---

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

             Thursday, March 29, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 63

                             Headlines

AES CORPORATION: Units Continue to Defend Class Suit in Brazil
AES CORPORATION: Continues to Defend DPL Merger-related Suits
AES CORPORATION: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Suit Remains Pending
AMERICAN CAPITAL: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set for June
ANGLOGOLD: Lawyer Explores Silicosis Out-of-Court Settlement

ARM: Investors Mull Class Action to Recover Assets
BB&T CORP: Appeals in Checking Acct. Suits Still Pending
BEST BUY: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
BP PLC: More Than 1,000 Oil Spill Claimants Get $27 Million
BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Inmates Set to Get Settlement Checks

CASH AMERICA: Jury Trial in "Strong" Class Suit This Month
CASH AMERICA: "Alfeche" Suit Remains Pending in Pennsylvania
CASH AMERICA: "Wilson" Suit Dismissed in February
CHARLES SCHWAB: Awaits Ruling on "Northstar" Suit Appeal
CHARLES SCHWAB: optionsXpress Merger Suit Deal Okayed in December

CITY OF FRESNO, CA: Faces Class Actions Over Homeless Clean-ups
CITY OF SACRAMENTO, CA: Homeless Set to Get Reimbursement
COSTAMARE: Bay of Plenty Businesses Commence Rena Class Action
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Suit in Calif. For Labor Code Violations
DEAN FOODS: Final Hearing on Tenn. Farmers Suit Deal on May 15

DEAN FOODS: Inks Settlement in RICO Class Suit in Mississippi
DEAN FOODS: Two Antitrust Suits Still Pending in Tennessee
DORCHESTER MINERALS: Royalty Underpayment Claim Still Pending
ENSCO PLC: Awaits Ruling on Merger-Related Suit Dismissal Bids
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in eFunds Suit

FIRSTMERIT CORPORATION: Overdraft Fees Suit v. Bank Unit Pending
FIRSTMERIT CORPORATION: Breach of Contract Suit v. Unit Pending
GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Class Action Over C-4 Extreme Drug
GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over New Privacy Policy
GOV'T OF NEW SOUTH WALES: Children Sue Over Unlawful Arrests

HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Judge Okays $1-Mil. Class Action Settlement
HERSHEY CO: Removes Discrimination Suit to Calif. District Court
ILLUMINA INC: Faces Lawsuits Over Stock Purchase Offer
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Antitrust Class Suit Remains Pending
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: July Trial Set for Discrimination Suit

NASSAU COLISEUM: May Face Class Action Over Asbestos Exposure
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Saints Fans Mull Class Action
NETSPEND HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Baker" Suit in New Jersey
NEVSUN RESOURCES: To Vigorously Defend Class Action
PENN VIRGINIA: Merger Deal Class Action Settlement Okayed in Dec.

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Motion for Class Certification Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Still Faces Lawsuit in Pa.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Garcia" Suit Remains Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeal from Pruco Suit Dismissal Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeal from "Schultz" Suit Dismissal Pending

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Consolidated Overtime Pay Suit Still Pending
R.M. & G. PRODUCTS: Sued Over "Negative Option Memberships"
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Appeal from Order Denying Arbitration Pending
SMITH MICRO: Hearing on Calif. Suit Dismissal Bid Set for May 12
SONUS NETWORKS: IPO-Related Suit Concluded in January

SOUTHERN COMPANY: Continues to Face Katrina-Related Class Suit
SOUTHERN UNION: ETE Merger-related Class Suits Remain Pending
STATE OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Senate Bill X2 11
STATE STREET: Still Defends Forex Suits in Boston & Baltimore
STATE STREET: Shareholder Suits Still Pending in Boston

USA SPEEDWAY: October Trial Set for Clean Water Act Class Action
WISCONSIN EDUCATION: Hudson Education Board Joins Class Action
YAHOO! INC: Breaches Terms of Service Contracts, Suit Claims

* Securities Fraud Class Actions v. Life Sciences Firms Down 41%

                          *********

AES CORPORATION: Units Continue to Defend Class Suit in Brazil
--------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of The AES Corporation continue to defend themselves
from a class action lawsuit pending in a Brazilian court,
according to the Company's February 27, 2012 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In March 2008, the State Prosecution office in the State of Rio
Grande do Sul, Brazil, filed a Class Action against AES Florestal,
Ltd., AES Sul and Companhia Estadual de Energia Eletrica,
requiring an injunction for the removal of the alleged sources of
contamination from Florestal's pole factory and property known as
"Horto Renner" in the State, and the payment of an indemnity in
the amount of BRL6 million (US$3 million).  The injunction was
rejected and the case is in the evidentiary state awaiting the
production of the court's expert opinion.  However, in October
2011, the State Prosecution Office presented a new request to the
court of Triunfo for an injunction against Florestal, Sul and CEEE
for the removal of the alleged sources of contamination and
remediation, and the court granted the injunction against CEEE but
did not grant injunctive relief against Florestal or Sul.  CEEE
appealed such decision, but failed to stay it.  The appeal is
pending judgment by the State of Rio Grande do Sul Court of
Appeals.


AES CORPORATION: Continues to Defend DPL Merger-related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The AES Corporation continues to defend itself from putative class
action lawsuits pending in state courts challenging its merger
with DPL Inc., according to the Company's February 27, 2012 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.

Purported stockholders of DPL Inc. filed nine putative derivative
and/or class actions in Ohio state court and three such suits in
Ohio federal court against DPL and its board of directors relating
to DPL's agreement to merge with the Company.  Most of those
lawsuits name the Company as a defendant.  The lawsuits are
substantially similar and allege that the price offered in the
merger is unfair, DPL's directors breached their fiduciary duty by
agreeing to the merger at an unfair price, and the Company aided
and abetted that breach by offering an unfair price.  The lawsuits
seek to enjoin the merger and some suits also seek unspecified
damages.  Five of the state lawsuits have been voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice.  The defendants' motions to dismiss
the remaining four state lawsuits are pending.  The three federal
lawsuits were consolidated, and the plaintiffs in those suits
filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting state and federal
disclosure claims and moved to enjoin the merger prior to the vote
of DPL's shareholders on the merger.  The defendants filed motions
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  The federal court
established a briefing schedule on those motions and ordered
limited discovery on certain disclosure claims.  Subsequently, in
July 2011, the defendants and the federal plaintiffs executed a
memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of the
litigation, subject to certain confirmatory discovery and court
approval, pursuant to which DPL would make certain additional
disclosures to stockholders in its final proxy statement prior to
the shareholder vote on the merger.  After execution of the MOU,
the federal court suspended briefing on the motions pending before
it.  DPL made the additional disclosures required under the MOU.
The shareholders of DPL later approved the merger in September
2011 and the merger was consummated in November 2011.  The parties
to the federal litigation filed a stipulation of settlement,
subject to the federal court approval, that sought to dismiss the
federal litigation with prejudice and release all claims by DPL
stockholders concerning the merger.  On February 23, 2012, at a
settlement hearing, the federal court approved the stipulation of
settlement and dismissed the federal litigation with prejudice.
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses in the remaining
state court actions and will assert these defenses vigorously;
however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in
its efforts.


AES CORPORATION: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit against The AES Corporation
involving the effect of greenhouse gases emissions remains pending
in a Mississippi federal court, according to the Company's
February 27, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In May 2011, a putative class action was filed in the Mississippi
federal court against the Company and numerous unrelated
companies.  The lawsuit alleges that greenhouse gas emissions
contributed to alleged global warming which, in turn, allegedly
increased the destructive capacity of Hurricane Katrina.  The
plaintiffs assert claims for public and private nuisance,
trespass, negligence, and declaratory judgment.  The plaintiffs
seek damages relating to loss of property, loss of business,
clean-up costs, personal injuries and death, but do not quantify
their alleged damages.  These and other plaintiffs previously
brought a substantially similar lawsuit in the federal court but
failed to obtain relief.  In October 2011, the Company and other
defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, which the
plaintiffs have opposed.  The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses and will defend itself vigorously in this lawsuit;
however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in
its efforts.


AMERICAN CAPITAL: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set for June
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the final approval of a settlement in a purported
securities class action against American Capital, Ltd., is set for
June 7, 2012, according to the Company's February 27, 2012 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company and certain of its executive officers are defendants
in a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland styled as Klugmann v. American
Capital, Ltd., et al.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the
purchasers of the Company's common stock between October 31, 2007
and November 7, 2008, and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, and in the case of the individual defendants,
the control person provisions of the Exchange Act.  The factual
assertions in the complaint consist primarily of the allegation
that the defendants made incorrect statements related to the
Company's dividend guidance for 2008.  The complaint seeks
unspecified damages, costs and expenses.

On February 22, 2012, the court granted preliminary approval of a
settlement submitted by the parties.  The terms of the settlement
include payment by the Company's insurers in exchange for a full
release of the claims and provides that there is no admission as
to the validity of the claims.  The settlement is subject to
certain contingencies including final court approval following
notice and hearing and the right of defendants to terminate the
settlement if a certain number of shareholders opt out of the
class after notice.  The final approval hearing is scheduled for
June 7, 2012.

While the Company does not expect that the outcome of the lawsuit
will materially affect its financial condition or results of
operations, until the court issues a final order approving the
settlement and dismissing the case, there can be no assurance
whether this legal proceeding will have a material adverse effect
on the Company's financial condition or results of operations in
any future reporting period.


ANGLOGOLD: Lawyer Explores Silicosis Out-of-Court Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Dineo Faku, writing for Independent Online, reports that
Richard Spoor, the lawyer leading a class action lawsuit against
mining firms on behalf of thousands of workers who contracted
silicosis due to lax safety regulations, is willing to talk to
firms about the best procedure to resolve the battle.  Because the
case was unprecedented in South Africa, Mr. Spoor said on March
22, there were no rules on how to do it and talks with the 15 gold
producers could help prevent the litigation from dragging on for
years.  He said a judge would decide on the process if companies
failed to agree on a procedure.

Silicosis is a lung disease caused by exposure to silica dust in
mines.  Firms including AngloGold Ashanti, Harmony Gold, Gold
Fields, African Rainbow Minerals and DRDGold have been targeted as
former miners seek recompense for infections dating back to the
1970s.

Mr. Spoor said because shafts at gold mines were old and becoming
deeper, ventilation was poor, making employees vulnerable to
silica dust.

Mr. Spoor said the objective was to resolve the matter out of
court.  "If we reach an agreement, it (class action) could be
easily resolved.  In the US there are procedures and rules on
class actions, but in South Africa it is new terrain.  We are
concerned with the possibility of the litigation being bogged
down.  If defendants raise procedural objections this could lead
to delays." Mr. Spoor said it was not in the interest of mining
firms to sit with a contingent liability, and this was a reason
why they had to co-operate.


ARM: Investors Mull Class Action to Recover Assets
--------------------------------------------------
Alasdair Pal, writing for IFAonline, reports that investors in
stricken life settlements fund ARM Asset Backed Securities (ARM)
are believed to be considering a class action lawsuit against the
firm for the recovery of their assets.

A note to bondholders last week, in which the ARM board of
directors claimed it will agree on a timescale for the sale of its
assets and liabilities at its next meeting, has failed to quell
investor fears.

The fund, which at its peak has a face value of nearly GBP200
million, never achieved regulatory approval, and in August 2011
was frozen by the CSSF in Luxembourg (where the fund is based),
leaving more than 1,500 clients locked out of their investments.

Alan Shanks, a member of the investors' steering group set up to
recover client money, told IFAonline that the majority, who were
mainly sold to through IFAs, were frustrated at the delays.

"We're at the end of our tether," he said.  "We're shocked the way
the FSA, FSCS and CSSF have treated this group of investors,
primarily elderly people who have all their funds in this bond."

The FSA intervened in November to freeze cash held in the UK.  But
Mr. Shanks said the move was too late for those who were mis-
advised.

"I'm getting e-mails from people who are either renting their own
properties out or moving into a rented room themselves," he said.

"People are selling their properties because they were enticed or
advised to put their entire pension pot into the ARM bond."

"You can argue whether it was a misjudgment on the part of IFAs --
but no IFA should ever allow an investor to put their entire pot
into one thing."

Investors were reportedly told last year there were at least four
viable bidders for ARM's assets, including life settlement
specialist Insetco.  However, a proposed deal with the firm lapsed
in November, with the parties unable to agree terms.

In February, IFAonline reported the FSA was investigating the UK
distributor of the fund, Catalyst Investment Group, for the mis-
selling of the bonds.

One of the biggest purchasers of the bonds was retirement
specialist Rockingham Group, that was fined by the FSA for
recommending 426 elderly clients use the bonds in their SIPPs.
The company has since been placed in liquidation, with insolvency
practitioner Probitas appointed last week to begin the wind-up.
Catalyst Investment group, which deals with UK investors for ARM,
was not available for comment.


BB&T CORP: Appeals in Checking Acct. Suits Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Appeals challenging trial court orders in three separate
complaints relating to BB&T Corporation's customer checking
account practices remain pending.

The Company is a defendant in three separate cases primarily
challenging the Company's daily ordering of debit transactions
posted to customer checking accounts for the period from 2003 to
2010.  The plaintiffs have requested class action treatment,
however, no class has been certified.  The court initially denied
motions by the Company to dismiss these cases and compel them to
be submitted to individual arbitration.  The Company then filed
appeals in all three matters.  There have been numerous subsequent
procedural developments, including an appeal to the United States
Supreme Court in one matter which resulted in a decision that
benefited the Company.  Nevertheless, at present the issues raised
by these motions and/or appeals remain undecided.  If the motions
or appeals are ultimately granted, they would preclude class
action treatment.  Even if those appeals are denied, the Company
believes it has meritorious defenses against these matters,
including class certification. Because of these appeals, and
because these cases are in preliminary proceedings and no damages
have been specified, no specific loss or range of loss can
currently be determined.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 27, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

BB&T Corporation -- http://www.bbandt.com/-- operates as a
financial holding company for Branch Banking and Trust Company
that provides various banking and trust services for retail and
commercial clients.  The company's deposit products include
noninterest-bearing checking accounts, interest-bearing checking
accounts, savings accounts, money market deposit accounts,
certificates of deposit, and individual retirement accounts.  Its
loan products comprise commercial, financial, and agricultural
loans; real estate construction and land development loans; real
estate mortgage loans; and consumer loans.  As of December 31,
2011, it operated 1,779 branch offices in North Carolina, South
Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Georgia, West Virginia, Tennessee,
Kentucky, Alabama, Florida, Texas, Indiana, and Washington, D.C.
The company serves small and mid-size businesses, public agencies,
local governments, and individuals. BB&T Corporation was founded
in 1872 and is headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.


BEST BUY: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Best Buy stiffs its field
techs a.k.a. home appliance installers for overtime, a former
worker claims in a Los Angeles Superior Court class action.


BP PLC: More Than 1,000 Oil Spill Claimants Get $27 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kunzelman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
more than 1,000 claimants have received around $27 million in the
two weeks since a court-supervised administrator took over the
processing of claims spawned by the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico.

A statement issued on March 23 by Patrick Juneau, the new claims
administrator, also said nearly 5,000 new claims have been filed
since the process shifted March 8 to the court from the $20
billion compensation fund set up by BP PLC in the spill's
aftermath.

The transition is part of a settlement agreement between BP and
lawyers representing more than 100,000 individuals and businesses.
The parties will ask U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier to give
preliminary approval to the settlement next month.

BP estimates it will pay out $7.8 billion through the settlement,
but the deal is uncapped.

Mr. Juneau said 1,096 claimants have been paid a total of $26.9
million between March 8 and March 21.  Roughly $19.6 million of
that money went to 619 claimants who hadn't accepted a final offer
from the Gulf Coast Claims Facility before Feb. 26.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, those 619 claimants
have received 60 percent of their final offers while they decide
whether to opt into the settlement class.  If they opt out, they
are entitled to receive the remaining 40 percent of the GCCF's
offer in exchange for signing a release.  But plaintiffs'
attorneys say claimants could receive a more lucrative offer by
participating in the settlement.

Under previous administrator Kenneth Feinberg, the GCCF processed
about 221,300 claims and paid out more than $6 billion.


BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Inmates Set to Get Settlement Checks
--------------------------------------------------------
Curt Brown, writing for SouthCoastTODAY.com, reports that more
than two years after the state's high court struck down the
practice of charging inmates at the Bristol County House of
Correction a $5-a-day fee, prisoners will finally be getting their
money back.

Jim Pingeon, litigation director for Prisoners' Legal Services of
Boston, which initiated the suit, said the state comptroller's
office will be sending out settlement checks to about 1,100
inmates soon after April 17.

He said the class-action group includes the inmates who paid the
$5-a-day fee from 2002-04 during their incarceration in Dartmouth.

"I never thought it would take this long but it has," he said.
"There always has been something that has gotten in the way.  But
now it seems that there is nothing in the way to prevent the
checks going out in April.

"Everyone will be glad when this case is brought to final
resolution."

The collections, which started July 1, 2002, were stopped July 28,
2004, when Superior Court Judge Richard T. Moses ruled them
illegal because the Legislature had not granted county sheriffs
permission to impose them.

The Supreme Judicial Court upheld his decision in January 2010,
ruling that the Bristol County Sheriff's Department lacked
authority to charge the fee.

Inmates in the class-action group who owe unpaid child support,
however, will not receive their entire settlement.

Mr. Pingeon said the state won a judgment in February, giving it
permission to deduct any unpaid child support payments from the
settlement checks.

Bristol County Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson said, while he is
disappointed with the court's ruling, he is pursuing legislative
approval of a $5-a-day fee for inmate care.

"We are going to pursue what is really just," he said.  "This is a
very important issue for the taxpayers and it's also about
teaching inmates responsibility."

Mr. Pingeon said the settlements that inmates will receive include
the money they paid, plus 10 percent in interest, less any unpaid
child support.

He said the actual payments will range from 2 cents to more than
$3,000 and the average payment is about $150.

Robert Novack, an attorney in the sheriff's legal department, said
the money the sheriff collected from the fees, including interest,
totaled $827,500, and was maintained in an escrow account.

He said Analytics Inc., of Chanhassen, Minn., was hired by the
court as the claims administrator and the company worked with the
sheriff's office to certify all inmates' claims.

Letters were sent to the inmates' last known addresses and there
were follow-up efforts to find inmates who were no longer living
at those addresses, according to Mr. Pingeon.

Mr. Novack said the sheriff's department sent a check to the
comptroller's office for $515,658.64 on Aug. 22, after the class
action group was certified.

He said the amount represents claims from all the inmates who
could be contacted and those who have valid claims.

"Everyone that the third-party administrator said has a valid
claim, we sent out the funds to cover that claim," Mr. Novack
said.

Messrs. Novack and Pingeon said the settlement will also pay
attorneys' fees and costs of the claims administrator.

Mr. Pingeon said the claims administrator has been paid $20,000
and is due another $12,000.

He said Prisoners Legal Services is allowed to bill for "up to
$200,000" and the court will determine how much it is ultimately
entitled to receive after the inmates are paid.

The settlement also stipulates that four mutually agreed-upon
charities -- Changing Lives Through Literature at UMass Dartmouth,
Steppingstone Inc., PACE in New Bedford and the Boys & Girls Clubs
in New Bedford and Fall River -- will receive any money remaining
after the claims are settled and the lawyers and the claims
administrator are paid.

Mr. Pingeon said the court will also decide which charities
receive money from the settlement and how much they get.


CASH AMERICA: Jury Trial in "Strong" Class Suit This Month
----------------------------------------------------------
A jury trial in the class action lawsuit filed by James E. Strong
against Cash America International, Inc., was set to begin this
month, according to the Company's February 27, 2012 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

On August 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia against Georgia
Cash America, Inc., Cash America International, Inc. (together
with Georgia Cash America, Inc., "Cash America"), Daniel R.
Feehan, and several unnamed officers, directors, owners and
"stakeholders" of Cash America.  The lawsuit alleges many
different causes of action, among the most significant of which is
that Cash America made illegal short-term loans in Georgia in
violation of Georgia's usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act
and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO").  First National Bank of Brookings, South Dakota ("FNB")
and Community State Bank of Milbank, South Dakota ("CSB") for some
time made loans to Georgia residents through Cash America's
Georgia operating locations.  The complaint in this lawsuit claims
that Cash America was the true lender with respect to the loans
made to Georgia borrowers and that FNB and CSB's involvement in
the process is "a mere subterfuge."  Based on this claim, the suit
alleges that Cash America was the "de facto" lender and was
illegally operating in Georgia.  The complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages and the
trebling of any compensatory damages.  In November 2009, the trial
court certified the case as a class action lawsuit, and after an
appeal by Cash America, the Supreme Court of Georgia upheld the
class certification in March 2011.  In August 2011, Cash America
filed a motion for summary judgment, and in October 2011, the
plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment.
Hearings on the motions were held in October and November 2011.
The trial court entered an order granting summary judgment in
favor of Cash America on one of plaintiff's claims, denying the
remainder of Cash America's motion and granting plaintiff's cross-
motion for partial summary judgment.  Cash America filed a notice
of appeal in December 2011 on the grant of partial summary
judgment, which plaintiffs sought to dismiss.  A hearing was held
on plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal in January 2012, and
the trial court denied the motion.  The appeal has not yet been
scheduled with the Georgia Court of Appeals.  The case is set for
jury trial in March 2012.  The Company is currently unable to
estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, as defined by ASC
450-20-20, Contingencies-Loss Contingencies-Glossary ("ASC 450-20-
20"), for this litigation.  Cash America believes that the
Plaintiffs' claims in this suit are without merit and is
vigorously defending this lawsuit.


CASH AMERICA: "Alfeche" Suit Remains Pending in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit filed by Peter Alfeche and Kim
Saunders against Cash America International, Inc., remains pending
in a Pennsylvania federal court, according to the Company's
February 27, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On March 5, 2009, Peter Alfeche and Kim Saunders, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against Cash America International, Inc.,
Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC ("CashNet Nevada"), Cash America
Net of Pennsylvania, LLC and Cash America of PA, LLC, d/b/a
CashNetUSA.com (collectively, "CashNetUSA").  The lawsuit alleges,
among other things, that CashNetUSA's online consumer loan
activities in Pennsylvania were illegal and in violation of
various Pennsylvania laws, including the Loan Interest Protection
Law, the Pennsylvania Consumer Discount Company Act (the "CDCA")
and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Laws.  The
lawsuit also seeks declaratory judgment that several of
CashNetUSA's contractual provisions, including the class action
waiver and the choice of law and arbitration provisions, are not
enforceable under Pennsylvania law and that CashNet USA's loan
contracts are void and unenforceable.  The complaint seeks
compensatory damages (including the trebling of certain damages),
punitive damages and attorney's fees.  CashNetUSA filed a motion
to enforce the arbitration provision, including its class action
waiver, located in the agreements governing the lending
activities.  In August 2011, the U.S. District Court ruled that
the arbitration provision, which includes the class action waiver,
was valid and enforceable and granted the motion to compel
arbitration and stayed the litigation.  In August 2011, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which the court denied,
and in September 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
certification for interlocutory appeal, which was denied in
November 2011.  On February 24, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion
for reconsideration of the court's decision, and the court has not
yet ruled on this motion.  Neither the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome nor the ultimate liability, if any, with
respect to this matter can be determined at this time, and the
Company is currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably
possible losses, as defined by ASC 450-20-20, for this litigation.
The Company believes that the plaintiffs' claims in this suit are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.


CASH AMERICA: "Wilson" Suit Dismissed in February
-------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed by Krystle Wilson was dismissed in February
following a court ruling enforcing arbitration, according to Cash
America International, Inc.'s February 27, 2012 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011.

On December 4, 2009, Krystle Wilson filed a lawsuit against Cash
America Net of Illinois d/b/a CashNetUSA alleging violation of the
Texas Debt Collection Practices Act, violation of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and invasion of privacy.  In April
2011, the plaintiff amended her petition to include a purported
class action claim, and named Cash America International, Inc.,
Cash America Net Holdings, LLC, Cash America Net of Texas, LLC and
Enova Financial Holdings, LLC as additional defendants (and
corrected the name of the previously-named defendant to Cash
America Net of Illinois, LLC) (collectively, "CashNet"). The
amended petition alleges, among other things, that CashNet's
consumer loan activities violate the Texas Credit Services
Organization Act ("CSOA") and that in its efforts to collect on
loans issued through the CSOA loan program, CashNet violated the
Texas and Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts. The
plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees
and punitive damages. In June 2011, CashNet removed this action to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Fort
Worth Division) and filed a motion to enforce the arbitration
provision, including the class action waiver, located in the
agreements governing the lending activities. In September 2011,
the court granted the parties' joint motion requesting that the
case be stayed pending resolution of the motion to enforce the
arbitration provision. On February 1, 2012, the court ruled that
the arbitration provision, which contains the class action waiver,
was valid and enforceable and granted the Company's motion to
compel arbitration and dismissed the litigation.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Awaits Ruling on "Northstar" Suit Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab Corporation is awaiting a court ruling on an
appeal from an order dismissing plaintiffs' claims in a class
action lawsuit called the Northstar lawsuit, according to the
Company's February 24, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM) (Northstar
lawsuit).  The lawsuit, which alleges violations of state law and
federal securities law in connection with the fund's investment
policy, names Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the
fund's shares) and CSIM as defendants.  Allegations include that
the fund improperly deviated from its stated investment objectives
by investing in collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and
investing more than 25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed
securities without obtaining a shareholder vote.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified
equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and attorneys' fees.
Plaintiffs' federal securities law claim and certain of
plaintiffs' state law claims were dismissed in proceedings before
the court and following a successful petition by defendants to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On August 8, 2011, the court
dismissed plaintiffs' remaining claims with prejudice.  Plaintiffs
have appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where the case is currently
pending.

A second class action lawsuit filed on September 3, 2010, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which
raised similar allegations on behalf of investors in the fund
(Smit lawsuit), was dismissed with prejudice on April 19, 2011.


CHARLES SCHWAB: optionsXpress Merger Suit Deal Okayed in December
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement in a consolidated class action lawsuit filed in
Illinois in relation to The Charles Schwab Corporation's merger
with optionsExpress was approved in December last year, according
to Company's February 24, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

Between March 21, 2011 and April 6, 2011, ten purported class
action lawsuits were filed by optionsXpress stockholders
challenging the terms of the Company's merger agreement to acquire
optionsXpress.  Named defendants included the Company,
optionsXpress and members of its board of directors.  Seven
lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
and consolidated in a single amended complaint on May 9, 2011
(Consolidated Illinois Action); and three lawsuits were filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and consolidated in
a single amended complaint on April 25, 2011 (Consolidated
Delaware Action).  On April 28, 2011, the Delaware court stayed
the Consolidated Delaware Action in favor of the Consolidated
Illinois Action.

On June 16, 2011, the Illinois court dismissed all claims against
the Company with prejudice.  On July 29, 2011, the parties entered
into a settlement agreement under which the remaining defendants
agreed to provide certain supplemental merger disclosures in
exchange for full releases of all claims related to the merger,
including all claims in the Consolidated Illinois Action and the
Consolidated Delaware Action.  Defendants also agreed not to
oppose any fee application by plaintiffs' counsel that did not
exceed $650,000.  The settlement received final approval from the
Illinois court on December 7, 2011.


CITY OF FRESNO, CA: Faces Class Actions Over Homeless Clean-ups
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Crosse, writing for The Fresno Bee, reports that Fresno
officials are violating terms of a class-action lawsuit settled on
behalf of the city's homeless who were displaced during cleanup
sweeps in 2008, an attorney said on March 23.

Nine federal lawsuits naming 12 homeless people as plaintiffs were
filed on March 22 for financial, physical and emotional damage
from the destruction of their tents and personal items, attorney
Paul Alexander said.

The suits allege that the city has not stored or properly stored
some property of the homeless, said Mr. Alexander, an attorney
based in Palo Alto.

In addition, city officials have not given the homeless proper
notification for some clean-ups since the settlement, he said.

Fresno City Attorney James Sanchez denied the allegations on March
23.

"The city has taken extensive efforts to ensure that its policies
and procedures regarding cleanups protect individual rights while
allowing the city to address public health and safety issues
presented within the city," he said.

In 2008, city officials agreed to pay $2.25 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit filed after the city raided homeless
encampments, destroying personal property.

The California Department of Transportation chipped in another
$85,000, bringing the total to more than $2.3 million.

Mr. Alexander said more lawsuits will be filed.

About 100 to 200 homeless people have been affected, though not
all may choose to file suit, he said.

The lawsuits also allege that city officials destroyed shelter and
warm clothing belonging to the homeless during the winter, causing
illnesses, Mr. Alexander said.

"We have people who ended up with pneumonia and in emergency rooms
because it rained and got cold, and they had no place to go," he
said.

The lawsuits name the city of Fresno, Caltrans and other
defendants -- including city officials -- who authorized or
participated in the homeless encampment demolitions.

Caltrans spokesman Jose Camarena said his agency's officials had
not seen the lawsuits on March 23 and could not comment.

The suits seek unspecified money and the return of the plaintiffs'
property and ask that city officials end the alleged improper
practices.

Former U.S. District Judge Oliver W. Wanger, who presided over the
2008 settlement, is serving as the mediator in the dispute.

Judge Wanger said talks between the two sides are confidential and
therefore he could not discuss specifics.

He said his goal is to help the two sides reach a solution.


CITY OF SACRAMENTO, CA: Homeless Set to Get Reimbursement
---------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Hubert, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that
hundreds of homeless men and women last week began filing claims
for reimbursement for tents, bicycles and other items seized by
Sacramento police during raids of illegal encampments since 2005.

In a highly unusual agreement reached between the city and
homeless plaintiffs to resolve a class-action lawsuit, people who
show that the city destroyed their belongings each will be paid
either $400 or $750, depending upon the value of the property.

Patrons of Loaves & Fishes, the city's largest homeless services
complex, are lining up to fill out claim forms, said Paula Lomazzi
of the Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee.  "It's pretty
busy," she said on March 22.  "We've already gone through 400 to
500 forms."

The forms also are available at shelters and other places where
homeless people gather.

A thousand or more people may ultimately submit claims, which are
due by June 8, said civil rights attorney Mark Merin, who brought
the federal lawsuit on behalf of homeless clients.

In addition to possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars in
payments to homeless people, Mr. Merin said, the city also may be
responsible for attorneys fees for four years of work and a three-
week trial.  The figure, which would have to be approved by the
court, "will amount to a rather high number," he said.

The city will make the payments to homeless plaintiffs "somewhat
grudgingly," Senior Deputy City Attorney Chance Trimm said on
March 22.  "We still don't think we did anything wrong in terms of
how we handled the property of the homeless," he said.

"But the alternative to resolve this was to go through hundreds of
mini-trials, and that wouldn't be a great thing for the court or
anyone else.  We had to find a way to get this thing to a final
judgment."

The resolution came with the blessing of city leaders in closed
discussions, he said.

Sacramento County originally was part of the civil lawsuit, but
settled its portion in 2009 with a payment of $488,000 and the
development of elaborate policies for tagging and storing items
seized during sweeps of illegal campsites.

"We don't feel we engaged in the same type of conduct as the
county.  That's why we took this to trial," said Mr. Trimm. "We
feel that our officers acted appropriately, in a very
compassionate way."

About 300 people filed claims against the county, which paid out
about $200,000 to plaintiffs.  Mr. Trimm said he believes that
fewer claims will be validated against city officers because they
did a good job of marking and storing property seized at homeless
campsites.  In many cases, no one claimed the items, he said.

The claim form asks for identifying information including a Social
Security number, the approximate date when property was seized,
the location, and information about whether city employees were
responsible for taking the items. It also asks about the homeless
person's efforts to recover the property.

Mr. Trimm said he is confident the process will weed out frivolous
claims.  "We're going to do our best to figure out what is
legitimate and what is not," he said.

James Little, 51, is among those who are filing for compensation.
Mr. Little said he lost a trailer that he uses to haul his
belongings around town during a raid downtown about two years ago.

"They took all my property, everything I owned including my dog,
Lucky," who ended up at the city pound.  Mr. Little got his dog
back, he said, but was unable to retrieve his other things.

The city will have the right to dispute any claim following a
preliminary ruling by a professional claims administrator,
according to the court stipulation.  If the dispute cannot be
resolved between the battling parties, a federal judge who has
been appointed as a "special master" in the case will step in.

The process is the key step toward resolving the city's liability
in the lawsuit, which claimed that police stomped on the
constitutional rights of homeless people by grabbing their
belongings and throwing them away without giving them a chance to
get it back.

In the trial in federal court last year, a jury found that the
city failed to properly notify homeless people about how to
retrieve their possessions, and to implement policies for handling
that property.  The panel rejected several other claims, including
that the city had a "long-standing custom and practice" of
unreasonably seizing and destroying property of campers and
failing to give them reasonable notice of sweeps.

The trial featured a parade of homeless and formerly homeless
people, some of whom testified tearfully about losing "survival
gear," including sleeping bags and tents, as well as personal
items from family photographs to prescription medications.

The city's star witness was a police officer fondly known as
"Batman" among homeless men and women.  He testified that he and
his partners are obligated to enforce a city ordinance that bans
camping in undesignated areas for more than 24 hours.  Police
routinely must roust campers, he said, in response to complaints,
and then clean up the messes left behind.

Mr. Merin said he expects homeless people to begin collecting
their checks this summer.  The money could lead to some getting
temporary housing, or replacing the items they lost, he said.

More importantly, he said, he hopes that the lawsuit will lead to
changes in the way that officers handle homeless people and their
possessions.  Campers still move around "almost nightly, from
place to place" to avoid citations from police, he said.


COSTAMARE: Bay of Plenty Businesses Commence Rena Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Radio New Zealand News reports that Bay of Plenty businesses which
lost money after the grounding of the container ship Rena will
begin a class suit in the courts against the ship's owners,
Costamare, next month.

About 40 businesses were represented at a meeting in Tauranga on
March 23 to look at their chances of recouping their losses after
the Rena's grounding closed beaches and boating areas for several
weeks.

Kayak and catamaran hire operator Nevan Lancaster said that his
own losses were small compared with other businesses, but combined
losses for the businesses reached several million dollars.

"There's definitely a core group of businesses," he said.  "Some
of the larger ones with easily-demonstrated losses . . . there's a
few businesses that are going to do all the heavy lifting, then
there's the opportunity for the smaller businesses to ride on
their coat-tails".

Mr. Lancaster said Costamare, a Greek shipping firm which has a
Swedish insurance company, is likely to settle out of court.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Suit in Calif. For Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Solomon; on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, the general public and as an "aggrieved employee" under
the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act v. Costco
Wholesale Corporation, a Washington Corporation doing business in
California; Costco Financial Services, Inc., a Washington
Corporation doing business in California; and Does 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. CGC-12-5182731 (Calif. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., February 15, 2012) alleges violations of the Labor
Code and the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of
2004.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants violated the law by
"failing to provide suitable seats to Plaintiff and other current
and former employees."  The Plaintiff contends that this alleged
failure violated the Labor Code.

Ms. Solomon is a resident of California.

Costco Wholesale and Costco Financial are Washington corporations.
The identities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff.

Costco Wholesale removed the lawsuit on March 16, 2012, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of San
Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Company argues that the removal is
proper because the lawsuit is a purported class action with an
amount in controversy exceeding $5 million.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:12-cv-01312 to the proceeding.

The Defendants are represented by:

          William J. Dritsas, Esq.
          Patty H. Lee, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 544-1001
          Facsimile: (415) 839-9001
          E-mail: wdritsas@seyfarth.com
                  plee@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Kenwood C. Youmans, Esq.
          David D. Kadue, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: kyoumans@seyfarth.com
                  dkadue@seyfarth.com


DEAN FOODS: Final Hearing on Tenn. Farmers Suit Deal on May 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Tennessee court granted preliminary approval of a settlement, as
amended, resolving consolidated Tennessee Dairy Farmer class
action complaints against Dean Foods Company and has set a final
hearing on the settlement for May 15, 2012, according to Dean
Foods's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

The Company was named, along with several other defendants, in two
putative class action antitrust complaints filed on July 5, 2007.
The complaints were filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee, Columbia Division, and allege
generally that the Company and others in the milk industry worked
together to limit the price Southeastern dairy farmers are paid
for their raw milk and to deny these farmers access to fluid Grade
A milk processing facilities.  Four additional putative class
action complaints were filed in 2007 and 2008 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville
Division.  The allegations in these complaints are similar to
those in the dairy farmer actions.  All six of the class actions
(collectively, the "dairy farmer actions") were consolidated and
were transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville
Division.  Class certification in the dairy farmer actions was
granted in September 2010.

On July 12, 2011, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the class plaintiffs in the dairy farmer actions.  On July
14, 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee granted preliminary approval of the class-
wide settlement agreement and stayed the dairy farmer action with
respect to the Company.  Under the proposed settlement agreement,
the Company agreed to pay a total of up to $140 million over a
period of four to five years into a fund for distribution to dairy
farmer class members in a number of Southeastern states.

On July 28, 2011, the Court issued an order partially decertifying
the dairy farmer plaintiff class with which the Company had
previously entered into the settlement agreement.  The dairy
farmer plaintiffs that were decertified from the class are, or
were, members of the Dairy Farmers of America ("DFA") co-
operative.  On August 1, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion
asking the Court to re-consider its decertification order.  The
Court denied that motion on August 19, 2011.  In order to pursue a
final and certain resolution consistent with the terms of the
settlement agreement, the Company filed a motion with the Court on
August 5, 2011 to vacate preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement, defer associated deadlines related to the settlement,
and to clarify the role of class counsel in light of the Court's
decertification order.  The motion was granted by the Court and a
Memorandum Opinion was issued on August 31, 2011.  In the
Memorandum Opinion, the Court stated that it would take the motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement under advisement
pending appointment of separate counsel and class representatives
for the decertified DFA subclass.

In a separate order entered on October 5, 2011, the Court
appointed separate interim counsel for the DFA subclass, and set
preliminary deadlines for newly designated interim counsel to
submit any motion for certification of a DFA subclass for
settlement purposes and any motion to preliminarily approve the
July 12, 2011 settlement agreement.  On December 27, 2011, interim
counsel for the putative DFA member subclass filed a motion to
certify the DFA subclass for settlement purposes and to reinstate
preliminary approval of the July 12, 2011 settlement agreement.
Dean responded to the motion on January 17, 2012, and did not
oppose the motion.  On February 14, 2012, the Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, and set May 15,
2012 as the date to consider final approval of the agreement.  Per
the terms of the settlement agreement, on February 21, 2012, the
Company made a payment of $60 million into an escrow account to be
distributed following the Court's final approval, and issued a
standby letter of credit in the amount of $80 million to support
subsequent payments due under the agreement.  The settlement
agreement requires the Company to make a payment of up to $20
million on each of the following four anniversaries of the
settlement agreement's final approval date.

There can be no assurance that the settlement agreement will
receive final approval in its current form, in another form that
is acceptable to the Court and the parties, or at all, the Company
related in its latest annual report filing.

The Company added that in the second quarter of 2011, it recorded
a $131.3 million charge and a corresponding liability for the
present value of its obligations under the original settlement
agreement, based on imputed interest computed at a rate of 4.77%,
which approximates its like-term incremental fixed rate borrowing
cost.  The Company has continued to accrete interest related to
this recorded liability as it believes a settlement of the matter
is likely to occur under substantially similar financing terms.

Dean Foods Company -- http://www.deanfoods.com/-- operates as a
food and beverage company in the United States. The company
operates in three segments: Fresh Dairy Direct, WhiteWave-Alpro,
and Morningstar.  The company was formerly known as Suiza Foods
Corporation and changed its name to Dean Foods Company in 2001 as
a result of merger between the former Dean Foods Company and Suiza
Foods Corporation. Dean Foods Company was founded in 1925 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


DEAN FOODS: Inks Settlement in RICO Class Suit in Mississippi
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Company entered into a settlement agreement with
certain plaintiffs in the amended complaint filed in Mississippi
alleging civil violations of the federal Racketeering Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, according to the Company's February
27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On April 26, 2011, the Company, along with its Chief Executive
Officer, Gregg Engles, and other defendants, were named in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg
Division.  An amended complaint was filed in August 2011, which
dropped the class action allegations.  The allegations in the
amended complaint are similar to those in the Tennessee dairy
farmer actions.  In addition, plaintiffs have alleged generally
that defendants committed civil violations of the federal
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), as
well as common law fraud and tortious interference with contract.
Plaintiffs are seeking treble damages for the alleged antitrust
and RICO violations, and compensatory and consequential damages
for the common law fraud and tortious interference claims.  With
respect to the antitrust allegations in the complaint, the
plaintiffs' proposed geographic market in the Mississippi action
is ambiguous as to whether it is identical to the geographic
market alleged in the Tennessee dairy farmer actions.  In any
event, Plaintiffs in the Mississippi action would likely also be
included in any class or classes certified in the Tennessee dairy
farmer actions.  Members of any Tennessee class or classes who
fail to exclude themselves from that class, or who excluded
themselves but are permitted to opt back into any class for
purposes of any settlement with the Company, will be bound by any
settlement in the Tennessee dairy farmer actions when it is
approved, which should release and extinguish any claims asserted
by them in the Mississippi action.  As of February 20, 2012, three
Plaintiffs in the Mississippi action have not excluded themselves
from the Tennessee dairy farmer actions.

On August 11, 2011, a motion to dismiss all of the claims was
filed on behalf of Mr. Engles, and motions to dismiss all but the
antitrust claims were filed on behalf of the Company and the other
defendants.  Plaintiffs responded to those motions on October 4,
2011.  On November 9, 2011, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss filed on behalf of Mr. Engles, and granted in part and
denied in part the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the
Company.  The Company filed its answer on November 23, 2011. On
February 17, 2012, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with all of the plaintiffs who have excluded themselves from the
Tennessee dairy farmer actions pursuant to which all of the claims
against the Company will be dismissed, and the Company's
involvement as a party in the case will end.

Dean Foods Company -- http://www.deanfoods.com/-- operates as a
food and beverage company in the United States. The company
operates in three segments: Fresh Dairy Direct, WhiteWave-Alpro,
and Morningstar.  The company was formerly known as Suiza Foods
Corporation and changed its name to Dean Foods Company in 2001 as
a result of merger between the former Dean Foods Company and Suiza
Foods Corporation. Dean Foods Company was founded in 1925 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


DEAN FOODS: Two Antitrust Suits Still Pending in Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Company continues to defend two class action complaints
alleging violations of antitrust laws in the sale of processed
fluid Grade A milk, according to the Company's February 27, 2012,
Form 10-K filing the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

A putative class action antitrust complaint (the "retailer
action") was filed on August 9, 2007 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Plaintiffs allege
generally that the Company, either acting alone or in conjunction
with others in the milk industry who are also defendants in the
retailer action, lessened competition in the Southeastern United
States for the sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail
outlets and other customers, and that the defendants' conduct also
artificially inflated wholesale prices for direct milk purchasers.
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the retailer action
is still pending. Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the
retailer action was granted in part and denied in part in August
2010.  Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration on September
10, 2010, and filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment as
to the remaining claims on September 27, 2010.  Those motions are
currently pending before the Court, and the case has been stayed
pending resolution of those motions.  The Court has not set a
trial date yet for the retailer action.

On June 29, 2009, another putative class action lawsuit was filed
in the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on
behalf of indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the
"indirect purchaser action").  The allegations in this complaint
are similar to those in the retailer action, but primarily involve
state law claims.  Because the allegations in the indirect
purchaser action substantially overlap with the allegations in the
retailer action, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to
stay all proceedings in the indirect purchaser action pending the
outcome of the summary judgment motions in the retailer action.
At this time, the Company is unable to predict the ultimate
outcome of these matters.

Dean Foods Company -- http://www.deanfoods.com/-- operates as a
food and beverage company in the United States. The company
operates in three segments: Fresh Dairy Direct, WhiteWave-Alpro,
and Morningstar.  The company was formerly known as Suiza Foods
Corporation and changed its name to Dean Foods Company in 2001 as
a result of merger between the former Dean Foods Company and Suiza
Foods Corporation. Dean Foods Company was founded in 1925 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


DORCHESTER MINERALS: Royalty Underpayment Claim Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A claim for royalty underpayments filed by certain individuals and
an association called Rural Residents for Natural Gas Rights
remains pending, according to Dorchester Minerals L.P.'s February
24, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

In January 2002, some individuals and an association called Rural
Residents for Natural Gas Rights sued Dorchester Hugoton, Ltd.,
along with several other operators in Texas County, Oklahoma
regarding the use of natural gas from the wells in residences.
The operating partnership now owns and operates the properties
formerly owned by Dorchester Hugoton.  These properties contribute
a significant portion of the Net Profits Interests amounts paid to
the partnership. On April 9, 2007, plaintiffs, for immaterial
costs, dismissed with prejudice all claims against the operating
partnership regarding such residential gas use.  On October 4,
2004, the plaintiffs filed severed claims against the operating
partnership regarding royalty underpayments, which the Texas
County District Court subsequently dismissed with a grant of time
to replead.  On January 27, 2006, one of the original plaintiffs
again sued the operating partnership for underpayment of royalty,
seeking class action certification.  On October 1, 2007, the Texas
County District Court granted the operating partnership's motion
for summary judgment finding no royalty underpayments.
Subsequently, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration, and the plaintiff filed an appeal.  On March 31,
2010, the appeal decision reversed and remanded to the Texas
County District Court to resolve material issues of fact.  On June
30, 2011, the District Court issued a revised partial summary
judgment in favor of the operating partnership.  A claim of
underpayment of royalty remains pending.  An adverse decision
could reduce amounts the Company receives from the NPIs.


ENSCO PLC: Awaits Ruling on Merger-Related Suit Dismissal Bids
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ensco, plc is awaiting a court ruling on motions to dismiss
several class action lawsuits arising from the Company's merger
with Pride International, Inc., according to the Company's
February 24, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Following the announcement of the Merger, a number of putative
shareholder class action complaints or petitions were filed
against various combinations of Pride, Pride's directors, Ensco
and certain of the Company's subsidiaries in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, and in the state courts of Harris County, Texas.  These
lawsuits challenged the proposed Merger and generally alleged,
among other matters, that the individual members of the Pride
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving
the proposed Merger, failing to take steps to maximize value to
Pride's stockholders and failing to disclose material information
concerning the proposed Merger in the registration statement on
Form S-4; that Pride, Ensco and certain of the Company's
subsidiaries aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties;
and that the Merger Agreement improperly favored Ensco and unduly
restricted Pride's ability to negotiate with other bidders.  These
lawsuits generally sought, among other remedies, compensatory
damages, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged
fiduciary breaches, and injunctive relief prohibiting the
defendants from consummating the Merger.  In addition, the
plaintiffs in a derivative lawsuit amended their petition to add
similar Merger-related claims and also contended that the proposed
Merger was motivated by a desire to extinguish alleged liability
related to the derivative action.  These claims have been
consolidated with the other Merger-related lawsuits in the state
courts of Harris County, Texas.

On May 19, 2011, Ensco and the other named defendants signed a
memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in the
consolidated litigation before the Delaware Court of Chancery to
settle the previously disclosed shareholder class action lawsuits
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and any claims asserted in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and the
state court of Harris County, Texas relating to the Merger
(collectively, the "Settled Claims").

On August 29, 2011, the parties to the memorandum of understanding
entered into a stipulation of settlement, which provides for,
among other matters, the release of the Settled Claims following
notice by mailing, certification of a non-opt-out class for
settlement purposes, a settlement hearing and final approval of
the settlement.  Under the stipulation of settlement, Pride or its
successor agreed not to oppose any application by attorneys for
the class for fees and expenses not exceeding $1.1 million.  The
stipulation of settlement was approved by the Delaware Court of
Chancery on November 23, 2011.

The plaintiffs in all but one of the remaining cases have filed
motions to dismiss with prejudice, which currently are pending.
The Company's motion to dismiss in the remaining matter also
currently is pending; however, at this time, the Company is unable
to predict the outcome of these matters or estimate the extent to
which the Company may be exposed to any resulting liability.
Although the outcome cannot be predicted, the Company does not
expect these matters to have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position, operating results or cash flows.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in eFunds Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Discovery is currently ongoing in the putative class action
lawsuit filed against a subsidiary of Fidelity National
Information Services, Inc. styled Searcy, Gladys v. eFunds
Corporation, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

A nationwide putative class action was filed against the Company's
subsidiary eFunds and its affiliate Deposit Payment Protection
Services, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois during the first quarter of 2008.  The
complaint seeks damages for an alleged willful violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act in connection with the operation of the
Shared Check Authorization Network.

Plaintiff's principal allegation is that consumers did not receive
appropriate disclosures pursuant to Section 1681g of the FCRA
because the disclosures did not include: (i) all information in
the consumer's file at the time of the request; (ii) the source of
the information in the consumer's file; and/or (iii) the names of
any persons who requested information related to the consumer's
check writing history during the prior year.  Plaintiff filed a
motion for class certification, which was granted with respect to
two subclasses during the first quarter of 2010.  The motion was
denied with respect to all other subclasses.  The Company filed a
motion for reconsideration.  The motion was granted and the two
subclasses were decertified.  The plaintiff also filed motions to
amend her complaint to add two additional plaintiffs to the
lawsuit.  The court granted the motions.

During the second quarter of 2010, the Company filed a motion for
summary judgment as to the original plaintiff and a motion for
sanctions against the plaintiff and her counsel based on
plaintiff's alleged false statements that were filed in support of
the motion for class certification.  In the third quarter of 2010,
the court denied the motion for summary judgment and granted in
part and denied in part the motion for sanctions.  The Company
filed a motion requesting the court to allow it to file an
interlocutory appeal on the order denying the motion for summary
judgment.  The court granted the motion; however, in the first
quarter of 2011, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied the
Company's petition for interlocutory appeal.  Discovery regarding
the new plaintiffs and other matters is ongoing.


FIRSTMERIT CORPORATION: Overdraft Fees Suit v. Bank Unit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit against FirstMerit Corporation's
bank unit remains pending in Ohio court, according to the
Corporation's February 24, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed in
the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court
of Common Plea against the Corporation and the Bank.  The
complaints were brought as putative class actions on behalf of
Ohio residents who maintained a checking account at the Bank and
who incurred one or more overdraft fees as a result of the alleged
re-sequencing of debit transactions.  The lawsuit that had been
filed in Summit County Court of Common Pleas was dismissed without
prejudice on July 11, 2011.  The remaining suit in Lake County
seeks actual damages, disgorgement of overdraft fees, punitive
damages, interest, injunctive relief and attorney fees.


FIRSTMERIT CORPORATION: Breach of Contract Suit v. Unit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit against FirstMerit Corporation's
bank unit claiming breach of contract allegations remains pending
in Ohio court, according to the Corporation's February 24, 2012
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In August 2008, a lawsuit was filed in the Cuyahoga County Court
of Common Pleas against the Bank.  The breach-of-contract
complaint was brought as a putative class action on behalf of Ohio
commercial borrowers who had allegedly had the interest they owed
calculated improperly by using the 365/360 method.  The complaint
seeks actual damages, interest, injunctive relief and attorney
fees.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Class Action Over C-4 Extreme Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
General Nutrition Centers, Woodbolt International et al. sell a
dangerous, mislabeled drug they call C-4 Extreme, which is not
made from "a component of geranium," as they claim.

A copy of the Complaint in Acquaviva v. GNC Holdings, Inc., et
al., Case No. 12-cv-02542 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/26/DietSupp.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          E-mail: dbower@faruqilaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over New Privacy Policy
------------------------------------------------------
Reuben Kramer at Courthouse News Service reports that a wave of
class actions against Google claims the search giant's new privacy
policy, which aggregates information the company collects about
users across various Google platforms, violates computer fraud and
wiretap laws.

At least four class actions claim the new policy, which went into
effect this month, is illegal under federal wiretapping law.

Google's corporate slogan is "Don't be Evil."

Google has long maintained a deep trove of information about its
users.

Under its old policy, information collected about a consumer
through one Google product was segregated from information gleaned
from another Google product, plaintiffs say in the class actions.

But they say that all changed March 1, when Google ushered in its
new era of digital surveillance: the Era of Commingling.

Under the new policy, data gathered about a consumer through one
Google product will be commingled with data collected about that
consumer through other Google products, plaintiffs say.

Google announced: "Our new Privacy Policy makes clear that, if
you're signed in, we may combine information you've provided from
one service with information from other services.

"In short, we'll treat you as a single user across all our
products."

Federal class actions filed last week in Philadelphia, Newark,
Manhattan and San Jose claim Google's new policy flies in the face
of the company's prior representations about how consumer data
would be used.

Gone are the days when disparate stashes of user data from the
various Google products remained separate "pieces to an impossible
puzzle," according to the Philadelphia class action.

"Google's increased optimization comes at a significant cost to
privacy; consumers' rights; and consumers' wallets," lead
plaintiff Ryan Hoey says in the Philadelphia class action.  "What
a consumer may discuss with friends on Gmail, may be different
than that which he or she would search on a computer at work.

"By commingling data (including searches, locations, and email
contacts), and tying it to a specific Gmail account or Google+
account (and therefore a specific consumer), the consumer's
personal information is no longer tied to the account; it is tied
to an overarching profile in that person's name, that is regularly
appended through use of or interaction with Google products.  That
person no longer remains anonymous where he or she intended to
remain anonymous.  The various portions of each person's life are
no longer separate and given the expectation of privacy associated
with each of them; they are no longer pieces to an impossible
puzzle; they are pieces that can be, and as of March 1, 2012 have
been, linked to create a clear picture of that consumer.

"Google's top advertising executive, Susan Wojcicki, has best
described how Google's new privacy policy will raise Google's
advertising revenues.  Ms. Wojcicki stated at a Search Marketing
Expo conference that Google's biggest innovations over the next
several years will be in personalized search results and
advertisements.  She also stated that Google+ was the gateway to
'the next generation of Google products,' which will be 'different
because our users are logged in and are telling us something about
themselves.'  At the conference, Wojcicki described how different
users typing in the same 'best vacations' search would get
different results -- her results would be more family friendly,
because Google would have been able to aggregate information about
her and determined that she had a family.  This is the precise,
controversial conclusion that Google's new privacy policy allows
Google to make by analyzing a consumer's combined usage data.

"She also stated that she hopes Google will reach a point where it
provides only advertisements that consumers 'want to see.'  She
did not mention the windfall of profits Google will achieve by
using the consumer's personal information to deliver such targeted
advertising, without the consumer's consent."

Mr. Hoey claims that users' "expectation[s] of privacy" vary from
product to product.  And because data about a user's online
activity is now linked across platforms, information shared with a
close circle of friends on Google's social network, Google+, can
be disclosed on Google search results.

"For example, if a consumer conducts a Google search for
restaurants in Munich, the search results will not only provide
answers from the Web, but will provide information from the
consumer's -- as well as the consumer's friends and contact's --
Google accounts (Gmail, Google+, etc.).  The result: the consumer
will get Web results, but will also get personal search results
that show posts, blogs, or photos that not only the consumer, but
that the consumer and his or her friends and contacts, have shared
across all other Google products, such as Google+," Mr. Hoey says.

Google has cross-indexed information between certain products
before, and the approach "was particularly harmful to clients of
mental health professionals, attorneys, and finance professionals,
as well as to the professionals themselves, who must promise
confidentiality," Mr. Hoey says.

He claims that the practice raised serious privacy concerns and
resulted in an October 2011 Consent Order between Google and the
Federal Trade Commission.

Mr. Hoey says the sweeping expansion of Google's surveillance
power has been executed without authorization from Google users,
in an effort to increase ad revenue.

"(C)ontrary to the representations in Google's prior privacies
pursuant to which plaintiff and the class acquired their Google
accounts, Google is now taking the personal information the
consumer used to set up a specific account for a specific Google
product, and combining that information with information submitted
by that consumer on every Google product the consumer uses without
the consumer's consent," the complaint states.

"Not only has Google done so without each consumer's consent; it
has not provided consumers with an easy, efficient, or effective
way to opt-out of Google's co-mingling and cross-pollination of
data.  While Google has made it very easy to universally merge
data across product lines, it has not made it easy to opt out -
consumers must manage their privacy settings for each Google
product they use; a universal opt-out function is not available.
Google product users have the ability to minimize the
accessibility of some of their data, but there are significant
obstacles to doing so, and complete privacy cannot be
accomplished.

"Indeed, Google has misrepresented that the impetus for the
consolidation, stating that it is to provide 'a simpler, more
intuitive Google experience.'  However, the primary reason for
Google's privacy change is to use consumers' personal information
to grow profits by achieving a larger market share of advertising
revenue.  Thus, Google has no incentive to provide an effective
opt-out function, or, in the alternative to provide an opt-in
function.

"Perhaps it is best stated by the 35 Attorneys General that sent a
letter dated February 22, 2012 to Google opposing implementation
of Google's new privacy policy: 'Your company claims that users of
Google products will want their personal information shared in
this way because doing so will enable your company to provide them
with a "simple product experience that does what you need, when
you want it to," among many other asserted benefits.  If that were
truly the case, consumers would not only decline to opt out of the
new privacy policy, but would freely opt in if given the
opportunity.  Indeed, an "opt-in" option would better serve
current users of Google products by enabling them to avoid
subjecting themselves to the dramatically different privacy policy
without their affirmative consent.  Unfortunately, Google has not
only failed to provide an "opt-in" option, but has failed to
provide meaningful "opt-out" options as well.'

"Further, studies show that an overwhelming number of consumers do
not want to receive advertisements targeted based on behavior, or
search results based on their prior activity."

The class actions claim Google is violating the Federal Wiretap
Act, the Stored Electronic Communications Act, the Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act, and state laws.

A copy of the Complaint in Hoey v. Google, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-
01448 (E.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/26/Goog.pdf

Plaintiffs in all the four class actions cited in this article are
represented by:

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          James S. Notis, Esq.
          Kelly A. Noto, Esq.
          Charles A. Germershausen, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Avenue
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 567-7377
          E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com
                  jnotis@gardylaw.com
                  knoto@gardylaw.com

               - and -

          James J. Sabella, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500

               - and -

          Michael C. Schwartz, Esq.
          JAMES SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES PC
          1500 Walnut Street - 21st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 751-9865
          E-mail: mschwartz@civilrightspa.com

Also representing the California plaintiffs are Martin Bakst of
Encino, Calif.


GOV'T OF NEW SOUTH WALES: Children Sue Over Unlawful Arrests
------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Ralston, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
twenty-one children wrongfully arrested because of a computer
error have joined a class action against the NSW government.

The move comes after the government failed to deliver on a promise
made last June to fix the problem with the Department of Justice
computer system, which police use when making arrests.  Solicitors
involved in the class action said that since then at least 11
children had been wrongfully arrested because of out-of-date
information on the system.

Vavaa Mawuli, a senior solicitor with the Public Interest Advocacy
Centre who is co-ordinating the action, said young people
continued to be wrongfully detained, despite the class action.
The Department of Justice's computer system, known as JusticeLink,
did not fully sync with the police computer database.  This meant
police did not immediately have access to changes in a person's
court records after they had appeared before a magistrate and had
their bail conditions varied or dropped.

A police source said it was frustrating for officers, who were
acting in good faith on the information that was available to
them.

Last June, Musa Konneh became the first young person to join the
class action seeking compensation over his wrongful detention.

Mr. Konneh was arrested, strip-searched and spent a night in jail
because the police computer database failed to recognize that all
charges against him had been dismissed in the Children's Court
four days earlier.

The Sun-Herald can reveal 30 young people have complained to the
solicitors involved in the class action about being wrongfully
arrested because of the system error, which dates back to 2005.
Of the 30, 21 have instructed them that they want to be part of
the action.

The law firm Maurice Blackburn, which is involved in the class
action, said it believed the number involved could grow to as many
as 200.

A young person involved in the class action was arrested at his
Caringbah flat at 11:30 p.m. on a Thursday in 2010 because he had
not been home when police called at 8:00 p.m.  But the then 17-
year-old's bail conditions had been altered by a magistrate a
month earlier, and his curfew had been extended to 9:00 p.m. -- a
condition he had complied with.  The teenager was taken to a
juvenile justice center, detained overnight and then taken and
held in a cell at Parramatta Children's Court until the matter was
thrown out by a magistrate.

Last June, the Minister for Police, Mike Gallacher, said the
problem needed to be fixed urgently and that he did not believe it
would be an issue in a year's time.

A spokeswoman for the minister on March 24 said the government was
seeking a response from the NSW Police Force and the Department of
Justice.  NSW Police said new safeguards had been put in place and
it was working to fix the problem with the support of the
government.

Last financial year, police were forced to pay more than AUD5
million to compensate people it had falsely imprisoned and
assaulted.  It was a AUD1 million increase on the previous year.


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Judge Okays $1-Mil. Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Barron at Courthouse News Service reports that Heartland
Payment Systems resolved a privacy dispute with customers whose
accounts were hacked with a settlement of just $1 million, a new
court order states.

"The common factual question in this case is what actions
Heartland took before, during, and after the data breach to
safeguard the consumer plaintiffs' financial information," U.S.
District Judge Lee Rosenthal said in an order approving the
settlement.

The theft led numerous parties to complain of Heartland's failure
to adhere to industry security standards in providing payment-card
processing services.  The Southern District of Texas consolidated
the ensuing civil complaints and divided them into two tracks of
litigation: consumer complaints and financial institution
complaints.

Judge Rosenthal concluded that the consumers' class action claim
for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act satisfied the
requirement for typicality.  "Because this claim revolves around
Heartland's conduct, as opposed to the characteristics of a
particular class member's claim, no individualized proof will be
necessary to determine Heartland's liability under the act," the
judge wrote on March 20.

Judge Rosenthal found that the class counsel and class
representatives proved to be adequate.  "Class counsel have been
vigorous in representing the class, as demonstrated by their
successful negotiation of a settlement with Heartland, which
initially was reluctant to settle," the 74-page order states.

No individual class member has a significant stake, so detachment
from the class representatives is understandable, Judge Rosenthal
found.

"Given the minimal individual stakes, Heartland's general denial
of wrongdoing, and the complexities of crafting a class-action
settlement, individual class members cannot plausibly be expected
to have significant involvement," Judge Rosenthal wrote.

The decision notes that "Heartland's dispositive motions would
have raised legal issues difficult for the consumer plaintiffs to
overcome."

"In this case, it is uncertain whether the consumer plaintiffs
could succeed at trial, let alone reach it," Judge Rosenthal
wrote.  "Heartland's counsel explained that they were planning to
move to dismiss or, failing that, for summary judgment when
counsel for the consumer plaintiffs 'dragged us, perhaps kicking
and screaming, to a settlement.'"

The settlement requires Heartland to initially place $1 million in
an interest-bearing escrow account, and make additional payments
as consumers lay claim to the fund.  The total fund would not
exceed $2.4 million.

Since Heartland received only 11 valid claims, it did not need to
deposit additional funds.  The settlement contains a cy-pres (as
near as possible) provision that calls for any remaining funds --
which in this case is most of the $1 million -- to be divided
among three nonprofit organizations that promote relevant
security.  Those organizations are the Smart Card Alliance, the
Secure POS Vendor Alliance and the Financial Services Information
Sharing Analysis Center.

"The cy pres provision is essentially the damage award," Judge
Rosenthal wrote.  "Because no cy pres payments are to be made
until class members had ample opportunity to file claims, the cy
pres provision did not divert funds that class members otherwise
were entitled to recover.  The cy pres provision will indirectly
benefit not just the class members, but all payment-card holders."

Judge Rosenthal further explained the function of the cy-pres
payments in a footnote: "In this case, it clearly is impractical
to distribute the $1 million to absent class members not filing
claims.  It also is clearly inappropriate to divide $1 million
equally among the very few class members -- as few as 11 -- who
have filed valid claims.  That would provide them a huge windfall.
Allowing those class members with valid claims to receive the
amount of their valid claim and then spreading any remaining
unclaimed funds between the three nonprofit organizations that
focus on improving payment-card security seems a reasonable, and
fair, approach."

Judge Rosenthal noted that only one class member objected, but his
argument actually defended Heartland by saying the data breach did
not in fact harm consumers.

Heartland also owes $606,000 in attorneys' fees and $35,000 for
costs.  Class representatives cannot claim incentive awards.

Three hackers infiltrated Heartland's computers in December 2007
and stole 130 million debit and credit card numbers.  Heartland
was one of five companies that suffered such breaches from the
trio of hackers, according to a 2009 indictment filed in the
District of New Jersey.

One of the hackers, an American named Albert Gonzalez, is serving
20 years in prison after pleading guilty to two charges for the
Heartland breach and related crimes.  Upon his release, the
seasoned hacker is prohibited from using a computer.  The original
indictment said Mr. Gonzalez worked with two hackers who "resided
in or near Russia."  In a related case against Gonzalez, the
hacker was indicted along with Maksym Yastremskiy, of Kharkov,
Ukraine, and Aleksandr Suvorov, of Sillamae, Estonia.


HERSHEY CO: Removes Discrimination Suit to Calif. District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory P. Barnes, David C. Bolle, and Mary D. Wasson, on their
own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. The
Hershey Company, Case No. RG12617731 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda
Cty., February 17, 2012) seeks compensatory damages, liquidated
damages, damages for emotional distress, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs accuse the Company of discrimination in violation
of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the California
Fair Employment and Housing Act.

The Plaintiffs are citizens of Texas, Colorado, and Mississippi,
and were employees of Hershey.

The Company is a Delaware corporation, with its principal offices
in Pennsylvania.

Hershey removed the lawsuit on March 16, 2012, from the Superior
Court of the state of California, County of Alameda, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The Company argues that the removal is proper because no defendant
is a citizen of the same state in which the lawsuit was brought.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:12-cv-01334 to the
proceeding.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daryl S. Landy, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          2 Palo Alto Square
          3000 El Camino Real, Suite 700
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2122
          Telephone: (650) 843-4000
          Facsimile: (650) 843-4001
          E-mail: dlandy@morganlewis.com


ILLUMINA INC: Faces Lawsuits Over Stock Purchase Offer
------------------------------------------------------
Illumina Inc. is facing multiple class action lawsuits connected
with the tender offer from CKH Acquisition Corp. and Roche Holding
Ltd. to purchase its shares of stock, according to the Company's
February 24, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2012.

On January 27, 2012, CKH Acquisition Corp. and Roche Holding Ltd.
made an unsolicited tender offer to purchase all outstanding
shares of the Company's common stock for $44.50 per share.  Roche
also announced that it intends to oppose the re-election of four
directors serving on the Company's board of directors whose terms
expire at the 2012 annual meeting of stockholders, including the
Chairman of the Board and the Company's Chief Executive Officer.
In connection with the Roche tender offer, four stockholder class
action lawsuits have been filed against Illumina, and the Company
anticipates that additional lawsuits may be filed.  As a result,
the Company expects its selling, general and administrative
expenses to increase during 2012, as it anticipates incurring
significant legal, advisory, proxy solicitation, and other costs
as a result of this tender offer.


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Antitrust Class Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Litigation is continuing in a consolidated antitrust class action
lawsuit arising from alleged anticompetitive conduct in the LCD
industry, according to Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.'s Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.

Subsequent to the public announcement of the inquiries from the
U.S. Department of Justice and the Japanese Fair Trade Commission
on possible anticompetitive conduct in the LCD industry, certain
Philips group companies were named as defendants in a number of
class action antitrust complaints filed in the United States
courts, seeking, among other things, damages on behalf of
purchasers of products incorporating TFT-LCD panels, based on
alleged anticompetitive conduct by manufacturers of such panels.
Those lawsuits were consolidated in two master actions in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California: one, asserting a claim under federal antitrust law, on
behalf of direct purchasers of TFT-LCD panels and products
containing such panels, and another, asserting claims under
federal antitrust law, as well as various state antitrust and
unfair competition laws, on behalf of indirect purchasers of such
panels and products.  On November 5, 2007 and September 10, 2008,
the Company and certain other companies within the Philips group
companies that were named as defendants in various of the original
complaints entered into agreements with the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs and the direct purchaser plaintiffs, respectively, that
generally toll the statutes of limitations applicable to
plaintiffs' claims, following which the plaintiffs agreed to
dismiss without prejudice the claims against the Philips
defendants.  On December 5, 2008, following the partial grant of
motions to dismiss consolidated class action complaints in the
master actions, the plaintiffs filed amended consolidated class
action complaints, asserting essentially the same legal claims as
those alleged in the prior complaints.  On December 2, 2009, the
direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a third consolidated class
action complaint under seal.  None of the companies within the
Philips group of companies currently is named as a defendant in
the pending amended complaints, although the Company and PENAC are
named as coconspirators with named defendants in the indirect
purchaser case, but the litigation is continuing.


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: July Trial Set for Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
JJ Hensley, writing for azcentral.com, reports that a lawsuit
accusing the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office of institutional
discrimination will go to trial in July unless the Sheriff's
Office resolves problems identified in the lawsuit in a separate
settlement agreement with the U.S. Justice Department, according
to a federal judge.

U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow set the trial date and tried to
resolve several other lingering issues on March 23 in an hourlong
hearing that also touched on the role the federal government could
play in resolving the racial-profiling lawsuit.

The suit was filed in 2007 by a Mexican citizen who was arrested
by the Sheriff's Office despite being lawfully present in the U.S.

The March 23 hearing was the first since December, when Judge Snow
issued a ruling that set the 4-year-old lawsuit on a track for a
bench trial sometime this summer and certified the case as a
class-action suit to include any Hispanic residents sheriff's
deputies stopped since 2007.

Judge Snow said the matter is fundamentally a 14th Amendment case
-- that amendment guarantees due process -- but if the plaintiffs'
attorneys can show that the Sheriff's Office violated that
amendment, the case could expand to include potential violations
of the Fourth Amendment, which prevents unlawful searches and
seizures.

"If that is the case, isn't it going to be your first obligation
to establish that Maricopa County has policies and procedures in
place that are intentionally racially discriminatory?"  Judge Snow
asked Stanley Young, an attorney working with the American Civil
Liberties Union of Arizona on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Mr. Young agreed.  Judge Snow said Mr. Young should consider that
when deciding whether or not to include statements and depositions
from alleged victims of the Sheriff's Office, whose claims could
highlight the work of rogue deputies instead of a broader, office-
wide policy of discrimination.

The discussion hinged on statements taken in late 2009 and early
2010 that included claims by a Laveen resident that a sheriff's
deputy stopped and threatened her before throwing her against the
hood of her car while she was pregnant.  Another statement was
from a Phoenix high-school teacher who was stopped with his family
on their way to Flagstaff because, the teacher believes, a
sheriff's deputy saw that his wife is Hispanic.

"To the extent that you have given me 10 or 11 incidents over the
course of three or four years involving different officers, it
seems to me that cuts as much against your case as in favor,"
Judge Snow said, though he added that it could help lay the
groundwork for the policy argument.  "It doesn't do a lot to
establish policy and procedures.  We aren't going to spend four
years here talking about every possible stop."

Judge Snow set a clear timetable for the trial, set to take place
over seven days in late July and early August, and warned
attorneys on both sides against trying to play to the public
during the course of the hearings.

"I have no interest in openings (statements)," said Judge Snow,
who told the lawyers he has read all the briefs in the case and is
eager to start the trial.

Judge Snow will decide the case instead of a jury because the
plaintiffs are not requesting any damages.  They instead seek an
injunction to prevent sheriff's deputies from targeting drivers
based on their race.

The Sheriff's Office is also in ongoing negotiations with the U.S.
Justice Department in an effort to resolve allegations of
institutional discrimination contained in a "notice of findings"
the Justice Department presented to the Sheriff's Office last
year.  The two sides are scheduled to meet in the coming weeks to
continue negotiations and had hoped to finish their discussion by
mid-April, according to a joint statement they released last
month.

The Justice Department has also entered into a "common interest
agreement" with attorneys for the plaintiffs, which allows the
lawyers to share information with federal agents about common
subjects in the lawsuit, Mr. Young said.


NASSAU COLISEUM: May Face Class Action Over Asbestos Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
CBSNewYork reports that with concerts, the circus and hockey, the
Nassau Coliseum has been a very popular venue for years.  But now,
state inspectors are looking into whether asbestos inside the
coliseum poses a cancer threat.

Nassau County has admitted in the past that there is asbestos in
the walls of the coliseum, but attorney Joseph Dell, whose firm
represents 75 of the facility's workers, said this is a major
problem and that some of his clients have been diagnosed with
cancer.

"I have clients who have lung cancer, I have clients who have just
the fear," he told CBS 2's Ann Mercogliano.  "Their fear is the
dry cough turns out to be lung cancer from exposure that they've
had to asbestos."

Mr. Dell said that he plans to file a federal class action lawsuit
against the county.

"We've sent bulk samples out to three separate laboratories, and
they've all come back with very dangerous levels of asbestos,"
Mr. Dell said.  "I represent individuals who have mesothelioma and
lung cancer and are at home on oxygen.  These folks are very
concerned about their health.  They're very worried not only about
their own safety, but everyone's safety."

The state has launched an asbestos investigation and OSHA said
it's looking into it.  The investigation, however, didn't stop
thousands from attending the circus on March 24.

"I wanted to see the circus.  I wasn't going to get scared off
from a little reporting," said Bob Rostan of East Meadow.

The building is also home to the New York Islanders.

"The Islanders, as the primary tenant, expect that the building
owner, Nassau County, and the building facility manager, SMG, will
review the allegations and take any and all appropriate action,"
said Michael Picker, the team's senior vice president.

In a statement, County Executive Ed Mangano said that he has long
stated that there is a need for a new sports entertainment venue
in Nassau County, saying "the Coliseum is the oldest unrenovated
facility in the NHL."


NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Saints Fans Mull Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Paul Murphy, writing for WWLTV.com, reports that many black and
gold fans say debate about the Bountygate sanctions should move
from the court of public opinion to a court of law.

Saints fans who pay big bucks for season tickets say they have a
cause of action against the NFL's brand of justice.

Some say head coach Sean Payton's year-long suspension, fines and
lost draft choices in the wake of the payments for performance
scandal are excessive, arbitrary and capricious.

"I think it's necessary that the fans start to voice their
opinion, and the only way I know to do it, is to develop a class-
action lawsuit," said Dave Pippin, a Saints season ticket-holder
from Lake Vista.

"It seems like Mr. Goodell, right now is acting as judge, jury and
executioner," said Sheila Pippin, a self-professed sports junkie.
"We have no right of appeal."

The Pippins are life-long Saints fans.  They say if there's a
lawsuit against the NFL, sign them up.

"Nobody in the history of the NFL has received such hard
sanctions," said Sheila Pippin.  "He wants to make us an example.
But, we're a scapegoat."

"If this is allowed to stand, there's going to be a lot of sadness
with the fans because the Saints aren't allowed to compete," said
Dave Pippin.

New Orleans attorney Scott Shea would also like to take the league
to court.

"Trust me, I wrote a check, a pretty decent check last week for my
season tickets," said Mr. Shea.  "I understand the frustration
that my season tickets are now worth less.  That's something that
the NFL has arbitrarily done."

It's one thing to file a lawsuit against the league.  But, to
actually win in court or somehow get the NFL to reduce it's
bounty-gate punishment is another story.

"I'm a Saints fan first and I think like that rather than as a
lawyer," said Mr. Shea.  "I just think legally, I don't see that
fans are going to get very far with that argument."

But, some fans like the Pippins would like to try, if not to send
the league a message, but as a show of support for their beloved
Saints.

"Yes, we're guilty," said Sheila Pippin.  "Yes, we deserve to be
punished.  Yes, we deserve fines.  Yes, Sean Payton should pay a
price.  But, it shouldn't be a whole season."


NETSPEND HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Baker" Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NetSpend Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
consumer class action lawsuit filed by Frederick J. Baker in New
Jersey, according to the Company's February 24, 2012 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

Frederick J. Baker ("Baker") filed a consumer class action case
against NetSpend, as well as one of the Company's Issuing Banks
and card associations (collectively, the "Defendants"), in the U.S
District Court for the District of New Jersey in November 2008
seeking damages and unspecified equitable relief.  In May 2009
Baker filed an amended complaint alleging that the Defendants
violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), the New Jersey
Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act (TCCWNA) and
claiming unjust enrichment in connection with the Defendants'
alleged marketing, advertising, sale and post-sale handling of
NetSpend's gift card product in the State of New Jersey.  In March
2011, the court heard oral arguments on Defendants' motion to
dismiss Baker's amended complaint and on January 19, 2012, the
court granted Defendants' motion in part and dismissed all claims
except for the cause of action based on the alleged violation of
the CFA.  The Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses on
February 3, 2012, and plans to vigorously contest Baker's claims.


NEVSUN RESOURCES: To Vigorously Defend Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Matthew Hill, writing for Mining Weekly, reports that it has
become a recurring theme in the North American gold sector this
quarter: report operational setbacks, announce large impairments
as a result, and wait for the class action law firms to swoop.

Nevsun Resources, which mines gold in Eritrea, is the latest
company having to fight off lawsuits, after shocking the market in
February with the news that 2012 production would be half as much
as previously thought after an error in calculating the reserves
at its flagship Bisha operation.

US law firm Izard Nobel LLP said it had filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status against Nevsun.  Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP,
the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith and Faruqi & Faruqi LLP also
filed class action suits against the company, all making similar
claims.

As did Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP and Kahn Swick & Foti LLC, and
partner Charles C. Foti Jr., former Attorney General of Louisiana.

Chief among the allegations levelled at Nevsun were that its
management knew or ought to have known that the reserves were
smaller than it estimated, Bisha produced a large amount of waste
rock, and that the company was accelerating mining of the orebody
to mask the allegation that there was less gold there than it
said.

Nevsun CEO Cliff Davis on March 22 brushed off the claims, saying
such suits were commonplace in the US.

"We believe these suits are without merit and Nevsun will
vigorously defend itself," he commented on a conference call with
analysts.

"Nothing more needs to be said, and I will hold my tongue on any
other comment."

Other companies that have recently found themselves in the
crosshairs of class action lawyers include Kinross Gold and
Agnico-Eagle.  Lawyers are targeting Kinross because of a
multibillion-dollar impairment it took at the Tasiast mine, in
Mauritania, while Agnico-Eagle is in their sights after it shut
the Goldex mine, in Quebec after geological conditions made the
operation unsafe.

Nevsun, which reported a $78-million profit for the fourth
quarter, plans to produce between 190 000 oz and 210 000 oz of
gold this year at Bisha, compared with the 379 000 oz that came
out of the mine in 2011.

Earlier last week, the company announced plans to buy back up to
four-million shares because management believes the stock is
undervalued.  The share has suffered in the wake of the lower 2012
production target, shedding just under half its value since its
close on February 6 -- the day before it made the announcement.

Nevsun said it will continue with its $100-million copper phase
expansion at Bisha, set to start producing in mid-2013.


PENN VIRGINIA: Merger Deal Class Action Settlement Okayed in Dec.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Pennsylvania court approved the settlement of putative class
action complaints against Penn Virginia Resource Partners L.P.
resulting from the merger of several PVG entities, according to
the Company's February 24, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

On September 21, 2010, PVR Partners announced that it had entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Penn Virginia Resource
GP, LLC; Penn Virginia GP Holdings, L.P.; PVG GP, LLC; and PVR
Radnor, LLC or the "Merger Sub."  Under the Agreement, PVG and PVG
GP will be merged into Merger Sub, with Merger Sub as the
surviving entity.  The Merger Sub will subsequently be merged into
PVR GP, with PVR GP being the surviving entity.

PVG GP is PVR Partners' general partner.

Kevin Epoch, Sanjay Israni and Anita Scheifele, purported Penn
Virginia GP Holdings L.P. unitholders, filed various putative
class action complaints, subsequently amended, against Penn
Virginia Resource, Penn Virginia Resource GP LLC, Penn Virginia GP
Holdings L.P., PVG GP LLC, and certain of PVG GP's directors and
officers in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County,
Pennsylvania under the captions Epoch v. Penn Virginia GP
Holdings, L.P., et al. and Scheifele v. Shea, et al. relating to
the Merger Agreement and the related Merger transactions.

On February 1, 2011, the parties to the Epoch and Scheifele
actions entered into the Memorandum of Understanding to settle the
litigation in its entirety.  The MOU provided that the parties
would seek dismissal with prejudice of the litigation and a
release of the Defendants from all present and future claims
asserted in the litigation in exchange for a supplemental
disclosure to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus.

On November 18, 2011, the Court entered an Order and Final
Judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the complaint
with prejudice.  The settlement became final and non-appealable on
December 18, 2011.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Motion for Class Certification Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification filed in the consolidated class
action styled In re Prudential Insurance Company of America
SGLI/VGLI Contract Litigation is pending, according to Prudential
Financial Inc.'s February 24, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

From July 2010 to December 2010, four purported nationwide class
actions were filed challenging the use of retained asset accounts
to settle death benefit claims of beneficiaries of a group life
insurance contract owned by the United States Department of
Veterans Affairs that covers the lives of members and veterans of
the U.S. armed forces. In 2011, the cases were consolidated in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by
the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation as In re
Prudential Insurance Company of America SGLI/VGLI Contract
Litigation. The consolidated complaint alleges that the use of the
retained assets accounts that earn interest and are available to
be withdrawn by the beneficiary, in whole or in part, at any time,
to settle death benefit claims is in violation of federal law, and
asserts claims of breach of contract, breaches of fiduciary duty
and the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and unjust
enrichment and seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
disgorgement of profits, equitable relief and pre and post-
judgment interest. In March 2011, the motion to dismiss was
denied. In January 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the
class.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Still Faces Lawsuit in Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Prudential Financial Inc. continues to defend
itself from a class action lawsuit in Pennsylvania, according to
the Company's February 24, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

In September 2010, Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company, a
purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of
beneficiaries of group life insurance contracts owned by ERISA-
governed employee welfare benefit plans was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
challenging the use of retained asset accounts in employee welfare
benefit plans to settle death benefit claims as a violation of
ERISA and seeking injunctive relief and disgorgement of profits.
In July 2011, the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings
was denied.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Garcia" Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court order dismissing a class action captioned
Garcia v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America is still
pending, according to Prudential Financial Inc.'s February 24,
2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

In January 2011, a purported state-wide class action, Garcia v.
The Prudential Insurance Company of America was dismissed by the
Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, Nevada.  The
complaint was brought on behalf of Nevada beneficiaries of
individual life insurance policies for which, unless the
beneficiaries elected another settlement method, death benefits
were placed in retained asset accounts.  The complaint alleges
that by failing to disclose material information about the
accounts, the Company wrongfully delayed payment and improperly
retained undisclosed profits, and seeks damages, injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and pre and post-judgment interest. In
February 2011, plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Nevada
Supreme Court.

In December 2009, an earlier purported nationwide class action
raising substantially similar allegations brought by the same
plaintiff in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, Garcia v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, was
dismissed.

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


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeal from Pruco Suit Dismissal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court order dismissing an amended class action
complaint against Prudential Financial Inc.'s Arizona-based life
insurance unit is pending, according to the Company's February 24,
2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

In December 2010, a purported state-wide class action complaint,
Phillips v. Prudential Financial, Inc., was filed in state court
and removed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.  The complaint makes allegations under
Illinois law, substantially similar to the Garcia cases, on behalf
of a class of Illinois residents whose death benefit claims were
settled by retained assets accounts.  In March 2011, the complaint
was amended to drop the Company as a defendant and add Pruco Life
Insurance Company as a defendant and is now captioned Phillips v.
Prudential Insurance and Pruco Life Insurance Company.  In
November 2011, the complaint was dismissed. In December 2011,
plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeal from "Schultz" Suit Dismissal Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court order dismissing a class action lawsuit
against Prudential Financial Inc.'s subsidiary is still pending,
according to the Company's February 24, 2012, 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

In April 2009, Schultz v. The Prudential Insurance Company of
America, a purported nationwide class action on behalf of
participants claiming disability benefits under certain employee
benefit plans insured by Prudential, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  As
amended, the complaint alleges that Prudential Insurance and the
defendant plans violated ERISA by characterizing family Social
Security benefits as "loss of time" benefits that were offset
against Prudential contract benefits.  The complaint seeks a
declaratory judgment that the offsets were improper, damages and
other relief. The Company has agreed to indemnify the named
defendant plans.  In April 2011, Schultz was dismissed with
prejudice, and plaintiffs appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals.  The appeal has been argued and is submitted for
decision.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Consolidated Overtime Pay Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated complaint over nonpayment of overtime pay to
insurance agents is pending, according to Prudential Financial
Inc.'s February 24, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

In October 2006, a purported class action lawsuit, Bouder v.
Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of
America, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, claiming that Prudential failed to pay
overtime to insurance agents in violation of federal and
Pennsylvania law, and that improper deductions were made from
these agents' wages in violation of state law.  The complaint
seeks back overtime pay and statutory damages, recovery of
improper deductions, interest, and attorneys' fees.  In March
2008, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class on the
federal overtime claim.

Separately, in March 2008, a purported nationwide class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, Wang v. Prudential Financial,
Inc. and Prudential Insurance, claiming that the Company failed to
pay its agents overtime and provide other benefits in violation of
California and federal law and seeking compensatory and punitive
damages in unspecified amounts.  In September 2008, Wang was
transferred to the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey and consolidated with the Bouder matter.

Subsequent amendments to the complaint have resulted in additional
allegations involving purported violations of an additional nine
states' overtime and wage payment laws.  In February 2010,
Prudential moved to decertify the federal overtime class that had
been conditionally certified in March 2008 and moved for summary
judgment on the federal overtime claims of the named plaintiffs.
In July 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification of
the state law claims.  In August 2010, the district court granted
Prudential's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the federal
overtime claims.  The motion for class certification of the state
law claims is pending.


R.M. & G. PRODUCTS: Sued Over "Negative Option Memberships"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims R.M. &
G. Products and Bernheim & Rice, which sell golf instructional
aids online, charge for "negative option memberships" without
disclosing it, and keeps charging for it after customers cancel,
in Cook County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Klein v. R.M. & G. Products, Inc., et
al., Case No. 12CH10584 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/26/ConFrd.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Christopher L. Dore, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  cdore@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Appeal from Order Denying Arbitration Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court order denying Regions Financial
Corporation's motion to compel arbitration in a class action
lawsuit filed against the Company is still pending, according to
the Company's February 24, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

In September 2009, Regions was named as a defendant in a purported
class-action lawsuit filed by customers of Regions Bank in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
challenging the manner in which non-sufficient funds and overdraft
fees were charged and the policies related to posting order.  The
case was transferred to multidistrict litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and in May
2010 an order to compel arbitration was denied.  Regions appealed
the denial and on April 29, 2011, the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals vacated the denial and remanded the case to the district
court for reconsideration of Regions' motion to compel
arbitration.  On September 1, 2011, the trial court again denied
Regions' motion to compel arbitration.  Regions is again appealing
the denial to the Eleventh Circuit, and the case is stayed pending
a resolution of the appeal.  Another purported class action
alleging these claims was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia in January 2012.  The case is still
early in its development and no class has been certified.
Plaintiffs in these cases have requested equitable relief and
unspecified monetary damages.


SMITH MICRO: Hearing on Calif. Suit Dismissal Bid Set for May 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Smith Micro Software, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
securities class action complaint is set to be heard by a
California federal court on May 12, 2012, according to the
Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

On June 29, 2011, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against the Company and
certain of its current and past officers and directors on behalf
of certain purchasers of the Company's common stock. The complaint
has been brought as a purported stockholder class action, and, in
general, includes allegations that the Company and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding its business
prospects and financial results, thereby artificially inflating
the price of the Company's common stock.  The plaintiff is seeking
unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On August 29,
2011, two prospective lead plaintiffs filed motions for
appointment of lead plaintiff and for appointment of lead counsel.
On October 17, 2011, the court appointed the two prospective lead
plaintiffs as co-lead plaintiffs and their respective counsel as
co-lead counsel.  On December 15, 2011, the co-lead plaintiffs
filed their consolidated amended complaint.  On February 14, 2012,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.  A hearing on the motion to dismiss has been set for
May 21, 2012.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against
the claims advanced.

Smith Micro Software, Inc. designs, develops and markets software
products and services primarily for the mobile computing and
communications industries.


SONUS NETWORKS: IPO-Related Suit Concluded in January
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Sonus Networks Inc. over its
initial public offering ended in January following dismissal of an
appeal from a court order approving settlement of the IPO Suit,
according to the Company's February 24, 2012, 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

In November 2001, a purchaser of the Company's common stock filed
a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, two of its officers and
the lead underwriters alleging violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the Company's initial public
offering and seeking unspecified monetary damages.  The purchaser
sought to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between the date of the IPO on May 24, 2000 and
December 6, 2000.

The amended complaint, filed in April 2002, alleged that the
Company's registration statement contained false or misleading
information or omitted to state material facts concerning the
alleged receipt of undisclosed compensation by the underwriters
and the existence of undisclosed arrangements between the
underwriters and certain purchasers to make additional purchases
in the after-market.  The claims against the Company were asserted
under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
(the "Securities Act"), and against the individual defendants
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Other plaintiffs had filed
substantially similar class action cases against approximately 300
other publicly-traded companies and their IPO underwriters which,
along with the actions against the Company, were transferred to a
single federal judge for purposes of coordinated case management.

On July 15, 2002, the Company, collectively with the other issuers
named as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a
collective motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints
on various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer
defendants.  The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claims
against many of the individual defendants, including the Company's
officers named in the complaint.  On February 19, 2003, the
District Court granted a portion of the motion to dismiss by
dismissing the Section 10(b) claims against certain defendants
including the Company, but denied the remainder of the motion as
to the defendants.

On October 5, 2009, the District Court issued an opinion granting
plaintiffs' motion for final approval of a revised proposed
settlement, plan of distribution of the settlement fund and
certification of the settlement classes.  An Order and Final
Judgment was entered on January 14, 2010.  On January 13, 2012,
the Second Circuit issued a mandate dismissing an appeal, thereby
upholding the January 14, 2010 Order and Final Judgment and ending
this case.  The outcome of this litigation did not have a material
impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements.


SOUTHERN COMPANY: Continues to Face Katrina-Related Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Company continues to defend itself in a class action
lawsuit arising from Hurricane Katrina, according to the Company's
February 24, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In 2005, immediately following Hurricane Katrina, a lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi by Ned Comer on behalf of Mississippi residents
seeking recovery for property damage and personal injuries caused
by Hurricane Katrina.  In 2006, the plaintiffs amended the
complaint to include Southern Company and many other electric
utilities, oil companies, chemical companies, and coal producers.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants contributed to climate
change, which contributed to the intensity of Hurricane Katrina.
In 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi dismissed the case.  On appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a three-judge panel reversed the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi,
holding that the case could proceed, but, on rehearing, the full
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the
plaintiffs' appeal, resulting in reinstatement of the decision of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
in favor of the defendants.  On May 27, 2011, the plaintiffs filed
an amended version of their class action complaint, arguing that
the earlier dismissal was on procedural grounds and under
Mississippi law the plaintiffs have a right to re-file.  The
amended complaint was also filed against numerous chemical, coal,
oil, and utility companies, including the Company.  The Company
believes that these claims are without merit.  The ultimate
outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.


SOUTHERN UNION: ETE Merger-related Class Suits Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Purported class action lawsuits relating to Southern Union
Company's merger with Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., remains
pending, according to the Company's February 24, 2012 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company entered into a merger deal agreement with Energy
Transfer Equity, L.P., and Sigma Acquisition Corporation, a wholly
owned subsidiary of ETE (Merger Sub), in July 2011.  As a result
of the Merger, the Company will become a wholly owned subsidiary
of ETE.  The Merger is expected to close in the first quarter of
2012, subject to stockholder approval and certain other regulatory
approvals.

In connection with the Merger, purported stockholders of Southern
Union have filed several stockholder class action lawsuits against
Southern Union, Merger Sub, ETE and the Southern Union Board in
the District Courts of Harris County, Texas and in the Delaware
Courts of Chancery.  If a final settlement is not reached, or if a
dismissal is not obtained, these lawsuits could result in
substantial costs to ETE and Southern Union, including any costs
associated with the indemnification of directors.  Additional
lawsuits may be filed against Southern Union related to the
Merger.  The defense or settlement of any lawsuit or claim that
remains unresolved at the time the Merger is completed may
adversely affect the combined company's business, financial
condition or results of the operations.


STATE OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Senate Bill X2 11
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that a law office
claims in a federal class action that a section of a bill proposed
in a state Senate bill unconstitutionally prohibits citizens from
taking legal action against judges.

Lead plaintiff Nina Ringgold, filing for herself and on behalf of
her clients, claims that Section 5 of Senate Bill X2 11, which was
filed in February, "purports to grant retroactive immunity
notwithstanding the United States Constitution or federal law, and
in disregard of whether the relief sought by the aggrieved person
is under the United States Constitution or federal law, and it
purports to amend or revise the California Constitution without
the required constitutional procedures."

Ms. Ringgold claims there is a "constitutional conflict and
dispute between state and local agencies and the Commission on
Judicial Performance, which prohibit the plaintiffs and citizens
of the State of California from taking action to preserve their
legal and constitutional rights."

She claims that the "fact that the proceedings are being conducted
without a valid or authorized judicial function in accord with the
California Constitution should be disclosed to the litigants and
they should be afforded an opportunity to decline to participate
in the unconstitutional condition.  Currently the courts where
supplemental payment by the county without constitutional
authority leads to a private organization housed in facilities
owned and operated by the state.  It would be one thing if this
was a theoretical exercise, however, citizens who have been forced
to participate in this unconstitutional enterprise (without
disclosure) have been deprived of equal protection, due process,
and fair proceedings consistent with the law."

Ms. Ringgold claims there have been an "overwhelming number of
grievances arising in the probate department and other areas. This
is not just about budget matters but rather involve existing and
severe constitutional structural problems.  The probate department
of the County of Los Angeles has a direct economic stake in the
operation of the probate department (including through attorney
fees, estate administration fees by the County Public
Administrator (not an elected official), and other fees."

Ms. Ringgold and co-plaintiff Justin Ringgold-Lockhart, her adult
son and a client of her office, say they "have a constitutionally
protected legal and property interest in the persons designated as
owning the intangible property right in the power of appointment
and discretion in a private family trust."

They claim the state Senate bill "is being applied as a penalty
for raising legitimate grievances concerning discrimination and
operation of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles,
concerning the discriminatory operation of the probate department,
and to impair Ringgold's ability to practice her profession."

Ms. Ringgold's complaint states that both she and her son are
African-American.

The complaint states: "Through a nonappealable order the Los
Angeles Superior Court appointed a trustee without bond who is
liquidating a private family trust.  The primary unencumbered and
revenue generating real estate assets of the trust were sold in
one of the worst real estate markets in United States history.
While and [sic] the named trustee and counsel of record, plaintiff
Ringgold used proper procedures to attempt to prevent the adverse
sale she was determined to be a vexatious litigant in the first
instance in the California Court of Appeal [sic].  The
determination was made when no motion was ever filed in the state
trial court in accord with the statutory due process procedures
mandated by statute and it was made in the first instance in the
appellate court to a named trustee and counsel of record when
there would be no opportunity for appellate review."

Ms. Ringgold claims it is unconstitutional for a "single justice
of the state appellate court to render a determination of whether
an appeal has merit and has been filed for purposes of harassment
or delay when no statutory due process motion has been filed."
Ms. Ringgold claims that after she "encountered a medical
emergency and although acting as counsel of record, in order to
penalize Ringgold for exercising her First Amendment rights and
limit the legal issues which could be raised by clients of the Law
Office, the court imposed a pre-filing requirement . . . in order
to seek an accommodation for disability."  In cases that she was
counsel of record, her clients "have been required to obtain court
approval to file pleadings in pending litigation," the lawsuit
claims.

Ms. Ringgold sued Gov. Jerry Brown, Attorney General Kamala
Harris, the Commission on Judicial Performance of the State of
California, and State Auditor Elaine Howle.

She seeks to "establish a grievance procedure (including with
respect to ADA requests, civil appeals, court reporter's
department, an other matters), and method of monitoring and that
the procedure be transparent to allow input from the public."  She
also seeks a special investigation into the Los Angeles County
Superior Court probate department, and a "performance, financial,
and investigative audit of the courts impacted by self-
effectuating resignations."

Ms. Ringgold, of Northridge, filed the case pro se.

A copy of the Complaint in Ringgold, et al. v. Brown, et al., Case
No. 12-cv-00717 (E.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/26/CalJudges.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nina R. Ringgold, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NINA R. RINGGOLD
          9420 Reseda Blvd. #361
          Northridge, CA 91324
          Telephone: (818) 773-2409
          E-mail: nrringgold@aol.com


STATE STREET: Still Defends Forex Suits in Boston & Baltimore
-------------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation continues to defend itself from class
action lawsuits filed in Boston and Baltimore, according to the
Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

In February 2011, a putative class action was filed in federal
court in Boston seeking unspecified damages, including treble
damages, on behalf of all custodial clients that executed certain
foreign exchange transactions with State Street from 1998 to 2009.
The putative class action alleges, among other things, that the
rates at which State Street executed foreign currency trades
constituted an unfair and deceptive practice under Massachusetts
law and a breach of the duty of loyalty.  A second putative class
action is currently pending in federal court in Boston alleging
various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
on behalf of all ERISA plans custodied with the Company that
executed indirect foreign exchange transactions with State Street
between 2001 and 2009.  The complaint, originally filed in federal
court in Baltimore, alleges that State Street caused class members
to pay unfair and unreasonable rates for indirect foreign exchange
transactions with State Street. The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, disgorgement of profits, and other equitable relief.

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

The Company says it has not established a reserve with respect to
any of the pending legal proceedings relating to its indirect
foreign exchange services.  There can be no assurance as to the
outcome of the pending proceedings in California or Massachusetts,
or whether any other proceedings might be commenced against the
Company by clients or government authorities.  The Company expects
that plaintiffs will seek to recover their share of all or a
portion of the revenue that the Company has recorded from
providing indirect foreign exchange services.

State Street Corporation -- http://www.statestreet.com/-- a
financial holding company, provides various financial products and
services to institutional investors worldwide.  It was founded in
1832 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.  The Company
offers investment servicing and investment management services.


STATE STREET: Shareholder Suits Still Pending in Boston
-------------------------------------------------------
Three shareholder-related class action complaints remain pending
in a Boston federal court against State Street Corporation, the
Company disclosed in its February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2011.

One complaint purports to be brought on behalf of State Street
shareholders.  The two other complaints purport to be brought on
behalf of participants and beneficiaries in the State Street
Salary Savings Program who invested in the program's State Street
common stock investment option.  The complaints variously allege
violations of the federal securities laws and Employee Retirement
Income Security Act in connection with the Company's foreign
exchange trading business, investment securities portfolio and
asset-backed commercial paper conduit program.

No updates were reported in the Company's latest 10-K filing with
the SEC.

State Street Corporation -- http://www.statestreet.com/-- a
financial holding company, provides various financial products and
services to institutional investors worldwide.  It was founded in
1832 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.  The Company
offers investment servicing and investment management services.


USA SPEEDWAY: October Trial Set for Clean Water Act Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wes Helbling, writing for Bastrop Daily Enterprise, reports that
the USA Speedway has fulfilled the requirements of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to restore wetlands that were
disturbed during its construction.

The USA Speedway is a dirt race track constructed in West
Sterlington in 2009.  The track came under investigation by the
U.S. Corps of Engineers for failure to obtain the necessary
Section 404 permit to discharge fill material into 2.4 acres of
wetlands that is hydrologically connected to the Ouachita River,
in violation of the federal Clean Water Act.

EPA Region 6 records show an administrative order was issued to
Speedway owner Bobby Hobson in Aug. 2010 requiring him to remove
the fill material as well as to "[r]estore the previously
disturbed areas to the natural contours and elevations that
existed prior to fill activities and revegetate with appropriate
wetland species."

While the restoration was completed in 2010, EPA Region 6
spokesman Dave Bary said the agency assessed Hobson an
administrative penalty of $1,500 for the violation in January.

"Mr. Hobson has taken the necessary [restoration] action and paid
the $1500 penalty," said Mr. Bary.  "The matter has been resolved
from the EPA's standpoint."

The Clean Water Act violation remains an issue in a class action
lawsuit against the USA Speedway, which Union Parish Clerk of
Court records indicate is slated for a jury trial in October.
Initially filed in 2010, the fifty-nine plaintiffs who live near
the Speedway allege that dust and noise from the races pose "an
unreasonable intrusion into the use and enjoyment" of their homes
and have reduced their property values.

In a memorandum filed in January, plaintiffs' attorney Clay
Garside argues against the Speedway's refusal to produce requested
documentation regarding the Corps investigation on the grounds
these items "do not relate to noise or dust."

Mr. Garside writes, "In addition to being unlawful, Section 404
violations do relate to noise and dust disturbing surrounding
neighbors.  When the Corps considers whether to allow a property
owner to fill in wetlands, it . . . specifically considers the
potential impacts of the project to air quality and noise levels
on surrounding property owners . . . and might well prevent the
project from going forward if there are significant adverse
effects on these aesthetic values in the area."


WISCONSIN EDUCATION: Hudson Education Board Joins Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meg Heaton, writing for Hudson Star-Observer, reports that the
Hudson Board of Education voted unanimously to join 45 other
Wisconsin school districts in a class action lawsuit against the
Wisconsin Education Association Trust.

The suit seeks to recover funds from a federal program called the
Early Retirement Reinsurance Program (ERRP) being held by the WEA
Trust on behalf of school districts formerly insured through the
trust.

According to district Financial Services Director Tim Erickson,
the money, $172,000 for Hudson, was intended to help reduce health
insurance costs of employees of eligible employers, both private
and public.

The trust, which applied for and received the ERRP funds for
districts they insured, has refused to forward the money to Hudson
and other districts no longer being insured by them. They have
indicated that they intend to redistribute the money among
districts still insured by them.

The Hudson School District opted out of the WEA Trust insurance
plan last fall for a plan through Health Partners.

Mr. Erickson said the lawsuit contends that the funds are due the
district and cannot be reallocated by the trust.  The money the
trust received was allocated to cover members of the trust during
the 2010-11 school year.  WEA contends that they followed federal
law and that the money can only be paid out to districts currently
enrolled in their plan.

He told the board that the firm representing the districts, Foley
& Lardner LLP of Milwaukee, will be paid only if they win the
lawsuit and from any proceeds awarded to the Hudson School
District, generally around 33 percent of the recovered money.


YAHOO! INC: Breaches Terms of Service Contracts, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Rudgayzer, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Yahoo!, Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-01399 (N.D.
Calif., March 20, 2012) is brought individually and as a class
action on behalf of all other similarly situated persons and
entities located in the United States who, without prior notice,
have had their names disclosed when sending e-mails from their
Yahoo e-mail addresses, other than Yahoo, its officers, employees,
and representatives, and their families at any time during the
period beginning four years prior to the commencement of this
action and continuing until the resolution of this action.

Yahoo, through its default settings, knowingly and without prior
notice to, or consent from, Yahoo Email Users, adds a User's first
and last names in the header of the e-mails that the User
sends from his Yahoo E-mail Address, such that the recipients of
the Yahoo E-mail are given this information, Mr. Rudgayzer
contends.  He adds that by disclosing the first and last names of
the senders of Yahoo E-mails, Yahoo has breached the Personal-
Information Provision of its terms of service contracts.

Mr. Rudgayzer, a citizen of the state of New York, became a Yahoo
E-mail User in October 2011.

Yahoo is a Delaware corporation.  Yahoo provides e-mail addresses
to members of the public, such e-mail addresses having the domain
name of yahoo.com.

The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm.


* Securities Fraud Class Actions v. Life Sciences Firms Down 41%
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
new securities fraud class actions against life sciences companies
plunged by 41 percent during 2011 compared to the year before,
according to a review by Dechert.

Additionally, more of the cases targeted smaller companies and
alleged industry-specific wrongdoing, as opposed to financial
improprieties, the law firm said.

The March 2011 Dechert Survey of Securities Fraud Class Actions
Brought Against Life Sciences Companies, released on March 31,
tabulated 17 new cases in 2011, compared to 29 during 2010.  Prior
Dechert surveys counted 19 cases in 2009, 23 in 2008 and 25 in
2007.

Filings against life sciences companies during 2011 represented
approximately 9 percent of the 188 securities fraud class action
lawsuits filed -- a five-year low.  They represented 16 percent of
the total during 2010; 10 percent each during 2009 and 2008; and
14 percent during 2007.

"Companies on the whole are much more attuned to the business
risks that could give rise to a securities fraud class action,"
said survey author David Kotler, a white-collar and securities
litigation partner who practices in New York and Princeton, N.J.

Public companies, including those in the life sciences sector, are
becoming more cautious about their public statements, he said.
"There's a lot more thought going into preventing them from
becoming securities problems in the first place."

The firm's review of case filings found an increase in actions
against companies with smaller market capitalizations.  Market
capitalization is a gauge of a public company's value that's
figured by multiplying the stock price by the number of
outstanding shares.

During 2011, 58 percent of the securities fraud class action
lawsuits targeted companies with market capitalizations of less
than $250 million, compared to 31 percent during 2010.  No
securities cases were filed against a life sciences company with a
market capitalization of more than $10 billion, compared to 28
percent during 2010.

Industry consolidation meant that the universe of potential
defendants includes a higher proportion of smaller companies,
Mr. Kotler said.  Given that, plaintiffs' lawyers who bring
contingency cases are probably "choosing their targets a little
more carefully, given the business risks they face in bringing
these types of lawsuits," Mr. Kotler said.

Last year's cases were more likely to be about industry-specific
problems, rather than alleged financial improprieties.  During
2010, 35 percent of the cases alleged financial improprieties; in
2010, they represented more than half.

The industry-specific claims included improper marketing
practices; false statements about a product's safety and
effectiveness; and fraudulent statements about approval by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The financial fraud allegations are on the downswing because the
U.S. and world economies are picking up, Mr. Kotler said.

"The focus is again on concerns that are specific to the industry,
as opposed to concerns general to all public companies,"
Mr. Kotler said.

Dechert analyzed the fall-out from the U.S. Supreme Court's March
2010 ruling in Matrixx Initiatives v. Siracusano, in which the
justices unanimously allowed claims to advance concerning cold
remedy Zicam's possible side effects.  The plaintiffs alleged the
company's behavior constituted investor fraud.

"Post-Matrixx, life sciences companies are now faced with the
challenging and heavily fact-specific task of determining where to
draw the disclosure line in the absence of a bright-line
standard," the report said.

Still, there hasn't been a rash of new filings or new scrutiny of
public company disclosures of adverse events, Mr. Kotler said.
The ruling "doesn't seem to have had any discernable impact on the
number of filings, types of filings, value of lawsuits and the
degree of difficultly of lawsuits."


                           *********

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  * * *