CAR_Public/120906.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, September 6, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 177

                             Headlines

BP CORP: Two Law Firms File Class Action Over Tainted Gasoline
CITIGROUP INC: Settles Class Action Over Home-Loan Practices
CNO FINC'L: Class Certification Motion in "Yue" Suit Pending
CNO FINC'L: Trial in "Lifetrend" Litigation Set for March 2013
CNO FINC'L: Appeal in "Ruderman" Suit Now Before Fla. Supreme Ct.

CNO FINC'L: Unit Continues to Defend Class Suit in Illinois
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Responses in Securities Suit Due Sept. 11
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Trial Date in New Mexico Suit Set for Nov. 27
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Discrimination Class Action
EXPEDIA INC: Class Cert. Hearing in "Magill" Suit Reset to Jan.

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Nov. 12 Final Hearing Sought in "Hays" Suit
GENESCO INC: Faces Overtime Class Action in Pennsylvania
GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Faces Suit Over Data Breach in Georgia
MASSACHUSETTS: Children's Rights Criticizes Child Welfare System
METABOLIX INC: Still Defends Shareholder Suit in Massachusetts

MICROSOFT: Adds Class Action Waiver to User Service Agreement
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Class Action Lawyers Seek Compensation Change
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ed O'Bannon Seeks to Expand Class Action
SMARTHEAT INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
STANDARD FIRE: Supreme Court Accepts Class Action Appeal

SUPERMEDIA INC: Securities Suit vs. Officers Still Pending
SUPERMEDIA INC: Court Consolidates Amendment Suit with ERISA Suit
UNITED STATES: $3.4-Bil. Cobell Settlement Deal Faces Delay
WEST BANCORPORATION: West Bank Still Defends Iowa Class Suit
WESTERN HEALTH: Has Yet to Respond to Privacy Breach Class Action

WISCONSIN: System for Reimbursing Residential Care Costs Probed

* China Allows More Groups to File Class Actions


                          *********

BP CORP: Two Law Firms File Class Action Over Tainted Gasoline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Hunsinger Benbow, writing for IndyStar.com, reports that the
recall of millions of gallons of tainted BP gasoline in the
Midwest has prompted two Indianapolis law firms to seek class-
action status for separate lawsuits against the company.

Cohen & Malad filed a federal suit on behalf of a plaintiff in
U.S. District Court in Hammond, Ind., against BP Corp. North
America and BP Products North America on Aug. 24.

Price Waicukauski & Riley filed a lawsuit Aug. 23 in the same
court.

Both suits allege negligence on the part of BP and seek monetary
damages for all consumers who purchased the recalled fuel.

The Cohen & Malad suit alleges that BP sold defective gas that
damaged vehicles in Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan and
has not been forthcoming about how widespread the problem is.  It
also alleges that BP is not properly handling customers'
complaints.

"BP refuses to inform purchasers of available options for damaged
vehicles (unless) purchasers first submit their name, telephone
number, gasoline sales receipt and vehicle bill," the suit
alleges.  "BP's claims process is insufficient to handle the high
volume of telephone calls, leaving many purchasers angry,
frustrated and unhappy."

BP spokesman Scott Dean declined to comment on pending litigation.

"Our focus is on taking care of our customers," he said.  "We
rarely have a problem, but when we do, we take them seriously.  We
are going to compensate under our guarantees."

BP recalled the gasoline and has set up a system to process
customer claims.  BP is encouraging customers to submit claims to
the company by calling (800) 333-3991 or (800) 599-9040.

The Cohen lawsuit is seeking more than $5 million in damages and
brings product liability and breach of warranty claims against BP
on behalf of all purchasers of the tainted gasoline.

Consumers have filed more than 10,000 claims with BP.

Many of those, about 63 percent, come from Indiana.  In the
Indianapolis area, more than 40 stations sold the tainted gas that
came from an Indianapolis terminal, said Mr. Dean.

Only midgrade and premium fuel in the Indianapolis area was
affected.  It was most likely sold between Aug. 20 and Aug. 25,
Mr. Dean said.


CITIGROUP INC: Settles Class Action Over Home-Loan Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Sherr, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that Citigroup
Inc. (C) and its subsidiary, Citibank, agreed to offer some
customers $120 apiece in connection with the settlement of a
class-action lawsuit over its home-loan practices.

In a filing on Aug. 31 with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, plaintiffs representing borrowers
allegedly wronged by Citibank's practices said they had reached an
agreement to improve the way it informs customers of a reduction
or suspension of their home-equity line of credit.

The settlement also said Citibank agreed to refrain from changing
its policies around how it would reduce or suspend home-equity
lines of credit that would be materially less beneficial to
borrowers for 18 months following the settlement.

The settlement, if approved by the court, would cover borrowers
from Jan. 1, 2008 to Jan. 31, 2012 whose Citibank home-equity line
of credit accounts were suspended or reduced based on claims by
Citibank regarding the value of their properties.

The agreement also requires that Citibank send a notice to all
those borrowers, advising them of their right to request
reinstatement of their suspended or restricted home equity line of
credit.  The reinstatement would come after an appeals process
that would determine if the value of the borrower's home didn't
significantly decrease or if they have significantly paid down
their first mortgage since the home-equity line of credit was
created.

In the suit, the plaintiffs alleged Citibank sent letters to
borrowers whose homes allegedly fell in value, informing them
their home-equity lines of credit had been reduced or suspended.
The lawsuit alleged that this wasn't always the case, and that
Citigroup had been attempting a "thinly veiled, unlawful attempt
to limit its exposure to the risk of collapse in the United States
housing market and to rid itself of below-market interest rate
loans."

"Citibank broke its promises to the homeowners," the filing added,
"and broke the law in the process."

Citigroup spokeswomen didn't immediately respond to requests for
comment.


CNO FINC'L: Class Certification Motion in "Yue" Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Celedonia Yue's bid for certification of a nationwide class in a
lawsuit over insurance costs is pending, according to CNO
Financial Group, Inc.'s July 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2012.

On March 4, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Celedonia X. Yue, M. D. on
behalf of the class of all others similarly situated, and on
behalf of the General Public v. Conseco Life Insurance Company,
successor to Philadelphia Life Insurance Company and formerly
known as Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company, Cause No.
CV08-01506 CAS.  Plaintiff in this putative class action owns a
Valulife universal life policy insuring the life of Ruth S. Yue
originally issued by Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company
in 1995.  Plaintiff is claiming breach of contract on behalf of
the proposed national class and seeks injunctive and
restitutionary relief pursuant to California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200 and declaratory relief.  The
putative class consists of all owners of Valulife and Valuterm
universal life insurance policies issued by either Massachusetts
General or Philadelphia Life and that were later acquired and
serviced by Conseco Life.  Plaintiff alleges that members of the
class will be damaged by increases in the cost of insurance (a
non-guaranteed element ("NGE")) that are set to take place in the
twenty first policy year of Valulife and Valuterm policies. No
such increases have yet been applied to the subject policies.
During 2010, Conseco Life voluntarily agreed not to implement the
cost of insurance rate increase at issue in this litigation and is
following a process with respect to any future cost of insurance
rate increases as set forth in the regulatory settlement agreement
described below under the caption entitled "Regulatory
Examinations and Fines". Plaintiff filed a motion for
certification of a nationwide class and a California state class.
On December 7, 2009, the court granted that motion. On October 8,
2010, the court dismissed the causes of actions alleged in the
California state class.  On January 19, 2011, the court granted
the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to the declaratory
relief claim and on February 2, 2011, the court issued an advisory
opinion, in the form of a declaratory judgment, as to what, in its
view, Conseco Life could consider in implementing future cost of
insurance rate increases related to its Valulife and Valuterm
block of policies.  Conseco Life is appealing the court's January
19, 2011 decision and the plaintiff is appealing the court's
decision to dismiss the California causes of action.  These
appeals are pending. The Company believes this case is without
merit, and intend to defend it vigorously.

On November 15, 2011, a second complaint was filed by Dr. Yue in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District on California,
Celedonia X. Yue, M. D. on behalf of the class of all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the General Public v. Conseco
Life Insurance Company, Cause No. CV11-9506 AHM (SHx), involving
the same Valulife universal life policy described in the preceding
paragraph. Plaintiff, for herself and on behalf of proposed
members of a national class and a California class is claiming
breach of contract, injunctive and restitutionary relief pursuant
to California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, declaratory relief,
and temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief. The
putative class consists of all owners and former owners of
Valulife and Valuterm universal life insurance policies issued by
either Massachusetts General or Philadelphia Life and that were
later acquired and serviced by Conseco Life. Plaintiff alleges
that members of the classes will be damaged by increases in the
cost of insurance (a NGE) that took place on or about November 1,
2011. Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a
motion for certification of a California class. On April 2, 2012,
the court granted the plaintiff's motions, which Conseco Life is
appealing. Pending the outcome of that appeal, Conseco Life is
preliminarily enjoined from imposing the 2011 increase in the cost
of insurance on the members of the California class. Plaintiff
also filed a motion on March 20, 2012 for certification of a
nationwide class. The court stated that it will not issue a ruling
prior to August 18, 2012 on plaintiff's motion for certification
of a nationwide class, in order to allow the parties additional
time to continue settlement discussions. The Company believes the
case is without merit, and intends to defend it vigorously.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company for a group of insurance companies operating
throughout the United States that develop, market and administer
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  CNO became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in
connection with the entity's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries include Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington
National Insurance Company and Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Company.


CNO FINC'L: Trial in "Lifetrend" Litigation Set for March 2013
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit against a subsidiary and the
predecessor of CNO Financial Group, Inc. remains pending as trial
for the case has been set for March 25, 2013, according to the
Company's July 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

                           Brady Case

On December 24, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Cedric Brady, et. al. individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Conseco, Inc. and Conseco Life Insurance
Company Case No. 3:08-cv-05746.  The plaintiffs allege that
Conseco Life and Conseco, Inc. committed breach of contract and
insurance bad faith and violated various consumer protection
statutes in the administration of various interest sensitive whole
life products sold primarily under the name "Lifetrend" by
requiring the payment of additional cash amounts to maintain the
policies in force and by making changes to certain NGEs in their
policies.  On April 23, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint adding the additional counts of breach of fiduciary
duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conversion and
declaratory relief.  On May 29, 2009, Conseco, Inc. and Conseco
Life filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 29,
2009, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to
dismiss.  The court dismissed the allegations that Conseco Life
violated various consumer protection statutes, the breach of
fiduciary duty count, and dismissed Conseco, Inc. for lack of
personal jurisdiction.

                         McFarland Case

On July 2, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Bill W.
McFarland, and all those similarly situated v. Conseco Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 3:09-cv-598-J-32MCR.  The plaintiff
alleges that Conseco Life committed breach of contract and has
been unjustly enriched in the administration, including changes to
certain NGEs, of various interest sensitive whole life products
sold primarily under the name "Lifetrend."  The plaintiff seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive
damages and attorney fees.

Conseco Life filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), seeking the establishment of an
MDL proceeding consolidating the Brady case and the McFarland case
into a single action.  On February 3, 2010, the Judicial Panel on
MDL ordered these cases be consolidated for pretrial proceedings
in the Northern District of California Federal Court. On July 7,
2010, plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification
of a nationwide class and a California state class.  On October 6,
2010, the court granted the motion for certification of a
nationwide class and denied the motion for certification of a
California state class.  Conseco Life filed a motion to decertify
the nationwide class on July 1, 2011. On December 20, 2011, the
court issued an order denying Conseco Life's motion to decertify
the class as to current policyholders, but granted the motion to
decertify as to former policyholders. On March 5, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requesting
that the court enjoin Conseco Life from imposing increased cost of
insurance charges until trial with regard to 157 members of the
class, and on July 17, 2012, the court granted a preliminary
injunction as to 100 members of the class and denied the
plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction as to the other 57
members.  Trial in the MDL proceeding has been set for March 25,
2013.

The Company believes these cases are without merit and intend to
defend them vigorously.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company for a group of insurance companies operating
throughout the United States that develop, market and administer
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  CNO became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in
connection with the entity's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries include Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington
National Insurance Company and Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Company.


CNO FINC'L: Appeal in "Ruderman" Suit Now Before Fla. Supreme Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal challenging a summary judgment ruling in the lawsuit
captioned Sydelle Ruderman individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Washington National Insurance Company, is
now before the Florida Supreme Court, according to CNO Financial
Group, Inc.'s July 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

On December 8, 2008, a purported Florida state class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Sydelle Ruderman individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Washington National Insurance Company, Case
No. 08-23401-CIV-Cohn/Selzer.  The plaintiff alleges that the
inflation escalation rider on her policy of long-term care
insurance operates to increase the policy's lifetime maximum
benefit, and that Washington National Insurance Company breached
the contract by stopping her benefits when they reached the
lifetime maximum.  The Company takes the position that the
inflation escalator only affects the per day maximum benefit.  The
Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, and the motion
has been fully briefed by both sides.  The court has not yet ruled
on the motion or set it for hearing.  Additional parties have
asked the court to allow them to intervene in the action, and on
January 5, 2010, the court granted the motion to intervene and
granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification.  The court
certified a (B) (3) Florida state class alleging damages and a (B)
(2) Florida state class alleging injunctive relief.  The parties
reached a settlement of the (B) (3) class in 2010, which has been
implemented. The amount recognized in 2010 related to the
settlement in principle was not significant to the Company's
consolidated financial condition, cash flows or results of
operations. The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment as
to the (B) (2) class which was granted by the court on September
8, 2010.  The Company has appealed the court's decision and the
appeal is pending.  On February 17, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals referred the case to the Florida Supreme Court,
which accepted jurisdiction of the case.

The Company believes the case is without merit, and intends to
defend it vigorously.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company for a group of insurance companies operating
throughout the United States that develop, market and administer
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  CNO became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in
connection with the entity's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries include Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington
National Insurance Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Company.


CNO FINC'L: Unit Continues to Defend Class Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of CNO Financial Group, Inc. continues to defend
itself against a class action complaint commenced in Illinois
alleging violations of California business laws, according to the
Company's July 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On January 26, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Samuel Rowe and Estella Rowe, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bankers Life &
Casualty Company and Bankers Life Insurance Company of Illinois,
Case No. 09CV491.  The plaintiffs are alleging violation of
California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq.
and 17500 et seq., breach of common law fiduciary duty, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violation of
California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15600 on behalf
of the proposed national class and seek injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney fees.  The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants used an improper and
misleading sales and marketing approach to seniors that fails to
disclose all facts, misuses consumers' confidential financial
information, uses misleading sales and marketing materials,
promotes deferred annuities that are fundamentally inferior and
less valuable than readily available alternative investment
products and fails to adequately disclose other principal risks
including maturity dates, surrender penalties and other
restrictions which limit access to annuity proceeds to a date
beyond the applicants actuarial life expectancy. Plaintiffs have
amended their complaint attempting to convert this from a
California only class action to a national class action. In
addition, the amended complaint adds causes of action under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO); aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and for unjust enrichment.
On September 13, 2010, the court dismissed the plaintiff's RICO
claims.  On October 25, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint re-alleging their RICO claims.  On March 29,
2012, the court denied plaintiff's motion for certification of a
nationwide class and denied plaintiff's motion for certification
of a California class. The court allowed the plaintiff the
opportunity to file a renewed motion for a California class, which
the plaintiff did on May 21, 2012.

The Company believes the case is without merit, and intends to
defend it vigorously.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company for a group of insurance companies operating
throughout the United States that develop, market and administer
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  CNO became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in
connection with the entity's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries include Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington
National Insurance Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Company.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Responses in Securities Suit Due Sept. 11
-----------------------------------------------------------
Responsive pleadings in a consolidated securities suit against
Community Health Systems, Inc. is due no later than September 11,
2012, according to the Company's July 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012.

Three purported class action shareholder federal securities cases
have been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee; namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v.
Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry Cash,
filed May 5, 2011; De Zheng v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry Cash, filed May 12, 2011; and
Minneapolis Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith, W. Larry Cash and Thomas Mark
Buford, filed June 2, 2011.  All three seek class certification on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements
resulted in artificially inflated prices for the Company's common
stock.  On September 20, 2011, all three were assigned to the same
judge as related cases. On December 28, 2011, the court
consolidated all three shareholder cases for pretrial purposes,
selected NYC Funds as lead plaintiffs, and selected NYC Funds'
counsel as lead plaintiffs' counsel. The parties negotiated
operative dates for these consolidated shareholder federal
securities actions. An operative consolidated complaint was filed
on July 13, 2012 and a responsive pleading is due September 11,
2012.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Trial Date in New Mexico Suit Set for Nov. 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in a New Mexico class action suit against Community Health
Systems, Inc.'s subsidiary has been scheduled for November 27,
2012, according to the Company's July 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012.

On April 19, 2009, the Company was served in Roswell, New Mexico,
with an answer and counterclaim in the case of Roswell Hospital
Corporation d/b/a Eastern New Mexico Medical Center vs. Patrick
Sisneros and Tammie McClain (sued as Jane Doe Sisneros). The case
was originally filed as a collection matter. The counterclaim was
filed as a putative class action and alleged theories of breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation, prima facie tort,
Fair Trade Practices Act and violation of the New Mexico RICO
statute. On May 7, 2009, the hospital filed a notice of removal to
federal court. On July 27, 2009, the case was remanded to state
court for lack of a federal question. A motion to dismiss and a
motion to dismiss misjoined counterclaim plaintiffs were filed on
October 20, 2009. These motions were denied. Extensive discovery
has been conducted. A motion for class certification for all
uninsured patients was heard on March 3 through March 5, 2010 and
on April 13, 2010, the state district court judge certified the
case as a class action. Numerous hearings have been conducted to
assess the sufficiency of the methodology used to determine class
damages. On December 5, 2011, the court entered an order approving
the suggested damages methodology. The court has now ordered that
class notice be sent by April 30, 2012. A discovery cut-off date
has been set for August 24, 2012 and a trial date has been set for
November 27, 2012.

The Company is vigorously defending the action.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Emily Valerio, writing for WQOW, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed based on the claim that Wisconsin care
organizations are discriminating against the developmentally
disabled.

Each of those individuals receives a daily rate, or money for
care, that is assigned to them based on their need. Now, those
rates are being cut.

For many, that means they will no longer be able to afford care
from their current provider.

The lawsuit has been filed against three managed care
organizations, Community Health Partnership, Northern Bridges, and
Care Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, which
oversees the MCOs, and the secretary of the department, Dennis
Smith.

A statewide disability practice out of Milwaukee, Pledl & Cohn, is
acting on behalf of the plaintiffs.  Their research shows that the
MCOs are making cuts to the developmentally disabled, but not
elderly or other disabled groups.

WQOW News 18 spoke with the family of Carrie Ring, one of the
plaintiffs represented in this case.

In many of these cases the developmentally disabled are
represented by a legal guardian.  Their guardians believe these
changes are in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and Rehabilitation Act.  Carrie is one of the people that
represents the hundreds that are affected by these changes.

After trying three other homes for the developmentally disabled,
Carrie Ring and her family have finally found a home where all of
her needs are met.  Carrie currently lives at Your Home Inc. in
Chippewa Falls.

Carol Ring, her mother, says, "It's been very traumatic, mainly
for her but also for us.  Each move has been so disruptive,
meeting new caregivers and having to train over and over again."

Carrie is 32 years old and has cerebral palsy, a seizure disorder,
and low muscle tone.

"Since she's been here her arms have strengthened, her legs have
strengthened, so we know she's walking. We know she's getting the
care that she needs and deserves," says Carrie's dad, Ralph Ring.

Carrie requires 24/7 supervision. She is not able to speak and
can't walk without the support of two people.

"The most important thing I think we do is making sure that she is
exceeding her independence in life as much as possible.  And I
don't think without us she would be able to do that," says Heidi
Holmes, one of the care takers at Your Home Inc.

Vicki Thompson, another care taker at Your Home Inc., says, "I
mean she needs that exercise, that's part of her therapy of
keeping her walking and independent and she loves doing it.  But,
it's really hard when you have to keep changing new people."

Carol says, "Carrie's needs are stated very clearly in her care
plan, and then they also do a functional screen, it's called, and
she is listed as the most critical, the most needy, all of her
needs are very demanding."

Because of this, it came as a surprise to the Ring family when
they were told the amount of money given to them by the state to
pay for Carrie's care was being cut.

Even though her needs have not changed, instead of $305 a day
Carrie's managed care organization, Northern Bridges, has dropped
that number to $190.

"We heard about it a week after her provider was forced to give
her thirty day notice because at that rate it was impossible to
meet her needs, with the lower rate," Carol says.

Now, Carrie is faced with having to go back to a home where her
needs aren't met, or be placed in an institution.

"Nobody had any other explanation for us other than her rate had
been set too high.  But, they were the ones who set that rate. I
believe they are discriminating against the developmentally
disabled in order to save some money," says Carol.

WQOW News 18 did reach out to Northern Bridges, the MCO that
manages Carrie's care.  The CEO of the company says that in 2009
they had a wait-list of up to 1,500 people needing their services.
They were told by the state they must eliminate that list within
three years, they've since done that.

The CEO says they attempted to do that in a cost effective way,
while also making sure people are healthy and safe.

The lawsuit is requesting that all of those who've had their daily
rates cut continue to receive the money they need to avoid moving.

Right now, the law firm is waiting to hear from the MCOs about
whether they can suspend the discharge until things are legally
settled.


EXPEDIA INC: Class Cert. Hearing in "Magill" Suit Reset to Jan.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class certification hearing in a consumer class action lawsuit
against Expedia, Inc.'s Canadian subsidiary has been rescheduled
to January 15 to 17, 2013, according to the Company's July 27,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On June 26, 2009, a class action lawsuit against Expedia Canada
Corporation was filed in Ontario, Canada, alleging that
disclosures related to "taxes and service fees" were deceptive.
The case is captioned Magill v. Expedia Canada Corporation and
Expedia.ca, CV-09-381919-00LP (Ontario Superior Court of Justice).
The complaint asserts claims under the Competition Act and
Consumer Protection Act as well as claims of unjust enrichment,
restitution, constructive trust, accounting and disgorgement and
breach of contract.  It seeks damages in the amount of CA$50
million for the class as well as interest, fees and alternate
damages measures.

On September 24, 2010, the court added Expedia, Inc. as a
defendant and dismissed many of the plaintiff's claims with leave
to amend.  The class period was also limited.  The plaintiff filed
an amended statement of claim on January 7, 2011.  The original
class certification hearing was scheduled for
May 23 to 25, 2012.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Nov. 12 Final Hearing Sought in "Hays" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A November 12, 2012 final fairness hearing has been requested for
an $11 million class settlement reached in a lawsuit against
Fidelity National Financial, Inc.'s subsidiaries, according to the
Company's July 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On November 24, 2010, plaintiffs filed a purported class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Oakland Division, titled Vivian Hays, et al. vs. Commonwealth Land
Title Insurance Company and Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons who deposited
their exchange funds with LandAmerica 1031 Exchange Service
("LES") and were not able to use them in their contemplated
exchanges due to the alleged illiquidity of LES caused by the
collapse of the auction rate security market in early 2008.
Plaintiffs allege Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company and
Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation (which was merged into
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company) knew of the problems at
LES and had an obligation of disclosure to exchangers, but did not
disclose and instead recommended exchangers use LES in order to
fund prior exchangers' transactions with money from new
exchangers.  In the initial complaint, plaintiffs sued the
Company's subsidiaries Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company
and Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation for negligence, breach of
fiduciary duty, constructive fraud and aiding and abetting LES.
Plaintiffs ask for compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment
interest and reasonable attorney's fees.  On March 29, 2012, the
LES liquidation trust, the LFG liquidation trust, the Companies
affiliated with FNF and certain underwriters at Lloyd's of London
entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release.  The Settlement
contemplates an $11.0 million payment being made by the Companies
to settle the purported class action; $3.2 million of which will
be paid by the Lloyd's of London underwriters.  Class counsel and
the Companies' counsel have finalized a Class Settlement Agreement
and it has been fully executed.  A "Motion for Preliminary
Approval" of the settlement agreement was approved on July 6,
2012.  Class counsel and the companies' counsel have requested a
final fairness hearing on November 12, 2012.

The Company anticipates that the matter will be resolved by the
fourth quarter of 2012.  If the Settlement is not approved, the
Company intends to continue to vigorously defend the action.


GENESCO INC: Faces Overtime Class Action in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reports that a Pennsylvania man on
Aug. 30 filed a putative class action against footwear and apparel
retailer Genesco Inc. in Philadelphia's Court of Common Pleas,
alleging the company's policies for calculating overtime wages
violates the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Harrington Kershner alleges that Genesco, which operates at least
four Lids retail stores in Philadelphia and 50 other stores across
the state, relies on an overtime calculation that violates the
state law, which obligates that employees receive overtime wages
that are at least 1 1/2 times the regular rate.


GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Faces Suit Over Data Breach in Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
Global Payments Inc. has been sued for data breach in Georgia,
according to the Company's July 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended May 31, 2012.

A class action arising out of the data breach the Company
experienced earlier this year was filed against it on April 4,
2012 by Natalie Willingham (individually and on behalf of a
putative nationwide class).  Specifically, Ms. Willingham alleged
that the Company failed to maintain reasonable and adequate
procedures to protect her personally identifiable information
(PII) which she claims resulted in two fraudulent charges on her
credit card in March 2012.  Further, Ms. Willingham asserted that
the Company failed to timely notify the public of the data breach.
Based on these allegations, Ms. Willingham asserted claims for
negligence, violation of the Federal Stored Communications Act,
willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, negligent
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, violation of Georgia's
Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, negligence per se,
breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and breach of implied
contract.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and
injunctive relief. The suit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  On May 14,
2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.  On July 11, 2012,
Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend her complaint, and on
July 16, 2012, the Court granted that motion. Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on July 16, 2012.  The amended complaint does
not add any new causes of action.  Instead, it adds two new named
Plaintiffs (Nadine and Robert Hielscher) and drops Plaintiffs'
claim for negligence per se.  The Company's deadline for
responding to the amended complaint is August 2, 2012.

At this stage of the proceedings, the Company cannot predict the
outcome of the matter, but it intends to defend the matter
vigorously.


MASSACHUSETTS: Children's Rights Criticizes Child Welfare System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Lichtenstein, writing for The Huffington Post, reports that
in a scathing 171-page report, filed in a federal class-action
lawsuit against Mass. Gov. Duval Patrick, the New York-based
Children's Rights terms the Mass. child welfare system the fifth
worst-managed in the country, and says that the mismanagement has
resulted in the neglect and abuse of one-in-five kids in state
custody.  Massachusetts currently ranks eighth worst nationally
for child abuse and neglect, according to Children's Rights.

Citing reports by child welfare specialists obtained through
discovery in the Connor v. Patrick federal suit, Children's Rights
says the state's Department of Children and Families is plagued by
dysfunction, low staffing, and lax oversight.

"Far too many children in Massachusetts remain at risk of
maltreatment even after they enter the protection of the state's
child welfare system," said Marcia Robinson Lowry, executive
director of Children's Rights.  "These new reports further
underscore the critical need to overhaul DCF as it fails to meet
its moral and legal duty to keep kids in foster care safe from
further harm."

The union leadership of the 3,500 workers in the Department of
Children and Families say the state doesn't have much of a chance
in its lawsuit.

"I'll be honest, I think it will be hard for the state to win,"
Peter MacKinnon, president of the Service Employees International
Union Local 509's DCF chapter, told the Boston Herald about the
suit that's set to go to trial in January.


METABOLIX INC: Still Defends Shareholder Suit in Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Metabolix, Inc. continues to defend itself against a shareholder
class action suit in Massachusetts, according to the Company's
July 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On February 17, 2012, a purported shareholder class action, Hilary
Coyne v. Metabolix, Inc., Richard P. Eno, and Joseph Hill, Civil
Action 1:12-cv-10318 (the "class action"), was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming
the Company and certain officers of the Company as defendants.
The class action alleges that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the
Company's disclosures during the period from March 10, 2010
through its January 12, 2012 press release announcing that ADM had
given notice of termination of the Telles joint venture for PHA
biopolymers, all in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The class action seeks
certification as a class action, compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount, plaintiff's costs and attorneys' fees, and
unspecified equitable or injunctive relief.

No updates were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-Q filing
with the SEC.


MICROSOFT: Adds Class Action Waiver to User Service Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Silverstein, writing for TechZone360.com, reports that it's now
a lot harder for individual consumers to sue Microsoft or join in
a class action lawsuit against the giant company.

Last week, Microsoft let many of its customers -- who use its
online products and services (such as e-mail) -- know that it
added a class action waiver and binding arbitration clause to its
customer service agreement.

The announcement came in an e-mail to some customers on Aug. 30.

It is an apparent effort by the company to lessen the cost and
number of court-imposed damages that Microsoft pays out to
litigants.

"We have added a binding arbitration clause and class action
waiver that affects how disputes with Microsoft will be resolved
in the United States," the Consumer Product and Service Agreement
Updates said.

Arbitrators have the reputation among trial lawyers not to be as
generous as jurors hearing those cases involving consumer
litigants.

A formal notification about the new procedures was announced by
the company in May.

Back then, Tim Fielden, assistant general counsel at Microsoft,
wrote in a company blog post, "When a customer in the United
States has a dispute about a Microsoft product or service, many of
our new user agreements will require that, if we can't informally
resolve the dispute, the customer bring the claim in small claims
court or arbitration, but not as part of a class action lawsuit."

"Many companies have adopted this approach, which the U.S. Supreme
Court permitted in a case it decided in 2011.  We made this change
to our terms of use for Xbox LIVE several months ago, and we will
implement similar changes in user agreements for other products
and services in the coming months, as we roll out major licensing,
hardware or software releases and updates," he added.

Mr. Fielden claims the new approach benefits consumers, as well as
the company.  Under the new regulations, Microsoft has incentives
to resolve a dispute to the "customer's satisfaction" before it
gets to arbitration, he said.

In addition, the company's arbitration provisions "will be among
the most generous in the country.  For instance, we permit
arbitration wherever the customer lives, promptly reimburse filing
fees, and, if we offer less to resolve a dispute informally than
an arbitrator ultimately awards, we will pay the greater of the
award or $1,000 for most products and services -- plus double the
customer's reasonable attorney's fees.  Most important, this
approach means customer complaints will be resolved promptly, and
in those cases where the arbitrator agrees with the customer's
position, the customer will receive generous compensation, and
receive it quickly."

"When we do have a dispute, we commit to resolving it quickly and
fairly," he added in the blog post.  "We believe this policy
reflects that commitment."

But not everyone likes the new policy.

In December, in response to the company's move toward arbitration,
U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D, Conn.) announced in an online
statement that, "Microsoft has included a highly objectionable
binding arbitration clause in their new terms of service.

Seemingly, Microsoft is following Sony's tack and attempting to
prevent preemptively any liability in case it experiences a
security breach."

"Microsoft is refusing to allow consumers to opt-out of the new
clause in their terms of service," Mr. Blumenthal added in the
December blog post.  "This blatant corporate strong-arming
indicates that Microsoft is trying to force its customers to waive
their right to hold Microsoft accountable for any future injuries
they sustain."

More recently, there were some online comments appearing on an IGN
message board in response to Microsoft's latest announcement.
"Hooray *absenceoflegal* Responsibility!," wrote TurnipTrader.
"They'll probably send you another e-mail . . . suing you for $100
million . . . for illegally downloading the game Pong," wrote
Mornez.

Sony opted for a similar clause in its terms of service last
September.

The agreement says in part, "If you and Microsoft don't resolve
any dispute by informal negotiation or in small claims court, any
other effort to resolve the dispute will be conducted exclusively
by binding arbitration . . . You are giving up the right to
litigate (or participate in as a party or class member) all
disputes in court before a judge or jury.  Instead, all disputes
will be resolved before a neutral arbitrator, whose decision will
be final except for a limited right of appeal under the Federal
Arbitration Act.  Any court with jurisdiction over the parties may
enforce the arbitrator's award."


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Class Action Lawyers Seek Compensation Change
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Farrey, writing for ESPN.com, reports that in a surprising
move that, if successful, could lead to much greater financial
rewards for many college athletes, lawyers representing former
college football and men's basketball players told a federal court
that they now seek to change the way current athletes are
compensated for the use of their images.

In filing to have their lawsuit against the NCAA certified as a
class action, the attorneys argued that monies derived from
television, video games and other products that use athletes'
names, images and likeness should be shared with players -- and
can be "temporarily held in trust for those individuals until
cessation of their collegiate careers" if the NCAA feels it needs
to abide its notions of amateur sports.

No monetary figures are disclosed in the public copy of the
motion, filed on Aug. 31 in U.S. District Court in California.
Heavy redactions of information were made by the plaintiffs.  But
a source close to the lawsuit -- filed in 2009 with Ed O'Bannon
and other former athletes -- told ESPN that the new angle could
deliver "hundreds of thousands" of dollars each year to Division I
basketball players.

Football players, who are more plentiful, could get less -- "tens
of thousands," according to the source.

The attorneys argued that monies derived from television, video
games and other products that use athletes' names, images and
likeness should be shared with players -- and can be "temporarily
held in trust for those individuals until cessation of their
collegiate careers" if the NCAA feels it needs to abide its
notions of amateur sports.

"I'm sure the NCAA will go ballistic over this," another source, a
member of the plaintiffs' legal team, told ESPN.  "This is their
worst nightmare, this issue coming front and center this deep into
the case."

Asked why make a case for current players now, the source said,
"Now we have evidence.  And so much more has happened since we
originally filed our lawsuit -- new media deals, new scandals."

In a statement, the NCAA's chief counsel on Sept. 1 characterized
the new angle as evidence that the lawsuit lacks merit.

"Unable to prove their original claims regarding former student-
athletes, plaintiffs have now abandoned those claims and are
attempting to assert new claims on behalf of current student-
athletes," said Donald Remy, NCAA executive vice president and
general counsel.  "Unfortunately, this about face runs them smack
into a very old argument, and one that the NCAA has defeated in
court many times.  . . . Plaintiffs want the court to believe that
student athletes are the same as professional athletes and
unionized employees -- which is pure fiction.  We are confident
that plaintiffs will find no more success in this case than they
have in past cases."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs have been gathering financial
information about the NCAA, conferences and individual athletic
departments.  In their recent filing, they propose that players
share in revenues produced from their names, images and likenesses
much in the manner of those in the NFL and NBA.

Using an analysis by Stanford professor Roger Noll, the lawyers
suggest a "50-50 split for telecasts and a one-third split for
video games, based on recognized economic principles, examples
from professional sports, and examples from music artists'
licensing."  They also propose "equal allocations among all
members of a team in a given year, and these team members are then
further divided according to whether they were current or former
players at the time that the revenue was generated."

The filing quotes from depositions by, among others, NCAA
president Mark Emmert, although his quotes are blacked out in the
copy submitted to the court.  The legal team member for the
plaintiffs who spoke to ESPN said it was initially redacted
because the deposition was stamped "confidential" by the NCAA.

Another figure cited in the filing was Walter Byers, the NCAA's
first executive director.  He ran the organization from 1951 to
1988, and since retiring has rarely surfaced, living on his ranch
in Kansas.  But he agreed to be deposed in the lawsuit, a coup for
the plaintiffs, as Mr. Byers wrote a book after he left the NCAA
that repudiated the amateur model as a means of diverting money
away from players.

Other defendants include the video-games-maker Electronic Arts and
the nation's largest college trademark licensing and marketing
firm, Collegiate Licensing Co.  Besides Mr. O'Bannon, who starred
at UCLA, plaintiffs include Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, former
UConn star Tate George and many others.

The players claim the NCAA broke anti-trust law by working
together to prevent athletes from negotiating for or receiving any
benefit from licensing agreements that used their names, images or
likenesses.

The lawsuit says the NCAA allowed EA to make video games with "the
purpose of having the game avatars match as closely as possible
the real-life characteristics" of actual athletes.

As a condition of NCAA participation, athletes are required to
sign forms that relinquish all rights pertaining to the use of
their names and images, whether in TV contracts, jersey sales,
video games or otherwise.  Mr. O'Bannon and other former players
object to the NCAA and member schools continuing to sell archival
materials without compensation well after they stopped playing
college sports.

Mr. Remy, in his statement, said the NCAA does not "make any
attempt to prevent former student-athletes from selling or
licensing their 'collegiate likeness,' nor has it ever done so."

The NCAA's embrace of amateurism as a principle dates back nearly
a century.  But the aggressive pursuit of ballooning television
and other revenues has placed considerable tension on the model,
as have ethical scandals at colleges such as Penn State, USC, Ohio
State and Miami.  At the same time, NCAA member schools have been
reluctant to share more of their revenue with athletes.

The team of plaintiffs' lawyers is led by Michael Hausfeld, a
prominent Washington, D.C.,-based litigator who specializes in
class-action lawsuits related to human rights, discrimination and
anti-trust law.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ed O'Bannon Seeks to Expand Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael McCann, writing for Sports Illustrated, reports that Ed
O'Bannon shocked the sports world in 2009 when he filed a
potentially billion dollar class action lawsuit against the NCAA.
Mr. O'Bannon, later joined by Bill Russell and Oscar Robertson as
plaintiffs, contends that the NCAA and its member institutions are
brazenly violating federal antitrust law.  Coming under fire is
the NCAA's policy of licensing the names, images and likenesses of
former D-I football and men's basketball players in various
commercial ventures without the players' permission and without
providing them compensation.  Earlier this year, the NCAA failed
to persuade a judge to dismiss the lawsuit, which is currently in
the pretrial discovery stage and is advancing towards a trial
date, possibly in 2013.

On Aug. 31, Mr. O'Bannon decided to take his lawsuit one step
further: in a court filing, Mr. O'Bannon seeks a judge's
permission to expand the class action to include current D-I
football and men's basketball players.  Mr. O'Bannon does not ask
that current players be paid while in college.  Instead, he wants
a temporary trust set up for monies generated by the licensing and
sale of their names, images and likenesses.  Players could access
those trusts at the completion of their collegiate careers.  A
star college quarterback like USC senior Matt Barkley, for
instance, generates significant monies for USC and the Pac-12
Conference.  Under Mr. O'Bannon's proposed trust, when Mr. Barkley
finishes his time at USC, he would receive money for four years'
use of his name, image and likeness.  Under an economic formula
proposed by Mr. O'Bannon, players would receive half of the NCAA's
broadcasting revenue and one-third of video game revenue, with the
remainder of revenue staying with the NCAA, conferences and
colleges.  Four-year players would likely accrue thousands or tens
of thousands of dollars -- if not more -- in their trusts.
Whether Mr. Barkley would receive more money or the same amount of
money as a backup offensive lineman at USC -- or one at a less
prominent D-I college -- remains to be seen, though Mr. O'Bannon's
court filing suggests teams would have different values, but
players on each team would share equally.  Obviously, if a court
approved the concept of trusts for current student-athletes, the
mechanics of those trusts would require further litigation and
debate.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathaniel Cousins will soon hold hearings to
determine an appropriate class.  If he grants Mr. O'Bannon's
wishes, any current or former D-I football or men's basketball
player could join the lawsuit.  This could include marquee
football players like Mr. Barkley and Arkansas's Tyler Wilson as
well as rising hoop stars like Indiana's Cody Zeller and
Kentucky's Nerlens Noel.  These players generate sizable revenue
for their schools through consumer purchases of their jerseys and
the positive impact of their image on ticket sales and television
contracts.  The NCAA, however, bars these players from receiving
any payment other than reimbursement for tuition, room and board,
books and other educational expenses.

The rationale of Mr. O'Bannon to seek an expansion of his class
derives from what he and his attorneys, Jon King and Michael
Hausfeld, have learned from the pretrial discovery process and
from their expert economists, Roger Noll and Larry Gerbrant.  In
Mr. O'Bannon's view, the NCAA and member schools and conferences
have illegally profited off the labor of college athletes for
decades. Current and former D-I football and men's basketball
players, according to Mr. O'Bannon, are common victims in this
alleged exploitation and thus should be in the same class.  Mr.
O'Bannon also dismisses the series of documents student-athletes
are required to sign as part of their participation in college
sports. These forms require student-athletes to accept the NCAA's
use of their name, image and licensing.  If a player refuses to
sign these forms, he will be deemed ineligible to play, which
could jeopardize his athletic scholarship and ability to afford
college. Mr. O'Bannon repudiates these forms as "contracts of
adhesion" or unenforceable no-choice contracts.

The desired expansion of Mr. O'Bannon's class may not end with D-I
football and men's basketball players.  If Mr. O'Bannon succeeds
in this expansion, expect him to eventually go for it all -- a
class that would include all current and former D-I athletes.
While they generate less revenue than football and men's
basketball players, baseball players, women basketball players,
and various student-athletes in other sports still bring in "some"
money to the NCAA and its member institutions.  This is true when
the Big Ten TV Network broadcasts field hockey and women soccer
games.  And it is true when the NCAA and its licensing partner,
the Collegiate Licensing Company, earn revenue through a deal with
ESPN to broadcast the College World Series each year and through a
deal with Electronic Arts to publish the MVP NCAA Baseball 2007
video game.

Perhaps most importantly, many D-I student-athletes who are not on
the football or men's basketball teams only have partial athletic
scholarships -- sometimes for far less than half the cost of
tuition.  It's been said by some who are critical of Mr. O'Bannon
that "these athletes get a free ride so they have no grounds to
complain", but many whom the NCAA generates revenue from do not
enjoy this "free ride".  The prospect of NCAA athletes like
Britney Griner and, eventually, Missy Franklin joining
Mr. O'Bannon would also give Mr. O'Bannon's lawsuit a more
inclusive dynamic.  An open class would also be more threatening
to the NCAA, which, along with its member conferences and
universities, could face billions of dollars in damages.

The prospect of O'Bannon v. NCAA radically reshaping college
sports is real.  If Mr. O'Bannon ultimately prevails, "student-
athletes" and "amateurism" would take on new meanings in the
context of D-I sports.  While college athletes would still not
obtain compensation for their labor, they would be compensated for
the licensing of their identity.  If Mr. O'Bannon instead extracts
a favorable settlement from the NCAA, these athletes would likely
be compensated as well.

Still, it's early in the litigation process and, besides, the NCAA
has a good record in court.  The NCAA is sure to raise concerns
about the new world of D-I college sports as envisioned by Mr.
O'Bannon.  For one, how a fund for current student-athletes is
distributed and how former student-athletes are compensated will
spark questions.  Should star players get more? Would Title IX be
implicated if male student-athletes receive more licensing revenue
because they might generate more revenue than female student-
athletes?  Also expect some colleges and universities to bemoan
that they cannot afford to contribute to player trusts unless they
eliminate most of their teams and give pay cuts to coaches and
staff.  Along those lines, schools with large endowments or those
with high revenue-generating teams may only become "richer" in a
college sports world where certain schools have the financial
wherewithal to compensate student-athletes while others do not.
Lastly, it stands to reason that star college players might be
wary of joining Mr. O'Bannon's litigation.  They could perceive
litigation as distracting from their athletic and academic
development.  They may also fear being labeled "litigious".  Such
a label could harm their reputation with fans, coaches and with
companies that might eventually seek to negotiate endorsement
deals with them.  While less likely, a player may even fear his
draft prospects could be harmed by joining a controversial
lawsuit.

One thing is for sure: O'Bannon v. NCAA should only get more
interesting.


SMARTHEAT INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Aug. 31 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased common
stock of SmartHeat, Inc. during the period from February 24, 2010
through May 3, 2010, inclusive.

To join the HEAT class action, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.comor call Jonathan Horne, Esq. or Phillip
Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail
jhorne@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE.  YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN
AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The complaint charges that Heat's Chief Executive Officer, James
Jun Wang, sold $23 million of his shares during the Class Period,
in violation of several SEC rules.  This rapid sale of HEAT's
stock onto the market caused its stock price to plummet.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than Tuesday, October 30, 2012.

If you wish to join the Class Action, or discuss your rights and
interests in Heat stock, please visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.comto join the class action.  You may also
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Jonathan Horne, Esq., of The Rosen
Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


STANDARD FIRE: Supreme Court Accepts Class Action Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Greg Stohr, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court agreed to consider new constraints on class-action
lawsuits, accepting an appeal from a Travelers Cos. unit in an
Arkansas dispute over homeowners-insurance claims.

The case turns on what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce contends is an
abusive tactic used by plaintiffs' attorneys to steer cases into
friendly state courts.  Under the disputed approach, plaintiffs'
lawyers agree not to seek more than $5 million -- the threshold
that sends class-action suits to federal court, where corporate
defendants often fare better.

That helps the attorneys and people serving as class
representatives to claim most of any award, according to the
Chamber of Commerce.  The group says defendants lose procedural
protections they would get in federal court and people who might
be included in the class are denied the prospect of a larger
award.

The approach "allows putative class representatives to circumvent
congressionally imposed protections simply by betraying the class
they purport to represent," the Chamber of Commerce argued in
court papers.

The Supreme Court has proven receptive to past accusations of
abuse of the litigation system.  In 2011, the court rejected an
effort to sue Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for discrimination on behalf of
potentially a million female workers.

In the case granted review on Aug. 31, Travelers's Standard Fire
Insurance unit is accused of failing to fully reimburse losses.
The lawsuit puts total damages, including attorney's fees, at less
than the $5 million threshold for federal class-action suits set
by a 2005 law.

A lawyer representing those suing Standard Fire, Jonathan Massey,
argued in court papers that a voluntary damage limit "avoids the
risks of enormous class-action judgments that Standard Fire argues
motivated the enactment" of the 2005 law, the Class Action
Fairness Act.

A federal trial judge in Arkansas said the voluntary limit on
damages meant the case belonged in state court.  A federal appeals
court in St. Louis then said Standard Fire couldn't appeal at that
stage in the litigation.

The case is Standard Fire v. Knowles, 11-1450.

According to Reuters' Jonathan Stempel, in its appeal, Standard
Life said the lower courts ignored the Supreme Court's 2011
decision in Smith v. Bayer Corp, which said a named plaintiff
seeking class-action status cannot without court approval bind
others who could join that class.

A decision in the case is expected in the coming Supreme Court
term, which ends next June.


SUPERMEDIA INC: Securities Suit vs. Officers Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
On April 30, 2009, May 21, 2009, and June 5, 2009, three separate
putative class action securities lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, against certain of SuperMedia, Inc.'s current and former
officers (but not against the Company or its subsidiaries).  The
suits were filed by Jan Buettgen, John Heffner, and Alan Goldberg
as three separate named plaintiffs on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between August 10, 2007 and March 31, 2009,
inclusive.  On May 22, 2009, a putative class action securities
lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas against two of the Company's current officers
(but not against the Company or its subsidiaries).   The suit was
filed by Wade L. Jones on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
bonds between March 27, 2008 and March 30, 2009, inclusive.  On
August 18, 2009, the Wade Jones case from Arkansas federal
district court was transferred to be consolidated with the cases
filed in Texas.  The complaints are virtually identical and
generally allege that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and condition.  Specifically, the
complaints allege violations by the defendants of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act and
Section 20 of the Exchange Act.  The plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement for litigation
expenses.  Since the filing of the complaints, all four cases have
been consolidated into one court in the Northern District of Texas
and a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiffs' attorney have been
selected (the "Buettgen" case).  On April 12, 2010, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the entire Buettgen complaint.  On
August 11, 2010, in a one line order without an opinion, the Court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss.  On May 19, 2011, the
Court granted the plaintiffs' motion certifying a class.
Subsequently, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the
Company's petition for an interlocutory appeal of the class
certification order.   Discovery has commenced.  The Company plans
to honor its indemnification obligations and vigorously defend the
lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.

No updates were reported in the Company's July 27, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, SuperMedia Inc. --
http://www.supermedia.com/-- operates as a yellow pages directory
publisher in the United States.  The Company was formerly known as
Idearc Inc. and changed its name to SuperMedia Inc. in January
2010. SuperMedia Inc. is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


SUPERMEDIA INC: Court Consolidates Amendment Suit with ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint filed in June by SuperMedia Inc. over its
rights to make amendments to its retiree benefit plans has been
consolidated with an existing ERISA lawsuit against the Company's
employee benefits committee, according to the Company's July 27,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On November 25, 2009, three former Bell retirees brought a
putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against both the
Verizon employee benefits committee and pension plans and the
Company employee benefits committee (the "EBC") and pension plans.
All three named plaintiffs are receiving the single life monthly
annuity pension benefits.  All complain that Verizon transferred
them against their will from the Verizon pension plans to the
Company pension plans at or near the Company's spin-off from
Verizon.  The complaint alleges that both the Verizon and Company
defendants failed to provide requested plan documents, which would
entitle the plaintiffs to statutory penalties under the Employee
Retirement Income Securities Act ("ERISA"); that both the Verizon
and Company defendants breached their fiduciary duty for refusal
to disclose pension plan information; and other class action
counts aimed solely at the Verizon defendants. The plaintiffs seek
class action status, statutory penalties, damages and a reversal
of the employee transfers.  The Company defendants filed their
motion to dismiss the entire complaint on March 10, 2010.  On
October 18, 2010, the Court ruled on the pending motion dismissing
all the claims against the Company pension plans and all of the
claims against the Company's EBC relating to the production of
documents and statutory penalties for failure to produce same.
The only claims remaining against the Company are procedural ERISA
claims against the Company's EBC.  On November 1, 2010, the
Company's EBC filed its answer to the complaint.  On November 4,
2010, the Company's EBC filed a motion to dismiss one of the two
remaining procedural ERISA claims against the EBC.  Pursuant to an
agreed order, the plaintiffs have obtained class certification
against the Verizon defendants and discovery has commenced.  After
obtaining permission from the Court, the Plaintiffs filed another
amendment to the complaint, alleging a new count against the
Company's EBC.  The Company's EBC filed another motion to dismiss
the amended complaint and have filed a summary judgment motion
before the deadline set by the scheduling order.  On March 26,
2012, the Court denied the Company's EBC's motion to dismiss.  The
parties' summary judgments remain pending.  The Company plans to
honor its indemnification obligations and vigorously defend the
lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.

On June 26, 2012, the Company filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division where
the Company seeks a declaratory judgment concerning the Company's
right to enact several amendments that were recently made to its
retiree health and welfare benefit plans, and more generally the
Company's right to modify, amend or terminate these plans.  The
deadline for filing a responsive pleading by the defendants has
not yet passed, and no defendant has made an appearance.  On July
10, 2012, the Court consolidated this new case with the existing
ERISA case described above.

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, SuperMedia Inc. --
http://www.supermedia.com/-- operates as a yellow pages directory
publisher in the United States.  The Company was formerly known as
Idearc Inc. and changed its name to SuperMedia Inc. in January
2010. SuperMedia Inc. is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


UNITED STATES: $3.4-Bil. Cobell Settlement Deal Faces Delay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Native American Times reports that after 16 years of litigation,
the historic $3.4 billion Cobell settlement agreement has once
more been delayed in litigation -- even as thousands of class-
action members await their share.

On Aug. 20, the deadline to appeal a May ruling against her claims
by a lower federal court, Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate member Kimberly
Craven filed for a writ of certiorari, or cert petition, with the
United States Supreme Court as an objector to the Cobell
settlement agreement.

Three others -- Rosebud Sioux Tribe member Charles Colombe, Three
Affiliated Tribes member Carol Eve Good Bear, and Cheyenne River
Sioux Tribe member Mary Lee Johns, will also file as objectors as
it stands.  On Aug. 17, the high court granted the three an
extension to appeal until Sept. 22.  The requested delay will
allow Mr. Colombe, Ms. Good Bear and Ms. Johns to review Ms.
Craven's filing before filing their own joint motion with the
Supreme Court.

The late Elouise Cobell began a class-action suit in the latter
1990s whereby and through litigation a historical accounting of
the mismanagement of funds by the U.S. Department of the Interior
was requested.

Ms. Craven's cert petition contends, "After more than fifteen
years of litigation originally intended to achieve an adequate
accounting for Indians holding Individual Indian Money accounts
(trust-land accounts administered by the Interior Department), the
(lower) courts approved a settlement agreement with pervasive
intra-class conflicts."

Tucked into the Cobell settlement is an Indian Education
Scholarship fund of up to $60 million and tribal trust-land
management claims of $1.9 billion, along with compensation for
Individual Indian Money account holders or their heirs. These
nearly $2 billion awards further eroded the $3.4 billion
settlement.

"I've questioned the constitutionality of the settlement since it
was first announced," Ms. Craven told the Native Sun News.  "I'm
especially troubled by the creation of the second class, which
includes issues which were never part of the quest for an (IIM)
accounting.  Most of Indian country has no idea why and what they
are being paid for."

As for the IIM accounting, Ms. Craven states in her cert petition
that under the Federal Rules of Procedure (23) "No person shall be
deprived of property without due process of law; nor shall private
property be taken for public use without just compensation" and
that due process of law requires adequate counsel representation
for all parties.

Ms. Craven explains conflicts between the named class members
(class representatives), counsel, unnamed parties (absent class
members) and any future class members.

In her petition, Ms. Craven seeks the court to decide "the quantum
of 'evidence' necessary to show an intra-class conflict."

She further seeks a decision as to "whether exorbitant incentive
awards to class representatives compromise their ability to
independently oversee counsel."  She says a decision finding just
that "would significantly strengthen the enforcement of the
adequacy requirement protecting the interests of future
generations of class members."

Ms. Craven states intra-class conflicts occurred when "four Class
Representatives requested incentive awards and received $2.5
million."  She argues this conflict is not in line with federal
procedure, which grants all class members adequate counsel and
that incentive payments cloud the ability of class representatives
to adequately represent the absent class.  Additionally, she says
counsel may be quick to settle, as per the settlement they stand
to receive $99 million.

In her petition, Ms. Craven explains the representatives "claimed
they were owed over $10.5 million more in 'litigation expenses'
that included Representatives' personal rent and public relations
related expenses," while absent class members are to receive
roughly $1,000 each.

In further clarification, she said the representatives will take
home "eight times more money" than other class members whose rent
was not compensated for.

"Ms. Cobell requested $10 million, but alone received a $2 million
incentive award; Mr. LaRose received a $200,000 award; and the two
remaining named plaintiffs took in $150,000 each."

Ms. Craven compares the proportion of incentive payments in the
Cobell settlement to incentive payments in other class actions.
She cites a study by Eisenberg & Miller that states: "The average
award per class representative was $15,992, and the median award
per class representative was $4,357," which seems a far cry from
tens of millions of dollars awarded to Cobell class
representatives.

Furthermore, she claims the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia's "opinion creates a circuit split on the question of
how to treat incentive payments."  As legally defined by
federalism.typepad.com, a circuit split is a "disagreement between
one or more federal circuit court of appeals on an issue
concerning federal statutory or constitutional law."

Ms. Craven cites several sources in her cert petition that
explain, "There is 'no consistent standard for evaluating and
approving special compensation for named plaintiffs.'"

In comparison to other suits, "some 28 percent of class action
settlements include incentive payments to the named plaintiffs,
and those payments are usually 'modest,' in the range of a few
thousand dollars," she further cites.

She also claims "lower incentive awards are unlikely to push class
representatives into agreeing to deals that are bad for the
remainder of the class."

As a result, Ms. Craven says the absent class (unnamed parties)
were denied just compensation and adequate representation, adding
that the absent class had to settle for "rough justice" as
Congress refused to make funds available for an adequate
accounting of the mismanaged trust accounts of each member of the
absent class.  As stated in court documents, Congress decided
through years of litigation "an adequate accounting to each class
member was prohibitively expensive."

Seemingly, "rough justice" and fair justice become synonymous as
no one knows exactly how much money was mismanaged and how much
each individual account is owed.  Some recipients will receive far
less than they are actually owed.  Conversely, some will receive
far more than they are actually owed.

Fair becomes 'unbalanced' and rough becomes 'chasmal,' as one of
the other three Cobell settlement objectors points out.

Mr. Colombe along with Ms. Good Bear and Ms. Johns are at this
point considering filing a brief in the Craven objection to the
settlement.  Mr. Colombe confirmed by phone Aug. 24 that they have
obtained an extension to file until Sept. 22.

"We have a dilemma here: a fairness dilemma.  I believe there
should be a settlement, and I support the government position on
that," he told Native Sun News.  However, Mr. Colombe says the
tribes are benefiting from settlement agreements which he
supports, but the "individuals are left with less money."

As for the historical accounting of IIM account holders he said,
"I am sure (the government) is able to do an accounting.  I think
the accounting alone would cost more to do than the settlement."

According to the three-party extension court documents,
Mr. Colombe, Ms. Good Bear and Ms. Johns filed the extension
petition as the deadline for their Supreme Court cert petition
would have expired on Aug. 20.

As Ms. Craven was also concerned for an opt-out in the settlement
for IIM account holders and heirs, these petitioners asked in
their extension petition "whether a mandatory class," as the
settlement resolves all claims, "can be created in a settlement
action for monetary relief without an opt out provision?"

In referring to the extension petition, Mr. Colombe told NSN the
parties are not sure what or if they may file a brief with the
Supreme Court appeal.

The three appellant's joint petition claims, "The (cert petition)
will address an important question regarding the lower courts'
evasion of this court's (Supreme Court) clear and unequivocal
rulings on the essential element of commonality in class action
proceedings."

However, the petition states it was also filed as the parties'
attorney, David C. Harrison, is also involved in a complex 42-
year-old water rights litigation, which made him unable to meet
the Aug. 20 deadline to file in the appeal.

In the meantime, the Social Security Administration issued an
emergency message stating it "would exclude distributions of
tribal trust fund settlements from a member's countable income and
resources for purposes of determining eligibility" for receiving
certain public benefits, according to a press release from
Fredericks Peebles & Morgan LLP posted on http://www.kawnation.com

The press release says, "In 2005, the Ute Indian Tribe represented
by Fredericks Peebles & Morgan, LLP filed suit against the United
States for mismanagement of the Tribe's trust assets and when the
Tribe received the settlement funds in March 2012, it distributed
the settlement funds on a per capita basis to each of its tribal
members.  The settlement funds were awarded to the Tribe to settle
ongoing litigation against the United States regarding the
government's mismanagement of tribal trust assets."

According to the release, the trust fund settlement will not be
counted "as income and resources for purposes of determining
eligibility for SSI (Supplemental Security Income) or Medicare
Part D."

Additionally, "In May of 2012, the Ute Indian Tribe advocated for
an exemption of these funds from program eligibility with the
Social Security Administration, the State of Utah, Utah state
agencies, and several other federal agencies on the basis that a
one-time per capita distribution should not affect public
assistance currently received by the most vulnerable members of
the Tribe's community."

It is unclear how long this latest delay may take and that
decision is in the hands of the court.


WEST BANCORPORATION: West Bank Still Defends Iowa Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
West Bancorporation, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend a class
action lawsuit pending in Iowa, according to the Company's July
27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On September 29, 2010, West Bank was sued in a purported class
action lawsuit that, as amended, asserts nonsufficient funds fees
charged by West Bank to Iowa resident noncommercial customers on
bank card transactions were impermissible finance charges under
the Iowa Consumer Credit Code, rather than allowable fees, and
that the sequence in which West Bank formerly posted items for
payment violated its duties of good faith under the Iowa Uniform
Commercial Code and Consumer Credit Code.

West Bank believes the allegations in the lawsuit are factually
and legally inaccurate.  West Bank is vigorously defending this
litigation.  The Company believes that the likelihood of a loss as
a result of this lawsuit is "reasonably possible" for disclosure
purposes (i.e., greater than "remote" but less than "probable").
The amount of potential loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated now because there are substantial and different defenses
concerning the various claims of potential liability and class
certification.  Even if legal liability is established under some
theory, which West Bank believes would be improper under existing
Iowa law, the amount of each plaintiff's damage claim would likely
require individual determination due to the potential
applicability of different offsets or credits.

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


WESTERN HEALTH: Has Yet to Respond to Privacy Breach Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Star reports that Western Health has received the
statement of claim in the second class-action lawsuit filed in
relation to privacy breaches in the district, but is not talking
about it.

The authority declined an interview request, but said it is
reviewing the statement of claim and working with legal counsel,
according to an e-mail sent to The Western Star.

"Western Health takes our responsibility of custodians of an
individual's personal health information very seriously and with
the utmost care and concern," said the prepared statement.
The authority said it may make further comments at another time.
The lawsuit was filed by Corner Brook lawyer Scott Burden in the
Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador on Aug. 24.

Both Western Health and Donna Colbourne were named in the lawsuit.
Ms. Colbourne is the clerk who was terminated from her position at
Western Health for accessing personal information of 1,043
patients.

Bob Buckingham, a St. John's-based lawyer, filed a class-action
lawsuit earlier this month on behalf of others who have had their
information accessed.

That suit named Barbara Hynes of Corner Brook as the
representative plaintiff.


WISCONSIN: System for Reimbursing Residential Care Costs Probed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Holmquist, writing for River Falls Journal, reports that
Wisconsin's system for reimbursing costs associated with the
residential care of people with disabilities is being scrutinized,
due to a recently filed class action lawsuit.

According to the complaint filed in the U.S District Court Western
District of Wisconsin, some clients with developmental
disabilities are being unfairly singled out for rate cuts.  The
suit was brought on behalf of 17 individuals with disabilities
whose care is being jeopardized due to the state's declining rate
structure.

The lawsuit claims that the Wisconsin Department of Health
Services has been slashing the Family Care program budget the past
couple years and clients are being caught in the crosshairs.

The DHS contracts with regional Managed Care Organizations to
provide residential care for people with disabilities.  Those MCOs
then determine the level of payment each client receives for their
care.  Over the past few years, those rates can vary widely,
putting a client's current care situation at risk.

A number of Family Care clients, and their families or guardians,
from St. Croix and Pierce counties are among those involved in the
lawsuit.

Michael Amundson, who lives in an Aurora Residential Alternatives
home in Hudson, is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit that has
been hit the hardest by cuts.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Amundson's daily rate dropped from
$177.51 in 2008 to just $56.66 in June of this year.  As a result,
the group home he's been living in for nine years will no longer
be able to afford providing 24-hour care and supervision for the
44-year-old man.

Mr. Amundson's mother, Ella Amundson of Port Wing, Wis., said the
family hasn't received any explanation about why her son's rates
have dropped so much.  The level of care he requires daily hasn't
changed, she claimed, yet the rates aren't being maintained.

"It's very frustrating," she said in a phone interview.  "My son
has settled into a situation where he's comfortable and he has
friends.  You couldn't ask for anything more."

To uproot him now, Mr. Amundson said, would be upsetting for
Michael.

Others served by Community Health Partnership, the MCO covering
St. Croix, Pierce, Eau Claire, Dunn and Chippewa counties, have
experienced similar frustrations, the lawsuit outlines.

Chuck Anderson, 73, a former New Richmond resident, currently
lives in a group home in Baldwin.  His daily rate has dropped from
$276.14 in 2008 to $169.35 in March of 2012.  The group home
provider has given notice that they can no longer afford to
provide the 24-care and supervision for Anderson.

Chuck Hogan, 69, who lives in a group home in River Falls,
requires constant care and supervision.  His daily rate has
fluctuated wildly in recent months, rising from $123.68 in 2008 to
$329.29 in June of 2010, then down to $155.72 in March of 2012 and
up to $220.09 in August of 2012.

"These rate fluctuations make it impossible to budget for
Mr. Hogan's care," the lawsuit states.

Even though Mr. Hogan's rate has risen in recent months, because
others in his four-person group home have experienced cuts in
their daily rates, the home can no longer operate efficiently.  In
the past, higher rates received from other clients in the group
home have helped subsidize Mr. Hogan's care.  That is no longer
the case, and Aurora now claims that they are losing money
providing care to Mr. Hogan.

Beckie Hines, the wife of Mr. Hogan's nephew, said she has been
constantly fighting for her relative's rights through the rate
setting process.  She said Mr. Hogan's case was re-evaluated and
she was told his required level of care was downgraded.

Ms. Hines said Mr. Hogan supposedly was getting better, when in
fact he's getting worse.  Because his medical assistance won't
cover physical therapy any more, his wheelchair-bound body is
becoming weaker and he's requiring even more care than before.

"He's losing muscle tone and losing more function.  There should
never be a reduction of rates for someone like him," she said.
"In fact, it went the wrong way. He should be getting more."

Because his group home is receiving much less income now that CHP
has dropped its payments, staff members have had to be cut and it
has severely limited what the residents can do every day, Ms.
Hines said.

Where once the group home could go to the YMCA or on other field
trips, they can no longer go out on a regular basis because there
is only one person on staff at any given time, she said.

Ms. Hines said she continues to advocate for her husband's uncle,
and has been successful in forcing DHS and CHP to make
concessions.

She said she joined the lawsuit, on Mr. Hogan's behalf, in order
to correct inequities in the state's system.

"My fight isn't just for Chuck," she said.  "There are a lot of
people that need to have someone fighting for them.  They're not
abusing the government dollars, yet these people are just being
neglected."

Matt Dansdill, 24, a Hudson native who lives in an Aurora group
home in Eleva, Wis., saw his rate rise from $213.33 in 2010 to
$287.27 in 2012.  But again, because Mr. Dansdill's care needs are
so significant and because others in his group home have had their
daily rates cut, the care provider is losing money.

"Aurora has notified CHP and the guardians that it cannot continue
to provide services at that rate," the lawsuit states.

Joleen Garaghty, 27, who lives in a group home in New Richmond,
saw a drop in her daily rate. As a result, she had to cut back her
hours at her job with St. Croix Industries, which offers
employment opportunities for clients with disabilities.

Milwaukee attorney Rock Pledl filed the lawsuit against the
Wisconsin Department of Health Services, DHS Secretary Dennis
Smith, and three managed care organizations in the Family Care
program (Care Wisconsin, Community Health Partnership and Northern
Bridges.)

The suit seeks to restore the necessary rates so that the
plaintiffs can continue to live in their current group home
facilities and continue to participate in employment and other
services.

The suit alleges that recent rate cuts instituted by DHS and the
MCOs discriminate against individuals with developmental
disabilities, as other clients with different disabilities have
not suffered cuts of a similar magnitude.

Mr. Pledl said the class action lawsuit was ready to be filed last
year, but rate cuts made at that time were reinstated.

"But obviously it was a short-lived situation," he said.

Since then, several rounds of cuts have placed the care of some
clients at risk, Mr. Pledl said.  He said the cuts have nothing to
do with a lessened need for care, but have everything to do with
financial difficulties experienced by the MCOs.

Mr. Pledl said his office has talked to about 120 clients who face
similar rate cut situations.  The 17 included in the lawsuit are
"pretty representative" of the stories the class action group has
to tell.

DHS Communications Director Stephanie Smiley said the department
could not comment directly about any pending litigation.

Dean Mathwig, marketing and communications manager, said his
organization was "not at liberty to discuss" the lawsuit and the
clients who are involved in the action.


* China Allows More Groups to File Class Actions
------------------------------------------------
Zhao Yinan, writing for China Daily, reports that China's top
legislature expanded on Aug. 31 the number and type of entities
permitted to file class-action lawsuits, ending a heated debate on
who has the right to defend the public interest by bringing a
litigation to court.

Government agencies and related organizations are allowed to file
class-action lawsuits, in which a group of people collectively
bring a litigation concerning environmental pollution and unsafe
food incidents to court to defend the public interest, the
Amendment to the Civil Procedure Law states.

The amendment marks a step forward from the draft proposed to
lawmakers on Aug. 27, which empowered only social groups and
government agencies to file class actions.

"Related organizations," as detailed in the Aug. 31 version of the
law, covers a larger range of societies than the so-called social
groups, said Wang Shengming, a lawmaker from the National People's
Congress Standing Committee.

In China, a "social group" refers to a particular type of
organization that has completely different registration and
management procedures than other kinds of social organizations,
such as private non-enterprise entities and NGOs, according to the
country's Regulation on the Registration and Management of Social
Groups.

A social group, the regulation said, should be registered at the
Ministry of Civil Affairs and be affiliated to an administrative
organ, in most cases, a government agency.

Wang said statistics showed that among the total 460,000 social
organizations registered with the Ministry of Civil Affairs by
2011, about 250,000 of them are social groups, while the rest are
private non-enterprises and foundations.

Wang said unlike the previous proposal, the amendment does not
exclude private non-enterprises from the list of legitimate
entities able to file a litigation.

Although he said various government agencies may later publish
more specific regulations to help guide the organizations in their
related fields.

The Supreme People's Court said in a previous interview that most
of the plaintiffs in public interest suits are government
administrations and prosecutors.  Individuals and non-governmental
organizations have rarely been able to file litigation aimed at
protecting the public's interest, despite their many attempts.

The only accuser that was not completely official was the semi-
official All-China Environment Federation, an organization
affiliated with the Ministry of Environmental Protection, said Luo
Dongchuan, former deputy director of the top court's research
office.

Friends of Nature, China's oldest social organization, might be
one of those who can benefit from the amendment.  A private non-
enterprise, it used to be among those excluded from bringing
public interest litigations to court.

Chang Cheng, a program officer from the organization, said his
organization could not file a class-action lawsuit on its own in
the past, but he sees more opportunities in the revised law.

In a case that he is currently working on, Friends of Nature has
teamed up with local environmental authorities to appeal for
compensation and environmental rights for residents in Qujing,
Yunnan province, where contaminating chromium was dumped,
polluting water resources.

Yunnan is one of the several pilot provinces where about 60
environmental tribunals have been set up since 2008, a move
expected to be rolled out nationwide if successful.

Chang said although the group had tried to register as a social
group, it has to go through a set of strict procedures, making it
almost impossible to succeed.  He said the group has to register
as a private non-enterprise since it failed to find an
administrative organ to attach to.

                           *********

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  * * *