/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/111006.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, October 6, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 198


BLUEBONNET ELECTRIC: Faces Class Action Over September Wildfire
CITY OF LAKELAND, FL: Refunds Red Light Tickets After Class Suit
ENER1 INC: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
EPSTEIN BECKER: Lawyers & Auditors Can't Be Sued in Prior Case
FACEBOOK: Faces Two Class Actions for Unlawfully Tracking Users

GOODRICH CORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Class Suit Alleges
GOODRICH CORP: Being Sold to United Tech for Too Little
GT ADVANCED: Judge Approves $10.5-Mil. Class Action Settlement
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Accused in Calif. of Misleading Shareholders
IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Florida

JPMORGAN CHASE: Supreme Ct. Refuses to Hear Check Fee Class Action
MILLER ENERGY: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
NEXTEL COMMS: 2nd Cir. Revives Claims in Suit Over Settlement
NOKIA CORP: High Court Blocks Mobile Radiation Class Action
REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: Appeal From Dismissal of 8 Suits Pending

RITE-AID: Faces Class Action Over Bait-and-Switch Scam
STANFORD HOSPITAL: Keller Grover Files Data Breach Class Action
U.S. DAIRY COMPANIES: Faces Class Actions Over Slaughtered Cows
WELLCARE HEALTH: 11th Circuit Dismisses Appeal in Securities Suit

* Walmart Sup. Court Decision May Change Future of Class Actions


BLUEBONNET ELECTRIC: Faces Class Action Over September Wildfire
Bonnie Barron at Courthouse News Service reports that the
devastating September wildfire that burned 1,600 homes southeast
of Austin was caused by an electric company's poorly maintained
easements that allowed power lines to become tangled in a
tinderbox of trees, 17 named plaintiffs say in a class action.

The class sued Bluebonnet Electric Cooperative in Bastrop County
Court.  Lead plaintiff Joni Jack claims that despite record-
breaking heat and statewide drought, the electricity co-op failed
to clear overgrown trees and brush from its easements.

Dead trees toppled onto power lines in two places on Sept. 4,
which set off the inferno, according to the complaint.  Thirty-
four thousand acres burned, including more than 1,600 homes and
outbuildings, in the Bastrop Fire alone, the class says, citing a
Sept. 22 report from the Texas Forest Service.

The Bastrop Fire was one of thousands (sic) that torched nearly
3.8 million acres in Texas this year.  More than 23,000 fires in
Texas burned more than 2,700 homes during this year's fire season
-- 1,939 of the homes burned over Labor Day weekend, according to
federal statistics.

The Bastrop Fire, which killed two people, was the worst single
wildfire in state history.

The class action adds: "The Texas Forest Service investigation
found that there was no evidence of any cause of the Bastrop Fire
other than defendant's power lines".

The proposed class consists of residents who suffered property
damage from the fire, but excludes those who claim personal
injuries or lost profits.

The proposed class is represented by Robert Kizer of Austin and
Joe Grady Tuck of Bastrop.

In a separate complaint, three more plaintiffs say the Bluebonnet
Co-op knew of the hazards, as a tree hit a power line and ignited
a previous Bastrop fire in 2009.

"The downed power line started a fire that burned 1,491 acres and
destroyed 26 homes, 44 outbuildings and 20 businesses," lead
plaintiff Brandon Strambler says in the complaint.  "The tree that
snapped at the fire's point of origin was in or near an easement
owned by Bluebonnet."

Mr. Strambler's complaint sets the scenario for the disaster: "By
September 2011, 87 percent of Texas was experiencing 'exceptional'
drought conditions as measured by the U.S. Drought Monitor.  2011
was not 'one of', but was 'the worst' one year drought in Texas
history.  By at least May 2011, Bluebonnet knew that the
combination of strong winds, distressed trees and overhead power
lines posed an extreme risk of fire danger.  Indeed, Bluebonnet's
CEO, Mark Rose, opened Bluebonnet's annual meeting on May 10, 2011
by acknowledging '[p]ole fires are a constant threat in these

Mr. Strambler and his co-plaintiffs seek damages for property
damage and personal injuries.  They are represented by William
Rossick of Austin.

A copy of the Complaint in Jack, et al. v. Bluebonnet Electric
Cooperative, Inc., Case No. 28218 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Bastrop Cty.),
is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert D. Kizer, Esq.
          1213 N IH 35
          Austin, TX 78702
          Telephone: (512) 457-8100

               - and -

          Joe Grady Tuck, Esq.
          906 Main Street
          Bastrop, TX 78602
          Telephone: (512) 321-4944

CITY OF LAKELAND, FL: Refunds Red Light Tickets After Class Suit
Ken Suarez, writing for FOX 13 News Polk County, reports that
drivers who were caught on camera and cited for turning right on
red will get nearly $1 million in refunds.

During the first few months Lakeland's red light cameras were in
operation, hundreds of people were cited for making an illegal
right hand turn, or running a red light.

There was quite an uproar.  People complained to city hall on a
daily basis.

Now it seems some satisfaction may be coming their way.  They will
receive a check for about $30 from the City of Lakeland and ATS,
the company which installed the cameras.

"Full payment would be nice, but partial payment is good," said
driver Victoria Westbrook.

The cameras were installed a few years ago.  Drivers who were
caught on them making an illegal right turn received tickets that
averaged $150.

The ticketed drivers can thank a class action suit for the
repayment.  It argued that the tickets were unconstitutional
because they were given out before the state passed a law okaying
the cameras.  A judge agreed.

So here's the bottom line.  If you got a ticket as a result of a
red light camera before July 1, 2010, you can expect a check.

The City of Lakeland will end up paying more than $600,000, and
ATS will pay more than $300,000.

ENER1 INC: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
On August 18, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Ener1, Inc.  Federman & Sherwood reminds current and
former shareholders of Ener1, Inc. that they only have until
Monday, October 17, 2011 to move for appointment as a lead
plaintiff in this case.  The Complaint alleges violations of
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you purchased Ener1, Inc. between January 10, 2011 and
August 15, 2011, and wish to move the court to serve as a
plaintiff, please contact our office as soon as possible.
Federman & Sherwood seeks to recover damages on behalf of the
Class.  The firm has extensive experience and expertise in
prosecuting securities litigation involving financial fraud.  It
represents investors throughout the country in shareholder

If you wish to join this class action or have further questions,
please contact:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          E-mail to: wbf@federmanlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com

EPSTEIN BECKER: Lawyers & Auditors Can't Be Sued in Prior Case
Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
plaintiffs may not proceed with class actions against lawyers and
auditors who worked for the defendants in an earlier class action,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit has ruled.

On Sept. 22, a unanimous panel held that a constructive trust
established by the judge in the first action could not reach
payments made by the defendants to lawyers and accountants in
exchange for services.  It also ruled the new class actions were
entirely new lawsuits, not enforcement actions for the prior case,
and they could not proceed unless the class was certified anew.

The ruling in the consolidated appeals of the two cases, Zimmerman
v. Epstein Becker & Green and Zimmerman v. BDO Seidman LLP,
affirmed a July 2010 dismissal of the two cases by Senior Judge
Michael Ponsor of the District of Massachusetts.

In the original action, Zimmermann v. Cambridge Credit Counseling
Corp., named plaintiffs Andrew and Kelly Zimmermann brought a suit
under the Credit Repair Organization Act (CROA) against Richard
and John Puccio and credit repair companies they controlled.
Judge Ponsor entered judgment in December 2008 in favor of the
certified class for $259 million.  He also established a
constructive trust over "all fees that consumers paid to the
current or former defendant entities."

As the 1st Circuit put it, "the plaintiffs found that the judgment
was 'largely uncollectable' against the class action defendants,
and so the Zimmermanns sought new targets."  They filed one
against the defendants' auditors and another against the
defendants' law firms and attorneys in November 2009.

The lawyer case was against the following defendants: Epstein
Becker, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton of Los Angeles; Paul
Kaplan, a lawyer who previously worked at both Epstein Becker and
Sheppard Mullin, according to court papers; New York lawyer Brian
Davis, his prior New York practice and his Garden City, N.Y.,
successor firm, Spence & Davis; and New York attorney Douglas
Viviani and his firm.

The auditor case named BDO Seidman, Chipetine Neu & Silverman of
New York and Massachusetts-based Kostin, Ruffkes & Co. as

The Zimmermanns stated two causes of action in the attorney and
auditor cases.  The first was enforcement of "a constructive trust
seeking the return of [the plaintiffs'] own money" that was
allegedly fraudulently taken by the individual and corporate
defendants in the Cambridge Credit case and transferred to the
auditor and attorney defendants.  The second was that the
defendants, except Sheppard Mullin, provided material assistance
to the Cambridge Credit defendants, which violated the CROA.

The plaintiffs' brief before the 1st Circuit claimed that some
fees the Zimmermann class paid the defendants in the underlying
case can be linked to fees later paid to the attorney and auditor
defendants.  These include: more than $6.9 million to Epstein
Becker, nearly $1.2 million to Paul Kaplan, about $249,000 to
Sheppard Mullin and roughly $330,000 to the Davis defendants.

The 1st Circuit heard oral arguments on July 25.

Judge Michael Boudin authored the opinion, joined by Judge Juan
Torruella and Federal Circuit Judge Timothy Dyk, who sat on the
panel by designation.

Judge Boudin wrote that "the narrowest and clearest basis for
rejecting" the plaintiffs' constructive trust claim is that such a
"trust cannot be read as intended to claw back monies expended,
prior to the imposition of the trust, by the [individual
defendants] or their companies in the ordinary course of business
and in exchange for fair value."

Judge Boudin explained that a constructive trust is a court-
imposed device set up to prevent unjust enrichment.  Judge Boudin
also noted that the lower court imposed a constructive trust
because the individual defendants commingled the finances of the
various companies they controlled or managed and used the
companies' money for personal use.

Judge Boudin acknowledged that the language of the particular
constructive trust established by the court "might in some
circumstances" reach transfers that happened before the
constructive trust was established and paid to innocent persons or
entities.  He also wrote that the constructive trust's language
"is not as clear cut as it might be."

"But very little suggests that the order was intended to reach
payments, made before the constructive trust was even imposed, to
lawyers, accountants or the butcher, baker or candlestick maker,"
Judge Boudin wrote.  "It is even less credible that it was
intended to reach payments made in exchange for the fair value of
such services.  Very serious questions -- of retroactivity, fair
notice, and equity -- would be raised by such a reading."  He
noted that "it can hardly be 'unjust enrichment' for lawyers and
accountants hired by companies to be paid for their services."

Judge Boudin then tackled the plaintiffs' CROA claims against the
defendants.  In order to have a case, Judge Boudin wrote, the
plaintiffs must proceed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule
23, which governs class actions.  "But a certified class in one
action is not a free floating entity entitled to conduct new and
separate lawsuits against new defendants -- unless and until it is
certified in the new action."

He concluded by stating that "new CROA claims against a new set of
defendants cannot ride on the coat-tails of the earlier action
under the guise of an enforcement proceeding."

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Joseph Tusa, a New York-based solo
practitioner, did not respond to requests for comment.

Several defense lawyers split the oral argument time on July 25.
These included Neil Dilloff, a Baltimore DLA Piper partner who
represented Epstein Becker; Maura Barry Grinalds, a New York
partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom who represented
Paul Kaplan; Lisa Wood, a partner at Boston's Foley Hoag who
represented BDO Seidman; Anthony Scibelli, a Boston Hiscock &
Barclay partner who represented Chipetine Neu & Silverman; and
Mark Goidell, a partner at Amityville, N.Y.-based Ansanelli Law
Group who represented Davis, Spence & Davis and Viviani.
Mr. Dilloff said Epstein Becker "is gratified that the appellate
panel so quickly affirmed the decision of the district court in
its favor."

"The fact that the decision came less than two months after oral
argument fully validates [Epstein Becker's] position," Mr. Dilloff
said.  "It is hoped that this favorable decision will put this
matter to rest once and for all."

Mr. Goidell said his clients are gratified by the ruling and
pleased the court used such strong language in admonishing
plaintiffs' counsel about the frivolity of their claims.  "We're
also pleased the court recognized the chilling effect that this
claim and these kinds of claims, if permitted, would have for all
attorneys who would otherwise defend statutory fraud claims."

Ms. Wood said that the court's holding that BDO Seidman was not
liable on either theory "extended the long line of cases holding
that an auditor is not secondarily liable for the misconduct of an
audit or tax client."

"The 1st Circuit also made clear that a plaintiff cannot make an
end run around this well established precedent by trying to
enforce a previously obtained judgment against an auditor or
indeed other third parties who provided professional services to
the judgment debtor," Ms. Wood said.  "The First Circuit's
decision will prevent other parties from trying to pursue the
constructive trust theory in other cases."

The ruling is significant because if the 1st Circuit had allowed
the plaintiffs' "unprecedented attempt to recycle a previously
certified class into a roving class, it would have radically
transformed class action litigation, jettisoning fundamental
notions of due process along the way," added Ms. Grinalds.

Mr. Scibelli did not respond to requests for comment.

FACEBOOK: Faces Two Class Actions for Unlawfully Tracking Users
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that Facebook has been
hit with two separate potential class-action lawsuits alleging
that it unlawfully tracked users after they had logged out of the

Both cases were filed on Sept. 30 by users who allege that the
social networking company violates various laws, including the
federal wiretap one.  One lawsuit was brought by Web user Chandra
Thompson in federal district court in Missouri.  The other case,
filed in federal court in San Jose, Calif., was brought by a
coalition of seven users -- Perrin Aikens Davis, Petersen Gross,
Tommasina Iannuzzi, Brian K Lentz, Lisa Sabato, Jennifer Sauro and
Tracy Sauro.

The lawsuits were filed the same week that Australian developer
Nic Cubrilovic publicized research showing that Facebook received
information about users -- including their IDs -- whenever they
visited sites with a Like button or other social widget, even when
the users had logged out.

After he blogged about his findings, Facebook quickly said it
would fix the "bug" that allowed it to receive data about logged-
out users.  The company also denied "tracking" users, saying that
it immediately destroyed any information it received about people
who were logged out.

Nonetheless, the fact remains: Facebook received data about sites
visited by logged-out users.  What's more, even though
Mr. Cubrilovic says he reported the matter to Facebook on at least
two occasions in the last year, the company didn't take action
until he posted about his findings.

The revelations didn't just spur class-action lawyers to action.
Last week Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Joe Barton (R-Texas)
called for the Federal Trade Commission to probe the company for
allegedly tracking users who had logged out.  A coalition of
privacy groups additionally called for an investigation.

Now that the matter is in court, Facebook could be forced to
rethink its approach to privacy even if the FTC doesn't
investigate.  In the last few years, class-action lawyers have
successfully challenged other questionable privacy practices.
Consider the history of Flash cookies.  In 2009, researchers
detailed how some Web companies were able to use hard-to-delete
Flash cookies to circumvent users' privacy settings.  FTC
officials criticized that practice, but haven't yet publicly
brought an enforcement action.

Class-action lawyers, however, filed four lawsuits.  All of them
resulted in settlements and promises to avoid using Flash cookies
to track people who don't wish to be tracked.

GOODRICH CORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Class Suit Alleges
Brian Ruschel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Goodrich Corp., Carolyn Corvi, Diane C. Creel, Harris
E. DeLoach, Jr., James W. Griffith, William R. Holland, John P.
Jumper, Marshall O. Larsen, Lloyd W. Newton, Alfred M. Rankin,
Jr., and United Technologies Corp., Case No. 652695/2011
(October 3, 2011) is a shareholder class action on behalf of the
public stockholders of Goodrich seeking to enjoin a merger,
pursuant to which Goodrich is attempting to sell itself to United
Technologies through an insufficient process and for an inadequate

The Plaintiff alleges that the consideration offered to Goodrich
shareholders is inadequate as it does not reflect the intrinsic
value of Goodrich's stock.

The Plaintiff is a shareholder of Goodrich.

Goodrich is a New York corporation headquartered in Charlotte,
North Carolina.  The Company is a global supplier of systems and
services to aircraft and engine manufacturers, airlines and
defense forces around the world.  The Individual Defendants are
officers and directors of the Company.  United Technologies, a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Hartford, Connecticut,
provides technology products and services to the building systems
and aerospace industries worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
          W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
          30 Broad Street, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: jlevi@zlk.com

               - and -

          Douglas G. Thompson, Esq.
          Richard M. Volin, Esq.
          Thomas M. Gottschlich, Esq.
          1050 30th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 337-8000
          Facsimile: (202) 337-8090
          E-mail: dthompson@finkelsteinthompson.com

GOODRICH CORP: Being Sold to United Tech for Too Little
Courthouse News Service reports that a shareholder class action
claims Goodrich is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair
process to United Technologies Corp., for $18.4 billion or an
"unfair and inadequate" $127.50 per share.

A copy of the Complaint in Pifko v. Goodrich Corporation, et al.,
Index No. 11111146 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
          Julia J. Sun, Esq.
          Joshua M. Rubin, Esq.
          WEISS & LURIE
          1500 Broadway
          16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          E-mail: jweiss@weisslurie.com

GT ADVANCED: Judge Approves $10.5-Mil. Class Action Settlement
The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire
dismissed, and approved the settlement agreement resolving, the
securities class action lawsuits against GT Advanced Technologies
Inc., according to the Company's October 3, 2011, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Beginning on August 1, 2008, seven putative securities class
action lawsuits were commenced in the United States District Court
for the District of New Hampshire (the "Court"), against GT
Advanced Technologies Inc. (then operating under the name GT Solar
International, Inc. (the "Company")), certain of its officers and
directors, certain underwriters of the July 24, 2008 initial
public offering and others, including certain investors
(collectively, the "federal class actions").  On October 3, 2008,
the Court entered an order consolidating the federal class actions
into a single action captioned Braun et al. v. GT Solar
International, Inc., et al.  The Court selected the lead plaintiff
and lead plaintiff's counsel in the consolidated matter on
October 29, 2008.  The lead plaintiff filed an amended
consolidated complaint on December 22, 2008.  The lead plaintiff
asserted claims under various sections of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended.  The amended consolidated complaint alleges,
among other things, that the defendants made false and materially
misleading statements and failed to disclose material information
in certain SEC filings, including the registration statement and
Prospectus for the Company's July 24, 2008 initial public
offering, and other public statements, regarding the Company's
business relationship with LDK Solar, Ltd., one of the Company's
customers, JYT Corporation, one of the Company's competitors, and
certain of the Company's products, including the DSS furnaces.

In addition, on September 18, 2008, a putative securities class
action was filed in New Hampshire state court in the Superior
Court for Hillsborough County, Southern District (the "State
Court"), under the caption Hamel v. GT Solar International, Inc.,
et al., against the Company, certain of its officers and directors
and certain underwriters of the July 24, 2008 initial public
offering (the "state class action").  The state class action
plaintiffs asserted claims under various sections of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  The state class action
complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose
material information in certain SEC filings, including the
registration statement for the Company's July 24, 2008 initial
public offering, and other public statements, regarding the status
of the Company's business relationship with LDK Solar.

On March 7, 2011, the Company announced that it had reached an
agreement in principle to settle both the federal class actions
and the state class actions.  The parties subsequently
memorialized their agreement in a stipulation of settlement (the
"Settlement Agreement") that was filed with the Court.  The
Settlement Agreement provided, among other things, that: (i) the
Company and all other defendants made no admission of liability or
wrongdoing, (ii) the Company and all other defendants would
receive a full and complete release of all claims that were or
could have been brought against all defendants in both the federal
and state securities actions, (iii) the Company would pay $10.5
million into a settlement fund.  Of this amount, the Company
contributed $1.0 million and the Company's liability insurers
contributed the remaining $9.5 million.  The Company's
contribution represented its contractual indemnification
obligation to its underwriters.

On September 27, 2011, after a hearing to consider the fairness
and adequacy of the settlement, the court entered a final judgment
(the "Order") approving the settlement and dismissing the federal
class actions.  Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the state
class action will also be dismissed as a result of the entry of
the Order.

Bob Sanders, writing for New Hampshire Business Review, reports
that the settlement gives those who purchased shares of the stock
on July 24, 2008 -- when GT Advanced, formerly GT Solar
International, first went public -- an average of about 23 cents a
share.  The payout will probably come next spring.

Shareholders would have gotten 35 cents a share, but for 12 cents
a share set aside for attorney fees ($2.62 million) and various
expenses (just under $230,000).  Small shareholders won't get a

The settled class action suit charged the company didn't reveal in
its initial public offering disclosures that it was in imminent
danger of losing business from LDK Solar Co., a Chinese firm that
at the time accounted for more than 60% of GT Solar's sales.

The stock tumbled from a $16.50-a-share opening to as low as
$9.30. The class action suit claimed the alleged deception was
responsible for share value drop of about $60.6 million, or about
$2 a share.

The stock price continued to decline as the general economic
decline hurt energy demand, and the falling price of oil made it
harder for energy alternatives like solar.  But GT prospered
anyway, winning one multimillion-dollar order after another, and
branching into the lucrative sapphire technology necessary for the
lucrative LED sector. (That decision resulted in the recent change
in the company's name to GT Advanced Technologies.)

GT denied the allegations.

The Washington law firm (Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC )
representing the lead plaintiff (Arkansas Public Employees
Retirement System) argued that the settlement -- 17.3% of the
original claim -- was a good deal, given the uncertainty of
litigation and the "strong and skillful defenses" on behalf of the
company's attorneys.

The average class action settlement since 1996 was between 5.5 and
6.2%, according to one study, and another study found that the
median was as low as 3.4%.  In 2010, the median was 2.8% or about
$6 million.

Class members will have until November to say whether they want to
be part of the settlement.  For more information, shareholders can
call 866-274-4004 or e-mail info@strategicclaims.net.

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Accused in Calif. of Misleading Shareholders
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say in a
derivative complaint that Hewlett-Packard directors issued false
and misleading statements and made the company "waste $9.6 billion
on the purchase of its own stock at artificially inflated prices."

A copy of the Complaint in Gonzalez v. Apotheker, et al., Case No.
30-201100511941 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          110 West "A" Street, Suite 750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0063

IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Florida
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim in a class
action that their stock value was devastated when the (nonparty)
FBI raided Imperial Holdings' office on Sept. 27, knocking the
share price from $6.30 to $2.19.

Imperial describes itself as a "specialty finance company
providing liquidity solutions with a focus on individual life
insurance policies and purchasing structured settlement payments,"
in a statement announcing the raid, which is cited in the

A copy of the Complaint in Fuller v. Imperial Holdings, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2011CA015075 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Beach Cty.), is
available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Robert J. Robbins, Esq.
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          E-mail: PGeller@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mario Alba, Jr., Esq.
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          Marshall Dees, Esq.
          200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
          DYER & BERENS LLP
          303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 861-1764

JPMORGAN CHASE: Supreme Ct. Refuses to Hear Check Fee Class Action
Eric Hornbeck, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court declined on Oct. 3 to hear a Florida consumer's putative
class action accusing JPMorgan Chase Bank NA of violating a state
law by charging check-cashing fees to individuals who don't have
Chase accounts.

The high court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in a
brief order.

Vida Baptista filed the class action in January 2010, claiming a
$6 fee Chase charged her for cashing an account holder's check
violated Florida law barring such fees for nonaccount holders and
unjustly enriched the bank.

MILLER ENERGY: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
Several class actions have been filed against Miller Energy
Resources, Inc., in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of common
stock.  Based on the complaints, the longest class period is from
December 16, 2009, through and including August 8, 2011.

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Miller, an
oil and gas exploration, production, and drilling firm, and the
other Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
about Miller's financial results and the valuation of certain oil-
and-gas-producing assets it acquired in Alaska from Pacific Energy
Alaska Operating LLC and Pacific Energy Alaska Holdings, LLC.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants (1) issued
false and misleading consolidated balance sheets, statements of
operations, and cash flows; (2) failed to properly classify
royalty expenses; (3) failed to properly record sufficient
compensation expense on equity awards; (4) failed to properly
calculate the liability for derivative instruments; (5) did not
properly consolidate entities under its control; and (6)
improperly reported a value materially higher than actual value
for certain Alaskan oil and gas assets.  As a result of these
problems, the Company was required to restate its financial
results.  Over a series of almost daily disclosures occurring on
July 28, 2011, July 29, 2011, and August 1, 2011, Miller's stock
price dropped from $7.04 per share on July 27, 2011, to a close of
$3.37 per share on August 2, 2011, a total drop of $3.67 or 52%.

If you purchased Miller shares during the Class Period you may, no
later than October 11, 2011, request that the court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  A lead plaintiff is a class
member that represents other class members in directing the
litigation.  Your share in any recovery will not be affected by
serving as a lead plaintiff, however, lead plaintiffs make
important decisions that could affect the overall recovery for
class members.  You do not need to be a lead plaintiff to recover.
You may retain Milberg LLP, or other attorneys, for this action,
but do not need to retain counsel to recover.  If this action is
certified as a class action, class members will be automatically
represented by court-appointed counsel.  The complaint in this
action was not filed by Milberg.

Milberg LLP has represented individual and institutional investors
for over four decades and serves as lead counsel in courts
throughout the United States.  Visit the Milberg Web site
-- http://www.milberg.com-- for more information about the firm.
If you wish to discuss this matter with us, please contact the
following attorneys:

          Andrei Rado, Esq.
          Milberg LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Telephone: (800) 320-5081
          E-mail: arado@milberg.com

NEXTEL COMMS: 2nd Cir. Revives Claims in Suit Over Settlement
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived claims that
Nextel Communications hired their employees' lawyers while they
were fighting a discrimination class action, inviting a conflict
of interest, to pressure them into a lowball settlement.

A three-judge appellate panel described that settlement agreement
as little more than Nextel's "employment contract" for their
adversaries' firm, Leeds, Morelli & Brown.

The contract stipulated that 587 employees would split $2 million
to waive all claims, while the firm collected $3.5 million in fees
and an additional $2 million to work as a consultant for Nextel,
the 24-page opinion states.

Leeds Morelli also promised not to accept new clients with claims
against Nextel, refer any client to another lawyer, or accept
compensation for any prior referral.

Nextel employees say that the firm encouraged them to skip over
the pages describing the consultancy agreement and head straight
to the signature page.

In October 2006, they sued Nextel and the law firm for a host of
claims including breach of fiduciary duty, commercial bribery,
fraud, unjust enrichment, legal malpractice, breach of contract,
unauthorized practice of law, conversion, and violation of the New
Jersey RICO statute.

U.S. District Judge George Daniels had dismissed all of the
charges for failure to state a claim, but the federal appeals
court reinstated several of those claims last week.

"It cannot be gainsaid that, viewed on its face alone, the
[settlement agreement] created an enormous conflict of interest
between LMB and its clients," Judge Ralph K. Winter wrote for the
court, using the initials of Leeds, Morelli & Brown.

"On the face of the [settlement], its inevitable purpose was to
create an irresistible incentive -- millions of dollars in
payments having no relation to services performed for, or recovery
by, the claimants -- for LMB to engage in an en masse solicitation
of agreement to, and performance of, the [settlement's] terms from
approximately 587 claimant clients."

The other members of the appellate panel were Circuit Judge Peter
W. Hall and U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, sitting
by designation from New York's Southern District.

They say the settlement agreement stipulated that Nextel would not
have to pay a dime if the claimants could not prove 587 employees
in their class, and would pay the law firm based on the speed with
which they resolved the claims.

"Indeed, we express our candid opinion that the [settlement] was
an employment contract between Nextel and LMB designed to achieve
an en masse processing and resolution of claims that LMB was
obligated to pursue individually on behalf of each of its
clients," Judge Winter wrote.  "The only sensitivity shown to
potential conflicts of interest by the [settlement] is in the
provisions in which LMB promises not to represent new clients, or
refer new claims, against Nextel.  Tellingly, this sensitivity
appears aimed only at avoiding conflicts that could have an impact
on LMB's new-found relationship with Nextel."

The allegations will return to the Southern District of New York
on remand.

A copy of the decision in Johnson, et al. v. Nextel
Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-01892 (2nd Cir.), is
available at http://is.gd/uGiQ9T

The Plaintiffs-Appellants were represented by:

          Kenneth S. Thyne, Esq.
          77 Jefferson Place
          Totowa, NJ 07512-2614
          Telephone: (973) 790-4441

Defendants-Appellees Leeds, Morelli & Brown, Lenard Leeds, Steven
A. Morelli, and Jeffrey K. Brown were represented by:

          Michael McConnell, Esq.
          Traci Van Pelt, Esq.
          Robert W. Steinmetz, Esq.
          Denver Corporate Center, Tower 1
          4700 S. Syracuse St., Suite 200
          Denver, CO 80237
          Telephone: (303) 480-0400
          E-mail: mmcconnell@mfhlegal.com

               - and -

          Janice J. DiGennaro, Esq.
          Shari Claire Lewis, Esq.
          926 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, New York 11556-0926
          Telephone: (516) 357-3000
          E-mail: janice.digennaro@rivkin.com

Defendant-Appellee Nextel Communications, Inc. was represented by:

          Lawrence R. Sandak, Esq.
          One Newark Center
          Newark, NJ 07102-5211
          Telephone: (973) 274.3256
          E-mail: lsandak@proskauer.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. McKinney, Esq.
          18 MacCulloch Avenue
          Morristown, NJ 07960
          Telephone: (973) 920-7923
          E-mail: tom@law-cm.com

NOKIA CORP: High Court Blocks Mobile Radiation Class Action
Erin Fuchs, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court on Oct. 3 refused to consider reviving a proposed class
action alleging Nokia Corp. and more than a dozen other defendants
sold cellphones without protecting users from dangerous radio
frequency emissions.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer did not
participate in the decision not to grant certiorari.  They both
owned stock in Nokia as of December 2010, they revealed in their
most recent financial disclosure statements.

REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: Appeal From Dismissal of 8 Suits Pending
An appeal from the dismissal of eight certified class action
lawsuits against The Republic of Argentina remains pending,
according to the Government's September 30, 2011, Form 18-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Argentina Government's default on its foreign currency-
denominated debt in December 2001 prompted a number of lawsuits by
plaintiffs seeking to collect on bonds issued by the Government.
Plaintiffs in each of these actions have asserted that the
Government failed to make timely payments of interest and/or
principal on their bonds, and seek to obtain judgments for the
face value of and/or accrued interest on those bonds.

The Government is involved in class action litigation in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  Currently, eighteen class actions are pending.

Class certification has been granted in thirteen cases:

   * H.W. Urban GmbH v. The Republic of Argentina, 02 Civ. 5899
     (TPG) (purporting to represent holders of 11.375% bonds due
     January 30, 2017, and 11.75% bonds due April 7, 2009);

   * Seijas v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 400 (TPG)
     (purporting to represent holders of 11% bonds due October 9,

   * Seijas v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 401 (TPG)
     (purporting to represent holders of 7% bonds due
     December 19, 2008);

   * Castro v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 506 (TPG)
     (purporting to represent holders of 9.75% bonds due
     September 19, 2027);

   * Hickory Sec. Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 936
     (TPG) (purporting to represent holders of 11.75% bonds due
     June 15, 2015);

   * Azza v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 937 (TPG)
     (purporting to represent holders of 11% bonds due
     December 4, 2005);

   * Azza v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 1085 (TPG)
     (purporting to represent holders of 8.375% bonds due
     December 20, 2003);

   * Puricelli v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 2117 (TPG)
     (purporting to represent holders of 12.375% bonds due
     February 21, 2012);

   * Chorny v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 2118 (TPG)
     (purporting to represent holders of floating rate bonds due
     March 29, 2005);

   * Scappini v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 9788 (TPG)
     (purporting to represent holders of 8.125% global euro bonds
     due April 21, 2008);

   * Daelli v. The Republic of Argentina, 05 Civ. 3095 (TPG)
     (purporting to represent holders of 11.375% bonds due
     March 15, 2010);

   * Barboni v. The Republic of Argentina, 06 Civ. 5157 (TPG)
     (purporting to represent holders of floating rate European
     Medium Term Note bonds due May 27, 2004); and

   * Brecher v. The Republic of Argentina, 06 Civ. 15297 (TPG)
     (purporting to represent holders of 9.25% European Medium
     Term Note bonds due July 20, 2004).

There are five putative class actions in which plaintiffs have not
yet sought class certification:

   * Lavaggi v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 5068 (TPG)
     (purporting to represent holders of 12.125% bonds due
     February 25, 2019, 10% European Medium Term Note bonds due
     June 25, 2007, and 3.5% European Medium Term Note bonds due
     August 11, 2009);

   * Daho v. The Republic of Argentina, 05 Civ. 1033 (TPG)
     (purporting to represent holders of the same bonds at issue
     in Azza v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 1085 (TPG));

   * Dussault v. The Republic of Argentina, 06 Civ. 13085 (TPG)
     (purporting to represent holders of 11% bonds due
     November 5, 2003, 10% bonds due January 7, 2005, and 10%
     bonds due February 22, 2007)

   * Newbadem Invest.  S.A. v. The Republic of Argentina, 07 Civ.
     1938 (TPG) (purporting to represent holders of 12.25% bonds
     due June 19, 2018); and

   * Cavero v. The Republic of Argentina, 07 Civ. 11591 (TPG)
     (purporting to represent holders of 9.5% bonds due
     November 30, 2002).

On January 9, 2009, the District Court entered aggregate class
judgments totaling approximately $2.2 billion in eight of the
certified class actions, which the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit ("Court of Appeals") vacated on May 27,
2010, having found the judgments to be inflated.  Thereafter, the
District Court entered revised aggregate class judgments totaling
approximately $287 million in the eight actions on July 22, 2011,
which Argentina has appealed.

On April 26, 2010, the District Court denied a motion by
plaintiffs and class representatives in two certified class
actions, Urban v. The Republic of Argentina, 02 Civ. 5899 (TPG),
and Barboni v. The Republic of Argentina, 06 Civ. 5157 (TPG), to
enjoin Argentina from making any proposed debt exchange offer, or
communication regarding such an offer, to purported members of the
Urban and Barboni classes.  The appeal by the plaintiff in
Barboni, was dismissed as moot by the Court of Appeals on June 6,
2011, given that the exchange offer plaintiffs sought to enjoin
had settled in 2010.

              Attempts to Attach Argentine Property

In September 2008, two plaintiffs obtained attachment and
restraining orders on an ex parte basis of certain assets held by
Banco de la Nacion Argentina ("BNA") in New York under the theory
that the bank is an alter ego of Argentina.  The same plaintiffs
also obtained attachments and restraining orders on an ex parte
basis of accounts held by Argentina at the Miami and New York
branches of Banco de la Nacion Argentina.  On September 30, 2009,
the District Court held that Banco de la Nacion Argentina is not
the alter ego of Argentina and vacated the attachments of Banco de
la Nacion Argentina's assets.  In May 2010, these plaintiffs and
the class representatives in eight certified class actions
obtained additional ex parte attachment orders on certain assets
held by Banco de la Nacion Argentina in New York under the theory
that recent Argentine resolutions authorizing loans from Banco de
la Nacion Argentina to Argentina were evidence that the bank is an
alter ego of Argentina.  Argentina and Banco de la Nacion
Argentina moved to vacate these orders.  On September 24, 2010,
following agreement of the parties, the District Court vacated the
2008 and 2010 restraints and attachments of BNA property.

                         Pending Appeal

On March 28, 2011, the District Court granted Argentina's and
BNA's motions to dismiss and dismissed the complaint of the eight
class representatives in the eight certified class actions who had
also alleged that Banco de la Nacion Argentina was the alter ego
of Argentina.  The class plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of
the dismissal and the appeal is pending.

RITE-AID: Faces Class Action Over Bait-and-Switch Scam
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Rite-Aid drugstores run a bait and switch scam by advertising
Sunday specials, but marking up prices for "sale" items on

A copy of the Complaint in Nichols v. Rite Aid Corporation, Case
No. 11-cv-03510 (N.D. Ala.) (Kallon, J.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anna L. Hart, Esq.
          Dan C. King III, Esq.
          STEWART & STEWART, P.C.
          1826 3rd Avenue North Suite 300
          Bessemer, AL 35020
          Telephone: (205) 425-1166
          E-mail: ahart@stewartandstewart.net

                - and -

          W. Taylor Stewart, Esq.
          P.O. Box 2274
          Anniston, AL 36202
          Telephone: (256) 237-9311
          E-mail: wts70@donaldstewart.net

STANFORD HOSPITAL: Keller Grover Files Data Breach Class Action
Sue Dremann, writing for Palo Alto Online, reports that Keller
Grover, a law firm that has been investigating a patient-
information breach at Stanford Hospital & Clinics, has filed a
class-action lawsuit against the hospital and Multi-Specialty
Collection Services, LLC, the outside vendor that caused the
breach, the hospitals announced on Oct. 3.

The hospitals acknowledged on Sept. 8 that a data breach involving
20,000 patients' records had occurred.  The patients were seen in
the emergency room between March and August of 2009.

The patients' names, diagnosis codes and billing amounts were
posted on a public Web site for nearly a year before being removed
Aug. 22.  Social Security numbers or credit card information was
not among the data, hospital officials said.

A subcontractor of an outside vendor, Multi-Specialty Collection
Service, created the compromised data file, Stanford said.  The
data was posted on the Student of Fortune Web site, according to
the New York Times.  The site provides homework help and the data
was used to show how to create a bar graph.

Stanford said in a statement it has heard of the class-action
lawsuit but did not provide details regarding the lawsuit.

"Stanford Hospital & Clinics (SHC) intends to vigorously defend
the lawsuit that has been filed as it acted appropriately and did
not violate the law as claimed in the lawsuit.

"SHC takes very seriously its obligation to treat its patient
information as private and confidential.  As soon as this was
brought to SHC's attention by a patient, the hospital demanded and
had the spreadsheet taken down from the Web site and backup

"SHC quickly notified the affected patients of this breach and
offered to provide free identity protection services to all the
patients, even though the information disclosed on the Web site is
not the type used for identity theft.

"To date there is no evidence that anyone saw this information on
the Web site and improperly used it for fraudulent or any other
improper purpose.  SHC has investigated this matter, terminated
its relationship with Multi-Specialty Collection Services, and
reported this breach to law-enforcement authorities," the hospital
said in the statement.

Stanford officials said Multi-Specialty Collection Services, a
California company, provided business and financial support to the
hospitals.  Multi-Specialty was operating under a contract that
specifically required it to protect the privacy of the patient
information.  The hospital sent the data to Multi-Specialty in an
encrypted format to protect its confidentiality.

A hospital investigation found that Multi-Specialty prepared an
electronic spreadsheet from the data that had patient names,
addresses and diagnosis codes.  The company sent the spreadsheet
to a third person who was not authorized to have the information
and who posted it on a Web site.

"This mishandling of private patient information was in complete
contravention of the law and of the requirements of MSCS's
contract with SHC and is shockingly irresponsible.  SHC regrets
that its patients' confidentiality was breached and is committed
to protecting the health and privacy of all of its patients," the
hospital said.

A spokesperson for Multi-Specialty said the company could not
comment on the lawsuit or Stanford's allegations, since there is
an ongoing investigation.

U.S. DAIRY COMPANIES: Faces Class Actions Over Slaughtered Cows
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that more than half a million cows have been slaughtered in order
to raise the price of milk in the United States, according to a
pair of class action lawsuits filed against some of the nation's
largest dairy companies and trade associations.

Both suits, brought in federal court in Northern California on
Sept. 26 and Sept. 27, were filed against the National Milk
Producers Federation in Arlington, Va., and one of its programs,
Cooperatives Working Together, a trade group that produces 70% of
the nation's milk.

The suits allege that more than 500,000 cows were slaughtered from
2003 to 2010 under a "dairy herd retirement program" by
Cooperatives Working Together, which allowed its members to earn
more than $9.5 billion in additional revenue.

"We believe this case serves two important causes," said Steve
Berman, managing partner of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro,
which brought the suits, in a prepared statement.  "A resolution
to this case will protect consumers from artificially-inflated
milk prices and also will prevent the unnecessary and shameful
killing of tens of thousands of cows each year."

Jim Tillison, chief operative officer of Cooperatives Working
Together, speaking on behalf of the National Milk Producers
Association, said the program was designed in 2003 to assist dairy
farmers who were losing money on milk production.

"The program was designed and has always been operated in a manner
fully consistent with the anti-trust laws of the United States,"
he said.  "The lawsuit filed [Wed]nesday in California at the
instigation of a West Coast animal rights group is without merit.
National Milk Producers will vigorously defend its actions and
those of its member cooperatives and their producers in this
lawsuit and expect that those actions will ultimately be

Also sued were individual members of Cooperatives Working
Together, including Dairy Farmers of America Inc., the largest
dairy farmer cooperative in the nation, based in Kansas City, Mo.;
Land O'Lakes Inc., the second largest cooperative, based in Arden
Hills, Minn.; Dairylea Cooperative Inc., based in Syracuse, N.Y.;
and Agri-Mark Inc., based in Lawrence, Mass.

Kristi Dale, spokeswoman for Dairy Farmers of America, and
Jennifer Huson, a spokeswoman for DairyLea, referred calls to
Cooperatives Working Together.

Jeannie Forbis, a spokeswoman for Land O'Lakes, said in a
statement: "Upon an initial review of the lawsuit, we believe the
accusations made are unfounded. Beyond that, we will not comment
on pending litigation."

A spokesman for Agri-Mark did not respond to a request for

The suits allege that Cooperatives Working Together had a
different goal: Force small farmers to kill their entire herds,
thus benefiting larger companies.

"The purpose and effect of the herd retirement program was to
reduce the supply of raw farm milk in order to increase its price,
which in turn increased the price paid by consumers for milk and
other fresh milk products," one of the suits says.  "By
manipulating the supply of raw farm milk through herd retirement,
price competition has been suppressed and prices have been
supported at artificially high levels through the United States.
As a result, indirect purchasers of milk and other fresh milk
products have paid supracompetitive prices."

The suits seek damages for separate classes under the antitrust
laws of 27 states, including California, Florida, Illinois,
Massachusetts, New York and Wisconsin.  The classes consist of
consumers who have purchased milk or fresh milk products since
2004.  One suit was brought on behalf of two individual consumers
-- one in San Francisco and one in Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y. -- and
the Torah Montessori School in Chicago.  The other suit was
brought on behalf of two individual consumers, one in Waukesha,
Wis., and one in Greenfield, Wis.

Hagens Berman collaborated with a group called Compassion Over
Killing, an organization focused on animal protection based in Los
Angeles and Washington.  Among other things, the group has
petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to crack down on the
misleading labeling of egg cartons.

WELLCARE HEALTH: 11th Circuit Dismisses Appeal in Securities Suit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
dismissed a stockholder's appeal from the approval of a settlement
resolving a consolidated securities lawsuit involving WellCare
Health Plans, Inc., according to the Company's October 3, 2011,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On December 17, 2010, WellCare Health Plans, Inc. (the "Company")
entered a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the
"Stipulation Agreement") with a group of five public pension funds
appointed by the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida (the "Federal Court") to act as lead
plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action Eastwood
Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Farha, et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-1940-VMC-
EAJ (the "Class Action").  The Stipulation Agreement was approved
by the Federal Court on May 4, 2011 (the "Approval Date").  Among
other things, the Stipulation Agreement provides that the Company
will issue to the class tradable unsecured subordinated notes
having an aggregate face value of $112.5 million, with a fixed
coupon of 6% and a maturity date of December 31, 2016 (the

In June 2011, an individual stockholder filed a notice of appeal
with respect to this settlement with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the "Appeals Court") which was
dismissed by the Appeals Court on August 17, 2011.

On September 30, 2011, the Company, as issuer, and The Bank of New
York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee (the "Bank"), entered
into an Indenture (the "Indenture") with respect to the Company's
issuance of the Notes.  The Indenture sets forth the terms and
conditions applicable to the Company's issuance of the Notes.

Among other things, the terms of the Indenture require the Company

   * Deposit with the Bank all amounts due for interest or
     principal payments by the dates on which such payments are

   * Designate the Bank as the initial paying agent and primary
     registrar for the Notes;

   * Set forth administrative procedures for the transfer,
     cancellation and redemption of Notes; and

   * Provide for acceleration of the principal of the Notes and
     accrued interest in the event of the Company's default under
     the Indenture.

Under the Indenture an event of default will have occurred in any
of these events:

   * the Company defaults in payment of the principal or any
     interest on any Note when such becomes due and payable;

   * the Company consolidates, merges or otherwise transfers its
     assets without the consent of the holders of the Notes,
     other than as expressly permitted by the terms of the

   * the Company fails to comply with any of its other covenants
     in the Notes or the Indenture and fails to cure such default
     within 60 days after the Company receives a notice of such

   * the Company (i) commences a voluntary bankruptcy proceeding;
     (ii) consents to the entry of an order for relief against it
     in an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding or the commencement
     of any case against it; or (iii) participates in certain
     other actions related to the relief of debtors; or

   * a court of competent jurisdiction enters a bankruptcy order
     that (i) is for relief against the Company in an involuntary
     proceeding, or adjudicates the Company insolvent or
     bankrupt; (ii) appoints any receiver, trustee or similar
     official of the Company or for any substantial part of its
     property; or (iii) orders the winding up or liquidation of
     the Company, and the order remains unstayed for 60 days.

* Walmart Sup. Court Decision May Change Future of Class Actions
Andrea Lannom, writing for West Virgin Media, reports that change
could be in the future for class action suits, according to a U.S.
Supreme Court decision involving a case with more than 1 million

The case began when 1.5 million former and current employees filed
a class action suit against Walmart for alleged discrimination.
Plaintiffs sought backpay, declaratory and injunctive relief.

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that plaintiffs
would have to file individual complaints against the mega retailer
because the action did not meet certain class action criteria.

Larry Blalock, member and manager of Jackson Kelly's Wheeling
office, explained that plaintiffs attempted to certify the action
under 23(b)(2).

This certification means that the opposing party has "acted or
refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so
that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief
is appropriate respecting the class as a whole," according to the
Supreme Court's opinion.

Mr. Blalock explained that class actions must meet four criteria,
including commonality.

"The court found commonality had not been met," he said.  "Usually
in (b)(2), you have policy or practice which is applied
universally across all company stores.  The only national policy
relevant was the non-discrimination policy."

"The court found it unlikely that thousands of managers are acting
in common," Mr. Blalock added.  The Supreme Court reversed
certification for this reason, holding that even though there was
the national discrimination policy, pay and promotion activities
were localized decisions.

Thus, plaintiffs will either have to file individual lawsuits or
attempt to certify the action under a different section.

Mr. Blalock explained that the second significant part of this
decision deals with plaintiffs' requested relief.  According to
the opinion, class action law applies only when "a single
injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each
member of the class."

The opinion additionally states that Rule 23(b)(2) does not
authorize class certification when different class members are
entitled to different judgments against the defendant.

"Similarly, it does not authorize class certification when each
class member would be entitled to an individualized award of
monetary damages," the opinion states.

Mr. Blalock says this landmark decision will change future class
action suits.

"Class action law is complex," he said.  "But this case certainly
. . . will be a retardant to future massive class action claims
. . . There will be spill over affect into class actions of other
types though."

This "spill over" will mean a stricter scrutiny in class action

"The message is clear," he said.  "For efforts under (b)(2), lower
courts need to be more scrutinizing in ensuring that various
elements have been established.  It's raised the bar for what
complaints in massive class actions will have to prove."


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.  Leah
Felisilda, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Julie Anne
Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  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 Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *