/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120206.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, February 6, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 25


BP: Must Indemnify Halliburton for Oil Spill Claims, Court Rules
CHARTER COMMS: Rejection of Winchester Class Claims to be Vacated
CHRISTMAS TREE: Recalls 4,500 Hurricane Style Lights
CHRISTMAS TREE: Recalls 5,700 Holiday Tea Light Candle Warmers
COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action

COMCAST CORP: Sued in Calif. for Deceptive Business Practices
CON CARE: Trial Court Junks Ogden's Civil Rights Action
CONTAINER STORE: Recalls 7,200 Lush Life(R) Colored Power Strips
HECLA MINING: Robins Geller Files Investor Class Action in Idaho
METLIFE INC: Faces Class Action in N.Y. Over Death Master File

NEWPAGE CORP: Feb. 3 Deadline Set for Retirees' Proofs of Claim
PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Fishermen's Suit Gets Class-Action Status
PAYCHECK TODAY: Arbitration Provision is Void, App. Ct. Says
PHILIPPS PETROLEUM: Relators Not Entitled to Writ of Mandamus
ST GEORGE AND BANKSA: Faces Class Action Over Late Payment Fees

STARLINE COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in Calif. Over Spam Text Messages
STATE OF DENVER: Teacher's Union Files Class Action
TUESDAY MORNING: California Employees' Suit Still Pending
UNITED STATES: VA Sued for Discriminating Against Older Nurses
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Unsolicited Calls

WELLS FARGO: Accused in California Suit of Aiding Ponzi Scam
WESTINGHOUSE SOLAR: Court Approved "Hodges" Suit Deal in Dec.
YAZAKI CORP: Faces Antitrust Class Action in Michigan
YAZAKI CORP: Labaton Sucharow Files Antitrust Class Action

* Securities Class Action Filings Hit Record High in Canada


BP: Must Indemnify Halliburton for Oil Spill Claims, Court Rules
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that BP must
indemnify Halliburton for damages from the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill, but not punitive damages or the cost of defense, a federal
judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier's order does not pertain to BP's
charge of fraud against the cement manufacturer.

"BP is required to indemnify Halliburton for third-party
compensatory claims that arise from pollution or contamination
that did not originate from the property or equipment of
Halliburton located above the surface of the land or water, even
if Halliburton's gross negligence caused the pollution," Judge
Barbier wrote in the order issued on Jan. 31.

Judge Barbier, who is overseeing the consolidated litigation over
the worst oil spill in history, issued a similar order last week,
that BP must indemnify Transocean for third-party compensatory

"A remaining issue that was not addressed in the Transocean
indemnity order concerns fraud," Judge Barbier wrote in his latest
order.  "BP alleges in its cross complaint and third party
complaint that Halliburton made fraudulent statements and
fraudulently concealed material information concerning the cement
tests it conducted and other matters, and that BP, relying on
these statements, allowed Halliburton to pour the unstable cement
slurry that led to the uncontrollable well and blowout.  BP
asserts that the language of the indemnity does not extend to
fraud, nor would public policy permit such indemnification, given
that fraud involved willful misconduct exceeding gross negligence.
Halliburton denies that it committed fraud, but also argues that
BP's allegations are merely breach of contract claims cloaked as
fraud.  . . .

"The court agrees that fraud could void an indemnity clause on
public policy grounds, given that it necessarily includes
intentional wrongdoing.  . . . The court is also mindful that
'mere failure to perform contractual obligations as promised does
not constitute fraud but is instead breach of contract.'

"Consequently . . .  there are material issues of fact that
preclude summary judgment on the issue.  The court defers ruling
on this issue."

The first liability trial in the oil spill is to begin on Feb. 27.

A copy of the Order and Reasons in In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL
No. 2179 (E.D. La.) (Barbier, J.), is available at:


CHARTER COMMS: Rejection of Winchester Class Claims to be Vacated
The Supreme Court of Missouri, sitting en banc, directed a trial
court to vacate its order striking Winchester City, Missouri's
class action allegations against Charter Communications.

The class action lawsuit was filed in 2010 by Winchester against
Charter on behalf of itself and other similarly situated Missouri
municipal corporations and political subdivisions, seeking (1) a
declaratory judgment requiring Charter and other telephone service
providers to comply with validly enacted municipal ordinances that
require them to pay a license tax on gross receipts derived from
various fees and services connected to their operations and (2) an
order requiring Charter to pay all license taxes owed to the

"The trial court exceeded its authority in striking Winchester's
class claims on the basis of RSMo Supp. 2009 section 71.675's
purported bar on cities and towns serving as class representatives
in suits to enforce or collect business license taxes imposed on
telecommunications companies," the Missouri Supreme Court opines.

The petition for writ of mandamus is captioned STATE ex rel.
Respondent, Case No. SC 91631 (Mo. Sup. Ct.).

A copy of the Missouri Supreme Court's Jan. 17, 2012 Order is
available at http://is.gd/3wt9AWfrom Leagle.com.

CHRISTMAS TREE: Recalls 4,500 Hurricane Style Lights
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Nantucket Distributing Co. Inc., of Middleboro,
Massachusetts, and retailer, Christmas Tree Shops, of Union, New
Jersey, announced a voluntary recall of about 4,500 Hurricane
Style Lights.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

An electrical short circuit can occur in the light's internal
wiring, causing smoke and posing a fire hazard.

The firm has received one report of the product causing smoke and
a burning smell.  No injuries or property damage have been

The recalled Hurricane Style Light is a circular lamp with a white
metal basket and moveable handle for hanging or carrying at the
top.  It has a colored glass insert in blue, pink, or green and
uses a mini light bulb.  The model number "DML0593" and SKU/UPC
number "000015806710" are printed on the price tag attached to the
product.  A picture of the recalled products is available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Christmas Tree Shops in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and Midwest
regions from December 2010 through November 2011 for about $7.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
return it to any Christmas Tree Shops location for a full refund.
For additional information, please contact Christmas Tree Shops
toll-free at (888) 287-3232 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.christmastreeshops.com/

CHRISTMAS TREE: Recalls 5,700 Holiday Tea Light Candle Warmers
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Nantucket Distributing Co. Inc., of Middleboro,
Massachusetts, and retailer, Christmas Tree Shops, of Union, New
Jersey, announced a voluntary recall of about 5,700 holiday-themed
tea light candle warmers.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The candle warmers can catch fire because the warming bowl is
positioned too close to the tea light candle, posing fire and burn

The firm has received one report of the Snowmen candle warmer
catching on fire causing a minor burn injury to a consumer's hand.

This recall involves holiday-themed tea light candle warmers in
the shapes of snowmen and gingerbread houses.  A warming bowl with
wax fragrance tablets is suspended above the tea light candle.
The Snowmen model has SKU/UPC 000016005396 and the Gingerbread
house model has SKU/UPC 000016005372 printed on a label on the
bottom of the product.  The tea light candle warmers are about
eight inches tall.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Christmas Tree Shops in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic
and Midwest from November 2011 through December 2011 for about $8.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled tea light
candle warmers and return them to any Christmas Tree Shops store
to receive a full refund.  For additional information, contact
Christmas Tree Shops toll-free at (888) 287-3232 any time, or
visit the firm's Web site http://www.christmastreeshops.com/

COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit against Columbia Laboratories, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, District of New Jersey, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased Columbia securities
between December 6, 2010 and January 20, 2012, inclusive.  This
class action is brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and
78t(a); and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17
C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Columbia securities during
the Class Period, you have until Monday, April 2, 2012 to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free,
x350.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

Columbia is an international pharmaceutical company that develops
and markets women's health care and endocrinology products.  The
Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Columbia
conditioned investors to believe that the Company's PROCHIEVE
progesterone vaginal gel 8% ("PROCHIEVE 8%"), a gel intended to
prevent preterm births in women with short cervices, would receive
FDA approval through a host of materially false and misleading
statements regarding the safety and efficacy of the product, as
well as reportedly positive results from PROCHIEVE's clinical

On January 17, 2012, the FDA published information ahead of a
meeting by the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs of
the FDA scheduled for January 20, 2012.  The FDA documents
revealed that PROCHIEVE 8% did "not support the efficacy of
progesterone gel compared with placebo in reducing the risk of
preterm births before 33 completed weeks of gestation among women
with a short cervical strength."  Moreover, the safety of the gel
was similar to a placebo as "[n]o maternal deaths occurred and the
rates of fetal, neonatal and infant deaths were similar in both
treatment arms."

As a result of this revelation, Columbia shares declined $1.305
per share or more than 54%, to close at $1.095 per share on
January 17, 2012.

On January 20, 2012, the Advisory Committee voted 13 to 4 not to
recommend approval of PROCHIEVE 8%, as the risks of the
progesterone gel outweighed the benefits.

As a result, Columbia's shares declined an additional $0.874 per
share or more than 55%, to close at $0.706 per share on January
23, 2012.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- is a law firm
that specializes in the areas of corporate, securities, and
antitrust class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L.
Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the
Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions.
The firm has offices in New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.,

COMCAST CORP: Sued in Calif. for Deceptive Business Practices
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Comcast
charges customers whose service was suspended for failure to pay
for services they did not receive while they were suspended, in
Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Ritchie v. Comcast Corporation, Case
No. CV173162 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Cruz Cty.), is available


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Kevin F. Ruf, Esq.
          Elizabeth M. Gonsiorowski, Esq.
          1925 Century Park East Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150

CON CARE: Trial Court Junks Ogden's Civil Rights Action
Judge Sam A. Crow dismissed on Jan. 30, 2012, a civil rights
action lawsuit commenced by Garrett Jack Ogden against Con Care,
Inc., et al., for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.

The complaint was originally filed as a class action, but Judge
Crow declined to certify the class in an earlier order dated July
2011.  All plaintiffs were dismissed without prejudice except for
Mr. Ogden.  Mr. Ogden instead was directed by Judge Crow to file a
supplemental pleading providing specific factual assertions in
support of his claims.

CONTAINER STORE: Recalls 7,200 Lush Life(R) Colored Power Strips
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Container Store Inc., of Coppell, Texas, announced a voluntary
recall of about 7,200 Lush Life(R) power strips.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The power strips have undersized wiring, and the wiring and
plastic strip fail to meet the requirements for fire resistance,
posing a fire hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves three designs of brightly-colored, six-outlet
power strips with model number 8001-6 embossed on the back.  Power
strip designs include Pop Power Strip in Scroll (black with white
scroll), Dot (blue with orange, white and lime green dots and a
lime green cord), and Zebra (black and white zebra stripes).  The
power strips have three-foot power cords.  "Lush Life(R) power
strips by design" is printed on the product's packaging.  Picture
of the recalled products is available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at The
Container Stores nationwide and on the firm's Web site
http://www.containerstore.com/from October 2011 through December
2011 for about $15.

Consumers should stop using the recalled power strips immediately
and return them to any of The Container Store locations for a full
refund plus a $15 merchandise card.  For additional information,
consumers should contact The Container Store toll-free at (888)
266-8246 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Central Time Monday
through Saturday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Central Time
on Sunday, or visit the firm's Web site at

HECLA MINING: Robins Geller Files Investor Class Action in Idaho
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that a class action has
been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the
United States District Court for the District of Idaho on behalf
of purchasers of Hecla Mining Company common stock during the
period between October 26, 2010 and January 11, 2012.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from February 1, 2012.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at

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

The complaint charges Hecla and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Hecla is engaged in discovering, acquiring, developing, producing,
and marketing silver, gold, lead and zinc.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose operational problems at Hecla's
Lucky Friday silver mine.  As a result of defendants' false
statements, Hecla's stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, reaching a high of $11.34 per share on
December 29, 2010.

Due to a series of accidents at the Lucky Friday mine during 2011,
the Mine Safety and Health Administration engaged in a close
inspection of the mine.  In early December, MSHA issued an
accident report accusing Hecla of safety failures that led to the
death of a miner in April 2011.  Thereafter, on January 5, 2012,
MSHA issued a closure order for the Lucky Friday mine for the
removal of built-up material in the shaft that had been leaking
from a pipe into the shaft for a number of years.  On January 11,
2012, Hecla announced that the Lucky Friday mine would be closed
for up to a year based upon MSHA's order.  As a result of the
closure, Hecla reduced its estimated silver production for 2012
from more than 9 million ounces to around 7 million ounces.  On
this news, Hecla stock dropped $1.23 per share, to close at $4.61
per share on January 11, 2012, a one-day decline of 21%.

According to the complaint, during the Class period, defendants
knew but concealed from the investing public the following adverse
facts: (a) the Company was not in compliance with safety
regulations at its Lucky Friday mine; (b) the Company had allowed
sand and concrete material to improperly build up in the mine
shaft over a period of years, creating a safety hazard; (c)
following the December closure, the Company would be unable to
reestablish mining operations at the Lucky Friday mine by February
2012, as the Company had previously represented; (d) the Company
improperly accounted for its contingent liabilities in violation
of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (e) based on the
foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive
statements about the Company's operations and its expected silver

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Hecla common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a 180-lawyer firm
with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton,
Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta.  It is active in major
litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the
United States and has taken a leading role in many important
actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and
companies, as well as victims of human rights violations.

METLIFE INC: Faces Class Action in N.Y. Over Death Master File
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that MetLife used
a public database of death notices to stop its clients' annuity
payments, but ignored the database when it informed the insurer
that it must start paying on a policy, shareholders say in a
derivative class action.

MetLife exploited the Social Security Administration's Death
Master File (DMF) to withhold more than $52 million in life
insurance benefits to survivors, in some cases for as long as 40
years, lead plaintiff Jack Fishbaum claims in New York County

"Specifically, MetLife has consulted the DMF assiduously for those
clients with annuities to enable the company to stop paying
annuity payments at the time of death," the complaint states.
"For regular life insurance policies, however, MetLife ignores the
DMF so that the company can avoid paying death benefits.  MetLife
disregarded the DMF for life insurance policies despite touting
that beneficiaries would receive benefits upon the death of the
insured.  This practice enables Met Life to draw the value of a
permanent life policy down to the final point of cancellation and
continue to collect interest on unclaimed benefit cash.  In such
instances, MetLife also continues to be a 'beneficiary' of the
amount with interest collected, and can, over time, allow its
requirement to pay benefits at all to basically expire.  Thus,
MetLife has long used the DMF to promptly stop issuing annuity
payments to contract holders who have died, but has ignored the
same list to locate family members of deceased policyholders in
order to issue payments to a life insurance beneficiary."

Mr. Fishbaum says the practice has subjected MetLife to state

"As a result of MetLife's unfair and wrongful practices, the
company is now the subject of numerous investigations by state
regulators," the complaint states.  "Additionally, MetLife's stock
price has declined after it was forced to take charges to increase
its reserves in connection with the use of the DMF."

Defendants in the derivative class action include MetLife CEO and
Chairman Steven A. Kandarian; former CEO and President C. Robert
Henrickson; and directors Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Eduardo Castro-
Wright, Cheryl W. Grise, R. Glenn Hubbard, John M. Keane, Alfred
F. Kelly, James M. Kilts, Catherine R. Kinney, Hugh B. Price,
David Satcher, Kenton J. Sicchitano, and Lulu C. Wang.

Mr. Fishbaum claims the directors "knew, or were reckless in not
knowing that the company was wrongfully and unfairly using the
SSA's DMF to determine whether its annuity policyholders had died
so that MetLife could stop making payments, but ignored the SSA's
DMF to determine whether death benefit payments were due under
life insurance policies.  Accordingly, the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the company and have subjected
the company to hundreds of millions of dollars in charges, a
substantial drop in the value of the company's stock, adverse
publicity, lawsuits, potential fines, investigation costs, and
other occurrences harmful to the company."

On Feb. 2, 2010, MetLife reported "earnings of $822 million, up
significantly from $277 million, largely due to strong business
growth, [and] significant equity market improvements," according
to the complaint.

The company's 2009 Form 10-K, released weeks later, revealed the
company's liabilities, stating: "'The liability for policy and
contract claims generally relates to incurred but not reported
death, disability, long-term care and dental claims, as well as
claims that have been reported but not yet settled.  The liability
for these claims is based on the company's estimated ultimate cost
of settling all claims.  The company derives estimates for the
development of incurred but not reported claims principally from
actuarial analyses of historical patterns of claims and claims
development for each line of business.  The methods used to
determine these estimates are continually reviewed.  Adjustments
resulting from this continuous review process and differences
between estimates and payments for claims are recognized in
policyholder benefits and claims expense in the period in which
the estimates are changed or payments are made,'" according to the

Mr. Fishbaum says MetLife's press releases on April 29 and
July 29, 2010, both reported positive financial results, but the
Aug. 2, 2010 release mentioned that it had received a subpoena
form the New York State attorney general.

MetLife denied the allegations.

"We believe that any allegations that information about the TCA
[Total Control Account] is not adequately disclosed or that the
accounts are fraudulent or otherwise violate state or federal laws
are without merit," the company stated, according to the

Mr. Fishbaum says that California- and Florida-based regulators
probed the allegations in 2011.

California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones and Controller John
Chiang held a hearing on May 23, 2011, which found that "life
insurers with access to the Social Security Administration's
'Death Master File' are not using information about deaths to
trigger payments to life insurance beneficiaries," according to
the complaint.

On July 5, 2011, Reuters reported that New York Attorney General
Eric Schneiderman issued subpoenas to MetLife and eight other
insurers, and MetLife disclosed its mounting liabilities the
following month, according to the complaint.

"As a result of these disclosures, MetLife's stock price declined
11 percent between Friday, August 5, 2011 and Monday, August 8,
2011," the complaint states.

It calls the results of Mr. Schneiderman's investigation damning.

"As a result of its investigation, the New York State Department
of Financial Services determined that life insurers in New York --
including MetLife -- have been withholding more than $52 million
in life insurance benefits to the survivors of deceased policy
holders -- in some cases for as long as 40 years," the complaint
states.  "The results of the investigation revealed that at least
7,934 policies were outstanding because of the failure of
insurance companies to consult the Death Master File.  One such
case involved a policyholder who died in 1970.  Another case
involved an outstanding payment of $673,485, plus interest.
Benjamin Lawsky, the Superintendent for the Department of
Financial Services, indicated that 'this is just the beginning.'
Currently, an additional 950,000 policies are under review, and
27,889 new 'old' claims were being processed.  Eventually, the
amount owed to beneficiaries is expected to reach hundreds of
millions of dollars. The Department claims that insurers --
including MetLife -- have shirked their responsibility to match
policies to the official record of deaths."

Mr. Fishbaum says the individual defendants wanted to maintain
their stock options at shareholders' expense.

A chart of the 12 defendant directors' compensation for 2010,not
including the CEO or previous CEO, show that all 12 received more
than $226,000 that year.

Mr. Fishbaum seeks damages for breach of fiduciary duty, gross
mismanagement, contribution and indemnification, abuse of control
and waste of corporate assets.

A copy of the Complaint in Fishbaum v. MetLife, Inc., et al.,
Index No. 12100955 (N.Y. Sup. ct., N.Y. Cty.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth M. Gonsiorowski, Esq.
          30 Broad Street, Suite 1401
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 382-2221
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Ex Kano S. Sams II, Esq.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone:  (310) 201-9150

               - and -

          Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
          The Preston Commons
          8117 Preston Road, Suite 300
          Dallas, TX 75225
          Telephone: (214) 706-9314
          E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Patrick Powers, Esq.
          Mark Taylor, Esq.
          Peyton Healey, Esq.
          Campbell Centre II
          8150 North Central Expy.,
          Suite 1575
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 239-8900
          E-mail: patrick@powerstaylor.com

NEWPAGE CORP: Feb. 3 Deadline Set for Retirees' Proofs of Claim
Nathaniel Shuda, writing for NPR, reports that in a recent legal
notice to retirees involved in a class-action lawsuit against the
company, which suit fights cutbacks in retiree health benefits,
NewPage Corp. said retirees had until 5:00 p.m. Friday, Feb. 3, to
file proofs of claim against the papermaker.  However, attorneys
for the retirees said they don't have to file their own claims
because their unions will do that for them.

"They do intend to submit a claim on behalf of all the retirees
who worked at mills where the United Steelworkers represented
them," said Bill Payne -- wpayne@stemberfeinstein.com -- a
Pittsburgh-based attorney representing the USW and the retirees.

"People are certainly free to send in a claim (on their own) and
say, 'You wrongfully terminated my benefits,'" he said.

Other unions also plan to file similar documents on behalf of
their members, said Marianne Robbins, a Milwaukee-based attorney
representing the other unions.  It remains unclear whether
retirees who were not union members need to take action
individually, though attorneys were hoping to extend the Friday
deadline, Payne said.

Cliff Bowers, a local NewPage spokesman, declined to comment on
the case, saying the company does not discuss pending litigation.

Bill Clendenning, a Grand Rapids resident and former Wisconsin
Rapids millworker, filed the lawsuit in 2009, along with the union
and fellow retired millworkers from Niagara and Kimberly.  The
class-action case alleges that unlawful changes to the retiree
benefits program were made under the direction of Stora Enso North
America, which owned some of the affected mills from 2000 through

In a November 2009 letter to retirees, NewPage announced plans to
implement a three-year gradual phase-out of the employer
contributions of health insurance premiums for former employees
who retired after 1985 and are older than 65, starting in 2010.

The plans included decreasing the company's contribution by 33
percent each year for three years.

United Steelworkers attorneys are trying to halt the third and
final phase of the plan, which was supposed to take place this
month, Mr. Payne said.

Meanwhile, the fate of the lawsuit itself remains unclear while
the Ohio-based papermaker is under Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection, he said.

"It's sort of up in the air right now," Mr. Payne said.

PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Fishermen's Suit Gets Class-Action Status
Ilene Aleshire, writing for The Register-Guard, reports that a
judge has granted class-action status to a federal lawsuit filed
by two fishermen against Clackamas-based Pacific Seafood Group,
the nation's largest seafood company.

Brookings fishermen Lloyd Whaley and Todd Whaley claim that
Pacific Seafood Group illegally exploits its market power as a
wholesaler to pay fishermen below-market prices for whiting,
groundfish and shrimp from Northern California to the Canadian
border.  They also allege that Pacific Seafood illegally conspired
with another processor, Washington-based Ocean Gold Seafoods, to
suppress prices for whiting.

Both companies have denied the allegations.  Pacific said it has
benefited fishermen by opening up new markets, putting more
fishermen to work and allowing them to earn more than they would
without the company's buying power and influence.

Portland attorneys Mike Haglund -- haglund@hk-law.com -- and Mike
Kelley -- kelley@hk-law.com -- who represent the father-and-son
Whaleys, asked to have the case certified as a class-action suit.
That means that up to 1,500 fishermen by the lawyers' count
potentially could tap into the $67 million to $83 million in
damages that Messrs. Haglund and Kelley are seeking, should they
win the suit.

U.S. District Judge Owen Panner on on Jan. 31 certified the
lawsuit as a class-action suit.

Pacific Seafood's general counsel, Craig Urness, said, "We're
disappointed that the judge did grant class certification status.
We are currently reviewing our options for appeal of the class
certification ruling."

The most important thing to remember, Mr. Urness said, is that the
judge's decision to allow the lawsuit to proceed as a class-action
suit "is not a review of the facts of the case.  We have a lot of
rulings to go that will depend on the facts.  And the facts
clearly reflect that the claims being made (by the fishermen) are
without merit."

Mr. Haglund, for his part, described the ruling as "a major
validation" of his clients' suit.

"They (Pacific Seafood) have been calling us frivolous from day
one.  This demonstrates that's not the case."

Mr. Haglund also contended that Pacific Seafood does not have the
automatic right of being granted an appeal -- that decision, he
said, falls with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

With the suit slated for trial in June, "the odds that the 9th
Circuit would take this now are extremely low," Mr. Haglund said.
"Why not wait and have a complete (trial) record?"

Although the judge's ruling on Jan. 31 was only on whether to
certify the case as a class-action lawsuit, Mr. Haglund said the
U.S. Supreme Court's decision last year to deny class-action
status to a lawsuit filed by Walmart employees signaled to judges
that "you're free as part of your evaluation of whether to grant
class action to take a peak at the merits of the case."

"(Pacific's attorneys) are trying to minimize the significance of
this decision," Mr. Haglund said.

PAYCHECK TODAY: Arbitration Provision is Void, App. Ct. Says
The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed a trial court's denial of
a motion to compel arbitration in a purported class lawsuit
against Apex 1 Processing, Inc.

Apex 1, dba as Paycheck Today, is a "payday loan" business which
includes in its loan contracts a compulsory arbitration provision.
The lawsuit was brought by Akeala Edwards on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated alleging that Apex engaged in unfair
trade practices.  Apex moved to dismiss and to compel Ms. Edwards
to arbitrate as an individual, not as a class representative.

The Appeals Court agrees with the trial court that the arbitration
provision is null and void given that the National Arbitration
Forum as the arbitral forum was integral to the arbitration
agreement but is no longer available to conduct consumer
arbitrations.  Section 5 of the Federal Arbitration Act cannot be
used as a mechanism to appoint a substitute arbitrator, the
Appeals Court adds.

Douglas B. King, Esq. -- dking@woodmclaw.com -- and Matthew M.
Adolay, Esq. -- madolay@woodmclaw.com -- of Wooden & McLaughlin
LLP, in Indianapolis, Indiana, represent Apex 1 Processing.

Irwin B. Levin, Esq. -- ilevin@cohenandmalad.com -- Richard E.
Shevitz, Esq. -- rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com -- and Vess A. Miller,
Esq. -- vmiller@cohenandmalad.com of Cohen & Malad, LLP, in
Indianapolis, Indiana, represent Akeala Edwards.

A copy of the Appeals Court Jan. 20, 2012 Opinion is available for
free at http://is.gd/O5D9POfrom Leagle.com.

PHILIPPS PETROLEUM: Relators Not Entitled to Writ of Mandamus
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, denied a
petition for writ of mandamus filed by ConocoPhillips Company, et
al., as relators, complaining of two orders issued by the
Honorable Brady G. Elliot in a class action against Phillips
Petroleum Co.

Judge Elliot is the presiding judge of the 268th District Court of
Fort Bend County, Texas.

The underlying suit is the class action captioned Kathryn Aylor
Bowden, et al. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. et al., 247 S.W.3d
690(Tex. 2008), where the Texas Supreme Court approved
certification of Subclass 2.  The class action allege that
Phillips Petroleum underpaid royalties due under oil and gas
production leases through its inter-affiliate transactions.  The
two orders entered in the Phillips class suit that the Relators
complain about are:

  1. The trial court's January 2011 denial of their motion to
     decertify the class; and

  2. The trial court's October 2011 denial of the Relators' Motion
     for Partial Summary Judgment that certain claims are not
     included in Subclass 2.

"Relators have not established entitlement to the extraordinary
relief of a writ of mandamus on the ground that the trial court
improperly denied a motion for partial summary judgment," the
Appeals Court held.

A copy of the Appeals Court's Jan. 24, 2012 Memorandum Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/LxmigXfrom Leagle.com.

ST GEORGE AND BANKSA: Faces Class Action Over Late Payment Fees
Leonie Lamont, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
the class action against Australia's biggest banks over late
payment fees has escalated, with lawyers on Feb. 1 in Sydney
drawing two more banks into the case -- St George and BankSA.

In what is the biggest class action in Australia's history, the
law firm Maurice Blackburn is seeking to recover as much as AUD200
million in what it says are unlawful fees charged by the banks on
credit card and other accounts.

The class action's first target in 2010 was the ANZ bank, and in
December it widened its net to include the Comnmonwealth Bank,
National Australia Bank, Westpac and Citi.

In December, the banks announced they would vigorously defend the
action.  St George and BankSA are owned by Westpac, and have yet
to comment on the Federal court action filed against them.

St George and Bank SA are the latest Australian banks to be taken
to court by customers angry at the fees they are charged.

Maurice Blackburn senior associate Paul Gillett said the legal
firm and bank customers taking part in the class action were in
for a long fight to recoup the fees plus interest.

"Everyday Australians are sick of the banks taking them for
granted," Mr. Gillett told reporters in Sydney.

"And they are sick of the banks throwing their weight around and
sick of the banks making massive profits while they do it.

"Maurice Blackburn is doing what it can to try and get some of
that money back for families and small businesses around this

More than 10,000 St George and Bank SA customers are party to the

They are seeking to recoup AUD16 million in fees which the
customers say they have been unfairly charged by the two banks.

The latest action follows a AUD50 million claim the law firm
launched in September 2010 on behalf of ANZ customers trying to
claim back exception fees.

STARLINE COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in Calif. Over Spam Text Messages
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that a mother
claims in a federal class action that "one of the nation's largest
purveyors of telephone pornography" sent her spam text messages
that were "distressingly viewed" by her 10-year old daughter.

Elaine Harris sued California-based Starline Communications
International, seeking statutory and treble damages under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and an injunction ordering it
to "cease all wireless spam activities".

The complaint describes a trifecta of obnoxious behavior: sending
unwanted spam, which is offensive, at the cost of recipients who
don't want it.

The complaint states: "In a recent effort to promote its 'adult'
telephone services business, defendant, one of the nation's
largest purveyors of telephonic pornography, engaged in an
especially pernicious form of marketing: the transmission of
unauthorized advertisements, in the form of 'text message' calls
to the cellular telephones of consumers throughout the nation.

"By effectuating these unauthorized text message calls
(hereinafter, 'wireless spam'), defendant has caused consumers
actual harm, not only because consumers were subjected to the
aggravation that necessarily accompanies the invasion of privacy
caused by wireless spam, but also because consumers like plaintiff
frequently have to pay their cell phone service providers for the
receipt of such wireless spam."

Citing the Pew Research Center, Ms. Harris says 57 percent of
adults with cell phones have received "unwanted or spam text
messages on their phone."

"Over the course of an extended period beginning in at least 2011,
defendant directed the mass transmission of wireless spam to the
cell phones nationwide of what it hoped were potential customers
of its phone sex services," the complaint states.

"For instance, on or about January 19, 2012, plaintiff's cell
phone rang, indicating that a text call was being received.

"The 'from' field of such transmission was identified cryptically
as '818-620-6912,' which is a dedicated telephone number or 'long-
code' operated by defendant's agents that transmits text messages
en masse through devices known as modern banks and/or carrier
gateways.  The body of such text message read:

Baby I'm Way Hotter Than The Girl Who's Been Getting You Off In
Your Wet Dreams! See My Pic & Get My Phone # On http://www.[an
Internet address.

"The Web site contained in the above text message is owned and
operated by defendant and/or its agents and further promotes
defendant's products.

"Within days of receiving the above text call, which was
distressingly viewed by plaintiff's ten-year old daughter,
plaintiff received additional spam text message advertising
containing further lewd and offensive content from defendant
and/or its agents, in knowing violation of plaintiff's privacy."

Ms. Harris seeks $500 in damages for each member of the class, for
each violation, trebled.

The law firm did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Starline Communications could not be reached.

A copy of the Complaint in Harris v. Starline Communications
International, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-00778 (C.D. Calif.), is
available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean Reis, Esq.
          30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Telephone: (949) 459-2124
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com

STATE OF DENVER: Teacher's Union Files Class Action
Yesenia Robles, writing for The Denver Post, reports that the
Denver teacher's union has filed a class-action grievance in
anticipation of a budget plan that Denver Public Schools was
expected to announce on Jan. 31 that would extend middle school

"We are not against extended learning opportunities, but the
district so far has refused to negotiate with us," said Carolyn
Crowder, executive director of the Denver Classroom Teacher's

The filing means DPS will be required to sit down with officials
from the teachers union within seven days.  If parties aren't able
to start a negotiation process, they will have to go to an

The DPS plan would extend the school day by an hour in the
afternoon, so students are in class until 3:30 p.m. at some

Ms. Crowder said the union would like to ensure the ultimate
decision on extending the school day is a school-level choice.

"DPS communication to parents has centered around announcing
changes instead of soliciting ideas.  The planning teams from the
fourteen schools were told to design their own plans and "think
outside of the box" and yet, this past week were given "one-size-
fits all" directives," according to a union news release.

DPS disagrees, and said the process will allow schools to apply
for funds to extend the day, and DPS will select a few schools
based on the best proposals.

"The opportunity for extended learning time for our students has
remarkable promise for additional enrichment, student advancement,
and extra learning for students who are behind," said DPS
spokesman, Mike Vaughn.  "We look forward to receiving the school-
based proposals for how they might extend their time and benefit
their kids."

Ms. Crowder said teachers also want to create clear guidelines on
who will be supervising students during the additional time, and
want to ensure they will be paid at the regular rate.

"As I understand what they propose is to pay teachers the
professional development rate that they pay when teachers stay an
extra day for a training session for instance, but this is not the
same thing," Ms. Crowder said.  "We're not asking for them to make
more money, just their regular teaching rate."

Professional rates for teachers vary, but are usually half or one
third of teacher's regular hourly wages, Ms. Crowder said.

Mr. Vaughn said the district will abide by the contract language.

"Any teacher who volunteers to work a longer day in these
extended-time pilots will, of course, receive the extra pay
specified in the collective bargaining agreement," Mr. Vaughn
said.  "We do not believe that this needs to be a conflict in any
way with our teachers' union."

TUESDAY MORNING: California Employees' Suit Still Pending
In December 2008, a class action lawsuit against Tuesday Morning
Corporation was filed by hourly, non-exempt employees in the
Superior Court of California in and for the County of Los Angeles,
alleging claims covering meal and rest period violations.  The
putative class action has now been limited to Senior Sales
Associates in California during the class period.  The parties are
presently conducting discovery.  The Company does not expect this
complaint to have a material impact on its results of operations
or financial position.

No further updates were reported in the Company's January 30,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

UNITED STATES: VA Sued for Discriminating Against Older Nurses
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action filed
in Manhattan accuses the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs of
discriminating against older registered nurses.

WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Unsolicited Calls
Courthouse News Service reports that Wells Fargo Dealer Services
and Hyundai Motor Finance harass consumers with months of
automatically dialed, unsolicited calls to their cellphones, a
class claims.

A copy of the Complaint in Dobbs v. Wells Fargo Bank, et al., Case
No. 37-2012-00050425 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.), is
available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Potter, Esq.
          Russell Handy, Esq.
          9845 Erma Road, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (858) 422-5191
          E-mail: mark@potterhandy.com

               - and -

          Shawn Morris, Esq.
          Will Lemkul, Esq.
          Shanna Bailey, Esq.
          9915 Mira Mesa Blvd., Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (858) 566-7600
          E-mail: morris@morrissullivanlaw.com

WELLS FARGO: Accused in California Suit of Aiding Ponzi Scam
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action claims that a brokerage firm's Ponzi scheme, aided and
abetted by Wells Fargo Capital Finance and the Greenberg Traurig
law firm, cost investors "hundreds of millions" of dollars.

Lead plaintiff David Nolan sued Wells Fargo Capital Finance, Wells
Fargo Foothill and Greenberg Traurig, of New York, in Alameda
County Court.

Mr. Nolan alleges seven causes of action, including fraud by
concealment, fraud by misrepresentation, aiding and abetting fraud
and breach of fiduciary duty, and secondary liability for
securities fraud.

From 2002 to 2007, Mr. Nolan says, he and other investors saw
great returns on their investments in the now-bankrupt RE Loans, a
brokerage firm that secured developer loans by holding liens on
real estate throughout California.  The developer loans were
funded by Mr. Nolan and other investors who purchased membership
interests in RE Loans' fund.

In early 2007, the fund had 1,400 investors and was worth more
than $700 million, but it had to stop accepting new money because
it had violated state and federal securities laws, according to
the complaint.

Rather than notify its investors of this, and of its impending
illiquidity, RE Loans turned to Greenberg Traurig and Wells Fargo
to help hide the problems, Mr. Nolan says.

"To that end, the [RE Loans] managers, actively aided by
Greenberg, procured unauthorized third party financing from Wells
Fargo," the complaint states.  "This third party financing was
secured to enable the fund to make certain preferential payments
while creating the illusion of fund liquidity sufficient to
continue to pay a return to its investors.  Greenberg arranged for
its other client -- Wells Fargo -- to issue a $50 million line of

"Moreover, Wells Fargo demanded that the [RE Loans] managers
collateralize the $50 million line of credit with all of RE Loan's
assets -- an amount in excess of $700 million -- and demanded that
its security interest take priority over any security interests
held by members.  Wells Fargo also required that RE Loans endorse
and deliver over $250 million of notes receivable to Wells Fargo.
The line of credit from Wells Fargo was funded in or about
July 17, 2007.

"Defendants Greenberg and Wells Fargo -- which was [sic] clearly
conflicted -- knew and deliberately and recklessly disregarded the
fact that the Wells Fargo line of credit itself contravened the
expressed provisions of published offering circulars that had
previously been issued to and used to solicit funds from the RE
Loans investors.  These offering circulars limited the fund's
sources of operating capital to cash subscriptions from new
investors, existing mortgage loans of the developer borrowers and
mergers with existing partnerships or LLCs -- prohibiting RE Loans
from raising capital through third party borrowing."

Mr. Nolan says Wells Fargo's line of credit was "substantially
exhausted" almost immediately after it was established in July
2007, exacerbating the fund's liquidity crisis.

Mr. Nolan claims that Greenberg Traurig wrote "formal Exchange
Offering documents" for an "Exchange Transaction," which was sent
to investors on and after Oct. 8, 2007.

"Among other documents, the Exchange Offering materials included a
so-called 'Confidential Memorandum' issued to the fund's investors
with copies of a proposed 'Exchange Agreement' and an 'Operating

'The Confidential Memorandum intentionally concealed the
deteriorating financial condition of RE Loans and the insolvent
shell that would remain after the Exchange Transaction," according
to the complaint.

"The Confidential Memorandum falsely assured the investors that
all was 'well' with RE Loans through misleading statements that
'[t]he loan portfolio continues to perform well,' the properties
securing those loans '[are] adequate in value to preserve the
fund's economic interests,' or it was 'likely . . . that the fund
will be able to pay principal and interest on' the investor notes,
and conveyed a message that the investors would be better off
after the proposed reorganization and exchange of their membership
interests," according to the complaint.

But Mr. Nolan says: "In fact, through the Exchange Offering, the
fund managers-knowingly aided and abetted by Greenberg and Wells
Fargo-eliminated the RE Loans' harmed investors' equity interests
and their rights in RE Loans by duping them into tendering their
membership interests in RE Loans in exchange for promissory notes:
an exchange that in reality, was a subterfuge to (1) persuade the
plaintiff and harmed investors to unwittingly agree after-the-fact
to the unauthorized line of credit loan and (2) unwind or
legitimize the managers' past violations of the law."

Mr. Nolan claims that "Wells Fargo was aware of the false and
misleading statements in the Exchange Offering documents, which
Wells Fargo had insisted upon and required as a condition of the
line of credit.  And both Wells Fargo and Greenberg knew that the
representations contained in the Exchange Offering documents were
false and misleading as they each possess knowledge of the true
financial condition and affairs of RE Loans and that it did not
have the authority to have obtained third-party financing from or
pledge its assets as collateral to Wells Fargo.

"As a consequence of the foregoing misrepresentations, RE Loan
investors were induced and coaxed into approving the
reorganization on November 1, 2007.  Consequently, their
membership interests in RE Loans were replaced with promissory
notes, converting plaintiff and investors in RE Loans into

"These transactions had a devastating impact on the rights and
interests of the RE Loans members and resulting noteholders -- the
harmed investors.  They were stripped of effective recourse to RE
Loans' assets and were placed by the assignment in a subordinated
position to Wells Fargo.  In one transaction orchestrated by the
managers, Greenberg, and Wells Fargo, the plaintiff and RE Loans
members lost all the rights they previously held and enjoyed as
equity shareholders in RE Loans and were relegated to second-tier
creditors with junior security interests."

Then, Mr. Nolan claims, the defendants created a new investment
vehicle called Mortgage Fund '08 (MF'08).  He claims the RE Loans
manager and Greenberg created "false and misleading solicitation
materials" for MF'08, which "falsely represented the true
condition of MF'08.  "Greenberg prepared these materials, and
along with Wells Fargo, know that MF'08 was in essence a Ponzi-
scheme entity that was largely targeting then-existing RE Loans
investors and duping them into investing money in MF'08 that was
being channeled to hide the defendants' unlawful misconduct
respecting RE Loans.  To that end, and without adequate disclosure
to the investors, money raised by the managers from the MF'08
investors was being 'loaned' to RE Loans in order to pay, in
material part, loan obligations to Wells Fargo."

Mr. Nolan says RE Loans began defaulting on its Wells Fargo
obligations within a few months of the exchange transaction.  He
claims Wells Fargo amended the operative loan documents no less
than seven times between late 2007 and 2010, imposing "onerous
collateral requirements, higher interest rates, and other
restrictions to gain further control over the assets" of RE Loans.

"By March 13, 2010, the debt to Wells Fargo had climbed to $65
million," the complaint states.  "Subsequently, Wells Fargo, which
had previously acted overtly to facilitate the fund managers'
self-dealing to the prejudice of plaintiff and the harmed
investors, came in for the kill.  In August-September 2011, Wells
Fargo began exercising its rights as a secured creditor with
respect to the collateral assigned by RE Loans and is in the
process of liquidating the underlying properties.  . . .

"While defendants have profited, investors have been gravely
harmed.  Many of these investors are elders.  Many invested all of
their retirement funds. Others invested their entire life savings.
Many of those investors were induced or convinced to mortgage
their homes to invest with RE Loans. Others are now destitute.
All harmed investors were victims of fraud, intentional breaches
of fiduciary duty, and violations of the law.

"Plaintiff now seeks relief on behalf of himself and the harmed
investors, who have collectively lost hundreds of millions of
dollars arising from the intentional fraud, misconduct and self-
dealing complained of herein, and as aided and abetted by Wells
Fargo and Greenberg.  These claims are direct, not derivative,
because the wrongs were directed toward and injured plaintiff and
the harmed investors."

A copy of the Complaint in Nolan v. Wells Fargo capital Finance,
Inc., et al., Case No. RG12614850 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda
Cty.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen M. Basser, Esq.
          Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0800
          E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com

WESTINGHOUSE SOLAR: Court Approved "Hodges" Suit Deal in Dec.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California entered final approval of the settlement of the class
action lawsuit captioned Hodges v. Akeena Solar, Inc., et al., in
December 2011, according to Westinghouse Solar, Inc.'s
January 30, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On December 15, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California entered an order (the "Class
Action Order") granting final approval to the settlement of the
class action complaint filed against the Company and certain of
the Company's officers on May 18, 2009, captioned Hodges v. Akeena
Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. C-09-02147.  Pursuant to the
settlement and Class Action Order, the class action lawsuit was
dismissed in its entirety with prejudice and on the merits,
resulting in a release of all claims and a cash payment made
exclusively from the proceeds of the Company's directors' and
officers' liability insurance.

YAZAKI CORP: Faces Antitrust Class Action in Michigan
Courthouse News Service reports that federal antitrust class
actions accuse Yazaki Corp. of conspiring to control the market
for auto instrument panel clusters and fuel senders, which measure
how much gas is in the tank.

A copy of the Complaint in Kendrick, et al. v. Yazaki Corporation,
et al., Case No. 12-cv-10407 (E.D. Mich.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          950 West University Drive
          Rochester, MI  48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Hollis Salzman, Esq.
          Bernard Persky, Esq.
          Kellie Lerner, Esq.
          Seth Gassman, Esq.
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          E-mail: hsalzman@labaton.com

               - and -

          M. Stephen Dampier, Esq.
          55 N. Section Street
          Fairhope, AL  36532
          Telephone: (251) 929.0900
          E-mail: stevedampier@dampierlaw.com

YAZAKI CORP: Labaton Sucharow Files Antitrust Class Action
Labaton Sucharow LLP is the first law firm in the country to file
three antitrust class action lawsuits on Jan. 31 against certain
automotive parts suppliers for fixing the prices of and rigging
the bids for certain automotive parts, including heating control
panels, fuel senders and instrument panel clusters.  The actions
were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan and follow an earlier class action filed in
late 2011 against suppliers of automotive wire harness systems.

Labaton Sucharow's civil lawsuits emanate from an overarching
criminal investigation by the Antitrust Division of the Department
of Justice into price fixing, bid rigging and other
anticompetitive conduct in the automotive parts industry.  This
investigation has already resulted in nearly $750 million in
criminal fines and is expected to yield the largest fines in DOJ
history.  Yazaki Corporation and DENSO Corporation, both named in
the new lawsuits, have agreed to plead guilty and to pay a total
of $548 million in criminal fines for their roles in the antitrust

Hollis Salzman -- hsalzman@labaton.com -- Managing Partner of
Labaton Sucharow LLP's Antitrust Practice Group, stated, "In our
experience, when companies engage in price fixing of this
magnitude, it is only a matter of time before their house of cards
falls.  These conspiracies affected virtually every business and
person who owns a car in the United States during one of the most
vulnerable periods in our economy."

The cases are captioned LaCava, et al. v. Denso Corporation, et
al., Case No. 12-cv-10410, Kendrick, et al. v. Yazaki Corporation,
et al., Case No. 12-cv-10407, and Wilson, et al. v. Yazaki
Corporation, et al., Case No. 12-cv-10406.

Labaton Sucharow LLP -- http://www.labaton.com-- is a law firm
representing institutional investors in class action and complex
securities litigation, as well as consumers and businesses in
class actions seeking to recover damages for anticompetitive
practices.  It has offices in New York, New York and Wilmington,

* Securities Class Action Filings Hit Record High in Canada
Securities class action filings in Canada reached their highest
level to date in 2011 with 15 new filings, according to NERA
Economic Consulting's annual report, Trends In Canadian Securities
Class Actions: 2011 Update.  The previous high was 12 filings in

Driving this increase in filings are so called "Bill 198" cases,
which are those involving claims in respect of an issuer's
continuous disclosure obligations pursuant to PartXXIII.1 of the
Ontario Securities Act (OSA) and analogous sections of the other
provincial securities acts.  Nine of the 15 cases filed in 2011
were Bill 198 cases, compared to the seven filed in 2010.  A total
of 35 Bill 198 cases have been filed since the new provisions came
into force in 2005.  Of these, 24 remain unresolved, 10 have
settled, and one has been dismissed.

"The uptick in securities class actions filings observed since
2008 is clearly not a transient phenomenon," said NERA Senior Vice
President and Trends co-author Mark Berenblut.  "This trend has
been driven by filings of Bill 198 cases, which account for more
than two-thirds of the cases filed between 2008 and 2011."

"This upward trend seems likely to continue at least through 2012.
Several factors may influence the number of filings and the size
of settlements in the future, including future rulings in leave
applications, certification motions, and any trial judgments, as
well as the evolving landscape of US class actions involving
foreign companies and investors following the US Supreme Court
decision in Morrison," added NERA Vice President and Trends co-
author Brad Heys.

                Filings against Chinese Companies

Three of the new filings during 2011 were made against Chinese
companies whose shares trade on the TSX or TSX Venture Exchange.
These filings are a reflection of one of the major trends driving
class action filings in the United States last year.  The filings
in Canada include the case against Sino-Forest--one of the
highest-profile suits brought against Chinese companies on either
side of the border.

             Additional Securities Class Action Trends

Other key findings from the report include:

   -- There are 45 active Canadian securities class actions as of
December 31, 2011.  These cases represent a total of approximately
C$24.5 billion in outstanding claims.

   -- Of the six non-Bill 198 class action filings made in 2011,
one involved only prospectus claims, one is related to a takeover
bid, two involved allegations related to the management of
investment funds, and two involve allegations of a Ponzi scheme.

   -- As noted in previous annual reports, Canadian companies face
the risk of class action litigation in the United States, with
parallel actions in Canada.  In 2011 five Canadian-domiciled
companies were named as defendants in six securities class action
filings in the US, up from the three cases filed in each of 2009
and 2010, but down from the eight cases filed in 2008.

   -- Two cases settled in 2011 for total payments by defendants
of C$58.6 million.  This includes the actions against Norbourg
Asset management (C$55 million) and Redline Communications Group
(C$3.6 million).

   -- Ontario continues to be the venue for the majority of
Canadian shareholder class action filings.  In 2011, 12 of the 15
new cases were filed in the province.

   -- Five of the 15 Canadian securities class actions filed in
2011 were brought against companies in the minerals sector and
four were brought against companies operating in the finance
sector.  Two were brought against forestry companies.

   -- In 2011, the average time to filing was about 10.5 months
from the end of the proposed class period.  However, the median
time to filing cases filed was significantly lower in 2011 at just
under three months, down from approximately twelve months for
cases filed in 2010.

                    Class Action Trend Series

NERA has been analyzing trends in securities class actions for
more than 15 years.  In addition to this Canada Trends report, the
firm produces two US Trends studies annually, and reports for the
UK, Australia, Japan, and Italy.

This year-end study was authored by NERA Economic Consulting
Senior Vice President Mark Berenblut and Vice President Bradley

Trends In Canadian Securities Class Actions: 2011 Update may be
downloaded from: http://www.securitieslitigationtrends.com

                            About NERA

NERA Economic Consulting -- http://www.nera.com-- is a global
firm of experts dedicated to applying economic, finance, and
quantitative principles to complex business and legal challenges.
For nearly half a century, NERA's economists have been creating
strategies, studies, reports, expert testimony, and policy
recommendations for government authorities, law firms and
corporations.  With its main office in New York City, NERA serves
clients from over 20 offices across North America, Europe, and
Asia Pacific.


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *