---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, February 9, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 28

                             Headlines

AES CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over DPL Acquisition
AMAZON.COM INC: Appeal in IPO Suit vs. Unit Dismissed in Jan.
BANK OF AMERICA: Investors' Suit Obtains Class-Action Status
BIOSANTE PHARMACEUTICALS: Robbins Umeda Files Class Action
CITIZENS PROPERTY: Faces Class Action Over 360Value Software

CITY OF NEW YORK: Cab Drivers Sue Over GPS Tracking
COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in N.J.
CREEKSTONE FARMS: Workers' Class Action Gets Conditional Okay
DENSO CORP: Faces Antitrust Class Action in Michigan
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Consolidated Class Action Suit Dismissed

GREEN MOUNTAIN: Securities Fraud Class Suit Pending in Vermont
GREEN MOUNTAIN: Vermont Court Dismissed "Horowitz" Fraud Suit
GOVGUAM: Amends Class Action Over Tiyan Land Swap Law
HILLENBRAND INC: Still Awaits Decision in FCA Action Appeal
INERGY LP: Stills Awaits Approval of Merger-Related Suits Deal

JOHN B. SANFILIPPO: Gets Final OK of "Cardenas" Suit Settlement
JP MORGAN: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $110 Million
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Court Reopens Australian Investor Class Action
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Retiree Group Seeks Class Cert. in Suit v. E&Y
MOLYCORP: Faces Class Action Over Mountain Pass Mine Expansion

MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Continues to Defend "Bussey" Suit
MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Certify Class
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Expects to Spend AUS11-Mil. in Class Action
RBS GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Asbestos-Related Suits vs. Units
ROCK-TENN CO: Awaits Final Approval of Delaware Suit Settlement

TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Vehicle Design Defects
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Ruling on Petition to Hear Appeal
UNITIL CORP: Still Defends Suit vs. Unit in Massachusetts
WARNER MUSIC: Faces Class Action Over Digital Royalties
XCELERA INC: Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky Files Class Action


                          *********

AES CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over DPL Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
The AES Corporation continues to defend class action lawsuits
arising from its recent acquisition of DPL Inc., according to the
Company's February 1, 2012, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On November 28, 2011, The AES Corporation completed its
acquisition of 100% of the common stock of DPL Inc. ("DPL"), the
parent company of Dayton Power & Light Company ("DP&L"), a utility
company based in Ohio, pursuant to the Merger Agreement dated as
of April 19, 2011.  DPL serves over 500,000 customers in Ohio,
primarily West Central Ohio, through its operating subsidiaries
DP&L and DPL Energy Resources ("DPLER").  Additionally, DPL
operates over 3,800 MW of power generation facilities and provides
competitive retail energy services to residential, commercial,
industrial and governmental customers.  As part of the
Acquisition, Dolphin Subsidiary II, Inc., a direct wholly-owned
subsidiary of AES ("Merger Sub") merged with and into DPL, with
DPL surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of AES.

Lawsuits have been filed in connection with the then Proposed
Merger.  Each of these lawsuits seeks, among other things, one or
more of the following: to enjoin the defendants from consummating
the Proposed Merger until certain conditions are met, or to
rescind the Proposed Merger or for rescissory damages, or to
recover damages if the Proposed Merger is consummated or to
commence a sale process and/or obtain an alternative transaction
or to promptly notice an annual shareholder meeting or to recover
an unspecified amount of other damages and costs, including
attorneys' fees and expenses, or a constructive trust or an
accounting from the individual defendants for benefits they
allegedly obtained as a result of their alleged breach of duty or
an injunction specifically preventing DPL from paying a
termination fee.

On April 21, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common
Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming DPL and each member of
DPL's board of directors, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. as defendants.
The lawsuit is a purported class action filed by Patricia A.
Heinmullter on behalf of herself and an alleged class of DPL
shareholders.  Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that DPL's
directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving the
Proposed Merger of DPL and AES and that AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc.
aided and abetted such breach.

On April 25, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common
Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming each member of DPL's
board of directors and AES as defendants and naming DPL as a
nominal defendant.  The lawsuit filed by the Austren Trust is a
purported class action on behalf of plaintiff and an alleged class
of DPL shareholders and a purported derivative action on behalf of
DPL.  Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that DPL's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Proposed Merger
of DPL and AES and that AES aided and abetted such breach.  On
September 29, 2011, the Court entered an order dismissing the
Austren Trust action without prejudice pursuant to a stipulation
of dismissal filed by the parties.

On April 26, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division
(the "District Court"), naming each member of DPL's board of
directors, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. as defendants and naming DPL
as a nominal defendant.  The lawsuit filed by Stephen Kubiak is a
purported class action on behalf of plaintiff and an alleged class
of DPL shareholders and a purported derivative action on behalf of
DPL.  Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that DPL's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Proposed Merger
of DPL and AES and that AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. aided and
abetted such breach.

On April 26, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common
Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming each member of DPL's
board of directors, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. as defendants and
naming DPL as a nominal defendant.  The lawsuit filed by Sandra
Meyr is a purported class action on behalf of plaintiff and an
alleged class of DPL shareholders and a purported derivative
action on behalf of DPL.  Plaintiff alleges, among other things,
that DPL's directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving
the Proposed Merger of DPL and AES and that AES and Dolphin Sub,
Inc. aided and abetted such breach.  On May 31, 2011, the Court
granted the plaintiff's voluntary motion to dismiss the lawsuit
without prejudice.

On April 27, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common
Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming each member of DPL's
board of directors and AES as defendants and naming DPL as a
nominal defendant.  The lawsuit filed by Thomas Strobhar is a
purported class action on behalf of plaintiff and an alleged class
of DPL shareholders and a purported derivative action on behalf of
DPL.  Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that DPL's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Proposed Merger
of DPL and AES and that AES aided and abetted such breach.  On
September 28, 2011, the Court entered an order dismissing the
Strobhar action without prejudice pursuant to a stipulation of
dismissal filed by the parties.

On April 27, 2011, another lawsuit was filed in the Court of
Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming DPL, each member
of DPL's board of directors, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. as
defendants.  The lawsuit filed by Laurence D. Paskowitz is a
purported class action on behalf of plaintiff and an alleged class
of DPL shareholders.  Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that
DPL's directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving the
Proposed Merger of DPL and AES and that DPL, AES and Dolphin Sub,
Inc. aided and abetted such breach.

On April 28, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common
Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming DPL and each member of
DPL's board of directors as defendants.  The lawsuit filed by
Payne Family Trust is a purported class action on behalf of
plaintiff and an alleged class of DPL shareholders.  Plaintiff
alleges, among other things, that DPL's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the Proposed Merger of DPL and AES.

On May 4, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the District Court naming
DPL, each member of DPL's board of directors, AES and Dolphin Sub,
Inc. as defendants.  The lawsuit filed by Patrick Nichting is a
purported class action on behalf of plaintiff and an alleged class
of DPL shareholders and a purported derivative action on behalf of
DPL.  Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that DPL's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Proposed Merger
of DPL and AES and that DPL, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. aided and
abetted such breach.

On May 6, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming DPL, each member of DPL's board
of directors, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. as defendants.  The
lawsuit filed by Robin Mahaffey, Jerome R. Baxter, and Donald and
Patricia Aydelott is a purported class action on behalf of
plaintiffs and an alleged class of DPL shareholders.  Plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that DPL's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the Proposed Merger of DPL and AES
and that DPL and AES aided and abetted such breach.  On June 24,
2011, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of this
action without prejudice.

On May 10, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming each member of DPL's board of
directors and AES as defendants and naming DPL as a nominal
defendant.  The lawsuit filed by Glenda E. Hime, Donald D.
Foreman, Donald Moberly, James Sciarrotta, Barbara H. Sciarrotta,
Robert Krebs and Frances Krebs is a purported class action on
behalf of plaintiffs and an alleged class of DPL shareholders and
a purported derivative action on behalf of DPL.  Plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that DPL's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the Proposed Merger of DPL and AES
and that AES aided and abetted such breach.  On September 28,
2011, the Court entered an order dismissing the Hime actions
without prejudice pursuant to a stipulation of dismissal filed by
the parties.

On May 20, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, naming
DPL, each member of DPL's board of directors, AES and Dolphin Sub,
Inc. as defendants.  The lawsuit filed by Ralph B. Holtmann and
Catherine P. Holtmann is a purported class action on behalf of
plaintiffs and an alleged class of DPL shareholders.  Plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that DPL's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the Proposed Merger of DPL and AES
and that DPL, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. aided and abetted such
breach.

On May 24, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming each member of DPL's board of
directors and AES as defendants and naming DPL as a nominal
defendant.  The lawsuit filed by Maxine Levy is a purported class
action on behalf of plaintiff and an alleged class of DPL
shareholders and a purported derivative action on behalf of DPL.
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that DPL's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Proposed Merger
of DPL and AES and that AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. aided and
abetted such breach.

On June 13, 2011, the three actions pending in the District Court
were consolidated.  On June 14, 2011, the District Court granted
Plaintiff Nichting's motion to appoint lead and liaison counsel.
On June 30, 2011, plaintiffs in the consolidated federal action
filed an amended complaint that adds claims based on alleged
omissions in the preliminary proxy statement that DPL filed on
June 22, 2011 (the "Preliminary Proxy Statement").  Plaintiffs, in
their individual capacity only, assert a claim against DPL and its
directors under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") for purported omissions in the
Preliminary Proxy Statement and a claim against DPL's directors
for control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.  In addition, plaintiffs purport to assert state law claims
directly on behalf of Plaintiffs and an alleged class of DPL
shareholders and derivatively on behalf of DPL.  Plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that DPL's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement for the
Proposed Merger of DPL and AES and that DPL, AES and Dolphin Sub,
Inc. aided and abetted such breach.

On July 29, 2011, DPL, DPL's directors, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc.
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with the
plaintiffs in the consolidated federal action reflecting their
agreement in principle to settle the claims asserted in the
consolidated federal action, subject to, among other things, the
execution of a stipulation of settlement, completion of
confirmatory discovery, provision of notice of the settlement to
DPL's shareholders, approval of the settlement by the District
Court, and consummation of the Proposed Merger.  If approved by
the District Court, the settlement will resolve all pending
federal court litigation related to the Proposed Merger, including
the Kubiak, Holtmann and Nichting actions, and would result in the
release by the plaintiffs and the proposed settlement class, which
consists of all record and beneficial holders of DPL's common
stock during the period beginning
April 19, 2011, through and including the consummation of the
Merger (other than the defendants), of all claims that were or
could have been brought challenging any aspect of the Merger
Agreement, the Proposed Merger and any disclosures made in
connection therewith (including the claims asserted in the
lawsuits filed in Ohio state court, among other claims, but
excluding any properly perfected claims for statutory appraisal in
connection with the Proposed Merger).  The MOU provides, among
other things, for DPL to make certain supplemental disclosures
concerning the Proposed Merger, which are contained in the
definitive proxy statement DPL filed on August 5, 2011.  In
addition, the MOU provides that the plaintiffs intend to apply to
the District Court for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses.  DPL reserves all rights to object to any such
application for a fee or expense award, but agreed to pay any fee
or expense award in an amount ordered by the District Court.
Notice of the proposed settlement will be sent to members of the
proposed class and to DPL shareholders as of the date of the
District Court's order preliminarily approving the settlement.
The District Court will schedule a hearing regarding, among other
things, approval of the proposed settlement and any application by
plaintiffs' counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

DPL says there can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
District Court will approve the settlement even if the parties
enter into such stipulation.  In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.  The
settlement will not affect the amount of the merger consideration
that DPL's shareholders are entitled to receive in the Proposed
Merger.  DPL and its board of directors believe that these
lawsuits are without merit and are seeking to settle them to
eliminate the burden and expense of litigation and to provide
additional information to DPL's shareholders at a time and in a
manner that would not have caused any further delay in DPL's 2011
Annual Meeting of Shareholders or cause any delay in the
consummation of the Proposed Merger.

Absent such settlement, DPL intends to vigorously defend against
all of the claims.

DPL expects to record transaction fees relating to the Proposed
Merger consisting primarily of bankers' fees, legal fees, and
change of control costs of approximately $45 million pre-tax
during 2011.


AMAZON.COM INC: Appeal in IPO Suit vs. Unit Dismissed in Jan.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the last remaining objector to the settlement of a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit involving an
Amazon.com, Inc. subsidiary was dismissed in January 2012,
according to the Company's February 1, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In June 2001, Audible, Inc., a Company subsidiary acquired in
March 2008, was named as a defendant in a securities class-action
filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York related to its initial public offering in July 1999.  The
lawsuit also named certain of the offering's underwriters, as well
as Audible's officers and directors as defendants.  Approximately
300 other issuers and their underwriters have had similar lawsuits
filed against them, all of which are included in a single
coordinated proceeding in the Southern District of New York.  The
complaints allege that the prospectus and the registration
statement for Audible's offering failed to disclose that the
underwriters allegedly solicited and received "excessive"
commissions from investors and that some investors allegedly
agreed with the underwriters to buy additional shares in the
aftermarket in order to inflate the price of Audible's stock.
Audible and its officers and directors were named in the lawsuits
pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and other related
provisions.  The complaints seek unspecified damages, attorney and
expert fees, and other unspecified litigation costs.

In March 2009, all parties, including Audible, reached a
settlement of these class actions that would resolve this dispute
entirely with no payment required from Audible.  The settlement
was approved by the Court in October 2009, and subsequently upheld
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and
the appeal of the last remaining objector to the settlement was
dismissed in January 2012.


BANK OF AMERICA: Investors' Suit Obtains Class-Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that investors
suing Bank of America Corp. won class-action status for their
lawsuit accusing the bank of fraudulently misleading them about
the 2008 takeover of Merrill Lynch & Co and the size of Merrill's
losses and bonus payouts.

U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel in Manhattan on Feb. 6
rejected the second-largest U.S. bank's argument that the
investors could not prove they suffered losses by relying on
materially misleading statements or omissions.

Among the other defendants who were also sued and opposed class
certification were former Bank of America Chief Executive Kenneth
Lewis, former Merrill Chief Executive John Thain, former Bank of
America Chief Financial Officer Joe Price, and Bank of America's
board of directors.

Mr. Lewis had won initial praise for saving Merrill from possible
collapse when he agreed to buy it on Sept. 15, 2008, the day
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. went bankrupt.

But investors later faulted the bank for not disclosing the scope
of Merrill's soaring losses, which reached $15.84 billion in the
fourth quarter of 2008, before Dec. 2008 shareholder votes on the
merger.  They also objected to Merrill's having paid $3.6 billion
of bonuses despite the losses.

Merrill losses forced Bank of America in January 2009 to get a
second bailout from the federal Troubled Asset Relief Program, and
contributed to a 93 percent drop in the Charlotte, North Carolina-
based bank's stock price.

The lawsuit consolidated litigation that had been brought
nationwide, and names pension funds in Ohio, Texas, the
Netherlands and Sweden as lead plaintiffs.

It covers a variety of investors who owned Bank of America stock
or call options between September 2008 and January 2009.

Class certification lets plaintiffs pursue their case as a group,
which can cut costs, and can lead to larger recoveries than if
plaintiffs were to sue individually.

Bank of America spokesman Lawrence Grayson declined to comment.
David Hoffner, a lawyer for Thain, had no immediate comment.
Lawyers for the remaining defendants and the investors did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.

In his ruling, Judge Castel pointed to comments by Mr. Lewis on a
Jan. 2009 conference call about "much, much higher deterioration"
of Merrill assets than expected to support the plaintiffs' claims
that Merrill's losses should have been revealed sooner.

He also said the record supported claims that the alleged
misrepresentations about the bonuses were material.

Class certification was also appropriate because litigation of
each claim separately "would likely result in wasteful and
repetitive lawsuits," he added.

Bank of America, Messrs. Lewis and Price are also defendants in a
civil fraud lawsuit led by New York Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman.  He took over that case from his predecessor Andrew
Cuomo, who is now New York's governor.

The law firms Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann; Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer; and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check were named lead
counsel for the plaintiffs in the class-action case.

Bank of America shares closed on Feb. 6 up 13 cents at $7.97.
They closed at $33.74 on the last trading day before the Merrill
takeover was announced, and bottomed at $2.53 on Feb. 20, 2009.

The case is In re: Bank of America Corp Securities, Derivative,
and Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation,
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 09-md-
02058.


BIOSANTE PHARMACEUTICALS: Robbins Umeda Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights firm Robbins Umeda LLP disclosed that the firm
commenced a class action lawsuit on February 3, 2012 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of BioSante Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. between February 12, 2010 and December 15, 2011.  The action
is against the Company and the Company's Chief Executive Officer
for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

BioSante Pharmaceuticals is a specialty pharmaceutical Company
focused on developing products for female sexual health and
oncology.  Over the last decade, BioSante has been in the process
of developing LibiGel, a drug designed to improve the sex drive of
women suffering from female sexual dysfunction, specifically
hypoactive desire disorder.

The complaint alleges that beginning on February 12, 2010, the
Company, along with its Chief Executive Officer, issued a series
of materially false and misleading statements to investors about
LibiGel's commercial viability, effectiveness, and market
potential that caused shares of BioSante to trade at artificially
high prices.  Specifically, it is alleged that officials at
BioSante boasted that clinical data demonstrated that LibiGel had
a "statistically significant" effect on female patients treated
with the product, and that LibiGel was "the most clinically
advanced pharmaceutical product in the U.S."  Additionally, it is
alleged that BioSante and its Chief Executive Officer misled
investors by routinely analogizing LibiGel's market potential to
the $2 billion dollar market for male erectile drugs, often
comparing LibiGel to products like "Viagra, Levitra, and Cialis."

On December 14, 2011, BioSante issued a press release disclosing
for the first time that LibiGel failed to yield positive results
in large-scale efficacy tests designed by the Company.  According
to study results, women treated with LibiGel did not experience
statistically significant increases in either total satisfying
sexual encounters or sexual desire.  On this news, shares of
BioSante declined by over 75% of their value.  After trading as
high as $2.52 on December 13, 2011, shares of BioSante closed on
December 19, 2011, at just $0.38 per share.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired BioSante stock during the
Class Period and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than 60 days from February 6, 2012.  To discuss
your shareholder rights, please contact:

        Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq.
        Robbins Umeda LLP
        Telephone: (619) 525-3990
        Toll Free (800) 350-6003
        E-mail: info@robbinsumeda.com
        Web site: http://www.robbinsumeda.com

or via the shareholder information form.

Robbins Umeda LLP -- http://www.robbinsumeda.com-- represents
individual and institutional shareholders in derivative, direct,
and class action lawsuits.


CITIZENS PROPERTY: Faces Class Action Over 360Value Software
------------------------------------------------------------
The Miami Herald reports that Citizens Property Insurance Corp. is
facing more heat over its system for valuating replacement costs
for homes.

Two groups have filed a class-action lawsuit against the state-run
insurer, claiming that Citizens is using a software program,
called 360Value, to overvalue the replacement costs of homeowners'
properties.

Florida Association for Insurance Reform and the Beausoleil Law
Group of Florida, who filed the lawsuit, charge that Citizens has
used the 360Value system to raise rates on homeowners and "side-
step" the legislative process for rate-raising.

Last year, Citizens told agents it would rely solely on its
360Value software for estimating the replacement cost of homes,
and would no longer take into account estimates from real estate
appraisers or independent general contractors.  That sparked
several complaints from homeowners who said their homes were being
overvalued by the software.

A couple weeks back, Citizens reversed course on that decision.

The about-face came just days after a Tampa Bay Times story that
documented seemingly high replacement cost values reached by 360-
Value.

Still, plaintiffs are arguing that the giant insurer is using the
system as a backdoor method to raise rates.  Sen. Mike Fasano,
R-New Port Richey, will join plaintiffs at the steps of the Old
Capitol in Tallahassee on Jan. 31 to announce the lawsuit.

From the class-action lawsuit Web site:

"Citizens has been and wants to continue increasing revenue and
reserves without having to fight the Florida legislature for a
rate increase.  They are literally sidestepping legislative action
at the expense of the almost 1.5 million Florida taxpayers that
are being forced to pay higher premiums because Citizens
intentionally misrepresents property values."


CITY OF NEW YORK: Cab Drivers Sue Over GPS Tracking
---------------------------------------------------
Anneline Waldman, writing for jobmouse, reports that New York City
cab drivers claim that warrantless GPS tracking exposed thousands
of drivers to bogus prosecutions and license revocations, reports
Courthouse News.

The lead plaintiffs include Koffi Aka and Robert Caniol, who filed
a class action against the New York City, its Taxi and Limousine
Commission, and commission Chairman David Yassky, the leader of
the 9-member board.

A New York City Law Department spokeswoman released the following
statement to Courthouse News:

"The courts have long recognized that 4th Amendment privacy
protections are not applicable to certain highly regulated
industries such as the pawn shop and taxi industries," Senior
Counsel Diana Murray wrote.  "TLC only receives GPS data from
taxicabs when the driver is on-duty -- not when the driver is
off-duty.  Also, except for credit and debit card information,
data collected from the GPS devices reflects exactly the same
information that cab drivers have long been required to document
in handwritten trip sheets."

The cabbies' class action cited the Supreme Court's January ruling
that police violated a suspected drug trafficker's 4th Amendment
rights by placing a GPS device in his cab.  They further claim
that the Taxi and Limousine Commission falsely prosecutes cab
drivers for overcharging riders, based on GPS-gathered
information.

"In many cases, including Mr. Carniol's, the TLC ultimately
revoked hack licenses solely on the basis of GPS tracking
evidence, without even a single complaining witnesses complaining
or testifying against them," the complaint states.

The class claims that in 2007 the Taxi and Limousine Commission
forced all New York City medallion-holders to install GPS devices
as part of a Taxi Technology System, required that every cab
transmit license information, location of each trip, number of
passengers, metered fare and distance to the commission.

The New York Taxi Workers Alliance challenged the new technology
in 2007 in a federal privacy lawsuit.  The TLC beat the charges,
in part, by assuring the court and the public that it would not
use the GPS to track individual drivers, according to the
complaint.

On March 12, 2010, a Friday night, the TLC told the press that its
broader investigation had uncovered an $8.3 million scam
implicating more than 33,000 drivers, based almost entirely on GPS
data.

"Just 10 days later, however, the TLC admitted that the account it
had aggressively marketed was wildly inaccurate," the complaint
states.

However, "Rather than accept responsibility for the errors, [TLC
Chairman Matthew] Daus claimed, 'The numbers that the press
reported' -- which were precisely the numbers the TLC announced --
were misleading.   . . .

"While the TLC had now conceded its initial numbers were wrong by
a factor of six in terms of trips and incorrect by a factor of
eight in terms of dollar value, the media still presented the
'scam' as pervasive," as stated in the complaint.

However, undeterred, the TLC pursued its "prosecution offensive,"
according to the complaint.

Plaintiff Mr. Aka said a prosecutor sent him a letter on Dec. 7,
2011, accusing him of more than 40 overcharges.  In addition,
Mr. Carniol said he was accused of 91 overcharges, though there
were no witnesses against him and no evidence of fraud in his
income.

The cab drivers say the TLC has sent letters demanding that more
than 2,000 drivers enter settlements, and has claimed that its
dragnet reaches more than 21,000 drivers.

The TLC said in an e-mail that 257 drivers have entered into plea
agreements to surrender their licenses so far.

Messrs. Aka and Carniol seek punitive damages for the class and an
order declaring warrantless GPS tracking of cab drivers
unconstitutional.


COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Columbia
Laboratories, Inc. publicly traded securities during the period
between December 6, 2010 and January 20, 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
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/columbia/

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 Columbia and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Columbia is engaged in the business of developing, manufacturing
and selling pharmaceutical products that utilize its bioadhesive
drug delivery technologies to treat various medical conditions.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's progesterone vaginal gel product, PROCHIEVE, for
reducing the risk of preterm birth in women.  Instead of
truthfully disclosing concerns about PROCHIEVE's efficacy in
reducing the risk of preterm birth, defendants continuously hyped
PROCHIEVE's combination of efficacy, safety and tolerability
during the Class Period.  As a result of defendants' false
statements, Columbia's stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $4.03 per share
on April 6, 2011.

On December 14, 2011, Columbia issued a press release announcing
that a meta-analysis of data from five double-blind, placebo-
controlled trials of progesterone vaginal gel indicated a reduced
risk of preterm birth and neonatal morbidity.  Then, on
January 20, 2012, the Company issued a press release announcing
that the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs of the
FDA had not recommended approval of progesterone vaginal gel for
the reduction of risk of preterm birth, advising that the FDA
panel members needed more information to support approval.  On
this news, Columbia's stock fell $0.87 per share to close at $0.71
per share on January 23, 2012 -- a decline of over 55% on volume
of 17.7 million shares.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, were as follows: (a) defendants failed to disclose
the truth concerning the results of the studies for PROCHIEVE; (b)
defendants failed to disclose the truth concerning the likelihood
of FDA approval for PROCHIEVE; and (c) contrary to defendants'
representations, Columbia's future was not "very good" due to the
efficacy issues with PROCHIEVE.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Columbia publicly traded securities 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
active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts
throughout the United States.  The firm represents defrauded
investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human
rights violations.  It has offices in San Diego, San Francisco,
New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta.


CREEKSTONE FARMS: Workers' Class Action Gets Conditional Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roxana Hegeman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
federal judge on Feb. 6 granted conditional class-action status to
a lawsuit filed on behalf of an estimated 700 workers at the
Creekstone Farms Premium Beef slaughterhouse in Arkansas City.

U.S. District Judge Eric Melgren ruled that the class would
include all hourly production employees who have been subjected to
so-called "gang time" compensation practices for the past three
years.  The practice pays employees only for time the product is
moving on the line, plus 10 minutes to put on and take off
protective gear.

"We are pleased with the ruling," said Mark Kistler, the Overland
Park attorney representing the workers.  "It will allow us to
continue to move forward with the case."

The order essentially allows the plaintiffs to send notices to
class members to see if they want to join the lawsuit, he said.

Alan Rupe, the attorney representing Creekstone Farms, said he was
not surprised by the judge's decision.

"The threshold for determining whether there is a class action is
very low, so it doesn't take a lot to accomplish that," Mr. Rupe
said.  "What I will tell you is that the test is whether the
defendant has treated the plaintiffs and potential plaintiffs all
alike and the answer to that is absolutely.  We have treated them
all alike because we paid them all according to Kansas law."

The slaughterhouse workers claim in their lawsuit that the company
hasn't been paying employees for all the time they spend working.
Creekstone contends it has paid employees for all time worked,
including overtime.

Judge Melgren noted in his ruling that it is inappropriate for the
court to examine the merits of the claims at this stage in the
proceedings, saying the court considers conditional certification
under a "lenient standard" -- which the workers who filed the
lawsuit meet.  The court will employ a more stringent standard
after the parties have completed discovery.

The judge also ordered the company to give the plaintiffs the
names, addresses and telephone numbers for each member of the
class.  He also ordered Creekstone Farms to post notice of the
class-action lawsuit in both English and Spanish in conspicuous
locations at its Arkansas City facility.

Judge Melgren approved as class representatives the two workers
who initially filed the lawsuit, Paz Sanchez and Elvis Posadas.


DENSO CORP: Faces Antitrust Class Action in Michigan
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal antitrust class
action claims Denso Corp. fixed prices for auto heating control
panels in the U.S. market.

A copy of the Complaint in Koch v. Denso International America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-10466 (E.D. Mich.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/06/Auto.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harold Z. Gurewitz, Esq.
          GUREWITZ & RABEN PLC
          333 W. Fort Street, 11th Floor
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 628-4718
          E-mail: hgurewitz@grplc.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Asher, Esq.
          Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
          Jeremy S. Spiegel, Esq.
          WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 545-7200
          E-mail: asher@wka-law.com
                  reuben@wka-law.com
                  spiegel@wka-law.com


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Consolidated Class Action Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of a consolidated class action lawsuit against
Franklin Resources, Inc., has become final and the action is
resolved, according to the Company's February 1, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 31, 2011.

Beginning in 2003, Franklin and certain related parties were named
in civil lawsuits related to industry-wide market timing and late
trading investigations by regulators.  Two of the lawsuits, a
consolidated class action (Sharkey IRO/IRA v. Franklin Resources,
Inc., et al., Case No. 04-cv-01310) and a consolidated derivative
action brought on behalf of certain Franklin Templeton Investments
mutual funds (the "Funds") (McAlvey v. Franklin Resources, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 04-cv-01274), were dismissed in December 2011,
and one final lawsuit, a derivative action brought on behalf of
Franklin (Hertz v. Burns, et al., Case No. 04-cv-01624), remains
pending.

With respect to the class action, as previously reported, the
Company and lead plaintiff reached agreement-in-principle on
December 21, 2010, to resolve that action, pursuant to which the
Company agreed to pay $2.75 million towards distribution of
settlement amounts reached in lead plaintiff's settlements with
other, non-Company defendants, and towards class counsel's fees,
with any unspent amount to be distributed to relevant Funds.  The
parties documented the terms of the agreement in a stipulation
(the "Stipulation and Releases").  The court issued its final
approval of the Stipulation and Releases on December 9, 2011, and
dismissed the consolidated class action.  The dismissal is now
final and the action is resolved.



GREEN MOUNTAIN: Securities Fraud Class Suit Pending in Vermont
--------------------------------------------------------------
A putative securities fraud class action, captioned Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System v. Green Mountain
Coffee Roasters, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 2:11-cv-00289, was filed
on November 29, 2011, and is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Vermont before the Honorable William K.
Sessions, III, according to Green Mountain's
February 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 24, 2011.

The plaintiff's complaint alleges violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the Company's disclosures
relating to its revenues and its forward guidance.  The complaint
includes counts for alleged violations of (1) Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act") against various of the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the Company's underwriters in connection with a May
2011 secondary common stock offering; and (2) Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against the Company and the officer
defendants and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
officer defendants.  The plaintiff seeks to represent all
purchasers of the Company's securities between February 2, 2011,
and November 9, 2011.  The complaint seeks class certification,
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and such other
relief as the court should deem just and proper.  Pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C.
Section 78u-4(a)(3), plaintiffs have until January 30, 2012, to
move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the putative class.
The complaint has not yet been served on the Company.  The
underwriter defendants have notified the Company of their intent
to seek indemnification from the Company pursuant to their
underwriting agreement dated May 5, 2011, in regard to the claims
asserted in this action.

The Company and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend
the lawsuit.  Additional lawsuits may be filed and, at this time,
the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits,
the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the
resolution of these lawsuits or any potential effect they may have
on the Company or its operations.


GREEN MOUNTAIN: Vermont Court Dismissed "Horowitz" Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Vermont
dismissed, without prejudice, a consolidated securities fraud
class action lawsuit against Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc.,
according to the Company's February 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 24, 2011.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors are
currently subject to a consolidated putative securities fraud
class action and two putative stockholder derivative actions,
commenced following the Company's disclosure of the SEC inquiry on
September 28, 2010, and a separate putative securities fraud class
action filed on November 29, 2011.

The consolidated putative securities fraud class action, organized
under the caption Horowitz v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters,
Inc., Civ. No. 2:10-cv-00227, is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Vermont before the Honorable
William K. Sessions, III.  The underlying complaints in the
consolidated action allege violations of the federal securities
laws in connection with the Company's disclosures relating to its
revenues and its forward guidance.  The complaints include counts
for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 against all
defendants, and for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the officer defendants.  The plaintiffs seek to represent
all purchasers of the Company's securities between July 28, 2010,
and September 28, 2010, or September 29, 2010.  The complaints
seek class certification, compensatory damages, equitable and/or
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and such other relief
as the court should deem just and proper.  Pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-
4(a)(3), plaintiffs had until November 29, 2010, to move the court
to serve as lead plaintiff of the putative class.  On December 20,
2010, the court appointed Jerzy Warchol, Robert M. Nichols,
Jennifer M. Nichols, Marc Schmerler and Mike Shanley lead
plaintiffs and approved their selection of Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as co-lead
counsel and the Law Office of Brian Hehir and Woodward & Kelley,
PLLC as liaison counsel.  On December 29, 2010, and January 3,
2011, two of the plaintiffs in the underlying actions in the
consolidated proceedings, Russell Blank and Dan M. Horowitz,
voluntarily dismissed their cases without prejudice.  Pursuant to
a stipulated motion granted by the court on November 29, 2010, the
lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on
February 23, 2011, and defendants moved to dismiss that complaint
on April 25, 2011.

The court heard argument on the motions to dismiss on January 5,
2012.  On January 27, 2012, the court issued an order granting
defendants' motions and dismissing the consolidated complaint
without prejudice.  Pursuant to the court's order, the lead
plaintiffs must determine whether to move to amend the complaint
within thirty days.

The Company and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend
the pending lawsuits.  Additional lawsuits may be filed and, at
this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these
lawsuits, the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated
with the resolution of these lawsuits or any potential effect they
may have on the Company or its operations.


GOVGUAM: Amends Class Action Over Tiyan Land Swap Law
-----------------------------------------------------
Kevin Kerrigan, writing for Pacific News Center, reports that
attorney Curtis Van de Veld on Feb. 3 filed an amended version of
the class action lawsuit first filed against GovGuam, the Guam
Ancestral Land Commission [GALC] over the Tiyan land swap law,
P.L. 30-158.

The initial lawsuit was filed in July of 2010 by Van de Veld on
behalf of Maria A. Gange and others who, the attorney says, make
up the majority of beneficiaries of the GALC Trust.

This amended law suit was filed following Superior Court Judge
Arthur Barcinas' decision last month to issue a temporary
injunction blocking implementation of the law which, Van de Veld
has argued, is illegal because it would transfer the bulk of the
property held in trust by GALC, to roughly 10% of the trust's
beneficiaries, all of whom are former Tiyan landowners or their
descendants.

One of the two properties in question is a 582 acre property in
South Finegayan and the other is a 395 parcel of land straddling
the back road to Andersen

The revised lawsuit adjusts the complaint in response to issues
raised by Judge Barcinas in his January 27, 2012 decision to
impose a temporary injunction.

In particular, the amended complaint responds to concerns raised
by Judge Barcinas in his January 27 TRO in which he wrote:

"It is not apparent from the factual allegations of the Complaint
that the Plaintiffs have specifically set forth a cause of action
challenging Public Law 30-158 . . . The Plaintiffs merely state
that . . [the law] . . . is unconstitutional, inorganic, and
illegal . . . at trial, Plaintiffs will be required to prove the
elements of each specifically stated cause of action by a
preponderance of the evidence."


HILLENBRAND INC: Still Awaits Decision in FCA Action Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hillenbrand, Inc. is awaiting a ruling from the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of an appeal from the dismissal of a
class action lawsuit, according to the Company's February 1, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended December 31, 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 Action).

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 million to approximately
$1.46 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 suit."  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
heard oral argument from the parties on December 5, 2011.  The
Court of Appeals has not yet issued 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 flow.  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 December 31, 2011, the Company had incurred approximately
$29.2 million in cumulative legal and related costs associated
with the FCA Action since its inception.


INERGY LP: Stills Awaits Approval of Merger-Related Suits Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Inergy, L.P. is still awaiting court approval of its settlement of
two merger-related class action lawsuits, according to the
Company's February 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2011.

On August 7, 2010, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with its Managing General Partner, Inergy Holdings L.P.,
Inergy Holdings GP, LLC, the general partner of Inergy Holdings
("Holdings GP"), NRGP Limited Partner, LLC, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Holdings GP ("New NRGP LP"), and NRGP MS, LLC, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Holdings GP ("MergerCo").  Through a
number of steps, Inergy Holdings merged into MergerCo and the
outstanding common units in Inergy Holdings were cancelled.  In
connection with the Merger, the Company's incentive distribution
rights, all of which were held by Inergy Holdings, were cancelled.
The Company also acquired all of Inergy Holdings' ownership
interests in IPCH Acquisition Corp. ("IPCH"), a wholly owned
subsidiary of Inergy Holdings, and in the Company's Non-managing
General Partner.

Following the announcement of the Merger Agreement, two unitholder
class action lawsuits (collectively, the "Inergy Unitholder
Lawsuits") were filed.  The parties to the Inergy Unitholder
Lawsuits have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding whereby
in consideration for the settlement and dismissal of the claims,
the individual Class B unitholders will forego and relinquish a
total of 135,539 Class B units to be received as distributions
following the date on which the settlement and dismissal becomes
final and no longer appealable.  The parties are waiting on court
approval of the proposed settlement.


JOHN B. SANFILIPPO: Gets Final OK of "Cardenas" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
During the first quarter of fiscal 2012, the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois issued a final approval of
the settlement agreement related to the class action wage and hour
lawsuit that was filed against John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc. in
fiscal 2010, the Company disclosed in its February 1, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended December 29, 2011.

The Company says the final approval of the Settlement Agreement
did not have a material impact on earnings in the first twenty-six
weeks of fiscal 2012.  The Company expects the case to be closed
and formally dismissed by the Court during the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2012.  Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
the Company paid $2,600,000 to the claims administrator during the
first quarter of fiscal 2012 and the Company expects to receive a
reverter payment for unclaimed settlement funds of approximately
$665 during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012.  The Company has
recorded a current asset of $665 as of December 29, 2011, to
reflect this anticipated reverter payment.

As previously reported, a class action wage and hour lawsuit,
captioned Cardenas et. al. v John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc., was
filed against the Company in fiscal 2010 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "District Court")
under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") and the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").  The plaintiffs claimed damages under the
IMWL in an amount equal to all unpaid back pay alleged to be owed
to the plaintiffs, prejudgment interest on the back pay, punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and an injunction precluding
the Company from violating the IMWL.  The plaintiffs additionally
claimed damages under the FLSA in an amount equal to all back pay
alleged to be owed to the plaintiffs, prejudgment interest on the
back pay, liquidated damages equal to the amount of unpaid back
wages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

In the second quarter of fiscal 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint in which they alleged that the Company
maintained and maintains a practice regarding the rounding of
employees' time entries which violates the IMWL and the FLSA.

Following mediation during the third quarter of fiscal 2011 in
order to cover an expanded scope of wage and hour claims,
plaintiffs and facilities, the Company agreed in principle to a
$2,600,000 settlement.  In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011, the
settlement agreement was finalized and preliminarily approved by
the District Court which includes a provision allowing for a
reverter payment if all or some class members do not submit claim
forms.


JP MORGAN: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $110 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that JP Morgan Chase & Co. has agreed
to pay $110 million to settle a class-action lawsuit claiming the
bank charged excessive checking overdraft fees.

The tentative deal was disclosed in a filing Friday in Miami
federal court.  It still must be approved by Senior U.S. District
Judge James Lawrence King, who is overseeing similar lawsuits
against about 30 banks.

The lawsuit filed by customers claimed that JP Morgan Chase
processed its debit card transactions unfairly so it could
maximize the overdraft fees customers paid.  The lawsuit says the
bank usually charged between $25 and $35 per overdraft.

The latest filing didn't say how many customers would share
settlement funds.

Last year, Bank of America settled a similar case for $410
million.  Several other banks have also settled.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Court Reopens Australian Investor Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elisabeth Sexton, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that a class action by councils, charities and churches against
the liquidators of Lehman Brothers Australia has been reopened in
the Federal Court to allow fresh evidence about the value of the
complex structured finance products at its heart.

Justice Steven Rares finished hearing the case in June, but last
week allowed new material to be tendered about the extent of
damages claimed by the 72 members of the class action.

All bought synthetic collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs,
from the Australian arm of the collapsed investment bank.

They allege misleading conduct, breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty and negligence.

At a hearing on Feb. 3, Justice Rares was told that since the case
finished eight months ago, some of the CDOs have failed, with no
prospect of any return to investors.

Others have matured and repaid their full face value to investors,
leaving no losses to claim in court.

Three more are due to mature in the next eight weeks.

The task of assigning values to the 39 CDOs bought by class action
members has also been complicated by conflicting findings by
courts in Britain and the United States over the contractual
documents used by Lehman Brothers for many of the CDOs it arranged
before its collapse in September 2008.

Investors, including some of the members of the Australian class
action, won a landmark case over a US subsidiary, Lehman Brothers
Special Financing Inc, in the British Supreme Court in July.  But
the trustee involved, Bank of New York Mellon, has not yet paid
the investors.

A letter to some of the councils was tendered to Justice Rares on
Feb. 3, in which BNY Mellon said it could not release the funds
because "the competing claims have not been determined".

In contrast to the British judgment, Judge James Peck in the US
Bankruptcy Court has ruled that the trustee is obliged to return
the funds to Lehman Brothers Special Financing.

The Australian liquidators, Stephen Parbery and Marcus Ayres of
the insolvency firm PPB Advisory, want Justice Rares to postpone
putting a value on the CDOs affected by the overseas litigation,
all issued as part of what Lehman called the Dante program.

The liquidators' barrister, John Sheahan, SC, said if the judge
rejected this suggestion, he should assume, in line with the
British Supreme Court decision, that investors would recoup the
face value of their Dante notes.

Mr. Sheahan said an English subsidiary of BNY was holding the
investors' property in England and the investors could issue a
letter of demand based on the court's ruling.

An alternative course would be to replace the trustee.

Noel Hutley, SC, for the class action, said Lehman Brothers
Australia held some Dante notes on its own account yet the
liquidators had taken no such action to force the trustee to
comply with the British judgment.

Instead they had recently tried to break the impasse in the United
States by seeking to intervene in Judge Peck's case, he said.

"Rational players in the marketplace accept that Judge Peck's
judgment is a real impediment to what's going on," he said.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Retiree Group Seeks Class Cert. in Suit v. E&Y
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Alameda County Employees' Retirement Association asked the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to
certify a class-action lawsuit against Lehman Brothers Holdings
Inc.'s former auditor Ernst & Young LLP over investment losses,
Linda Sandler of Bloomberg News reported.

According to the report, the retirement system is seeking to lead
the group suit on behalf of investors who lost money on bankrupt
Lehman's common stock and options.  The group alleges that E&Y
helped to mislead investors by making false and misleading
statements in regulatory reports about Lehman's finances before
its 2008 bankruptcy.

The suit was originally filed against Lehman and its former
executives, adding E&Y as a defendant in 2010.

Since 2010, the group has settled with many of the Lehman
executive defendants while continuing to litigate against E&Y and
a UBS AG unit that sold Lehman structured products.

E&Y, the report noted, is also named defendant in a suit filed by
the New York attorney general relating to Lehman's collapse.

Charlie Perkins, an Ernst & Young spokesman, declined to comment
on the filing but maintained that the firm's work for Lehman has
met all applicable professional standards and applied rules that
existed at the time, Bloomberg pointed out.


MOLYCORP: Faces Class Action Over Mountain Pass Mine Expansion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Kosich, writing for Mineweb, reports that a plaintiff's
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court in Colorado accuses
Molycorp CEO Mark A. Smith and CFO James S. Allen of making "false
and misleading statements" about Molycorp's Mountain Pass mine's
rare earths production timetable, as well as the company's
earnings, reportedly causing the stock to "trade at artificially
inflated prices" between March 9, 2011, and Nov. 10, 2011.

"Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose
the following adverse facts during the Class Period: (a)
Molycorp's development and the expansion of the Mountain Pass mine
was not progressing on schedule and would not allow the company to
reach rare earth oxide production rates at the end of calendar
2012 and 2013," the complaint alleged, "and (b) end users had been
reducing demand for the company's products as prices for rare
earth elements increased."

"The lack of progress in development and expansion of the Mountain
Pass mine make it difficult, if not impossible for the company to
produce and deliver certain magnet products for its key
customers," the plaintiffs claimed.

On Sept. 20, 2011, a J.P. Morgan securities analyst cut the
forecast Molycorp target price in half, citing lessening demand
for the company's rare earth elements.  The class action complaint
claims J.P. Morgan's action caused Molycorp stock to plummet 22%
from $53.01 per share on Sept. 19, 2011, to $41.33/sh in
September 20, 2011 on heavy trading volume.

The price of Molycorp common stock declined again after Molycorp
announced on Nov. 10, 2011, that its third-quarter 2011 financial
results had dipped below analysts' estimates.

The company also revised its 4Q11 Mountain Pass production
guidance due to anticipated equipment downtime related to
engineering and expansion issues.  Fourth-quarter production
guidance was originally projected at a range of 1,017 to 1,377
metric tons.  However, that guidance was revised to 850 to 1200
metric tons on Nov. 10, 2011.

The complaint claims the stock price then plunged again by 13.6%
from $38.70 on November 10 to $33.45/sh on November 11.

"The timing and magnitude of the price decline in Molycorp common
stocks negates any inference that the loss suffered by plaintiff
and other class members was caused by changed markets,
macroeconomic or industry factors or company-specific facts,"
according to the class action complaint.

The plaintiff in the case, Angelo Albano, is represented by the
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd law firm.

As of Mineweb's deadline early on Feb. 6, Molycorp had not yet
responded to the complaint.


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Continues to Defend "Bussey" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Walter Bussey, et al., v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., et
al., a civil action, was filed on March 8, 2010, in federal court
against Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. and others.  The
plaintiffs, who claim to have been patrons of VictoryLand,
originally sought damages based on both Ala. Code, Sec 8-1-150(A)
and RICO, and have requested that the court certify the action as
a class action.  On April 28, 2010, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the entire complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2), (5) and
(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure based, in part, on the
grounds that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim against the
Company upon which relief could be granted.  After the Company
filed its motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
their RICO claim, leaving only a claim for recovery of gambling
losses under Ala. Code Sec. 8-1-150(A).  On March 31, 2011, the
court entered an order declining to dismiss the 8-1-150(A) claim
at this stage of the litigation.  The court noted, however, that
"each Plaintiff has the burden of proving a wager between he or
she and each Defendant."  On April 28, 2011, the Company filed an
answer and affirmative defenses to the complaint.  The parties
proposed to the court a phased scheduling order that allows for an
initial phase involving discovery related only to gathering and
analysis of electronic data from player tracking and accounting
systems at VictoryLand during the relevant time frame.  The court
adopted and entered the proposed scheduling order on July 28,
2011.  The defendants currently are engaged in written discovery.

The Company, along with other gaming manufacturers, continues to
vigorously defend this matter.  Given the inherent uncertainties
in this litigation, the Company is unable to make any prediction
as to the ultimate outcome.  A finding in this case that
electronic bingo was illegal in Alabama during the pertinent time
frame could have adverse regulatory consequences to the Company in
other jurisdictions.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 1,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

Austin-based Multimedia Games Inc. supplies interactive systems,
server-based gaming systems, interactive electronic games, player
terminals, stand-alone player terminals, video lottery terminals,
electronic scratch ticket systems, electronic instant lottery
systems, player tracking systems, casino cash management systems,
slot accounting systems, slot management systems, unified
currencies and electronic and paper bingo systems for Native
American, racetrack casino, casino, charity and commercial bingo,
sweepstakes, lottery and video lottery markets and provide support
and services and operations support for the Company's customers
and products.


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ozetta Hardy v. Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC, et al., a civil
action, was filed against Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC (an entity
that does not exist), Cornerstone Community Outreach, Inc., and
Freedom Trail Ventures, Ltd., in the Circuit Court of Lowndes
County, Alabama.  On June 3, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint adding Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. and other
manufacturers.  The plaintiffs, who claim to have been patrons of
White Hall, seek recovery of gambling losses based on Ala. Code,
Sec 8-1-150(A) and have requested that the court certify the
action as a class action.  On July 2, 2010, the defendants removed
the case to federal court.  On July 9, 2010, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2), (5)
and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure based, in part, on
the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim against
the Company upon which relief could be granted.  On September 7,
2010, the court, without opinion, denied the Company's motion to
dismiss.  The court then entered a scheduling order that
bifurcates the case to allow for resolution of class certification
issues before consideration of the merits.  Following several
months of discovery on the class certification issues, on March
15, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.
On April 15, 2011, the Company filed an opposition to the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The plaintiffs then
filed a reply, and the Company filed a sur-reply arguing that the
plaintiffs misstated the burden of proof in their reply.
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification has been fully briefed.
The court has not ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The Company continues to vigorously defend this matter.  Given the
inherent uncertainties in this litigation, the Company is unable
to make any prediction as to the ultimate outcome.  A finding in
this case that electronic bingo was illegal in Alabama during the
pertinent time frame could have adverse regulatory consequences to
the Company in other jurisdictions.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 1,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

Austin-based Multimedia Games Inc. supplies interactive systems,
server-based gaming systems, interactive electronic games, player
terminals, stand-alone player terminals, video lottery terminals,
electronic scratch ticket systems, electronic instant lottery
systems, player tracking systems, casino cash management systems,
slot accounting systems, slot management systems, unified
currencies and electronic and paper bingo systems for Native
American, racetrack casino, casino, charity and commercial bingo,
sweepstakes, lottery and video lottery markets and provide support
and services and operations support for the Company's customers
and products.


NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Expects to Spend AUS11-Mil. in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Jones Newswires reports that National Australia Bank Ltd.
expects to spend up to AUS11 million (US$11.8 million) in legal
fees in the lead up to the trial of a class action brought by
investors seeking about AUS450 million in compensation.

Institutional and retail investors have signed up to the class
action claiming the bank breached its continuous disclosure
obligations and was misleading and deceptive about its exposure to
AUS1.2 billion in impaired collaterized debt obligations, the
financial instruments blamed for contributing to the global
financial crisis in 2008.

The bank, Australia's fourth largest by market capitalization,
applied in the Supreme Court of Victoria Jan. 30 for those
bringing the case to provide an AUS11 million security to cover
its costs if it wins the case.

Wendy Harris, SC, an attorney for the bank, told the court the
AUS11 million covered legal costs already incurred by the bank
preparing its defense and an estimate of future legal costs before
the case goes to trial.

"There's no dispute this is an extremely complex piece of
litigation," Ms. Harris said.

The case is being funded for the plaintiffs by International
Litigation Funding Partners.

Andrew Watson, head of major projects for law firm Maurice
Blackburn Lawyers, who are acting for the plaintiffs, told Dow
Jones Newswires outside court they opposed the amount of security
being sought by the bank, saying it was "unreasonable."

If the judge hearing the application decides there should be a
security of costs, funding guarantees will have to be made for the
case to continue.

The court was told the trial, which has yet to have a date set,
had been estimated to run for 16 weeks.

The hearing continues.


RBS GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Asbestos-Related Suits vs. Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc. continues to defend asbestos-related class action
lawsuits against its subsidiaries, according to the Company's
January 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2011.

Certain Water Management subsidiaries are subject to asbestos and
class action related litigation.  As of December 31, 2011, the
Company's subsidiaries, Zurn PEX, Inc. and Zurn Industries, LLC,
formerly known as Zurn Industries, Inc., and an average of
approximately 80 other unrelated companies were defendants in
approximately 7,000 asbestos related lawsuits representing
approximately 27,000 claims.  Plaintiffs' claims allege personal
injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used primarily in
industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment of Zurn.
Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components.
Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers.  These claims are
being handled pursuant to a defense strategy funded by insurers.
As of December 31, 2011, the Company estimates the potential
liability for asbestos-related claims pending against Zurn as well
as the claims expected to be filed in the next ten years to be
approximately $65.0 million of which Zurn expects to pay
approximately $53.0 million in the next ten years on such claims,
with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in
subsequent years.  However, there are inherent uncertainties
involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims,
future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense
strategies and settlement initiatives.

As a result, Zurn's actual liability could differ from the
estimate.  Further, while this current asbestos liability is based
on an estimate of claims through the next ten years, such
liability may continue beyond that time frame, and such liability
could be substantial.

Management estimates that its available insurance to cover its
potential asbestos liability as of December 31, 2011, is
approximately $258.0 million, and believes that all current claims
are covered by this insurance.  However, principally as a result
of the past insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance
carriers, certain coverage gaps will exist if and after the
Company's other carriers have paid the first $182.0 million of
aggregate liabilities.  In order for the next $51.0 million of
insurance coverage from solvent carriers to apply, management
estimates that it would need to satisfy $14.0 million of asbestos
claims.  Layered within the final $25.0 million of the total
$258.0 million of coverage, management estimates that it would
need to satisfy an additional $80.0 million of asbestos claims.
If required to pay any such amounts, the Company could pursue
recovery against the insolvent carriers, but it is not currently
possible to determine the likelihood or amount of such recoveries,
if any.

As of December 31, 2011, the Company recorded a receivable from
its insurance carriers of $65.0 million, which corresponds to the
amount of its potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery.  However, there is no assurance that $258.0 million of
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that Zurn's
asbestos liabilities will not ultimately exceed $258.0 million.
Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available
coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential
disputes with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and
insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers.

                         Zurn Litigation

Zurn PEX and Zurn Industries have been named as defendants in
fifteen lawsuits, brought between July 2007 and July 2011, in
various United States courts (MN, ND, CO, NC, MT, AL, VA, LA, NM,
MI and HI).  The plaintiffs in these lawsuits represent (in the
case of the proceedings in Minnesota), or seek to represent, a
class of plaintiffs alleging damages due to the alleged failure or
anticipated failure of the Zurn brass crimp fittings on the PEX
plumbing systems in homes and other structures.  The complaints
assert various causes of action, including but not limited to
negligence, breach of warranty, fraud, and violations of the
Magnuson Moss Act and certain state consumer protection laws, and
seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages (including
punitive damages).  All but the Hawaii lawsuits, which remain in
Hawaii state court, have been transferred to a multi-district
litigation docket in the District of Minnesota for coordinated
pretrial proceedings.  The court in the Minnesota proceedings
certified certain classes of plaintiffs in Minnesota for
negligence and negligent failure to warn claims and for breach of
warranty claims.

On July 6, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
affirmed the class certification order of the Minnesota court.
Class certification has not been granted in the other state court
actions.  The Company's insurance carriers currently are funding
the Company's defense in these proceedings; however, they have
filed a lawsuit for a declaratory judgment in Florida state court
challenging their coverage obligations with respect to certain
classes of claims.  The Florida lawsuit currently is stayed,
pending resolution of the underlying claims.  Although the Company
continues to vigorously defend itself in the various court
proceedings and continues to vigorously pursue insurance coverage,
the uncertainties of litigation, and insurance coverage and
collection, as well as the actual number or value of claims, may
subject the Company to substantial liability that could have a
material adverse effect on the Company.


ROCK-TENN CO: Awaits Final Approval of Delaware Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rock-Tenn Company is awaiting final approval of its settlement of
a consolidated acquisition-related class action lawsuit pending in
Delaware, according to Rock-Tenn Company's January 31, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

Three complaints on behalf of the same putative class of Smurfit-
Stone Container Corporation stockholders were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the Company's acquisition
of Smurfit-Stone: Marks v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., et al.,
Case No. 6164 (filed February 2, 2011); Spencer v. Moore, et al.,
Case No. 6299 (filed March 21, 2011); and Gould v. Smurfit-Stone
Container Corp., et al., Case No. 6291 (filed March 17, 2011).  On
March 24, 2011, these cases were consolidated under Case No. 6164,
plaintiffs Marks and Spencer were appointed lead plaintiffs, and
the complaint in Spencer was designated as the operative
complaint.  In the Spencer complaint, plaintiffs name as
defendants RockTenn, the former members of the Smurfit-Stone board
of directors and Sam Acquisition, LLC (now known as RockTenn CP,
LLC, the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary that is the successor
to Smurfit-Stone).  The plaintiffs alleged, among other things,
that the consideration the Company paid to acquire Smurfit-Stone
was inadequate and unfair to Smurfit-Stone stockholders, that the
February 24, 2011 preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus
contained misleading or inadequate disclosures regarding the
Company's acquisition of Smurfit-Stone, that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in approving the
Company's acquisition of Smurfit-Stone and that those breaches
were aided and abetted by the Company.

On May 2, 2011, the court granted class certification, appointing
the lead plaintiffs and their counsel to represent a class of all
record and beneficial holders of Smurfit-Stone common stock as of
January 23, 2011, or their successors in interest, but excluding
the named defendants and any person, firm, trust, corporation or
other entity related to or affiliated with any of the defendants.
During argument in connection with the preliminary injunction
sought by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs acknowledged that their
claims concerning the adequacy of the disclosures in the
February 24, 2011 preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus
were moot in light of subsequent disclosures made by Smurfit-Stone
and the Company.  On May 20, 2011, the court denied the
plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction preventing the
completion of the acquisition, finding that the plaintiffs had
failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success with respect to the
merits of their claims, that the requisite showing of irreparable
harm had not been made and that the balance of the equities
counseled against granting the injunction.  On July 7, 2011, the
Company filed a counterclaim in this case seeking a declaration
that the plaintiffs are not entitled to damages or the imposition
of any other remedy with respect to an error in Smurfit-Stone's
proxy statement relating to appraisal rights.

On October 5, 2011, the Company reached an agreement to settle the
class action with the plaintiffs. Under the terms of the proposed
settlement, the class will release all claims against the Company
and the former directors of Smurfit-Stone that arise out of the
class members' ownership of Smurfit-Stone shares between the dates
on which the merger was agreed and consummated and that are based
on the merger agreement or the acquisition, disclosures or
statements concerning the merger agreement or the acquisition, or
any of the matters alleged in the lawsuit.  In exchange for these
releases, the Company will grant the former Smurfit-Stone
shareholders (other than those who have already asserted their
appraisal rights) the right to bring and participate in a future
"quasi-appraisal" proceeding in which the court will assess the
value of a share of Smurfit-Stone common stock on a stand-alone
basis as of the closing of the transaction.  The ability of former
Smurfit-Stone shareholders to bring and participate in the future
quasi-appraisal proceeding will be subject to a number of
conditions, including returning to the Company an amount of cash
equal to $41.26 per Smurfit-Stone share if the former shareholder
voted in favor of the merger (representing approximately 73% of
Smurfit-Stone shares outstanding as of the record date) or $6.26
per Smurfit-Stone share if the former shareholder either voted
against the merger (representing approximately 7% of the Smurfit-
Stone shares outstanding as of the record date) or abstained or
did not vote with respect to the merger.  The proposed settlement
is subject to a number of conditions, including final court
approval.  A settlement approval hearing was held on December 9,
2011, at the conclusion of which the court took the matter under
advisement.

In addition, the Company has also settled an appraisal demand
regarding substantially all the Smurfit-Stone shares for which
appraisal rights were asserted.  The shareholder that made this
appraisal demand has received an amount of cash per Smurfit-Stone
share for which its appraisal rights were asserted equal to the
per-share value of the merger consideration on the date of the
merger and will not participate in the future quasi-appraisal
proceeding or object to the class settlement.

On February 17, 2011, a putative class action complaint asserting
similar claims was filed against RockTenn, Smurfit-Stone, the
former members of the Smurfit-Stone board of directors and Sam
Acquisition, LLC in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under the caption of Dabrowski v.
Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:11-cv-01136.  On
April 22, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging,
among other things, that the consideration the Company paid to
acquire Smurfit-Stone was inadequate and unfair to Smurfit-Stone
stockholders, that Smurfit-Stone and the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Company's
acquisition of Smurfit-Stone and that those breaches were aided
and abetted by the Company. The plaintiff in Dabrowski also
alleged that the March 31, 2011 amended joint proxy
statement/prospectus contains misleading or inadequate disclosures
constituting violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiff in Dabrowski
sought monetary and equitable relief.  On August 4, 2011, the
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this matter without prejudice.

Four complaints on behalf of the same putative class of Smurfit-
Stone stockholders were filed in the Circuit Court for Cook
County, Illinois challenging RockTenn's acquisition of Smurfit-
Stone: Gold v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., et al., No. 11-CH-
3371 (filed January 26, 2011); Roseman v. Smurfit-Stone Container
Corp., et al., No. 11-CH-3519 (filed January 27, 2011); Findley v.
Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., et al., No. 11-CH-3726 (filed
January 28, 2011); and Czech v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., et
al., No. 11-CH-4282 (filed February 4, 2011).  On February 10,
2011, these cases were consolidated together, and on March 4,
2011, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an amended
complaint.  The amended complaint names as defendants RockTenn,
Smurfit-Stone and the former members of the Smurfit-Stone board of
directors.  The amended complaint alleged, among other things,
that the consideration the Company paid to acquire Smurfit-Stone
was inadequate and unfair to Smurfit-Stone stockholders, that the
February 24, 2011 preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus
contained misleading or inadequate disclosures, that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in approving
the Company's acquisition of Smurfit-Stone and that those breaches
were aided and abetted by RockTenn and Smurfit-Stone.  The amended
complaint sought equitable relief.  On April 21, 2011, the court
stayed this consolidated matter pending resolution of the Delaware
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction or until further
order of the court.  On July 20, 2011, this consolidated matter
was dismissed without prejudice by agreement with plaintiffs.

The Company says it is continuing to vigorously defend against all
claims made against it, Smurfit-Stone and the former directors of
Smurfit-Stone arising out of this acquisition, and the Company
intends to vigorously defend any quasi-appraisal claims that may
be commenced.  The Company cannot currently estimate the losses,
if any, that will result from these claims.  No assurance can be
given that the final resolution of these claims will not be
material to the Company.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Vehicle Design Defects
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
rear hatch door handles and panels break in Toyota Scion xB and tC
autos during normal use, for model years 2005-11.

A copy of the Complaint in Amata, et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-00168 (C.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/06/Toyota.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Raymond P. Boucher, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
          KIESEL BOUCHER & LARSON LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 854-4444
          E-mail: boucher@kbla.com
                  koncius@kbla.com

               - and -

          Rose Luzon, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH LLP
          401 West A Street, Suite 2350
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 235-2416
          E-mail: rluzon@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          NATALIE FINKELMAN BENNETT SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN,
          MILLER & SHAH LLP
          35 East State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
                  nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          James E. Miller, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: (860) 526-1100
          E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
                  kleser@sfmslaw.com


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Ruling on Petition to Hear Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd. is awaiting a decision on plaintiffs'
request that the Supreme Court of Colorado hear an appeal of an
appellate court's decision in a lawsuit against its ADT Worldwide
segment, according to the Company's January 31, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 30, 2011.

In 2002, the SEC's Division of Enforcement conducted an
investigation related to past accounting practices for dealer
connect fees that ADT had charged to its authorized dealers upon
purchasing customer accounts.  The investigation related to
accounting practices employed by the Company's former management,
which were discontinued in 2003.  Although the Company settled
with the SEC in 2006, a number of former dealers and related
parties have filed lawsuits against the Company in the United
States and in other countries, including a class action lawsuit
filed in the District Court of Arapahoe County, Colorado, alleging
breach of contract and other claims related to ADT's decision to
terminate certain authorized dealers in 2002 and 2003.  In
February 2010, the Court granted a directed verdict in ADT's favor
dismissing a number of the plaintiffs' key claims.  Upon appeal,
the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict in ADT's favor
in October 2011.  The plaintiffs have requested that the Supreme
Court of Colorado hear an appeal of the Court of Appeals'
decision.  The Supreme Court has not yet ruled.

Although the Company expects a favorable resolution of the class
action lawsuit in Colorado, a number of claims related to the 2002
and 2003 decision to terminate certain authorized dealers outside
the United States remain outstanding.  While it is not possible at
this time to predict the final outcome of the Colorado lawsuit or
other lawsuits stemming from dealer terminations, the Company does
not believe these claims will have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.


UNITIL CORP: Still Defends Suit vs. Unit in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action complaint was filed against Fitchburg on
January 7, 2009, in Worcester Superior Court in Worcester,
Massachusetts, captioned Bellerman v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric
Light Company.  Fitchburg is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Unitil
Corporation.  On April 1, 2009, an Amended Complaint was filed in
Worcester Superior Court and served on Fitchburg.  The Amended
Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the
cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional
and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly
incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric
service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in
December 2008.  The Amended Complaint includes M.G.L. ch. 93A
claims for purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related
to the December 2008 ice storm.  On September 4, 2009, the
Superior Court issued its order on the Company's Motion to Dismiss
the Complaint, granting it in part and denying it in part.  The
Company anticipates that the court will decide whether the lawsuit
is appropriate for class action treatment in late 2012.  The
Company continues to believe the lawsuit is without merit and will
defend itself vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 1,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


WARNER MUSIC: Faces Class Action Over Digital Royalties
-------------------------------------------------------
Debra Sledge, Joan Sledge, Kathy Sledge Lightfoot, Kim Sledge
Allen, jointly d/b/a "Sister Sledge," and Ronee Blakley, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Warner Music
Group Cop., Case No. 3:12-cv-00559 (N.D. Calif., February 2, 2012)
is brought as a nationwide class action for breach of contract and
statutory violations of California and New York laws.

The Plaintiffs claim Warner cheats them of royalties for digital
downloads and ringtones.  They allege that Warner failed to
properly account to them and the Class members royalties stemming
from the licensing of their musical performances or recordings
that were sold by "Music Download Providers" and "Ringtone
Providers" through digital download and distribution.

The Sledges are musicians, recording artists, and performing
artists that formed the musical group "Sister Sledge," whose songs
include "We Are Family" and "He's the Greatest Dancer."  Ms.
Blakley is a singer-songwriter, composer, recording artist, and
actress, who resides in Los Angeles, California.

Warner is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located in
the state of New York.  Warner exploits the sound recordings of
musical performances and the audio-visual recordings of such
performances.  Warner operates through numerous international
affiliates and licensees in more than 50 countries.

A copy of the Complaint in Sledge, et al. v. Warner Music Group
Corp., Case No. 12-cv-00559 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/06/Sledge.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clifford H. Pearson, Esq.
          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON SIMON WARSHAW & PENNY, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: cpearson@pswplaw.com
                  dwarshaw@pswplaw.com

               - and -

          Bruce Lee Simon, Esq.
          Aaron M. Sheanin
          William J. Newsom
          PEARSON SIMON WARSHAW & PENNY, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
          E-mail: bsimon@pswplaw.com
                  asheanin@pswplaw.com
                  wnewsom@pswplaw.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
                  jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Michael Paul Lehmann, Esq.
          Bruce J. Wecker, Esq.
          Arthur Nash Bailey, Jr., Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
                  bwecker@hausfeldllp.com
                  abailey@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Raymond P. Boucher, Esq.
          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          Jeffrey Alan Koncius, Esq.
          KIESEL BOUCHER & LARSON LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 854-4444
          Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
          E-mail: boucher@kbla.com
                  Kiesel@kbla.com
                  koncius@kbla.com

               - and -

          Neville L. Johnson, Esq.
          Douglas L. Johnson, Esq.
          James T. Ryan, Esq.
          JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP
          439 N. Canon Drive, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 975-1080
          Facsimile: (310) 975-1095
          E-mail: njohnson@jjllp.com
                  djohnson@jjllplaw.com
                  jryan@jjllplaw.com


XCELERA INC: Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut on behalf of the shareholders of
Xcelera Inc. who sold common stock to any of the defendants.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from February 6, 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 Jeffrey S.
Abraham or Philip T. Taylor at (212) 279-5050 or (800) 440-8986,
or via e-mail at info@aftlaw.com or ptaylor@aftlaw.com

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

The complaint charges Xcelera and certain of its affiliates with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Xcelera is an
internet holding company with operating subsidiaries engaged in
various aspects of electronic commerce, including content delivery
and data security management.

The Complaint alleges that defendants deliberately refused to make
filings required by the federal securities law, or to otherwise
make any information available concerning Xcelera's operations,
thereby destroying the Company's trading value and causing the
eventual de-registration of the Company's Common Stock. Defendants
are alleged to have taken advantage of this state of affairs to
buy out minority shareholders at a discounted price by commencing
a tender offer on about December 17, 2010 to purchase Xcelera
Common Stock for $0.25 per share.  Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants failed to disclose material facts in connection with
the tender offer.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all sellers of
Xcelera Common Stock to any of the defendants.  The plaintiff is
represented by Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, which has
extensive experience in shareholder and securities class action
cases.


                           *********

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  * * *