
Notice is to inform you of the proposed settlement of the above-
entitled class action (the "Action") against defendants Cell
Therapeutics, Inc., James A. Bianco, Louis A. Bianco, and Craig W.
Philips.

A Settlement Hearing will be held before the Hon. Marsha J.
Pechman, United States District Judge, at the United States
Courthouse, 700 Stewart Street, Seattle, Washington 98101, at 1:30
p.m. on July 20, 2012 in order: (1) to determine whether the Court
should grant certification to the Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(a) and (b)(3); (2) to determine whether the Settlement
consisting of $19,000,000 in cash should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Class and the proposed Judgment
entered; (3) to determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation
for the proceeds of the settlement is fair and reasonable, and
should be approved by the Court; (4) to determine whether any
applications for attorneys' fees or expenses to Plaintiffs'
Counsel should be approved; and (5) to rule upon such other
matters as the Court may deem appropriate.

If you purchased the common stock of Cell Therapeutics, Inc.
between March 25, 2008 and March 22, 2010 (both dates inclusive),
and are not otherwise excluded from the Class, you are a Class
Member.  Class Members will be bound by the final judgment of the
Court.  If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim postmarked no later than July 28, 2012, establishing that
you are entitled to recovery.  A Proof of Claim is being sent with
the Notice.  If you are a Class Member and need an additional
Proof of Claim, copies may be obtained by telephoning the Claims
Administrator at 877-519-0810 or by downloading the form on the
Internet at http://www.gcginc.com

If you do not wish to be included in the Class and you do not wish
to participate in the proposed settlement described, you may
request to be excluded, in the manner specifically set forth in
the full Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"),
no later than June 15, 2012.  If you are a Class Member, you may
make a written objection to the Settlement.  If you make a written
objection, you also may appear at the Settlement Hearing.  You
must file and serve your written objection, in the manner
specifically set forth in the Notice, no later than June 15, 2012.
The procedures which MUST be followed for Class Members to request
exclusion from the Class or to object to the settlement, the Plan
of Allocation or application for attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses are set forth in full in the Notice.  You are urged to
obtain a copy of the Notice, which includes, among other things, a
description of: (1) the litigation in the Action prior to the
settlement; (2) the terms of the proposed settlement; (3) the
benefits of the settlement to the Class; (4) the Plan of
Allocation for the proceeds of the settlement; (5) the rights of
Class Members; (6) the release of claims against defendants Cell
Therapeutics, Inc., James A. Bianco, Louis A. Bianco, and Craig W.
Philips, and their Related Parties; (7) the application for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses; and (8) additional details
concerning the Settlement Hearing, excluding oneself from the
Class and/or objecting to the settlement, the Plan of Allocation,
and/or the application for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

Dated: March 16, 2012
Marsha J. Pechman
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


COGDELL SPENCER: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cogdell Spencer Inc. disclosed in its February 29, 2012, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, that it
entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding the
settlement of certain litigation relating to, among other things,
the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 24, 2011,
among Company, Cogdell Spencer LP (the "Operating Partnership"),
Ventas, Inc., TH Merger Sub, LLC ("OP MergerSub"), and TH Merger
Corp, Inc. ("MergerSub"), providing for the merger of the Company
with MergerSub and the merger of OP MergerSub with and into the
Operating Partnership.

A putative class action was filed in the Superior Court for the
State of North Carolina, Mecklenburg County, and six putative
class actions were filed in the Maryland Circuit Court for
Baltimore City relating to the Merger.  The complaint in the North
Carolina case was filed under the caption, Sesholtz v. Braun, et
al., Case No. 11 CVS 23162, and alleges generally that the members
of the Company's board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed
to the Company's stockholders in connection with the Merger and
that Ventas aided and abetted such alleged breaches.  On February
3, 2012, the plaintiff in the North Carolina action filed an
amended complaint, asserting allegations similar to those in the
Maryland case.  Defendants moved to stay the North Carolina action
on February 15, 2012.

The individual cases pending in Maryland were consolidated by the
Court on January 31, 2012, under the caption, In re Cogdell
Spencer Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 24-C-12-000053.  On
February 9, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Maryland case filed a
consolidated and amended class action and derivative complaint
against the Company, the Company's directors, Ventas, MergerSub
and OP MergerSub, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting claims.  Among other things, the amended complaint
alleges that the Cogdell directors failed to take steps to
maximize the value of the Company to its public stockholders and
failed to fully disclose all material information necessary to
cast an informed vote on the Merger.  The amended complaint seeks
various forms of relief, including a court order: (1) enjoining
the proposed Merger; (2) requiring Defendants to account to the
plaintiffs and the class for any damages suffered as a result of
Defendants' alleged wrongdoing; and (3) an award of damages in the
event the Merger is consummated.  Plaintiffs in the Maryland
action filed a motion seeking expedited discovery from Defendants
on February 9, 2012.  On February 21, 2012, Defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint.

On February 29, 2012, the Company entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs in the Maryland and North
Carolina cases regarding the settlement of the pending claims.
The proposed settlement will not affect the consideration to be
paid to the Company's stockholders or to holders of equity
interests in the Operating Partnership in connection with the
Mergers or the timing of the special meeting of the Company's
stockholders, which is scheduled for March 9, 2012, at which the
holders of the Company's common stock will consider and vote upon
a proposal to approve the Merger, among other things.

The Company denies each of the allegations in these stockholder
lawsuits and believes that no further disclosure is required to
supplement the proxy statement under applicable laws.  However, to
avoid the risk that the litigation may delay or otherwise
adversely affect the consummation of the Mergers and to minimize
the expense of defending such action, the Company has agreed,
pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, to make
supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger.  The
memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a settlement agreement which will be subject to
customary conditions, including court approval following notice to
the Company's stockholders.  In the event the parties enter into a
settlement agreement, a hearing will be scheduled in which the
Maryland Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the settlement.  If the settlement is finally approved
by the Court, it will resolve and release all claims in all
actions that were or could have been brought challenging any
aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any
disclosure made in connection therewith, among other claims,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to
final approval of the settlement.

In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the
Maryland Court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be
paid by or on behalf of Defendants, which Defendants may oppose.
Defendants will pay or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees and
expenses awarded by the Maryland Court.  There can be no assurance
that the parties will ultimately enter into a settlement agreement
or that the Maryland Court will approve the settlement even if the
parties were to enter into a settlement agreement.  In such event,
the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding may be terminated.


CYTOSPORT: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pearson, Simon, Warshaw & Penny, LLP, Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC
and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP on April 6 issued a statement
regarding CytoSport.

Pearson, Simon, Warshaw & Penny, LLP, Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC,
and CytoSport jointly announced that the Los Angeles Superior
Court has granted preliminary approval of a settlement resolving
Proposition 65 and related legal claims brought against CytoSport.

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit alleged that CytoSport did not
adequately inform consumers that certain products, including
Muscle Milk(R) and Monster Milk(R), allegedly contained lead,
cadmium and/or arsenic.  CytoSport vigorously denies these claims,
responding that trace amounts of metals are found in the
environment and in many agricultural products, and that the
products are safe, as confirmed by independent testing by
accredited third parties.  Plaintiffs' Complaint does not allege
that CytoSport violated the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, and
plaintiffs did not contend that any consumer was physically harmed
by CytoSport's products; rather, the lawsuit pertained to labeling
requirements under California law.  The Court did not rule in
favor of plaintiffs or CytoSport.  Instead, the parties agreed to
a settlement to avoid the expense and risks of continuing the
lawsuits.

People who purchased a CytoSport product, including any Muscle
Milk(R) or Monster Milk(R), CytoMax(R), and Mighty Milk(R)
varieties in any form, including powder beverages, ready-to-drink
beverages, bars or capsules, between June 4, 2006 and January 5,
2012, may be members of the proposed class unless they opt out
before June 15, 2012.  Qualifying households may file a claim to
receive up to $20.  A list of qualifying products and other
details of the proposed settlement are available by calling (888)
313-1922 or online at:

     http://www.CytoSportClassActionSettlement.com


DELPHI FINANCIAL: Mississippi Okays Settlement of Suit vs. Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Delphi Financial Group, Inc.'s settlement of a class action
lawsuit against its subsidiary has been finally approved by the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Mississippi, according to the Company's February 29, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.

A putative class action, Moore v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance
Company, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Mississippi in July 2008 against the
Company's subsidiary, RSLIC.  The action challenges RSLIC's
ability to pay certain insurance policy benefits through a
mechanism commonly known in the insurance industry as a retained
asset account and contains related claims of breach of fiduciary
duty and prohibited transactions under the federal Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  The parties have entered
into an agreement to settle this litigation, and the settlement
has been finally approved by the court.

The Company says this settlement will not have a material adverse
effect on its results of operations, liquidity or financial
condition.


DEWAAY FINANCIAL: Judge Weighs Merits of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Andrew Osterland, writing for Investment News, reports that DeWaay
Financial Network LLC, one of dozens of broker-dealers ensnared in
litigation over private placement investments gone sour, got some
momentary relief from the Iowa District Court for Decatur County
on April 5.

Judge John Lloyd ruled to keep temporary restraining orders in
place while he considers the merits of a class action filed
against the broker-dealer.  The orders prevent more than a dozen
arbitration claims filed against the company with the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. from proceeding.

The Finra claims are seeking collective damages of more than $6
million -- more than seven times the company's current net capital
of $820,000, according to financial documents filed by the firm
last month.

Lawyers for arbitration claimants asked the court to revoke the
restraining order and let their cases with Finra proceed.
However, the plaintiff's attorneys who filed the class action
against the firm argued that there is not enough money to go
around and that the more equitable solution would be to roll all
claims into a non-opt out class action.

"This is a win for equity and fairness," said Scott Adkins --
sadkins@menzerhill.com -- a plaintiff's lawyer with Menzer & Hill
PA who is working on the case. "DeWaay has extremely limited
resources and hundreds of clients who've lost a lot of money."

"The balance to be struck here is between the early birds, who
would have the whole worm, and the late risers, who would have the
worm diced into small pieces," Judge Lloyd wrote in his decision.

The court will now consider the merits of the class action.

Executives at DeWaay Financial were not immediately available for
comment.


EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Midwest Gen. Faces Class Suits in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edison International's subsidiary is facing class action lawsuits
in Illinois initiated by residents living near Crawford and Fisk
Stations, according to the Company's February 29, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

Midwest Generation, LLC owns, leases and operates the Midwest
Generation plants in Illinois, which are Edison Mission Group
Inc.'s largest power plants.  EMG is the power generation segment
of Edison International.

In January 2012, two complaints were filed against Midwest
Generation in Illinois state court by residents living near the
Crawford and Fisk Stations on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, each asserting claims of nuisance, negligence,
trespass, and strict liability.  The plaintiffs seek to have their
lawsuits certified as a class action and request injunctive
relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.  The
complaints are similar to two complaints previously filed in the
Northern District of Illinois, which were dismissed in October
2011 for lack of federal jurisdiction.

The Company says adverse decisions in these cases could involve
penalties, remedial actions and damages that could have a material
impact on the financial condition and results of operations of
Midwest Generation.


EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Suit vs. Units Pending in Mississippi
-----------------------------------------------------------
In May 2011, private citizens filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi, naming a large number of defendants,
including Edison International and its subsidiaries, including
Southern California Edison Company and Edison Mission Energy.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants' activities resulted in
emissions of substantial quantities of greenhouse gases that have
contributed to climate change and sea level rise, which in turn
are alleged to have increased the destructive force of Hurricane
Katrina.  The lawsuit alleges causes of action for negligence,
public and private nuisance, and trespass, and seeks unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages.  The claims in this lawsuit are
nearly identical to a subset of the claims that were raised
against many of the same defendants in a previous lawsuit that was
filed in, and dismissed by, the same federal district court where
the current case has been filed.  Edison International was
dismissed as a defendant in this complaint in July 2011, but SCE
and EME remain defendants.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 29,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Unit May Face New Suit Over CAA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edison International's subsidiary, EME Homer City Generation L.P.
("Homer City"), may face another lawsuit alleging violations of
emissions standards and limitations, according to the Company's
February 29, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In January 2011, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
filed a complaint in the Western District of Pennsylvania against
Homer City, the sale-leaseback owner participants of the Homer
City plant, and two prior owners of the Homer City plant.  The
complaint alleged violations of the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration ("PSD") and Title V provisions of the Clean Air Act
("CAA"), as a result of projects in the 1990s performed by prior
owners without PSD permits and the subsequent failure to
incorporate emissions limitations that meet the best available
control technology ("BACT") into the station's Title V operating
permit.  In addition to seeking penalties ranging from $32,500 to
$37,500 per violation, per day, the complaint called for an
injunction ordering Homer City to install controls sufficient to
meet BACT emission rates at all units subject to the complaint and
for other remedies.  The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, the State of New York and the State of New Jersey
intervened in the lawsuit.  In October 2011, all of the claims in
the US EPA's lawsuit were dismissed with prejudice.  An appeal of
the dismissal is pending before the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals.

Also in January 2011, two residents filed a complaint in the
Western District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, against Homer City, the sale-leaseback
owner participants of the Homer City plant, two prior owners of
the Homer City plant, EME, and Edison International, claiming that
emissions from the Homer City plant had adversely affected their
health and property values.

Edison Mission Energy ("EME") is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Edison Mission Group Inc., a power generation segment of Edison
International.

The plaintiffs sought to have their lawsuit certified as a class
action and requested injunctive relief, the funding of a health
assessment study and medical monitoring, as well as compensatory
and punitive damages.  In October 2011, the claims in the
purported class action lawsuit that were based on the federal CAA
were dismissed with prejudice, while state law statutory and
common law claims were dismissed without prejudice to re-file in
state court should the plaintiffs choose to do so.  EME does not
know whether the plaintiffs will file a complaint in state court.

In February 2012, Homer City received a 60-day Notice of Intent to
Sue indicating the Sierra Club's intent to file a citizen lawsuit
alleging violations of emissions standards and limitations under
the CAA and the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act.

The Company says adverse decisions in these cases could involve
penalties, remedial actions and damages that could have a material
impact on the financial condition and results of operations of
Homer City and EME.  EME cannot predict the outcome of these
matters or estimate the impact on the Homer City plant, or its and
Homer City's results of operations, financial position or cash
flows.  EME has not recorded a liability for this matter.


FACEBOOK INC: Request to Transfer Class Action to Calif. Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that citing the
"conspicuousness" of its terms of service on facebook.com, a
federal judge granted Facebook's request to transfer a class
action to the Northern District of California.

Parents of two teen-agers filed the class action against the
social network in June 2011, claiming Facebook misappropriated the
teen-agers' names and likenesses for commercial purposes without
consent.

The parents claimed Facebook improperly advertised what the teens
"liked," and cited Illinois law that prohibits children from
giving Facebook permission to use their names and pictures in
advertisements.

Facebook asked to transfer the case to California, where Facebook
is headquartered, and cited a clause in its terms of service that
states that all litigation is to be settled in the Northern
District of California.

The parents' attorneys argued that moving the case to California
would inconvenience their clients and needlessly increase the cost
of litigation.

But U.S. District Judge Patrick Murphy ruled for Facebook.

"In this instance, as noted, persons wishing to join facebook.com
must attest that they have read Facebook's TOS [terms of service],
which are made available through a hyperlink," Judge Murphy wrote.
"Also, Facebook's TOS are hyperlinked on every page accessed by a
facebook.com user in underlined, blue text that contrasts with the
white background of the hyperlink.  Accordingly, the court
concludes that plaintiffs were reasonably put on notice of
Facebook's TOS.  . . . Whether or not plaintiffs actually read
Facebook's TOS is irrelevant, of course, to the matter of the
conspicuousness of the TOS and thus plaintiffs' constructive
knowledge of the TOS, and plaintiffs are bound by Facebook's TOS
whether plaintiffs read them or not."

A copy of the Memorandum and Order in E.K.D., et al. v. Facebook,
Inc., Case No. 11-cv-00461 (S.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/09/FacebookXfer.pdf


FIFTH THIRD: Faces Class Action Over Alleged "Kickbacks"
--------------------------------------------------------
Rich Lord, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that a
Cincinnati-based bank is accused in a lawsuit filed on April 5 of
taking "disguised, unlawful referral fees" or "kickbacks" from
mortgage insurers.

The lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank, several related companies
and six mortgage insurers by three borrowers seeks to become a
nationwide class action.  It appears to be one of several similar
suits against banks following a 2009 ruling by the 3rd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case by some of the same attorneys
who are now suing Fifth Third, that opened the door for such
litigation.

The plaintiffs, Christopher Manners of Latrobe and Jamie and Aimee
Young of Carbon Cliff, Ill., got mortgages from Fifth Third in
2007, according to the complaint in U.S. District Court.

When homebuyers are unable to make downpayments of 20 percent of
the home's purchase price, banks typically require private
mortgage insurance on the loan.  The bank picks the insurer and
arranges for the coverage, against which it makes a claim if the
borrower defaults.  The borrower pays the premium as part of their
mortgage payment.

Fifth Third arranged insurance for Mr. Manners at a cost of
$166.80 per month, and for the Youngs for $33.35 per month,
according to the complaint.

Unknown to the borrowers, Fifth Third had arrangements with the
insurers under which they bought "reinsurance" from a subsidiary
of the bank called Fifth Third RE, according to the complaint.
The reinsurance, it said, was written in a way that the bank
assumed little or no risk.

The insurers "had no choice but to enter into virtually identical
reinsurance contracts with Fifth Third RE or risk losing
business," the complaint said.

Fifth Third from 2004 through 2011 got $54 million in reinsurance
premium payments from the insurers, and only paid out $4.9 million
in claims, according to the complaint.  It said that this amounted
to "a sham" and a violation of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act.  RESPA bars lenders from taking referral fees from
other parties involved in the loan, the complaint said.

Fifth Third spokeswoman Barbara Grimsley said the bank doesn't
comment on litigation.

Pittsburgh attorney Stephen J. O'Brien and several other lawyers
filed the complaint.  They could not be reached for comment on
April 6.

Some of those attorneys -- though not Mr. O'Brien -- represented
plaintiffs in an Eastern Pennsylvania lawsuit against lender
Countrywide Financial Corp. and its reinsurance subsidiary that
was resolved last year.

That lawsuit was initially dismissed when Countrywide argued that
the contracts between its subsidiary and the private mortgage
insurers didn't result in any overcharges to consumers.  But the
3rd Circuit found that RESPA could be violated even if there were
no overcharges.

That lawsuit was settled with the creation of a $34 million
settlement fund to cover payments to Countrywide borrowers and the
attorneys.


GAP INC: Faces Suit Over Gift Certificates' Value Reduction
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Spencer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Gap, Inc., Case No. 2012-CH-12223 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., April 4, 2012) is brought to seek relief on
behalf of a class of gift certificate holders, who purchased and
have been unable to redeem the full value of gift certificates at
Gap retail stores within the time period permitted by law.

The very terms of the gift certificates contain expiration dates
that are shorter than the time required by law, and improperly
reduce the value of the gift certificates below their face value,
Mr. Spencer alleges.

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

Gap is organized under the laws of the state of Delaware.  Gap
operates retail stores in the state of Illinois and in Cook
County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Bulgarelli, Esq.
          Alex Stepick, Esq.
          PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC
          505 North LaSalle, Suite 350
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 787-2717


GOOGLE: 2nd Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Copyright Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rik Myslewski, writing for The Register, reports that the class-
action lawsuit filed by Viacom, the English Premier League, and
others against Google has risen from the dead, thanks to a
reversal of lower court decisions by the 2nd US Circuit Court of
Appeals.

"It's hard to characterize this as anything other than a loss for
Google, and potentially a significant one," Eric Goldman of the
High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University told Reuters.
"It has given new life to a case that Google thought was dead."

In March 2007, Viacom filed its billion-dollar suit against
YouTube, which had been acquired by Google in the fall of 2006 for
$1.65bn in a stock-for-stock swap.  At the time, Viacom accused
the Mountain View ad merchant of copyright infringement, claiming
that YouTube's online video collection included 160,000 infringing
works that had been viewed 1.5 billion times.

Shortly after Viacom filed their complaint, the Premier League
footballers got in on the action, claiming that YouTube violated
their copyrights by showing clips of matches.  Others hopped
aboard, as well, including music publisher Bourne and CO., the US
National Music Publishers Association (which settled last August),
the Finnish Football League Association, and others.  All the
complaints were combined into one class-action mega-suit.

The case went through the usual convolutions all too common in
such complex litigation, including one bizarre turn when a judge
ordered YouTube to provide Viacom with 12 terabytes of user logs,
including video viewers' account names and IP addresses.  Sanity,
however, prevailed in that matter when the two companies agreed
that the data could be anonymized before Viacom got its hands on
it.

At one point, Google accused Viacom of surreptitiously uploading
infringing videos onto YouTube in order to bolster its case --
even alleging that they had been "roughed up" to make them "look
stolen or leaked".

The case was seen as a major test of the US Digital Millenium
Copyright Act, which includes a "safe harbor" provision that
protects a company from copyright-infringement liability if it is
merely the medium used by malefactors to post infringing content,
as long as the company takes the infringing materials down when
requested to do so by the copyright holders -- a provision that
Google asserted when it asked the court to dismiss the suit.

The class-action complaint came to a head in June 2010 when a
federal judge agreed with Google's DCMA defense and dismissed the
suit.  "The present case shows that the DMCA notification regime
works efficiently," US District Court Judge Louis Stanton wrote in
his 30-page opinion.  "[W]hen Viacom over a period of months
accumulated some 100,000 videos and then sent one mass take-down
notice on February 2, 2007, by the next business day YouTube had
removed virtually all of them."

That dismissal was laid down in June 2010 -- but as court-watchers
know, the end of such a case is rarely, well, the end of such a
case.  In October of last year, Viacom filed an appeal, calling
the dismissal "fundamentally flawed", and the case went back to
court.

On April 5, the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and like a
litigious zombie from George Romero's Night of the Living Dead,
the lawsuit walks among us yet again.

The decision was written by the 2nd Circuit's Judge Jose Cabranes,
who was of the opinion that "a reasonable jury could find that
YouTube had actual knowledge or awareness of specific infringing
activity on its Web site."

Although appeals panels normally consist of three judges, this
case was decided by only two -- the third died while the
litigation was pending.  But the case lives on.


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Discovery in Consolidated Nevada Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities class action
lawsuit pending in Nevada, according to Las Vegas Sands Corp.'s
February 29, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada (the "U.S. District Court"), against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner.  The complaint alleged
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from August 1, 2007, through November 6, 2008.
The complaint sought, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.  On July 21,
2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon G.
Adelson, and William P. Weidner.  The complaint alleged that LVSC,
through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved
materially false information, or failed to disclose material
facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other
means from June 13, 2007, through November 11, 2008.  The
complaint, which was substantially similar to the Fosbre
complaint, sought among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.  On August 31,
2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order consolidating the
Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel.  As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases are reported as one
consolidated matter.

On November 1, 2010, a purported class action amended complaint
was filed in the consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G.
Adelson and William P. Weidner.  The amended complaint alleges
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false and misleading information, or failed to
disclose material facts, through press releases, investor
conference calls and other means from August 2, 2007, through
November 6, 2008.  The amended complaint seeks, among other
relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.  On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which, on August 24,
2011, was granted in part, and denied in part, with the dismissal
of certain allegations.  On November 7, 2011, the defendants filed
their answer to the allegations remaining in the amended
complaint.  The discovery process has also begun.

The Company says this consolidated action is in a preliminary
stage and management has determined that based on proceedings to
date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the
outcome of this matter or the range of reasonably possible loss,
if any.  The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously.


LEBANON TOWNSHIP, NJ: Committee Urged to Join Tax Lien Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lillian Shupe, writing for Hunterdon County Democrat, reports that
the daughter of a woman who has initiated a class action suit
regarding the fraudulent sale of tax liens, encouraged the
Township Committee to also become plaintiffs in the case.

Jeanne Boyer, who has been fighting to save her own home from
foreclosure, filed the suit on behalf of herself and potentially
thousands of other homeowners in similar situations.  Ms. Boyer
alleges that she is one of many victims of an illegal scheme that
allowed tax lien investors to charge the highest amount of
interest allowed by law by eliminating the competitive bidding
process.

The suit was filed in Hunterdon County Superior Court on March 13
and removed to federal court on March 28.

Her daughter, Laramie Silber, told Township Committee members at
their April 4 meeting that if they become plaintiffs in the case
they could be eligible for treble damages and attorney's fees, if
the suit is successful.  Committee members didn't comment.

The township is already named as a defendant, as is the township
tax collector, Mary Hyland.  The township is named as a defendant,
"solely because it may be a necessary party to fully effectuate
the relief due" to Ms. Boyer and other members of the class,
according to the suit.  Ms. Hyland is named as a defendant only in
her current official capacity as tax collector.  She was not the
tax collector at the time when Ms. Boyer's tax lien was sold.

The suit asks the court to stop the people who have pleaded guilty
from enforcing any tax liens they currently hold, return title to
properties already foreclosed upon and turn over proceeds from
sales of properties they received because of the bid-rigging
scheme.  Such proceeds are the "fruits of the illegal conduct" of
the people now awaiting sentencing, the suit states.

If treble damages are awarded, the amount of the damages awarded
by the court would be multiplied.  Treble damages are usually
awarded when there is willful conduct on the part of the
defendants.

In this case, so far six people have pleaded guilty in federal
court to Sherman Act violations by conspiring to eliminate any
competition at tax sales.

Besides thousands of potential homeowners who could join in the
suit, as many as 100 currently unidentified municipalities and
officials from those municipalities are named as defendants and
could realign themselves as plaintiffs, according to the suit.

According to the suit, the victims of the tax sale scheme are
usually elderly, disabled or victims of a bad economy and unable
to pay burgeoning tax bills.  The unscrupulous investors came in,
purchased the debt at tax sales and were able to charge exorbitant
interest fees.  If the homeowner could not pay the grossly
inflated bill, the investor ended up with their homes, which are
often worth far more than what was owed.

Regardless of what happens in court, the township has already
received payment for the taxes on Ms. Boyer's property.

The next step in the process is certification of the class action
lawsuit.  If the court certifies the suit, then notices will be
sent to homeowners or former homeowners whose tax liens were sold
to the investors who have admitted wrongdoing.


MALAYSIA: Klang Residents Mull Class Suit vs. Gov't. Agencies
-------------------------------------------------------------
G. Vinod, writing for Free Malaysia Today, reports that Klang
residents affected by last month's massive floods are considering
court action against the government agencies that they say failed
to provide effective mitigation measures in the district.

Klang MP Charles Santiago of DAP said the residents had appointed
four law firms to study the viability of a class action suit.  The
firms would make their proposals in a couple of weeks' time, he
added.

The agencies being blamed are the Selangor Irrigation and Drainage
Department, the Public Works Department and the Klang Town
Council.

The floods hit Klang and Port Klang on March 30, forcing 10
schools to cancel their classes.

Among the housing areas affected are Kampung Raja Uda, Taman Sri
Andalas, Southern Park, Taman Bayu Perdana, Taman Melawis, Taman
Sentosa, Taman Sungai Ujong, Taman Palm Grove and Padang Jawa.

The damages are said to run into millions of ringgit.
Mr. Santiago said Selangor's Select Committee on Competency,
Accountability and Transparency (Selcat) would conduct a hearing
on the floods this week.  He said he was collecting evidence for
that hearing as well as for the lawsuit.

"The Selcat hearing will also help us determine whether there is a
case we can file against the government agencies," he added.

He also said he was disappointed that Dewan Rakyat Speaker
Pandikar Amin Mulia on April 5 rejected his motion for a debate on
the floods.

Another disappointment came when he found out that the Federal
Government had not allocated funds for a flood mitigation project
in Klang.  He said he found this out from Deputy Finance Minister
Donald Lim.


MBIA INC: 2008 Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed in Dec.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class action lawsuit initiated in 2008
was dismissed in December 2011, according to MBIA Inc.'s February
29, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On October 17, 2008, a consolidated amended class action complaint
in a shareholder class action lawsuit against the Company and
certain of its officers, In re MBIA Inc. Securities Litigation,
No. 08-CV-264, (KMK) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.  The amended complaint alleged that defendants
MBIA Inc., Gary C. Dunton and C. Edward Chaplin violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among
other things, issuing false and misleading statements with respect
to the Company's exposure to collateralized debt obligations
("CDOs") containing residential mortgage-backed securities
("RMBS"), specifically its exposure to so-called "CDO-squared"
securities, which allegedly caused the Company's stock to trade at
inflated prices.  On March 31, 2010, the claims against Dunton and
Chaplin were dismissed without prejudice.  On April 30, 2010,
plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint.  On September 6, 2011, the parties entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement of the lawsuit.  On
September 30, 2011, the re-alleged claims against Dunton and
Chaplin were withdrawn and dismissed with prejudice, and on
December 19, 2011, the Court approved the Settlement and dismissed
the action with prejudice.

MBIA Inc. provides financial guarantee insurance, as well as
related reinsurance, advisory and portfolio services, for the
public and structured finance markets, and asset management
advisory services, on a global basis.  The Company was
incorporated as a business corporation under the laws of the state
of Connecticut in 1986, and is based in Armonk, New York.


MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Faces Class action Over Cliq XT Mobile Phone
---------------------------------------------------------------
Becky Yerak, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that an Ohio man
has sued against Motorola Mobility Inc., alleging that the
Libertyville-based phone maker misled consumers that it would
eventually update the operating system of the Cliq XT mobile
phone.

When Motorola released the phone in March 2010, it was based on an
already Android 1.5 operating system, said the lawsuit, which was
filed by Jack Haught and seeks class-action status.  Motorola has
sold hundreds of thousands of units.

But Motorola "made numerous representations over the next 10
months that it would upgrade the Cliq XT's mobile operating system
to the updated Android 2.1 platform," through its own Web site,
official online customer service forums and its Twitter account,
alleged the suit, filed on April 5 in a U.S. District Court in
Chicago.  Google later introduced a 2.2, a 2.3 and a 4.0, the suit
said.

"Consumers relied on Motorola's omissions and misrepresentations
in purchasing the CLIQ XT and continuing to use the Cliq XT
instead of returning it for a more up-to-date phone," the suit
said.

Like many other mobile phones, the Cliq XT uses Google's Android
operating system.  Operating systems are regularly upgraded to
provide additional features.  The Apple iPhone, for example, has
gone through at least four major upgrades and more than two dozen
minor ones in the past three years.

Motorola declined to comment.

Mr. Haught, whose suit said the class should get its money back,
said the current versions of such apps as Facebook, MySpace and
Gmail won't work on 1.5.


N.C. BAPTIST: Bid to Avoid Taxes on MedCost Settlement Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that a
federal judge on April 5 denied N.C. Baptist Hospital's request
that it not have to pay taxes on a class-action lawsuit settlement
against the hospital.

The request, if it had been approved by Judge James Beaty Jr.,
could have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the $4.07
million pool of money for recipients.

The lawsuit brought to light that Baptist and certain affiliates'
group health plans required their employees to pay more in fees
for health benefits than other corporate clients paid.

There are about 15,000 participants, including family members, in
the class action.

The money listed for participants on the Web site that Baptist
established -- http://www.wakehealth.edu/erisa-- is considered
pretax income.  With Judge Beaty denying the Baptist request, the
settlement remains on schedule to be distributed by April 24.

Baptist said in a legal filing that it was not obligated to pay
expenses beyond those listed in the settlement involving the
MedCost health plan, which Baptist co-owns with Carolinas
HealthCare System of Charlotte.  Baptist wanted current and former
employees benefiting from the lawsuit to pay the hospital's
federal tax bill.

The key element of the latest dispute depended on what expenses
Judge Beaty considered as included in a "global" or all-
encompassing settlement.

Judge Beaty approved on Feb. 24 a final settlement of $5.38
million, ruling that the total was "fair, reasonable and
adequate."  That included Baptist agreeing to pay $438,500 in
plaintiffs' attorney fees.  Other administrative expenses also
were to be deducted, lowering the settlement amount to $4.07
million.

Kenneth Johnson and Robert Zaytoun, attorneys for the class
action, said they were told March 8 of Baptist's tax-bill payment
demand by Baptist's counsel, Randy Loftis.

The class-action counsel immediately cried foul.  The attorneys
said in a March 9 filing that the hospital was trying to change
the terms of the settlement.

Mr. Loftis argued that the hospital's "payment obligations are
fully satisfied by the administrative expenses."

The class-action counsel said the tax liability "is NCBH's
obligation to the IRS as an employer. NCBH cannot rationally argue
that payment of its tax liability from the common fund would
benefit any class member."

Judge Beaty asked Mr. Loftis during the April 5 hearing why
Baptist didn't request that the common fund pay for Baptist's
federal tax bill before Mr. Loftis agreed to the settlement.

"I didn't know there was a conflict at that time," Mr. Loftis
said.  He argued there are examples -- which he didn't provide --
in which the employer's federal tax bill was paid out of a
plaintiff's common fund.

Judge Beaty dismissed those examples as irrelevant.

"It appears to me that Baptist put money into the employees' pool
and then later wanted to take some of the money out, but not for
their (employees') benefit," Judge Beaty said.  Judge Beaty later
asked Mr. Loftis, "Under what scenario, under normal
circumstances, would employees have been responsible for
employers' taxes in their wages?"

Mr. Zaytoun said he was not claiming Baptist "was trying a bait
and switch, but that it was silent about its tax expenses during
the settlement.  They could have raised it, but didn't raise it.
The notice to employees was rigorously wordsmithed to let them
know what they could expect so that they could object if they
wanted to."

Those eligible for the settlement participated in the plan from
March 6, 2002, to May 7, 2009.  Plan participants made
contributions of $9 million to $13 million a year beginning in
March 2002, the lawsuit said.

Baptist has denied any wrongdoing, said its actions were not
governed by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
and that the extra charges to its employees were justified because
employees benefited from a better health care plan.


OIL COMPANIES: Agree to Settle Hot Fuel Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
Keith Myers, writing or The Kansas City Star, reports that three
of the biggest oil companies in the country have agreed to settle
lawsuits accusing them of profiting from "hot fuel" -- gasoline
and diesel sold without adjusting the volume for temperature.

Gasoline and diesel expand in warmer months, so a gallon of fuel
contains less energy than what consumers pay for at the pump.

In a series of stories in 2006, The Kansas City Star estimated
that hot fuel cost consumers $2.3 billion a year, a price tag that
is now roughly $3.5 billion at current gasoline and diesel prices.

After The Star's stories, class-action lawsuits accused dozens of
companies, from oil giants to fuel-station chains, of being
involved in the practice.

The first of the lawsuits, after five years of pretrial
proceedings, is to go to trial next month in federal court in
Kansas City, Kan.

But three prominent members of Big Oil now have plans to get out
of the legal fight.

Last week attorneys for BP Products North America Inc.,
ConocoPhillips Co. and Shell Oil Products US told the U.S.
District Court that "they have reached a binding settlement
agreement" with the plaintiffs who filed the lawsuits, according
to a court document signed by Judge Kathryn H. Vratil.

The settlement could contribute to a fix for hot fuel in which
pumps adjust the amount of fuel pumped depending on its
temperature.  But details of the settlement, which would apply to
all the class-action lawsuits filed in various states, weren't
available.  It still has to be approved by Judge Vratil before
taking effect.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs who sued the companies would not
comment.  A spokeswoman for Shell Oil said more information would
be disclosed as the settlement made its way through court.

"I can verify that a preliminary settlement has been reached in
the temperature-correction cases around the country," said Kayla
Macke, the spokeswoman.  "The settlement agreement is designed to
fully resolve the cases against the parties to the settlement."

Judy Dugan, research director for Consumer Watchdog, a California
public interest group, said the settlement could be a victory for
consumers, but it depended on the details and whether it actually
got temperature-adjusted fuel to the market.  She said she hoped
that it indicated a dramatic shift in the entire oil industry's
opposition to a hot-fuel fix.

"They did not want consumers to get the savings," she said.

One other company offered to settle in 2009, but the deal had to
be redone and is now waiting for judicial approval.  Costco
Wholesale Corp. agreed to retrofit its fuel pumps to adjust for
temperature in warm-weather states.  In cool-weather states,
Costco promised to not purchase wholesale gasoline adjusted for
temperature and sell it to consumers unadjusted. Many fuel
retailers sell fuel that way.

The lawsuits seek a remedy such as retrofitting pumps so that they
would automatically adjust volume of a gallon of fuel depending on
the temperature, which has been done for decades in Canada.

But a settlement that would require the three companies to make
that specific improvement seems unlikely.  They have sold off most
of their retail stations, although those stations still sell their
brands.

Still, the settlement will presumably include provisions for the
companies to facilitate the adoption of a hot-fuel fix, a change
for the industry.

As a liquid, gasoline expands and contracts depending on
temperature.  The volume of fuel is pegged to a 60-degree
standard, at which the 231-cubic-inch American gallon puts out a
certain amount of energy.  But if the temperature of that gasoline
rises to 90 degrees, it expands to more than 235 cubic inches.
But at the pump, consumers still get only 231 cubic inches.

Put simply, every degree over the 60-degree standard diminishes
the energy a 231-cubic-inch gallon delivers to the nation's fleet
of cars, trucks, boats, buses and heavy equipment -- and forces
drivers to consume more and thus pay more for fuel.

It is basic physics that, depending on the temperature, can amount
to just a few cents per gallon. But it adds up to big money.

Judge Vratil has overseen a consolidation of hot-fuel lawsuits
from around the country and has ruled on various pretrial matters.
Those cases are expected to be sent back to the respective states,
and she is now presiding over the lawsuit affecting Kansas
consumers.

She recently rejected a conspiracy claim sought by the plaintiffs,
while in another order she rejected a last-ditch effort by the
defendants to get the case thrown out of court.

The trial also could provide an unusual opportunity to see how the
oil industry wields its influence, especially with government
regulators.  Questions have been raised about the independence of
California Energy Commission, that state's primary energy policy
and planning agency.

The commission did a study, now widely cited by the oil industry,
that concluded that though the hot-fuel problem was real, it would
not be worth fixing, a recommendation that stalled action in the
state.

At the time concerns were raised about James Boyd, a commissioner
who was pushing for not doing the fix and whether he had a
conflict of interest.  His wife, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, was
president of the Western States Petroleum Association with a
membership list that includes ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil.

Mr. Boyd was indignant, saying that Western States "is not a party
to this proceeding in any way, shape or form."

But e-mails now part of the court docket in Kansas City, Kan.,
show that Mrs. Reheis-Boyd was in regular contact with the
director of the commission's hot-fuel study.  Among other things,
she requested meetings and the status of a revised draft.

"What direction we heading?" she asked in one e-mail.

Neither Mr. Boyd, who left the commission when his term ended in
January, nor Ms. Reheis-Boyd responded to requests for comment.


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Consolidated Suit for $3.1-Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, Inc. has reached a $3.1 million settlement
agreement resolving a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
pending in Nevada, according to the Company's
February 29, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Following the Company's public announcement that it would restate
certain of its financial results due to a change in the Company's
accounting treatment for certain exploration and development
costs, three securities class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada on
March 9, 2010, March 18, 2010 and April 7, 2010.  These complaints
assert claims against the Company and certain officers and
directors for alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  One complaint also asserts claims for alleged
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act.
All three complaints allege claims on behalf of a putative class
of purchasers of Company common stock between May 6, 2008, or May
7, 2008, and February 23, 2010, or
February 24, 2010.  These three lawsuits were consolidated by the
Court in an order issued on June 3, 2010, and the Court appointed
three of the Company's stockholders to serve as lead plaintiffs.

Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint (CAC) on July 9, 2010, that asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of Company common stock between
May 7, 2008, and February 24, 2010.  The CAC alleges that certain
of the Company's public statements were false and misleading for
failing to account properly for the Company's exploration and
development costs based on the Company's announcement on
February 24, 2010, that it was going to restate certain of its
financial results to change its method of accounting for
exploration and development costs in certain respects.  The CAC
also alleges that certain of the Company's statements concerning
the North Brawley project were false and misleading.  The CAC
seeks compensatory damages, expenses, and such further relief as
the Court may deem proper.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the CAC on August 13, 2010.
On March 3, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss.  The court dismissed plaintiffs'
allegations that the Company's statements regarding the North
Brawley project were false or misleading, but did not dismiss
plaintiffs' allegations regarding the 2008 restatement.
Defendants answered the remaining allegations in the CAC regarding
the restatement on April 8, 2011, and the case has now entered the
discovery phase.  On July 22, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify the case as a class action on behalf of a class of
purchasers of Company common stock between February 25, 2009, and
February 24, 2010, and defendants filed an opposition to the
motion for class certification on October 4, 2011.

Subsequently, the parties participated in a mediation where they
reached an agreement in principle to settle the securities class
action lawsuits.  Under the proposed class action settlement, the
claims against the Company and its officers and directors will be
dismissed with prejudice and released in exchange for a cash
payment of $3.1 million to be funded by the Company's insurers.
The proposed settlement remains subject to the satisfaction of
various conditions, including negotiation and execution of a final
stipulation of settlement, and approval by the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada following notice to members of the
class.

The Company and the individual defendants have steadfastly
maintained that the claims raised in the securities class action
lawsuits were without merit, and have vigorously contested those
claims.  As part of the settlement, the Company and the individual
defendants continue to deny any liability or wrongdoing under the
securities laws or otherwise.


PROSHARES TRUST: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
ProShares Trust II (the "Trust") and certain principals of
ProShare Capital Management LLC (the "Sponsor") are defendants
(along with several other parties) in a consolidated class action
lawsuit styled In re ProShares Trust Securities Litigation, Civ.
No. 09-cv-6935, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The complaint, as amended, alleges
that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 by including untrue statements of material fact and
omitting material facts in the Registration Statement for one or
more ProShares exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and allegedly failing
to adequately disclose the Funds' investment objectives and risks.
The six Funds of the Trust named in the complaint are ProShares
Ultra Silver, ProShares UltraShort Gold, ProShares Ultra Gold,
ProShares UltraShort DJ-UBS Crude Oil, ProShares Ultra DJ-UBS
Crude Oil and ProShares UltraShort Silver.

The Trust believes the complaint is without merit and that the
anticipated outcome will not adversely impact the operation of the
Trust or any of its Funds.  Accordingly, no loss contingency has
been recorded in the balance sheet and the amount of loss, if any,
cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

No further updates were reported in the February 29, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.


SIOUX HONEY: Sued Over False Advertising of Sue Bee Clover Honey
----------------------------------------------------------------
Soraya Ross, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sioux Honey Association, Cooperative, an Iowa Entity,
Case No. 3:12-cv-01645 (N.D. Calif., April 2, 2012) is brought on
behalf of a Class of all persons, who purchased Sue Bee Clover
Honey from any store located in California at any time from
January 1, 2010, through the present.

In California, for a product to be sold as "honey" it must contain
pollen unless the removal of such pollen was "unavoidable in the
removal of foreign inorganic or organic matter," as defined in the
California Food and Agriculture Code, Ms. Ross relates.  Despite
being marketed as "Pure Honey," she alleges, the Sue Bee Honey
cannot be sold in California as "honey" because it is devoid of
pollen, and such pollen was not "unavoidably" removed "in the
removal of foreign inorganic or organic matter."  Accordingly, she
contends, by advertising and selling to California consumers the
Sue Bee Honey as "honey," the Defendant violated California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False
Advertising Law.

Ms. Ross is a resident of Beverly Hills, California.  She
purchased a bottle of Sue Bee Honey in Santa Monica, California.

Sioux is a cooperative association organized under the laws of the
state of Iowa.  The Defendant advertises, distributes, markets and
sells the Sue Bee Honey to consumers throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
          KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 854-4444
          Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
          E-mail: kiesel@kbla.com

               - and -

          Paul O. Paradis, Esq.
          Gina M. Tufaro, Esq.
          Mark A. Butler, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ & PARADIS, Attorneys at Law
          570 7th Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 986-4500
          E-mail: pparadis@hhplawny.com
                  gtufaro@hhplawny.com
                  MButler@hhplawny.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. M. Lange, Esq.
          JOSEPH J. M. LANGE LAW CORPORATION
          222 North Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2000
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 414-1880
          Facsimile: (310) 414-1882


SONY: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over PSN Terms of Service
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Caoili, writing for Gamasutra, reports that a federal court
has dismissed a lawsuit against Sony, and ruled that the platform
holder was free to change the terms of service for users accessing
PlayStation Network last September.

Sony revised its TOS and user agreement for its online services
several months ago, making PSN users waive their right to enter
into a class action lawsuit against the company unless it agrees
to the initiation.

A man in Northern California filed a lawsuit against Sony soon
afterward, alleging unfair competition, as the new TOS forced him
to either waive his valuable right to pursue class action
litigation or lose access to PSN.

The court found that the plaintiff losing that right was an
insufficient argument for his unfair competition claim, as it did
not actually cause him any economic harm, according to documents
posted by Technology and Marketing Law Blog.

"Plaintiff himself explains that 'if' defendants engage in
'wrongdoing' in the future, he will only be able to seek relief in
an individual arbitration which is 'unlikely' to be cost
effective," said U.S. District Judge Susan Illston.

"However, plaintiff cannot allege that defendants will engage in
wrongdoing in the future, that he would pursue a remedy for that
unknown wrongdoing, or that the type of harm he suffered would not
be cost effective to resolve through an individual arbitration."

The plaintiff also said that if he had declined the new TOS, he
would no longer be able to access PSN, which he believed devalued
his PS3, as he purchased his system with expectations of being
able to play on the service.

Judge Illston also dismissed that argument, and noted that the
plaintiff had already admitted to accepting the new TOS in order
to avoid losing access to PSN.  After reviewing and shooting down
all of the plaintiff's claims, the court granted Sony's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit last February.

Sony isn't the only platform holder that's forced users to accept
an updated and controversial TOS -- last December, Microsoft also
amended its Xbox 360 TOS, making users also agree to waive their
right to join an Xbox 360 class action lawsuit targeting Microsoft
if they want to continue using their consoles.


STATE FARM: WLF Urges Court to Review Class Certification Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) last week urged the Ohio
Supreme Court to review (and ultimately overturn) a lower-court
decision that certified a large class action against an insurance
company.  The suit was filed by a single policyholder whose
chipped windshield was repaired by the defendant and who later
decided that the defendant should have provided him with cash
equal to the cost of replacing his windshield.  The trial court
certified him as the representative of a class of 100,000 Ohio
policyholders whose windshields were repaired over the course of
the last 20 years.

In a brief filed in Cullen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.
Co., WLF argued that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the
case could manageably be tried as a class action.  WLF argued that
he failed to demonstrate that common questions of fact and law
predominate over individual questions -- an absolute prerequisite
for certification of a class action lawsuit seeking money damages.

"There is little doubt that the only reason the plaintiff's
lawyers sought class certification was to coerce the defendant
into settling the case without regard to the merits of the
plaintiffs' claims," said WLF Chief Counsel Richard Samp after
filing WLF's brief.  "Class actions of this sort -- in which the
claims of each policyholder turn on facts specific to him -- are
virtually never appropriate because they could never be brought to
trial; yet they serve the purposes of the plaintiffs' bar by
imposing tremendous settlement pressure on defendants," Mr. Samp
said.

The defendant (State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.) has a
company practice of encouraging policyholders to have minor
windshield damage repaired, rather than replacing the whole
windshield -- albeit it also follows a practice of complying with
the request of any policyholder with a damaged windshield who
requests replacement.  Michael Cullen (the plaintiff) insists that
his policy provided him with a third option: receive cash equal to
the cost of replacing the windshield (less any deductible on the
policy) and then allowing him to decide whether to repair or
replace.  He contends that State Farm acted in bad faith by
failing to inform him of this "cash out" option and instead
encouraging him to allow State Farm to pay for repair costs (one
of the options provided for in State Farm policies).  State Farm
denies that its policies include a "cash out" option.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's class
certification order.  It held that a class was properly certified
under both Rule 23(B)(2) and Rule 23(B)(3).  It determined that
the plaintiff met Rule 23(B)(3)'s predominance requirement (i.e.,
a showing that common questions of fact predominate over
individual questions) but it failed to address the numerous
individual questions of fact pointed out by State Farm.  It also
upheld certification under Rule 23(B)(2) (which allows class
actions in cases seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, not
money damages), reasoning that it would be a waste of judicial
resources to look closely at the 23(B)(2) issue given that the
class had also been certified under 23(B)(3).

In its brief urging the Ohio Supreme Court to review the case, WLF
argued that the appeals court erred in failing to address the
individual issues of fact cited by State Farm.  In particular, WLF
argued that whether policyholders were misled by State Farm into
agreeing to windshield repair is an issue that would have to be
litigated on a policyholder-by-policyholder basis.  Every one of
the class members had a unique set of reasons for agreeing to have
his windshield repaired.  WLF asserted that a trial of the lawsuit
would be unmanageable if each of the 100,000 policyholders was
called to testify regarding his unique set of reasons.  Under
those circumstance, the class was not properly certifiable under
Rule 23(B)(3), WLF argued.

WLF also argued that the class should not have been certified
under Rule 23(B)(2).  That rule does not permit certification if
collecting damages constitutes more than a minor part of the
plaintiffs claims.  WLF asserted that Cullen cannot meet that
standard because the principal focus of his suit is an effort to
recover damages.


STATE OF ARIZONA: June 4 Hearing Set for Immigration Law Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the judge presiding over
lawsuits challenging Arizona's immigration enforcement law has set
a hearing to consider a request by the law's opponents to grant
class-action status in their lawsuit that seeks to declare the law
unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has set the hearing for June 4.

The opponents are seeking class-action status for people whose
immigration status was questioned because of their race, day
laborers deterred from seeking work in public and people
discouraged from traveling with immigrations in Arizona because of
the law.

Gov. Jan Brewer's lawyers oppose the class-action request and
argue the proposed class lacks legal standing to pursue the case.

Judge Bolton blocked enforcement of the law's most controversial
sections.


STREAM GLOBAL: "Batmanghelich" Class Suit vs. Sirius Concluded
--------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit commenced by Kambiz
Batmanghelich has been concluded, Stream Global Services, Inc.
disclosed in its February 29, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

The Company was a defendant in a putative class action captioned
Kambiz Batmanghelich, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, v. Sirius
XM Radio, Inc., filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court on
November 10, 2009, and removed to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California.  The Plaintiff alleged
that Sirius XM Radio, Inc. recorded telephone conversations
between Plaintiff and members of the proposed class of Sirius
customers, on the one hand, and Sirius and its employees, on the
other, without the Plaintiff's and class members' consent.  In
March 2011, the parties reached a settlement of the case which was
subsequently approved by the court.  As part of the settlement,
the court certified a settlement class and notice was provided to
the settlement class.

In September 2011, the court entered a Final Order Approving Class
Action Settlement and Judgment that, among other things, released
all claims by class members relating to the recording of telephone
conversations.  Certain parties appealed the Final Order, but
those appeals have been dismissed.

The Company says it has fulfilled all of its obligations contained
in the Final Order Approving Class Action Settlement and Judgment
and the case is now concluded.  The Company avers that the
conclusion of this matter did not have a material adverse effect
on its results of operations or financial condition.

Wellesley, Massachusetts-based Stream Global Services, Inc., is a
leading global business process outsourcing service provider
specializing in customer relationship management, including sales,
customer care and technical support, for Fortune 1000 companies.
Its clients include leading technology, computing,
telecommunications, retail, entertainment/media, and financial
services companies.  Its service programs are delivered through a
set of standardized best practices and sophisticated technologies
by a highly skilled multilingual workforce with the ability to
support 35 languages across 50 locations in 22 countries.


SUMMER INFANT: Final Hearing on Suit Settlement Set for May 16
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing on the final approval of a settlement resolving a class
action lawsuit in Illinois is scheduled for May 16, 2012,
according to Summer Infant, Inc.'s February 29, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

In October 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
State of Illinois against the Company and Toys "R" Us alleging
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act and similar laws in other states, the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, negligence and other claims relating to analog video
baby monitors.  The plaintiffs alleged that the Company sold the
video monitors without disclosing that the monitors' unencrypted
signals could be viewed outside the consumer's home.  Warnings
concerning the unencrypted signals were included in the
instructions accompanying the monitors, but did not appear on the
monitors' retail packaging.  The Company believes that the claims
set forth in the complaint were without merit and proceeded to
defend these claims.  In December 2009, the case was removed to
the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.

In January 2012, the parties filed the proposed settlement
agreement with the court and received preliminary approval of the
settlement.  The proposed settlement certifies for purposes of the
settlement only a class consisting of all persons residing within
the United States and Puerto Rico who purchased or received as a
gift certain of the Company's analog video monitors between
December 9, 2004, and January 11, 2012.  Under a settlement, the
Company will pay $1,675,000 to be distributed among the plaintiffs
and to cover administrative costs and attorneys' fees and costs in
exchange for a release of all claims by the class members.  The
Company will also disclose in advertising (including on the Web
site) and analog video monitor packaging that broadcast signals of
analog video monitors are susceptible to reception by other
monitors within an unimpeded range of 300 feet.  Of the total
proposed settlement cost, approximately $506,000 will be covered
under existing insurance policies, with the remaining $1,169,000
to be paid by the Company.  The settlement is subject to the final
approval of the court, and the hearing on the final approval of
the settlement is scheduled for May 16, 2012.  If the court
rejects the settlement, the settlement agreement will be
terminated and have no force or effect, and the case will continue
to be litigated.  Consequently, the Company has taken a $1,501,000
charge to earnings during the fourth quarter in order to establish
a reserve that relates to the proposed settlement; this amount
includes the Company's portion of the settlement ($1,169,000) plus
legal and other costs associated with this case.


U.S. CELLPHONE CARRIERS: Sued Over Mass Text Message Conspiracy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that major
cellphone carriers conspired to set up a system under which
entities that send a high volume of text messages must lease
expensive five-digit phone numbers and pay exorbitant
transmission, connectivity and content review fees, generating an
extra $2.3 billion a year for the conspirators, a marketing
company claims in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Club Texting claims Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sprint
Nextel and other major cell phone companies monopolized the
application-to-person text message market and derived "supra-
competitive profits from their conspiracy."

Application-to-person text messages are messages sent by
businesses, nonprofits and other organizations to customers,
contributors and subscribers, usually at high volume.
Club Texting claims the defendants "conspired to set up a system
in 2003 under which persons transmitting A2P SMS [application-to-
person short message service] could not use inexpensive ten-digit
telephone numbers, but were forced to use 'common short codes'
('CSCs') -- five-digit (and later six-digit) numbers -- at
materially higher lease and transmission charges with additional
fees for connectivity and content review, all of which resulted in
substantial overcharges to persons transmitting A2P SMS ('CSC
lessees') and materially higher revenues for the carrier
defendants and other defendants."

New York-based Club Texting provides a platform for marketing
services via text messaging.  It claims it leased nine such "short
codes" from the defendants and paid supracompetitive fees to reach
the defendants' customers by text message.

"The carrier defendants used their control of defendant CTIA - The
Wireless Association (the 'CTIA'), the trade association to which
the vast majority of the carriers in the United States belong, to
cause the CTIA to issue guidelines and rules calling for the use
of five-digit (and later six-digit) CSCs for transmission of A2P
SMS, inhibiting the use of standard ten-digit numbers for
transmission of A2P SMS, and imposing volume limits on text
messages sent from ten-digit numbers," the complaint states.

Club Texting says the carriers used CTIA, which they control
financially, to establish Neustar, the only entity that can issue
short codes, and to force consumers to send high-volume messages
through a limited number of affiliates called "connection
aggregators," so they can charge senders unnecessary fees at
various levels.

It claims cell carriers used Neustar and their co-conspirators to
control per-message transmission prices and to block text messages
sent from lower-priced 10-digit phone numbers.

And it claims the defendants audit the content of application-to-
person text messages and, without explanation, block message
senders when the content is deemed to be noncompliant, forcing
senders to reserve and pay for new short code numbers.

"The establishment of the CSC system, which generates
approximately $2.3 billion in revenues annually and continues to
this day, has permitted the defendants and co-conspirator Neustar
to jointly control and anti-competitively exploit the transmission
of A2P SMS and to eliminate the lower-priced ten-digit telephone
number alternative for use in A2P SMS transmission," the complaint
states.

Club Texting claims that Neustar, which pays millions of dollars
in royalties to cellphone carriers, charges $500 a month for
randomly selected short codes, and $1,000 a month for those
selected by the lessee, in contrast to the $1 or less per month
charged for rental of a 10-digit code.

"Neustar has generated approximately $15 million in the last year
from the leasing of random CSCs and $20 million from the leasing
of specific CSCs, a portion of which profits it has remitted in
royalties to the CTIA," the complaint states.

"Neustar's revenues from CSCs have increased by millions every
year for the last five years as a result of increases in the
number of registered CSCs."

Club Texting claims the carriers charge additional fees for
content reviews, which can cost as much as $2,700 per program
brief, without guaranteeing transmission of the message content.

It claims their affiliates, the "connection aggregators," charge
unnecessary connectivity fees and high per-message fees, which
they split with the carriers.

And it claims the rates are arbitrary, cannot be negotiated and
have not changed since 2003.

Club Texting seeks class certification, treble damages for
violations of the Sherman Act and wants the monopoly stopped.

It is represented by:

          Gregory Arenson, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 290-1952
                     (212) 687-1980
          E-mail: garenson@kaplanfox.com

Named as defendants are Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless,
AT&T Mobility, Sprint Nextel Corporation, T-Mobile USA, U.S.
Cellular Corporation, CTIA - The Wireless Association, connection
aggregators ClearSky Mobile Media, Ericsson IPX, MBlox
Incorporated, Syabase, Soundbite Communications, Syniverse
Technologies, Upoc Networks, Vibes Media, 3Cinteractive, and
content auditor WMC Global.


UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Sued Over False Claims on Lipton Tea
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Unilever makes false claims about the health benefits of its
Lipton Tea.

A copy of the Complaint in Maxwell v. Unilever United States,
Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-01736 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/09/TeaCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben F. Pierce, Esq.
          1901 S. Bascom Avenue, Suite 350
          Campbell, CA 95008
          Telephone: (408) 429-6506
          E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com

               - and -

          Jay Nelkin, Esq.
          Carol Nelkin, Esq.
          Stuart M. Nelkin, Esq.
          NELKIN & NELKIN, P.C.
          5417 Chaucer
          P.O. Box 25303
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 526-4500
          E-mail: jnelkin@nelkinpc.com
                  cnelkin@nelkinpc.com
                  snelkin@nelkinpc.com

               - and -

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          Brian Herrington, Esq.
          Katherine B. Riley, Esq.
          David McMullan, Esq.
          DON BARRETT, P.A.
          P.O. Box 927
          404 Court Square North
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
                  donbarrettpa@yahoo.com
                  bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com
                  kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com
                  dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Charles Barrett, Esq.
          CHARLES BARRETT, P.C.
          6518 Hwy. 100, Suite 210
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 515-3393
          E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com

                - and -

          Richard Barrett, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC
          2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1011
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 380-5018
          E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.net

               - and -

          J. Price Coleman, Esq.
          COLEMAN LAW FIRM
          1100 Tyler Avenue, Suite 102
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 236-0047
          E-mail: colemanlawfirmpa@bellsouth.net

                - and -

          Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq.
          LOVELACE LAW FIRM, P.A.
          12870 U.S. Hwy 98 West, Suite 200
          Miramar Beach, FL 32550
          Telephone: (850) 837-6020
          E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com

               - and -

          David Shelton, Esq.
          1223 Jackson Avenue East, Suite 202
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 281-1212
          E-mail: david@davidsheltonpllc.com

               - and -

          Keith M. Fleischman, Esq.
          Frank Karam, Esq.
          Ananda N. Chaudhuri, Esq.
          FLEISCHMAN LAW FIRM
          565 Fifth Avenue, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 880-9571
          E-mail: keith@fleischmanlawfirm.com
                  fkaram@fleischmanlawfirm.com
                  achaudhuri@fleischmanlawfirm.com


UNITED STATES: Veterans' Discovery Bid in Suit v. CIA Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that the Department
of Veterans Affairs must disclose certain documents that a class
of veterans hopes will prove they were used as guinea pigs by the
CIA in Cold War-era drug experiments, a federal judge ruled.

Vietnam Veterans of America filed a class action against the U.S.
government in 2009, claiming that at least 7,800 soldiers had been
used as guinea pigs in Project Paperclip.  The experiments were
allegedly conducted at the Baltimore-area Edgewood Arsenal.

Soldiers were allegedly administered at least 250 and as many as
400 types of drugs, among them Sarin, one of the most deadly drugs
known, amphetamines, barbiturates, mustard gas, phosgene gas and
LSD.

Using tactics it often attributed to the Soviet enemy, the U.S.
government sought drugs to control human behavior, cause
confusion, promote weakness or temporary loss of hearing and
vision, induce hypnosis and enhance a person's ability to
withstand torture, according to the complaint.

The veterans say that some soldiers died, and others suffered
seizures and paranoia.

They say the CIA knew it had to conceal the tests from "enemy
forces" and the "American public in general" because the knowledge
"would have serious repercussions in political and diplomatic
circles and would be detrimental to the accomplishment of its
mission."

The veterans' claims have changed over the course of discovery,
and there are four remaining legal claims against the CIA, Defense
Department, Army and Department of Veterans Affairs:

"1) whether the DOD and Army failed to provide adequate notice to
test participants including notice of chemicals to which they were
exposed and any known health effects; 2) whether the DOD and Army
failed to provide medical care to test participants for any
conditions arising out of participation in testing programs; 3)
whether the Army, DOD, and CIA have failed to release participants
from secrecy oaths; and 4) whether the Department of Veterans
Affairs is an inherently biased decision-maker."

The veterans are still fighting for access to certain documents
that the four agencies have withheld from discovery as privileged.

The government is required to provide a privilege log explaining
the reason why certain documents or information is not available.

In a 17-page order on April 6, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline
Scott Corley found most of the information requests would burden
the government, but the Department of Veterans Affairs waived its
privilege claim for certain documents.

"In October 2010, DVA identified over 400 documents regarding this
subject which it asserted were subject to the deliberative process
privilege," Judge Corley wrote.  "DVA has now identified over 700
additional documents mostly from the same time period and covering
the same subjects over which it asserts deliberative process
privilege as well.  However, DVA has not provided any specific
explanation as to why these documents were not identified the
first time around when DVA was searching for responsive discovery
and why it took DVA over a year to identify additional documents
regarding these subjects on a privilege log."

Judge Corley balked at the DVA's claim that the veterans could not
seek production of these documents because they already conducted
depositions.

"This argument is not well-taken," she wrote.  "Plaintiffs were
between a rock and a hard place because of defendants' delayed
production."

There is some overlap, however, since DVA has withheld them as
being duplicative or protected by attorney-client and work-product
privilege.

In addition to those documents, the court deliberative process
privilege still shields certain studies and a Government
Accountability Office report from 2007-09.  But the DVA must
produce the GAO report for the court to review in camera.

Judge Corley also called for an in camera review of documents that
the Defense Department withheld on the basis of deliberative
process privilege.

"Because these documents appear to cover the same time period and
many of the same subjects as the DVA documents the court
previously reviewed, the documents are likely relevant to
plaintiffs' claims," the decision states.  "Accordingly, the court
will review the documents in camera to determine whether the
deliberative process privilege applies to these documents, and if
so, whether plaintiffs have demonstrated substantial need
sufficient to overcome the privilege."

Veterans can also access an encrypted mailbox that DVA Affairs
created to verify test subjects in mustard gas and Edgewood
Arsenal experiments, Judge Corley said, but it would be too
burdensome for the department to produce 650 veteran claim files
related to mustard gas exposure.

"Plaintiffs contend that the government failed to notify tens of
thousands of individuals that they had been exposed to mustard gas
and lewisite," the decision states.  "The contents of the claim
files of the 650 individuals who filed claims based on their
exposure will shed little if any light on plaintiffs' notice
claims."

Early in the case, the CIA produced 17,000 pages of redacted
documents related to its LSD tests, but the veterans sought 11
unredacted documents totaling 56 pages.

The court agreed with the CIA that it would be too burdensome for
the agency to locate those documents because "they were redacted
by hand over thirty years ago and the original archived versions
currently occupy eighty linear feet of shelf space."

This week, the veterans are also expected to receive two
unclassified magnetic tapes from the 1970s that could contain data
about testing at Edgewood Arsenal.

Judge Corley said the veterans can take the depositions of Joe
Salvatore and Dr. Kelley Brix because their names came up in newly
disclosed documents.  The pending production that Judge Corley
ordered on April 6 could also lead the veterans to resume
deposition of David Abbott.

The parties must meet and confer on the case schedule and submit a
proposed calendar by April 19.

A copy of the Order Re: Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel in Vietnam
Veterans of America, et al. v. Central Intelligence Agency, et
al., Case No. 09-cv-00037 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

   http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/09/VetCIA%20Discovery.pdf


VULCAN MATERIALS: "Addair" Suit Remains Pending in West Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vulcan Materials Company is a defendant in cases involving
perchloroethylene (perc), which was a product manufactured by its
former Chemicals business.  Perc is a cleaning solvent used in dry
cleaning and other industrial applications.  These cases involve
various allegations of groundwater contamination or exposure to
perc allegedly resulting in personal injury.  Vulcan is vigorously
defending all of these cases.

One of the perc-related lawsuit is a purported class action case
for medical monitoring and personal injury damages styled Addair
et al. v. Processing Company, LLC, et al., pending in the Circuit
Court of Wyoming County, West Virginia.  The plaintiffs allege
various personal injuries from exposure to perc used in coal sink
labs.  By Order dated September 20, 2011, the Court denied class
action certification.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 29,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


VULCAN MATERIALS: Awaits July Trial in Suits vs. Florida Rock
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vulcan Materials Company is awaiting the trial in antitrust
lawsuits involving its subsidiary currently scheduled for July
2012, according to the Company's February 29, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company's subsidiary, Florida Rock Industries, Inc., has been
named as a defendant in a number of class action lawsuits filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.  The lawsuits were filed by several ready-mixed concrete
producers and construction companies against a number of concrete
and cement producers and importers in Florida.  There are now two
consolidated amended complaints: (1) on behalf of direct
independent ready-mixed concrete producers, and (2) on behalf of
indirect users of ready-mixed concrete.  The other defendants
include Cemex Inc., Tarmac America LLC, and VCNA Prestige Ready-
Mix Florida, Inc.  The complaints allege various violations under
the federal antitrust laws, including price fixing and market
allocations.

The Company says it has no reason to believe that Florida Rock is
liable for any of the matters alleged in the complaint, and the
Company is defending the case vigorously.  Discovery is ongoing.
The trial court recently denied plaintiffs' motions to certify
both the direct and the indirect plaintiffs' lawsuits as class
actions, and dismissed the class allegations.  Trial is scheduled
for July 2012.

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


VULCAN MATERIALS: Faces Four Suits Over Martin Marietta Offer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vulcan Materials Company is facing four putative class action
lawsuits arising from an unsolicited exchange offer by Martin
Marietta Materials, Inc., according to the Company's February 29,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On December 12, 2011, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (Martin
Marietta) commenced an unsolicited exchange offer for all
outstanding shares of the Company's common stock at a fixed
exchange ratio of 0.50 shares of Martin Marietta common stock for
each Vulcan common share and indicated its intention to nominate a
slate of directors to the Company's Board.  After careful
consideration, including a thorough review of the offer with its
financial and legal advisors, the Board unanimously determined
that Martin Marietta's offer is inadequate, substantially
undervalues Vulcan, and is not in the best interests of Vulcan and
its shareholders.

Four putative class-action complaints challenging Vulcan's
response to Martin Marietta's exchange offer have been filed
against Vulcan and its directors.  Three of these complaints were
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey: City of Southfield Police & Fire Retirement Systems v.
Carroll, et al., No. 11-cv-07416 (the "Southfield Action");
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System v.
Carroll, et al., No. 11-cv-7571 (the "Louisiana Municipal
Action"); and Stationary Engineers Local 39 Pension Trust Fund v.
Carroll, et al., No. 12-cv-00349 (the "Stationary Engineers
Action").  The fourth complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama: KBC Asset
Management NV v. James, et al., No. 11-cv-04323 (the "KBC
Action").

Each of the putative class-action complaints has been brought on
behalf of a putative class of Vulcan shareholders and alleges that
the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with their response to the Offer.  The complaints filed
in the KBC and Stationary Engineers Actions also purport to assert
claims derivatively on behalf of Vulcan.  All four putative class-
action complaints seek, among other things, an injunction barring
the named defendants from adopting any defensive measures in
connection with the Offer, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiffs in the Southfield and Louisiana Municipal Actions also
seek a declaration that neither the New Jersey Shareholders
Protection Act nor Article VIII.A of Vulcan's Charter is
applicable to the Offer.

Various motions and related items (whether procedural, discovery-
related and/or substantive in nature) occur from time to time with
respect to these matters.

Vulcan and its directors believe the lawsuits are meritless.


WEBMD HEALTH: Has Until April 16 to Respond to Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
WebMD Health Corp., et al., have until April 16, 2012, to file a
motion to dismiss or otherwise respond to a consolidated amended
complaint pending in New York, according to the Company's February
29, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On August 2, 2011, and August 26, 2011, federal securities class
action complaints entitled Canson v. WebMD Health Corp., et al.
and Malland v. WebMD Health Corp., et al., respectively, were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between February 23, 2011, and July 15, 2011.  On
November 7, 2011, the two cases were consolidated under the
caption In re WebMD Health Corp. Securities Litigation (the
"Federal Securities Action") and lead plaintiffs and lead counsel
were appointed.  An initial pretrial conference, previously
scheduled for November 29, 2011, was adjourned to June 25, 2012.

On February 14, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint (the "Complaint"), which alleges claims on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between February
23, 2011, and January 10, 2012.  The Complaint alleges that the
Company, and certain of its officers made false and misleading
statements in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
seeks unspecified damages and costs.  Pursuant to a stipulated
order, the defendants have until April 16, 2012, to file a motion
to dismiss or otherwise respond to the Complaint.


WYETH CANADA: About 100 Women Join Premarin Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Christine Wood, writing for Coast Reporter, reports that about 100
women have signed onto a class action lawsuit launched from
Sechelt that alleges Wyeth Canada Inc. knowingly supplied a
hormone replacement therapy drug called Premarin, which has been
linked to breast cancer, between 1977 and 2003.

Sechelt resident Dianna Stanway filed the class action lawsuit
that was officially certified by Madam Justice Miriam Gropper on
Aug. 4, 2011 in B.C. Supreme Court.  Earlier this year a hearing
date was set for Sept. 9, 2013.

However on March 20, Wyeth Canada Inc. appealed the ruling by
Justice Gropper to certify the class action suit.  Judges said
they needed two to three weeks to come up with a ruling, but if
the appeal is successful, the case won't make it to the 2013
hearing date.

"I got a letter from my lawyer and he said it was quite positive,
but sitting in there watching the whole thing, you have no idea,"
Ms. Stanway said, noting she was at the appeal but did not speak.

She was joined in the courtroom by women from around the province
who are now involved in the class action suit, including three
other women from the Sunshine Coast.

"I was really surprised to meet some women from Roberts Creek
there," Ms. Stanway said.

Gillian Kydd was one of the women present at the appeal.  She said
there are many women on the Coast who took Premarin and later
suffered breast cancer.

"There are a lot of people on our dragon boat team who are in the
same boat, quite a number of us," Ms. Kydd said.

She made the trip to Vancouver with two fellow dragon boaters, now
part of the lawsuit, who wanted to see what Wyeth Canada Inc. had
to say.

"In the morning, it was the drug company people who were speaking,
and they were trying to pick holes in the previous judgment,"
Ms. Kydd said.  "It was pretty surreal."

She was surprised how many women showed up to the appeal -- so
many, in fact, that the courtroom had to be changed to accommodate
the expanded gallery.

"I was surprised how many of the women were from all over B.C. It
wasn't just Vancouver, and they'd obviously put a lot of effort
into coming," Ms. Kydd said.

She said there are five women on her Sunshine Dragons Abreast team
who took Premarin and later suffered breast cancer, and she sees
no reason why the lawsuit shouldn't advance.

"When you look at their statistics, how there was a 9.6 per cent
drop in the rate [of breast cancer] after people started going off
[Premarin], it's pretty obvious," Ms. Kydd said.

Ms. Stanway is pleased so many other women have become involved in
the class action suit she started.  She credits Coast Reporter for
helping bring attention to the issue locally.

"My lawyer was surprised that six people from the peninsula signed
on.  He said if we had that many people applying to be a part of
it in every place this size, they couldn't handle the case it
would be so big," Ms. Stanway said.  "I didn't realize it was that
big a deal, but I said the interest came from an article in Coast
Reporter and nothing else."

The class action lawsuit against Wyeth Canada Inc. is being
handled by the law firm Klein Lyons.


ZHONGPIN INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Suit in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Meeks, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Xianfu Zhu, Baoke Ben, Xiaosong Hu, Raymond Leal,
Yaoguo Pan, and Zhongpin Inc., Case No. 7393- (Del. Chancery Ct.,
April 3, 2012) is brought on behalf of the public shareholders of
Zhongpin against its Board of Directors for their alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties arising out of the proposed acquisition of
Zhongpin by the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Xianfu Zhu.

The Plaintiff argues that Mr. Zhu's $13.50 per share offer
represents wholly inadequate consideration in light of the
Company's intrinsic value and future prospects.

Mr. Meeks is a shareholder of the Company.

Zhongpin, a Delaware corporation, maintains its principal
corporate offices in Henan Province, China.  Zhongpin is a meat
and food processing company that specializes in pork and pork
products, vegetables and fruits in China.  Zhongpin's distribution
network in China covers 20 provinces plus Beijing, Shanghai,
Tianjin, and Chongqing and over 3,400 retail outlets.  Zhongpin
also exports to Europe, Hong Kong, and other countries in Asia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          919 North Market Street, Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          E-mail: sdr@rigrodskylong.com
                  bdl@rigrodskylong.com
                  gs@rigrodskylong.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          E-mail: denright@zlk.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  * * *