---

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

              Monday, May 7, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 89

                             Headlines

407 ETR: Faces Class Action Over Toll Collection Practices
ABM INDUSTRIES: Workers' Class Suit Still Pending in Calif.
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Class Action
ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Class Suit Settlement Approved
AIR TRANSPORT: Awaits Approval of Ohio Class Suit Settlement

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Robins Geller Files Class Action in Colorado
ARCELORMITTAL: Discovery in 'Standard Iron Works' Suit Ongoing
BELL POTTER: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Conduct
BLUE CROSS: Seeks to Dismiss Insurance Plan Class Action
BOSTON, MA: Cab Drivers File Class Action Over Rent Fees

BP PLC: Gov't. Challenges Request for Trial Delay in Oil Spill MDL
BP PLC: Continues to Defend ERISA and RICO Class Suits
CAMPUS ICE: Ice Users Mull Class Action Over Surcharges
CATALYST HEALTH: Being Sold to SXC for Too Little, Suit Claims
CHRYSLER GROUP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suits

CITIBANK: Faces Class Action Over Student Loan Interest Scheme
CITIGROUP INC: Plaintiffs File Amended Class Action Complaint
COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS: Court Grants Class Certification Bid
COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS: Suit Over Visa Card Issuance Pending
COVENTRY HEALTH: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bid in Class Suit

DUCOMMUN INC: Delaware Class Suit Settlement Approved
EXMARK MANUFACTURING: Recalls 2,200 Quest 42" ZRT Riding Mowers
FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Unit Continues to Defend "McGrogan" Suit
FIRST DATA: Appeal in ATM Fee Antitrust Suit Remains Pending
HACHETTE: E-Book Price-Fixing Conspiracy Class Action Stayed

HARLEYSVILLE GROUP: Merger-related Suit Remains Pending
JP MORGAN: Faces Suit Over Pricey "Forced-Place" Flood Insurance
MATCH.COM: Class Actions Prompts New Safeguards for Online Daters
MERCK SHARP: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Fosamax Claims
NETFLIX INC: Subscribers Ask Court to Overturn $27.2MM Settlement

NETFLIX INC: Revises Terms of Use to Avert Class Actions
NEW ENERGY: Faces Suit for Alleged Securities Law Violation
NL INDUSTRIES: Lead Pigment-Related Suits Remain Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Wins Landmark Tobacco Class Action in Florida
RELIANT TECHNOLOGIES: Sued for Sending Unsolicited Facsimiles

SMART BALANCE: Bid to Dismiss New Jersey Lawsuit Still Pending
SOVEREIGN BANK: Faces Class Action Over Second-Mortgage Fees
SPRINT NEXTEL: Sued for Failing to Collect and Remit Sales Tax
SUREWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suits
SYNOPSIS INC: Inked MOU to Resolve Merger-Related Class Suits

TIERONE CORP: Settles Class Action for $3.1 Million
UNITED STATES: May 15 Final Deadline Set for Pigford Plaintiffs
VENTURA CONVALESCENT: AARP Joins Antipsychotic Drug Class Action
VISA: Online Adult Companies Set to Benefit from Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sued Over Vehicles' Oil Consumption Defect

* 25 Countries Introduces Group Litigation Rules

                          *********

407 ETR: Faces Class Action Over Toll Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Buist, writing for the Spec.com, reports that the company
that operates the 407 highway has been hit with a C$25-million
class action lawsuit over its allegedly "callous" toll collection
practices.

Hamilton lawyers David Thompson -- thompson@shlaw.ca -- and
Matthew Moloci -- moloci@shlaw.ca -- have launched the lawsuit on
behalf of people who declared bankruptcy and owed the 407 ETR
company outstanding tolls and fees at the time.

The lawsuit alleges that the 407 company has been unlawfully
collecting outstanding fees by using measures that violate the
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The lawsuit's statement of claim alleges the 407 ETR company uses
the threat of denying a vehicle permit renewal to coerce payments
from those people who should be protected under bankruptcy
legislation.

The allegations contained in the statement of claim have not been
proven in court.

The lawsuit also asks the court to order the 407 company to
establish a C$20-million trust fund to help reimburse class
members who qualify.

"The conduct of 407 ETR was deliberate, callous, wilful, without
care and with intentional disregard of the rights and
circumstances of class members," the lawsuit alleges.  "407 ETR
behaved with arrogance and high-handedness, demonstrating a
callous disregard and complete lack of care for the rights of
class members.  The conduct of 407 ETR ought to be punished and
deterred."

A spokesperson for 407 ETR indicated that the company will defend
itself against the lawsuit.

"This issue has been the subject of a decision of the Superior
Court that concluded that there is no conflict between the Highway
407 Act and the bankruptcy legislation, and that the license plate
denial provisions applied," said Kevin Sack, vice-president of
communications for 407 ETR.

Under special provincial legislation that applies to the 407
highway, a vehicle owner's license plate renewal can be denied if
there are outstanding 407 tolls and fees that haven't been paid.

But when a person declares bankruptcy with 407 tolls and fees left
owing, Messrs. Thompson and Moloci contend that the 407 ETR
company is no different than any other creditor in a bankruptcy
and shouldn't be able to use the threat of denying license plate
renewal to obtain payment ahead of other creditors.

"The vehicle permit renewal denial is a very powerful remedy,"
said Thompson.  "It really strangles many individuals,
particularly bankrupts, who typically need to drive to get to work
to earn an income so they can get back on their feet.

"It's a powerful remedy that we say is being used against people
who are in a very vulnerable position."

In some cases, they say, the fee collection and denial of stickers
continues even after a person has been discharged from bankruptcy.

"We think this is one of those cases where you have a government
and a corporation that are doing stuff that they shouldn't be
allowed to do, and who's going to fight with them? The bankrupt?"
said Mr. Moloci.  "Is the bankrupt really going to launch a
C$100,000 legal battle against the 407?

"Chances are they're going to pay their thousand bucks in tolls or
whatever, while biting their tongues, and then just try to get on
with their lives."

Since 2007, about 6,300 people have declared bankruptcy listing
the 407 ETR company as a creditor.

Some of the 407 debts, including interest and penalties, are in
the tens of thousands of dollars, according to Mr. Moloci, and
under the current setup, that debt could possibly survive
bankruptcy and keep those people from obtaining a license plate
sticker.

"If they had that type of money, they likely wouldn't have needed
to go bankrupt in the first place," he added.  "What are they
going to do, go out and get a bank loan so they can get a vehicle
permit? It's ridiculous."

Potential class members can visit classactionlaw.ca or call 905-
526-4394 for more information.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Workers' Class Suit Still Pending in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit filed by workers against ABM
Industries Incorporated remains pending California, according to
the Company's March 6, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January
31, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in the previously reported consolidated
cases of Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American Commercial Security
Services filed on July 12, 2005 in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County (the "Augustus case").  The
Augustus case is a class action involving allegations that the
Company violated certain state laws relating to meal and rest
breaks.  On January 8, 2009, the Augustus case was certified as a
class action by the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
County.  On October 6, 2010, the Company moved to decertify the
class and for summary judgment.  Plaintiffs also moved for summary
judgment on the rest break claim.  On December 28, 2010, the
Superior Court de-certified the portion of the class related to
the meal break claims and granted summary judgment for the
plaintiffs with respect to the rest break issue.  On July 11,
2011, the Court closed the class period as of July 1, 2011 and
vacated the previously scheduled trial date of September 12, 2011.
On February 8, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment on the rest break claim which seeks damages in the amount
of $103.0 million.  On February 8, 2012, the Company filed a
motion for decertification of the class.  Both motions were
scheduled to be heard on April 23, 2012.  The Company continues to
believe it has strong defenses against this lawsuit and is
vigorously defending it.  No trial date has been scheduled.  An
estimate of the potential exposure, if any, cannot be made at this
time.


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a federal
securities class action in the United States District Court,
Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of all persons who
purchased Accretive Health, Inc. securities between March 2, 2011
and April 24, 2012, inclusive.  This class action is brought under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Accretive securities during
the Class Period, you have until June 25, 2012 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll free,
x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

Accretive provides revenue cycle management services for hospitals
and healthcare providers in the United States.

On March 29, 2012, Accretive revealed that, in response to a
lawsuit filed by Minnesota Attorney General ("AG"), the Company
had agreed to no longer collect debts on behalf of Fairview Health
Services.  On this news, Accretive shares declined $4.46 per share
or 18.5%, to close at $19.60 per share on March 29, 2012.

On April 24, 2012, the Minnesota AG released a six-volume report
detailing Accretive's aggressive debt collection practices,
including demanding payment from patients who were currently
seeking medical care in hospitals.  The next day, an article
published by The New York Times discussed the Minnesota AG's
report.  On these revelations, Accretive shares declined $7.74 per
share or nearly 42%, to close at $10.75 per share on April 25,
2012.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York and Chicago,
concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities,
and antitrust class litigation.  The firm represents victims of
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate
misconduct.


ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Class Suit Settlement Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., received in February final court
approval of a settlement entered in the putative securities class
action lawsuit captioned Bang v. Acura Pharmaceuticals, et al.,
according to the Company's March 5, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

A lawsuit captioned Bang v. Acura Pharmaceuticals, et al, was
filed on September 10, 2010 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (Case
1:10-cv-05757) against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock
(the "Affected Securities") between February 21, 2006 and April
22, 2010 (the "Plaintiff Class").  The complaint alleged that
certain Company officers made false or misleading statements, or
failed to disclose material facts in order to make statements not
misleading, relating to the Company's Acurox(R) with Niacin Tablet
product candidate, resulting in violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5
under the Exchange Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
complaint further alleges that such false or misleading statements
or omissions had the effect of artificially inflating the price of
the Company's common stock.  On March 14, 2011, an amended
complaint was filed in this lawsuit.  The amended complaint
asserts the same claims as the initial complaint based upon the
same alleged false or misleading statements, and has added three
of the Company's current directors as defendants.  The Court has
changed the caption of this case to In re Acura Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. Securities Litigation.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss
this case on May 13, 2011.

On October 31, 2011, the Company entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement ("Stipulation") providing for the release of all claims
against the Company and its named directors and officers (the
"Defendants") in this case, for a payment of $1.5 million.  The
Company and the individual defendants continue to deny all charges
of wrongdoing or liability against them relating to this action
and the Stipulation does not contain or constitute any admission
or finding of wrongful conduct, acts or omissions on the part of
any Defendant.  On December 16, 2011, the Company's insurance
carrier paid the $1.5 million settlement amount into an escrow
account to fund the settlement.

In consideration of the payment of the settlement amount, the
Plaintiff Class has agreed, upon final approval by the court, to
dismiss the class action with prejudice and release all known and
unknown claims arising out of or relating to, or in connection
with the purchase or acquisition of the Affected Securities during
the class period which have been or could have been asserted by
the members of the Plaintiff Class.  On February 16, 2012, the
court entered final approval of the settlement reflected in the
Stipulation.


AIR TRANSPORT: Awaits Approval of Ohio Class Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Air Transport Services Group, Inc., is awaiting final court
approval of a settlement entered in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in an Ohio federal court, according to the Company's
March 5, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On December 31, 2008, a former ABX employee filed a complaint
against ABX, a total of four current and former executives and
managers of ABX, Garcia Labor Company of Ohio, and three former
executives of the Garcia Labor companies, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  The case was filed as a
putative class action against the defendants, and asserts
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act
(RICO).  The complaint, which was later amended to include a
second former employee plaintiff, seeks damages in an unspecified
amount and alleges that the defendants engaged in a scheme to hire
illegal immigrant workers to depress the wages paid to hourly wage
employees during the period from December 1999 to January 2005.

The complaint is similar to a prior complaint filed by another
former employee in April 2007. The prior complaint was
subsequently dismissed without prejudice at the plaintiff's
request on November 3, 2008.

On March 18, 2010, the Court issued a decision in response to a
motion filed by ABX and the other ABX defendants, dismissing three
of the five claims constituting the basis of Plaintiffs'
complaint.  Thereafter, on October 7, 2010, the Court issued a
decision permitting the plaintiffs' to amend their complaint for
the purpose of reinstating one of their dismissed claims.  On
October 26, 2010, ABX and the other ABX defendants filed an answer
denying the allegations contained in plaintiffs' second amended
complaint.

On December 2, 2011, the parties attended a settlement conference
presided over by the Court and agreed to settle this matter.  The
settlement calls for ABX to pay to the plaintiffs a monetary
amount, which management believes to be less than it would have
cost for ABX to defend the case at trial.  Once the plaintiffs
have provided notice to the putative class members of the
settlement, the Court will hold a hearing to consider any
objections and seek final confirmation of the settlement.


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Robins Geller Files Class Action in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 1 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado on behalf of all persons who held shares
of the common stock of Allos Therapeutics, Inc. on April 5, 2012,
against Allos, its Board of Directors and Spectrum
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for breaches of fiduciary duty in connection
with the proposed acquisition of Allos by Spectrum and for
violations of Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
in connection with the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on
Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC on April 13, 2012.

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

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

Allos is a biopharmaceutical company that engages in the
development and commercialization of anti-cancer therapeutics,
including FOLOTYN(R), a folate inhibitor for the treatment of
patients with relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma.

On April 5, 2012, Allos and Spectrum announced a definitive merger
agreement under which Allos would be acquired by Spectrum via
tender offer.  Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, upon
successful completion of the Tender Offer, Allos stockholders will
receive $1.82 per share in cash plus one Contingent Value Right,
which would provide Allos stockholders with an additional payment
of $0.11 per share in cash if certain European regulatory approval
and commercialization milestones for FOLOTYN(R) are achieved.

The complaint alleges that the defendants directly breached their
fiduciary duties or aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties
in connection with the Proposed Acquisition, which significantly
undervalues Allos and is the result of an unfair sales process
designed to ensure that only Spectrum has the opportunity to
acquire Allos.  In addition, the complaint alleges that the 14D-9
contains material omissions and/or misstatements in contravention
of Sec. 14(e) of the 1934 Act and/or defendants' fiduciary duty of
disclosure under state law, including material omissions and/or
misstatements concerning the sales process leading up to the
execution of the Merger Agreement, the Company's value, the
analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor, J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, and the potential and/or actual conflicts of
interest faced by J.P. Morgan.  Without this material information,
Allos shareholders are prevented from making a fully-informed
decision as to the adequacy of the Tender Offer and whether to
tender their shares.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all holders of
Allos common stock on April 5, 2012.  The plaintiff is represented
by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor
class actions and extensive experience in actions involving
financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international investors and consumers in contingency based complex
litigation.  With nearly 200 attorneys in nine offices, the firm
represents more institutional investors and pension funds in
securities and corporate litigation than any other law firm in the
world.


ARCELORMITTAL: Discovery in 'Standard Iron Works' Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is currently ongoing in a class action lawsuit filed by
Standard Iron Works against ArcelorMittal, according to the
Company's March 6, 2012, 20-F/A filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2011.

On September 12, 2008, Standard Iron Works filed a purported class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court in the Northern
District of Illinois against ArcelorMittal, ArcelorMittal USA LLC,
and other steel manufacturers, alleging that the defendants had
conspired since 2005 to restrict the output of steel products in
order to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain prices at artificially
high levels in violation of U.S. antitrust law.  Since the filing
of the Standard Iron Works lawsuit, other similar direct purchaser
lawsuits have been filed in the same court and have been
consolidated with the Standard Iron Works lawsuit.  In addition,
two putative class actions on behalf of indirect purchasers have
been filed, one of which has already been consolidated with the
Standard Iron Works cases and one of which ArcelorMittal is
seeking to consolidate.  In January 2009, ArcelorMittal and the
other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the direct purchaser
claims.  On June 12, 2009, the court denied the motion to dismiss
and the litigation is now in the discovery stage.  It is too early
in the proceedings for ArcelorMittal to determine the amount of
its potential liability, if any.


BELL POTTER: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Conduct
------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Urban, writing for The Australian, reports that a woman
who received investment advice from her son while he worked as a
stockbroker for Bell Potter Securities has emerged as the
controversial lead claimant in a multimillion-dollar class action
against the firm, alleging misleading and deceptive conduct over
its promotion of a speculative biotechnology stock.

Melbourne investor Jillian Meaden has claimed she and her husband
had relied on the representations of their son, Richard Meaden,
that Progen Pharmaceuticals would be "a good investment over time"
and would "take off in the Australian market", when they decided
to buy shares in December 2006.

But in a setback for the case, Ms. Meaden has been deemed a
"totally inappropriate" representative of the 56 claimants in the
group, with the Federal Court ruling that it should not continue
as a representative proceeding.

Her lawyers, Slater & Gordon, plan to appeal the decision.

According to Justice Richard Edmonds's ruling, delivered late last
week, the entire theory of representative proceedings -- commonly
known as class actions -- depended on a commonality of issues. He
pointed to the 282 separate alleged share transactions and at
least 10 separate research reports issued by Bell Potter in a 12-
month period, on which each claimant was said to have relied when
deciding to buy and hold Progen shares.  He also noted that eight
Bell Potter staff were alleged to have made separate and different
oral representations to 33 clients regarding the stock.

"I agree with the submission of Bell Potter that the fundamental
problem with this case is that it is impossible to see how the
trial of an action based on evidence from and concerning only
Ms. Meaden will determine any issue of sufficient significance to
render it a process that has any real utility," Justice Edmonds
said.  "There is such a lack of commonality that any determination
of Ms. Meaden's claim would offer no real guide as to how the
balance of the claims by the claimants would be determined were
they to proceed to be determined individually."

Legal proceedings against Bell Potter, a division of Bell
Financial Group, began in 2010, with the claimants accusing the
firm of encouraging them to invest in Progen at "grossly
overvalued" prices while failing to disclose its conflicting role
as an underwriter of a AUD34 million capital raising for company.

Bell Potter had been a strong advocate of the cancer drug
developer throughout 2006 and 2007, at one stage valuing the stock
at AUD14.64.  Progen shares peaked at AUD9.49.  However the price
collapsed after trials of the drug were suspended.  It last traded
at 17c.

The claimant group is alleging misleading and deceptive conduct,
as well as market manipulation.  Slater & Gordon's Van Moulis said
his firm believed the judgment contained a number of errors and
was seeking leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Federal
Court.

"We remain confident about the merits of the matter," he said.

Mr. Moulis confirmed Mr. Meaden had been an employee of Bell
Potter at the time and that he had been "guided by management" in
regards to marketing Progen shares to clients, including his
parents.

Both Bell Potter and Mr. Meaden, who now works as a financial
planner in Melbourne, declined to comment.


BLUE CROSS: Seeks to Dismiss Insurance Plan Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Emery P. Dalesio, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
North Carolina's Blue Cross plan and the national Blue Cross
licensing organization asked a federal court to reject a lawsuit
claiming the company's network of insurance plans across the
country are limiting competition.

The lawsuit contends the practice that bars 37 Blue Cross
affiliates from competing against each other helps local plans
accumulate market dominance in their home territories, which they
then use to demand discount deals with hospitals that inflate
medical costs.

North Carolina's largest health insurer and the Blue Cross and
Blue Shield Association deny in court documents filed late Monday
their business practices violate federal anti-trust laws by
carving up the country into exclusive territories.

"If the court says this practice is illegal, it could open up
competition to any Blue Cross plan that wants to compete in that
part of the country," said Prof. Roger Feldman, who studies health
insurance at the University of Minnesota.

The case is unusual because it features a law firm, run by high-
profile attorney David Boies, acting without federal powers,
Mr. Feldman said.  The U.S. Justice Department filed a lawsuit
based on similar issues against Michigan's Blue Cross plan in 2010
and is investigating the pricing power of North Carolina's Blue
Cross as well as plans in other states.

The lawsuit filed in February seeks to be a class-action on behalf
of Blue Cross's 3.6 million North Carolina customers or customers
of all other Blue Cross plans.  The case seeks triple damages for
the amount North Carolina premiums were inflated.

North Carolina's Blue Cross said in its response that the
restrictions that limit who can use the Blue Cross name and
symbols have been in effect for decades and repeatedly upheld by
courts.  Second, buyers across a wide range of industries use
preferred pricing deals to ensure they get the seller's lowest
price, and North Carolina's insurance commissioner approves
insurance rates, the not-for-profit company said.

The national Blue Cross organization said because the plans don't
compete in each other's service areas, the plans are better able
to compete against national competitors like Aetna, United
Healthcare, and Cigna.

The lawsuit comes as the Justice Department investigates whether
Blue Cross plans in North Carolina and several other states are
raising health-insurance premiums by making deals with hospitals
that stifle competition from rival insurers.

A lawsuit filed by the Justice Department and Michigan's attorney
general in 2010 against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan claimed
the non-profit's "most favored nation" clauses with health care
providers essentially guarantee that competing health care plans
can't negotiate better rates.  The deals require hospitals to
provide services to Blue Cross competitors either at the same or
higher prices than Blue Cross pays.  Michigan's Blue Cross plan
said the discounts it negotiates keeps hospital care and health
insurance affordable.

North Carolina's Blue Cross has more than 80 percent of the market
for coverage sold to individuals and small businesses, which
prompted the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in
February to delay requiring the state's other insurers to meet a
spending benchmark under the federal health reform law.

A lawyer for Mr. Boies' firm did not return calls seeking comment.
A spokesman for Blue Cross of North Carolina declined comment May
1.  A spokeswoman for the national Blue Cross association said the
lawsuit lacked merit.

Mr. Boies represented Democrat Al Gore in the U.S. Supreme Court
ruling that decided the 2000 presidential election and made
headlines in 1990s for grilling former Microsoft Corp. CEO Bill
Gates in the U.S. government's antitrust lawsuit against the
company.  Mr. Boies now represents business software maker Oracle
Corp., which accused Google Inc. of building its Android software
by stealing pieces of its Java technology.


BOSTON, MA: Cab Drivers File Class Action Over Rent Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Beenish Ahmed, writing for 90.9wbur reported that two shift
drivers are so fed up with the fees they pay to rent taxis from
cab companies that they've filed a class-action lawsuit to win
back the fees and get wage guarantees.

A city-issued medallion is required to operate a cab in Boston,
and it isn't cheap.  Companies that own medallions ask drivers to
share that cost through a daily fee.

Once certified, the class would sue the City of Boston, along with
the Independent Operators Association, Boston Cab Dispatch and USA
Taxi Association -- which all operate within Boston city limits.

A link to the full article is available at http://is.gd/bSF313


BP PLC: Gov't. Challenges Request for Trial Delay in Oil Spill MDL
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that the
United States and Alabama say a trial to establish the liability
of BP and other companies in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
should not be delayed for nearly a year, until after a hearing on
the proposed $7.8 billion settlement of private claims.

Uncle Sam and Alabama on May 1 filed separate statements, opposing
BP's request to postpone the trial.

BP has asked U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier, who is overseeing
the complex oil spill litigation, to postpone phase I of the trial
until mid-January 2013.

Phase I was set to begin Feb. 27 this year, but was postponed
indefinitely due to an eleventh-hour announcement by BP and
plaintiff attorneys that a settlement had been reached for
private-party economic and property damage claims that will affect
as many as 125,000 people.

The settlement is pending Judge Barbier's approval.  It affects
only private parties and will have no bearing on the interests of
the U.S. government or the Gulf states in the litigation.

In separate court filings on May 1, the United States and Alabama
Attorney General Luther Strange, who coordinates state interests
with Louisiana Attorney General James "Buddy" Caldwell, said that
BP's request for a delay is unfair, and that trial should begin
this summer.

Mr. Strange said that granting a delay could cause the trial to be
pushed back as late as April 2015.

"As the Court can see, while adjourning a liability trial pending
a fairness ruling may seem preferable in some (if not most) cases,
in this case, BP could use such a ruling to avoid a liability
trial against the governments for several years," Mr. Strange's
document states.

Mr. Strange proposed a trial date of July 16 this year.

Steven O'Rourke, senior attorney for the Department of Justice,
wrote in his filing that "BP's proposed partial resolution of
private claims . . . should not allow it to impede trial and
resolution of the broader public interests represented by the
United States and the States."

Uncle Sam said delaying this phase of the trial would hinder not
just the litigants, but the entire Gulf Coast region.

"In sum, the trial delay sought by BP and other defendants will
delay more than just a judicial proceeding; it will inevitably
delay recovery and restoration for fragile Gulf resources, the
interests of which can only be vindicated by actions of the United
States and the various states affected by BP's conduct.  To
prevent that wholly unnecessary and harmful result, we
respectfully request and urge the Court to deny BP's motion to
delay trial," the government's document states.

BP said in an April court filing that delaying the trial until
after a fairness hearing on the settlement would ensure that any
"overlapping or parallel actions" would not distract the court
from administering a settlement.

The proposed settlement is estimated to be $7.8 billion, but the
ultimate payout could be higher or lower.

The United States said in its document that "BP has represented
that it estimates the settlement at approximately $7.8 billion, a
figure that coincides with the profit of $7.685 billion the
company made in merely the final three months of 2011."

BP's Deepwater Horizon rig exploded off the coast of Louisiana on
April 20, 2010, killing 11 and unleashing the worst oil spill in
history.

The government asks that the trial follow the plan that was
established by the court before the settlement and delay: Phase I
would focus on the defendants' gross negligence and willful
misconduct and breaches of federal regulations concerning the
causes of BP's oil spill.

Phase II would address flow rate and source control issues.

Later phases of the trial would establish Clean Water Act
penalties to be paid and natural resource damages.

A copy of the Memorandum of the United States of America in
Opposition to BP's Motion to Delay Trial in In Re: Oil Spill by
the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on
April 20, 2010, MDL No.2179 (E.D La.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/02/USOpposed.pdf


BP PLC: Continues to Defend ERISA and RICO Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------
BP p.l.c. continues to defend purported class action lawsuits
asserting violations of the Employee Retiree Income Security Act
and the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
according to the Company's March 6, 2012 Form 20-F filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

Purported class action lawsuits have been filed in US federal
courts against BP entities and various current and former officers
and directors alleging, among other things, securities fraud
claims, violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) and contractual and quasi-contractual claims related to
the cancellation of dividend on June 16, 2010.  In addition, BP
has been named in several lawsuits alleging claims under the
Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).  In
August 2010, many of the lawsuits pending in federal court were
consolidated by the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation into two multi-district litigation proceedings, one in
federal court in Houston for the securities, derivative, ERISA and
dividend cases and another in federal court in New Orleans for the
remaining cases.


CAMPUS ICE: Ice Users Mull Class Action Over Surcharges
-------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Zochodne, writing for The Oshawa Express, reports that ice
users at City facilities may file a class action over surcharges.

Ten years is a long time.

However, a majority of City council members recently decided
direction given to staff in 2002 regarding an ice use surcharge
was followed correctly, and a change in course would not be
necessary at the time.

Ice users at City facilities pay a $25 surcharge for every hour.
Causing the rift is how the reserve that holds the money is being
used.  City staff has been using it to pay down the debt at the
Legends Centre, while ice users say they never agreed to such an
arrangement and that the surcharge was to fix up or replace old
facilities.

Approximately $2.3 million was accrued in the account since it
came into affect.  Since then, around $1.8 million of it has been
used to pay for capital costs and debt servicing on the Legends
Centre, according to reports from City staff.

This became public knowledge when Harman Park faced closure
earlier in the year.  Money the users believed was earmarked for
fixing up rinks like Harman had been spent, staff reports
indicated.

Neighbourhood Association Sports Committee (NASC) hockey Chairman
Bob Babin appeared before council and asked he and the new Arena
Users Group be given all the documentation regarding the ice
surcharge reserve, on top of a new deal over how the fee is to be
used and for the City's auditor general to conduct a full forensic
audit.

If they continue to be denied this, Mr. Babin states the users
could stop paying the fee and seek legal counsel for a possible
class action lawsuit.  He made it clear the user were fed up with
being put off by the City in their requests.

"We the users have lost complete faith in the City," says
Mr. Babin.  That they are paying the surcharge at the Campus Ice
and General Motors Centre, which the private companies running
them are allowed to keep without contributing to the arena
reserve, is also something Mr. Babin says is unacceptable.
Additional taxes placed on the fee can run it up to $28.25 an hour
in some instances too, he notes.

Bill Swindells, president of the Oshawa Church Hockey League,
shared Mr. Babin's sentiments. Ice users are taxpayers also, he
points out.

"Why are a select group of citizens paying twice, each and every
year?" for arenas, asks Mr. Swindells.  "I am asking you to do the
right thing."

The ice users came to council in 2002 looking for ice, but now
they fear they are paying for costs associated with parts of
Legends Centre they never asked for, like the pool and library.

"To say I'm greatly disappointed would be a grave understatement,"
says Mr. Babin.

Based on a Corporate Services report and the minutes from past
councils, the majority of the current council sided against
motions to create a new policy or provide a further investigation
for the users.

When asked, Auditor General Ron Foster told council he had already
looked into the information in the current report and found no
wrongdoing, though he conceded communications and transparency
between the City and the users could be improved upon.

"I think it's a very thorough report," agrees Councillor Bob
Chapman, adding staff has already begun to increase its
communications with the Arena User Group.  "I think the
interpretation staff used is correct."

Councillor Nancy Diamond, who was on council in 2002 when the
surcharge was created, saw things similarly.

"My sense of it and what's in the minutes is that was for the
Legends Centre," explains the councillor, while also noting the
practices in place at the GM and Campus Ice Centres were something
she also had misgivings about.

Other councillors saw the surcharge situation in a different
light.

"You heard the delegations.  They were not here because they were
happy," points out Councillor Tito-Dante Marimpietri.  "Why are we
playing hardball with these people? Never would we do that to
another group."

"It (the surcharge) was strictly to do with ice," says Councillor
John Neal, who was also a member of council in 2002.  He claims
when the users came forward hey weren't seeking libraries or
pools.  "That (ice) was it.  It's cut and dry."

Mayor John Henry, who was not on council at the time, says the
report and the auditor general's seal of approval have addressed
any speculation over misappropriation of the fund.  Even the use
of the word "misappropriation" in the council chamber during the
debate drew a few heated exchanges forth between councillors.

Arenas and aging infrastructure like Harman Park, which need
repairs, will have to funded out of the tax levy, explains the
mayor. As for the surcharge, its inception in 2002 is part of the
problem. Staff explained the users were still obligated to pay it
under the current bylaws.

"I think the problem you have is not a lot of us were here when
that report came forward, so we have to rely on the minutes of the
report and the recollections of staff," notes Mayor Henry.  "The
report's well-written. The auditor general confirms that there's
been no ill will, that we've followed the report, all the money is
accounted for."


CATALYST HEALTH: Being Sold to SXC for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Catalyst Health Solutions is
selling itself too cheaply to SXC Health Solutions, for $4.4
billion, or $28 and two-thirds of a share of SXC stock for each
Catalyst share, shareholders say in a class action in Chancery
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Lindell v. Blair, et al., Case No. 7474
(Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/02/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica Zeldin, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 North Market Street, Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
          Telephone: (302) 656-443
          E-mail: jzeldin@rmgglaw.com

               - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500


CHRYSLER GROUP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Chrysler Group LLC continues to defend itself from a consolidated
class action lawsuit pending in a California court and a purported
class action lawsuit pending in an Ontario court alleging
violations of antitrust laws, according to the Company's March 6,
2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

More than 80 purported class action lawsuits alleging violations
of antitrust law are pending against the Company, several other
motor vehicle manufacturers, the National Automobile Dealers
Association and the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association.  Some
complaints were filed in federal courts in various states and
others were filed in state courts.  The complaints allege that the
defendants conspired to prevent the sale to U.S. consumers of
vehicles sold by dealers in Canada in order to maintain new car
prices at artificially high levels in the U.S.  They seek
injunctive relief and treble damages on behalf of everyone who
bought or leased a new vehicle in the U.S. since January 1, 2001.
The federal court actions have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maine for purposes of pretrial
proceedings, and the state cases filed in California have been
consolidated in the California Superior Court in San Francisco
County.  In 2006, the federal court certified a nationwide class
of buyers and lessees for injunctive relief, and, in 2007,
certified damages classes in 20 individual state classes.  The
Court of Appeals reversed the court's certification of the
injunctive class and has dismissed the claim, as well as reversed
and remanded the certification of the damage class.  The federal
court has retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state cases
and is considering the defendants' summary judgment motions.  In
September 2007, a purported class action was filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice claiming that a similar alleged
conspiracy was now preventing lower-cost U.S. vehicles from being
sold to Canadians.  The Company does not believe that it has been
engaged in any unlawful conduct and continues to defend itself
vigorously.


CITIBANK: Faces Class Action Over Student Loan Interest Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susanna Kim, writing for ABC News, reports that a law school
graduate is suing his student loan lender and servicer over what
he claims is a "scheme" to wring additional interest from student
borrowers.

Justin Kuehn, 29, a graduate of George Washington University Law
School, accuses Citibank, Discover and Discover's subsidiary, The
Student Loan Corporation, of "deceiving" borrowers into believing
that their monthly payments had been reduced because of an
interest rate reduction when the payment toward the principal had
just been lowered.  He says he hopes his case becomes a class-
action lawsuit.

Mr. Kuehn, who practices commercial litigation in New York City
with the law firm Brar Wexler Eagel and Squire, is requesting an
injunction and unspecified damages from the defendants for
systematically breaching contracts and violating business law.

By the time Mr. Kuehn graduated from law school in 2007, he had
four separate private graduate school loans.  He consolidated the
four -- two with Citibank and two unsubsidized loans with Sallie
Mae -- with the Student Loan Corporation in November 2007.  The
original balance of his consolidated loan, with a fixed interest
rate of 9.55 percent and standard payments, was $99,148.19.

Mr. Kuehn had an automatic debit monthly payment of $845.72 from
his checking account for four years, occasionally making
additional payments to the principal to repay the loan faster,
until January 2012.  That's when he said the Student Loan
Corporation "unilaterally" dropped his monthly payment to $539.27,
but his interest rate was only reduced by 0.5 percent to 9.05
percent from 9.55 percent.

"They claimed it was due to an interest rate reduction but I knew
that, just by the amount of that drop, that couldn't be correct,"
Mr. Kuehn told ABC News.

His monthly statement read, "The variable interest rate on your
student loan has changed.  Your monthly payment has been adjusted
to reflect the new interest rate, as stated above."

Because of this change, he later learned the amount of principal
being repaid on the loan declined to $42.59 a month from $335.67,
while the amount of interest paid remained "basically the same,"
declining only to $496.68 from $510.05.  Mr. Kuehn said this
information was not disclosed by the lender.

Mr. Kuehn said he was "outraged" when he realized the term of his
loan had been extended without his consent.

"This will lull you into the belief that you are not paying more
interest when in fact you are," he said.  "They've basically
extended the term of your loan and labeled it as a reduction to
the interest rate."

A spokesman for Discover said the bank couldn't comment on pending
litigation.  Discover completed its acquisition of The Student
Loan Corporation, a private student loan business, in January
2011.

Mark Rodgers, a spokesman for Citibank, said the bank has not been
served with the lawsuit, "so we would be unable to speak to the
matter at this point."

Mr. Kuehn's loans are private loans, but federal loan recipients
have reported similar problems, saying they were forced to pay
more interest over a longer period.

The Department of Education has been transferring federal student
loans to loan-servicing companies, similar to The Student Loan
Corporation, which then adjust their payments up or down, the
nonprofit news organization ProPublica reported last week.

"Student loans can be terribly complex and difficult to understand
for even the most sophisticated borrower, much less for a student
who may have limited credit experience," said Gerri Detweiler,
financial expert with Credit.com.  "You shouldn't need a degree in
finance to understand what a student loan will really cost, but
these days it's not a bad idea."

Ms. Detweiler said problems like Mr. Kuehn's are just some of the
"math" problems students run into on their loans.

"If they fall behind and their loans go into default, it can be
even more challenging to get an accurate accounting," she said.

In the suit, Mr. Kuehn said the defendants violated the "customary
and usual business practice" of reducing the principal balance and
maintaining the monthly payment amount when extra payments are
made on a loan, "thus substantially lowering interest costs."

According to public financial aid service, FinAid.org, all federal
and private student loans allow for penalty-free prepayment to pay
off the balance of the loan.

He said he called the Student Loan Corporation's customer service
phone number twice on January 4 and was told he could not return
his monthly loan payments to the original amount.

"The [customer] representative refused to return plaintiff's
monthly payment to the original amount," the filing stated.

"I tried to resolve this with them and they were not open to it,"
Mr. Kuehn told ABC News.

Until the company responds to the lawsuit or his concerns,
Mr.  Kuehn said he continues to make the lower monthly payment on
his loan.

"I'm trying to figure out what's going on," he said.  "Initially
you just want the problem fixed and then you realize there is no
communication on their end, so you're forced to take action."


CITIGROUP INC: Plaintiffs File Amended Class Action Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Forden and Patricia Hurtado, writing for Bloomberg News,
reports that the City of Baltimore and New Britain Firefighters'
Benefit Fund filed a consolidated and amended complaint against
Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse AG, Bank of America Corp. and more
than a dozen other banks, alleging they artificially "suppressed"
the London interbank offered rate.

"This case arises from a global conspiracy to manipulate Libor --
the reference point for determining interest rates for trillions
of dollars in financial instruments worldwide -- by a cadre of
prominent financial institutions," the fund said in the amended
complaint filed in Manhattan federal court.

The complaint is one of four being filed in the class-action
lawsuit on May 1, according to William Butterfield --
wbutterfield@hausfeldllp.com -- a partner with Hausfeld LLP in
Washington.  The firm has been selected as co-lead counsel for the
city of Baltimore in the case.  Baltimore filed its initial
complaint in August.

An analysis by outside consultants found that Libor was suppressed
from 2007 to 2008, allowing the banks to mask their level of risk
during a period of financial crisis, according to the complaint.
"By submitting an artificially low Libor quote," banks send "a
false signal that it is less risky than it truly is," according to
the complaint.

In addition, for banks to submit Libor bids below the Federal
Reserve Eurodollar Deposit Rate, the rate at which banks in the
London Eurodollar market lend U.S. dollars to one another, "would
be extremely unusual and is strong evidence of collusion among the
banks," according to the complaint.

                     Investigations Under Way

Investigations regarding alleged manipulation of Libor are under
way in the U.S., Switzerland, Japan, the U.K., Canada, the
European Union and Singapore by nine government agencies,
including the Justice Department, the Securities and Exchange
Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, according
to the complaint.

The first public notice of the government investigations came when
UBS AG disclosed in a March 2011 filing it had received subpoenas
from the SEC, the CFTC and the Justice Department, and was
cooperating with investigators, according to the complaint.
The Justice Department sent a letter to the federal judge
presiding over the cases, Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan,
saying it is "conducting a criminal investigation into alleged
manipulation of certain benchmark interest rates" including those
for "several currencies" on the Libor exchange.

                         21 Class Actions

Judge Buchwald is presiding over litigation involving 21 class-
action, or group, suits against banks accused of conspiring to
suppress Libor by understating their borrowing costs to the
British Bankers Association.

By manipulating the Libor rate, the banks "surreptitiously bilked
investors -- the lenders -- of their rightful rates of return on
their investments, reaping hundreds of millions, if not billions,
of dollars in ill-gotten gains," according to a second complaint
filed on May 1 by a New York resident, Ellen Gelboim, and Linda
Zacher, of Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania.

The two women, who are beneficiaries of retirement accounts that
owned Libor-based securities, said they and other class members
owned more than $500 billion of Libor-based financial instruments
that paid artificially low returns in the period between August
2007 and May 2010.

Libor is the primary benchmark for short-term interest rates. It
plays a crucial role in the operation of financial markets,
according to the complaint filed by Ms. Gelboim and Ms. Zacher.

                          Basis of Libor

It is based on borrowing rates reported by panels of banks created
by the British Bankers' Association, from which an average rate is
calculated for 10 currencies and for maturities ranging from
overnight to one year, the complaint said.

Libor is used as the basis for securities including the rate of
return on short-term, fixed-rate notes as well as for the pricing
and settlement of Eurodollar futures and options -- the most
actively traded interest-rate futures contracts on the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange, the complaint said.  The British Bankers
Association has called it "the world's most important number" on
its Web site.

The case is In re: LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust
Litigation, 11-MD-2262, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).


COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS: Court Grants Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
A North Carolina trial court granted a motion for class
certification in a lawsuit filed against CompuCredit Holdings
Corporation's subsidiaries, according to the Company's March 6,
2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

CompuCredit Corporation and five of the Company's other
subsidiaries are defendants in a purported class action lawsuit
entitled Knox, et al., vs. First Southern Cash Advance, et al.,
No. 5 CV 0445, filed in the Superior Court of New Hanover County,
North Carolina, on February 8, 2005.  The plaintiffs allege that
in conducting a so-called "payday lending" business, certain
subsidiaries within the Company's Retail Micro-Loans segment (the
operations of which were sold in October 2011, subject to the
Company's retention of liability for this litigation) violated
various laws governing consumer finance, lending, check cashing,
trade practices and loan brokering.  The plaintiffs further allege
that CompuCredit Corporation was the alter ego of the subsidiaries
and is liable for their actions.  The plaintiffs are seeking
damages of up to $75,000 per class member, and attorney's fees.
These claims are similar to those that have been asserted against
several other market participants in transactions involving small-
balance, short-term loans made to consumers in North Carolina.  On
January 23, 2012, among other orders, the trial court denied the
defendants' motion to compel arbitration, and granted the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The Company is
vigorously defending this lawsuit.


COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS: Suit Over Visa Card Issuance Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
CompuCredit Holdings Corporation continues to defend a class
action lawsuit filed in California in connection with the issuance
of Aspire Visa card, according to the Company's March 6, 2012, 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

CompuCredit Corporation is named as a defendant in a class action
lawsuit entitled Wanda Greenwood, et al. vs. CompuCredit
Corporation and Columbus Bank and Trust, No. 4:08-cv-4878, filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The plaintiffs allege that in marketing and managing
the Aspire Visa card the defendants violated the federal Credit
Repair Organizations Act and California Unfair Competition Law.
The class includes all persons who within the four years prior to
the filing of the lawsuit were issued an Aspire Visa card or paid
money with respect thereto.  The plaintiffs seek various forms of
damage, including unspecified monetary damages and the voiding of
the plaintiffs' obligations.  On January 10, 2012, the U.S.
Supreme Court ordered that the claims related to the Credit Repair
Organizations Act are subject to arbitration.  The Company is
vigorously defending this lawsuit.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bid in Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 25, 2012, Honorable David O. Carter denied Coventry
Health Care's motion for summary judgment in a class action
lawsuit alleging that the Healthcare company improperly classified
case managers as exempt vs. non-exempt from California overtime
requirements.  The Court also, on its own, granted summary
judgment in favor of the case managers on the issue of whether
they are exempt from coverage under California overtime laws.  See
Rieve v. Coventry Health Care, Inc, et al. in the Federal Court
for the Central District of California, Case No. 11:CV:1032.

The employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
filed a brief opposing Coventry's motion for summary judgment,
arguing that Coventry failed to carry their burden that Plaintiff
came within the California overtime exemptions.  According to the
opposition filed by the California employment lawyers at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, "Plaintiff's primary job duty
consisted of 'routine, clerical duties' which are non -exempt."
Specifically, in regards to the coverage under the California
administrative exemption the opposition stated, "Plaintiff did not
perform work in any of the management or general business
operational areas, but rather engaged in the day-to-day case
management services for customers and patients."

The Honorable David O. Carter agreed, denying Coventry's motion
for summary judgment on Plaintiff's California state law overtime
claim, and further ruled that Plaintiff was entitled to summary
judgment on the issue of whether the case managers are exempt vs.
non-exempt from coverage under California overtime laws.

When asked about the court's ruling, managing partner of
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Norm Blumenthal,
stated,"Coventry Health and any other company involved in this
illegal practice of classifying employees performing non-exempt
tasks as exempt from overtime wages is illegal and needs to be
stopped."  Blumenthal added, "this is a big win for employees in
the state of California."

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is an employment law firm with
offices located in San Diego, San Francisco and Los Angeles.  The
firm dedicates its practice to contigency fee employment law work
for issues involving overtime pay, wrongful termination,
discrimination and other California labor laws.


DUCOMMUN INC: Delaware Class Suit Settlement Approved
-----------------------------------------------------
Ducommun Incorporated received in January court approval of a
settlement entered in a purported stockholders class action
lawsuit filed in a Delaware court, according to the Company's
March 5, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Ducommun was named as a defendant in class actions filed in April,
2011 by purported stockholders of LaBarge against LaBarge, Inc.,
its Board of Directors and Ducommun in connection with the LaBarge
acquisition in 2011.  In January 2012, the Delaware Chancery Court
approved the settlement of the class action which included the
payment of $600,000 for plaintiffs' attorney fees.


EXMARK MANUFACTURING: Recalls 2,200 Quest 42" ZRT Riding Mowers
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 2,200 Exmark Quest 42" ZRT Riding Mowers were voluntarily
recalled by Exmark Mfg. Co. Inc., of Beatrice, Nebraska, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Bearings supporting the riding mower's deck can fail and cause the
deck to interfere with the operator's controls, resulting in a
crash hazard.

Exmark has received 18 reports of incidents.  No injuries have
been reported.

This recall involves 2009-2010 Exmark Quest ZRT riding mowers with
42-inch mower decks, model number "QST20BE422" and serial numbers
ranging from 790,000 through 860,652.  The model and serial
numbers are on a metal plate behind the seat.  "Exmark" is printed
on the side and "Quest" is printed on the front of the mowers.
The mowers are red and gray.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12732.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at Exmark dealers nationwide from March 2009
through April 2010 for between $4,200 and $4,400.

Consumers should stop using the recalled mowers immediately and
contact an Exmark dealer to schedule a free repair and/or to check
if the repair has already been made to the mower.  Exmark has
contacted registered owners of the recalled mowers.  For more
information, contact Exmark at (800) 667-5296 between 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.exmark.com/safety.aspx/


FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Unit Continues to Defend "McGrogan" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
First Commonwealth Financial Corporation's bank subsidiary
continues to defend itself from a class action lawsuit styled
McGrogan v. First Commonwealth Bank, according to the Company's
March 5, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

McGrogan v. First Commonwealth Bank is a class action that was
filed on January 12, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.  The action alleges that First
Commonwealth Bank promised class members a minimum interest rate
of 8% on its IRA Market Rate Savings Account for as long as the
class members kept their money on deposit in the IRA account.  The
class asserts that First Commonwealth committed fraud, breached
its modified contract with the class members, and violated the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law
when it resigned as custodian of the IRA Market Rate Savings
Accounts in 2008 and offered the class members a roll-over IRA
account with a 3.5% interest rate.  At that time, aggregate
balances in the IRA Market Rate Savings accounts totaled
approximately $11.5 million.  The class members seek monetary
damages for the alleged breach of contract, punitive damages for
the alleged fraud and Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer
Protection Law violations, and attorney's fees.  On July 27, 2011,
the court granted class certification as to breach of contract
claim and denied class certification as to the fraud and
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law
claims.  On December 20, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment, and on February 27, 2012, First
Commonwealth Bank filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Brief
in Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment.  Oral argument on these Motions was scheduled for April
2012.  The amount of liability, if any, will depend upon
information which is not presently known to the Bank, including
the Court's interpretation of the IRA contract and each class
member's life expectancy and pace of distributions from the IRA
account.  Accordingly, the Company is unable to estimate the
amount or range of a reasonably possible loss.


FIRST DATA: Appeal in ATM Fee Antitrust Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated class action
lawsuit against First Data Corporation and its subsidiary and
other financial institutions alleging violations of antitrust laws
relating to ATM fees is still pending, according to the Company's
March 5, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On July 2, 2004, Pamela Brennan, Terry Crayton, and Darla Martinez
filed a class action complaint on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Company, its
subsidiary Concord EFS, Inc., and various financial institutions
("Brennan").  Plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated
antitrust laws by conspiring to artificially inflate foreign ATM
fees that were ultimately charged to ATM cardholders.  Plaintiffs
seek a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the
nature of the case may require or as may seem just and proper to
the court.  Five similar suits were filed and served in July,
August and October 2004, two in the Central District of California
(Los Angeles), two in the Southern District of New York, and one
in the Western District of Washington (Seattle).  All cases were
transferred to the Northern District Court of California and the
Court consolidated all of the ATM interchange cases pending
against the defendants in Brennan (referred to collectively as the
"ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation").

On August 3, 2007, Concord filed a motion for summary judgment
seeking to dismiss plaintiffs' per se claims.  On March 24, 2008,
the Court entered an order granting the defendants' motions for
partial summary judgment.  On February 2, 2009, the plaintiffs
filed a Second Amended Complaint and on April 6, 2009, the
defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.
On September 4, 2009, the Court entered an order dismissing the
Second Amended Complaint and, on October 16, 2009, the plaintiffs
filed a Third Amended Complaint.  The defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on November 13, 2009.  On June
21, 2010, the Court partially dismissed plaintiffs' Third Amended
Complaint and ordered the parties to brief a summary judgment on
an alternative claim by plaintiffs.  On September 16, 2010, the
Court entered an order granting defendants' motion for summary
judgment, dismissing all of the claims against the defendants
except for the claims for equitable relief.  The Court granted
judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing the case on
September 17, 2010.  On October 14, 2010, the plaintiffs appealed
the summary judgment.

The Company believes the complaints are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend them.


HACHETTE: E-Book Price-Fixing Conspiracy Class Action Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff John Roberts, writing for paidContent, reports that
publishers Hachette and HarperCollins slipped further away from
the class action lawyer who wants them to pay over an alleged
e-book price-fixing conspiracy.

In an order signed on May 1 in New York federal court, Justice
Denise Cote ruled that the class action could be halted on the
grounds that the publishers are close to a consumer restitution
settlement with state governments.

What this means in practice is that the class action lawyers will
be frozen out because the state governments' deal trumps the
consumer class action.

In a letter to Justice Cote, lead class action lawyer Steve Berman
said the court should only suspend part of the proceedings because
many states might not take part in the agreement.  He also said
the two publishers should have to share documents related to the
Justice Department's antitrust investigation, but the judge's
order means that will not happen for now.

The two publishers, for their part, have entered a memorandum of
understanding with several states, and have suggested a deal with
all 50 states is imminent.  The publishers would likely have to
pay millions under a settlement, but it would allow them to escape
the class action proceedings and avoid the risk of a jury award
that could be even higher.

Class action lawyers filed more than two dozen suits last summer,
accusing five publishers of conspiring with Apple to wrest pricing
power from Amazon.  The Justice Department reached a settlement
with three of the publishers last month.  Critics say the deal is
a gift to Amazon.

Publisher Simon & Schuster is also in talks with the state
governments but did not receive a stay last week because it hasn't
signed a formal memorandum.

Meanwhile, two other publishers, Macmillan and Penguin, are
denying the conspiracy and fighting both the class action lawyers
and the government.  Penguin is claiming the class action is
invalid because users of Amazon Kindle and Barnes & Noble's Nook
agreed to settle any disputes through arbitration.

Apple has also denied all conspiracy allegations and is digging in
for a long fight.


HARLEYSVILLE GROUP: Merger-related Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated putative class action lawsuit challenging the
merger of Harleysville Mutual Insurance Group into Nationwide
Mutual Insurance Company remains pending, according to
Harleysville Group, Inc.'s March 5, 2012 Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

After the announcement of the proposed merger of HMIC into
Nationwide Mutual, HMIC received five letters on behalf of
purported policyholders objecting to the Merger.  Five lawsuits
were filed against HMIC brought by purported policyholders
challenging the proposed transaction.

In particular, on November 16, 2011, HMIC received a letter from
lawyers representing Roger Brown, a purported policyholder/member
of Harleysville Mutual.  The letter demanded that the Harleysville
Mutual Board of Directors take appropriate action to correct
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the directors of
Harleysville Mutual which he claimed caused harm to Harleysville
Mutual in connection with the Merger (the "Brown Demand").

Among the actions sought by the Brown Demand were terminating the
Merger Agreement, analyzing other merger or demutualization
options that may be available to Harleysville Mutual, forming a
committee of three new directors to oversee a potential change of
control or other strategic alternative, and taking such other
action as may be deemed in the best interest of the policyholders.

On December 5, 2011, Mr. Brown filed suit against the directors of
Harleysville Mutual, Harleysville Group, Nationwide Mutual and
Nationals Sub, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery
County, Pennsylvania.  The complaint asserted one derivative claim
on behalf of Harleysville Mutual against the directors for breach
of fiduciary duty and two putative class claims on behalf of the
policyholders/members of Harleysville Mutual.  The complaint
generally alleged, among other things, that the director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the
Merger Agreement because of conflicts of interest.  It asserted
that the non-director defendants, including Nationwide Mutual,
aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty by the
directors.  Mr. Brown later dismissed this suit voluntarily.

On November 22, 2011, another purported policyholder/member of
Harleysville Mutual, OCL Corporation ("OCL"), filed a complaint in
the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.  The next day,
OCL's counsel sent a letter to Harleysville Mutual's Board of
Directors demanding that Harleysville Mutual take suitable
corrective measures or other action with respect to the allegedly
wrongful acts described in the OCL complaint (the "OCL Demand").
The complaint filed by OCL asserted one derivative claim on behalf
of Harleysville Mutual, alleging that the directors of
Harleysville Mutual breached their fiduciary duties in entering
into the Merger Agreement.  The OCL complaint also asserted
putative class action claims on behalf of all policyholders of
Harleysville Mutual asserting that the directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the policyholders, that the Merger transaction
was fundamentally unfair, and asking that the Court impose a
constructive trust on all of the Group Merger consideration to be
paid by Nationwide Mutual to the stockholders of Harleysville
Group so that the money could be distributed to the policyholders
of Harleysville Mutual.

On December 1, 2011, Harleysville Mutual received another letter
on behalf of a separate putative policyholder of Harleysville
Mutual, Andrew Tignanelli, demanding that Harleysville Mutual take
appropriate action to correct alleged breaches of fiduciary duty
by the directors of Harleysville Mutual in connection with the
Merger (the "Tignanelli Demand").  The Tignanelli Demand mirrored
the Brown Demand.  On December 16, 2011, Mr. Tignanelli filed a
complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
which was similar to the complaint filed by Mr. Brown on
December 5, 2011.  In addition to seeking injunctive and other
equitable relief as in the Brown case, plaintiff Tignanelli
included a count for declaratory relief seeking a declaration that
the Harleysville Mutual Special Litigation Committee is unable to
fulfill its mandate or otherwise protect the interests of
Harleysville Mutual.

On December 6, 2011, without making any demand, another purported
policyholder of Harleysville Mutual, 34 Butler Real Estate, LLC
("34 Butler"), filed another complaint in the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County against the directors of Harleysville
Mutual, Harleysville Mutual itself, Harleysville Group and
Nationwide Mutual.  The 34 Butler complaint contains the same
allegations that the Harleysville Mutual Board of Directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger and
asserts several putative class action claims, including a request
to enjoin the Merger, a claim for unjust enrichment, breach of
duty, aiding and abetting a breach of duty and a request for a
constructive trust.  On December 7, 2011, 34 Butler's counsel sent
a letter to HMIC's Board of Directors demanding that the Board
terminate or rescind the proposed merger agreement with
Nationwide, and commence legal action for breach of fiduciary duty
and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

On December 30, 2011, another purported policyholder/member of
Harleysville Mutual, Nancy L. Goldstein, filed a complaint in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.  On January 19,
2012, Goldstein's counsel sent a letter to Harleysville Mutual's
Board of Directors demanding that Harleysville Mutual take
suitable corrective measures or other action with respect to the
allegedly wrongful acts described in the Goldstein complaint (the
"Goldstein Demand").  The complaint filed by Goldstein asserted
one derivative claim on behalf of Harleysville Mutual, alleging
that the directors of Harleysville Mutual breached their fiduciary
duties in entering into the Merger Agreement.  The Goldstein
complaint also asserted putative class action claims on behalf of
all policyholders of Harleysville Mutual asserting that the Merger
transaction was fundamentally unfair, and asking that the Court
impose a constructive trust on all of the Group Merger
consideration to be paid by Nationwide Mutual to the stockholders
of Harleysville Group so that the money could be distributed to
the policyholders of Harleysville Mutual.

On January 30, 2012, plaintiffs filed in that Court a Consolidated
Amended Complaint ("CAC") before the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County.  As a result, the special litigation
committee has focused its analysis herein on the claims set forth
in the CAC.


JP MORGAN: Faces Suit Over Pricey "Forced-Place" Flood Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shelly A. Clements, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., a National Banking
Association, Case No. 3:12-cv-02179 (N.D. Calif., May 1, 2012)
challenges the practice of the Defendant, doing business as Chase
Home Finance, L.L.C, of purchasing "forced-place" flood insurance
for the home loan mortgage accounts it services through an
affiliated insurance brokerage entity that charges a premium far
higher by a factor of 10 times than the cost otherwise readily
available in the marketplace, including through the National Flood
Insurance Program.

The Plaintiff alleges that Chase engages in this practice because
the so-called "affiliated" insurance broker is a direct or
indirect Chase subsidiary that collects a sizeable commission on
each of these transactions, because Chase's parent-company has a
substantial financial interest in the third-party insurer
utilized, and because said third-party insurer provides Chase
other benefits in exchange for the business relationship.  She
asserts that Chase obtained a forced-place policy with an annual
premium of $2,250.  However, on February 28, 2011, she obtained
comparable NFIP insurance for an annual premium of $235.

Ms. Clements is a resident of Richmond, California.

Chase, a subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co., is a national banking
association that conducts business throughout the United
States of America, including California.  Chase Home is a Delaware
Limited Liability Company that was the primary loan servicer for
all loans originated by or acquired by the JPMorgan Chase & Co.
family.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  toml@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Peter B. Fredman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER FREDMAN
          125 University Ave., Suite 102
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 868-2626
          Facsimile: (510) 868-2627
          E-mail: peter@peterfredmanlaw.com


MATCH.COM: Class Actions Prompts New Safeguards for Online Daters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Webb, the San Francisco attorney who pressured Match.com to
screen its members for all registered sex offenders, welcomed the
news from California State Attorney General Kamela Harris' office
in March.

The Attorney General, on March 20 announced that three of the
nation's leading online dating providers issued a joint statement
of business principles that online dating providers should follow
to help protect members from identity theft, financial scams and
sexual predators.

Mr. Webb initiated the first case to force a dating site to screen
for sex offenders (Jane Doe vs. Match.com, Los Angeles Superior
Court Case #BC458927). The victim in the case was a woman from Los
Angeles who met her assailant on a date arranged through
Match.com, only later to find out that he was a convicted serial
sex offender.

A link to the full article is available at http://is.gd/ebodEj


MERCK SHARP: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Fosamax Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
federal appeals court, in a ruling on May 1, upheld a lower
court's dismissal of claims against Merck Sharp and Dohme
Corporation, the manufacturer of prescription drug Fosamax.

In its seven-page opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The district court had concluded that the statute of limitations
for a group of plaintiffs' product liability claims -- brought
under Virginia law -- was not tolled by the filing of a putative
federal class action that raised identical claims.

Fosamax is used to treat osteoporosis.  It falls within a class of
drugs that has allegedly been linked to osteonecrosis, or bone
death, of the jaw.

The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee on Sept. 15, 2005, in the case of
Wolfe v. Merck and Co., before the Virginia plaintiffs filed their
individual lawsuits.

The federal class action later was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

The Southern District of New York dismissed the Virginia
plaintiffs' claims as time-barred and granted summary judgment to
Merck.

The Second Circuit determined that state law controlled the
availability of tolling and certified two questions regarding
equitable and statutory cross-jurisdictional tolling to the
Virginia Supreme Court in August 2011:

- Does Virginia law permit equitable tolling of a state statute of
limitations due to the pendency of a putative class action in
another jurisdiction?

- Also, does Va. Code Ann. Sec. 8.01-229(E)(1) permit tolling of a
state statute of limitations due to the pendency of a putative
class action in another jurisdiction?

The state's high court answered the questions March 2, both in the
negative.

It concluded that Virginia recognizes "neither equitable nor
statutory tolling due to the pendency of a putative class action
in another jurisdiction."

In its ruling this week, the Second Circuit said it affirmed the
Southern District of New York's judgment based on the high court's
answers.

"The plaintiffs' arguments on appeal relied exclusively on their
contention that the statute of limitations should have been tolled
during the pendency of the Wolfe putative class action.  The
Supreme Court of Virginia has now confirmed that, under Virginia
law, neither Virginia's tolling statute nor equitable principles
provide for cross-jurisdictional tolling under these
circumstances," Judge Raymond J. Lohier Jr. wrote for the Second
Circuit.

"Its decision requires us to affirm the District Court's grant of
summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims are
time-barred."

So far, Merck has won five of six cases that have gone to trial.


NETFLIX INC: Subscribers Ask Court to Overturn $27.2MM Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Rizo, writing for FierceOnlineVideo, reports that a handful
of Netflix Inc. subscribers have asked a federal appeals court to
overturn a $27.2 million class-action settlement that they say
unfairly gives plaintiffs' lawyers over $8 million in fees for
bringing suit over the marketing agreement the movie service
company entered into with Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

The settlement calls for members of the class to receive a pro-
rata share of the $27 million settlement amount.  That is after
attorneys' fees are paid.

Since the settlement's approval in a California federal court, a
handful of objectors have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeal for
the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco.  Among appellants is
Theodore Frank, a nationally noted litigation expert and founder
of the Washington-based Center for Class Action Fairness.

In an interview with FierceOnlineVideo, he said the terms of the
settlement are not in the best interest of the class, as required
by federal law.

"The settlement is so patently one that benefits the attorneys
without really giving anything to the class members," Mr. Frank
said, noting the agreement calls for the payment of attorneys fees
in excess of the Ninth Circuit's 25 percent benchmark.

Moreover, he said, the settlement is inadequate.

"There are so many class members that if every class member had
filed for a claim, they would have gotten less than a dollar
each," Mr. Frank said.  The settlement "benefits class counsel at
the expense of its clients," he said.

In settling the case, Bentonville, Ark.-headquartered Wal-Mart
sought to resolve antitrust claims that the retail behemoth acted
with Netflix to corner the market for online DVD sales and
rentals.

Although Wal-Mart has sought to settle the lawsuit, Los Gatos,
Calif.-based Netflix refused to do so, arguing the class action
complaint is baseless.  The company won its case in 2011.

The class-action lawsuit, first filed in January 2009, alleged
that Wal-Mart and Netflix entered into an illegal marketing
agreement in which Wal-Mart exited the online video rental market
and Netflix discontinued sales of new DVDs.  Plaintiffs argued
that the cross-promotion agreement was anticompetitive and caused
Netflix subscribers to face increased prices for online DVD
rentals.

Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California approved Wal-Mart's settlement March 29,
less than two weeks after holding a fairness hearing at which time
the judge considered objections by dozens of class members,
including Mr. Frank.

Under the agreement, settlement payments would be made in cash to
class members who spend the 44 cents to mail a claim or in the
form of gift cards for claims filed online.

Since Wal-Mart gift cards would be issued, this is a so-called
coupon settlement for which there are special provisions under the
federal Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA; Pub.L. 109-2),
Mr. Frank said.

Signed into law in 2005 by President George W. Bush, CAFA requires
that attorneys' fees be based on the value of settlement coupons
distributed to class members.  Therefore, Mr. Frank argued, the
district court erred by "prematurely" approving an order awarding
plaintiffs' legal fees.

"Children may be forgiven for wanting their dessert before eating
their vegetables, but class counsel's behavior in determining its
own fee in the absence of an open and transparent determination of
what the class will receive is more troubling," Mr. Frank wrote in
his objection to the then-proposed settlement.

What's more, Mr. Frank told FierceOnlineVideo, the Ninth Circuit
has a benchmark for the payment of attorneys' fees: 25 percent of
what the class receives, based on the redemption rate of the
coupons.

Mr. Frank said parties in the case -- including class counsel and
attorneys for Wal-Mart -- argued before the district court that
CAFA did not apply to the litigation because settlement funds
would be "dispursed via gift-card credit, not in the form of
coupons."

"They were calling coupons 'gift cards' even though they're
economically indistinguishable from a coupon," Mr. Frank said.
"The vast majority of courts don't fall for that; but, for
whatever reason, this one did."

Eligible for the Wal-Mart settlement class were individuals and
entities that paid Netflix subscription fees anytime May 19, 2005
to Sept. 2, 2011.

Lead class counsel in the case was Robert Abrams --
rabrams@bakerlaw.com -- and Gregory Baker -- gbaker@bakerlaw.com
-- both partner at Baker Hostetler LLP in Washington. Represeting
Wal-Mart was Lawrence DiNardo -- lcdinardo@jonesday.com -- and
Paula Render -- prender@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day in Chicago.
Netflix was represented by the New York firm of Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati.

The district court case is: In Re Online DVD Rental Antitrust
Litigation, No. 4:09-md-2029 PJH, N.D. Cal. (Oakland). Frank's
appeal is 9th Cir. No. 12-15705 (San Francisco).


NETFLIX INC: Revises Terms of Use to Avert Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Matt Brownell, writing for The Street, reports that in an update
to its terms of service made earlier in March, Netflix states in
no uncertain terms that users who have disputes with the company
must submit to binding arbitration, and will not have the option
to join a class-action suit.

"You and Netflix agree that any dispute, claim or controversy
arising out of or relating in any way to the Netflix service,
including our website, user interfaces, these Terms of Use and
this Arbitration Agreement, shall be determined by binding
arbitration instead of in courts of general jurisdiction . . . YOU
AND NETFLIX AGREE THAT EACH MAY BRING CLAIMS AGAINST THE OTHER
ONLY IN YOUR OR ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, AND NOT AS A PLAINTIFF OR
CLASS MEMBER IN ANY PURPORTED CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDING,"
reads the new terms.

A link to the full article is available at http://is.gd/xz7eY6


NEW ENERGY: Faces Suit for Alleged Securities Law Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
New Energy Systems Group is facing a putative class action lawsuit
in New York for alleged violations of securities law, according to
the Company's March 6, 2012, 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the month ended February 29, 2012.

On February 28, 2012, a putative class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against New Energy Systems Group and Fushun Li, Nian Chen, Junfeng
Chen, Weihe Yu, who served as officers and directors of the
Company between April 15, 2010 and November 14, 2011.  In the
complaint, the plaintiff asserts claims for alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in connection with purported
misrepresentations contained in the Company's public filings and
press releases.  The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory
damages.  The Company's time to answer or otherwise respond to the
complaint has not yet expired.  The Company believes the complaint
has no merit and intends to vigorously oppose the lawsuit.


NL INDUSTRIES: Lead Pigment-Related Suits Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Certain lawsuits, including putative class action lawsuits,
involving NL Industries, Inc.'s former manufacture of lead
pigments, are still pending, according to the Company's March 6,
2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company's former operations included the manufacture of lead
pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint.  The Company,
other former manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and
lead-based paint (together, the "former pigment manufacturers")
and the Lead Industries Association ("LIA"), which discontinued
business operations in 2002, have been named as defendants in
various legal proceedings seeking damages for personal injury,
property damage and governmental expenditures allegedly caused by
the use of lead-based paints.  Certain of these actions have been
filed by or on behalf of states, counties, cities or their public
housing authorities and school districts, and certain others have
been asserted as class actions.  These lawsuits seek recovery
under a variety of theories, including public and private
nuisance, negligent product design, negligent failure to warn,
strict liability, breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of
action, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, market share or
risk contribution liability, intentional tort, fraud and
misrepresentation, violations of state consumer protection
statutes, supplier negligence and similar claims.

The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the
defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health
concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including
damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification
for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for
educational programs.  To the extent the plaintiffs seek
compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages
are unspecified unless otherwise indicated.  In some cases, the
damages are unspecified pursuant to the requirements of applicable
state law.  A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed
or withdrawn.  Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-
trial stages.  Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary
judgment rulings in favor of either the defendants or the
plaintiffs.  In addition, various other cases are pending (in
which the Company is not a defendant) that seek recovery for
injury allegedly caused by lead pigment and lead-based paint.
Although the Company is not a defendant in these cases, the
outcome of these cases may have an impact on cases that might be
filed against the Company in the future.

The Company believes that these actions are without merit, and the
Company intends to continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing
and liability and to defend against all actions vigorously.  The
Company has never settled any of the market share, risk
contribution, intentional tort, fraud, nuisance, supplier
negligence, breach of warranty, conspiracy, misrepresentation,
aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, or statutory cases nor
have any final, non-appealable, adverse judgments against the
Company has been entered.

The Company has not accrued any amounts for any of the pending
lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation cases.  Liability
that may result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated.  In
addition, new cases may continue to be filed against the Company.
The Company cannot assure that it will not incur liability in the
future in respect of any of the pending or possible litigation in
view of the inherent uncertainties involved in court and jury
rulings.  The resolution of any of these cases could result in
recognition of a loss contingency accrual that could have a
material adverse impact on the Company's net income for the
interim or annual period during which such liability is
recognized, and a material adverse impact on the Company's
consolidated financial condition and liquidity.


PHILIP MORRIS: Wins Landmark Tobacco Class Action in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Broward, writing for Jacksonville.com, reported that The
tobacco companies have now won their second federal case from
Florida's landmark class action after a jury in Jacksonville sided
against a family on March 19.

The case was brought on by Anita Young McCray, representing the
estate of her father, Mercedia Wilbert Walker.

Ms. McCray is one of the approximately 8,000 plaintiffs who filed
lawsuits against the tobacco industry after a 2006 Florida Supreme
Court ruling decertified the Engle class action in which a jury
had awarded sick smokers $145 billion.

In a statement from Philip Morris, the tobacco giant noted that
approximately two-thirds of its cases tried in Florida since
January have resulted in verdicts in its favor or in mistrials.

A link to the full article is available at http://is.gd/Xqz1XO


RELIANT TECHNOLOGIES: Sued for Sending Unsolicited Facsimiles
-------------------------------------------------------------
Physicians Healthsource, Inc., an Ohio corporation, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons
v. Reliant Technologies, Inc., Solta Medical, Inc., and John Does
1-10, Case No. 3:12-cv-02180 (N.D. Calif., May 1, 2012) challenges
the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Unsolicited faxes damage their recipients because a junk fax
recipient loses the use of its fax machine, paper, and ink toner,
the Plaintiff contends.  The Plaintiff adds that an unsolicited
fax wastes the recipients' valuable time that would have been
spent on something else.

Physicians Healthsource is an Ohio corporation located in
Cincinnati, Ohio.

Reliant Technologies and Solta Medical are Delaware corporations
with their principal place of business in Hayward, California.
The Does Defendants will be identified through discovery, but are
not presently known to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
                  wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com


SMART BALANCE: Bid to Dismiss New Jersey Lawsuit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Smart Balance Inc. is awaiting a court ruling on its motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit brought against it over alleged
deceptive labeling of its products, according to the Company's
March 6, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On October 19, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Smart Balance, Inc. in the U.S. District Court, District of New
Jersey alleging that the labeling and marketing of the Company's
Smart Balance(R) Fat Free Milk and Omega-3 product is unfair,
deceptive, and improper because the product contains 1 gram of fat
from an Omega-3 oil blend.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss
in response to the complaint and subsequently the plaintiff filed
an amended complaint.  The Company has subsequently filed another
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend itself in this litigation.  The Company does not
expect that the resolution of this matter will have a material
adverse effect on its business.


SOVEREIGN BANK: Faces Class Action Over Second-Mortgage Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Missouri law
allows second mortgage lenders to charge usurious rates, but
Sovereign Bank adds to homebuyers' woes by charging illegally high
fees on second mortgages, a class action claims in Jackson County
Court.

"The MSMLA [Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act] enables second
mortgage lenders to charge and extraordinary and what would
otherwise be a usurious rate of interest for residential second
mortgage loans (since August of 1998 the rate has been
unlimited)," lead plaintiff Daniel Thompson says in the complaint.
"In exchange, the MSMLA strictly limits the type and amount of
fees that can be directly or indirectly charged, contracted for or
received in connection with any mortgage loan."

But Mr. Thompson says that Sovereign Bank and originating lenders
charged, directly or indirectly, fees that include an abstract or
title search fee, CJ Processing fee[undefined], closing/credit
fee, credit report fee, document preparation fee, loan origination
fee, loan processing fee, mortgage broker fee, origination fee,
processing/broker fee, recording fee, settlement or closing fee,
signing fee, sub-escrow/UPS/App fee, title examination fee, title
insurance fee, underwriting fee and a yield spread premium fee.

"In addition, the originating lenders also charged, contracted for
and received pre-paid interest in connection with the Sovereign
Bank related second mortgage loans," the complaint states.
Mr. Thompson says Sovereign Bank knew or should have known that
its fees and interest were illegal.

"Sovereign Bank consciously disregarded Missouri law and the
rights of the plaintiffs and the Sovereign Bank second mortgage
class at, during and/or after the time it funded, purchased,
acquired, serviced or master serviced the Sovereign Bank related
second Mortgage loans by failing and refusing to determine whether
the loans fees the borrowers financed and repaid complied with the
MSMLA," the complaint states.

The class consists of anybody who obtained a second mortgage loan
from Century Financial Group on or after June 28, 1994, or SMC
Lending on or after June 29, 1994, or Preferred Credit Corporation
on or after June 27, 1994 or First Consumers Mortgage on or after
June 23, 1994 or Bann-Cor Mortgage on or after Oct. 31, 1994, that
was secured by a mortgage or a deed of trust on a residential
property in Missouri and was assigned to, owned by, held or
serviced by Sovereign Bank.

Mr. Thompson seeks actual and punitive damages for violations of
the MSMLA, a ruling prohibiting the defendant from continuing to
violate the MSMLA, disgorgement of all improperly collected fees
and a ruling allowing the class members the right to rescind their
loan transactions.

A copy of the Complaint in Thompson, et al. v. Sovereign Bank,
N.A., Case No. 1216-CV09804 (Mo. Cir. Ct., Jackson Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/02/Seconds.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Frederick Walters, Esq.
          Kip D. Richards, Esq.
          David M. Skeens, Esq.
          J. Michael Vaughan, Esq.
          Garrett M. Hodes, Esq.
          WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, P.C.
          2500 City Center Square
          1100 Main Street
          P.O. Box 26188
          Kansas City, MO 64916
          Telephone: (816) 421-6620
          E-mail: fwalters@wbsvlaw.com
                  krichards@wbsvlaw.com
                  dskeens@wbsvlaw.com
                  mvaughan@wbsvlaw.com
                  ghodes@wbsvlaw.com


SPRINT NEXTEL: Sued for Failing to Collect and Remit Sales Tax
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System,
Derivatively on Behalf of Itself, and All Others Similarly
Situated vs. Dan R. Hesse, Joseph J. Euteneur, Robert H. Brust,
Paul N. Saleh, James H. Hance, Jr., Robert R. Bennett, Gordon M.
Bethune, Larry C. Glasscock, V. Janet Hill, Frank Ianna, Sven-
Christer Nilsson, William R. Nuti, and Rodney O'Neal, and Sprint
Nextel Corp., Case No. 651436/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 30, 2012)
is a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of nominal
defendant Sprint Nextel against its Board of Directors and certain
executive officers for breach of their fiduciary duties of good
faith and fair dealing owed to the Company and its shareholders.

The Plaintiff alleges that beginning in 2005, Sprint Nextel
illegally failed to collect sales taxes from its customers and to
pay over to New York state and local sales tax authorities the
appropriate sales taxes.  Rather, LMPERS contends, the Company
arbitrarily excluded a set portion of its revenue from these fixed
monthly charges.  To carry out this fraudulent practice, LMPERS
adds, Sprint Nextel repeatedly and knowingly submitted false
records and statements to New York State tax authorities.

LMPERS is a current shareholder of Sprint Nextel.

Sprint Nextel, a Kansas corporation, offers a comprehensive range
of wireless and wireline communications services to consumers,
businesses and government users.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
          ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES
          60 East 42nd St. 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 867-1156
          Facsimile: (212) 504-8343
          E-mail: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          Whitney E. Street, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 1303
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: jblock@blockesq.com
                  jleviton@blockesq.com
                  wstreet@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Laurence Paskowitz, Esq.
          THE PASKOWITZ LAW FIRM, P.C.
          60 East 42nd St. 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 685-0969
          Facsimile: (212) 685-2306
          E-mail: classattorney@aol.com


SUREWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Surewest Communications continues to defend itself from two
putative shareholders class action lawsuits challenging its
proposed merger with Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc.,
according to the Company's March 5, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

The Company, its board of directors and Consolidated are named as
defendants in two putative class action lawsuits brought by
alleged Company shareholders challenging the Company's proposed
merger with Consolidated Communications.  The shareholder actions
were filed in the Superior Court of California, Placer County.
The actions are called Needles v. SureWest Communications, et al.,
filed February 17, 2012, Case No. SCV0030665, and Errecart v.
Oldham, et al., filed February 24, 2012, Case No. SCV0030703.  The
actions generally allege, among other things, that each member of
the Company's board of directors breached fiduciary duties to the
Company and its shareholders by authorizing the sale of the
Company to Consolidated for consideration that allegedly is unfair
to the Company's shareholders.  The complaints also allege that
Consolidated and the Company aided and abetted the breaches of
fiduciary duties allegedly committed by the members of the
Company's board of directors.  The shareholder actions seek
equitable relief, including an order to the defendants from
consummating the merger on the agreed-upon terms.  The Company
believes the allegations made in these complaints are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend these actions.


SYNOPSIS INC: Inked MOU to Resolve Merger-Related Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Synopsis, Inc., in February, entered into a memorandum of
understanding to resolve four putative stockholder class action
lawsuits challenging the Company's merger agreement with Magma
Design Automation, Inc., according to the Company's March 6, 2012
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended January 31, 2012.

In connection with the Company's definitive merger agreement to
acquire Magma, four putative stockholder class actions were filed
against Magma, Magma's board of directors, Synopsys and the
Synopsys merger subsidiary on December 5, 2011, December 9, 2011,
December 13, 2011, and December 19, 2011, in state court in
California and Delaware (collectively, the Magma Lawsuits).  The
Magma Lawsuits allege, among other things, that Magma and its
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Magma's stockholders
in negotiating and entering into the definitive merger agreement
and by agreeing to sell Magma at an unfair price, and that Magma
and Synopsys aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties.  On February 10, 2012, the parties entered into a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) in which they agreed on the
terms of a proposed settlement of the lawsuits, which would
include the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all of
the defendants.  Pursuant to the MOU, Magma agreed to make certain
additional disclosures concerning Magma's acquisition by Synopsys,
which supplemented the information provided in Magma's proxy
statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 10, 2012, and to pay certain legal fees and expenses of
plaintiffs' counsel.  The MOU contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
court approval following notice to Magma's stockholders.


TIERONE CORP: Settles Class Action for $3.1 Million
---------------------------------------------------
Matt Olberding, writing for Lincoln Journal Star, reports that a
class-action lawsuit against TierOne Corp. alleging it misled
investors about its financial condition has been settled for $3.1
million.

The suit, filed in May 2010, alleged that, starting with a second-
quarter 2008 earnings report released Aug. 8 of that year, TierOne
issued a series of false or misleading financial statements in an
effort to inflate its stock price.

The defendants also included several former executives of the
bank.

The bank's stock, which had traded as high as $35 per share in
2006 and 2007, was down to about $5.50 per share in August 2008.
By the time the lawsuit was filed May 20, 2010, TierOne's stock
was at just $0.17 per share.

A couple of weeks after the initial lawsuit was filed, TierOne was
closed by the  Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and its
assets sold to Great Western Bank.

TierOne Corp. then filed for bankruptcy protection a couple of
weeks later.

The settlement, which will be paid by TierOne's insurers, covers
anyone who bought the stock between Aug. 9, 2007, and May 14,
2010.

The settlement does not include any admission of wrongdoing by
TierOne or any of its executives. In fact, settlement documents
point out that "to this day, individual defendants adamantly deny
any wrongdoing."

Neither the plaintiffs' attorney nor the attorney representing
former TierOne CEO Gilbert Lundstrum could be reached for comment.


UNITED STATES: May 15 Final Deadline Set for Pigford Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
The USDA celebrates its 150th anniversary on May 15 four days
after the May 11th final deadline for Pigford II plaintiffs to
file their claims to be eligible for an award under the Black
Farmers Discrimination Litigation Settlement, also known as "the
Black Farmers Case" or Pigford II.

This landmark class action settlement claimed the USDA
systematically practiced racial discrimination against black
farmers who applied for farm loans and assistance between 1983 and
1997.  No claims will be awarded until all claims have been
received and reviewed which means a late 2012 date for settlement
payments at the earliest, but likely much later.

RD Legal Funding, LLC, a post-settlement financing company that
provides funding for lawsuits, is offering immediate compensation
to qualified plaintiffs to help ease their financial hardship.

President Abraham Lincoln founded the USDA on May 15th, 1862. In
January of 1863 he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing
four million black slaves, the majority of whom dreamed of owning
and farming their own land. In 1910, nearly one million black
farmers in the U.S. owned a total of 15 million acres; by 1969
they held only 6 million acres. In 1920, blacks owned 14% of the
nation's farms; today, there are only 18,000 black farmers,
representing less than 1% of all farms.  According to one
estimate, black family farms are disappearing at the rate of 1000
acres per day.

A major contributing factor to the end of the African-American
farming way of life was the USDA's failure to equably execute the
government's policy on farming, agriculture and food.  A 1982
report issued by the Civil Rights Commission stated that the USDA
was "a catalyst in the decline of the black farmer."  That year,
African-Americans received only 1% of all farm ownership loans,
only 2.5% of all farm operating loans, and only 1% of all soil and
water conservation loans.

While attorneys representing the Pigford II plaintiffs have
negotiated a halt to new foreclosure actions while a plaintiff's
claims under the Settlement are pending, nothing can be done about
foreclosure actions initiated before the date of the Settlement
Agreement.  Additionally, Class Counsel cannot forestall any
actions short of foreclosure.

Interim settlement funding can help Black farmers and their
families and inheritors sustain their traditional way of life.  RD
Legal provides personalized service and quick turnaround.  Once
the necessary documentation is received, RD Legal can wire funds
within days.

Attorneys representing plaintiffs and plaintiffs themselves should
contact RD Legal at 1-800-565-5177 for more information about
settlement financing.


VENTURA CONVALESCENT: AARP Joins Antipsychotic Drug Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Kisken, writing for Ventura County Star, reports that the
American Association of Retired Persons has joined what lawyers
call an unprecedented class-action lawsuit accusing a Ventura
nursing home of using powerful drugs without the informed consent
of residents or family members.

Lawyers from the powerful advocacy group's foundation will serve
as co-counsel in a case alleging that Ventura Convalescent
Hospital skirted California's regulations in providing
antipsychotic drugs to residents.  While state law requires
nursing homes to verify that a doctor has received a patient's or
family member's consent, the lawsuit contends the nursing home did
not.

Although targeted at the nursing home, the suit also alleges
Dr. Gary Proffett, a prominent Ventura County physician, routinely
relied on nursing homes to obtain consent rather than doing it
himself as the law requires.

A Ventura Convalescent Hospital administrator did not return phone
calls seeking comment.  Mark Kincaid, a lawyer representing the
nursing home, declined to comment.

Dr. Proffett, being sued in a separate case, defended his actions.
He said relying on nursing homes to obtain consent was routine for
doctors until guidelines from the California Department of Public
Health in January 2011 emphasized the importance of obtaining
consent and changed that standard.

"You can't apply today's law to yesterday's admissions, and that's
what they're doing," Dr. Proffett said.  "That's like, 'I saw you
speeding two years ago in a construction zone and now I'm going to
give you a ticket.' "

Lawyers leading the litigation said the law hasn't changed and
clearly states the responsibilities of doctors and nursing homes.

"The nursing home is literally the one that is putting the pill in
the mouth and they are doing it without permission," said Gregory
Johnson, the Oxnard lawyer who filed the class-action suit in
November along with attorney Jody Moore of Thousand Oaks.

The case underscores the bristling debate over the use of chemical
restraints to control the behavior of people in nursing homes with
Alzheimer's disease and other dementia.

The need to bring more attention to the issue, and the rights of
nursing home residents and their families, attracted the attention
of the AARP, which has 38 million members 50 years and older
nationwide and more than 3 million in California.

The case is not only the first involving informed consent and
antipsychotic drugs that AARP has joined but also is believed to
be the first class-action suit of its kind in California, said
Kelly Bagby, senior counsel for AARP Foundation Litigation.

"It's critical that individual people who are harmed by these bad
practices are able to seek to enforce their own rights," she said.
"There's a sense that because a person is in a nursing home, they
automatically consent to have these drugs administered to them.
That's patently ridiculous."

The lead plaintiff is Kathi Levine, a 54-year-old office manager
in Carpinteria.  Her 79-year-old mother, Patricia Thomas, suffered
from Alzheimer's disease and was admitted to Ventura's Community
Memorial Hospital in November 2010 after being injured in a fall.

According to the lawsuit, Ms. Thomas was transferred to Ventura
Convalescent Hospital for rehabilitation, and Dr. Proffett was
assigned as her doctor.  Ms. Levine said that when her mother was
discharged less than three weeks later, she realized Ms. Thomas
was taking a long list of powerful drugs like Zoloft, Ativan and
Haldol.

"I freaked," said Ms. Levine, noting she had no knowledge of the
prescriptions and had not given consent.  "We have to be our
parents' voices, especially with Alzheimer's.  They can't speak
for themselves."

Ms. Thomas died on Jan. 28, 2011, and lawyers allege the drugs
played a role in her deterioration.  They also have documentation
showing the Ventura nursing home was cited by the California
Department of Public Health for using unnecessary drugs.

The lawsuit alleges Dr. Proffett testified in other litigation
that he never personally obtained consent and instead relied on
the nursing home to inform residents. Lawyers also contend the
nursing home and Dr. Proffett fraudulently created records
verifying the physician had obtained consent.

Mr. Johnson expects the lawsuit will involve 80 to 100 plaintiffs.
The lawyers are seeking residents at Ventura Convalescent and
other nursing homes who received antipsychotic drugs over the last
three-plus years without receiving detailed information about the
drugs, their health affects and any alternatives.

Dr. Proffett of Oxnard admits patients to several nursing homes
and has worked with the facilities for 35 years.  He's also
medical director of SeaView IPA, a medical network of more than
300 doctors who provide services throughout west Ventura County.

He said he's being unfairly targeted.  He denied the lawsuit's
allegation of paperwork fraud.  He said that before January 2011,
it was routine practice for doctors to allow nurses or nurse
practitioners to obtain informed consent from new residents or
their family members.

It's impossible for doctors who may see hundreds of nursing home
residents to immediately be available to explain medication when a
new resident is admitted, Dr. Proffett said.  But the state Public
Department of Health edict that nursing homes would be held in
violation if consent protocol wasn't strictly followed changed
that practice, he said.

Before that edict, Dr. Proffett said, he would not order new drugs
or increase dosage without seeing the resident but would not
interrupt antipsychotic medications prescribed by a previous
doctor.

He said Ms. Thomas came into the nursing home severely impacted by
dementia and already prescribed several antipsychotic medications.
"I did not add or subtract," said Dr. Proffett.

Dr. Proffett said he relied on the nursing home to obtain consent.
"If they had the daughter sign this stuff, we wouldn't even be
talking," he said.

Mr. Johnson, however, alleged the doctor did order new drugs.

In addition to the class-action suit, Ms. Levine has filed a
separate lawsuit against Dr. Proffett and the nursing home.  In
that action, the nursing home has filed a cross-complaint against
the doctor, suggesting he should be held responsible for any
wrongdoing.

Dr. Proffett said doctors need more leeway in dealing with
patients who come to a nursing facility already prescribed
antipsychotic medications. Current laws and threat of litigation
mean doctors have to immediately obtain consent, interrupt needed
medication or send residents back to the hospital.

"If you scare the bejesus out of everyone who does this, you're
not going to be able to give care to patients who have psychiatric
issues," he said.  "And I think that's tragic."

Attorney Johnson, however, said nursing homes and doctors use
antipsychotic drugs not for medical necessity but to control
behavior.

"You don't have to be a doctor to figure out it's easy to care for
people if they're overmedicated," he said.

Ms. Moore, the attorney from Thousand Oaks, said the way to bring
about change is to force nursing homes to follow the law and
verify that doctors not only get permission to use drugs but
explain health effects and alternatives.

"What we really need is for the nursing homes to comply," she
said.


VISA: Online Adult Companies Set to Benefit from Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rhett Pardon, writing for XBiz, reported that online adult
companies could benefit from antitrust litigation started more
than six years ago over payment card interchange fees.

The potential payout for all companies -- adult and mainstream --
that offered Visa and MasterCard credit and debit cards could be
huge, upwards of $6 billion.

Patrick Jermyn, an attorney with Harrison, N.Y.-based Class Action
Refund LLC told XBIZ, the nuts and bolts of the class-action suit
revolves around the presumption that Visa and MasterCard, along
with their member banks, conspired to fix and artificially inflate
the interchange fees that merchants pay to accept Visa and
MasterCard branded debit and credit cards.

A link to the full article is available at http://is.gd/Q9DKdZ


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sued Over Vehicles' Oil Consumption Defect
------------------------------------------------------------
Ali Asghari, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Volkswagen AG, and Audi AG, Case No. 3:12-cv-02177 (N.D. Calif.,
May 1, 2012) is brought on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, who purchased or leased certain defective Volkswagen or
Audi vehicles that were designed, manufactured, distributed,
marketed, sold, and leased by the Defendants.  The vehicles are
equipped with 2.0-liter turbocharged engines.

The Defendants knew or should have known that the Class Vehicles
contain one or more design and manufacturing defects, including
defects contained in the Class Vehicles' engine that cause it to
consume abnormally high rates of oil, Mr. Asghari contends.  He
asserts that the excessive oil consumption defect requires the
addition of substantial amounts of oil between maintenance
scheduled oil changes and can result in engine damage.  He alleges
that the Defendants have actively concealed and failed to disclose
this defect from him and the Class Members at the time of purchase
or lease and thereafter.

Mr. Asghari is a resident of Los Angeles, California.  He leased a
new 2010 Audi A5 from an Audi dealer in West Islip, New York.

Volkswagen Group is a New Jersey corporation.

Volkswagen Group was engaged in the business of designing,
manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, distributing,
and selling automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle
components in California and throughout the United States of
America.

Volkswagen AG is a foreign corporation headquartered in Wolfsburg,
Germany.  Audi AG is a foreign corporation located in Ingolstadt,
Germany.  Volkswagen AG and Audi AG took part in designing,
engineering, manufacturing, testing, marketing, supplying,
selling, and distributing motor vehicles, including Class
Vehicles, in San Francisco County, California, and throughout the
United States of America.  Through their wholly owned subsidiaries
and agents, Volkswagen AG and Audi AG market their products in a
continuous manner in the United States, including California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neda Roshanian, Esq.
          Michael Coats, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2508
          Telephone: (310) 286-0246
          Facsimile: (310) 407-5391
          E-mail: neda@yablonovichlaw.com
                  michael@yablonovichlaw.com


* 25 Countries Introduces Group Litigation Rules
------------------------------------------------
Terry Baynes, writing for Reuters, reported that more than 25
countries have introduced some sort of group litigation rules, up
from around three in 2000, according to a 2011 report by Stanford
Law School professor, Deborah Hensler.  They range from
established democracies like Italy, England and Israel to emerging
market nations such as Indonesia and Bulgaria.

For U.S. firms that specialize in filing suits, the spread of
class-action litigation comes at an opportune time.  Recent
Supreme Court rulings have made it harder to make a living with
class actions at home.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently warned colleagues in Europe
about the dangers such lawsuits pose.

A link to the full article is available at http://is.gd/ficT71

                           *********

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  * * *