---

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

              Monday, May 21, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 99

                             Headlines

ALTERNATE HOLDINGS: Inks $450,000 Deal to Resolve Securities Suit
AMAZON.COM: 5 Retailers Recall 330,000 Tots in Mind Crib Tents
APPLE INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss E-Book Pricing Class Action
APPLE INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Siri Class Action
APPLE INC: MobileMe Users File Class Action Over iCloud Switch

APPLE INC: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over iPhone Signal Meter
ARGENTINA: Repsol Files Class Action in New York Court
ASIAINFO-LINKAGE: IPO Class Action Lawsuit Settled in January
AUSTRALIA: Must Not Settle with Cattle Exporters, MPs Say
AUSTRALIA: Regulation Agency Sued Over Hepatitis C Infection

BERNARD CHAUS: Enters MOU to Resolve Merger-Related Suit
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Judge Blocks Overtime Class Action
CLAL AND DIKLA: Won't Sell Insurance to Disabled, Suit Claims
COMMERCIAL METALS: Still Defends Antitrust Lawsuit in Illinois
DEUTSCHE TELEKOM: Minor Shareholders Lose Class Action Bid

DOMINO'S PIZZA: Judge Dismisses Robocall Marketing Class Action
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Athletes' Class Action
GENTA INC: Still Defends Stockholder Class Suit in New Jersey
GOOGLE: Judge Reaffirms Denial of Marketers' Class-Action Status
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Multi-District Litigation in Texas Pending

J. ALEXANDER: Awaits Approval of Employee Suit Settlement in Ill.
JAMAICA PUBLIC: Class Action Over License Stalls
JOS. A. BANK: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Labor Law Violations
JPMORGAN CHASE: Murray Frank Files Class Action in New York
LAN AIRLINES: Awaits OK of C$700,000 Price-Fixing Suit Settlement

MACY'S INC: Still Defends "Shanehchian" Lawsuit in Ohio
METLIFE INC: Appeal from "Jackson" Suit Dismissal Still Pending
METLIFE INC: Appeals Court Affirms Summary Judgment Order
METLIFE INC: 2nd Circuit Denies Petition to Hear Suit Dismissal
METLIFE INC: Consolidated Suit Still Pending in Nevada Court

METLIFE INC:  Motion to Dismiss GM Retirees' Suit Still Pending
METLIFE INC: MTLIC, Tenants Strike Deal to Settle New York Suit
MOTOROLA INC: Counsel to Get 27.5% of $200-Mil. Settlement
NEW YORK, NY: NYPD Stop-and-Frisk Class Action Can Proceed
PEET'S COFFEE: Faces Class Action in Mass. Over Tip Policy

PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Sued Over Worthless Insurance Policies
SOLAR MILLENNIUM: Investors File Class Action Over Insolvency
SPI ELECTRICITY: Settles Bushfire Class Action for AUD32.85MM
STEC INC: Trial in Consolidated Calif. Suit Set for July 24
STEC INC: Court Stays Calif. Securities Law Violations Suit

UNITED ONLINE: Court Dismisses Appeal Related to IPO Suit Deal
UNITED ONLINE: Awaits Final Approval of "Michaels" Suit Settlement
ZYNEX INC: Class Settlement in "Mishkin" Suit Pending Approval

* Lee Tran & Liang Defeats Wage & Hour Class Certification


                          *********

ALTERNATE HOLDINGS: Inks $450,000 Deal to Resolve Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alternate Holdings Inc. negotiated a $450,000 settlement to
resolve a securities class action complaint in Idaho, the Company
disclosed in an April 6, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In accordance with a Short-Form Settlement Agreement entered into
on April 2, 2012, Alternate Energy, Donald L. Gillispie and
Jennifer Ransom, as defendants, have agreed to settle the
previously-disclosed securities class action litigation, Case No.
1:10-cv-00634-BLW pending in the U.S. District Court, District of
Idaho.  The Class Action Litigation was brought on behalf of
persons who purchased the common stock of the Company between
September 20, 2006 and December 14, 2010.

The Agreement provides that if the settlement becomes final, among
other things, (i) the claims against the Defendants will be
dismissed with prejudice and released, such that every member of
the settlement class will be forever barred from asserting against
the Defendants any claims alleged in the complaint or arising from
the complaint, and (ii) a payment of $450,000 will be made by the
Company no later than June 30, 2012, for the benefit of the
settlement class.  The Company has agreed that, in the event that
it does not make the $450,000 payment by June 30, 2012, judgment
shall be entered by the U.S. District Court, District of Idaho,
against the Company in the amount of $2,000,000.  The Defendants
have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims
alleged by the plaintiffs in the Class Action Litigation.
Nonetheless, the Defendants have agreed to the Agreement to
eliminate the uncertainty, distraction, burden and expense of
further litigation.

The Agreement may be subject to court approval.

Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.alternateenergyholdings.com/-- a development stage
company, focuses on the purchase, optimization, and construction
of green energy sources, primarily nuclear power plants in the
United States.  The company, through its subsidiaries, develops
and markets clean energy sources.  Its other projects include
Energy Neutral, which lowers energy demands from homes and
businesses; and International Reactors to assist developing
countries with nuclear reactors for power generation, production
of potable water, and other applications.  The Company is based in
Eagle, Idaho.


AMAZON.COM: 5 Retailers Recall 330,000 Tots in Mind Crib Tents
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and five
retailers are announcing a voluntary recall to provide refunds to
consumers who own crib tents and play yard tents made by Tots in
Mind, Inc.

CPSC is warning parents and caregivers who own these products that
infants and toddlers are at risk of serious injury or death due to
strangulation and entrapment hazards presented by these products.
Tots in Mind recalled the play yard tents in July 2010 and offered
a repair kit that is no longer available.  The company is no
longer in business and has stopped all sales.  CPSC staff urges
parents and caregivers to stop using these crib tents and play
yard tents immediately.  Do not attempt to repair these products.

CPSC is aware of 27 tent failures including one fatality and one
serious injury that occurred between January 1997 and April 2012
from crib tents and play yard tents made by Tots in Mind, Inc.  In
2008, a two year old boy died after becoming entrapped between the
bottom rail of a play yard tent and the top rail of a play yard.
The fatality was reported in a prior recall
[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10303.html]with the
firm in July 15, 2010.

In 2007, a two year old boy sustained a catastrophic brain injury
when the crib tent affixed to his crib tent inverted and the
product's broken rod trapped him at the neck.  The remaining 25
reports to CPSC involved inverted crib tents -- entrapments
between the tent and the crib/play yard or failures of the tent
fabric and zippers.  Three of these 25 reports also resulted in
injuries; in one such case, a parent reported finding her child
turning blue and entrapped between the product and the top rail of
the play yard.

Since Tots in Mind, Inc. is out of business, retailers who sold
these products have stepped up to offer refunds or store credit to
consumers.  The crib tents and play yard tents can present an
entrapment and strangulation hazard to infants and toddlers if the
dome portion inverts inside the crib or play yard, or if the
product becomes partially detached from the crib or play yard.
The recalled products were sold at numerous retail stores
including Bed Bath & Beyond/Buy Buy Baby, Burlington Coat Factory,
Toys R Us/Babies R Us, Walmart and online on Web Sites including
Amazon.com, for between $60 and $85.

Consumers should contact the stores listed where the crib tent was
purchased to receive either a refund or store credit, depending on
the retailer.  If consumer is unsure of where the crib tent was
purchased, see return policy for these individual retailers on
their Web site:

   * Amazon.com
[http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=help_sear
ch_1-1?ie=UTF8&nodeId=565166&qid=1337192361&sr=1-1]

   * Bed Bath & Beyond / Buy Buy Baby
[http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/policySafetyInformation.asp?]or
[http://www.buybuybaby.com/productRecalls.asp?]or (800) GOBEYOND]

   * Burlington Coat Factory
[http://www1.burlingtoncoatfactory.com/ProductSafety/ProductSafety
.aspx] or (888) 223-2628]

   * Toys R Us/Babies R Us
[http://www.toysrusinc.com/safety/recalls/]or
[http://www.toysrusinc.com/safety/recalls/]or (800) 869-7787]

   * Walmart [http://www.walmartstores.com/Recalls/]or (800) 925-
6278]

The recall includes various models of about 330,000 crib or play
yard tents.  Consumers can identify their tent by the 2" x 1 1/2"
label with Tots In Mind logo located on the non-mesh portion near
the top of the tent.

No model names or numbers are located on the tents, however they
can be identified by the pictures and the Tots in Mind logo on top
of the tent:

   * Portable Playard Tent
   * Original Cozy Crib Tent
   * Cozy Crib Tent II
   * Crib Tent for Convertible Cribs
   * Portable Playard Tent Plus Cabana Kit

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12179.html


APPLE INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss E-Book Pricing Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julie Bosman, writing for The New York Times, reports that a
federal judge on May 15 denied Apple and several major book
publishers' motions to dismiss a class-action lawsuit that accuses
the companies of conspiring to control the price of e-books.

In denying the request, Judge Denise Cote of the United States
District Court in Manhattan wrote that the lawsuit "plausibly
alleges that these motives converged to cause the publishing
defendants and Apple to join a single conspiracy to eliminate
price competition at the retail level and raise the prices
consumers would pay for e-books."

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, a Seattle-based law firm, filed the
lawsuit in August, seeking compensation for a class of people,
namely consumers who have purchased e-books.

Book publishers first came under scrutiny by the Department of
Justice and others in 2010, when five of the six biggest
publishers moved from a wholesale pricing model to an agency
model, effectively setting their own prices for e-books.  The new
system disrupted Amazon's practice of charging $9.99 for most
newly released and best-selling e-books.

Steve Berman, a lawyer for Hagens Berman, applauded the judge's
decision in a statement.  "We thought that Judge Cote's ruling was
spot on, especially when she noted that we've gone above and
beyond in illustrating the legitimacy of our case," Mr. Berman
said.  "We are eager to push forward with the case."

The lawsuit is separate from the Justice Department's settlements
with three publishers and lawsuit against two publishers and
Apple, which were announced in April.

Bob Van Voris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that last
month, the U.S. government sued Cupertino, California- based Apple
and the publishers -- Hachette SA, HarperCollins, Macmillan,
Penguin Group and Simon & Schuster -- claiming they broke the law
in setting prices for e-books.  Judge Cote is overseeing the
government suit in addition to actions filed by states over e-book
pricing and private antitrust claims filed in federal court.

                        Overlapping Claims

The claims in the state cases overlap many of those in the private
class action, Michael Cole, the chief of Connecticut's antitrust
department, told Cote in a hearing last month.  As a result, a
settlement with all the states would resolve most of the private
claims, Mr. Cole said.

Erica Glass, a spokeswoman for Pearson Plc's Penguin Group and
Adam Rothberg, a spokesman for CBS Corp.'s Simon & Schuster,
declined to comment on Judge Cote's ruling on May 15.

Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr, Sophie Cottrell, a spokeswoman for
Lagardere SCA's Hachette Book Group, and Erin Crum, a spokeswoman
for News Corp.'s HarperCollins, didn't immediately return voice-
mail messages seeking comment on the ruling.  Macmillan, a unit of
Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH, didn't immediately
respond to an e-mail seeking comment.

Before the defendants reached the pricing agreements that the
Justice Department and private claimants allege were illegal,
Seattle-based Amazon.com Inc. dominated the digital-book market by
offering titles at $9.99 each.  Under the contested agreements,
publishers set prices for best-selling books at $12.99 and $14.99,
giving Apple a 30 percent cut.

The case is In Re Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation, 11-MD-
2293, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
(Manhattan).


APPLE INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Siri Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Chris Davies, writing for Slash Gear, reports that Apple has fired
back at iPhone 4S users who joined a class-action suit accusing
the company of deceptive advertising around Siri's capabilities,
arguing the complainers are simply out to make money.  In a
freshly filed motion to dismiss the suit, Apple suggests that
rather than having legitimate issues with the accuracy of the
"beta" virtual personal assistant system on the iPhone, those
taking part in the class-action motion can only give vague
indications of how Siri has let them down.

"They offer only general descriptions of Apple's advertisements,
incomplete summaries of Apple's Web site materials, and vague
descriptions of their alleged -- and highly individualized --
disappointment with Siri" Apple argues.  Even if they did have a
problem, the Cupertino company's lawyers continue, they didn't
take the obvious route of seeking a refund:

"Tellingly, although Plaintiffs claim they became dissatisfied
with Siri's performance "soon after" purchasing their iPhones,
they made no attempt to avail themselves of Apple's 30-day return
policy or one-year warranty -- which remains in effect.  Instead,
they seek to take an alleged personal grievance about the
purported performance of a popular product and turn it into a
nationwide class action under California's consumer protection
statutes.  The Complaint does not come close to meeting the heavy
burden necessary to sustain such claims."

Apple has retained Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP to fight the suit,
and they haven't been slow to pick holes in it.  Two of the named
plaintiffs aren't in California and didn't buy their iPhone 4S
there, the lawyers point out, making them ineligible for
inclusion, and the rest have cherry-picked specific elements of
Apple's Siri claims without mentioning the "beta" branding, among
other things.

The main thrust of Apple's argument is that those complaining
about Siri either fail to identify specific issues they're having,
or are citing problems with functionality that was never promised
in the first place.  The legal team for the class-action
participants is yet to comment on Apple's response.

Apple Insider reports that documents recently filed with the court
contain Apple's counterarguments, as noted by MacNN.  The company
first argues that several of the plaintiffs are "lack standing" to
assert California consumer protection laws because they purchased
the device and reside in other states.

"Under Ninth Circuit authority, the consumer protection laws of
the state of purchase -- not the consumer protection laws of
California -- govern such claims by out-of-state purchases," the
motion read.

Apple also asserted that plaintiffs' claims do not establish a
case because they "fail to allege any supposed misrepresentation
with particularity."  The company specifically mentioned a lack of
information about "when [plaintiffs] were exposed to the
purportedly misleading advertisements, which ones they found
material, how and why they were false, or which they relied upon
in purchasing their iPhones."


APPLE INC: MobileMe Users File Class Action Over iCloud Switch
--------------------------------------------------------------
Danyelle Comer, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Apple, Inc., a California corporation and Does 1-10,
Case No. 5:12-cv-02457 (N.D. Calif., May 15, 2012) alleges that
Apple is using unfair, unlawful, deceptive and misleading
practices with regards to its iCloud service in violation of
California state, federal, and common law.

Apple represents that its iCloud service, the successor to its
MobileMe service, is "automatic and effortless," Ms. Comer
asserts.  She contends that the claimed ease of a users' ability
to use the iCloud service and set it up to save user content is a
major element of Apple's marketing of the service.  However, she
argues, the representations by Apple that migrating to iCloud
would be "effortless" were blatantly false for its MobileMe users
and customers in general.

Apple forced MobileMe customers to switch to the iCloud but failed
to ensure their email and log-ins would work, allegedly leaving
tens of thousands in the lurch, Chris Marshall at Courthouse News
Service said citing the complaint.

In the lead-up to the launch of its new remote hard drive storage
service, Apple claimed that the transition to iCloud would be
"automatic and effortless," but it failed to ensure the service
would work for MobileMe users, according to the complaint.

Ms. Comer says that longtime MobileMe customers have experienced a
"total loss of the ability to receive emails and have been unable
to log on to their Apple IDs, or their Apple email accounts."

Both iCloud and its predecessor, MobileMe, are Apple products.

Apple advertises that iCloud "automatically makes music, movies,
TV show and applications purchased on Apple's iTunes store
available on all the Apple devices owned by the user," according
to the complaint.  "Apple claims that all photos and documents are
also synced between devices, with the goal of making the entirety
of a users' content easily accessible."

ICloud allegedly attracted more than 20 million users within a
week of launch.

Ms. Comer says MobileMe experienced significant problems when it
launched in 2008 as a subscription service costing $99 per year.
Problems allegedly included issues with stability and synching,
and extended e-mail outages.

When announcing iCloud in June 2011, then Apple CEO Steve Jobs
acknowledged the problems with its predecessor.

"'You might ask, 'Why should I believe them, they're the ones that
brought me MobileMe?'" Jobs said, according to the complaint. "As
the crowd laughed, Jobs said, 'It wasn't our finest hour, just let
me say that. But we learned a lot.'"

Unfortunately for MobileMe users like Ms. Comer, the problems
allegedly continued when they migrated to iCloud.

Ms. Comer says the transition was a foregone conclusion when Apple
announced that MobileMe would become extinct after June 2012,
making the software no longer supported or usable by subscribers
who had already paid for the service.

Since Apple failed to ensure that its servers could adequately
handle the processing of MobileMe migration requests, these
longtime subscribers have had their e-mail accounts blocked from
receiving e-mails, and they could not access the very e-mail
accounts for which they paid for extended periods of time,
according to the lawsuit.

Apple was forced to temporarily limit the number of users who
could move from MobileMe to iCloud despite representing that
moving to iCloud would be "effortless," which turned out to be
"blatantly false," according to the complaint.

Ms. Comer claims Apple "knew or should have known that iCloud did
not function as represented in its advertisements, marketing
materials, and warranties disseminated in Apple's nationwide
marketing and advertising campaigns."

Ms. Comer is a resident of the state of California.  She purchased
her Macintosh and Apple computer and software and subscribed to
the MobileMe account in California.  She alleges that she has
experienced problems with her account and has lost the ability to
utilize functions of MobileMe or iCloud account, including e-mails
and receipt of same.

Apple is a California corporation with its principal place of
business located in Cupertino, California.  Apple designs,
manufactures, and markets various consumer electronics products,
including personal computers, portable MP3 players, tablet
computers, smart phones and is responsible for the production,
marketing and sale of its MobileMe and iCloud systems.

The class seeks punitive damages for breach of warranty, unjust
enrichment, unfair competition and false advertising.

A copy of the Complaint in Comer v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-
02457 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/16/icloud.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


APPLE INC: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over iPhone Signal Meter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action that claimed Apple's iPhone inaccurately displayed network
signal strength was dismissed by a federal judge, who ruled that
the lawsuit lacked merit for breach of contract and other
allegations.

Lead plaintiff Daniel Donohue said Apple rushed its iPhone 4 to
market in 2010 despite a flaw in the device's signal meter, which
displays network connection strength.

Mr. Donohue filed an instant action on Nov. 3, 2011, and alleged
breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, breach of warranty under Washington law and the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violation of California Business and
Professions Code, and violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies
and Washington Consumer Protection Acts.

Apple, Mr. Donohue said, used a "secret" formula to design the
meter, testing it in "anechoic chambers where no waves (sound or
electromagnetic) can reflect off anything, so there is absolutely
no interference," and concealed the testing process.

Apple also spent less time testing the iPhone 4 than other
smartphone vendors before releasing it, Mr. Donohue claimed.

"As a result of these alleged inadequacies, the formula underlying
the iPhone signal meter was flawed, and often 'misled consumers as
to the quality of their connection by inflating the apparent
strength-of-connection beyond the actual strength-of-connection,'"
Donohue said in his complaint.

Apple issued a public letter following a "flurry of complaints"
over dropped calls and inaccurate signal readings, on July 2,
2010.

"[T]he formula we use to calculate how many bars of signal
strength to display is totally wrong . . . For example, we
sometimes display 4 bars when we should be displaying as few as 2
bars," Apple said.

Mr. Donohue, who purchased an iPhone at a Seattle, Wash., Apple
store, said that he quickly noticed the device's defect, and added
"that knowledge of the iPhone's signal meter flaw would have
'materially affected' his decision to purchase the iPhone or
return it within 30 days."

He filed suit on behalf of all those who purchased an iPhone prior
to July 14, 2010, and all retail purchasers in the state of
Washington prior to that date.

The lawsuit claimed that the device's user guide constituted a
binding contract, and that Apple knew of the defect long before it
issued the public statement.

Apple countered in a motion to dismiss that the lawsuit lacked
standing because the defect did not cause Mr. Donohue any
cognizable injury, and added, "that because the iPhone signal
meter only 'reports' the strength of the network signal but does
not affect the 'actual signal strength, the iPhone's performance,
or its call quality,' the signal meter cannot cause economic
injury."

U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte sided with Apple.

"Apple argues that the User Guide is merely an instruction manual,
and therefore does not give rise contractual obligations.  The
court agrees.  A review of the User Guide shows that it provides
directions for using an iPhone and descriptions of the device's
functions, but includes no 'promises' which plaintiff could have
'accepted,'" the 25-page ruling states.

"Plaintiff points to no complaints, data or other information
about pre-iPhone 4 models that would have put Apple on notice that
such models were similarly defective," the ruling continues.

Judge Whyte dismissed the whole of Mr. Donohue's claims, including
breach of express and implied warranty under California law with
prejudice.

"Because there appears to be no dispute as to whether plaintiff
gave Apple pre-suit notice of its alleged breach or whether
plaintiff had knowledge of the facts supporting his warranty
claims before filing his original complaint, dismissal of this
claim is with prejudice," Judge Whyte wrote.

The judge, however, also ruled that an amended pleading may be
filed within 30 days.

"[B]ecause plaintiff may be able to allege facts showing the
existence and breach of such an obligation, the court dismisses
plaintiff's breach of contract claim with leave to amend," Judge
Whyte ruled.

A copy of the Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Donohue v.
Apple, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-05337 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/16/511-cv-05337.pdf
  

ARGENTINA: Repsol Files Class Action in New York Court
------------------------------------------------------
Dow Jones Newswires reports that Spanish oil firm Repsol YPF SA
said on May 16 it had filed a lawsuit against Argentina in a court
in New York after the country nationalized the company's local
unit.

In the suit -- which Repsol is pursuing in the name of other YPF
shareholders as a class -- Repsol claims among other things that
Argentina failed to comply with YPF bylaws because it didn't offer
to buy all of YPF's outstanding Class D shares as it acquired of a
controlling stake in the company.

Repsol is seeking compensatory damages.

The suit comes after Repsol initiated other proceedings related to
the expropriation of 51% of YPF SA, Argentina's leading oil-and-
gas company, leaving Repsol with 6.4%.  Earlier last week, the oil
company said it had notified Argentina that it is contesting the
government's compliance with an investment protection agreement.

The notification is a first and necessary step to face-off with
the Argentine government at the World Bank's International Centre
for Settlement of Investment Disputes.

The arbitration center will be responsible for resolving the
dispute if the Argentine government and Repsol don't reach an
agreement in six months.


ASIAINFO-LINKAGE: IPO Class Action Lawsuit Settled in January
-------------------------------------------------------------
AsianInfo-Linkage Inc. settled in January a class action lawsuit
filed in connection with its initial public offering, according to
the Company's February 28, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

In December 2001, a securities class action case was filed in New
York City against the Company, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of its initial public offering, or
its IPO.  The lawsuit alleged violations of the U.S. federal
securities laws and was docketed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York as Hassan v. AsiaInfo Holdings,
Inc., et al.  The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that the
underwriters of the Company's IPO improperly required their
customers to pay the underwriters excessive commissions and to
agree to buy additional shares of the Company's common stock in
the aftermarket as conditions of their purchasing shares in its
IPO. The lawsuit further claimed that the alleged practices of the
underwriters should have been disclosed in the Company's IPO
prospectus and registration statement.  Plaintiffs sought
rescission of their alleged purchases of the Company's common
stock as well as unspecified damages.  In addition to the case
against the Company, various other plaintiffs have filed
approximately 1,000 other, substantially similar class action
cases, or the IPO Allocation Cases, against approximately 300
other publicly traded companies and their IPO underwriters in New
York City, which along with the case against the Company has all
been transferred to a single federal district judge for purposes
of case management.

In April 2009, the Company and most of the other issuer defendants
in the IPO Allocation Cases reached a definitive agreement with
the plaintiffs and the underwriter defendants to settle the IPO
Allocation Cases.  Several appeals were filed and, in January
2012, the last appellant in the IPO Allocation Cases agreed to
withdraw and dismiss his objection to the settlement with
prejudice.  With the IPO Allocation Cases over, settlement
distributions begin.  The Company expects any damages payable to
the plaintiffs to be fully funded by its directors' and officers'
liability insurance policies, and it believes that the
underwriters may have an obligation to indemnify the Company for
the legal fees and other costs of defending this suit and that its
directors' and officers' liability insurance policies would also
cover the defense and potential exposure in the suit.


AUSTRALIA: Must Not Settle with Cattle Exporters, MPs Say
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard Willingham, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that labor MPs have urged the government not to settle with
disgruntled live export industry figures who are suing it for a
loss of income during last year's suspension of cattle exports to
Indonesia.

Government MPs said Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig had made the
right decision in May last year, following horrific revelations to
Australian cattle in Indonesian abattoirs, to suspend the trade
and implement new animal welfare rules.

Budget papers show that a potential class action has been received
from law firm Minter Ellison on behalf of 21 clients.

MPs said if the producers wanted compensation they should direct
it towards industry bodies, such as Meat & Livestock Australia.
Independent MP Bob Katter made similar comments on May 14.

Outspoken Fremantle MP Melissa Parke said the crisis had showed
industry self-regulation did not work.

"The government should not consider settling this matter, because
the government was clearly in the right and was correct in
instituting the Indonesian suspension, and it could have taken no
other decision," Ms. Parke said.

"MLA should be the focus of any class action."

"Are these producers saying that they should have been able to
continue to send animals into Indonesia with no protection from
this appalling treatment? Every year these producers have made
millions of dollars as a result of supplying animals to these
horrors.  Are they really asserting that they wanted to continue
to send animals to Indonesia even in the full knowledge of what
these animals would face?"

Ms. Parke said Senator Ludwig had done more than any other
Minister to protect the future of the cattle industry by putting
measures in place to reduce the risk.  "I think it would be tragic
for the government to pay out money as a result of doing the right
thing by the animals, and what the community demanded."

Member for Wills, in inner Melbourne, Kelvin Thomson said if any
legal action was successful the government would have to recover
the money from the responsible parties.

"On the face of it, I don't think there is a legal case, the
government has policy obligations including on animal welfare and
it took the appropriate action at the time," Mr. Thomson said.

He said the government should look at its options including
recovering the funds from the responsible industry bodies, such as
MLA.

Two other MPs, Darren Cheeseman and Mike Symon, share Mr Thomson's
views.

MLA said they have received no notice about any legal action.

Senator Ludwig has said it would be inappropriate to comment on
any matters that may be subject to action before the courts.

Shadow Agriculture Minister John Cobb on May 15 said Liberal MP
Warren Entsch would be moving a motion in parliament for the
government to account for its "poorly targeted" $100 million
compensation package, which the Coalition claims only 20% has been
used.

"It's no surprise that cattle producers are considering a class
action against the Gillard government.  Labor's bungling of
Indonesian live exports cost the sector dearly and the industry is
still reeling emotionally and financially," Mr. Cobb said.


AUSTRALIA: Regulation Agency Sued Over Hepatitis C Infection
------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Partenza, writing for The Age, reports that a class action
against a doctor who allegedly infected more than 50 women with
hepatitis C at a Croydon abortion clinic has been lodged in the
Supreme Court.

Lawyers have filed a lawsuit against anaesthetist James Latham
Peters, the director of the former Croydon Day Surgery, Dr. Mark
Schulberg and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation
Agency.

Mr. Peters is alleged to have infected more than 50 women with the
virus in 2008 and 2009.

Lawyers say it is believed to be the first time a personal-injury
class action has been lodged against a medical practitioner
regulator in Australia.

Slater & Gordon launched the legal action on behalf of the 50
women who contracted the virus or are now carrying the hepatitis C
antibody.

Mr. Peters, 62, who now works as a courier, is alleged to have
been aware he had the virus for more than 10 years.

He is facing 162 charges of infecting women patients he treated
for pregnancy terminations at the Croydon Day Surgery.

A court heard last year that the prosecution would allege that
Peters used needles to inject himself before using them on his
patients.

Mr. Peters was suspended by the medical board in February 2010
after he was placed under investigation by detectives from
Taskforce Clays, which was set up to investigate how female
patients at the Croydon clinic contracted the disease.

The Victorian Health Department traced and tested more than 4,300
women he had treated between 2006-09.

Mr. Peters was set to return to the Melbourne Magistrates Court
this month for the remainder of his committal hearing.

Slater & Gordon practice group leader Julie Clayton said it had
been a distressing and traumatic event for all the women involved.

"The women have faced, or are in the midst of facing, extensive
treatment to deal with the serious side effects of hepatitis C.
They are also living with the knowledge that the disease can lead
to serious and life threatening complications in the future,"
Ms. Clayton said.

"It defies belief that this would happen in this day and age.

"We can't see how this could occur if reasonable infection control
procedures were followed."


BERNARD CHAUS: Enters MOU to Resolve Merger-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Chaus, Inc. entered into a memorandum of agreement on
March 29, 2012, with Kenneth Braun and Dr. Barry Berkowitz with
respect to a pending litigation concerning the Company's merger
agreement with Camuto Consulting, Inc., the Company disclosed in
its April 5, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

In an April 4 press release, Bernard Chaus related that it
executed a definitive merger agreement with an affiliate of Vince
Camuto, under which Camuto will acquire the shares of Chaus not
owned by the members of the Chaus family for $0.21 per share in
cash.  Chaus also announced the execution of a Memorandum of
Understanding calling for the settlement of the litigation and the
resolution of other objections that had been raised by certain
shareholders with respect to the transaction.  The $0.21 per share
represents an 88% premium over the average of the bid and asked
prices for the Company's Common stock for the last ten trading
days as of April 4.  Camuto had initially proposed to acquire
Chaus for $0.13 per share on September 16, 2011.

"We are extremely pleased that an agreement has been reached by
the Company, Vince Camuto and shareholders who had been objecting
to the price originally proposed for the transaction," said
Josephine Chaus, Chairwoman of Chaus, in the statement.  "We
believe that our Company will be strengthened and will be better
positioned to serve our retail partners and consumers under
private ownership," she added.  "We have forged a close working
relationship with Vince Camuto as a licensee and look forward to
that partnership growing even closer in the future," Mrs. Chaus
continued.

"We are pleased that we were able to secure a definitive agreement
which we believe will be beneficial to both companies. We look
forward to working closely with the Chaus team to leverage the
strengths of our two great companies for our retail customers and
consumers," said Vince Camuto, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of The Camuto Group, in the same statement.

The special committee of independent directors of Chaus, after
having received a fairness opinion from its financial advisor,
unanimously recommended to the board of directors of Chaus that
the merger agreement be approved; and the board then approved the
transaction. The merger agreement must receive the approval of
two-thirds of the Chaus shareholders before becoming effective.
The Company intends to promptly file with the SEC a proxy
statement necessary for the shareholders' meeting at which the
approval will be sought, and intends to hold that meeting
approximately 30 days following the effectiveness of the proxy
statement.  The Chaus family, Camuto and certain other
shareholders have agreed to vote in favor of the transaction.

The merger agreement permits the board to terminate the agreement
in favor of a superior transaction if its fiduciary duty so
requires.

The Memorandum of Understanding with Kenneth Braun, the Plaintiff
in a putative class action brought by him to challenge the
original transaction, and with Dr. Barry Berkowitz, the owner of
approximately 5,000,000 shares of Chaus common stock, provides for
the litigation to be settled with prejudice and for Dr. Berkowitz
to support the transaction, so long as it has the approval of the
board.  The memorandum of understanding is, among other things,
subject to court approval.

A full-text copy of the Chaus-Braun MOU is available at the SEC at
http://is.gd/prJpwS

Bernard Chaus, Inc. designs, arranges for the manufacture of and
markets an extensive range of women's career and casual sportswear
principally under the VINCE CAMUTO, JOSEPHINE CHAUS(R),
JOSEPHINE(R), JOSEPHINE STUDIO(R), CHAUS(R), CHAUS SPORT(R),
CYNTHIA STEFFE(R), SEAMLINE CYNTHIA STEFFE(R) and CYNTHIA CYNTHIA
STEFFE(R) trademarks and under private label brand names.


CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Judge Blocks Overtime Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gray, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that an Ontario
judge has blocked a proposed class-action lawsuit against Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce that alleged the bank wrongly denied
overtime pay to thousands of its employees.  But the case is one
of several similar lawsuits before the courts.

The Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian National Railway Co. and others
have also faced putative class-action lawsuits filed on behalf of
thousands of workers demanding hundreds of millions in unpaid
overtime.

In the U.S., similar cases have forced big companies to pay out
millions to employees who were denied overtime checks, or were
wrongly classified as managers exempt from overtime-pay
requirements.  These blockbuster cases emboldened plaintiffs'
lawyers north of the border to launch similar cases.

But the recent ruling from the Ontario Superior Court appears to
suggest that overtime lawsuits are facing more scrutiny in Canada.
In his ruling late last month, Mr. Justice George Strathy denied a
proposed overtime class-action suit against CIBC "certification,"
or the green light a class action needs to proceed.

However, observers say the real ground rules for this kind of case
will be laid down in a series of three decisions expected soon
from the Ontario Court of Appeal.  The province's top court is
weighing the future of another, separate overtime case against
CIBC and cases against Bank of Nova Scotia and CN.

Meanwhile, Judge Strathy's ruling in the latest case, known as
Brown v. CIBC, quashes a lawsuit launched on behalf of analysts
and investment advisers with the bank and CIBC World Markets who
were seeking overtime pay.

The judge's problem with the case was that the plaintiffs asserted
all employees classified as "analysts" or "investment advisers"
had been wrongly denied overtime.  The judge found that some
employees with these job titles are in fact managers and are not
entitled to overtime pay.  In fact, hundreds of different jobs at
CIBC, with different responsibilities, bear the label "analyst."

"Class members have little in common but their names," Judge
Strathy writes in his ruling.  "The key issue of fact -- namely,
whether or not a person has managerial responsibilities -- which
is critical to the determination of overtime eligibility, cannot
be determined on a common basis."

The judge also notes that there was no evidence that other
investment advisers, besides the proposed representative plaintiff
Bryan Singer, had ever complained about overtime pay.  Some, the
judge details in his ruling, make more than $1-million and
routinely wine-and-dine clients outside of work hours.  Lawyers
for the plaintiffs could not be reached.

The three overtime cases now before the Ontario Court of Appeal
may not be so easy to bat away.

One of them is a class-action suit that Judge Strathy ruled should
be certified: a case against Scotiabank launched by former
employee Cindy Fulawka.  She sold mortgages and small-business
loans for the bank for almost 20 years, mainly in Saskatchewan,
and says she was expected to skip lunch and stay well past
quitting time, working two hours a day without pay.

An earlier class action against CIBC -- and the first to target a
Canadian bank -- is also one of the trio still in the hands of the
Ontario Court of Appeal.  That case, filed by Toronto teller Dara
Fresco, dates back to 2007.  However, it was denied certification
as a class action in 2009, when a judge ruled there was no
evidence of a "systemic practice of unpaid overtime" at CIBC.

The third case on appeal was filed on behalf of front-line rail
supervisors with CN demanding overtime pay.  It was certified by
Mr. Justice Paul Perell in 2010.

Toronto lawyer Louis Sokolov with Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP, who
is working for the plaintiffs on all three cases still before the
Ontario Court of appeal, said the latest ruling from Judge Strathy
knocking down an overtime case isn't an omen.

"Ultimately we will hear from the Court of Appeal the larger
principles regarding these cases," Mr. Sokolov said.

Patricia Jackson of Torys LLP in Toronto, who acts for CIBC in
both cases against the bank, points out that judges have so far
ruled consistently against the plaintiffs in her cases.  But she
wouldn't speculate on what the Court of Appeal might do.

Former Ontario Labour Relations Board chairman Morton Mitchnick,
now a lawyer with Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, acted for Scotiabank
and for CN at the Ontario Court of Appeal.

He said even U.S. courts are now backing away from their
enthusiasm for class-action cases launched by employees, citing
recent U.S. rulings including the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark
decision last year to quash a sex-discrimination case filed
against Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

"In the U.S. you now see the courts there taking a more cautious
approach, and starting to roll back," Mr. Mitchnick said.


CLAL AND DIKLA: Won't Sell Insurance to Disabled, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Weiler-Polak, writing for Haaretz, reports that insurance
companies are refusing to sell nursing care insurance to people
with disabilities, a class-action suit charges.

The NIS660 million suit was filed on May 15 by six disabled
people.  It accuses two insurance companies, Clal and Dikla, and
three health maintenance organizations, Maccabi, Clalit and
Leumit, of either refusing to provide them with nursing insurance
due to their disabilities, without any effort to examine their
individual situations, or of canceling existing policies for the
same reason.

The suit also asks the Jerusalem District Court to declare the
case a class action covering 329,960 people.  While Israel has
some 1.5 million disabled people altogether, including about
700,000 with severe disabilities, the suit would apply only to
those who were either denied nursing insurance or had existing
policies canceled.

The suit relates to group insurance policies that all members of a
given HMO are theoretically entitled to purchase.  The policies
used to be administered by the HMOs, and at that time, they did
cover disabled people.  But five years ago, a new law was passed
forbidding the HMOs to provide nursing insurance, so the policies
were collectively transferred to insurance companies.

For most people, the change made no difference.  But in some
cases, the insurance companies informed the policy holder that due
to some medical problem or disability, the insurance was being
canceled. In other cases, people who sought to purchase nursing
insurance were denied.

"Being disabled in this country means getting up each morning to a
new battle," said attorney Yotam Tolub of Bizchut, an advocacy
organization for the disabled that helped file the suit.  "A
person wants to go abroad, and they refuse to insure him.  A
person wants to buy an apartment, and they refuse to give him a
mortgage. A person wants to take care of his future, and they
refuse to give him nursing insurance.  The problem is not the
disability, but the society."

One of the plaintiffs, Yisrael Even-Zahav, is a 65-year-old polio
victim who has been recognized by the National Insurance Institute
as being 80 percent disabled.  Nevertheless, he can function on
his own, and works as a consultant on accessibility for the Israel
Standards Institute and various Knesset committees. He has also
won three medals in the Paralympics.

Despite this, both the Clalit HMO (before the new law was passed )
and the Dikla insurance firm (afterward ) decided that he was
already in need of nursing care, and therefore refused to sell him
insurance.

"It's an abnormal absurdity, because I live a full life," he said.
"There were times when I worked 18 hours a day as a construction
engineer.  I ran construction companies. But I'm defined as
needing nursing care.  No one asked me any questions about how I
function. They hear 'polio' and '80 percent disability' and it's
automatic -- no.  Granted, I can't run, but that's a long way from
needing nursing care."

The suit noted that "by law, insurance companies must examine the
specific medical situation of the person applying for insurance
and base their refusal on his personal medical data." But in
Mr. Even-Zahav's case, it said, the companies "ignored his
specific situation.  Granted, another person with an 80 percent
mobility disability might be considered in need of nursing care,
but that isn't the plaintiff's situation."

A., 44, has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and is also
recognized as disabled by the NII.  He was particularly stunned to
be refused nursing insurance because he had been paying premiums
on such a policy for the last 12 years, ever since joining
Clalit's nursing insurance program in 1998.

When the policy was transferred to Dikla, initially, nothing
happened.  But in June 2010, the company informed him that it
wouldn't cover him due to his preexisting condition.

When A.'s mother sought clarification from Dikla, it asked her to
supply additional medical data, which she did. But in November
2010, she got two contradictory letters from the firm on the same
day: one that requested additional documents, and another saying
that due to his medical condition, A. was ineligible for nursing
insurance.

After receiving a complaint from Bizchut, Dikla agreed to refund
the 12 years of premium payments.  But it continued to refuse to
insure A.

"This is an unacceptable practice, whereby insurance companies do
everything possible to thwart implementation of the equality law,
which states that they must enable every person to obtain
insurance," said Asaf Pink, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys.
Despite the rule that companies may deny insurance only on the
basis of the applicant's individual medical data, "it turns out
the companies have no such data; they reject the disabled on the
basis of a telephone conversation."

Dikla said it hadn't yet seen the suit and therefore couldn't
respond, but insisted that it acts in strict accordance with the
law.  Clal and Maccabi both said they hadn't yet seen the suit and
thus couldn't respond.

Leumit said it would give its response in court, while Clalit
referred questions to Dikla.


COMMERCIAL METALS: Still Defends Antitrust Lawsuit in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Metals Company continues to defend an antitrust class
action complaint in Illinois.

On September 18, 2008, the Company was served with a class action
antitrust lawsuit alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, brought by Standard Iron Works of Scranton, Pennsylvania,
against nine steel manufacturing companies, including Commercial
Metals Company.  The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, alleges that the defendants
conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which
steel products were sold in the United States by artificially
restricting the supply of such steel products.  The lawsuit, which
purports to be brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
purchasers of steel products directly from the defendants between
January 1, 2005 and September 2008, seeks treble damages and
costs, including reasonable attorney fees and pre- and post-
judgment interest.  Document discovery has taken place but motions
for class certification are not yet pending nor have any
depositions been taken.  The Company believes the case is without
merit and intends to defend it vigorously.

No updates were reported in the Company's April 6, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended February 29, 2012.

Commercial Metals Company -- http://www.cmc.com/-- engages in
recycling, manufacturing, fabricating, and distributing steel and
metal products, and related materials and services in the United
States and internationally.  The company was founded in 1915 and
is headquartered in Irving, Texas.


DEUTSCHE TELEKOM: Minor Shareholders Lose Class Action Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
Agence France-Press reports that a German court on May 16 ruled
against 17,000 minor shareholders of telecoms giant Deutsche
Telekom, who claimed the firm had held back vital information
during an initial public offering in 2000.

Deutsche Telekom had made "no mistakes in their prospectus" at the
time, ruled Birgitta Schier-Ammann, presiding judge at the higher
regional court in Frankfurt.

Lawyers for the shareholders have already said they will appeal
the ruling.

Deutsche Telekom entered the US market in 2000 with its purchase
of mobile phone company Voicestream at the height of the IT
bubble.

The subsidiary has caused Deutsche Telekom huge financial
difficulties which continue to this day to weigh on its share
price.  It has been unable to rid itself of the troublesome
purchase.

The stock, worth EUR66 ($84) at the time is now worth less than
nine euros.

The plaintiffs argued they would not have bought the stock if they
had been aware of the risks relating to the purchase.


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Judge Dismisses Robocall Marketing Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that Domino's is
off the hook in a proposed class action over illegal robocalling
after a federal judge ruled that the pizza chain is not
responsible for the actions of a telemarketing firm or the
franchise that hired it.

Lead plaintiff Carolyn Anderson started a class action against
Domino's, a franchisee and a telemarketing firm over automated
calls offering pizza deals, which violate the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, as well as a Washington statute.

Domino's argued that the calls were made by the franchisee Four
Our Families, who had hired the telemarketing firm Call-Em-All,
and thus it bore no liability in the action.

Ms. Anderson claimed that the pizza company's franchise agreement
"makes it clear that Domino's has an extremely broad right to
control advertising and marketing decisions, including robo-
calling campaigns."

Domino's moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had no
control over the local advertising by Four Our Families. U.S.
District Judge Ronald Leighton agreed.

"The mere fact that Domino's requires franchisees to participate
in marketing campaigns does not somehow mean that any franchisee's
illegal use of an [automatic dialing and announcing device] is
imputed to the franchisor," the judge wrote.

The court declined to grant judgment to Four Our Families, who
argued that the calls were not illegal because they did not give
the recipient the option of connecting to an operator.

"The call at issue requested action from the recipient -- to
return the call and purchase pizza," Judge Leighton found.

"If unsolicited, such a call would be exactly the type envisioned
by the legislature as an 'unwarranted invasion of privacy.'"

The judge also denied plaintiff Ms. Anderson's motion to certify
the class action, because the motion was untimely and
certification in this case "inflicts a grossly disproportionate
and crippling liability, far beyond the actual damages suffered."

A copy of the Order in Anderson v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-00902 (W.D. Wash.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/vSFwgI


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Athletes' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge refused to grant judgment to Electronic Arts in a civil
class action that accuses the company of duping college athletes
into signing away their rights to profit from their own images.

In a 2009 class action, former UCLA basketball star Edward
O'Bannon claimed the National Collegiate Athletic Association
forced students to sign the misleading "Form 08-3a" if they wanted
to play NCAA sports.  This form allegedly "commercially exploits
former student athletes" by giving the NCAA the right to profit
from their images without compensation, long after the athletes
have left school.

The athletes say the NCAA, Electronic Arts and Collegiate
Licensing Company violated federal antitrust laws and conspired to
restrain trade by fixing their compensation to $0.

In May 2011, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken tossed some of the
conspiracy claims against EA, finding that the lawsuit did not
plead facts suggesting that the company joined the alleged
conspiracy.

Judge Wilken also dismissed the claim that EA conspired to "group
boycott" athletes to deny them compensation for the use of their
images, likenesses or names.

She noted that the consolidated amended complaint fails to allege
that EA helped require student athletes to sign annual forms
requiring them to relinquish all rights in perpetuity for use of
or compensation for their images, likenesses or names.

EA moved for judgment on the pleadings, which Judge Wilken denied
in an order on May 16.

The judge found the terms of the licensing agreements do not
refute the athletes' antitrust claims.

"The agreement does not distinguish between former and current
student-athletes, even though, in the next sentence, it
acknowledges that both may be encompassed within the word
'athlete,'" Judge Wilken wrote.

"In the context of antitrust plaintiffs' other allegations, on a
motion for judgment on the pleadings, these terms can fairly be
read to evidence a 'meeting of the minds' between EA and the other
defendants not to compensate former student-athletes, where such a
contract would interfere with the student-athletes' existing
agreements with the NCAA."

Judge Wilken also rejected EA's argument that the plaintiffs'
claim that some former athletes' licensing of their likenesses is
inconsistent with their anticompetitive conduct claim.

A copy of the Order Denying Electronic Arts Inc.'s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings in In Re NCAA Student-Athlete Name &
Likeness Licensing Litigation, Case No. 09-cv-01967 (N.D. Calif.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/16/409-cv-01967.pdf


GENTA INC: Still Defends Stockholder Class Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
Genta Incorporated continues to defend a stockholder class action
complaint in New Jersey, according to the Company's March 28,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

In September 2008, several stockholders, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
against the Company, its Board of Directors, and certain of its
executive officers in Superior Court of New Jersey, captioned
Collins v. Warrell, Docket No. L-3046-08.  The complaint alleged
that in issuing convertible notes in June 2008, the Company's
Board of Directors and certain officers breached their fiduciary
duties, and it aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duty.  On
March 20, 2009, the Superior Court of New Jersey granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the class action complaint and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  On April 30, 2009, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Appellate Division.
On May 13, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from
judgment based on a claim of new evidence, which was denied on
June 12, 2009.  The plaintiffs also asked the Appellate Division
for a temporary remand to permit the Superior Court judge to
resolve the issues of the new evidence plaintiffs sought to raise
and the Appellate Division granted the motion for temporary
remand.  Following the briefing and a hearing, the Superior Court
denied the motion for relief from judgment on August 28, 2009.
Thus, this matter proceeded in the Appellate Division. Plaintiffs'
brief before the Appellate Division was filed on October 28, 2009,
and the Company's responsive brief was filed on January 27, 2010.
The plaintiffs' reply brief was filed on
March 15, 2010.  On August 3, 2011, the Appellate Division
affirmed the decision of the Superior Court in part and reversed
the decision of the Superior Court in part.  The Appellate
Division held that the Superior Court properly dismissed the
complaint, but should have permitted the plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint. The Appellate Division remanded the case to the
Superior Court.  On August 15, 2011, the defendants moved for
reconsideration by the Appellate Division, but their motion was
denied on August 26, 2011.  The plaintiffs then filed an Amended
Complaint on October 12, 2011 which the defendants answered on
November 15, 2011.

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

The Company, its Board of Directors and officers deny these
allegations and intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Genta is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in pharmaceutical
(drug) research and development.


GOOGLE: Judge Reaffirms Denial of Marketers' Class-Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for Online Media Daily, reports that a
federal judge reaffirmed his earlier ruling in favor of Google in
a lawsuit brought by search marketers attempting to bring a class-
action lawsuit against Google, stemming from its "parked domains"
and "errors" programs.

In a decision issued earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge
Edward Davila declined to reconsider an earlier pro-Google
decision denying the marketers class-action status.

In that earlier ruling, issued in January, Judge Davila said a
class-action lawsuit was inappropriate in this case because
"individualized issues of restitution permeate the class claims."

Shortly after that ruling came out, the marketers suing Google
asked Judge Davila to reconsider.  They argued that restitution
awards could be calculated without individualized inquiries.

Alternatively, they asked Judge Davila to certify a class simply
for purposes of figuring out whether Google was liable.

Judge Davila rejected both of those arguments, noting that the
class-certification question has "already been thoughtfully
decided."

The marketers that sued can still proceed individually, but it's
unlikely that individual marketers' monetary damages would
approach the cost of litigation.  By contrast, in class-action
lawsuits, attorneys often are awarded fees as part of the final
judgment.

The long-running litigation began in 2008, when several marketers
filed lawsuits complaining about Google's AdSense for Domains and
AdSense for Errors programs.  Those programs often serve ads on
typo sites that people land on accidentally.

The marketers argued that ads on those types of sites result in
fewer purchases than ads on Google's search results pages.  The
marketers also claimed that ads on parked domains "could damage
their brands."

Google asserted that marketers often benefited from ads on parked
domains or error pages.  The company also said it told marketers
about the programs and allowed them to opt out.

While Google wasn't able to get the lawsuit entirely dismissed,
the company prevailed on its argument that the lawsuit shouldn't
proceed as a class-action.  Google contended that marketers'
damages, if any, must be calculated on an individual basis, making
the case unsuitable for class-action status.


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Multi-District Litigation in Texas Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A multi-district litigation in a Texas district court remains
pending, according to Heartland Payment Systems Inc.'s February
28, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

To date, the Company has had several lawsuits filed against it and
additional lawsuits may be filed.  These include lawsuits which
assert claims against the Company by cardholders (including
various putative class actions seeking in the aggregate to
represent all cardholders in the United States whose transaction
information is alleged to have been placed at risk in the course
of the Processing System Intrusion) and banks that issued payment
cards to cardholders whose transaction information is alleged to
have been placed at risk in the course of the Processing System
Intrusion (including various putative class actions seeking to
represent all financial institutions that issued payment cards to
cardholders whose transaction information is alleged to have been
placed at risk in the course of the Processing System Intrusion),
seeking damages allegedly arising out of the Processing System
Intrusion and other related relief.  The actions generally assert
various common-law claims such as claims for negligence and breach
of contract, as well as, in some cases, statutory claims such as
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach
notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices
statutes.  The putative cardholder class actions seek various
forms of relief including damages, injunctive relief, multiple or
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  The putative
financial institution class actions seek compensatory damages,
including recovery of the cost of issuance of replacement cards
and losses by reason of unauthorized transactions, as well as
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.

On June 10, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
entered an order centralizing the class action cases for pre-trial
proceedings before the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, under the caption In re Heartland
Payment Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation,
MDL No. 2046, 4:09-md-2046.  On August 24, 2009, the court
appointed interim co-lead and liaison counsel for the financial
institution and consumer plaintiffs.  On September 23, 2009, the
financial institution plaintiffs filed a Master Complaint in the
MDL proceedings, which the Company moved to dismiss on October 23,
2009.  Briefing on that motion to dismiss concluded on February 1,
2010 and the motion remains pending.  On December 18, 2009, the
Company and interim counsel for the consumer plaintiffs filed with
the Court a proposed settlement agreement, subject to court
approval, of the consumer class action claims.  On May 3, 2010,
the Court entered an order preliminarily certifying the settlement
class, authorizing notice to the class to proceed, and scheduling
a fairness hearing for December 10, 2010, which was later
adjourned to December 13, 2010.  The Company and interim consumer
plaintiffs' counsel provided additional information requested by
the Court following the hearing, and the Court has taken the
proposed settlement under advisement.


J. ALEXANDER: Awaits Approval of Employee Suit Settlement in Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
J. Alexander Corporation related in its April 2, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended January 1, 2012, that it has reached, and is
awaiting court approval of a settlement resolving an employee
class action lawsuit over the restaurant chain's tip share pool.

In February 2012, the Company agreed to a settlement of a
previously disclosed lawsuit, Dionne Michelle Williams-Green v. J.
Alexander's Restaurants, Inc., originally filed on August 4, 2009,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.   The settlement is subject to court approval.  The case
was filed by a former hourly employee of the Company in Illinois
and was later certified as a class action on a claim that the
Company's tip share pool in two restaurants was invalid.  The
Company's fiscal year 2011 results include expenses of
approximately $900,000 related to the defense and settlement of
the matter.

J. Alexander's Corporation was organized in 1971 and, as of
January 1, 2012, operated as a proprietary concept 33 J.
Alexander's full-service, casual dining restaurants located in
Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Texas.  J.
Alexander's is a traditional restaurant with an American menu
featuring prime rib of beef; hardwood-grilled steaks, seafood and
chicken; pasta; salads and soups; assorted sandwiches, appetizers
and desserts; and a full-service bar.


JAMAICA PUBLIC: Class Action Over License Stalls
------------------------------------------------
Monique Grange, writing for The Gleaner/Power 106 News Centre,
reports that attorney-at-law Hugh Wildman is raising concern about
the pace at which the class action suit against the Jamaica Public
Service Company (JPS), is progressing in the Supreme Court.

The suit was filed in September last year by a group called
Citizens United to Reduce Electricity (CURE).

CURE is challenging the constitutionality of the license held by
the JPS.

Mr. Wildman, who is representing the group, has maintained that
the license of the utility company became unconstitutional with
the passage of the Charter of Rights Bill last year.

However, he said the issue has been dragging in the court system.

The case is set to be heard next month.

In the meantime, Mr. Wildman has hinted that there could be more
suits against the JPS.

He said he has been receiving support from other attorneys who
have raised similar concerns about the power company's license.


JOS. A. BANK: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. was sued on March 16, 2012, by Neil
Holmes, a former employee of the Company, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, in the Superior Court of
California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 112CV220780, alleging
various violations of California wage and labor laws, according to
the Company's March, 28, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
January 28, 2012.

The Complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the case
as a class action, injunctive relief, monetary damages, penalties,
restitution, other equitable relief, interest, attorney's fees and
costs.

The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., organized on June 22, 1982, is a
nationwide designer, manufacturer, retailer and direct marketer
(through stores, catalog call center and Internet) of men's
tailored and casual clothing and accessories and is a retailer of
tuxedo rental products.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Murray Frank Files Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Murray Frank LLP on May 15 disclosed that it has filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers common stock
in JPMorgan Chase & Co. between April 13, 2012 and May 10, 2012,
inclusive.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 that occurred when the Defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the losses and risk of loss to the
Company arising from massive bets on derivative contracts related
to credit indexes reflecting interest rates on corporate bonds.
These derivative bets went horribly wrong, resulting in billions
of dollars in lost capital for the Company and billions more in
lost market capitalization for JPMorgan shareholders.

As alleged in the lawsuit, JPMorgan's credit index derivative
positions were so large that they generated market rumors and
press coverage in the weeks leading up to the Company's April 13,
2012 earnings conference call with investors.  Specifically, the
lawsuit alleges that instead of disclosing the extremely risky
nature of JPMorgan's derivative bets, and the actual losses that
had been incurred at the time, Defendants falsely characterized
the derivative positions as mere "hedging" strategies.  JPMorgan's
CEO, Defendant James "Jamie" Dimon, went so far as to call press
reports about the Company's derivative positions a "complete
tempest in a teapot."

Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
when made because they failed to disclose, among other things: (a)
JPMorgan's positions in the credit index-based derivative products
were not for "hedging" purposes or to "offset other exposures" but
were in fact trades on the Company's own account intended to
generate income because they were not matched to offset other
JPMorgan investments; (b) the Company had already incurred
significant and material losses in the credit index-based
derivatives when the market learned of JPMorgan's positions, and
by the April 13, 2012 conference call with investors; and (c) the
Company faced potentially tens of billions of losses resulting
from the credit index based derivatives, downgraded credit, and
loss of reputational capital.  As a result of defendants' false
statements, JPMorgan's securities traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.

On May 10, 2012, JPMorgan filed an SEC Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012, and after the market close, held a business
update conference call with analysts and investors.  During the
May 10th call, Defendants revealed that the Company had
experienced a "slightly more than $2 billion trading loss under
synthetic credit positions."  As a result of this disclosure, the
market price of JPMorgan's common stock fell from $40.74 per share
at the market close on Thursday, May 10, 2012, to $36.96 per share
on May 11, 2012, falling more than 9% on extraordinary volume of
217 million shares.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may move the
Court, not later than July 13, 2012, to serve as Lead Plaintiff
for the Class.  A Lead Plaintiff is a representative chosen by the
Court who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  You do not need to be a Lead Plaintiff to be included
in the class.  If you purchased JPMorgan securities and wish to
discuss this litigation, or have any questions concerning this
Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters,
please contact us.

Contact: Bridget V. Hamill, Esq.
         MURRAY FRANK LLP
         Telephone: 800-497-8076
                    212-682-1818
         E-mail: investigations@murrayfrank.com
         Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com


LAN AIRLINES: Awaits OK of C$700,000 Price-Fixing Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAN Airlines, S.A., and its cargo subsidiary is awaiting court
approval of a C$700,000 settlement resolving four separate class
action complaints alleging price fixing of cargo-related fees,
according to the Company's April 2, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2011.

In February 2006, the European Commission, in conjunction with the
Department of Justice of the United States (DOJ), initiated a
global investigation of a large number of international cargo
airlines (among them Lan Cargo, LAN's cargo subsidiary) for
possible price fixing of cargo fuel surcharges and other fees in
the European and United States air cargo markets.  On December 26,
2007, the European competition authorities notified Lan Cargo and
LAN of the initiation of proceedings against 25 cargo airlines,
among them Lan Cargo, for allegations of anti-competitive behavior
in the airfreight business.

The investigation by the DOJ prompted the filing of numerous civil
class actions by freight forwarding and shipping companies against
many airlines, including Lan Cargo and Lan Airlines, including 54
in the United States.  The cases filed in the United States were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New
York and the original complaint was subsequently amended to
include additional airlines, including ABSA.  On May 11, 2011, Lan
Cargo announced that it had reached a settlement agreement with
the class action plaintiffs in relation to the litigation.  As per
the settlement agreement, Lan Cargo agreed to pay US$59.7 million.
Furthermore, Aerolineas Brasileiras S.A. (ABSA), a subsidiary of
LAN Airlines, also reached a settlement agreement with class
action plaintiffs and agreed to pay US$6.3 million.  The amounts
were paid to plaintiffs' counsel escrow account in 2011.

In February 2006, the Canadian Competition Bureau (CCB), in
conjunction with the DOJ, initiated a global investigation of a
large number of international cargo airlines (among them Lan
Cargo) for possible price fixing of cargo fuel surcharges and
other fees in the Canadian air cargo markets.  Given the current
stage of the proceeding, it is not possible at this time to
anticipate with any precision the outcome of the investigation.
The CCB's investigation prompted the filing of four separate civil
class actions by freight forwarding and shipping companies against
many airlines, including Lan Cargo and Lan Airlines in Canada.  On
January 31, 2012, the respective Board of Directors of Lan
Airlines and Lan Cargo approved a settlement agreement with the
class actions plaintiffs.  As per the settlement agreement, Lan
Airlines and Lan Cargo agreed to pay the amount of C$700,000.  The
settlement agreement and payment are pending court approval.

Lan Airlines is a publicly-held stock corporation incorporated
under the laws of Chile, with unlimited duration.  Lan Airlines is
a company primarily involved in the transportation of passengers
and cargo.


MACY'S INC: Still Defends "Shanehchian" Lawsuit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------
Macy's Inc. continues to defend against an Ohio class action
complaint alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, according to the Company's March 28, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On October 3, 2007, Ebrahim Shanehchian, an alleged participant in
the Macy's, Inc. Profit Sharing 401(k) Investment Plan, filed a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio on behalf of persons who participated in the 401(k) Plan and
The May Department Stores Company Profit Sharing Plan between
February 27, 2005 and the present.  The lawsuit has been
conditionally certified as a class action.  The complaint alleges
that the Company, as well as members of the Company's board of
directors and certain members of senior management, breached
various fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) to participants in the 401(k) Plan and the
May Plan, by making false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations and prospects in relation to the
integration of the acquired May operations, resulting in supposed
"artificial inflation" of the Company's stock price and "imprudent
investment" by the 401(k) Plan and the May Plan in Macy's stock.
The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages
and costs.  The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and
intends to contest it vigorously.

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


METLIFE INC: Appeal from "Jackson" Suit Dismissal Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court order dismissing a putative class action
lawsuit filed against Homer City OL6 LLC remains pending,
according to MetLife Inc.'s February 28, 2012, 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2011.

On January 4, 2011, the U.S. commenced a civil action styled
United States of America v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., et
al. in United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania against EME Homer City Generation L.P., Homer City
OL6 LLC, and other defendants regarding the operations of the
Homer City Generating Station, an electricity generating facility.
Homer City OL6 LLC, an entity owned by Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, is a passive investor with a noncontrolling interest in
the electricity generating facility, which is solely operated by
the lessee, EME Homer City.  The complaint sought injunctive
relief and assessment of civil penalties for alleged violations of
the federal Clean Air Act and Pennsylvania's State Implementation
Plan.  The alleged violations were the subject of Notices of
Violations that the Environmental Protection Agency issued to EME
Homer City, Homer City OL6 LLC, and others in June 2008 and May
2010.  On January 7, 2011, the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania granted the motion by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the State
of New York to intervene in the lawsuit as additional plaintiffs.
On February 16, 2011, the State of New Jersey filed an
Intervenor's Complaint in the lawsuit.

On January 7, 2011, two plaintiffs filed a putative class action
titled Scott Jackson and Maria Jackson v. EME Homer City
Generation L.P., et al. in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of a putative class
of persons who have allegedly incurred damage to their persons
and/or property because of the violations alleged in the action
brought by the U.S.  Homer City OL6 LLC is a defendant in this
action.  On October 12, 2011, the court issued an order dismissing
the U.S.'s lawsuit with prejudice.  The Government entities have
appealed from the order granting defendants' motion to dismiss.
On October 13, 2011, the court also issued an order dismissing the
federal claims in the putative class actions with prejudice and
dismissing the state law claims in the putative class actions
without prejudice to re-file in state court.  EME Homer City has
acknowledged its obligation to indemnify Homer City OL6 LLC for
any claims relating to the NOVs.  Due to the acknowledged
indemnification obligation, this matter is not included in the
aggregate estimate of range of reasonably possible loss.  In a
February 13, 2012 letter to EME Homer City, Homer City OL6 LLC and
others, the Sierra Club indicated its intent to sue for alleged
violations of the Clean Air Act and to seek to enjoin the alleged
violations, seek unspecified penalties and attorneys' fees, and
other relief.  Homer City OL6 LLC has served a claim for
indemnification on EME Homer City.


METLIFE INC: Appeals Court Affirms Summary Judgment Order
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower
court's order granting a motion for summary judgment filed by
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in a Nevada class action
lawsuit, according to MetLife Inc.'s February 28, 2012, 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

The putative class action lawsuit styled Clark, et al. v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, which was filed on March 28,
2008 in Nevada, alleges breach of contract and breach of a common
law fiduciary and/or quasi-fiduciary duty arising from use of the
TCA to pay life insurance policy death benefits.  As damages,
plaintiffs seek disgorgement of the difference between the
interest paid to the account holders and the investment earnings
on the assets backing the accounts.

In March 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part MLIC's
motion to dismiss, dismissing the fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment claims but allowing a breach of contract claim and a
special or confidential relationship claim to go forward.  On
September 9, 2010, the court granted MLIC's motion for summary
judgment.  Plaintiffs appealed this order and on December 7, 2011,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
the district court's grant of summary judgment to MLIC, finding no
breach of contract because plaintiffs suffered no damages and
finding that no special or confidential relationship existed
between the parties under Nevada law.


METLIFE INC: 2nd Circuit Denies Petition to Hear Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied a petition
for a rehearing on the dismissal of a putative class action
lawsuit filed against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
according to MetLife Inc.'s February 28, 2012, 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2011.

The putative class action lawsuit styled Faber, et al. v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, which was filed in New York
on December 4, 2008, alleges that MLIC's use of the TCA as the
settlement option under group life insurance policies violates
MLIC's fiduciary duties under ERISA.  As damages, plaintiffs seek
disgorgement of the difference between the interest paid to the
account holders and the investment earnings on the assets backing
the accounts.  On October 23, 2009, the court granted MLIC's
motion to dismiss with prejudice.  On August 5, 2011, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of the complaint.  Plaintiffs' petition for a rehearing
or rehearing en banc with the Second Circuit was denied by the
Second Circuit on November 1, 2011.


METLIFE INC: Consolidated Suit Still Pending in Nevada Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company continues to defend itself
from a consolidated putative class action lawsuit pending in
Nevada, according to MetLife Inc.'s February 28, 2012, 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2011.

The putative class action lawsuit styled Keife, et al. v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, which was filed in a Nevada
state court on July 30, 2010 and removed to federal court on
September 7, 2010, raises a breach of contract claim arising from
MLIC's use of the TCA to pay life insurance benefits under the
Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance program.  As damages,
plaintiffs seek disgorgement of the difference between the
interest paid to the account holders and the investment earnings
on the assets backing the accounts.  In September 2010, plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification of the breach of contract
claim, which the court has denied. On April 28, 2011, the court
denied MLIC's motion to dismiss.

Similar to Keife, the putative class action styled Simon v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company filed in Nevada on November 3,
2011, alleges that MLIC improperly paid interest to FEGLI
beneficiaries.  Specifically, plaintiff alleges that under the
terms of the FEGLI policy, MLIC is required to make "immediate"
payment of death benefits in "one sum."  MLIC, plaintiff alleges,
breached this duty by instead retaining the death benefits in its
general investment account and sending beneficiaries a "book of
drafts" known as the "TCA Money Market Option" as the only means
by which funds can be accessed. Plaintiff further alleges that
MLIC manipulates interest rates paid to policy beneficiaries.
This matter has been consolidated with Keife.


METLIFE INC:  Motion to Dismiss GM Retirees' Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by retired employees of
General Motors against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is
still pending, according to MetLife Inc.'s February 28, 2012, 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

The lawsuit styled Merrill Haviland, et al. v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, which was filed in Michigan and removed to
federal court on July 22, 2011, was filed by 45 retired General
Motors employees against MLIC and includes claims for conversion,
unjust enrichment, breach of contract, fraud, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent insurance acts, and
unfair trade practices, based upon GM's 2009 reduction of the
employees' life insurance coverage under GM's ERISA-governed plan.
The complaint includes a count seeking class action status.  MLIC
is the insurer of GM's group life insurance plan and administers
claims under the plan.  According to the complaint, MLIC had
previously provided plaintiffs with a "written guarantee" that
their life insurance benefits under the GM plan would not be
reduced for the rest of their lives.  MLIC has removed the case to
federal court based upon complete ERISA preemption of the state
law claims.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint recasting the
state law claims and asserting ERISA claims.  MLIC has filed a
motion to dismiss.


METLIFE INC: MTLIC, Tenants Strike Deal to Settle New York Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company has reached an agreement
in principle with a group of tenants to settle a lawsuit pending
in New York, according to MetLife Inc.'s February 28, 2012, 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

The lawsuit styled Roberts, et al. v. Tishman Speyer Properties,
et al. filed in New York on January 22, 2007, was filed by a
putative class of market rate tenants at Stuyvesant Town and Peter
Cooper Village against parties including Metropolitan Tower Life
Insurance Company and Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company.
Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company has merged into MTL and
no longer exists as a separate entity.  These tenants claim that
MTL, as former owner, and the current owner improperly deregulated
apartments while receiving J-51 tax abatements.  The lawsuit seeks
declaratory relief and damages for rent overcharges.  In October
2009, the New York State Court of Appeals issued an opinion
denying MTL's motion to dismiss the complaint. MTL has reached a
settlement in principle with the plaintiff tenants, subject to
finalizing the settlement terms and court approval.  The Company
believes adequate provision has been made in its consolidated
financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable
losses for this lawsuit.


MOTOROLA INC: Counsel to Get 27.5% of $200-Mil. Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that class
counsel will receive 27.5 percent -- or $55 million -- of a $200
million settlement Motorola will pay to end a class action that
claimed it inflated its share price by concealing the delayed
introduction of new 3G phones.

Shareholders filed a class action against Motorola executives in
2007.  The February 2012 settlement was the third largest ever in
the 7th Circuit.

Motorola repeatedly assured shareholders that it would roll out
new 3G phones before Thanksgiving 2006, but the vendor it relied
on to produce integrated circuits for the phones failed to
deliver.  The delay set the rollout date back to January 2007,
missing the entire Christmas season.

The class claimed that the setback caused an "earnings gap" of
$1.1 billion and produced internal e-mails indicating that
Motorola executives were aware of the delays even as the company
released public statements that "product launches are on track."

For example, in one e-mail introduced by the plaintiffs, the
company's lead platform engineer wrote that "the considerable
consequences will be our stock price sinking because we are losing
our ass on 3G products."

Motorola lost its motion for summary judgment in 2011.

U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve granted class counsel 27.5 percent
of the settlement amount in attorneys fees, for a total of $55
million. She also awarded an additional $4.7 million in costs.

During the course of the litigation, the parties briefed 15
discovery disputes, subpoenaed more than 40 parties, produced over
3.8 million pages of documents and conducted 60 depositions.

Only one class member, Edward Falkner, objected to the fee
request.  He argued that the court should award no more than 15
percent of the settlement amount, but Judge St. Eve said that the
request of 27.5 percent is "consistent with the market rate."

"The risk of nonpayment and the stakes of this complex securities
fraud case were significant.  Class Counsel litigated this case
aggressively for four and one-half years, on a fully contingent
basis, before securing what appears to be the third-largest
settlement amount in a securities fraud class action in the
Seventh Circuit.  Despite successfully defeating Motorola's motion
for summary judgment, plaintiffs faced significant risks at trial
in proving both loss causation and damages.  Trial undoubtedly
would have been lengthy and would have involved numerous
witnesses, both fact and expert," the judge continued.

Judge St. Eve also noted that, as opposed to comparable securities
fraud class actions, "there were no governmental investigations or
prosecutions related to the alleged fraud upon which Class Counsel
could rest their theory of the case.  Rather, they investigated
the facts and developed their theory of liability from scratch,
involving significant time and expense."

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in Silverman v.
Motorola, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-cv-04507 (N.D. Ill.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/16/Motorola.pdf


NEW YORK, NY: NYPD Stop-and-Frisk Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that in a
passionate opinion, a federal judge granted class certification
status in a landmark trial opposing racial disparities in stop-
and-frisk policing, and put the New York City Police Department on
notice that they might face court oversight by the end of trial.

Every person who has been stopped by police since Jan. 31, 2005,
without reasonable suspicion will become a member of the class as
a result of the decision, a number that court documents indicate
will likely include "well over one hundred thousand" people.

A staff attorney from the civil rights group that brought the
lawsuit said the decision showed that the court understood that
stop-and-frisk policy implicated high-ranking city officials in
civil rights abuses.

"The Court has rightly recognized that illegal stops-and-frisks
are not limited to a few rogue police officers but are the product
of a program designed at the highest level of the police
department and affect hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of
New Yorkers," said Darius Charney of Center for Constitutional
Rights.  "As a result of today's ruling, all those for whom this
practice is a daily reality will now have an opportunity to
challenge it as a violation of their fundamental constitutional
rights and to ask the Court to order real changes in NYPD stop-
and-frisk policy."

In contrast, a New York City Law Department spokesperson offered
muted criticism.

"We respectfully disagree with the decision and are reviewing our
legal options," Connie Pankratz said.

Drawing on research by Columbia Professor Jeffrey Fagan, U.S.
District Judge Shira Scheindlin noted that police have stopped,
questioned and frisked New Yorkers and visitors more than 2.8
million times between 2004 and 2009.

Continuing research indicates that this number is rising annually,
and that nearly 90 percent of those stopped are black and Latino.

While the NYPD Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne asserts that "stops
save lives," Professor Fagan intends to testify at trial that the
vast majority of stops turn up no weapons, drugs or illegal
activity.

At a sure-to-be closely watched trial, four black and Latino men
who have been stopped will try to put an end to the practice.

"This case presents an issue of great public concern: the
disproportionate number of blacks and Latinos, as compared to
whites, who become entangled in the criminal justice system," U.S.
District Judge Shira Scheindlin wrote, in a decision green
lighting the class on May 16.  "The specific claims raised in this
case are narrower but they are raised in the context of the
extensively documented racial disparities in the rates of stops,
arrests, convictions, and sentences that continue through the
present day."

In a recent motion, the NYPD asked Judge Scheindlin to leave
police policy between the department and the city legislature.
"If a court could fashion an injunction that would have this
effect, then it is likely that lawmakers would have already passed
laws to the same effect," the NYPD's brief stated.  "An injunction
here is exactly the kind of judicial intrusion into a social
institution that is disfavored."

Judge Scheindlin called the request "disturbing" on three levels.

"First, suspicionless stops should never occur," Judge Scheindlin
wrote. "Defendants' cavalier attitude towards the prospect of a
'widespread practice of suspicionless stops' displays a deeply
troubling apathy towards New Yorkers' most fundamental
constitutional rights," Judge Scheindlin wrote.

She also rejected the NYPD's "audacious" argument that reforming
stop-and-frisk should be left to the legislature.

"Second, it is not readily apparent that if an injunction
preventing such widespread practices could be fashioned, it would
already have been passed by lawmakers," Judge Scheindlin
continued, adding that 27 members of the Black, Latino and Asian
Caucus of City Council told her otherwise in an amicus brief.

"It is rather audacious of the NYPD to argue that if it were
possible to protect 'the right of the people to be secure in their
persons' from unlawful searches and seizures by the NYPD, then the
legislature would already have done so and judicial intervention
would therefore be futile.  Indeed, it is precisely when the
political branches violate the individual rights of minorities
that 'more searching judicial enquiry' is appropriate."

In a footnote, she cited a Supreme Court ruling calling the NYPD's
position antithetical to the theory of our nation's founding.

"If we were to accept the State's argument, we would be enshrining
the rather perverse notion that traditional rights are not to be
protected in precisely those instances when protection is
essential, i.e., when a dominant group has succeeded in
temporarily frustrating exercise of those rights," she wrote,
citing the majority opinion in U.S. v. Carolene Prods. Co. "We
prefer a view more compatible with the theory of this nation's
founding: rights do not cease to exist because a government fails
to secure them. See The Declaration of Independence (1776)."

In her closing, she wrote, "Third, if the NYPD is engaging in a
widespread practice of unlawful stops, then an injunction seeking
to curb that practice is not a "judicial intrusion into a social
institution" but a vindication of the Constitution and an exercise
of the courts' most important function: protecting individual
rights in the face of the government's malfeasance."

Parties will attend a status conference on the case on May 29.

A copy of the Opinion and Order in Floyd, et al. v. The City of
New York, et al., Case No. 08-cv-01034 (S.D.N.Y.), is available at
http://is.gd/9APaV9

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Darius Charney, Esq.
          Sunita Patel, Esq.
          CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
          666 Broadway, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: (212) 614-6464

               - and -

          Jonathan C. Moore, Esq.
          Jennifer Borchetta, Esq.
          BELDOCK LEVINE & HOFFMAN LLP
          99 Park Avenue, Suite 1600
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 277-5850
          E-mail: jmoore@blhny.com

               - and -

          Eric Hellerman, Esq.
          Philip Irwin, Esq.
          Gretchen Hoff-Varner, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 841-1190
          E-mail: ehellerman@cov.com
                  pirwin@cov.com
                  ghoffvarner@cov.com

               - and -

          Heidi Grossman, Esq.
          Linda Donahue, Esq.
          Assistant Corporation Counsel
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 788-8084


PEET'S COFFEE: Faces Class Action in Mass. Over Tip Policy
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Peet's Coffee & Tea should
not force baristas to share tips with shift supervisors, a class
claims in Suffolk Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Maia v. Peet's Operating Company, Inc.,
d/b/a Peet's Coffee & Tea, Case No. 12-1811 (Mass. Super. Ct.,
Sufolk Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/16/peets.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Sara Smolik, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  hschwab@llrlaw.com
                  ssmolik@llrlaw.com

              - and -

          James W. Simpson, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES W. SIMPSON, JR. P.C.
          100 Concord Street, Suite 3B
          Framingham, MA 01702
          Telephone: (508) 872-0002


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Sued Over Worthless Insurance Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Armstrong at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class of defense contractors claim that Prudential Insurance
teamed up with their employers to sell them worthless policies
encumbered by wartime exclusions.

Lead plaintiffs Alexander Menkes and Stephen Wolfe say they began
working for Westar Aerospace & Defense Group at the U.S. airbase
stationed out of Kirkuk, Iraq, after finishing their stints with
the military.

Westar, as an agent for defense contractor QinetiQ, offered both
veterans a basic package of benefits upon their hiring.

In addition to the basics, Messrs. Menkes and Wolfe also had the
opportunity to purchase additional Prudential policies: Buy-Up
Long Term Disability, Supplemental Term Life Insurance and
Supplemental Accidental Death & Dismemberment Insurance.
Although these policies cost a premium every month, Messrs. Menkes
and Wolfe say Prudential, Westar and QinetiQ assured them that the
policies "would provide . . . coverage and protection while
plaintiffs and members of the class performed their job duties in
Iraq and/or Afghanistan."

In reality, however, the additional Prudential policies all
contained "exclusions from coverage based upon 'disability due to
war, declared or undeclared, or any act of war," the 50-page
complaint states.

Mr. Menkes seeks to represent a subclass for clients whose claims
Prudential denied.  He claims that he filed a claim with
Prudential for disability benefits after suffering "a lumbar back
injury, a positive test for exposure to tuberculosis that required
long-term antibiotic therapy, and post-traumatic stress disorder
manifesting in symptoms, including but not limited to, insomnia,
stress and nightmares he suffered as a result of exposure to
rocket attacks, mortars and gunfire from January 2009 through July
2009."

Prudential refused to distribute benefits from any of the three
additional policies it had sold Mr. Menkes, telling him the
injuries he sustained were due to an "occupational sickness,"
which was a "contractual provision of the war exclusion,"
according to the complaint.

Prudential and QinetiQ reaped "excessive profits" by selling
insurance policies that had "diminished or no value" for the
defense contractors they targeted, according to the suit.

While raking in premiums for "worthless" coverage, clients could
not receive "disability coverage for their lost income and/or
benefits suffered due to injuries, death and/or dismemberment
occurring in the 'wartime' conditions and/or as a result 'acts of
war' in Iraq and/or Afghanistan where they were performing job
duties know, intended and expected to be performed by the
defendants," the complaint states.

The class seeks punitive damages for consumer fraud, breach of
contract, misrepresentation, and violations of the Truth Consumer
Contract, Warranty and Notice Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Menkes, et al. v. The Prudential
Insurance Company of America, et al., Case No. 12-cv-_____,
docketed as Doc. 14923 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on May 14, 2012 (D.
N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/16/wartime.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew P. Bell, Esq.
          Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
          Andrew P. Bell, Esq.
          LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC
          457 Haddonfield Road, Ste 500
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: (856) 663-8200


SOLAR MILLENNIUM: Investors File Class Action Over Insolvency
-------------------------------------------------------------
Becky Stuart, writing for PV Magazine, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Solar Millennium AG at Germany's
Nurnberg-Fuerth district court.  It has been found that through
the company's insolvency, a loss of EUR315,000 was incurred.

In a statement released by KWAG Kanzlei fuer Wirtschafts- und
Anlagerecht, a Bremen-based economic and investment law firm, it
was said that 18 plaintiffs, who invested a total of EUR315,000
worth of bearer bonds in the beleaguered solar company, are
represented in the lawsuit.

The action by the investors, and supported by KWAG, is said to be
against the founding shareholders of the company, which are also
responsible for the share issue prospectus.  In the class action,
over 10 errors have reportedly been listed in the prospectus.

"Given these, we consider the chances of success for our clients
as very good," stated Jan-Henning Ahrens, a lawyer specializing in
banking and capital market law, and a partner at KWAG.  He added
that Solar Millennium's beliefs of its chances of success were
largely shaped on the principle of hope, rather than verifiable
facts.  "The prospectus doesn't even contain an understandable
business plan," he said.

He added, "Many investors have been blinded by the apparent
success story of the company."  Furthermore, even with the bond
issue, continued the KWAG statement, there were serious doubts
about the plausibility of claims made by Solar Millennium over its
positive business development.

In principle, bond investors must consider two important aspects
with regards to possible compensation, continued KWAG.

They encompass so-called "true belief" in the insolvency of the
corporation.  "Therefore, if not already done so, they should
immediately register their claims with the insolvency creditors."
Secondly, because the bonds were subscribed to between 2006 and
2011, there are different limitation periods.  "In principle, the
so-called knowledge independence limitation amounts to three years
from acquisition of the bonds."

Overall, KWAG says Solar Millennium issued bearer bonds worth a
nominal value of EUR290 million, of which EUR270 million are still
open and, consequently, must be repaid.  But, the mediation of
these interest papers was reportedly taken over by Solar Invest AG
which, in its present state, is not insolvent.


SPI ELECTRICITY: Settles Bushfire Class Action for AUD32.85MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Dunn, writing for Herald Sun, reports that a class action
over the fatal Beechworth-Mudgegonga bushfire on Black Saturday
has been settled for AUD32.85 million, 45% of the estimated total
loss for injuries and property damage in the disaster.

Power company SPI Electricity and co-defendants the Department of
Sustainability and Environment, Parks Victoria and vegetation
clearance contractor Eagle -- although denying liability -- agreed
to the settlement ahead of what was to be an eight week Supreme
Court trial.

Justice Karin Emerton on May 16 approved the settlement terms,
noting the agreement was "generally fair and reasonable".

The class action was headed by lead plaintiffs Paul Anthony
Mercieca and Amelia Jane Coombes, on behalf of all local
individuals and businesses which suffered loss as a result of the
massive blaze, allegedly caused by a fallen tree on a powerline
3km south of Beechworth, which killed two people and destroyed up
to 40 properties on February 7, 2009.

"The plaintiffs, Paul Mercieca and Amelia Coombes, lost their home
and its contents in the fire, together with art works, motor
vehicles, and equestrian and panel beating equipment," Justice
Emerton said.

"Ms. Coombes was injured, suffering burns to parts of her body,
and both Mr. Mercieca and Ms. Coombes claim to have experienced
severe psychological trauma."

DSE and Parks Victoria were responsible for bushland adjacent to
where the fire started.

"The cause of the fire is a matter of considerable dispute between
the parties and is the subject of a large number of expert
reports," Justice Emerton said.

"The State parties allege that an event unrelated to the tree --
some flying debris or perhaps a possum -- caused arcing at the top
of the power-pole which, in turn, caused the powerline to
fracture, fall and arc against the pole, causing the fire."

The plaintiffs alleged negligent tree maintenance had seen a dead
tree limb carrying significant canopy weight had fallen in high
winds, sparking the fire.

Lawyers for the victims claimed losses estimated at AUD73 million
but the settlement saw no objections raised by the parties to the
agreed compensation package.

The settlement includes a 25% "uplift" for plaintiff lawyers fees,
with Justice Emerton finding the additional legal costs "not
unreasonable" given they took on the case on a no-win, no-fee
basis.

Last October, electricity distributor Powercor agreed to pay up to
AUD40 million for a Black Saturday bushfire in Horsham that was
blamed on an inadequately maintained power line.


STEC INC: Trial in Consolidated Calif. Suit Set for July 24
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trial in a second amended consolidated class action lawsuit
pending in California is set for July 24, according to Stec Inc.'s
February 28, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

From November 6, 2009 through March 2, 2010, seven purported class
action complaints were filed against the Company and several of
its senior officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California. The Court
consolidated the complaints and appointed Lead Plaintiffs.  The
Court replaced the former Lead Plaintiffs with a new Lead
Plaintiff. The new Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint that the Court dismissed without prejudice.  Thereafter,
the new Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
purportedly on behalf of all persons and entities who acquired the
Company's common stock between June 16, 2009 and February 23,
2010.

The second amended complaint alleges claims against the Company
and several of its senior officers and directors for violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder and claims against several of its senior officers
and directors for violations of Section 20A and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.  In addition, the second amended complaint
alleges claims against the Company, several of its senior officers
and directors, and four of its underwriters for violations of
Section 11 and Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and
claims against several of the Company's senior officers and
directors for violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act.  The
second amended complaint seeks compensatory damages for all
damages sustained as a result of the defendants' alleged actions,
and further seeks reasonable costs and expenses, rescission,
counsel fees, and other relief the Court deems just and proper.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss and on June 17, 2011, the
Court entered an order granting the underwriters' motion to
dismiss the Securities Act claims without prejudice and denying
the Company's motion to dismiss the Exchange Act claims.  The
defendants answered the second amended complaint on July 15, 2011.
At a status conference on October 11, 2011, the Court revised the
schedule of pre-trial deadlines and set a new trial date of July
24, 2012.  On November 21, 2011, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification and appointment of class counsel.  On January
12, 2012, the plaintiff in the purported class action lawsuit
pending in the Superior Court of Orange County, California filed a
motion for leave to intervene.  The defendants have opposed both
of these motions.  Pursuant to Court order, the parties attended a
mediation on January 5, 2012, which did not result in a
settlement.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself. No amounts have been recorded in the
consolidated financial statements for this matter as the Company
believes it is too early in the proceedings to determine a likely
outcome or to predict a range of reasonably possible losses in the
event of an unfavorable outcome.


STEC INC: Court Stays Calif. Securities Law Violations Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A California district court granted Stec Inc.'s motion to stay a
purported class action complaint, according to the Company's
February 28, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On July 1, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company and several of its senior officers and
directors in the Superior Court of Orange County, California.  The
complaint alleges claims against the Company, several of its
senior officers and directors, and four of its underwriters for
violations of Section 11 and Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Act, and further alleges claims against several of the Company's
senior officers and directors for violations of Section 15 of the
Securities Act.  The complaint, which arises out of the same
underlying factual allegations as the federal court class action
discussed above, seeks compensatory damages and rescission or a
rescissory measure of damages where applicable, reasonable costs
and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and other
relief the Court may deem just and proper.

On August 4, 2011, the defendants removed the action to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. The
plaintiffs moved to remand and on October 7, 2011, the Court
entered an order remanding the case back to the Superior Court of
Orange County, California.  On November 16, 2011, the defendants
moved to stay the case pending the resolution of the purported
class action lawsuit pending in federal court. On November 16,
2011, the defendants also filed a general demurrer to the
complaint.  On February 17, 2012, the Court granted the
defendants' motion to stay and declined to rule on the defendants'
general demurrer.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself. No amounts have been recorded in the
consolidated financial statements for this matter as the Company
believes it is too early in the proceedings to determine a likely
outcome or to predict a range of reasonably possible losses in the
event of an unfavorable outcome.


UNITED ONLINE: Court Dismisses Appeal Related to IPO Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed in
January the remaining appeal related to the settlement of
approximately 300 coordinated class actions including a lawsuit
against NetZero Inc., according to United Online Inc.'s February
28, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

In April 2001 and in May 2001, lawsuits were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against NetZero, Inc., certain officers and directors of NetZero
and the underwriters of NetZero's initial public offering, Goldman
Sachs Group, Inc., BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. and Salomon
Smith Barney, Inc.  A consolidated amended complaint was filed in
April 2002.  The complaint alleged that the prospectus through
which NetZero conducted its initial public offering in September
1999 was materially false and misleading because it failed to
disclose, among other things, that (i) the underwriters had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors in exchange for which the underwriters allocated
to those investors material portions of the restricted number of
NetZero shares issued in connection with the offering; and (ii)
the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers
whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate NetZero shares to
those customers in the offering in exchange for which the
customers agreed to purchase additional NetZero shares in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  Plaintiffs sought
injunctive relief and damages.

The case against NetZero was coordinated with approximately 300
other suits filed against more than 300 issuers that conducted
their initial public offerings between 1998 and 2000, their
underwriters and an unspecified number of their individual
corporate officers and directors.  The parties in the
approximately 300 coordinated class actions, including NetZero,
the underwriter defendants in the NetZero class action, and the
plaintiff class in the NetZero action, reached an agreement in
principle under which the insurers for the issuer defendants in
the coordinated cases will make a settlement payment on behalf of
the issuers, including NetZero.  In October 2009, the district
court granted final approval of the settlement.  The order
approving the settlement was appealed to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  One appeal was dismissed, and
a second appeal was remanded to the district court.  The district
court then determined that the appellant lacked standing to
appeal, and the appellant appealed the district court's decision
to the Second Circuit.  The appellant subsequently entered into an
agreement with counsel for the plaintiff class that resulted in
the dismissal with prejudice of his appeal in January 2012. As a
result, the settlement among the parties is final.


UNITED ONLINE: Awaits Final Approval of "Michaels" Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
United Online Inc. is awaiting final approval of a revised
agreement which calls for the settlement of a consolidated class
action lawsuit in Washington, according to the Company's February
28, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

In October 2008, Anthony Michaels filed a purported class action
complaint against Classmates Online, Inc., now known as Memory
Lane, Inc., Classmates Media Corporation and United Online, Inc.
in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging causes of action for intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence,
fraudulent concealment, and for violations of California Business
and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 et seq.  In December
2008, Xavier Vasquez filed a purported class action complaint
against Classmates Online, Inc., Classmates Media Corporation and
United Online, Inc. in Superior Court of Washington, Kings County,
alleging causes of action for violation of the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law,
violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unjust
enrichment and violation of California Civil Code section 1694,
dealing with dating services contracts. In both actions, the
plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and damages.  In April
2009, the United States District Court of the Western District of
Washington consolidated the Michaels and the Vasquez actions and
designated the Michaels action as the lead case.  In March 2010,
the parties entered into a comprehensive class action settlement
agreement.  In February 2011, the court denied final approval of
such settlement agreement. In March 2011, the parties entered into
a revised settlement agreement and, in July 2011, the court issued
an order granting preliminary approval of the revised settlement
agreement.  The parties subsequently modified the settlement
agreement in August 2011. A hearing on plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of the revised settlement agreement was held in
December 2011.  The parties are currently awaiting the court's
ruling on that motion.


ZYNEX INC: Class Settlement in "Mishkin" Suit Pending Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement reached to resolve a consolidated securities class
action against Zynex Inc. has yet to be approved by a trial court,
according to the Company's March 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

A lawsuit was filed against the Company, its President and Chief
Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer on
April 6, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado (Marjorie and David Mishkin v. Zynex, Inc. et al.).  On
April 9 and 10, 2009, two other lawsuits were filed in the same
court against the same defendants.  These lawsuits alleged
substantially the same matters and have been consolidated.  On
April 19, 2010, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint (Civil Action No. 09-cv-00780-REB-KLM).  The
consolidated lawsuit refers to the April 1, 2009 announcement by
the Company that it would restate its unaudited interim financial
statements for the first three quarters of 2008.  The lawsuit
purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between May 21, 2008 and March 31, 2009.  The
lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated
Section 10 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by making intentionally or recklessly untrue statements of
material fact and/or failing to disclose material facts regarding
the financial results and operating conditions for the first three
quarters of 2008 and other misleading statements.  The plaintiffs
ask for a determination of class action status, unspecified
damages and costs of the legal action.

On May 17, 2010, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss.  The
plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,
and on July 5, 2010, the Company filed a Reply in Support of
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  On March 30, 2011, the U.S.
District Court of Colorado entered an Order denying the Company's
motion to dismiss.  On November 8, 2011, the parties entered into
an agreement to settle the lawsuit for a payment of $2.5 million
to the plaintiff class in exchange for the dismissal with
prejudice of all claims against all defendants in the litigation.
The settlement is expected to be fully funded by insurance and is
subject to final approval of the court.

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

Headquartered in Colorado, Zynex Inc. is the parent company of and
conducts business within four wholly owned subsidiaries; Zynex
Medical, Inc.(ZMI), Zynex Neurodiagnostics, Inc.(ZND), Zynex
Monitoring Solutions, Inc. (ZMS) and Zynex Europe ApS. (ZEU).  ZMI
designs, manufactures and markets U.S. Food and Drug
Administration-cleared medical devices that treat chronic and
acute pain, as well as activate and exercise muscles for
rehabilitative purposes with electrical stimulation.  ZND was
formed to market, through product development and acquisitions,
electromyography (EMG), electroencephalography (EEG), sleep
pattern, auditory and nerve conductivity neurological diagnosis
devices to hospitals and clinics worldwide, through the
utilization of existing ZMI diagnostic EMG technology.  ZMS was
formed to develop and market medical devices for non-invasive
cardiac monitoring. ZEU was recently formed, in 2012, to further
progress Zynex's international expansion. ZEU will be initially
focused on sales and marketing of varying Zynex products within
the European marketplace, upon receipt of necessary regulatory
approvals.


* Lee Tran & Liang Defeats Wage & Hour Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
Lee Tran & Liang on May 15 disclosed that it defeated class
certification against a wage & hour class action lawsuit brought
against its client, a Southern California chain of nursing care
facilities.  The plaintiff was represented by an experienced class
action law firm.  The case was presided over by Judge Mary Strobel
of the Los Angeles Superior Court.

The suit was brought in early 2011 by a former employee of LTL's
client and alleged various wage and hour violations on behalf of a
class of persons employed as Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs),
Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVNs), and Registered Nurses (RNs).
Plaintiff's motion for class certification was initially held in
February 2012, and at that time, the Court denied certification as
to the theories regarding failure to pay overtime, failure to
provide first meal breaks and failure to provide rest breaks.  In
the days leading to the Brinker decision, Plaintiff added the
claim that LTL client failed to provide timely breaks for those
working double shifts.  The Court ordered further briefing
regarding this issue, pending the highly anticipated California
Supreme Court's decision on Brinker (Brinker Restaurant Corp., v.
Superior Court).

The California Supreme Court finally handed down its decision on
Brinker on April 16, 2012.  In its decision, the Court clarified
that the word "provide" means that "an employer must relieve the
employee of all duty for the designated period, but need not
ensure that the employee does no work."  As a result, on May 11,
2012, Judge Strobel in the present case ruled that the issue
whether or not LTL client violated the Labor Code provision
concerning the timing of the second meal period, requires an
individual inquiry as to whether the employee was offered a chance
to take a break before the second shift began.  As such, the Court
found that the plaintiff did not meet the commonality requirement,
and thus denied class certification.

"We could not be happier for our client," stated partner K Luan
Tran, who was the lead partner on this case, with the support of
associate Caleb Liang.  "The Brinker decision and subsequent
ruling by Judge Strobel in our case are great victories for our
corporate clients and we intend to vigorously defend them no
matter how complex and difficult a matter may be."

                    About LTL Trial Attorneys

Lee Tran & Liang, APLC [LTL Trial Attorneys] --
http://www.ltlattorneys.com-- is a California based law firm
focusing exclusively on business litigation.  Primary practice
areas include business disputes (breach of contract, aggrieved
investors and professionals, and commercial disputes) intellectual
property litigation (patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade
secrets), and employment litigation (defense).

Contac: Thomas Suh, Esq.
        Telephone: (213) 612-3737
        E-mail: thomas.suh@ltlattorneys.com


                           *********

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  * * *