---

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

               Monday, May 14, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 94

                             Headlines

AMERICAN NATIONAL: Challenges "Colossus" Software Class Action
ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Continues to Defend La Colosa-Related Suits
APOLLO GROUP: $145-Mil. Securities Suit Deal Approved in April
APPLE: iPod Owners Get iTunes Antitrust Class Action Notices
BANK OF HAWAII: Administrator Paid All Refunds as of April 20

BEST BUY: Accused of Not Paying Employees' Overtime Wages
BRIDGENEX LLC: Blumenthal Nordrehaug File Class Action
CAPELLA EDUCATION: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit
CELANESE CORP: Canadian Plumbing Suits Settlement Still Pending
CENTRO RETAIL: Lawyers Argue Over Details of Settlement Payouts

CNINSURE INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiffs
CRST INC: Court Ruling May Hamper Sexual Harassment Class Action
D.R. HORTON: Defends Five Suits Over Defective Chinese Drywall
EBAY INC: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Bidding Manipulation
ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Class Suit in Missouri

GATE CITY: Disputes Overdaft Charges Class Action
GIANT INTERACTIVE: Settled and Paid Consolidated Suit for $13MM
INDONESIA: Child Protection Commission to File Suit
KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES: Recalls 46T Tender & Light Vibes Bassinets
METRA: Faces Class Action Over One-Year Ticket Expiration Dates

MGIC INVESTMENT: 7th Cir. Affirmed Consolidated Suit Dismissal
MGIC INVESTMENT: Continues to Defend RESPA/FCRA Violation Suits
MGIC INVESTMENT: Claims Still Pending in Housing Disc. Class Suit
NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Suits
NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: Faces Class Suits Over Setting of LIBOR

NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: Faces Suits Over Issuance of $83-Bil. MBS
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: October 1 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SPORTSPOWER LTD: Recalls 92T Sportspower BouncePro Trampolines
SUN LIFE: Terms of Class Counsel's Retainer Not Privileged
UNION CITY, CA: Judge Tosses Discrimination Suit v. UCPD

UNIV. OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA: Indian Students to File Class Action


                          *********

AMERICAN NATIONAL: Challenges "Colossus" Software Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Keahey, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a group
of insurance companies fighting high stakes litigation involving
computer software known as "Colossus" say the plaintiffs' choice
of venue is "blatant forum shopping."

The companies want U.S. District Judge Susan O. Hickey of the
Western District of Arkansas to deny plaintiffs' motion to remand
the case to Miller County, Arkansas, where years earlier the same
group of attorneys obtained more than $185 million in fees in an
identical class action lawsuit.  Their suits claim that insurance
companies conspired to underpay uninsured or underinsured bodily
injury claims by using Colossus software developed by Computer
Science Corp.

Citing the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), insurers claim that
federal jurisdiction is proper because the proposed class would
have more than 100 members, who are seeking to recover in excess
of $5 million.

In March, Judge Hickey wrote in an order that she would take up
the issue of subject matter jurisdiction through the plaintiffs'
motion to remand, before the court addresses the issue of personal
jurisdiction.

While the defendants are filing motions asking Judge Hickey to
reconsider that order, they are mounting arguments against
returning the case to Miller County Court.

The new class action, Basham and McClendon v. American National
County Mutual Ins. Co. et al, mirrors one filed in Miller County
Court on the eve of the enactment of CAFA in 2005, Hensley v. CSC.
The case produced individual settlements valued at up to $53
million, though a total settlement value is not available.

Hensley was overseen by Miller County Judge Kirk Johnson.

After years of protracted discovery that was costly and
inconvenient, most companies settled saying that it was too
expensive to defend.

A group of insurance companies known as ANPAC, the sole remaining
defendant, eventually learned that a named plaintiff in Hensley
had died.  ANPAC offered to settle for $20,000 in 2011.

The offer was neither accepted nor declined.  The plaintiffs'
attorneys apologized to Judge Johnson and the defense lawyers for
going months without telling anyone that the last remaining named-
plaintiff had died.  The case was voluntarily dismissed on Nov. 7,
2011, without the plaintiffs' responding to ANPAC's settlement
offer.

However, just a few weeks later on Dec. 7, 2011, the plaintiffs'
attorneys, John Goodson and Matt Keil of Keil & Goodson in
Texarkana and Brad Seidel of Nix, Patterson & Roach in
Daingerfield, filed the new lawsuit in Miller County, the one now
pending in the Western District of Arkansas.  The lawsuit names
Eddie Basham, as the Administrator of the Estate of James Bashman
and Freda McClendon as class representatives.  The insurance
company defendants include various subsidiaries of ANPAC, Erie
Insurance, Infinity Insurance, Farm Bureau, Royal Insurance, 21st
Century, Metlife, and Traveler's Insurance.

With years of unfavorable experience with Judge Johnson in Miller
County, the insurance companies quickly filed to remove the case
to federal court where it remains under Judge Hickey's
jurisdiction.

One of ANPAC's attorneys has accused the plaintiffs of "blatant
forum shopping" in reference to the inclusion of plaintiff
McClendon and the attempt to get the case first tried in Sebastian
County, Arkansas.  When that Sebastian County Court ruled
unfavorably toward the plaintiffs, they dismissed the McClendon
case and named her as a co-plaintiff when the Colossus class
action was re-filed in Miller County in December 2011.

ANPAC also has stated that the plaintiffs' attorneys are using
"tactics designed to avoid removal and coerce settlements."

In the current action, the plaintiffs repeatedly state that their
lawsuit does not fall under the requirements of CAFA as the case
will only represent Arkansas class members and will not seek more
than $75,000 per plaintiff or more than $5 million in total
damages, not including injunctive relief and attorney's fees.

Although the plaintiffs claim that the lawsuit is limited to
Arkansas-only class members, the plaintiffs' initial argument
claims a nationwide conspiracy, according to the defendants.

"Defendant conspired to use Colossus to reduce the amount paid on
bodily injury claims across the nation, including UM/UIM claims
made in Arkansas," the original complaint states.

Another argument insurance companies are making to keep the case
in federal court is the example of huge settlements paid in
Hensley.

"Settlements in related litigation involving identical allegations
and the same counsel, as well as settlement demand to a defendant
in this action, demonstrate that any recovery by plaintiffs will
exceed $5 million," states an answer from the Travelers
defendants.

As of the end of April, Metlife defendants have filed a motion to
strike parts of the plaintiffs' argument in the motion to remand.
The plaintiffs are attempting to re-write their complaint to avoid
federal court jurisdiction by stating that they are not asking for
unjust enrichment and disgorgement damages, the defendants' motion
states.

"Plaintiffs could have limited all of their requested recovery to
profits attributable to the Arkansas class alone or to amounts by
which defendants were unjustly enriched at the expense of Arkansas
class members, but they did not," Metlife's motion states.

Metlife continues, "Plaintiffs' counsel are experienced attorneys
who have litigated removal and remand issues at length in
Arkansas. If they wanted to limit the amount in controversy here
to their stipulated damage limitations, they could have limited
this case to one for damages.  Nevertheless, they requested
injunctive relief of unlimited value."

The parties are currently awaiting Judge Hickey's ruling on the
motion to remand.


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Continues to Defend La Colosa-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
AngloGold Ashanti Limited continues to defend class action
lawsuits involving its Colombian unit arising from the La Colosa
project, according to the Company's April 23, 2012, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

These six class action lawsuits are currently pending before
different Colombian state and federal courts in relation to
AngloGold Ashanti Colombia S.A. (AGAC)'s La Colosa project, which
is currently in its pre-feasibility phase and consists of three
core concession contracts:

   -- Ivonne Prada v. Federal Department of the Environment,
      Housing and Territorial Development (October 2009);

   -- Usocoello, Cortolima, Procuraduria Regional Tolima,
      Universidad de Ibague, Estudiantes de la Universidad del
      Rosario, Federarroz v. AGAC, Federal Department of Mines,
      Federal Department of the Environment, Housing and
      Territorial Development and Ingeominas (September 2010);

   -- Maria del Pilar Gonzalez v. Federal Department of Mines,
      Ingeominas and AGAC (May 2011);

   -- Maria del Pilar Gonzalez v. Federal Department of Mines,
      Ingeominas and AGAC (July 2011);

   -- Personero de Ibague v. Federal Department of the
      Environment, Housing and Territorial Development,
      Ingeominas, AGAC, Continental Gold Ltda., Oro Barracuda
      Ltda., Fernando Montoya, Alberto Murillo and Eugenio Gomez
      (December 2011); and

   -- Juan Ceballos v. Federal Department of the Environment,
      Housing and Territorial Development, Ingeominas, Cortolima
      and AGAC (February 2012).

The Company says all but one of these lawsuits name AGAC as a
defendant.  Each lawsuit aims to stop exploration and mining in
certain restricted areas affected by the La Colosa project due to
environmental concerns or alleged breaches of environmental laws.
Under Colombian law, restricted areas are State-protected land on
which economic activities are restricted.  AGAC has opposed, and
has sought the dismissal of most of, the class action lawsuits
that have been filed against it.

The class action lawsuit that has progressed the most was filed in
the Third Administrative Court of the District of Ibague on
September 9, 2010.  It named each of Ingeominas (the Colombian
regulatory agency for mining activities), the Federal Department
of the Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, as well
as the Federal Department of Mines as defendants.  AGAC was
subsequently joined to the lawsuit as an additional defendant.
The plaintiffs are the User Association of the Land Adequation
District of Coello and Cucuana Rivers (Usocoello), which is a
cooperative representing local farmers, the Autonomous Regional
Corporation of Tolima (Cortolima), which is the government of the
State of Tolima, the Office of the Attorney General of the State
of Tolima (Procurador Judicial Ambiental y Agrario para el
Tolima), the University of Ibague, a student association of the
University of El Rosario (Estudiantes de la Universidad del
Rosario) and Fedearroz, which is the Colombian association of rice
growers.

The plaintiffs have petitioned the court to order the defendant
governmental entities not to declare the La Colosa mining project
feasible on the grounds that the project threatens a healthy
environment, public health and food safety for Usocoello members
and local residents.  Such order by the court would result in the
revocation of AGAC's permit to temporarily use for its exploration
activities 515.75 hectares of forest reserve that are otherwise
designated as restricted areas.

In addition, as each of AGAC's three core mining concession
contracts governing the La Colosa project provides that Ingeominas
has the discretion to declare the underlying concession void if
AGAC breaches applicable environmental laws or regulations, the
plaintiffs have petitioned the court to direct Ingeominas to
cancel such concession contracts on the ground that AGAC has
violated the Code of Natural Resources.  If plaintiffs prevail and
Ingeominas is ordered to cancel AGAC's three core concession
contracts, the company would be required to abandon the La Colosa
project and all of AGAC's other existing mining concession
contracts and pending proposals for new mining concession
contracts would also be cancelled.  In addition, AGAC would be
banned from doing business with the Colombian government for a
period of five years.  As a result, AGAC would be unable to
conduct any mining exploration or development activities during
such period.  However, this would not affect other AngloGold
Ashanti subsidiaries operating in Colombia, which hold singularly
or in concert with joint venture partners the majority of
AngloGold Ashanti's concession contracts in Colombia.

As no settlement was reached at a special conciliation hearing
(Pacto de Cumplimiento) held on April 27, 2011, the trial has
continued and the court is gathering evidence from the parties in
preparation for its ruling.

In addition, in connection with the class action lawsuit filed by
the Ombudsman of Ibague (Personero de Ibague) in September 2011,
the Superior Court of the District of Ibague granted the plaintiff
a preliminary injunction that resulted in the suspension of AGAC's
mining concession contracts relating to certain greenfield
exploration activities in the Toche Anaima Belt.  These contracts
do not include AGAC's core concession contracts relating to the La
Colosa project.  AGAC has appealed against this preliminary
injunction and its appeal is still pending.


APOLLO GROUP: $145-Mil. Securities Suit Deal Approved in April
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc. disclosed in its April 24, 2012, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, that its
$145 million settlement of a securities class action lawsuit
commenced by Policeman's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago was
approved.

On April 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona approved the settlement agreement relating to the
securities class action lawsuit entitled, In re Apollo Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT, and entered an
order of final judgment and dismissal.  Under the settlement
agreement, which had been approved by the court preliminarily on
November 28, 2011, the Company is required to pay $145.0 million
to the plaintiffs.  This amount was deposited into a common fund
account on December 5, 2011, and was presented as restricted funds
held for legal matter on the Company's Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets as of February 29, 2012.

In connection with approval of the settlement agreement and the
dismissal of the lawsuit, the Court also vacated the judgment in
this case against Apollo Group and the individual defendants,
which had been entered by the Court on April 6, 2011.


APPLE: iPod Owners Get iTunes Antitrust Class Action Notices
------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Hughes, writing for Apple Insider, reports that some
customers who purchased an iPod between 2006 and 2009 began
receiving notice last week that they are members of a pending
class-action lawsuit accusing Apple of creating a monopoly with
the iTunes Music Store.

Members of the class include customers who bought iPod classic,
iPod shuffle, iPod touch and iPod nano models between Sept. 12,
2006 and March 31, 2009.  No ruling has been made on the case and
a settlement has not been reached, but e-mails began going out
last week to inform iPod owners of the ongoing dispute, and refer
them to ipodlawsuit.com for more information.

The complaint dates back to July 2004, when RealNetworks released
a work-around dubbed "Harmony" that allowed songs purchased from
its music store to be transferred onto the iPod.  Apple released a
statement accusing RealNetworks of adopting "the tactics and
ethics of a hacker to break the iPod," and warning customers it
was "highly likely" that Real's Harmony technology would not work
with future version of the iPod software.

Later that year, Apple issued an update to its iPod software that
disabled Harmony and prevented users from transferring songs from
the service.  RealNetworks admitted to investors in 2005 that the
Harmony technology had put the company at risk to a lawsuit from
Apple.

Then, in early 2005, Thomas Slattery filed a class-action lawsuit
against Apple, alleging that the company had violated federal
antitrust laws and California's unfair competition law by
requiring that customers use an iPod to listen to music purchased
via the iTunes Music Store.

The complaint has dragged on for more than 7 years now, and last
year Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd in San Jose, Calif., even
authorized limited questioning of Apple's then-chief-executive
Steve Jobs.  In the 7 years since the suit was filed, Apple has
negotiated with music labels for a more open iTunes Music Store,
and songs sold there are now provided without digital rights
management software, which restricts how files can be used.

Early this month, a pair of settlement conferences were held in
the class-action suit, known as "The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust
Litigation."  However, no settlement could be reached during those
discussions.

The court then held a case management conference on May 2, in
which the case and any disputes until Aug. 31, 2012, are referred
to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.

Judge James Ware also declared that Apple has a right to file a
motion for summary judgment to address issues which have not yet
been raised before the court.  Both Apple and the plaintiff have
admitted to the court that an "outstanding expert" report has not
yet been served by the plaintiffs.

"In light of this, the Court finds no reason to deny the Defendant
the ability to challenge that expert report once it becomes
available, and to file any appropriate motion for summary judgment
resulting from disclosures made in that expert report," Judge Ware
wrote.  "Accordingly, on or before May 20, 2012, the parties shall
meet and confer and stipulate to a suitable schedule with respect
to any further disruptive motions that any party may seek to
file."

As for those who have been notified that they are a class member,
customers have the right to do nothing and remain a part of the
class, or they can ask to be excluded to get out of the lawsuit
and receive no benefits from it.  Those who wish to be excluded
must send an "Exclusion Request," as detailed on the lawsuit's
official Web site.


BANK OF HAWAII: Administrator Paid All Refunds as of April 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Fund Administrator of Bank of Hawaii Corporation's $9 million
settlement of a class action lawsuit over overdraft fees paid
refunds to all class members as of April 20, 2012, according to
the Company's April 23, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

On February 15, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, by
customers who claimed that the Bank had improperly charged
overdraft fees on debit card transactions.  The lawsuit was similar
to industry lawsuits filed against other financial institutions
pertaining to overdraft fee debit card transactions.  On July 15,
2011, the Company reached a tentative settlement with the
plaintiffs that provided for a payment by the Company of $9.0
million into a class settlement fund, the proceeds of which will be
used to refund class members and to pay attorneys' fees and
administrative and other costs, in exchange for a complete release
of all claims asserted against the Company.  As of June 30, 2011,
the $9.0 million tentative settlement amount was fully accrued for
by the Company.  On September 2, 2011, the court gave its initial
approval to the settlement, and on September 19, 2011, the $9.0
million settlement amount was paid to the Fund Administrator.  On
February 14, 2012, the court gave its final approval to the
settlement.

As of April 20, 2012, the Administrator paid refunds to all class
members.


BEST BUY: Accused of Not Paying Employees' Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Chris Bonnel, individually, and on behalf of members of the
general public similarly situated v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., a
Virginia Limited Partnership; and Does 1 through 100, Case No.
RG1262917 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., March 23, 2012) is
brought on behalf of a proposed class of all current and former
"Geek Squad Installers," or "Home Theater Installers" or persons
with similar titles and similar job duties, who worked for Best
Buy in the state of California at any time from March 22, 2008, to
final judgment.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants knew or should have
known that he and other class members were working off-the-clock
and were entitled to receive compensation at least a minimum wage.
He argues that he and the other class members were working over
eight hours per day and 40 hours per week, but they were not
receiving wages for overtime compensation.

Mr. Bonnel is a resident of the state of California.  The
Defendants employed the Plaintiff as a "Geek Squad Installer" from
December 2007 to the present in California.

Best Buy, a partnership organized and existing under the laws of
the state of Virginia, transacts business throughout California,
including the County of Alameda.  Best Buy owns and operates
approximately 118 Best Buy stores in California.  The names and
identities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.

Best Buy removed the lawsuit on May 7, 2012, from the Superior
Court of the state of California, County of Alameda, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The Company argues that the removal is proper because the District
Court has original subject matter jurisdiction based on the
parties' diversity of citizenship under the Class Action Fairness
Act of 2005.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:12-cv-
02285 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq.
          Kitty Szeto, Esq.
          Douglas Han, Esq.
          R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
          42220 10th Street West, Suite 109
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 949-2595
          Facsimile: (661) 949-7524
          E-mail: rrparris@rrexparris.com
                  dhan@rrexparris.com
                  awheeler@rrexparris.com

               - and -

          Rebecca Eisen, Esq.
          Stephen L. Taeusch, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market Street, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
          E-mail: reisen@morganlewis.com
                  staeusch@morganlewis.com


BRIDGENEX LLC: Blumenthal Nordrehaug File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
On April 19, 2012, the employment attorneys at Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action complaint against
Bridgenex LLC for alleged wage and hour violations.  Dozier vs.
Bridgenex LLC, Case No. 112CV222765 is currently pending in Santa
Clara Superior Court.

According to the class action complaint filed against Bridgenex
LLC, the technical staffing company, "failed and continues to fail
to pay any overtime wages for work days in excess of eight (8)
hours to Plaintiff and other California Class Members."  The
complaint also alleges that Bridgenex, "intentionally, knowingly
and systematically failed to compensate the Plaintiff and the
other members of the California Class at the appropriate rate for
all overtime hours worked," in order to illegally profit and gain
an unfair advantage over competitors who complied with the law.

Moreover, the class action complaint filed against Bridgenex LLC
alleges that as a result of Bridgenex's failure to pay Plaintiff
and California Class Members the correct amount of overtime
compensation, Bridgenex provided these employees with inaccurate
wage statements in violation of California Labor Code Section 226.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against
Bridgenex call (866) 771-7099.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a California employment law
firm that dedicates its practice to helping employees, investors
and consumers fight back against unfair business practices,
including violations of California labor laws.


CAPELLA EDUCATION: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
On November 5, 2010, a purported securities class action lawsuit
captioned Police Pension Fund of Peoria, Individually, and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Capella Education
Company, J. Kevin Gilligan and Lois M. Martin, was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The complaint
names the Company and certain senior executives as defendants, and
alleges the Company and the named defendants made false or
misleading public statements about the Company's business and
prospects during the time period from February 16, 2010, through
August 13, 2010 in violation of federal securities laws, and that
these statements artificially inflated the trading price of the
Company's common stock to the detriment of shareholders who
purchased shares during that time.  The plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages for the purported class.  Since that time,
substantially similar complaints making similar allegations
against the same defendants for the same purported class period
were filed with the federal court.  Pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, on April 13, 2011, the
Court appointed Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System as lead plaintiff and Abraham, Fruchter and Twersley, LLP,
as lead counsel.

A consolidated amended complaint, captioned Oklahoma Firefighters
Pension and Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. Capella Education Company, J. Kevin
Gilligan, Lois M. Martin and Amy L. Ronneberg, was filed on
June 27, 2011.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's complaint on September 2, 2011, and a hearing on that
motion was held on December 21, 2011.  The District Court will
rule on the motion at some time in the future.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 24, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

The Company says discovery in this case has not yet begun.
Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.
Based on information available to the Company at present, it does
not believe loss from this action is probable and, accordingly,
has not accrued any liability associated with this action.


CELANESE CORP: Canadian Plumbing Suits Settlement Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Holdings LLC ("CNA Holdings"), a U.S. subsidiary of Celanese
Corporation, which included the U.S. business now conducted by the
Ticona business that is included in the Advanced Engineered
Materials segment, along with Shell Oil Company ("Shell"), E.I.
DuPont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont") and others, has been a
defendant in a series of lawsuits, including a number of class
actions, alleging that plastic resins manufactured by these
companies that were utilized by others in the production of
plumbing systems for residential property were defective for this
use and/or contributed to the failure of such plumbing.  Based on,
among other things, the findings of outside experts and the
successful use of Ticona's acetal copolymer in similar
applications, CNA Holdings does not believe Ticona's acetal
copolymer was defective for this use or contributed to the failure
of the plumbing.  In addition, in many cases CNA Holdings'
potential future exposure may be limited by, among other things,
statutes of limitations and repose.

In November 1995, CNA Holdings, DuPont and Shell entered into
national class action settlements in the Cox, et al. v. Hoechst
Celanese Corporation, et al., No. 94-0047 (Chancery Ct., Obion
County, Tennessee) matter.  The time to file claims against the
class has expired and the entity established by the court to
administer the claims was dissolved in September 2010.  In
addition between 1995 and 2001, CNA Holdings was named as a
defendant in various putative class actions.  The majority of
these actions have now been dismissed.  As a result, the Company
recorded $59 million in reserve reductions and recoveries from
associated insurance indemnifications during 2010.  The reserve
was further reduced by $4 million during the year ended
December 31, 2011, following the dismissal of the remaining U.S.
case (St. Croix, Ltd., et al. v. Shell Oil Company d/b/a Shell
Chemical Company, Case No. XC-97-CR-467, Virgin Islands Superior
Court) which was appealed during the three months ended
September 30, 2011.

As of March 31, 2012, the class actions in Canada are subject to a
pending class settlement that would result in a dismissal of those
cases.  The Company does not believe the Possible Loss associated
with the remaining matters is material.  As of
March 31, 2012, the Company did not record any recoveries or
reductions in legal reserves related to plumbing actions (Note 13)
to Other (charges) gains, net in the unaudited interim
consolidated statements of operations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 24, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.


CENTRO RETAIL: Lawyers Argue Over Details of Settlement Payouts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Australian, reports that Centro
Retail Australia's record AUD200 million class action settlement
has stalled as lawyers argue over the details of payouts to former
shareholders of the shopping center owner.

After a flurry of activity on May 7, the class action over the
company's 2007 accounting errors and refinancing issues briefly
resumed on May 8 only to be adjourned to May 11 in the hope of an
agreement.

Lawyers for shareholders told the court that the deal had
encountered "a few hiccups".  A result was expected May 11.

The AUD200 million sum was confirmed on May 9 by lawyers for
shareholders.  The previous record of AUD144 million for a class
action payout was to investors in poker machine maker Aristocrat
Leisure in 2008.

Centro will pay AUD134 million and former auditor
PricewaterhouseCoopers AUD66 million.

Under the agreement, those in Maurice Blackburn's claim pick up
AUD150 million and those with Slater & Gordon reap AUD50 million.

"This sends a strong message that corporations and their advisers
will be held accountable to shareholders if their conduct falls
short of what the law requires," said Maurice Blackburn class
action principal Martin Hyde.

It is understood that either Centro chairman Bob Edgar or chief
executive Steven Sewell instigated the mediation meetings held in
recent weeks that led to the settlement.

Shortly after the deal was announced, rumors flew that Centro's
US-based hedge fund major shareholders were the driving force
behind the settlement.

The speculation came after it emerged that the lawyer who
represented them in last year's AUD2.8 billion debt-for-equity
swap, Leon Zwier from Arnold Bloch Leibler, was a key player in
brokering the agreement.

However, Mr. Zwier is believed to have helped negotiate the deal
pro bono as a promotional exercise for the firm.

Mr. Zwier declined to comment on the matter when contacted by The
Australian.

Legal eyebrows have also been raised over why Centro and PwC chose
to settle at AUD200 million when a much lower figure was broached
three years ago and knocked back by the two corporate heavies.

However, the AUD200 million payment would still be well below the
AUD600 million the class action litigants were said to be seeking.

Thousands of shareholders -- including 5,000 in the Slater &
Gordon action -- joined two separate class action claims against
the company.

The alleged AUD3.1 billion misclassification of short-term debt as
non-current in the company's 2007 accounts, coupled with the
refinancing issues, crashed the company's share price at the time.

Analysts on May 9 raised concerns over what impact the payout
would have on Centro's net asset value, last reported at AUD2.53
per share.

Centro entered May 7 trading halt at AUD1.847 per share.

The Bloomberg consensus target price for Centro is AUD1.92.

Joe Schneider and Soraya Permatasari, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that Centro Retail Australia (CRF), formed from a mall
manager's reorganization, and PricewaterhouseCoopers agreed in
principle to a settlement of AUD200 million (US$202) million with
Centro shareholders who claimed they were misled.

The litigants were given until May 9 to complete the details of
the agreement or a trial will continue, Mr. Hyde said.

A trial before Federal Court Justice Michelle Gordon began March 5
and was scheduled to run through June 22 as shareholders of Centro
Properties Group, the former Melbourne-based mall manager, claimed
the company misled them over its debts.  Class-action lawsuits
filed by Maurice Blackburn and Slater & Gordon Lawyers (SGH) were
being tried together, while accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers
was also sued for failing to audit the company properly.

Centro shares fell 76% in Sydney on Dec. 17, 2007 after the
company said it was struggling to refinance debt because of the
collapse of the subprime mortgage market.  The share slump wiped
AUD4.98 billion from the market value of Centro Properties Group
(CNP) and Centro Retail Group at the time.

The company first announced a restructuring plan in 2009 after a
debt-fueled U.S. buying spree backfired when the global financial
crisis caused property values to plummet and borrowing costs to
soar.  That left Centro unable to refinance its liabilities.
Centro, which managed about AUD16.5 billion of shopping malls in
Australia, New Zealand and the U.S., accumulated about AUD16
billion of debt across its businesses.  The company avoided
receivership in December, when shareholders and debt holders
agreed to a plan to swap AUD2.9 billion of debt for equity in a
new company, Centro Retail Australia.

Blackstone Real Estate Partners VI LP, a unit of the world's
biggest private-equity firm, agreed to buy Centro's 588 U.S. malls
in March 2011 for $9.4 billion.  Centro also agreed to swap part
of its debt for 108 Australian properties.

The previous record shareholder settlement in Australia took place
in 2008, when Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. (ALL)'s investors received
AUD144 million, Mr. Ramsay said.

ABC News reports that litigation funder IMF, which backed the
class action, hailed the agreement as a "victory for ordinary
investors".

"The outcome means regulations protecting the market have been
enforced, ensuring greater transparency in corporate disclosure in
the future," IMF's Wayne Attrill said in a statement.

"In upholding the rights of thousands of Australian investors, it
is a victory for the civil justice system."

                         ASIC's Response

Ben Butler, Georgia Wilkins and Leonie Wood, writing for The
Canberra Times, reports that as parties in the Centro class action
finalize details of a AUD200 million settlement, the corporate
regulator has indicated it may take further disciplinary action.

Asked whether it planned action against Centro's former auditor
PricewaterhouseCoopers, a spokesman for the Australian Securities
and Investments Commission said that "any decisions would be made
after careful consideration by the ASIC commissioner".

The spokesman said the corporate regulator could not comment on
future enforcement action.

"More generally, decisions on court action are based on assessing
a few things and they are whether court action is in the public
interest, the regulatory benefit of the action and the scale of
the wrongdoing or loss involved," he said.

On becoming the ASIC chairman a year ago, Greg Medcraft stressed
the importance of policing the "gatekeepers", including auditors,
who act as intermediaries between investors and the financial
markets.

ASIC last year won a civil penalty case in which the Federal Court
found Centro's directors breached their duties by signing 2006-07
accounts that failed to disclose billions of dollars of short-term
debt and failed to reveal crucial post-balance date events.

Lawyers on May 9 were finessing the minutiae of the terms of
settlement, in which PwC is expected to bear one-third of a AUD200
million payout to Centro investors.  The case was due for a brief
hearing on May 10 in the Federal Court.

PwC last month made limited admissions during the class action,
acknowledging that its staff were negligent during the Centro
audit in 2007.  PwC had argued that Centro's board and executives
withheld information about its position from the lead audit
partner, Stephen Cougle, who signed the formal auditor's statement
in the accounts.

But as the enormously expensive Federal Court trial dragged on
into its third month, Justice Michelle Gordon last week issued yet
another warning to parties to try to settle the case.

Shareholders must first be given adequate notice of the proposed
deal before it is formally considered by a judge who, in turn,
must decide if it is fair and reasonable.  The notification
process is likely to take several weeks.


CNINSURE INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------------
CNinsure Inc. is awaiting a court decision on a motion for
appointment of lead plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit
initiated by Pieter van Dongen, according to the Company's
April 24, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On October 17, 2011, Pieter van Dongen, an alleged purchaser of
the Company's American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") brought a
purported class action against the Company, and three of its then-
executive officers.  The complaint asserts that between March 2,
2010, and September 14, 2011, the alleged class period, the
defendants defrauded purchasers of the Company's ADRs through the
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's income, incentive compensation and future
prospects including by allegedly overstating net income by failing
to properly account for incentives provided to the Company's
agents.  The complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the
Security Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
thereunder and under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On December 6, 2011, the Company and van Dongen, entered into a
stipulation providing that within forty-five days after the
court's entry of an order appointing a lead plaintiff under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, the lead plaintiff must
either file a consolidated complaint or give notice of its intent
not to do so (and therefore proceed on its initial complaint).
The stipulation establishes a briefing schedule under which the
Company's response to the operative complaint is due forty-five
days after such filing or notice; the lead plaintiff's opposition
is due 45 days later; and the Company's reply is due 30 days
later.  The stipulation was "so ordered" by the Court on
December 7, 2011.  On December 16, 2011, two other alleged
purchasers of the Company's ADRs, who are represented by the same
law firm that represents van Dongen, moved for appointment as lead
plaintiffs, and no other prospective plaintiff moved for
appointment as lead plaintiff by the December 16, 2011 deadline.
The lead plaintiff motion is still pending before the court.

The Company says the outcome of the class action cannot be
reliably estimated with reasonable certainty at this stage and no
provision has thus been made as of December 31, 2011.


CRST INC: Court Ruling May Hamper Sexual Harassment Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal appeals court has
largely affirmed an earlier ruling that could make it harder for
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to pursue class-action
sexual harassment cases against companies in the Midwest.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 ruling on May 8
dismissing most of EEOC's claims on behalf of female truckers who
claimed they were sexually harassed while working for Cedar
Rapids-based CRST, Inc.

The ruling was issued by the same three judges who reached a
similar outcome in February.  It came after EEOC asked for a
rehearing, arguing the ruling would impede its ability to enforce
laws at workplaces with widespread discrimination.

The panel ruled EEOC must investigate each affected worker's claim
and seek informal resolutions before filing class-action lawsuits
seeking relief.

An EEOC spokeswoman declined comment.


D.R. HORTON: Defends Five Suits Over Defective Chinese Drywall
--------------------------------------------------------------
D.R. Horton, Inc. is defending itself from five class action
lawsuits relating to the use of drywall manufactured in China,
according to the Company's April 23, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter March
31, 2012.

The Company is named as a defendant in five Chinese Drywall
lawsuits filed in federal court, involving claims from fewer than
ten of the Company's homeowners.  These lawsuits are purported
class action complaints involving hundreds of plaintiffs who are
suing the homebuilders, suppliers, installers, importers and
manufacturers of the defective Chinese Drywall.  The Company is
also named as a defendant in a single plaintiff Chinese Drywall
lawsuit pending in state court in Florida.

At this time, the Company is unable to express an opinion as to
the amount of damages, if any, that could result from these
lawsuits beyond what has been reserved for repair.


EBAY INC: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Bidding Manipulation
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge dismissed a potential class action claiming that eBay
interferes with sellers by manipulating the bidding process
through automatic bidding.

Marshall Block sued eBay in Jan. 2012 over the company's automatic
bidding function.  Mr. Block claimed that eBay "intermeddles" with
buyer-seller relationships by increasing buyer bids by proxy,
hiding bid maximums and shortchanging sellers.  The man alleged
that because a winning bidder only pays the final auction price
and not the maximum bid -- the highest price a buyer is willing to
pay -- he and other sellers lose out on earning potential.

eBay moved for dismissal, calling Mr. Block's suit "the distorted
result of his fundamental misunderstanding of both eBay's user
agreement and its automatic bidding system" according to U.S.
District Judge Charles Breyer's ruling.

Judge Breyer agreed: "When read in context, it is clear that eBay
has not made a binding promise to avoid involvement in user
transactions.  Neither is eBay bound by the [user] agreement's
disclaimer against establishing agencies or partnerships.

"In short, the statements on which this entire lawsuit turns are
not 'worded consistently with its being intended to be
enforceable,'" Judge Breyer wrote, citing Workman v. United Parcel
Service Inc.  "Lacking such language, the court rejects Block's
interpretation of the agreement and grants the motion to dismiss
the breach of contract cause of action with prejudice," Judge
Breyer continued.

The judge also rejected Mr. Block's claims of unfair competition,
accepting eBay's arguments that Mr. Block had not sufficiently
pled any of the claims.  He also dismissed the claim of unjust
enrichment, which Mr. Block amended as restitution.

"Whatever he calls it, count four is not a cause of action,"
Judge Breyer concluded, writing that unjust enrichment --
restitution -- is instead a remedy.

Mr. Block has 30 days to amend his complaint and address the
causes of action not dismissed with prejudice.

A copy of the Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Block v. eBay,
Inc., Case No. 11-cv-06718 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/3HebVp


ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Class Suit in Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Financial Services Corp. is facing a class action
lawsuit alleging violations of securities laws, according to its
April 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On April 10, 2012, a putative class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
captioned William Mark Scott v. Enterprise Financial Services
Corp, Peter F. Benoist, and Frank H. Sanfilippo.  The complaint
asserts claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of the Company's stock between April 20, 2010, and
January 25, 2012, inclusive.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, that defendants allegedly made false and misleading
statements and allegedly "failed to disclose that the Company was
improperly recording income on loans covered under loss share
agreements with the FDIC" and that, as a result, "the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times."  The action seeks unspecified damages and costs
and expenses.

The Company denies plaintiffs' allegations and intends to
vigorously defend the lawsuit.


GATE CITY: Disputes Overdaft Charges Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Mike Nowatzki, writing for INFORUM, reports that Gate City Bank
has filed a response to a federal class-action lawsuit claiming
the bank manipulates debit and check processing so customers will
incur overdraft charges.

In its response filed on May 7, the bank denies it unfairly
assessed overdraft and non-sufficient funds fees to plaintiff
Amber Pieloor of Underwood.

Ms. Pieloor alleges the bank accumulates debits and credits
throughout the day and then re-sequences them at the end of the
day, posting debits first.  Her lawsuit also claims the bank re-
sequences transactions from different days as if they occurred on
the same day and re-sequences debits so they're paid "high to
low," increasing the likelihood of overdrafts.

In its response, the bank's attorneys call the allegations "simply
incorrect" and describe how transactions are processed:

    * Transactions originating with paper checks are processed as
they're received from the Federal Reserve Bank or the Bank of
North Dakota.

If more than one check is received in the same batch file, the
checks are processed in ascending numerical order.  For example,
check No. 100 would be processed before No. 101.

Checks converted to electronic payments and received in the same
batch are sequenced based on the transaction amount from low to
high, not from high to low, the bank says.

   * Transactions received from third parties, including other
banks and companies that handle such activity, are processed in
the order they're received using Gate City's online, real-time
system.

Point-of-sale and ATM transactions authorized with a personal ID
number "are posted immediately," as are those processed over the
bank's teller line or via Gate City's online banking site or
automated phone system, the bank says.

"During any particular day, a Gate City customer may have a higher
debit charged to their account before a lower debit is charged,"
the response states.  "That results simply because the debits were
received in that order from a processor, bank, or other third
party."

Gate City is asking the court to dismiss Ms. Pieloor's complaint
with prejudice, deny the class-action certification and award
costs to the bank "as the court deems appropriate."


GIANT INTERACTIVE: Settled and Paid Consolidated Suit for $13MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Giant Interactive Group Inc. has settled and paid a consolidated
class action lawsuit for $13 million, according to the Company's
April 23, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Two securities class actions have been filed against the Company.
The first was filed on November 26, 2007, entitled Pyramid
Holdings, Inc V. Giant Interactive Group Inc. (United States
District court, Southern District of New York (07cv10588); and the
second was filed on December 20, 2007, entitled Brooks v Giant
Interactive Group Inc. (United States District court, Southern
District of New York (07cv11423).  The actions assert similar
allegations and seek similar damages, both alleging claims
pursuant to Section 11 and Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1933, on behalf of all persons who purchased
Company's ADSs pursuant to or traceable to the Company's initial
public offering from November 1, 2007, though November 10, 2007.
The Company, Merrill Lynch & Co. and UBS Investment Bank are named
as defendants.  Plaintiffs also request that the action be
maintained as class action and request relief in the form of class
damages plus interest, attorneys' fees, experts' fee and other
costs, and a rescinding of the initial public offering.

Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the Company's Registration
Statement and prospectus contained untrue statement of material
facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statement made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the applicable rules and regulations.  Plaintiffs were
allegedly harmed when the Company's stock price declined on
November 19, 2007, when the Company announced its third quarter
financial results and disclosed that during third quarter 2007,
the Company's average concurrent users ("ACU") and peak concurrent
users ("PCU") decreased from the second quarter following a rule
change made to ZT Online.  Plaintiffs claim that the Company did
not explain or describe the rule change in the Registration
Statement or Prospectus, did not explain or highlight the alleged
negative trend in ACU and PCU and did not disclose the supposed
negative impact that rule change was having at the time of the
initial public offering.

The actions were consolidated by stipulation on January 31, 2008,
into Giant Interactive Group Inc. Securities Litigation.  On
August 5, 2008, the United States District court, Southern
District of New York ("Court") appointed a group of individual
shareholders made up of Dunping Qui, Xie Yong, Linming Shi, and
Arthur Michael Gray, or the Qui Group, and their counsel as lead
plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel.  The Lead Plaintiff filed
a Consolidated Amended Complaint on October 6, 2008.  The Company,
Merrill Lynch & Co. and UBS Investment Bank filed motions to
dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaints on November 21, 2008.
This motion has been fully briefed and was deemed submitted to the
Court for decision as of February 25, 2009.  On August 5, 2009,
the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the Complaint,
because the Court required more facts and evidence prior to making
the ruling.

Following document and deposition discovery, the parties
participated in a mediation in March 2011.

The Company subsequently settled all pending litigations with the
Qui Group on November 3, 2011, including the securities class
action filed in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York with a settlement agreement, or the 2011
Settlement Agreement.  Pursuant to the 2011 Settlement Agreement,
the Company shall cause its insurer to make the settlement payment
of $13 million, based on approximately 16.5% of the class's
maximum provable damages, to the escrow agent of its insurers
within thirty (30) days after preliminary approval of the
settlement by the Court.  The preliminary approval of the
settlement was ordered by the Court on August 2, 2011.

As of December 31, 2011, the settlement payment has been paid in
full, and all pending lawsuits between the parties have been
dismissed.  The settlement payment was made solely by the
Company's insurers and the Company did not record any loss related
to this settlement.


INDONESIA: Child Protection Commission to File Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Kate Lamb, writing for Voice of America, reports that in
Indonesia, one of the world's last bastions of unrestricted
cigarette smoking, one out of five people smoke.  Even children
are picking up the habit.  The country's child protection
commission is now planning a class action lawsuit against the
government and tobacco companies for failing to protect kids from
getting hooked.

Eight-year-old Aldi Ilham from Sukabumi, West Java, first started
smoking when he was four years old.  Instead of going to school he
would help park cars to earn change for cigarettes.  At the height
of his addiction he was smoking two packs a day.

Aldi is one of eight cases the Child Protection Commission, led by
Aris Meredek Sirait, is citing in a lawsuit against the government
and tobacco companies later this month.

"The government is not able to control cigarettes products," Aris
complains.  "There are no regulations to control the sale of
cigarettes, they are even sold as single cigarettes, nor are there
any controls on tobacco advertising."

Without any government restrictions, cigarette advertisements are
plastered throughout downtown Jakarta.  Some are designed to
appeal to younger consumers, who can also legally purchase
cigarettes.

Roadside stalls sell cigarettes for about one U.S. dollar.  Stall
holder Ibu Surniah admits that, while it's not morally right, she
still sells to teenagers.

"It's forbidden to sell cigarettes to children, but I give it to
them if they insist because they want it," Ibu says.

With 50 million smokers in the country, there is little widespread
knowledge among Indonesians about the dangers of smoking.  Many
people smoke in front of their children.  Ilham's father, Umar,
says that practice should stop.

"We just ask for those responsible from the tobacco companies and
the government to help us because our son is really sick from
smoking," Umar says.

Government officials and tobacco company executives refused
interview requests.  One spokesperson for Sampoerna Tobacco said
that while the company does not condone child smokers, parents
play an influential role in preventing their children from
smoking.

For now, child health advocates merely want to restrict sales and
curb advertisements that help get minors started smoking -- long
before they are capable of knowing what the habit means for their
health.


KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES: Recalls 46T Tender & Light Vibes Bassinets
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Kolcraft Enterprises Inc., of Chicago, Illinois, announced a
voluntary recall of about 46,000 Kolcraft Tender Vibes & Light
Vibes bassinets.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The latches that attach the bassinet base onto the metal frame can
appear to be locked in place but still remain unlocked.  This
allows the bassinet to become detached from the metal frame,
causing the bassinet to fall and the infant to be injured.

CPSC and Kolcraft have received seven reports of latches that
detached from the bassinet frame.  One infant received a bruised
cheek when the bassinet detached from the metal frame and landed
sideways on the floor with the infant inside.

This recall includes Kolcraft Tender Vibes bassinets with model
numbers KB021-ARC, KB022-VER, KB039-CMR1 and Light Vibes bassinet
with model number KB043-BNT1.  A label with the model/item number
of the bassinet is located on one of the legs of the metal frame.
The recalled bassinets were manufactured from July 2008 through
May 2010.  The words "Kolcraft Tender Vibes" or "Kolcraft Light
Vibes" is located on the removable music box which is attached to
the side of the bassinet.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12173.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at mass
market and independent juvenile specialty stores nationwide and
online from July 2008 through May 2012 for between about $50 and
$100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bassinets and
contact the firm by phone or on-line to receive a repair kit and
instructions for securing the latches to the metal frame.  In the
meantime, parents are urged to find an alternate, safe sleeping
environment for the child, such as a crib that meets current
safety standards or play yard depending on the child's age.  For
additional information, contact Kolcraft toll-free at (888) 624-
1908 between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.kolcraft.com/


METRA: Faces Class Action Over One-Year Ticket Expiration Dates
---------------------------------------------------------------
LeeAnn Shelton, writing for Chicago Sun-Times, reports that one
man is arguing in a class-action fraud lawsuit filed on May 8
against the commuter rail agency, claiming Metra tickets' one-year
expiration dates are unlawful.

John DiVito, who uses Metra to commute to his job downtown from
west suburban Roselle, says in the suit he was spurred to action
after purchasing more than $100 worth of 10-Ride tickets and
seeing most of the rides go to waste after the cards expired.

He claims Metra's limited ride tickets -- particularly 10-Ride and
One-Way tickets -- satisfy the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act's
definition for "gift certificates" and therefore cannot legally
expire any sooner than five years.

He claims Metra's ticketing policies "exemplify the purpose"
behind the law -- namely to prevent merchants from sticking
consumers with artificially short redemption windows.

"By doing so, not only do profiteers like Metra get something for
nothing, they also get to earn interest on the money buyers hand
over to them for services never to be rendered," Mr. DiVito claims
in the suit.

He claims Metra and other sellers who set too-short redemption
periods wrongfully profit because they know not all consumers who
pay in advance will redeem their voucher for services.

In 2011 alone, Metra riders bought 1,800,000 10-Ride Tickets, a
5.2 percent increase from the year before, according to the
transit agency's 2011 ridership report.  Passengers bought more
than 9,600,000 tickets from either stations or on-train
conductors, a slight increase from the year before.

Metra spokesman Tom Miller declined to comment on the lawsuit on
May 8, saying the agency does not comment on pending litigation.


MGIC INVESTMENT: 7th Cir. Affirmed Consolidated Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
affirmed in April 2012 the dismissal of a consolidated class
action lawsuit commenced in Wisconsin, MGIC Investment Corporation
disclosed in its April 23, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Five previously-filed purported class action complaints filed
against the Company and several of its executive officers were
consolidated in March 2009 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Fulton County Employees'
Retirement System was appointed as the lead plaintiff.  The lead
plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the
"Complaint") in June 2009.  Due in part to its length and
structure, it is difficult to summarize briefly the allegations in
the Complaint but it appears the allegations are that the Company
and its officers named in the Complaint violated the federal
securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material
information about (i) loss development in the Company's insurance
in force, and (ii) C-BASS (a former minority-owned,
unconsolidated, joint venture investment), including its
liquidity.  The Complaint also named two officers of C-BASS with
respect to the Complaints' allegations regarding C-BASS. The
Company's motion to dismiss the Complaint was granted in February
2010.  In March 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
an amended complaint.  Attached to this motion was a proposed
Amended Complaint (the "Amended Complaint").  The Amended
Complaint alleged that the Company and two of its officers named
in the Amended Complaint violated the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about
C-BASS, including its liquidity, and by failing to properly
account for the Company's investment in C-BASS.  The Amended
Complaint also named two officers of C-BASS with respect to the
Amended Complaint's allegations regarding C-BASS.  The purported
class period covered by the Amended Complaint began on
February 6, 2007, and ended on August 13, 2007.  The Amended
Complaint sought damages based on purchases of the Company's stock
during this time period at prices that were allegedly inflated as
a result of the purported violations of federal securities laws.
In December 2010, the plaintiffs' motion to file an amended
complaint was denied and the Complaint was dismissed with
prejudice.  In January 2011, the plaintiffs appealed the February
2010 and December 2010 decisions to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; during oral argument before the
Appeals Court regarding the case on January 12, 2012, the
plaintiffs confirmed the appeal was limited to issues regarding C-
BASS.

On April 12, 2012, the Appeals Court affirmed the dismissals by
the District Court.  The plaintiffs are entitled to seek review of
the Appeals Court decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In June 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the District
Court for relief from that court's judgment of dismissal on the
ground of newly discovered evidence consisting of transcripts the
plaintiffs obtained of testimony taken by the Securities and
Exchange Commission in its now-terminated investigation regarding
C-BASS.  The Company is opposing this motion and the matter is
awaiting decision by the District Court.  The Company is unable to
predict the ultimate outcome of these consolidated cases or
estimate its associated expenses or possible losses.  Other
lawsuits alleging violations of the securities laws could be
brought against the Company.

The Company understands that several law firms have, among other
things, issued press releases to the effect that they are
investigating the Company, including whether the fiduciaries of
its 401(k) plan breached their fiduciary duties regarding the
plan's investment in or holding of its common stock or whether it
breached other legal or fiduciary obligations to its shareholders.
The Company intends to defend vigorously any proceedings that may
result from these investigations.


MGIC INVESTMENT: Continues to Defend RESPA/FCRA Violation Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, ,
according to the Company's April 23, 2012, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Consumers are bringing a growing number of lawsuits against home
mortgage lenders and settlement service providers.  Mortgage
insurers, including MGIC, have been involved in litigation
alleging violations of the anti-referral fee provisions of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, which is commonly known as
RESPA, and the notice provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
which is commonly known as FCRA.  MGIC's settlement of class
action litigation against it under RESPA became final in October
2003.  MGIC settled the named plaintiffs' claims in litigation
against it under FCRA in December 2004, following denial of class
certification in June 2004.  Since December 2006, class action
litigation has been brought against a number of large lenders
alleging that their captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements
violated RESPA.

On December 11, 2011, seven mortgage insurers (including MGIC) and
a large mortgage lender (which was the named plaintiffs' lender)
were named as defendants in a complaint, alleged to be a class
action, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  Since then, five similar cases have been filed naming
various mortgage lenders and mortgage insurers as defendants, in
each case, including MGIC.  One of those cases has been
voluntarily dismissed.  The complaints in all cases alleged
various causes of action related to the captive mortgage
reinsurance arrangements of the mortgage lenders, including that
the defendants violated RESPA by paying excessive premiums to the
lenders' captive reinsurer in relation to the risk assumed by that
captive.  The named plaintiffs' loans were not insured by MGIC.

MGIC denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend itself
against the allegations in the lawsuits.  There can be no
assurance that MGIC will not be subject to further litigation
under RESPA (or FCRA) or that the outcome of any such litigation,
including the lawsuits, would not have a material adverse effect
on MGIC.


MGIC INVESTMENT: Claims Still Pending in Housing Disc. Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation continues to defend a housing
discrimination class action lawsuit pending in Pennsylvania,
according to the Company's April 23, 2012, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In September 2010, a housing discrimination complaint was filed
against MGIC with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development ("HUD") alleging that MGIC violated the Fair Housing
Act and discriminated against the complainant on the basis of her
sex and familial status when MGIC underwrote her loan for mortgage
insurance.  In May 2011, HUD commenced an administrative action
against MGIC and two of its employees, seeking, among other
relief, aggregate fines of $48,000.  The HUD complainant elected
to have charges in the administrative action proceed in federal
court and in July 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ")
filed a civil complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania against MGIC and these employees on
behalf of the complainant.  The complaint seeks redress for the
alleged housing discrimination, including compensatory and
punitive damages for the alleged victims and a civil penalty
payable to the United States.

In October 2010, a separate purported class action lawsuit was
filed against MGIC by the HUD complainant in the same District
Court in which the DOJ action is pending alleging that MGIC
discriminated against her on the basis of her sex and familial
status when MGIC underwrote her loan for mortgage insurance.  In
May 2011, the District Court granted MGIC's motion to dismiss with
respect to all claims except certain Fair Housing Act claims.

MGIC intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations
in both the class action lawsuit and the DOJ lawsuit.  Based on
the facts known at this time, MGIC does not foresee the ultimate
resolution of these legal proceedings having a material adverse
effect on it.


NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Westminster Bank Plc is awaiting court decisions on
motions to dismiss two class action lawsuits pending in New York,
according to the Company's April 23, 2012, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

National Westminster Bank Plc ('NatWest' or 'the Bank') is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of The Royal Bank of Scotland plc ('the
Royal Bank' or 'the holding company'), which in turn is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc ('RBSG'
or 'the ultimate holding company'), a large banking and financial
services group.  The 'Group' or 'NatWest Group' comprises the Bank
and its subsidiary and associated undertakings.  'RBS Group' means
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc and its subsidiary
undertakings, including the Bank, and the term the 'Royal Bank'
refers to The Royal Bank of Scotland plc.

RBSG and certain of its subsidiaries, together with certain
current and former individual officers and directors have been
named as defendants in purported class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
involving holders of RBSG preferred shares (the "Preferred Shares
litigation") and holders of American Depositary Receipts (the "ADR
claims").

In the Preferred Shares litigation, the consolidated amended
complaint alleges certain false and misleading statements and
omissions in public filings and other communications during the
period March 1, 2007, to January 19, 2009, and variously asserts
claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the US Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the "Securities Act").  The putative class is
composed of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired RBSG
Series Q, R, S, T and/or U non-cumulative dollar preference shares
issued pursuant or traceable to the April 8, 2005 US Securities
and Exchange Commission (the SEC) registration statement.
Plaintiffs seek unquantified damages on behalf of the putative
class.  The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint and
briefing on the motions was completed in September 2011.

With respect to the ADR claims, a complaint was filed in January
2011 and a further complaint was filed in February 2011 asserting
claims under Sections 10 and 20 of the US Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the RBS Group's American
Depositary Receipts (ADRs) between March 1, 2007, and January 19,
2009.  On August 18, 2011, these two ADR cases were consolidated
and lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed.  On
November 1, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting ADR-related claims under Sections 10 and 20 of
the Exchange Act and Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act.
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in January 2012 and
briefing is ongoing.

The RBS Group has also received notification of similar
prospective claims in the United Kingdom and elsewhere but no
court proceedings have been commenced in relation to these claims.

The RBS Group considers that it has substantial and credible legal
and factual defenses to the remaining and prospective claims and
will defend itself vigorously.


NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: Faces Class Suits Over Setting of LIBOR
-------------------------------------------------------------
National Westminster Bank Plc is facing a number of class actions
and individual claims relating to the setting of London Interbank
Offered Rate, according to the Company's April 23, 2012, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

Certain members of The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc and its
subsidiary undertakings ('RBS Group'), including National
Westminster Bank Plc (the 'Company' or the 'Bank') have been named
as defendants in a number of class actions and individual claims
filed in the U.S. with respect to the setting of London Interbank
Offered Rate ('LIBOR').  The complaints are substantially similar
and allege that certain members of the RBS Group and other panel
banks individually and collectively violated U.S. commodities and
antitrust laws and state common law by manipulating LIBOR and
prices of LIBOR-based derivatives in various markets through
various means.

The RBS Group considers that it has substantial and credible legal
and factual defenses to these and prospective claims.


NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: Faces Suits Over Issuance of $83-Bil. MBS
---------------------------------------------------------------
National Westminster Bank Plc is facing numerous class action
lawsuits arising from the issuance of more than $83 billion of
mortgage-backed securities, according to the Company's April 23,
2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

National Westminster Bank Plc ('NatWest' or 'the Bank') is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of The Royal Bank of Scotland plc ('the
Royal Bank' or 'the holding company'), which in turn is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc ('RBSG'
or 'the ultimate holding company'), a large banking and financial
services group.  The 'Group' or 'NatWest Group' comprises the Bank
and its subsidiary and associated undertakings.  'RBS Group' means
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc and its subsidiary
undertakings, including the Bank, and the term the 'Royal Bank'
refers to The Royal Bank of Scotland plc.

Recently, the level of litigation activity in the financial
services industry focused on residential mortgage and credit
crisis related matters has increased.  As a result, the RBS Group
has become, and expects that it may further be, the subject of
additional claims for damages and other relief regarding
residential mortgages and related securities in the future.

To date, RBS Group companies have been named as defendants in
their various roles as issuer, depositor and/or underwriter in a
number of claims in the United States that relate to the
securitisation and securities underwriting businesses.  These
cases include actions by individual purchasers of securities and
purported class action lawsuits.  Together, the individual and
class action cases involve the issuance of more than $83 billion
of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) issued primarily from 2005 to
2007.  Although the allegations vary by claim, in general,
plaintiffs in these actions claim that certain disclosures made in
connection with the relevant offerings contained materially false
or misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the
underwriting standards pursuant to which the mortgage loans
underlying the securities were issued.  RBS Group companies have
been named as defendants in more than 30 lawsuits brought by
purchasers of MBS, including five purported class actions.  Among
the lawsuits are six cases filed on September 2, 2011, by the US
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) as conservator for the
Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") and the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac").  The
primary FHFA lawsuit pending in the federal court in Connecticut,
relates to approximately $32 billion of AAA rated MBS for which
RBS Group entities acted as sponsor/depositor and/or lead
underwriter or co-lead underwriter.

FHFA has also filed five separate lawsuits (against Ally Financial
Group, Countrywide Financial Corporation, J.P. Morgan, Morgan
Stanley and Nomura respectively) in which RBS Securities Inc. is
named as a defendant by virtue of the fact that it was an
underwriter of some of the securities at issue.

Other lawsuits against RBS Group companies include two cases filed
by the National Credit Union Administration Board (on behalf of US
Central Federal Credit Union and Western Corporate Federal Credit
Union) and eight cases filed by the Federal Home Loan Banks of
Boston, Chicago, Indianapolis, Seattle and San Francisco.

The purported MBS class actions in which RBS Group companies are
defendants include New Jersey Carpenters Vacation Fund et al. v.
The Royal Bank of Scotland plc et al.; New Jersey Carpenters
Health Fund v. Novastar Mortgage Inc. et al.; In re IndyMac
Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation; Genesee County Employees'
Retirement System et al. v. Thornburg Mortgage Securities Trust
2006-3, et al.; and Luther v. Countrywide Financial Corp. et al.
and related cases.

Certain other institutional investors have threatened to bring
claims against the RBS Group in connection with various mortgage-
related offerings.  The RBS Group cannot predict with any
certainty whether any of these individual investors will pursue
these threatened claims (or their outcome), but expects that
several may.  If such claims are asserted and were successful, the
amounts involved may be material.

In many of these actions, the RBS Group has or will have
contractual claims to indemnification from the issuers of the
securities (where an RBS Group company is underwriter) and/or the
underlying mortgage originator (where an RBS Group company is
issuer).  The amount and extent of any recovery on an
indemnification claim, however, is uncertain and subject to a
number of factors, including the ongoing creditworthiness of the
indemnifying party.

With respect to the current claims, the RBS Group considers that
it has substantial and credible legal and factual defenses to
these claims and will continue to defend them vigorously.


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: October 1 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP and Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP on May 9
issued a statement regarding the Ormat Technologies Class Action
Proposed Settlement.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

WAYNE SZYMBORSKI, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., YEHUDIT
BRONICKI, JOSEPH TENNE, Defendants. Case No.: 3:10-CV-00132-ECR-
WGC

PAUL STEBELTON, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., JOSEPH TENNE,
YEHUDIT BRONICKI, YORAM BRONICKI, LUCIEN Y. BRONICKI, DAN FALK,
JACOB J. WORENKLEIN, ROGER W. GALE, ROBERT F. CLARKE, Defendants.
Case No.: 3:10-CV-00156-ECR-WGC

JOHN J. CURTIS, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., JOSEPH TENNE,
YEHUDIT BRONICKI, Defendants. Case No.: 3:10-CV-00198-ECR-WGC

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED ORMAT
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SECURITIES BETWEEN MAY 7, 2008, AND FEBRUARY
24, 2010, INCLUSIVE, WHO INCURRED DAMAGES

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that this Class Action is pending and that
a Settlement of it for Three Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars
($3,100,000) has been proposed.  A hearing will be held before the
Honorable Edward C. Reed in the United States District Court for
District of Nevada in Courtroom 3, 400 S. Virginia Street, Reno,
Nevada 89501 at 10:00 a.m. on October 1, 2012, to determine: (i)
whether the Settlement and Plan of Allocation should be approved
by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best
interests of the Class; (ii) whether Co-Lead Counsel's application
for an award of attorneys' fees and the reimbursement of expenses
should be approved; (iii) whether the Court should grant Lead
Plaintiffs reimbursement of their reasonable costs and expenses
(including lost wages) directly related to their representation of
the Class; and (iv) whether the Court should approve the release
of Released Claims against any and all Released Persons and
dismiss the Litigation with prejudice.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT
FUND.  If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of
Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Reimbursement of Expenses, and Settlement Fairness Hearing and
Proof of Claim and Release form you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting:

Ormat Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation Claims
Administrator c/o The Garden City Group, Inc. P.O. Box 9349
Dublin, OH 43017-4249 1-800-231-1815

Inquiries, other than requests for the forms of Notice and Proof
of Claim, may be made to Co-Lead Counsel:

          Michael S. Bigin, Esq.
          Bernstein Liebhard LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 779-1414
          E-mail: Bigin@bernlieb.com

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 1-888-773-9224
          E-mail: settlements@glancylaw.com

To participate in the Settlement, you must submit a Proof of Claim
no later than September 24, 2012.  As more fully described in the
Notice, the deadline for submitting objections to the Settlement
and requests for exclusions from the Class is September 10, 2012.

Further information may also be obtained by directing your inquiry
in writing to the Claims Administrator, The Garden City Group, at
the address listed above or visit
http://www.gcginc.com/cases/ormat

By Order of the Court


SPORTSPOWER LTD: Recalls 92T Sportspower BouncePro Trampolines
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., of Bentonville, Arkansas, and
manufacturer, Sportspower Limited, of Hong Kong, China, announced
a voluntary recall of about 92,000 Sportspower BouncePro 14'
Trampolines.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The netting surrounding these trampolines can break, allowing
children to fall through the netting and be injured.

Sportspower has received 17 reports of the net breaking, resulting
in 11 injuries including broken bones, back and neck injuries, and
contusions.

The recall involves the Sportspower BouncePro 14' Trampolines with
brown mesh netting.  UPC codes 68706404210, and 68706404244 are
printed on the trampoline box.  "Sportspower BouncePro 14" and
"TR-14-63-A" are printed on a plate on the leg of the trampoline
frame.  The trampolines are surrounded by brown netting measuring
about 6 feet high on the perimeter of the trampoline.  The netting
is designed to contain individuals bouncing on the trampoline.
A picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12172.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Walmart stores nationwide from February 2009
through February 2012 for about $275.

Consumers should stop using the trampolines immediately and
contact Sportspower to receive replacement black netting for the
trampoline.  For additional information, contact Sportspower's
customer service hotline toll-free at (866) 370-2131 or (888)-965-
0565 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.sportspowerltd.net/recall-bouncepro-14ft.html/,or send
an e-mail to Sportspower at customerservice@sportspowerltd.net


SUN LIFE: Terms of Class Counsel's Retainer Not Privileged
----------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reports that the
Ontario Superior Court has ruled that the terms of class counsel's
retainer and any associated third-party funding agreement are not
privileged.

The May 7, 2012 ruling in Fehr v. Sun Life Assurance Company of
Canada came in the context of a motion for directions by
plaintiff's counsel Won Kim of Kim Orr.  The motion, under rule
37.07(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, sought approval of a
third-party funding agreement by way of an in camera hearing
without notice to the defendant.  The plaintiffs also asked that
the documents in support of the motion be sealed.


UNION CITY, CA: Judge Tosses Discrimination Suit v. UCPD
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge refused to
certify a class of black children allegedly victimized by Latino
gang violence who claim they suffered discrimination at the hands
of the Union City Police Department.

A copy of the Order Denying Motion for Class Certification in
Khalif L., et al. v. City of Union City, Case No. 09-cv-02723
(N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/09/409-cv-02723.pdf


UNIV. OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA: Indian Students to File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aziz Haniffa, writing for Rediff.com, reports that nearly 70
Indian students in the US continue to remain in limbo after
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials raided the
University of Northern Virginia and the Customs and Immigration
Service subsequently rejected their transfer applications.  Their
attorney and counsel Sheela Murthy says that she has now advised
them to file a class-action suit against the university.

Such a suit would have merit, Ms. Murthy told India Abroad,
because the Office of International Student Affairs and the UNVA's
Department Student Officer did not provide the students with
information that would have enabled them to make the correct
application.  Had they responded immediately when the USCIS found
some applications incomplete, the outcome may have been different.

With the deadline looming and the students fearful of deportation,
she said, discussions were continuing "to come up with possible
solutions that will help them respond and file a motion to
reconsider their cases."

Senior USCIS officials continued to contend that the process of
dealing with the plight of several hundred Indian students (with
regards to their applications to transfer to other universities
and others under consideration for Optional Practical Training and
Curricular Practical Training) was being conducted on a case-by-
case basis.

Bona-fide students, the USCIS maintained, were not being
victimized.

The officials pointed out that the applications of several
students had already been processed and approved; many of them had
transferred to other schools and had their OPTs and CPTs okayed.

Ms. Murthy said putting the onus on the students, whose
applications were rejected by the USCIS on the grounds that they
should have known what information to provide in their
applications was "ridiculous".  She further stressed that it was
the job of the UNVA's DSO to advise them.

"Who's supposed to tell them (the students) what to do? How can
the government say that it's their (the students') job and they
are supposed to read all the rules and laws and know all about it,
when they have put their trust in the DSO?," she asks.  "You are
not an expert on all of the nuances of the rules and regulations
here, and you expect the DSO to provide you with the best advice
and counsel and help in completing these requirements.  They (the
students) relied on the DSO and the DSO misled them.  ICE, the
government is also at fault here . . . These kids have paid
$20,000 - 22,000 for two years of masters -- $44,000 on average
just for tuition, and what about living expenses?"

Ms. Murthy acknowledged that she had told the students to ensure
they have a backup plan.

"Even if you do appeal or fight," she explained, "you have to have
a backup plan to leave the country and either get an H-1B
sponsorship through a new H-1B employer (if they've finished
graduating) or go (back to India) and come back with a fresh I-20
(certificate of eligibility, a pre-requisite for a student visa)
and possibly try to use the same visa stamp.  A few of their
friends have done that and it's worked."

A backup plan is imperative, she said, because if the students
overstay their visa, "there is a possible three-year or 10-year
ban that could apply against these kids."

The DSO should have guided the students, she reiterated.  "And the
DSO failed to notify them and we believe the DSO is the agent of
the ICE acting on the school premises," she said.

A UNVA official who did not want to be identified told India
Abroad: "We fired the old DSO and we have hired new people."

Ms. Murthy said that was no excuse.  "If I hire an incompetent
person that ruins your life, I am still liable even if I fire that
person," she said.

In July 2011, Department of Homeland Security -- the parent body
of the USCIS and ICE -- officials raided the UNVA, situated in a
strip mall in Annandale, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, DC.
Over 90 percent of the UNVA's students are from India, mainly from
Andhra Pradesh.  At the time, Homeland Security officials told
India Abroad that if in a month's time the UNVA could not provide
a satisfactory explanation as to why it issued some 2,500 I-20s
when only 50 were approved, it would be shut down like the Tri
Valley University in California.

USCIS and senior Indian embassy officials in Washington, DC, who
have been working with the DHS, told India Abroad that the UNVA
had not been shut because of intervention by the embassy -- they
argued that the students would be left in limbo after spending
considerable amounts of money and time.

The sources also said that unlike in the TVU case, where some of
the actions taken against the students were perceived as
arbitrary, the transfer applications and OPT considerations for
UNVA students were being reviewed on a case by case basis.  This
is thanks to the Indian embassy's discussions and negotiations
with DHS officials.  "The genuine students have not been
victimized at all and have had their transfer applications and
OPTs approved," a source said.

One diplomatic source added, "Once we intervened with the US
authorities -- and they were also mindful of what happened at TVU
-- the UNVA was able to continue.  But they (the DHS) are looking
at the various OPTs, CPTs, how many were genuine students and how
many of them were gaming the system (working full-time when their
student visa did not authorize them to do so) and violating their
OPT and CPT requirements.  We remain in touch with them to ensure
that genuine students are not being victimized in any way."

Though DHS officials declined to comment on the investigation into
the UNVA, other sources acknowledged that unlike TVU, which was
considered an utterly sham university, the fact that the UNVA has
not been shut down means that its violations of the regulations
were not as blatant.


                           *********

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  * * *