CAR_Public/120423.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 23, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 79

                             Headlines

A123 SYSTEMS: Howard G. Smith Law Firm Files Class Action
ABC: Faces Class Action Over "The Bachelor" Racism
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal in "Hoffman" Suit Remains Pending
APPLE: "Free" Games In-App Purchases Class Action Can Proceed
BANKWEST: Maurice Blackburn Launches Class Action Over Fees

BLUE CROSS: Sued Over Alleged Health Insurance Market Conspiracy
BP: Seeks Approval of Oil Spill Class Action Settlement
CAPITAL ONE: Awaits Rulings in Consolidated Interchange Fee Suit
CAPITAL ONE: Consolidated Suit Over Late Fees Remains Stayed
CAPITAL ONE: Continues to Defend "Rubio" Suit in California

CAPITAL ONE: Dismissed From Overdraft Fee-Related MDL in Florida
CAPITAL ONE: Motion for Summary Judgment in Georgia MDL Pending
CARNIVAL PLC: Defends Class Suit Over Costa Concordia Accident
CHASE ISSUANCE: Awaits Rulings on Dismissal Bids in N.Y. Suit
CHASE ISSUANCE: Bank Defends Suits Over Credit Card Business

CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Sued Over Fraudulent Business Practice
CRAIGSLIST INC: Sued for Violating Song-Beverly Credit Card Act
DUPONT: C8 Linked to Two Types of Cancer, Panel Says
EASTERN BAND: Youth Sue Over Funds Lost in Risky Investments
EDWARDSVILLE, IL: Lawyers Want Towing Fee Suits Consolidated

EPHREN W. TAYLOR: Fraud Victims File Class Action in California
GOLFSMITH INT'L: "O'Flynn" Suit Settled in 1st Quarter of 2012
ITAU UNIBANCO: Still Defends Suits Over Stabilization Plans
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Rochon Genova Commences Mesh Class Action
MARTHA STEWART: Sued for Misleading Shareholders on Stock Plan

MICHIGAN: MFL to Get $3.1MM Share of Inmate Settlement
MOLYCORP INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
NTS INC: Awaits OK of Settlement in "Tzur" Suit vs. Former Unit
ONLINE TRAVEL AGENCIES: Town of Telluride Joins Class Action
PRUDENTIAL PLC: Jackson Records $20MM Accrual for Class Action

REPUTATION.COM: Accused of Not Paying Employees' Overtime Wages
SAIC INC: Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll File Class Action
SEARS HOLDINGS: Sued Over False Representations on Vacuums
SINO CLEAN: Continues to Defend 2nd Amended Securities Suit
TACTICAL DIVERSIFIED: Citigroup Defends ARS-Related Class Suits

TIDEWATER FUTURES: Citigroup Defends ARS-Related Class Suits
TRAILER COMPANIES: Settle Class Action Over Hazardous Fumes
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII: Data Breach Class Action Settlement Okayed
VERISK ANALYTICS: Xactware Enters Deal to Resolve "Mornay" Suit
VERISK ANALYTICS: 8th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Suit vs. iiX

VERISK ANALYTICS: Citizens Unit Faces Class Suit in Florida

* Class Action Costly for Law Firms, Carlton Fields Survey Shows


                          *********

A123 SYSTEMS: Howard G. Smith Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of A123
Systems, Inc., has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the
common stock of A123 between February 28, 2011 and March 23, 2012,
inclusive.

A123, together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops,
manufactures and sells rechargeable lithium-ion batteries and
energy storage systems worldwide.  The Complaint alleges that the
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's operations and financial prospects.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had severe
manufacturing deficiencies at its Livonia, Michigan, manufacturing
facility, which produced defective prismatic cells that resulted
in premature failure of battery modules and packs; (2) as a result
of the defective prismatic cells, A123 would likely be required --
and incur substantial costs -- to recall and replace the affected
modules and packs, threatening the financial viability of the
Company; and (3), as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.  Until a
class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you
retain one.  If you purchased A123 common stock between February
28, 2011 and March 23, 2012, you have until June 1, 2012, to move
for lead plaintiff status.  To be a member of the class you need
not take action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent class member.  If
you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact:

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


ABC: Faces Class Action Over "The Bachelor" Racism
--------------------------------------------------
Joyce Chen, writing for New York Daily News, reports that ABC's
hit reality dating series "The Bachelor," and its offshoot "The
Bachelorette," were facing an impending class action lawsuit after
two bachelor hopefuls were turned away from the auditions --
presumably, they claim, because of their race.

TMZ reports that two African American men showed up to an open
casting call for the show in Nashville, only to be marginalized
and left out of the regular audition process.

Christopher Johnson, an aspiring NFL player, and his pal Nathaniel
Claybrooks say neither was called back, and Mr. Johnson even told
TMZ that a producer at the site asked him what he was doing there.

The pair would be leading the way in a huge lawsuit that would sue
ABC, production companies Warner Horizon Television, Next
Entertainment, NZK Productions and "Bachelor" executive producer
Mike Fleiss.

This isn't the first time the popular ABC show has been accused of
racial discrimination.

In an interview with Entertainment Weekly last March, however,
Mr. Fleiss argued that the show has tried to be more racially
diverse -- but that people of color just haven't stepped forward.

"I think Ashley is 1/16th Cherokee Indian, but I cannot confirm,"
Mr. Fleiss said of his show's attempts to be PC.  "But that is my
suspicion! We really tried, but sometimes we feel guilty of
tokenism.

"Oh, we have to wedge African-American chicks in there! We always
want to cast for ethnic diversity, it's just that for whatever
reason, they don't come forward.  I wish they would."

The filing was set to take place in federal court on April 18.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal in "Hoffman" Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal from an adverse summary judgment entered in the
class action lawsuit commenced by Hoffman, et al., remains
pending, according to American Express Credit Account Master
Trust's March 20, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In September 2001, Hoffman, et al. v. American Express Travel
Related Services Company, et al. was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California, Alameda County.  Plaintiffs in that
case claim that American Express Company erroneously charged
Cardmember accounts in connection with its airflight insurance
programs because in certain circumstances customers must request
refunds, as disclosed in materials for the voluntary program.  In
January 2006, the court certified a class of American Express
charge Cardmembers asserting claims for breach of contract and
conversion under New York law, with a subclass of California
residents asserting violations of Sections 17200 and 17500 of the
California Business & Professions Code, and a subclass of New York
residents asserting violation of Section 349 of the New York
General Business Law.  American Express sought to compel
arbitration of the claims of all non-California residents.  The
motion to compel arbitration was denied by the trial court, which
decision was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal in July
2007.  The case went to trial in November 2008 and January to
February 2009.  American Express was granted judgment on all
counts.  The plaintiffs have appealed the Superior Court's
decision and American Express has filed a protective notice of
appeal to preserve certain legal issues; briefing on the appeal
has been completed.

                        Stayed Litigation

In addition, a case making the same factual allegations
(purportedly on behalf of a different class of Cardmembers) as
those in the Hoffman case is pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled Law
Enforcement Systems v. American Express et al.  That case was
stayed pending the trial in the Hoffman action.  After judgment
was rendered for American Express in Hoffman, the plaintiff in Law
Enforcement Systems asked the court to lift the stay and to allow
plaintiff to obtain certain Cardmember information.  The court
denied the request.  American Express has moved to dismiss the
complaint in light of the decision in Hoffman and the failure to
substitute an appropriate plaintiff in the case.  The plaintiff
subsequently filed a motion to add a new plaintiff.  Both of those
motions are pending.

Further, on October 30, 2008, a putative class action on behalf of
American Express credit Cardmembers making the same allegations as
those raised in the Hoffman and Law Enforcement Systems cases was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, captioned Kass v. American Express Card
Services, Inc., American Express Company and American Express
Travel Related Services.  On March 11, 2009, the Kass Court
entered an order granting the joint motion of the parties to stay
the case, and the court also administratively closed the case.


APPLE: "Free" Games In-App Purchases Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Leach, writing for The Register, reports that an iPhone-owner
whose daughter downloaded $200 (GBP125) worth of "Zombie Toxin"
and "Gems" through in-app purchases on his iPhone has been allowed
to pursue a class action suit against Apple for compensation of up
to $5 million (GBP3.1 million).

Garen Meguerian of Pennsylvania launched the class-action case
against Apple in October 2011 after he discovered that his nine-
year-old daughter had been draining his credit card account
through in-app purchases on "free" games including Zombie Cafe and
Treasure Story.  This month, Judge Edward J Davila in San Jose
District Federal Court has allowed the case to go to trial,
rejecting Apple's claim that the case should be dismissed.

Mr. Meguerian claimed that Apple was unfairly targeting children
by allowing games geared at kids to push them to make purchases.
He describes games that are free to play but require purchases of
virtual goods to progress as "bait apps" and says they should not
be aimed at children.

Numerous gaming apps are offered for free, although many such
games are designed to induce purchases of what Apple refers to as
"In-App Purchases" or "In-App Content" i.e. virtual supplies,
ammunition, fruits and vegetables, cash and other fake "currency",
etc. within the game in order to play the game with any success.

These games are highly addictive, designed deliberately so, and
tend to compel children playing them to purchase large quantities
of Game Currency, amounting to as much as $100 per purchase or
more.

The court case quotes a description from an article on the game
Smurfs' Village: "Players are lured in by enticing pictures of
huge bucketfuls of Smurfberries, and just a couple of taps is all
it takes to drain money out of an iPhone account holder's credit
card."

The Smurfs' Village app, where smurfberries retail at $4.99 for 50
or $59 for 1,000 has already come under criticism by the US
Federal Trade Commission and Australian regulators.

Arguing for the case to be dismissed, Apple said that parents who
didn't want their children to make in-app purchases shouldn't give
their children their iTunes passwords.

In early 2011, Apple changed its purchase protection policy --
meaning that the iTunes password had to be entered for every
purchase made.  Previously entering the password just once had
left the account unlocked for 15 minutes, allowing anyone to
download anything, a practice which the case alleges allowed
children to buy things without the permission of their parents.

The judge said that even if parents had given their children
passwords, many parents were misled by Apple's presentation of
these "freemium" games as free and that Apple didn't adequately
inform consumers about the potential costs.   Judge Davila has
allowed the case to continue.


BANKWEST: Maurice Blackburn Launches Class Action Over Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rania Spooner, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
Bankwest has become the latest bank pulled into the largest class
action against late payment fees in Australian history, worth
AUD223 million, after an action on behalf of its clients was filed
on April 18.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers launched proceedings against Bankwest in
the Federal Court in Melbourne claiming AUD10 million worth of
late credit card repayment fees and dishonor fees charged by
Bankwest in the past six years should be given back to customers.

It is the latest in a string of actions launched by the same group
against Australian banks, which started with a claim against the
ANZ in 2010.

In recent months the CBA, Westpac, NAB, Citibank, St George and
BankSA have also been drawn in, bringing the total claimant pool
to more than 170,000 people and the estimated claim size to AUD223
million.

The lawyers are aiming to get AUD1,000 to AUD1,500 back for each
of the 6,600 Bankwest claimants.

About half of the 6,600 Bankwest customers who have now signed
onto the action were from Western Australia.

Last year, a judge made a ruling in favor of Maurice Blackburn's
claimants in relation to the pilot ANZ case, finding late fee
payments could be considered penalties.

The ruling was only an early step in the action which is expected
to be drawn out into next year, but it would mean a bank should
only claim back what the late payment has cost them.

Maurice Blackburn senior associate Paul Gillett said the "height
of this price gauging" was in 2009 when banks charged Australian
households AUD1.3 billion in exception fees.

Over the past six years the banks have charged up to AUD6 billion
in exception fees, according to Maurice Blackburn's estimates.

"The fees that the bank was charging do not reflect the actual
cost to the bank of for example being late on your credit card,"
Mr. Gillett said.

Litigation funder IMF' subsidiary Financial Redress managing
director James Middleweek said Bankwest had some of the highest
exception fees in the market.

Despite some of major banks reducing their exception fees
following the start of the class action, Bankwest, a CBA
subsidiary, has kept its fees high, Mr. Middleweek said.

"I was quite surprised and shocked that despite all the pressure
since we launched the case originally and all the public outcry to
reduce fees that in fact Bankwest have barely done that at all,"
he said.

"Bankwest is one of the worst offenders."

Mr. Middleweek said he believed Bankwest was taking advantage of
its loyal customers in WA.

A Bankwest spokeswoman said the company would defend the action.

"As this is an ongoing legal matter and also the subject of
existing legal proceedings against the other major banks it would
be inappropriate to comment further," she said in a statement.


BLUE CROSS: Sued Over Alleged Health Insurance Market Conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Alabama and the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association conspired
to dominate the market and raise prices for health insurance in
Alabama, according to a federal antitrust class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Richards, et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Alabama, et al., Case No. 12-cv-01133 (D. Ala.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/18/BlueCross.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles M. Thompson, Esq.
          CHARLES M. THOMPSON, P.C.
          1401 Doug Baker Blvd., Ste. 107-135
          Birmingham, AL 35242
          Telephone: (205) 995-0068

               - and -

          Daniel A. Small, Esq.
          Laura M. Alexander, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500
          West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: lalexander@cohenmilstein.com
                  dsmall@cohenmilstein.com


BP: Seeks Approval of Oil Spill Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that BP and attorneys for more than
100,000 people and businesses presented a federal judge on
April 18 with a class-action settlement designed to resolve
billions of dollars in claims spawned by the 2010 oil spill in the
Gulf of Mexico.

The London-based oil giant and the lawyers are asking U.S.
District Judge Carl Barbier in New Orleans to give preliminary
approval to the settlement agreement.  The judge hasn't indicated
when he will rule.

BP PLC estimates it will pay about $7.8 billion to resolve these
claims, but the settlement doesn't have a cap.  It will likely be
one of the largest class-action settlements ever.

"As in any settlement, neither side will receive everything it
wants -- not BP, which believes that plaintiffs' claims are
subject to considerable litigation risk, and not the (Plaintiffs'
Steering Committee), who maintain that they would one day obtain
larger awards if their claims were to proceed to trial," the
filing said.

The details of the agreement, spelled out in hundreds of pages of
documents, are consistent with the deal announced last month, but
the reaction was mixed, leaving open the possibility that many
businesses and individuals might decide not to take part.

Dean Blanchard, a shrimp processor in Grand Isle, La., said he was
disappointed.  He said shrimp processors like him in the hardest-
hit areas of the coast should get more money.

"They want to make it a one-size-fits-all, and it's not," he said.
"They're looping too many people together."

He said he would opt out and predicted others would do the same.
"I have lost millions of dollars.  They can never bring me back."
Kevin Heier, a blue crab harvester, wasn't sure yet what he would
do.

"Frustrating?  That's an easy word for it.  It's beyond
frustrating," he said.  "We were fine before the spill.  The
seafood is harder to get, it's more expensive, people aren't
buying the seafood like they used to."

The agreement announced March 2 doesn't resolve separate claims
brought by the federal government and Gulf states against BP and
its partners on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig over
environmental damage from the nation's worst offshore oil spill.

The settlement also doesn't resolve claims against Switzerland-
based rig owner Transocean Ltd. and Houston-based cement
contractor Halliburton.  Judge Barbier has scheduled a May 3
hearing to discuss plans for a possible trial on the other claims.

Judge Barbier also is expected to hold a "fairness hearing" on the
settlement before deciding whether to approve it.

The agreement calls for paying medical claims from cleanup workers
and others who say they suffered illnesses from exposure to the
oil or chemicals used to disperse it.  None of those claims were
paid through a BP-created $20 billion compensation fund.

The agreement spells out several compensation levels, with cleanup
workers eligible for the most: up to $60,700 plus money to cover
hospital and medical bills they might have racked up.

There's money for workers and residents who can prove they
suffered more mild symptoms from breathing in oil fumes or
dispersants.  Many people have complained of ear, nose, throat,
skin and neurological problems.  Under the agreement, residents in
this category can get between $900 and $5,450 with some eligible
for medical bills they have paid.  Workers can get between $1,300
and $7,750 plus medical expenses.

In addition, BP has agreed to spend $105 million over five years
to set up a Gulf Coast health outreach program and pay for medical
examinations for 21 years.

The oil company also agreed to pay $2.3 billion for seafood-
related claims by commercial fishing vessel owners, captains and
deckhands.

"Notably, the amount that BP has agreed to pay to fund the Seafood
Compensation Program exceeds the annual revenue of these
industries many times over," a court filing said.

The settlement also would compensate lost wages, loss of business
and damage to vessels that worked clean up.  Plaintiffs' lawyers
are seeking fees, costs and expenses capped at $600 million.
They're asking for an interim award of $75 million plus additional
quarterly payments equivalent to 6 percent of class claims.
Lawyers' awards won't come out of plaintiffs' payments.

Judge Barbier would set any award for the attorneys.  BP isn't
contesting the request.

BP also has agreed to pay an additional $57 million to promote the
Gulf Coast tourism and seafood industries and spend up to $5
million on a publicity campaign to inform Gulf Coast residents how
to participate in the settlement.

The April 20, 2010, blowout of BP's Macondo well triggered an
explosion that killed 11 rig workers and unleashed a gusher that
spewed more than 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf.

In the aftermath, BP created a $20 billion fund to compensate
commercial fishermen, property owners, hotels and other tourism-
driven businesses that claimed they suffered economic damages.

The Gulf Coast Claims Facility processed more than 221,000 claims
and paid out more than $6 billion from the fund before a court-
supervised administrator took over March 8.  The administrator,
Patrick Juneau, announced that 5,238 claimants have been paid more
than $134 million during the transition period as of April 6.

The settlement excludes certain types of businesses, including
financial institutions, casinos and racetracks, as well as losses
allegedly caused by the federal government's temporary moratorium
on deepwater drilling.

Brent Coon, an attorney who represents roughly 15,000 clients with
spill-related claims but wasn't involved in the settlement
negotiations, said the proposal's formula for compensating many
plaintiffs appears to be more generous than the GCCF's.  Some
categories of plaintiffs may be better off opting out, but they
face a long wait for a trial date, he said.

Meanwhile, Rebecca Mowbray, writing for The Times-Picayune,
reports that those following the Gulf of Mexico oil spill
litigation may now have to monitor three separate cases in federal
court in New Orleans.

On April 17, the class action lawsuits that were filed on April 16
over health and economic damage from the oil spill, which will be
resolved with settlement agreements, were inexplicably stricken
from the court record.

Because these aspects of the massive oil spill case are being
broken off, they have been re-filed and assigned separate case
numbers.

The medical class action, Plaisance et al v. BP Exploration &
Production Inc. et al, now exists under case number 12-cv-968.
The economic case, Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc. et al v. BP
Exploration & Production Inc. et al can now be found under case
number 12-cv-970.

The filing of the class actions is a vehicle for activating the
settlements that have been reached between BP, the leaseholder of
the ill-fated Macondo well, and the Plaintiffs Steering Committee
in the litigation.

Judge Carl Barbier and Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan, the judges
who have been overseeing the main case over the oil spill, will
continue overseeing the class actions, according to the dockets.


CAPITAL ONE: Awaits Rulings in Consolidated Interchange Fee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Bank (USA), National Association, is awaiting court
decisions on motions to dismiss and for class certification in
connection with a consolidated class action lawsuit over
interchange fees, according to the Company's March 30, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.

In 2005, a number of entities, each purporting to represent a
class of retail merchants, filed antitrust lawsuits (the
"Interchange Lawsuits") against Visa U.S.A., Inc. ("Visa") and
MasterCard International ("MasterCard") and several member banks,
including Capital One Financial Corporation (the "Corporation")
and its subsidiaries, including Capital One Bank (USA), National
Association (the "Bank"), alleging among other things, that the
defendants conspired to fix the level of interchange fees.  The
complaints seek injunctive relief and civil monetary damages,
which could be trebled.  Separately, a number of large merchants
have asserted similar claims against Visa and MasterCard only.  In
October 2005, the class and merchant Interchange lawsuits were
consolidated before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York for certain purposes, including discovery.
Fact and expert discovery have closed.  The parties have briefed
and presented oral argument on motions to dismiss and class
certification and are awaiting decisions from the court.

The defendant banks are members of Visa.  As a member, the Bank
has indemnification obligations to Visa with respect to final
judgments and settlements of certain litigation against Visa.  In
the first quarter of 2008, Visa completed an IPO of its stock.
With IPO proceeds, Visa established an escrow account for the
benefit of member banks to fund certain litigation settlements and
claims, including the Interchange Lawsuits.  As a result, in the
first quarter of 2008, the Corporation reduced its Visa-related
indemnification liabilities of $91 million recorded in other
liabilities with a corresponding reduction of other non-interest
expense.  The Corporation made an election in accordance with the
accounting guidance for fair value option for financial assets and
liabilities on the indemnification guarantee to Visa, and the fair
value of the guarantee at December 31, 2011, and December 31,
2010, was zero.  In January 2011, the Corporation entered into a
MasterCard Settlement and Judgment Sharing Agreement, along with
other defendant banks, which apportions any costs and liabilities
of any judgment or settlement arising from the Interchange
Lawsuits.

Given the inherent uncertainties involved in the matter, and the
very large or indeterminate damages sought in some matters, the
Company says there is significant uncertainty as to the ultimate
liability it may incur from the litigation matter and an adverse
outcome in the matter could be material to the results of
operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period.


CAPITAL ONE: Consolidated Suit Over Late Fees Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit involving the parent
of Capital One Bank (USA), National Association, remains stayed in
California, according to the Company's March 30, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

In 2007, a number of individual plaintiffs, each purporting to
represent a class of cardholders, filed antitrust lawsuits in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against several issuing banks, including Capital One Financial
Corporation (the "Corporation") (the "In Re Late Fees
Litigation").  These lawsuits allege, among other things, that the
defendants conspired to fix the level of late fees and over-limit
fees charged to cardholders, and that these fees are excessive.
In May 2007, the cases were consolidated for all purposes, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed alleging violations of
federal statutes and state law.  The amended complaint requests
civil monetary damages, which could be trebled, and injunctive
relief.  In November 2007, the court dismissed the amended
complaint.  Plaintiffs appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals.  The plaintiffs' appeal challenges the dismissal
of their claims under the National Bank Act, the Depository
Institutions Deregulation Act of 1980 and the California Unfair
Competition Law, but not their antitrust conspiracy claims.  In
June 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the matter
pending the bankruptcy proceedings of one of the defendant
financial institutions.

On January 4, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an
additional order continuing the stay of the matter pending the
bankruptcy proceedings.

Given the inherent uncertainties involved in the matter, and the
very large or indeterminate damages sought in some matters, the
Company says there is significant uncertainty as to the ultimate
liability it may incur from the litigation matter and an adverse
outcome in the matter could be material to the results of
operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period.


CAPITAL ONE: Continues to Defend "Rubio" Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Bank (USA), National Association, continues to defend
a breach of contract class action lawsuit pending in California,
according to the Company's March 30, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In July 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed a dismissal entered in favor of Capital One Bank (USA),
National Association (the "Bank") in Rubio v. Capital One Bank,
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California in 2007.  The plaintiff in Rubio alleged in
a putative class action that the Bank breached its contractual
obligations and violated the Truth In Lending Act (the "TILA") and
California's Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL") when it raised
interest rates on certain credit card accounts.  The District
Court granted the Bank's motion to dismiss all claims as a matter
of law prior to any discovery.  On appeal, the Ninth Circuit
reversed the District Court's dismissal with respect to the TILA
and UCL claims, remanding the case back to the District Court for
further proceedings.  The Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of
the plaintiff's breach of contract claim, finding that the Bank
was contractually allowed to increase interest rates.  In
September 2010, the Ninth Circuit denied the Bank's Petition for
Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc.  In January 2011, the Bank
filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court,
seeking leave to appeal the Ninth Circuit's ruling.  On April 4,
2011, the United States Supreme Court denied the Bank's writ of
certiorari, and as a result, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case
back to the District Court to begin discovery.

Given the inherent uncertainties involved in the matter, and the
very large or indeterminate damages sought in some matters, the
Company says there is significant uncertainty as to the ultimate
liability it may incur from the litigation matter and an adverse
outcome in the matter could be material to the results of
operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period.


CAPITAL ONE: Dismissed From Overdraft Fee-Related MDL in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
All claims against Capital One Bank (USA), National Association,
and its parent in the multidistrict litigation over overdraft fees
have been dismissed without prejudice, following the substitution
of Capital One, N.A., as defendant, according to the Company's
March 30, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In May 2010, Capital One Financial Corporation (the "Corporation")
and its subsidiary, Capital One Bank (USA), National Association
(the "Bank"), were named as defendants in a putative class action
named Steen v. Capital One Financial Corporation, et al., filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Plaintiff challenges the Bank's practices relating to fees for
overdraft and non-sufficient funds fees on consumer checking
accounts.  Plaintiff alleges that the Bank's methodology for
posting transactions to customer accounts is designed to maximize
the generation of overdraft fees, supporting claims for breach of
contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment and violations of
state unfair trade practices laws.  Plaintiff seeks a range of
remedies, including restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief,
punitive damages and attorneys' fees.  In May 2010, the case was
transferred to the Southern District of Florida for coordinated
pre-trial proceedings as part of a multi-district litigation
("Steen MDL") involving numerous defendant banks, In re Checking
Account Overdraft Litigation.  In December 2010, plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint against the Corporation and the Bank in the
Steen MDL court. In January 2011, plaintiffs agreed to substitute
Capital One, N.A. for the Corporation and the Bank as the
defendant.  The Steen MDL court has since approved the
substitution and all claims against the Corporation and the Bank
have been dismissed without prejudice.

Given the inherent uncertainties involved in the matter, and the
very large or indeterminate damages sought in some matters, the
Company says there is significant uncertainty as to the ultimate
liability it may incur from the litigation matter and an adverse
outcome in the matter could be material to the results of
operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period.


CAPITAL ONE: Motion for Summary Judgment in Georgia MDL Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Bank (USA), National Association's motion for summary
judgment in a multidistrict litigation in Georgia remains pending,
according to the Company's March 30, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

The Capital One Bank Credit Card Interest Rate Multi-district
Litigation matter involves similar issues as the lawsuit styled
Rubio v. Capital One Bank.  This multi-district litigation matter
was created as a result of a June 2010 transfer order issued by
the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL"), which consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia two pending
putative class actions against the Bank -- Nancy Mancuso, et al.
v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al., (E.D. Virginia); and
Kevin S. Barker, et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., (N.D.
Georgia).  A third action, Jennifer L. Kolkowski v. Capital One
Bank (USA), N.A., (C.D. California) was subsequently transferred
into the MDL.  On August 2, 2010, the plaintiffs in the MDL filed
a Consolidated Amended Complaint.  The Consolidated Amended
Complaint alleges in a putative class action that the Bank
breached its contractual obligations, and violated the Truth in
Lending Act, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California False
Advertising Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and the Kansas
Consumer Protection Act when it raised interest rates on certain
credit card accounts.  The MDL plaintiffs seek statutory damages,
restitution, attorney's fees and an injunction against future rate
increases.  Fact discovery is now closed.

On August 8, 2011, the Bank filed a motion for summary judgment,
which remains pending with the court.

Given the inherent uncertainties involved in the matter, and the
very large or indeterminate damages sought in some matters, the
Company says there is significant uncertainty as to the ultimate
liability it may incur from the litigation matter and an adverse
outcome in the matter could be material to the results of
operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period.


CARNIVAL PLC: Defends Class Suit Over Costa Concordia Accident
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation is defending a class action lawsuit in
Illinois over the Costa Concordia accident, according to the
Company's March 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
February 29, 2012.

On January 13, 2012, Costa Concordia grounded off the coast of
Isola del Giglio, Italy, and sustained significant damage.  There
were 16 casualties, a number of injuries and 16 people remain
missing, as of January 26, 2012.  The ship remains grounded and
partially submerged off the coast.

On January 26, 2012, a purported class action was filed by Gary
Lobaton in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Eastern Division) naming as defendants
Carnival Corporation, Carnival plc and Costa Crociere S.p.A. (Gary
Lobaton v Carnival Corporation, Carnival plc and Costa Crociere
S.p.A. et. al., No. 12-cv-00598).  The plaintiff purports to
represent an alleged class of the passengers and crew of Costa
Concordia who were onboard the ship on January 13, 2012.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Athens
Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their
Luggage by Sea, breached contracts with employees and passengers
and acted negligently.  The plaintiff also alleges unjust
enrichment.  The complaint seeks unspecified monetary and punitive
damages, interests and costs, among other things.

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


CHASE ISSUANCE: Awaits Rulings on Dismissal Bids in N.Y. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Issuance Trust is awaiting court decisions on motions to
dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit pending in New York,
according to the Company's March 30, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

The assets of the Chase Issuance Trust include a collateral
certificate, Series 2002-CC (the "First USA Collateral
Certificate"), representing an undivided interest in the assets of
the First USA Credit Card Master Trust (the "First USA Master
Trust"), whose assets include credit card receivables arising in
consumer revolving credit card accounts owned by Chase Bank USA,
National Association ("Chase USA").

On June 22, 2005, a group of merchants filed a putative class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.  The complaint alleges that VISA, MasterCard and
certain member banks including Bank of America, Chase Bank USA,
National Association ("Chase USA"), Capital One, Citibank and
others, conspired to set the price of interchange in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The complaint further alleges
tying/bundling and exclusive dealing.  Since the filing of the
Connecticut complaint, other complaints were filed in different
U.S. District Courts challenging the setting of interchange, as
well the associations' respective rules.  The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the cases in the Eastern
District of New York for pretrial proceedings.  An amended
consolidated complaint was filed on April 24, 2006.  The
consolidated complaint also added claims relating to off line
debit transactions.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all
claims that pre-date January 1, 2004, based on the settlement and
release of claims in the Wal-Mart case.  On January 8, 2008, the
Court granted that motion and those claims have been dismissed.

With respect to MasterCard, plaintiffs filed a first supplemental
complaint in May 2006 alleging that the offering violated Section
7 of the Clayton Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act and that the
offering was a fraudulent conveyance.  Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss both of those claims.  On November 25, 2008, the
District Court dismissed the supplemental complaint with leave to
replead.

In May 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification and the defendants opposed that motion in October
2008.  The court has not yet ruled on the class certification
motion.

In January 2009, the plaintiffs filed and served a Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint against all defendants and an
amended supplemental complaint challenging the MasterCard initial
public offering making antitrust claims similar to those that were
set forth in the original supplemental complaint, as well as the
fraudulent conveyance claim.

With respect to the Visa IPO, the plaintiffs filed a supplemental
complaint challenging the Visa IPO on antitrust theories parallel
to those articulated in the MasterCard IPO pleading.

On March 31, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.  Separate motions to
dismiss each of the supplemental complaints challenging the
MasterCard and Visa IPOs were also filed.  The motions to dismiss
have not yet been decided.  Plaintiffs and defendants also have
fully briefed and argued their motions for summary judgment.

Chase USA says it cannot predict with any degree of certainty the
final outcome of the litigation, its effect on the credit card
industry or its effect on Chase USA's credit card business.


CHASE ISSUANCE: Bank Defends Suits Over Credit Card Business
------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Bank USA, National Association, continues to defend class
action lawsuits relating to its credit card business, according to
Chase Issuance Trust's March 30, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

The assets of the Chase Issuance Trust include a collateral
certificate, Series 2002-CC (the "First USA Collateral
Certificate"), representing an undivided interest in the assets of
the First USA Credit Card Master Trust (the "First USA Master
Trust"), whose assets include credit card receivables arising in
consumer revolving credit card accounts owned by Chase Bank USA,
National Association ("Chase USA").

A number of lawsuits seeking class action certification have been
filed in both state and federal courts against Chase USA.  These
lawsuits challenge certain policies and practices of Chase USA's
credit card business.  A few of these lawsuits have been
conditionally certified as class actions.  Chase USA has defended
itself against claims in the past and intends to continue to do so
in the future.

While it is impossible to predict the outcome of any of these
lawsuits, Chase USA believes that any liability that might result
from any of these lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect
on the credit card receivables.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Sued Over Fraudulent Business Practice
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that The Cheesecake Factory
advertises that "sales tax is included in the price of drinks at
the bar," but adds sales tax to it, a customer claims in a class
action in Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Amberg, Jr. v. The Cheesecake Factory,
Inc., et al., Case No. 34-2012-00122389 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/18/Cheesecake.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert M. Bramson, Esq.
          BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER, LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Telephone: (925) 945-0200
          E-mail: rbramson@bramsonplutzik.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Thomas B. Harvey, Esq.
          Peter C. Sullivan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS B. HARVEY
          230 S. Bemiston Avenue, Ste. 770
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863-4655
          E-mail: thomas@thomasbharvey.com
                  peter@petersullivan.com


CRAIGSLIST INC: Sued for Violating Song-Beverly Credit Card Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Jacobs, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated v. Craigslist, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 3:12-cv-01898 (N.D. Calif., April 17, 2012) is brought on
behalf of all natural persons nationwide, who purchased
advertising services through the posting of classified for-pay
advertisements from Craigslist through its Internet Web site
http://www.CRAIGSLIST.com/

In line with any advertisements purchase by credit card,
Craigslist requires a customer to provide personal information,
including home address and telephone number, Mr. Jacobs relates.
He notes that Craigslist does not use a phone number for credit
card verification.  He contends requesting or requiring a
telephone number or home address in line with a credit card
transaction, and using a pre-printed form to require a consumer to
write this information violates the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act.

Mr. Jacobs is a resident of Los Angeles County, California.

Craigslist is a Delaware corporation, and is the owner and
operator of the Web site www.CRAIGSLIST.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin C. Schreiber, Esq.
          Eric A. Schreiber, Esq.
          SCHREIBER & SCHREIBER, INC.
          16501 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 401
          Encino, CA 91436-2068
          Telephone: (818) 789-2577
          Facsimile: (818) 789-3391
          E-mail: Ed@Schreiberlawfirm.com
                  Eric@Schreiberlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kathryn Diemer, Esq.
          Judith Whitman, Esq.
          DIEMER, WHITMAN & CARDOSI, LLP
          75 East Santa Clara Street, Suite 290
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 971-6270
          Facsimile: (408) 971-6271
          E-mail: Kdiemer@Diemerwhitman.com
                  Jwhitman@Diemerwhitman.com


DUPONT: C8 Linked to Two Types of Cancer, Panel Says
----------------------------------------------------
Callie Lyons, writing for the Gallipolis Daily Tribune, reports
that an independent panel of three epidemiologists have concluded
that exposure to the manufacturing substance known as C8 or PFOA
is linked to two types of cancer in Mid Ohio Valley residents.

The C8 Science Panel released their new findings on April 16.
It's the latest development in the class action lawsuit brought by
local residents against DuPont over the presence of the
manufacturing chemical PFOA, or perfluorooctanoic acid, in their
drinking water.  As a result of the findings, a medical panel has
been established to determine what type of medical monitoring is
appropriate for class members.

The class action lawsuit involved residents who lived in areas
served by six public water supplies including Belpre, Pomeroy,
Tuppers Plains, Little Hocking, Mason County, Ohio and Lubeck,
West Virginia.  However, since that time, C8 has reportedly been
found along every mile of the Ohio River.

What began as the C8 Health Project has become the largest study
ever undertaken to determine the link between PFOA exposure and
cancer.  An analysis of 21 types of cancer yielded two probable
link findings.

The Science Panel, Dr. Kyle Steenland, Dr. Tony Fletcher, and
Dr. David Savitz, mapped the areas of analysis to reveal a trend
across exposure groups.  Dr. Fletcher said the groups with the
highest exposure exhibited the highest risk of testicular and
kidney cancer.

"The trend of increase is quite strong," explained Dr. Steenland,
who described the trend as "unlikely due to chance or bias".

A similar trend was observed with prostate cancer, but fewer cases
of the disease were involved in the study.

Dr. Fletcher said the newly released information is supported by
earlier findings of studies performed on workers and effects
observed in lab animals.

Through the review of medical records and the state cancer
registry, the panel validated 2,420 diagnoses of primary cancer.
Based on past emissions from DuPont and the residential history of
study subjects, the panel estimated the levels of C8 in the blood
of study subjects over time.  They found a "reasonably consistent
and strong relationship" between past exposure and testicular and
kidney cancer -- both considered rare diseases.  Science panel
data included 19 confirmed cases of testicular cancer and 113
confirmed cases of kidney cancer.

Dr. Steenland warned that there are "limitations that should be
recognized".  For instance, participants displayed only a few
cases of certain cancers like pancreatic and liver cancers, so
there may have been inadequate data for a probable link finding.
However, in the case of breast cancer, Dr. Steenland said there
was plenty of information to draw a conclusion, but no link was
found.

Other findings released Monday revealed no probable link between
the onset of adult diabetes and C8 exposure.

Last December, the Science Panel announced their first probable
link finding -- tying pregnancy-induced hypertension to C8
exposure.

The C8 Science Panel will complete their work and release the
remainder of their findings by the end of July.  However, it seems
likely that scientific research related to the data will continue.

"We believe this population should be followed over time,"
Dr. Steenland said.

According to class counsel Harry Deitzler, class members who
already suffer from linked diseases are now permitted to pursue
personal injury or wrongful death claims against DuPont related to
those specific diseases.

"We are pleased that the community now has some definitive answers
to their concerns about whether they have been put at risk for
serious adverse health effects because of their exposure to PFOA
in their drinking water," said class counsel Rob Bilott --
bilott@taftlaw.com


EASTERN BAND: Youth Sue Over Funds Lost in Risky Investments
------------------------------------------------------------
Quintin Ellison, writing for Smoky Mountain News, reports that a
class action complaint aims to hold the Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians responsible for money lost when the stock market crashed
in 2008 and eroded the personal accounts of Cherokee youth held in
trust by the tribe.

All 14,000 members of the tribe share in profits from Harrah's
Cherokee Casino and Hotel.  For those under the age of 18, the
tribe holds the money in trust, not only adding the annual casino
payments to it but also investing it to help it grow until they
reach adulthood and can cash out.

The suit claims 138 youth each lost about $22,000 when their cut
of casino earnings were invested in risky, unapproved ventures.

To safeguard against losses in the stock market, the funds of 17-
year olds are supposed to be transferred to a safe and stable
"pre-payout" account to protect it from market volatility.  The
holding account guards against erosion of the principle in the
year just before payout.

The suit claims the investment committee for the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians Minors Trust Fund failed to transfer funds into
the safe holding account in 2008, and the 17 year olds that year
"suffered significant monetary losses as a direct and proximate
result of the decision to not transfer funds to the pre-payout
sub-account."

In other words, the stock market tanked and money was lost because
it wasn't in safekeeping.  The youth that year received
approximately $65,186 instead of the $88,000 that they should have
accrued by turning 18.  Minors can cash out when they turn 18 if
high school diploma or GED.  Otherwise, they have to wait until
they are 21.

The suit names each of the five members of the investment
committee and Principal Chief Michell Hicks, both individually and
in their official capacities.

"They played the stock market and they lost," said Attorney
Russell McLean of Waynesville, who represents the plaintiffs.
"They gambled and invested it in funds that were not protected."

The investment committee and Chief Hicks had not filed a response
to the civil suit.

The suit claims the tribe should reimburse the youth for their
losses.  The tribe, in fact, previously pledged to do just that in
the face of angry backlash over losses in the Minors Trust Fund.

In an tribal-wide update on the Minors Fund status in April 2009,
Chief Hicks stated the tribe "stands good for the principal
balance of our children's investments by tribal law," according to
the suit.  The proclamation said that the Eastern Band would make
up the difference "if a minor leaves the fund and their balance is
below the principal amount contributed."  Despite the promise, the
tribe did not follow through on its commitment and did not
reimburse the children involved, the suit alleges.

Mr. McLean said that he expects to file a second, larger class
action suit on behalf of Eastern Band children ages birth through
17.

"We'll see if an entire group of children on the reservation
should be protected by the courts," he said.

Mr. McLean said the next step in the current class action suit is
to identify and notify each of the children involved.  They'll
need to each decide whether they want to proceed as part of a
class action suit or if they prefer to file their own individual
lawsuits.  He said the notification would take about two months to
complete.


EDWARDSVILLE, IL: Lawyers Want Towing Fee Suits Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Maher, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports that
lawyers for plaintiffs and defense are asking Madison County
Associate Judge Thomas Chapman to consolidate four proposed class
action cases against the cities of Edwardsville, Alton,
Collinsville and Granite City involving towing fees.

Judge Chapman now presides over the four individual suits filed
last December by attorneys Eric D. Holland --
eholland@allfela.com -- and Steven L. Groves --
sgroves@allfela.com -- of Holland, Groves, Schneller and Stolze in
St. Louis and Brian L. Polinske of Polinske and Associates in
Edwardsville.

The proposed class includes drivers ticketed for DUI or driving
with a suspended or revoked license and who were made to pay a
premium fee to retrieve their impounded vehicles.  The plaintiffs
claim that the cities' administrative processing fee is not a tow
fee but merely a receipt and is not related to the cost of towing,
towing services or actual services provided.

The cities are seeking to dismiss the claims, saying that the
plaintiffs' fail to allege an exhaustion of administrative
remedies.

In the case against Granite City, city attorney Brian Konzen wrote
that plaintiff David Funkhouser -- who claims he had to pay the
higher of two authorized administrative towing fees of $400 versus
$150 to retrieve his car after a July 10, 2011 arrest -- was
entitled to a hearing to contest the fee, but failed to avail
himself to it.

Mr. Polinske responded to Granite City's motion to dismiss by
stating that when a constitutional challenge to an ordinance is
raised the plaintiff is not first required to comply with the
exhaustion of remedies doctrine.

He wrote that the plaintiff has pleaded with specificity that he
has been deprived of the "substantive" due process protections
afforded him by the Illinois Constitution.

"Therefore Plaintiff's theory is a constitutional challenge to the
ordinance at issue," he wrote.

Similar class actions were filed against O'Fallon and Fairview
Heights and are pending in St Clair County Circuit Court.


EPHREN W. TAYLOR: Fraud Victims File Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Al Lewis, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that victims of
the alleged financial fraud of Ephren W. Taylor II filed a class-
action lawsuit in California on April 17, alleging a slew of banks
and trust companies should have known their customers' individual
retirement accounts were being funnelled into an alleged Ponzi
scheme.

Among the defendants in the lawsuit are Bank of America; Missouri
Bank and Trust; BOK Financial Corp. (BOKF), doing business as Bank
of Kansas City; The Entrust Group Inc.; and Sunwest Trust Inc.

The lawsuit, filed in the Central Federal District of California,
essentially alleges the companies didn't take proper care, or
provide adequate information, as customers invested their
retirement savings in Mr. Taylor's companies.

The defendants couldn't be immediately reached for comment late
Tuesday afternoon.

The Securities and Exchange Commission last week alleged
Mr. Taylor, who was CEO of City Capital Corp. (CTCC), was
defrauding church congregations in what it called an $11 million
Ponzi scheme.

The class action lawsuit, filed by Coral Springs, Fla. attorney
Cathy Lerman, says Mr. Taylor "targeted hundreds of innocent,
working class, church-going, 'socially conscious' people . . . and
their churches."

Mr. Taylor's attorney said his client will respond to the
complaint and looks forward to telling his side of the story.

The lawsuit filed on April replaces an earlier suit filed against
Mr. Taylor last year, adding banks and fiduciaries as defendants.


GOLFSMITH INT'L: "O'Flynn" Suit Settled in 1st Quarter of 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------
Golfsmith International Holdings, Inc., disclosed in its March 30,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011, that the class
action lawsuit initiated by David O'Flynn was settled during the
first quarter of fiscal 2012.

On October 23, 2009, David O'Flynn, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit (the
"O'Flynn claim") in the California Superior Court in Orange County
against Golfsmith USA, LLC, asserting denial of meal and rest
breaks, failure to timely pay final wages or commissions and
failure to provide itemized employee wage statements in violation
of the California Labor Code.  During the fourth quarter of 2010,
the Company reached an agreement to settle the O'Flynn claim,
subject to court approval, which was obtained on December 8, 2011.

The Company says its provision for estimated losses on this legal
action of $0.2 million, net of insurance, has been recorded in
accrued expenses and other current liabilities as of December 31,
2011, and was settled during the first quarter of fiscal 2012.


ITAU UNIBANCO: Still Defends Suits Over Stabilization Plans
-----------------------------------------------------------
From 1986 to 1994, the Brazilian federal government implemented
several consecutive monetary stabilization plans to combat hyper-
inflation.  In order to implement these plans, the Brazilian
federal government enacted several laws based on its power to
regulate the monetary and financial systems as granted by the
Brazilian federal constitution.

Holders of savings accounts during the periods when the monetary
stabilization plans were implemented have challenged the
constitutionality of the laws that implemented those plans,
claiming from the banks where they held their savings accounts
additional amounts of interest based on the inflation rates
applied to savings accounts under the monetary stabilization
plans.

Itau Unibanco Holding S.A. is a defendant in numerous standardized
lawsuits filed by individuals in respect of the monetary
stabilization plans.  The Company records provisions for such
claims upon receipt of summons to present a defense based on
statistical criteria.  Each provision may be adjusted based on the
balance in the savings account statements of each plaintiff during
the relevant periods.

In addition, the Company is a defendant in class actions, similar
to the lawsuits by individuals, filed by either (i) consumer
protection associations or (ii) public attorneys' office
(Ministerio Publico) on behalf of holders of savings accounts.
Holders of savings accounts may collect any amount due based on
such a decision.  The Company records provisions when individual
plaintiffs apply to enforce such decisions, using the same
criteria used to determine provisions for individual lawsuits.

The Federal Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal) has issued
some decisions in favor of the holders of savings accounts, but
has not issued a final ruling with respect to the
constitutionality of the monetary stabilization plans as
applicable to savings accounts.  In relation to a similar dispute
with respect to the constitutionality of monetary stabilization
plans as applicable to time deposits and other private agreements
the Federal Supreme Court has decided that the laws were in
accordance with the federal constitution.  Due to this
contradiction, the Confederacao Nacional do Sistema Financeiro -
Consif filed a special proceeding with the Federal Supreme Court
(Arguicao de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental n 165, or
ADPF, 165), in which the Central Bank has filed an amicus brief,
arguing that holders of savings accounts did not incur actual
damages and that the monetary stabilization plans as applicable to
savings accounts were in accordance with the federal constitution.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 30, 2012,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Rochon Genova Commences Mesh Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
On April 17, 2012, the law firm of Rochon Genova LLP issued a
national class action on behalf of Canadian women who were
implanted with transvaginal mesh products manufactured and
distributed by Johnson & Johnson and its related companies that
were involved in the manufacture and distribution of these
products in Canada.

TVM products are specialized surgical mesh products that have been
developed and marketed by the defendants worldwide to be used in
the treatment of a wide variety of urogynecological conditions,
including various forms of pelvic organ prolapse and stress
urinary incontinence.  The TVM products are implanted into women's
bodies to provide additional support and reinforcement to soft
tissues that have become weakened by a variety of physical causes
and conditions.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants' TVM products cause
significantly high rates of complications without added efficacy
with respect to symptom relief and quality of life improvement.
The complications alleged in the claim are significant and include
mesh erosion and contraction, fistulas, perforation of surrounding
tissues and organs, infection, blood loss, scar tissue, graft-
versus-host reactions, urinary and fecal incontinence, re-prolapse
of pelvic organs and nerve damage.  In addition, in some women,
the severity of these complications has resulted in the need for
one or more corrective surgeries and have frequently lead to
ongoing and permanent functional and symptomatic impairment.

The proposed representative plaintiffs are Frances Fosberg and her
daughter, Kimberly Doran of London, Ontario.  Frances was
implanted with TVM products in 2008 and has since suffered from
significant complications, resulting in corrective surgeries to
excise eroded mesh material.  As Frances said, "This situation
affects many, many Canadian women who have had this procedure done
since it is a fairly common procedure.  The fact that such a large
percentage of these devices have failed and have led to serious
injury is really unfortunate.  I am glad that something is being
done to get justice for those affected."

The allegations raised in the claim have not yet been proven in
court.  The plaintiffs and the prospective class members are
represented by the Toronto based law firm of Rochon Genova LLP.


MARTHA STEWART: Sued for Misleading Shareholders on Stock Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders in a class
action in New York County Supreme Court claim that Martha Stewart
Omnimedia issued misleading proxy statements about an "Omnibus
Stock and Option Compensation Plan" to be submitted to a vote at
the annual shareholders meeting.

A copy of the Complaint in Hutt v. Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia, Inc., et al., Index No. 651249/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
N.Y. Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/18/Martha.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Ave., Tenth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


MICHIGAN: MFL to Get $3.1MM Share of Inmate Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Gray, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that six
women who were sexually assaulted by guards while serving
sentences in Michigan prisons are unlikely to see much of a $3.5
million settlement the state agreed to pay them and two others in
2008 in a $100 million class action.

U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith ruled on April 16 that the
women owe $3.1 million to Money for Lawsuits (MFL), a company that
advances money to people who sue before their cases are concluded.
The return, MFL hopes, will be repayment of the advance, plus a
percentage of whatever might be won in a lawsuit.

The $635,000 the women received from MFL, which was betting that
their multimillion-dollar jury award would survive appeals, turned
into a $3.1 million repayment when 4.25 percent monthly compounded
interest and costs were tacked on. That translates into an 88
percent rate of return for MFL.

"The company is basically taking their whole award," said Ralph
Sirlin, who is representing six of the eight women.

But David Plunkett, the attorney for MFL, said the ruling on
April 16 was basic justice.

"The judge upheld what we've always believed was a legally valid
contract," he said.

The women were the first to sue the state for the sexual assaults
they endured in prison over 16 years.  Those first women initially
won a $5.5 million jury award.  Based on that award, the women
accepted the $635,000 advance from MFL.

In 2009, they were lumped in with a class of up to 900 female
inmates who also were sexually harassed, abused or assaulted and
who settled with the state for $100 million.  The award for that
first group was cut to $3.5 million.

The first group of women never repaid MFL.  Their lawyer said
they've been trying for several years to reach a settlement.

"We've made offers, but the defendant hasn't wanted to deal with
that," Mr. Sirlin said, adding that he plans to appeal the $3.1
million judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals.  "But I'll always
try for a settlement."

The judgment opens up a legal thicket for attorneys who are
increasingly dealing with clients who take money from companies
like MFL before a lawsuit goes to trial or is settled.

"I tell clients that if you want me to represent you any further,
do not call those companies back," said Southfield, Mich.,
attorney Vernon Johnson.  "Two of my last trials ended up with
significant jury verdicts, but I ended up fighting with those
companies because my clients ended up owing four to five times the
amount they received up front."

Troy, Mich., attorney Larry Bennett said there are legitimate
reasons for people to want the cash up front, especially if
they're injured and unable to work.

"They don't have an income and their need for money now outweighs
an uncertain number at some point in the future," he said.  "It
funds their ability to wait for the final result."

And that's where the risk lies for the company writing the check
before the case is final.  It's a risk because the advance payment
could be tied up for years while a case works through the courts.
The firm could lose the entire amount of the advance if the
lawsuit fails.

"If litigation takes four years, it's highly risky and litigation
that involves prisoners is extremely risky, too," said Mark Bello
of Lawsuit Financial, a Farmington Hills, Mich., company that
makes advance payments to plaintiffs in lawsuits.  "There needs to
be a decent return if they're successful with their lawsuit.
That's just fair."

But with that in mind, Mr. Bello said his contracts would never
allow for a return on investment higher than 50 percent of the
lawsuit settlement.  So in the case of the female prisoners, that
would mean a $1.7 million repayment on the initial $635,000
advance.

"I don't find a $3.1 million return on a $635,000 investment
particularly repulsive.  But I do when it's 90 percent of the
client's settlement," he said.  "If you don't measure your
recovery with the outcome of the litigation, all you're doing is
penalizing the very people you're trying to help."

For the women, who have all served their sentences and been
released from prison, the legal challenges aren't over.

"I know a lot of guys who do this work.  I don't like it, and I
don't want my clients to do it because I don't want them owing a
lot of money," Mr. Bello said.  "But for these women, they'll get
bubkes."

Time line of events

January 2008: Eight female inmates, who sued the state after 16
years of being sexually abused in prison by guards, are awarded
$5.5 million by a Washtenaw County jury. They accept an advance
payment of $635,000 from Money for Lawsuits (MFL), a company that
provides up-front money in anticipation that the jury award will
be upheld on appeal.

July 2009: The eight women are lumped in with a class action
against the state, which is settled for $100 million.  The
original judgment is cut to $3.5 million.

2010: M FL files a lawsuit against six of the eight women, saying
they never repaid the $635,000.

January 2012: A federal magistrate recommends that the women now
owe $3.1 million to MFL, based on the initial cash payment, legal
fees and 4.25 percent compounded monthly interest.

April 16: U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith rules that the women
have to pay MFL $3.1 million.  Ralph Sirlin, attorney for the
women, plans to appeal.


MOLYCORP INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
In February 2012, a purported class action lawsuit captioned,
Angelo Albano, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Molycorp, Inc., et al., was filed against the Company
and certain of its executive officers in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado.  The federal court action alleges,
among other things, that the Company and those officers violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Rule 10b-5 under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with statements
relating to the Company's third quarter fiscal 2011 financial
results and fourth quarter 2011 production guidance that the
Company had filed with or furnished to the U.S. Securities and
Exchange CommissionC, or otherwise made available to the public.
The plaintiffs seek damages, including interest, equitable relief
and reimbursement of the costs and expenses they incur in the
lawsuit.

Molycorp made the disclosure in its February 28, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 11, 2011.

The Company believes the allegations are without merit and that it
has valid defenses to such allegations.  The Company intends to
defend the action vigorously.  The Company is unable to provide
meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of these
claims may impact its future consolidated financial position or
results of operations.

Molycorp, Inc. -- http://www.molycorp.com-- a development stage
company, engages in the production and sale of rare earth oxides
in the western hemisphere.  Its rare earth products include
oxides, metals, alloys, and magnets for various inputs in existing
and emerging applications comprising clean energy technologies,
multiple high-tech uses, defense applications, and water treatment
technology.  The company primarily owns and operates the Molycorp
Mountain Pass facility, an open-pit mine containing rare earth
deposits outside of China located in San Bernardino County,
California.  It also intends to produce and sell rare earth oxides
and rare metals in Europe; and rare earth alloys in the United
States.  Molycorp, Inc. is headquartered in Greenwood Village,
Colorado.


NTS INC: Awaits OK of Settlement in "Tzur" Suit vs. Former Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
NTS, Inc., formerly known as Xfone, Inc., is still awaiting court
approval of a settlement of the class action lawsuit captioned
Eliezer Tzur et al. vs. 012 Telecom Ltd. et al. initiated against
its former Israel-based unit, according to the Company's March 30,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On January 19, 2010, Eliezer Tzur et al. (the "Petitioners") filed
a request to approve a claim as a class action (the "Class Action
Request") against Xfone 018 Ltd. ("Xfone 018"), the Company's
former 69% Israel-based subsidiary, and four other Israeli telecom
companies, all of which are entities unrelated to the Company
(collectively with Xfone 018, the "Defendants"), in the District
Court in Petach Tikva, Israel (the "Israeli Court").  The
Petitioners' claim alleges that the Defendants have not fully
fulfilled their alleged legal requirement to bear the cost of
telephone calls by customers to the Defendants' respective
technical support numbers.  One of the Petitioners, Mr. Eli
Sharvit ("Mr. Sharvit"), seeks damages from Xfone 018 for the cost
such telephone calls allegedly made by him during the 5.5-year
period preceding the filing of the Class Action Request, which he
assessed at NIS 54.45 (approximately $14).  The Class Action
Request, to the extent it pertains to Xfone 018, states total
damages of NIS 7,500,000 (approximately $1,962,836) which reflects
the Petitioners' estimation of damages caused to all customers
that (pursuant to the Class Action Request) allegedly called Xfone
018's technical support number during a certain period defined in
the Class Action Request.

On February 22, 2011, Xfone 018 and Mr. Sharvit entered into a
settlement agreement, which following the instructions of the
Israeli Court was supplemented on May 3, 2011, and amended on
July 18, 2011, and on March 21, 2012 (the "Settlement Agreement").
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Xfone 018 agreed to
compensate its current and past registered customers of
international calling services (the "Services") who called its
telephone service center from July 4, 2004, until February 21,
2010, due to a problem in the Services, and were charged for such
calls (the "Compensation").  The Compensation includes a right for
a single, up to ten minutes, free of charge, international call to
one landline destination around the world, and shall be valid for
a period of six months.  In addition, Xfone 018 agreed to pay Mr.
Sharvit a one-time special reward in the amount of NIS 10,000
(approximately $2,617) (the "Reward").  Xfone 018 further agreed
to pay Mr. Sharvit attorneys' fee for professional services in the
amount of NIS 40,000 (approximately $10,468) plus VAT (the
"Attorneys Fee").  In return, Mr. Sharvit and the members of the
Represented Group (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) agreed
to waive any and all claims in connection with the Class Action
Request.  As required by Israeli law in such cases, the Settlement
Agreement is subject to the approval of the Israeli Court.  An
internal court deliberation with respect to the Class Action
Request has been scheduled by the Israeli Court for May 26, 2012.
It is expected that the Israeli Court will consider Xfone 018 and
Mr. Sharvit's request to approve the Settlement Agreement before
said date.

On May 14, 2010, the Company entered into an agreement (including
any amendment and supplement thereto, the "Agreement") with
Marathon Telecom Ltd. for the sale of the Company's majority (69%)
holdings in Xfone 018. Pursuant to Section 10 of the Agreement,
the Company is fully and exclusively liable for any and all
amounts, payments or expenses which will be incurred by Xfone 018
as a result of the Class Action Request.  Section 10 of the
Agreement provides that the Company shall bear any and all
expenses or financial costs which are entailed by conducting the
defense on behalf of Xfone 018 and/or the financial results
thereof, including pursuant to a judgment or settlement (it was
agreed that in the event that Xfone 018 will be obligated to
provide services at a reduced price, the Company shall bear only
the cost of such services).  Section 10 of the Agreement further
provides that the defense by Xfone 018 shall be performed in full
cooperation with the Company and with mutual assistance.  It is
agreed between the Company and Xfone 018 that subject to and upon
the approval of the Settlement Agreement by the Israeli Court, the
Company shall bear and/or pay: (i) the costs of the Compensation;
(ii) the Reward; (iii) the Attorneys Fee; and (iv) Xfone 018
attorneys' fees for professional services in connection with the
Class Action Request, estimated at approximately NIS 75,000
(approximately $19,628).

In the event the Settlement Agreement is not approved by the
Israeli Court, Xfone 018 intends to vigorously defend the Class
Action Request.


ONLINE TRAVEL AGENCIES: Town of Telluride Joins Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Selogie, writing for Telluride Daily Planet, reports that
the Town of Telluride has joined a class-action lawsuit against
more than 20 online travel agencies that charge a premium for
customers who book online.

In the suit, municipalities across the state -- including Vail,
Breckenridge and now Telluride -- claim that the agencies have
failed to pay the full amount of sales, lodging and excise taxes
they owe to local governments.

In the early 2000s, online travel agencies including but not
limited to Expedia, Travelocity, Priceline, Hotwire, Orbitz and
Hotels.com began employing the "merchant business model" to
purchase hotel rooms and services at bulk, wholesale rates, the
suit claims.  The agencies have then produced a profit by selling
the rooms and services to consumers at a higher retail rate,
according to the suit.

For more than a decade, the agencies have paid taxes only on the
lower wholesale rate.

In their suit, Telluride and the other municipalities in the class
contend that they are entitled to additional tax revenue based on
the retail rate the online agencies charge their consumers, rather
than the lower wholesale rate paid by the agencies themselves.

"For years the town has been collecting sales tax and excise tax
revenues from lodging reservations sold wholesale, rather than
retail," said Telluride Town Manager Greg Clifton.  "The
difference between those two has not always been subject to
taxation, as it should be."

The Town of Telluride now seeks the recoupment of back taxes,
penalties and interest potentially stretching back to 2007, when
the town began self-collecting sales tax revenue.

According to Mr. Clifton and Telluride Town Attorney Kevin Geiger,
the amount of money the agencies owe the Town of Telluride could
prove to be quite significant.

"You can imagine, over a five- to six-year period, a fair amount
of money could be at issue in this controversy," Mr. Geiger
recently told the Telluride Town Council.

In defending a spate of similar lawsuits recently initiated by
municipalities across the country, the online travel industry has
argued that online travel agencies do not buy blocks of rooms,
they do not resell hotel rooms, nor do they maintain an inventory
of rooms.  Rather, according to the industry, online travel
agencies only market rooms for an amount that includes the hotel's
charge plus a fee for the services the online travel company
provides.  Therefore, the industry argues, the agencies should not
be compelled to pay taxes based on the fees they charge consumers.

According to the Interactive Travel Services Association, efforts
like the Telluride suit, "prompted frequently by plaintiffs' class
action legal firms, [are] damaging to consumers, and to hotel
bookings generally in the destinations which try to apply this
tax, whether through litigation or legislation . . ."

Furthermore, the ITSA, which describes itself as the "voice of the
industry on public policy matters," claims that recent hotel tax
litigation "threatens an industry that has been an important
driver of travel and tourism and the economic benefits that brings
to localities everywhere."

In addition to opposition from the online travel industry, the
municipalities involved in Telluride's class-action lawsuit must
overcome formidable precedent in which courts have held that the
online agencies have no obligation to pay back taxes.

According to the ITSA, online travel agencies have prevailed in 15
of 19 cases recently filed by municipalities seeking back taxes.
Moreover, several states have recently drafted legislation that
prohibits local towns from levying taxes against the agencies.

As a preliminary matter, the District Court is expected to
conclusively declare a class in the coming weeks.


PRUDENTIAL PLC: Jackson Records $20MM Accrual for Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Public Limited Company's business unit, Jackson
National Life Insurance Company (Jackson), at March 15, 2012,
recorded an accrual of $20 million for class action litigation,
according to the Company's March 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

Jackson is involved as a defendant in class action and other
litigation substantially similar to class action and other
litigation pending against many life insurance companies including
a modal premium case and allegation of misconduct in the sale and
administration of insurance products.  Jackson generally accrues a
liability for legal contingencies with respect to pending
litigation once management determines that the contingency is
probable and estimable.  Accordingly, at March 15, 2012, Jackson
had recorded an accrual of $20 million for class action
litigation.

Management, based on developments to date, believes that the
ultimate disposition of the litigation is not likely to have a
material impact on Jackson's financial condition or results of
operations.


REPUTATION.COM: Accused of Not Paying Employees' Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
George Marchelos, Amy Kassenbrock, for themselves and all others
similarly situated, and for the general public v. Reputation.com,
a corporation, Case No. 3:12-cv-01899 (N.D. Calif., April 17,
2012) alleges that since the Defendant began selling its services
through the use of inside salespersons, it has systematically
violated federal and state wage and hour law by failing to pay
such salespersons for all hours worked and for all overtime hours
at the legally required overtime premium rates, among other
violations.

The Defendant has routinely required its salespersons, including
the Plaintiffs and all similarly situated individuals, to work
shifts in excess of eight hours per day and in excess of 40 hours
per week, the Plaintiffs allege.  They contend that Reputation.com
has unlawfully failed to pay legally mandated overtime premiums
and other wages.

George Marchelos was employed by Reputation.com at its Redwood
City office as an inside salesperson between approximately April
2011 and September 2011.  Amy Kassenbrock was employed by
Reputation.com at its Redwood City office as an inside salesperson
between approximately March 2011 and June 2011.

Reputation.com, a Delaware corporation, is based in Redwood City,
California.  Reputation.com is engaged in interstate commerce, as
it sells its services through telephone and Internet
communications to customers throughout the United States of
America.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Rubin, Esq.
          Peder J. Thoreen, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
          E-mail: mrubin@altber.com
                  pthoreen@altber.com

               - and -

          Cliff Palefsky, Esq.
          Keith Ehrman, Esq.
          MCGUINN, HILLSMAN & PALEFSKY
          535 Pacific Ave.
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (415) 421-9292
          Facsimile: (415) 403-0202
          E-mail: cp@mhpsf.com
                  kaemhp@aol.com


SAIC INC: Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC on April 18 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of all purchasers of
SAIC, Inc. common stock during the period between April 11, 2007
and September 1, 2011, inclusive.

SAIC provides defense, intelligence, homeland security, logistics,
energy, environment, and health solutions and services to federal,
state, and local government agencies, foreign governments, and
customers in select commercial markets.  SAIC maintains its
corporate headquarters in McLean, Virginia, which is within the
Eastern District of Virginia where the Complaint was filed.

The Complaint alleges that SAIC and certain of its officers and
directors made false and misleading statements and/or omissions in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The claims arise from the massive fraud perpetrated
by SAIC and its employees and/or agents against New York City in
connection with a contract for the development and implementation
of a payroll project known as CityTime.  The Complaint alleges
that SAIC used the CityTime project to fraudulently obtain
hundreds of millions of dollars from New York City.  The
defendants were aware of the fraudulent conduct yet failed to
disclose the fraud and SAIC's potential civil and criminal
exposure stemming from the fraud.  In addition, the complaint
alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that SAIC's
reported revenues and earnings were generated, in part, by its
massive fraudulent scheme.

As a direct result of the defendants' false statements, SAIC's
common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period and dropped substantially after the truth was
revealed.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased shares of SAIC common stock from April 11, 2007 through
September 1, 2011.  Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has
significant experience in prosecuting investor class actions and
actions involving securities fraud.  The firm has offices in
Washington, D.C., New York, Chicago, and Palm Beach Gardens and is
active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts
throughout the nation.

If you purchased the common stock of SAIC from April 11, 2007
through September 1, 2011, you may move the court no later than 60
days after February 23, 2012, and request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  To be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must decide
that your claim is typical of the claims of other class members,
and that you will adequately represent the class.  Your share in
any recovery will not be enhanced or diminished by the decision
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, or other attorneys, to serve as your
counsel in this action.

If you have any questions about this notice or the action, or with
regard to your rights, please contact either of the following:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Cameron Clark, Esq.
          Cameron Clark Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                  cclark@cohenmilstein.com


SEARS HOLDINGS: Sued Over False Representations on Vacuums
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sears made false
representations about the peak horsepower and tank capacity of its
Craftsman wet-dry vacuums, a class claims.

A copy of the Complaint in Gonzales v. Sears Holdings Corporation,
et al., Case No. 12-cv-02789 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/18/sears.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          One South Dearborn, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 212-4383
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com


               - and -

          Adam R. Gonnelli, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: agonnelli@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Weinstein, Esq.
          Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
          WEINSTEIN LAW
          518 East Tyler Street
          Athens, TX 75751
          Telephone: (903) 677-5333 ext. 210


SINO CLEAN: Continues to Defend 2nd Amended Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sino Clean Energy Inc. continues to defend itself from a second
amended complaint of the securities class action lawsuit pending
in California, according to the Company's March 30, 2012, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

On May 6, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Federal District
Court for the Central District of California against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors.  The
complaint, brought as a putative class action on behalf of all
persons other than the Defendants who purchased the common stock
of the Company between April 6, 2009, and May 5, 2011, was based
entirely on matters raised by short sellers (and matters related
thereto) and alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act of 1934 and rules promulgated thereunder.  On
September 8, 2011, the putative class counsel filed a First
Amended Complaint, now asserting claims under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all persons (other than
the Defendants) who acquired the Company's common stock pursuant
or traceable to the December 21, 2010 Registration Statement and
Prospectus.  The Company moved to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint for failure to meet pleading requirements, and the Court
granted that motion but gave Plaintiff leave to amend his
complaint.  Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on or about
March 5, 2012.  By agreement, the served defendants have and will
continue to defend litigation vigorously until April 20, 2012, to
answer, move or otherwise respond to the Second Amended Complaint.

The Company continues to deny the allegations and will continue to
defend the litigation vigorously.  No prediction can be made,
however, as to the final outcome of the matter.


TACTICAL DIVERSIFIED: Citigroup Defends ARS-Related Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. and certain of its affiliates are defending
numerous actions and proceedings brought by their shareholders and
customers concerning auction-rate securities, according to
Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'s March 30, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

Ceres Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
acts as the general partner (the "General Partner") and commodity
pool operator of Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. (the
"Partnership").  The General Partner is wholly owned by Morgan
Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC ("MSSB Holdings").  Morgan
Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority
equity interest in MSSB Holdings.  Citigroup Inc. ("Citigroup")
indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings.
Citigroup also indirectly owns Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), the commodity broker and a selling agent for the
Partnership.  Prior to July 31, 2009, the date as of which MSSB
Holdings became its owner, the General Partner was wholly owned by
Citigroup Financial Products Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc., the sole owner of which is
Citigroup.

Beginning in March 2008, Citigroup and certain of its affiliates,
including CGM, have been named as defendants in numerous actions
and proceedings brought by Citigroup shareholders and customers
concerning auction-rate securities ("ARS"), many of which have
been resolved. These have included, among others: (i) numerous
lawsuits and arbitrations filed by customers of Citigroup and its
affiliates seeking damages in connection with investments in ARS;
(ii) a consolidated putative class action asserting claims for
federal securities violations, which has been dismissed and is now
pending on appeal; (iii) two putative class actions asserting
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which have been
dismissed and are now pending on appeal; and (iv) a derivative
action filed against certain Citigroup officers and directors,
which has been dismissed.

In addition, based on an investigation, report and recommendation
from a committee of Citigroup's Board of Directors, the Board
refused a shareholder demand that was made after dismissal of the
derivative action.  Additional information relating to certain of
these actions is publicly available in court filings under the
docket numbers 08 Civ. 3095 (S.D.N.Y.) (Swain, J.), 10-722 (2d
Cir.); 10-867 (2d Cir.); 11-1270 (2d Cir.).


TIDEWATER FUTURES: Citigroup Defends ARS-Related Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. and certain of its affiliates are defending class
action lawsuits concerning auction-rate securities, according to
Tidewater Futures Fund L.P.'s March 30, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011.

Ceres Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
acts as the general partner (the "General Partner") and commodity
pool operator of Tidewater Futures Fund L.P. (the "Partnership").
The General Partner is wholly owned by Morgan Stanley Smith Barney
Holdings LLC ("MSSB Holdings").  Morgan Stanley, indirectly
through various subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in
MSSB Holdings.  Citigroup Inc. ("Citigroup") indirectly owns a
minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings.  Citigroup also
indirectly owns Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM"), the
commodity broker and selling agent for the Partnership.  Prior to
July 31, 2009, the date as of which MSSB Holdings became its
owner, the General Partner was wholly owned by Citigroup Financial
Products Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup Global
Markets Holdings Inc., the sole owner of which is Citigroup.  As
of December 31, 2011, all trading decisions for the Partnership
are made by Chesapeake Capital Corporation ("Chesapeake" or the
"Advisor").

Beginning in March 2008, Citigroup and certain of its affiliates,
including CGM, have been named as defendants in numerous actions
and proceedings brought by Citigroup shareholders and customers
concerning auction-rate securities ("ARS"), many of which have
been resolved.  These have included, among others: (i) numerous
lawsuits and arbitrations filed by customers of Citigroup and its
affiliates seeking damages in connection with investments in ARS;
(ii) a consolidated putative class action asserting claims for
federal securities violations, which has been dismissed and is now
pending on appeal; (iii) two putative class actions asserting
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which have been
dismissed and are now pending on appeal; and (iv) a derivative
action filed against certain Citigroup officers and directors,
which has been dismissed.  In addition, based on an investigation,
report and recommendation from a committee of Citigroup's Board of
Directors, the Board refused a shareholder demand that was made
after dismissal of the derivative action.  Additional information
relating to certain of these actions is publicly available in
court filings under the docket numbers 08 Civ. 3095 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Swain, J.), 10-722 (2d Cir.); 10-867 (2d Cir.); 11-1270 (2d
Cir.).


TRAILER COMPANIES: Settle Class Action Over Hazardous Fumes
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that nearly two dozen companies that
manufactured government-issued trailers for storm victims after
Hurricane Katrina have agreed to pay $14.8 million in a proposed
class-action settlement of claims that the temporary shelters
exposed occupants to hazardous fumes.

Plaintiffs' attorney Gerald Meunier said on April 17 that the
agreement could benefit tens of thousands of Gulf Coast residents
who lived in travel trailers provided by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency after hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.

Mr. Meunier said 21 trailer makers or their insurers will pay to
resolve the claims without any admission of wrongdoing.

A court filing on April 13 asks U.S. District Judge Kurt
Engelhardt to give his preliminary approval to the deal, which
would be the largest mass settlement of claims over formaldehyde
levels in FEMA trailers so far.  The chemical, commonly found in
building materials, can cause breathing problems and is classified
as a carcinogen.

The companies involved in the proposed settlement include Thor
Industries Inc., of Jackson Center, Ohio; Recreation by Design
LLC, of Elkhart, Ind.; Play-Mor Trailers Inc., of Westphalia, Mo.;
Cruiser RV LLC, of Howe, Ind.; and Skyline Corp., of Elkhart, Ind.

The proposed settlement doesn't involve the federal government and
doesn't resolve all pending claims against other companies that
provided FEMA with travel trailers after Katrina.

Residents of Louisiana, Texas, Alabama and Mississippi who lived
in FEMA trailers after the 2005 hurricanes are eligible to
participate.  If Judge Engelhardt gives his final approval, a
court-appointed special master would determine how much to award
each plaintiff who qualifies.  Up to 48 percent of the settlement
funds paid by the defendants would cover attorneys' fees and
costs.

Judge Engelhardt has overseen hundreds of consolidated lawsuits
and presided over three trials for claims against companies that
manufactured and installed FEMA travel trailers.  The juries in
all three trials sided with the companies and didn't award any
damages.

"Approving this settlement will end the excessive bleeding of
costs by both sides in litigation that has dealt the Plaintiffs
one blow after another," says the April 13 joint court filing by
lawyers for the plaintiffs and defendants.

Mr. Meunier said he believes the deal is a "fair and reasonable"
way to resolve many of the claims even though the amount of the
settlement is "perhaps not what would have been expected at the
very beginning of the case."

"I cannot say we're disappointed.  I think we're being realistic,"
he said.

Play-Mor Trailers president John Willibrand said only three
plaintiffs filed claims against his company, which agreed to pay
an undisclosed amount to resolve them.  Mr. Willibrand said Play-
Mor didn't directly supply its trailers to FEMA.  The agency
purchased them from a Texas dealer, he added.

Mr. Willibrand said the company settled to avoid running up even
more legal expenses.

"It's cost way too much money already," he said.

Court-appointed mediators helped broker the agreement after months
of negotiations.

Last year, a group of companies that manufactured mobile homes for
FEMA after Katrina agreed to pay $2.6 million to resolve thousands
of related claims.  Travel trailers, which housed the majority of
storm victims, are smaller and less sturdy than mobile homes and
are more prone to elevated levels of formaldehyde.

Fleetwood Enterprises Inc., which supplied FEMA with travel
trailers before it filed for bankruptcy in 2009, agreed in 2010 to
a settlement resolving about 7,500 to 8,000 claims.  Terms of that
deal weren't disclosed.

Government tests on hundreds of trailers in Louisiana and
Mississippi found formaldehyde levels that were, on average, about
five times what people are exposed to in most modern homes.  FEMA
downplayed formaldehyde risks for months before those test results
were announced in February 2008.


UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII: Data Breach Class Action Settlement Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a judge has approved a class-
action settlement for data breaches at the University of Hawaii.

As part of the settlement, the university will provide two years
of credit protection services to settle a lawsuit involving data
breaches of nearly 100,000 students, faculty, alumni and staff
between 2009 and 2011.

The university says it will pay for two years of credit monitoring
and fraud restoration services to each class member who signs up
for the services by May 1.

Lawyers Thomas Grande and Bruce Sherman announced the settlement
approval on April 17.

There were five data breaches, including one in 2009 where Social
Security numbers, grades and other personal information were
posted online for nearly a year.

There were also breaches at the West Oahu campus, Kapiolani
Community College and Honolulu Community College.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Xactware Enters Deal to Resolve "Mornay" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s Xactware subsidiary entered into a
settlement in January to resolve a class action complaint
commenced by Mornay alleging antitrust violations, according to
the Company's February 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

Two lawsuits were filed by or on behalf of groups of Louisiana
insurance policyholders who claim, among other things, that
certain insurers who used products and price information supplied
by the Company's Xactware subsidiary (and those of another
provider) did not fully compensate policyholders for property
damage covered under their insurance policies.  The plaintiffs
seek to recover compensation for their damages in an amount equal
to the difference between the amount paid by the defendants and
the fair market repair/restoration costs of their damaged
property.

Schafer v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., et al. was a putative class
action pending against the Company and State Farm Fire & Casualty
Company filed in March 2007 in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
The complaint alleged antitrust violations, breach of contract,
negligence, bad faith, and fraud.  The court dismissed the
antitrust claim as to both defendants and dismissed all claims
against the Company other than fraud.  Judge Duval denied
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class with respect to the fraud
and breach of contract claims on August 3, 2009.  After the single
action was reassigned to Judge Africk, plaintiffs agreed to settle
the matter with the Company and State Farm and a Settlement
Agreement and Release was executed by all parties in June 2010.
The terms of the settlement were not considered material to the
Company.

Mornay v. Travelers Ins. Co., et al. was a putative class action
pending against the Company and Travelers Insurance Company filed
in November 2007 in the Eastern District of Louisiana.  The
complaint alleged antitrust violations, breach of contract,
negligence, bad faith, and fraud.  As in Schafer, the court
dismissed the antitrust claim as to both defendants and dismissed
all claims against the Company other than fraud.  Judge Duval
stayed all proceedings in the case pending an appraisal of the
lead plaintiff's insurance claim.  The matter was reassigned to
Judge Barbier, who on September 11, 2009, issued an order
administratively closing the matter pending completion of the
appraisal process.  After the appraisal process was completed and
the court lifted the stay, defendants filed a motion to strike the
class allegations and dismiss the fraud claim.  The plaintiffs
agreed to settle the matter and a Settlement Agreement and Release
were executed by all parties on January 5, 2012. The terms of the
settlement were not considered material to the Company.

Headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey, Verisk Analytics, Inc. -
- http://verisk.com/-- provides proprietary data, analytics
methods, and embedded decision support solutions for detecting
fraud in property and casualty (P&C) insurance, mortgage, and
healthcare industries primarily in the United States.


VERISK ANALYTICS: 8th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Suit vs. iiX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld a district
court order dismissing a class action against a subsidiary of
Verisk Analytics, Inc. over privacy violations, according to the
Company's February 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

In April 2010, the Company's subsidiary, Insurance Information
Exchange or iiX, as well as other information providers in the
State of Missouri were served with a summons and class action
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri alleging violations of the Driver
Privacy Protection Act, or the DPPA, entitled Janice Cook, et al.
v. ACS State & Local Solutions, et al.  Plaintiffs brought the
action on their own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals whose personal information is contained in any motor
vehicle record maintained by the State of Missouri and who have
not provided express consent to the State of Missouri for the
distribution of their personal information for purposes not
enumerated by the DPPA and whose personal information has been
knowingly obtained and used by the defendants.  The class
complaint alleged that the defendants knowingly obtained personal
information for a purpose not authorized by the DPPA and sought
liquidated damages in the amount of US$2,500 for each instance of
a violation of the DPPA, punitive damages and the destruction of
any illegally obtained personal information.  The court granted
iiX's motion to dismiss the complaint based on a failure to state
a claim on November 19, 2010. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
on December 17, 2010 and oral argument was heard by the Eighth
Circuit on September 18, 2011.  The Eighth Circuit affirmed the
District Court's dismissal on December 15, 2011.

Headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey, Verisk Analytics, Inc. -
- http://verisk.com/-- provides proprietary data, analytics
methods, and embedded decision support solutions for detecting
fraud in property and casualty (P&C) insurance, mortgage, and
healthcare industries primarily in the United States.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Citizens Unit Faces Class Suit in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. received notice of a complaint filed on
February 7, 2012 in the Florida State Circuit Court for Pasco
County naming Citizens Property Insurance Corporation and the
Company's Xactware subsidiary, according to the Company's February
28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

The complaint does not seek monetary relief against Xactware.  It
alleges a class action seeking declaratory relief against
defendants and is brought on behalf of "all individuals who have
purchased a new or renewed a property casualty insurance policy
from Citizens" where Citizens used an Xactware product to
determine replacement value of the property.  The complaint has
not yet been served on Xactware.  At this time, it is not possible
to determine the ultimate resolution of or estimate the liability
related to the matter.

Headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey, Verisk Analytics, Inc. -
- http://verisk.com/-- provides proprietary data, analytics
methods, and embedded decision support solutions for detecting
fraud in property and casualty (P&C) insurance, mortgage, and
healthcare industries primarily in the United States.


* Class Action Costly for Law Firms, Carlton Fields Survey Shows
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlton Fields on April 17 disclosed that across industries and
practice areas, corporate counsel report that class action
lawsuits are pervasive and costly.  This year, corporate legal
departments expect to handle 5.4 class action matters per company,
up from 4.4 in 2011.  At the same time, they plan to decrease
their per suit costs in class actions by 17 percent this year.
Overall, legal spending on class actions in the U.S. in 2012 is
expected to dip by 13 percent (to $1.89 billion) -- the lowest
since 2006.  To accomplish this, 57 percent of corporate legal
departments are implementing better and more innovative risk
management tools to reduce the cost and exposure of class actions.

These results and more are in the inaugural annual class action
survey from the law firm of Carlton Fields.  This survey presents
important opinions of more than 300 general counsel, chief legal
officers and direct reports to general counsel at major
corporations (including many Fortune 100-1000) with average annual
revenues of $13 billion.

"This cutting-edge national survey is a powerful resource for in-
house counsel who want to manage class actions effectively and
efficiently," said Chris Coutroulis, chair of Carlton Fields'
Class Action team and chair of the firm's Litigation Council.
"The findings show how leading corporate legal departments
identify and manage class action risk and cost control --
information that clients say they want and need."

The survey, which discusses findings on topics ranging from risk
mitigation tools, the impact of recent case law, cost control
approaches and alternative fee arrangements, presents two
particularly noteworthy findings:

1.) Thirty-eight percent of companies designate a single
individual as accountable for all class action outcomes.  These
companies spend an average of almost 10 percent less defending and
managing class action suits, and they devote 25 percent fewer
hours in-house to managing class actions.

2.) When setting a litigation reserve, 24 percent of corporate
counsel undertake a rigorous case assessment that calculates the
potential for financial exposure for each individual suit based on
the particular circumstances of that suit.  This approach is
associated with a 36 percent reduction in class action spending
per year (a 41 percent reduction in outside counsel spending on
such cases).

Other key findings include:

Companies spend $2.2 billion on class actions annually; 90 percent
of that sum goes to outside counsel, making class action
litigation one of the most outsourced types of legal work.

Forty-four percent of corporate counsel listed management of
outside counsel as a preferred cost control strategy.
Fewer than one in four corporate counsel report using alternative
fee arrangements for class actions, but they plan to double their
use of alternative fee arrangements for class actions this year.
Corporate counsel consider early case assessment key to effective
resolution.

Labor and employment suits are the most common case type
accounting for 27 percent of both matters and spending; consumer
fraud was second at 24 percent, followed by securities (13 percent
matters/15 percent spending).

One in three companies is implementing changes as a result of the
recent rulings in Wal-Mart v. Dukes and AT&T v. Concepcion.

Thirty percent of corporate counsel suggested stricter policies,
expanded compliance training and more internal controls will
improve their management of class action lawsuits.

Carlton Fields has litigated and counseled clients in hundreds of
class actions for more than 30 years.


                           *********

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  * * *