---

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

             Monday, April 16, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 74

                             Headlines

ALTERNATE ENERGY: Settles Investor Class Action for $450,000
APPLE REIT TEN: Briefing on Dismissal Bids to Be Done by June 18
ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Court Dismisses VLT Class Action
BANKWEST: Slater & Gordon Mulls Class Action Over CBA Takeover
CUMULUS MEDIA: Unit Gets Preliminary Okay of Suit Settlement

DEL MONTE: Awaits Approval of FLSA-Violations Suit Settlement
DEL MONTE: "Littlefield" Complaint Dismissed in December
DEL MONTE: Merger-Related Suits Resolved in December
DURACELL INC: Faces Class Suit Over Premium-Priced Batteries
ELRON ELECTRONIC: Judgment Proceedings in Haifa Remain Pending

ELRON ELECTRONIC: Still Defends Two Class Action Claims in Haifa
FUEL DOCTOR: Still Defends "Drinville" Class Suit in California
JMP GROUP: Defends Securities Class Suit Over Public Offering
L & L ENERGY: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Suit
LOJACK CORP: Final Approval of "Morin" Suit Deal Entered in Dec.

LOJACK CORP: Trial in "Rutti" Class Suit Scheduled for July
LONDON ORGANISING COMMITTEE: UK Businesses Mull Class Action
LUZERNE COUNTY, PA: Chief Public Defender Files Class Action
MASSEY ENERGY: June 18 Deadline Set to Respond to Class Action
METABOLIX INC: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in Massachusetts

MOTRICITY INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Appeal From Securities Suit Ruling Pending
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Three Calif. Class Suits Consolidated
PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Calif.
PHILIPPINES: Doctors Mull Pollution Suit v. DOTC

SCIENCE APPLICATIONS: Says Insurance Enough to Cover Settlements
SCOTT A. TUCKER: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Payday Loans
SEA-TAC AIRPORT: Third Runway Class Action Can't Proceed
ST. JOSEPH HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
STATE FARM: Appeals Windshield Repair Class Action Ruling

STATE OF IOWA: Racial Bias Class Action Nears Conclusion
SWISHER HYGIENE: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
TARGET CORP: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Uniform Policy
TRANSPACIFIC INDUSTRIES: Settles Class Action for AUD35 Million
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Hearing on Securities Suit Appeal on May 17

VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Still Awaits OK of Merger-Related Suits Deal
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Stockholder Suit Remains Stayed in Israel
YOUTUBE: 2nd Cir. Allows Copyright Class Action to Proceed


                          *********

ALTERNATE ENERGY: Settles Investor Class Action for $450,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Morrell, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
head of a company seeking to build a nuclear power plant in Idaho
has agreed to pay $450,000 to resolve a lawsuit with a group of
angry investors.

Shareholders of Alternate Energy Holdings Inc. in late 2010 sued
the company, Chief Executive Officer Don Gillispie and Vice
President Jennifer Ransom, claiming they schemed to mislead
investors about their compensation and manipulated the company's
trading value.

Philip Gordon, a Boise lawyer representing the investors, said an
agreement was reached in mediation, calling on the company to pay
$450,000 by the end of June or face a $2 million penalty judgment.

A federal judge must still approve the settlement.

Investors say that between 2006 and 2010, Mr. Gillispie duped them
into buying Alternate Energy stock at an artificially inflated
price by hiring stock promoters to manipulate demand for the
company and then issuing deceptive press releases touting the
company's fiscal health.

"Alternate Energy and certain of its officers and directors made
materially false and misleading statements and engaged in a scheme
to manipulate and artificially inflate the market price," the
shareholders' lawyers wrote in the complaint.

They also allege that while Mr. Gillispie was working to swell the
stock price, he and Ransom were secretly unloading their own
shares for a profit.

Mr. Gillispie has denied any wrongdoing in the SEC case.

Mr. Gillispie denies any wrongdoing.

Accusations of fraud against the company were first made public
when the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a lawsuit in
December 2010.

Among the allegations, SEC attorneys claim company executives
conspired to falsely state in marketing promotions that the
project was "fully funded"; Ms. Ransom hid $675,000 in stock
sales; Ms. Ransom and Mr. Gillispie misled shareholders about
their pay; and double-dipped to recoup $145,000 in personal
expenses, including stays at Las Vegas' Bellagio Hotel & Casino.

The SEC's allegations sent the company's stock price plummeting
from 58 cents per share to as low as 6 cents per share, causing
significant losses for shareholders, who sued the company days
later.

For the past decade, Alternate Energy Holdings has sought to build
a nuclear power plant in three Idaho counties, switching locations
several times.

Richard Roth, Mr. Gillispie's lawyer, said the agreement removes a
time-consuming and expensive obstacle, allowing the company to
move forward.

"In light of the fact that this lawsuit alleged millions of
dollars in damage, we're very pleased with the result," Mr. Roth
said.

The company received clearance last summer from Payette County to
build a nuclear power plant.


APPLE REIT TEN: Briefing on Dismissal Bids to Be Done by June 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated securities litigation involving Apple
REIT Ten, Inc., agreed that briefing on any motion to dismiss the
complaint will be concluded by June 18, 2012, according to the
Company's March 13, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York ordered that three putative class
actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et
al., Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., and Leff v. Apple
REIT Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and amended the caption of
the consolidated matter to be In re Apple REITs Litigation.  The
District Court also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
the consolidated action and ordered lead plaintiffs to file and
serve a consolidated complaint by February 17, 2012.  The parties
agreed to a schedule for answering or otherwise responding to the
complaint and that briefing on any motion to dismiss the complaint
will be concluded by June 18, 2012.  The Company was previously
named as a party in all three of the class action lawsuits.

On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In
re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO,
filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors,
Inc., Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., Apple
Fund Management, LLC, Apple REIT Six, Inc., Apple REIT Seven,
Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc. and Apple REIT Nine, Inc., their
directors and certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc.
and David Lerner.  The consolidated complaint, purportedly brought
on behalf of all purchasers of Units in the Company and the other
Apple REIT Companies, or those who otherwise acquired these Units
that were offered and sold to them by David Lerner Associates,
Inc., or its affiliates and on behalf of subclasses of
shareholders in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Florida,
asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.  The consolidated complaint also asserts claims for
breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty, negligence, and unjust enrichment, and claims for violation
of the securities laws of Connecticut and Florida.  The complaint
seeks, among other things, certification of a putative nationwide
class and the state subclasses, damages, rescission of share
purchases and other costs and expenses.

The Company believes that any claims against it, its officers and
directors and other Apple entities are without merit, and intends
to defend against them vigorously.  At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.


ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Court Dismisses VLT Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a lawyer in St. John's calls a court
decision to dismiss a class-action suit against the Atlantic
Lottery Corporation over Video Lottery Terminals 'the end of a
battle, but not the end of the war.'

Ches Crosbie said the Supreme Court ruled that the person named to
represent everyone in the lawsuit, Greg Rice, was ineligible
because he's in bankruptcy.

This latest court decision said another person, Douglas Babstock,
can't replace Mr. Rice as the representative plaintiff on the
lawsuit's statement of claim.

Mr. Crosbie said he may appeal or refile the suit.

It is the second time a court has dismissed Mr. Crosbie's efforts
to initiate a VLT class action lawsuit.

An earlier version of the court documents he filed claimed that
ALC broke the Provincial Trade Practices Act.

A judge ruled in 2008 that ALC was a Crown corporation and
"immune" from the trade practice law.

The lead plaintiff for the original suit was the estate of Susan
Piercey, represented by her father Keith.  Ms. Piercey, 31,
committed suicide in 2003.  She overdosed on prescription drugs.

Her family said she was addicted to gambling for 10 years and is
estimated to have lost about C$100,000 over that time.

Mr. Crosbie's Web site says the family wants to see VLTs banned.
Its members have also said they will donate any money they receive
from a class-action lawsuit to gambling-addiction programs.

At a pre-budget consultation in 2010, Finance Minister Tom
Marshall said the provincial government needs VLT revenues to pay
for social programs.

In 2011, the province made a net profit of C$72 million from VLT
machines.


BANKWEST: Slater & Gordon Mulls Class Action Over CBA Takeover
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that law firm Slater &
Gordon is considering launching a class action on behalf of some
former Bankwest customers over the Commonwealth Bank's takeover of
the West Australian lender.

Slater & Gordon lawyer Van Moulis said the law firm and litigation
funder IMF Australia were assessing if a class action was viable
after claims some Bankwest borrowers and mortgagers were
disadvantaged after it was taken over by the CBA in 2008.

"We are looking at whether some of those people with Bankwest
loans were hard done by when Bankwest re-valued their securities
and called up their loans in the period after CBA took control of
Bankwest," Mr. Moulis said in a statement.

"So far we have had about 120 people register with us, and their
losses are quite significant.

"The types of cases we are looking at are primarily commercial
developments and involve property developers and small to medium-
sized business owners."

Mr. Moulis told AAP that Slater & Gordon's investigation was still
in its formative stages and evidence was still being gathered.

Mr. Moulis said there had been an allegation -- not yet backed by
evidence -- that the sales document related to CBA's acquisition
of Bankwest had contained a "claw back" provision under which the
purchase price was reduced by an amount related to the number of
bad debts on the books of Bankwest.

Mr. Moulis said some Bankwest clients alleged that they had had
the value of securities backing loans from Bankwest reassessed in
the wake of the CBA takeover and were consequently asked to repay
their loans immediately, which in some cases had been financially
disastrous.

"There is the allegation that the Commonwealth Bank radically, and
in our view, improperly, revalued the properties (that acted as
security for the loans)," Mr. Moulis said.

Mr. Moulis said the reassessment of the securities and the call in
of loans had left some people out of pocket by $1.4 million to
$1.8 million.

"It's effectively wiped out your small to medium-sized property
developer who was with Bankwest," Mr. Moulis said.

"Devastation was wreaked. Most of these people were respectable,
hard-working entrepreneurs."

Bankwest and the CBA were unavailable for comment on April 10, but
the Commonwealth Bank recently said in a prepared statement that
there was no basis to concerns Bankwest customers were treated
unfairly after the takeover.

"In addition, speculation that suggests that CBA or Bankwest would
take action to unjustifiably impair customer loans, impact its
customers and reduce its profitability (and capital position)
ignores commercial reality," said the CBA.


CUMULUS MEDIA: Unit Gets Preliminary Okay of Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
A California court preliminarily approved a $0.9 million
settlement entered into by a subsidiary of Cumulus Media Inc.,
according to the Company's March 12, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On January 21, 2010, a former employee of CMP Susquehanna Corp.
("CMPSC") (which became a subsidiary of Cumulus upon completion of
the CMP Acquisition on August 1, 2011) filed a purported class
action lawsuit, pending in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division (the
"Court"), against CMPSC claiming (i) unlawful failure to pay
required overtime wages; (ii) late pay and waiting time penalties;
(iii) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (iv)
failure to indemnify for necessary expenses and losses; and (v)
unfair trade practices under California's Unfair Competition Act.

On September 2, 2011, CMPSC and this former employee entered into
a Joint Stipulation re: Settlement and Release of Class Action
Claims (the "Settlement") with respect to such lawsuit.  The
Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on February 6,
2012, and provides for the payment by CMPSC of a maximum of $0.9
million in full and final settlement of all of the claims made in
the lawsuit.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, Cumulus Media Inc. (NASDAQ: CMLS) --
http://www.cumulus.com/-- is the second largest radio broadcaster
in the United States based on station count, controlling 350 radio
stations in 68 U.S. media markets.  In combination with its
affiliate, Cumulus Media Partners, LLC, the Company believes it is
the fourth largest radio broadcast company in the United States
when based on net revenues.


DEL MONTE: Awaits Approval of FLSA-Violations Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Corporation is awaiting court approval of its proposed
$0.2 million settlement of a class action lawsuit pending in
Minnesota, according to the Company's March 13, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended January 29, 2012.

On September 30, 2010, a putative class action complaint was
served against the Company, to be filed in Hennepin County,
Minnesota, alleging wage and hour violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").  The complaint was served on behalf of
five named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated at a
manufacturing facility in Minnesota.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that the Company violated the FLSA and state wage and hour
laws by failing to compensate plaintiffs and other similarly
situated workers unpaid overtime.  The plaintiffs are seeking
compensatory and statutory damages.  Additionally, the plaintiffs
sought class certification.  On November 5, 2010, in connection
with the Company's removal of this case to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota, the complaint was filed along with
the Company's answer.  The Company also filed a motion for partial
dismissal on November 5, 2010.  The parties jointly stipulated
that the causes of action in plaintiff's complaint for unjust
enrichment and quantum meruit would be dismissed without prejudice
and further stipulated that the cause of action under the
Minnesota minimum wage law would be dismissed without prejudice.
The court signed an order dismissing those claims on December 28,
2010.

The Company and the plaintiffs jointly stipulated to a conditional
certification of the class on April 28, 2011.  The plaintiffs sent
out notices to the potential class on April 28, 2011.  The notice
period is now closed, and 53 plaintiffs have opted in to the
lawsuit.  On November 14, 2011, the Company and the plaintiffs
agreed to a proposed settlement of the lawsuit in the amount of
approximately $0.2 million.  Plaintiffs submitted the proposed
settlement to the Court on February 15, 2012.

As of January 29, 2012, the Company has accrued this $0.2 million
in accounts payable and accrued expenses. Given the inherent
uncertainty associated with legal matters, the actual cost of
resolving this putative class action may be substantially higher
or lower than the estimated accrual.


DEL MONTE: "Littlefield" Complaint Dismissed in December
--------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Corporation's motion to dismiss a putative class action
complaint filed by Lydia Littlefield was granted in December 2011,
according to the Company's March 13, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 29, 2012.

On December 17, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company by Lydia Littlefield, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, alleging intentional misrepresentation,
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty,
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and unjust
enrichment.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company
engaged in false and misleading representation of certain of the
Company's canned fruit products in representing that these
products are safe and healthy, when they allegedly contain
substances that are not safe and healthy.  The plaintiffs seek
certification of the class, injunctive relief, damages in an
unspecified amount and attorneys' fees.  The Company intends to
deny these allegations and vigorously defend itself.

On April 19, 2011, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued an order consolidating Littlefield with several
similar consumer class actions filed in other jurisdictions (in
which the Company is not a defendant) in U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.  On July 29, 2011, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint.  A hearing on
this motion was held November 18, 2011.  The Court granted the
motion to dismiss on December 21, 2011.


DEL MONTE: Merger-Related Suits Resolved in December
----------------------------------------------------
The order and final judgment approving Del Monte Corporation's
$89.4 million settlement resolving merger-related lawsuits was not
appealed and has become final in December, according to the
Company's March 13, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 29, 2012.

On March 8, 2011, Del Monte Foods Company ("DMFC") was acquired by
an investor group led by funds affiliated with Kohlberg Kravis
Roberts & Co. L.P. ("KKR"), Vestar Capital Partners ("Vestar") and
Centerview Capital, L.P. ("Centerview," and together with KKR and
Vestar, the "Sponsors").  Under the terms of the merger agreement,
DMFC's stockholders received $19.00 per share in cash.  The
acquisition (also referred to as the "Merger") was effected by the
merger of Blue Merger Sub Inc. ("Blue Sub") with and into DMFC,
with DMFC being the surviving corporation.  As a result of the
Merger, DMFC became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Blue Acquisition
Group, Inc. ("Parent").  DMFC stockholders approved the
transaction on March 7, 2011.  DMFC's common stock ceased trading
on the New York Stock Exchange before the opening of the market on
March 9, 2011.

Del Monte Corporation ("DMC" and, together with its consolidated
subsidiaries, "Del Monte" or the "Company") was a direct, wholly-
owned subsidiary of DMFC.  On April 26, 2011, DMFC merged with and
into DMC, with DMC being the surviving corporation.  As a result
of this merger, DMC became a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of
Parent.

Following the announcement of the Merger, fifteen putative class
action lawsuits (the "Shareholder Cases") relating to the
Transactions were filed against DMFC, certain of its now-former
officers and directors, and other parties including (in certain
cases) Blue Sub.

As a result of voluntary dismissals and orders consolidating other
shareholder cases, only two of the original fifteen Shareholder
Cases arising from the Transactions remained pending following the
end of the second quarter of fiscal 2012:

   * In re Del Monte Foods Company Shareholders Litigation (the
     "Delaware Shareholder Case").  The Delaware Shareholder Case
     was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and consolidated
     with other related cases filed in the same court.  The
     latest complaint filed in the case asserted claims on behalf
     of lead Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Pension Fund and a putative
     class of shareholders against each of the now-former
     directors of DMFC (together, the "Directors"), DMFC's former
     Chief Executive Officer in his capacity as such, Barclays
     Capital, Inc. ("Barclays"), DMFC, KKR, Vestar, Centerview
     (named as Centerview Partners; together with KKR and Vestar,
     the "Sponsor Defendants"), Parent, Blue Sub and DMC, which
     was joined as a defendant in the litigation as successor in
     interest to DMFC (together, the "Defendants"); and

   * Franklin v. Del Monte Foods Co., et al.  The Franklin case
     was filed by Elisa J. Franklin on behalf of herself and a
     putative class of shareholders against the Directors, DMFC
     and the Sponsor Defendants on December 10, 2010, in Superior
     Court in San Francisco, California.  On February 28, 2011,
     the Court in the Franklin case granted the motion of DMFC
     and the Directors to stay the proceeding pending resolution
     of the Delaware Shareholder Case.

The plaintiff in the Delaware Shareholder Case alleged that the
Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders by
agreeing to sell DMFC at a price that was unfair and inadequate
and by agreeing to certain preclusive deal protection devices in
the Merger Agreement.  The plaintiff further alleged that the
Sponsor Defendants, Parent, Blue Sub and Barclays aided and
abetted the Directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  In
addition, the plaintiff asserted a claim for breach of fiduciary
duty against the former Chief Executive Officer of DMFC in his
capacity as an officer.  The plaintiff also alleged that the
Sponsor Defendants violated certain Confidentiality Agreements
with DMFC, and that Barclays induced the Sponsor Defendants to
violate the Confidentiality Agreements, committing tortious
interference with contract.  The plaintiff in the Franklin case
asserted similar claims against the Directors, alleging that they
breached their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty by, among
other acts, agreeing to sell DMFC at an inadequate price, running
an ineffective sale process that relied on conflicted financial
advisors, agreeing to preclusive deal protection measures, and
pursuing the transaction for their own financial ends. The
plaintiff in the Franklin case also asserted claims against the
Sponsor Defendants and DMFC for aiding and abetting these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.

Each of the complaints sought injunctive relief, rescission of the
Merger Agreement, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees.

On February 14, 2011, following expedited discovery and a
preliminary injunction hearing in the Delaware Shareholder Case,
the Court of Chancery entered an order preliminarily enjoining the
shareholder vote on the Merger, which was scheduled to occur at a
special meeting on February 15, 2011, for a period of 20 days.  In
addition, the Court of Chancery enjoined the parties, pending the
vote on the Merger, from enforcing various provisions in the
Merger Agreement, including the no-solicitation and match right
provisions in Sections 6.5(b), 6.5(c), and 6.5(h), and the
termination fee provisions relating to topping bids and changes in
the board of directors' recommendations on the Merger in Section
8.5(b).  The Court's order was conditioned upon the lead
plaintiff's posting a bond in the amount of $1.2 million, which
was posted on February 15, 2011.

The scheduled special meeting was convened on February 15, 2011.
At such meeting, a quorum was determined to be present and, in
accordance with the Court's ruling, the meeting was adjourned
until March 7, 2011, without a vote on the Merger proposal.  The
special meeting was reconvened on March 7, 2011.  At such meeting,
a quorum was determined to be present and the Merger was approved.
The Merger closed on March 8, 2011.

Following the closing of the Merger, on March 25, 2011, the
plaintiff in the Delaware Shareholder Case filed an application
for an interim attorneys' fee award in the amount of $12 million.
On June 27, 2011, the Court of Chancery awarded the plaintiff's
attorneys an interim fee award in the amount of $2.75 million for
the supplemental disclosures that DMFC made in connection with the
Merger.  The Court of Chancery deferred decision regarding the
balance of the fee application, which sought fees in connection
with the preliminary injunction and suspension of deal
protections.

On July 27, 2011, the Court of Chancery issued an order adding the
Company as a defendant to the Delaware Shareholder Case and
ordering the Company to pay the $2.75 million interim attorney fee
award.  The Company paid the $2.75 million interim fee award in
August 2011.

On October 6, 2011, the lead plaintiff in the Delaware Shareholder
Case and the Defendants submitted a Stipulation and Agreement of
Compromise and Settlement to the Delaware Court of Chancery (the
"Proposed Settlement").

On December 1, 2011, after settlement class members were given
notice of the Proposed Settlement and an opportunity to file
written objections, the Court of Chancery conducted a fairness
hearing on the Proposed Settlement and entered an Order and Final
Judgment approving the Proposed Settlement (as approved, the
"Settlement").  In approving the Settlement, the Court of Chancery
certified a mandatory, non-opt-out settlement class of certain
former shareholders of DMFC, and granted the Defendants a release
which extinguished all claims of the settlement class arising out
of or relating to the Merger, including claims asserted in the
Franklin case and all other Shareholder Cases, in exchange for a
total payment of $89.4 million (inclusive of $22.3 million of fees
and expenses awarded to plaintiffs' counsel by the Court of
Chancery and of costs of notifying the settlement class and
administering claims).  In connection with the Settlement, the
Company agreed to pay $65.7 million into an escrow account to fund
the Settlement, consisting of (1) the financial contribution to
the Settlement and (2) the payment of previously unpaid Merger-
related fees being contributed to the Settlement.  On December 7,
2011, the Company paid $65.5 million into the escrow account ($0.2
million having previously been paid).  The Company entered into
the Settlement to eliminate the uncertainties, burden, and expense
of further litigation.  In the Settlement, the Company, together
with the other Defendants, denied all allegations of wrongdoing,
and the Court of Chancery's Order and Final Judgment approving the
Settlement provides that it does not constitute an admission of
wrongdoing by any Defendant.

The Order and Final Judgment approving the Settlement was not
appealed and has become final.

The Company has $50 million of director and officer insurance
coverage for the Company and the former directors and officers of
DMFC.  The Company's primary insurance carrier has reimbursed the
Company for a portion of its legal defense costs; however, the
insurers have reserved their rights with respect to liability
coverage and have not agreed at this point that coverage is
available for losses the Company has sustained as a result of the
Shareholder Cases or the settlement in the Delaware Shareholder
Case.  Notwithstanding the Settlement, the Company continues to
have certain indemnification obligations relating to the Merger,
including the obligation to pay certain outstanding legal fees and
expenses, subject to limitations under applicable law or contract.


DURACELL INC: Faces Class Suit Over Premium-Priced Batteries
------------------------------------------------------------
James Collins, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Duracell, Inc. and The Procter & Gamble Company, Case
No. 3:12-cv-01778 (N.D. Calif., San Francisco Cty., April 10,
2012) is brought on behalf of consumers, who purchased Duracell's
premium-priced Ultra Advanced and Ultra Power batteries based on
the false promise that the batteries would last longer than
Duracell's competing, lower-cost batteries.

The Plaintiff alleges that Duracell and its parent, P&G, engaged
in a scheme to mislead consumers about the benefits of these
premium-priced batteries in violation of the California Business
and Professions Code and the California Civil Code.  He adds that
the Defendants concealed and misrepresented material facts
concerning the true battery life of their Ultra Advanced and Ultra
Power products.

Mr. Collins is a resident of Alameda, California.  During the
Class Period, he purchased Duracell Ultra Advanced and Duracell
Ultra Power batteries in California.

Duracell, a wholly-owned subsidiary of P&G, is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Bethel,
Connecticut.  Duracell ships its products to distributors, sells
its products in retail, and advertises its products in California.
P&G is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in
Cincinnati, Ohio.

A copy of the Complaint in Collins v. Duracell, Inc., et al., Case
No. 12-cv-01778 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/11/Duracell.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Miranda P. Kolbe, Esq.
          Noah M. Schubert, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4018
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
                  mkolbe@schubertlawfirm.com
                  nschubert@schubertlawfirm.com


ELRON ELECTRONIC: Judgment Proceedings in Haifa Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
In November 1999, a claim against Elscint Ltd., Elbit Medical
Imaging Ltd. ("EMI"), the parent company of Elscint and formerly
an associate company, and various other defendants, including
Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. and certain of its former
officers, was filed in the Haifa District Court in Israel together
with a request to approve certain causes of action set out in the
claim, as a class action on behalf of some institutional investors
and others  who held shares in Elscint on September 6, 1999, and a
request for certain causes of action to be treated as a derivative
action.  The allegations raised in the claim relate, among others,
to the period prior to the sale of the Company's holdings in Elbit
Imaging Ltd. (formerly known as Elbit Medical Imaging Ltd.), or
EMI.  The plaintiffs sought a court order pursuant to which EMI
would be compelled to effect a tender offer.  In August 2000, the
Haifa District Court decided to strike out the application for
approval of the claim as a class action.  Subsequent to that
decision the plaintiffs submitted an amended statement of claim
which is similar to the initial claim but is designated as a
personal claim and partly as a derivative action rather than as a
purported class action.  In addition, some of the plaintiffs
appealed to the Supreme Court in Israel against the District
Court's decision.

In December 2006, the Supreme Court reversed that decision and
returned the matter back to the Haifa District Court in order to
decide whether the claim should be recognized as a class action.
In June 2007, in accordance with the directions of the Haifa
District Court, the plaintiffs submitted an updated statement of
claim and request to approve the claim as a class action.
Pursuant to the updated claim, the plaintiffs are no longer
seeking an order compelling the tender offer but instead are
claiming compensation for damages sustained due to the alleged
failure of EI to effect the tender offer, as well as due to other
allegations.  The updated statement of claim does not specify the
monetary amount claimed, but does include various allegations
relating to the manner of determining the damages claimed, which
depends, amongst other things, upon verification of the specific
circumstances with regard to each shareholder of Elscint
separately and the substance of each damage claimed.  In January
2009, the Haifa District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' request
to approve the claim as a class action.  In March 2009, the
plaintiffs appealed against the Haifa District Court's decision.
The hearing on the appeal took place in December 2010 and the
Company is awaiting the Supreme Court's decision.

At this stage, the Company says the personal claims of the
plaintiffs for monetary damages and their request to treat certain
part of them as a derivative action remain pending.  The Company
has instituted judgment execution proceedings against the
plaintiffs in connection with the expenses awarded to the Company
up to the present time in the class action.

The Company denies all the allegations of the claims, and based on
legal advice received, management is of the opinion that the
Company has good defense arguments, which, more likely than not,
will cause dismissal of the claims.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 13, 2012,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.


ELRON ELECTRONIC: Still Defends Two Class Action Claims in Haifa
----------------------------------------------------------------
During September 2006, two claims were filed by a certain
individual in the Haifa District Court in Israel against the same
defendants (including Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. and certain
of its former officers) of the action against Elscint Ltd., et
al., and based substantially on the same facts of such action.
The claims are for an undisclosed amount and also include a
request to recognize the claims as class actions.  The Court has
determined that the defendants do not yet have to file statements
of defense.

The Company denies all the allegations of the claims, and based on
legal advice received, management is of the opinion that the
Company has good defense arguments, which, more likely than not,
will cause dismissal of the claims.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 13, 2012,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.


FUEL DOCTOR: Still Defends "Drinville" Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Doctor Holdings, Inc. continues to defend a class action
lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's
March 13, 2012, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company is a defendant in a matter entitled Drinville, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Fuel Doctor,
LLC and DOES 1-20, Inclusive filed March 16, 2011, in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.
This purported class action alleges violation of various
violations of California statutes principally related to false
advertising and consumer protection in that the company's products
are alleged not to provide the benefits claimed.  The lawsuit
seeks class certification, unspecified damages and exemplary
damages, among other things.  The lawsuit is in an early stage and
the Company will vigorously defend the same.

Another Federal lawsuit against the company alleging false patent
claims has been voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, by the
plaintiff.

Until its product is established in the market and its benefits
accepted, the Company says it anticipates these types of lawsuits
will be brought from time to time.


JMP GROUP: Defends Securities Class Suit Over Public Offering
-------------------------------------------------------------
JMP Group Inc. is defending a purported securities class action
lawsuit with respect to a company for which its subsidiary served
as an underwriter in a public offering, according to the Company's
March 12, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

The Company was named as a defendant in a purported securities
class action complaint with respect to a company for which JMP
Securities LLC served as an underwriter in a public offering, and
recorded an accrual based on its portion of the estimated legal
expenses.  A loss contingency has not been booked as a range of
loss cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.  Generally,
given the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of matters
the Company is involved in, particularly cases in which claimants
seek substantial or indeterminate damages, it is not possible to
determine whether a liability has been incurred or to reasonably
estimate the ultimate or minimum amount of that liability until
the case is close to resolution.  For these matters, no reserve is
established until such time, other than for reasonably estimable
legal fees and expenses.  Management, after consultation with
legal counsel, believes that the currently known actions or
threats will not result in any material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.


L & L ENERGY: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A second amended complaint was filed in a securities class action
lawsuit pending in Washington, L & L Energy, Inc. disclosed in its
March 12, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2012.

On August 26, 2011, a federal securities law class action
complaint was filed against the Company, certain officers and
directors (i.e., Dickson V. Lee and Ian G. Robinson) and a former
officer (i.e., Jung Mei (Rosemary) Wang) in the United States
District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased the
common stock of the Company during the period August 13, 2009,
through August 2, 2011, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby
(the "Securities Class Action").  It alleges that the Company
filed false and misleading reports with the SEC from August 13,
2009, to August 2, 2011, primarily based upon an amendment the
Company filed to its 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K on July 28,
2010, and a report published by the Glaucus Research Group on
August 2, 2011.  On December 15, 2011, the court appointed Gregg
Irvin as lead plaintiff, and he filed an amended complaint and
second amended complaint on February 8, and March 2, 2012,
respectively, naming four other current and former directors as
defendants (i.e., Shirley Kiang, Robert Lee, Dennis Bracy and
Robert Okun).

The Company says it has notified its insurance carrier of the
Securities Class Action, has retained outside legal counsels, and
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.


LOJACK CORP: Final Approval of "Morin" Suit Deal Entered in Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Final approval of a settlement in the class action lawsuit
commenced by Louis Morin was entered in December 2011, LoJack
Corporation disclosed in its March 13, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On June 15, 2010, a lawsuit entitled Louis Morin v. LoJack Corp.,
Inc., et al was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of
the State of California (Central District) alleging, amongst other
claims, violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
the California Business and Professions Code section 17200 (unfair
competition) and section 17500 (false advertising), and breach of
implied warranty with respect to LoJack Early Warning for
motorcycles, and seeking class action status.  On July 29, 2010,
the Company removed the case to the District Court.  On August 23,
2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims, which was
granted by the District Court on September 27, 2010, without
prejudice.  The dismissal without prejudice provided the plaintiff
with the opportunity to amend its complaint, and on October 25,
2010, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, for alleged fraud,
violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the
California Business and Professions Code section 17200 and section
17500, and breach of implied warranty and again sought class
certification.  On November 12, 2010, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss all claims and a motion to strike certain claims.  On
December 28, 2010, the District Court denied the Company's motion
to dismiss.  The plaintiff, on behalf of the class, sought
injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, punitive damages,
and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts.  On March 3, 2011, the
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and the Company
filed its opposition to class certification on March 28, 2011.

The parties participated in a mediation hearing on March 29, 2011,
and reached a settlement to resolve all claims on a class-wide
basis.  The District Court preliminarily approved the settlement
on September 16, 2011.  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement,
the Company would revise its disclosures in motorcycle related
marketing materials and provide class members with a twelve month
extension of the terms of the Company's Limited Recovery Warranty.
The Company would also pay an enhancement award of $20,000 to the
named plaintiff and would pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
costs up to $415,000.  Under the terms of the settlement, the
Company would receive a release by all potential class members who
do not affirmatively opt out of the settlement.  One potential
class member affirmatively opted out of the settlement.  Nothing
in the settlement agreement constitutes an admission of any
wrongdoing, liability or violation of law by the Company.  Rather,
the Company has signed the settlement agreement to resolve the
litigation, thereby eliminating the uncertainties and expense of
further protracted litigation.  On December 5, 2011, final
approval of the settlement was entered.

The Company recorded an accrual in the amount of $570,000, with
respect to the terms of the settlement, including a $135,000
accrual relating to the twelve month warranty extension, which did
not have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial
position or results of operations.


LOJACK CORP: Trial in "Rutti" Class Suit Scheduled for July
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action lawsuit commenced by Mike Rutti in
California state court is currently scheduled for July 2012,
according to LoJack Corporation's March 13, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011.

On April 5, 2006, Mike Rutti vs. LoJack Corporation, Inc. was
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California, or the District Court, by a former employee
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, or the FLSA,
the California Labor Code, and the California Business &
Professions Code, and seeking class action status, or the Federal
Court Case.  In September 2007, the Company's motion for summary
judgment was granted and the District Court dismissed all of the
plaintiff's federal law claims.   The plaintiff appealed the grant
of summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, or the Ninth Circuit, and, in August 2009, the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's grant of summary
judgment on all claims except as to the claim for compensation for
the required postliminary data transmission, or the Data
Transmission Claim, for which the dismissal was reversed.  The
plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing and, on March 2, 2010,
the Ninth Circuit amended its decision to affirm the District
Court's grant of summary judgment on all claims except as to (a)
the Data Transmission Claim and (b) the claim for compensation for
commuting under state law, or the Commuting Claim.  The plaintiff
later sought to pursue the Commuting Claim in the State Court
Case.  The plaintiff moved for conditional certification of the
Data Transmission Claim under the FLSA and, on January 14, 2011,
the District Court granted the plaintiff's motion.  On October 7,
2011, the parties filed a joint stipulation with the District
Court stating that they had reached a settlement of the Data
Transmission Claim.  On November 7, 2011, the parties filed a
joint motion for approval of the settlement as required by the
FLSA.  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Federal Court
Case would be dismissed, the plaintiffs would release the Company
of the claims asserted in the Federal Court Case and all other
wage-and-hour claims (except, in the case of two plaintiffs, the
claims asserted in the State Court Case) and the Company would pay
to the plaintiffs an aggregate amount of approximately $115,000
and pay to their attorneys an amount for attorneys' fees and costs
to be determined by the District Court upon motion but not to
exceed $1,100,000.

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company recorded an
accrual in the amount of $1,250,000 with respect to the terms of
the Federal Court Case settlement, of which $1,100,000 remained
accrued at December 31, 2011.  Nothing in the settlement would
constitute an admission of any wrongdoing, liability or violation
of law by the Company.  Rather, the Company has agreed to the
settlement to resolve the Federal Court Case, thereby eliminating
the uncertainties and expense of further protracted litigation.
On November 28, 2011, the District Court approved the settlement
with the plaintiff and dismissed the Federal Court Case with
prejudice.  The District Court is currently considering the
plaintiff's attorney's application for payment of their fees and
costs, to which the Company has filed an objection.  The Company
is awaiting the District Court's ruling on the attorney's fee
application.

Due to the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims by the District
Court in September 2007, in November 2007, the plaintiff and a
second plaintiff filed in the Superior Court of California for Los
Angeles County, or the Superior Court, Mike Rutti, Gerson Anaya
vs. LoJack Corporation, Inc. to assert wage-and-hour claims under
California law on behalf of current and former Company
technicians, or the State Court Case.  In September 2009, the
Superior Court granted class certification with respect to nine
claims and denied class certification with respect to five claims.
The Company sought appellate review of this decision.  On March
26, 2010, the California Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate
District granted the Company's request in part, denying
certification with respect to certain claims but affirming
certification with respect to certain other claims.

On July 29, 2011, the Superior Court granted class certification
of the remaining claims except for a vehicle maintenance expense
reimbursement claim.  Thus, in the State Court Case there
currently are 16 certified claims, including the Commuting Claim;
a Data Transmission Claim arising under state law; claims for
various amounts of unpaid time; claims for reimbursement of work
tools expenses and the cost of washing a Company vehicle; claims
for unfair competition under California Business and Professions
Code section 17200; and claims for waiting-time penalties and
penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act.  Trial of the State Court Case is currently scheduled
for July 2012.

In the State Court Case, the plaintiff, on behalf of the class,
seeks unpaid wages, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes that it has substantial legal and factual
defenses to these claims and intends to defend its interests
vigorously.

The Company has recorded an accrual in the amount of $970,000,
with respect to certain of the claims in the State Court Case
based on the Company's best estimates, where a potential loss is
considered probable.  The Company has estimated its range of
possible loss with respect to the State Court Case to be between
$970,000 and $30,000,000.


LONDON ORGANISING COMMITTEE: UK Businesses Mull Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that a group of small
business owners from London's Olympic precinct plan to launch a
class-action lawsuit against Games organizers, claiming logistics
for the event could prove devastating.

Some 40 businesses including transport firms, printers, cafes,
garages and retailers have united to tackle the London Organising
Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG), reported British newspaper
The Daily Telegraph.

At the heart of the complaint is restricted access to premises, a
lack of compensation for lost income, and a failure to provide
relocation packages for the worst-affected businesses.

Haulage business operator Graham Phelps is leading the group and
told The Telegraph that hundreds of jobs are at risk with traders
fearing the Olympic disruption could cripple deliveries and deter
customers.

"Most of us are operating on tiny profit margins, so one bad month
can spell devastation," said Mr. Phelps, who estimates his
business will be reduced to 30 per cent of its normal operations
during the Games.

"We're happy London got the Games, but there should have been
better communication and a relocation plan for companies like
ours."

The group of businesses, which falls outside LOCOG's compulsory
purchase zone where 193 companies were given compensation and new
homes, have consulted a law firm and are considering their
options, said the article.


LUZERNE COUNTY, PA: Chief Public Defender Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael R. Sisak, writing for The Citizen's Voice, reports that
the Citizens' Voice File Luzerne County Chief Public Defender Al
Flora Jr. says his overworked and understaffed department has been
unable to represent all defendants seeking a lawyer.

Samantha Volciak figured there would be a lawyer to help her fight
the criminal charges hanging over her since last August --
allegations that she drunkenly backed her car into a parked sport-
utility vehicle and sped off.

The 21-year-old Hazleton woman, following the instructions of a
magistrate and the Miranda warnings made rote by television
detectives, applied and qualified for a Luzerne County public
defender.

Instead of a taxpayer-funded lawyer, however, Ms. Volciak received
a terse letter saying that the public defender's office,
overworked and undermanned after years of budget cuts, could not
represent her.

Yolanda Holman, a Hanover Township woman accused of fraudulently
obtaining $5,358 in welfare services, and Charles Hammonds, a
Westmoreland County accused of stealing $360 from a Hazle Township
Walmart, received the same letters.

So did more than 300 other defendants who qualified for public
defenders, according to a class-action lawsuit filed against
Luzerne County by the chief public defender, Al Flora Jr., and the
Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"It's hard to imagine a clearer constitutional violation than to
deprive someone of counsel, a person who is facing jail time,"
ACLU attorney Witold Walczak said hours after the organization
filed the lawsuit in Luzerne County court.

Mr. Walczak had said he would ask a judge last April 5 to take
immediate action to force the county to:

   -- Lift a hiring freeze and permit Mr. Flora to add at least
two additional attorneys.

   -- Pay for private attorneys for defendants like Ms. Volciak,
Mr. Holman and Mr. Hammonds who qualified for public defenders but
were rejected due to workload constraints.

   -- Ensure attorneys working in the public defender's office
continue to abide by widely recognized workload maximums.

Mr. Flora, who has badgered county officials for increased
staffing throughout his two-year tenure, filed a separate action
in federal court asking for an injunction to prevent the county
from firing him in retaliation for the lawsuit.

Mr. Flora, an attorney with the public defender's office since
1980 and its chief since May 2010, referred questions to the ACLU.

County solicitor Vito DeLuca said the lawsuit on April 10 caught
him "off guard" and that he would work with the ACLU to "come to
some resolution" that would save both sides from exorbitant legal
fees.

Mr. DeLuca said he met with county manager Robert Lawton on April
10 to discuss the lawsuit and, in a brief interview, refuted an
allegation in the lawsuit that Mr. Lawton had denied Flora's
requests to fill vacancies.  The interim manager who preceded MR.
Lawton, Tom Pribula, rejected those requests, Mr. DeLuca said.

According to the lawsuit, the latest in a series of actions the
ACLU has filed against counties throughout the state, Luzerne
County "grossly underfunded and thus overwhelmed" the public
defender's office resulting in "sub-constitutional representation"
to many poor criminal defendants and the deprivation of
representation to many others.

The county and Mr. Lawton, who was named as a defendant in the
lawsuit, have shown "deliberate indifference to the funding needs"
of the public defender's office, leading to a variety of
systematic problems, including understaffing that has resulted in
lawyers having overwhelming workloads, according to the lawsuit.

In December, Mr. Flora instituted the policy that led to the
denial of attorneys for Ms. Volciak, Mr. Holman and Mr. Hammonds,
the three named plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit.  Under the
policy, public defenders are only provided for adult defendants
who are jailed, facing murder or felony sex charges, extraditions,
mental health cases and parole and probation hearings.

The adult unit of the public defender's office currently has three
full-time and two part-time attorney vacancies, resulting from
four resignations and the transfer of an attorney to the once-
beleaguered juvenile unit.

Four of the vacancies were funded in the county's 2012 budget, but
have not been filled, according to the lawsuit.

In February, interim county manager Tom Pribula permitted
Mr. Flora to advertise three attorney vacancies but, because of
the hiring freeze, did not allow him to fill them.  The Feb. 20
resignation of a part-time attorney who handled mental health
cases compounded Mr. Flora's dilemma, forcing him to reassign a
attorney who had little training in mental health cases, according
to the lawsuit.

One part-time attorney had approximately 115 open cases as of
March 16, according to the lawsuit.

"On the one hand, you're dealing with a powerless constituency,"
Mr. Walczak said.  "Poor people charged with crimes don't exactly
get the eat of the power brokers.  When you're making tough budget
decisions, do you want to give to the prosecutor to fight the bad
guys? Do you want to fix roads? Do you want to give to poor
people? There are more attractive funding bodies, but the bottom
line here is that the county's funding responsibilities are rooted
in the constitution."


MASSEY ENERGY: June 18 Deadline Set to Respond to Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that attorneys for Massey Energy now
have until June 18 to formally respond in court to shareholders
who say they were deliberately misled about the coal company's
safety record.

The parties agreed to the new deadline in a filing in U.S.
District Court in Beckley.  Judge Irene Berger recently rejected
Massey's motion to dismiss the case.

Institutional shareholders led by the Massachusetts Pension
Reserves Investment Trust say Massey lied about its safety record
before the Upper Big Branch mine disaster killed 29 West Virginia
miners in April 2010.

Only after the worst U.S. mining disaster in four decades did the
shareholders learn the extent of the company's problems.

They argue that corporate deception artificially inflated stock
prices between 2008 and 2010.

Massey has since been bought by Virginia-based Alpha Natural
Resources.


METABOLIX INC: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
Metabolix, Inc. is facing a purported shareholder class action
lawsuit in Massachusetts, according to the Company's March 12,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On February 17, 2012, a purported shareholder class action, Hilary
Coyne v. Metabolix, Inc., Richard P. Eno, and Joseph Hill, Civil
Action 1:12-cv-10318, was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and
certain officers of the Company as defendants.  The lawsuit
alleges that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact in the Company's disclosures during the
period from March 10, 2010, through its January 12, 2012 press
release announcing that Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) had
given notice of termination of the Telles joint venture for PHA
bioplastics, all in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.  The lawsuit seeks:
certification as a class action, compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount, plaintiff's costs and attorneys' fees, and
unspecified equitable or injunctive relief.

The Company says it is currently unable to assess the probability
of loss or estimate a range of potential loss, if any, associated
with this matter because the case is at an early stage.


MOTRICITY INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motricity, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in
Washington, according to the Company's March 13, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

Joe Callan filed a putative securities class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, at
Seattle on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired common stock of Motricity between June 18, 2010, and
August 9, 2011, or in the Company's initial public offering.  The
defendants in the case are Motricity, certain of its current and
former directors and officers, including Ryan K. Wuerch, James R.
Smith, Jr., Allyn P. Hebner, James N. Ryan, Jeffrey A. Bowden,
Hunter C. Gary, Brett Icahn, Lady Barbara Judge CBE, Suzanne H.
King, Brian V. Turner; and the underwriters in the Company's
initial public offering, including J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.,
Goldman, Sachs & Co., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., RBC Capital
Markets Corporation, Robert W. Baird & Co Incorporated, Needham &
Company, LLC and Pacific Crest Securities LLC.  The complaint
alleges violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by all
defendants and under Sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act by
Motricity and those of the Company's former and current officers
who are named as defendants.  The complaint seeks, inter alia,
damages, including interest and plaintiff's costs and rescission.

A second putative securities class action complaint was filed by
Mark Couch in October 2011 in the same court, also related to
alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act,
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.  On
November 7, 2011, the class actions were consolidated, and lead
plaintiffs were appointed pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.  On December 16, 2011, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint which added a claim under Section 12 of the
Securities Act to its allegations of violations of the securities
laws and extended the putative class period from August 9, 2011,
to November 14, 2011.

On February 14, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class actions.

As the case is at a very early stage at this time, the Company
says it is not able to predict the probability of the outcome or
estimate of loss, if any, related to the matter.


NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Appeal From Securities Suit Ruling Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit filed against NextWave Wireless Inc. and certain of
its officers is pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
according to the Company's March 12, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On September 16, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned
"Sandra Lifschitz, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. NextWave Wireless Inc. et al.,
Defendants," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers.  The lawsuit alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or omissions in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified
damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and injunctive,
equitable or other relief on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
March 30, 2007, to August 7, 2008.

A second putative class action lawsuit captioned "Benjamin et al.
v. NextWave Wireless Inc. et al." was filed on October 21, 2008,
alleging the same claims on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock during an extended class period, from November 27,
2006, through August 7, 2008.  On February 24, 2009, the Court
issued an Order consolidating the two cases and appointing a lead
plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act.  On May 15, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint, and on June 29, 2009, the Company filed a Motion to
Dismiss that Amended Complaint.

On March 5, 2010, the Court granted the Company's Motion to
Dismiss without prejudice, permitting the lead plaintiff to file
an Amended Complaint.  On March 26, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed
a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint, and the Company
subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss.  On March 16, 2011, the
Court granted the Company's Motion and dismissed the complaint
without prejudice.  On May 5, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a
Third Amended Complaint, and the Company again filed a Motion to
Dismiss.  On November 21, 2011, the Court granted the Company's
Motion and dismissed the case with prejudice.

On December 19, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal
with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The lead plaintiff's
initial brief was due on March 28, 2012, and the Company's
response will be due on April 27, 2012.

The Company says it has not recorded any significant accruals for
contingent liabilities associated with this matter based on its
belief that a liability, while possible, is not probable.
Further, any possible range of loss cannot be estimated at this
time.


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Three Calif. Class Suits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three class action lawsuits commenced in California against
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. have been consolidated, according to
the Company's March 12, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 31, 2012.

On October 26, 2011, a putative class action complaint captioned
Woburn Retirement System v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-5235, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California against the Company and
three of its executives, one of whom is a director.  On November
4, 2011, and December 21, 2011, two similar putative class actions
were filed against the same defendants in the same Court, Laborers
Local 235 Benefit Funds v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-5372, and Carbon County Retirement Board v.
OmniVision Technologies, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-6593, respectively.
All three complaints allege that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by making misleading statements or
omissions regarding the Company's business and financial results,
in particular regarding the use of the Company's imaging sensors
in Apple Inc.'s iPhone.  The complaints seek unspecified damages,
the first two actions on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the Company's common stock between August 27, 2010, and October
13, 2011, and the third on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers between
May 27, 2011, and November 6, 2011.  These actions have been
consolidated.  The Company will respond after a consolidated
complaint has been filed.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself against
these allegations.  At this time, the Company cannot estimate or
predict whether this matter will result in any material loss to
it.


PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Pacific Biosciences
overstated its prospects to raise $230 million through its initial
public offering, at $16 a share, and the stock price sank to $4.25
after this and the company's "cash burn" were revealed,
shareholders say in a class action in Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System v. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., et
al., Case No. CIV512976 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/11/BioTech.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com


PHILIPPINES: Doctors Mull Pollution Suit v. DOTC
------------------------------------------------
Jocelyn R. Uy, writing for the Philippine Daily Inquirer, reports
that an organization of doctors is preparing a P1-billion class
action against those who contribute to air pollution in Metro
Manila.

The Philippine Medical Association announced on April 10 it was
filing a multisectoral class suit against the Department of
Transportation and Communications and all owners of vehicles that
failed the smoke emission test for "directly and indirectly"
contributing to the "life threatening" air quality in the
metropolis.

The PMA said that Transportation Secretary Mar Roxas would be
included in the lawsuit as the head of the sole government agency
tasked under Republic Act No. 8749, or the Philippine Clean Air
Act of 1999, with regulating and enforcing the law on vehicles.

Owners and operators of vehicles apprehended for smoke belching
and failing the smoke emission test would also be named
respondents in the complaint.

The names will be culled from the records of various government
agencies such as the Land Transportation Office, Metropolitan
Manila Development Authority and Department of Environment and
Natural Resources as well as local government units, according to
the PMA.

"The PMA is leading our partners in the fight to clean the air in
Metro Manila," said the group's president, Dr. Oscar Tinio.  "We
would like to exhaust all possible solutions, including legal
action against those who directly or indirectly contribute to the
life-threatening state of the air in the metropolis."

Dr. Tinio noted that the air quality in Metro Manila posed a
"clear and present danger" to its 14 million residents, with 80
percent of pollutants coming from more than 3.2 million vehicles
plying its streets daily.

Air pollution not only causes respiratory illnesses but also
cardiovascular problems like heart attack, stroke or even sudden
death, according to Dr. Tinio.

"The provisions of RA 8749 confirm our individual right to breathe
clean air.  They also provide the legal basis for the filing of a
citizen's suit against those who violate the clean air law," said
PMA Manila governor Dr. Leo Olarte.

Dr. Olarte noted that the law allows an individual to bring action
in court or quasijudicial bodies to "enjoin all activities in
violation of environmental laws and regulations, to compel the
rehabilitation and cleanup of affected areas and to seek the
imposition of penal sanctions against violators of environmental
laws."

He invited concerned citizens and those affected directly or
indirectly by the air pollution to join the lawsuit.

"The class suit is being prepared by our legal team," said
Dr. Mike Aragon, PMA spokesperson.  The civil complaint will be
filed in the Quezon City regional trial court.

Last month, the PMA urged President Aquino to be Metro Manila's
anti-air pollution czar, noting that at least 40 percent of all
medicines purchased in Metro Manila were indicated for
cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases.

The Department of Health has attributed the high incidence of
noncommunicable diseases -- allergies, acute respiratory
infections, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, cancer and
cardiovascular ailments -- to air pollution.

The 2006 National Emission Inventory of the DENR said 65 percent
of air pollution was caused by vehicles and 21 percent by
stationary sources like factories and waste burning.

But in Metro Manila, Environment Secretary Ramon Paje said, 80
percent of the emissions came from vehicles.


SCIENCE APPLICATIONS: Says Insurance Enough to Cover Settlements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Anderson, writing for Gov Info Security, reports that
Science Applications International Corp. claims it has enough
insurance to cover the costs of potential judgments or settlements
stemming from seven class action lawsuits related to a September
2011 breach incident affecting 4.9 million TRICARE beneficiaries.
TRICARE is the military health insurance program.

In its annual 10-K report filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, however, SAIC notes the insurance policy has a $10
million deductible.  The company states it has already recorded a
loss equal to that amount, "representing the low end of the
company's estimated loss."  The statement adds: "The company
believes that, if any loss is experienced by the company in excess
of its estimate, such a loss would not exceed the company's
insurance coverage."

SAIC is seeking to have seven pending class action lawsuits
related to the breach consolidated, and it has filed motions to
dismiss in five of the seven cases, it notes in the 10-K report.
An eighth class action suit has already been dismissed.  The
statement, filed March 27, notes the lawsuits seek statutory
damages of $1,000 for each individual affected (or $4.9 billion),
plus other damages and costs.

The 10-K report acknowledges that the Department of Health and
Human Services' Office for Civil Rights is investigating the
breach, which stemmed from backup tapes stolen from the parked car
of a SAIC employee who was to transport them between federal
facilities on behalf of TRICARE.  Such investigations, which can
take as long as two years, can result in financial penalties and
corrective action plans affecting both the covered entity (in this
case TRICARE) and a business associate (SAIC).

Based on the total number of individuals affected, the TRICARE
breach is the largest so far on the federal tally of major
breaches reported since the HIPAA breach notification rule took
effect in September 2009.

"There is no evidence that any of the data on the backup tapes has
actually been accessed or viewed by an unauthorized person,"
according to the statement.  "In order for an unauthorized person
to access or view the data on the backup tapes, it would require
knowledge of and access to specific hardware and software and
knowledge of the system and the data structure."

SAIC acknowledged earlier, however, that the tapes were not fully
encrypted.  "Some personal information was encrypted prior to
being backed up on the tapes," an SAIC spokesman said last year.
"However, the operating system used by the government facility to
perform the backup onto the tape was not capable of encrypting
data in a manner that was compliant with a particular federal
standard.  The government facility was seeking a compliant
encryption solution that would work with the operating system when
the backup tapes were taken."

A recent amended complaint tied to one of the pending lawsuits
contends a handful of victims were victims of financial fraud as a
result of the breach.

The company is offering those affected by the breach a year's
worth of free credit monitoring services and, in certain
circumstances, a year of identity restoration services, according
to the statement.


SCOTT A. TUCKER: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Payday Loans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal RICO
class action claims the owner of a payday loan company, a felon,
used a "rent-a-tribe" scheme to avoid civil and criminal liability
for his illegal loan practices.

Lead plaintiff Larry Robinson claims defendant Scott A. Tucker, of
Leawood, Kan., is not licensed to issue payday loans in Kansas and
cannot get a license for it because he is a felon.

"Defendant Scott Tucker has been convicted of felony mail fraud
and felony making a false statement to a bank.  See United States
v. Tucker, Case No. CR-90-00163-01 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 13, 1990) and
United States v. Tucker, Case No. 4:91-CR-00001 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 4,
1991)," the complaint states in a footnote.

But Mr. Tucker "organized, owns, operates, manages, and controls
various payday loan trade names, including 'United Cash Loans,'
which are in the business of providing illegal payday loans to
consumers over the Internet," from an office in Overland Park,
Kansas, Mr. Robinson says in the complaint.

He claims Mr. Tucker circumvented the system through a rental
agreement with the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma in 2003, and with the
Santee Sioux in 2005.

The complaint states: "Defendant Scott Tucker and the Miami Tribe
of Oklahoma entered into an agreement wherein defendant Scott
Tucker and CLK Management, LLC agreed to provide the tribe with $5
million in capital, as well as all operational and managerial
control, including staff, equipment, and advertising services, and
the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma agreed, at its option, to furnish an
office on tribal lands staffed by at least one employee in order
to permit defendant Scott Tucker to use the tribe's name to create
a facade of immunity from state and federal lending laws.

"Defendant Scott Tucker and CLK Management, LLC exclusively
operated, managed, and controlled the payday lending operations,
while paying the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma a monthly fee of 1
percent of gross revenue or $20,000 per month, whichever was
greater, to use their name and purported immunity."

Mr. Robinson claims that in 2004 the Colorado attorney general
sent a cease-and-desist letter to CLK Management's "mail drop" in
Carson City, Nev., "stating CLK Management LLC's business
practices violated Colorado law."

Undeterred, Mr. Robinson says, "In early 2005, defendant Scott
Tucker approached the Santee Sioux Nation to discuss a proposal to
create a structure to 'rent' the tribe's legal immunity for his
illicit payday loan businesses.

"Defendant Scott Tucker and the Santee Sioux Nation entered into
an agreement wherein defendant Scott Tucker and CLK Management,
LLC agreed to provide the tribe with $3 million in capital, as
well as all operational and managerial control, including staff,
equipment, and advertising services, and the Santee Sioux Nation
agreed, at its option, to furnish an office on tribal lands
staffed by at least one employee in order to permit defendant
Scott Tucker to use the tribe's name to create a fa‡ade of
immunity from state and federal lending laws.

"Defendant Scott Tucker and CLK Management, LLC exclusively
operated, managed, and controlled the payday lending operations,
while paying the Santee Sioux Nation a monthly fee of 1 percent of
gross revenue or $20,000 per month, whichever was greater to use
their name and purported immunity."

Mr. Robinson claims that in June 2005 a Colorado court "issued
contempt citations stemming from the failure of 'Cash Advance' and
'Preferred Cash Loans' to respond to investigative subpoenas."

In response, Mr. Robinson says, MNE Inc. and SFS Inc. appeared
before the court and said they do business as Cash Advance and
Preferred Cash Loans, respectively.

"MNE Inc. and SFS Inc. claimed to be wholly owned subdivisions of
the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma and the Santee Sioux Nation,
respectively, which they claimed are federally recognized Indian
Tribes immune from the State of Colorado's subpoena authority,"
the complaint states.

"The State of Colorado, MNE Inc., and SFS Inc. continue to
litigate whether MNE Inc. and SFS Inc. are immune from the
authority of the Colorado Courts."

Mr. Robinson claims that in 2006 and 2007, CLK transferred several
trademarks, including United Cash Loans, Ameriloan, USFastCash,
and Changing the Way American Gets a Loan! to TFS Corp. He claims
that TFS aka Tribal Financial Services Corp. "operates out of a
post office box in Miami, Oklahoma."

He claims that Mr. Tucker operates "various payday loan trade
names, including 'United Cash Loans,' and CLK Management LLC from
an office building at 10895 Lowell Avenue, Suite 100, Overland
Park, Kansas 66210," which is not on tribal land.

He adds: "Defendant Scott Tucker has obtained post office boxes on
various tribal territories or reservations throughout the United
States of America for use by his various payday loan trade names.

"Defendant Scott Tucker and CLK Management, LLC have not and do
not conduct business at or near these various post office boxes,
and all mail addressed to such post office boxes is and was
forwarded to defendant Scott Tucker's Overland Park office where
it is processed.

"Defendant Scott Tucker has instructed his employees keep the
location of the Overland Park office secret and not to provide its
address to the general public.

"Defendant Scott Tucker has informed his employees that he has
associated with various Indian tribes in order to gain immunity
from state and federal lending laws.

"The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma and the Santee Sioux Nation did not
and do not have a physical presence at the Overland Park office
and did not and do not direct or control the operations of
Defendant Scott Tucker or CLK Management, LLC.

"Defendant Scott Tucker, not the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma or the
Santee Sioux Nation, genuinely owned or owns, controlled or
controls, and operated or operates the various payday loan trade
names, including 'United Cash Loans,' from an office building at
10895 Lowell Avenue, Suite 100, Overland Park, Kansas 66210."

Mr. Robinson says he got a $300 loan from Mr. Tucker, with an
annual interest rate of 608.33 percent, well above the maximum
interest rate allowed by Kansas law.

The class consists of anyone who got a payday loan from Mr. Tucker
and the various trade names he owned, operated, or contracted
with.

Mr. Robinson seeks treble damages and punitive damages for usury,
violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and/or the
Kansas Consumer Protection Act and RICO violations.

A copy of the Complaint in Robinson v. Tucker, Case No. 12-cv-
02200 (D. Kan.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/11/RentATribe.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah K. Wood, Esq.
          Michael T. Miller, Esq.
          WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 1800
          Kansas City, MO 64105-5171
          Telephone: (816) 256-3582
          E-mail: noah@woodlaw.com
                  mike@woodlaw.com


SEA-TAC AIRPORT: Third Runway Class Action Can't Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
The Seatac Blog reports that on April 9, a King County judge
denied class action status for over 300 homeowners who sued the
Port of Seattle in 2009 over its use of Sea-Tac Airport's
controversial Third Runway, according to Jason Amala of the
Seattle law firm Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala.

"The judge's ruling means that thousands of homeowners affected by
the Third Runway's increased air traffic must each file individual
lawsuits if they hope to recover for property damage caused by the
roar of jet engines," reads a statement on the firm's Web site,
which continues:

Plaintiffs Miriam Bearse, John McKinney and Darlene Moore sought
permission from the court to represent all homeowners who have
lost property value due to the Third Runway in a single class
action lawsuit.  But in a 15-page written opinion issued on
April 9, 2012, the Court denied the plaintiffs' request and ruled
that diminished property value, like that suffered by the
plaintiffs, was too specific to each individual home and each
homeowner for the lawsuit to be grouped together in a class
action.

Tacoma attorney Darrell Cochran, who represents the plaintiffs,
said that the court's ruling will require all homeowners who have
claims related to the Third Runway's operations to come forward
and file suit on their own.

"We already have 333 people who were waiting to see how the court
would rule," Mr. Cochran said.  "Now that class certification has
been denied, we expect the number of people ready to file suit to
protect their property rights to grow dramatically."


ST. JOSEPH HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Verel, writing for Business Journal, reports that a class-
action lawsuit has been filed against St. Joseph Health System,
which operates Santa Rosa Memorial, Petaluma Valley and Queen of
the Valley hospitals, for allowing private patient data to be
searchable online for 31,800 patients across the system's
California hospitals, including about 10,000 patients locally.

The suit, filed in Sonoma County Superior Court by two allegedly
affected patients, is seeking $1,000 per patient, which would
total $31.8 million for all the California patients involved,
according to the complaint.  The suit claims the Orange-based
health system was "negligent" and that it "unlawfully failed to
maintain and preserve the confidentiality" of patients.

The suit filed April 2 in Sonoma County is one of five filed
against the health system on the accidental release of
information, according to a spokesman for St. Joseph Health.

St. Joseph Health first reported the potential data breach in
early February, sending notices to 6,235 patients of Santa Rosa
Memorial and another 4,263 patients from Queen of the Valley.  Two
patients from Petaluma also were notified.

The remainder of affected patients were in Southern California
hospitals operated by the health system: Mission Hospital and St.
Jude Medical Center, both in Orange County.

At the time of the breach, the health system said the information
that was searchable did not include full medical records and that
social security numbers, patient addresses and financial data were
not disclosed.

What was visible by search included patient data such as patient
name, body mass index, smoking status, blood pressure, lab
results, diagnoses, allergies, demographic info including spoken
language, ethnicity, race, gender, birth date and advance
directive, which tells health care providers patient wishes for
treatment and decision-making.

The suit was filed by Deanna DeBaeke and Loba Moon, who say they
were both patients in Sonoma County.  According to the suit,
Ms. DeBaeke was a patient at Santa Rosa Memorial in April 2011.
Earlier this year, she ran a search of her name on Google from her
cell phone.  Among the results she claims she found were three
reports from the health system related to her treatment, including
her patient account number and admission or readmission dates,
among other information.

Ms. Moon said she was a patient at Memorial in 2011.  She received
notification from the health system and found that her information
was searchable online for as long as seven months, according the
court complaint.

In a statement, St. Joseph said it could not comment on the
specifics of pending litigation.

"We can tell you, however, that there are several important points
to make clear about this potential disclosure of patient
information," spokesman Brian Greene said in a statement.  "This
information was in reports and did not entail medical record,
which remains secure."

Patient addresses, Social Security numbers and financial
information were not included in the reports, according to the
statement.

"The data was not readily accessible on the Internet and there is
no indication at this time that the information was used by
unauthorized persons," the health system said.  "In keeping with
our fundamental commitment to the security of our patients and
their information, we worked to secure the data as soon as the
potential for disclosure was discovered."

The complaint alleges that personal and medical information was in
unencrypted electronic reports that were saved in a health system
internal database between February and August 2011.

"The electronic reports were not encrypted, were not password
protected and did not contain or use any other form of electronic
protection," according to the suit.

When the health system notified patients in February, it
acknowledged that security settings were "incorrect" on the
information.  The health system said it was taking steps to
prevent such a potential data breach from happening again.

"We have reviewed and revised our processes and conducted an
intensive audit on the situation to ensure that it does not happen
again," Mr. Greene said in the statement.

St. Joseph Health set up a toll-free number for patients affected
(877-430-5623) and is providing free identity-theft protection
services to them as a precautionary measure.

The two Sonoma County plaintiffs are being represented by San
Francisco law firm Keller Grover LLP.


STATE FARM: Appeals Windshield Repair Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Katie O'Mara, writing for glassBYTES, reports that an Ohio
windshield repair-based class action lawsuit is back in the news
after State Farm has filed a notice to appeal with the Supreme
Court of Ohio.  The suit, filed in February 2005, alleges that by
including language in insurance policies that "has been used in at
least some of the insuring agreements offering to waive the
deductible if the windshield is repaired," State Farm failed to
meet its contractual obligation.  The allegations hinge on the
long-standing industry debate: does windshield repair restore the
glass to its pre-loss condition?  In this case, the plaintiff
doesn't think so.

Among the arguments presented to prove breach of contract,
Plaintiff Michael E. Cullen and his attorneys state that by
repairing the windshield that the insurer "has avoided paying
numerous insureds for the cost of replacing the glass (less
applicable deductibles)."  The Plaintiff also argues that "[t]he
insuring agreements do not afford State Farm the unilateral right
to elect to conduct repairs or replacements at its own expense"
and that "all persons who paid premiums to State Farm with the
reasonable expectation that State Farm would fully compensate them
for their loss, thereby making them whole except for any
applicable deductible."

The plaintiffs further allege that State Farm "has engaged in a
course of conduct in establishing claims practices designed to
conceal its contractual obligations and avoid paying for the full
restoration of its policyholders' windshield glass."

The court appointed Mr. Cullen as the representative of a class of
100,000 Ohio policyholders whose windshields were repaired over
the course of the last 20 years.  State Farm took the case to the
Court of Appeals of Ohio where the certification was confirmed.
State Farm has now, with the support of a variety of groups, filed
a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio.

"If Plaintiffs cash option claim is not colorable under the
unambiguous language of the policies (and it is not), it does not
give rise to common factual issues and cannot support class
certification," read documents filed by State Farm.  "As State
Farm argued, the policies do not require that windshield repair
return a vehicle to its pre-loss condition.  Accordingly, the
purported failure to return a windshield to its preloss condition
cannot support a colorable breach of contract claim and does not
give rise to common issues for trial."

State Farm goes on to say that the decision was not based on
facts, but the Plaintiff's theory of what happened and that, if
class certification was not reversed, the calculation of damages
would be complicated and time-consuming.

"In short, the Eighth District did not base its determination of
commonality and predominance on a reasoned analysis of the
elements of Plaintiffs claims and the showings required to
establish those elements, but simply accepted Plaintiffs "theory"
of his case.  The result is certification of a case that cannot be
tried without sacrificing fairness and due process," read State
Farm's documents.  "Even if there were no disputed individual
issues of fact as to actual injury, the calculation of damages for
100,000 class members would be neither simple nor manageable.
State Farm's cost for a replacement varied not only with the
particular windshield, but also based upon a system of adjustments
to windshield prices that differed from county to county and
changed frequently and significantly over time."


STATE OF IOWA: Racial Bias Class Action Nears Conclusion
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Eckhoff, writing for Des Moines Register, reports that Iowa's
multimillion-dollar, class-action discrimination lawsuit is
creeping toward conclusion after four years in Polk County
district court, four weeks of trial, four months of legal document
wrangling and now two months of study by an overworked judge.

District Judge Robert Blink could rule at any time in the case of
Pippen v. State of Iowa, a massive lawsuit originally filed in
2007 alleging that Iowa essentially failed to police its hiring
bureaucracy and allowed racial bias to affect decades of hiring
and promotion decisions in nearly 40 government agencies and
departments.

Plaintiff-produced court documents -- only a tiny sliver of the
more than 50-volume court file -- estimate that the case could be
worth as much as $70 million in lost income for the up to 6,000
African Americans who filed unsuccessful job applications with the
state between July 2003 and October 2007.  That's only one portion
of what the state could pay if plaintiffs are successful, since
more claims by the Pippen plaintiffs are gearing up for another
wave of litigation in front of a different judge.

Judge Blink, who presided over a four-week bench trial in
September and October, moved to a work-intensive family court
docket at the beginning of the year.  He reportedly has worked
nights and weekends since lawyers in February agreed on the final
version of all the depositions, reports and hiring data that will
constitute the evidence of the case.  Judge Blink at times has
asked for and received pockets of time off from his other duties
to focus on the Pippen ruling, and more exemptions from family
court may be in the works.

Plaintiffs and Iowa civil rights workers now are watching the case
a little more closely since a minor deadline passed over the
weekend.

Iowa rules say judges "shall report monthly to the supreme court,
through the office of the state court administrator, all matters
taken under advisement in any case for longer than 60 days,
together with an explanation of the reasons for the delay and an
expected date of decision."

Court records show the Pippen case was formally submitted to Judge
Blink on Feb. 8 -- so it would have to be included on Judge
Blink's next report (due in early May for the period ending April
30) if a ruling isn't issued by then.

There is little at stake, however, beyond the judicial pride that
would be involved in asking for additional time.

Everybody involved has readily acknowledged the lawsuit's enormous
scope and complexity.  Plaintiffs' lawyers have put forward an
unusual claim based on the argument that Iowa failed to guard
against "implicit bias" that can make people subconsciously favor
whites over blacks.  The state also failed to require training,
testing and documentation of decisions by managers, plaintiffs'
attorney Thomas Newkirk argued last fall, all of which created an
environment where no one was watching Iowa's hiring managers.

"There are simply too many holes and too many missing pieces in a
system that's supposed to work as an integrated whole,"
Mr. Newkirk said in September.

State lawyers countered during trial that "the amorphous nature of
this particular case" includes more than its share of holes.

Deputy Iowa Attorney General Jeffrey Thompson argued in court that
a host of reasons could exist for why blacks fare differently
statistically when it comes to some kinds of hiring decisions.
Thompson contends the law requires that plaintiffs prove a
specific racial bias in terms of specific policies or decisions.

"This case amounts to a challenge to literally any discrete
decision made by any decision-maker at any step in the state
hiring decision," Mr. Thompson said to Judge Blink in court last
fall.  "If plaintiffs are to be taken at their word, your honor,
what they are asking you to do is take over the state hiring
system in its entirety to explain why a particular applicant
didn't get a five instead of a three (on tests measuring) customer
service."

One part of the case that actually has been resolved already is
the fate of Ms. Pippen herself.

Plaintiffs in January filed papers to have Ms. Pippen's name
removed from the lawsuit after she pleaded guilty in federal court
to embezzling approximately $43,600 in state unemployment
insurance funds between May 2008 and November 2009 by altering
state records to pay additional unemployment to people who were no
longer qualified.  The money then was routed into Ms. Pippen's
accounts.

Judge Blink last month refused to remove Ms. Pippen's name from
the lawsuit, reasoning that her presence wouldn't impact the
ruling.  Ms. Pippen didn't testify during the trial, but her work
history is included in the statistics Judge Blink must consider in
the case.

Ms. Pippen was scheduled to report to U.S. Marshals last week to
begin serving a four-year prison term.


SWISHER HYGIENE: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP has filed a securities class action lawsuit on
behalf of investors who purchased Swisher Hygiene Inc. stock
between May 16, 2011 and March 28, 2012, inclusive.  The lawsuit,
captioned Birch v. Swisher Hygiene Inc., No. 3:12-cv-00221, is
pending in the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly touted the
Company's financial strength and future prospects.  These
statements, however, were materially false and misleading when
made because the Company: (1) was improperly accounting for
business acquisitions; (2) was improperly calculating its
allowance for doubtful accounts receivable; (3) was overstating
its income; (4) was preparing and filing financial reports in
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP");
and (5) failed to have adequate internal and financial controls.

On March 28, 2012, Swisher disclosed that its previously-announced
financial results for the first, second and third quarter of 2011
should no longer be relied upon and that its Audit Committee was
conducting an ongoing internal review, which was initiated
following a concern raised by a former employee.  On this news,
shares of Swisher Hygiene stock declined $0.29 per share, or more
than 9.5%, to close on March 28, 2012, at $2.76 per share.  The
Company's stock declined another $0.33 per share, or nearly 12%,
on March 29, 2012.

If you are a member of the Class, you may, no later than May 29,
2012, request that the Court appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
Class.  You may contact the attorneys at Block & Leviton to
discuss your rights in the case. You may also retain counsel of
your choice and you need not take any action at this time to be a
class member.

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


TARGET CORP: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Uniform Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Target makes its employees supply their own red shirts, tan or
khaki pants and black shoes at all its 252 California outlets, in
violation of state laws and regulations.

A copy of the Complaint in Browning v. Target Corporation, Case
No. 12-at-00480 (E.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/11/Target.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
          Richard D. Lambert, Esq.
          Elaine W. Yan, Esq.
          STONEBARGER LAW
          75 Iron Point Circle, Ste. 145
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 235-7140
          E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
                  rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com
                  eyan@stonebargerlaw.com


TRANSPACIFIC INDUSTRIES: Settles Class Action for AUD35 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Macnamara, writing for The Australian, reports that
Transpacific Industries Group has agreed to pay up to AUD35
million before tax to settle a class action over claims that it
misled investors over the true state of its accounts.

The action claimed Transpacific failed to make timely disclosure
of material information regarding its earnings and forecasts in
2007 and 2008 before declaring losses in 2009 that caused its
share price to plummet.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn and litigation funder IMF launched the
action on behalf of shareholders who bought shares in the waste
management company between August 29, 2007, and February 16, 2009,
when the company first announced likely losses to the market.

At the time, Transpacific signalled a pre-tax AUD46 million
writedown on the value of its investments in listed securities and
a 19 per cent drop in pre-tax profit, causing its share price to
drop by a record 35.7 per cent.

When announcing the potential class action in 2010, Maurice
Blackburn said Transpacific had been making predictions of growth
and profit and that it was almost recession proof before this.

There has been no admission of liability by Transpacific.

In pre-proceedings discussions with Maurice Blackburn and IMF, the
company made an in-principle agreement to pay up to AUD35 million
or about AUD24.5 million after tax, with AUD25 million payable in
June and up to AUD10 million deferred until the end of June 2014.

"We took the decision to participate in a structured mediation
process having regard to the likely costs involved and the
uncertainties and risks that are inevitably associated with claims
of this nature," Transpacific chairman Gene Tilbrook said on
April 10.

Mr. Tilbrook noted that the action grew out of events that
occurred several years ago under a previous management regime.

"The focus of the current board and senior management continues to
be firmly on building TPI into a world-class waste management
company," he said.

Maurice Blackburn principal Ben Slade said it recommended
Transpacific's settlement to clients in light of risks associated
with such claims and to avoid protracted litigation.

IMF estimated that if the settlement became unconditional it would
generate a profit of AUD10.5 million before tax from its
investment this year.

The agreement and final settlement amount is subject to conditions
and substantive terms, to be agreed by shareholders.

Transpacific shares rose 1 per cent to 78c.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Hearing on Securities Suit Appeal on May 17
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities
litigation has been scheduled for hearing of oral arguments before
a judicial panel on May 17, 2012, according to VeriFone Systems,
Inc.'s March 12, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 31, 2012.

On or after December 4, 2007, several securities class action
claims were filed against the Company and certain of its officers,
former officers, and a former director.  These lawsuits were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California as In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, C 07-6140 MHP.  The original actions were: Eichenholtz
v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6140 MHP; Lien v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6195 JSW; Vaughn et al. v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6197 VRW (Plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed this complaint on March  7, 2008); Feldman et al. v.
VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6218 MMC; Cerini v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6228 SC; Westend Capital Management
LLC v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6237 MMC; Hill v.
VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6238 MHP; Offutt v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6241 JSW; Feitel v. VeriFone Holdings,
Inc., et al., C 08-0118 CW.  On August 22, 2008, the court
appointed plaintiff National Elevator Fund lead plaintiff and its
attorneys lead counsel.  Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended
class action complaint on October 31, 2008, which asserts claims
under the Securities Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A
and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 for securities
fraud and control person liability against the Company and certain
of its current and former officers and directors, based on
allegations that the Company and the individual defendants made
false or misleading public statements regarding its business and
operations during the putative class periods and seeks unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.  The Company filed its motion
to dismiss on December 31, 2008.

The court granted the Company's motion on May 26, 2009, and
dismissed the consolidated amended class action complaint with
leave to amend within 30 days of the ruling.  The proceedings were
stayed pending a mediation held in October 2009 at which time the
parties failed to reach a mutually agreeable settlement.
Plaintiffs' first amended complaint was filed on December 3, 2009,
followed by a second amended complaint filed on January 19, 2010.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
and the hearing on its motion was held on May 17, 2010.

In July 2010, prior to any court ruling on the Company's motion,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint on the basis that they have newly discovered evidence.
Pursuant to a briefing schedule issued by the court the Company
submitted its motion to dismiss the third amended complaint and
plaintiffs filed their opposition, following which the court took
the matter under submission without further hearing.  On March 8,
2011, the court ruled in the Company's favor and dismissed the
consolidated securities class action without leave to amend.

On April 5, 2011, lead plaintiff filed its notice of appeal of the
district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  On June 24 and June 27, 2011, lead plaintiff dismissed
its appeal as against defendants Paul Periolat, William Atkinson,
and Craig Bondy.  Lead plaintiff filed its opening brief on appeal
on July 28, 2011.  The Company filed its answering brief on
September 28, 2011, and lead plaintiff filed its reply brief on
October 31, 2011.  This appeal has been scheduled for hearing of
oral arguments before a judicial panel of the Ninth Circuit on May
17, 2012.

At this time, the Company says it has not recorded any liabilities
related to this action as it is unable to determine the outcome or
estimate the potential liability.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Still Awaits OK of Merger-Related Suits Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
On August 4, 2011, VeriFone Systems, Inc. completed its
acquisition of Hypercom Corporation, a provider of electronic
payment solutions and value-added services at the point of
transaction, by means of a merger of one of the Company's wholly-
owned subsidiaries with and into Hypercom such that Hypercom
became a wholly-owned subsidiary of VeriFone following the merger.

In connection with the announcement of the Company's merger with
Hypercom, several purported class action lawsuits were filed in
Arizona and Delaware state courts alleging variously, among other
things, that the board of directors of Hypercom breached its
fiduciary duties in not securing a higher price in the merger and
that VeriFone, Hypercom, FP Hypercom Holdco, LLC and Francisco
Partners II, L.P. aided and abetted that alleged breach.  The
actions seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages.  An
agreement in principle has been reached to resolve the litigation
based on confirmatory discovery, enhanced public disclosures, and,
reimbursement by Hypercom of a portion of the plaintiffs'
attorneys fees which the Company does not expect to be material to
its results of operations. The terms of settlement between the
parties are subject to court approval.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 12, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended January 31, 2012.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Stockholder Suit Remains Stayed in Israel
-----------------------------------------------------------
On January 27, 2008, a class action complaint was filed against
VeriFone Systems, Inc., in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv,
Israel, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock on the Tel
Aviv Stock Exchange.  The complaint seeks compensation for damages
allegedly incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the
publication of erroneous financial reports.  The Company filed a
motion to stay the action, in light of the proceedings already
filed in the United States, on March 31, 2008.  A hearing on the
motion was held on May 25, 2008.  Further briefing in support of
the stay motion, specifically with regard to the threshold issue
of applicable law, was submitted on June 24, 2008.  On September
11, 2008, the Israeli District Court ruled in the Company's favor,
holding that U.S. law would apply in determining the Company's
liability.  On October 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to appeal the District Court's ruling to the Israeli Supreme
Court.  The Company's response to plaintiffs' appeal motion was
filed on January 18, 2009.  The District Court has stayed its
proceedings until the Supreme Court rules on plaintiffs' motion
for leave to appeal.

On January 27, 2010, after a hearing before the Supreme Court, the
court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal and
addressed the case back to the District Court.  The Supreme Court
instructed the District Court to rule whether the Israeli class
action should be stayed, under the assumption that the applicable
law is U.S. law.  Plaintiffs subsequently filed an application for
reconsideration of the District Court's ruling that U.S. law is
the applicable law.  Following a hearing on plaintiffs'
application, on April 12, 2010, the parties agreed to stay the
proceedings pending resolution of the U.S. securities class
action, without prejudice to plaintiffs' right to appeal the
District Court's decision regarding the applicable law to the
Supreme Court.  On May 25, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for
leave to appeal the decision regarding the applicable law with the
Israeli Supreme Court.  In August 2010, plaintiff filed an
application to the Israeli Supreme Court arguing that the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Morrison et al. v. National Australia
Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), may affect the
outcome of the appeal currently pending before the Court and
requesting that this authority be added to the Court's record.
Plaintiff concurrently filed an application with the Israeli
District Court asking that court to reverse its decision regarding
the applicability of U.S. law to the Israeli class action, as well
as to cancel its decision to stay the Israeli proceedings in favor
of the U.S. class action in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Morrison.  On August 25, 2011, the Israeli District
Court issued a decision denying plaintiff's application and
reaffirming its ruling that the law applicable to the Israeli
class action is U.S. law.  The Israeli District Court also ordered
that further proceedings in the case be stayed pending the
decision on appeal in the U.S. class action.

At this time, the Company says it has not recorded any liabilities
for this action as it is unable to determine the outcome or
estimate the potential liability.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 12, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended January 31, 2012.


YOUTUBE: 2nd Cir. Allows Copyright Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael P. Tremoglie, writing for LegalNewsline.com, reports that
the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on
April 5 reversed a 2010 district court ruling.  The suit was
brought by Viacom, Paramount Pictures, Football Association
Premier League and other media and sports entities.

The plaintiffs alleged that YouTube broadcasts tens of thousands
of copyrighted videos on its Web site.  The U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York held that YouTube was
entitled to safe harbor protection because of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act.

The court said YouTube did not have sufficient notice of the
particular infringements in suit.  The DCMA limits the liability
of online providers for copyright infringement by their users.

Viacom filed suit against YouTube on March 13, 2007.  It alleged
direct and indirect copyright infringement.  The Premier League,
an English soccer league, and the Bourne Co. filed a putative
class action against YouTube on May 4, 2007, making the same
allegations on behalf of all copyright owners whose material was
copied, stored, displayed, or performed on YouTube without
authorization.  They specified 63,497 video clips identified by
Viacom, as well as 13,500 additional clips identified by the
putative class plaintiffs.

The appeals court said that it considered, "the first and most
important question on appeal is whether the DMCA safe harbor at
issue requires 'actual knowledge' or 'aware(ness)' of facts or
circumstances indicating 'specific and identifiable
infringements.'"

The court vacated the summary judgment in favor of YouTube
because, "a reasonable jury could conclude that YouTube had
knowledge or awareness . . . at least with respect to a handful of
specific clips."

It also said the district court, "erred by requiring 'item-
specific' knowledge of infringement in its interpretation of the
'right and ability to control' infringing activity under 17 U.S.C.
Sec. 512(c)(1)(B).

The judgment was reversed because of the "erroneous construction
of the statute" and the case was remanded "for further fact-
finding by the District Court on the issues of control and
financial benefit."

"For a long time, these things like YouTube argued that they are
like a bulletin board in the grocery store. People just post
things to it and they have no knowledge of what it is," said
Ronald Rotunda, law professor at Chapman University School of Law
in Orange, Calif.  "But YouTube is making money.  There is an
obligation not to aid and abet in the infringement of copyright.
So I think the Second Circuit made the right decision."


                           *********

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  * * *