/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/111212.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, December 12, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 245


ALEXIA FOODS: Accused of Deceiving Customers in California
ARTHROCARE CORP: Enters Agreement to Settle Securities Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Accused in Calif. Suit of Cheating Homebuyers
BERNARD L. MADOFF: Investor Suits Against JPM, BNY Dismissed
BP EXPLORATION: Faces Class Action in Louisiana Over Oil Spill

CASSELS BROCK: Judge Dismisses Class Action
CLUB CAR: Recalls 600 Golf Cars Due to Fuel Leak and Fire Hazard
DIAMOND FOODS: Faces Suits Over Crop Payments to Walnut Growers
DRUG STORES: Appeal Ruling From W.Va. Law Firm's Class Action
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Sued Over False Advertising on Video Game

HARLEYSVILLE MUTUAL: Sued in Penn. Over Nationwide Mutual Merger
HILLENBRAND INC: Awaits 5th Circuit Ruling on FCA Suit Appeal
INTERSTATE BATTERY: Settles Class Action Over Battery Warranty
INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Underwriters Reach Class Action Settlement

PERFORMANCE SPORTS: Sued Over False Claims on Golf Shirt
READER'S DIGEST: Sued in N.Y. Over Subscription Term Changes
RESEARCH IN MOTION: Sued Over Deceptive Bait-and-Switch Tactics
SACRAMENTO RESTAURANTS: Settle Hooters' Class Action
SIRIUSXM: Judge Tosses Misleading Advertising Class Action

SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend AATI Merger-Related Suit
SOLMAC CONSTRUCTIONS: Creditors Mull Class Action Over Collapse
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Faulty Electric Meters
STATE OF FLORIDA: Judge Certifies Welfare Drug Test Class Action
THOR INDUSTRIES: Still Defends Formaldehyde Exposure Class Suits

TRAVELERS INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over PPO Discount
UNIFIED LIFE: Settles Medicaid Dental Insurance Class Action

* Dispute Over Armenian Genocide Class Action Resolved
* Sup. Ct. of Canada Set to Decide on Indirect Purchaser Issue


ALEXIA FOODS: Accused of Deceiving Customers in California
Leandro Vicuna and Pere Kyle, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated v. Alexia Foods,
Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 4:11-cv-06119 (N.D. Calif.,
December 6, 2011) is a consumer class action regarding Alexia's
alleged unfair, unlawful, deceptive and misleading practices
conducted in violation of California state law and common law.
The action involves "Saute Reds," "Mashed Potatoes Yukon Gold
Potatoes & Sea Salt," and "Mashed Potatoes Red Potatoes with
Garlic & Parmesan" frozen potato products that are manufactured
and marketed by Alexia.

The Plaintiffs allege that in connection with its marketing of the
Products and its brand generally, Alexia makes representations
that are intended to mislead consumers to believe that the
Products are "All Natural" or "Natural," when in fact, they
contain the synthetic chemical preservative disodium dihydrogen
pyrophosphate.  They note that Alexia's "All Natural" labeling is
central to its marketing of the Products, and as a result, Alexia
commands a premium price for the Products, using "All Natural"
claims to distinguish the Products from its competitors' products.

The Plaintiffs are residents of California.

Alexia is a Delaware corporation, with principal place of business
in Long Island City, New York.  Alexia claims, "Alexia Foods
produces an all-natural, trans-fat free line of frozen products
for the natural and specialty food consumer. . .."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roland Tellis, Esq.
          Mark Pifko, Esq.
          Natasha Mehta, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 3450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 860-0476
          Facsimile: (310) 860-0480
          E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com

ARTHROCARE CORP: Enters Agreement to Settle Securities Suit
ArthroCare Corporation entered into an agreement in principle to
settle a securities class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's November 28, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

ArthroCare Corp., a leader in developing state-of-the-art,
minimally invasive surgical products, announced that it has
reached an agreement in principle to settle the private securities
class action lawsuits pending against the Company and two of its
former officers.  These lawsuits were previously consolidated into
the action titled In Re ArthroCare Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-00574-SS (consolidated) in the U.S.
District Court, Western District of Texas.

The settlement, subject to final documentation and court approval,
would settle all claims arising from the purchase or sale of
ArthroCare securities of a class of all purchasers of ArthroCare
common stock [and call options, and sellers of put options on
ArthroCare common stock] between December 11, 2007, and February
18, 2009, inclusive (the Class), except those members of the Class
who opt out, for a payment of $74 million to a settlement fund to
be created for the settlement.  If the settlement is approved,
counsel for the plaintiff will apply for an award of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of expenses from the settlement fund.

                        About ArthroCare

ArthroCare develops and manufactures surgical devices,
instruments, and implants that strive to enhance surgical
techniques as well as improve patient outcomes.  Its devices
improve many existing surgical procedures and enable new minimally
invasive procedures.  Many of ArthroCare's devices use its
internationally patented Coblation(R) technology.  This technology
precisely dissolves target tissue and limits damage to surrounding
healthy tissue.  ArthroCare also develops surgical devices
utilizing other patented technology including its OPUS(R) line of
fixation products as well as re-usable surgical instruments.
ArthroCare is leveraging these technologies in order to offer a
comprehensive line of surgical devices to capitalize on a multi-
billion dollar market opportunity across several surgical
specialties, including its two core product areas consisting of
Sports Medicine and Ear, Nose, and Throat as well as other areas
such as spine, wound care, urology and gynecology.

BANK OF AMERICA: Accused in Calif. Suit of Cheating Homebuyers
Glynis Farrell at Courthouse News Service reports that Bank of
America found a new way to illegally extract money from customers,
according to a federal class action: deduct taxes and insurance
from mortgage payments, even though the homebuyers make those
payments themselves, then call the mortgage in default for the
unauthorized deductions, and charge late fees and penalties.

Lead plaintiffs Rick and Susan Dolfo say that's what Bank of
America did to them.

"This is yet another tale of Bank of America cheating its
customers," the complaint states.  "In 2005, plaintiffs obtained a
residential mortgage loan.  Bank of America subsequently bought
the servicing rights to the loan.  From the time the loan was
issued, plaintiffs complied with their obligations under the loan
agreement.  They made their monthly payments, maintained the
required homeowner's insurance coverage and timely paid their
property taxes.  Nonetheless, in December 2009, plaintiffs noticed
on their monthly mortgage statement that Bank of America paid
their property taxes and homeowner's insurance without the
plaintiffs' knowledge or consent, and even though plaintiffs also
paid them.  To fund the impound account, and without informing the
plaintiffs, Bank of America took money from plaintiffs' monthly
mortgage payment, not leaving enough to cover plaintiffs' monthly
mortgage payment, throwing plaintiffs into default.  Once in
default, Bank of America, as the loan servicer, was able to charge
additional fees and penalties.  Bank of America also falsely
reported to credit agencies that plaintiffs were in default on
their mortgage."

The Dolfos say Bank of America had no authority to set up an
impound account because they were already paying their insurance
and taxes.

"Plaintiffs were not notified that Bank of America intended to
create an impound account or that it created one.  Plaintiffs
never agreed to it.  Bank of America had no authority, contractual
or otherwise, to open or fund the impound account.  There also was
no need for an impound account as plaintiffs were already paying
their insurance and taxes.

"Prior to filing this suit, plaintiffs spent months trying to work
with Bank of America to solve the problems created by Bank of
America: to close the impound account, stop the double payment of
homeowner's insurance and property taxes, stop the improper
deduction from the monthly mortgage payments, reverse the improper
default and have Bank of America correct the improper credit
reporting.  But, just like millions of other Americans who have
tried to work with Bank of America, plaintiffs made no progress,
and were constantly put off by Bank of America, mislead and
ignored," the complaint states.

The Dolfos say Bank of America also hurt their credit rating by
false reports.  They claim BofA has done this to other customers,
and topped it off by "improper commencement of nonjudicial
foreclosure on these properties secured by Bank of America loans."

BAC Home Loans Servicing is also named as a defendant.

The Dolfos seek class damages and punitive damages for breach of
contract, unfair competition, violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, violation of the Consumer Credit
Reporting Agencies Act and conversion.

A copy of the Complaint in Dolfo, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A.,
et al., Case No. 11-cv-02828 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq.
          600 B Street, Suite 1550
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel R. Forde, Esq.
          Schuyler V.V. Hoffman V, Esq.
          HOFFMAN & FORDE
          3033 Fifth Avenue, Suite 225
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 546-7880
          E-mail: shoffman@hoffmanforde.com

BERNARD L. MADOFF: Investor Suits Against JPM, BNY Dismissed
Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News,
reports that JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Bank of New York Mellon won
dismissal of three class-action suits filed against them by
investors in three offshore funds that invested in the Ponzi
scheme perpetrated by Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC.

According to the report, the plaintiffs are all non-U.S. citizens
who invested in funds closed to U.S. citizens.  The funds in turn
invested with Madoff.  Seeking status as class actions, the
plaintiffs sued the two banks in New York federal court, alleging
the banks aided and abetted the fraud by providing services to the
Madoff firm.

The report relates that U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman
dismissed the suits against JPMorgan and Bank of New York in a 36-
page opinion on Nov. 29.  The suits were on behalf of investors in
Thema International Fund Plc, Herald Fund SPC, and Primeo Select

Mr. Rochelle discloses that the class claims based on state law
were dismissed under the federal Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act of 1998.  Judge Berman said that SLUSA prohibits
state law-based lawsuits regarding specified securities brought on
behalf of classes of 50 or more.  Judge Berman also dismissed
parts of the suits under New York's Martin Act.  He explained how
the act precludes private lawsuits based on common law claims
covered by the legislation.  Judge Berman tossed the remainder of
the suits on the basis of forum non conveniens, a term that means
cases can be dismissed when filed in an inconvenient location.
Berman concluded after analysis that the suits should be
dismissed because New York isn't convenient for trial.  Judge
Berman said similar suits could go ahead in Ireland and Luxembourg
where the plaintiffs are located.

The case is In re Herald, Primeo and Thema Securities Litigation,
09-289, U.S.

District Court, Southern District New York (Manhattan).

                      About Bernard L. Madoff

Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC and Bernard L. Madoff
orchestrated the largest Ponzi scheme in history, with losses
topping US$50 billion.  On Dec. 15, 2008, the Honorable Louis A.
Stanton of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted the application of the Securities Investor
Protection Corporation for a decree adjudicating that the
customers of BLMIS are in need of the protection afforded by the
Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970.  The District Court's
Protective Order (i) appointed Irving H. Picard, Esq., as trustee
for the liquidation of BLMIS, (ii) appointed Baker & Hostetler LLP
as his counsel, and (iii) removed the SIPA Liquidation proceeding
to the Bankruptcy Court (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Adv. Pro. No. 08-01789)
(Lifland, J.).  Mr. Picard has retained AlixPartners LLP as claims

On April 13, 2009, former BLMIS clients filed an involuntary
Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition against Bernard Madoff (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 09-11893).  The case is before Hon. Burton Lifland.  The
petitioning creditors -- Blumenthal & Associates Florida General
Partnership, Martin Rappaport Charitable Remainder Unitrust,
Martin Rappaport, Marc Cherno, and Steven Morganstern -- assert
US$64 million in claims against Mr. Madoff based on the balances
contained in the last statements they got from BLMIS.

On April 14, 2009, Grant Thornton UK LLP as receiver placed Madoff
Securities International Limited in London under bankruptcy
protection pursuant to Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code
(Bankr. S.D. Fla. 09-16751).

The Chapter 15 case was later transferred to Manhattan.  In June
2009, Judge Lifland approved the consolidation of the Madoff SIPA
proceedings and the bankruptcy case.

Judge Denny Chin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on June 29, 2009, sentenced Mr. Madoff to
150 years of life imprisonment for defrauding investors in United
States v. Madoff, No. 09-CR-213 (S.D.N.Y.)

As of July 15, 2011, a total of US$6.88 billion in claims by
investors has been allowed, with US$794.9 million to be paid by
the Securities Investor Protection Corp.  Investors are expected
to receive additional distributions from money recovered by Mr.
Picard from lawsuits or settlements.

Mr. Picard has filed 1,000 lawsuits seeking $100 billion from
banks such as HSBC Holdings Plc and JPMorgan Chase & Co.  The
trustee has seen more than $28 billion of his claims tossed by
district judges.

BP EXPLORATION: Faces Class Action in Louisiana Over Oil Spill
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action filed on the eve of a U.S. House vote on how to use Clean
Water Act fines from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill claims that
the 5 million barrels of oil dumped into the Gulf of Mexico by BP
and Transocean will continue to hurt the region.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee was set to
hold a hearing on Dec. 7 on two bills, together known as the
Restore Act, that propose dedicating 80% of the Clean Water Act
fines recovered from the oil spill to rebuilding wetlands and
repairing oyster and coral reefs, and other long-term restoration
projects.  A similar bill is being reviewed in Senate committees.
Federal Clean Water Act fines range between $1,100 and $4,300 per
barrel of oil spilled.  In this case, that's somewhere between
$5.5 and $21 billion.

The Restore Act bill scheduled for a vote on Dec. 7 proposes
distributing the Clean Water Act fines as follows: 35% to be
divided equally among the five Gulf states (Florida, Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas); 30% for comprehensive
restoration plans for Gulf states, and 30% for impact-driven
projects for states with the most damage.  The rest would fund
long-term studies of the Gulf.

If the Restore Act fails, the money recovered will go into the
federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.  While that money will
stem from damages to the Gulf of Mexico, the federal government
will not be obligated to spend any of it to restore the Gulf

In November, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier, who is overseeing
the consolidated oil spill litigation, ruled that states cannot
collect damages from oil spill defendants separate from Clean
Water Act fines.  The states will have to rely upon the federal
government for restoration money.

In the new class action, Cecil Lapeyrouse and 122 others say their
livelihoods depend on the health of the Gulf of Mexico.  "Much of
the oil that was released from the well now rests on the seafloor
and remains extremely hazardous and/or toxic, posing a constant
and significant risk to marine life in and around the Gulf of
Mexico," according to the complaint.

Ms. Lapeyrouse says he has owned and operated a general store in
Chauvin, La. for more than 25 years, selling fuel, bait, and
groceries to the public and to commercial and recreational

The April 20, 2010 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon killed 11
people and unleashed the worst oil spill in U.S. history.  The oil
slick covered a surface area larger than South Carolina.

(A growing number of people along the Gulf Coast believe the
Macondo formation continues to leak oil from the seafloor.  In
August, U.S. District Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan issued an
orderwaiving the "security zone" around the Macondo well, imposed
by another judge after the well was capped in 2010.  In November,
BP confirmed to Courthouse News that it has several vessels in the
vicinity of the well, researching oil seeps.)

The new class action states: "Much of the oil that was released
from the well now rests on the seafloor and remains extremely
hazardous and/or toxic, posing a constant and significant risk to
marine life in and around the Gulf of Mexico; marine life crucial
to the vast and complex food chain of the Gulf of Mexico from Lake
Charles, Louisiana to Key West, Florida.  The oil is particularly
toxic to juvenile and other slow-moving marine life at the bottom
of the aquatic food chain such as plankton, shrimp, crabs, fish,
and other species.  For months after the well was capped, slow-
moving marine species could not escape the continuous walls of oil
suspended in the Gulf's water column. Scientists fear that, in the
coming years, the walls of oil will have created massive
generational gaps in numerous aquatic species, further damaging
the Gulf Coast's fragile fishing industry.

"Plaintiffs derive their income either directly or indirectly from
or on the coastal waters of Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico which
will be dramatically affected for years to come.  The oil spill
has created a negative perception as to the quality and safety of
the Louisiana seafood brand.  Commercial fishermen have
experienced reduced catches and plummeting market prices. Bait
shops and marinas have witnessed their profits dwindle in the wake
of numerous fishery closures along the Gulf coast.  The ecological
calamity has become the worst oil spill in the history of the
United States, wreaking billions of dollars of damages to
plaintiffs and others similarly situated."

The complaint adds: "BP and Transocean knew that their actions and
omissions created unsafe and hazardous conditions.  BP and
Transocean did nothing to remedy the unsafe conditions even though
they had knowledge of them prior to the incident.  BP and
Transocean's acts and omissions in this regard, when viewed
objectively from the standpoint of BP and Transocean, involved an
extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude
of potential harm to others.  BP and Transocean had actual,
subjective awareness of the risk involved, but nevertheless
proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or
welfare of others, including plaintiffs.  . . .

"Prior to the incident described above, the Gulf of Mexico was one
of the most prolific recreational and food source grounds for
plaintiffs and was the natural source of most of the seafood
supplied to the Gulf region.  As a result of the above described
incidents, the fisheries and other natural resources in the Gulf
of Mexico have been harmed to the extent that plaintiffs' business
ties to the fishing and recreational industries have been
significantly damaged and will continue to be damaged for many
years to come."

Named as defendants are BP, Transocean, and Cameron International
Corp., the manufacturer of the faulty blowout preventer.

Business Week on Dec. 6 speculated that the Justice Department and
BP will likely strike a deal on CWA fines.

According to Business Week: "Noah Hall, an environmental-law
professor at Wayne State University in Detroit, said the BP
penalty probably will be lower than the maximum allowed and large
enough for President Barack Obama to claim the company has been
punished enough.  . . .

"'This is more of a political decision than a legal decision,'
Mr. Hall said.  'This will probably end in a settlement with a
figure that will allow President Obama to say he hit BP with the
largest civil environmental fine in U.S. history, while also
assuring BP investors.'"

A copy of the Complaint in Lapeyrouse, et al. v. BP Exploration
and Production, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-02992 (E.D. La.), is
available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Byron M. Hutchinson, Esq.
          Loren G. Klitsas, Esq.
          KLITSAS & VERCHER, P.C.
          550 Westcott, Suite 570
          Houston, TX 77007
          Telephone: (713) 862-1365

               - and -

          James S. Walker, Esq.
          Jeff D. Crawford, Esq.
          WALKER & CRAWFORD, P.C.
          1924 Portsmouth
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 552-1117

               - and -

          Jerry G. Gottesman, Esq.
          6633 Hillcroft, Suite 103
          Houston, TX 77081
          Telephone: (713) 981-6794

CASSELS BROCK: Judge Dismisses Class Action
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reports that Justice
Paul Perell has dismissed the action of the putative
representative plaintiff in a proposed class action against
Cassels, Brock & Blackwell on the basis that the limitation period
had expired, but indicated that he otherwise would have certified
the proceedings against the firm on the pleading of negligence.

The plaintiff in Lipson v. Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP had
alleged that Cassels Brock had negligently represented the
efficacy of a trust set up for tax purposes.

CLUB CAR: Recalls 600 Golf Cars Due to Fuel Leak and Fire Hazard
About 600 Golf Cars were voluntarily recalled by Club Car LLC, of
Augusta, Georgia, in cooperation with the CPSC.  Consumers should
stop using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer

The fuel tank seam can separate and allow fuel to leak, posing a
fire hazard.

Club Car has received three reports of incidents involving fuel
tank seams splitting.  No injuries or fires have been reported.

This recall involves the following 2011 Precedent golf cars.  The
model and serial numbers are located above the passenger's side
floor board.  "Club Car" is printed on the front of the golf cars.

              Recalled Precedent Golf Cars
        Model          Serial Number Range
        -----     -----------------------------
          CF      CF1139-233925 - CF1147-250173
          PR      PR1139-233918 - PR1147-249956
          PY      PY1144-244648

A picture of the recalled products is available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at authorized Club Car dealers nationwide from
April 2011 through May 2011 for between $8,000 and $9,200.

Consumers should stop using the recalled golf cars and contact
Club Car for a free inspection and replacement of the fuel tank.
The firm is directly contacting consumers who purchased the golf
cars.  For more information, contact Club Car at (800) 227-0739
ext. 3580 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at

DIAMOND FOODS: Faces Suits Over Crop Payments to Walnut Growers
Diamond Foods, Inc., disclosed in its November 28, 2011, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is
facing a number of putative securities class action lawsuits
relating to certain crop payments to walnut growers.

On November 1, 2011, Diamond announced that the Audit Committee of
the Diamond Board of Directors had decided to perform an
investigation of Diamond's accounting for certain crop payments to
walnut growers.  The Audit Committee has since retained Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher LLP and KPMG LLP to assist the Audit Committee in
the investigation.

Beginning on November 7, 2011, the first of a number of putative
securities class action lawsuits was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against
Diamond and certain of its executive officers.  These lawsuits
allege that defendants made materially false and misleading
statements, or failed to disclose material facts, regarding
Diamond's financial results, operations and prospects, including
its accounting for payments to walnut growers and the anticipated
timing of closing Diamond's proposed acquisition of the Pringles
business (the "Pringles Transaction") from The Procter & Gamble
Company ("P&G").  These lawsuits seek compensatory damages,
interest thereon, costs and expenses incurred in such actions, as
well as equitable or other relief.  Diamond anticipates that
further lawsuits making similar allegations may be filed and that
all such purported class actions will be consolidated into a
single case.  Diamond says it intends to defend the actions

DRUG STORES: Appeal Ruling From W.Va. Law Firm's Class Action
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that several
drug stores sued in Minnesota by a West Virginia law firm are
appealing a ruling that says the class action lawsuit should be
heard in a state court.

The drug stores -- which include CVS, Target and Wal-Mart -- are
alleged to have not passed savings on generic drugs to consumers
in the lawsuit.  A district judge has determined that the
plaintiffs -- who are represented by Bailey and Glasser of
Charleston, W.Va. -- timely filed a motion to remand the case
after the drug stores had it removed to federal court.

They filed their appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit last week.

The remand motion was submitted more than 100 days after the drug
stores removed the case to federal court and after Rosenbaum had
harshly dismissed the original complaint.  The drug stores say the
plaintiffs continued to litigate the case after it was removed.

It was also filed after a Michigan federal court remanded three
similar lawsuits brought by the firm.  That was done on Dec. 1,
2009, and eventually the cases were dismissed.

"(T)he court is satisfied that plaintiffs and their counsel did
not know that they had a reasonable basis for pursuing a remand
until after the Michigan court issued its remand decision on
Dec. 1, 2009," Magistrate Judge Janie Mayeron wrote in October.

"In fact, the evidence before this court establishes that
plaintiffs did not believe that the (Class Action Fairness Act)
local controversy exception applied to this case, even after the
Michigan court raised the issue at the pretrial conference."

In November 2009, U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum was annoyed
that the complaint, filed against 13 defendants on behalf of
unions that provide health care for their members, contained
specific pricing information about only two of them.

"(T)his Complaint utterly fails to state a cause of action on any
basis.  There are no, none, factual allegations touching any
defendant other than CVS and Walgreen's," Judge Rosenbaum said.

"There being no facts from which a fact finder could infer any
liability concerning (the other defendants), and you asked me to
sustain a complaint based upon that.  It's not only laughable,
it's absolutely reprehensible.

"There's not a lawsuit here.  There is not a claim.  There is not
an allegation.  I've got words on a page."

Judge Rosenbaum allowed the plaintiffs to amend the complaint then
granted remand.  When the drug stores appealed, the Eighth Circuit
said the district court should rule on the timeliness issue.
Judge Michael Davis was assigned the case after Judge Rosenbaum
retired and adopted a magistrate's recommendation that the case be

The lawsuits in Michigan were dismissed by a state judge because
the only specific pricing information was obtained by a West
Virginia whistleblower who worked at Kroger.

The firm is also representing West Virginia Attorney General
Darrell McGraw's office in a suit filed in the Mountain State.
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to hear the stores' appeal
of a Fourth Circuit ruling that remanded the case.

ELECTRONIC ARTS: Sued Over False Advertising on Video Game
Courthouse News Service reports that a class claims Electronic
Arts and Sony ran a bait and switch, promising people who pre-
ordered a PlayStation 3 console they would get a free "Battlefield
1943" game, but after opening the box, customers found they had to
buy the game separately.

A copy of the Complaint in Dorrance v. Electronic Arts, Inc., et
al., Case No. CIV509808 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty.), is
available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean P. Reiss, Esq.
          30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com

               - and -

          Raffy S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Brad Baglien, Esq.
          Ben Thomassen, Esq.
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com

HARLEYSVILLE MUTUAL: Sued in Penn. Over Nationwide Mutual Merger
Courthouse News Service reports that the "policyholder-owners" of
Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co. say the directors are planning
to sell the company to Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. in a $750
million deal through which company directors will get "millions of
dollars while their policyholder-owners get nothing."

A copy of the Complaint in 34 Butler Real Estate, L.L.C., et al.
v. Browne, et al., Case No. 111200408 (Pa. C.P. Ct.), is available


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel E. Bacine, Esq.
          Mark R. Rosen, Esq.
          Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
          Chad A. Carder, Esq.
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          E-mail: dbacine@barrack.com

               - and -

          Allen D. Black, Esq.
          Donald L. Perelman, Esq.
          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK
          1835 Market Street, 28th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          E-mail: ablack@finekaplan.com

               - and -

          Jason Adkins, Esq.
          John Zavez, Esq.
          Fifth Floor
          90 Canal Street
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 367-1040

HILLENBRAND INC: Awaits 5th Circuit Ruling on FCA Suit Appeal
Hillenbrand, Inc. is awaiting a ruling from the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on an appeal from the dismissal of
an antitrust class action lawsuit commenced by Funeral Consumers
Alliance, Inc., according to Hillenbrand's November 28, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended September 30, 2011.

In 2005, the Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. (FCA) and a number
of individual consumer casket purchasers filed a purported class
action antitrust lawsuit on behalf of certain consumer purchasers
of Batesville(R) caskets against the Company and its former parent
company, Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., now Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc.
("Hill-Rom"), and three national funeral home businesses (the "FCA

The lawsuit claimed, among other things, that the Company's
maintenance and enforcement of, and alleged modifications to, its
long-standing policy of selling caskets only to licensed funeral
homes were the product of a conspiracy among the Company, the
other defendants, and others to exclude "independent casket
discounters," resulting in suppressed competition in the alleged
market for caskets and allegedly leading consumers to pay higher
than competitive prices for caskets.

Plaintiffs in the FCA Action have generally sought monetary
damages on behalf of a class of purchasers of Batesville caskets,
trebling of any such damages that may be awarded, recovery of
attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs
in the FCA Action filed a report indicating that they were seeking
damages ranging from approximately $947.0 million to approximately
$1.460.0 billion before trebling on behalf of the purported class
of consumers they seek to represent, based on approximately one
million casket purchases by the purported class members.

The Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas
denied class certification on March 26, 2009, and ultimately
dismissed the lawsuit on September 24, 2010, concluding that
"plaintiffs shall take nothing by their lawsuit."  Currently, the
FCA Action is on appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Plaintiffs have appealed both the District Court's order of
dismissal and the order denying class certification.  The parties
have submitted all appellate briefs, and the Court of Appeals has
tentatively scheduled oral argument for December 5, 2011.  After
consideration of the parties' oral arguments and briefing, the
Court of Appeals will issue its ruling affirming or reversing the
District Court.

If plaintiffs succeed in overturning the judgment, reversing the
District Court order denying class certification, and a class is
subsequently certified in the FCA Action filed against Hill-Rom
and Batesville, and if the plaintiffs prevail at a trial of the
class action, the damages awarded to the plaintiffs, which would
be trebled as a matter of law, could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's results of operations, financial
condition, and cash flows.  In antitrust actions such as the FCA
Action, the plaintiffs may elect to enforce any judgment against
any or all of the co-defendants, who have no statutory
contribution rights against each other.  The Company and Hill-Rom
have entered into a Judgment Sharing Agreement that apportions the
costs and any potential liabilities associated with this
litigation between the Company and Hill-Rom.

The defendants are vigorously contesting both liability and the
plaintiffs' damages theories.

As of September 30, 2011, the Company had incurred approximately
$28.8 million in cumulative legal and related costs associated
with the FCA Action since its inception.

INTERSTATE BATTERY: Settles Class Action Over Battery Warranty
Girard Gibbs LLP on Dec. 7 issued a statement regarding the Milano
v. Interstate Battery System of America, Inc., et al. class action

What is this about?

A nationwide class action settlement has been preliminarily
approved by the Court in Milano v. Interstate Battery System of
America, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:10-cv-02125-CW (N.D. Cal.).  The
lawsuit claims that you may have overpaid for a replacement
battery under the terms of Interstate Batteries' pro-rata
warranty.  Defendants deny they did anything wrong.

You Are a Member of the Settlement Class If:

You purchased an Interstate Batteries trademarked battery from an
authorized dealer in the United States or the District of

Your original battery had an Interstate Batteries' pro-rata

You returned your failed original battery to an Interstate
Batteries authorized warranty dealer during your pro-rata-
warranty-coverage period; and

You then purchased a replacement battery from that dealer at an
adjusted price under the pro-rata warranty between May 19, 2006,
and November 17, 2011.

The Settlement Benefits

If the Court grants final approval of the settlement, Interstate
Batteries will improve a number of its warranty practices going
forward.  Settlement Class Members who have receipts from their
pro-rata transaction can submit claims for their choice between a
$12 product voucher or $8.50 check card.  Settlement Class Members
without receipts can participate and receive a $5 product voucher.
Claims must be submitted by December 31, 2012.  Product vouchers
can be used at Interstate All Battery Center Stores and at

The Fairness Hearing

The Court will determine whether to approve the settlement and
award attorney fees on March 8, 2012, at 2:00 p.m., at the U. S.
District Court, Northern District of California, Courtroom 2, 1301
Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612.  Objections must be mailed by
January 27, 2012.  To find out if the date of the Fairness Hearing
has changed, visit the Class Settlement Web site at

Settlement Class Members do not have to, but can submit comments
and objections, and ask to appear at the hearing.  The Court
appointed counsel to represent the Class.  To contact class
counsel, visit http://www.GirardGibbs.com/InterstateBatteries.asp

If the settlement is approved, the attorneys representing the
class will be paid separately by Interstate Batteries.

More Information

This is a Summary Notice. For complete information on the
settlement and for complete details on what you must do to file
objections and appear at the Fairness Hearing, visit
http://www.InterstateBatteriesSettlement.comor write to Milano v.
Interstate Battery System of America, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 9782,
Dublin, OH 43017-5682.

INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC on Dec. 7 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
IntraLinks Holdings, Inc. common stock who purchased shares
between February 17, 2011 and November 10, 2011, inclusive.  The
lawsuit alleges, among other things, that IntraLinks failed to
timely disclose a significant slowdown in the Company's Enterprise
business segment.

If you purchased IntraLinks common stock during the Class Period,
you have the legal right to petition the Court to be appointed a
"lead plaintiff."  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
Any such request must satisfy certain criteria and be made no
later than February 3, 2012.  Any member of the purported class
may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.  If you are an IntraLinks investor and would like to
discuss a potential lead plaintiff appointment, or your rights and
interests with respect to the lawsuit, you may contact Michael I.
Fistel, Jr., Esq., or Marshall P. Dees, Esq. via e-mail at
mfistel@holzerlaw.com or mdees@holzerlaw.com or via toll-free
telephone at (888) 508-6832.

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com-- is an
Atlanta, Georgia law firm that represents shareholders and
investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class
action and derivative litigation.

LEHMAN BROTHERS: Underwriters Reach Class Action Settlement
Nate Raymond, writing for The American Lawyer, reports that for
all that went wrong at Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., securities
class action plaintiffs lawyers have had a lot to overcome in
litigation related to the poster child for the financial crisis.
To begin with, Lehman has been mired in Chapter 11 bankruptcy
since its collapse in September 2008, leaving lawyers at Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossman and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check to
chase after dwindling directors and officers' insurance funds and
to assert claims against Lehman's well-defended underwriters.

With those caveats in mind, David Kessler of Kessler Topaz said he
is "pretty pleased" with settlements worth a combined $507 million
that the firms disclosed in court papers on Dec. 2.  The proposed
settlements, which still need approval from Manhattan federal
district court judge Lewis Kaplan, include $417 million from about
two dozen underwriters including Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and
Morgan Stanley, and a previously reported $90 million agreement
with former directors and officers, including former CEO Richard

"We're basically in a salvage mode when you have a case like
this," Mr. Kessler said.  "Anytime you get a half billion dollars
in a case involving a bankrupt entity, it's a pretty good result."

According to the plaintiffs' motion for court approval of the
settlements, preliminary settlement discussions began in late
2010.  A major turning point in the case came in June, when Judge
Kaplan largely denied defense motions to dismiss an amended
complaint.  The complaint borrowed heavily from Jenner & Block
chairman Anton Valukas's examiner's report and its revelations
about Lehman's "Repo 105" accounting gimmick, which allegedly
helped the bank understate its leverage.

"While it perhaps may be said with some assurance that Lehman,
given the assets it held, would have been in trouble in any case,
it is entirely plausible to conclude also from the facts alleged
in the [amended complaint] that the misleading picture that Lehman
portrayed played a material part in keeping its stock higher
during the class period than it otherwise would have been and, in
consequence that some part of the losses the plaintiffs suffered
was attributable to the alleged fraud," Judge Kaplan ruled.

Mr. Kessler said that settlements were the works with additional
underwriters, and that the lawyers would most likely file court
papers detailing the agreements last week.  Max Berger of
Bernstein Litowitz told the American Lawyer that the additional
deals would bring the total settlements in the case so far to $517

Following last week's agreements, Mr. Kessler said that the focus
of the case will now turn to non-settling defendants UBS Financial
Services Inc. and Ernst & Young.  UBS is facing different
allegations than other underwriters because it underwrote
principal protected notes, structured investment products that
Mr. Kessler said were guaranteed regardless of Lehman's
bankruptcy.  UBS counsel Marshall King of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
did not respond to a request for comment.

As for Ernst & Young, Valukas' examiner's report concluded that
the auditor had signed off on the Lehman's "materially misleading"
financial statements.  E&Y, represented by Miles Rutherberg of
Latham & Watkins, has said it believes it "will ultimately prevail
on the remaining claim."

Lawyers for the various directors and officers, including Andrew
Levander of Dechert for Lehman's independent directors and
Patricia Hynes of Allen & Overy for Fuld, did not respond to
requests for comment.  Mitchell Lowenthal of Cleary Gottlieb Steen
& Hamilton, who negotiated the settlement on behalf of the
underwriters, did not respond to a request for comment.

PERFORMANCE SPORTS: Sued Over False Claims on Golf Shirt
Courthouse News Service reports that Performance Sports Brands
advertises that its "energy fabric" golf shirt "gives you a
measurable, science-based performance advantage," but it doesn't,
a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court.

READER'S DIGEST: Sued in N.Y. Over Subscription Term Changes
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action filed
in Manhattan claims that Reader's Digest Association changes the
terms of annual subscriptions, "including the number of issues
and/or the duration of the subscription" its magazines after
readers have subscribed.

RESEARCH IN MOTION: Sued Over Deceptive Bait-and-Switch Tactics
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims that
Research in Motion and Globalware Solutions advertised a
BlackBerry PlayBook for $199 through the shopblackberry.com
Web site, but rejected orders and tried to sell tablet computer
for a higher price.

A copy of the Complaint in Salpietro v. Research in Motion, Ltd.,
et al., Case No. 11-25089 (Pa. C.P. Ct., Allegheny Cty.), is
available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Ronald G. Backer, Esq.
         Lori R. Miller, Esq.
         310 Grant Street, Third Floor
         Pittsburgh, PA 15219
         Telephone: (412) 338-1185
         E-mail: rgbacker@rothmangordon.com

SACRAMENTO RESTAURANTS: Settle Hooters' Class Action
Debra Cassens Weiss, writing for ABA Journal, reports that a
lawyer who represented about 400 Hooters workers in a California
class action targeting the restaurants around Sacramento says the
company has agreed to settle the litigation for an unspecified

Lawyer Burton Boltuch told 3KCRA.com that all the employees he
represented are being compensated.

He said the settlement also requires the restaurant to relax
certain uniform requirements, provide breaks, pay for all work and
stop holding workers responsible when customers walk out without

SIRIUSXM: Judge Tosses Misleading Advertising Class Action
A class action lawsuit against SiriusXM over misleading
advertising has been tossed out of court, FMQB reports, citing

A federal court in San Diego rejected Joel Broida's claim that an
ad from the satcaster deceived him and other subscribers into
paying more than they should have for a two-year subscription.  In
throwing the suit out for a second time, the judge noted that
Mr. Broida, a resident of Colorado, could not use New York laws
for the basis of his suit, and added that he was unable to even
produce the ad itself.

According to PaidContent, the case was dismissed "with prejudice,"
which means SiriusXM is free of multiple consumer lawsuits that
have been brought against the satcaster in recent years.

However, SiriusXM has two major lawsuits still hanging over it:
the suit from Howard Stern over his bonus payments and a
shareholder suit against CEO Mel Karmazin and other top
executives.  In late August, a New York federal judge allowed the
core of this suit to proceed, which claims Mr. Karmazin and other
executives defrauded shareholders during the period before the
satcaster was financially rescued by Liberty Media.  PaidContent
reports the case is expected to move forward at some point in the

SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend AATI Merger-Related Suit
On May 26, 2011, Skyworks Solutions, Inc., announced it had
entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger
Agreement") with PowerCo Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub") and Advanced Analogic
Technologies Incorporated ("AATI") pursuant to which the Merger
Sub will, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions
in the Merger Agreement, merge with and into AATI, and AATI will
survive the merger and become a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Company (the "Merger").

On June 6, 2011, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in California Superior Court in Santa Clara County (Case No.
111CV202403) (the "Bushansky action") naming AATI, the members of
AATI's board of directors, the Company and Merger Sub as
defendants.  The complaint alleges, among other things, (1) that
the members of AATI's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties by (a) failing to take steps to maximize the value of the
merger consideration to AATI's stockholders, (b) taking steps to
avoid competitive bidding, and (c) failing to protect against
conflicts of interest resulting from change-of-control and
transaction-related benefits received by AATI directors in
connection with the merger that are not available to all
stockholders, and (2) that AATI, the members of AATI's board of
directors, the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted these
purported breaches of fiduciary duties.  The complaint seeks to
enjoin consummation of the merger or, if the merger is completed,
to recover damages caused by the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties.  The complaint also seeks recovery of attorney's fees and
costs of the lawsuit.

On June 7, 2011, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in California Superior Court in Santa Clara County (Case No.
111CV202501) (the "Venette action") naming AATI, the members of
AATI's board of directors, the Company and Merger Sub as
defendants.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 14,
2011 (the "Amended Complaint").  The Amended Complaint alleges,
among other things, (1) that the members of AATI's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties by (a) agreeing to the
merger for inadequate consideration on unfair terms, (b) failing
to protect against conflicts of interest resulting from change-of-
control and transaction-related benefits received by AATI
directors in connection with the merger that are not available to
all stockholders, (c) selling the company in response to alleged
pressure from Dialectic Capital Partners, LP ("Dialectic"), (d)
taking steps to avoid competitive bidding (including the entry by
certain AATI officers and directors into agreements with the
Company relating to voting commitments and inclusion in the merger
agreement of nonsolicitation provisions and a termination fee),
and (e) by causing the issuance of a materially misleading Form S-
4 Registration Statement which, inter alia, purportedly fails to
disclose material facts surrounding (i) Dialectic's impact on the
proposed merger process, (ii) the AATI board of directors'
evaluation of the Company and its offer for AATI, and (iii)
supporting figures and analysis regarding the fairness opinion
that the AATI Board obtained from its financial advisor, Needham &
Company, LLC, in connection with the transaction and (2) that
AATI, the members of AATI's board of directors, the Company and
Merger Sub aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary
duties.  The Amended Complaint seeks to enjoin consummation of the
merger, and to have the court direct the defendants to implement
procedures and processes to maximize shareholder value.  The
Amended Complaint also seeks recovery of attorney's fees and costs
of the lawsuit.

On July 26, 2011, the Court issued an order consolidating the
Bushansky action and Venette action into a single, consolidated
action captioned In re Advanced Analogic Technologies Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 111CV202403, and designating
the Amended Complaint as the operative complaint in the

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 28,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended September 30, 2011.

The Company believes that the claims in the consolidated action
are without merit and intends to defend against such claims

SOLMAC CONSTRUCTIONS: Creditors Mull Class Action Over Collapse
Nick Nichols, writing for Goldcoast.com.au, reports that creditors
of failed Gold Coast developer Solmac Constructions are taking
their grievances to the corporate watchdog and plan to launch a
class action against the directors following the company's AU$15
million collapse.

More than 20 trade creditors, owed up to AU$7 million, resolved to
place the company into liquidation and conduct a full
investigation into its affairs.

Spokesman Joe O'Neill, of O'Neill's Law at Kingscliff, said
creditors also agreed to establish a fighting fund of at least
AU$35,000 in order to pursue a full investigation.

Solmac Constructions is one of three companies within the Solmac
Group to strike financial trouble, with Solmac Developments and
Market Square No.1 both in liquidation.

Solmac is controlled by Stephen Solomons and Duncan McInnes, who
have both been involved in the development industry on the Gold
Coast for about 20 years.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Faulty Electric Meters
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that Southern
California Edison's faulty electric meters overcharged a single
homeowner $78,000 in 10 years, and the company has 12 million
customers, the man claims in a Superior Court class action.

The lead plaintiff claims SCE overcharged him about $650 a month
for his home electricity for 10 years -- $7,800 in overcharges per

SCE provides electricity to more than 12 million people in
Southern California.

Lead plaintiff Robert Kleinberger claims that SCE began replacing
its old meters with SmartConnect meters in September 2010.  He
claims that "incorrect measurements of mechanical meters" SCE used
for years overcharged him and others, and that "plaintiff and the
putative class had no reasonable way of knowing whether their
mechanical meters were accurately monitoring their electricity

Mr. Kleinberger claims he "was charged in excess of 100% of his
actual usage from the start of his electricity service in or about
2001 to 2010, when the SmartConnect meter was installed on
plaintiff's premises.  . . . SCE overcharged plaintiff by an
average of approximately $650 per month, which amounted to
approximately $78,000 in excess electricity charges."

Mr. Kleinberger says his "September 2010 SCE bill (just before the
SmartConnect meter was installed) was $1,025.53, but his November
2010 SCE bill (i.e., after the SmartConnect meter began properly
monitoring plaintiff's electricity usage) dropped to only $353.97
-- that is a difference of $671.56, even though plaintiff's usage
did not meaningfully change between August 2010 and November

Mr. Kleinberger says he noticed in 2001 that his electricity bills
were extraordinarily high, but SCE claimed his meter was accurate.
Since the "faulty meter caused SCE to inflate each of the bills it
sent to plaintiff (including the first bill after plaintiff moved
into his residence), plaintiff had no prior usage or other
reference against which he could compare his SCE bills,"
Mr. Kleinberger says.

California suffered a profound electricity crisis in 2000-2001,
after deregulation.  Electricity prices increased eightfold or
more as traders learned to game the system.  The market
manipulation is believed to have cost consumers more than $40
billion.  The enormous profits allowed Enron, among others, to
post fat-looking gains, until other manipulation led to that
company's collapse in October 2001.  SCE, the largest electric
company in Southern California, nearly went bankrupt during the

Mr. Kleinberger says he did not discover that his meter was
inaccurate until September 2010, when SCE sent over a technician.

Mr. Kleinberger says when he "asked the SCE technician how he
could have known if the mechanical meter was broken, the
technician replied that there was no way for a consumer to
determine his mechanical meter was malfunctioning without an SCE
technician examining the meter and alerting the consumer."

In 2010, SCE reported a net income of $1 billion, $35 billion in
total assets, and more than $9.9 billion in operating revenue.

Mr. Kleinberger says he does not challenge the electric rates, but
he seeks "monetary damages for excessive billing for electricity
by defendants as a result of faulty meters in place prior to the
'SmartConnect' meters installed at the consumers' premises."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Quyen Kiet, Esq.
          1748 West Katella Avenue
          Suite 112
          Orange, CA 92867-3559
          Telephone: (714) 974-5652

STATE OF FLORIDA: Judge Certifies Welfare Drug Test Class Action
The Associated Press reports that a legal challenge to a Florida
law requiring drug testing of welfare applicants now is a class
action case.

U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven on Dec. 7 in Orlando granted a
class action request.

It was sought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is
representing Orlando resident Luis Lebron in the case.

The certification will let the challenge continue on behalf of all
applicants for temporary assistance even if Mr. Lebron himself
becomes ineligible.

Judge Scriven previously issued an order temporarily blocking
implementation of the law championed by Gov. Rick Scott.

The state is appealing the order that put testing on hold until
Judge Scriven can hold a full hearing.

She found the law may violate a constitutional ban on unreasonable
searches and seizures.

THOR INDUSTRIES: Still Defends Formaldehyde Exposure Class Suits
Thor Industries, Inc. continues to defend itself from lawsuits
alleging exposure to formaldehyde emitted from travel trailers,
park model trailers and manufactured homes provided by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
in 2005, according to the Company's November 28, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 31, 2011.

Beginning in 2006, a number of lawsuits were filed against
numerous trailer and manufactured housing manufacturers, including
complaints against the Company.  The complaints were filed in
various state and federal courts throughout Louisiana, Alabama,
Texas and Mississippi on behalf of Gulf Coast residents who lived
in travel trailers, park model trailers and manufactured homes
provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA")
following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.  The complaints
generally allege that residents who occupied FEMA supplied
emergency housing units, such as travel trailers, were exposed to
formaldehyde emitted from the trailers.  The plaintiffs allege
various injuries from exposure, including health issues and
emotional distress.  Most of the initial cases were filed as class
action lawsuits.  The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(the "MDL panel") has the authority to designate one court to
coordinate and consolidate discovery and pretrial proceedings.
The MDL panel transferred the actions to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the "MDL
Court") because the actions in different jurisdictions involved
common questions of fact.  The MDL Court denied class
certification in December 2008, and consequently, the cases are
now being administered as a mass joinder of claims.  There are
approximately 4,100 lawsuits currently pending in the MDL Court.

The number of cases currently pending against the Company is
approximately 550.  Many of these lawsuits involve multiple
plaintiffs, each of whom have brought claims against the Company.
A number of cases against the Company have been dismissed for
various reasons, including duplicative and unmatched lawsuits and
failure of plaintiffs to appear or prosecute their claims.  In the
event a case does not settle or is not dismissed during the MDL
proceeding, it is remanded back to the original court for
disposition or trial.  In September 2009, the MDL Court commenced
hearing both bellwether jury trials and bellwether summary jury
trials. The summary jury trial process is an alternative dispute
resolution method which is non-binding and confidential.  The
Company has participated in one confidential summary jury trial.

Currently, it is unknown how many plaintiffs' claims against the
Company will proceed in the MDL Court and how many claims will be
dismissed.  It is also unknown how many plaintiffs will continue
to litigate if their case is dismissed without prejudice or
remanded back to their court of origin.  In July 2011, the MDL
Court issued Corrected Pretrial Order No. 88 governing the
plaintiff fact sheet deficiency process, the purpose of which is
to provide defendants with the necessary information to evaluate
claims for global settlement.  Defendants, including the Company,
have identified thousands of deficiencies and provided deficiency
notices to plaintiffs' counsel.  If a plaintiff fails to cure
material deficiencies in his or her fact sheet, the defendants are
authorized to file for dismissal of such claim.  The Company has
commenced the process of filing motions for dismissal with respect
to claims of plaintiffs in cases where the plaintiff failed to
cure material deficiencies in his or her fact sheet or otherwise
comply with the MDL Court ordered fact sheet process.  At this
time, the Company is unable to provide a reasonable estimate for
the range of loss in the event of an adverse outcome, beyond
amounts accrued as of October 31, 2011, because the number of
plaintiffs is undetermined and at this stage of the proceedings,
evidence of potential damages for each plaintiff has not been

A group of mobile and manufactured home defendants have agreed to
pay $2,625,000 to settle certain claims that plaintiffs have
allegedly been sickened by levels of formaldehyde in the
manufactured homes.  The Company understands that settlements have
been reached with at least two of the trailer manufacturers, but
the terms have not been publicly disclosed.

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

While the Company may consider pursuing settlement of the matter
given the uncertainty of litigation and the cost of defending each
individual case if the MDL proceeding ends and the MDL Court
remands the individual cases back to their courts of origin, it is
uncertain whether the parties can agree upon a mutually acceptable
resolution of the litigation.  The Company strongly disputes the
allegations and continues to vigorously defend the lawsuits.

TRAVELERS INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over PPO Discount
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that Travelers
Insurance pays less for treating workers compensation patients
than is required by state law, a physical therapy office claims in
a federal class action.

Lincoln City Physical Therapy claims Travelers paid it rates that
were "discounted pursuant to a private, unregulated contract with
so-called 'Preferred Provider Organizations' (or 'PPOs').
Plaintiff and members of the class seek to recover all of the
discounted amounts that defendants did not pay to plaintiff and
members of the class, based on defendants' application of a
private contract between defendants and any PPO, which resulted in
a lower payment amount than was required under Oregon workers'
compensation law."

Lincoln City says Travelers contracts with PPOs that allow it to
apply a "PPO discount" to providers in workers' compensation

However, "Throughout the relevant time period, applicable Oregon
workers' compensation statutes and rules did not allow workers'
compensation insurers, like defendants, to apply any PPO contract
discounts to the payment of workers' compensation medical fees,"
the complaint states.

Lincoln City claims that "hundreds of medical providers statewide
who provide services to injured workers' under the Oregon state
workers' compensation systems have been damaged by defendants'
illegal PPO discounting."

A copy of the Complaint in Lincoln City Physical Therapy, LLC v.
Travelers Casualty and Surety Co., et al., Case No. 11-cv-01452
(D. Ore.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve D. Larson, Esq.
          Joshua L. Ross, Esq.
          209 S.W. Oak Street, Fifth Floor
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503)227-1600
          E-mail: slarson@stollberne.com

               - and -

          Diana E. Godwin, Esq.
          1500 NE Irving Street Suite 370
          Portland, OR 97232
          Telephone: (503) 224-0019
          E-mail: DianaGodwin@earthlink.net

UNIFIED LIFE: Settles Medicaid Dental Insurance Class Action
Ronald V. Miller, Jr., writing for Accident and Injury Lawyer
Blog, reports that a settlement was reached last week in a class
action lawsuit involving claims that a dental insurance policy
sold to Medicaid recipients living in nursing homes was in
violation of Oklahoma law.

Under the $900,000 settlement agreement, the lawyer would get a
third in attorneys' fees and the named plaintiff would get
$10,000.  Everyone else -- the 1,600 people that ostensibly got
the raw deal -- would get about $21 for each month they were in
the Oklahoma Medicaid program and paid their premiums for dental

The case is Childs v. Unified Life Insurance Company.

* Dispute Over Armenian Genocide Class Action Resolved
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Los Angeles litigator Mark Geragos and a former co-counsel
have resolved a dispute over a botched claims process in a $17.5
million class action settlement they reached on behalf of millions
of descendants of Armenian genocide victims.

* Sup. Ct. of Canada Set to Decide on Indirect Purchaser Issue
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reports that the
Supreme Court of Canada is poised to determine the fate and scope
of antitrust class actions in Canada.

On Dec. 1, 2011, the court agreed to hear appeals from the British
Columbia Court of Appeal's twin decisions in Pro-Sys Consultants
Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp. and Sun-Rype Products Ltd. v. Archer
Daniels Midland Co.

The core issue before the high court is whether indirect
purchasers -- those who bought the product after the initial
purchase from those involved in the anti-competitive conduct --
have a class action remedy under s. 36 of the Competition Act,
which allows for a private right of action to "any person" who has
suffered loss as a result of criminal misconduct under the

By a 2-1 majority in each case, the Court of Appeal held that such
class actions were not available to indirect purchasers.

Because most antitrust class action cases originate in global
conspiracy prosecutions where foreign manufacturers have fixed the
prices of ingredients in products that tend to go through a long
chain of distribution before they reach Canada, a ruling excluding
indirect purchasers from antitrust class actions would
significantly narrow the scope of such proceedings in Canada.

"The harm to someone in Canada is usually indirect so excluding
indirect purchasers could be a crippling development for the
plaintiffs' class action bar," says Christopher Naudie of Osler,
Hoskin and Harcourt LLP's Toronto office.

But the Canadian jurisprudence on the subject is conflicting.  Two
separate panels of the British Columbia Court of Appeal have
reached different conclusions on whether indirect purchasers are
properly members of an antitrust class.  Complicating the matter
is the fact that the decisions in the Microsoft and Sun-Rype cases
were not unanimous.

Then, two weeks before the Supreme Court granted leave in Pro-Sys
and Sun-Rype, the Quebec Court of Appeal adopted the reasoning of
the minority judge in the B.C. cases and decided the case of
Option Consommateurs v. Infineon Technologies in favor of indirect

"There's no question that Option Consommateurs is a plaintiff-
friendly decision," says David Stolow of Davies Ward Phillips &
Vineberg LLP's Montreal office.

The decision took many members of the Quebec class action defense
bar by surprise.

"The plaintiffs' case was poorly drafted and the Court of Appeal
said so," says Sylvain Lussier of Osler's Montreal office.  "So
the decision was a little unnerving."

In any event, most observers expect to see an application for
leave to appeal in the Quebec case.

"In light of the Supreme Court having granted leave in the B.C.
cases, I don't see them refusing leave in the Quebec case,"
Mr. Lussier says.

However that may be, the majority rulings in Pro-Sys and Sun-Rype
that will be before the Supreme Court adopt the long-standing
position of the U.S. Supreme Court against the inclusion of
indirect purchasers as expressed in Illinois Brick Co. v.
Illinois, decided in 1977.

But they seem inconsistent with the November 2010 decision of a
different panel of the B.C. Court of Appeal in the case of Pro-Sys
Consultants Ltd. v. Infineon Technologies AG and various Ontario
Superior Court decisions including the 2009 ruling in the case of
Irving Paper Limited v. Atofina Chemicals Inc., all of which
certified actions that included indirect purchasers.

The British Columbia and Quebec cases centre on DRAM, a
semiconductor memory product found in most electronic devices.
All the defendants in the DRAM cases save one pleaded guilty to
charges under the U.S. Sherman Antitrust Act and received
substantial fines before the Canadian civil actions began.
Although there is an outstanding DRAM class action in Ontario, no
date has yet been set for the certification hearing.

While it is of course difficult to predict the outcome in the
Supreme Court, it may be noteworthy that the court denied leave to
appeal from the B.C. Court of Appeal's initial DRAM decision in
favor of indirect purchasers in Pro-Sys Consultants v. Infineon

"However the Supreme Court rules, a decision that settles the
indirect purchaser issue in Canada will be a lot of help to
plaintiffs' and defendants' counsel alike," Mr. Lussier says.


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  * * *