CAR_Public/120508.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 8, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 90

                             Headlines

24 HOUR: NLRB Files Complaint Over No-Class-Action Policy
AB RESOURCES: Faces Class Action Over Royalty Payments
ADVOCAT INC: Continues to Defend Arkansas Class Suit
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action
AOL INC: Rosenfarb Law Firm Files Class Action

ASCOM TRANSPORT: 6th Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Class Action
BARNES & NOBLE: Awaits Final Approval of "Minor" Suit Settlement
BARNES & NOBLE: "Lina" Suit Remains Pending in Calif. Court
BARNES & NOBLE: Continues to Defend "Burstein" Class Suit
BP: Oil Spill Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval

CANADA: Has Until June 1 to Appeal Class Action Ruling
CAPITAL GRILLE: Workers Drop Racial Discrimination Class Action
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Continues to Defend "Leathermon" Suit
CELL THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
CIENNA CORPORATION: Appeal in ONI-related Suit Withdrawn

ENERGY PLUS: Sanford Wittels Files Consumer Fraud Class Action
FACEBOOK: Pay-Per-Click Marketers to Appeal Class Action Ruling
FACEBOOK: Kerr & Wagstaffe Says Class Action Attracts Interest
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Unit Continues to Defend Class Suit in Kansas
FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: "Williamson" Class Suit Dismissed

FREDDIE MAC: Continues to Defend "OPERS" Suit in Ohio
FREDDIE MAC: Continues to Defend "Kuriakose" Suit in New York
FREDDIE MAC: Class Suit v. Execs Remains Dormant
FREDDIE MAC: Class Cert. Bid in N.Y. Consolidated Suit Pending
GOOGLE INC: Judge Allows Text-Spam Class Action to Proceed

GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Stock Reclassification
IDEAL RV: Accused of Not Paying Employees' Overtime Compensation
MELA SCIENCES: Securities Suit Remains Pending in New York
NEW JERSEY: Faces Suit for Delayed Medicaid Benefits to Elderly
NOKIA CORPORATION: Retirees' Bid to Amend Class Suit Pending

PARKVALE FINANCIAL: Judge Rejects Class Action Settlement
REPUBLIC BANCORP: Unit Continues to Defend Suit in Kentucky
SAN DIEGO: Class Action Over Sept. 8 Blackout to Move Forward
SEARS ROEBUCK: Dryer Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
SEQUENOM INC: IPO-related Suit Finally Dismissed in January

TRUSTMARK NATIONAL: Watson Burns Files Overdraft Class Action

                          *********

24 HOUR: NLRB Files Complaint Over No-Class-Action Policy
---------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that the
National Labor Relations Board is charging 24 Hour Fitness USA
Inc. with violating federal law by insisting all employment-
related disputes be resolved by individual arbitration, the agency
said.

In a statement issued April 30, the NLRB said the San Ramon,
Calif.-based company, which operates fitness centers across the
country, requires employees to agree in writing as a condition of
employment to forego any rights to collective or class action
lawsuits or arbitrations.  This violates the National Labor
Relations Act, according to the complaint issued by the agency's
San Francisco regional office, the NLRB said in a statement.

The NRLB said an investigation was prompted by a charge filed by
an employee at the 24 Hour Fitness Center in San Ramon.  It said
since at least summer 2010, the company has enforced its no-class-
action policy by asserting it in litigation brought by employees
in numerous cases, seven of which are cited in the complaint.

The NLRB said in each case employees, who are not represented by a
union, sought to bring workplace-related claims such as wage-and-
hour violations on a class-wide basis, and in response, 24 Hour
Fitness has sought to compel the employees to submit their common
claims to individual arbitrations, citing the policy in its
handbook.

                        Hearing Requested

The complaint calls for a hearing before an administrative law
judge on June 11, and seeks an order that requires the company's
fitness centers nationwide to stop maintaining and enforcing the
portion of its policy that prohibits collective and class action,
and to notify all judicial and arbitral forums in which it has
opposed such action.

A 24 Hour Fitness spokesman could not be immediately reached for
comment.


AB RESOURCES: Faces Class Action Over Royalty Payments
------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against AB Resources LLC after
seven people claim the company has cheated them out of more than
$1 million in royalty payments.

The seven plaintiffs named in the suit are Patricia S. Hoskins,
Mary Jako, Clarence Rulong, William R. and Linda L. Standiford and
Lewis A. and Cathy Aston.

The plaintiffs claim AB Resources made improper deductions in
calculating royalty payments and used "fraud, deception,
concealment, suppression and omission of material facts to deprive
plaintiffs of the royalties to which they were entitled."

AB Resources' bad faith is evidenced by the fact that its
successor-in-interest, Chevron USA, Inc., which obtained the
rights to the defendant's oil and gas leases, does not make the
same cost deductions when calculating royalty payments for the
identical oil and gas leases, according to the suit.

Daniel J. Guida, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs said AB
Resources' improper deduction costs were realized when its
successor did not make the same deductions.

"When the successor didn't make the same deductions it was
realized that AB Resources had been improperly deducting costs and
had acted in bad faith regarding the royalty payments" Mr. Guida
said.

The plaintiffs claim AB Resources intentionally failed and refused
to pay the royalties to them as required by the leases with no
deduction of any costs incurred by it or its affiliates to
"gather, transport, compress dehydrate or otherwise treat such gas
prior to the point of custody transfer into pipelines or other
facilities owned by a regulated utility or pipeline company or a
non-affiliated third party."

AB Resources entered into a scheme and design to intentionally
mislead the plaintiffs into believing they were being paid all the
royalties due to them, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs also claim as part of the defendant's legal
responsibilities, it agreed to and/or had the duty to account for
all the sales of gas from the gas wells and to accurately account
for the wells and to act as a fiduciary for their moneys due to
them as a result of any owed royalties.

The defendant breached its fiduciary duties and with its actions,
fraudulently concealed information from the plaintiffs that
deprived them of the rents and royalties to which they are
entitled, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim AB Resources actions and conduct was "so
outrageous as to shock the conscious . . ."

AB Resources' actions were also in bad faith and were intentional,
outrageous and reprehensible, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages with
pre- and post-judgment interest.  They are being represented by
Mr. Guida, Jonathan E. Turak and Eric Gordon.


ADVOCAT INC: Continues to Defend Arkansas Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Advocat Inc. continues to defend a purported class action lawsuit
pending in an Arkansas state court, according to the Company's
March 7, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company
and certain of the Company's subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center (the "Center").  The complaint alleges that
the defendants breached their statutory and contractual
obligations to the patients of the Center over the past five
years.  The lawsuit has not been certified as a class action, and
no motion to certify the class has been filed by Plaintiffs'
counsel to date.  The Company intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on May 2, 2012
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of Allscripts
Healthcare Solutions, Inc. common stock between November 9, 2010,
and April 26, 2012, inclusive.

The action charges Allscripts and certain of its officers with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Complaint
alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Company, which was
formed from the merger of Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions,
Inc. and Eclypsis Corporation in August 2010, misrepresented its
progress in integrating Allscripts' and Eclypsis' disparate
systems and the Company's ability to translate its fragmented
product lines into revenues.

Allscripts is a provider of healthcare-related information
technology services, including systems that manage electronic
health records, financial and administrative performance, revenue
cycle, and care and discharge operations.  The Complaint alleges
that Allscripts concealed that: (a) the process of developing a
unified product offering after the Merger had suffered
debilitating setbacks, including major undisclosed schisms among
the most senior levels of the Company, which ultimately resulted
in the loss of key personnel and harmful upheaval in Company
leadership; (b) a material portion of Allscripts' revenue and net
income was predicated on the successful integration of these
systems, and substantial business relationships had been destroyed
by the Company's inability to make material progress in this area;
and (c) as a result of the foregoing, Allscripts lacked a
reasonable basis for its claims of progress in post-Merger
integration, sound operations, profitable results, and continued
growth.

The truth about Allscripts' condition was revealed on April 26,
2012, following the close of the markets, when the Company
announced its operating results for the first quarter of 2012.
Allscripts shocked the market by reporting earnings sharply below
guidance and expectations, as well as: (a) the termination of the
Chairman of its Board of Directors; (b) the resignation of three
Company directors; and (c) the resignation the Company's Chief
Financial Officer.  In reaction to these revelations, Allscripts'
stock price fell $5.72 per share, or 35.7 percent, to close at
$10.30 per share on April 27, 2012, on extraordinary trading
volume.

If you are a member of this Class you can view a copy of the
complaint and join this class action online at

     http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Newly-Filed-Cases.cfm

If you purchased Allscripts common stock during the Class Period,
you may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff.  Lead
Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois no later than July 2, 2012.
A lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent
Class members.  You do not need to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action.  If you
are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can
share in that recovery as an absent Class member.  You may retain
counsel of your choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have
any questions about the lawsuit, you may contact one of our
representatives, Rachel A. Avan, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow LLP, at
(888) 753-2796 or (212) 907-0709, or via e-mail at
ravan@labaton.com

Labaton Sucharow LLP -- http://www.labaton.com-- represents
institutional investors in class action and complex securities
litigation, as well as consumers and businesses in class actions
seeking to recover damages for anticompetitive practices.


AOL INC: Rosenfarb Law Firm Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------
The Rosenfarb Law Firm has filed a class action lawsuit against
AOL, which claims that AOL misled investors about its financial
condition.  The lawsuit is intended to benefit everyone who sold
shares of AOL, Inc. stock between August 11, 2011, and April 9,
2012.  On April 9, 2012 when AOL, Inc. announced the sale of a
portion of its patent portfolio for more than $1 billion, the
price of AOL common stock subsequently soared from approximately
$18 to $26 per share.  The lawsuit alleges that AOL, Inc. bought
several million shares of common stock for itself while misleading
investors about its financial condition, thereby artificially
reducing the price that AOL paid.

The Rosenfarb Law Firm was assisted in its evaluation of AOL by
Rosenfarb LLC, a leading forensic accounting and valuation firm.

The Rosenfarb Law Firm seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.  Anyone who sold shares of AOL, Inc. stock between August
11, 2011, and April 9, 2012, may join the lawsuit by submitting
information online at http://www.rosenfarblawfirm.com

Prospective participants may also call Ronald Rosenfarb at
855-415-5455 to learn how Rosenfarb Law Firm can protect their
rights.

If you would like more information about this topic or our firm,
please contact Ronald Rosenfarb via phone at 855-415-5455 or e-
mail at ronald.rosenfarb@rosenfarblawfirm.com


ASCOM TRANSPORT: 6th Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
federal appeals court last week upheld the dismissal of a proposed
class action lawsuit over the distribution of personal information
from a state's motor vehicle records.

Plaintiffs Norma Wiles, Thomas Wiles, Theresa Gibson and Wanta
Evitt, all Kentucky residents, filed the proposed class action
against defendants Ascom Transport System Inc., Downtown Owensboro
Inc., Jones and Wenner Insurance, Nationwide Debt Recovery Service
Inc., Tennessee Valley Authority and Xerox Corporation in January
2010.

However, Ascom is the only defendant named in the appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

It was Ascom's motion to dismiss that the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky decided and, as a result,
dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety.

The Kentucky plaintiffs claimed that Ascom violated the federal
Driver's Privacy Protection Act, or DPPA, and their common law
right to privacy when the company obtained in bulk and then used,
resold and disclosed their personal information contained in the
state's motor vehicle records without a "permissible purpose"
under the act.

The district court ruled in December 2010 that the bulk purchase
of such motor vehicle records without a "specific need for every
record" does not violate the DPPA, and ultimately granted Ascom's
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' third amended complaint.

At that time, the district court also instructed the parties that
it would consider dismissing specific elements of the third
amended complaint.

In February 2011, the court then granted Ascom's motion to dismiss
and entered judgment in favor of the company and the other named
defendants.

The Kentucky plaintiffs appealed.

In a 19-page decision filed on April 30, the Sixth Circuit
affirmed the lower court's ruling.

Lawrence P. Zatkoff, U.S. district judge for the Eastern District
of Michigan, who sat by designation, authored the Sixth Circuit's
opinion.

The Sixth Circuit explained that the bulk obtainment of personal
information for a permissible purpose does not violate the DPPA.

Also, as Ascom obtained the information under one or more of the
permissible purposes set forth in the act, the Kentucky plaintiffs
cannot establish a violation of the DPPA if the only alleged
wrongdoing the company has committed was obtaining the information
in bulk for use or potential use, the court said.

"Plaintiffs have not cited any case law, legislative history or
other 'any authority or persuasive argument for concluding that
(the DPPA) clearly and unambiguously limits disclosure of personal
information to one individual at a time,'" Judge Zatkoff wrote.

"In contrast, as noted in several of the cases discussed above,
the legislative history clearly establishes that Congress did not
intend to alter the traditional method of bulk disclosures by
states, subject to the express limitations set forth in the DPPA."

The plaintiffs, the court noted, also failed to identify any
language in the statute that requires "immediate use."

"They cannot do so because there is no such language in the DPPA,"
Judge Zatkoff wrote.

In addition, the Sixth Circuit held that obtaining personal
information solely for the purpose of reselling such information
is allowed under the DPPA -- so long as the information will be
used only for purposes permitted.

"In this case, Plaintiffs have not alleged that the ultimate 'use'
of the information is for an impermissible purpose. Rather,
Plaintiffs' allegations pertaining to the resale/disclosure of the
personal information are based on Defendant allegedly obtaining
the personal information for the sole purpose of reselling it to
third parties, without use of such information by Defendant,"
Judge Zatkoff wrote.

As for the plaintiffs' claim of common law right to privacy, the
Sixth Circuit said it fails as a matter of law.

The plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the
personal information.  Also, they did not allege that Ascom
disclosed, or caused to be disclosed, their personal information
to the public at large, the court explained.

In all, the Kentucky plaintiffs failed to establish any violation
of a federal right.  Therefore, the district court "properly
dismissed" their third amended complaint, the Sixth Circuit
concluded.


BARNES & NOBLE: Awaits Final Approval of "Minor" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc., is awaiting final court approval of a
settlement resolving a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Minor v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al., according to the
Company's March 8, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 28, 2012.

On May 1, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed
against B&N Booksellers, Inc. (B&N Booksellers) in the Superior
Court for the State of California alleging wage payments by
instruments in a form that did not comply with the requirements of
the California Labor Code, allegedly resulting in impermissible
wage payment reductions and calling for imposition of statutory
penalties.  The complaint also alleges a violation of the
California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act and seeks
restitution of such allegedly unpaid wages under California's
unfair competition law, and an injunction compelling compliance
with the California Labor Code.  The complaint alleges two
subclasses of 500 and 200 employees, respectively (there may be
overlap among the subclasses), but contains no allegations
concerning the number of alleged violations or the amount of
recovery sought on behalf of the purported class.  On June 3,
2009, B&N Booksellers filed an answer denying all claims.
Discovery concerning purported class member payroll checks and
related information is ongoing.  On August 19, 2010, B&N
Booksellers filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of a class
representative when the named plaintiff advised she did not wish
to continue to serve in that role.  On October 15, 2010, the Court
issued an order denying B&N Bookseller's motion to dismiss.  The
Court further ruled that Ms. Minor could not serve as a class
representative.  The Court also granted Plaintiff's Motion to
Compel Further Responses to previously-served discovery seeking
contact information for the putative class.  B&N Booksellers
provided that information on October 15, 2010.  The previously
scheduled Case Management Conference was continued to January 27,
2011.  Plaintiff's counsel filed an amended complaint on
January 26, 2011, adding two new named Plaintiffs, Jacob Allum and
Cesar Caminiero.  At the Case Management Conference held on
January 27, 2011, the Court ordered the parties to complete
mediation by May 6, 2011.  The parties held a mediation on
April 11, 2011 and reached a tentative settlement.  On August 29,
2011, the Court continued a hearing to consider granting
preliminary approval of the settlement.  On November 10, 2011, the
parties appeared before the Court for the hearing on preliminary
approval.  At the Court's request, the parties subsequently
submitted supplemental papers to address outstanding issues raised
by the Court at the hearing.  The Court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement on November 22, 2011 and had set
March 26, 2012 for the final approval hearing.


BARNES & NOBLE: "Lina" Suit Remains Pending in Calif. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit captioned Lina v. Barnes & Noble,
Inc., and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al., remains pending
in a California state court, according to Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s
March 8, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 28, 2012.

On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.
in the Superior Court for the State of California making the
following allegations against defendants with respect to salaried
Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in the State of
California from the period of August 5, 2007 to present: (1)
failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay for missed
meal and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties; (4) failure
to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to provide reimbursement for
business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage
statements.  The claims are generally derivative of the allegation
that these salaried managers were improperly classified as exempt
from California's wage and hour laws.  The complaint contains no
allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations
or the amount of recovery sought on behalf the purported class.
The Company was served with the complaint on August 11, 2011.  On
August 30, 2011, the Company filed an answer in state court, and
on August 31, 2011 it removed the action to federal court pursuant
to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d).
On October 28, 2011, the district court granted plaintiff's motion
to remand the action back to state court, over the Company's
opposition.  The Company believes that the district court remanded
the action in error.  On November 7, 2011, Barnes & Noble
petitioned the Ninth Circuit for an appeal of the district court's
remand order.  The case is currently in state court, pending the
Ninth Circuit's decision regarding the Company's petition for
permission to review the remand order.


BARNES & NOBLE: Continues to Defend "Burstein" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc., continues to defend itself from a purported
class action lawsuit filed by Rhonda Burstein, according to the
Company's March 8, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 28, 2012.

On August 12, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Hachette Book Group, Inc., Harper Collins Publishers,
Inc., Macmillan Publishers, Inc., Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Simon
& Schuster, Inc., Random House, Inc., (collectively, the Publisher
Defendants) and Apple, Inc., Amazon.Com, Inc., and Barnes & Noble,
Inc. (collectively with the Publisher Defendants, the Defendants)
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of eBooks of Publisher Defendants
through Apple, Amazon, Barnes & Noble and other eBook retailers.
The complaint generally alleges a horizontal price fixing and a
vertical conspiracy among the Defendants to restrain trade in the
consumer retail market of eBooks in the United States in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1 and Section 2
of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2.  The complaint generally
seeks treble damages in an undetermined amount sustained pursuant
to Section 4 of the Clayton Act 15 U.S.C. Section 15, costs and
fees, and injunctive relief.  Other complaints have been filed
against the Publisher Defendants, Apple and/or Amazon that do not
name the Company as a defendant resulting in a petition to the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL Panel) to
coordinate these cases, including the Burstein action, and
consolidate them for pretrial purposes in the Southern District of
New York or the Northern District of California.  The MDL Panel
held a hearing on December 1, 2011.  The Company's date to file a
motion to dismiss the Complaint has been extended until after a
consolidated amended complaint is filed in the jurisdiction chosen
by the MDL Panel.  The Company denies liability and intends to
vigorously defend its interests.


BP: Oil Spill Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kunzelman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
a federal judge on May 2 preliminarily approved a proposed class-
action settlement that would resolve billions of dollars in claims
against BP over the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier's ruling allows the settlement
process to proceed, but he will hold a "fairness hearing" on
Nov. 8 before deciding whether to give his final approval to the
deal between London-based BP PLC and a team of plaintiffs'
attorneys.

The proposed settlement doesn't have a cap, but BP estimates it
will pay about $7.8 billion to resolve more than 100,000 claims by
people and businesses who blame the spill for economic losses.

The deal announced March 2 was spelled out in hundreds of pages of
documents filed last month.  Judge Barbier also heard an outline
of the proposal during an April 25 hearing.

"At this stage, the Settlement Agreement appears fair, has no
obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential
treatment to the Class Representatives or to segments of the
Class, and does not grant excessive compensation to attorneys.  It
falls within the range of possible judicial approval," Judge
Barbier wrote on May 2 in a 43-page order.

BP has agreed to pay $2.3 billion for seafood-related claims by
commercial fishing vessel owners, captains and deckhands.  The
settlement also would compensate other categories of losses,
including lost business, wages, property damage and damage to
vessels that worked on the spill cleanup.

The agreement calls for paying medical claims by cleanup workers
and others who say they suffered illnesses from exposure to the
oil or chemicals used to disperse it.  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.

The settlement 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.  It also doesn't resolve
private plaintiffs' claims against Switzerland-based rig owner
Transocean Ltd. and Houston-based cement contractor Halliburton.

The judge said he would have months to consider any objections to
the settlement, but some groups of plaintiffs and elected
officials haven't waited to air their concerns.

In a recent court filing, a group of commercial fishermen and
industry groups said they see "significant flaws" and claimed it
wouldn't protect most fishermen against future risks to fisheries.

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood said he objects to the
settlement's use of liability releases that the former
administrator of a victims' compensation fund had people sign if
they were seeking a final payment from the fund.

Florida Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi had urged Judge Barbier
to hold off on giving his preliminary approval so that "other
interested stakeholders" could have more time to review and
comment on the proposed settlement's terms.

Halliburton said the settlement improperly seeks to assign certain
claims that BP has made against Halliburton to the Plaintiffs'
Steering Committee, the team of attorneys who brokered the deal.

The April 20, 2010, blowout of BP's Macondo well triggered an
explosion that killed 11 rig workers and spilled 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.  During the transition
period, claimants have received more than $134 million.

                            Trial Date

Michael Kunzelman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
the Justice Department is urging a federal judge to set a new
trial date for no later than this summer for government claims
against BP over the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

In a court filing on May 1, government lawyers say a class-action
settlement agreement between the oil giant and a team of
plaintiffs' attorneys shouldn't delay a trial for claims that
aren't covered by the proposed deal.

London-based BP PLC has asked Judge Barbier to set a January 2013
trial date for remaining claims.

"BP's proposed delay would render these substantial public
interests subservient to BP's corporate interest in resolving its
litigation exposure to private party litigants," Justice
Department attorneys wrote.  "This private party settlement
process, however, need not preclude trial of the broader
government claims, as the processes can and should proceed in
tandem."

The state of Alabama also asked Judge Barbier to set a new trial
for this summer.  The judge scheduled a meeting on May 3 behind
closed doors to discuss a new trial date.


CANADA: Has Until June 1 to Appeal Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
Clare Mellor, writing Herald News, reports that disabled veterans
in Canada are "cautiously optimistic" they will see the money the
federal government owes them, says Dennis Manuge.

"Everybody is pretty excited that we have this kind of pressure
now to bring to bear on the government," Mr. Manuge said on May 2.

He was the lead plaintiff in a class action that was brought
against the federal government on behalf of disabled veterans.

On May 1, the Federal Court ruled that Ottawa has been illegally
clawing back veterans' disability benefits and ordered the
practice stopped.

It is not yet known if the decision will be appealed.

The federal government has until June 1 to file an appeal with the
Federal Court of Appeal.

"The government is studying (the) decision and considering (its)
next steps," Capt. Alexandre Munoz, a Defence Department
spokesman, said in an e-mail.

The strength of the federal court decision should work in
veterans' favor, said Peter Driscoll, the veterans' lawyer.

"We're really of the view that the decision is so strong, the
judge simply rejected everything the government argued," he said.

"It is a very well-reasoned, very well-written decision that I
think is going to be difficult for the Crown to overcome."

If the Crown decides not to appeal, Mr. Driscoll said he can start
working with the court and the Crown on the reimbursement process.

"The administrator of the plan knows who all these people are,
presumably knows where they all are, so it would be a matter of
months rather than years that they get their money once we got the
green light," he said.

However, Mr. Manuge said he wouldn't be surprised if the federal
government decides to appeal.

"That has been their history to date throughout the process," he
said.

There are as many as 6,000 veterans who could be affected by the
court ruling.  It is estimated that it will cost between C$270
million and C$295 million to pay veterans what they are owed,
Mr. Driscoll said.

In its decision on May 1, the court ruled that long-term
disability benefits paid to veterans under a military insurance
plan, which all Armed Forces personnel are required to pay into,
should not be reduced by the amount the veterans receive from
their monthly Veterans Affairs Canada Disability pension.

"The point that the judge (made is that) these are two different
types of benefits.  We are not stacking one similar benefit on top
of another," Mr. Driscoll said.

"One compensates for injury and the other is an income replacement
scheme where if you can't work, you get paid a portion of your
salary."

The class action has been before the courts since 2007.

The Federal Court certified the case but that certification was
rejected by the Federal Court of Appeal.  In December 2010, the
Supreme Court of Canada reinstated the Federal Court decision
paving the way for the class action.


CAPITAL GRILLE: Workers Drop Racial Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Fickenscher, writing for Crain's New York Business, reports
that instead of one class-action employee lawsuit against
restaurant chain Capital Grill, there will be five in as many
states, according to recent court documents associated with the
complaint, which was originally filed four months ago in Illinois.

"This is an indication that the case is growing," said the
plaintiffs' lawyer, Christopher Williams of Workers Law Office, in
Chicago.  There are currently 52 named plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

The charges against the pricey chop house include alleged wage and
hour violations and racial discrimination.

But Orlando, Fla.-based Darden Restaurants, which owns Capital
Grille, is claiming a legal victory as well.

According to court documents, the workers are dropping their claim
of race discrimination because they "cannot satisfy the
requirements for certifying a class."

"We're very pleased with this development.  As we've said from the
beginning, we believe these allegations were baseless, and we
think the fact that they dropped their claims of discrimination
speaks for itself," said Darden spokesman Rich Jeffers.

However, Mr. Williams said Darden is "misrepresenting the facts"
and that the workers plan to re-file the discrimination charges
along with the 26 other complaints.  He described the action as a
"procedural move" and said the discrimination charges will be
added to each of the new complaints, which are to be filed by
June 1 in New York, Florida, Maryland, California and Illinois.

"It doesn't change the fact of what happened," Mr. Jeffers said.
"I'm pointing out the facts of the case as it progresses."

There are three Capital Grille eateries in New York City, but the
workers have for months targeted their protests at the location
near Grand Central Terminal on East 42nd Street.

They have been assisted by Restaurant Opportunity Center United --
a worker advocacy group -- which kicked off a campaign called
"Dignity at Darden."

Capital Grille is accused of favoring white workers over people of
color for lucrative tipped jobs as well as requiring tipped
workers to share their earnings with non-tipped workers.


CARRIAGE SERVICES: Continues to Defend "Leathermon" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Carriage Services, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
putative class action lawsuit captioned Leathermon, et al. v.
Grandview Memorial Gardens, Inc., et al., United States District
Court, Southern District of Indiana, Case No. 4:07-cv-137,
according to the Company's March 9, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On August 17, 2007, five plaintiffs filed a putative class action
against the current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery in
Madison, Indiana, including the Carriage subsidiaries that owned
the cemetery from January 1997 until February 2001, on behalf of
all individuals who purchased cemetery and burial goods and
services at Grandview Cemetery.  Plaintiffs claim that the
cemetery owners performed burials negligently, breached
Plaintiffs' contracts, and made misrepresentations regarding the
cemetery.  The Plaintiffs also allege that the claims occurred
prior, during and after the Company owned the cemetery.  On
October 15, 2007, the case was removed from Jefferson County
Circuit Court, Indiana to the Southern District of Indiana.  On
April 24, 2009, shortly before Defendants had been scheduled to
file their briefs, in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add
new class representatives and claims, while also seeking to
abandon other claims.  The Company, as well as several other
Defendants, opposed Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint
and add parties.  In April 2009, two Defendants moved to
disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel from further representing
Plaintiffs in this action.  On March 31, 2010, the Court granted
the Defendants' motion to disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel.  In that
order, the Court gave Plaintiffs 60 days within which to retain
new counsel.  On May 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ
of mandamus with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals seeking
relief from the trial court's order of disqualification of
counsel.  On May 19, 2010, the Defendants responded to the
petition of mandamus.  On July 8, 2010, the Seventh Circuit denied
Plaintiffs' petition for writ of mandamus.  Thus, pursuant to the
trial court's order, Plaintiffs were given 60 days from July 8,
2010 in which to retain new counsel to prosecute this action on
their behalf.  Plaintiffs retained new counsel and the trial court
granted the newly retained Plaintiffs' counsel 90 days to review
the case and advise the Court whether or not Plaintiffs would seek
leave to amend their complaint to add and/or change the
allegations as are currently stated therein and whether or not
they would seek leave to amend the proposed class representatives
for class certification.  Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend both
the class representatives and the allegations stated within the
complaint.  Defendants filed oppositions to such amendments.  The
Court issued an order permitting the Plaintiffs to proceed with
amending the class representatives and a portion of their claims;
however, certain of Plaintiffs' claims have been dismissed.
Discovery in this matter will now proceed.  Carriage intends to
defend this action vigorously.  Because the lawsuit is in its
preliminary stages, the Company is unable to evaluate the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome to the Company or to estimate
the amount or range of any potential loss, if any, at this time.


CELL THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Therapeutics, Inc., is awaiting a court approval of a
settlement entered in a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit, according to the Company's March 8, 2012 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011.

In March 2010, three purported securities class action complaints
were filed against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington.  On August 2, 2010, Judge Marsha Pechman
consolidated the actions, appointed lead plaintiffs, and approved
lead plaintiffs' counsel.  On September 27, 2010, lead plaintiff
filed an amended consolidated complaint, captioned Sabbagh v. Cell
Therapeutics, Inc. (Case No. 2:10-cv-00414-MJP), naming the
Company, Dr. James A. Bianco, Louis A. Bianco, and Craig W.
Philips as defendants.  The amended consolidated complaint alleges
that defendants violated the federal securities laws by making
certain alleged false and misleading statements related to the FDA
approval process for pixantrone.  The action seeks damages on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock during a purported
class period of March 25, 2008 through March 22, 2010.  On
October 27, 2010, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint.  On February 4, 2011, the Court denied in
large part the defendants' motion.  Defendants answered the
amended consolidated complaint on March 28, 2011, and discovery
commenced, with trial set for June 25, 2012.  On December 14,
2011, the parties filed a letter with the Court indicating they
had agreed to the general terms of a settlement, and asking the
Court to remove the case deadlines from the Court calendar.  On
February 14, 2012, the parties filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the Stipulation of Settlement and related documents
with the Court.  The negotiated terms of the settlement include a
$19 million payment to plaintiffs.


CIENNA CORPORATION: Appeal in ONI-related Suit Withdrawn
--------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in a securities class action lawsuit filed in New York
was withdrawn and dismissed in January, according to Cienna
Corporation's March 8, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January
31, 2012.

As a result of its June 2002 acquisition of ONI Systems Corp.,
Ciena became a defendant in a securities class action lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York in August 2001.  On January 9, 2012, the
final appellant in this securities class action lawsuit withdrew
and dismissed his appeal with prejudice in accordance with the
terms of a settlement agreement.  Ciena was not required to pay
any amount toward the settlement or to make any other payments to
plaintiffs in connection with the resolution of this matter.


ENERGY PLUS: Sanford Wittels Files Consumer Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP on May 2 filed a class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey against Energy
Plus Holdings LLC and Energy Plus Natural Gas LP (Energy Plus) for
perpetrating an illegal bait-and-switch scheme that has deceived
and defrauded thousands of New Jersey consumers of millions of
dollars.

"Energy Plus promises customers competitive market-based rates and
savings on their energy bills if they switch their accounts from
other energy suppliers," said Steven Wittels --
swittels@swhlegal.com -- a founding partner in the firm.  "In
fact, any savings that occur are short-lived and effectively wiped
out within one or two billing cycles as Energy Plus jacks up its
promised rate, often by as much as 150%. Customers can end up
paying two or three times more for electricity or natural gas than
they did before switching their accounts to Energy Plus.  Instead
of getting the promised benefit, these customers incur a
tremendous loss, to the tune of hundreds or thousands of dollars
every year.  Such business practices are not only illegal, they
are unconscionable."

Sanford Wittels & Heisler represents Kearny, NJ resident Yue Yu
and a class of similarly situated New Jersey Energy Plus
customers.  The class consists of thousands of New Jersey
residents and businesses whom the Pennsylvania-based company
deceives in New Jersey.  Mr. Wittels added that Energy Plus is
believed to engage in the same tactics in the other states where
the company does business, including Connecticut, Illinois,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

Ms. Yu was enticed by Energy Plus' deceptive claims to switch her
electricity and natural gas service to the company in September.
Between November and April, she incurred more than $200 in
overcharges for her energy supplies, billed at a rate about 70%
above the market rates over the 6-month period.  When she
discovered the magnitude of the difference between the rates
promised by Energy Plus and the rates she was actually billed,
Ms. Yu switched her service back to PSE&G.

According to the complaint, Energy Plus takes advantage of the
deregulation of energy in New Jersey by adopting fraudulent and
deceptive business tactics.  "The company misleads customers to
believe that by switching to Energy Plus they will save money
compared to receiving energy services from their local public
utilities," said co-lead counsel Jeremy Heisler --
jheisler@swhlegal.com

"The company also represents that its rates are tied to market
factors and are competitive, when in fact, they are not. It's a
classic consumer fraud and scam."

The complaint asserts that Energy Plus' rates are "completely
divorced from prevailing market conditions" and usually
"skyrocket" within 60 days of customers' switching their accounts.

Ms. Yu says these corporations exploit customers by making
ambiguous representations and agreements that create an
expectation of savings that never materialize.  "The company never
discloses that its regular rates are nearly always substantially
higher than its competitors and exorbitant when compared to the
energy supply market," said co-counsel Grant Morris --
grantemorris@gmail.com

The complaint describes in detail how Ms. Yu and all members of
the class suffered economic injury because they routinely paid
substantially more for Energy Plus services compared to the cost
of energy from their previous supplies.

The proposed class has two subclasses.  The first subclass
comprises New Jersey customers of Energy Plus Holdings LLC who
switched to the company for electricity services; the second
comprises New Jersey customers who used Energy Plus Natural Gas LP
as their natural gas supplier.  Ms. Yu's claims are typical of the
claims of the class.

"All class members have been injured by Energy Plus' imposition of
unreasonably high, undisclosed energy supply rates that were not
commensurate with the New Jersey market," said Andrew Melzer --
amelzer@swhlegal.com -- a senior litigation counsel at the firm.
"The harm suffered by class members is identical to the harm
suffered by Ms. Yu as a result its unfair and unlawful practices."

The complaint alleges that both Energy Plus companies violated the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breached the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing integral to all contractual agreements, and
received unjust enrichment by taking money that belongs to Ms. Yu
and the class members.

The complaint asks for a class action declaration; an award of
compensatory damages to Ms. Yue and class members; treble damages,
as allowable under state law; an order enjoining Energy Plus from
continuing to implement its deceptive, illegal and unlawful trade
practices and schemes; pre- and post-judgment interest on damages
awarded.

A jury trial is demanded.

Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP, a law firm with offices in
Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco, specializes in
employment discrimination, wage and hour, qui tam and consumer
actions and complex corporate class action litigation.  In
addition, the firm also represents individual clients in
employment, employment discrimination, sexual harassment,
whistleblower, public accommodations, commercial, medical
malpractice, and personal injury matters.


FACEBOOK: Pay-Per-Click Marketers to Appeal Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that two pay-per-click
marketers who sued Facebook for allegedly charging them for
invalid clicks are seeking permission to appeal a recent decision
denying them class-action status.

The marketers -- Fox Test Prep and Steven Price, who operates the
car site DriveDownPrices.com -- argue that U.S. District Court
Judge Phyllis Hamilton was wrong to conclude that the marketers
must pursue their claims as individuals.  Judge Hamilton, a judge
in the Northern District of California, ruled last month that the
marketers had not shown that "common questions predominate" -- a
necessary condition for class-action lawsuits.

The litigation dates to 2009, when Price, Fox Test and other pay-
per-click marketers sued Facebook for allegedly charging them for
invalid clicks.  Two years ago, U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy
Fogel in San Jose, Calif. ruled that Facebook's contract with
marketers disclaimed liability for clicks that were "fraudulent"
in the sense that the clicker had dubious intentions.  But Judge
Fogel ruled that the disclaimer didn't apply to clicks that were
"invalid" -- such as when technical problems prevented users from
reaching a landing page.

Judge Hamilton said that one reason why the marketers shouldn't
proceed as a class-action was that they had not shown "any uniform
method for distinguishing, on a classwide basis, between 'invalid'
clicks and 'fraudulent' clicks."

In their latest papers, filed on April 27 with the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals, the marketers dispute that conclusion.  They
argue that one of their experts had offered to "construct
algorithms that would reflect the rules that Facebook should have
employed."

Fox Test Prep and Price also argue that they presented evidence
showing that Facebook "abused" advertisers' trust by developing
standards that were "designed to enhance revenue rather than
protect advertisers from paying for invalid clicks."

They are asking the appellate court to grant them permission to
appeal Judge Hamilton's order.


FACEBOOK: Kerr & Wagstaffe Says Class Action Attracts Interest
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kerr & Wagstaffe Firm on May 2 said that Facebook is a social
network built on the concept of connecting with friends.  For a
network so large and so influential, however, it should come as no
great surprise that Facebook has developed a few enemies, as well.
This was made evident in a recent attempt to take the social
networking company to court in a class action lawsuit.  A large
group of Facebook advertisers recently sought to sue Facebook, as
a group, for overcharging them, but their attempts to stage a
lawsuit were ultimately not admitted into court.  Though their
future actions remain uncertain, the incident has nevertheless
attracted the attention of many legal professionals, including the
firm Kerr & Wagstaffe, which works on many class action suits, as
well as intellectual property cases.

The large group of Facebook advertisers claimed that Facebook was
overcharging them on advertising rates, and even alleged that the
social network was guilty of a breach in contract.  An Oakland
judge, however, determined that these advertisers simply did not
have enough in common to achieve class action status.

Phyllis Hamilton, the judge who heard the case, wrote that
Facebook's attorneys simply made a more convincing case.  "The
court is persuaded by Facebook's argument that plaintiffs have not
shown that they have a viable method for proving each class
member's recovery," wrote Judge Hamilton.

Other legal professionals have also responded to the results of
the bid for class action case, including lawyers from the San
Francisco firm Kerr & Wagstaffe.

"The Court's order shows the increasing hostility to class action
claims in federal court following the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Dukes v. Wal-Mart.  Now, more than ever, plaintiffs
seeking to pursue a class action in federal court need the help of
experienced trial attorneys with a strong background in federal
class action practice," says Kerr & Wagstaffe's Ivo Labar --
labar@kerrwagstaffe.com

Mr. Labar is also known as the co-author of the leading treatise
on federal procedure, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial.

Judge Hamilton, meanwhile, wrote that there was simply no way to
prove a "systematic" breach of contract on the part of Facebook.
The judge further explained her decision to reject the class
action bid by saying that there was "no way to conduct this type
of highly specialized and individualized analysis for each of the
thousands of advertisers in the proposed class."

The judge has scheduled a conference for May 17, where further
options for proceeding with this case will be discussed.

Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP is a law firm based in the San Francisco
area.  The firm concentrates its practice in the areas of First
Amendment issues, employment law, intellectual property rights,
and class action litigation.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Unit Continues to Defend Class Suit in Kansas
------------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp. continues to defend
itself from a putative class action lawsuit pending in a Kansas
federal court, according to the Company's March 9, 2012 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended January 31, 2012.

Ferrellgas, L.P., has been named as a defendant in a class action
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in Kansas.  The
complaint alleges that Ferrellgas violates consumer protection
laws in the manner Ferrellgas sets prices and fees for its
customers.  Based on Ferrellgas' business practices, Ferrellgas
believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend
the claims vigorously.  The court has stayed discovery on this
matter pending Ferrellgas' motion to compel arbitration, and the
case has not been certified for class treatment.  Ferrellgas does
not believe loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time
related to this class action lawsuit.


FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: "Williamson" Class Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit captioned Deanna Williamson, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. First Mid-Illinois
Bancshares, Inc. and First Mid Bank & Trust, N.A. (Circuit Court,
Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, No. 11-L-1079),
was dismissed in February, according to First Mid-Illinois
Bancshares, Inc.'s March 7, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

On October 20, 2011, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and
First Mid Bank in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois.
The lawsuit is styled as a class action lawsuit.  The suit alleges
that the Company and First Mid Bank unfairly assessed and
collected overdraft fees and sought restitution of the overdraft
fees, an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages,
prejudgment interest and additional relief.  This case was
dismissed by agreement of the parties on February 17, 2012.


FREDDIE MAC: Continues to Defend "OPERS" Suit in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation continues to defend itself
from a securities class action lawsuit filed in an Ohio federal
court by the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, according to
the Company's March 9, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from
August 1, 2006 through November 20, 2007.  The plaintiff alleges
that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making
false and misleading statements concerning our business, risk
management and the procedures we put into place to protect the
company from problems in the mortgage industry.  On April 10,
2008, the Court appointed OPERS as lead plaintiff and approved its
choice of counsel.  On September 2, 2008, defendants filed motions
to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint.  On November 7, 2008,
the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which removed
certain allegations against Richard Syron, Anthony Piszel, and
Eugene McQuade, thereby leaving insider-trading allegations
against only Patricia Cook.  The second amended complaint also
extends the damages period, but not the class period.  The
plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and interest, and reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorney and expert fees.  On
November 19, 2008, the Court granted FHFA's motion to intervene in
its capacity as Conservator.  On April 6, 2009, defendants filed
motions to dismiss the second amended complaint.  On December 21,
2011, the plaintiff filed a notice advising the Court of a non-
prosecution agreement entered into between Freddie Mac and the SEC
on December 15, 2011, and stating its intention to file a motion
for leave to amend its complaint.  On January 23, 2012, the Court
denied defendants' motions to dismiss and set a briefing schedule
for plaintiff's motion for leave to amend its complaint.  On
February 13, 2012, plaintiff filed motion for leave to amend,
which seeks leave to file a third amended complaint.

At present, it is not possible for the Company to predict the
probable outcome of this lawsuit or any potential impact on its
business, financial condition, or results of operations.  In
addition, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse
judgment in the foregoing matter due to the following factors,
among others: the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial litigation;
and the fact that the parties have not yet briefed and the Court
has not yet ruled upon motions for class certification or summary
judgment.  In particular, absent the certification of a class, the
identification of a class period, and the identification of the
alleged statement or statements that survive dispositive motions,
the Company cannot reasonably estimate any possible loss or range
of possible loss.


FREDDIE MAC: Continues to Defend "Kuriakose" Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation continues to defend itself
from a putative class action lawsuit filed in a New York federal
court captioned Kuriakose vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, Piszel and Cook,
according to the Company's March 9, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

A putative class action lawsuit was filed against Freddie Mac and
certain former officers on August 15, 2008 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York for alleged violations
of federal securities laws purportedly on behalf of a class of
purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from November 21, 2007 through
August 5, 2008.  The plaintiffs claim that defendants made false
and misleading statements about Freddie Mac's business that
artificially inflated the price of Freddie Mac's common stock, and
seek unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.  On February
6, 2009, the Court granted FHFA's motion to intervene in its
capacity as Conservator.  On May 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint, purportedly on behalf of a class
of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from November 20, 2007 through
September 7, 2008.  Freddie Mac filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on February 24, 2010.  On March 30, 2011, the Court
granted without prejudice Freddie Mac's motion to dismiss all
claims, and allowed the plaintiffs the option to file a new
complaint, which they did on July 15, 2011.  The defendants have
filed motions to dismiss the second amended consolidated
complaint.  On February 17, 2012, plaintiff served a motion
seeking leave to file a third amended consolidated complaint based
on the non-prosecution agreement entered into between Freddie Mac
and the SEC on December 15, 2011.

At present, it is not possible for the Company to predict the
probable outcome of this lawsuit or any potential impact on its
business, financial condition, or results of operations.  In
addition, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse
judgment in the foregoing matter due to the following factors,
among others: the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial litigation;
the fact that the Court has not yet ruled upon the defendants'
motions to dismiss the second amended complaint or plaintiffs'
motion seeking leave to file a third amended complaint; and the
fact that the parties have not yet briefed and the Court has not
yet ruled upon motions for class certification or summary
judgment.  In particular, absent the certification of a class, the
identification of a class period, and the identification of the
alleged statement or statements that survive dispositive motions,
the Company cannot reasonably estimate any possible loss or range
of possible loss.


FREDDIE MAC: Class Suit v. Execs Remains Dormant
------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit filed against Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation CEO Richard F. Syron and other executives
remains dormant, according to the Company's March 9, 2012 Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

On December 15, 2008, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against certain former Freddie Mac officers and others
styled Jacoby vs. Syron, Cook, Piszel, Banc of America Securities
LLC, JP Morgan Chase & Co., and FTN Financial Markets.  The
complaint, as amended on December 17, 2008, contends that the
defendants made material false and misleading statements in
connection with Freddie Mac's September 2007 offering of non-
cumulative, non-convertible, perpetual fixed-rate preferred stock,
and that such statements "grossly overstated Freddie Mac's
capitalization" and "failed to disclose Freddie Mac's exposure to
mortgage-related losses, poor underwriting standards and risk
management procedures."  The complaint further alleges that Syron,
Cook, and Piszel made additional false statements following the
offering.  Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in this
lawsuit, but the underwriters previously gave notice to Freddie
Mac of their intention to seek full indemnity and contribution
under the Underwriting Agreement in this case, including
reimbursement of fees and disbursements of their legal counsel.
The case is currently dormant and the Company believes plaintiff
may have abandoned it.


FREDDIE MAC: Class Cert. Bid in N.Y. Consolidated Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification in a putative consolidated class
action lawsuit filed in New York remains pending, according to
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 's March 9, 2012 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

By letter dated October 17, 2008, Freddie Mac received formal
notification of a putative class action securities lawsuit, Mark
vs. Goldman, Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., filed on September 23, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, regarding
the company's November 29, 2007 public offering of $6 billion of
8.375% Fixed to Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred
Stock.

On January 29, 2009, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York styled Kreysar vs. Syron, et al.  On April 30, 2009, the
Court consolidated the Mark case with the Kreysar case, and the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on July 2,
2009.  The consolidated complaint alleged that three former
Freddie Mac officers, certain underwriters and Freddie Mac's
auditor violated federal securities laws by making material false
and misleading statements in connection with the company's
November 29, 2007 public offering of $6 billion of 8.375% Fixed to
Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock.  The
complaint further alleged that certain defendants and others made
additional false statements following the offering.  The complaint
named as defendants Syron, Piszel, Cook, Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
JPMorgan Securities Inc., Banc of America Securities LLC,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated,
UBS Securities LLC and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

After the Court dismissed, without prejudice, the plaintiffs'
consolidated complaint, amended consolidated complaint, and second
consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
consolidated complaint against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Syron
and Piszel, omitting Cook and the underwriter defendants, on
November 14, 2010.  On January 11, 2011, the Court granted the
remaining defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with respect
to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, but denied the motion with respect
to Syron and Piszel.  On April 4, 2011, Piszel filed a motion for
partial judgment on the pleadings.  The Court granted that motion
on April 28, 2011.  The plaintiffs moved for class certification
on June 30, 2011, but withdrew this motion on July 5, 2011.  The
plaintiffs again moved for class certification on August 30, 2011,
which motion remains pending.


GOOGLE INC: Judge Allows Text-Spam Class Action to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that a federal judge
has rejected a request by Google to delay a potential class-action
lawsuit alleging that its social apps company Slide violated a
consumer protection law by sending SMS messages without the
recipients' consent.

Google had asked U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
in Oakland, Calif. to stay the lawsuit pending a decision by the
Federal Communications Commission about how to interpret the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Judge Rogers said in a written
opinion that delaying the lawsuit against Google was not
appropriate.  "The court is not convinced that the FCC has agreed
to issue a ruling, let alone issue a ruling on an expedited
basis."

The lawsuit -- brought by Nicole Pimental and Jessica Franklin --
alleges that Disco (Slide's group messaging app) violates the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by using an automated dialing
service to send SMS messages to people without first obtaining
their consent.  Disco allows individuals to send group texts to up
to 99 people at one time.  Recipients can opt out, but can't
prevent the initial message from arriving.

The service also allegedly sends recipients an introductory ad
informing them that they can avoid text-message charges by
downloading an app.

Google earlier asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed because
Slide's app was not covered by the statute on the grounds that the
app doesn't fit within the definition of an "automated dialing
service."  Google also argued that the messages were protected
free speech.  Judge Rogers rejected both of those arguments in
March.

Several weeks after that ruling, Google asked to delay the case
pending an FCC review of how to apply the TCPA to text messaging.
That review came about after Skype's GroupMe sought a ruling from
regulators that its texting app shouldn't be considered an
automated dialing service.  GroupMe also argues that
intermediaries such as itself should be able to rely on users'
statements that the people they text have consented to receiving
messages.

But Ms. Pimental and Ms. Franklin successfully opposed that
request, arguing that a delay would only provide Google with "a
means of prolonging this litigation endlessly."


GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Stock Reclassification
----------------------------------------------------------
Sean Kelly at Courthouse News Service reports that Google founders
Larry Page and Sergey Brin are cementing their hold on the company
through a 2-for-1 stock split that creates a nonvoting class of
stock that will "preserve their voting power into perpetuity," a
shareholder says in a class action in Chancery Court.

Google's stock reclassification proposal gives public shareholders
a dividend of non-voting Class C stock for every share of Class A
stock they own.

Messrs. Page and Brin, who founded Google in 1998, control the
company through ownership of most of Google's Class B stock, which
has 10 times the voting power of the public shares.  They also
will receive the 2-for-1 stock split, according to the complaint.

Eight other Google directors and the company itself are named as
defendants, along with Messrs. Page and Brin.

Because the voting proportions will remain unchanged, the issuance
of the non-voting shares will let the founders retain their
"ironclad grip over company management and operations," and allow
them to use the new shares to buy other companies or issue stock
to employees, the complaint states.

Reclassification of Google's stock "will have the same effect as a
gift to the founders of billions of dollars in equity, for which
they will pay nothing," the complaint states.

To approve the sweetheart deal, Messrs. Page and Brin formed a
"Special Committee" of Google directors, who, according to the
lawsuit, "did not bargain hard with the founders to obtain
anything of meaningful value in exchange for the extraordinarily
valuable benefit that is being bestowed upon them."

Defendant Paul Otellini, CEO of Intel, was chosen as a
"disinterested" member of the Special Committee, "despite the
close business ties between Intel and Google," lead plaintiff
Philip Skidmore claims.

In fact, Mr. Skidmore says, Google and Intel collaborated
extensively on Google's Android Operating System, through the "use
of the Intel Atom processor" to "re-engineer the Android Operating
System up from the kernel level of coding."

Mr. Skidmore claims that the "relationship goes even deeper than
collaboration at the symbiotic level of microchip and operating
system," in that an antitrust complaint was filed recently in
California that alleges "an illegal conspiracy" between Google and
Intel, "conspiring not to solicit workers employed by the other."
And, "that pending litigation mirrors a previous Department of
Justice investigation, which found that by no later than September
2007, Google and Intel executives agreed not to solicit each
other's employees."

The conflicts of interest do not stop there, according to the
complaint.  Perella Weinberg Partners was appointed the Special
Committee's financial adviser, and, although "terms of this
engagement are undisclosed, Perrella's compensation may have been
contingent on the deal being reached."

In short, Mr. Skidmore says, the "Special Committee's
'negotiations' were tepid, and did not approximate arm's length
bargaining," receiving so-called "concessions" from the founders
"that are essentially meaningless" and "no different from the
status quo."

A so-called Stapling Provision was "bargained for" in the
negotiations between the Special Committee and Messrs. Page and
Brin, which prevents them from selling their shares of Class C
stock without selling voting shares as well.  But this "provision
is seen by analysts as nothing more than a temporary restriction
almost certain to be later revised to the benefit of the Founders
and leading to their further entrenchment," the complaint states.

Google filed its preliminary Proxy Statement with the SEC on the
reclassification of its stock in April.  The complaint claims that
the Proxy Statement breached the defendants' fiduciary duty of
good faith and candor to Google shareholders because it is
"incomplete and misleading," including the omission of details
regarding compensation of the Special Committee and the financial
adviser.

Industry analysts and investors reacted negatively to the
reclassification announcement, precipitating a more than $44 drop
in the price of Google shares.

Google shares were selling for around $607 on May 2.

Google created its controversial dual class of stock in 2004 when
the company went public and raised $1.67 billion through its IPO.

The initial reason for the formation of Google's Class B stock,
the founders said at the time, was to give the company "time,
stability and independence," enabling it "to become an important
and significant institution in the transition to public
ownership."

But this reclassification has no "legitimate business purpose,"
the complaint states, and is only a "thinly veiled effort to
further entrench the Founders' voting power and control over the
company."

A copy of the Complaint in Brockton Retirement Board v. Page, et
al., Case No. 7469 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/03/GoogleCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Robert D. Goldberg, Esq.
         BIGGS AND BATTAGLIA
         921 N. Orange Street
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302)655-9677
         E-mail: goldberg@batlaw.com

              - and -

         Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
         Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
         Mark A. Delaney, Esq.
         BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
         155 Federal Street
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 398-5600
         E-mail: Jeff@blockesq.com
                 Jason@blockesq.com
                 Mark@blockesq.com


IDEAL RV: Accused of Not Paying Employees' Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip E. Poor, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Mario Bana dba Ideal RV & Trailer Supply, & Nacy Bana dba Ideal
RV & Trailer Supply, Doe 1 to 10, Case No. 3:12-cv-02206 (N.D.
Cal.) (May 2, 2012) accuses the Defendants of unlawful payroll
practice that denies Plaintiff overtime wages, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the lawsuit, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees performed services within the Defendants' usual
course of business as a maintenance worker, and did not perform
any work that that would exempt them from the right to be paid
overtime.  Mr. Poor alleges that he and members of the Class were
required to work more than eight hours a day and 40 hours a week
on a regular basis but were not paid the required one and one-half
of their regular rates for all their overtime hours worked.

Mr. Poor is a resident of San Mateo, California.  He performed
work as a maintenance worker for the Defendants in Redwood City,
California.

Ideal RV, which operates in Redwood City, provides parts and
supplies and maintenance services for recreational vehicles.  The
Banas are the sole proprietor of Ideal RV.  The Doe Defendants are
currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Wang, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ADAM WANG
          12 S. First Street, Suite 708
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 292-1040
          Facsimile: (408) 416-0248
          E-mail: adamqwang@gmail.com


MELA SCIENCES: Securities Suit Remains Pending in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class action lawsuit against Mela
Sciences, Inc., remains pending in a New York federal court,
according to the Company's March 9, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On November 19, 2010, a purported securities class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, naming as defendants the Company and certain
of its officers and directors, entitled Randall J. Pederson,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
MELA Sciences, Inc., Joseph V. Gulfo, Richard I. Steinhart, and
Breaux Castleman, No. 7:10-cv-08774-JFM.  Two similar complaints
were also filed, one on December 2, 2010 and the other on
January 20, 2011, in the same District Court, entitled Amy
Steigman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MELA Sciences, Inc., Joseph V. Gulfo, Richard I.
Steinhart, and Breaux Castleman, No. 7:10-cv-09024-JFM; and Martin
Slove and Linda Slove, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. MELA Sciences, Inc., Joseph V. Gulfo,
Richard I. Steinhart, and Breaux Castleman, No. 1:11-cv-00429-JFM.
These three securities class actions were consolidated into one
action on February 15, 2011, entitled In re MELA Sciences, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 10-Civ-8774-JFM ("securities class
action").  The securities class action plaintiffs assert
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging, among
other things, that defendants made misstatements and omissions
regarding the Company's product, MelaFind(R), and its prospects
for FDA approval, on behalf of stockholders who purchased the
Company's common stock during the period from February 13, 2009
through November 16, 2010, and seek unspecified damages.  On
May 2, 2011, the securities class action plaintiffs filed their
amended consolidated complaint, alleging similar claims to their
prior complaints.  On July 29, 2011, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety.
Plaintiff's opposition to the motion to dismiss was filed on
September 23, 2011.  In light of the Company's receipt of the
Approvable Letter from the FDA for the MelaFind(R) PMA Application
on September 22, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation on
October 19, 2011 in which Plaintiff stated its intention to file a
motion seeking leave to amend its complaint.  Defendants withdrew
the outstanding motion to dismiss the current Amended Complaint
without prejudice to renew it at a later date.  On November 18,
2011, Plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to amend the
consolidated amended complaint.  On December 18, 2011, defendants
filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the
consolidated amended complaint.  On February 8, 2012, Plaintiffs
filed their reply to defendants' opposition to the motion.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to vigorously defend against the securities class action; however,
as with any litigation, the Company cannot predict with certainty
the eventual outcome of this litigation.  An adverse outcome could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and its
business could be materially harmed.


NEW JERSEY: Faces Suit for Delayed Medicaid Benefits to Elderly
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that New Jersey illegally denies
and delays Medicaid benefits to the elderly poor who live in
nursing homes, a class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in LeFevere, et al. v. Velez, et al., Case
No. 12-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 14803 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on
May 1, 2012 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/03/NJHealth.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald M. McHugh, Esq.
          MCHUGH & MACRI
          49 Ridgedale Ave.
          East Hanover, NJ 07936
          Telephone: (973) 887-4254
          E-mail: donmchugh@optonline.net

               - and -

          John W. Callinan, Esq.
          Suite 103, 2052 Hwy 35
          Wall, NJ 07719
          Telephone: (732) 974-8898
          E-mail: johncalinan@optonline.net

               - and -

         Rene H. Reixach, Esq.
         WOODS OVIATT GILMAN LLP
         700 Crossroad Bldg., 2 State St.
         Rochester, NY 14614
         Telephone: (585) 987-2858
         E-mail: rreixach@woodsoviatt.com


NOKIA CORPORATION: Retirees' Bid to Amend Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for leave to further amend a complaint in a putative
class action lawsuit filed on behalf of participants in the Nokia
Retirement Savings and Investment Plan is pending, according to
Nokia Corporation 's March 8, 2012 Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

On April 19, 2010 and April 21, 2010, two individuals filed
separate putative class action lawsuits against Nokia Inc. and the
directors and officers of Nokia Inc., and certain other employees
and representatives of the company, claiming to represent all
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Nokia
Retirement Savings and Investment Plan (the "Plan") who
participated in the Plan between January 1, 2008 and the present
and whose accounts included investments in Nokia stock.  The
plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to comply with their
statutory and fiduciary duties when they failed to remove Nokia
stock as a plan investment option.  The cases were consolidated
and an amended consolidated complaint was filed on September 15,
2010.  The amended complaint alleges that the named individuals
knew of the matters alleged in the securities case, that the
matters significantly increased the risk of Nokia stock ownership,
and as a result of that knowledge, the named defendants should
have removed Nokia stock as a Plan investment option.  The
plaintiff's claims were dismissed in their entirety on
September 5, 2011.  The plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend
their complaint a second time is pending before the Court.


PARKVALE FINANCIAL: Judge Rejects Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Sabatini, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports
that Allegheny County Common Pleas Court Judge R. Stanton Wettick
Jr. has refused to approve a settlement in a shareholder lawsuit
against Parkvale Financial Corp., saying the agreement would only
benefit Parkvale's directors and the plaintiff's attorneys.

The proposed settlement stems from Monroeville-based Parkvale's
takeover by FNB Corp. of Hermitage.  The acquisition was announced
in June and completed Jan. 1.

The proposed class action, filed in October by Parkvale
shareholders William and Jane Curnow, alleged the purchase price
was too low and contained provisions that prevented better offers
from other potential suitors.  The suit also claimed Parkvale
shareholders were given inadequate and misleading information
about the merger in filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, preventing them from casting an informed vote.

In November, a tentative settlement was reached under which
Parkvale made supplemental disclosures to shareholders regarding
the transaction and agreed to pay plaintiff's attorney fees.  The
deal also barred class members from making any future claims.

In his April 18 ruling, Judge Wettick said the settlement was
unfair and "not within the range of possible approval" because it
did not provide any benefit to shareholders nor allow each member
of the class to opt out of the settlement.

The agreement "is very unattractive" to Parkvale shareholders, the
judge wrote.  He also said it raised "serious constitutional
concerns" because it did not allow an opportunity to opt out.

Besides rejecting the settlement, Judge Wettick declined to
certify the class action.

The October complaint named Parkvale and seven directors as
defendants, including former CEO Robert McCarthy, accusing them of
breach of fiduciary duty and gross mismanagement by "acting to
better their own personal interests" at the expense of
shareholders.

Plantiff attorney Jacob Goldberg -- jgoldberg@faruqilaw.com -- of
Faruqi & Faruqi in Jenkintown, Pa., on May 2 declined comment on
the judge's ruling.

"We are discussing with our client how we are going to proceed,"
he said.


REPUBLIC BANCORP: Unit Continues to Defend Suit in Kentucky
-----------------------------------------------------------
A unit of Republic Bancorp, Inc., continues to defend a putative
class action lawsuit pending in a Kentucky federal court,
according to the Company's March 7, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On August 1, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky styled Brenda
Webb vs. Republic Bank & Trust Company d/b/a Republic Bank, Civil
Action No. 3:11-CV-00423-TBR.  The Complaint was brought as a
putative class action and seeks monetary damages, restitution and
declaratory relief allegedly arising from the manner in which RB&T
assessed overdraft fees.  In the Complaint, the Plaintiff pleads
six claims against RB&T alleging: breach of contract and breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count I),
unconscionability (Count II), conversion (Count III), unjust
enrichment (Count IV), violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer
Act and Regulation E (Count V), and violations of the Kentucky
Consumer Protection Act, KRS Section 367, et seq. (Count VI).
RB&T filed a Motion to Dismiss the case on January 12, 2012.  In
response, Plaintiff filed its Motion to Amend the Complaint on
February 23, 2012.  In Plaintiff's proposed Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff acknowledges disclosure of the Overdraft Honor Policy
and does not seek to add any claims to the Amended Complaint.
However, Plaintiff divided the breach of contract and breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims into two counts
(Counts One and Two).  In the original Complaint, those claims
were combined in Count One.  RB&T's response to the Motion to
Amend was due March 15, 2012.  Management is evaluating the claims
of this lawsuit and is unable to estimate the possible loss or
range of possible loss, if any, that may result from this lawsuit.
RB&T intends to vigorously defend this case.


SAN DIEGO: Class Action Over Sept. 8 Blackout to Move Forward
-------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Lee, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reports that
liability issues related to the Sept. 8 blackout are back in the
spotlight with the May 1 release of a federal inquiry into the
cascading power failure that stretched across southernmost
California and parts of Arizona and Baja California.

A stalled class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court will now
move forward, with the intent of recouping money for food-spoilage
losses at San Diego-area homes, restaurants and other businesses,
an attorney for plaintiffs said on May 2.

Separately, San Diego Gas & Electric is weighing how to proceed
with thousands of outage-related claims -- totaling about $7
million -- that were filed directly with the utility.  And any
insurance companies that made significant payments as a result of
the outage may be looking into recovering funds through
negotiations, arbitration or litigation.

The 151-page inquiry report, compiled by regulators of the
nation's electricity grid, uncovered inadequate planning, poor
monitoring and a lack of awareness about real-time conditions by
various utilities and electricity-grid operators.  Better
procedures and communication might have prevented or minimized the
September outage, the federal investigators said.

Attorney Michael Rott said he will file an amended pleading in
U.S. District Court within a month on behalf of people within the
SDG&E service territory who lost money as a result of food
spoilage during the blackout, which lasted about 12 hours for most
of the region.  The complaint names SDG&E, the utility for San
Diego and southern Orange counties, and the Arizona Public Service
Co., the utility and grid operator for the area where the outage
began.

Mr. Rott said he believes the claim is supported by the inquiry,
which was led by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the
North American Electric Reliability Corp., also known as FERC and
NERC.

"It appears to me that everybody's got culpability -- all of the
defendants, both SDG&E and APS," Mr. Rott said.  "Obviously, SDG&E
would like to interpret that report in a different way."

On May 1, SDG&E said it was mulling its next steps after federal
officials announced their findings on the blackout.  The company
did not provide an update as of press time on May 2.

SDG&E, a Sempra Energy subsidiary, may be sheltered somewhat from
liability issues.  The utility delegates part of its
responsibilities as a transmission system operator to the state's
main grid-balancing authority, the California Independent System
Operator.

Arizona Public Service is its own transmission operator and grid-
balancing authority.  The company was cited in last week's report
for inadequate planning on Sept. 8.

On the insurance front, standard homeowner and business policies
are unlikely to cover most losses from the outage, said Pete
Moraga of the Insurance Information Network of California, a non-
lobbying industry group.

Homeowner policies typically cover damage from power surges but
not outages, while standard business-interruption policies
typically don't cover outages shorter than one or two days.

The origins of the blackout began at 3:27 p.m. Sept. 8, when an
APS maintenance worker at a switch yard near Yuma, Ariz.,
inadvertently knocked out a major transmission line feeding the
San Diego region.

With proper oversight, the grid should stand up to any one such
failure.  Instead, 7 million people were left without power.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Dryer Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Terry Barnes, writing for Reuters, reports that Sears, Roebuck and
Co lost a game of whack-a-mole litigation on May 1.

A federal appeals court ruled that the giant retailer cannot use
its win in a class action in Illinois federal court to defeat a
copycat suit that later popped up in California.

The case involves Sears' clothes dryers, which were advertised as
"all stainless steel."  Consumer Steven Thorogood, a self-
described "highly educated metallurgic engineer," sued when he
discovered that part of the dryer tub contained a piece of
ceramic-coated steel.  The steel in the drum had rusted, staining
his clothes, his suit claimed.

The case followed a convoluted path, making its way before the
Chicago-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit numerous
times.  The first time, the appeals court found that the suit
could not be brought as a class action because few consumers were
likely to have similar complaints.

"One would have to have a neurotic obsession with rust stains (or
be a highly imaginative class action lawyer) to worry about Sears'
drum," Judge Richard Posner wrote for the three-judge panel.

In response to that setback, Mr. Thorogood's lawyer Clinton
Krislov -- clint@krislovlaw.com -- filed a virtually identical
suit on behalf of Martin Murray, a member of the original class,
and other consumers in California.  On appeal in 2010, the 7th
Circuit blocked that suit and others like it "so that additional
Murrays wouldn't start popping up, class action complaint in hand,
all over the country," Judge Posner wrote.

Mr. Thorogood appealed to the Supreme Court, which in the meantime
issued its 2011 ruling in Smith v. Bayer Corp, preventing federal
courts from blocking state court proceedings.  After accepting
Mr. Thorogood's case for review, the high court removed the
injunction against Mr. Murray's suit and instructed the 7th
Circuit to reconsider its ruling in light of Smith v. Bayer.

In its latest decision on May 1, the 7th Circuit panel found that
Mr. Murray's suit must be allowed to proceed in California federal
court.  In Smith v. Bayer, the Supreme Court emphasized that
people who were not party to a suit cannot be bound by the
outcome.  Mr. Murray had never heard of Mr. Thorogood's suit and
never had an opportunity to opt out of it, the 7th Circuit found.

Still, the panel did not back down from its criticism of the "near
frivolous suit."  Sears will have to turn to other arguments, such
as the weight of precedent and respect that courts owe each other,
the panel said.

"Sears will have to tread one or more of these paths if it wants
relief from this copycat class action and perhaps more such
actions to come; we can't save it," Judge Posner wrote.

Philip Oliss -- philip.oliss@squiresanders.com -- a Squire Sanders
lawyer for Sears, said he was disappointed with the 7th Circuit's
decision.  He said the Smith v. Bayer ruling should not have
applied because it dealt with federal courts blocking state court
actions, not injunctions between federal courts.

The plaintiffs' lawyer Krislov said he was pleased the litigation
could now move forward in California federal court.

"Customers who were told they had a stainless steel drum dryer
should have received that because they paid a premium for it," he
said.

The case is Thorogood v. Sears, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th
Circuit, Nos. 10-2407, 11-2133.

For Thorogood: Clinton Krislov of Krislov & Associates.

For Sears: Philip Oliss of Squire Sanders.


SEQUENOM INC: IPO-related Suit Finally Dismissed in January
-----------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit challenging Sequenom, Inc.'s
initial public offering was dismissed in January, according to the
Company's March 9, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In November 2001, the Company and certain of its current or former
officers and directors were named as defendants in a class action
shareholder complaint filed by Collegeware USA in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (now
captioned In re Sequenom, Inc. IPO Securities Litigation) Case No.
01-CV-10831.  In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
Company's underwriters, certain of its officers and directors and
the Company violated the federal securities laws because the
Company's registration statement and prospectus contained untrue
statements of material fact or omitted material facts regarding
the compensation to be received by and the stock allocation
practices of the underwriters.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.  Similar complaints were filed
in the same District Court against hundreds of other public
companies that conducted initial public offerings of their common
stock in the late 1990s and 2000 (the IPO Cases).

In October 2002, the Company's officers and directors were
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a stipulated dismissal and
tolling agreement with the plaintiffs.  In February 2003, the
District Court dismissed the claim against the Company brought
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, without giving the
plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint with respect to that
claim.  The District Court declined to dismiss the claim against
the Company brought under Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the Securities Act).

In September 2003, pursuant to the authorization of a special
litigation committee of the Company's board of directors, the
Company approved in principle a settlement offer by the
plaintiffs.  In September 2004, the Company entered into a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs.  In February 2005, the
District Court issued a decision certifying a class action for
settlement purposes and granting preliminary approval of the
settlement subject to modification of certain bar orders
contemplated by the settlement.  In August 2005, the District
Court reaffirmed class certification and preliminary approval of
the modified settlement.  In December 2006, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the District Court's
decision certifying as class actions the six lawsuits designated
as "focus cases."  Thereafter the District Court ordered a stay of
all proceedings in all of the lawsuits pending the outcome of
plaintiffs' petition to the Second Circuit for rehearing en banc.
In April 2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' rehearing
petition, but clarified that the plaintiffs may seek to certify a
more limited class in the District Court.  Accordingly, the
settlement as originally negotiated was terminated pursuant to
stipulation.

In February 2009, liaison counsel for plaintiffs informed the
District Court that a new settlement of all IPO Cases had been
agreed to in principle, subject to formal approval by the parties
and preliminary and final approval by the District Court.  In
April 2009, the parties submitted a tentative settlement agreement
to the District Court and moved for preliminary approval thereof.
In June 2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval of
the tentative settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement
be published and mailed to class members.  In October 2009, the
District Court certified the settlement class in each IPO Case and
granted final approval to the settlement.  Thereafter, a number of
shareholders filed appeals to the Second Circuit, objecting to the
settlement.  On January 10, 2012, the last of these shareholder
appeals was dismissed with prejudice.  Accordingly, the settlement
is now final, all claims against the Company and its officers and
directors in the IPO Cases will be dismissed with prejudice, and
the Company's pro rata share of the settlement fund will be fully
funded by insurance.


TRUSTMARK NATIONAL: Watson Burns Files Overdraft Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Memphis law firm Watson Burns, PLLC and Atlanta law firm Webb,
Klase & Lemond, LLC have filed a class action lawsuit against
Trustmark National Bank in Shelby County, Tennessee.  The suit
alleges that the bank engages in improper practices in its
assessment of overdraft fees on consumer checking accounts.  The
suit claims that Trustmark, which is headquartered in Jackson,
Mississippi, has engaged in these unfair practices in order to
increase the number overdraft fees imposed on consumers.  The
case, styled White v. Trustmark National Bank, was filed in the
Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee
on April 30, 2012 and has been assigned Case No. CT-001921-12.

Even though the case is filed in Tennessee it proposes a class
action on behalf of Trustmark customers in Tennessee, Mississippi,
Florida, and Texas.  Trustmark has 186 branch offices in those
four states with total assets of $9.7 billion.  Trustmark has over
a dozen locations in metropolitan Memphis where the case has been
filed.

According to the suit, Trustmark routinely enforces a policy
whereby debit transactions are posted to consumer accounts in
order of largest to smallest by dollar amount, even when larger
charges occur days after smaller charges.  This maximizes the
number and amount of overdraft fees.  According to the complaint,
Trustmark also deducts certain transactions before debit card
items, even though there is no proper reason for doing so.  The
complaint also addresses other practices of the bank that generate
excessive overdraft fees.

The complaint alleges that Trustmark could easily program its
software systems to minimize insufficient funds fees without any
increased cost or risk to the bank.  Instead, according to the
complaint, Trustmark has programmed its systems to manipulate
transactions to maximize overdraft fee income.  Plaintiff claims
that these practices constitute breach of contract, breach of
Trustmark's obligation to act in good faith and to deal fairly
with customers, conversion, and unjust enrichment.  The suit also
claims certain practices are unconscionable.

If you are a Trustmark customer, or were in the past, in
Tennessee, Mississippi, Florida, or Texas and you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this press release,
please contact Webb, Klase & Lemond by e-mail at
contact@WebbLLC.com or by calling (770) 444-9325.  Webb, Klase &
Lemond, LLC is a law firm that practices complex litigation with a
focus on litigation arising from wrongful deprivations by
corporate and government entities.  Watson Burns, PLLC is a
Memphis litigation firm that focuses on corporate malfeasance and
personal injury law.


                           *********

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  * * *