---

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

              Tuesday, March 6, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 46

                             Headlines

ALLSTATE CORP: Hurricane Katrina-Related Class Suit Still Pending
ALLSTATE CORP: Appeal in Worker Classification Suit Still Pending
ALLSTATE CORP: Defends Certified Class Suit on Claim Handling
ALLSTATE CORP: Lawsuits Over Program Reorganization Still Pending
ALMOST FAMILY: Parties Can Still Appeal Securities Suit Dismissal

AMERICAN TACK: Recalls 227,000 LED Night Lights Due to Fire Risk
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Action Settlement Returns to State Court
BAXTER INT'L: Appeals Ruling in Motion to Dismiss Investor Claims
BAXTER INT'L: Discovery in Suit Over Plasma Therapies Ongoing
BP: Trial in Oil Spill Litigation Set to Begin March 5

CARNIVAL CORP: Faces Overtime Class Action in Florida
CH ENERGY: Being Sold to Fortis for Too Little, N.Y. Suit Says
COSTAR GROUP: Has Yet to File Deal in Acquisition-Related Suit
DISH NETWORK: Still Defends Channel Bundling Class Suit in Calif.
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Court OK on $79-Mil. Class Settlement Pending

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Oughtred" Class Suit Still Pending
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Objects to J. Roling Amending Customer Lawsuit
EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Faces Class Suits Over Solutia Acquisition
ESTEE LAUDER: Faces Class Action Over Animal Testing
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: North Jackson Antitrust Suit Still Pending

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: N.J. Ct. to Hear Medco Class Settlement in Apr.
GOOGLE: Harke & Clasby Files Class Action Over Safari Software
HSBC BANK: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
INTERNAP NETWORK: Continues to Defend "Anastacio" Securities Suit
LEXISNEXIS COURTLINK: No Decision Yet on E-Filing Class Action

MONTANA POWER: Not Liable for Workers' Compensation, Jury Rules
NEW ENERGY: Two Law Firms File Class Action in New York
NVR INC: Still Defends Class Suits Over Salesmen's Overtime Pay
POLY IMPLANT: Australian Law Firm to File Class Action
SANDISK CORP: Trial Ct. Reopens Indirect Purchaser Class Suit

SANDISK CORP: Interlocutory Appeal in "Ritz Camera" Suit Pending
SANDISK CORP: Files Plea to Dismiss Antitrust Suit Over SD Cards
SPRINT COMMS: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK
STRUM RUGER: Securities Class Suit Still Pending in Connecticut
SUTTER HEALTH: 11 Data Breach Class Actions Consolidated

VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Appeal in "Proctor Litigation" Pending


                          *********

ALLSTATE CORP: Hurricane Katrina-Related Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation continues to defend itself from a class
action lawsuit filed by the Louisiana Attorney General over its
alleged failure to pay the insurance claims of Hurricane Katrina
victims, according to the Company's February 22, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company is vigorously defending a putative class action
lawsuit filed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and currently
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana.  The matter was filed by the Louisiana
Attorney General against Allstate and every other homeowner
insurer doing business in the State of Louisiana, on behalf of the
State of Louisiana, as assignee, and on behalf of a class of Road
Home fund recipients.  In this matter, the State alleged that the
insurers failed to pay all damages owed under their policies.  The
claims currently pending in the matter are for breach of contract
and for declaratory relief on the alleged underpayment of claims
by the insurers.  All other claims, including extra-contractual
claims, have been dismissed.  The Company had moved to dismiss the
complaint on the grounds that the State had no standing to bring
the lawsuit as an assignee of insureds because of anti-assignment
language in the underlying insurance policies.  Now, however, due
to a ruling by the Louisiana Supreme Court, the Company will not
pursue a motion to dismiss, but will preserve the anti-assignment
issue in a defense.

The State has not yet identified the specific details by property
supporting its allegations of breach of contract or the alleged
deficiencies in adjusting those claims.  There are many potential
individual claims at issue in the matter, each of which will
require individual analysis and a number of which may be subject
to individual defenses, including release, accord and
satisfaction, prescription, waiver, and estoppel.  There has been
no discovery in connection with the matter.  The Company has now
filed a motion seeking to force the State to provide more
specificity as to its claims in this matter.  The Company believes
that its adjusting practices in connection with Katrina homeowners
claims were sound and in accordance with industry standards and
state law.  There remain significant questions of Louisiana law
that have yet to be decided.  In the Company's judgment, given the
issues discussed, a loss is not probable.

No further updates were reported in the Company's recent annual
report.

Based in Northbrook, Illinois, The Allstate Corporation --
http://www.allstate.com/-- is a personal lines insurer.  Its
Allstate Protection segment sells auto, homeowners,
property/casualty, and life insurance products in Canada and the
U.S.


ALLSTATE CORP: Appeal in Worker Classification Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal challenging a trial court decision in a class action
lawsuit against The Allstate Corporation over worker
classification issues has yet to be ruled upon by a first level
appellate court.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 22,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company has been vigorously defending a lawsuit in regards to
certain claims employees involving worker classification issues.
The lawsuit is a certified class action challenging a state wage
and hour law.  In this case, plaintiffs sought actual damages in
an amount to be proven at trial, liquidated damages in an amount
equal to an unspecified percentage of the aggregate underpayment
of wages to be proven at trial, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.  Plaintiffs have not made a settlement demand nor have they
alleged the amount of damages with any specificity.  The case was
bifurcated between liability and damages and is currently focused
only on liability issues.  No discovery has taken place regarding
plaintiffs' alleged damages.  In December 2009, the liability
phase of the case was tried, and, on July 6, 2010, the court
issued its decision finding in favor of Allstate on all claims.
The plaintiffs have appealed the decision in favor of Allstate to
the first level appellate court.  After concluding the current
appeal, the parties may seek a subsequent appeal to the Illinois
Supreme Court.  Only liability issues are being addressed on
appeal and no damages may be awarded at this stage of the
proceedings.  In the event the trial court's order were to be
overturned, however, the parties would need to conduct damages
discovery, and a trial on damages would have to take place, before
any damages could be awarded.  In the Company's judgment, a loss
is not probable.

Based in Northbrook, Illinois, The Allstate Corporation --
http://www.allstate.com/-- is a personal lines insurer.  Its
Allstate Protection segment sells auto, homeowners,
property/casualty, and life insurance products in Canada and the
U.S.


ALLSTATE CORP: Defends Certified Class Suit on Claim Handling
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation is vigorously defending a class action
lawsuit in Montana state court challenging aspects of its claim
handling practices in Montana, according to the Company's February
22, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

Under the class action, the plaintiff alleges that the Company
adjusts claims made by individuals who do not have attorneys in a
manner that unfairly resulted in lower payments compared to
claimants who were represented by attorneys.  In January 2012, the
court certified a class of Montana claimants who were not
represented by attorneys with respect to the resolution of auto
accident claims.  The court certified the class to cover an
indefinite period that commences in the mid-1990's.  The certified
claims include claims for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief
and punitive damages in an unspecified amount. Injunctive relief
may include a claim process by which unrepresented claimants could
request that their claims be readjusted.  No compensatory damages
are sought on behalf of the class.  To date, no discovery has
occurred related to the potential value of the class members'
claims.  The Company has asserted various defenses with respect to
the plaintiff's claims which have not been finally resolved.  The
proposed injunctive relief claim process would be subject to
defenses and offsets ordinarily associated with the adjustment of
claims.  Any differences in amounts paid to class members compared
to what class members might be paid under a different process
would be speculative and subject to individual variation and
determination dependent upon the individual circumstances
presented by each class claimant.  In the Company's judgment, a
loss is not probable.

Based in Northbrook, Illinois, The Allstate Corporation --
http://www.allstate.com/-- is a personal lines insurer.  Its
Allstate Protection segment sells auto, homeowners,
property/ Based casualty, and life insurance products in Canada
and the U.S.


ALLSTATE CORP: Lawsuits Over Program Reorganization Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits relating to The Allstate Corporation's
agency program reorganization remain pending, according to the
Company's February 22, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

The Company is defending certain matters relating to its agency
program reorganization announced in 1999.  Although these cases
have been pending for many years, they currently are in the early
stages of litigation because of appellate court proceedings and
threshold procedural issues.

These matters include a lawsuit filed in 2001 by the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging retaliation
under federal civil rights laws ("EEOC I") and a class action
filed in 2001 by former employee agents alleging retaliation and
age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
("ADEA"), breach of contract and ERISA violations ("Romero I"). In
2004, in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I litigation, the
trial court issued a memorandum and order that, among other
things, certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class
of agents who had signed a release, for purposes of effecting the
court's declaratory judgment that the release was voidable at the
option of the release signer.  The court also ordered that an
agent who voided the release must return to Allstate "any and all
benefits received by the [agent] in exchange for signing the
release."  The court also stated that, "on the undisputed facts of
record, there is no basis for claims of age discrimination." The
EEOC and plaintiffs asked the court to clarify and/or reconsider
its memorandum and order and in January 2007, the judge denied
their request. In June 2007, the court reversed its prior ruling
that the release was voidable and granted the Company's motions
for summary judgment, ruling that the asserted claims were barred
by the release signed by most plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.  In July 2009, the Third Circuit vacated
the trial court's entry of summary judgment in the Company's favor
and remanded the cases to the trial court for additional
discovery, including additional discovery related to the validity
of the release and waiver.  In its opinion, the Third Circuit held
that if the release and waiver is held to be valid, then all of
the claims in Romero I and EEOC I are barred. Thus, if the waiver
and release is upheld, then only the claims in Romero I asserted
by the small group of employee agents who did not sign the release
and waiver would remain for adjudication.  In January 2010,
following the remand, the cases were assigned to a new judge for
further proceedings in the trial court. Plaintiffs filed their
Second Amended Complaint on July 28, 2010.  Plaintiffs seek broad
but unspecified "make whole relief," including back pay,
compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated damages, lost
investment capital, attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable
relief, including reinstatement to employee agent status with all
attendant benefits for up to approximately 6,500 former employee
agents.  Despite the length of time that these matters have been
pending, to date only limited discovery has occurred related to
the damages claimed by individual plaintiffs, and no damages
discovery has occurred related to the claims of the putative
class.  Nor have plaintiffs provided any calculations of the
putative class's alleged back pay or the alleged liquidated,
compensatory or punitive damages, instead asserting that such
calculations will be provided at a later stage during expert
discovery.  Damage claims are subject to reduction by amounts and
benefits received by plaintiffs and putative class members
subsequent to their employment termination.  Little to no
discovery has occurred with respect to amounts earned or received
by plaintiffs and putative class members in mitigation of their
alleged losses.  Alleged damage amounts and lost benefits of the
approximately 6,500 putative class members also are subject to
individual variation and determination dependent upon retirement
dates, participation in employee benefit programs, and years of
service.  Discovery limited to the validity of the waiver and
release is in process. At present, no class is certified.  Summary
judgment proceedings on the validity of the waiver and release are
expected to occur in the first half of 2012.

A putative nationwide class action has also been filed by former
employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA, including a
worker classification issue ("Romero II").  These plaintiffs are
challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and are
seeking to have exclusive agent independent contractors treated as
employees for benefit purposes.  Romero II was dismissed with
prejudice by the trial court, was the subject of further
proceedings on appeal, and was reversed and remanded to the trial
court in 2005.  In June 2007, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the case.  Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
with the Third Circuit.  In July 2009, the Third Circuit vacated
the district court's dismissal of the case and remanded the case
to the trial court for additional discovery, and directed that the
case be reassigned to another trial court judge.  In its opinion,
the Third Circuit held that if the release and waiver is held to
be valid, then one of plaintiffs' three claims asserted in Romero
II is barred.  The Third Circuit directed the district court to
consider on remand whether the other two claims asserted in Romero
II are barred by the release and waiver . In January 2010,
following the remand, the case was assigned to a new judge (the
same judge for the Romero I and EEOC I cases) for further
proceedings in the trial court.  On April 23, 2010, plaintiffs
filed their First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs seek broad but
unspecified "make whole" or other equitable relief, including
losses of income and benefits as a result of their decision to
retire from the Company between November 1, 1999 and December 31,
2000.  They also seek repeal of the challenged amendments to the
Agents Pension Plan with all attendant benefits revised and
recalculated for thousands of former employee agents, and
attorney's fees and costs.  Despite the length of time that this
matter has been pending, to date only limited discovery has
occurred related to the damages claimed by individual plaintiffs,
and no damages discovery has occurred related to the claims of the
putative class.  Nor have plaintiffs provided any calculations of
the putative class's alleged losses, instead asserting that such
calculations will be provided at a later stage during expert
discovery. Damage claims are subject to reduction by amounts and
benefits received by plaintiffs and putative class members
subsequent to their employment termination.  Little to no
discovery has occurred with respect to amounts earned or received
by plaintiffs and putative class members in mitigation of their
alleged losses.  Alleged damage amounts and lost benefits of the
putative class members also are subject to individual variation
and determination dependent upon retirement dates, participation
in employee benefit programs, and years of service.  As in Romero
I and EEOC I, discovery at this time is limited to issues relating
to the validity of the waiver and release.  Class certification
has not been decided.  Summary judgment proceedings on the
validity of the waiver and release are expected to occur in the
first half of 2012.

No further updates were reported in the Company's recent annual
report.

In these agency program reorganization matters, the threshold
issue of the validity and scope of the waiver and release is yet
to be decided and, if decided in favor of the Company, would
preclude any damages being awarded in Romero I and EEOC I and may
also preclude damages from being awarded in Romero II. In the
Company's judgment, a loss is not probable.  Allstate has been
vigorously defending these lawsuits and other matters related to
its agency program reorganization.

Based in Northbrook, Illinois, The Allstate Corporation --
http://www.allstate.com/-- is a personal lines insurer.  Its
Allstate Protection segment sells auto, homeowners,
property/ Based casualty, and life insurance products in Canada
and the U.S.


ALMOST FAMILY: Parties Can Still Appeal Securities Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The period for parties-in-interest to appeal the dismissal of a
consolidated securities class action complaint against Almost
Family Inc. is still open, according to the Company's February 22,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

Four putative class action lawsuits pending against Almost Family
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
were consolidated into a single class action lawsuit entitled In
Re Almost Family Securities Litigation.  The consolidated
complaint was filed on March 4, 2011.  The complaint refers to The
Wall Street Journal article and the subsequent governmental
investigations and alleges that the Company, its chief executive
officer and chief financial officer violated federal securities
laws.  The Company and its officers filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  On February 10, 2012, the Court entered an order
dismissing the complaint with prejudice.  The time for appeal of
the decision has not yet expired.

Almost Family, Inc. and its subsidiaries is a regionally focused
provider of home health services.  They have service locations in
Florida, Kentucky, Ohio, Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts,
Missouri, Alabama, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Indiana.


AMERICAN TACK: Recalls 227,000 LED Night Lights Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
American Tack & Hardware Co. Inc. (AmerTac), of Saddle River, New
Jersey, announced a voluntary recall of about 227,000 LED Night
Lights.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

An electrical short circuit in the night light can cause it to
overheat and smolder or melt, posing fire and burn hazards to
consumers.

AmerTac has received 25 reports of the night lights smoking,
burning, melting and charring.  No injuries have been reported.

Three AmerTac night lights are being recalled.  Each has a model
name and two model numbers.  The model name and a secondary model
number appear only on the packaging.  The basic model number
appears on the back of the night light.  The night lights are
rectangular, about 2-3/16 inches high, 3-1/2 inches wide and 1-1/4
inches deep.  The front housings for each are either white- or
nickel-colored plastic with four horizontal vents and a round
light sensor above the top vent.  The backs of the night lights
are gray plastic with the AmerTac(TM) logo, the basic model
number, "SY" identification code and "ETL" molded into them.  Only
models bearing "SY" on the back are being recalled.  The following
night lights are being recalled:

       Model Name        Model Number        Model Number
      on Packaging       on Packaging       on Night Light
      ------------       ------------       --------------
      Amerelle               71190         71190 or 71190A
      Amertac               327895         71190 or 71190A
      Everyday Basics       076092         71190 or 71190A

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12124.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
hardware stores, home centers and lighting showrooms from March
2009 through October 2010 for about $6.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled night lights,
remove them from the wall sockets and contact the firm for
instructions on receiving a full refund.  For additional
information, contact AmerTac at (800) 420-7511 between 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or visit
AmerTac's Web site at http://www.recall-center.com/or
http://www.amertac.com/


BANK OF AMERICA: Class Action Settlement Returns to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
New York Law Journal reports that Bank of America's $8.5 billion
settlement with investors over mortgage-backed securities is
returning to New York state court.  The United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that the case, settled in
2011, falls within the securities exception in the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005.  Some investors had intervened in the case
to have it removed to federal court, arguing that the settlement
was a class action in disguise that could harm other investors.


BAXTER INT'L: Appeals Ruling in Motion to Dismiss Investor Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. filed an interlocutory appeal
challenging an Illinois court order rejecting the Company's
request for dismissal of claims in a consolidated investors class
action complaint, according to the Company's February 23, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

Two alleged class actions have been filed against the Company and
certain of its current executive officers since September 2010 and
seek to recover the lost value of investors' stock and have also
been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  In January 2012, the court denied the
company's motion to dismiss certain of the claims related to the
class action suit.  Baxter has sought interlocutory appeal of that
decision.

Baxter International Inc. is a global, diversified healthcare
company that applies a unique combination of expertise in medical
devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that
advance patient care worldwide.


BAXTER INT'L: Discovery in Suit Over Plasma Therapies Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a consolidated class action complaint against Baxter
International, Inc., relating to plasma-derived therapies still
ongoing, according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company is a defendant, along with others, in nineteen
lawsuits brought in various U.S. federal courts alleging that
Baxter and certain of its competitors conspired to restrict output
and artificially increase the price of plasma-derived therapies
since 2003.  The complaints attempt to state a claim for class
action relief and in some cases demand treble damages. These cases
have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  In February
2011, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss certain of
the claims and the parties are proceeding with discovery.

Baxter International Inc. is a global, diversified healthcare
company that applies a unique combination of expertise in medical
devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that
advance patient care worldwide.


BP: Trial in Oil Spill Litigation Set to Begin March 5
------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that even if
BP and plaintiffs' attorneys reach an oil-spill settlement this
week, the Justice Department was expected to press ahead with the
trial set to begin Monday, March 5, sources close to the
settlement talks said, speaking not for attribution.

The first trial in the Deepwater Horizon disaster was scheduled to
begin Monday, Feb. 27, but was postponed for a week so settlement
talks could continue.

One informed source confirmed to Courthouse News that if BP and
attorneys for the more than 110,000 plaintiffs hurt by the spill
reach an agreement, the Department of Justice still has claims
against BP arising from the April 20, 2010 oil spill.  This source
declined further comment.

U.S. Attorney Eric Holder told U.S. House lawmakers on Feb. 28:
"We are prepared to go to trial.  We were ready to go to trial
yesterday."  Reuters reported that Mr. Holder added, "We'll see
what happens," -- apparently referring to the continuing
settlement talks.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier, who is overseeing the massive
litigation, wrote in his Sunday afternoon order postponing the
trial that he was doing so "for reasons of judicial efficiency."

Judge Barbier is overseeing the trial without a jury.

The trial involves claims of 116,000 hotel owners, restaurant
owners, fishermen and seafood processors who seek compensation for
lost revenue and personal injuries from the oil spill.

The federal government also has claims against BP and other
defendants, including fines for Clean Water Act violations.
Punitive damages are possible.  Billions of dollars are at stake.

Bloomberg News Service has reported since Sunday that settlement
talks center around the remaining $14 billion in the oil spill
fund that BP set aside to pay claims through the Gulf Coast Claims
Facility (GCCF).

At the request of President Obama, BP set aside $20 billion in
August 2010 to pay people and businesses harmed by the spill. So
far, $6.1 billion has been paid to 573,000 claimants, according to
the GCCF Web site.

BP and plaintiff attorneys issued a joint statement on Sunday to
confirm the trial's delay, saying there "can be no assurance that
these discussions will lead to a settlement agreement."

Eleven people were killed in the Deepwater Horizon explosion,
which injured 17 others and set off the worst oil spill in U.S.
history.  Nearly 5 million barrels of oil were spilled in 87 days.

The broken well was finally capped July 15, 2010, leaving more
than 650 miles of coastline soaked in oil.

The trial is the first of three phases, and will assign fault
among the defendants for the explosion and sinking of the
Deepwater Horizon.  This portion is expected to last into May.

The second phase will assess the defendants' nearly 3-month-long
effort to cap the Macondo well.

Phase three will examine cleanup efforts.

BP is one of several defendants accused of negligence before the
spill.  Other defendants include Transocean, the owner of the
Deepwater Horizon; Cameron International, the manufacturer of the
failed blowout preventer; and Halliburton, which provided cement
services to the rig.


CARNIVAL CORP: Faces Overtime Class Action in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Carnival Corp. has stiffed
workers for overtime since 1998, an employee or former employee
claims in a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Dieulifaite v. Carnival Corporation,
Case No. 12-cv-20805 (S.D. Fla.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/01/Carnival.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony M. Georges-Piette, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE PLLC
          Biscayne Centre
          11900 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 288
          North Miami, FL 33181
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com


CH ENERGY: Being Sold to Fortis for Too Little, N.Y. Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that CH Energy is selling itself
too cheaply to Fortis, for $1.5 billion or $65 per share,
shareholders say in a class action in New York County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Vivas v. CH Energy Group, Inc., et al.,
Index No. 650583/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/01/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          James S. Notis, Esq.
          Kira German, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          501 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 905-0509
          E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com
                  jnotis@gardylaw.com
                  kgerman@gardylaw.com

               - and -

          Patricia C. Weiser, Esq.
          Joseph M. Profy, Esq.
          James M. Ficaro, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22 Cassatt Ave.
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 225-2677

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
          995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (484) 588-5516
          E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com


COSTAR GROUP: Has Yet to File Deal in Acquisition-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On April 27, 2011, CoStar Group, Inc. signed a definitive
agreement to acquire LoopNet, Inc.  The transaction is subject to
customary closing conditions, including antitrust clearance.  The
holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of LoopNet's
common stock and Series A Preferred Stock, voting together as a
single class on an as-converted basis, approved the adoption of
the merger agreement on July 11, 2011.

In May 2011, LoopNet, its Board of Directors and/or the Company
were named as defendants in three purported class action lawsuits
brought by alleged LoopNet stockholders challenging the proposed
merger.  The stockholder actions allege, among other things, that
(i) each member of the LoopNet Board breached his fiduciary duties
to LoopNet and its stockholders in authorizing the sale of LoopNet
to the Company, (ii) the merger does not maximize value to LoopNet
stockholders, (iii) LoopNet and the Company have made incomplete
or materially misleading disclosures about the proposed
transaction and (iv) LoopNet and the Company aided and abetted the
breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the members of
the LoopNet Board.  The stockholder actions seek class action
certification and equitable relief, including an injunction
against consummation of the merger.  The parties have stipulated
to the consolidation of the actions, and to permit the filing of a
consolidated complaint.  In June 2011, counsel for the parties
entered into a memorandum of understanding in which they agreed on
the terms of a settlement of the litigation, which could result in
a loss to the Company of approximately $100,000.  The proposed
settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, the execution
of an appropriate stipulation of settlement, consummation of the
merger and final approval of the proposed settlement by the court.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 23,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

CoStar Group, Inc. -- http://www.costar.com/-- provides
information/marketing services to the commercial real estate
industry in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. The
company was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Bethesda,
Maryland.


DISH NETWORK: Still Defends Channel Bundling Class Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation continues to defend a class action
lawsuit alleging channel bundling, according to the Company's
February 23, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

During 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite subscribers
filed an antitrust action against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  The suit
also names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision, Cox,
Charter, Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable, NBC Universal,
Viacom, Fox Entertainment Group and Walt Disney Company.  The suit
alleges, among other things, that the defendants engaged in a
conspiracy to provide customers with access only to bundled
channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the ability to
purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis.  On October 16, 2009,
the District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with
prejudice.  On June 3, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's motion to dismiss with
prejudice.  The plaintiff class sought rehearing en banc.  On
October 31, 2011, the Ninth Circuit issued an order vacating the
June 3, 2011 order, directing that a 3-judge panel be
reconstituted, and denying the plaintiff class' motion for
rehearing.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend the case.  It
cannot however predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of
the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or
damages.

DISH Network Corporation is a pay-TV provider, with approximately
13.967 million customers across the United States as of December
31, 2011.  In April 2011, the Company completed the acquisition of
most of the assets of Blockbuster, Inc.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Court OK on $79-Mil. Class Settlement Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A $79 million class settlement resolving a consolidated securities
class action commenced by Larry Freudenberg against E*Trade
Financial Corporation has yet to be ruled upon by a New York trial
court, the Company disclosed in its February 23, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On October 2, 2007, a class action complaint alleging violations
of the federal securities laws was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and its then Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, Mitchell H. Caplan and Robert J. Simmons, respectively,
by Larry Freudenberg on his own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated.  On July 17, 2008, the trial court
consolidated the action with four other purported class actions,
all of which were filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York and which were based on the same
facts and circumstances.  On January 16, 2009, plaintiffs served
their consolidated amended class action complaint in which they
also named Dennis Webb, the Company's former Capital Markets
Division President, as a defendant.  Plaintiffs contend, among
other things, that the value of the Company's stock between April
19, 2006 and November 9, 2007 was artificially inflated because
the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing a rise in
delinquency rates in its mortgage and home equity portfolios;
failed to timely record an impairment on its mortgage and home
equity portfolios; materially overvalued its securities portfolio,
which included assets backed by mortgages; and based on the
foregoing, lacked a reasonable basis for the positive statements
made about the Company's earnings and prospects. Plaintiffs seek
to recover damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including
interest and attorneys' fees and costs.  The parties entered into
a Memorandum of Understanding on December 17, 2011 to settle the
consolidated actions.  Under the terms of the MOU, the Company and
its insurance carriers will pay
$79 million in return for full releases.  Approximately
$10.8 million of the total settlement figure will be paid by the
Company, and was recorded in the other operating expense line item
of the consolidated statement of income (loss) for the year ended
December 31, 2011.  The settlement is subject to Court approval
and it has not yet been finalized.  The defendants continue to
deny that they committed any violations of law or breached any
fiduciary duty to shareholders.

E*TRADE Financial Corporation is a financial services company that
provides online brokerage and related products and services
primarily to individual retail investors under the brand "E*TRADE
Financial."


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Oughtred" Class Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal challenging the dismissal of a securities class action
filed by John W. Oughtred is pending, according to E*Trade
Financial Corporation's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2011.

On April 2, 2008, a class action complaint alleging violations of
the federal securities laws was filed by John W. Oughtred on his
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company.  Plaintiff contends, among other things, that
the Company committed various sales practice violations in the
sale of certain auction rate securities to investors between April
2, 2003, and February 13, 2008 by allegedly misrepresenting that
these securities were highly liquid and safe investments for short
term investing.  On December 18, 2008, plaintiffs filed their
first amended class action complaint.  Defendants filed their
pending motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint on
February 5, 2009, and briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss
was completed on April 15, 2009.  Plaintiffs seek to recover
damages in an amount to be proven at trial, or, in the
alternative, rescission of auction rate securities purchases, plus
interest and attorney's fees and costs.  On March 18, 2010, the
District Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice.  On
April 22, 2010, Plaintiffs amended their complaint.  The Company
has moved to dismiss the amended complaint.  By an Order dated
March 31, 2011, the Court granted E*TRADE's motion and dismissed
the action with prejudice. On May 2, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a
Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.  Plaintiffs filed their brief on August 12, 2011.  The
Company's response brief was filed October 26, 2011.  Plaintiffs'
reply brief was filed on November 21, 2011.  Oral argument has not
yet been scheduled.

E*TRADE Financial Corporation is a financial services company that
provides online brokerage and related products and services
primarily to individual retail investors under the brand "E*TRADE
Financial."


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Objects to J. Roling Amending Customer Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
E*Trade Financial Corporation is opposing Joseph Roling's request
for permission to further amend his customer class action
complaint against the Company's subsidiary, E*TRADE Securities,
according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2011.

On February 3, 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against E*TRADE Securities LLC by Joseph Roling on his
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated.  The
lead plaintiff alleges that E*TRADE Securities LLC unlawfully
charged and collected certain account activity fees from its
customers.  Claimant, on behalf of himself and the putative class,
asserts breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of
California Civil Code Section 1671 and seeks equitable and
injunctive relief for alleged illegal, unfair and fraudulent
practices under California's Unfair Competition Law, California
Business and Professional Code Section 17200 et seq. The plaintiff
seeks, among other things, certification of the class action on
behalf of alleged similarly situated plaintiffs, unspecified
damages and restitution of amounts allegedly wrongfully collected
by E*TRADE Securities LLC, attorneys' fees and expenses and
injunctive relief. The Company moved to transfer venue on the case
to the Southern District of New York; that motion was denied. The
Court granted E*TRADE's motion to dismiss in part and denied the
motion to dismiss in part.  The Court bifurcated discovery to
permit initial discovery on individual claims and class
certification.  Following preliminary discovery, Plaintiffs moved
to amend their verified complaint for a second time, to assert new
allegations and to add a new plaintiff.  The Company filed its
opposition to this motion on December 27, 2011. The Company
intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims raised in
this action.

E*TRADE Financial Corporation is a financial services company that
provides online brokerage and related products and services
primarily to individual retail investors under the brand "E*TRADE
Financial."


EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Faces Class Suits Over Solutia Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Chemical Company is defending itself against class action
lawsuits relating to its acquisition of Solutia, Inc., according
to the Company's February 22, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

On January 26, 2012, the Company entered into a definitive
agreement to acquire Solutia Inc., a leader in performance
materials and specialty chemicals.  Solutia, headquartered in St.
Louis, Missouri, produces and sells a diverse portfolio of
performance materials and specialty chemicals.  The transaction
remains subject to approval by Solutia's shareholders and receipt
of required regulatory approvals as well as other customary
closing conditions.  The transaction is expected to close in mid-
2012.

On February 2, 2012, a putative shareholder class and derivative
action, styled Jennifer Howard v. Jeffry N. Quinn, et al., was
filed against Solutia, its board of directors, and Eastman in the
Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri.  The complaint
generally alleges that the Solutia Board breached its fiduciary
duties to Solutia shareholders by, among other things, approving
Eastman's proposed acquisition of Solutia for allegedly inadequate
consideration and following an allegedly unfair sale process.  The
complaint further alleges that Eastman aided and abetted the
Solutia Board in the alleged breach of fiduciary duties by
participating in Eastman's proposed acquisition of Solutia.  The
complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction against the
consummation of Eastman's proposed acquisition of Solutia,
rescission of Eastman's proposed acquisition of Solutia in the
event it is consummated, any damages arising from the defendants'
alleged breaches, and costs and attorneys' fees associated with
the action.  Eastman intends to vigorously defend itself against
the allegations in the complaint.

On February 7, 2012, a second putative shareholder class action,
styled John C. Dewan v. Solutia, Inc., was filed against Solutia,
the Solutia Board, Eastman, and Eastman's wholly-owned subsidiary
Eagle Merger Sub Corporation in the Chancery Court of Delaware.
The complaint generally alleges that the Solutia Board breached
its fiduciary duties to Solutia shareholders by, among other
things, approving Eastman's proposed acquisition of Solutia for
allegedly inadequate consideration, following an allegedly unfair
sale process, and agreeing to terms in the Merger Agreement that
favor Eastman and deter alternative bids.  The complaint further
alleges that Eastman and Merger Sub aided and abetted the Solutia
Board in the alleged breach of fiduciary duties through, among
other things, their respective participation in Eastman's proposed
acquisition of Solutia.  The complaint seeks, among other things,
an injunction against the consummation of Eastman's proposed
acquisition of Solutia and costs and attorneys' fees associated
with the action.  Eastman and Merger Sub intend to vigorously
defend themselves against the allegations in the complaint.

On February 14, 2012, two additional putative shareholder class
actions, styled Joseph C. Huttemann v. Jeffry N. Quinn, et al.,
and David Wolfe v. Solutia, Inc., et al., respectively, were filed
against Solutia, the Solutia Board, Eastman, and Merger Sub in the
Chancery Court of Delaware.  These complaints generally allege
that the Solutia Board breached its fiduciary duties to Solutia
shareholders by, among other things, approving Eastman's proposed
acquisition of Solutia for allegedly inadequate consideration,
following an allegedly unfair sale process, and agreeing to terms
in the Merger Agreement that favor Eastman and deter alternative
bids.  The complaint further alleges that Eastman and Merger Sub
aided and abetted the Solutia Board in the alleged breach of
fiduciary duties through, among other things, their respective
participation in Eastman's proposed acquisition of Solutia.  The
complaints seek, among other things, an injunction against the
consummation of Eastman's proposed acquisition of Solutia and
costs and attorneys' fees associated with the action.  Eastman and
the Merger Sub intend to vigorously defend themselves against the
allegations in these complaints.

Headquartered in Kingsport, Tennessee, Eastman Chemical Company is
a major producer of acetate tow, and a broad array of specialty
plastics and resins, as well as both commodity and specialty
chemicals.  Eastman reported sales of roughly
$7.1 billion for the year ended December 31, 2011.


ESTEE LAUDER: Faces Class Action Over Animal Testing
----------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that five women
say in a federal class action that Estee Lauder, Avon and Mary Kay
resumed animal testing of cosmetics for the Chinese market while
falsely claiming in the United States that their products are
"cruelty free."

Lead plaintiff Marina Beltran demands $100 million in class
damages from Estee Lauder, Avon Products and Mary Kay cosmetics
companies.

"For years, defendants marketed and advertised their companies and
their cosmetic products as not being tested on animals, when in
fact defendants were testing their cosmetic products on animals so
that they could sell products in China and other foreign
countries, thereby reaping hundreds of millions of dollars in
sales.  Defendants later purported to disclose, at least on their
websites, that they in fact were animal testing, but the
disclosures were wholly inadequate and deceptive," the complaint
states.

According to the 18-page complaint: "As a result of the
aforementioned representations, defendants, for over two decades,
achieved placement in the 'People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA) - Do Not Test' list, a list of, among others,
cosmetic companies that do not test products on live animals.
Defendants were, until a matter of weeks ago, among the largest
mainstream corporations to be included on PETA's cruelty-free
lists.

"As a result of being included on the list, as well as many
similar lists, defendants enjoyed the support of PETA and millions
of consumers who buy cosmetics only from companies that do not
conduct animal testing.

"Hence, the commercial success of defendants' products during the
class period was positively influenced by their direct
representations regarding animal testing.  Simply put, defendants
reaped hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from U.S.
consumers who otherwise would not have purchased defendants'
products."

The plaintiffs claim the three companies made "a profit-motivated
decision to enter the Chinese market," and "subsequently began
testing certain of their products on animals and/or hired others
to conduct animal testing of their products."

"However, rather than being upfront with American consumers
regarding their animal testing policies and adequately disclosing
that they were not 'cruelty' free, defendants instead failed to
inform consumers that they were not cruelty free and/or provided
inadequate disclosures regarding the animal testing of their
products," the complaint states.

Avon spokeswoman Jennifer Vargas told Courthouse News in an e-
mailed statement that she could not comment on pending litigation.

"What I can tell you is Avon's commitment not to test on animals
is the same as it has been for over twenty years: except where
required by local law, Avon neither conducts nor requests animal
testing in order to substantiate the safety of its products,"
Ms. Vargas wrote.  "Avon does business in over 100 countries, and
some select products may be required by law in a few countries to
undergo additional safety testing under the directive of a
government or health agency.  In these instances, Avon will first
attempt to persuade the requesting authority to accept non-animal
test data.  When those attempts are unsuccessful, Avon must abide
by local laws and comply with that government's testing
requirements.

"Nothing has changed, and we have been transparent on the issue
regarding our requirement to adhere to local laws in countries
where we do business," Ms. Vargas wrote.

Mary Kay said in an e-mail that it did not conduct animal testing
"except when absolutely required by law."

"There is only one country where we operate where that is the case
and where we are required to submit our products for testing --
China," the company told Courthouse News in an e-mail.

It added: "This is a passionate issue for us.  We are deeply
committed to the elimination of animal testing, and our record
speaks to that.  We are working closely with the Chinese
government to demonstrate that alternative testing methods ensure
safe and effective products."

But PETA's Cathy Guillermo told Courthouse News that the animal
rights organization was "extremely upset" when it learned that the
cosmetics companies had tested their products on animals.

"It appears these companies have misled some consumers, and it
appears that the plaintiffs may have a valid complaint here," Ms.
Guillermo told Courthouse News.

The plaintiffs are represented by Michael Avenatti with Eagan
Avenatti of Newport Beach.

Mr. Avenatti told Courthouse News: "We expect to uncover
significant evidence in this case showing that each of the
companies knew they were not coming clean with consumers."

The class seeks an injunction and damages for fraud/fraudulent
concealment, unfair business practices, false advertising,
violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

Estee Lauder did not respond to an e-mailed request for comment.

A copy of the Complaint in Beltran, et al. v. Estee, Lauder, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 12-cv-00312 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/01/Lauder.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael J. Avenatti, Esq.
          Scott H. Sims, Esq.
          EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP
          450 Newport Center Drive, 2nd Floor
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-7000
          E-mail: mavenatti@eaganavenatti.com
                  ssimse@aganavenatti.com

               - and -

          Filippo Marchino, Esq.
          Damon Rogers, Esq.
          THE X-LAW GROUP, P.C.
          11100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 150
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          E-mail: filippo.marchino@xlawx.com
                  damon.rorgers@xlawx.com


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: North Jackson Antitrust Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
An antitrust class action complaint against Express Scripts Inc.
remains pending after the trial court heard oral arguments for
class certification motions in January 2012, the Company disclosed
in its February 22, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Express Scripts (Civil
Action No. CV-03-B-2696-NE, United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama), filed October 1, 2003, purports to
be a class action against the Company on behalf of independent
pharmacies within the United States.  The complaint alleges that
certain of the Company's business practices violate the Sherman
Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C Sec1, et. seq.  The suit seeks unspecified
monetary damages (including treble damages) and injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted on March 3,
2006.  A motion filed by the plaintiffs in an antitrust matter
against Medco and Merck in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation requesting
transfer of the case and others to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for MDL treatment was granted on August 24, 2006.
The Company filed a motion to decertify the class on January 16,
2007, which has been fully briefed and argued.  The case remained
dormant until April 19, 2011, when it was reassigned to a new
judge and the parties were ordered to submit supplemental briefing
on the issue of class certification. Supplemental briefing was
completed on August 26, 2011.  Oral argument of all the class
certification motions was heard on January 26, 2012, and the court
took the Company's motion under submission.

Express Scripts Inc. is a pharmacy benefit management company in
North America, offering a full range of services to clients, which
include HMOs, health insurers, third-party administrators,
employers, union-sponsored benefit plans, workers' compensation
plans and government health programs.  It manages the cost of the
drug benefit by (1) evaluating drugs for price, value and efficacy
in order to assist clients in selecting a cost-effective
formulary; (2) leveraging purchasing volume to deliver discounts
to health benefit providers; (3) promoting the use of generics and
low-cost brands; and (4) offering cost-effective home delivery
pharmacy and specialty services which result in drug cost savings
for plan sponsors and co-payment savings for members.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: N.J. Ct. to Hear Medco Class Settlement in Apr.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A New Jersey district court will convene a hearing on April 16,
2012, to consider a settlement resolving class action lawsuits
relating to Express Scripts, Inc.'s merger deal with Medco Health
Solutions, Inc., according to the Company's February 22, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

Several lawsuits were filed by stockholders of Medco Health
Solutions, Inc. challenging Express Script's proposed merger
transaction with Medco following its announcement on July 21,
2011, that the Company had entered into a definitive merger
agreement.  The complaints in the actions name as defendants Medco
and/or various members of Medco's board of directors as well as
Express Scripts and certain of the Company's subsidiaries that are
party to the merger agreement.  Twenty-two complaints were filed
in three different venues: the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, and in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey.
The plaintiffs in the purported class action complaints generally
alleged, among other things, that (i) the members of Medco's board
of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Medco and its
stockholders by authorizing the proposed merger and (ii) Express
Scripts and three of the Company's subsidiaries -- Plato Merger
Sub, Inc., Aristotle Holding, Inc. and Aristotle Merger Sub, Inc.
-- aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by
Medco and its directors.  The plaintiffs sought, among other
things, to enjoin the defendants from consummating the merger
transaction on the agreed-upon terms, and unspecified compensatory
damages, together with the costs and disbursements of the action.
A class was certified in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.  The cases filed in the Superior Court of the State of
New Jersey were stayed on August 26, 2011.  On November 7, 2011,
the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding in which
they agreed upon the terms of settlement, and plaintiffs agreed to
withdraw applications for preliminary injunction of the
acquisition and stay all further litigation pending court approval
of the settlement.  The terms of the settlement are reflected in
the Amendment No. 1 to Agreement and Plan of Merger, which was
included as Exhibit 2.1 to the Company's Current Report on Form 8-
K filed November 8, 2011.  A settlement hearing is scheduled
before the United States District of New Jersey on April 16, 2012.

Express Scripts Inc. is a pharmacy benefit management company in
North America, offering a full range of services to clients, which
include HMOs, health insurers, third-party administrators,
employers, union-sponsored benefit plans, workers' compensation
plans and government health programs.  It manages the cost of the
drug benefit by (1) evaluating drugs for price, value and efficacy
in order to assist clients in selecting a cost-effective
formulary; (2) leveraging purchasing volume to deliver discounts
to health benefit providers; (3) promoting the use of generics and
low-cost brands; and (4) offering cost-effective home delivery
pharmacy and specialty services which result in drug cost savings
for plan sponsors and co-payment savings for members.


GOOGLE: Harke & Clasby Files Class Action Over Safari Software
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Brinkmann, writing for South Florida Business Journal,
reports that Miami Shores attorneys with Harke & Clasby are
joining several firms nationwide who have filed class action
litigation against Google regarding tracking cookies on Safari
software for Apple products.

Attorneys Lance Harke and Howard Bushman signed the proposed class
action complaint against Google filed on Feb. 29 in federal court
in Miami.

The lawsuit has one named plaintiff, Keile Allen of Miami-Dade
County, who allegedly used an Apple iPod and iPad to perform Web
searches using Google via Safari software.

The local suit is one of several proposed class actions filed
against Google after The Wall Street Journal broke a story Feb. 16
about Google and other advertising companies bypassing the privacy
settings of millions of people on iPhones and computers to track
Web-browsing habits.  Stanford University researcher Jonathan
Mayer spotted the Google code.

In response, Google said the bypass was unintended and the company
was deactivating that capability.

Wilmington, Del.-based law firm Sianni & Striate previously filed
a proposed class action on behalf of plaintiff Matthew Soble of
Illinois.


HSBC BANK: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
--------------------------------------------------------
The Legal Intelligencer reports that a federal judge in
Philadelphia has preliminarily approved a $23.5 million settlement
in a class action brought against HSBC Bank over the company's
payment protection plan for its credit card users.  If granted
final approval, it will be the fourth such settlement against
credit card issuers.


INTERNAP NETWORK: Continues to Defend "Anastacio" Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Internap Network Services Corporation continues to defend itself
against two remaining claims in a securities fraud class action
filed by the Anastacios, the Company disclosed in its February 23,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On November 12, 2008, a putative securities fraud class action
lawsuit was filed against the Company and its former chief
executive officer in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, captioned Catherine Anastasio and
Stephen Anastasio v. Internap Network Services Corp. and James P.
DeBlasio, Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-3462-JOF.  The complaint
alleges that the Company and the individual defendant violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
individual defendant also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act as a "control person" of Internap.  Plaintiffs purport to
bring these claims on behalf of a class of the Company's investors
who purchased the Company common stock between
March 28, 2007 and March 18, 2008.

Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class
period, the Company made misleading statements and omitted
material information regarding (i) integration of VitalStream
Holdings, Inc., which the Company acquired in 2007, (ii) customer
issues and related credits due to services outages and (iii) the
Company previously reported 2007 revenue that the Company
subsequently reduced in 2008 as announced on March 18, 2008.
Plaintiffs assert that the Company and the individual defendant
made these misstatements and omissions to maintain the share
price. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief.

On August 12, 2009, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file an
Amended Class Action Complaint.  The Amended Complaint added a
claim for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act based on
alleged misrepresentations in the Company's proxy statement in
connection with the Company's acquisition of VitalStream.  The
Amended Complaint also added the Company's former chief financial
officer as a defendant and lengthened the putative class period.

On September 11, 2009, the Company and the individual defendants
filed motions to dismiss.  On November 6, 2009, plaintiffs filed a
Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint.  On December 7, 2009,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint to add allegations regarding, inter alia, an
alleged failure to conduct due diligence in connection with the
VitalStream acquisition and additional statements from purported
confidential witnesses.

On September 15, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss and denied the individual defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act.  With respect to plaintiffs' claims under Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, the Court held that the Amended
Complaint failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, but allowed plaintiffs'
one final opportunity to amend the complaint.  On October 26,
2010, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Class Action Complaint.
On December 10, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  On September 30, 2011, the Court granted in large part
the motion to dismiss.  The two remaining claims involve certain
alleged misstatements concerning the progress of the integration
of VitalStream and the stability of the Company's CDN platform.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest annual
report.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Internap Network Services
Corporation -- http://www.internap.com-- provides information
technology (IT) infrastructure services. The Company operates
through two segments, Data Center Services and Internet Protocol
(IP) Services.


LEXISNEXIS COURTLINK: No Decision Yet on E-Filing Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Balter at Courthouse News Service reports that no decision
was reached in a hearing on a slew of motions in the class action
against LexisNexis Courtlink and Fulton County, challenging
mandatory electronic filings of lawsuits through the private
company.

Filings at the heart of the Feb. 21 hearing were Fulton County's
request for summary judgment based on sovereign immunity, and
plaintiffs' attorney, Steven Newton's requests to add Fulton
County clerks to the list of defendants, and to add three class
representatives as plaintiffs.

Mr. Newton's co-counsel, representing The Best Jewelry
Manufacturing Co. and Kenneth Clowdus, were Shuli L. Green and
Irwin Stolz.

Fulton County was represented by Nwakaego Nkumeh, LexisNexis by
Tameka Phillips.

The slow-moving lawsuit, which was transferred to the DeKalb
County Courthouse last year after Fulton's entire bench was
recused by DeKalb Superior Court Judge Robert Castellani,
challenges the legality of the mandatory e-filing system that
LexisNexis runs for the Fulton County courthouse.  Plaintiffs
demand, among other things, a refund of the efiling fees.

                        Sovereign Immunity

DeKalb Superior Court Judge Clarence Seeliger heard conflicting
arguments on the circumstances by which Fulton County's sovereign
immunity might be waived.

Judge Seeliger asked if the act of filing a case implied a
contract between a plaintiff and Fulton County, as such a contract
could nullify Fulton's sovereign immunity.

"There is nothing that Fulton has done, nothing, to waive
sovereign immunity," Mr. Nkumeh replied.

"There is no issue of contract between the plaintiffs and the
county," Mr. Nkumeh said, adding that circumstances under which
immunity waivers apply are strictly defined.

"In none of the statutes at issue is there an implied waiver or an
express waiver," Mr. Nkumeh said.

Plaintiffs' attorney Shuli Green disagreed.  She said that
O.C.G.A. 15-6-77, which dictates filing fees and refund
requirements, points to the presence of a waiver.

"The only reasonable interpretation of that provision is that the
General Assembly intends litigants to be able to recoup
overpayment of filing fees in excess of the $15," Ms. Green said.
"That's a specific refund provision, and a refund is a limited
waiver of the county's sovereign immunity."

Fulton's defense claimed that no law specifically strips Fulton of
its immunity, and that the county contract with LexisNexis is
backed by a court order on how it is to be carried out.

But the plaintiffs questioned the legality of the court order
itself, and the Georgia Supreme Court's approval of the e-filing
contract with Fulton County.

"The e-filing fees that have been charged are filing fees not
authorized by any authority, from the General Assembly or by
statute," Ms. Green said.

"Did the supreme court approval of the use of e-filing address
this?" Judge Seeliger asked.

"No," Ms. Green replied.  "The supreme court simply approved the
filing scheme.  [It] was not authorized to approve it.  It should
have been done via General Assembly."

                          New Defendants?

Mr. Newton's team sought to overturn a 2010 order by DeKalb
Superior Court Judge Robert Castellani which barred the addition
of Fulton clerks as defendants.  Judge Castellani assumed that
both sides would agree that any court order against Fulton County
would be binding on the county's employees and agents.

"There was no sovereign=immunity case asserted by Fulton at that
time," said Irwin Stolz, Mr. Newton's co-counsel.  "Castellani
said [Fulton] had not claimed immunity, so there was no point in
adding clerks, because it was not needed. Now sovereign immunity
has been claimed, and we need it."

Mr. Stolz said the importance of adding Fulton clerks as
plaintiffs stems from their obligations to accept paper filings
under O.C.G.A. 15-5-40, and to make the refund mandated by
O.C.G.A. 15-6-77.

"Sovereign immunity does not apply to clerks in their individual
administrative capacities," Shuli Green added.

"The clerks still had a duty to accept paper filings. If they had
not, we would not be here," Ms. Green said.

Judge Seeliger countered: "If they did [accept paper filings] they
would be violating a court order by Judge Thompson."

Judge Seeliger postulated that the plaintiffs might assign some
liability to Fulton County State Court Chief Judge Albert L.
Thompson, for approving the use of LexisNexis at Fulton in 2006.

"I would say this scheme has been in place since [1999].  It was
upon the clerks to inquire into an act of the supreme court that
excuses a ministerial duty," Ms. Green said.

Judge Seeliger asked: "Does the order by Thompson and approval by
the supreme court of Georgia somehow make them liable because they
approved the order of a local judge?"

Ms. Green replied: "The clerk's job is not to blindly follow
directions that controvert his duty."

Judge Seeliger: "You are arguing the clerks would be liable to pay
damages?"

Ms. Green: "Yes, but I would imagine there is an indemnification
clause between Fulton and the clerks, so I don't think that would
happen, but yes."

Fulton attorney Mr. Nkumeh directed the argument back to Judge
Castellani's 2010 order against adding Fulton clerks as
defendants.

"Nothing has changed since then," Mr. Nkumeh said.  "Fulton has
filed sovereign immunity on punitive damages, but at the end of
the day, we're talking about the clerks being accused of
[following] the orders of the court.  To hold the clerks
individually liable would prejudice the clerks.  Fulton has no
indemnification agreement; nothing has changed to Castellani's
order as to their individual capacity."

Mr. Nkumeh said that Fulton's sovereign immunity status and quasi-
judicial immunity should extend to the clerks in their official
capacity as they follow discretionary, not ministerial, official
duties ordered by the court.

Mr. Newton seeks to add past and present Fulton County State and
Superior Court clerks, including Mark Harper, Stefani Lacour,
Juanita Hicks and Cathelene "Tina" Robinson in their individual
and official capacities.

Fulton County State Court and Fulton County Superior Court are
different courts.

                     Where does the money go?

Arguments on the legality of e-filing fees concerned multiple
subsections of O.C.G.A. 15-6-77, which governs fees and fee
provisions, including whether e-filing fees might be justified as
"costs for service of process" under subsection 77b, or under
subsection 77e5 on allowance of fees for services.

"[O.C.G.A.] 15-6-77e5 says the collection of any other fees for
services shall not be inhibited," Mr. Nkumeh said.

Ms. Green disagreed, questioning again the lawfulness of the court
order approving e-filing.

"This provision says nothing shall be inhibited that is
'authorized by law," Ms. Green said.

Mr. Stolz said that 77b rendered the LexisNexis contract unlawful.

"According to [O.C.G.A.] 15-6-77b, the fees belong to the county,"
Mr. Stolz said.  "We have this illegal contract between Lexis on
one hand and Fulton on the other that allows Lexis to charge
fees."

Judge Seeliger asked Mr. Nkumeh: "Where does the money Lexis
charges go?"

Mr. Nkumeh: "To Lexis, apart from statutory fees.  This was done
as per Judge Thompson's order."

Judge Seeliger: "Is the county compensated in any way? Let me
understand this.  Lexis charges the fees, but the clerks aren't
compensated in any way.

Mr. Nkumeh: "It costs $100 to file. You pay $107, Lexis keeps the
$7 and the county gets $100."

Mr. Nkumeh cited O.C.G.A. 15-6-77e5 again, asserting that e-filing
fees are not prohibited.  She cited O.C.G.A. 15-6-71 to claims
that the plaintiffs could have filed a motion for contempt against
any clerk who did not perform properly, but the plaintiffs have
not done so.

"It says nothing in the statue is a waiver, or that refunds
specifically must be paid.  Nothing in it talks about e-filing.
We argue again there's no waiver," Mr. Nkumeh said.

Ms. Green disagreed with Mr. Nkumeh's claim about Fulton's cut of
the e-filing fees collected by LexisNexis.

"Fulton says they don't receive any portion other than the
statutory fees.  We have documents suggesting Fulton [also] gets a
portion of the user fees collected by Lexis," Ms. Green said.  She
did not specify the amount.

                            Ten More Days

Mr. Newton's legal team sought to add class representatives as
plaintiffs to maintain the integrity of the class, should a class
representative die or forfeit his or her claim in the suit.
Prospective plaintiffs include Christy Gail Humber aka Christy
Gail Breeland, individually and as administratrix of the estate of
Sam Breeland, Lincoln Trucking Inc., and Garth Barnett.

LexisNexis filed its own sovereign immunity claim, as a
contractor, seeking to avoid monetary liability in conjunction
with Fulton's immunity-based motion to dismiss.  That motion was
stayed pending Judge Seeliger's decision on Fulton County's claim.

Neither of the defendants' sovereignty motions apply to injunctive
relief aimed at stopping the use of the LexisNexis e-filing system
at Fulton County.

All parties were given 10 days from the date of the hearing to
provide Judge Seeliger with written arguments.


MONTANA POWER: Not Liable for Workers' Compensation, Jury Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Grant Emeigh, writing for Billings Gazette, reports that a
jury on March 1 found the defunct Montana Power Co. not liable of
mishandling workers' compensation benefits of former employees,
after a monthlong civil trial in Butte district court.

The ruling saved the former utility from potentially paying
millions of dollars in damages, according to lawyer Lon Dale, who
represented the 141 employees.

The class-action lawsuit, filed in 1998, contended that Montana
Power neglected to attempt to pay the workers' compensation
benefits when liability was reasonably clear going back to 1977.

Testimony began on Feb. 1 and continued until it went to the 12-
member jury on Feb. 29.  The jury returned its verdict just before
3:00 p.m. on March 1.

Eight jurors ruled in favor of Montana Power, while four found the
company at fault.

Helena attorney Joe Seifert, who represented Montana Power, said
he was pleased and surprised by the jury's decision.  He believed
defending Montana Power would be difficult with a Butte jury.

"I recognize the demise of Montana Power has not made it a popular
company, and the American worker is very popular in Butte,
Montana," Mr. Seifert said after the verdict.  He praised the
majority of the jury for being able to put aside its passion and
make a ruling on the facts of the case.

Mr. Dale, a Missoula attorney, said he was disappointed that the
jury ruled against his clients.  Mr. Dale said he plans to
interview the jurors to learn more about their decision.

The lawsuit also named NorthWestern Corp. and Putman and
Associates as defendants.  NorthWestern took over for Montana
Power and Putnam and Associates were hired to handle the workers'
compensations claims for the company.

District Judge Kurt Krueger presided.


NEW ENERGY: Two Law Firms File Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Gainey & McKenna and the Egleston Law Firm filed the original
class action on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of New
Energy Systems Group between April 15, 2010 and November 14, 2011,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

A copy of the original complaint filed by our law firms can be
found at http://www.gme-law.com

Several law firms have issued press releases but have not filed
any action against the defendants.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from February 10, 2012.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's attorneys:

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          Gainey & McKenna
          Telephone: (212) 983-1300,
          E-mail: tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com

               - or -

          Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
          Egleston Law Firm
          Telephone: (212) 683-3400
          E-mail: egleston@gme-law.com

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.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
New Energy common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Gainey & McKenna and the Egleston Law Firm


NVR INC: Still Defends Class Suits Over Salesmen's Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
NVR, Inc. continues to defend against class action suits relating
to overtime wages of sales and marketing representatives.

On July 18, 2007, former and current employees filed lawsuits
against the Company in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania and Hamilton County, Ohio, in Superior Court
in Durham County, North Carolina, and in the Circuit Court in
Montgomery County, Maryland, and on July 19, 2007 in the Superior
Court in New Jersey, alleging that the Company incorrectly
classified its sales and marketing representatives as being exempt
from overtime wages.  The lawsuits are similar in nature to
another lawsuit filed on October 29, 2004 by another former
employee in the United States District Court for the Western
District of New York.  The complaints seek injunctive relief, an
award of unpaid wages, including fringe benefits, liquidated
damages equal to the overtime wages allegedly due and not paid,
attorney and other fees and interest, and where available,
multiple damages.  The suits were filed as purported class
actions.  However, while a number of individuals have filed
consents to join and assert federal claims in the New York action,
none of the groups of employees that the lawsuits purport to
represent have been certified as a class.  The lawsuits filed in
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and North Carolina have
been stayed pending further developments in the New York action.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 22,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company believes that its compensation practices in regard to
sales and marketing representatives are entirely lawful and in
compliance with two letter rulings from the United States
Department of Labor issued in January 2007.  The three courts to
most recently consider similar claims against other homebuilders
have acknowledged the DOL's position that sales and marketing
representatives were properly classified as exempt from overtime
wages and the only court to have directly addressed the exempt
status of such employees concluded that the DOL's position was
valid.  Accordingly, the Company has vigorously defended and
intend to continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits.  Because
the Company is unable to determine the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome of these cases, or the amount of damages, if
any, the Company has not recorded any associated liabilities on
the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

NVR, Inc.'s primary business is the construction and sale of
single-family detached homes, townhomes and condominium buildings.


POLY IMPLANT: Australian Law Firm to File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Lucie van den Berg, writing for Herald Sun, reports that more than
three-quarters of Australian women mounting a class action over
French-made breast implants have had complications.

A third of these women have had ruptures and many are facing
health complications, including immune disease, hair loss,
significant pain, rashes and irritation.

"Many can't afford the surgery required to remove these implants
and are left feeling helpless and abandoned by the authorities,"
Tindall Gask Bentley Lawyers' Tim White -- twhite@tgb.com.au --
said.

The Australian law firm expects to file a class action when its
investigations are complete.

"The general problems and health concerns relating to these Poly
Implant Prosthesis (PIP) breast implants have certainly exceeded
our expectations," Mr. White said.

"There is little doubt that this is a serious health scare for
Australians."

A spokesman for the firm said it had surveyed only 284 of the 380
Australian women who had registered for the proposed class action.

About 13,000 PIP silicone gel breast implants were supplied in
Australia between 1998 and 2010.

The Australian Government has set up a Breast Implant Information
Line; phone 1800 217 257.


SANDISK CORP: Trial Ct. Reopens Indirect Purchaser Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A California federal court reopened a consolidated civil antitrust
class action filed by indirect purchasers of flash memory products
against Sandisk Corporation, according to the Company's February
23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2012.

Between August 31, 2007 and December 14, 2007, the Company (along
with a number of other manufacturers of flash memory products) was
sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, in eight purported class action complaints.  On
February 7, 2008, all of the civil complaints were consolidated
into two Complaints, one on behalf of direct purchasers and one on
behalf of indirect purchasers, in a purported class action
captioned In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation.  Plaintiffs
alleged the Company and a number of other manufacturers of flash
memory and flash memory products conspired to fix, raise, maintain
and stabilize the price of NAND flash memory in violation of state
and federal laws and sought an injunction, damages, restitution,
fees, costs and disgorgement of profits. The direct purchaser
lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice.  On March 31, 2010, the
District Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' class
certification motion, and denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to
amend the Consolidated Amended Complaint to substitute certain
class representatives.  On April 5, 2011, the District Court
denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the class certification decision and on April
19, 2011, indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a Rule 23(f)
petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to
request permission to appeal that decision.  On June 28, 2011, the
Ninth Circuit denied that petition.  On July 12, 2011, indirect
purchaser plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing,
which the Ninth Circuit denied on August 24, 2011. Indirect
purchaser plaintiffs petitioned the district court to reopen the
case, which request was granted on January 3, 2012.

SanDisk Corporation is an innovator of flash memory storage
solutions.  Flash storage technology allows digital information to
be stored in a durable, compact format that retains the data even
after the power has been switched off.  The Company was
incorporated in Delaware in June 1988 under the name SunDisk
Corporation and changed its name to SanDisk Corporation in August
1995.


SANDISK CORP: Interlocutory Appeal in "Ritz Camera" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corporation's interlocutory appeal of a district court's
denial order in an antitrust class action by Ritz Camera & Image,
LLC, is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit, the Company disclosed in its February 23, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended January 1, 2012.

On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC filed a complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust law by
conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for flash
memory products.  The lawsuit captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC
v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc. and Eliyahou Harari, purports to be
on behalf of direct purchasers of flash memory products sold by
the Company and joint ventures controlled by the Company from June
25, 2006 through the present.  The Amended Complaint alleges that
the Company created and maintained a monopoly by fraudulently
obtaining patents and using them to restrain competition and by
allegedly converting other patents for its competitive use.  On
February 24, 2011, the District Court issued an Order granting in
part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss which
resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant.  In
addition, the Company filed a motion requesting that the District
Court certify for immediate interlocutory appeal the portion of
its Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss based on Ritz's
lack of standing to pursue Walker Process antitrust claims.  The
Company answered the Complaint on March 10, 2011, denying all of
Ritz's allegations of wrongdoing.  On September 7, 2011, the
District Court granted the Company's motion to certify for
interlocutory appeal.  On September 19, 2011, the Company filed a
petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  On October 27,
2011, the District Court administratively closed the case pending
the Federal Circuit's ruling on the Company's petition.  On
January 13, 2012, the Federal Circuit granted the Company's
petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal and the
Federal Circuit docketed the appeal on February 2, 2012.

SanDisk Corporation is an innovator of flash memory storage
solutions.  Flash storage technology allows digital information to
be stored in a durable, compact format that retains the data even
after the power has been switched off.  The Company was
incorporated in Delaware in June 1988 under the name SunDisk
Corporation and changed its name to SanDisk Corporation in August
1995.


SANDISK CORP: Files Plea to Dismiss Antitrust Suit Over SD Cards
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corp. joined other defendants in filing a motion to
dismiss an antitrust class action relating to Secure Digital
cards, the Company disclosed in its February 23, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended January 1, 2012.

On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v.
SD-3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a nationwide class of
indirect purchasers of Secure Digital ("SD") cards alleging
various claims against the Company, SD-3C, Panasonic, Toshiba,
and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under federal
antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, California
antirust and unfair competition laws, and common law. Plaintiffs
allege the Company (along with the other members of SD-3C)
conspired to artificially inflate the royalty costs associated
with manufacturing SD cards in violation of federal and California
antitrust and unfair competition laws, which in turn allegedly
caused plaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD cards.  The
allegations are similar to, and incorporate by reference the
complaint in the Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic
Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; and SD-3C
LLC.  On November 23, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Complaint, and on February 21, 2012, the Company and the other
defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint.  The Company received two demand letters dated March
30, 2011 pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A Sec.
9.  Both letters gave notice of intention to file a class action
lawsuit on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of
SD cards alleging various claims against the Company, SD-3C,
Panasonic; Toshiba, and Toshiba America Electronic Components,
Inc. under Massachusetts unfair competition law if the Defendants
do not tender a settlement. These letters generally repeat the
allegations in the antitrust cases filed against SD-3C and
Panasonic defendants in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic
Corp., et al. and against the Company, SD-3C, Panasonic
defendants, and Toshiba defendants in Oliver v. SD-3C LLC, et al.
On April 21, 2011, the Company responded to both letters detailing
their deficiencies.

SanDisk Corporation is an innovator of flash memory storage
solutions.  Flash storage technology allows digital information to
be stored in a durable, compact format that retains the data even
after the power has been switched off.  The Company was
incorporated in Delaware in June 1988 under the name SunDisk
Corporation and changed its name to SanDisk Corporation in August
1995.


SPRINT COMMS: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roxana Hegeman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
federal judge granted preliminary approval on March 1 to a $4.2
million class-action settlement in claims by thousands of Kansas
landowners against three of the nation's largest
telecommunications companies, calling the deal a "Herculean job"
that will help solve the property rights dispute over installation
of fiber-optic cable on railroad rights of way.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Kenneth Gale also certified a so-called
settlement class composed of landowners with property adjacent and
underlying the railroad rights of ways and approved the form and
process to notify landowners in July.  A hearing is set for Nov.
14 in Wichita.

The federal lawsuit in Kansas was filed against Sprint
Communications Co., Qwest Communication Co. and Level 3
Communications in 2010, and the proposed agreement would resolve
claims that affect about 459 miles of railroad rights of way in
Kansas.

"It is the product of years and years of litigation and settlement
efforts," said Dan Millea -- dmillea@zelle.com -- a Minneapolis
attorney who is representing plaintiffs in the case.

At issue -- in some 70 lawsuits filed in state and federal courts
across the nation -- is a practice where telecommunications
companies installed fiber-optic cable systems in railroad rights
of way by reaching agreements with the railroads that possessed
those rights.  The plaintiffs alleged the railroads do not have
sufficient rights to authorize the installation, while the
defendants disagreed.

"I think the parties have done a Herculean job trying to solve
this problem," Judge Gale said.

Landowners in Kansas and 45 other states reached settlements
following years of "arduous litigation" in courts across the
country, according to court documents.  Left out of the
negotiations: Tennessee, as litigation continues there; Louisiana,
where a settlement was negotiated separately; and Alaska and
Hawaii.

In all of the settlements, telecom companies would get easements
from landowners for fiber-optic cable.

In the Kansas settlement, landowners with valid claims would
receive $2.98 million, and payments would be determined on whether
the railroad originally acquired the property under a federal
land-grant statute or by private conveyance.

That dates back to the mid-1800s when Congress tried to encourage
the building of transcontinental railroads by granting railroads
not only right-of-way corridors but also ownership of alternating
sections of public lands on either side of those corridors,
according to court documents.

Kansas landowners with property adjacent to non-land grant rights
of way who submit a qualified claim would be paid $2.19 per foot.
Property owners with land-grant claims would be paid between 13
cents per foot to 52 cents per foot.

In seeking approval of the legal fees -- more than $1 million for
attorneys -- Mr. Millea told the court on March 1 that the total
investment by plaintiffs' counsel exceeded the proposed payment to
plaintiff attorneys.  Administrative costs in the Kansas suit are
estimated at $321,000.

J. Emmett Logan -- elogan@stinson.com -- an attorney representing
Sprint Communications Co., told the court that attorneys hope to
send out coordinated notices of settlements in 38 states in July,
although it is likely that only 20 states will be far enough along
in the legal process by that time.

The settlement calls for direct notice to every known qualifying
property owner as well as publication in media outlets.

A Web site with information on the settlement also is planned.


STRUM RUGER: Securities Class Suit Still Pending in Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities lawsuit against Sturm, Ruger & Company,
Inc. remains pending in Connecticut, according to the Company's
February 22, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2011.

On August 18, 2009, the Company was served with a complaint
captioned Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund, on Behalf of Itself
and All Others Similarly Situated v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc., et
al. pending in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages for
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is a
purported class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between April 23, 2007 and October 29, 2007.  On
October 9, 2009, the Company waived service of a complaint
captioned Alan R. Herrett, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc., et al.
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut.  This matter is based upon the same facts and basic
allegations set forth in the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund
litigation.  On October 12, 2009, a motion to consolidate the two
actions was filed by counsel for the Steamfitters.  On January 11,
2010, the court entered an order consolidating the two matters.  A
consolidated amended complaint was filed on
March 11, 2010.  The defendants, including the Company, filed a
motion to dismiss on April 26, 2010 and plaintiffs filed a
response on June 18, 2010.  Defendants then filed a reply in
support of the motion on July 19, 2010.  Oral argument was held on
November 22, 2010.  On February 4, 2011, the Court entered an
order granting the motion to dismiss in part and denying it in
part.  The matter is ongoing and no scheduling order has yet been
entered.

No updates were reported in the Company's latest annual report.

Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. is engaged in the design,
manufacture, and sale of firearms to domestic customers.


SUTTER HEALTH: 11 Data Breach Class Actions Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------
iHealthBeat reports that eleven class-action lawsuits filed
against Sutter Health over a data breach are being consolidated
into a single case in Sacramento County Superior Court, the
Sacramento Business Journal reports.

The cases are being consolidated to maximize resources and avoid
duplication.

                            Background

The data breach occurred the weekend of Oct. 15, 2011, after a
computer was stolen from the Sutter Medical Foundation business
office in Sacramento.

A Sutter spokesperson said a computer monitor, keyboard and other
equipment went missing.  The computer was password-protected, but
the data were not encrypted.

                         Patients Affected

Two groups of patients have been affected by the incident.
The first group comprises 3.3 million individuals whose health
care providers work with Sutter Physician Services.  The stolen
data on these patients include names, addresses, birth dates,
medical record numbers and health insurance providers.

Meanwhile, data that went missing on 943,000 additional Sutter
Medical Foundation patients included the same information, as well
as dates that services were provided and descriptions of diagnoses
or procedures from January 2005 to January 2011.

Sutter officials said the data do not include patients' financial
records, Social Security numbers or health plan identification
numbers.

                      Details of the Lawsuit

All of the eleven lawsuits seek monetary damages for individuals
affected by the breach, as well as a court order requiring Sutter
to improve its methods of protecting patient information.

According to the Business Journal, the consolidated case could
seek as much as $1,000 for each member of the class-action
lawsuit, which could amount to between $944 million and $4.25
billion total, not including attorneys' fees and court costs.

The Judicial Council of California has yet to assign the
consolidated case to a judge.


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Appeal in "Proctor Litigation" Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal challenging the dismissal of claims against Vishay
Intertechnology, Inc. in the "Proctor Litigation" remains pending,
according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011.

In 1998, Vishay acquired the Semiconductor Business Group of
TEMIC, which included Telefunken and an 80.4% interest in
Siliconix, producers of MOSFETs, RF transistors, diodes,
optoelectronics, and power and analog switching integrated
circuits.  In 2005, Vishay made a successful tender offer for the
minority interest in Siliconix.

In January 2005, an amended class action complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of California on behalf of all non-Vishay
stockholders of Siliconix against Vishay; Ernst & Young LLP, the
independent registered public accounting firm that audits the
Company's financial statements; Dr. Felix Zandman, former
Executive Chairman and Chief Technical and Business Development
Officer of Vishay; and as a nominal defendant, Siliconix.  The
suit made various claims against Vishay and the other defendants
for actions allegedly taken in respect of Siliconix during the
period when Vishay owned an 80.4% interest in Siliconix.  The
action, referred to as the "Proctor litigation" on account of the
lead plaintiff, sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages.

In May 2005, Vishay successfully completed a tender offer to
acquire all shares of Siliconix that were not already owned by
Vishay.  Following the announcement of Vishay's intent to make
this tender offer, several purported class-action complaints were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  These actions were
consolidated into a single class action and a settlement agreement
was reached with the plaintiffs, who effectively represented all
non-Vishay stockholders of Siliconix.  The settlement agreement
was approved by the Delaware Court of Chancery in October 2005.

The plaintiffs in the Proctor litigation filed an amended
complaint in the Superior Court of California in November 2005.
In June 2006, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a permanent
injunction restraining the Proctor plaintiffs from prosecuting the
Proctor action.  An appeal of the injunction order brought by a
former stockholder of Siliconix was dismissed by the Delaware
Supreme Court in January 2007.

In June 2006, the Proctor litigation was removed from the Superior
Court of California to federal District Court.  The District Court
granted a motion by Ernst & Young to dismiss the complaint and a
motion by Vishay for summary judgment, effective October 15, 2007.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and
on October 9, 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of
Proctor's class action claim and remanded the remaining two claims
to state court.  On July 26, 2011, the Superior Court dismissed
the remaining claims against Vishay with prejudice.  On September
20, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

Headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania, Vishay Intertechnology,
Inc., is a large manufacturer and supplier of discrete passive and
active electronic components.  Vishay reported $2.5 billion in
revenue in the twelve months ended December 31, 2011.


                           *********

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  * * *