---

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

              Thursday, May 17, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 97

                             Headlines

AUSTRALIA: Cattle Producers Mull Class Action
BELL MOBILITY: Pre-Paid Wireless Consumers File Class Action
CBS: Second Circuit Rejects Securities Class Action Claims
CHRISTIANE FARAZLI: To Defend Against C$20MM Class Action
DDI CORP: Faces 4 Stockholder Suits in California and Delaware

DR PEPPER: Paid $5 Million to Satisfy "Jones" Suit Settlement
GERBER: Judge Consolidates Probiotic Baby Food Class Actions
H&R BLOCK INC:  Faces Two Class Suits Over Compliance Fees
KENNETH COLE: Defends Four Suits Over Proposed Cole Acquisition
LEGAL HELPERS: Accused of Asking Exorbitant Debt Adjusting Fees

LITHIA MOTORS: $2.5-Mil. Class Action Settlement Awaits Approval
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Class Cert. Bid in Suit vs. Unit Denied
MATTEL INC: Ruling Dismissing MGA's Antitrust Suit Now Final
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC: Judge Revives Students' Class Action
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Fights Class Action Certification

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Awaits Final Okay of "Silverman" Suit Deal
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Awaits Ruling on Plaintiffs' Rehearing Plea
PANERA BREAD: Hammering Terms of $5-MM Calif. Suit Settlement
PANERA BREAD: Negotiates Terms of $1.5-MM Florida Suit Settlement
PFIZER CANADA: May 28 Hearing to Certify Chapmix Class Action Set

RED HAT: No Appeals Filed in Consolidated N.C. Suit Dismissal
RED HAT: Remaining Objection in IPO Suit Deal Dismissed in Jan.
SHERWIN WILLIAMS: Defends Lead Pigment & Lead-Based Paint Suits
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Merger Suit
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Briefing in Ga. Suit to Be Completed Aug. 13

TORONTO DOMINION: Agrees to Settle Class Action for C$62 Million
U.S. STEEL: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits in Illinois
UNITED STATES: Portion of Birds Point Class Action Dismissed
UNITIL CORP: Continues to Defend Suit vs. Fitchburg in Mass.
WELLPOINT INC: ADA Suit Appeal Remains Pending in 11th Circuit

WELLPOINT INC: Out-of-Network MDL Remains Pending in California
WELLPOINT INC: Still Defends Suits Over AICI Demutualization
YUM BRANDS: Bid to Decertify Class in "Moeller" Suit Pending
YUM BRANDS: Expects Ruling on Cert. Bid in "Smith" Suit This Year
YUM BRANDS: "Rosales" Plaintiff Filed 2nd Amended Suit in March

YUM BRANDS: Status Conference in "Hines" Suit Set for May 21
YUM BRANDS: Taco Bell Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suit
YUM BRANDS: Trial Testimony in "RGM" Suit Began on February 14
YUM BRANDS: Unit to Seek Decertification of "Whittington" Class


                          *********

AUSTRALIA: Cattle Producers Mull Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Hayden Cooper, writing for Radio Australia, reports that the
Australian Government is facing compensation claims from two
groups of cattle producers affected by last year's one month ban
on live exports to Indonesia.

The claims come a year after animal cruelty in Indonesian
abattoirs, exposed on the ABC's Four Corners program, brought
Australia's live export cattle trade to a standstill.

Law firm Minter Ellison is leading negotiations with the
government on behalf of 21 clients involved in a possible class
action lawsuit.

A statement of risk from the federal budget papers shows a
potential class action has been received.

"The Australian Government may become liable for compensation
following the decision by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries
and Forestry to suspend the export of livestock to Indonesia for a
period of one month in 2011," the papers said.

None of the claimants will comment on the negotiations and most
people in the cattle export industry know nothing about it.

But the ABC understands the group is making a claim for hundreds
of millions of dollars in compensation from the government.

The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has also
received a claim under the scheme of compensation for detriment
caused by defective administration, from a law firm on behalf of
three of its clients.

The case has not reached the courts, instead it is a direct
negotiation with the government.

The Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig says he can't comment because
of the legal issues surrounding the case.

To this day, Indonesia's quota of cattle from Australia is well
down on what it was before the ban.

Independent MP Bob Katter says someone has to pay.

"There are many cattlemen up here, their losses would've been
close to $1 million or pretty close to it and there would've been
a lot of them," he said.

"As I understand it, Indonesia has said 'we've had a gutful'."

Mr. Katter likes the chances of a class action but says it should
be directed at Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) not the
Government.

"The body that was paid a AUD100 million a year to look after our
interests quite frankly had done nothing whatsoever," he said.

"So I mean there's a magnificent case for a class action, but I
would think that the MLA would be caught in the action here."

The MLA is not the target of this action, but other industry
lawyers agree they should be.

Cattle industry lawyer Norman Hunt says the industry body knew of
animal cruelty but failed to stop it.

"They had the knowledge, in a joint report published in 2010, and
really failed to let the industry know there's a time-bomb
ticking, they allowed the time-bomb to explode," he said.


BELL MOBILITY: Pre-Paid Wireless Consumers File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Bell Mobility Inc., and its parent company, BCE, were served on
May 14 with a $100 million lawsuit, which alleges the expiry dates
on its pre-paid wireless services are illegal.

The lawsuit alleges that Bell systemically breaches its contracts
with its pre-paid wireless customers by seizing credit balances,
and that Bell engages in "unfair practices", contrary to Ontario's
Consumer Protection Act.  In particular, the lawsuit alleges that
pre-paid wireless services payments are "gift cards", as defined
by the Act, and cannot have an expiry date; and that Bell's
communications to its customers about expiry dates are misleading.
The allegations in the lawsuit have not yet been proven in court.

A copy of the Statement of Claim and more information about the
lawsuit can be found at http://www.bellmobilityclassaction.ca

The proposed representative plaintiff, Celia Sankar, is a resident
of Elliot Lake, Ontario, and the founder of the DiversityCanada
Foundation, a not-for-profit organization that promotes social
justice.  Ms. Sankar is a Bell pre-paid wireless customer who had
her credit balance seized on two occasions, in September 2011 and
February 2012.

If the case is certified as a class action, Ms. Sankar will
represent all persons in Ontario who purchased or otherwise
acquired pre-paid wireless services under the brands Bell
Mobility, Virgin Mobile Canada and Solo Mobile since May 4, 2010.

"Because the prepaid wireless service is the least expensive way
to have a phone, and does not require a credit card or a bank
account, it is often the only option for youth, new immigrants,
workers on minimum wage, the unemployed, people on disability, and
seniors on fixed incomes," Ms. Sankar said.  "These are the people
who can least afford to have their funds forfeited or to have
their mobile services cut off."

Ms. Sankar has retained the Toronto law firm of Sack Goldblatt
Mitchell LLP to bring the claim.

"The Consumer Protection Act exists to prevent companies from
engaging in 'unfair business practices' that harm their
customers," said lead counsel Louis Sokolov.  "We are asking the
Court to decide whether Bell's systemic practice of seizing credit
balances is unlawful.  If it is, then the practice must stop and
the money must be returned."


CBS: Second Circuit Rejects Securities Class Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
The Litigation Daily reports that the Second Circuit on May 10
rejected claims by a proposed class of CBS shareholders that
company executives violated securities laws by ignoring red flags
that CBS needed a stress test to assess its financial state as the
economic crisis gained steam in 2008.


CHRISTIANE FARAZLI: To Defend Against C$20MM Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Jon Willing, writing for QMI Agency, reports that Dr. Christiane
Farazli, who is under investigation by her regulator, has
signalled her intent to defend against a $20-million lawsuit
relating to a failed inspection at her Ottawa clinic.

The first defense document was entered in Ottawa court on May 8
and now both sides have 180 days to hold a mediation session.  A
statement of defense has not been filed.

Stephen Osborne, lawyer for the plaintiffs, said Merchant Law has
received 1,400 contacts or inquiries about the class-action suit.

"We definitely think it will be certified and have merit,"
Mr. Osborne said.

Mary Thomson, the Toronto-based lawyer representing Dr. Farazli,
couldn't be reached for comment.

The lawsuit naming two plaintiffs was filed last November after
Ottawa public health launched a resource-intensive program
reaching out to Dr. Farazli's former patients.

Dr. Farazli's endoscopy clinic in Ottawa failed a scheduled
inspection in May 2011.  Health officials learned equipment used
for colonoscopies and gastroscopies wasn't properly cleaned in
between tests.

Public health had to track down 6,800 of Dr. Farazli's former
patients to let them know there was a very low risk they came into
contact with Hepatitis B, C or HIV.  The health unit went public
with the investigation in October.  It was a rare case of public
disclosure relating to a failed non-hospital clinic inspection.

The province has reimbursed public health C$730,000 for the
extraordinary costs related to the notification program.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario did the clinic
inspection and have been investigating Dr. Farazli for about a
year. The investigation will determine if Dr. Farazli should face
a disciplinary hearing.  The college ordered her to not perform
procedures at her clinic during the investigation.

Besides pointing out the dirty lab equipment, the lawsuit alleges
the plaintiffs suffered from rough and rude behavior at the hands
of Dr. Farazli.

The claims have not been tested in court.

Dr. Isra Levy, Ottawa's medical officer of health, told the health
board there have been no confirmed connections between reported
infections and the clinic.

Dr. Farazli apologized to her patients in a written statement
delivered by public health last October.


DDI CORP: Faces 4 Stockholder Suits in California and Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
DDi Corp. is facing four stockholder class action lawsuits in
California and Delaware, according to the Company's April 25,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On April 3, 2012, the Company entered into a merger agreement to
be acquired by Viasystems Group, Inc.  Under the terms of the
merger agreement, Viasystems will acquire all of the outstanding
common stock of DDi Corp.

On April 5, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of
the Company's stockholders was filed in Superior Court, Orange
County, State of California, captioned Irving S. Braun, et. al. v.
DDi Corp., et. al., Case No. 30-2012-00559763-CU-BT-CXC.  On April
5, 2012, another purported class action lawsuit was filed in
Superior Court, Orange County, State of California, on behalf of
the Company's stockholders captioned Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees' Retirement System v. DDi Corp., et. al., Case No. 30-
2012-00559772-CU-BT-CXC.  On April 9, 2012, a purported class
action lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware captioned Joseph P. Daly v. DDi Corp., et. al., Civil
Action No. 7407-VCG.

On April 23, 2012, another purported class action lawsuit was
filed in Superior Court, Orange County, State of California, on
behalf of the Company's stockholders captioned Edward Jennings v.
DDi Corp., et. al., Case No. 30-2012-00564093-CU-BT-CXC.

These complaints name as the primary defendants, DDi Corp.,
Viasystems, Victor Merger Sub Corp., and the members of the
Company's board of directors and generally allege, among other
things, that (i) that the members of the Company's board of
directors violated the fiduciary duties owed to stockholders by
approving the merger agreement, (ii) that the members of the
Company's board of directors engaged in an unfair process and
agreed to a price that allegedly fails to maximize value for
stockholders and (iii) that DDi, Viasystems and merger sub aided
and abetted the board members' alleged breach of fiduciary duties.
These complaints seek, among other things, to enjoin the
transaction until corrective actions are taken, as well as to
award to plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of the action,
including attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

The Company, the members of its board of directors and each of the
other named defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously in
these actions.


DR PEPPER: Paid $5 Million to Satisfy "Jones" Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. disclosed in its April 25, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012, that it paid approximately
$5 million during the first quarter of 2012 to satisfy the terms
of a settlement agreement resolving a class action lawsuit
commenced by Robert Jones.

In 2007, one of the Company's subsidiaries, Seven Up/RC Bottling
Company Inc., was sued by Robert Jones in the Superior Court in
the State of California (Orange County), alleging that its
subsidiary failed to provide meal and rest periods and itemized
wage statements in accordance with applicable California wage and
hour law.  The case was filed as a class action.  The lawsuit is
captioned Robert Jones v. Seven Up/RC Bottling Company of Southern
California, Inc.  The parties reached a settlement in the case
during 2011, pursuant to which the Company denied any liability or
wrongdoing and reserved all rights, but agreed to a compromise to
end litigation.

The Company paid approximately $5 million during the first quarter
of 2012, which satisfied the terms and conditions of the
settlement agreement.


GERBER: Judge Consolidates Probiotic Baby Food Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Law Journal reports that a New Jersey federal judge has
consolidated five putative class action suits accusing Gerber of
making unproven health claims about its probiotic baby foods,
which the plaintiffs allege are no better for babies than the
company's less costly lines. Some of the suits also name Nestle
USA, which bought Gerber in 2007.


H&R BLOCK INC:  Faces Two Class Suits Over Compliance Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc., is facing two class action lawsuits concerning a
compliance fee charged to retail tax clients, according to the
Company's April 25, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On April 16, 2012, and April 19, 2012, putative class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company in state and federal
courts, respectively, in Missouri concerning a compliance fee
charged to retail tax clients beginning in the 2011 tax season.
The cases are styled Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc. et al.
in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri (no case number
has been assigned yet) and Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, Inc. et
al., (Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Missouri).  Taken together, the cases
purport to allege claims on behalf of retail tax clients
nationwide for state statutory violations, money had and received,
and unjust enrichment associated with the fee.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these cases
and intends to defend these cases vigorously, but there can be no
assurances as to the outcome of these cases or their impact on its
consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash
flows.


KENNETH COLE: Defends Four Suits Over Proposed Cole Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. is defending four class action
lawsuits arising from Kenneth D. Cole's offer to acquire all of
the Company's outstanding stock, according to the Company's
April 25, 2012, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On February 23, 2012, the Board of Directors received a non-
binding proposal from Kenneth D. Cole, founder, chairman of the
Board and chief creative officer, to acquire all of the Company's
outstanding Class A Common Stock that he does not currently
directly or indirectly own for $15.00 per share in cash.  In his
letter outlining his proposal, Mr. Cole indicated that he was
unwilling to consider any transaction other than one in which he
would be the acquirer.  The Board of Directors has established a
Special Committee of independent Directors (the "Special
Committee"), comprised of all of the Directors of the Company
other than Mr. Cole and CEO Paul Blum, to consider the proposal,
to negotiate on behalf of the Company and, if it deems
appropriate, to solicit and consider any alternative transactions.

Since the announcement of Mr. Cole's non-binding proposal, Company
shareholders have filed four separate putative class actions in
New York State court against the Company, Mr. Cole, and the board
of directors alleging that Mr. Cole and the board members breached
their fiduciary duties to Company shareholders, and that the
Company aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duties.


LEGAL HELPERS: Accused of Asking Exorbitant Debt Adjusting Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Fleenor, individually and as Class Representative for all
others similarly situated v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, LLC;
Macey Bankruptcy Law, PC; Thomas G. Macey; and Christopher Tang,
Case No. 2012CV214980 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty., May 10, 2012)
is brought on behalf of all Georgia resident debtors, who have
done business with the Defendants since July 1, 2003, to the
present wherein the Defendants engaged in debt adjusting, as
defined by the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, for the Georgia
debtors.

The Plaintiff contends that she is pursuing this action under the
theory of piercing the corporate veil, upon information and belief
that the Defendants collectively have overextended their privilege
in the use of the various corporate entities to defeat justice,
perpetrate fraud and evade tort and statutory responsibility.  She
alleges that in exchange for their exorbitant combination of fees
on top of the Georgia debtor's already crushing debt load, the
Defendants do nothing of value for the Georgia debtor, and offer
no specific outline of what they will do for the Georgia debtor,
nor do they provide any concrete timeline for completing any task
under their debt settlement plan beyond the collection of their
own fees.

The Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members were residents of the
state of Georgia when they received Debt Adjusting services from
the Defendants.

Legal Helpers is a Nevada foreign corporation with its principal
place in Chicago, Illinois.  Legal Helpers is owned, managed,
controlled, and supervised by Macey Bankruptcy.  Christopher Tang,
Esq., is a resident of Fulton County, Georgia.  Thomas G. Macey,
Esq., is also an owner, principal, incorporator, officer,
director, shareholder, agent, and manager of Macey Bankruptcy and
Legal Helpers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James W. Hurt, Jr., Esq.
          Irwin W. Stolz, Jr., Esq.
          Jean G. Mangan, Esq.
          HURT, STOLZ & CROMWELL, LLC
          345 W. Hancock Ave.
          Athens, GA 30601
          Telephone: (706) 395-2750
          Facsimile: (866) 766-9245
          E-mail: jhurt@hurtstolz.com
                  istolz@hurtstolz.com
                  imangan@hurtstolz.com

               - and -

          George Richard DiGiorgio, Esq.
          F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
          Jon C. Conlin, Esq.
          CORY, WATSON, CROWDER & DEGARIS, PC
          2131 Magnolia Avenue
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-2200
          Facsimile: (205) 324-7896
          E-mail: rdigiorgio@cwcd.com
                  jtapley@cwcd.com
                  jconlin@cwcd.com


LITHIA MOTORS: $2.5-Mil. Class Action Settlement Awaits Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rami Grunbaum, writing for The Seattle Times, reports that car
dealership group Lithia Motors and its marketing agency could pay
up to $175 per message to settle a lawsuit over unsolicited texts
to almost 58,000 phones last spring.  Also, U.S. Treasury ekes out
a profit on Banner Bank TARP investment; and Supreme Court rebuffs
local securities lawsuit.

The $2.5 million settlement, awaiting final approval by U.S.
District Court Judge Richard Jones, may actually pay each affected
individual considerably less -- as little as $30 -- if everyone
eligible participates, but that doesn't happen in most class-
action suits.

Regardless, the numbers should be enough to get the attention of
any marketer thinking of spamming potential customers' phones.

Medford, Ore.-based Lithia, the nation's ninth-largest car dealer
according to Automotive News, has nine Washington dealerships.  It
says its marketing firm, DMEautomotive of Daytona Beach, Fla.,
will pay the settlement's costs.

The lawsuit and regulatory filings say Lithia sent a text message
in early April 2011 to 57,800 people in 14 states, pitching used-
car deals with "0% financing"; a week later it sent another
message to 48,000.

Those who got the second text included 6,190 people who tried to
opt out after the first one, the suit claims.  Lithia blames that
on "a technical error."

The lawsuit asserts the barrage violated federal and state laws
barring the use of automated devices to send commercial
solicitation texts to individuals without their consent.

Bainbridge Island-based Williamson & Williams, a small firm that
specializes in consumer and workplace class-action litigation,
sued Lithia, seeking more than $500 per message.

After mediation they reached a deal that provides a $2.5 million
settlement pool -- minus up to $600,000 in attorney fees and
costs, $150,000 for administration of the claims, and $10,000 for
the lead plaintiff in the case.  That provides $1.74 million to be
paid out to class members.

Eligible people who received a text would get $175; those who
received a second text get an additional $150 -- unless they
received the message after attempting to opt out, in which case
they are eligible for $500 for the second text.

But if too many claims come in, payments will be reduced: Dividing
the $1.74 million among all 57,800 people would mean each gets
$30.  When a settlement is approved, eligible class members will
be notified.

Grant Deddinger, an attorney at Lane Powell in Seattle who's
representing Lithia, said it's the first time the company has been
sued over text messaging.  He declined to discuss details of the
case, citing the pending settlement.  DME did not respond to a
request for comment.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Class Cert. Bid in Suit vs. Unit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit against
a subsidiary of Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was denied in
March 2012, according to the Company's April 25, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On September 3, 2009, a former store manager and an assistant
store manager at that time (together, the "Plaintiffs") filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company's subsidiary,
Lumber Liquidators, Inc. ("LLI"), in the Superior Court of
California in and for the County of Alameda.  The Plaintiffs
allege that with regard to certain groups of current and former
employees in LLI's California stores, LLI violated California law
by failing to calculate and pay overtime wages properly, provide
meal breaks, compensate for unused vacation time, reimburse for
certain expenses and maintain required employment records.  The
Plaintiffs also claim that LLI did not calculate and pay overtime
wages properly for certain of LLI's non-exempt employees, both in
and out of California, in violation of federal law.  In their
lawsuit, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, certain
statutory penalties, costs, attorney's fees and injunctive relief.

LLI removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  In an order dated March 2, 2011,
the court denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional class certification of non-exempt employees throughout
the country.

In an order dated March 26, 2012, the court denied Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification of the proposed California employee
classes with regard to each class with the exception of the class
of non-exempt employees in California for whom overtime pay was
purportedly miscalculated.  Upon the entry of a final judgment in
the action, the court's rulings would be subject to appeal.

At this time, the Company does not believe that the resolution of
this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
results of operations, financial position or cash flows.


MATTEL INC: Ruling Dismissing MGA's Antitrust Suit Now Final
------------------------------------------------------------
A court order granting Mattel, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an
antitrust lawsuit filed by MGA Entertainment, Inc. became final
after MGA failed to appeal, according to Mattel's April 25, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In April 2004, Mattel filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County
Superior Court against Carter Bryant ("Bryant"), a former Mattel
design employee.  The lawsuit alleges that Bryant aided and
assisted a Mattel competitor, MGA Entertainment, Inc. ("MGA"),
during the time he was employed by Mattel, in violation of his
contractual and other duties to Mattel.  In September 2004, Bryant
asserted counterclaims against Mattel, including counterclaims in
which Bryant sought, as a putative class action representative, to
invalidate Mattel's Confidential Information and Proprietary
Inventions Agreements with its employees.  Bryant also removed
Mattel's lawsuit to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.  In December 2004, MGA intervened
as a party-defendant in Mattel's action against Bryant, asserting
that its rights to Bratz properties are at stake in the
litigation.

Separately, in November 2004, Bryant filed an action against
Mattel in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The action sought a judicial declaration
that Bryant's purported conveyance of rights in Bratz was proper
and that he did not misappropriate Mattel property in creating
Bratz.

In April 2005, MGA filed lawsuit against Mattel in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
MGA's action alleges claims of trade dress infringement, trade
dress dilution, false designation of origin, unfair competition,
and unjust enrichment.  The lawsuit alleges, among other things,
that certain products, themes, packaging, and/or television
commercials in various Mattel product lines have infringed upon
products, themes, packaging, and/or television commercials for
various MGA product lines, including Bratz.  The complaint also
asserts that various alleged Mattel acts with respect to
unidentified retailers, distributors, and licensees have damaged
MGA and that various alleged acts by industry organizations,
purportedly induced by Mattel, have damaged MGA.  MGA's lawsuit
alleges that MGA has been damaged in an amount "believed to reach
or exceed tens of millions of dollars" and further seeks punitive
damages, disgorgement of Mattel's profits and injunctive relief.

In June 2006, the three cases were consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.  On
July 17, 2006, the Court issued an order dismissing all claims
that Bryant had asserted against Mattel, including Bryant's
purported counterclaims to invalidate Mattel's Confidential
Information and Proprietary Inventions Agreements with its
employees, and Bryant's claims for declaratory relief.

In November 2006, Mattel asked the Court for leave to file an
Amended Complaint that included not only additional claims against
Bryant, but also included claims for copyright infringement,
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act ("RICO"), misappropriation of trade secrets, intentional
interference with contract, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of duty of loyalty, and unfair
competition, among others, against MGA, its CEO Isaac Larian,
certain MGA affiliates and an MGA employee.  The RICO claim
alleged that MGA stole Bratz and then, by recruiting and hiring
key Mattel employees and directing them to bring with them Mattel
confidential and proprietary information, unfairly competed
against Mattel using Mattel's trade secrets, confidential
information, and key employees to build their business.  On
January 12, 2007, the Court granted Mattel leave to file these
claims as counterclaims in the consolidated cases, which Mattel
did that same day.

Mattel sought to try all of its claims in a single trial, but in
February 2007, the Court decided that the consolidated cases would
be tried in two phases, with the first trial to determine claims
and defenses related to Mattel's ownership of Bratz works and
whether MGA infringed those works.  On May 19, 2008, Bryant
reached a settlement agreement with Mattel and is no longer a
defendant in the litigation.  In the public stipulation entered by
Mattel and Bryant in connection with the resolution, Bryant agreed
that he was and would continue to be bound by all prior and future
Court Orders relating to Bratz ownership and infringement,
including the Court's summary judgment rulings.

The first phase of the first trial, which began on May 27, 2008,
resulted in a unanimous jury verdict on July 17, 2008, in favor of
Mattel.  The jury found that almost all of the Bratz design
drawings and other works in question were created by Bryant while
he was employed at Mattel; that MGA and Isaac Larian intentionally
interfered with the contractual duties owed by Bryant to Mattel,
aided and abetted Bryant's breaches of his duty of loyalty to
Mattel, aided and abetted Bryant's breaches of the fiduciary
duties he owed to Mattel, and converted Mattel property for their
own use.  The same jury determined that defendants MGA, Larian,
and MGA Entertainment (HK) Limited infringed Mattel's copyrights
in the Bratz design drawings and other Bratz works, and awarded
Mattel total damages of approximately $100 million against the
defendants.  On December 3, 2008, the Court issued a series of
orders rejecting MGA's equitable defenses and granting Mattel's
motions for equitable relief, including an order enjoining the MGA
party defendants from manufacturing, marketing, or selling certain
Bratz fashion dolls or from using the "Bratz" name.  The Court
stayed the effect of the December 3, 2008 injunctive orders until
further order of the Court and entered a further specified stay of
the injunctive orders on January 7, 2009.

The parties filed and argued additional motions for post-trial
relief, including a request by MGA to enter judgment as a matter
of law on Mattel's claims in MGA's favor and to reduce the jury's
damages award to Mattel.  Mattel additionally moved for the
appointment of a receiver.  On April 27, 2009, the Court entered
an order confirming that Bratz works found by the jury to have
been created by Bryant during his Mattel employment were Mattel's
property and that hundreds of Bratz female fashion dolls infringe
Mattel's copyrights.  The Court also upheld the jury's award of
damages in the amount of $100 million and ordered an accounting of
post-trial Bratz sales.  The Court further vacated the stay of the
December 3, 2008 orders, except to the extent specified by the
Court's January 7, 2009 modification.

MGA appealed the Court's equitable orders to the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.  On December 9, 2009, the Ninth Circuit
heard oral argument on MGA's appeal and issued an order staying
the District Court's equitable orders pending a further order to
be issued by the Ninth Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit opinion
vacating the relief ordered by the District Court was issued on
July 22, 2010.  The Ninth Circuit stated that, because of several
jury instruction errors it identified, a significant portion -- if
not all -- of the jury verdict and damage award should be vacated.

In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit found that the District Court
erred in concluding that Mattel's Invention agreement
unambiguously applied to "ideas;" that it should have considered
extrinsic evidence in determining the application of the
agreement; and if the conclusion turns on conflicting evidence, it
should have been up to the jury to decide.  The Ninth Circuit also
concluded that the District Judge erred in transferring the entire
brand to Mattel based on misappropriated names and that the Court
should have submitted to the jury, rather than deciding itself,
whether Bryant's agreement assigned works created outside the
scope of his employment and whether Bryant's creation of the Bratz
designs and sculpt was outside of his employment.  The Court then
went on to address copyright issues which would be raised after a
retrial, since Mattel "might well convince a properly instructed
jury" that it owns Bryant's designs and sculpt.  The Ninth Circuit
stated that the sculpt itself was entitled only to "thin"
copyright protection against virtually identical works, while the
Bratz sketches were entitled to "broad" protection against
substantially similar works; in applying the broad protection,
however, the Ninth Circuit found that the lower court had erred in
failing to filter out all of the unprotectable elements of
Bryant's sketches.  This mistake, the Court said, caused the lower
court to conclude that all Bratz dolls were substantially similar
to Bryant's original sketches.

Judge Stephen Larson, who presided over the first trial, retired
from the bench during the course of the appeal, and the case was
transferred to Judge David O. Carter.  After the transfer, Judge
Carter granted Mattel leave to file a Fourth Amended Answer and
Counterclaims which focused on RICO, trade secret and other
claims, and added additional parties, and subsequently granted in
part and denied in part a defense motion to dismiss those
counterclaims.  Later, on August 16, 2010, MGA asserted several
new claims against Mattel in response to Mattel's Fourth Amended
Answer and Counterclaims, including claims for alleged trade
secret misappropriation, an alleged violation of RICO, and
wrongful injunction.  Mattel moved to strike and/or dismiss these
claims, as well as certain MGA allegations regarding Mattel's
motives for filing a lawsuit.  The Court granted that motion as to
the wrongful injunction claim, which it dismissed with prejudice,
and as to the allegations about Mattel's motives, which it struck.
The Court denied the motion as to MGA's trade secret
misappropriation claim and its claim for violations of RICO.

The Court resolved summary judgment motions in late 2010.  Among
other rulings, the Court dismissed both parties' RICO claims;
dismissed Mattel's claim for breach of fiduciary duty and portions
of other claims as "preempted" by the trade secrets act; dismissed
MGA's trade dress infringement claims; dismissed MGA's unjust
enrichment claim; dismissed MGA's common law unfair competition
claim; and dismissed portions of Mattel's copyright infringement
claim as to "later generation" Bratz dolls.

Trial of all remaining claims began in early January 2011.  During
the trial, and before the case was submitted to the jury, the
Court granted MGA's motions for judgment as to Mattel's claims for
aiding and abetting breach of duty of loyalty and conversion.  The
Court also granted a defense motion for judgment on portions of
Mattel's claim for misappropriation of trade secrets relating to
thefts by former Mattel employees located in Mexico.

The jury reached verdicts on the remaining claims in April 2011.
In those verdicts, the jury ruled against Mattel on its claims for
ownership of Bratz-related works, for copyright infringement, and
for misappropriation of trade secrets.  The jury ruled for MGA on
its claim of trade secret misappropriation as to 26 of its claimed
trade secrets and awarded $88.5 million in damages.  The jury
ruled against MGA as to 88 of its claimed trade secrets.  The jury
found that Mattel's misappropriation was willful and malicious.

In early August 2011, the Court ruled on post-trial motions.  The
Court rejected MGA's unfair competition claims and also rejected
Mattel's equitable defenses to MGA's misappropriation of trade
secrets claim.  The Court reduced the jury's damages award of
$88.5 million to $85.0 million.  The Court awarded MGA an
additional $85.0 million in punitive damages and approximately
$140 million in attorney's fees and costs.  The Court entered a
judgment which totals approximately $310 million in favor of MGA.

Mattel has appealed the judgment.  Mattel filed its opening brief
on February 27, 2012.  Mattel does not believe that it is probable
that any of the damages awarded to MGA will be sustained based on
the evidence presented at trial and, accordingly, a liability has
not been accrued for this matter.

In February 2011, MGA commenced litigation in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California alleging
that Mattel's conduct in response to MGA's sale of Bratz violated
both a federal antitrust statute and the California Business &
Professions Code, and constituted abuse of process under
California law.  On October 20, 2011, the Court granted Mattel's
motion to dismiss MGA's claims on the grounds, among others, that
they are barred by the doctrine of res judicata and should have
been brought in the prior proceeding.  The Court gave MGA leave to
file an amended complaint in compliance with its Order.

On November 10, 2011, MGA filed a first amended complaint which
included a single claim for alleged violations of a federal
antitrust statute.  Mattel filed a motion to dismiss MGA's amended
complaint, on the grounds, among others, that it continues to be
barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

On February 21, 2012, the Court granted Mattel's motion to dismiss
the amended complaint, this time with prejudice, meaning that MGA
was not allowed to further amend the complaint. Judgment in
Mattel's favor was entered on March 7, 2012. MGA chose not to file
a Notice of Appeal by the deadline for making such a filing. The
judgment is therefore final.


MILWAUKEE PUBLIC: Judge Revives Students' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Erin Richards, writing for the Journal Sentinel, reports that
three months ago, it appeared that Milwaukee Public Schools had
scored a decisive victory in a long-running lawsuit focused on how
it finds and serves children with special needs.

That's when a federal appeals court panel ruled that the group
suing the district -- the nonprofit Disability Rights Wisconsin --
had overreached in assembling a class of students potentially
wronged by the district over the years.

But the case -- one with potentially long-lasting ramifications
for the school district -- is stirring again.

Disability Rights Wisconsin has gotten a federal judge's approval
to gather evidence that could lead to bringing forward a narrower
group of affected parties and reviving the class-action lawsuit.

And MPS, along with the state Department of Public Instruction,
has struck back, asking the courts to order Disability Rights
Wisconsin to reimburse the district and the state nearly $1
million in legal fees.

"We objected to having to pay the plaintiffs' attorney fees at the
time they were awarded, and the (appeals) court decision simply
underscores that we were correct in objecting to them,"
Jodi Searl, a special-education administrator and attorney for
MPS, said in a statement on May 11.

Meanwhile, the case is at a crossroads: while Disability Rights
Wisconsin received the go-ahead last month to engage in discovery
that could lead to the certification of a new class of students,
motions filed by the state and MPS this month are asking for
dismissal of the case.

Jeff Spitzer-Resnick, managing attorney for Disability Rights
Wisconsin, said the group will soon request clarification from
U.S. Eastern District Court Judge Rudolph Randa on how to proceed.

The original case dates to 2001, when Disability Rights Wisconsin
brought a lawsuit against DPI and MPS that alleged the district
had failed to identify and serve a broad number of students with
disabilities.  It also alleged that DPI had failed in its
oversight of MPS on such matters.

The case became known as "Jamie S.," named after an MPS student
included in the lawsuit who was 8 years old at the time.

In 2003, Disability Rights Wisconsin's allegations received
support from a district court that certified a limited class of
students.

And in 2007, after two phases of trial testimony, U.S. Magistrate
Judge Aaron Goodstein issued a decision and order that determined
that MPS violated the Individuals with Disabilities in Education
Act rights of class members.

While the state settled with Disability Rights Wisconsin and
worked to reform special-education procedures in MPS as part of
its 2008 settlement agreement, MPS fought the decisions and filed
appeals.

In February, those efforts paid off for the district when the 7th
Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the class certification from
the lower court, saying it was too broad.  It returned the case to
the district court for further proceedings.

MPS, DPI voice dissent to costly revival

But MPS and DPI have made it clear they're not on board with the
revival of the case, at least in the way that Disability Rights
Wisconsin is pursuing.

"Plaintiffs are not entitled to another bite at the apple of class
certification," said a joint motion filed by MPS and DPI on May 10
that sought to dismiss the case.

Each party filed separate motions this month seeking restitution
of attorneys fees they had to pay the nonprofit disability rights
group in earlier proceedings.

DPI recently filed its motion to recover $475,000 paid to
Disability Rights Wisconsin four years ago, after the state
settled with the group in exchange for being released from class
members' claims against them.

MPS filed its motion on May 10 for restitution of $459,124.

Unlike DPI, which paid attorneys fees to Disability Rights
Wisconsin as part of a settlement agreement, MPS was ordered by
the lower district court in 2008 to pay the fees.

Ms. Searl, from MPS, said their motions are "simply part of the
process to recover the money for taxpayers," even though district
officials have said for years that no taxpayer money was spent on
defending the district in the lawsuit.

Ms. Searl said that's true -- insurance covered most of the
expenses, except the approximate $459,000 in fees.

DPI Spokesman John Johnson declined to comment on behalf of the
department on May 11 and said the motion had been filed by
attorneys at the Department of Justice for the state.

As for the restitution being sought, Mr. Spitzer-Resnick said he
felt that with DPI in particular, it "flies in the face" of the
contract both parties signed four years ago.

"It's not like after we signed a contract, it was immediately
found invalid," Mr. Spitzer-Resnick said.  "Four years of activity
occurred afterward, much of which was to DPI's benefit."


MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Fights Class Action Certification
------------------------------------------------------
The Litigation Daily reports that The Mortgage Electronic Registry
System and a group of 28 banks and mortgage companies are moving
to block certification of a class action, arguing that an Ohio
prosecutor doesn't have standing to represent his counterparts in
other counties, especially since he chose to enlist private
lawyers.


MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Awaits Final Okay of "Silverman" Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola Solutions, Inc. is awaiting final approval of its
settlement resolving a securities class action lawsuit captioned
Silverman v. Motorola, Inc., et al., according to the Company's
April 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

A purported class action lawsuit on behalf of the purchasers of
Motorola securities between July 19, 2006, and January 5, 2007,
Silverman v. Motorola, Inc., et al., was filed against the Company
and certain current and former officers and directors of the
Company on August 9, 2007, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges
violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as well as, in the case of the individual
defendants, the control person provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act.  The factual assertions in the complaint consist
primarily of the allegation that the defendants knowingly made
incorrect statements concerning Motorola's projected revenues for
the third and fourth quarter of 2006.  The complaint seeks
unspecified damages and other relief relating to the purported
inflation in the price of Motorola shares during the class period.
An amended complaint was filed December 20, 2007, and Motorola
moved to dismiss that complaint in February 2008.  On September
24, 2008, the district court granted this motion in part to
dismiss Section 10(b) claims as to two individuals and certain
claims related to forward looking statements, among other things,
and denied the motion in part.  On August 25, 2009, the district
court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification.  On
March 10, 2010, the district court granted plaintiff's motion to
file a second amended complaint which adds allegations concerning
Motorola's accounting and disclosures for certain transactions
entered into in the third quarter of 2006.  On February 16, 2011,
the district court granted summary judgment to dismiss the
remaining claims as to two individual defendants and the Section
10(b) claim as to a third individual, and denied the motion in
part.  On March 21, 2011, Motorola filed a motion for summary
judgment on the remaining claims against the Company and other
individual defendants.  On July 25, 2011, the district court
denied the motion for summary judgment.

On February 1, 2012, the parties in the Silverman litigation
signed a settlement agreement to resolve all claims in that case
for $200 million, $150 million of which is being paid by the
Company's insurance carriers.  The Court preliminarily approved
the settlement agreement on February 16, 2012.  A final settlement
approval hearing was scheduled for May 9, 2012.


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Awaits Ruling on Plaintiffs' Rehearing Plea
-------------------------------------------------------------
Northrop Grumman Corporation is awaiting a court decision on
plaintiffs' motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc in the class
action lawsuit filed against its pension plan styled as Skinner et
al. v. Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, etc., et al., according to
the Company's April 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

On June 22, 2007, a putative class action was filed against the
Northrop Grumman Pension Plan and the Northrop Grumman Retirement
Plan B and their corresponding administrative committees, styled
as Skinner et al. v. Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, etc., et al.,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The putative class representatives alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and
breaches of fiduciary duty concerning a 2003 modification to the
Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan B.  The modification relates to
the employer-funded portion of the pension benefit available
during a five-year transition period that ended on June 30, 2008.
The plaintiffs dismissed the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, and in
2008, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of all
remaining defendants on all claims.  The plaintiffs appealed, and
in May 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the decision of the District Court and remanded the
matter back to the District Court for further proceedings, finding
that there was ambiguity in a 1998 summary plan description
related to the employer-funded component of the pension benefit.
After the remand, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class.  The parties also filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

On January 26, 2010, the District Court granted summary judgment
in favor of the Plan and denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment.  The District Court also denied the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and struck the trial date of
March 23, 2010, as unnecessary given the District Court's grant of
summary judgment for the Plan.  The plaintiffs appealed the
District Court's order to the Ninth Circuit.

On March 16, 2012, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court.
On March 30, 2012, the plaintiffs moved for rehearing or rehearing
en banc.


PANERA BREAD: Hammering Terms of $5MM Calif. Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company is negotiating terms and conditions of a $5
million definitive settlement agreement resolving a consolidated
class action lawsuit initiated in California, according to the
Company's April 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 27, 2012.

On December 9, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by Nick
Sotoudeh, a former employee of a subsidiary of Panera Bread
Company.  The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court,
County of Contra Costa.  On April 22, 2011, the complaint was
amended to add another former employee, Gabriela Brizuela, as a
plaintiff. The complaint alleged, among other things, violations
of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to
provide meal and rest periods and termination compensation and
violations of California's Business and Professions.  The
complaint sought, among other relief, class certification of the
lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court might find
just and proper.  On November 17, 2011, the parties entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement regarding this purported class action
lawsuit and the purported class action lawsuit filed by David
Carter.  Under the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement, the
parties have agreed to settle this matter for a maximum aggregate
amount of $5.0 million for settlement payments to purported class
members, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and costs of administering
the settlement.  The Memorandum of Agreement contains no admission
of wrongdoing.  The terms and conditions of a definitive
settlement agreement are under negotiation and such agreement is
subject to approval by the Court.  The aggregate settlement amount
of $5.0 million is included in accrued expenses in the Company's
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 27, 2012, and December 27,
2011.

                         Carter Lawsuit

On July 22, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by David
Carter, a former employee of a subsidiary of Panera Bread Company,
and Nikole Benavides, a purported former employee of one of the
Company's franchisees.  The lawsuit was filed in the California
Superior Court, County of San Bernardino.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, violations of the California Labor Code,
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods
and termination compensation and violations of California's
Business and Professions Code.  The complaint seeks, among other
relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit,
unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as the Court might find just and
proper.  This matter was consolidated with the lawsuit commenced
by Nick Sotoudeh and is expected to be resolved under the
Memorandum of Agreement.


PANERA BREAD: Negotiates Terms of $1.5-MM Florida Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company is negotiating terms of a $1.5 million
settlement of a class action lawsuit commenced by Denarius Lewis,
et al., in Florida, according to the Company's April 25, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 27, 2012.

On December 16, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by
Denarius Lewis, Caroll Ruiz, and Corey Weiner, former employees of
a subsidiary of Panera Bread Company.  The lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for Middle District of Florida.
The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  The complaint seeks, among other relief,
collective, and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified
damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and such
other relief as the Court might find just and proper.

On February 29, 2012, the parties agreed to settle this matter for
an amount up to $1.5 million for settlement payments to purported
class members, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and costs of
administering the settlement.  The agreement includes no admission
of wrongdoing.  The terms and conditions of a definitive
settlement agreement are under negotiation and such agreement is
subject to approval by the Court.  The settlement amount of $1.5
million is included in accrued expenses in the Company's
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 27, 2012, and December 27,
2011.


PFIZER CANADA: May 28 Hearing to Certify Chapmix Class Action Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy E. Harnett, writing for Times Colonist, reports that as the
B.C. government touts the popularity of its new smoking cessation
program, which provides the stop-smoking pill Champix at no
charge, a hearing to certify a class-action lawsuit against the
drug's manufacturer is set for the end of this month.

Colwood's Patricia Clow launched the class-action lawsuit in B.C.
against Pfizer Canada and Pfizer Inc. two years ago.  Her daughter
Heidi, 22, committed suicide in October 2009, five months after
taking Champix to help her quit smoking.  Heidi had no history of
depression but complained the drug was "f---ing her up."  In an
affidavit, Ms. Clow said: "I believe her death was a result of her
taking Champix."

Ken Parker, 58, commenced similar legal action in Ontario.  He
took the drug in December 2007.  A month later, he suffered an
emotional breakdown and in February, attempted suicide.

"The drug changed his life, there is no doubt," said Ken's
brother, Ross Parker, who lives in Mill Bay.

Ken Parker is back at work but he is divorced from his wife and
estranged from his two kids, and says he will never recover from
the negative effects of the drug or his suicide attempt.  "I
believe my mental breakdowns and suicide attempt were caused by
Champix," his affidavit reads.

Between January 2007, when Champix was first marketed in Canada,
and Dec. 31, 2011, Health Canada received 1,724 adverse-reaction
reports on the drug.

The B.C. government maintains the neuropsychiatric side effects
from smoking-cessation drugs are rare, and that, for some
individuals, the benefits outweigh the risks.  Patients are
advised to consult their doctor, monitor the drug's use and to
stop taking it if serious side effects occur.

Traditionally, the cost of antismoking drugs has not been covered
in B.C.  However, through the B.C. government's smoking cessation
program launched in September 2011, PharmaCare now covers a single
continuous course of one of two prescribed smoking-cessation drugs
-- varenicline (sold under the brand-name Champix in Canada and
Chantix in the U.S.) and bupropion (Zyban) -- or a free 12-week
supply of nicotinereplacement gum or patches.

The prescription medications do not contain nicotine, but work on
the brain to manage withdrawal symptoms and cravings and reduce
the urge to smoke, according to the B.C. government.

Champix attaches to nicotine receptors in the brain to both
decrease cravings and lessen the pleasurable psychological effects
of nicotine.  However, it is also associated with serious
neuropsychiatric side effects, including suicidal thoughts or
actions, depression, mood swings and agitation.

It is not known whether the neuropsychiatric effects are solely
related to the prescription drug, nicotine withdrawal or
underlying symptoms that nicotine may be medicating.

Eric Lun, executive director of the Ministry of Health's
pharmaceutical services division, said the government reviewed
many "well-designed studies," talked to experts and physicians in
the field, and asked for the assistance of the independent
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health for evidence-
based analysis on the effectiveness of the drug.

The efficacy of Champix "on balance, is not bad," Mr. Lun said.

"All drugs have risks and benefits."

Patients have to weigh their options with their physician, he
said.  "Any prescription drugs should be subscribed with caution."

Alan Cassels, a drug-policy researcher at the University of
Victoria, argues there's good reason to be concerned about
Champix.

"I was the one who noticed the irony that in the same week that
[Premier] Christy Clark announced this new drug policy to cover
these treatments, the French government took Champix off the
formulary," Mr. Cassels said.

"When a government takes a major drug off the formulary -- which
says we don't believe it's safe or effective -- that's something
you have to listen to."

A four-day hearing to certify the class-action suit representing
Clow, Parker and approximately 200 others is scheduled for May 28
in Toronto.  A similar multi-district action litigation in the
United States is at the discovery stage, with its first test case
scheduled for October.

Pfizer said it would not quantify the number of lawsuits related
to Champix nor comment on the litigation to begin May 28.

The company did confirm that the cost of the drug is reimbursed by
governments throughout Canada with the exception of the Atlantic
provinces.

Worldwide sales of the drug were reported at C$755 million in
2010.

Last month, the B.C. Ministry of Health said more than 100,000
residents had ordered nicotine gum, patches or pills through
B.C.'s smoking-cessation program since September.  There were
25,500 prescriptions written for Champix and 3,500 for Zyban,
which is associated with far fewer adverse events.

Dr. Curt Furberg, a professor of public health sciences at Wake
Forest Baptist Medical Center in North Carolina, co-authored a
recent study that urged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to
update its warnings to say the psychological risks of the drug
exceed those of nicotine-replacement therapies and competitor
Zyban.

Dr. Furberg said that among all the treatments available for
smoking cessation, Champix "is the worst."

"I stand behind my view that Champix is one of the most harmful
drugs on the market, and that the long-term benefit (smoking
cessation after 12 months) is very modest," Dr. Furberg wrote in
an e-mail.

After seeing what happened to his brother, Mr. Parker said he is
incensed that the province is making the drug available to British
Columbians: "Why should they think there's any risk if the B.C.
government is saying it's OK.  It's just sad."


RED HAT: No Appeals Filed in Consolidated N.C. Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The time to appeal the dismissal of a consolidated securities
lawsuit commenced in North Carolina has passed without any appeals
filed, Red Hat, Inc. disclosed in its April 25, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended February 29, 2012.

In the summer of 2004, 14 class action lawsuits were filed against
the Company and several of its former officers on behalf of
investors who purchased the Company's securities during various
periods from June 19, 2001, through July 13, 2004.  All 14
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina.  In each of the actions, plaintiffs
sought to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's common
stock during some or all of the period from June 19, 2001, through
July 13, 2004.  All of the claims arose in connection with the
Company's announcement on July 13, 2004, that it would restate
certain of its financial statements (the "Restatement").  One or
more of the plaintiffs asserted that certain former officers (the
"Individual Defendants") and the Company violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Securities Exchange Act"), and Rule l0b-5 thereunder by issuing
the financial statements that the Company subsequently restated.
One or more of the plaintiffs sought unspecified damages,
interest, costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, an accounting of
certain profits obtained by the Individual Defendants from trading
in the Company's common stock, disgorgement by the Company's
former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer
of certain compensation and profits from trading in the Company's
common stock pursuant to Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and other relief.

As of September 8, 2004, all of these class action lawsuits were
consolidated into a single action referenced as Civil Action No.
5:04-C V-473BR and titled In re Red Hat, Inc. Securities
Litigation.  On May 6, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated class action complaint.  On July 29, 2005, the
Company, on behalf of itself and the Individual Defendants, filed
a motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.  Also on that date,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PwC"), another defendant, filed a
separate motion to dismiss.  On May 12, 2006, the Court issued an
order granting the motion to dismiss the Securities Exchange Act
claims against several of the Individual Defendants, but denying
the motion to dismiss the Securities Exchange Act claims against
the Company, its former chief executive officer and former chief
financial officer.  The Court dismissed the claims under the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act in their entirety, and also granted PwC's
motion to dismiss.  On November 6, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification.  Subsequent to the filing of that
motion, several plaintiffs withdrew as potential class
representatives, and the Company opposed the certification of the
remaining proposed class representatives.  On May 11, 2007, the
Court entered an order denying class certification and denying all
other pending motions as moot.

Thereafter, on July 13, 2007, Charles Gilbert filed a renewed
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection
of lead counsel.  On November 13, 2007, the Court entered an Order
allowing Gilbert's motion, appointing him lead plaintiff, adding
him as a party plaintiff and appointing lead counsel.  On January
14, 2008, Gilbert's counsel filed a motion to certify the action
as a class action.  On August 28, 2009, the Court entered an Order
certifying the action as a class action, appointing Gilbert as the
class representative, and defining the class as "all purchasers of
the common stock of Red Hat, Inc. between December 17, 2002, and
July 12, 2004, inclusive and who were damaged thereby," excluding
Company insiders.  On
December 15, 2009, the Company announced that it had reached an
agreement in principle to settle this matter, subject, among other
matters, to completion of a final written settlement agreement and
court approval.  The Company recorded, for its quarter ended
November 30, 2009, an estimated liability in the amount of $8.8
million for its portion of the proposed settlement.  On March 29,
2010, counsel for the class filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the Settlement and, on
June 11, 2010, a United States Magistrate Judge issued a
Memorandum and Recommendation to the presiding judge that the
motion be approved.  On July 8, 2010, the presiding judge approved
the motion and set the hearing for the final fairness hearing on
December 7, 2010.  The settlement was approved by the District
Court in an order dated December 10, 2010.

On February 10, 2012, the Court entered a final judgment and
dismissal with prejudice.  The time for appeal of this judgment
has passed without any appeals.


RED HAT: Remaining Objection in IPO Suit Deal Dismissed in Jan.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a final
order in January 2012 dismissing the remaining objection to the
settlement of a multidistrict litigation relating to Red Hat,
Inc.'s public offerings, according to the Company's April 25,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended February 29, 2012.

Commencing on or about March 2001, the Company and certain of its
officers and directors were named as defendants in a series of
purported class action lawsuits arising out of the Company's
initial public offering and secondary offering.  Approximately 310
other IPO issuers were named as defendants in similar class action
complaints (together, the "IPO Allocation Actions").  On
August 8, 2001, Chief Judge Michael Mukasey of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order that
transferred all of the IPO Allocation Actions, including the
complaints involving the Company, to one judge for coordinated
pre-trial proceedings (Case No. 21 MC 92).  The plaintiffs contend
that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing
registration statements and prospectuses that contained materially
false and misleading information and failed to disclose material
information.  Plaintiffs also challenge certain IPO allocation
practices by underwriters and the lack of disclosure thereof in
initial public offering documents.  On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs
filed amended complaints in each of the 310 consolidated actions,
including the Red Hat action. The relief sought consists of
unspecified damages, attorneys' and expert fees and other
unspecified costs.  In October of 2002, the individual director
and officer defendants of the Company were dismissed from the case
without prejudice.  In October of 2004, the District Court
certified a class in six of the 310 actions (the "focus cases")
and noted that the decision is intended to provide strong guidance
to all parties regarding class certification in the remaining
cases.  The Company's action is not one of the focus cases.

On December 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit vacated the District Court's class certification with
respect to the focus cases and remanded the matter for further
consideration.  In September 2007, discovery moved forward in the
focus cases and plaintiff filed and amended complaints against the
focus case issuer and underwriter defendants.  Defendants in the
focus cases filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaints
in November 2007 and filed their oppositions to plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in December 2007.  The motions to dismiss
in the focus cases were granted in part.  On April 2, 2009, the
plaintiffs' executive committee on behalf of the proposed class
filed a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement
to resolve the lawsuit, to which the Company has consented and for
which payments called for by the settlement agreement are to be
paid by the defendant insurers. The trial court heard arguments on
September 10, 2009 on the fairness of the settlement.  In an
opinion and order filed October 5, 2009, the trial court approved
the class, granted plaintiffs' motion for approval of the
settlement and directed the clerk of the court to close the
action.  Appeals have been filed and briefed before the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On May 17, 2011, the Second Circuit issued a ruling on the two
pending appeals, granting the motion to dismiss one of the
appeals, and remanding the other appeal back to the District Court
to determine procedural issues relating to the standing of the
remaining objector-appellant.  On August 25, 2011, the Court
rejected the claims of that remaining objector-appellant.  A
notice of appeal of this decision was filed on September 26, 2011.
On November 10, 2011, Plaintiffs moved to dismiss with prejudice
the appeal by the remaining objector-appellant, and requested that
the Court consider the motion on an expedited basis.  The
remaining objector-appellant filed a brief in opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss on November 4, 2011.  Subsequently,
during a court-ordered mediation, the remaining objector-appellant
reached an agreement with the plaintiffs and withdrew his
objection to the settlement.  On January 9, 2012, the Second
Circuit issued a final Stipulation of Dismissal.


SHERWIN WILLIAMS: Defends Lead Pigment & Lead-Based Paint Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Sherwin-Williams Company continues to defend lawsuits over its
past lead pigment and lead-based paint business, according to the
Company's April 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

The Company's past operations included the manufacture and sale of
lead pigments and lead-based paints.  The Company, along with
other companies, is and has been a defendant in a number of legal
proceedings, including individual personal injury actions,
purported class actions, and actions brought by various counties,
cities, school districts and other government-related entities,
arising from the manufacture and sale of lead pigments and lead-
based paints.  The plaintiffs' claims have been based upon various
legal theories, including negligence, strict liability, breach of
warranty, negligent misrepresentations and omissions, fraudulent
misrepresentations and omissions, concert of action, civil
conspiracy, violations of unfair trade practice and consumer
protection laws, enterprise liability, market share liability,
public nuisance, unjust enrichment and other theories.  The
plaintiffs seek various damages and relief, including personal
injury and property damage, costs relating to the detection and
abatement of lead-based paint from buildings, costs associated
with a public education campaign, medical monitoring costs and
others.  The Company is also a defendant in legal proceedings
arising from the manufacture and sale of non-lead-based paints
that seek recovery based upon various legal theories, including
the failure to adequately warn of potential exposure to lead
during surface preparation when using non-lead-based paint on
surfaces previously painted with lead-based paint.

The Company believes that the litigation brought to date is
without merit or subject to meritorious defenses and is vigorously
defending such litigation.  The Company has not settled any lead
pigment or lead-based paint litigation.  The Company expects that
additional lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation may be
filed against the Company in the future asserting similar or
different legal theories and seeking similar or different types of
damages and relief.

Notwithstanding the Company's views on the merits, litigation is
inherently subject to many uncertainties, and the Company
ultimately may not prevail.  Adverse court rulings or
determinations of liability, among other factors, could affect the
lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation against the Company
and encourage an increase in the number and nature of future
claims and proceedings.  In addition, from time to time, various
legislation and administrative regulations have been enacted,
promulgated or proposed to impose obligations on present and
former manufacturers of lead pigments and lead-based paints
respecting asserted health concerns associated with such products
or to overturn the effect of court decisions in which the Company
and other manufacturers have been successful.

Due to the uncertainties involved, management is unable to predict
the outcome of the lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation,
the number or nature of possible future claims and proceedings, or
the effect that any legislation and/or administrative regulations
may have on the litigation or against the Company.  In addition,
management cannot reasonably determine the scope or amount of the
potential costs and liabilities related to such litigation, or
resulting from any such legislation and regulations.  The Company
has not accrued any amounts for such litigation.  With respect to
such litigation, including the public nuisance litigation, the
Company does not believe that it is probable that a loss has
occurred, and it is not possible to estimate the range of
potential losses as there is no prior history of a loss of this
nature and there is no substantive information upon which an
estimate could be based.  In addition, any potential liability
that may result from any changes to legislation and regulations
cannot reasonably be estimated.  In the event any significant
liability is determined to be attributable to the Company relating
to such litigation, the recording of the liability may result in a
material impact on net income for the annual or interim period
during which such liability is accrued.  Additionally, due to the
uncertainties associated with the amount of any such liability
and/or the nature of any other remedy which may be imposed in such
litigation, any potential liability determined to be attributable
to the Company arising out of such litigation may have a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, liquidity
or financial condition.  An estimate of the potential impact on
the Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial
condition cannot be made due to the uncertainties.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Merger Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. is awaiting a court decision on its and
other defendants' motion to dismiss the remaining consolidated
merger-related lawsuit, according to the Company's April 25, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On May 2, 2011, the Company acquired all of the outstanding equity
of AirTran Holdings, Inc., now known as AirTran Holdings, LLC.
AirTran is currently subject to pending antitrust litigation, and
if judgment were to be rendered against AirTran in the litigation,
such judgment could adversely affect the Company's operating
results.

From September 28, 2010, to January 18, 2011, various purported
class action lawsuits were filed by stockholders of AirTran
Holdings, Inc. that challenged the acquisition of AirTran by the
Company.  While the Company believes that each of these lawsuits
was without merit, all but one was settled and dismissed during
2011, which resolved and released on behalf of the entire class of
former AirTran stockholders all claims that were or could have
been brought challenging any aspect of the merger, the merger
agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith, among
other claims.  That one action remains pending.

The one remaining action is a consolidation of four purported
AirTran shareholder class action lawsuits that were filed in the
Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange
County, Florida.  Harry Hoffner filed a purported class action
lawsuit on September 30, 2010, against AirTran, Robert L. Fornaro,
AirTran's Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, each
member of the AirTran board of directors, and the Company.  This
was followed by lawsuits filed by Robert Debardelan on October 8,
2010, Thomas A. Rosenberger on
October 12, 2010, and Robert Loretitsch on October 15, 2010,
against the same defendants plus Guadalupe Holdings Corp. ("Merger
Sub").  On November 15, 2010, these actions were consolidated into
one action styled In re AirTran Shareholder Litigation (the
"consolidated Florida action"), which on
December 2, 2010, was stayed in its entirety pending resolution of
the earlier filed merger-related lawsuits.

The consolidated Florida action generally alleges that the
consideration received by AirTran's stockholders in the merger was
unfair and inadequate and that the AirTran officers and directors
named as defendants (the "individual AirTran defendants") breached
their fiduciary duties by approving the merger agreement through
an unfair and flawed process and by approving certain deal
protection mechanisms contained in the merger agreement.  The
consolidated Florida action further alleges that AirTran, the
Company, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the individual AirTran
defendants in the breach of their fiduciary duties to AirTran's
stockholders.  The consolidated Florida action sought injunctive
relief to (i) enjoin the defendants from consummating the merger
unless AirTran adopted and implemented a procedure or process to
obtain the highest possible price for AirTran's stockholders and
disclosed all material information to AirTran's stockholders, (ii)
direct the individual AirTran defendants to exercise their
fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction in the best interests of
AirTran's stockholders, and (iii) rescind the merger agreement,
including the deal protection devices that may have precluded
premium competing bids for AirTran.  The consolidated Florida
action also seeks plaintiffs' costs and disbursements, including
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, and such other and
further equitable relief as the court may deem just and proper.

As a result of the settlement and dismissal of the other merger-
related lawsuits, the defendants in the consolidated Florida
action are currently in the process of seeking dismissal of that
action.  The plaintiffs in the consolidated Florida action have
filed a motion seeking an award of attorneys' fees in the amount
of $350,000, which the defendants have opposed.  No hearing is
currently set.

The Company's management does not expect that the outcome in any
of its currently ongoing legal proceedings or the outcome of any
proposed adjustments presented to date by the Internal Revenue
Service, individually or collectively, will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flow.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Briefing in Ga. Suit to Be Completed Aug. 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
Summary judgment briefing in the class action lawsuit involving a
subsidiary of Southwest Airlines Co. is set to be completed on
August 13, 2012, according to the Company's April 25, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On May 2, 2011, the Company acquired all of the outstanding equity
of AirTran Holdings, Inc., now known as AirTran Holdings, LLC.
AirTran is currently subject to pending antitrust litigation, and
if judgment were to be rendered against AirTran in the litigation,
such judgment could adversely affect the Company's operating
results.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta
Air Lines, Inc. ("Delta") and AirTran in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta on
May 22, 2009.  The complaint alleged, among other things, that
AirTran attempted to monopolize air travel in violation of Section
2 of the Sherman Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-
per-bag fees for the first item of checked luggage in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The initial complaint sought treble
damages on behalf of a putative class of persons or entities in
the United States who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees
on domestic flights beginning
December 5, 2008.  After the filing of the May 2009 complaint,
several nearly identical complaints also seeking certification as
class actions were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta,
Georgia; Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada.  All of the
cases were consolidated before a single federal district court
judge in Atlanta.  A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in
the consolidated action on February 1, 2010, which broadened the
allegations to add claims that Delta and AirTran conspired to
reduce capacity on competitive routes and to raise prices in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  In addition to treble
damages for the amount of first baggage fees paid to AirTran and
to Delta, the Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks injunctive
relief against a broad range of alleged anticompetitive
activities, as well as attorneys' fees.  On August 2, 2010, the
Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that AirTran and Delta had
violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the Court let stand the
claims of a conspiracy with respect to the imposition of a first
bag fee and the airlines' capacity and pricing decisions.  On June
30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class, which
AirTran and Delta have opposed.  The Court has not yet ruled on
the class certification motion.

Although the original period for fact and expert discovery had
ended, on February 3, 2012, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for supplemental discovery.  Under the current schedule, the
period for supplemental discovery against AirTran was to end on
May 3, 2012, and summary judgment briefing is to be completed on
August 13, 2012.

AirTran denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in
the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and intends to defend
vigorously any and all such allegations.

The Company's management does not expect that the outcome in any
of its currently ongoing legal proceedings or the outcome of any
proposed adjustments presented to date by the Internal Revenue
Service, individually or collectively, will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flow.


TORONTO DOMINION: Agrees to Settle Class Action for C$62 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Voreacos and Susannah Nesmith, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that Toronto Dominion Bank, Canada's second-biggest lender,
reached a preliminary agreement to pay C$62 million to settle
litigation accusing it of gouging customers on overdraft fees for
checking accounts.

The settlement would resolve claims by consumer account holders
who sued over fees charged to debit cards attached to their
checking accounts.  U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King in
Miami must approve the settlement.  On April 3, Judge King
certified the case as a class-action, or group lawsuit.

"It's a good deal for TD Bank customers because it's going to help
recover for them some portion of the overdraft fees which we
contend were wrongfully assessed against them," said Robert C.
Gilbert, an attorney for plaintiffs, in a telephone interview.
"Short of the litigation, they would not have had any opportunity
to recover these fees."

The litigation before Judge King involves more than 30 banks sued
over their overdraft-fee policies.  The customers say the banks
reorder debit-card transactions in their computers to maximize
overdraft fees.  Bank of America Corp., the second-biggest U.S.
bank by assets, agreed last year to pay $410 million, without
admitting liability, to settle an overdraft lawsuit.

"We think it's in our best interests to put this behind us," said
TD Bank spokeswoman Rebecca Acevedo in a telephone interview.
Mr. Gilbert said the agreement will cover "several hundred
thousand" customers.  The exact number will be determined later in
the settlement approval process, he said.

On April 25, Citizens Bank reached a settlement, agreeing to pay
C$137.5 million.  In February, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), the
biggest U.S. bank by assets, reached an agreement for C$110
million.  Both are awaiting Judge King's approval.

The case is In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, 09-md-
02036, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami).


U.S. STEEL: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation continues to defend class action
lawsuits alleging violations of antitrust laws, according to the
Company's April 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

In a series of lawsuits filed in federal court in the Northern
District of Illinois beginning September 12, 2008, individual
direct or indirect buyers of steel products have asserted that
eight steel manufacturers, including U. S. Steel, conspired in
violation of antitrust laws to restrict the domestic production of
raw steel and thereby to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the
price of steel products in the United States.  The cases are filed
as class actions and claim treble damages for the period 2005 to
present, but do not allege any damage amounts.

U. S. Steel says it is vigorously defending these lawsuits and
does not believe that it has any liability regarding these
matters.


UNITED STATES: Portion of Birds Point Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Moyers, writing for Southeast Missourian, reports that a
federal judge has tossed out a big portion of a class-action
lawsuit brought by more than 140 Southeast Missouri farmers who
are seeking millions from the U.S. government for damages caused
by last year's intentional breaching of the Birds Point levee.
But the lawyer who represents them says the fight will go on with
a two-pronged legal approach that he's optimistic will still get
his clients what they want.

"The farmers are not giving up by a long shot," said Cape
Girardeau lawyer J. Michael Ponder.  "There's no reason for
despair here.  This is just a trimming of the claim."

Judge Nancy B. Firestone of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in
Washington, D.C., granted the government's motion to dismiss the
first two counts of the lawsuit, saying the farmers did not make a
valid "takings claim."  A legal prerequisite for a government
taking of land is that the farmers needed to show that there would
be frequent, inevitable flooding in the future because of what was
done by the government.

The May 2, 2011 breach was the second flood resulting from
operation of the 130,000-acre floodway that sits in Mississippi
and New Madrid counties.

"The first flood took place in 1937.  Allegations of two floods
separated by nearly 75 years are not enough to support an
inference of frequent and inevitably recurring flooding,"
Firestone said in her written opinion.

But Judge Firestone has yet to consider an amended complaint that
Mr. Ponder filed on April 23, which now seeks damages for what the
court filing describes as the government's failure to pay the
plaintiffs for the damage caused by the sand and gravel deposits
in violation of the easements.  The motion calls it a "breach of
contract claim" that Mr. Ponder says could get the farmers as much
as a takings claim could.  The motion claims, Mr. Ponder said,
that the damage caused by the floodway activation was more severe
than was allowable under the flowage agreements that were paid to
property owners.

"In truth, the landowner probably doesn't care whether his damages
get paid under count 1, which is the takings count, or count 2,
which is a breach of easements count," Mr. Ponder said.  "Just so
long as the damages are paid."

Mr. Ponder intends to appeal Judge Firestone's decision.  He also
is hopeful that the law on government taking will soon be
redefined by the U.S. Supreme Court.  In April, the high court
agreed to hear a case brought by the Arkansas Game and Fish
Commission, which has been fighting for seven years to get the
government to pay costs the commission says the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers caused to its Dave Donaldson Black River Wildlife
Management Area.

In its brief, the commission argued that it is entitled to
compensation from the government under the Takings Clause of the
Fifth Amendment for physically taking its bottomland hardwood
timber on the wildlife management area through six years of
prolonged flooding during the sensitive growing season.  The Court
of Federal Claims had awarded $5.78 million, finding that the
corps destroyed and degraded more than 18 million board feet of
timber by deviating from a water-control plan.  But a higher court
reversed the trial judgment.

"What the Supreme Court does will have a significant impact on our
case," Mr. Ponder said.  "We think the lawsuit is legally viable
in the first instance.  But the Supreme Court's decision will make
it more clear to Judge Firestone that it's a legally cognizable
claim."

Arguments before the high court could be heard as soon as this
fall, Mr. Ponder said.  As far as the remaining count on the
lawsuit, Mr. Ponder said the court will likely enter a scheduling
order setting a timeline for discovery before a trial.

Not all of the farmers are confident, however, that they will ever
see damages from the government.

One of the plaintiffs is John Story, a fourth-generation farmer
who grows wheat, corn and soybeans in the floodway along Highway
77.  Mr. Story wasn't surprised the judge dismissed a portion of
the lawsuit.

"It was a taking and of course the government's going to put their
spin on it because they do whatever they want, whenever they
want," Mr. Story said.  "They have no regard for private ownership
rights.  . . . I don't think we'll ever see a penny out of the
government."

The government contends that easements signed when the floodway
was created allow the corps to activate the floodway when needed,
without having to provide extra compensation.

Mr. Story said he lost five houses when the corps breached the
levee and inundated the floodway with river water to alleviate
pressure on other parts of the river.  Much of his equipment
remains damaged and Mr. Story estimated he's spent hundreds of
thousands of dollars in repairs.

For his part, Mr. Ponder said he's encouraged and committed to the
process.  He remains "convinced that equity requires justice for
these farmers," Mr. Ponder said.  "You can't have a situation
where the federal government decides to harm one set of landowners
for the benefit of others."


UNITIL CORP: Continues to Defend Suit vs. Fitchburg in Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action complaint was filed against Unitil
Corporation's wholly-owned distribution utility, Fitchburg Gas and
Electric Light Company, on January 7, 2009, in Worcester Superior
Court in Worcester, Massachusetts, captioned Bellerman v.
Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company.  On April 1, 2009, an
Amended Complaint was filed in Worcester Superior Court and served
on Fitchburg.  The Amended Complaint seeks an unspecified amount
of damages, including the cost of temporary housing and
alternative fuel sources, emotional and physical pain and
suffering and property damages allegedly incurred by customers in
connection with the loss of electric service during the ice storm
in Fitchburg's service areas in December, 2008.  The Amended
Complaint includes M.G.L. ch. 93A claims for purported unfair and
deceptive trade practices related to the December 2008 ice storm.
On September 4, 2009, the Superior Court issued its order on the
Company's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, granting it in part and
denying it in part.  The Company anticipates that the court will
decide whether the lawsuit is appropriate for class action
treatment in late 2012.

The Company continues to believe the lawsuit is without merit and
will defend itself vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 25, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.


WELLPOINT INC: ADA Suit Appeal Remains Pending in 11th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc. is currently a defendant in a putative class
action relating to out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement of dental
claims called American Dental Association v. WellPoint Health
Networks, Inc. and Blue Cross of California.  The lawsuit was
filed in March 2002 by the American Dental Association, and three
dentists who are suing on behalf of themselves and are seeking to
sue on behalf of a nationwide class of all non-participating
dental providers who were paid less than their actual charges for
dental services provided to members of some of the Company's
affiliates' and subsidiaries' dental plans.  The dentists sue as
purported assignees of their patients' rights to benefits under
the Company's dental plans.  The complaint alleges that the
Company breached its contractual obligations in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") by
paying usual, customary and reasonable, or UCR, rates, rather than
the dentists' actual charges, allegedly relying on undisclosed,
non-existent or flawed UCR data.  The plaintiffs claim, among
other things, that the data failed to account for differences in
geography, provider specialty, outlier (high) charges, and
complexity of procedure.  The complaint further alleges that the
Company was aware that the data was inappropriate to set UCR rates
and that the Company routinely paid OON dentists less than their
actual charges representing that its OON payments were properly
determined usual, customary and reasonable rates.  The lawsuit was
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

On December 23, 2011, the District Court granted the Company's
motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case.  The
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which is pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 25, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit;
however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.


WELLPOINT INC: Out-of-Network MDL Remains Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The multi-district lawsuit captioned In re WellPoint, Inc. Out-of-
Network "UCR" Rates Litigation remains pending in California,
according to the Company's April 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

The Company is currently a defendant in eleven putative class
actions relating to out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement that
were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In
re WellPoint, Inc. Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates Litigation that is
pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The lawsuits were filed in 2009.  The
plaintiffs include current and former members on behalf of a
putative class of members who received OON services for which the
defendants paid less than billed charges, the American Medical
Association, four state medical associations, OON physicians,
chiropractors, clinical psychologists, podiatrists,
psychotherapists, the American Podiatric Association, California
Chiropractic Association and the California Psychological
Association on behalf of a putative class of all physicians and
all non-physician health care providers, and an OON surgical
center.  In the consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs allege that
the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, or RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or ERISA, federal
regulations, and state law by relying on databases provided by
Ingenix in determining OON reimbursement.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed to add allegations in
the lawsuit that OON reimbursement was calculated improperly by
methodologies other than the Ingenix databases.  The Company filed
a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.  The
motion was granted in part and denied in part.  The court gave the
plaintiffs permission to replead many of those claims that were
dismissed.  The plaintiffs filed a third amended consolidated
complaint repleading some of the claims that had been dismissed
without prejudice and adding additional statements in an attempt
to bolster other claims.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss
the third amended consolidated complaint, which is pending.  The
OON surgical center voluntarily dismissed their claims.  Fact
discovery is complete.  At the end of 2009, the Company filed a
motion to enjoin the claims brought by the medical doctors and
doctors of osteopathy and certain medical associations based on
prior litigation releases, which was granted in 2011, and the
court ordered the plaintiffs to dismiss their claims that are
barred by the release.

The physician and medical association plaintiffs filed an
emergency motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending
appeal, for the right to pursue an interlocutory appeal, and for
an expedited appeal, all of which were denied.  The plaintiffs
also filed a petition for declaratory judgment asking the Court to
find that these claims are not barred by the releases from the
prior litigation.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
declaratory judgment action, which was granted.  The plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal of the declaratory
judgment action with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit.  The appeal is pending.  The enjoined physicians
have not yet dismissed their claims.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit;
however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.


WELLPOINT INC: Still Defends Suits Over AICI Demutualization
------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc. continues to defend class action lawsuits arising
from the demutualization of Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc.,
according to the Company's April 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

The Company is currently defending several certified class actions
filed as a result of the 2001 demutualization of Anthem Insurance
Companies, Inc., or AICI, and the initial public offering of
common stock, or IPO, for its holding company, Anthem, Inc. (n/k/a
WellPoint, Inc.).  The lawsuits name AICI as well as Anthem, Inc.,
or Anthem, n/k/a WellPoint, Inc.  The lawsuits are captioned as
Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al.; Mary E. Ormond, et al.
v. Anthem, Inc., et al.; and Ronald E. Mell, Sr., et al. v.
Anthem, Inc., et al. AICI's 2001 Plan of Conversion, or the Plan,
provided for the conversion of AICI from a mutual insurance
company into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law.
Under the Plan, AICI distributed the fair value of the company at
the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or ESMs,
in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for their
membership interests in the mutual company.  The lawsuits
generally allege that AICI distributed value to the wrong ESMs or
distributed insufficient value to the ESMs.  In Gold, cross
motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied in
part on July 26, 2006, with regard to the issue of sovereign
immunity asserted by co-defendant, the State of Connecticut, or
the State.  The court also denied the Company's motion for summary
judgment as to plaintiffs' claims on January 10, 2005.  The State
appealed the denial of its motion to the Connecticut Supreme
Court.  The Company filed a cross-appeal on the sovereign immunity
issue.  On May 11, 2010, the Court reversed the judgment of the
trial court denying the State's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
claims under sovereign immunity and dismissed the Company's cross-
appeal.  The case was remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings.  Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
granted on December 15, 2011.

In the Ormond lawsuit, the Company's motion to dismiss was granted
in part and denied in part on March 31, 2008.  The Court dismissed
the claims for violation of federal and state securities laws, for
violation of the Indiana Demutualization Law, for unjust
enrichment, and for negligent misrepresentation with respect to
ESMs residing in Indiana.  On September 29, 2009, a class was
certified with respect to some but not all claims asserted in the
plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint.  The class consists of all
ESMs residing in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky or Connecticut who
received cash compensation in connection with the demutualization.
The class does not include employers located in Ohio and
Connecticut that received cash distributions pursuant to the Plan.
On July 1, 2011, the Court issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part the Company's motion for summary judgment.  The
Court held that the Company was entitled to judgment on all of
plaintiffs' claims except those tort claims in connection with the
pricing and sizing of the Anthem, Inc. IPO.  Anthem filed a Motion
to Certify this Order for interlocutory review to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  The District
Court granted the Company's motion on September 2, 2011. The
Company submitted its Petition for Permission to Appeal with the
Seventh Circuit.  However, the petition was denied by the Appeals
Court on October 13, 2011.  The Ormond lawsuit is set for trial on
June 18, 2012.  In court filings, the plaintiffs in Ormond have
alleged that the plaintiff class is entitled to compensatory
damages ranging from approximately $265 million to $545 million on
the remaining claims, plus prejudgment interest at the maximum
rate allowed by law running from the demutualization in 2001,
postjudgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law, punitive
damages in amounts not less than $500 million, and their costs and
expenses in the action.

On November 4, 2009, a class was certified in the Mell lawsuit.
That class consists of persons who were continuously enrolled in
the health benefit plan sponsored by the City of Cincinnati
between June 18, 2001, and November 2, 2001.  On March 3, 2010,
the Court issued an order granting the Company's motion for
summary judgment.  As a result, the Mell lawsuit has been
dismissed.  The plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Court.  Argument on
the appeal was held on January 20, 2012.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits;
however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.


YUM BRANDS: Bid to Decertify Class in "Moeller" Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Taco Bell's motion to decertify a class in the lawsuit commenced
by Moeller, et al., remains pending, according to YUM! Brands,
Inc.'s April 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 24, 2012.

On December 17, 2002, Taco Bell was named as the defendant in a
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco
Bell Corp.  On August 4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that alleges, among other things, that Taco Bell has
discriminated against the class of people who use wheelchairs or
scooters for mobility by failing to make its approximately 220
company-owned restaurants in California accessible to the class.
Plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and
structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the
path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with mobility-
related disabilities do not comply with the U.S. Americans with
Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the
"Unruh Act"), and the California Disabled Persons Act (the
"CDPA").  Plaintiffs have requested: (a) an injunction from the
District Court ordering Taco Bell to comply with the ADA and its
implementing regulations; (b) that the District Court declare Taco
Bell in violation of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and (c)
monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA.  Plaintiffs, on
behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum statutory damages per
offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh Act or $1,000 under the
CDPA for each aggrieved member of the class.  Plaintiffs contend
that there may be in excess of 100,000 individuals in the class.

On February 23, 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  The class includes claims for
injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages.

On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco
Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific
issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force.  On
August 8, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with
regard to dining room seating.  In addition, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening force at
some restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard
to queue lines.

On December 16, 2009, the court denied Taco Bell's motion for
summary judgment on the ADA claims and ordered plaintiff to file a
definitive list of remaining issues and to select one restaurant
to be the subject of a trial.  The exemplar trial for that
restaurant began on June 6, 2011.  The trial was bifurcated and
the first stage addressed whether violations existed at the
restaurant.  Twelve alleged violations of the ADA and state law
were tried.  On October 5, 2011, the court issued its trial
decision.  The court found liability for the twelve items, finding
that they were once out of compliance with applicable state and/or
federal accessibility standards.  The court also found that
classwide injunctive relief is warranted.  The court declined to
order injunctive relief at this time, however, citing the pendency
of Taco Bell's motions to decertify both the injunctive and
damages class.  In a separate order, the court vacated the date
previously set for an exemplar trial for damages on the single
restaurant.

On June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued its
ruling in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes.  The Supreme Court held
that the class in that case was improperly certified.  The same
legal theory was used to certify the class in the Moeller case,
and Taco Bell filed a motion to decertify the class on August 3,
2011.  During the exemplar trial, the court observed that the
restaurant had been in full compliance with all laws since March
2010, and Taco Bell argues in its decertification motion that, in
light of the decision in the Dukes case, no damages class can be
certified and that injunctive relief is not appropriate,
regardless of class status.  On October 19, 2011, plaintiffs filed
a motion to amend the certified class to include a damages class.
Briefing on Taco Bell's motion to decertify and plaintiffs' motion
to amend the class is complete.  No hearing has been scheduled by
the court.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  Taco Bell has taken steps to
address potential architectural and structural compliance issues
at the restaurants in accordance with applicable state and federal
disability access laws.  The costs associated with addressing
these issues have not significantly impacted the Company's results
of operations.  It is not possible at this time to reasonably
estimate the probability or amount of liability for monetary
damages on a class wide basis to Taco Bell.


YUM BRANDS: Expects Ruling on Cert. Bid in "Smith" Suit This Year
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YUM! Brands, Inc. disclosed in its April 25, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 24, 2012, that a decision on plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification in the class action lawsuit
filed by Mark Smith is expected during 2012.

On July 9, 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v.
Pizza Hut, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The complaint alleged that Pizza Hut
did not properly reimburse its delivery drivers for various
automobile costs, uniforms costs, and other job-related expenses
and seeks to represent a class of delivery drivers nationwide
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado state law.
On January 4, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional
certification of a nationwide class of current and former Pizza
Hut, Inc. delivery drivers.  However, on March 11, 2010, the court
granted Pizza Hut's pending motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim, with leave to amend.  On March 31, 2010, plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint, which dropped the uniform claims but, in
addition to the federal FLSA claims, asserts state-law class
action claims under the laws of sixteen different states.  Pizza
Hut filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and
plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint a second time.
On August 9, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend.
Pizza Hut filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.  On July 15, 2011, the Court granted Pizza Hut's motion
with respect to plaintiffs' state law claims, but allowed the FLSA
claims to go forward.  Plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Conditional Certification on August 31, 2011, to which Pizza Hut
filed its opposition on October 5, 2011.  A decision on
plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification is expected
during 2012.

Pizza Hut denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of these cases
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM BRANDS: "Rosales" Plaintiff Filed 2nd Amended Suit in March
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marisela Rosales filed a second amended complaint in March 2012 in
her class action lawsuit against Taco Bell, according to YUM!
Brands, Inc.'s April 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 24, 2012.

On September 28, 2009, a putative class action styled Marisela
Rosales v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in Orange County Superior
Court.  The plaintiff, a former Taco Bell crew member, alleges
that Taco Bell failed to timely pay her final wages upon
termination, and seeks restitution and late payment penalties on
behalf of herself and similarly situated employees.  This case
appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions case.  Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss, stay or
transfer the case to the same district court as the In Re Taco
Bell Wage and Hour Actions case.  The state court granted Taco
Bell's motion to stay the Rosales case on May 28, 2010.

After the denial of class certification in the In Re Taco Bell
Wage and Hour Actions, the court granted plaintiff leave to amend
her lawsuit, which plaintiff filed and served on January 4, 2012.
Taco Bell filed its responsive pleading on February 8, 2012, and
plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 15, 2012.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM BRANDS: Status Conference in "Hines" Suit Set for May 21
------------------------------------------------------------
A California state court has scheduled a status conference for May
21, 2012, in the class action lawsuit commenced by Domonique
Hines, YUM! Brands, Inc. disclosed in its April 25, 2012, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 24, 2012.

On October 2, 2009, a putative class action, styled Domonique
Hines v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., was filed in California state
court on behalf of all California hourly employees alleging
various California Labor Code violations, including rest and meal
break violations, overtime violations, wage statement violations
and waiting time penalties.  Plaintiff is a former non-managerial
KFC restaurant employee.  KFC filed an answer on October 28, 2009,
in which it denied plaintiff's claims and allegations.  KFC
removed the action to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on October 29, 2009.  Plaintiff
filed a motion for class certification on May 20, 2010 and KFC
filed a brief in opposition.  On October 22, 2010, the District
Court granted plaintiff's motion to certify a class on the meal
and rest break claims, but denied the motion to certify a class
regarding alleged off-the-clock work.  On November 1, 2010, KFC
filed a motion requesting a stay of the case pending a decision
from the California Supreme Court regarding the applicable
standard for employer provision of meal and rest breaks.  On
January 14, 2011, the District Court stayed the entire action
pending a decision from the California Supreme Court.

In light of the California Supreme Court's decision in April 2012,
the court has scheduled a status conference for May 21, 2012.

KFC denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all
claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case cannot be
predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any potential
loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM BRANDS: Taco Bell Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Taco Bell continues to defend a consolidated class action lawsuit
alleging violations of wage and hour laws, according to YUM!
Brands, Inc.'s April 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 24, 2012.

Taco Bell was named as a defendant in a number of putative class
action lawsuits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging
violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime,
failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued
vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and
rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses,
wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or
unlawful business practices in violation of Section 17200 of the
California Business & Professions Code.  Plaintiffs also seek
penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under
California's Private Attorneys General Act and statutory "waiting
time" penalties and allege violations of California's Unfair
Business Practices Act.  Plaintiffs seek to represent a California
state-wide class of hourly employees.

On May 19, 2009, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to
consolidate these matters, and the consolidated case is styled In
Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions.  The In Re Taco Bell Wage and
Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on
June 29, 2009, and on March 30, 2010, the court approved the
parties' stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action.
Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on the
vacation and final pay claims on December 30, 2010, and the class
certification hearing took place in June 2011.  Taco Bell also
filed, at the invitation of the court, a motion to stay the
proceedings until the California Supreme Court rules on two cases
concerning meal and rest breaks.  On August 22, 2011, the court
granted Taco Bell's motion to stay the meal and rest break claims.
On September 26, 2011, the court issued its order denying the
certification of the remaining vacation and final pay claims.  The
plaintiffs have not moved for class certification on the remaining
claims in the consolidated complaint.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM BRANDS: Trial Testimony in "RGM" Suit Began on February 14
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial testimony in the consolidated class action lawsuit filed by
a Taco Bell restaurant general manager began on February 14, 2012,
YUM! Brands, Inc. disclosed in its April 25, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 24, 2012.

On August 4, 2006, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco
Bell Corp. styled Rajeev Chhibber vs. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in
Orange County Superior Court.  On August 7, 2006, another putative
class action lawsuit styled Marina Puchalski v. Taco Bell Corp.
was filed in San Diego County Superior Court.  Both lawsuits were
filed by a Taco Bell restaurant general manager ("RGM") purporting
to represent all current and former RGMs and Market Training
Managers (MTMs) who worked at corporate-owned restaurants in
California since August 2002.  The lawsuits allege violations of
California's wage and hour laws involving unpaid overtime and meal
period violations and seek unspecified amounts in damages and
penalties.  The cases were consolidated in San Diego County as of
September 7, 2006.

On January 29, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' class
certification motion with respect to the unpaid overtime claims of
RGMs and MTMs but denied class certification on the meal period
claims.  The court has ruled that this case will be tried to the
bench rather than a jury.  Trial testimony began on February 14,
2012.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  The Company has provided for
a reasonable estimate of the cost of this lawsuit.  However, in
view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, there can be no
assurance that this lawsuit will not result in losses in excess of
those currently provided for in the Company's Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements.


YUM BRANDS: Unit to Seek Decertification of "Whittington" Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
YUM! Brands, Inc. said in its April 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 24, 2012, that its subsidiary plans to seek
decertification of the class in the lawsuit commenced by Jacquelyn
Whittington.

On August 6, 2010, a putative class action styled Jacquelyn
Whittington v. Yum Brands, Inc., Taco Bell of America, Inc. and
Taco Bell Corp. was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a
nationwide class, with the exception of California, of salaried
assistant managers who were allegedly misclassified and did not
receive compensation for all hours worked and did not receive
overtime pay after 40 hours worked in a week.  The plaintiff also
purports to represent a separate class of Colorado assistant
managers under Colorado state law, which provides for daily
overtime after 12 hours worked in a day.  The Company has been
dismissed from the case without prejudice.  Taco Bell filed its
answer on September 20, 2010, and the parties commenced class
discovery, which is currently on-going.  On September 16, 2011,
plaintiffs filed their motion for conditional certification under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  The plaintiffs did not
move for certification of a separate class of Colorado assistant
managers under Colorado state law.  Taco Bell opposed the motion.

The court heard the motion on January 10, 2012, granted
conditional certification and ordered the notice of the opt-in
class be sent to the putative class members.  The notice was sent
to class members on February 24, 2012.  After further discovery,
Taco Bell plans to seek decertification of the class.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


                           *********

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  * * *