CAR_Public/120522.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 22, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 100

                             Headlines

AETNA INC: Aetna UCR Litigation Still Pending in N.J. Court
AFFINION GROUP: Appeal From Dismissal of Suit vs. Unit Pending
AFFINION GROUP: Awaits Order on Dismissal Bid in N.Y. Suit
AFFINION GROUP: Bid for Status Hearing in 3 Conn. Suits Pending
AFFINION GROUP: Continues to Defend Trilegiant-Related Suits

AFFINION GROUP: Unit Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Conn. Suit
ALCOA INC: ERISA-Violation Suit Still Pending in Tennessee
ALCOA INC: Non-Settled Matters in Virgin Islands Suit Appealed
ALCOA INC: Reviews Technical Data From "Lavoie" Suit Plaintiffs
ALTRIA GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Claims in Wage Suit

ALTRIA GROUP: Smoking and Health Class Suits Pending in Canada
AMERICAN PUBLIC: W.Va. Court Orders Class Action Suit Dismissal
AFA FOODS: Faces Class Action in Delaware Over Layoffs
AQUA-LEISURE: Recalls 40,000 First Fitness Children's Trampolines
ARGENTINA: Faces Repsol Suit in N.Y. Over YPF Takeover

ARIZONA: Temporary Deal Reached in Mental Health Suit
CANADA: "Eminent" Survivor Needed in Claims Process
CENTRO RETAIL: High Court Ruling v. Board to Have Wider Impact
DOREL JUVENILE: Recalls 868T Safety 1st Toilet and Cabinet Locks
FORTINET INC: Class Action Suit in California Still Pending

HONDA: Judge Approves Broken A/C Class Action Settlement
JPMORGAN CHASE: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Class Action
LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Spends $1.6 Million to Fight Class Action
MEYER CORP: Recalls 4,600 Circulon 13-Piece Cookware Sets
MURRUMBIDGEE IRRIGATION: Yenda Assoc. Intends to Pursue Class Suit

NELNET INC: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit in N.J.
NEW YORK: Class Action to Challenge Ambulette Contract
PNC BANK: Judge Allows Overdraft Fee Class Action to Proceed
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Still Faces Suit Over TCPA Violation
PORTER ATHLETIC: Recalls 44 Climbing Ropes Due to Fall Hazard

U.S. STEEL: 7th Cir. Orders Dismissal of Overtime Class Action
U.S. STEEL: Still Faces Class Action Suit in Illinois
WEST VIRGINIA: Needs to Step Up Education System Overhaul
YASSER AWAAD: Faces Class Action Over Medical Malpractice

* CANADA: Courts Concerned Over Quality of Class Cert. Evidence
* Experts Says Brinker Meal & Rest Break Ruling No Cure-All
* Lawyers Recommend IPO Insurance to Clients After Class Actions


                          *********

AETNA INC: Aetna UCR Litigation Still Pending in N.J. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aetna Inc. is named as a defendant in several purported class
actions and individual lawsuits arising out of its practices
related to the payment of claims for services rendered to its
members by health care providers with whom the Company does not
have a contract ("out-of-network providers").  Among other things,
these lawsuits allege that the Company paid too little to its
health plan members and/or providers for these services, among
other reasons, because of its use of data provided by Ingenix,
Inc., a subsidiary of one of its competitors ("Ingenix").  Other
major health insurers are the subject of similar litigation or
have settled similar litigation.

Various plaintiffs who are health care providers or medical
associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of-
network providers who provided services to the Company's members
during the period from 2001 to the present.  Various plaintiffs
who are members in the Company's health plans seek to represent
nationwide classes of its members who received services from out-
of-network providers during the period from 2001 to the present.
Taken together, these lawsuits allege that the Company violated
state law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended ("ERISA"), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and federal antitrust laws, either acting alone
or in concert with its competitors.  The purported classes seek
reimbursement of all unpaid benefits, recalculation and repayment
of deductible and coinsurance amounts, unspecified damages and
treble damages, statutory penalties, injunctive and declaratory
relief, plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and seek to
disqualify the Company from acting as a fiduciary of any benefit
plan that is subject to ERISA.  Individual lawsuits that generally
contain similar allegations and seek similar relief have been
brought by health plan members and out-of-network providers.

The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007.  The
federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "MDL
Panel") has consolidated these class action cases in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey
District Court") under the caption In re: Aetna UCR Litigation,
MDL No. 2020 ("MDL 2020").  In addition, the MDL Panel has
transferred the individual lawsuits to MDL 2020.  On May 9, 2011,
the New Jersey District Court dismissed the physician plaintiffs
from MDL 2020 without prejudice.  The New Jersey District Court's
action followed a ruling by the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (the "Florida District Court")
that the physician plaintiffs were enjoined from participating in
MDL 2020 due to a prior settlement and release.  The United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has dismissed the
physician plaintiffs' appeal of the Florida District Court's
ruling.

Discovery is substantially complete in MDL 2020, several motions
are pending, and briefing on class certification has been
completed.  The court has not set a trial date or a timetable for
deciding class certification.  The Company says it intends to
vigorously defend itself against the claims brought in these
cases.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.


AFFINION GROUP: Appeal From Dismissal of Suit vs. Unit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit against a
subsidiary of Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. remains pending,
according to the Company's April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

On June 25, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Webloyalty Holdings, Inc., and one of its clients in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California
alleging, among other things, violations of the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act and Electronic Communications Privacy Act, unjust
enrichment, fraud, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation,
fraud, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act violations, false
advertising and California Consumer Business Practice violations.
This lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on
and after October 1, 2008.  On February 17, 2011, Webloyalty filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in this lawsuit.  On
April 12, 2011, the Court granted Webloyalty's motion and
dismissed all claims against the defendants.  On May 10, 2011,
plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Plaintiff filed
his opening appeals brief with the Ninth Circuit on October 17,
2011, and defendants filed their respective answering briefs on
December 23, 2011.  Plaintiff filed its reply brief on
January 23, 2012.  No date for oral argument on plaintiff's appeal
has been set.


AFFINION GROUP: Awaits Order on Dismissal Bid in N.Y. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on
plaintiff's motion to dismiss the Company, without prejudice, from
a class action lawsuit pending in New York, according to the
Company's April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

On November 10, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against
the Company, Trilegiant Corporation, 1-800-Flowers.com, and Chase
Bank USA, N.A. in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.  The complaint asserts various causes of
action on behalf of several putative nationwide classes that
largely overlap with one another.  The claims asserted are in
connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs,
including claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and New York's General
Business Law.  On April 6, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed
a motion to compel individual (non-class) arbitration of the
plaintiff's claims.  The Company's co-defendant, 1-800-
Flowers.com, joined in the motion to compel arbitration, and co-
defendant Chase Bank filed a motion to stay the case against it
pending arbitration, or alternatively to dismiss.  The Company
does not know when the court will issue a ruling on these motions.
On December 23, 2011, the plaintiff sought to dismiss the Company,
Trilegiant, and 1-800-Flowers without prejudice.

On January 4, 2012, the Company and Trilegiant objected to that
dismissal (and 1-800-Flowers joined in that objection), seeking
among other things dismissal with prejudice.  Plaintiff responded
to that objection on January 13, 2012, and the Company does not
know when the court will enter a decision.  Also, on January 13,
2012, the plaintiff sought to dismiss Chase without prejudice.  On
January 17, 2012, Chase filed an objection to the plaintiff's
dismissal request.  That issue is currently being considered by
the court.  The Company does not know when the court will rule on
that issue.


AFFINION GROUP: Bid for Status Hearing in 3 Conn. Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its
request to set a status hearing in each of the three class action
lawsuits pending in Connecticut, according to the Company's April
26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant") in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut.  The
complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a putative
nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with
the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including
claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organizations Act, the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False
Advertising Law, and for unjust enrichment.  On September 29,
2010, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration of all of
the claims asserted in this lawsuit.  On February 24, 2011, the
court denied the Company's motion.  On March 28, 2011, the Company
and Trilegiant filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing the district court's
denial of their motion to compel arbitration.  The Company does
not know when the appeal will be decided.  While that issue is on
appeal, the matter has proceeded in the district court.  There has
been written discovery and depositions.

Previously, the court had set a briefing schedule on class
certification that called for the completion of class
certification briefing on May 18, 2012.  However, on March 28,
2012, the court suspended the briefing schedule on the motion due
to the filing of two other overlapping class actions in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut.  The first
of those cases was filed on March 6, 2012, against the Company,
Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Capital
One Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Apollo
Global Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., United Online,
Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l, Inc., FTD Group, Inc.,
Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corp., People
Finderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Raukuten USA,
Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc.  The second of
those cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against the same
defendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue, Inc.,
Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co.  These two cases
assert similar claims as the claims asserted in the earlier-filed
lawsuit in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its
membership programs.  All three lawsuits have been assigned to a
single judge, and the cases may be consolidated.  The Company has
filed a request in each case asking the court to set a status
hearing to discuss scheduling and other matters.


AFFINION GROUP: Continues to Defend Trilegiant-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. continues to defend class action
lawsuits arising from the sale of Trilegiant Corporation'
membership programs, according to the Company's April 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On July 13, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Affinion Group, LLC ("AGLLC"), Trilegiant Corporation, Apollo
Global Management LLC, and Chase Bank USA, N.A., in the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona.  The complaint
asserted similar causes of action as are asserted in the
Connecticut litigation on behalf of putative nationwide classes in
connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs.
On October 18, 2011, Trilegiant, AGLLC, and Apollo filed a motion
to stay, to which the plaintiff never responded.  On November 1,
2011, Trilegiant and AGLLC filed a motion to compel arbitration,
and Apollo joined in that motion and also sought dismissal.  On
December 15, 2011, the plaintiff sought to dismiss the action
without prejudice, and on December 21, 2011, Trilegiant, Affinion,
and Apollo filed a brief urging the court to dismiss the action
with prejudice.  On January 17, 2012, Chase filed a motion to
transfer this case to the Eastern District of New York ("EDNY").
On or about February 29, 2012, the case was dismissed without
prejudice.  The same lead plaintiff's law firm also filed a
substantially similar class action lawsuit against the same
defendants as well as Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, Avis Budget Car
Rental LLC, Avis Budget Group, Inc., and Bank of America, N.A. in
the United States District Court for the District of Oregon,
Portland Division, on July 14, 2011.  On December 27, 2011,
Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice,
and the case was terminated by the court on January 6, 2012.

On August 4, 2011, those same lawyers filed another substantially
similar class action lawsuit against the same defendants sued in
the Arizona lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.  On December 23, 2011, the plaintiff
filed a notice of voluntary dismissal as to Trilegiant, AGLLC, and
Apollo.  On February 10, 2012, the court entered an order
dismissing the lawsuit in its entirety without prejudice.  On
August 8, 2011, those same lawyers filed a substantially similar
class action lawsuit against AGLLC, Trilegiant Corporation, Apollo
Global Management, LLC, and American Express Company in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  On
December 5, 2011, the court granted American Express' motion to
compel arbitration.  On December 14, 2011, the plaintiff filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal as to Trilegiant, AGLLC, and Apollo,
and the case was closed by the court on the same day.  Finally, on
October 25, 2011, these same lawyers filed a substantially similar
class action lawsuit against AGLLC, Trilegiant, Apollo Global
Management, LLC, IAC/InterActiveCorp., Shoebuy.com, and Chase Bank
USA, N.A. in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  On December 14, 2011, the plaintiff filed
a notice of voluntary dismissal as to all of the defendants except
Chase, and the case was terminated by the court on or about
February 21, 2012.  On October 6, 2011, the plaintiffs in the
preceding class action cases (other than the class action cases
that were filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut on March 6, 2012, and March 25, 2012,
respectively) filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 with the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") seeking
coordinated pretrial proceedings of those class action cases with
the case that was filed on June 17, 2010, in the United States
Court for the District of Connecticut. (The plaintiffs later
sought to include within the proposed consolidated action the case
they filed on October 25, 2011).  Plaintiffs in those actions
argued that the factual allegations in the cases raised common
issues that made pretrial transfer appropriate; they sought
transfer and consolidation of the cases to the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut.  All of the
defendants opposed that motion.  On December 9, 2011, the JPML
entered an order denying consolidation and transfer of these
cases.


AFFINION GROUP: Unit Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Conn. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Webloyalty Holdings,
Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss a
class action lawsuit pending in Connecticut, according to the
Company's April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

On August 27, 2010, a class action lawsuit, which is substantially
similar to the one filed in California, was filed against
Webloyalty, one of its former clients and one of the credit card
associations in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut alleging, among other things, violations of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, unjust enrichment, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation,
fraud and Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act violations.  This
lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on and
after October 1, 2008.  On December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a
motion to dismiss this lawsuit, which had since been amended in
its entirety.  The court has not yet scheduled a hearing or ruled
on Webloyalty's motion.


ALCOA INC: ERISA-Violation Suit Still Pending in Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------
In November 2006, a class action captioned Curtis v. Alcoa Inc.,
Civil Action No. 3:06cv448 (E.D. Tenn.) was filed by plaintiffs
representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of
Alcoa Inc. or Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependents
of such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor-Management Relations Act
by requiring plaintiffs, beginning January 1, 2007, to pay health
insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for
certain medical procedures and prescription drugs.  Plaintiffs
alleged these changes to their retiree health care plans violated
their rights to vested health care benefits.  Plaintiffs
additionally alleged that Alcoa had breached its fiduciary duty to
plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their
health benefits would never change.  Plaintiffs sought injunctive
and declaratory relief, back payment of benefits, and attorneys'
fees.  Alcoa had consented to treatment of plaintiffs' claims as a
class action.  During the fourth quarter of 2007, following
briefing and argument, the court ordered consolidation of the
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction with trial,
certified a plaintiff class, bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs'
breach of fiduciary duty claims, struck the plaintiffs' jury
demand, but indicated it would use an advisory jury, and set a
trial date of September 17, 2008.  In August 2008, the court set a
new trial date of March 24, 2009 and, subsequently, the trial date
was moved to September 22, 2009.  In June 2009, the court
indicated that it would not use an advisory jury at trial.  Trial
in the matter was held over eight days commencing September 22,
2009, and ending on October 1, 2009, in federal court in
Knoxville, TN, before the Honorable Thomas Phillips, U.S. District
Court Judge.  At the conclusion of evidence, the court set a post-
hearing briefing schedule for submission of proposed findings of
fact and conclusions of law by the parties and for replies to the
same.  Post trial briefing was submitted on December 4, 2009.

On March 9, 2011, the court issued a judgment order dismissing
plaintiffs' lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice for the reasons
stated in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.  On March
23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for clarification and/or
amendment of the judgment order, which seeks, among other things,
a declaration that plaintiffs' retiree benefits are vested subject
to an annual cap and an injunction preventing Alcoa, prior to
2017, from modifying the plan design to which plaintiffs are
subject or changing the premiums and deductibles that plaintiffs
must pay.  Also on March 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for
award of attorneys' fees and expenses.  Alcoa filed its opposition
to both motions on April 11, 2011.  The time for plaintiffs to
appeal from the court's March 9, 2011 judgment will not begin
until the court disposes of these motions.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.


ALCOA INC: Non-Settled Matters in Virgin Islands Suit Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the numerous non-settled matters in the
lawsuit pending in the U.S. Virgin Islands, according to Alcoa
Inc.'s April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

In September 1998, Hurricane Georges struck the U.S. Virgin
Islands, including the St. Croix Alumina, L.L.C. (SCA) facility on
the island of St. Croix.  The wind and rain associated with the
hurricane caused material at the location to be blown into
neighboring residential areas.  SCA undertook or arranged various
cleanup and remediation efforts.  The Division of Environmental
Protection (DEP) of the Department of Planning and Natural
Resources (DPNR) of the Virgin Islands Government issued a Notice
of Violation that Alcoa has contested.  In February 1999, certain
residents of St. Croix commenced a civil lawsuit in the
Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands seeking compensatory and
punitive damages and injunctive relief for alleged personal
injuries and property damages associated with "bauxite or red
dust" from the SCA facility.  The lawsuit, which has been removed
to the District Court of the Virgin Islands (the "Court"), names
SCA, Alcoa and Glencore Ltd. as defendants, and, in August 2000,
was accorded class action treatment.  The class was defined to
include persons in various defined neighborhoods who "suffered
damages and/or injuries as a result of exposure during and after
Hurricane Georges to red dust and red mud blown during Hurricane
Georges."  All of the defendants have denied liability, and
discovery and other pretrial proceedings have been underway since
1999.  Plaintiffs' expert reports claim that the material blown
during Hurricane Georges consisted of bauxite and red mud, and
contained crystalline silica, chromium, and other substances. The
reports further claim, among other things, that the population of
the six subject neighborhoods as of the 2000 census (a total of
3,730 people) has been exposed to toxic substances through the
fault of the defendants, and hence will be able to show
entitlement to lifetime medical monitoring as well as other
compensatory and punitive relief.  These opinions have been
contested by the defendants' expert reports, that state, among
other things, that plaintiffs were not exposed to the substances
alleged and that in any event the level of alleged exposure does
not justify lifetime medical monitoring.  Alcoa and SCA turned
over this matter to their insurance carriers who have been
providing a defense.  Glencore Ltd. is jointly defending the case
with Alcoa and SCA and has a pending motion to dismiss.

In June 2008, the Court granted defendants' joint motion to
decertify the original class of plaintiffs, and certified a new
class as to the claim of ongoing nuisance, insofar as plaintiffs
seek cleanup, abatement, or removal of the red mud currently
present at the facility. (The named plaintiffs had previously
dropped their claims for medical monitoring as a consequence of
the court's rejection of plaintiffs' proffered expert opinion
testimony).  The Court expressly denied certification of a class
as to any claims for remediation or cleanup of any area outside
the facility (including plaintiffs' property).  The new class
could seek only injunctive relief rather than monetary damages.
Named plaintiffs, however, could continue to prosecute their
claims for personal injury, property damage, and punitive damages.
In August 2009, in response to defendants' motions, the Court
dismissed the named plaintiffs' claims for personal injury and
punitive damages, and denied the motion with respect to their
property damage claims.  In September 2009, the Court granted
defendants' motion for summary judgment on the class plaintiffs'
claim for injunctive relief.  In October 2009, plaintiffs appealed
the Court's summary judgment order dismissing the claim for
injunctive relief and in March 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit dismissed plaintiffs' appeal of that order.

In September 2011, the parties reached an oral agreement to settle
the remaining claims in the case which would resolve the personal
property damage claims of the 12 remaining individual plaintiffs.

On March 12, 2012, final judgment was entered in the District
Court for the District of the Virgin Islands.  Alcoa's share of
the settlement is fully insured.  On March 23, 2012, plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal of numerous non-settled matters,
including but not limited to discovery orders, Daubert rulings,
summary judgment rulings, as more clearly set out in the
settlement agreement/release between the parties.


ALCOA INC: Reviews Technical Data From "Lavoie" Suit Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc. disclosed in its April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012, that while no further formal proceedings have
occurred in the class action lawsuit commenced by Dany Lavoie,
Alcoa is reviewing certain technical data provided by the
plaintiffs and anticipates providing its own analysis to the
plaintiffs shortly.

In August 2005, Dany Lavoie, a resident of Baie Comeau in the
Canadian Province of Quebec, filed a Motion for Authorization to
Institute a Class Action and for Designation of a Class
Representative against Alcoa Canada Inc., Alcoa Limitee, Societe
Canadienne de Metaux Reynolds Limitee and Canadian British
Aluminum in the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Baie
Comeau.  Plaintiff seeks to institute the class action on behalf
of a putative class consisting of all past, present and future
owners, tenants and residents of Baie Comeau's St. Georges
neighborhood.  He alleges that defendants, as the present and past
owners and operators of an aluminum smelter in Baie Comeau, have
negligently allowed the emission of certain contaminants from the
smelter, specifically Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or "PAHs,"
that have been deposited on the lands and houses of the St.
Georges neighborhood and its environs causing damage to the
property of the putative class and causing health concerns for
those who inhabit that neighborhood.  Plaintiff originally moved
to certify a class action, sought to compel additional remediation
to be conducted by the defendants beyond that already undertaken
by them voluntarily, sought an injunction against further
emissions in excess of a limit to be determined by the court in
consultation with an independent expert, and sought money damages
on behalf of all class members.  In May 2007, the court authorized
a class action lawsuit to include only people who suffered
property damage or personal injury damages caused by the emission
of PAHs from the smelter.  In September 2007, the plaintiff filed
his claim against the original defendants, which the court had
authorized in May.  Alcoa has filed its Statement of Defense and
plaintiff has filed an Answer to that Statement.  Alcoa also filed
a Motion for Particulars with respect to certain paragraphs of
plaintiff's Answer and a Motion to Strike with respect to certain
paragraphs of plaintiff's Answer.  In late 2010, the Court denied
these motions.  While no further formal proceedings have occurred,
Alcoa is reviewing certain technical data provided by the
plaintiffs and anticipates providing its own analysis to the
plaintiffs shortly.

At this stage of the proceeding, the Company says it is unable to
reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably
possible loss.


ALTRIA GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Claims in Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its
subsidiary's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims in a wage and
hour class action lawsuit pending in California, according to the
Company's April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2012.

In September 2011, two former sales representatives employed in
California by Altria Group Distribution Company ("AGDC") filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, under California's wage and hour
laws.  The named plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all
former sales representatives who worked for AGDC in California at
any time since September 2007.  The plaintiffs seek overtime pay,
recovery of certain wages, reimbursement of business expenses and
other non-monetary relief and penalties.  In November 2011, the
plaintiffs amended their complaint to add an additional claim for
penalties under California's Private Attorney General Act.  On
January 6, 2012, AGDC moved to dismiss certain of plaintiffs'
claims and to transfer the case from the Northern District of
California to the Central District of California.  On
February 22, 2012, the district court granted the motion to
transfer, and the case was transferred to the Central District of
California on March 7, 2012.  The motion to dismiss remains
pending before the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.


ALTRIA GROUP: Smoking and Health Class Suits Pending in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiary Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM
USA")continue to face lawsuits in Canada filed on behalf of
individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases
including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart
disease or cancer after smoking defendants' cigarettes, according
to Altria's April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2012.

Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class
action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs
have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action
lawsuits in various state and federal courts.  In general, these
cases purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular
state or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in
scope) and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of
physical injury as well.

Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 59
smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1),
California (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2),
Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1),
Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York
(2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto Rico (1),
South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1).

Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiary Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM
USA") are named as defendants, along with other cigarette
manufacturers, in six actions filed in the Canadian provinces of
Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
In Saskatchewan and British Columbia, plaintiffs seek class
certification on behalf of individuals who suffer or have suffered
from various diseases including chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, emphysema, heart disease or cancer after smoking
defendants' cigarettes.  In the actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba
and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs seek certification of classes of all
individuals who smoked defendants' cigarettes.

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


AMERICAN PUBLIC: W.Va. Court Orders Class Action Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
A district court in West Virginia ordered the dismissal of a
putative class action lawsuit against American Public Education,
Inc., according to the Company's February 28, 2012, 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2011.

On August 12, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company, Wallace E. Boston, Jr., Frank B. McCluskey
and Harry T. Wilkins in the United States Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia (Martinsburg Division), encaptioned
Douglas N. Gaer v. American Public Education, Inc. et al, C.A. No.
3:10 CV-81. The plaintiff alleged that the Company and the
individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act,
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  The plaintiff purported to be acting on behalf of a
class consisting of purchasers or acquirers of the Company's stock
between February 22, 2010 to August 5, 2010.  The plaintiff
alleged that, as a result of the defendants' allegedly false
misleading statements or omissions concerning the Company's
prospects, the Company's common stock traded at artificially
inflated prices throughout the Class Period.  The plaintiff sought
compensatory damages and fees and costs, among other relief.  In
an order dated November 10, 2010, Douglas Gaer and the City of
Miami Firefighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust were
appointed co-lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel was
approved.

On January 25, 2011, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint
asserting the same statutory claims against the Company, Boston
and Wilkins.  On or about March 10, 2011, defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint in its entirety. On or about April 25, 2011,
plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. On May
16, 2011, the defendants filed a reply memorandum in support of
their motion to dismiss.  On December 8, 2011, the Court granted
defendants motion to dismiss in its entirety.  Accordingly, the
Court ordered that the matter be dismissed with prejudice and
stricken from the active docket of the Court.  The Court further
directed that separate judgment be entered in favor of defendants.


AFA FOODS: Faces Class Action in Delaware Over Layoffs
------------------------------------------------------
Huffington Post reports that Nadia Sanchez has filed a class
action lawsuit in the bankruptcy court in Delaware, asserting that
she and 200 co-workers were abruptly laid off early last month
when AFA decided to shutter a plant in Southern California amidst
an Internet backlash to its controversial beef-trimmings product.

According to the report, the lawsuit says the workers weren't
given the 60-days advance notice required under the federal Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act and California
labor law.  Ms. Sanchez's lawyer, Rene S. Roupinian of New York,
told HuffPost that the low-wage meatpacking workers weren't given
any written warning of the impending layoffs.  Of the roughly one
dozen AFA workers to whom Mr. Roupinian and her colleagues have
talked, she said, most appeared to be from Mexico, like Ms.
Sanchez, and worked on the floor of the meatpacking plant.

The report relates Mr. Roupinian said the workers earned an
average of about $8.25 an hour, for an annual salary of roughly
$17,000.  They worked in a plant just south of downtown Los
Angeles, where the mandated living wage for workers on city
contracts is $10.42 an hour.

                         About AFA Foods

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania-based AFA Foods Inc. is one of the
largest processors of ground beef products in the United States.
The Company has five processing facilities and two ancillary
facilities across the country with annual processing capacity of
800 million pounds.  AFA has seven facilities capable of producing
800 million pound of ground beef annually.  Revenue in 2011 was
$958 million.

Yucaipa Cos. acquired the business in 2008 and currently owns 92%
percent of the common stock and all of the preferred stock.

AFA Foods, AFA Investment Inc. and other affiliates filed for
Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 12-11127) on
April 2, 2012, after recent changes in the market for its ground
beef products and the impact of negative media coverage related to
boneless lean beef trimmings -- BLBT -- affected sales.

Judge Mary Walrath presides over the case.  Lawyers at Jones Day
and Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP serve as the Debtors'
counsel.  FTI Consulting Inc. serves as financial advisors and
Imperial Capital LLC serves as marketing consultants.  Kurtzman
Carson Consultants LLC serves as noticing and claims agent.

As of Feb. 29, 2012, on a consolidated basis, the Debtors' books
and records reflected approximately $219 million in assets and
$197 million in liabilities.

Roberta A. DeAngelis, U.S. Trustee for Region 3, appointed seven
members to the official committee of unsecured creditors in the
Chapter 11 cases of AFA Investment Inc., AFA Foods and their
debtor-affiliates.  McDonald Hopkins LLC and Potter Anderson &
Corroon LLP represents the Committee.


AQUA-LEISURE: Recalls 40,000 First Fitness Children's Trampolines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Aqua-Leisure Industries Inc., of Avon, Massachusetts, announced a
voluntary recall of about 40,000 First Fitness(R) Trampolines with
Handlebars.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Metal fatigue can cause the handlebar to break away during use,
posing a risk of laceration from exposed metal surfaces or other
injury from a fall.

Aqua-Leisure has received four reports of handlebars breaking from
the metal connection joint during use.  No injuries have been
reported.

This recall involves First Fitness Kid's First trampolines with
handlebars.  The child-size toy trampolines have a red and blue
metal handlebar, a blue nylon deck guard and a black jumping deck.
"First Fitness" is embossed on the jumping deck in white letters.
The trampolines can be identified by model number FF-6902TR and
Toys R Us SKN 491463.  The model and store numbers can be found on
the lower right corner of the back of the packaging.  A sewn-in
tag on the bottom of the deck lists the factory date code of five
numbers followed by "GLTX."  A picture of the recalled products is
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12181.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Toys "R" Us stores nationwide from September 2010
through April 2012 for between $45 and $70.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled trampolines from
children and contact Aqua-Leisure's recall hotline for a full
refund.  For additional information, please contact Aqua-Leisure
toll-free at (888) 912-7087 between 8:30 a.m. through 5:30 p.m.
Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.aqualeisure.com/


ARGENTINA: Faces Repsol Suit in N.Y. Over YPF Takeover
------------------------------------------------------
Efe reports that Spanish energy major Repsol has sued Argentina in
a New York court over its seizure of a 51 percent stake in Buenos
Aires-based oil firm YPF.

The class-action suit was filed by Repsol and another YPF
shareholder, U.S.-based financial investment advisory firm Texas
Yale Capital Corporation.

Attorneys for the Spanish group in New York are seeking to have
the court force the Argentine government to make an offer to buy
all of YPF's outstanding Class D shares in the wake of its
decision to expropriate the controlling stake from Repsol.

Argentina announced plans for the takeover on April 16 and a bill
formalizing the nationalization was signed into law earlier this
month.

Repsol alleges in the 27-page suit that the Argentine government
breached its contractual obligations to other shareholders by
failing to make the offer in seizing YPF, Argentina's largest oil
producer.

The Spanish company has asked that the price of the offer be set
in accordance with the law.

Repsol's attorneys have added that until that offer is made the
Argentine government cannot exercise its voting rights attached to
the nationalized shares and faces other restrictions.

Separately, Repsol on May 15 made an initial move toward invoking
international arbitration over the expropriation, sending a letter
to Argentine President Cristina Fernandez formally proclaiming a
dispute over the seizure.

The move means that if the parties don't reach an accord on
compensation within six months, Repsol will take the case to the
World Bank's International Center for Settlement of Investment
Disputes, sources in the Spanish firm told Efe on May 15.

Prior to Argentina's decision to seize control of YPF, Repsol had
been the controlling shareholder with a 57.4 percent stake, which
the Spanish company's chairman, Antonio Brufau, has valued at
$10.5 billion.

YPF's new administrators, however, have hinted the government will
not pay that much and are auditing the firm's finances amid
concerns about a lack of investment and fuel shortages.

Repsol, whose current stake in YPF stands at around 6 percent,
says the nationalization violates a bilateral treaty on protection
of investments.

The Argentine federal government is keeping just over half of the
controlling 51 percent stake in YPF, with the remainder to be
divided among the country's oil-producing provinces.

Argentina's Grupo Petersen still holds a 25.46 percent interest
and another 17.09 percent of the shares continue to be traded on
the Buenos Aires and New York stock exchanges.

Repsol has said the recent discovery of massive unconventional
shale gas and oil reserves in west-central Argentina was behind
the move to seize control of the firm and has denied Buenos Aires'
accusations that YPF's dividend policy sapped it of the resources
it needed to invest and meet the country's energy needs.

It also has said energy companies in Argentina have been
discouraged from investing due to regulated fuel and electricity
prices.

The Spanish government has blasted the expropriation move and
retaliated by announcing plans to limit imports of Argentine
biodiesel.

Madrid said it also will pursue "measures of a diplomatic nature"
in various international forums in response to the takeover.

According to the Financial Times' Jude Webber, the suit will be
heard by Judge Thomas Griesa, who has been examining claims by
bondholders burnt in Argentina's 2001 default on nearly $100
billion.


ARIZONA: Temporary Deal Reached in Mental Health Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Mary K. Reinhart, writing for The Arizona Republic, reports that
new state funding for Arizonans with serious mental illnesses
returns some of the services they lost two years ago and paves the
way for a temporary agreement in a decades-old class-action
lawsuit.

The budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1, which Gov. Jan
Brewer signed on May 14, includes $38.7 million to restore
housing, counseling and other services to people with serious
mental illnesses who don't qualify for Medicaid.

That's less than the roughly $50 million cut in 2010, and the two-
year deal doesn't end the 30-year-old court case.  But the money
represents a significant turnaround in a lengthy legal battle over
treatment of some of the state's most vulnerable residents.

About 12,000 people lost a raft of services to budget-balancing
reduction.  Mental-health advocates and state officials say the
new funding brings opportunities for people to recover and thrive
with greater emphasis on employment, life skills and peer-support
programs.

"Our overarching principle is to invest this on the front end, not
the back end, in community-support systems to keep people
healthier," said Arizona Department of Health Services Director
Will Humble, who oversees the state's behavioral-health system.
"It really has been a priority in the Governor's Office to get
some of those resources back."

The July 2010 budget cuts came weeks after the state and attorneys
in the Arnold vs. Sarn lawsuit agreed to put the case on hold for
two years, in part to prevent lawmakers from repealing the law
that underpins it.

The lawsuit sought to protect the rights of the seriously mentally
ill under an Arizona law that requires the state to provide an
array of community services, such as medication, therapy, housing
and transportation.

Later this month, the governor and attorneys for the mentally ill
are expected to announce a new two-year deal.

In the meantime, they'll continue to negotiate terms intended to
ensure treatment for people with serious mental illnesses and
eventually bring an end to the case, first filed in 1981.

By the end of the two-year agreement, increased Medicaid
eligibility under federal health-care reform -- if it's allowed to
take effect -- would cover most, if not all, of the seriously
mentally ill who now fall in the non-Medicaid category.

The state will agree to use the additional funding for a package
of services that include job, living-skills and housing programs
and expansion of organizations run by and for people living with
schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other mental illnesses.

Health officials also will use existing state funding to allow
everyone diagnosed with a serious mental illness to receive brand-
name psychiatric drugs, regardless of his or her income, beginning
July 1.  In 2010, the state forced thousands of people to switch
to generic medication if they were ineligible for Medicaid.

Ann Rider, executive director of the Recovery Empowerment Network,
which runs six community drop-in centers in metro Phoenix, said
plans for the new funding recognize that there is far more to
treating mental illness than medication.  Some people can thrive
with therapy and other programs that support their recovery
without drugs.

"Meds are one tool of many, many, many tools to help people
recover," Ms. Rider said.  "There are so many more options and
many more opportunities to help people get back on their feet."

In 2010, Gov. Brewer, faced with a brutal recession, called for a
repeal of the law requiring the state to provide services to help
balance the budget.  As a compromise, the sides agreed to a two-
year stay in the lawsuit that allowed the state to cut about $50
million in services for people who earned too much to qualify for
Medicaid.

Hundreds of people with serious mental illnesses dropped out of
sight, dozens lost housing and thousands lost access to group and
individual therapy, transportation and community centers.  Service
providers laid off hundreds of case managers.

Mental-health-service providers say the new funding is welcome,
but people have struggled mightily over the past two years.

"I wish the government of Arizona would stop using people like
they were yo-yos -- up and down, up and down, services, no
services -- just because of how much money they make," said Mitch
Klein, CEO of CHEEERS Center, a peer-run Phoenix drop-in agency
that serves about 400 people.  "Treat people who need help, when
they need it."


CANADA: "Eminent" Survivor Needed in Claims Process
---------------------------------------------------
Kim Pemberton, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that an
"eminent" Canadian who can restore trust in Canada's Indian
residential school compensation process should be appointed to
help deal with the remaining clients of Calgary law firm Blott and
Company, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Brenda Brown was told.

The recommendation was made by lawyer Kathleen Mahoney,
representing the Assembly of First Nations, at a hearing to decide
whether Blott and Company will be able to continue to represent
residential school claimants.

One name put forward by Ms. Mahoney was Phil Fontaine, a former
national chief of the Assembly of First Nations.  Mr. Fontaine was
the first Indian residential school abuse survivor to speak out
publicly and later went on to negotiate the first compensation
agreement and the current Indian Residential School Settlement
Act.

Mr. Fontaine was also part of a class-action suit resulting in
Justice Brown ordering an investigation last fall into Blott and
Company after concerns the firm did not properly represent
claimants in the Independent Assessment Process, which determines
how much compensation, if any, they should be awarded for past
physical and or sexual abuse.

The investigation's findings were revealed in the hearing last
week and included evidence the firm had wrongly helped to arrange
high-interest loans, charging between 20 and 60 per cent, for some
of their clients in anticipation of them receiving awards.

The firm represented a total of 4,100 clients -- including 300
British Columbians -- and has completed 1,168 hearings over the
last four years.

"Phil Fontaine possesses an incredible ability to reach out to
[Blott and Company] claim-ants to restore their trust and
confidence in the Settlement Act," Ms. Mahoney said.

"Going forward, if there is no engagement with aboriginal people
the perception in the survival class will be that once again they
are dismissed, told what is good for them and what is in their
best interests by the non-aboriginal community, much like the
native residential system," she said.

Ms. Mahoney said an alternative to Fontaine would be retired
Ontario Supreme Court justice Rose Boyko.

Catherine Coughlan, the lawyer representing the federal
government, said the Alberta Law Society effectively suspended
David Blott by not allowing him to have direct contact with his
clients.  However, the law society's plan to allow the firm's
remaining clients to continue to be represented by 12 Blott and
Company associates was still of some concern.

She also said she believes the court should enforce the
recommendation from the court-ordered investigation that Blott and
Company be responsible for its estimated C$3 million cost of the
investigation.  She pointed out in the past five years, Blott and
Company had been paid more than C$14.5 million through the IAP
process.

Outside the hearing, IAP chief adjudicator Daniel Ish said there
are about 200 lawyers across Canada who represent native claimants
at IAP hearings.

Some handle only a few cases a year, however he said it was not
uncommon to hear of lawyers representing 60 clients a year, which
would earn them around C$1.2 million in legal fees.

Mr. Ish said some lawyers are taking on 100 clients a year, which
he believes is too high a number for them to properly represent.


CENTRO RETAIL: High Court Ruling v. Board to Have Wider Impact
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Australian, reports that with a
AUD200 million settlement in the works, Centro Retail Australia is
now free from the costly and embarrassing class action trial over
its spectacular near-collapse in 2007.

But corporate governance issues raised in the Centro case and in
the High Court's ruling against James Hardie's board are likely to
have a wider impact.

The settlement in the Centro class action came less than a year
after the courts found the shopping centre owner's former
directors and executives had breached their duties to shareholders
in signing off the company's error-riddled accounts.

That ruling reverberated in boardrooms despite the directors and
executives receiving only a wrist slap from the court for the $3.1
billion accounting oversight.

Now, experts say, companies should note that on top of possible
directorship bans and six-figure fines, they also face claims that
could affect the group's bottom line and directors' fortunes.

"Both the James Hardie and Centro cases send a signal to directors
that when they sign off on company reports that there can be real
and serious consequences if they are not across the detail of what
they are signing," said Ben Hardwick --
BHardwick@slatergordon.com.au -- Victorian practice group leader
at Slater & Gordon, which launched one of two claims against the
shopping centre owner.

There is no doubting the seriousness of Centro's situation for
shareholders: the company's share price spiralled in early 2008
when its true debt position, clouded by a complex company
structure, became known.

The company's short-term debt was key to helping Centro Retail
grow by more than 300 per cent to AUD26 billion in 2007.

But in the year to June 2007 the audit committee met only twice,
while the remuneration committee held eight meetings.

"It's a sad diversion of interest and duties," UTS Centre for
Corporate Governance director Thomas Clarke said.

Maurice Blackburn principal Martin Hyde said the Centro class
actions raised questions of possible conflicts created by director
double-ups on the boards of associated companies, as well as the
execution of duties to shareholders.  At the time of its near-
collapse, the boards of the recently merged Centro Properties and
Centro Retail were identical, and questions have been raised about
deals the board signed off that were bad for the less indebted
Centro Retail.

However, UTS's Mr. Clarke said overlap between the boards of the
multiple entities in each corporation was often seen to improve
efficiency and consistency.

"But nonetheless, directors do have duties to each of the entities
that they are a board member of.  They cannot neglect their duties
to any entity in favor of another," Mr. Clarke said.

In addition, he said, both cases redefined company officers to
include senior managers who had contributed in some way to board
information.  "Clearly, boards in Australia need to be careful
about that, and executives themselves need to be careful about
that."

A number of captains of industry fear the responsibility that
rulings relating to directors' duties have placed too much
responsibility on company directors.

The issue of personal liability for directors, which was to be
tested in the Centro class action after the collapse of the
company's move to avoid liability by changing its responsible
entity, is also of concern.

According to the Australian Institute of Company Directors, about
40 per cent of directors believe legislation imposing liability on
directors is bad for their business decisions and willingness to
serve on a board.

Fiona Shand, the principal of legal and advisory firm Shand &
Associates and the Walton Group, and an AICD facilitator, said
financial markets and shareholders were making demands that the
non-executives could not deliver.

"As a result of the gap between expectation and reality, we face
the real prospect that we will lose good directors and in these
tough economic times we need the best directors, not the best we
can get," Ms. Shand said.

Despite the warnings, Centro -- the largest landlord of Woolworths
and Coles supermarkets nationally -- has been able to recruit
talent to its board and executives ranks.

Former ANZ Group deputy chief Bob Edgar now leads the board and
former Charter Hall Retail chief Steven Sewell is at the helm.
Both appointments were warmly welcomed by the market, but Centro
still faces headwinds.


DOREL JUVENILE: Recalls 868T Safety 1st Toilet and Cabinet Locks
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Dorel Juvenile Group (DJG) Inc., of Columbus,
Indiana, announced a voluntary recall of about 183,000 toilet
locks and 685,000 cabinet locks.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

Young children can unexpectedly disengage the toilet locks and
gain access to water in the toilet, posing the risk of drowning.
The cabinet locks are being recalled because young children can
disengage the lock, posing the risk of injury from dangerous or
unsafe items stored in the cabinet.

DJG has received 110 reports of toilet locks that did not
adequately secure the lid, including eight reports of children,
under the age of two, who were able to disengage or break the
lock.  In addition, DJG has received 278 reports of cabinet locks
that did not adequately secure the cabinet, including 71 reports
of children between the ages of eight months and five years old
who were able to disengage the cabinet locks.  In one of the
reported incidents, a 13-month-old boy swallowed small, toxic
beads from a craft kit.  The child was admitted to the hospital,
observed overnight and released the next day.

This recall involves Safety 1st Sure Fit toilet locks with model
numbers 48003 and 48103.  The toilet lock is attached to the tank
behind the lid and is intended to prevent a child's access to the
toilet bowl.  This recall also involves Safety 1st cabinet slide
locks with model numbers 12013 and 12014.  The cabinet slide lock
is attached to cabinet knobs or handles to prevent access to the
contents of the cabinet.  Model numbers can be found on the back
of the locks.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12180.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Bed,
Bath and Beyond, Burlington Coat Factory, Great Beginnings, Home
Depot, Target and Walmart from January 2005 through April 2010 for
between $8 and $20 for the toilet locks, and from January 2000
through March 2009 for between $2 and $11 for the cabinet locks.
Amazon.com sold both locks through April 2012.

Consumers should immediately remove the recalled locks and contact
DJG for a free replacement lock of a different model.  When
removing the recalled locks, consumers are urged to immediately
store dangerous items out of reach of children and to prevent
unsupervised access to bathrooms.  For additional information,
please contact DJG toll-free at (877) 416-8105 between 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.djgusa.com/. In March 2012, 900,000
Safety 1st Push 'N Snap cabinet locks were recalled due to lock
failure.


FORTINET INC: Class Action Suit in California Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fortinet Inc. continues to defend itself from a class action
lawsuit filed by a former stockholder in California, according to
the Company's February 28, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

In April 2010, an individual, a former stockholder of Fortinet,
filed a class action lawsuit against the Company claiming
unspecified damages in the California Superior Court for the
County of Los Angeles alleging violation of various California
Corporations Code sections and related tort claims alleging
misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty regarding the 2009
repurchase by Fortinet of shares of its stock while it was a
privately-held company.  The plaintiff is claiming unspecified
damages. In September 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion
to transfer the case to the California Superior Court for Santa
Clara County and the plaintiff has filed an amended complaint in
the Superior Court to add individual defendants, among other
amendments.  Currently the case is in the early stages, and the
Company has determined that, as of this time, there is not a
reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred.


HONDA: Judge Approves Broken A/C Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Jason Grant, writing for The Star-Ledger, reports that a federal
judge in New Jersey has approved a nationwide class-action
settlement for the current and former owners and lessees of more
than 1 million Honda and Acura cars that allegedly suffered from
broken air conditioning systems that manufacturers refused to fix
under warranty, according to a lawyer representing the class of
plaintiffs and court documents.

The federal lawsuit was brought in 2008, plaintiffs' lawyer
Matthew Mendelsohn said on May 16, and its settlement -- which
Mr. Mendelsohn said is valued at more than $40 million -- was
approved last month by U.S. District Judge Katherine S. Hayden in
Newark.

According to Mr. Mendelsohn, the class represented in the suit
included more than 2.4 million current and former owners and
lessees.  Thus far, he added, about 19,000 of them have made
claims under the suit's settlement, although he also expects many
more to make claims in the future.

"I think the result we were able to achieve in this case was very
good," he also said, while noting that it is rare for a lawsuit of
this kind to be brought nationwide, rather than in an individual
state.

The lawsuit was filed in Newark by Mr. Mendelsohn's firm, Mazie
Slater Katz & Freeman, because the lead plaintiff, Jon Alin, lives
in Montville.

Mr. Mendelsohn said the settlement, which comes after more than
three years in court, provides tens of millions of dollars in
reimbursements and vehicle modifications to be paid for by Honda
and Acura, more than $2.5 million in fees and expenses awarded by
Judge Hayden to the attorneys representing the settlement class,
and approximately $2 million in administrative expenses to be paid
by Honda and Acura.

Still, he said, two class members have filed objections to the
settlement, and that payouts under the settlement are stayed
pending resolution of those appeals.

According to Mr. Mendelsohn, the cars named in the lawsuit were
the 2005 to 2007 Honda Odyssey, the 2002 to 2004 Honda CR-V, and
the 2004 Acura TSX.

"The problem with the cars was the air conditioning systems was
failing prematurely, and in some cases was resulting in
catastrophic failures," Mr. Mendlesohn said.  "For instance, on
the Honda CR-V, the air conditioning compressor would implode and
shoot debris throughout the entire air conditioning system, so
that it would require replacement of associated air conditioning
parts, not just the failed part itself."

A call made on May 16 to one of the lead defense lawyers for Honda
was not returned.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP and Murray Frank LLP on May 16 disclosed
that a class action has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of JPMorgan Chase & Co. common stock during the period
between April 13, 2012 and May 10, 2012.  The case number is 1:12-
cv-03879.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 13, 2012.  If you wish to discuss this action or
have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, or to join this class action, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, William R. Restis, Esq. of Finkelstein &
Krinsk at 877-493-5366 or 619-238-1333, or via e-mail at
wrr@classactionlaw.com

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 that occurred when the Defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the losses and risk of loss to the
Company arising from massive bets on derivative contracts related
to credit indexes reflecting interest rates on corporate bonds.
These derivative bets went horribly wrong, resulting in billions
of dollars in lost capital for the Company and billions more in
lost market capitalization for JPMorgan shareholders.

As alleged in the lawsuit, JPMorgan's credit index derivative
positions were so large that they generated market rumors and
press coverage in the weeks leading up to the Company's April 13,
2012 earnings conference call with investors.  Specifically, the
lawsuit alleges that instead of disclosing the extremely risky
nature of JPMorgan's derivative bets, and the actual losses that
had been incurred at the time, Defendants falsely characterized
the derivative positions as mere "hedging" strategies.  JPMorgan's
CEO, Defendant James "Jamie" Dimon, went so far as to call press
reports about the Company's derivative positions a "complete
tempest in a teapot."  In truth, the Defendants misrepresented the
credit index based derivative positions as hedges to imply that
any losses would be offset by gains in other JPMorgan investments,
thus implying that they posed no risk to the Company.  This was
false.

Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
when made because they failed to disclose, among other things: (a)
JPMorgan's positions in the credit index-based derivative products
were not for "hedging" purposes or to "offset other exposures" but
were in fact trades on the Company's own account intended to
generate income because they were not matched to offset other
JPMorgan investments; (b) the Company had already incurred
significant and material losses in the credit index-based
derivatives when the market learned of JPMorgan's positions, and
by the April 13, 2012 conference call with investors; and (c) the
Company faced potentially tens of billions of losses resulting
from the credit index based derivatives, downgraded credit, and
loss of reputational capital.  As a result of defendants' false
statements, JPMorgan's securities traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.

On May 10, 2012, JPMorgan filed an SEC Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012, and after the market close, held a business
update conference call with analysts and investors.  During the
May 10th call, Defendants revealed that the Company had
experienced a "slightly more than $2 billion trading loss under
synthetic credit positions."  As a result of this disclosure, the
market price of JPMorgan's common stock fell from $40.74 per share
at the market close on May 17, May 10, 2012, to $36.96 per share
on May 11, 2012, falling more than 9% on extraordinary volume of
217 million shares.

Finkelstein & Krinsk is a national law firm representing
institutional investors and consumers in complex class action
cases.

Contact: William R. Restis, Esq.
         FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
         Telephone: 877-493-5366
         E-mail: wrr@classactionlaw.com


LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Spends $1.6 Million to Fight Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Griggs, writing for The Advocate, reports that over the past
eight years, Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp. has spent
or budgeted nearly $1.6 million to fight a class-action lawsuit
over tardy claims adjustments following the hurricanes of 2005.

More than $600,000 of the total came this year as the state-backed
insurer scrambled to prevent plaintiffs from seizing more than
$100 million from Citizens.

"It's kind of tough to tell how much we're going to spend,"
Citizens Chief Executive Officer Richard Robertson said.

In the last month, Citizens' attorneys have argued various issues
in state district courts and state courts of appeal in Baton Rouge
and Gretna.  Citizens' attorneys have also asked the U.S. Supreme
Court to overturn a Jefferson Parish state district court's $92.9
million judgment.  Since the 2009 ruling, legal interest has
increased the total to nearly $105 million.

Louisiana taxpayers could be responsible for the entire amount.
Under state law, Citizens has the power to levy special
assessments on property insurance companies, which pass the fee
along to policyholders.  Property owners get a tax credit for the
special assessment, and that money comes from the state's general
fund.

According to records provided by Citizens, eight law firms have
worked on the lawsuit known as the Oubre class action.  The
lawsuit was filed in October 2005 by policyholders who claimed
Citizens had taken more than 30 days to begin adjusting claims
after hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Three years ago, a 24th Judicial District Court judge ruled that
Citizens had to pay $5,000 -- the maximum penalty under state law
-- to each of the more than 18,500 policyholders affected.  Legal
interest is adding more than $10,000 each day to the original
judgment.  The plaintiff attorneys could get as much as 40 percent
of the total.

Citizens appealed the original ruling and won in the 5th Circuit,
but in December the Louisiana Supreme Court overturned the
appellate court and reinstated the original judgment.  Since then,
Citizens has fought to stop the plaintiffs from seizing the
insurer's cash to cover the judgment.

Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon, who oversees Citizens, said he
hopes the legal maneuvering doesn't end anytime soon.

Citizens is now arguing that it is a state agency, which means its
assets can't be seized unless Citizens' board agrees or the state
Legislature passes a law requiring the payment, Mr. Donelon said.
Citizens hopes the issue will eventually end up before the state
Supreme Court, and that the court will rule in the insurer's
favor.

If Citizens wins, the insurer will settle the lawsuit, but a
favorable Supreme Court ruling would provide "substantial
leverage" in negotiating a deal, Mr. Donelon said.

The law firms and the amounts they have been paid or that Citizens
has budgeted for their work, according to the insurer's records,
include:

-- Bienvenu, Foster, Ryan & O'Bannon LLC, $269,850. The New
Orleans firm originally acted as Citizens' general counsel and
handled litigation for the insurer until 2008.

-- Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larman & Papale LLP, $719,353 from 2008
to present.  The New Orleans-based firm began working for Citizens
by handling claims litigation but took over the Oubre litigation
after Bienvenu Foster decided against continuing as general
counsel.

-- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, $450,000.  The Washington, D.C.,
firm is handling the U.S. Supreme Court lawsuit.

-- Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson LLP, $97,933.  The Baton Rouge firm
is working with Citizens on a number of legal issues.  The firm
helped put together a proposed $50 million settlement in the class
action, which the Citizens board rejected.

-- Wegmann & Babst LLC, $14,231.  The New Orleans firm is advising
Citizens on state constitutional issues and appeals, including
whether the state-backed agency is exempt from having its assets
seized.

-- Metairie-based Bernard, Cassisa, Elliot & Davis, $8,496.  The
firm's most recent bill was November 2011.

-- New Iberia-based Haik, Minvielle and Grubs LLP billed Citizens
$7,258 but hasn't worked on the case since 2008.

-- Chalmette-based Dysart & Tabary LLC billed Citizens $5,220 but
hasn't worked on the case since 2008.

-- Paige Harper, Citizens' general counsel, said most attorneys
are paid a flat rate of $150 an hour.

The exceptions are Hailey, McNamara; Breazeale Sachse; and Wegmann
& Babst.

The class-action rate for Hailey, McNamara attorneys with less
than 10 years of experience is $125 per hour, Harper said.  The
rate for attorneys with 10 or more years of experience is $175 per
hour.

Wegmann & Babst is also paid $175 per hour, she said.  Breazeale
Sachse partners are paid $275 per hour, while associates are paid
$150 per hour.

Mr. Robertson said those rates were set before he became Citizens'
chief executive, but he believes all of the hourly fees are well
below what the firms charge their other clients.

According to the state Attorney General's Office, there are limits
on the hourly rates for legal services, although there can be
exceptions.  In general, the maximum hourly fee is $175.

The Attorney General may grant exceptions on a case-by-case basis,
such as hiring attorneys with a recognized area of legal
expertise, according to spokeswoman Amanda Papillion Larkins.

Although Citizens and plaintiffs' attorneys have discussed
settling the lawsuit on a number of occasions, Mr. Robertson said
a settlement appears unlikely at this point.

"I wouldn't suggest that settlement is absolutely out of the
question, but I wouldn't think that there would be a lot of
opportunity at this point," Mr. Robertson said.


MEYER CORP: Recalls 4,600 Circulon 13-Piece Cookware Sets
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Meyer Corporation U.S., of Vallejo, California, announced a
voluntary recall of about 4,600 Circulon Cookware Sets.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The glass lid used with the 5-quart covered saute pan can crack,
break or shatter, posing a laceration hazard to consumers.

Meyer has received 65 reports of broken or shattered lids.  No
injuries have been reported.

The defective lid is 11 inches in diameter with a rubber and
stainless steel handle and a metal rim.  The code "IMCP1108" is
stamped on the outside of the metal rim.  The lid is part of the
13-Piece Circulon Premier Professional cookware set.  The cookware
is aluminum and stainless steel with rubber and stainless steel
handles.  In addition to the covered saute pan, the sets include:
1-quart and 3-quart saucepans, a 4-quart saucepot, an 8-quart
stockpot, 8.5-, 10- and 12-inch French skillets and four
additional glass lids.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12182.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and Thailand and
sold exclusively at Costco retail stores and Costco.com from about
October 2011 through March 2012 for about $200 for the complete
set.

Consumers should stop using the 11-inch glass lid and contact
Circulon customer service to receive a replacement lid.  For
additional information, contact Circulon customer service at (800)
326-3933, Monday through Friday between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Pacific Time, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.circulon.com/


MURRUMBIDGEE IRRIGATION: Yenda Assoc. Intends to Pursue Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC Riverina reports that the organizer of a proposed class action
against Murrumbidgee Irrigation (MI) says he is determined to
pursue the company, even though he is a shareholder.

Paul Rosetto says a preliminary report on how irrigation
infrastructure affected the floods has been given to the company
and Griffith City Council.

Mr. Rosetto says a meeting last weekend was expected to formalize
a group to pursue a class action, as the future of Yenda is at
stake.  He says MI could survive a class action.

"I've heard that they've lifted their public liability insurance
cover so I believe they should be able to handle it," he said.
"Secondly I'm hoping that their management should be able to wake
up for want of a better word.

"A lot of Yenda residents are very concerned about their future.
"They don't know whether to re-invest in their homes, because if
that escape stays blocked, and the report says this, it could
happen all over again next year."

Mr. Rosetto says around 200 people attended the initial meeting of
the Yenda Association and he expected a similar number on May 19.
Mr. Rosetto says the report strengthens the case for a class
action against MI.

"This is just the tip of the iceberg," he said.

"Our next step is after we've incorporated the association to
conduct a full hydraulic computer modelling report which will look
at the what if scenario of what would have happened if the escape
had of been open.

"And then we'll be seeking compensation on the difference.

"There is a physical blockage there.

"MI is the only entity that is responsible for those earthworks
and management of the canals, and the simple fact that you have an
irrigation system in an area which runs across natural
watercourses, means that MI is also by the physical nature of
their canals responsible for flooding and drainage management."


NELNET INC: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------
Peterson's Nelnet LLC, a subsidiary of Nelnet Inc., continues to
defend itself from a putative class action lawsuit filed in New
Jersey, according to the Company's February 28, 2012, 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2011.

On January 4, 2011, a complaint against Peterson's Nelnet, LLC, a
subsidiary of the Company, was filed in the U.S. federal District
Court for the District of New Jersey.  The complaint alleges that
Peterson's sent six advertising faxes to the named plaintiff in
2008 to 2009 that were not the result of express invitation or
permission granted by the plaintiff and did not include certain
opt out language.  The complaint also alleges that such faxes
violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act purportedly
entitling the plaintiff to $500 per violation, trebled for willful
violations for each of the six faxes. The complaint further
alleges that Peterson's had sent putative class members more than
10,000 faxes that violated the TCPA, amounting to more than $5
million in statutory penalty damages and more than $15 million if
trebled for willful violations. The complaint seeks to establish a
class action for two different classes of plaintiffs: Class A, to
whom Peterson's sent unsolicited fax advertisements containing opt
out notices similar to those contained in the faxes received by
the named plaintiff; and Class B, to whom Peterson's sent fax
advertisements containing opt out notices similar to those
contained in the faxes received by the named plaintiff.  As of
February 28, 2012, the District Court has not established or
recognized any class.

On February 16, 2011, Peterson's filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint based on a lack of federal question or diversity
jurisdiction with respect to the complaint, which was denied by
the District Court on April 15, 2011, shortly after a similar
motion to dismiss that had been granted in an unrelated case
involving alleged TCPA violations related to faxes was reversed by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which has
jurisdiction over the District Court.  On April 29, 2011,
Peterson's filed an answer to the complaint, but also filed a
motion for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss.  On May 17,
2011, the Appeals Court granted a petition for rehearing of the
motion to dismiss in the unrelated TCPA fax case, and on May 31,
2011, Peterson's filed a motion for stay pending the outcome of
that rehearing.  On September 12, 2011, the motion for stay was
granted, and the motion for reconsideration was denied by the
District Court. On September 20, 2011, the named plaintiff filed a
motion for reconsideration of the District Court's order, and at a
hearing on November 22, 2011 the District Court ordered counsel to
submit a proposed order to modify the stay for a limited third
party subpoena, which the District Court approved on December 5,
2011. On January 18, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a
decision in an unrelated TCPA case which held that federal courts
have federal question jurisdiction over private causes of action
under the TCPA. On January 20, 2012, the named plaintiff requested
that the stay be lifted on the basis of the Supreme Court's
decision, and on January 25, 2012, the District Court denied that
request since the stay is based on the outcome of the Appeals
Court rehearing, and there has been no decision by the Appeals
Court with respect to such rehearing.

Peterson's intends to continue to contest the suit vigorously.
Due to the preliminary stage of this matter and the uncertainty
and risks inherent in class determination and the overall
litigation process, the Company believes that a meaningful
estimate of a reasonably possible loss, if any, or range of
reasonably possible losses, if any, cannot currently be made.


NEW YORK: Class Action to Challenge Ambulette Contract
------------------------------------------------------
Granny has been kicked to the curb, say ambulette fleet owners
fighting the state's new private dispatch system, Chuck Bennett,
writing for New York Post, reports.

"It is a mess," said Gary Farberov, head of the newly formed
Ambulette Para-Transit Coalition.

"They are robbing us of patients, they are not paying us on time,
and the call center isn't even operating," Mr. Farberov said.
Two weeks ago, Atlanta-based LogistiCare Corp. started
implementing its $80 million three-year contract to coordinate all
non-emergency Medicaid-financed transportation in Brooklyn.  It
will take over dispatching for the rest of the city by October.

But the 200 local fleet owners, who own the vans that take the
elderly and disabled to medical visits, scheduled a meeting for
May 14 to discuss a class-action lawsuit against the state.

"We are seeking an injunction to stop the contract and have the
state sit down and work out a fair contract," Mr. Farberov said,
citing a list of complaints that includes being dispatched to
wrong addresses.  That can leave elderly patients waiting hours
for a ride.

The state Department of Health said LogistiCare will make the
ambulette industry more efficient while rooting out fraud and
waste.

Department spokesman Jeffrey Hammond said the new dispatch will
provide better services to Medicaid enrollees while "achieving
estimated savings of $77 million dollars over three years."


PNC BANK: Judge Allows Overdraft Fee Class Action to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul J. Gough, writing for Pittsburgh Business Times, reports that
a class-action lawsuit can proceed against PNC Bank in connection
with the overdraft fees that are charged for checking accounts.

Bloomberg Businessweek reported that the lawsuit against PNC, a
unit of PNC Financial Services Group Inc., is one of a number
against banks from customers who say it arranged transactions in a
customer's accounts from highest to lowest and caused more
overdrafts, the magazine said.  PNC denies wrongdoing but did not
comment for the article.

Other banks -- including Citizens Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
and Toronto Dominion Bank, have settled similar cases.  In
February, a judge gave final approval to a settlement in another
similar case involving National City Bank, which PNC purchased in
2008.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Still Faces Suit Over TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc. continues to defend itself
from a putative consolidated class action lawsuit brought against
the Company for allegedly violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, according to the Company's February 28, 2012, 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company has been named as defendant in the following five
putative class action cases, each of which alleges that it
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by calling
consumers' cellular telephones without their prior express
consent: Allen v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc., Case No.
10-cv-2658, instituted in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on December 23, 2010; Meyer v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 37-2011-00083047,
instituted in the Superior Court of California, San Diego County
on January 3, 2011; Frydman v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC,
Case No. 11-cv-524, instituted in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on January 31, 2011;
Bartlett v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 11-cv-
0624, instituted in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on March 1, 2011; and Harvey v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 11-cv-00582,
instituted in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on April 8, 2011.  Each of the foregoing
complaints allege violations of the TCPA, and seek damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  On December 21, 2011, the
United States District Panel on Multi-District Litigation entered
an order transferring these matters into one consolidated
proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, Case No. 11-md-02295.

These matters have only recently been consolidated, no litigation
has proceeded on whether or not to certify a class or on the
merits of the allegations, and no demand has been made.  Further,
even if a class is ultimately certified, further discovery must
take place in order to determine its size.  Therefore; any
potential loss for these and other similar matters, cannot be
estimated at this time; however, in the event that a class is
eventually certified and the Company neither settles nor prevails
on these matters, its damages, when aggregated, could potentially
fall within a range which could be in excess of its established
liability, and could be material to its financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting
period.


PORTER ATHLETIC: Recalls 44 Climbing Ropes Due to Fall Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
About 44 Porter Athletic Climbing Ropes were voluntarily recalled
by Porter Athletic, a division of Litania Sports Group, Inc., of
Champaign, Illinois, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission.  Consumers should stop using the product
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The climbing rope can slip through the clamp that connects at the
top, posing a fall hazard for climbers.

Porter has received three reports of the rope slipping through the
clamp, including one that resulted in back and wrist injuries.

This recall involves two models of Porter Athletic climbing ropes.
Model number 00118 is a white soft dacron rope with vinyl boot end
sold in 12', 16', 20' and 24' lengths.  Model number 00119 is a
white soft dacron rope with vinyl boot end and rubber knots every
12" sold in 12', 16', 20' and 24' lengths.  A picture of the
recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12734.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold online at http://www.porterathletic.com/,by
telephone and direct sales through authorized Porter Athletic
distributors nationwide from September 2009 through September 2011
for between $387 and $877.

Consumers should immediately stop using these recalled climbing
ropes.  Porter Athletic is repairing the recalled ropes at no
cost.  Shipping will be provided free of charge to the consumer.
The firm is contacting customers directly.  For more information,
contact Porter Athletic toll-free at (888) 277-7778 between 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.porterathletic.com/


U.S. STEEL: 7th Cir. Orders Dismissal of Overtime Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Celentino at Courthouse News Service reports that the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that
steel workers are not entitled by statute to overtime pay for time
spent changing into work clothes and walking from locker rooms to
their work site, ordering a class action against U.S. Steel
Corporation dismissed.

An 800-member class of former and current hourly employees at U.S.
Steel's Gary, Indiana plant filed suit under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.  The complaint alleged that the company had
violated the act by failing to compensate them for changing and
travel time, despite express provisions in their collective
bargaining agreement precluding payment for these activities.
According to the class, the statutory provisions of FLSA override
the union agreement.

U.S. District Judge Robert Miller divided the question, ruling
that the act does not require compensation for clothes-changing
time.  Judge Miller certified the question of whether or not
workers should be compensated for travel time to the 7th Circuit,
which granted review.

While FLSA explicitly excludes from overtime "any time spent
changing clothes or washing at the beginning or end of each
workday which was excluded from measured working time . . . by the
express terms or by custom or practice under a bona fide
collective bargaining agreement applicable to the particular
employee," the changing involves putting on "safety equipment"
rather than "clothes," voiding the exception.

The 7th Circuit's opinion, penned by Judge Richard Posner,
included a photograph of a steel worker "modeling" his daily
outfit.  Judge Posner has frequently included photographs in his
opinions, including his recent use of a photo of Bob Marley to
illustrate the concept of dreadlocks.

The safety function of the clothing does not void the exemption,
Judge Posner ruled.

"Protection-against sun, cold, wind, blisters, stains, insect
bites, and being spotted by animals that one is hunting-is a
common function of clothing, and an especially common function of
work clothes worn by factory workers.  It would be absurd to
exclude all work clothes that have a protective function . . . and
thus limit the exclusion largely to actors' costumes and waiters'
and doormen's uniforms," he wrote.

All federal appeals courts except the 9th Circuit, which the
opinion criticized as an "outlier," have issued similar rulings.

Proceeding to the issue of travel time, the 7th Circuit ruled that
employers do not have to pay workers for time spent walking from
the locker room to their work site.

The court ejected plaintiffs' contention that the activity was
outside of an exception to the Portal-to-Portal Act, which
generally requires employers to pay for time spent traveling
between "principle activities" while at work.  Changing clothes is
not a "principal activity," the three-judge panel determined.

Judge Posner explained the paradox that would be created under the
plaintiffs' interpretation: "Suppose it is 100 yards from the
plant entrance to the locker room and another 100 yards to the
work station.  On the plaintiffs' view, traversing the second 100
yards is compensable, though traversing the first 100 yards is
not, but if the locker room were adjacent to the work station none
of the workers' travel time would be compensable even though the
amount of walking they'd be doing would be identical.  What sense
could that make?"

The opinion noted that Congress had specifically added exceptions
to the FLSA, which explicitly allow travel time pay to be
negotiated by unions and management, in order to eliminate
disruptions caused by the Supreme Court rulings that FLSA required
overtime payment for the activities.

The travel time ruling creates a circuit split on the issue; the
6th Circuit recently released an opposite ruling in Franklin v.
Kellogg Company.  Noting the Circuit split, the 7th Circuit
circulated its opinion to all active judges before release. No
judge voted to rehear the case en banc.

"If the workers have a legal right to be paid for [time spent at
the plant, but not producing steel], the company will be less
willing to pay them a high wage for the time during which they are
making steel; it will push hard to reduce the hourly wage so that
its overall labor costs do not rise," Judge Posner wrote,
acknowledging the practical problems with an employee-friendly
ruling.

"The steel industry is international and highly competitive, and
unions temper their wage demands to avoid killing the goose that
lays the golden eggs.  They don't want the American steel industry
to go where so much American manufacturing has gone in recent
years-abroad."

The opinion concluded by explaining that the 7th Circuit was
willing to rule in opposition to the Department of Labor's amicus
briefs in favor of the plaintiffs because its recommendation was
essentially political.  Judge Posner noted that the department's
position on whether donning safety equipment must count towards
overtime had flip-flopped between the Clinton, Bush, and Obama
administrations.

"It would be a considerable paradox if before 2001 the plaintiffs
would win because the President was a Democrat, between 2001 and
2009 the defendant would win because the President was a
Republican, and in 2012 the plaintiffs would win because the
President is again a democrat.  That would make a travesty of the
principal of deference to interpretations of statutes by the
agencies responsible for enforcing them," he concluded.

The 7th Circuit directed the district court to dismiss the case.


U.S. STEEL: Still Faces Class Action Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corp. continues to defend itself from class
action lawsuits filed by purchasers of its steel products,
according to the Company's February 28, 2012, 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

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 will
vigorously defend these lawsuits and does not believe that it has
any liability regarding these matters.


WEST VIRGINIA: Needs to Step Up Education System Overhaul
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that thirty years after a judge
ordered West Virginia to overhaul public education funding,
employees of the school system at the heart of the case say
they've seen little progress.

In May 1982, Ohio County Circuit Judge Arthur Recht declared the
system of financing public schools unconstitutional.  He ordered
an overhaul of the education system, creation of measurable
performance standards and a mechanism to equalize educational
opportunities between rich and poor counties.

The ruling stemmed from a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of
Janet Pauley, a mother of five who attended a PTA meeting in
Lincoln County and was appalled to find a crumbling four-room
elementary school with broken windows, broken chairs and an open
sewer running through the playground.  The decision led to
creation of the state School Building Authority to oversee major
construction projects and the Office of Education Performance
Audits to monitor schools' progress.  It also tweaked the school
aid funding formula and promoted equalization of teacher pay.

Lincoln County schools maintenance director Dana Smith, who has
worked for the school system since the year after the landmark
decision, said that while the case probably made possible the
construction of the $30 million consolidated Lincoln County High
School, little else has changed.

"Did the Recht decision equalize funding for us? No, it didn't,"
Ms. Smith told the Charleston Gazette.  "We lose people all the
time to Cabell, Boone, Kanawha, Putnam -- they all pay more.
We're surrounded by people who've got more money than we've got.
Boone and Logan have their coal, Cabell's got all kinds of
industry, and we've got the school system.  That's our biggest
employer in this county -- the school system."

Birdie Gandy, treasurer of Lincoln County schools and a longtime
school system employee, agreed.

"I don't really know anything that we have benefited from on the
Recht decision, directly," Ms. Gandy said.  "I can't point to
anything and say, 'This is a result of the Recht decision.'"

Ms. Smith said Lincoln County was home to three of the four high
schools that the state said were deteriorating.

"We've converted them to middle schools, but they're the same
buildings," Ms. Smith said.  "We've still got teachers leaving the
county because they can get a pay raise somewhere else.  We just
don't have the tax base here, so we don't have the educational
opportunities."

Lincoln was short 13 full-time teachers this year.  Teacher pay in
the county is $900 below the state average, and nearly every
surrounding county pays more.  Putnam County pays $3,951 more than
Lincoln, and Kanawha County pays $2,231 more.

In May 1982, Ohio County Circuit Judge Arthur Recht declared the
system of financing public schools unconstitutional and ordered
the state to equalize opportunities between rich and poor
counties.

These funding discrepancies are fueled by local excess levies -- a
tax on property that goes beyond the state school funding formula,
said Dave Mohr, a senior policy analyst for the West Virginia
House of Delegates Education Committee.  Many counties rely on
excess or special levies to fund teacher salaries and basic
education needs, such as heating and cooling system repairs.  In
most cases, there is nothing special or extra about what the funds
cover -- counties consistently use excess levies as funding
streams for essentials.

"Excess levies were not included in the school funding formula,
which was a big issue in the case," Mr. Mohr said.  "Excess levies
are considered something that counties decide on their own."

The Recht decision advocated for a statewide excess levy to try to
equalize funding, but that proposal proved politically unfeasible
and was shot down.

Kenna Seal, former director of the Office of Education Performance
Audits, doesn't focus so much on financing of schools as on what
schools do with the resources they have.  He said he saw major
changes in Lincoln County because of the Recht decision.

"They're no longer on the bottom of the totem pole," Ms. Seal
said. "They've got high-quality schools, and they've got someone
monitoring them to make sure they've got high-quality schools.  I
know it's significantly better.  Look at the test scores, look at
the school facilities -- this is the Recht decision coming to
fruition."

The OEPA audited Lincoln County's school system in 1999 and found
deficiencies in more than 200 areas, including student
performance, school curriculum, facilities, accounting practices
and hiring practices.  The school system was declared to be in a
state of emergency when the state Department of Education took it
over in 2000.

Twelve years later, Lincoln County continues to suffer from low
test scores, but there has been a general upward arc, Ms. Seal
said.  Curriculum has improved.  Facilities have gotten better.
Hiring discrepancies are a rarity.  But there's a long way to go.

In 2011, only 39 percent of the 2,240 students in Lincoln County
were proficient in reading, according to state Department of
Education data.  That was below the statewide average of 47
percent proficiency.  In math, only 35 percent of the county's
students were proficient -- 8 percentage points below the state
average.

Ms. Smith, who has two sons in the Lincoln County school system,
views the modest improvements against the backdrop of what could
have been had the Recht decision been fully implemented and
financed.

"Equalizing the system's a tough thing to do, but we were hoping
that more would have been done," he said.


YASSER AWAAD: Faces Class Action Over Medical Malpractice
---------------------------------------------------------
Tara Edwards, writing for WXYZ, reports that Dearborn-based
neurologist Dr. Yasser Awaad is facing a class action.

Marie Woolen said she sunk into a depression after finding out the
doctor she sent her son to diagnosed him with a condition he
didn't have.

"It's been devastating," said Ms. Woolen.  She's one of hundreds
of people involved in the class action.  The class action lawsuit
has hundreds of parents claiming the doctor diagnosed their
children with epilepsy.

They believe the heavy medication their kids were placed on has
caused physical and psychological damage.

"My hopes and dreams have been shattered," said Ms. Woolen.  "He
can't be a doctor, he can't be a lawyer  . . . his memory is
completely distorted."

"My one daughter's pills were like 500 and something dollars.
There were some times where I would literally cry.   What do you
do? Do you eat? Do you buy the medicine . . . I'd rather buy the
medicine," said parent Laura Abdel-Sater.

Now, a new bill is being introduced by Senator Arlan Meekhof,
Senator John Moolenaar, and Senator Virgil Smith and it has the
parents worried.

Attorney Brian Benner said it is not tough enough.

Parents involved in the class action lawsuit are concerned the
bill would allow other doctors who commit malpractice to walk away
with no consequences.

"This bill makes a mockery out of the justice system.  Whatever
happened to patient safety? We should have patient safety bills,"
said attorney Benner, representing the parents involved.

"It's like if you go around and say you didn't do it . . . it's
okay," said Laura Abdel-Sater.

A representative from Senator Moolenaar's office told 7 Action
News they were in the early stages in the process of legislation.
Still, some mothers who say they have been affected by Dr. Awaad
are uneasy.

"I'm worried if this bill passes my son will not have any
recourse," said Ms. Woolen.

Parents involved in the class action suit said they will continue
to fight for their children and other kids who could become the
victims of malpractice.

"He shouldn't have no type of license inflicting this much pain on
this many children," said Ms. Abdel-Sater.

"What I'd like to see happen is Dr. Awaad's license to be taken
away, because he's taken advantage of the most vulnerable of our
society and they don't want to see this happen to anyone else,"
said Mr. Benner.

Meanwhile, Mr. Benner and Washington D.C based attorney Nathan
Finch are still collecting discoveries in the class action
lawsuit.  The hope to go to trial sometime next year.


* CANADA: Courts Concerned Over Quality of Class Cert. Evidence
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Glaspell, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that Canadian
courts are increasingly concerned about the quality of evidence at
class action certification hearings.  As a result, first steps are
being made towards Daubert-like rules of admissibility.

Daubert refers to a trilogy of Supreme Court of the United States
decisions establishing admissibility standards for expert evidence
-- judicial gatekeeping.  A particular goal is to ensure expert
evidence is relevant, reliable, and the product of a sound
methodology.  A 2010 Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling,
American Honda Motor Company Inc. v. Allen, held that a full
Daubert review is required if an expert's evidence is critical to
class certification.  Last year, SCOTUS, in Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
v. Dukes, suggested the same without having to finally decide the
issue.

So in the U.S., anecdotal evidence is out; class certification
judges are to engage in a rigorous evidentiary analysis entailing
some overlap with a claim's merits.  This increased scrutiny
across the border on certification issues has not gone unnoticed
in Canada.

Some Canadian lawyers have been skirting basic rules of evidence
for years -- seeking to establish each of the identifiable class,
common issue, and preferable procedure requirements without a
robust evidentiary record.  These deficiencies have generally
fallen into three overlapping categories:

    -- Class counsel's own evidence on contested points;

    -- hearsay evidence; and

    -- inadmissible expert evidence.

                   Class Counsel as Witness

Class counsel are not in a reasonable position to be both lawyer
and witness on the class certification motion.  Provincial rules
of professional conduct proscribe lawyers from submitting
affidavit evidence on contentious issues.  Exceptions have been
developed where affidavits deal with purely formal or
uncontroverted matters.  Documents attached to a lawyer's
affidavit, purporting to deal with substantive matters that strike
at the core of the certification motion, are not purely formal or
uncontroverted matters.

Having class counsel be cross-examined, and challenged on their
credibility, potentially compromises their role as counsel and
their duties to the court.  It raises concerns about the proper
administration of justice.  And legal argument belongs in a brief
-- not a lawyer's affidavit!

                         Hearsay Evidence

Class certification affidavits must be confined to a statement of
facts within the personal knowledge of the deponent or to other
evidence the deponent could give if testifying as a witness in
court.  An affidavit may contain statements of the deponent's
information and belief if, but only if, the source of the
information and the fact of the belief are specified.

Deponents often fail to identify the source of information or to
offer any rationale for a belief in information put forward from
unidentified sources.  It is not credible to accept a general
assertion at the outset of a class certification affidavit as to
belief in all information thereafter deposed.  Failing to attest
to belief in specific facts and documents, particularly when no
source is provided for each document, is not a technical objection
-- it is a fundamental flaw and the offending paragraphs are
subject to being struck.

To be admitted for the truth of their contents, a document must be
shown to be what it purports to be or a true copy of the original
and signed or written by the person by whom it purports to be
signed or written.  It is appropriate to exclude documents from
evidence unless the party can properly authenticate them or
establish that they ought to be admitted pursuant to a recognized
hearsay rule exception.  Business records are subject to
particular requirements of proof under provincial evidence acts.

Downloads from the internet uploaded to class certification
affidavits pose serious difficulties -- the affiant in most cases
could not possibly attest to a belief in the truth of their
contents or to authenticate them.  Under Canadian case law,
reliability of web site information depends on various factors
including careful assessment of its sources, independent
corroboration, consideration as to whether it might have been
modified from what was originally available, and assessment of the
objectivity of the person placing the information online.  When
these factors cannot be ascertained, little or no weight will be
given.

Such documents often contain inadmissible triple hearsay, legal or
factual opinion, argument, and advocacy. Opposing counsel have no
practical opportunity to cross-examine the author of the document
or regarding its context.

                         Expert Evidence

The third area where Canadian courts are more closely scrutinizing
evidence at or prior to certification is "expert" evidence --
frequently filed by persons not so qualified and on topics not
suitable for such evidence.

Our courts are increasingly vigilant against impermissible
attempts to introduce expert evidence through an unqualified lay
witness.  Opinion evidence can only be tendered through a properly
qualified expert.  The role of drawing inferences and conclusions
is that of the court, not that of the deponent.  An affidavit from
a non-expert must not contain opinion evidence, legal or factual
argument, or advocacy.

For example, in a case involving medical or scientific issues of
causation, it is necessary to adduce expert evidence to establish
a reasonable basis in fact for the existence of a common issue
appropriate for certification. In Williams v. Canon Canada Inc.,
an Ontario judge rejected the purported expertise of a "jack-of-
all-trades" purporting to be an internet analyst.

                     Daubert Moves to Canada

It is too early to say Daubert-like rules are likely to be applied
in Canada in the near future. But Canadian class certification
courts are starting to exercise an important evidentiary
gatekeeping role.

Class certification requirements must be satisfied by evidence
meeting the usual criteria for admissibility.  Inadmissible
evidence including "expert" and lawyers' own, is now being struck
in an effort to focus energies on key certification issues in
play.

Where there are serious concerns with evidence put forward on
certification, it is appropriate to address the issue by way of a
pre-certification motion.  Parties should not be put to the task
of preparing responding materials addressing inadmissible
evidence.

As one Ontario judge recently stated, the rules of evidence and of
procedure are designed to promote determination of proceedings on
their merits -- to screen out unreliable evidence and to ensure
each party is given a fair hearing -- all having regard to
concerns of efficiency and economy.

Canadian courts, recognizing the importance of ensuring only
admissible evidence, may be relied upon when considering the
merits of a motion for certification, have repeatedly struck
improper affidavits and opinion evidence.  This is a very positive
development -- the better evidence is at certification, the more
likely the access to justice and judicial economy objectives will
be met in any particular case.


* Experts Says Brinker Meal & Rest Break Ruling No Cure-All
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Verel, writing for Northbay Business Journal, reports that
recent state Supreme Court decision has greatly clarified the long
contentious issue of when and how employers must provide meal and
rest breaks -- or at least the opportunity for meal and rest
breaks -- but employers still need to think carefully about the
matter, employment law experts said.

The case, Brinker Restaurant Corp. vs. the  California Supreme
Court, affects thousands of employers in the state and perhaps
million of employees, many in the service industry.  But while
employment law attorneys in the North Bay echoed the notion that
the verdict is, overall, an employer-friendly decision, they
cautioned that it is no cure-all and that there is always room for
interpretation.

"The number one impact of Brinker was that it validated the
positions that most attorneys and the labor commission had taken
for a long time," said Richard Rybicki, who heads Napa-based
employment and labor firm Rybicki & Associates.  "Employers need
to provide but not require employees to take breaks."

The issue has vexed employers, many of whom dealt with a steady
flow of class-action wage suits because of disputes related to
whether the employer was required to force workers to take rest
and meal breaks.  The ruling put much of that to rest, though,
saying that employers are required to offer 30-minute breaks but
the employees are free to decide how they use that time, even if
they opt out of the break and continue working.

"The employer is not obligated to police meal breaks and ensure
work thereafter is performed," Associate Justice Kathyrn Werdegar
wrote in the majority opinion.

"The contention was really driven by a lot of wage and hour class
actions.  Plaintiffs thought employers should drag employees out
by the ear to take breaks," said Shane Anderies, a partner at
Anderies & Gomes, an employment and labor law firm with offices in
Santa Rosa and San Francisco.

That's no longer the case, but Mr. Anderies and Mr. Rybicki both
said issues could still arise, and that employers should not let
their guard down because of the perceived favorable nature of the
ruling.

"You only need to show that you offered a break period, but the
court threw some wrinkles into it," Mr. Rybicki said.  "An
employer can't create a workflow that interferes with someone to
take a break.  And that's a problem in some industries where there
is no way for the employer to change the workflow.  So employers
who have a work flow that will naturally interfere with the
ability to take a break will have to think ahead.

Service industry employees at restaurants and bars, for example,
often work off of tips, which could be viewed as an incentive to
not take breaks.  Similarly, if a manufacturer paid employees on a
per-piece rate, that could also be a disincentive for employees,
Mr. Rybicki said, adding that element of the law could provide
enough room for further litigation.

"I think there will be a significant amount of litigation over the
question of what employers or activities are incentives to not
take rest periods," he said.

Mr. Anderies agreed that the ruling didn't eliminate that
possibility, but said a key difference is the overall policy that
the ruling creates on a practical side versus individual employers
possibly violating the law.

"There will be factual disputes, but this is based on policies,"
he said.  "Do I think attorneys and litigants are going the make
the same arguments in different forms? Absolutely."

He also noted that certain industries have certain rules that may
not be as applicable.

"Everyone hates the response 'It depends,' but it does.  It
depends on certain industries and certain facts," he said.

Both Messrs. Anderies and Rybicki said employers should look at
their policies and adjust them as needed.

"Just because it's a favorable ruling, employers still need to
have a handbook and have to affirmatively assure employees of the
policies," Mr. Anderies said.


* Lawyers Recommend IPO Insurance to Clients After Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Suess and Carolyn Bandel, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that investor lawsuits filed in the wake of share sales by
Groupon Inc. and Deutsche Telekom AG are boosting the appeal of
insurance for public offerings.

Almost 19 percent of the 3,510 initial public offerings on a U.S.
stock exchange between 1996 and 2009 were defendants in at least
one U.S. securities class-action, according to Cornerstone
Research.  Groupon, the biggest online coupon company that has
slumped by more than half since its November IPO, is being sued by
an investor after the firm reported a "material weakness" in its
financial controls on March 30.

"Shareholders have been getting more trigger-happy in suing
companies for damage claims," said Niels Joehnk, who heads
financial lines at German insurance broker Schunck Group in
Munich.  "Therefore lawyers that help prepare an IPO are typically
recommending IPO insurance to their clients."

While the IPO market hasn't returned to 2007 levels, this month's
landmark offering by Facebook Inc. may kick-start sales shelved
amid Europe's debt crisis.  That may boost the $1 billion IPO
insurance market as insurers, including Allianz SE, Zurich
Insurance Group AG and Chubb Corp., sell more protection to firms,
their executives and bankers against claims relating to mistakes
in prospectuses and marketing presentations.

"Demand for IPO insurance is on the rise again," said Hamburg-
based Dennis Sander, who is responsible for the coverage at Chubb
in Germany.  "A successful major IPO, such as Facebook, could open
the door for other share sales, if the European debt crisis
remains under control."

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg met with would-be investors on May 7
ahead of an IPO planned for later this month.  The social
networking site plans to raise as much as $11.8 billion, the
biggest ever IPO for an Internet company.

Jonathan Thaw, a spokesman for the Menlo Park, California-based
company, declined to comment on whether Facebook has purchased IPO
insurance.

The "vast majority" of share sales have prospectus liability
insurance, said Jochen Koerner, a member of the executive board in
Germany and Austria at Marsh & McLennan Cos., the world's second-
biggest insurance broker.

"Sellers as well as other parties involved need to make sure they
are covered for more litigious shareholders and a higher
complexity of risks that need to be addressed in the IPO
prospectus," he said.  "We are getting an increasing number of
requests for information on IPO insurance."

The market for IPO insurance is "$1 billion globally or even
more," said Markus English, a European financial lines manager at
Zurich-based insurer Ace Ltd.

As with directors and officers insurance, Public Offering of
Securities Insurance doesn't cover fraudulent behavior.  The price
of the typically three to six-year policies ranges from 0.4
percent to 10 percent of the amount covered, depending on the
assessed risk, according to insurers surveyed by Bloomberg.

Sky Deutschland AG expects its prospectus and D&O policies will
cover shareholder damage claims relating to offering documents for
its 2005 IPO and 2007 capital increase, according to the German
Pay-TV broadcaster's 2011 annual report.  The firm controlled by
Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. also expects "any associated cost, in
particular legal costs," to be covered by insurers, Sky said in
the report.

Sky agreed to a EUR14.5 million ($19 million) settlement with
institutional investors in October 2010.  Joerg Allgaeuer, a
spokesman for Sky Deutschland, declined to comment further.

About 50 insurers offer IPO coverage with five or six market
leaders, said Carsten Wiesenthal, who is responsible for financial
lines coverage in Germany at Munich-based Allianz SE's industrial
insurance unit.  Since most companies limit their individual IPO
coverage to EUR25 million, larger share sales are covered by a
group of insurers for as much as EUR300 million, he said.

"An IPO is a highly exposed moment in the life of a company and
that needs to be covered," said Mr. Wiesenthal.  "A lot of IPOs
that were put on hold over the last years are now being revisited,
which could boost demand for IPO insurance."

RAG Stiftung, majority owner of Evonik Industries AG, said on
March 23 it plans an IPO of the chemical maker in the first half,
after shelving the offering last year.

Rheinmetall AG, the maker of KS Kolbenschmidt engine pistons and a
partner in Germany's Puma battle tank, will sell shares in its
automotive division in the first half of this year to focus on its
defense business.  Rheinmetall declined to comment on whether the
company will buy IPO insurance.

Deutsche Telekom AG, Europe's second-largest phone company, is
being sued by about 17,000 investors over its sale of 200 million
shares in a third public offering in 2000.

Investors are seeking about EUR80 million as they claim that
Deutsche Telekom's share sale prospectus contained dozens of
mistakes.  They allege Deutsche Telekom improperly reported the
value of real estate and didn't in a timely way disclose its
intention to acquire U.S. phone company VoiceStream in 2000.
The Frankfurt Higher Regional Court has scheduled a ruling for May
16. Deutsche Telekom declined to comment.

Groupon was sued on April 3 by investor Fan Zhang, who alleged
that the deal-of-the-day coupon company's officers, directors and
underwriters misled investors about its business performance prior
to its IPO.

Julie Mossler, a spokeswoman for Chicago-based Groupon, declined
to comment while Mr. Zhang's lawyers didn't reply to e-mails and
phone calls from Bloomberg News.

"Every company involved with the public offering of securities is
liable for the information it discloses and provides to potential
investors," said Christoph Leuzinger, global chief underwriting
officer for Management Liability at Zurich Insurance Group AG.
"It is a cyclical product, when the economy recovers, you see more
IPOs which will automatically lead to more IPO insurance."

                           *********

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  * * *