CAR_Public/121101.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, November 1, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 217

                               Headlines

ALTRIA: Argentinean Tobacco Workers File Class Action
AMR CORP: "Turner" Antitrust Suit Remains Pending in California
ANCESTRY.COM: Being Sold to Global Generations for Too Little
BT MCELRATH: Recalls Peanut Butter Pave Due To Health Risks
CANADA: B.C. Faces Class Action Over Foster Care Abuses

CHICAGO, IL: Sued Over Firefighter Entrance Exam Discrimination
CHINA-BIOTICS: Bid to Dismiss Claims in New York Suit Pending
CHINA-BIOTICS: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in "Casper" Class Suit
CITIZENS SOUTH: Files Supplement Under MOU to Settle "Heath" Suit
CREDO PETROLEUM: Signs MOU to Settle Consolidated Merger Suit

CSX CORP: Seeks to Appeal Class Cert. Ruling in Antitrust Suit
GOVGUAM: Enters Into Mediation with Class Action Plaintiffs
KNIGHT CAPITAL: Faces $440-Mil. Shareholder Class Action
KNOX COUNTY, TN: Judge Denies Truancy Class Action Appeal
MARCOS ESTATE: Appeals Court Upholds Fine in Human Rights Case

MEDICIS PHARMA: Being Sold to Valeant for Too Little, Suit Says
PARK STERLING: Files Supplements Under MOU to Settle "Heath" Suit
PEET'S COFFEE: Gets Prelim. OK of Consolidated Suit Settlement
ROTO-ROOTER: Sued for Allegedly Defrauding Homeowners
SCHOEP'S ICE: Recalls Kay's Classic Vanilla Bean Ice Cream

SYNGENTA AG: Settles Atrazine Class Action for $105 Million
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Class Action Over Patent Settlement
UNITED RENTALS: "Israni" Suit Settlement Approved in September
VIA RAIL: Court Set to Hear Arguments in Derailment Class Action
WAL-MART STORES: Disputes Gender Discrimination Class Action

WARREN, MI: Settles Class Action Over Tree Damage for $1.42 Mil.
WASHINGTON POST: Faces Class Action Over Distributors' Contracts
WELLS FARGO: Sued for Misrepresenting HAMP Requirements
WPCS INTERNATIONAL: Anticipates Dismissal of "Rapozo" Class Suit
ZAYO GROUP: Continues to Defend AboveNet Acquisition Suits


                          *********


ALTRIA: Argentinean Tobacco Workers File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that dozens of Argentinean tobacco
workers claim their children suffered birth defects because Altria
and other Big Tobacco companies sprayed their crops with toxic
chemicals made by Monsanto, in Superior Court.


AMR CORP: "Turner" Antitrust Suit Remains Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Turner v. American Airlines, et
al., remains pending in California, according to AMR Corporation's
October 17, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On June 20, 2006, the U.S. Department of Justice served the
Company with a grand jury subpoena as part of an ongoing
investigation into possible criminal violations of the antitrust
laws by certain domestic and foreign passenger carriers.  At this
time, the Company does not believe it is a target of the DOJ
investigation.  The Company intends to cooperate fully with this
investigation.  On September 4, 2007, the Attorney General of the
State of Florida served the Company with a Civil Investigative
Demand as part of its investigation of possible violations of
federal and Florida antitrust laws regarding the pricing of air
passenger transportation.  In the event that this or other
investigations uncover violations of the U.S. antitrust laws or
the competition laws of some other jurisdiction, such findings and
related legal proceedings could have a material adverse impact on
the Company.

Approximately 52 purported class action lawsuits have been filed
in the U.S. against the Company and certain foreign and domestic
air carriers alleging that the defendants violated U.S. antitrust
laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges for
passenger transportation.  On October 25, 2006, these cases, along
with other purported class action lawsuits in which the Company
was not named, were consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California as In re
International Air Transportation Surcharge Antitrust Litigation,
Civ. No. 06-1793 (the Passenger MDL).  On July 9, 2007, the
Company was named as a defendant in the Passenger MDL.  On
August 25, 2008, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against the
Company in this action.

On March 13, 2008, and March 14, 2008, an additional purported
class action complaint, Turner v. American Airlines, et al., Civ.
No. 08-1444 (N.D. Cal.), was filed against the Company, alleging
that the Company violated U.S. antitrust laws by illegally
conspiring to set prices and surcharges for passenger
transportation in Japan and certain European countries,
respectively.  The Turner plaintiffs have failed to perfect
service against the Company, and it is unclear whether they intend
to pursue their claims.  In the event that the Turner plaintiffs
pursue their claims, the Company will vigorously defend these
lawsuits, but any adverse judgment in these actions could have a
material adverse impact on the Company.


ANCESTRY.COM: Being Sold to Global Generations for Too Little
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Ancestry.com are
selling the company too cheaply through an unfair process to
Global Generations International, for $32 a share or $1.6 billion,
shareholders claim in Chancery Court.


BT MCELRATH: Recalls Peanut Butter Pave Due To Health Risks
-----------------------------------------------------------
BT McElrath Chocolatier, Inc. is initiating a voluntary recall of
the seasonal peanut butter pave because they have the potential to
be contaminated with Salmonella.  Salmonella is an organism that
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems.  Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often
experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain.
In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis, and arthritis.

The decision to recall was made due to the expanded recall of
Sunland Inc.'s peanut butter.  To date, there have been no
confirmed illnesses or injuries reported in connection with any of
the BT McElrath Chocolatier, Inc. recalled products, and no other
BT McElrath Chocolatier, Inc. products are being recalled at this
time.

The following products are included in this recall:

   2 and 5 Pieces Peanut Butter Pave

   * Lot# 12031 with a Best by date of 4-30-12
     UPC code 693868102117 and 69386905312

   * Lot# 12046 with a Best by date of 6-15-12
     UPC code 693868102117 and 69386905312

   * Lot# 12159 with a Best by date of 10-7-12
     UPC code 693868102117 and 69386905312

   * Lot# 12201 with a Best by date of 11-26-12
     UPC code 693868102117 and 69386905312

The "lot number" is located on the exterior backing of the product
on a white sticker; the "Best by date" is also located on this
sticker.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm326123.htm

The select products subject to this recall were manufactured
between the dates of January 30th, 2012, through June 6th, 2012,
and distributed nationwide through retail stores, mail order, and
direct sales.

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the United
States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  Consumers with
recalled product are urged not to eat the product, and to dispose
of it or return it to BT McElrath Chocolatier or the retail
establishment where it was purchased for a full refund.  Consumers
with questions about the recalled products may phone BT McElrath
at (612) 331-8800.


CANADA: B.C. Faces Class Action Over Foster Care Abuses
-------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Greer at Courthouse News Service reports that British
Columbia dropped the ball in pursuing civil damages against
criminals who have victimized minors in state custody since 1972,
two women claim in a class action.

The named plaintiffs, both of Vancouver, claim in B.C. Supreme
Court that they were in foster care when they were sexually
assaulted, one by her foster father and the other by an assailant
known to her foster family.

One woman says she became a permanent ward of the government in
1972 and was in foster care when she was hit by a car and nearly
killed at age 6.  The accident put her in a coma for several days,
and she had to wear a full body cast.  She claims the government
failed to sue the driver even though the accident was reported to
police.

When she was 7 and in the care of a different foster family, this
woman says, she was sexually assaulted by a man who lived in the
same neighborhood in the Vancouver suburb of Surrey.

She says the man held a knife to her throat and the assault lasted
at least an hour.  It stopped when her foster brother saw it,
shouted the girl's name, causing the man to drop the knife and
flee.

The woman says police investigated but did not allow her to
participate in the investigation, and she doesn't know if the man
was ever charged.

Her foster brother died years later in a car crash and could have
helped press her "legal rights against the assailant, or her
claims for criminal injuries compensation, or any other action,
had charges proceeded through the courts nearer to the time of the
incident, or if, any other action had been initiated by the
defendants," the complaint states.

"The defendants did not pursue any action to recover damages or
compensation on behalf of (the plaintiff) after the incident of
the herein described motor vehicle accident or the incident of
sexual assault," the complaint states.

"The driver and owner of the vehicle that struck (her) had assets
and insurance.  The assailant had assets and if not, government
programs for compensation if criminally assaulted, existed."

The other named plaintiff claims that she and her sister were
placed in the care of a single foster father in 1981.  She says he
began sexually abusing her when she was 11 and stopped only after
she reported it to a school nurse, who told the government, which
then removed the plaintiff and her sister from the home.

The foster father was charged and convicted of sexually assaulting
the plaintiff and her sister, according to the complaint.

"The plaintiffs and the class could not have reasonably known that
criminal injuries compensation was available to them due to their
young age or how to sue for a tort," the complaint states.  "The
plaintiffs and the class were not in a position to make any later
claims for compensation due to the lack [of] assistance from the
defendants."

The class sued Her Majesty the Queen in right of British Columbia
as represented by the Attorney General and Public Guardian and
Trustee of British Columbia.  It includes "all persons who, while
resident in British Columbia, suffered personal injury while a
minor as a result of a tort by a third party, and on or after
1972, were in the custody of ministers, directors, or agencies
responsible for family services, and for whom the Defendants did
not make a claim under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, the
Criminal Injury Compensation Act 1979, the Criminal Injury
Compensation Act 1996, or the Crime Victim Assistance Act, or
commence a civil action against the tortfeasor(s) to obtain
compensation on their behalf, or hire a lawyer to represent their
interests."

They are represented by E.F. Anthony Merchant of Surrey, B.C.


CHICAGO, IL: Sued Over Firefighter Entrance Exam Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maudlyne Ihejirika, writing for Chicago Sun-Times, reports that a
physical abilities test the city is using to hire African-American
firefighters in settlement of a race discrimination lawsuit is
discriminatory against women, says a suit filed on Oct. 26 in U.S.
District Court charges.

Godfrey et al vs. City of Chicago was filed by 20 female
plaintiffs on behalf of all female applicants who recently took
the test and failed.

"The city hasn't been served yet with the lawsuit, so we cannot
comment at this time," said city Law Dept. spokesman Roderick
Drew.

The women are already members of two other class-action suits.

They were members of Lewis et al vs. City of Chicago --
encompassing some 6,000 African-American firefighter applicants
who sued over a 1995 firefighter entrance exam the federal courts
agreed was racially discriminatory.  That suit was finally settled
last year.

The Godfrey plaintiffs are also members of the lawsuit Vasich vs.
City of Chicago, filed last year on behalf of women who passed the
firefighter written exam but failed the physical abilities test.

That suit, seeking to have the physical test replaced, is pending.

"It's a test that doesn't really test for the abilities you need
to become a firefighter, and screens out women needlessly and
unjustifiably," said attorney Marni Willenson, who represents some
of the women in the Godfrey suit and is lead attorney on Vasich.

"We've been in settlement discussions for a year, yet the city
made the decision again to use the test we were suing to throw
out."

As part of the settlement of the Lewis suit, the city agreed to
hire 111 of the bypassed African-American applicants, and to pay
damages that could reach as high as $78 million to the remaining
5,900.

Some 1,000 of those African-American applicants were invited to
try out, with the jobs to go to the first 111 passing the disputed
physical test, drug and background checks, and medical exams.

So where the Vasich suit covers women in general who have taken
and failed the physical test since 2007, the Godfrey suit now
covers African-American women from the Lewis suit who failed the
same test.

Both suits charge the physical test, which includes arm and leg
lifts, arm endurance tests, hose dragging and stair climbing,
discriminates by screening out women at a higher rate than men.

In 2011, women still comprised only 2 percent of the more than
5,000 firefighters/emergency medical technicians staff, charges
the Godfrey suit, which seeks back pay and other reliefs "to
secure future protection and to redress the past deprivation of
rights."

The Oct. 26 lawsuit now represents the third time the physical
abilities test has been the subject of a discrimination lawsuit by
women.  In 2008, five women who failed the paramedic physical
ability test sued, and that first case is still pending in federal
court.


CHINA-BIOTICS: Bid to Dismiss Claims in New York Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
China-Biotics, Inc.'s motions to dismiss certain claims in the
shareholder class action lawsuit initiated in New York are
currently pending, according to the Company's September 14, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended March 31, 2012.

The Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have been named as defendants in two putative
shareholder class action lawsuits, one in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (Mohapatra
v. China-Biotics, Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-6954 (C.D. Cal.), the
"California Action") and the other in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Hill v. China-
Biotics, Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-7838 (S.D.N.Y.), the "New York
Action").  After certain shareholders filed motions for
appointment as lead plaintiff in both lawsuits, the plaintiff in
the California Action voluntarily dismissed its case and the
plaintiff in the New York Action, together with another
shareholder, were appointed as lead plaintiffs.  The lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in which they allege that
the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making material misstatements
or failing to disclose certain material information regarding,
among other things, the Company's financial condition, operations,
and future business prospects, and the quality, nature, and
quantity of the Company's retail outlets.  The lead plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of shareholders who bought the Company's
securities between July 10, 2008, and August 27, 2010.

On August 18, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lead
plaintiffs' amended complaint.  The court dismissed the lead
plaintiffs' Section 11 claim, but gave them leave to replead.  The
court did not rule on the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b)
claim.  On January 9, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint that included a new named plaintiff and new
allegations for the Section 11 claim.  On February 27, 2012, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended Section 11 claim.
Both that motion and the original motion to dismiss the Section
10(b) and Section 20(a) claims are currently pending before the
court.  The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.


CHINA-BIOTICS: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in "Casper" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York appointed the Blanck Investor Group as lead plaintiff in the
class action lawsuit styled Casper v. Jinan, et al., according to
China-Biotics, Inc.'s September 14, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
March 31, 2012.

The Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have been named as defendants in a putative stockholder
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Casper v. Jinan, et al., No. 12-cv-4202
(S.D.N.Y.).  The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making material misstatements about the Company's projected
revenue growth for 2011.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a class
of stockholders who bought the Company's securities between
February 9, 2011, and July 1, 2011.  On September 5, 2012, the
court appointed the Blanck Investor Group as lead plaintiff.  The
Company intends to defend this action vigorously.


CITIZENS SOUTH: Files Supplement Under MOU to Settle "Heath" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Citizens South Banking Corporation filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 14, 2012, a Form 8-K to make
certain supplemental disclosures pursuant to a memorandum of
understanding regarding the settlement of certain litigation
relating to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement"), dated as of May 13, 2012, between Citizens South
Banking Corporation ("Citizens South") and Park Sterling
Corporation ("Park Sterling"), pursuant to which Citizens South
would be merged with and into Park Sterling, with Park Sterling as
the surviving entity (the "Proposed Merger").

On June 6, 2012, plaintiff Kenneth Heath filed a putative class
action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery, styled Kenneth
Heath v. Kim S. Price et al., C.A. No. 7601-VCP, which seeks,
among other things, injunctive relief, damages and equitable
relief against Citizens South, its board of directors and Park
Sterling ("Defendants"), alleging that the consideration being
offered in the Proposed Merger was unfair, that Citizens South's
board of directors had breached its fiduciary duties in connection
with its consideration and approval of the Proposed Merger and
that Citizens South and Park Sterling had aided and abetted those
breaches of fiduciary duty (the "Action").  On August 6, 2012, the
plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint in the Action.
In addition to the original breach of fiduciary duty and aiding
and abetting claims, the amended complaint alleges additional
purported deficiencies in the process leading up the Proposed
Merger and that the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus contains
certain material omissions or misstatements.

On August 8, 2012, the plaintiff filed motions for expedited
proceedings and a preliminary injunction.  Defendants determined
not to oppose the motion for expedited proceedings and, on
August 21, 2012, the parties entered into a stipulated scheduling
order, governing the pre-hearing discovery and briefing in the
Action and scheduling a hearing on the plaintiff's motion for
preliminary injunction for September 14, 2012.

On September 12, 2012, Defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiff regarding the settlement of the
Action.

Defendants continue to deny the allegations set forth in the
amended complaint and believe that no further supplemental
disclosure is required under applicable laws; however, to avoid
the risk of the Action delaying or adversely affecting the
Proposed Merger and to minimize the expense of defending the
Action, Citizens South has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the
proposed settlement, to make certain supplemental disclosures
related to the Proposed Merger.  Citizens South expressly
acknowledges that the Action is the sole cause for its decision to
make these supplemental disclosures.  Subject to completion of
certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to plaintiff, the
memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
court approval following notice to Citizens South's stockholders.
In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Delaware
Court of Chancery will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the settlement.  If the settlement is finally approved
by the Delaware Court of Chancery, it will resolve and release all
claims in all actions that were or could have been brought
challenging any aspect of the Proposed Merger, the Merger
Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith
(excluding claims for appraisal under Section 262 of the Delaware
General Corporation Law), pursuant to terms that will be disclosed
to stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement.  The
proposed settlement will not affect the amount of the merger
consideration that Citizens South's stockholders are entitled to
receive in the Proposed Merger.

In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiff's counsel will file a petition in the
Delaware Court of Chancery for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses to be paid by Citizens South or its successor.
Defendants have reserved the right to challenge any request for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses.  Citizens South or its
successor will pay or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees and
expenses awarded by the Delaware Court of Chancery.  There can be
no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the Delaware Court of Chancery
will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into
such stipulation.  In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.


CREDO PETROLEUM: Signs MOU to Settle Consolidated Merger Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CREDO Petroleum Corporation entered into a memorandum of
understanding in September to settle a consolidated merger-related
lawsuit, according to the Company's September 14, 2012, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On September 14, 2012, CREDO Petroleum Corporation ("CREDO")
signed a memorandum of understanding to settle the previously
disclosed consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit captioned
In re Credo Petroleum Corporation Shareholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 7641-VCP pending in the Delaware Court of
Chancery (the "Merger Litigation").  The Merger Litigation relates
to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 3, 2012, by
and among Forestar Group Inc. ("Forestar"), Longhorn Acquisition
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Forestar, and CREDO.

CREDO agreed to the settlement solely to avoid the costs, risks
and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting
any liability or wrongdoing.  CREDO denies all liability with
respect to the facts and claims alleged in the Merger Litigation
and specifically denies that any breach of fiduciary duty
occurred, or that any further disclosure is required to supplement
the Proxy Statement under any applicable rule, statute, regulation
or law.

The settlement provides, among other things, that the parties will
seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement which provides for
the conditional certification of the Merger Litigation as a non
opt-out class action pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 23 on
behalf of a class consisting of all record and beneficial owners
of CREDO common stock during the period beginning on June 3, 2012,
through the date of the consummation of the proposed merger,
including any and all of their respective successors in interest,
predecessors, representatives, and the release of all asserted
claims.  The asserted claims will not be released until such
stipulation of settlement is approved by the court.  There can be
no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve such
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.  The settlement will have no effect on the merger
consideration to be received by CREDO stockholders or the timing
of the special meeting of CREDO stockholders scheduled on
September 25, 2012.

Additionally, as part of the settlement, CREDO has agreed to make
certain additional disclosures related to the proposed merger.
The additional disclosures supplement the disclosure contained in
the proxy statement filed by CREDO with the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") on August 10, 2012 (the "Proxy
Statement"), and should be read in conjunction with the
disclosures contained in the Proxy Statement, which in turn should
be read in its entirety.

                      About Credo Petroleum

Credo Petroleum Corporation is an independent oil and gas
exploration, development and production company based in Denver,
Colorado.  The Company has significant operations in the Williston
Basin of North Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, the Anadarko Basin of the
Texas Panhandle and northwest Oklahoma, and in southern Oklahoma.
Credo uses advanced technologies to systematically explore for oil
and gas and, through its patented Calliope Gas Recovery System, to
recover additional reserves from largely depleted gas reservoirs.
For more information, please visit the Company's Web site at
http://www.credopetroleum.com/or contact the Company at (303)
297-2200.


CSX CORP: Seeks to Appeal Class Cert. Ruling in Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation disclosed in its October 16, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 28, 2012, that it is seeking permission to
appeal a class certification decision in a consolidated lawsuit
over fuel surcharge.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company's principal operating subsidiary, CSX Transportation, Inc.
("CSXT") and three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging
that the defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract
and unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws.  The lawsuit seeks treble damages
allegedly sustained by purported class members as well as
attorneys' fees and other relief.  While the Company believes the
case is without merit and recovery unlikely, plaintiffs are
expected to allege damages at least equal to the fuel surcharges
at issue.  In November 2007, the class action lawsuits were
consolidated and are now pending in federal court in the District
of Columbia.

On June 21, 2012, the court certified the case as a class action.
The decision was not a ruling on the merits of plaintiffs' claims,
rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to seek to prove the
case as a class.  The defendant railroads have petitioned the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for permission to appeal the
District Court's class certification decision.  On August 28,
2012, the Court of Appeals referred the petition to a merits
panel, and directed that the parties to the case submit briefs
addressing both the petition and the merits of the appeal.  The
District Court currently is deciding whether to stay some or all
proceedings pending the appellate court's decision on the
defendants' petition for an appeal.

CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at
and applied lawfully and that the case is without merit.
Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously.
However, penalties for violating antitrust laws can be severe, and
an unexpected adverse decision on the merits could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity in that particular period or for the full
year.

CSX Corporation, based in Jacksonville, Florida, is a leading
transportation company providing rail, intermodal and rail-to-
truck transload services.  The Company's transportation network
spans approximately 21,000 miles with service to 23 eastern states
and the District of Columbia, and connects to more than 70 ocean,
river and lake ports.


GOVGUAM: Enters Into Mediation with Class Action Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Kerrigan, writing for Pacific News Center, reports that
GovGuam and the plaintiffs in the class action against GovGuam
have been ordered by Judge Consuelo Marshal to reach agreement on
a "proposed" permanent injunction setting deadlines for the
payment of tax refunds.

A class action lawsuit was filed to force GovGuam to pay tax
refunds in a timely manner.

No agreement has been reached, but according to a stipulation
filed in District Court on Oct. 26, both sides "have made
progress" during the two mediation sessions they've held before
Magistrate's Judge Joaquin Manibusan.  And they "hope that
additional negotiations may enable them to reach an
agreement."

They will hold a third mediation session with Judge Manibusan on
November 5.

In August, Judge Marshall ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs and
agreed to issue a Permanent Injunction requiring GovGuam to pay
tax refunds in a timely manner.  She ordered both sides to submit
their proposed orders by September 21.

Plaintiff's Attorney Ike Aguigui submitted his proposal by the
deadline, calling for the payment of a refund within 6 months
after the claim is filed.

But GovGuam failed to meet the deadline and asked for more time to
submit a proposal arguing that GovGuam "requires more than six
months to pay these [tax] refunds," and "the main impediment to
developing a plan has been the insufficient cash available to meet
all current year expenditures, unpaid prior year obligations and
unpaid tax refunds."

Judge Marshal ordered Magistrate's Judge Manibusan to mediate, and
submit to her a proposed injunction that both sides had agreed to.

In the Oct. 26 stipulation, the two sides agreed to extend the
deadline for filing their joint, proposed, permanent injunction
until November 16.


KNIGHT CAPITAL: Faces $440-Mil. Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Knight Capital Group and its
CEO and CFO cost shareholders $440 million when their new trading
software went haywire, shareholders claim in a federal class
action.


KNOX COUNTY, TN: Judge Denies Truancy Class Action Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Matt Lakin, writing for Knoxville News Sentinel, reports that a
judge denied class-action status to the appeal brought by two
lawyers who sought to challenge Knox County's handling of more
than 140 truancy cases.

Dean Hill Rivkin and Brenda McGee argued in their appeal of four
truancy cases from Knox County Juvenile Court that court officials
illegally jailed 148 children over the past four years for
skipping school.  Tennessee law forbids locking up children for
status offenses -- acts illegal for children solely because of
their age, such as truancy, smoking or running away from home.

The husband-wife team of lawyers, known for various legal crusades
over the years on behalf of students, jail inmates and others,
wanted to expand their appeal to cover other teenagers they
believe had been jailed for truancy.  Fourth Circuit Judge Bill
Swann, who typically hears appeals from Juvenile Court, ruled that
the pair reached too far and asked his court to make law rather
than to settle it.

The appeal "seek(s) to establish by class action that which lies
solely in the province of the legislature (to create)," the judge
wrote in an order filed on Oct. 23.  "Petitioners laudably urge
the advancement of a social policy which only the legislature can
address."

The judge's decision denied class-action status to the appeal but
didn't specifically address the lawyers' claim that at least one
of the students had been locked up illegally without a lawyer.
Knox County prosecutors didn't file any evidence denying or
admitting that claim.

"If (the) petitioners' statement of material facts is correct --
which given the state's silence cannot be adjudged -- summary
judgment would lie for (the) petitioners," the judge wrote.

In most of the examples cited in the appeal, Juvenile Court Judge
Tim Irwin ordered the students locked up not for skipping school
but for violating probation orders, Judge Swann found -- a legal
loophole authorized by federal law for chronic status offenders.
Judge Swann said it's not his job to say whether that loophole
should be closed.

"This is an area of intensely important social policy -- school
attendance," Judge Swann wrote.  "It is an area in which
thoughtful, well-intentioned, graduated and eventually corrective
steps have been taken.  It is not an area where advisory appellate
opinions are meet.  . . . For better or worse, in this society the
mental development of our children is at present largely entrusted
to the public schools -- and the enforcement of school attendance,
when necessary, to the juvenile courts."

Mr. Rivkin said he wasn't ready to respond to the judge's order on
Oct. 26.  John Gill, special counsel to the Knox County district
attorney general, didn't comment on the decision.


MARCOS ESTATE: Appeals Court Upholds Fine in Human Rights Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal appeals court is
upholding a $354 million fine against the widow and son of the
late Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on
Oct. 24 agreed with a U.S. District Court judge's ruling against
Imelda Marcos and Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos, Jr.

Judge Manuel Real imposed the fine after determining they violated
a court order to freeze their assets so they could pay thousands
of Marcos human rights abuse victims.  The victims had won a class
action lawsuit against the Marcos estate.

Only a fraction of the $2 billion a federal jury in Honolulu
awarded the victims in 1995 has been collected.

Attorney Sherry Broder said on Oct. 26 lawyers will continue to
pursue damages courts awarded to victims and their surviving
family members.


MEDICIS PHARMA: Being Sold to Valeant for Too Little, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Medicis
Pharmaceutical Corp. are selling the company too cheaply through
an unfair process to Valeant Pharmaceuticals, for $44 a share or
$2.6 billion, shareholders claim in Chancery Court.


PARK STERLING: Files Supplements Under MOU to Settle "Heath" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Park Sterling Corporation filed a Form 8-K with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 14, 2012, to make
supplemental disclosures in connection with a memorandum of
understanding regarding the settlement of certain litigation
relating to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement"), dated as of May 13, 2012, between Citizens South
Banking Corporation ("Citizens South") and Park Sterling
Corporation ("Park Sterling"), pursuant to which Citizens South
would be merged with and into Park Sterling, with Park Sterling as
the surviving entity (the "Proposed Merger").

On June 6, 2012, plaintiff Kenneth Heath filed a putative class
action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery, styled Kenneth
Heath v. Kim S. Price et al., C.A. No. 7601-VCP, which seeks,
among other things, injunctive relief, damages and equitable
relief against Citizens South, its board of directors and Park
Sterling ("Defendants"), alleging that the consideration being
offered in the Proposed Merger was unfair, that Citizens South's
board of directors had breached its fiduciary duties in connection
with its consideration and approval of the Proposed Merger and
that Citizens South and Park Sterling had aided and abetted those
breaches of fiduciary duty (the "Action").  On August 6, 2012, the
plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint in the Action.
In addition to the original breach of fiduciary duty and aiding
and abetting claims, the amended complaint alleges additional
purported deficiencies in the process leading up the Proposed
Merger and that the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus contains
certain material omissions or misstatements.

On August 8, 2012, the plaintiff filed motions for expedited
proceedings and a preliminary injunction.  Defendants determined
not to oppose the motion for expedited proceedings and, on
August 21, 2012, the parties entered into a stipulated scheduling
order, governing the pre-hearing discovery and briefing in the
Action and scheduling a hearing on the plaintiff's motion for
preliminary injunction for September 14, 2012.

On September 12, 2012, Defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiff regarding the settlement of the
Action.

Defendants continue to deny the allegations set forth in the
amended complaint and believe that no further supplemental
disclosure is required under applicable laws; however, to avoid
the risk of the Action delaying or adversely affecting the
Proposed Merger and to minimize the expense of defending the
Action, Citizens South has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the
proposed settlement, to make certain supplemental disclosures
related to the Proposed Merger.  Citizens South has expressly
acknowledged that the Action is the sole cause for its decision to
make the supplemental disclosures.

Subject to completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel
to plaintiff, the memorandum of understanding contemplates that
the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement.  The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to Citizens South's
stockholders.  In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the Delaware Court of Chancery will consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement.  If the settlement
is finally approved by the Delaware Court of Chancery, it will
resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could
have been brought challenging any aspect of the Proposed Merger,
the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection
therewith (excluding claims for appraisal under Section 262 of the
Delaware General Corporation Law), pursuant to terms that will be
disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of the
settlement.  The proposed settlement will not affect the amount of
the merger consideration that Citizens South's stockholders are
entitled to receive in the Proposed Merger.

In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiff's counsel will file a petition in the
Delaware Court of Chancery for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses to be paid by Citizens South or its successor.
Defendants have reserved the right to challenge any request for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses.  Citizens South or its
successor will pay or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees and
expenses awarded by the Delaware Court of Chancery.  There can be
no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the Delaware Court of Chancery
will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into
such stipulation.  In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.


PEET'S COFFEE: Gets Prelim. OK of Consolidated Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc.'s settlement of a consolidated merger-
related lawsuit got preliminarily approval on October 5, 2012,
according to the Company's October 17, 2012, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On October 5, 2012, the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Alameda, by the Honorable Wynn S. Carvill in Department
21 of that Court, approved an order preliminarily approving the
settlement of the consolidated shareholder class action in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda that
had challenged the consummation of the proposed transaction
described in the July 23, 2012 Agreement and Plan of Merger among
Peet's Coffee and Tea, Inc. ("Peet's") and JAB Holdings ("JAB")
and Panther Merger Co. ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger
Sub, JAB's wholly owned subsidiary, would merge with Peet's and
holders of Peet's common stock would receive $73.50 in cash per
share of Peet's common stock.

                    Background of the Action

On July 24, 2012, Schufman, a holder of Peet's common stock, filed
a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Alameda (the "Court") captioned
Schufman v. Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc. et al, Case No. RG12-640529
(the "Shufman Action"), on behalf of himself and all holders of
Peet's common stock, except for Defendants and their affiliates,
against Peet's, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), JAB, and the
Merger Sub challenging the Proposed Transaction and asserting
various claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting breaches of fiduciary duty.

On July 25, 26, and 27, 2012, additional holders of Peet's common
stock filed putative class action complaints in the Court,
captioned, respectively, Light v. Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc. et al,
Case No. RG12-640783; Robertson v. Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc. et
al, Case No. RG12-640956; Weir v. Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc. et al,
Case No. RG12-641259; and Pearson v. Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc. et
al, Case No. RG12-641418 on behalf of themselves and all Peet's
shareholders, except for Defendants and their affiliates, against
Defendants, challenging the Proposed Transaction and asserting
various claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting breaches of fiduciary duty (respectively, the "Light,"
"Robertson," "Weir," and "Pearson" actions).

On August 9, 2012, Peet's filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") a Preliminary Proxy Statement on Form
14A (the "Proxy") with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
wherein it was noted that the Board unanimously approved the
Merger Agreement and, further, recommended that the shareholders
vote to approve the Proposed Transaction.

On August 16, 2012, Plaintiff in the Robertson Action filed a
First Amended Shareholder's Class Action Complaint for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty (the "Robertson Amended Complaint"), adding certain
claims based on disclosures in the definitive proxy statement.

On August 27, 2012, Peet's and the Individual Defendants filed an
answer (the "Answer") to the Robertson Amended Complaint (filed in
the Lead Case) and JAB and Merger Sub also demurred to the
Robertson Amended Complaint (the "Demurrer"), which Demurrer the
Court later set for hearing on October 3, 2012.

On August 28, 2012, the Court entered an order providing for an
October 3, 2012, hearing for Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for
preliminary injunction, and a briefing schedule for that motion.

On August 28, 2012, the "Schufman," "Light," "Robertson," "Weir,"
and "Pearson" actions were consolidated before the Court under the
lead case number RG12-640529 (the "Lead Case" or the "Action") and
Co-Lead Counsel were appointed in the Action (the "Consolidation
Order").  Pursuant to the Consolidation Order, the Robertson
Amended Complaint was deemed the operative complaint in the
consolidated Action.

On September 11, 2012, the First Amended Class Action Complaint
for Breach of Fiduciary Duty (the "Amended Complaint") was re-
filed in the Lead Case.  On September 12, 2012, Plaintiffs filed
an opposition to the Demurrer.

Between August 31, 2012, and September 7, 2012, and in
anticipation of Plaintiffs' forthcoming motion for preliminary
injunction, Defendants provided a substantial amount of document
discovery to Plaintiffs (which production was made subject to the
entry of an appropriate confidentiality order), including copies
of Board minutes, presentation materials, emails, and financial
forecasts.

In furtherance of the anticipated motion for preliminary
injunction, Plaintiffs took the depositions of Valette, Chairman
of Peet's Board, on September 10, 2012; O'Dea, Peet's President
and Chief Executive Officer, on September 12, 2012; and Jeffery
Schackner, a representative of Peet's financial advisor Citigroup
Global Markets Inc. ("Citigroup") on September 12, 2012.

After Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs' Counsel, and Plaintiffs' financial
expert had substantially reviewed and analyzed the facts as
revealed through discovery, Plaintiffs and Defendants, through
their respective counsel and by engaging in arm's-length
negotiations, reached an agreement to settle the Actions on the
terms reflected in a memorandum of understanding ("MOU").

On September 19, 2012, the Settling Parties entered into the MOU
binding the Settling Parties to an agreement in principle
providing for the full settlement of the Action on the terms and
subject to the conditions set forth in the MOU, including the
obligation to issue specific supplemental disclosures (the
"Supplemental Disclosures") and the obligations to negotiate in
good faith, execute, and present the Proposed Settlement to the
Court for approval (the Supplemental Disclosures attached hereto
as Exhibit 1).  Defendants acknowledge that the Supplemental
Disclosures were made solely as a result of the efforts of
Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel in the Action, and Plaintiffs
believe that the Supplemental Disclosures provide a material
benefit to the proposed Settlement Class.

On September 20, 2012, Peet's filed an Amended Preliminary Proxy
with the SEC which included (among other amendments) the
Supplemental Disclosures relating to the Proposed Transaction
resulting from the prosecution of the Action, and in particular
the claims raised by Plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint, which
provided stockholders with additional information concerning the
Proposed Transaction well in advance of the Stockholder Vote.

Plaintiffs' Counsel, in consultation with their financial expert,
have reviewed the facts revealed through discovery, and have
concluded that the Supplemental Disclosures provide Peet's
shareholders with a substantially improved opportunity to cast a
fully-informed vote on the Proposed Transaction, and that the
proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the
Settlement Class.  All Settling Parties recognize the time and
expense that would be incurred by further litigation, the
uncertainties inherent in such litigation, and that the interests
of the Settling Parties and the Settlement Class would best be
served by a settlement of the Action, including the release of the
Released Claims.  Each Defendant denies having committed any
violation of law or breach of fiduciary duty, including a breach
of any duty to Peet's stockholders or the proposed Settlement
Class, and maintain that they have committed no disclosure
violations or any breach of duty whatsoever in connection with the
Transaction or any public disclosures.  There has been no
admission or finding of facts or liability by or against any
Defendant and nothing herein should be construed as such.

On September 19, 2012, a purported Peet's shareholder filed a
complaint captioned St. Louis Police Retirement System v. Peet's
Coffee & Tea, Inc. et al Case No. RG12-648444 (the "St. Louis
Action") alleging substantially similar claims as the Amended
Complaint.  Accordingly, the Settling Parties agree that the St.
Louis Action is subject to the Consolidation Order, and that the
claims provided in the St. Louis Action are included within the
Released Claims herein.  As of the date the Stipulation was
signed, the plaintiff in the St. Louis Action filed a request for
dismissal.  On October 3, 2012, the Court determined to grant the
request for dismissal filed by the plaintiff in the St. Louis
Action.

In addition to the Action, on and after August 1, 2012, certain
purported holders of Peet's common stock commenced shareholder
class actions relating to the Proposed Transaction in the Superior
Court of the State of Washington for King County (the "Washington
Actions").  The Washington Actions include litigation commenced by
the plaintiff in the St. Louis Action.  The Washington Actions
have been consolidated, and the plaintiff in the St. Louis Action
pending before this Court has been appointed Lead Plaintiff in the
Washington Actions.  Plaintiffs in the consolidated Washington
Actions have not yet served the summons and complaint in those
actions on all defendants named therein.  Defendants have moved to
dismiss or, in the alternative, stay the Washington Actions in
deference to this Action.  To the extent plaintiffs in the
Washington Actions are Settlement Class Members, they will receive
notice of the Proposed Settlement, as provided.  The Settling
Parties agree that the claims asserted in the Washington Action
are included in the Released Claims.


ROTO-ROOTER: Sued for Allegedly Defrauding Homeowners
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action accuses
Roto-Rooter of defrauding homeowners for "unnecessary repair
jobs," in Hennepin County Court.


SCHOEP'S ICE: Recalls Kay's Classic Vanilla Bean Ice Cream
----------------------------------------------------------
Schoep's Ice Cream Company of Madison, Wisconsin, is alerting
customers that because of a packaging error, Kay's Classic Vanilla
Bean Ice Cream contains an undeclared allergen.  Consumers, who
have an allergy or severe sensitivity to pecans, run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this
product.

The following product is included in the recall:

   * Kays Classic Vanilla Bean Ice Cream 48 oz. Round -
     UPC #0-87848-13021 with a Best if Used By Date of 02/28/14

A picture of the recalled products is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm326107.htm

The product was shipped to Food City and Super Dollar stores
located in Kentucky, Virginia and Tennessee.

This recall was initiated upon discovery that certain containers
of Kays Vanilla Bean Ice Cream contained Kays Butter Pecan Ice
Cream.

No illnesses have been reported to date.  Consumers who have
purchased the affected product are urged to return it to the place
of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions or
concerns may contact Schoep's, the manufacturer, at 1-800-891-6411
extension 71.


SYNGENTA AG: Settles Atrazine Class Action for $105 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Baron & Budd on Oct. 26 announced a $105 million settlement on
behalf of over 1,000 community water systems that have detected
the chemical atrazine in their water supplies.  The settlement
concludes class action litigation that has been pending for more
than eight years against Syngenta AG and Syngenta Crop Protection
LLC, the chemical companies that produce and market atrazine and
atrazine-containing products.

Atrazine is an agricultural herbicide widely used in the United
States -- and particularly in the Midwest -- to control weeds in
corn and soybean crops.  Once applied, the chemical easily runs
off into surface waters and drinking water supplies.  As a result,
many municipalities and water providers have detected atrazine in
their water supplies and spent significant sums to remove it from
finished water.  The settlement will reimburse those costs to more
than 1,000 water providers who serve water to more than 30 million
Americans.

In 2004, a water provider filed a lawsuit in Illinois state court
against Syngenta AG and Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., alleging
that Syngenta knew that atrazine would invade surface water such
as lakes, rivers and streams but chose to sell the product without
consideration for the expense water providers would incur to
remove atrazine from water before supplying it to consumers.
Then, in 2010, several public drinking water providers filed a
similar suit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.  After extensive discovery and aggressive
litigation, the parties reached a settlement on a class-wide
basis.  The Southern District approved the class settlement on
October 23, 2012.

"This settlement sends a message to chemical companies that they
must bear the responsibility for products that contaminate water
supplies and provides significant economic relief to water
providers," said Baron & Budd shareholder Scott Summy, who was
appointed Class Counsel along with Steve Tillery of the Korein
Tillery law firm in St. Louis.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Class Action Over Patent Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and GlaxoSmithKline LLC were hit on
Oct. 25 with another proposed class action alleging the companies
manipulated a patent settlement to inflate the cost of epilepsy
drug Lamictal or its generic equivalent.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 595
Health and Welfare Fund, the plaintiff in the current suit, says
the companies' 2005 settlement inflated costs and delayed the
availability of a generic version of the drug for years.


UNITED RENTALS: "Israni" Suit Settlement Approved in September
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Rentals, Inc. received final court approval of its
settlement of a class action lawsuit arising from its subsidiary's
merger with RSC Holdings Inc., according to the Company's October
16, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On December 28, 2011, a complaint was filed in Arizona Superior
Court, captioned Israni v. RSC Holdings Inc., CV20 11-020579, on
behalf of a putative class of RSC's stockholders against RSC, each
member of the RSC board, certain of RSC's officers, and the
Company challenging the merger.  In an amended complaint, filed
February 24, 2012, plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the
directors and officers of RSC breached their fiduciary duties by
allegedly agreeing to sell RSC at an unfair and inadequate price
and by allegedly failing to take steps to maximize the sale price
of RSC.  The complaint also alleged that RSC and the Company aided
and abetted in the directors' and officers' breach of their
fiduciary duties, and that the defendants' public disclosures
concerning the merger have been inaccurate or incomplete.

On April 19, 2012, without agreeing that any of the claims had
merit, the parties reached an agreement to settle the action,
pursuant to which RSC and the Company agreed to make certain
additional public disclosures regarding the merger and to pay
certain attorneys' fees awarded by the court.  On August 27, 2012,
the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and on
September 28, 2012, the settlement was approved by the court.


VIA RAIL: Court Set to Hear Arguments in Derailment Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that an Ontario court will hear arguments this
week whether to allow a class-action lawsuit against Via Rail and
CN Rail.

The lawsuit is in connection with the derailment of a Via
passenger train near Burlington, Ont., on Feb. 27.

Three Via employees died in the crash and one was badly injured.

Thirty-two passengers were also injured.

Faisal Abid was one of the passengers injured in the derailment
and one of those hoping to join the class-action suit.

Mr. Abid says he still dreads taking trains of any kind.

"When it [the train] starts shaking, in my head the first that
runs through is, what if this thing tips over?"

An investigation determined train 92 -- making the journey from
Niagara to Toronto -- was travelling at mover 100 km/h, four times
faster than it should have.

"We thought we were going to die," said Mr. Abid.

In total 68 of the 75 passengers on the train that day have joined
the lawsuit.

Lawyer Ted Charney says Via Rail and CN Rail were negligent.

"If they wanted to settle this case, we would be ready to settle
tomorrow," said Mr. Charney.

Via offered each passenger $3,000 in compensation in July. Only
three accepted.

A Toronto judge will hear Mr. Charney's arguments to launch the
class-action lawsuit starting this week.


WAL-MART STORES: Disputes Gender Discrimination Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Django Gold, writing for Law360, reports that Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
on Oct. 25 fought back against a class action brought by a trio of
women whose workplace discrimination claims were previously raised
in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., arguing the plaintiffs couldn't
revive "stale" class claims following the decertification in
Dukes.

Wal-Mart asked a Tennessee federal court to dismiss class
allegations brought by a group of current and former female
employees alleging widespread discrimination against female
workers, saying the claims are barred by the statute of
limitations and should be thrown out.


WARREN, MI: Settles Class Action Over Tree Damage for $1.42 Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norb Franz, writing for Daily Tribune, reports that a 12-year
court battle waged by a group of Warren residents who sued the
city for damages caused by trees planted decades ago was expected
to end with a $1.42 million settlement.

Attorneys for the city and lawyers representing the homeowners in
the class-action lawsuit were scheduled to put the agreement on
record on Oct. 29 in Macomb County Circuit Court.

"I'm ecstatic.  I'm very happy," said Pat Demeyer, whose basement
on Lowe Drive, near 14 Mile and Schoenherr roads, was flooded by
raw sewage in April 2000.

"It just proves that you can beat city hall."

Conversely, the primary attorney handling the case for the city
administration and the Warren City Council touted the settlement
as a victory for Warren.  Reached for comment, John Gillooly, the
outside legal counsel hired by one of the city's insurance
companies to represent the city, said the lawyers for the affected
homeowners wanted $7 million at one point to settle the case.

"When they came down that far (to $1.42 million), we couldn't risk
it," Mr. Gillooly said.  "Residents were essentially suing
themselves in a lot of ways.  We tried to convince everyone as
loud as we could in every possible court, there was nothing wrong
with the city requiring that trees be planted near the curb.

"Ultimately, the city benefits from this.  It amounts to a long,
drawn-out legal victory for the city."


WASHINGTON POST: Faces Class Action Over Distributors' Contracts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that The Washington Post
unilaterally changed the terms of its distributors' contracts, a
class action claims in Federal Court.


WELLS FARGO: Sued for Misrepresenting HAMP Requirements
-------------------------------------------------------
Becky Yerak, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a Chicago
woman has filed a class-action lawsuit in a federal court in
Illinois against Wells Fargo Bank, claiming that the lender
misrepresented the requirements of the U.S. government's Home
Affordable Modification Program.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District
of Illinois, alleges that Wells Fargo advised borrowers that they
must miss mortgage payments to qualify for a loan modification.
When customers followed that advice, Wells Fargo charged fees and
penalties, reported delinquencies to credit-reporting agencies,
and ultimately failed to modify the mortgage, the suit said.

The lead plaintiff is Stephanie Watson, a resident of Chicago's
Gold Coast neighborhood.  She had inquired about a loan
modification in spring 2010.  That fall, Wells Fargo told her that
she had to miss a mortgage payment to qualify, so in November
2010, she intentionally missed her mortgage payment, the lawsuit
said.

Then Wells Fargo charged her late fees and penalties and told her
that if she didn't bring her account current, she'd face
foreclosure.  After a few months, she brought her account current,
but still didn't get a mortgage modification.

The Treasury Department's Web site says qualifications for HAMP
include having a "financial hardship and are either delinquent or
in danger of falling behind on your mortgage payments."

The lawsuit also says that, according to the mortgage contract,
Wells Fargo may hold a partial payment until a borrower makes
sufficient additional payment to bring the loan current. But Wells
Fargo must pay interest to the borrower on that partial payment,
unless Wells Fargo applies the funds to the mortgage on the
scheduled date.

Ms. Watson's monthly mortgage payment was more than $2,300.  On
January 6, 2011, she inadvertently sent a payment of $2,000.
Wells put that into an un-applied funds account and didn't apply
any of it toward principal, interest or fees.

On Jan. 27, Ms. Watson made a payment that brought her account
current, but Wells Fargo didn't pay any interest on the $2,000
that it held for about 21 days, said the lawsuit, filed on behalf
of Ms. Watson by Chicago lawyer Myron Cherry.

Wells Fargo said it's "currently researching this case to better
understand the nature of the lawsuit."

"In general, we work hard to keep our customers in their homes
when they encounter difficulties," Wells Fargo spokesman Jim Hines
said.  "Since January 2009 through the end of August 2012, more
than 800,000 of the loans we service were in active trial or
completed mortgage loan modifications.  We can provide additional
context when we have more information about the facts of the
filing."


WPCS INTERNATIONAL: Anticipates Dismissal of "Rapozo" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
WPCS International Incorporated is anticipating the dismissal of a
consolidated acquisition-related class action lawsuit captioned
Ralph Rapozo v. WPCS International Incorporated, et al., according
to the Company's September 14, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July
31, 2012.

On or about June 22, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company
filed a derivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Court
of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Chester County against the
Company and its directors, by filing a Summons and Complaint.  The
case is Ralph Rapozo v. WPCS International Incorporated, et al.,
Docket No. 11-06837 (No Judge has been assigned at this time).  In
this action, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the proposed
transaction in which Multiband Inc. would acquire all of the
outstanding shares of the Company.  The plaintiff alleges, among
other things, that the consideration to be paid for such
acquisition by Multiband is inadequate, and that the individual
board members failed to engage in an honest and fair sales process
for the Company and failed to disclose material information for
the purposes of advancing their own interests over those of the
Company and its shareholders.  To that end, the plaintiff asserts
a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Company's board
of directors.  In the event that the proposed transaction is
consummated, the plaintiff seeks money damages.  The plaintiff
also asserts a claim against the Company and Multiband Corporation
for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty for which he
seeks unspecified money damages.

On or about June 22, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company
filed a derivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Court
of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Chester County against the
Company and its directors, by filing a Summons and Complaint.  The
case is Robert Shepler v. WPCS International Incorporated, et al.,
Docket No. 11-06838 (No Judge has been assigned at this time).  In
this action, the plaintiff also seeks to enjoin the proposed
transaction in which Multiband would acquire all of the
outstanding shares of the Company.  The plaintiff alleges, among
other things, that the consideration to be paid for such
acquisition by Multiband Corporation is inadequate, and that the
individual board members failed to engage in an honest and fair
sales process for the Company and failed to disclose material
information for the purposes of advancing their own interests over
those of the Company and its shareholders.  To that end, the
plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the
Company's board of directors.  In the event that the proposed
transaction is consummated, the plaintiff seeks money damages.
The plaintiff also asserts a claim against the Company and
Multiband for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty for
which he seeks unspecified money damages.  On August 11, 2011, the
Shepler case was consolidated into the Rapozo vs. WPCS case.

On or about June 30, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company
filed a derivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Court
of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Chester County against the
Company and its directors, by filing a Summons and Complaint.  The
case is Edwin M. McKean v. WPCS International Incorporated, et
al., (Civil Action No. 3085).  In this action, the plaintiff also
seeks to enjoin a proposed transaction in which Multiband would
acquire all of the outstanding shares of the Company.  The
plaintiff's allegations are substantially similar to the
allegations in Rapozo v. WPCS and Shepler v. WPCS.  The plaintiff
alleges, among other things, that the consideration to be paid for
such acquisition by Multiband is inadequate, and that the
individual board members failed to engage in an honest and fair
sales process for the Company and failed to disclose material
information for the purposes of advancing their own interests over
those of the Company and its shareholders.  To that end, the
plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the
Company's board of directors.  In the event that the proposed
transaction is consummated, the plaintiff seeks money damages.
The plaintiff also asserts a claim against the Company and
Multiband for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty for
which he seeks unspecified money damages.  On October 18, 2011,
the McKean case was consolidated into the Rapozo vs. WPCS case.

WPCS' time to answer or move with respect to the Complaint in the
Rapozo case has not yet expired.  The Company and its directors
deny the material allegations of this complaint and intend to
vigorously defend this action if necessary, however, as Multiband
has announced that it is no longer pursuing the acquisition of
WPCS, the Company anticipates that the lawsuit will be dismissed.

WPCS International Incorporated -- http://www.wpcs.com/--
provides design-build engineering services for communications
infrastructure.  The Company operates in three segments:
Electrical Power, Wireless Communication, and Specialty
Construction.  The Company was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Exton, Pennsylvania.


ZAYO GROUP: Continues to Defend AboveNet Acquisition Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Zayo Group, LLC continues to defend class action lawsuits arising
from its acquisition of AboveNet, Inc., according to the Company's
September 14, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On March 18, 2012, Zayo Group, LLC ("Parent") entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with
AboveNet, Inc., and Voila Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Zayo Group ("Merger Sub"), providing
for the merger of Merger Sub with and into AboveNet (the
"Merger"), with AboveNet surviving the Merger as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent.  The Merger Agreement was unanimously
approved by AboveNet's Board of Directors.  Zayo Group acquired
AboveNet on July 2, 2012.

On March 22, 2012, and March 28, 2012, two class actions on behalf
of the stockholders of AboveNet, respectively styled Raul v.
LaPerch, et al., Index. No. 54232/2012 (the "Raul Action"), and
Wachsler v. AboveNet Inc., et al., Index No. 54662/2012 (the
"Wachsler Action"), were filed in the Supreme Court for the State
of New York, County of Westchester.  On March 30, 2012, a class
action on behalf of the stockholders of AboveNet, styled Miramar
Firefighters Pension Fund v. AboveNet, Inc., Case No. 7376, was
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the
"Delaware action," and together with the Raul Action and the
Wachsler Action, the "Actions").  The Actions name as defendants
AboveNet, Zayo Group, LLC and the members of AboveNet's Board of
Directors, Jeffrey Brodsky, Michael J. Embler, William LaPerch,
Richard Postma, Richard Shorten, Jr. and Stuart Subotnick.  The
Raul Action and Delaware Action also name Voila Sub, Inc. as a
defendant.  The Actions allege that the members of AboveNet's
Board of Directors violated their fiduciary duties to AboveNet's
stockholders in connection with the Merger.  The Raul Action and
the Delaware Action further allege that AboveNet, Zayo Group, LLC
and Voila Sub, Inc. aided and abetted those purported breaches,
and the Wachlser Action further alleges that AboveNet and Zayo
Group, LLC aided and abetted those purported breaches.

On April 17, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed an
Amended Verified Class Action Complaint adding additional
allegations in support of their breach of fiduciary duty claims,
and on April 18, 2012, filed motions to expedite proceedings and
for a preliminary injunction.  On April 21, 2012, an Amended Class
Action Complaint was filed in the Raul Action.  On
April 27, 2012, the parties in the Raul Action and the Wachsler
Action filed stipulations providing that all further proceedings
related to the merger would take place in the Delaware action and
that the Raul Action and the Wachsler Action would be stayed
through and including June 20, 2012.  The stipulations also
provided that all motions filed in either action would be
adjourned.  The Court approved these stipulations on April 30,
2012.  On April 30, 2012, the defendants in the Delaware action
filed a stipulated order and case management schedule.  This order
reflects, among other things, the parties' agreement that the
defendants will provide certain limited discovery to the
plaintiffs.  The Actions seek, among other things, an order
enjoining the Merger as well as unspecified damages.  The
defendants deny the allegations in the Actions and intend to
defend the Actions vigorously.


                           *********

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  * * *