CAR_Public/120917.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, September 17, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 184

                             Headlines

ADVANCE AUTO: Job Applicant Sues Over Background Check
BABCOCK & WILCOX: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Radiation Suit
BEST WESTERN: Accused of Recording/Intercepting Customers' Calls
BEZEQ: Faces NIS154-Million Class Action in Israel
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Summary Judgment Bid in "Dahl" Suit Pending

BLACKSTONE GROUP: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suit
BLUESTEM BRANDS: Recalls 4,700 Range Rider Ride-On Toy Cars
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Guzman" Class Suit
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Faces Three Class Suits in California
CHARLES RIVER: Continues to Defend Unpaid Wages Class Suit

CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Northera-Related Suit Pending in N. C.
CROCS INC: Faces Class Action in California
DEL MONTE: Sued Over Chinese-Made Chicken Jerky Dog Treats
DOMUS HOLDINGS: Settlement in Suit vs. Cendant Approved in June
EBAY: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Alleged Search Delays

FAMILY DOLLAR: Enters Into Preliminary Class Action Settlement
GNC CORP: Faces Class Action Over Unsafe Dietary Supplements
HARRIS TEETER: Recalls Eight Products Sold in Seafood Dept.
HEARST: Decision on Interns' Class Action Expected by 2013
INCO LTD: Ontario Judge Awards C$1.7MM in Costs Recovery

INTELIUS.COM: December 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ISTAR FINANCIAL: Seeks Court OK of Citiline Action Settlement
LAND O' LAKES: Judge Orders Extensive Billing Documentation
LIVE NATION: Awaits Final OK of Canadian Consumer Suit Deals
LIVE NATION: Anti-Competitive Practices Litigation Concluded

LIVE NATION: Still Awaits Final OK of Ticketing Fees Suit Deal
MERRILL LYNCH: Judge Upholds Dismissal of Race Bias Lawsuit
METLIFE INC: Awaits Summary Judgment Bid Ruling in Nevada Suit
METLIFE INC: Court Dismissed in June GM Retirees' Suit vs. MLIC
METLIFE INC: Defends "Westland" Securities Suit in New York

METLIFE INC: Defends Suits Alleging Improper Sales Practices
METLIFE INC: Faces "Birmingham" Securities Suit in Alabama
METLIFE INC: MTL Has Yet to File "Roberts" Suit Settlement Papers
METLIFE INC: Suits Involving MLIC Remain Pending in Canada
MOSAIC SALES: Faces Age Discrimination Class Action

MUELLER SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Home Inspections
NMI RETIREMENT: Retiree Amends Class Action Complaint
PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Awaits Ruling in Consolidated Calif. Suit
PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: "Primo" Suit Dismissal Bid Hearing in Oct.
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Being Sold to TPG for Too Little, Suit Says

PRICELINE.COM INC: Awaits Final Judgment in Texas Class Suit
RETAIL PROPERTIES: Faces Stockholder Class Suit in Illinois
SPEEDYPC SOFTWARE: Sued for Selling Fraudulent Software
STARBUCKS: Appeals $14.1-Mil. Class Action Damages Award
STEC INC: Securities Suit in California State Court Still Stayed

STEC INC: In Negotiations to Settle Consolidated Securities Suit
THE PLAYERS: Unlawfully Withheld Employees' Gratuities, Suit Says
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in California
VALENCE TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Umeda Files Securities Class Action
VISA: NRF to Oppose $7.25-Bil. Antitrust Class Action Settlement

VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Judge Raises Concerns on Damage Claims
WELLS TIMBERLAND: Summary Judgment Bid in Securities Suit Pending


                          *********

ADVANCE AUTO: Job Applicant Sues Over Background Check
------------------------------------------------------
Laurence Hammack, writing for The Roanoke Times, reports that a
potential class action lawsuit accuses Advance Auto Parts of using
background reports on prospective and current employees in
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

John H. Stinson, who claims the Roanoke-based company denied him a
job based on an inaccurate report showing he had a criminal
record, made the allegations in a lawsuit filed on Sept. 11.

Although employers often use such reports to screen the
backgrounds of prospective employees, the lawsuit claims that
Advance violated disclosure and authorization requirements.

"By burying its disclosures within their online job application
process, Advance willfully disregarded" laws that require a stand-
alone form for applicants to authorize a background check, the
lawsuit alleges.

Shelly Whitaker, a spokeswoman for Advance, declined to comment,
citing a company policy of not talking about pending litigation.
Filed in U.S. District Court in Roanoke, the lawsuit states that
thousands of other people had experiences similar to Mr. Stinson's
and could join the lawsuit.

The lawsuit asks a judge to certify the matter as a class action
proceeding.

Mr. Stinson applied for a job with Advance in September 2010 and
has no memory of authorizing a background check, according to the
lawsuit.

"If Stinson authorized a consumer report, the written disclosure
given to him by [Advance] was not clear and conspicuous or
contained in a document that consisted solely of the disclosure,"
the lawsuit states.

Advance reportedly hired Stinson subject to the report -- only to
inform him about 10 days later that the job offer was being
rescinded as a result of the background check.

After obtaining a copy of the report from the consumer reporting
agency that Advance relied on, Mr. Stinson discovered that it
listed "many felony convictions for another person, a stranger,
named Johnny Stinson," the lawsuit claims.

Mr. Stinson said he tried to bring the mistake to Advance's
attention to keep his newly offered job, to no avail.

According to the lawsuit, Advance uses the same process on
occasion with its existing employees.

When Advance takes adverse action against people based on the
reports, the lawsuit alleges, it typically does not provide the
applicants or employees with a copy of the document -- another
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Plaintiffs in the case are entitled to up to $1,000 in damages for
each alleged violation, plus punitive damages, the lawsuit
alleges.

Leonard Bennett, an attorney with Consumer Litigation Associates
of Newport News who filed the lawsuit, declined to elaborate on
the allegations.


BABCOCK & WILCOX: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Radiation Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Babcock & Wilcox Company is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit pending in Tennessee,
according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

In June 2011, approximately 18 plaintiffs filed a lawsuit styled
as a "class action" in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee against Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., B&W,
Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc. ("B&W PGG"), Babcock
& Wilcox Technical Services Group, Inc. ("B&W TSG"), NOG-Erwin
Holdings, Inc. and others relating to the operation of the NFS
facility in Erwin, Tennessee.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory
and punitive damages alleging personal injuries and property
damage resulting primarily from alleged releases of radioactive
materials as a result of operations at the facility.  In October
2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the original
complaint increasing the number of plaintiffs to approximately
140, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss.

The hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss was held on
June 28, 2012.  No ruling has yet been issued by the court.

The Company says this matter is still in its early stages.  No
discovery has been conducted and no trial date has been set.  The
ultimate outcome of these proceedings is uncertain and an adverse
ruling, should coverage not be available, could have a material
adverse impact on the Company's consolidated financial position,
results of operations and cash flow.


BEST WESTERN: Accused of Recording/Intercepting Customers' Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Latroya Simpson, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. Best Western International,
Inc.; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 12635543 (Calif.
Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 20, 2012) arises out of the
Defendants' policy and practice of recording and intercepting
calls made to the telephone number 1-800-780-7234 without the
consent of all parties.

The number 1-800-780-7234 connects callers with central
reservations for Best Western hotels, a hotel brand of the
Company, Ms. Simpson says.  She contends that the Defendants
intentionally and surreptitiously record and intercept telephone
calls made to the number without warning or disclosing to callers
that they are doing so.

Ms. Simpson is a resident of California.

Best Western International is a corporation headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona.  The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Company removed the lawsuit on September 7, 2012, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of Alameda, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The Company argues that the removal is proper because
a member of the class is a citizen of a state different from the
Defendants.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:12-cv-
04672 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erica. Grover, Esq.
          Carey G. Been, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 543-1305
          Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
          E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com
                  cbeen@kellergrover.com

               - and -

          Scot Bernstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN,
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 447-0100
          Facsimile: (916) 933-5533
          E-mail: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Randall J. Sunshine, Esq.
          Angela C. Agrusa, Esq.
          David B. Farkas, Esq.
          LINER GRODE STEIN YANKELEVITZ SUNSHINE
          REGENSTREIF & TAYLOR LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024-3503
          Telephone: (310) 500-3500
          Facsimile: (310) 500-3501
          E-mail: rsunshine@linerlaw.com
                  aagrusa@linerlaw.com
                  dfarkas@linerlaw.com


BEZEQ: Faces NIS154-Million Class Action in Israel
--------------------------------------------------
On September 11, 2012, Bezeq - The Israel Telecommunication Corp.,
Ltd. received a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class
action, which was filed against the Company with the Tel-Aviv
District Court.

The plaintiff claims that the Company does not send call details
with the phone bill as required by the directives of the Ministry
of Communications and the Company's license.

The aggregate amount sought by the claim is approximately NIS154
million.

A similar allegation was made in another motion to certify as a
class action filed against the Company with the Tel-Aviv District
Court in April 2011.

The Company is studying the claim and is unable, at the present
stage, to evaluate the claim's likelihood of success.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Summary Judgment Bid in "Dahl" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Blackstone Group L.P. and other defendants' motions for
summary judgment in the class action lawsuit initiated by Kirk
Dahl, et al., remain pending, according to the Company's August 7,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In December 2007, a purported class of shareholders in public
companies acquired by one or more private equity firms filed a
lawsuit against a number of private equity firms and investment
banks, including The Blackstone Group L.P., in the United States
District Court in Massachusetts (Kirk Dahl, et al. v. Bain Capital
Partners, LLC, et al.).  The lawsuit alleges that, from mid-2003
through 2007, eleven defendants violated the antitrust laws by
allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private
equity financing, fix the prices for target companies at
artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged market for
private equity services for leveraged buyouts.  After the
conclusion of discovery, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
in June 2012, in which the plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of
public shareholders that tendered their shares in connection with
17 leveraged buyouts.  The court has dismissed claims against
Blackstone with respect to four of these transactions because
Blackstone was released from any and all claims by the same
shareholders in prior litigation.  Defendants have filed motions
for summary judgment.  The court has not yet established a
schedule for determining whether to certify the shareholder class
proposed by plaintiffs.

Blackstone believes that the lawsuit is totally without merit and
intends to defend it vigorously.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Blackstone Group L.P. continues to defend a consolidated class
action lawsuit arising from its June 2007 initial public offering,
according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

In the spring of 2008, six substantially identical complaints were
brought against Blackstone and some of its executive officers
purporting to be class actions on behalf of purchasers of common
units in Blackstone's June 2007 initial public offering.  These
lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into one complaint
(Landmen Partners Inc. v. The Blackstone Group L.P., et al.) filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York in October 2008 against Blackstone, Stephen A. Schwarzman
(Blackstone's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer), Peter G.
Peterson (Blackstone's former Senior Chairman), Hamilton E. James
(Blackstone's President and Chief Operating Officer) and Michael
A. Puglisi (Blackstone's Chief Financial Officer at the time of
the IPO).  The amended complaint alleged that (1) the IPO
prospectus was false and misleading for failing to disclose that
(a) one private equity investment would be adversely affected by
trends in mortgage default rates, particularly for sub-prime
mortgage loans, (b) another private equity investment was
adversely affected by the loss of an exclusive manufacturing
agreement, and (c) prior to the IPO the U.S. real estate market
had started to deteriorate, adversely affecting the value of
Blackstone's real estate investments; and (2) the financial
statements in the IPO prospectus were materially inaccurate
principally because they overstated the value of the investments
referred to in clause (1).

In September 2009 the District Court judge dismissed the complaint
with prejudice, ruling that even if the allegations in the
complaint were assumed to be true, the alleged omissions were
immaterial.  Analyzing both quantitative and qualitative factors,
the District Court reasoned that the alleged omissions were
immaterial as a matter of law given the size of the investments at
issue relative to Blackstone as a whole, and taking into account
Blackstone's structure as an asset manager and financial advisory
firm.

In February 2011, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit
reversed the District Court's decision, ruling that the District
Court incorrectly found that plaintiffs' allegations were, if
true, immaterial as a matter of law.  The Second Circuit disagreed
with the District Court, concluding that the complaint "plausibly"
alleged that the initial public offering documents omitted
material information concerning two of Blackstone funds'
individual investments and inadequately disclosed information
relating to market risks to their real estate investments. Because
this was a motion to dismiss, in reaching this decision the Second
Circuit accepted all of the complaint's factual allegations as
true and drew every reasonable inference in plaintiffs' favor.
The Second Circuit did not consider facts other than those in the
plaintiffs' complaint.  On June 28, 2011, defendants filed a
petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme
Court, which was subsequently denied.  On August 8, 2011,
defendants filed their answer to the complaint and discovery
commenced and is continuing in this action.

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

Blackstone believes that all of the lawsuits are totally without
merit and intends to defend them vigorously.


BLUESTEM BRANDS: Recalls 4,700 Range Rider Ride-On Toy Cars
-----------------------------------------------------------
About 4,700 Range Rider Ride-On Toy Cars were voluntarily recalled
by Bluestem Brands, Inc., of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, owner of
Fingerhut and Gettington, in cooperation with the CPSC.  Consumers
should stop using the product immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The battery can overheat, smoke, melt and catch on fire, posing
fire and burn hazards to consumers.

Bluestem has received nine reports of incidents in which batteries
smoked or caught on fire and melted the battery's connections or
scorched the plastic in the ride-on car.  No injuries have been
reported.

This recall involves battery-powered Range Rider ride-on toy cars
with an off-road vehicle body style and plastic tires.  The ride-
on cars were sold in pink and tan colors.  The recalled Range
Riders can be identified by their product code and model number.
The model number is on the back of the seat of the ride-on toy
car.  The product code does not appear on the ride-on toy cars,
but can be found on the product carton.  The recalled models
include:

   Model #     Product Code     Product
   -------     ------------     -------
   90407B          NI374        Tan Range Rider
   90407G          NU640        Pink Range Rider

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12747.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Fingerhut catalogs and online at Fingerhut.com and Gettington.com
from September 2010 through May 2012 for between $200 and $230.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ride-on toy
cars and remove the battery and contact Bluestem for a full refund
of the purchase price plus reimbursement for shipping and
handling.  The firm is directly contacting those who purchased the
recalled ride-on toy cars.  For more information, contact Bluestem
toll-free at (866) 931-5417 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Central Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web sites
at http://www.fingerhut.com/or http://www.gettington.com/and
click on Product Recall.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Guzman" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. continues to defend a class action
lawsuit initiated by Betty Guzman, according to the Company's
August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In January 2011, Betty Guzman filed a class action lawsuit against
the Company, Ashford University and University of the Rockies in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
The complaint is entitled Guzman v. Bridgepoint Eduction, Inc., et
al, and alleges that the defendants engaged in misrepresentation
and other unlawful behavior in their efforts to recruit and retain
students.  The complaint asserts a putative class period of March
1, 2005, through the present.  In March 2011, the defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted by the Court
with leave to amend in October 2011.  In January 2012, the
plaintiff filed a first amended complaint asserting similar claims
and the same class period, and the defendants filed another motion
to dismiss.  In May 2012, the Court granted the University of the
Rockies' motion to dismiss and granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss filed by the Company and Ashford University.
The Court also granted the plaintiff leave to file a second
amended complaint.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.  However, because of the many
questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this
legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.  Based on the
information available to the Company at present, it cannot
reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and
accordingly has not accrued any liability associated with this
action.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Faces Three Class Suits in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. is facing three class action lawsuits
in California, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On July 13, 2012, a securities class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by
Donald K. Franke naming the Company, Andrew Clark, Daniel Devine
and Jane McAuliffe as defendants for allegedly making false and
materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results, specifically the concealment of
accreditation problems at Ashford University.  The complaint
asserts a putative class period stemming from May 3, 2011, to July
6, 2012.  A substantially similar complaint was also filed in the
same court by Luke Sacharczyk on July 17, 2012, making similar
allegations against the Company, Andrew Clark and Daniel Devine.
The Sacharczyk complaint asserts a putative class period stemming
from May 3, 2011, to July 12, 2012.  Finally, on July 26, 2012,
another purported securities class action complaint was filed in
the same court by David Stein against the same defendants based
upon the same general set of allegations and class period.  The
complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The Company has not yet responded to these complaints and
anticipates that, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, the Court will appoint a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel pursuant to the provisions of that law, and
eventually a consolidated amended complaint will be filed.  The
Company is evaluating these complaints and intends to vigorously
defend against them.  However, because of the many questions of
fact and law that may arise, the outcome of these legal
proceedings is uncertain at this point.  Based on information
available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate
a range of loss and accordingly has not accrued any liability
associated with these actions.


CHARLES RIVER: Continues to Defend Unpaid Wages Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
On January 31, 2012, a putative class action, entitled Irma Garcia
v. Charles River Laboratories, Inc., was filed against the Company
in the San Diego Superior Court, alleging various causes of action
related to failure to make proper and timely payments to employees
in California, failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage
statements, unfair business practices, associated penalties
pursuant to California law, and declaratory relief.  While no
prediction may be made as to the outcome of litigation, the
Company intends to defend against this proceeding vigorously and
therefore an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot
be made.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 7, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Founded in 1947 and headquartered in Wilmington, Massachusetts,
Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. --
http://www.criver.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, provides
research models and associated services, and outsourced
preclinical services to accelerate the drug discovery and
development process.  The Company operates in two segments,
Research Models and Services (RMS), and Preclinical Services
(PCS).


CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Northera-Related Suit Pending in N. C.
------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit relating to its Northera
product is pending against Chelsea Therapeutics International,
Ltd., according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012.

During the first quarter of 2012, the Company was focused on
preparations for the potential commercial launch of Northera(TM)
(droxidopa) in the United States in anticipation of Food and Drug
Administration approval.  However, on March 28, 2012, the Company
announced that the FDA had issued a Complete Response Letter, or a
CRL, regarding its Northera New Drug Application, or NDA, filed in
September 2011, for the treatment of symptomatic Neurogenic OH in
patients with primary autonomic failure (PD, MSA and PAF), DBH
deficiency and non-diabetic autonomic neuropathy.  The CRL
included a request by the FDA that the Company submit data from an
additional positive study to support efficacy along with a
recommendation that such a study be designed to demonstrate
durability of effect over a 2- to 3-month period.  Notably, the
CRL did not identify any outstanding safety concerns.  In
addition, the FDA provided draft recommendations to several
sections of the draft labeling submitted for Northera, including a
preliminary recommendation to include a black box warning related
to supine hypertension.  However, the letter indicated that such a
boxed warning could be reconsidered if suitable data demonstrating
a lack of severe hypertension in a fully prone position were
provided.

Following the receipt of the CRL in March 2012 and the subsequent
decline of the market price of the Company's common stock, two
purported class action lawsuits were filed on April 4, 2012, and
another purported class action lawsuit was filed on May 1, 2012,
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina against the Company and certain of its executive
officers.

The complaints generally allege that, during differing class
periods, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule
10b-5 and the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act in making various statements related to the Company's
development of Northera for the treatment of neurogenic OH and the
likelihood of FDA approval.  The complaints seek unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs.  On May 4,
2012, an Order was entered consolidating these three lawsuits.
Motions for appointment as lead plaintiff have been filed and
briefed and those motions are currently pending before the court.
Once a lead plaintiff has been appointed, the Company expects that
a consolidated amended complaint will subsequently be filed.  The
Company and its officers intend to vigorously defend against this
lawsuit but are unable to predict the outcome or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss at this time.


CROCS INC: Faces Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that footwear
manufacturer Crocs Inc. was hit with a proposed class action on
Sept. 10 in California court alleging it violated consumer
protection laws by recording customers' personal information
during credit card transactions and passing that information along
to third-party advertisers and marketers.

In the suit, plaintiff Massis Hoonanian alleges that he bought
merchandise from a Crocs store in Glendale, Calif., in June using
a credit card and was asked by the sales clerk for personal
information, including his phone number and e-mail address.


DEL MONTE: Sued Over Chinese-Made Chicken Jerky Dog Treats
----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher V. Langone, Individually, and on behalf all others
similarly situated v. Del Monte Corporation, Milo's Kitchen LLC,
Kroger Co. and King Soopers, Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-04671 (N.D.
Calif., September 6, 2012) alleges that the Plaintiff's dog became
sick with vomiting, diarrhea and lack of appetite after eating
Milo's Kitchen Dog Treats.

The representation in Milo's Kitchen Chicken Jerky dog food
packaging that it is "wholesome" is false because dog food
containing Chinese chicken jerky is not wholesome and is
unhealthy, Mr. Langone alleges.  He asserts that the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration had issued warnings about dog illnesses after
consuming chicken jerky dog treats, which were made in China.

Mr. Langone is a citizen of New York.  While in California between
July 25 and July 29, 2012, he fed a number of Milo's Kitchen
Chicken Jerky Dog Treats made by Del Monte to his dog, Maya.  Maya
became sick after eating the treats.

Del Monte is a corporation based in California.  Milo's Kitchen,
also based in California, is owned and operated by Del Monte.
Kroger Co. is a corporation based in Ohio.  Kroger Co. owns King
Soopers Inc.  Kroger Co. supplied the Milo's Kitchen Chicken Jerky
Dog Treat at a King Soopers Brand store to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Grenville Pridham, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GRENVILLE PRIDHAM
          2522 Chambers Road, Suite 100
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 486-5144
          E-mail: grenville@grenvillepridham.com


DOMUS HOLDINGS: Settlement in Suit vs. Cendant Approved in June
---------------------------------------------------------------
Domus Holdings Corp. received final approval in June 2012 of its
settlement resolving a class action lawsuit initiated by Frank K.
Cooper Real Estate #1, Inc. against Cendant Corporation, according
to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

Realogy Corporation, a Company subsidiary, is a global provider of
real estate and relocation services.  Realogy was incorporated in
January 2006 to facilitate a plan by Cendant Corporation (now
known as Avis Budget Group, Inc.) to separate into four
independent companies -- one for each of Cendant's business units
-- real estate services or Realogy, travel distribution services
("Travelport"), hospitality services, including timeshare resorts
("Wyndham Worldwide"), and vehicle rental ("Avis Budget Group").
On July 31, 2006, the separation ("Separation") from Cendant
became effective.

Domus Holdings is responsible for certain of Cendant's contingent
and other corporate liabilities.

In 2002, Frank K. Cooper Real Estate #1, Inc. filed a putative
class action captioned Frank K. Cooper Real Estate #1, Inc. v.
Cendant Corp. and Century 21 Real Estate Corporation (N.J. Super.
Ct. L. Div., Morris County, New Jersey), against Cendant and
Cendant's subsidiary, Century 21.  The complaint alleged breach of
certain provisions of the Real Estate Franchise Agreement entered
into between Century 21 and the plaintiffs, breach of the implied
duty of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act and breach of certain express and implied
fiduciary duties.  The complaint alleged, among other things, that
Cendant diverted money and resources from Century 21 franchisees
and allotted them to NRT owned brokerages and otherwise improperly
charged expenses to marketing funds.  On August 17, 2010, the
court certified a class consisting of Century 21 franchisees at
any time between August 1, 1995, and April 17, 2002, whose
franchise agreements contain New Jersey choice of law and venue
provisions and who have not executed releases releasing the claim
(unless the release was a provision of a franchise renewal
agreement).

On February 16, 2012, as a matter of litigation avoidance, the
Company executed a Stipulation of Settlement and on June 4, 2012,
the Court granted final approval of the settlement.  The
settlement involves both monetary and non-monetary consideration
as well as contributions from insurance carriers.  During the
second quarter of 2012, the monetary consideration of the
settlement was funded by the Company and the insurance carriers
into an escrow account established to fund claims made by class
participants.  The non-monetary consideration includes, but is not
limited to, waivers and modifications of certain fees and payments
of incentive fees.  The Company accrued the amount that would be
payable beyond carrier contributions in its financial results for
the year ended December 31, 2011.  The full amount of this
settlement was subsequently accrued during the quarter ended June
30, 2012, as the amounts were funded by the insurance carriers and
final court approval during that quarter.


EBAY: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Alleged Search Delays
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that finding that eBay users
injured by alleged search delays cannot prove damages, a federal
judge dismissed their class action with prejudice.

A copy of the Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment in In re: eBay Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-02198 (N.D.
Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/12/ebay.pdf


FAMILY DOLLAR: Enters Into Preliminary Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBS News reports that Family Dollar says it has reached a
preliminary settlement in a class-action lawsuit from more than
1,700 New York store managers on overtime wages.

The discount store operator said on Sept. 12 that the maximum
payment it will make is $14 million, but that settlement terms are
not final.

A final settlement between the company and its employees still
needs court approval.  The process for getting that approval
hasn't begun yet.

The Matthews, N.C., company expects to take a charge in its fiscal
fourth quarter, which ended in August, for costs related to the
lawsuit.

Family Dollar runs more than 7,400 stores throughout the U.S.


GNC CORP: Faces Class Action Over Unsafe Dietary Supplements
------------------------------------------------------------
Sokolove Law disclosed that GNC Corp. and USPLabs LLC face a
potential class-action dangerous drug lawsuit filed by a
California resident that alleged the companies sold unsafe dietary
supplements containing DMAA (1,3-dimethylamylamine).

Law 360 reports that the suit claims the companies manufactured,
marketed, and sold dietary supplements like Jack3d that contained
DMAA, which is linked to cardiac problems, nervous system
disorders, and death.

Though retailer GNC Corp. reports only one case of adverse side
effect related to a DMAA containing product, its annual report
discusses the concern that DMAA breaches the Dietary Supplement
Health and Education Act, writes Law360.

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), DMAA can
constrict blood vessels and arteries, may cause heart attacks,
strokes, and other life-threatening injuries. There have been 42
adverse events reported to the FDA over products containing DMAA.

The FDA sent warning letters in April to 10 manufacturers and
distributors of products containing DMAA stating that it is not
eligible to be used as an active ingredient in dietary
supplements.


HARRIS TEETER: Recalls Eight Products Sold in Seafood Dept.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harris Teeter, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Harris Teeter
Supermarkets Inc., is voluntarily recalling eight products sold in
its service seafood department, as listed below, because they
contain onions which may be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes.  Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that can
cause serious or life-threatening food borne illness in a person
who eats a food item contaminated with it.  Listeria bacteria are
most commonly found in raw foods and symptoms may include fever,
muscle aches, nausea or diarrhea.

Harris Teeter is distributing this notification upon being
informed by its manufacturer 3 Fish, Inc. that the crab and
lobster products listed below contain onions that may be
contaminated with Listeria.

Harris Teeter is contacting customers who it has reason to believe
purchased the products it is voluntarily recalling.  Customers who
may have purchased the products between September 3, 2012, and
September 7, 2012, are asked to please return them to their local
Harris Teeter for a full refund.

Precautionary Voluntary Recall

   Product Description                     UPC
   -------------------               --------------
   Crab Stuffed Flounder             #0020822400000
   Crab Stuffed Salmon               #0020822500000
   Crab Stuffed Tilapia              #0020822600000
   Maryland Style Crab Cakes, 4 oz   #0020967400000
   Deviled Stuffed Crab              #0020966700000
   The Charleston Crab Cake, 4 oz    #0020966900000
   Signature Lump Crab Cake, 4 oz    #0020967000000
   Signature Lobster Cake, 3 oz      #0020967100000

Product quality and integrity are paramount to Harris Teeter.  For
additional questions, please contact Harris Teeter Customer
Relations, toll-free at (800) 432-6111, Option 2 between 8:30 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m. Monday - Friday and Saturday between 10:00 a.m. and
2:00 p.m.


HEARST: Decision on Interns' Class Action Expected by 2013
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Beaujon, writing for Poynter, reports that Diana Wang's
lawsuit against Hearst has become a class-action lawsuit, and "may
be decided as soon as early 2013," Kayleen Schaefer reports.

Ms. Wang served as an unpaid intern for Harper's Bazaar, which
Hearst owns.  Her lawsuit asks for wages and damages for what she
contends was really an unpaid job, and about 3,000 former Hearst
interns are eligible to join; three others have already joined
Ms. Wang.

Ms. Wang Googled "intern lawsuit," Ms. Schaefer reports, and
contacted Outten & Golden, the firm handling a lawsuit by two
interns who worked on "Black Swan."  Eriq Gardner reported last
month those lawyers were seeking to make that suit a class-action
one as well.

Ms. Wang reportedly also sued jewelry company Fenton Fallon after
an internship there.

Outten & Golden attorney Rachel Bien is married to a friend of Mr.
Beaujon (he found out she was involved in the suit through this
article); Ms. Schaefer quotes her about the educational
opportunities supposedly offered to people who work for free:

"You wouldn't have an unpaid intern at a Duane Reade store, even
if they were learning a lot about retail operations.  But you have
these pockets, in areas like media and film, where that's the way
the industry has operated for a really long time."

Fox Entertainment Group now pays interns $8 an hour, Mr. Gardner
reported last month.  Hearst tells Ms. Schaefer its internships,
which are similar to those at many publications, are legal:

Hearst maintains that the lawsuit is "without merit."  In a
statement to The Cut, Hearst vice-resident of corporate
communications Paul Luthringer said the company's internship
programs "are soundly within the law and offer young people an up-
close view of the magazine business."

To join Ms. Wang's lawsuit, the remaining 2,996 or so eligible
former interns "will have to submit a one-page consent form, which
we will be mailing to them and posting online," Ms. Bien tells Mr.
Beaujon in an e-mail.


INCO LTD: Ontario Judge Awards C$1.7MM in Costs Recovery
--------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reports that an
Ontario judge has awarded Inco. Ltd. -- which successfully
appealed a C$36 million class action trial judgment in favor of
7,000 Port Colborne residents who claimed that emissions from
Inco's refinery had negatively affected property values -- C$1.766
million in costs relating to the trial of the action.

The award, which covers the period from the date of certification
to the date of judgment after a 45-day trial, will not be
encouraging to corporate defendants.  Inco's disbursements alone
were C$1.532 million plus GST & HST, and the award was a very
significant reduction from the company C$5.34 million claim.

Kirk Baert and Celeste Poltak of Koskie Minsky represented the
class; Alan Lenczner of Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin and
Larry Lowenstein and Laura Fric of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt acted
for Inco; and Scott Hutchison, Aaron Dantowitz and Justin Safayeni
of Stockwoods were counsel for The Law Foundation of Ontario.


INTELIUS.COM: December 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PAID TO SUBSCRIBE TO IDENTITY PROTECT THROUGH
INTELIUS.COM OR A RELATED INTERNET SITE BEFORE AUGUST 21, 2012,
YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT, AND YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington, that a
hearing will be held on December 6, 2012, at 9:00 am, before the
Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Washington, in Courtroom 15106, 700 Stewart
Street, Seattle, WA 98101-9906, for the purpose of determining
whether the proposed partial settlement of the above-captioned
litigation should be approved.

The proposed settlement benefits members of the class who make
valid claims by submitting a Claim Form through the Settlement
Website, http://www.identityprotectsettlement.com
Class member benefits consist of either a cash payment or a
combination of cash and vouchers (good for purchases at
intelius.com), depending on the date you purchased your Identity
Protect subscription.  The proposed Settlement Class is comprised
of all persons residing in the United States who subscribed to
Identity Protect from the first day the product was offered until
August 21, 2012, except for consumers who were not charged, (e.g.
who cancelled before seven days) or have already received a full
refund (including charge back) of any Identity Protect charges.

This partial settlement covers only those claims related to
Intelius' marketing of Identity Protect subscriptions.  Those
claims related to Plaintiffs' allegations regarding Intelius'
"post-transaction marketing" of certain membership programs
offered by Third-Party Defendant Adaptive Marketing, LLC are not
affected by this partial settlement.

The hearing will determine whether the partial settlement should
be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate to the
Settlement Class, and whether the claims relating to Identity
Protect described in the Settlement Agreement should be dismissed
on the merits and with prejudice as against the Defendants.  You
are not required to take any action at this time.  You may choose
to make a claim. You may file written objections to the settlement
and appear at the court hearing.  You may choose to exclude
yourself from the settlement but if you do so you cannot make a
claim and cannot object to the settlement.  If the settlement is
approved and you do not exclude yourself, you give up the right to
sue for the claims the settlement resolves, and you will be bound
by the terms of the settlement.

Plaintiffs' counsel intend to make a request for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred
in connection with this settlement at a point in the future.

A copy of the full Notice of Proposed Partial Settlement of Class
Action and Settlement Fairness Hearing is available at:

     http://www.identityprotectsettlement.com

The Notice contains further information regarding the proposed
partial settlement, the benefits available to Settlement Class
Members and their rights under the Settlement Agreement, how to
make a claim, object to the settlement or exclude yourself from
the settlement.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.


ISTAR FINANCIAL: Seeks Court OK of Citiline Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
iStar Financial Inc. disclosed in its August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it and the plaintiffs to a
consolidated class action lawsuit filed against the Company intend
to execute, and seek court approval of, a definitive settlement
agreement resolving their dispute.

In April 2008, two putative class action complaints were filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York alleging violations of federal securities laws by the Company
and certain of its current and former executive officers.  Both
lawsuits were purportedly filed on behalf of the same putative
class of investors who purchased Common Stock in the Company's
December 13, 2007 public offering ("Offering").  The two
complaints were subsequently consolidated in a single proceeding
(the "Citiline Action") and an amended consolidated complaint was
filed that named as defendants the Company, certain of its current
and former executive officers, and certain investment banks who
served as underwriters in the Offering.

On June 4, 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with the plaintiffs' Court-appointed representatives in the
Citiline Action to settle the litigation.  Settlement payments
will be primarily funded by the Company's insurance carriers.  The
Company will contribute $2.0 million to the settlement.

The agreement in principle to settle the Citiline Action is
subject to Court approval and a motion for preliminary Court
approval is being prepared for filing.  The parties to the
Citiline Action intend to execute a definitive settlement
agreement, including releases of liability in favor of the
defendants.  Assuming preliminary Court approval is obtained,
notice of the settlement would then be mailed to class members and
the Company anticipates that a final hearing would be held in the
second half of 2012.  Upon final Court approval of the settlement,
the Citiline Action will be dismissed in its entirety with
prejudice and the settlement will be final.


LAND O' LAKES: Judge Orders Extensive Billing Documentation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reports that a federal judge in
Philadelphia has done what every judge in a class action should
do: She required each law firm involved in a $25 million antitrust
settlement to document exactly how much time they spent on the
case, and how much they expect to be paid for their work.

The results provide a revealing look at the economics of this sort
of litigation, where normally only the lead law firms are
identified in court.  They also raise questions about whether the
lawyers can compete vigorously on fees when so many firms are
involved in the same case.

Documents filed in connection with the Processed Egg Products case
against Land O' Lakes and other egg producers show that 34 law
firms were involved in the litigation, from big-name national
outfits like Bernstein Leibhard and Susman Godfrey to local
players like Levin, Fishbein Sedran & Berman, which identifies
itself as a Philadelphia products-liability firm.

The law firms collectively claim to have run up $11,001,332.40
worth of time on the case, including hours spent by associates and
paralegals, as well as some $487,00 in expenses.  They're only
seeking $7.5 million in fees, however, which they portray as a
relative bargain even though it represents 20% of the money they
negotiated for their estimated 10,000 clients.  The reports were
first disclosed by AmLaw.

Billing rates range from $1,100 an hour for Susman Godfrey name
partner Steve Susman; to $950-$975 an hour for a gaggle of big-
name partners like Stephen Neuwirth of Quinn Emmanuel and Michael
Hausfeld of Hausfeld LLC; to $350 an hour for associates with a
few years of experience under their belts.

Judge Gene Pratter ordered the extensive documentation of billing
in the case because it is her job to ensure that class members,
most of whom have no direct involvement in the case, aren't taken
advantage of by their own lawyers.  Judge Pratter ordered the
firms to report on a wide variety of things, from hours, billing
rates and years of experience for individual attorneys to expenses
and the existence of any agreements among the firms on fees.

It would be unseemly for law firms to collude on their billable
rates in an antitrust case.  Interestingly, however, the billable
rates cluster around certain levels: $750-$950 for senior
partners, $375-$450 for experienced associates, and $200-$300 for
junior partners.  While the legal industry might be as competitive
and efficient as, say, the egg business, it's difficult to see how
this many firms, linked together with a web of referral
agreements, can actually compete on price so their clients get the
best deal possible.  Especially since the clients aren't actually
bargaining for anything; the law firms themselves drive most
consumer antitrust cases and only the judge -- and lawyers' own
sense of ethics -- stand in the way of full-on collusion with each
other and the defendant to strike a settlement that is lucrative
for the lawyers and nobody else.

The judge also asked the attorneys to explain how they controlled
costs.  "There was an understanding and agreements," they said in
a filing posted on the AmLaw Web site, "that time and expenses in
this case had to be reasonable and of the type typically
compensated by courts in this District."  They went on to say they
held frequent conference calls to ensure work was performed in a
manner as efficiently as possible, there were no more attorneys on
calls than necessary, and most tasks were assigned to two firms
instead of four.

Designated Counsel are experienced class action attorneys with an
understanding of how class action contingent litigations are to be
managed in order to minimize or cap expenses and costs.  Lavish
and extravagant spending are not tolerated and will not be
approved.

According to the filings, Susman Godfrey spent $28,000 on travel
on this case, while Bernstein Leibhard's tab ran to $22,000.

As for the actual fee-referral arrangements among the firms, those
remain murky.  In response to the judge's request for that
information, the lawyers said they were "private business
arrangements" that contain "proprietary and confidential
information."  Those arrangements, "do not impact the amount that
any class member may receive in this litigation," the lawyers
said.  "A class member will not receive less because an attorney
has a referral obligation to another attorney."

Well, maybe yes, maybe no.  When 34 law firms, including most of
the biggest players in consumer class actions like Seeger Weiss
(163 hours at an average of $464 an hour); Lieff Cabraser (66.9
hours at $511); and Bernstein Leibhard (3,040 hours at $524) are
all involved in the same case, how much real competition can there
be on their hourly rates?


LIVE NATION: Awaits Final OK of Canadian Consumer Suit Deals
------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. is awaiting final approval of its
settlements of consumer class action lawsuits pending in Canada,
according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

In February 2009, five putative consumer class action complaints
were filed in various provinces of Canada against TNow
Entertainment Group, Inc. ("TicketsNow"), Ticketmaster,
Ticketmaster Canada Ltd. and Premium Inventory, Inc.  All of the
cases allege essentially the same set of facts and causes of
action.  Each plaintiff purports to represent a class consisting
of all persons who purchased a ticket from Ticketmaster,
Ticketmaster Canada Ltd. or TicketsNow from February 2007 to
present and alleges that Ticketmaster conspired to divert a large
number of tickets for resale through the TicketsNow Web site at
prices higher than face value.  The plaintiffs characterize these
actions as being in violation of Ontario's Ticket Speculation Act,
the Amusement Act of Manitoba, the Amusement Act of Alberta or the
Quebec Consumer Protection Act.  The Ontario case contains the
additional allegation that Ticketmaster's and TicketsNow's service
fees run afoul of anti-scalping laws.  Each lawsuit seeks
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the class.

In February 2012, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
that would, if approved by the courts, resolve all of the resale
market claims.  The court approval process for the proposed
settlement has been commenced, with pre-approvals having been
afforded in all provinces in which the actions are pending.  The
process is expected to take several months, with final approval
hearings in all provinces currently scheduled throughout the
summer of 2012.

As of June 30, 2012, the Company has accrued its best estimate of
the probable costs associated with the resale market claims of
this matter, the full amount of which was funded by an escrow
established in connection with Ticketmaster's 2008 acquisition of
TicketsNow.

While it is reasonably possible that a loss related to the primary
market claims of this matter could be incurred by the Company in a
future period, the Company does not believe that a loss is
probable of occurring at this time.  Considerable uncertainty
remains regarding the validity of the claims and damages asserted
against the Company.  As a result, the Company is currently unable
to estimate the possible loss or range of loss for the primary
market claims of this matter.  The Company intends to continue to
vigorously defend all claims in all of the actions.


LIVE NATION: Anti-Competitive Practices Litigation Concluded
------------------------------------------------------------
The litigation against Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. alleging
anti-competitive practices in the promotion of concerts has been
concluded, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit filed by Malinda
Heerwagen in June 2002 in the United States District Court.  The
plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class consisting of certain
concert ticket purchasers, alleged that anti-competitive practices
for concert promotion services by the Company nationwide caused
artificially high ticket prices.  In August 2003, the District
Court ruled in the Company's favor, denying the plaintiff's class
certification motion and the plaintiff then dismissed her action.
Subsequently, twenty-two putative class actions were filed by
different named plaintiffs in various United States District
Courts throughout the country, making claims substantially similar
to those made in the Heerwagen action, except that the geographic
markets alleged are regional, statewide or more local in nature,
and the members of the putative classes was limited to individuals
who purchased tickets to concerts in the relevant geographic
markets alleged.

In March 2012, the District Court issued an Order granting the
Company's Motions for Summary Judgment and also granting in part
its Motion to Exclude Testimony.  Thereafter, the parties entered
into a settlement agreement which did not have a material impact
to the Company's results of operations.  On June 21, 2012, the
District Court entered an Order Granting the Joint Stipulation
Regarding Decertification of Classes, and on that same day the
parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice of
all actions, thereby concluding the litigation.


LIVE NATION: Still Awaits Final OK of Ticketing Fees Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2003, a putative representative action was filed in the
Superior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster's charges to
online customers for shipping fees and alleging that its failure
to disclose on its Web site that the charges contain a profit
component is unlawful.  Ticketmaster is a subsidiary of Live
Nation Entertainment, Inc.  The complaint asserted a claim for
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and
sought restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i)
the total shipping fees charged by Ticketmaster in connection with
online ticket sales during the applicable period, and (ii) the
amount that Ticketmaster actually paid to the shipper for delivery
of those tickets.  In August 2005, the plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint, then pleading the case as a putative class
action and adding the claim that Ticketmaster's Web site
disclosures in respect of its ticket order processing fees
constitute false advertising in violation of California's False
Advertising Law.  On this new claim, the amended complaint seeks
restitution or disgorgement of the entire amount of order
processing fees charged by Ticketmaster during the applicable
period.  In April 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint adding new claims
that (a) Ticketmaster's order processing fees are unconscionable
under the UCL, and (b) Ticketmaster's alleged business practices
further violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Plaintiffs later filed a third amended complaint, to which
Ticketmaster filed a demurrer in July 2009.  The Court overruled
Ticketmaster's demurrer in October 2009.

The plaintiffs filed a class certification motion in August 2009,
which Ticketmaster opposed.  In February 2010, the Court granted
certification of a class on the first and second causes of action,
which allege that Ticketmaster misrepresents/omits the fact of a
profit component in Ticketmaster's shipping and order processing
fees.  The class would consist of California consumers who
purchased tickets through Ticketmaster's Web site from 1999 to
present.  The Court denied certification of a class on the third
and fourth causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster's
shipping and order processing fees are unconscionably high.  In
March 2010, Ticketmaster filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with
the California Court of Appeal, and plaintiffs also filed a motion
for reconsideration of the Superior Court's class certification
order.  In April 2010, the Superior Court denied plaintiffs'
Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's class certification
order, and the Court of Appeal denied Ticketmaster's Petition for
Writ of Mandate.  In June 2010, the Court of Appeal granted the
plaintiffs' Petition for Writ of Mandate and ordered the Superior
Court to vacate its February 2010 order denying plaintiffs' motion
to certify a national class and enter a new order granting
plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class on the first and
second claims.  In September 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion
for Summary Judgment on all causes of action in the Superior
Court, and that same month plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Summary Adjudication of various affirmative defenses asserted by
Ticketmaster.  In November 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion to
Decertify Class.

In December 2010, the parties entered into a binding term sheet
that provided for the settlement of the litigation and the
resolution of all claims therein.  The settlement was memorialized
in a long-form agreement in April 2011.  In June 2011, after a
hearing on the plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the
settlement, the Court declined to approve the settlement reached
by the parties in its then-current form.  Litigation continued,
and in September 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in
part Ticketmaster's Motion for Summary Judgment.  The parties
reached a new settlement in September 2011 and subsequently
entered into a long-form agreement.  The plaintiffs filed a Motion
for Preliminary Approval of the new settlement in September 2011.
In October 2011, the Court preliminarily approved the new
settlement.  Ticketmaster has notified all class members of the
settlement.  A hearing on final approval of the settlement was
held in July 2012 and an order remains pending.  Ticketmaster and
its parent, Live Nation, have not acknowledged any violations of
law or liability in connection with the matter, but agreed to the
settlement in order to eliminate the uncertainties and expense of
further protracted litigation.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 7, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

As of June 30, 2012, the Company has accrued $35.5 million, its
best estimate of the probable costs associated with the
settlement.  This liability includes an estimated redemption rate.
Any difference between the Company's estimated redemption rate and
the actual redemption rate it experiences will impact the final
settlement amount; however, the Company does not expect this
difference to be material.


MERRILL LYNCH: Judge Upholds Dismissal of Race Bias Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Harris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Merrill
Lynch & Co. won an appeal upholding a federal judge's dismissal of
the second of two race-bias lawsuits filed against it by black
financial advisers.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago on Sept. 11 affirmed U.S.
District Judge Robert Gettleman's decision last year to throw out
the complaint filed against Merrill Lynch and Bank of America
Corp.  The Charlotte, North Carolina-based lender acquired the
securities firm for $33 billion in 2009.

The lead plaintiff in both cases, Nashville, Tennessee, stock
broker George McReynolds, alleged the bank and firm devised a
discriminatory retention bonus plan when the acquisition was made
public in 2008.  Mr. McReynolds first accused Merrill Lynch of
discriminating against its African-American financial advisers in
a 2005 federal court lawsuit that is pending in Chicago.

"It is not enough to allege, as the complaint does, that the
bonuses incorporated the past discriminatory effects of Merrill
Lynch's underlying employment practices," U.S. Circuit Judge Diane
Sykes wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel.

"The disparate impact of those employment practices is the subject
of the first lawsuit, and if proven, will be remedied there,"
Judge Sykes said.

In the 2005 case, Mr. McReynolds claimed Merrill Lynch's past
practices and procedures favored white financial advisers over
their black counterparts, impairing their ability to earn
comparable incomes.

                           Class Action

Judge Gettleman in 2010 denied a motion by Mr. McReynolds and 16
other advisers for certification of the case as a class action, or
group lawsuit.  That decision was reversed in February by a
different panel of judges at the same U.S. appeals court that
issued the Sept. 11 decision.

Allowing class treatment would prevent courts from having to
decide in individual trials whether the firm's practices were
unlawful, U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner wrote for that
unanimous three-judge panel.

The bank is seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of that decision,
said Bill Halldin, a Merrill Lynch spokesman.  In a phone
interview, he said the firm was pleased with the Sept. 11 ruling.

                         Advisers, Trainees

In a July 13 order, Judge Gettleman certified a class of "all
African-Americans employed by Merrill Lynch at any time since July
10, 2004, as financial advisers or financial adviser trainees" in
the U.S. retail brokerage unit of the firm's Global Private Client
division.

No trial date has been set for that case, plaintiffs' lawyer
Suzanne Bish said on Sept. 11 in a phone interview.
The Sept. 11 decision came on an appeal filed after Judge
Gettleman had denied the class certification request in the first
McReynolds case and before the appellate reversal, she said.  That
later ruling lessened the significance of the second suit's
dismissal.

"We're thrilled that our plaintiffs will have the opportunity to
recover those same retention bonuses," said Ms. Bish, an attorney
at the Chicago law firm Stowell & Friedman Ltd.

The cases are McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, 11-01957, U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Chicago), and McReynolds v.
Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc., 05- cv-06583, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).


METLIFE INC: Awaits Summary Judgment Bid Ruling in Nevada Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its subsidiary's
motion for summary judgment in the consolidated class action
lawsuit pending in Nevada, according to the Company's August 7,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The putative class action lawsuits, Keife, et al. v. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed in state court on July 30,
2010 and removed to federal court on September 7, 2010); and Simon
v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed November 3,
2011), which have been consolidated, raise breach of contract
claims arising from use of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
("MLIC") of the Total Control Accounts ("TCA") to pay life
insurance benefits under the Federal Employees' Group Life
Insurance ("FEGLI") program.  Specifically, plaintiffs allege 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.  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 stayed.  On April 28, 2011,
the court denied MLIC's motion to dismiss.  On May 4, 2012, MLIC
moved for summary judgment.

Various state regulators have also taken actions with respect to
retained asset accounts.  The Department of Financial Services
issued a circular letter on March 29, 2012, stating that an
insurer should only use a retained asset account when a
policyholder or beneficiary affirmatively chooses to receive life
insurance proceeds through such an account and providing for
certain disclosures to a beneficiary, including that payment by a
single check is an option.  In connection with an ongoing market
conduct exam, MLIC has entered into a consent order with the
Minnesota Department of Commerce regarding MLIC's use of TCAs as a
default option.

The Company says it is unable to estimate the reasonably possible
loss or range of loss arising from the TCA matters.


METLIFE INC: Court Dismissed in June GM Retirees' Suit vs. MLIC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion to dismiss a class
action lawsuit brought by retired employees of General Motors was
granted in June 2012, according to MetLife, Inc.'s August 7, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Merrill Haviland, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
(E.D. Mich., removed to federal court on July 22, 2011) was filed
by 45 retired General Motors ("GM") employees against MLIC and the
amended complaint includes claims for conversion, unjust
enrichment, breach of contract, fraud, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, fraudulent insurance acts, unfair trade
practices, and Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") claims 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.  On June 26, 2012, the
district court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss the complaint.


METLIFE INC: Defends "Westland" Securities Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. is defending itself from a securities class action
lawsuit commenced by the City of Westland Police and Fire
Retirement System, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011,
the plaintiff in City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement
System v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y., filed January 12,
2012) filed an action alleging that MetLife, Inc. and several
current and former executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue,
materially false and misleading statements concerning MetLife,
Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance
benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated
to the states.  In May 2012, plaintiff amended the complaint to
add defendants including members of the MetLife, Inc. Board of
Directors and several other parties and to add claims for
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  Plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.  The defendants
intend to defend this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: Defends Suits Alleging Improper Sales Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. continues to defend class action lawsuits alleging
improper sales practices, according to the Company's August 7,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Over the past several years, the Company has faced numerous
claims, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper
marketing or sales of individual life insurance policies,
annuities, mutual funds or other products.  Some of the current
cases seek substantial damages, including punitive and treble
damages and attorneys' fees.  The Company continues to vigorously
defend against the claims in these matters.  The Company believes
adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial
statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for
sales practices matters.


METLIFE INC: Faces "Birmingham" Securities Suit in Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. is facing a securities class action lawsuit
captioned City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v.
MetLife, Inc., et. al. (Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Alabama,
filed July 5, 2012), according to the Company's August 7, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common equity units in or traceable to a public offering in
March 2011, the plaintiff filed an action alleging that MetLife,
Inc., certain current and former directors and executive officers
of MetLife, Inc., and various underwriters violated several
provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 related to the filing of
the registration statement by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to
issue, materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions
concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of
dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to
beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.  The defendants
intend to defend this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: MTL Has Yet to File "Roberts" Suit Settlement Papers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary has yet to file the final terms of its
settlement of the class action lawsuit styled Roberts, et al. v.
Tishman Speyer Properties, et al., according to the Company's
August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Roberts, et al. v. Tishman Speyer Properties, et al. (Sup. Ct.,
N.Y. County, filed 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 ("MTL") 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, 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.


METLIFE INC: Suits Involving MLIC Remain Pending in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits involving MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary remain
pending in Canada, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as
successor to the purchaser of Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's Canadian operations, filed a lawsuit captioned Sun Life
Assurance Company of Canada v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Super.
Ct., Ontario, October 2006), in Toronto, seeking a declaration
that MLIC remains liable for "market conduct claims" related to
certain individual life insurance policies sold by MLIC and that
have been transferred to Sun Life.  Sun Life had asked that the
court require MLIC to indemnify Sun Life for these claims pursuant
to indemnity provisions in the sale agreement for the sale of
MLIC's Canadian operations entered into in June of 1998.  In
January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely
notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found that
Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted
MLIC's motion for summary judgment.  Both parties appealed.  In
September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto, Kang v. Sun
Life Assurance Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario, September 2010), alleging
sales practices claims regarding the same individual policies sold
by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life.  An amended class action
complaint in that case was served on Sun Life, again without
naming MLIC as a party.  On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified
MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun
Life in Vancouver, Alamwala v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Sup. Ct.,
British Columbia, August 2011), alleging sales practices claims
regarding certain of the same policies sold by MLIC and
transferred to Sun Life.  Sun Life contends that MLIC is obligated
to indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the claims in these
lawsuits.  The Company says it is unable to estimate the
reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this
litigation.


MOSAIC SALES: Faces Age Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a sales company
that demonstrates Microsoft video game products makes job
applicants submit pictures of themselves and won't hire older
candidates who do not "reflect the Kinect and Xbox image," a class
action claims.

Lead plaintiff Pam Boyer sued Mosaic Sales Solutions US Operating
Co., in St. Louis County Court.

Microsoft is not a party to the complaint.

Kinect is a motion-sending device used in Microsoft Xbox games.

Pam Boyer says she was older than 40 when Mosaic hired her as a
Microsoft product demonstrator in October 2010.

She claims Mosaic rescinded its offer 3 days later, based on a
picture of her she had to submit as part of the application
process.

"(B)ased on plaintiff's age, which is apparent from the photograph
submitted with her application, Mosaic chastised the territory
manager who hired plaintiff and decided that plaintiff could not
be hired," the complaint states.

Ms. Boyer claims Mosaic has a written, companywide policy that
demonstrators must have a "'favorite camp counselor,' youthful . .
. personality."

She claims Mosaic provides written documents to territory managers
stating that young women are "a perfect fit" for demonstrators,
and that territory managers should hire "Generation Y" applicants,
"which the information defined as individuals born between the
late 1970s and early 1990s, because Mosaic told its territory
manages that they would be 'hiring a lot of Gen Y,'" the complaint
states.

It continues: "In accordance with its written policies, Mosaic
trained its territory managers to hire Kinect demonstrators who
are 'young' and 'youthful' and not to hire Kinect demonstrators
who are over 40 years old."

Ms. Boyer seeks punitive damages for the class, for violations of
the Missouri Human Rights Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Boyer v. Mosaic Sales Solutions US
Operating Co., LLC, Case No. 12SL-CC03332 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/12/Mosaic.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Potashnick, Esq.
          WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
          11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 997-9150
          E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com

               - and -

          Eli Karsh, Esq.
          LIBERMAN, GOLDSTEIN & KARSH
          230 South Bemiston, Suite 1200
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 862-3333 ext. 13
          E-mail: elikarsh@aol.com


MUELLER SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Home Inspections
----------------------------------------------------------
CBS 12 reports that a South Florida woman has filed a class-action
suit against a firm that does home inspections for Citizen
Insurance.

Stephanie Ritchie of Tequesta, a mother of two, is not happy with
Citizens Insurance nor Mueller Services, a contractor that does
home inspections for Citizens.

In a class-action lawsuit filed in federal court, she and her
attorney claim that Citizens and Mueller Services hatched a plan
to deny her and many other customers a discount on their
homeowners insurance premiums.

Ms. Ritchie says, "There's a lot of elderly people that are on
fixed incomes and people livin' paycheck to paycheck and this is
wrong."

She adds, "I don't want them to be able to get away with this!"
The class-action suit seeks at least $5-million dollars in
damages, and Smith & Vanture, the West Palm Beach law firm
handling the case, says there could be many Citizens customers out
there who could be entitled to money.

Mueller Services did not return our calls seeking comment.
Citizens declined comment, saying they are not a party to the
suit.


NMI RETIREMENT: Retiree Amends Class Action Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------
Ferdie de la Torre, writing for Saipan Tribune, reports that one
of two previously unnamed plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Gov.
Benigno R. Fitial and the NMI Retirement Fund amended her
complaint on Sept. 12 to name herself as a lone plaintiff in a
class action suit.

Betty Johnson named as defendants Gov. Fitial, Fund trustees
Adelina C. Roberto and Nacrina Barcinas, former Fund administrator
Richard S. Villagomez, Finance Secretary Larissa Larson, the CNMI
government, Finance, the Fund, and the Fund board of trustees.

Ms. Johnson is suing them for breach of contract, violation of the
U.S. and CNMI constitutions, violation of due process, deprivation
of rights, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

Ms. Johnson asked the U.S. District Court for the NMI to certify
her lawsuit as a class action and appoint a federal equity
receiver to manage the Fund.

She also asked the court to issue a creditor's bill in equity.

Ms. Johnson asked the court to order the Fund and the CNMI
government to collect Superior Court Associate Judge Kenneth L.
Govendo's judgment, pay, or bring current all CNMI obligations to
the Fund, and distribute appropriate retirement benefits.

Attorneys Margery S. Bronster, Bruce L. Jorgensen, and Stephen C.
Woodruff are counsel for Ms. Johnson.

According to the lawyers, this class action arises out of the
CNMI's breach of its contractual and constitutional obligations to
provide government employees "membership in an employee retirement
system" in which their accrued benefits "shall neither be
diminished nor impaired."

At the Sept. 12 hearing on the issue of Fund's trustee ad litem,
the issue of federal equity receiver was also discussed.  Judge
Frances Tydingco-Gatewood directed the parties to file briefings
about the issue.


PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Awaits Ruling in Consolidated Calif. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. is awaiting a court
decision in connection with its demurrer to certain plaintiffs'
claims in a consolidated shareholder litigation pending in
California, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On October 21, 2011, and October 24, 2011, the Company and certain
of its officers and directors were named in two identical putative
class action lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo (Young v. Pacific Biosciences of
California, Inc., et al., Case No. CIV509210 and Sandnas v.
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., et al., Case No.
CIV509259).  On April 4, 2012, the Company and certain of its
officers and directors were named in another putative class action
lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Mateo (Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System v. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., et al., Case
No. CIV512976).  The Young, Sandnas and Oklahoma Firefighters
Actions have since been consolidated as In re Pacific Biosciences
of California Inc. S'holder Litig., Case No. CIV509210 (the "State
Court Action").  The State Court Action is a putative class action
brought on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock pursuant or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") of
common stock in October 2010.  The plaintiffs in the State Court
Action seek to allege on behalf of the putative class violations
of several provisions of the federal securities laws in connection
with the Company's August 16, 2010, registration statement
(effective, as amended, on October 26, 2010).  The plaintiffs in
the State Court Action seek, among other things, compensatory
damages, rescission, and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of
the putative class.  Defendants in the State Court Action filed a
motion to stay that lawsuit in deference to the Primo action
pending in federal district court.  On May 25, 2012, the Superior
Court denied Defendants' motion to stay.  Defendants in the State
Court Action have filed a demurrer to certain of plaintiffs'
claims.  A hearing on Defendants' demurrer was scheduled for
August 20, 2012.


PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: "Primo" Suit Dismissal Bid Hearing in Oct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. and other
defendants' motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit pending in
California is presently scheduled for October 11, 2012, according
to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

On December 21, 2011, the Company and certain of its officers and
directors were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (Primo v. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., et
al., Case No. 4:11-CV-06599).  On April 11, 2012, an amended
complaint was filed in the Primo action, which added another
plaintiff, Evan Powell.  As amended, the complaint alleges
violations of several provisions of the federal securities laws
arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions in the Company's
August 16, 2010 registration statement (effective, as amended, on
October 26, 2010), and by the Company and/or its employees during
the class period. The complaint seeks, among other things,
compensatory damages, rescission, and attorneys' fees and costs on
behalf of the putative class.  On April 6, 2012, Mr. Primo was
appointed lead plaintiff in the action.  Defendants in the Primo
action have filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  A
hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss is presently scheduled
for October 11, 2012.


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Being Sold to TPG for Too Little, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Par Pharmaceutical Cos. are
selling themselves too cheaply through an unfair process to TPG
Capital, for $50 a share or $1.9 billion, shareholders claim in
Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Saratoga Advantage Trust Health &
Biotechnology Portfolio v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., et
al., Case No. 12-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 15992 in Case No. 33-
av-00001 on September 19, 2012 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/12/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Wolf, Esq.
          Henry P. Wolf, Esq.
          The WOLF LAW FIRM LLC
          1520 US Highway 130, Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545-7900
          E-mail: awolf@wolflawfirm.net

               - and -

          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          Mark L. Knutson, Esq.
          William R. Restis, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92101-3579
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333


PRICELINE.COM INC: Awaits Final Judgment in Texas Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
priceline.com Incorporated awaits the entry of a final judgment in
a class action lawsuit filed in Texas, according to the Company's
August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Litigation is subject to uncertainty and there could be adverse
developments in the Company's pending or future cases and
proceedings.  For example, in October 2009, a jury in a San
Antonio class action found that the Company and the other online
travel companies that are defendants in the lawsuit "control"
hotels for purposes of the local hotel occupancy tax ordinances at
issue and are, therefore, subject to the requirements of those
ordinances.  The court has not yet entered a final judgment in
that case.  The Company says it intends to vigorously pursue an
appeal of the judgment in that case, once it has been entered, on
legal and factual grounds.


RETAIL PROPERTIES: Faces Stockholder Class Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
Retail Properties of America, Inc. is facing a stockholder class
action lawsuit in Illinois, according to the Company's August 7,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On July 26, 2012, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the Company and the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties when the Company listed its stock
on the NYSE and made a concurrent equity offering.  The complaint
seeks unspecified damages and other relief.  Based on its initial
review of the complaint, the Company believes the lawsuit to be
without merit and intends to defend the action vigorously.  While
the resolution of this matter cannot be predicted with certainty,
management believes, based on currently available information,
that the final outcome will not have a material effect on the
financial statements of the Company.

Retail Properties of America, Inc. -- http://www.rpai.com-- is a
fully integrated, self-administered and self-managed real estate
investment trust that owns and operates shopping centers across 35
states.  The company is one of the largest owners and operators of
shopping centers in the United States.


SPEEDYPC SOFTWARE: Sued for Selling Fraudulent Software
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that SpeedyPC Software
fraudulently induces people to buy fraudulent software that
supposedly speeds up and protects computers, a class action claims
in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Bastion v. SpeedyPC Software, Case No.
12-cv-04730 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/12/Bogus.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean P. Reis, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLP
          30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Telephone: (949) 459-2124
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Chandler R. Givens, Esq.
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  cgivens@edelson.com


STARBUCKS: Appeals $14.1-Mil. Class Action Damages Award
--------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that Starbucks and baristas
served up arguments at the First Circuit on Sept. 11 about whether
the Massachusetts Tips Law allows shift supervisors to split tips
with baristas.  Starbucks is appealing a damages award totaling
$14.1 million for the plaintiffs and certification of their
proposed class.


STEC INC: Securities Suit in California State Court Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit pending in California state
court remains stayed, according to STEC, Inc.'s August 7, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

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,
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 says no amounts have been recorded in the consolidated
financial statements for this matter.  The Company believes that
the contemplated settlement of the securities class action pending
in California federal court would result in a release of the class
claims asserted in this Superior Court action.


STEC INC: In Negotiations to Settle Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEC, Inc. is currently in negotiations to settle a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit pending in federal court,
according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

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 (the "Exchange Act") 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 (the "Securities Act"), 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.
On November 21, 2011, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification and appointment of class counsel.

On January 12, 2012, the plaintiff in a purported class action
lawsuit pending in the Superior Court of Orange County, California
filed a motion for leave to intervene.  The defendants opposed
both of these motions.  On March 7, 2012, the Court denied both
motions without prejudice and stayed the action, other than
discovery, to allow Lead Plaintiff to cure the issue that resulted
in the order denying its motion for class certification.  On March
23, 2012, Lead Plaintiff sought permission from the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to appeal from the order
denying without prejudice its motion for class certification.  The
defendants opposed this request, which the Ninth Circuit denied on
June 14, 2012.  On June 19, 2012, the Court entered an order
granting Lead Plaintiff's motion and certifying a class consisting
of all persons and entities that, between June 16, 2009, and
February 23, 2010, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly traded common stock of STEC, Inc., and were damaged
thereby.  The defendants subsequently sought permission from the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to appeal
from the class certification order, and that request remains
pending.

On July 30, 2012, the parties to the federal class action attended
a mediation to explore a potential settlement.  During the July 30
mediation, the parties considered a settlement that would create a
fund for the benefit of the settlement class, with no admission or
concession of wrongdoing by the Company or any other defendants,
in exchange for a full and complete release of all claims that
were or could have been asserted in the federal class action,
including claims under both the Exchange Act and the Securities
Act.  Negotiations are ongoing, and in the event that the parties
are able to reach an agreement in principle, the settlement would
be subject to final documentation of the agreement, the execution
of a stipulation of settlement, as well as preliminary and final
approval by the Court.  Given the settlement activity, the Company
has revised its assessment of this loss contingency and estimates
the range of probable loss for the federal class action to be
between $34 million and $36 million.  The Company has recorded a
$35 million loss accrual in current accrued and other liabilities,
which represents the Company's best estimate of the probable loss
and is the mid-point of the estimated settlement range.  The
Company has also recorded a receivable of $20 million related to
insurance claims receivable based on the estimated amount of
probable insurance contribution from the Company's directors and
officers insurance carriers for the settlement.  The Company has
recorded the estimated settlement loss and related estimated
insurance recoveries in other (expense) income in the accompanying
statement of operations resulting in a net charge of $15 million
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.  Upon final settlement, the
Company says the actual loss incurred may vary from the loss
recorded at June 30, 2012, and may be subject to future
adjustment.


THE PLAYERS: Unlawfully Withheld Employees' Gratuities, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Canella, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by The Players and John
Martello individually v. The Players and/or other entities
affiliated or controlled by The Players and John Martello,
individually, Case No. 653128/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., September 6,
2012) is brought pursuant to the New York Labor Law on behalf of
those who furnished labor to the Defendants, including servers,
bartenders, bussers, cooks and other non-exempt positions.

The Plaintiff asserts that the lawsuit is brought to recover
unpaid gratuities and other statutorily required compensation for
work performed on behalf of Defendants by the Plaintiffs and other
members of the putative class.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants unlawfully withheld, and personally retained, portions
of gratuities provided to employees.

Joe Canella is a resident of New York, who is employed by the
Defendants as a bartender and waiter since 2003.

The Players is a New York corporation and is engaged in the
restaurant and catering business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
          Kara Belolfsky, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          111 Broadway, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
                  kbelofsky@vandallp.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Brown, Esq.
          LEEDS, MORELLI & BROWN, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          Facsimile: (516) 747-5024
          E-mail: jbrown@lmblaw.com


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven N. Bell, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., Robert J. Pera, John Ritchie,
Perry Y. Chung, Christopher J. Crespi, Charles J. Fitzgerald, John
L. Ocampo, Robert M. Van Buskirk, UBS Securities LLC, Deutsche
Bank Securities Inc., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Pacific
Crest Securities LLC and ThinkEquity LLC, Case No. 4:12-cv-04677
(N.D. Calif., September 7, 2012) is brought on behalf of all
persons, who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Ubiquiti between October 14,2011, and August 9, 2012, inclusive.

During the Class Period, the Defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
practices and financial results, Mr. Bell alleges.  He contends
that the Defendants failed to disclose negative trends in
Ubiquiti's business, including widespread problems associated with
counterfeit versions of its AirMax wireless gear being made
available to the market.

Mr. Bell is a shareholder of Ubiquiti.

Based in San Jose, California, Ubiquiti designs, manufactures and
sells broadband wireless solutions worldwide.  The Company offers
a portfolio of wireless networking products and solutions,
including systems, high performance radios, antennas and
management tools, designed for wireless networking and other
applications in the unlicensed radio frequency ("RF") spectrum.
The Company offers solutions that incorporate its RF technology,
antenna design and firmware technologies, which it refers to as
AirTechnologies.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of Ubiquiti.

UBS is a leading global investment banking and securities firm,
and one of the largest global asset managers.  Deutsche Bank is
the U.S. investment banking and securities arm of Deutsche Bank
AG.  Deutsche Bank provides investment banking products and
services.  RJA is a financial investment advisory firm.  Pacific
Crest provides investment banking products and services.
ThinkEquity provides institutional brokerage, investment banking,
and asset management services to small and middle market public
and privately held companies and individuals.  These Defendants
acted as underwriters for Ubiquiti's initial public offering,
helping to draft and disseminate the offering documents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          Catherine J. Kowalewski, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  davew@rgrdlaw.com
                  katek@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
          519 Allegheny Building
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 391-5164
          Facsimile: (412) 471-1033
          E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com


VALENCE TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Umeda Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights firm Robbins Umeda LLP on Sept. 11 disclosed it
has commenced a federal securities class action in the U.S.
District Court Southern District of New York, on behalf of
purchasers of Valence Technology, Inc. shares between August 3,
2011 and July 12, 2012.  Concerned shareholders who would like
more information about their rights and potential remedies can
contact attorney Gregory E. Del Gaizo at 800-350-6003,
inquiry@robbinsumeda.com or via the shareholder information form
on the firm's Web site.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued material false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded
the fact that Valence was headed for bankruptcy, downplayed the
severity of the Company's capital position, and misled investors
about the Company's business health and future prospects by
evading inquiries concerning Valence's liquidity and assuring the
market of the Company's available alternatives for raising
capital.

Despite making positive statements, the Company did not have
enough cash to meet its outstanding obligations.  On July 12,
2012, Valence issued a press release disclosing to investors that
the Company filed a voluntary petition for chapter 11 business
reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western
District of Texas.  When the true state of the Company's business
health became public, Valence's shares lost approximately 92% of
their value.  After closing at $0.65 per share on July 13, 2012,
shares of Valence Technology common stock closed on July 16, 2012
at just $0.05 per share.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Valence stock during the
Class Period and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than November 12, 2012.  To discuss your
shareholder rights, please contact attorney Gregory E. Del Gaizo
at 800-350-6003, via e-mail at info@robbinsumeda.com  or via the
shareholder information form.


VISA: NRF to Oppose $7.25-Bil. Antitrust Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Retail Federation on Sept. 11 disclosed that its
Board of Directors has authorized the Federation to go to court to
block the proposed $7.25 billion settlement of a federal antitrust
lawsuit over skyrocketing Visa and MasterCard credit card swipe
fees that cost consumers hundreds of dollars a year.

"The National Retail Federation categorically opposes the proposed
settlement," NRF President and CEO Matthew Shay said.  "It does
nothing to curb the anticompetitive behavior of Visa and
MasterCard, and instead ensures that swipe fees paid by retailers
and their customers will continue to rise while barring any future
legal challenges.  The proposal is a lose-lose-lose for merchants,
consumers and competition.  NRF will take any and all steps
necessary to oppose the settlement as it is currently proposed and
will work toward real reform of the swipe fee system."

A resolution approved by the Board authorizes NRF to take steps
including "intervention in pending actions" in order to reach a
solution "equitable to the broad merchant community."  NRF is
exploring what form the legal action might take.  NRF is not a
party to the lawsuit, and U.S. District Court Judge John Gleeson
has not yet fully outlined how outside groups will be allowed to
intervene, or if the case qualifies as a class action.

Mr. Shay announced the Board's decision at the Annual Summit being
held in Denver by NRF's Shop.org division.  While swipe fees
affect all merchants, online retailers are particularly impacted
because most of their sales are paid for by plastic and the "card
not present" rates Visa and MasterCard charge for online
transactions can be a third higher than those paid by other
merchants.

Swipe fees are a hidden charge banks collect each time a Visa or
MasterCard is swiped to pay for a purchase.  Combined credit and
debit card swipe fees tripled over the past decade to about $50
billion a year driving up prices an estimated $427 for the average
household before debit swipe was capped by the Federal Reserve
last year.  Credit card swipe averages about 2 percent of each
transaction, and amounts to about $30 billion a year, or $250 per
household.  Swipe fees are the second or third-highest expense for
most retailers, behind employee salaries and health care benefits.

While other trade associations representing big box retailers,
convenience stores and grocers have spoken out against the
settlement, NRF is the only trade association representing the
full range of merchants who could be included in a class action.

"A key question for the judge is whether this settlement is fair
to the nation's retailers," Mr. Shay said.  "From what we have
heard, it unequivocally is not.  NRF's membership reflects the
vast majority of retailers from Main Street small businesses to
some of the nation's best-known brands.  Short of a company-by-
company poll, a vote by the NRF Board is the clearest test of what
merchants think."

NRF is concerned by a number of provisions of the proposed
settlement:

NRF is particularly concerned by a provision barring all merchants
including those that do not yet exist from ever again suing Visa
and MasterCard over swipe fees.

"We represent the nation's retailers and that means not just
today's retailers but tomorrow's as well," Mr. Shay said.  "It is
our duty to foster an environment that is supportive of young, new
entrepreneurs who will create the Walmarts and Amazons and Main
Street shops of the future.  We can't stand by and allow their
rights to be stripped away before they've even had a chance to
start their businesses."

As the world's largest retail trade association and the voice of
retail worldwide, NRF -- http://www.nrf.com-- represents
retailers of all types and sizes, including chain restaurants and
industry partners, from the United States and more than 45
countries abroad.  Retailers operate more than 3.6 million U.S.
establishments that support one in four U.S. jobs 42 million
working Americans.  Contributing $2.5 trillion to annual GDP,
retail is a daily barometer for the nation's economy.  NRF's
Retail Means Jobs campaign emphasizes the economic importance of
retail and encourages policymakers to support a Jobs, Innovation
and Consumer Value Agenda aimed at boosting economic growth and
job creation.


VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Judge Raises Concerns on Damage Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Brian Mahoney, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge on Sept. 11 raised concerns over damage claims from a
"strange" jury verdict sheet in a stock inflation class action
against Vivendi Universal SA, saying the shares at issue, created
during a three-way corporate merger, did not exist during part of
the class period.

At a status conference on Sept. 11, U.S. District Judge Shira
Scheindlin said that the class period for shareholders who held
inflated American depositary receipts for Vivendi Universal lists
five weeks in which the receipts did not exist.


WELLS TIMBERLAND: Summary Judgment Bid in Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Timberland REIT, Inc. and other defendants' motion for
summary judgment in a putative class action styled In re Wells
Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation remains
pending, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont Office Realty Trust,
Inc. ("Piedmont REIT") filed a putative class action and
derivative complaint, presently styled In re Wells Real Estate
Investment Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation, in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland against, among others,
Piedmont REIT; Leo F. Wells, III, the Company's President and
Director; Wells Capital, the owner of the Company's advisor; Wells
Management Company, Inc. ("Wells Management"); certain affiliates
of Wells Real Estate Funds, Inc. ("Wells REF"); the directors of
Piedmont REIT; and certain individuals who formerly served as
officers or directors of Piedmont REIT prior to the closing of an
internalization transaction by Piedmont REIT on April 16, 2007.

The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the
federal proxy rules and breaches of fiduciary duty arising from
the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction and the related
proxy statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, as
amended.  The complaint sought, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and nullification of the Piedmont REIT
internalization transaction.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
attempted to assert class action claims on behalf of those persons
who received and were entitled to vote on the Piedmont REIT proxy
statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, and derivative
claims on behalf of Piedmont REIT.

On March 31, 2008, the Court granted in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The Court dismissed five
of the seven counts of the amended complaint in their entirety.
The Court dismissed the remaining two counts with the exception of
allegations regarding the failure to disclose in the Piedmont REIT
proxy statement details of certain expressions of interest in
acquiring Piedmont REIT.  On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint, which alleges violations of the federal
proxy rules based upon allegations that the proxy statement to
obtain approval for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction
omitted details of certain expressions of interest in acquiring
Piedmont REIT.  The second amended complaint seeks, among other
things, unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind the
internalization transaction, and to cancel and rescind any stock
issued to the defendants as consideration for the internalization
transaction.  On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised
certain defenses to the second amended complaint.  Since the
filing of the second amended complaint, the plaintiff has said it
intends to seek monetary damages of approximately $159 million
plus prejudgment interest.

On June 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  On September 16, 2009, the Court granted the
plaintiff's motion for class certification.  On September 20,
2009, the defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal
immediately the Court's order granting the motion for class
certification with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  The
petition for permission to appeal was denied on October 30, 2009.

On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the
second amended complaint to add additional defendants.  The Court
denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend on June 23, 2009.

On December 4, 2009, the parties filed motions for summary
judgment.  On August 2, 2010, the Court entered an order denying
the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting, in part,
the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.  The Court
ruled that the question of whether certain expressions of interest
in acquiring Piedmont REIT constituted "material" information
required to be disclosed in the proxy statement to obtain approval
for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction raises questions
of fact that must be determined at trial.

On November 17, 2011, the Court issued rulings granting several of
the plaintiff's motions in limine to prohibit the defendants from
introducing certain evidence, including evidence of the
defendants' reliance on advice from their outside legal and
financial advisors, and limiting the defendants' ability to relate
their subjective views, considerations, and observations during
the trial of the case.  On February 23, 2012, the Court granted
several of the defendants' motions, including a motion for
reconsideration regarding a motion the plaintiff had filed seeking
exclusion of certain evidence impacting damages, and motions
seeking exclusion of certain evidence proposed to be submitted by
the plaintiff.  The lawsuit has been removed from the Court's
trial calendar pending resolution of a request for interlocutory
appellate review of certain legal rulings made by the Court.

On March 20, 2012, the court granted the defendants leave to file
a motion for summary judgment.  On April 5, 2012, the defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment.  On April 24, 2012, the
plaintiff filed its response to the defendants' motion for summary
judgment.  On May 7, 2012, the defendants filed their reply in
support of their motion for summary judgment.  The defendants'
motion for summary judgment is currently pending before the court.

Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, and Wells Management believe that the
allegations contained in the complaint are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend this action.  Although Wells REF
believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims of
liability and damages in these actions, Wells REF is unable at
this time to predict the outcome of these actions or reasonably
estimate a range of damages, or how any liability and
responsibility for damages might be allocated among the 17
defendants in the action, which includes 11 defendants not
affiliated with Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, or Wells Management.
The ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material
adverse impact on Wells REF's financial results, financial
condition, or liquidity.


                           *********

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  * * *