CAR_Public/121105.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, November 5, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 219

                               Headlines

APPLE INC: May Face Class Action Over iOS4 Tracking Device
CANADA: Afghan Veterans Sue Over Disability Payment
CAREER EDUCATION: Appellate Ct. Reverses Class Certification Order
CATERPILLAR INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Bus Engines
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Reconsideration of Class Cert. Denial Sought

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces Two Securities Class Suits in Colorado
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: ADA Suit Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Seeks to Appeal Class Cert. in "Ellis" Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal From Fuel MDL Settlement Still Pending
DRUMLUMMON GOLD: Former Employees File Overtime Class Action

EBAY INC: Appeal in Class Suit vs. StubHub Remains Pending
EBAY INC: Class Suits vs. PayPal Remain Pending in California
EBAY INC: Defends Suits Alleging TCPA Violations vs. Units
FAMILY DOLLAR: Appellate Briefing in "Scott" Suit to End in Nov.
FAMILY DOLLAR: Still Defends Wage & Hour Suits in Various States

HONEYWELL INT'L: All Claims in "Allen" Suit Now Fully Resolved
HONEYWELL INT'L: Still Awaits Approval of Quick Lube Suit Deal
HONEYWELL INT'L: UAW's Suit Still Pending in Michigan
IMAGINE NATION: Recalls 1,700 Double Dazzler Light Show Toys
LIBERTY SPINCO: Parent and Designees Face "Montero" Suit in N.Y.

LIBERTY SPINCO: Parent and Designees Face Suits in Delaware
LOJACK CORP: Settles "Rutti" Wage and Hour Suits for $8.1-Mil.
MONSANTO CO: Awaits Final Approval of "Bibb" Suit Settlement
MONSANTO CO: "Glyphosate" Class Action Remains Dormant
MONSANTO CO: "Rochester" Suit Dismissal Final and Non-Appealable

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Alabama Judge Tosses TILA Class Action
OCEAN SPRAY: Sued Over Alleged Cranberry Juice Price-Fixing
REDFLEX TRAFFIC: To Team Up with ATS to Fight Class Action
SEE'S CANDY: May Round Off Employee Time Entries, Court Rules
SEI PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss DMAA Class Action Granted

SHAW GROUP: Faces Class Suits Over Proposed Acquisition by CB&I
STANDARD FIRE: AGs Worry Over Arkansas Class Action Strategy
STEC INC: Signs Deal to Settle Consolidated Securities Suit
SUPERVALU INC: Class Cert. Denied in Suit Over C&S Transaction
SUPERVALU INC: Suit in Wisconsin Still Stayed Pending IOS Ruling

WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Gluten Free Baking Products Due to Soy
YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell To Seek to Decertify "Whittington" Class
YUM! BRANDS: Discovery in "Rosales" Suit vs. Unit Has Commenced
YUM! BRANDS: Faces "Castillo" Wage and Hour Suit in New York
YUM! BRANDS: Final Hearing on "Hines" Suit Settlement on Jan. 8

YUM! BRANDS: Parties in "Smith" Suit Finalize List of Opt-ins
YUM! BRANDS: Sept. 17 Ruling in "Moeller" Suit Appealed


                          *********

APPLE INC: May Face Class Action Over iOS4 Tracking Device
----------------------------------------------------------
Ian Austin, writing for The Province, reports that an
administrative assistant from Surrey is taking a legal run at
electronics behemoth Apple -- and is seeking to make her lawsuit a
class-action suit.

In a class-action application filed on Oct. 30 in B.C. Supreme
Court, Amanda Ladas charges that Apple has violated the privacy
and security rights of owners of the iPhone, iPad and iPod.

Ms. Ladas and her son Jackson charge that the tracking device in
the three mobile devices provided the capacity for strangers to
follow their movements without her knowledge or consent.

"Ladas is concerned that, without her permission, anyone with
moderate computer knowledge can find out where she's been," said
spokeswoman Laura Ballance in announcing the class-action
application, filed in court on Oct. 30 along with four reports
from experts.

"The claim alleges that Apple has violated the privacy and
security rights of users of its products by the design,
production, distribution and/or operation of iOS4, and has engaged
in deceptive acts or practices that have the capability, tendency
or effect of deceiving or misleading class members and that these
practices entitle members of the class to aggravated, punitive
and/or exemplary damages."

The potential for a class-action suit is huge, with possible co-
complainants being the owners of anywhere from two to seven
million Apple devices in Canada using the iOS4 operating system.

Ms. Ladas has retained the Vancouver law firm of Ganapathi and
Company.

Supporting documents filed with the lawsuit include extensive
reports from four experts in digital forensics examination,
information security, networking and systems administration,
geographic profiling and clinical and forensic psychology.


CANADA: Afghan Veterans Sue Over Disability Payment
---------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a group of Afghanistan war
veterans has filed a class action against the federal government,
saying the disability payment regime under the New Veterans
Charter violates their human rights.

The lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court on Oct. 30 claims
disability payments are decided arbitrarily and aren't enough to
support soldiers who have been injured.

"There's no other group of people who can be ordered to put their
life on the line for their country," said Don Sorochan, the
Vancouver lawyer representing six current and former soldiers
named in the suit.

In return, there is a social covenant between those men and women
and the citizens of this country to take care of them if they are
injured, he said.

"It's a promise by us, as the people of Canada, that we will look
after those who put their lives on the line for us and who put
their bodies on the line for us.

"Unfortunately, the bureaucrats don't think it is binding on
them."

The lawsuit claims the new charter is a breach of the fiduciary
duty owed to injured soldiers, and it seeks damages as well as a
declaration that disabled veterans have been discriminated
against.

The disability payments for injured and disabled soldiers are
"paltry" in comparison to awards handed out in Canadian civil
courts and by workers' compensation boards, Mr. Sorochan said.

Among the six soldiers named in the lawsuit against the Attorney
General of Canada is Maj. Mark Douglas Campbell, 47, a 32-year
veteran of the Canadian Forces who served in Cyprus, Bosnia and
Afghanistan.

On June 2, 2008, Mr. Campbell, a member of the Edmonton-based
Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, was mentoring an
Afghan National Army battalion that was hit by an IED and Taliban
ambush.  He lost both legs above the knee, one testicle, suffered
numerous lacerations and a ruptured eardrum.

He has since been diagnosed with depressive disorder and post-
traumatic stress disorder.

Mr. Campbell received a lump sum payment for pain and suffering of
$260,000.

Still a serving member of the forces, he will receive taxable
monthly payments of $10,787.50 when he retires, almost half of it
from his regular military annuity.  The rest will come from an
earnings loss benefit reduced to account for the annuity, a
permanent impairment allowance because of his lost job
opportunities due to permanent impairment, and a supplement
because he is entirely unable to work.

It will leave him in a net earnings loss, the lawsuit claims.

"Mr. Campbell suffered a catastrophic injury that ended his
upwards career as a senior decorated Canadian Forces member," says
the lawsuit.

"He is incapable of earning a gainful income and will most
certainly suffer financial distress in the future as family needs
far exceed their reduced means."

Cpl. Bradley Darren Quast, 23, was part of a light armored patrol
hit by an IED on Dec. 30, 2009.  Four soldiers and Canadian
journalist Michelle Lang were killed.

"Mr. Quast was extremely disoriented following the blast. He found
himself lying amongst deceased and dismembered victims of the
blast," the lawsuit says.  "People were screaming and Mr. Quast
saw injured and dying comrades strewn about the blast (site)."

Mr. Quast, a reservist in the South Alberta Light Horse Regiment,
suffered severe injuries to his leg and foot.  He's undergone
numerous surgeries and has another scheduled for spring of next
year.

Mr. Quast, who has been told he will be medically discharged but
has not been given a date, received an initial $55,000 lump sum
payment for pain and suffering and another $43,000 last year.

In May, he received another $102,000 lump sum payment for post-
traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder.

Mr. Quast, who wanted to pursue a career as a police officer, may
never be able to meet the physical requirements, the lawsuit says.

The other soldiers named in the suit include a Port Moody soldier
who suffered injuries to his knees patrolling the streets of Kabul
and a Vancouver reservist hit by a tree felled to clear out fields
of fire around a remote outpost in Kandahar province.

Bombadier Daniel Christopher Scott, a reservist from Surrey, B.C.,
was injured in a February 2010 training accident at the Kankala
Range in Kandahar province.

Mr. Scott, 26, suffered a leg fracture, collapsed lung and damage
to his kidney, spleen and pancreas when a claymore mine exploded
close to his platoon.  Another soldier died en route with him to
the hospital at Kandahar Air Field.

Two officers in charge and a warrant officer who detonated the
mine faced court-martial over the accident.

Mr. Scott received a $41,000 lump sum payment in lieu of a
disability pension, an amount the lawsuit said is insufficient to
cover damages for the permanent injuries he suffered and the loss
of earning capacity.

The allegations in the lawsuit have not been proven in court.

It's not the first lawsuit launched over the New Veterans Charter,
which was adopted unanimously by Parliament and came into effect
in 2006.

Earlier this month, Veterans Affairs ended a policy of clawing
back benefit payments of disabled veterans after a Federal Court
rejected the practice.

It is the "honor of the Crown" that is at stake, said
Mr. Sorochan, who has taken on the case pro bono.

He said he is always hopeful that disputes can be resolved without
a long court fight.  A class-action lawsuit can take years to wind
its way through the courts.

"The New Veterans Charter was thought, unanimously, by all
politicians then in Parliament, to be a good thing.  They were
wrong.  And now we're using this lawsuit as a mechanism to try and
get it across that they were wrong," he said.


CAREER EDUCATION: Appellate Ct. Reverses Class Certification Order
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Maher, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports that
a class certification order entered by former Madison County
Circuit Judge Daniel Stack has been reversed at the Fifth District
Appellate Court.

The court held that individualized issues predominate in a case
against the parent company of Sanford Brown College -- Career
Education Corporation -- by former students claiming the school
did not deliver on promises about their degree and future career
path.

"[W]e find that the plaintiffs, in order to recover for a
violation of the (Illinois Private Business and Vocational)
Schools Act or its accompanying rules or regulations, must prove
that said violation caused them harm," wrote Justice Stephen
Spomer in the Rule 23 order released on Oct. 25.

"It is clear from the record before us that if any one of the
named plaintiffs is able to show that they were so harmed, this
will not necessarily establish a right of recovery in all the
other class members."

The suit was originally filed in 2008 by attorney John Carey of
Carey & Danis in St. Louis on behalf of Jenna Lilley, Jessica
Lilley, Candice Lindsey and Ashley Cunningham and approximately
2,000 students at the school's Collinsville site.

Shortly before he retired in December 2010, Judge Stack certified
the class on claims that the college violated the Schools Act.  He
had previously thrown out fraud counts contained in the complaint.

Among other things, the plaintiffs claim they were misled about
the value of a medical assistant's degree from the school, how it
would transfer to traditional colleges and what careers it would
lead to.

During hearings in Madison County, Sanford Brown -- represented by
James Monafo, John Richmond and others -- argued that the
plaintiffs were attempting to argue "educational malpractice," an
issue not covered by Illinois law and that their complaints lacked
causation.

Mr. Carey had argued that the school had given the class members
"a worthless piece of paper" at hearings leading up to Judge
Stack's class certification order.

"Although the complaint alleges various violations of the
provisions of the Schools Act that require written disclosures of
graduation and placement statistics in the enrollment agreement
(105 ILCS 425/15.1 (West 2008)), all of the plaintiffs testified
that they did not read, and did not rely, on these statistics in
their decision to enroll at the College," Justice Spomer wrote.

"Rather, each of the plaintiffs complain of various
misrepresentations that were made by different sales
representatives of the College that they encountered.  The
scenarios encountered by the various members of the class as far
as which admissions representative they encountered, what, if any,
false representations were made, whether they relied on those
representations in making their enrollment decision, and whether
their decision to enroll at the College caused them some type of
damage, would have to be borne out on an individual basis in order
for each class member to recover."

Justice Spomer wrote that the four named plaintiffs can proceed
with their individual causes of action and, if successful, receive
an award of actual damages, treble damages if fraud is proven,
injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney fees and costs.

Justice James Donovan concurred with Justice Spomer.

Justice Melissa Chapman dissented.

"I believe my colleagues misapprehend what are the substantive
issues, in holding that individualized questions of law and fact
predominate, i.e., whether the class members relied on any
misrepresentations by school agents and whether the school's
violations of the Acts caused the class members to incur damages,"
Judge Chapman wrote.

"The trial judge got it exactly right when he stated in his class
certification order that 'causation' is not a factor as it appears
that the plaintiffs need only prove violation of the Illinois
Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, 105 ILCS 425/1 et
seq. and that the members of the class are all persons meant to be
protected by that act in order to establish a right to recover . .
.

"This is a consumer-oriented action that is most appropriate to
class litigation.  The certification of the class in this case
would serve the interests of justice and judicial economy while
preserving defendants' due process rights and defenses."

The case is Madison case number 08-L-113.


CATERPILLAR INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Bus Engines
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that Caterpillar Inc. is
facing a class action over allegations that it sells specialty
emissions-efficient bus engines that are prone to repeated
breakdowns, according to a class action launched by Endeavor Bus
Lines and removed to Florida federal court on Oct. 30.

Salud Services Inc., which does business as Endeavor, says it
purchased six of Caterpillar's C13 line of emissions-efficient bus
engines, only to discover that the engines were faulty and
repeatedly broke down, resulting in significant towing, repair and
passenger compensation costs.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Reconsideration of Class Cert. Denial Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the purported class action lawsuit brought on
behalf of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.'s employees has petitioned
to the California Supreme Court for reconsideration of an
appellate court's re-affirmation of its initial decision denying
class certification, according to the Company's October 19, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In 2007, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in California
alleging violations of state laws regarding employee record-
keeping, meal and rest breaks, payment of overtime and related
practices with respect to its employees.  The case originally
sought damages, penalties and attorney's fees on behalf of a
purported class of the Company's present and former employees.
The trial court granted the Company's motion to deny certification
of the purported class, and the California Court of Appeal
affirmed that decision.  The California Supreme Court subsequently
vacated the initial Court of Appeal decision and remanded the case
back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of the
California Supreme Court's decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v.
Superior Court.  The Court of Appeal then re-affirmed its initial
decision denying class certification, and the plaintiff has
petitioned to the California Supreme Court for reconsideration.

Due to the pending petition for reconsideration and the
uncertainties of litigation, the Company says it is not possible
at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of, or any
potential liability from, this case.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces Two Securities Class Suits in Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is facing two securities class action
lawsuits in Colorado, according to the Company's
October 19, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On August 16, 2012, City of Dania Beach Police & Firefighters
Retirement System filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of shares of the Company's common stock between
February 1, 2012, and July 19, 2012.  On August 17, 2012, Sonia
Kim filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado that was otherwise identical to the City of Dania
Beach Police & Firefighters complaint.  The complaints purport to
state claims against the Company, each of its co-Chief Executive
Officers and its Chief Financial Officer under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and related rules and regulations, based
on the Company's alleged failure during the claimed class period
to disclose material information about the Company's business
results and prospects.  The complaints assert that those failures
and related public statements were false and misleading and that,
as a result, the market price of the Company's stock was
artificially inflated during the claimed class period.  The
complaints seek damages on behalf of the purported class in an
unspecified amount, interest, an award of reasonable costs and
attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief.  The Company says it
intends to defend these cases vigorously, but it is not possible
at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any
potential liability from the cases.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: ADA Suit Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration
----------------------------------------------------------
Maurizio Antoninetti and James Perkins are seeking reconsideration
of a court decision denying them class certification in their
lawsuits filed against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., according to
the Company's October 19, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

In 2006, Maurizio Antoninetti filed a lawsuit against the Company
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, primarily claiming that the height of the serving line
wall in the Company's restaurants violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act, or ADA, as well as California disability laws.
On December 6, 2006, Mr. Antoninetti filed an additional lawsuit
in the same court making the same allegations on a class action
basis, on behalf of himself and a purported class of disabled
individuals, and a similar class action was filed by James Perkins
in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
May 7, 2008.

In the individual Antoninetti action, the district court entered a
ruling in which it found that although the Company's counter
height violated the ADA, the Company provided the plaintiff with
an equivalent facilitation, and awarded attorney's fees and
minimal damages to the plaintiff.  The Company and the plaintiff
appealed the district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, and on July 26, 2010, the appeals court
entered a ruling finding that the Company violated the ADA and did
not provide the plaintiff with an equivalent facilitation, and
remanded the case to the district court.  On March 21, 2012, the
district court reaffirmed its original award of minimal damages to
the plaintiff and denied further injunctive relief.  On July 18,
2012, the district court ordered a final judgment awarding the
plaintiff a portion of the attorney's fees and costs originally
sought, which concludes the individual action.

In the purported class action cases, on August 28, 2012, the
district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  As a result, each plaintiff may only pursue claims
against the Company in those cases on an individual basis.  The
plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision
on class certification.

The Company lowered the height of its serving line walls
throughout California some time ago, which makes injunctive relief
in these cases moot, and have the lower serving line walls in a
significant majority of the Company's restaurants outside of
California as well.  The Company will continue to vigorously
defend the ongoing class action cases.  Due to the possibility of
further appeals and the uncertainties of litigation, it is not
possible at this time to reasonably estimate any additional
potential liability from those cases.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Seeks to Appeal Class Cert. in "Ellis" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its
request for permission to file an interlocutory appeal from a
class certification order in the case captioned Shirley "Rae"
Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., according to the Company's
October 19, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended September 2, 2012.

A case captioned Shirley "Rae" Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
United States District Court (San Francisco), Case No. C-04-3341-
MHP, is brought as a class action on behalf of certain present and
former female managers, in which plaintiffs allege denial of
promotion based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and California state law.  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief,
interest and attorneys' fees.  Class certification was granted by
the district court on January 11, 2007.  On September 16, 2011,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
the order of class certification and remanded to the district
court for further proceedings.

On September 25, 2012, the district court certified a class of
women in the United States denied promotion to warehouse general
manager or assistant general manager since January 3, 2002.
Currently the class is believed to be approximately 1,250 people.
Costco has sought permission to file an interlocutory appeal to
the Ninth Circuit.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal From Fuel MDL Settlement Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court order approving the settlement of class
actions consolidated in a Multi-District Litigation proceeding
titled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation
remains pending, according to Costco Wholesale Corporation's
October 19, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended September 2, 2012.

Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the
United States against motor fuel retailers, including the Company,
alleging that they have been overcharging consumers by selling
gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without
adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related expansion
or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the energy
equivalent received by the consumer.  The Company is named in the
following actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.); Phyllis Lerner, et al., v.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D.
Cal.); Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP Corporation North America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.); James Graham, et al. v.
Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.);
Betty A. Delgado, et al., v. Allsups, Convenience Stores, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.); Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-285 (D. Nev.); Mark Rushing, et al., v.
Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.); James
Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.); Zachary Wilson, et al., v. Ampride,
Inc., et al., Case No. 06-2582 (D. Kan.); Diane Foster, et al., v.
BP North America Petroleum, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D.
Tenn.); Mara Redstone, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.); Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast
Products LLC, et al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.); J.C. Wash, et
al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.);
Jonathan Charles Conlin, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.;
Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.); William Barker, et al. v. Chevron
USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.); Melissa J.
Couch, et al. v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al., Case No.
07cv291 (E.D. Tex.); S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess
Corporation, et al., Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.); Jeff Jenkins,
et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al., Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D.
Utah); and Mark Wyatt, et al., v. B. P. America Corp., et al.,
Case No. 07-1754 (S.D. Cal.).

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
assigned the action, entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil
in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
On April 12, 2009, the Company agreed to settle the actions in
which it is named as a defendant.  Under the settlement, which is
subject to final approval by the court, the Company agreed, to the
extent allowed by law, to install over five years from the
effective date of the settlement temperature-correcting dispensers
in the States of Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Other than payments to class
representatives, the settlement does not provide for cash payments
to class members.  On September 22, 2011, the court preliminarily
approved a revised settlement, which did not materially alter the
terms.

On April 24, 2012, the court granted final approval of the revised
settlement.  A class member who objected has filed a notice of
appeal from the order approving the settlement.  Plaintiffs have
moved for an award of $10 million in attorneys' fees, as well as
an award of costs and payments to class representatives.  The
Company has opposed the motion.


DRUMLUMMON GOLD: Former Employees File Overtime Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Eve Byron, writing for Independent Record, reports that four
former employees at the Drumlummon Mine have filed a class-action
lawsuit against Drumlummon Gold Corp., saying they and others were
underpaid for overtime at the underground gold mine northwest of
Helena.

Leroy Harris, Shad Crame, Lonnie Ellison and Brian Morash said
they were hourly paid employees of Drumlummon Gold Corp. who also
received production bonuses.

They said their work weeks lasted longer than 40 hours and under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, they were to be paid time and a half
for overtime.  That overtime calculation, however, didn't include
the production bonuses as part of the hourly wage.

"Bonuses are part of the regular rate unless they are
discretionary . . . " their attorney, Rick Sherwood, wrote in
documents filed in U.S. District Court in Helena on Oct. 26.
"Production bonuses are not discretionary."

Mr. Sherwood said he's not sure how much overtime pay his clients
may be owed, or how many people might be able to enter into the
class action lawsuit.

Darryl James, a spokesman for the mine, said they can't comment on
the specific ongoing litigation.  But he said that the current
mine operators inherited the payroll program, and they're looking
at whether it's being handled correctly.

"That payroll program is significantly higher than anyone else's
in the industry, and certainly in Montana," Mr. James said.  "As
part of their review, they certainly know there are things to look
at and maybe revise."

The historic Drumlummon Mine started production in the 1880s and
was one of the largest gold and silver mines in the western United
States in its heyday.  It gave up $29 million in gold and silver
back when gold was at $20 per ounce, but later flooded during an
ownership dispute.

Canadian-based RX Exploration began dewatering the mine in 2007,
and has been exploring and extracting ore from the Drumlummon
since 2009. It now employs about 100 people and has pulled upward
of $2 million in precious metals from the mine.

After a management dispute in 2011, new board members were brought
in and the company later was renamed RX Gold and Silver.  RX
merged this summer with U.S. Silver, the second largest silver
producer in the United States, to form U.S. Silver & Gold.

The plaintiffs in this case are seeking their overtime
compensation that includes the production bonuses, as well as
their costs in bringing the lawsuit.


EBAY INC: Appeal in Class Suit vs. StubHub Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from an appellate court ruling in a class action lawsuit
filed against a subsidiary of eBay Inc. remains pending, according
to the Company's October 19, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

In October 2007, two plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit in North Carolina Superior Court alleging that StubHub
sold (and facilitated and participated in the sale) of concert
tickets to plaintiffs with the knowledge that the tickets were
resold in violation of North Carolina's maximum ticket resale
price law (which has been subsequently amended).  In February
2011, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment, concluding that immunity under the Communications
Decency Act did not apply.  The trial court further held that
StubHub violated the North Carolina unfair and deceptive trade
practices statute as it pertained to the two named plaintiffs, and
certified its decision for immediate appeal to the North Carolina
Court of Appeals.  In February 2012, the North Carolina Court of
Appeals overturned the lower court's decision.  The plaintiffs are
appealing the appellate court ruling.  Similar actions are pending
in other states.

Some event organizers and professional sports teams have expressed
concern about the resale of their event tickets on the Company's
sites.  Lawsuits alleging a variety of causes of actions have in
the past, and may in the future, be filed against StubHub and eBay
by venue owners, competitors, ticket buyers and unsuccessful
ticket buyers.  Such litigation could result in damage awards,
could require the Company to change its business practices in ways
that may be harmful to its business, or could otherwise negatively
affect its tickets business.


EBAY INC: Class Suits vs. PayPal Remain Pending in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the second quarter of 2010, two putative class-action lawsuits
(Devinda Fernando and Vadim Tsigel v. PayPal, Inc.; and Moises
Zepeda v. PayPal, Inc.) were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.  These lawsuits contain
allegations that PayPal, a subsidiary of eBay Inc., improperly
held users' funds or otherwise improperly limited user's accounts.
These lawsuits seek damages as well as changes to PayPal's
practices among other remedies.

The Company says a determination that there have been violations
of laws relating to PayPal's practices could expose PayPal to
significant liability.  Any changes to PayPal's practices
resulting from these lawsuits could require PayPal to incur
significant costs and to expend product resources, which could
delay other planned product launches or improvements and further
harm the Company's business.  If PayPal is unable to provide
quality customer support operations in a cost-effective manner,
PayPal's users may have negative experiences, PayPal may receive
additional negative publicity, its ability to attract new
customers may be damaged and it could become subject to additional
litigation.  As a result, current and future revenues could
suffer, losses could be incurred and its operating margins may
decrease.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 19,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


EBAY INC: Defends Suits Alleging TCPA Violations vs. Units
----------------------------------------------------------
eBay Inc. is defending its subsidiaries against class action
lawsuits alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, according to the Company's October 19, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2012.

Two putative class-action lawsuits have been filed containing
allegations that the Company's businesses violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  Roberts v. PayPal (filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in
February 2012) contains allegations that commercial advertisements
for PayPal products and services were sent via text message to
mobile phone without prior consent.  Murray v. Bill Me Later
(filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois in June 2012) contains allegations that Bill Me Later
made calls featuring artificial or prerecorded voices without
prior consent.  These lawsuits seek damages (including statutory
damages) and injunctive relief, among other remedies.  Given the
enormous number of communications the Company sends to its users,
a determination that there have been violations of laws relating
to PayPal's or Bill Me Later's practices (or those of any of the
Company's other companies) could expose the Company to significant
damage awards that could, individually or in the aggregate,
materially harm its business.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Appellate Briefing in "Scott" Suit to End in Nov.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appellate briefing in the class action lawsuit captioned Scott, et
al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., pending in North Carolina is
currently scheduled to be concluded this month, according to
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.'s October 19, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended August 25, 2012.

On October 14, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court in Birmingham, Alabama, captioned Scott, et al. v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc., alleging discriminatory pay practices with
respect to the Company's female store managers.  This case was
pled as a putative class action or collective action under
applicable statutes on behalf of all current and former female
store managers.  The plaintiffs seek recovery of back pay,
compensatory and punitive damages, recovery of attorneys' fees and
equitable relief.  The case was transferred to the Western
District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division (the "N.C. Federal
Court").  Presently, there are 48 named plaintiffs in Scott.

On January 13, 2012, the N.C. Federal Court ruled in the Company's
favor, striking the plaintiffs' class claims and denying
plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint.  On
January 26, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a petition to appeal this
decision to the Fourth Circuit under Rule 23(f), which the Fourth
Circuit granted on May 8, 2012.  Appellate briefing is currently
scheduled to be concluded in November 2012.

At this time, it is not possible to predict whether the Fourth
Circuit will affirm the N.C. Federal Court's decision striking the
class allegations.  However, the claims of the 48 named plaintiffs
remain under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act.  Although the Company intends to vigorously defend the
action, no assurances can be given that the Company will be
successful in the defense on the merits or otherwise.  For these
reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or
range of loss.  The Company has tendered the matter to its
Employment Practices Liability Insurance ("EPLI") carrier for
coverage under its EPLI policy.  At this time, the Company expects
that the EPLI carrier will participate in any potential resolution
of some or all of the plaintiffs' claims.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Still Defends Wage & Hour Suits in Various States
----------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., continues to defend itself against
numerous wage and hour class action lawsuits pending in various
states, according to the Company's October 19, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended August 25, 2012.

Since 2004, certain individuals who held the position of store
manager for the Company have filed lawsuits alleging that the
Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and/or
similar state laws, by classifying them as "exempt" employees who
are not entitled to overtime compensation.  Some of the cases also
seek to proceed as collective actions under the FLSA or as class
actions under state laws.  Plaintiffs seek recovery of overtime
pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and court costs.

                    Multi-District Litigation

Many of the cases asserting claims under the FLSA were
consolidated in a Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") proceeding
pending in the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte
Division (the "N.C. Federal Court").  There are presently twelve
cases in the MDL proceeding in which plaintiffs are asserting
individual, class and/or collective action status.  In August and
September 2012, the Company requested that the Joint Panel for the
MDL transfer two individual FLSA actions to the MDL, Blomberg v.
Family Dollar Stores of Florida, Inc. and Ryan v. Family Dollar
Stores of Massachusetts, Inc.  In total, following certain
dismissals and summary dispositions, 38 individually named
plaintiffs currently have cases pending in the MDL proceeding.

In two of the cases, Grace v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and Ward
v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., the N.C. Federal Court determined
that the plaintiffs were not similarly situated and, therefore,
that neither nationwide notice nor collective treatment under the
FLSA was appropriate.  The N.C. Federal Court also granted summary
judgment against Irene Grace on the merits of her
misclassification claim under the FLSA.  The plaintiffs appealed
certain rulings of the N.C. Federal Court to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (the "Fourth Circuit").
On March 22, 2011, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the N.C. Federal
Court's decision finding that Ms. Grace was exempt from overtime
compensation under the FLSA.  The Fourth Circuit did not address
the class certification finding the issue was moot given that the
claims had been dismissed on the merits.

In addition to the Grace decision, the N. C. Federal Court has
repeatedly ruled in favor of the Company and granted summary
judgment, finding that the plaintiffs were properly classified as
exempt from overtime pay. Most of these plaintiffs have appealed
these dismissals to the Fourth Circuit.

All putative class action cases based solely on state law have
been dismissed from the MDL and were transferred to the
appropriate state court jurisdiction.

                     State Law Class Actions

In addition to the cases pending in the MDL proceeding, the
Company is a defendant in seven class action lawsuits in seven
states alleging that store managers should be non-exempt employees
under various state laws.  The plaintiffs in these cases also seek
recovery of overtime pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
court costs.  The states and cases are:

   * Colorado -- Julie Farley v. Family Dollar Stores of
     Colorado, Inc., was filed on February 7, 2012, in the United
     States District Court for the District of Colorado seeking
     unpaid overtime for a class of current and former Colorado
     store managers whom plaintiffs claim are not properly
     classified as exempt from overtime pay under Colorado law.
     On June 4, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
     certain of plaintiff's state law claims.  That motion is
     currently pending before the court.  Class discovery has
     begun.

   * Connecticut -- Cook, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of
     Connecticut, Inc., was filed on October 5, 2011, in the
     Superior Court of the State of Connecticut seeking unpaid
     overtime pay for a class of current and former Connecticut
     store managers whom plaintiffs claim are not properly
     classified as exempt from overtime under Connecticut law.
     The parties have concluded class discovery.  The Company has
     filed summary judgment seeking dismissal of one of the named
     plaintiffs' claims, Cook.  The Court will determine shortly
     whether it will consider the summary judgment motion prior
     to any briefing on class issues.

   * Kentucky -- Barker v. Family Dollar, Inc., was filed on
     February 17, 2010, in Circuit Court in Jefferson County,
     Kentucky seeking unpaid overtime, compensation for unpaid
     breaks and for seventh day work under Kentucky law for a
     class of current and former Kentucky store managers.  The
     Company removed this matter to the United States District
     Court for the Western District of Kentucky.  Discovery has
     now concluded.  The parties have filed cross-motions for
     summary judgment and await the ruling from the Court.

   * Missouri -- Twila Walters et. al. v. Family Dollar Stores of
     Missouri, Inc., was originally filed on January 26, 2010,
     seeking unpaid overtime for a class of current and former
     Missouri store managers who presently reside in Missouri and
     whom plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt
     from overtime under Missouri law.  This matter is pending in
     the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri (the "Circuit
     Court").  On May 10, 2011, the Circuit Court certified the
     class under the Missouri Minimum Wage Law and common law.
     The Company sought appeal of the class certification
     decision with the Missouri Court of Appeals and the Missouri
     Supreme Court, but both courts declined to hear the appeal.
     The parties are engaged in merits discovery and the trial is
     scheduled for February 25, 2013.

   * New Jersey -- Hegab v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., was filed
     in the United States District Court for the District of New
     Jersey on March 3, 2011, seeking unpaid overtime pay for a
     class of current and former New Jersey store managers whom
     plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt from
     overtime pay under New Jersey law.  The parties are now
     engaged in class discovery.

   * New York -- Youngblood, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of
     New York, Inc. et al., was filed in the United States
     District Court for the Southern District of New York on
     April 2, 2009.  Rancharan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., was
     filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens
     County, on March 4, 2009, was removed to the United States
     District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
     May 6, 2009, and was transferred to the Southern District of
     New York where the case has been consolidated with
     Youngblood.  The parties have a preliminary agreement to
     resolve this matter for a maximum payment of $14 million.
     As of August 25, 2012, the Company recorded an $11.5 million
     litigation charge based on its estimate of the most likely
     payout under the preliminary settlement agreement.  The
     motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was
     scheduled to be filed with the Court on October 19, 2012.

   * Pennsylvania -- Itterly v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., which
     was formerly pending in the N.C. Federal Court, was remanded
     back to the United States District Court for the Eastern
     District of Pennsylvania on February 8, 2012.  In Itterly,
     plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime for a class of
     current and former Pennsylvania store managers whom
     plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt from
     overtime pay under Pennsylvania law.  Discovery closed in
     June 2012.  The Company has filed summary judgment seeking
     dismissal of Itterly's claims in their entirety.

In general, the Company continues to believe that its store
managers relevant to this litigation are "exempt" employees under
the FLSA and have been and are being properly compensated under
both federal and state laws.  The Company further believes that
these actions are not appropriate for collective or class action
treatment.  The Company intends to vigorously defend the claims in
these actions.  No assurances can be given that the Company will
be successful in the defense of these actions, on the merits or
otherwise.  The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible
loss or range of loss that may result from these actions, with the
exception of the preliminary settlement of the
Rancharan/Youngblood case.


HONEYWELL INT'L: All Claims in "Allen" Suit Now Fully Resolved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. said in its October 19, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012, that all claims in the class
action lawsuit styled Allen, et al. v. Honeywell Retirement
Earnings Plan are now fully resolved.

Pursuant to a settlement approved by the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona in February 2008, 18 of 21 claims alleged
by plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit were dismissed with
prejudice in exchange for approximately $35 million (paid from the
Company's pension plan) and the maximum aggregate liability for
the remaining three claims (alleging that Honeywell impermissibly
reduced the pension benefits of certain employees of a predecessor
entity when the plan was amended in 1983 and failed to calculate
benefits in accordance with the terms of the plan) was capped at
$500 million.  In October 2009, the Court granted summary judgment
in favor of the Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan with respect to
the claim regarding the calculation of benefits.  In May 2011, the
parties engaged in mediation and reached an agreement in principle
to settle the three remaining claims for $23.8 million (also to be
paid from the Company's pension plan).  The Court approved the
settlement on July 20, 2012, and all claims in this matter are now
fully resolved.


HONEYWELL INT'L: Still Awaits Approval of Quick Lube Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed a
lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that twelve filter manufacturers, including Honeywell
International Inc., engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig
bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket automotive
filters.  This lawsuit is a purported class action on behalf of
direct purchasers of filters from the defendants.  Parallel
purported class actions, including on behalf of indirect
purchasers of filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs in a
variety of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada.  The U.S
cases have been consolidated into a single multi-district
litigation in the Northern District of Illinois.  In June 2011,
plaintiff's principal witness pled guilty to a felony count of
having made false statements to federal investigators.

On March 8, 2012, Honeywell entered into a settlement agreement to
resolve the multi-district litigation class action as to all
plaintiffs, subject to approval by the court.

The Company says the settlement did not and will not have a
material impact on its results of operations or operating cash
flows in the periods recognized or paid.  As previously reported,
the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice notified
Honeywell in January 2010 that it had officially closed its
investigation into possible collusion in the replacement auto
filters industry.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 19,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


HONEYWELL INT'L: UAW's Suit Still Pending in Michigan
-----------------------------------------------------
In July 2011, Honeywell International Inc. filed an action,
captioned Honeywell v. United Auto Workers ("UAW") et al., in
federal court (District of New Jersey) against the UAW and all
former employees who retired under a series of Master Collective
Bargaining Agreements ("MCBAs") between Honeywell and the UAW.
The Company is seeking a declaratory judgment that certain express
limitations on its obligation to contribute toward the healthcare
coverage of such retirees (the "CAPS") set forth in the MCBAs may
be implemented, effective January 1, 2012.  In September 2011, the
UAW and certain retiree defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
New Jersey action and filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of
Michigan alleging that the MCBAs do not provide for CAPS on the
Company's liability for healthcare coverage.  The UAW and retiree
plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for class certification and
a motion for partial summary judgment in the Michigan action,
seeking a ruling that retirees who retired prior to the initial
inclusion of the CAPS in the 2003 MCBA are not covered by the CAPS
as a matter of law.  In December 2011, the New Jersey action was
dismissed on forum grounds.  Honeywell has appealed the New Jersey
court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.  In the meantime, Honeywell has answered the UAW's
complaint in Michigan and has asserted a counterclaim for
fraudulent inducement.  Honeywell is confident that the CAPS will
be upheld and that its liability for healthcare coverage premiums
with respect to the putative class will be limited as negotiated
and expressly set forth in the applicable MCBAs.  In the event of
an adverse ruling, however, Honeywell's other postretirement
benefits for pre-2003 retirees would increase by approximately
$150 million, reflecting the estimated value of these CAPS.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 19,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Given the uncertainty inherent in litigation and investigations,
the Company does not believe it is possible to develop estimates
of reasonably possible loss in excess of current accruals for
these matters (other than as specifically set forth).  Considering
the Company's past experience and existing accruals, it does not
expect the outcome of these matters, either individually or in the
aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated
financial position.  Because most contingencies are resolved over
long periods of time, potential liabilities are subject to change
due to new developments, changes in settlement strategy or the
impact of evidentiary requirements, which could cause the Company
to pay damage awards or settlements (or become subject to
equitable remedies) that could have a material adverse effect on
the Company's results of operations or operating cash flows in the
periods recognized or paid.


IMAGINE NATION: Recalls 1,700 Double Dazzler Light Show Toys
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Imagine Nation Books, of Louisville, Colorado, and
manufacturer, Transfar, of Guangdong, China, announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,700 units of Double Dazzler Light Show toys.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The battery in the toys can overheat and pose a burn hazard.

The firm is aware of five incidents of overheating.  No injuries
or property damage have been reported.

The recalled product is a silver, plastic, baton-like toy with
white plastic tubes at each end that become multi-colored spinning
lights when operated.  The wand or stick device is 10.5 inches
long and has an "on" button in the center hold area.  The battery
pack is located at the center handhold location.  The package
states "DOUBLE DAZZLER LIGHT SHOW" and "Color Changing LEDs/Ages
8+/Batteries Included."  A picture of the recalled products is
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13023.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold by
Imagine Nation Book dealers nationwide at corporate offices,
hospitals and schools from March 2012 to September 2012 for about
$9.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toy from the child
and contact the firm for a refund.  Imagine Nation Books at (800)
917-0213 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time Monday through
Friday, by e-mail at productinfo@booksarefun.com or online at
http://www.booksarefun.com/recall/and for more information.


LIBERTY SPINCO: Parent and Designees Face "Montero" Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Spinco, Inc.'s parent and designees are facing a
shareholder class action lawsuit initiated by Andrew Montero in
New York, according to the Company's October 19, 2012, Form 10-12B
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Liberty Spinco, Inc. (Spinco) is currently a subsidiary of Liberty
Media Corporation.  Liberty Media Corporation has determined to
spin off the Company by distributing (the distribution) to its
stockholders, as a dividend, all of the Company's common stock.
Following the Spin-Off, the Company will be primarily engaged in
the media, communications and entertainment industries through its
operating subsidiaries and investments in various publicly-traded
companies.

Following the Spin-Off, the Company's principal businesses and
assets will include the consolidated subsidiaries Atlanta National
League Baseball Club, Inc. (ANLBC) and TruePosition, Inc.
(TruePosition), equity affiliates Sirius XM Radio Inc. (Sirius)
and Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (Live Nation) and minority
investments in public companies such as Barnes & Noble, Inc.
(Barnes & Noble), Time Warner Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc., Viacom
Inc. and Sprint Nextel Corporation.  In connection with the Spin-
Off, it is expected that Starz, LLC will distribute approximately
$1.8 billion in cash to Liberty Media, of which $400 million was
distributed in the third quarter of 2012.  The total amount of the
distribution will depend upon the financial performance and cash
position of Starz, LLC prior to the Spin-Off.  This distributed
cash, as reduced by investments of such cash prior to the Spin-
Off, will be contributed to Spinco in connection with the Spin-
Off.

On August 27, 2012, plaintiff Andrew Montero brought a shareholder
class action on behalf of the shareholders of the common stock of
Sirius against Sirius, the Sirius Designees, Liberty Media and
Liberty Radio LLC.  The Sirius Designees are Liberty Media
designees on the board of directors of Sirius (David J.A. Flowers,
Gregory B. Maffei, John C. Malone, Carl E. Vogel, and Vanessa A.
Wittman).

The action, captioned Montero v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Index No.
653012/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Cnty. of New York), was commenced in
the Supreme Court for the State of New York in New York County.
Mr. Montero alleges breaches of fiduciary duty, aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and seeks a declaratory
judgment, with allegations and relief sought substantially similar
to those in the City of Miami litigation.


LIBERTY SPINCO: Parent and Designees Face Suits in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Spinco, Inc.'s parent and designees are facing shareholder
class action lawsuits in Delaware, according to the Company's
October 19, 2012, Form 10-12B filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Liberty Spinco, Inc. (Spinco) is currently a subsidiary of Liberty
Media Corporation.  Liberty Media Corporation has determined to
spin off the Company by distributing (the distribution) to its
stockholders, as a dividend, all of the Company's common stock.
Following the Spin-Off, the Company will be primarily engaged in
the media, communications and entertainment industries through its
operating subsidiaries and investments in various publicly-traded
companies.

Following the Spin-Off, the Company's principal businesses and
assets will include the consolidated subsidiaries Atlanta National
League Baseball Club, Inc. (ANLBC) and TruePosition, Inc.
(TruePosition), equity affiliates Sirius XM Radio Inc. (Sirius)
and Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (Live Nation) and minority
investments in public companies such as Barnes & Noble, Inc.
(Barnes & Noble), Time Warner Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc., Viacom
Inc. and Sprint Nextel Corporation.  In connection with the Spin-
Off, it is expected that Starz, LLC will distribute approximately
$1.8 billion in cash to Liberty Media, of which $400 million was
distributed in the third quarter of 2012.  The total amount of the
distribution will depend upon the financial performance and cash
position of Starz, LLC prior to the Spin-Off.  This distributed
cash, as reduced by investments of such cash prior to the Spin-
Off, will be contributed to Spinco in connection with the Spin-
Off.

On August 21, 2012, plaintiff City of Miami Police Relief and
Pension Fund (the Fund) filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware against Liberty Media, Sirius, Liberty
Radio LLC and certain Liberty Media designees on the board of
directors of Sirius (David J.A. Flowers, Gregory B. Maffei, John
C. Malone, Carl E. Vogel, and Vanessa A. Wittman (together, the
Sirius Designees)).  On August 23, 2012, plaintiff Brian Cohen
filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the same individuals and seeking substantially
similar relief as set forth in the complaint filed by the Fund.
By Order of the Court dated October 2, 2012, the two actions were
consolidated under the caption In re Sirius XM Shareholder
Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 7800-CS (Del. Ch.).  Plaintiffs the
Fund and Brian Cohen filed an Amended Verified Class Action and
Derivative Complaint (the Amended Complaint) in the consolidated
action on October 5, 2012.  The Amended Complaint alleges that
Liberty Media and the Sirius Designees are breaching their alleged
fiduciary duties to the Sirius stockholders by acquiring shares of
Sirius common stock in the market and applying to the Federal
Communications Commission for consent to the transfer of de jure
control of the various Federal Communications Commission (the
"FCC") licenses and authorizations held by Sirius or its
subsidiaries.  The Amended Complaint also seeks a declaration that
a provision in an investment agreement entered into between
Liberty Media and Sirius that prohibits Sirius from adopting
certain anti-takeover provisions is invalid under Delaware law and
a declaration that upon the expiration of the three year
standstill in the investment agreement Liberty Media became an
interested stockholder subject to the restrictions and limitations
set forth by Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.

On August 23, 2012, plaintiff Brian Cohen filed a complaint in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Cohen v.
Sirius XM Radio Inc., et al., Case No. 7806 (Del. Ch.).  The
allegations and relief sought in this action are against the same
individuals and are substantially similar to those in the In re
Sirius XM Shareholder Litigation.


LOJACK CORP: Settles "Rutti" Wage and Hour Suits for $8.1-Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
LoJack Corporation disclosed in its October 19, 2012, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that on
October 18, 2012, it entered into a Settlement Agreement with the
named plaintiffs in these wage-and-hour class and collective
action lawsuits:

    (i) Mike Rutti et al. vs. LoJack Corporation, Inc., which was
        commenced on April 5, 2006, in the United States District
        Court for the Central District of California by a former
        employee alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards
        Act, the California Labor Code, and the California
        Business & Professions Code (the "Federal Court Case");
        and

   (ii) Mike Rutti et al. vs. LoJack Corporation, Inc., which was
        commenced on November 20, 2007, in the Superior Court of
        California for Los Angeles County (the "Superior Court")
        to assert wage-and-hour claims under California law on
        behalf of current and former Company technicians (the
        "State Court Case").

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Company has
agreed to pay up to $8.1 million, including plaintiffs' attorneys'
fees and costs, to resolve all remaining claims related to the
State Court Case.  The Company previously disclosed that it
estimated the range of possible loss with respect to the State
Court Case to be between $970,000 and $30 million.  The Settlement
Agreement involves no admission of wrongdoing, liability or
violation of the law by the Company.  In addition, the Settlement
Agreement bars the named plaintiffs in the State Court Case from
pursuing further claims against the Company.

In 2011, the Company paid $115,000 to the plaintiffs in the
Federal Court Case to settle the federal claims (except attorneys'
fees and costs).  In August 2012, the federal court awarded
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs of $900,518 related to those
claims.  Although the Company filed a notice of appeal with
respect to the attorneys' fee award in the Federal Court Case, the
Company has agreed to waive that appeal as part of the Settlement
Agreement and to pay the $900,518 awarded by the federal court.

                        Company Statement

LoJack Corporation (NASDAQ GS: LOJN) announced on October 18,
2012, that it has reached a settlement agreement involving the
remaining claims in the two California wage-and-hour class action
lawsuits against the Company.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, which is subject to
approval of the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles
County, the Company has agreed to pay up to $8.1 million,
including plaintiffs' attorneys' potential fees and costs, to
resolve all remaining California state class action claims.  The
Company previously disclosed that it estimated the range of
possible loss with respect to the state court case to be between
$970,000 and $30 million.

"These legal claims were originally filed in 2006, and plaintiffs
asserted claims reaching back to 2002," said Randy L. Ortiz,
President and Chief Executive Officer of LoJack.  "Since then the
cases have involved a significant amount of time and expense on
pleadings, motions, depositions, and discovery in various state
and federal courts.  The cases have also required us to look at
employment practices of the distant past rather than focus
entirely on our present and continuing commitment to the welfare
of our employees, the success of our dealer partners and licensees
and the strength of our brand.  Though the Company believes that
it has substantial legal and factual defenses to the plaintiffs'
claims, the Board of Directors and current leadership team
determined that a settlement at this time is in the best interest
of LoJack and its shareholders."

"One of my priorities since joining LoJack in November has been to
ensure that as an organization we efficiently address issues
distracting the Company from the pursuit of its strategic
initiatives and plans for growth," Mr. Ortiz continued.  "We
believe that this settlement agreement is a significant step
toward that objective and also protects the strength of our
balance sheet and liquidity resources.  Equally important, by
eliminating the expense and uncertainty associated with continued
litigation, the agreement frees us to position the Company for
improved long-term financial performance and expansion of its
business opportunities."

As previously disclosed, in the related California federal wage-
and-hour case, the Company paid the class action plaintiffs
$115,000 in 2011 to settle the federal claims.  During 2011, the
Company also recorded a $1.1 million accrual with respect to
plaintiffs' attorneys' fee application in the federal case.  In
early August 2012, the federal court awarded plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and costs of $900,518 related to those claims.
Although the Company filed a notice of appeal with respect to the
attorneys' fee award in the federal case, the Company has agreed
to waive that appeal as part of this settlement.

The settlement agreement involves no admission of wrongdoing,
liability or violation of the law by the Company.  In addition,
the agreement bars the named plaintiffs in the California state
class action from pursuing further claims against the Company.

The Company expects the Court to issue a decision shortly
regarding preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.  Should
the Court grant preliminary approval, California class members
would be sent a notice of the settlement and given the opportunity
to decide whether to participate.  LoJack could pay less than $8.1
million in settlement of the state court case depending on the
level of participation by class members in the settlement.
Following the notice period, the parties may move for final
approval of the settlement.  LoJack anticipates that the Court
would be in a position to rule on final approval of the proposed
settlement by the first or second quarter of 2013.  LoJack does
not anticipate paying any portion of the settlement of the
California state case until the Court has granted final approval.

As a result of the settlement agreement, LoJack expects to record
a one-time charge of approximately $6.9 million, or approximately
$0.40 per diluted share, for the third quarter ended
September 30, 2012.  The $6.9 million charge represents the $8.1
million expected settlement less the $970,000 previously accrued
for the state court case and the $200,000 reduction in the
estimated attorneys' fees accrual in the federal court case.

                    About LoJack Corporation

LoJack Corporation, the company that invented the stolen vehicle
recovery market more than two decades ago, is the global leader in
finding and recovering a wide range of mobile assets including
cars, construction equipment and motorcycles -- having recovered
nearly $4 billion in stolen assets worldwide.  LoJack's core
competencies are being applied into new areas, such as the
prevention, detection and recovery of stolen cargo and finding and
rescuing people with cognitive conditions such as autism and
Alzheimer's. LoJack has proven processes and technology for
recovery -- Radio Frequency -- and unique integration with law
enforcement agencies, making its offerings proven solutions that
not only deliver a wide range of recoveries, but also enhance
public safety.  LoJack's Stolen Vehicle Recovery System operates
in 28 states and the District of Columbia, and in more than 30
countries throughout North America, South America, Europe and
Africa.  For more information, visit http://www.lojack.com


MONSANTO CO: Awaits Final Approval of "Bibb" Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Company is awaiting final court approval of its
settlement of the class action lawsuit titled Zina G. Bibb, et al.
v. Monsanto et al., according to the Company's October 19, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended August 31, 2012.

On December 17, 2004, 15 plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit, styled Virdie Allen, et al. v. Monsanto, et al., in the
Putnam County, West Virginia, state court against Monsanto,
Pharmacia and seven other defendants.  Monsanto is named as the
successor in interest to the liabilities of Pharmacia.  The
alleged class consists of all current and former residents,
workers, and students who, between 1949 and the present, were
allegedly exposed to dioxins/furans contamination in counties
surrounding Nitro, West Virginia.  The complaint alleges that the
source of the contamination is a chemical plant in Nitro, formerly
owned and operated by Pharmacia and later by Flexsys, a joint
venture between Solutia and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. (Akzo
Nobel).  Akzo Nobel and Flexsys were named defendants in the case
but Solutia was not, due to its then pending bankruptcy
proceeding.  The lawsuit seeks damages for property cleanup costs,
loss of real estate value, funds to test property for
contamination levels, funds to test for human exposure, and future
medical monitoring costs.  The complaint also seeks an injunction
against further contamination and punitive damages.  Monsanto has
agreed to indemnify and defend Akzo Nobel and the Flexsys
defendant group, but on May 27, 2011, the judge dismissed both
Akzo Nobel and Flexsys from the case.  The class action
certification hearing was held on October 29, 2007.  On January 8,
2008, the trial court issued an order certifying the Allen (now
Zina G. Bibb et al. v. Monsanto et al., because Bibb replaced
Allen as class representative) case as a class action for property
damage and for medical monitoring.  On November 2, 2011, the
court, in response to defense motions, entered an order
decertifying the property class.

After the trial for the Bibb medical monitoring class action began
on January 3, 2012, the parties reached a settlement in principle
as to both the medical monitoring and the property class claims.
The proposed settlement provides for a 30 year medical monitoring
program consisting of a primary fund of up to $21 million and an
additional fund of up to $63 million over the life of the program,
and a three year property remediation plan with funding up to $9
million.  On February 24, 2012, the court preliminarily approved
the parties' proposed settlement.  A fairness hearing was held
June 18, 2012, and the parties await the judge's ruling regarding
final approval of the class settlement.


MONSANTO CO: "Glyphosate" Class Action Remains Dormant
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all entities who
purchased glyphosate directly from Monsanto Company since August
2003 remains dormant, according to the Company's October 19, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended August 31, 2012.

Two purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company
on September 26, 2006, supposedly on behalf of all farmers who
purchased the Company's Roundup brand herbicides in the United
States for commercial agricultural purposes since September 26,
2002.  Plaintiffs essentially allege that the Company has
monopolized the market for glyphosate for commercial agricultural
purposes.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and
injunctive relief.  In late February 2007, three additional
lawsuits were filed, alleging similar claims.  All of these
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware.  On July 18, 2007, the court ruled that any such lawsuit
had to be filed in federal or state court in Missouri; the court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the two original cases.
On August 8, 2007, plaintiffs in the remaining three cases
voluntarily dismissed their complaints, which have not been re-
filed.  On August 10, 2007, the same set of counsel filed a
parallel action in federal court in San Antonio, Texas, on behalf
of a retailer of glyphosate named Texas Grain.  Plaintiffs seek to
certify a national class of all entities that purchased glyphosate
directly from the Company since August 2003.  The magistrate judge
issued his recommendation to the District Court on August 7, 2009,
denying class certification and the litigation has remained
dormant since that event.  The Company believes it has meritorious
legal positions and will continue to represent the Company's
interests vigorously in this matter.


MONSANTO CO: "Rochester" Suit Dismissal Final and Non-Appealable
----------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of a class action lawsuit styled Rochester Laborers
Pension Fund v. Monsanto Co., et al., has become final and non-
appealable, according to the Company's October 19, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended August 31, 2012.

On July 29, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit, styled
Rochester Laborers Pension Fund v. Monsanto Co., et al., was filed
against the Company and three of its past and present executive
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri.  The lawsuit alleged that defendants violated the
federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements
between January 7, 2009, and May 27, 2010, regarding the Company's
earnings guidance for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 and the
anticipated future performance of the Company's Roundup business.
On November 1, 2010, the Court appointed the Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System as lead plaintiff in the action.  On January 31,
2011, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the
Company and four of its past and present executive officers in the
same action.  The amended complaint alleged that defendants
violated the federal securities laws by making false and
misleading statements during the same time period, regarding the
Company's earnings guidance for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 as well
as the anticipated future performance of the Company's Roundup
business and its Seeds and Genomics business.  Lead plaintiff
claimed that these statements artificially inflated the price of
the Company's stock and that purchasers of its stock during the
relevant period were damaged when the stock price later declined.
Lead plaintiff sought the award of unspecified amount of damages
on behalf of the alleged class, counsel fees and costs.  On April
1, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  On
June 14, 2011, lead plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion,
and defendants' reply thereto was filed on August 12, 2011.  On
December 12, 2011, lead plaintiff moved to supplement the record
on the motion to dismiss with facts concerning the SEC
investigation of the Company's financial reporting associated with
customer incentive programs for glyphosate products and the
Company's restatement of its financial results for fiscal years
2009 and 2010 and certain quarters of fiscal year 2011.

On January 5, 2012, the Court denied lead plaintiff's motion to
supplement the record.  On January 20, 2012, lead plaintiff sought
leave to amend its complaint, which the Court granted on January
31, 2012.  The second amended complaint repeated the allegations
and claims in the amended complaint regarding the Company's
earnings guidance for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 and the Company's
statements relating to the anticipated future performance of its
Roundup business and Seeds and Genomics business.  The second
amended complaint added allegations and claims related to the
November 2011 restatement of the Company's financial results for
fiscal years 2009 and 2010 and the Company's purported failure to
disclose the adoption of customer incentive programs to drive
Roundup sales in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2009.  On
February 29, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.  Lead plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion on
April 6, 2012, and defendants filed a reply on April 27, 2012.  On
August 1, 2012, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint with prejudice and entered judgment
in favor of defendants.  The lead plaintiff failed to appeal from
the Court's judgment, which is now final and non-appealable.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Alabama Judge Tosses TILA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that an Alabama judge on
Oct. 29 tossed a class action accusing Nationstar Mortgage LLC of
violating the Truth in Lending Act by failing to inform a woman
that her mortgage had been sold, saying it is exempt from the
notification requirements.

U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. Granade booted homeowner
Jacqueline Valrie's suit accusing Nationstar of breaching TILA by
failing to comply with required statutory notice requirements
after determining that the mortgage servicer was protected under a
safe harbor provision that waives the notice requirements.


OCEAN SPRAY: Sued Over Alleged Cranberry Juice Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Ocean Spray Cranberries fixes
the price of cranberry juice concentrate, growers say in a federal
antitrust class action.


REDFLEX TRAFFIC: To Team Up with ATS to Fight Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Newspaper.com reports that Redflex Traffic Systems and
American Traffic Solutions (ATS) have been bitter enemies in the
courtroom, spending millions in an attempt to use the law to gain
a competitive advantage against one another.  They are now looking
to team up to defend against eleven class action lawsuits seeking
refunds for red light camera tickets issued to New Jersey vehicle
owners.  The firms joined to ask a federal judge to combine the
cases this week.  The parties suing ATS and the city of Linden
instead want US District Judge Susan D. Wigenton to send the case
back to state court.

Sandra DaRocha originally filed her suit in the superior court in
July.  She argued the city had failed to abide by state law
mandating the red light camera systems be inspected and a report
filed every six months by the municipal engineer.

"Despite these requirements, Linden failed to comply with the
express statutory mandates as implemented by the legislature of
the state of New Jersey," Ms. DaRocha's attorney, Ross H.
Schmierer, argued.  "As a result, New Jersey's Department of
Transportation suspended Linden from the program.  Nevertheless,
Linden collected millions of dollars in fines from New Jersey
citizens during an almost three year time period.  Thus,
Ms. DaRocha brought this truly local action seeking to right a
wrong perpetrated against her fellow citizens of the State of New
Jersey."

According to ATS, the program has issued $10.3 million in fines,
with 71,000 of the 81,000 tickets mailed to New Jersey residents.
Ms. DaRocha argues the case belongs in state, not federal court
because she seeks only refunds for New Jersey residents who paid
illegal fines.  State law requires the yellow signal timing for
all camera intersections be certified, but Liden was among the
twenty-one municipalities that never bothered certifying their
systems.

ATS responded by arguing those who paid their citations did so
voluntarily and were not, therefore, entitled to refunds.  The
firm added that it was not responsible for any certifications.

"Awarding plaintiff and/or others alleged to be putative class
members the relief sought in the complaint would violate ATS and
Violation info's right to due process under the United States
Constitution," ATS attorney Benjamin C. Caldwell wrote.  "The New
Jersey Department of Transportation, which was the administrative
agency who initiated and administered the red light camera pilot
program, expressly approved Linden's application.  At all times,
ATS and Violation info relied in good faith on the New Jersey
Department of Transportation's interpretation of the red light
camera pilot program statute, including the promulgation and
regulation thereof."


SEE'S CANDY: May Round Off Employee Time Entries, Court Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben James, writing for Law360, reports that California employers
may round off employee time entries provided that workers are
properly compensated in the long run, a published appeals court
opinion said on Oct. 29, ruling for See's Candy Shops Inc. in a
class action observers warned might lead to a surge in lawsuits.

A California appeals court panel struck down a lower court's
ruling that See's Candy couldn't rely on two affirmative defenses
asserting that See's policy of rounding time entries to the
nearest six minutes was consistent with state and federal law.


SEI PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss DMAA Class Action Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Oct. 29 granted a bid by diet supplement company
SEI Pharmaceuticals Inc. to toss a proposed class action claiming
it did not warn consumers about the health risks of its mood and
energy supplement that contains the controversial ingredient DMAA.

U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes granted SEI's motion to
dismiss, saying the suit does not give specific details about
SEI's alleged misrepresentation of its MethylHex 4,2 supplement,
but he allowed the plaintiff to amend his complaint.


SHAW GROUP: Faces Class Suits Over Proposed Acquisition by CB&I
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Shaw Group Inc. is facing class action lawsuits arising from
its proposed acquisition by Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V.,
according to the Company's October 19, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
August 31, 2012.

On July 30, 2012, the Company announced that it signed a
Transaction Agreement with Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V.
(CB&I) under which CB&I will acquire the Company in a cash and
stock transaction valued at approximately $3.2 billion based on
the trading price of CB&I common stock as of October 15, 2012
(Transaction Agreement).  Under the terms of the Transaction
Agreement, CB&I will acquire Shaw for $41.00 in cash and 0.12883
shares of CB&I common stock for each common share of Shaw stock
owned.  The proposed combination of CB&I and Shaw will create one
of the world's largest engineering and construction companies
focused on the global energy industry.  Both companies believe
this agreement will create value through a combined company with
broader participation in a robust energy market.

Following the Company's announcement of the signed Transaction
Agreement, several shareholders filed purported class action
lawsuits against Shaw, its directors, CB&I, and in some cases,
against CB&I's acquisition subsidiary.  The plaintiffs generally
allege breach of fiduciary duties of care and loyalty to Shaw
shareholders because of, among other claims, inadequate
consideration to be paid by CB&I for Shaw common stock.  The
Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit and intends
to contest them vigorously.


STANDARD FIRE: AGs Worry Over Arkansas Class Action Strategy
------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that eighteen
state attorneys general are worried that plaintiffs' attorneys are
skirting the rules of the Class Action Fairness Act to curtail the
rights of their states' citizens.

The group filed an amicus brief on Oct. 29 with the U.S. Supreme
Court in an Arkansas class action case in which plaintiffs'
lawyers and defense attorneys are fighting over jurisdiction.  At
issue is a provision in the CAFA that allows defendants to remove
class actions to federal court when the amount in question exceeds
$5 million.

The lawsuit says the company underpaid on claims made by customers
with homeowner's insurance.  The plaintiffs in Knowles v. Standard
Fire Insurance have refused to ask for more than $5 million, but
the defendant says any injunctive relief granted will be worth
much more than that amount.

"The procedure appears to subvert the interest of absent class
members to the interests of the class' lawyers," the Attorneys
General brief says.

"It allows the class representative and counsel to shop for a
pliant local judge to approve a class or settlement.  The only
logical explanation for the procedure is that counsel wish to
avoid important reforms that have been incorporated into federal
law, including the requirement that state officers be given an
opportunity to challenge the fairness of any proposed settlement."

Arguing that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and that
the Plaintiff fraudulently defined the class in an effort to avoid
federal jurisdiction, Standard Fire removed the case to federal
court in May 2011.  In response to Standard Fire's efforts, the
plaintiff argued that its original complaint included a
stipulation which limits the recovery to under $75,000 and limits
unnamed class members' recovery to under $5 million, which would
keep them in the Miller County Circuit Court.

Federal Judge P. K. Holmes III agreed with the Plaintiff that the
stipulation did legally bind the Plaintiff to an amount that
places them in the lower state court.  However, Judge Holmes also
opined that Standard Fire met the initial burden of proof and
showed that the actual amount in controversy reaches, if not
exceeds, the federal court's minimum threshold for jurisdiction
pursuant to CAFA.  Judge Holmes remanded the case back to Miller
County.

The defendant appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit, which was denied without explanation.
Then, Standard Fire petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for Writ of
Certiorari, which was granted in August.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on whether a
plaintiff can limit absent class members recovery so as to destroy
federal jurisdiction and keep the case in a "friendly" state
court.

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange's office led the brief.
Joining it were Republican AGs Tom Horne of Arizona, Greg Zoeller
of Indiana, John Suthers of Colorado, Derek Schmidt of Kansas,
Bill Schuette of Michigan, Pam Bondi of Florida, Jon Bruning of
Nebraska, Sam Olens of Georgia, Wayne Stenehjem of North Dakota,
Mark Shurtleff of Utah, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Rob McKenna of
Washington, Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma, Marty Jackley of South
Dakota and Greg Abbott of Texas.

Two Democrats also signed the brief.  They are Connecticut's
George Jepsen and West Virginia's Darrell McGraw.

The brief says the history of abuse and reform at the state level
underscores the importance of meaningful checks on class
representatives and class counsel.

"Class actions are vulnerable to abuse through devices that
subordinate the interest of absent class members to the interests
of class counsel and the named class representative," the brief
says.

And localized abuses, it says, affect the residents of every
state.

"This ($5 million) waiver purports to be binding regardless of
whether it is fair to absent class members or whether it is fair
to absent class members or whether they receive notice of the
waiver," the AGs say.

"Although the class in this case is limited to Arkansas residents,
if the stipulation procedure works here, it will work for
nationwide classes as well.  The certifications and settlements
that this procedure effectuates will affect all states' residents,
regardless of where the abuse itself takes place."

The AGs claim the stipulation:

   -- Undermines reforms at the federal and state level;

   -- Makes it harder for absent class members to protect
themselves from an unfair settlement; and

   -- Makes it harder for state regulators to protect absent class
members from unfair settlements.

The case is currently before Miller County Judge Kirk Johnson, who
is mulling a motion to stay it while the U.S. Supreme Court
decides the jurisdictional question.


STEC INC: Signs Deal to Settle Consolidated Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
STEC, Inc. entered into an agreement to settle a consolidated
securities litigation filed in California, according to the
Company's October 19, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On October 5, 2012, STEC, Inc. (the "Company") entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Settlement
Agreement") to settle the previously disclosed federal class
action lawsuits filed against the Company and several of its
senior officers and directors in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, captioned In re STEC, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. SACV-09-01304-JVS (MLGx) (the "Federal
Class Action Litigation").

The Settlement Agreement provides for the resolution of all the
pending claims in the Federal Class Action Litigation, without any
admission or concession of wrongdoing by the Company or other
defendants.  The Company and other defendants have entered into
the Settlement Agreement to eliminate the uncertainty,
distraction, burden and expense of further litigation.  The
Settlement Agreement provides for a fund of $35.75 million in
exchange for a full and complete release of all claims that were
or could have been asserted in the Federal Class Action
Litigation.

As previously disclosed in the Company's Form 10-Q filed on August
7, 2012, the Company had recorded as of June 30, 2012, an
estimated settlement accrual of $35 million and an insurance claim
receivable of $20 million, resulting in a net charge of $15
million.  On October 18, 2012, the Company's insurance carriers
agreed to contribute $562,500 of the additional settlement cost of
$750,000.  As a result, the Company has recorded an additional
settlement accrual of $750,000 and an additional insurance claim
receivable of $562,500, resulting in a net charge of $187,500 for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012.

The Settlement Agreement remains subject to preliminary and final
court approval and certain other conditions, including notice to
class members and an opportunity for class members to object to or
opt out of the settlement.  At this time, there can be no
assurance that the conditions to effect the settlement will be
met, that the Settlement Agreement will receive the required court
and other approvals or that the settlement will become final.

The Company expects the settlement of the Federal Class Action
Litigation will also result in a full release of the class claims
asserted in the previously disclosed class action in the Superior
Court of Orange County, California.  The settlement does not
resolve the related federal and state shareholder derivative
litigation.


SUPERVALU INC: Class Cert. Denied in Suit Over C&S Transaction
---------------------------------------------------------------
SuperValu Inc. disclosed in its October 19, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 8, 2012, that a Wisconsin court in July 2012
refused to certify a class in the lawsuit over a 2003 transaction
between the Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the
Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy
to restrain trade and allocate markets.  In the 2003 transaction,
the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as
part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold
certain assets of the Company to C&S which were located in New
England.  Since December 2008, three other retailers have filed
similar complaints in other jurisdictions.  The cases have been
consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota.  The complaints allege that
the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the use of non-
compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing down of
the distribution facilities that the Company and C&S purchased
from each other.  Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

On July 16, 2012, the Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.  The case is now limited to the two named retailers
as plaintiffs.  The Company is vigorously defending these
lawsuits.

Predicting the outcomes of claims and litigation and estimating
related costs and exposures involves substantial uncertainties
that could cause actual outcomes, costs and exposures to vary
materially from current expectations.  The Company regularly
monitors its exposure to the loss contingencies associated with
these matters and may from time to time change its predictions
with respect to outcomes and its estimates with respect to related
costs and exposures.  With respect to the lawsuit, the Company
believes the chance of a negative outcome is remote.  It is
possible, although management believes it is remote, that material
differences in actual outcomes, costs and exposures relative to
current predictions and estimates, or material changes in such
predictions or estimates, could have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.


SUPERVALU INC: Suit in Wisconsin Still Stayed Pending IOS Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against
SuperValu Inc., as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC
("IOS"), Inmar, Inc., Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.,
Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services, in the
United States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a
grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company who
allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and the
other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon
processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an
illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  The
plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.  The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this
lawsuit, however, all proceedings have been stayed in the case
pending the result of the criminal prosecution of certain former
officers of IOS.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 19,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 8, 2012.

Predicting the outcomes of claims and litigation and estimating
related costs and exposures involves substantial uncertainties
that could cause actual outcomes, costs and exposures to vary
materially from current expectations.  The Company regularly
monitors its exposure to the loss contingencies associated with
these matters and may from time to time change its predictions
with respect to outcomes and its estimates with respect to related
costs and exposures.  With respect to the lawsuit, the Company
believes the chance of a negative outcome is remote.  It is
possible, although management believes it is remote, that material
differences in actual outcomes, costs and exposures relative to
current predictions and estimates, or material changes in such
predictions or estimates, could have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.


WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Gluten Free Baking Products Due to Soy
------------------------------------------------------------
Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. is voluntarily recalling all code dates
of Wegmans Gluten Free Chocolate Cake Mix, 15.3 oz. (UPC 77890-
2833 - Code dates from 30Oct2013 to 11Apr2014), Wegmans Food You
Feel Good About Gluten Free Honey Cornbread Mix, 16 oz. (UPC
77890-30343 - Code dates from 28Mar2014 to 16Apr2014), and Wegmans
Food You Feel Good About All Purpose Baking Mix, 16oz (UPC 77890-
30341 - Code dates from 27Mar2014 to 18Dec2014) because the
products may contain undeclared soy.

People who have an allergy to soy run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.

Wegmans began offering the Chocolate Cake Mix for sale in May 2012
and the Cornbread Mix and All Purpose Baking Mix in September 2012
at its 80 retail stores in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, Maryland, and Massachusetts.

The recall was initiated by Wegmans following allergen testing for
soy.  No illnesses have been reported as a result of this recall.

Concerned customers should return the product to Wegmans service
desk for a full refund.  Wegmans customers with questions or
concerns should contact the consumer affairs department at 1-800-
WEGMANS (934-6267), Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time.

Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. is an 81-store supermarket chain with
stores in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland,
and Massachusetts.  The family-owned company, founded in 1916, is
recognized as an industry leader and innovator.  Wegmans has been
named one of the '100 Best Companies to Work For' by FORTUNE
magazine for fifteen consecutive years.  In 2012, Wegmans ranked
#4 on the list.


YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell To Seek to Decertify "Whittington" Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
YUM! Brands, Inc.'s subsidiary intends to seek decertification of
the class in the lawsuit commenced by Jacquelyn Whittington,
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 8, 2012.

On August 6, 2010, a putative class action styled Jacquelyn
Whittington v. Yum Brands, Inc., Taco Bell of America, Inc. and
Taco Bell Corp. was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a
nationwide class, with the exception of California, of salaried
assistant managers who were allegedly misclassified and did not
receive compensation for all hours worked and did not receive
overtime pay after 40 hours worked in a week.  The plaintiff also
purports to represent a separate class of Colorado assistant
managers under Colorado state law, which provides for daily
overtime after 12 hours worked in a day.  The Company has been
dismissed from the case without prejudice.  Taco Bell filed its
answer on September 20, 2010, and the parties commenced class
discovery, which is currently on-going.  On September 16, 2011,
plaintiffs filed their motion for conditional certification under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  The plaintiffs did not
move for certification of a separate class of Colorado assistant
managers under Colorado state law.  The court heard the motion on
January 10, 2012, granted conditional certification and ordered
the notice of the opt-in class be sent to the putative class
members.  The notice was sent to class members on February 24,
2012, and the opt-in period ended on May 21, 2012.  Approximately
488 individuals submitted opt-in forms.  The court granted Taco
Bell's request for written and deposition discovery of the class.
After further discovery, Taco Bell plans to seek decertification
of the class.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM! BRANDS: Discovery in "Rosales" Suit vs. Unit Has Commenced
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in the class action lawsuit initiated by
Marisela Rosales against a subsidiary of YUM! Brands, 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 8, 2012.

On September 28, 2009, a putative class action styled Marisela
Rosales v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in Orange County Superior
Court.  The plaintiff, a former Taco Bell crew member, alleges
that Taco Bell failed to timely pay her final wages upon
termination, and seeks restitution and late payment penalties on
behalf of herself and similarly situated employees.  This case
appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions case.  Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss, stay or
transfer the case to the same district court as the In Re Taco
Bell Wage and Hour Actions case.  The state court granted Taco
Bell's motion to stay the Rosales case on May 28, 2010.  After the
denial of class certification in the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions, the court granted plaintiff leave to amend her lawsuit,
which plaintiff filed and served on January 4, 2012.  Taco Bell
filed its responsive pleading on February 8, 2012, and plaintiff
filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 15, 2012.  Taco Bell
again filed a responsive pleading and thereafter plaintiff filed a
Third Amended Complaint on June 11, 2012.  Taco Bell has answered
the Third Amended Complaint and commenced discovery.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM! BRANDS: Faces "Castillo" Wage and Hour Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
YUM! Brands, Inc.'s subsidiaries are facing a class action lawsuit
brought by Agustine Castillo in New York, 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
8, 2012.

On July 27, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit, styled Agustine
Castillo v. Taco Bell of America, LLC and Taco Bell Corp., was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class
of salaried assistant general managers who were allegedly
misclassified and did not receive compensation for all hours
worked and did not receive overtime pay after 40 hours worked in a
week.  The plaintiff also seeks to represent a statewide class of
salaried assistant general managers who allegedly did not receive
compensation for all hours worked.  The plaintiff's counsel in
this action is the same as plaintiffs' counsel in the Whittington
lawsuit.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM! BRANDS: Final Hearing on "Hines" Suit Settlement on Jan. 8
---------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval hearing of YUM! Brands, Inc.'s settlement of a
class action lawsuit filed by Domonique Hines against a subsidiary
is scheduled for January 8, 2013, 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 8, 2012.

On October 2, 2009, a putative class action, styled Domonique
Hines v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., was filed in California state
court on behalf of all California hourly employees alleging
various California Labor Code violations, including rest and meal
break violations, overtime violations, wage statement violations
and waiting time penalties.  Plaintiff is a former non-managerial
KFC restaurant employee.  KFC filed an answer denying plaintiff's
claims and allegations and removed the action to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on October
29, 2009.  Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification in May
2010, and the District Court granted plaintiff's motion to certify
a class on the meal and rest break claims but denied the motion to
certify a class regarding alleged off-the-clock work in October
2010.  On November 1, 2010, KFC filed a motion requesting a stay
of the case pending a decision from the California Supreme Court
regarding the applicable standard for employer provision of meal
and rest breaks.  In January 2011, the District Court stayed the
entire action pending a decision from the California Supreme Court
in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego.
Subsequent to the California Supreme Court's decision in April
2012, the stay was vacated.  On May 25, 2012, KFC filed a motion
to decertify the class in light of the Brinker decision.

On August 15, 2012, the parties entered into a Joint Stipulation
of Class Settlement and Class Settlement Agreement and Release
setting forth the terms upon which the parties agreed to settle
this matter.  The Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for
January 8, 2013.  The costs associated with the settlement were
recorded in the quarter ended September 8, 2012.


YUM! BRANDS: Parties in "Smith" Suit Finalize List of Opt-ins
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action lawsuit styled Mark Smith v. Pizza
Hut, Inc., are working to finalize the list of class opt-ins,
according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s October 16, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 8, 2012.

On July 9, 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v.
Pizza Hut, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The complaint alleged that Pizza Hut
did not properly reimburse its delivery drivers for various
automobile costs, uniforms costs, and other job-related expenses
and seeks to represent a class of delivery drivers nationwide
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado state law.
On January 4, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional
certification of a nationwide class of current and former Pizza
Hut, Inc. delivery drivers.  However, on March 11, 2010, the court
granted Pizza Hut's pending motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim, with leave to amend.  On March 31, 2010, plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint, which dropped the uniform claims but, in
addition to the federal FLSA claims, asserted state-law class
action claims under the laws of sixteen different states.  Pizza
Hut filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and
plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint a second time.
On August 9, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend.
Pizza Hut filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.  On July 15, 2011, the Court granted Pizza Hut's motion
with respect to plaintiffs' state law claims, but allowed the FLSA
claims to go forward.  Plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Conditional Certification on August 31, 2011, and the Court
granted plaintiffs' motion April 21, 2012.  The opt-in period
closed on August 23, 2012, and the parties are working to finalize
the list of opt-ins.  The final number has yet to be determined
but is expected to be between approximately 5,400 and 5,800.

Pizza Hut denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM! BRANDS: Sept. 17 Ruling in "Moeller" Suit Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell
Corp. took an appeal from a court order dated September 17, 2012,
modifying an October 2011 Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law
deleting the statement that an injunction was warranted in the
lawsuit, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s October 16, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 8, 2012.

On December 17, 2002, Taco Bell Corp. was named as the defendant
in a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California styled Moeller, et
al. v. Taco Bell Corp.  On August 4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint alleging, among other things, that Taco Bell has
discriminated against the class of people who use wheelchairs or
scooters for mobility by failing to make its approximately 220
company-owned restaurants in California accessible to the class.
Plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and
structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the
path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with mobility-
related disabilities do not comply with the U.S. Americans with
Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the
"Unruh Act"), and the California Disabled Persons Act (the
"CDPA").  Plaintiffs have requested: (a) an injunction from the
District Court ordering Taco Bell to comply with the ADA and its
implementing regulations; (b) that the District Court declare Taco
Bell in violation of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and (c)
monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA. Plaintiffs, on behalf
of the class, are seeking the minimum statutory damages per
offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh Act or $1,000 under the
CDPA for each aggrieved member of the class.  Plaintiffs contend
that there may be in excess of 100,000 individuals in the class.

On February 23, 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  The class included claims for
injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages.

On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco
Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific
issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force.  On
August 8, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with
regard to dining room seating.  In addition, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening force at
some restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard
to queue lines.

On December 16, 2009, the court denied Taco Bell's motion for
summary judgment on the ADA claims and ordered plaintiffs to
select one restaurant to be the subject of a trial.  The trial for
the exemplar restaurant began on June 6, 2011, and on
October 5, 2011, the court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law ruling that plaintiffs established that classwide
injunctive relief was warranted with regard to maintaining
compliance as to corporate Taco Bell restaurants in California.
The court declined to order injunctive relief at the time,
however, citing the pendency of Taco Bell's motions to decertify
both the injunctive and damages class.  The court also found that
twelve specific items at the exemplar store were once out of
compliance with applicable state and/or federal accessibility
standards.

On June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued its
ruling in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes.  The Supreme Court held
that the class in that case was improperly certified.  The same
legal theory was used to certify the class in the Moeller case,
and Taco Bell filed a motion to decertify the class on August 3,
2011.  On July 26, 2012, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to
decertify the previously certified state law damages class but
denied Taco Bell's motion to decertify the ADA injunctive relief
class.

On September 13, 2012, the court set a discovery and briefing
schedule concerning the trials of the four individual plaintiffs'
state law damages claims, which the court stated will be tried
before holding further proceedings regarding the possible issuance
of an injunction.  On September 17, 2012, the court issued an
order modifying its October 2011 Findings of Facts and Conclusions
of Law deleting the statement that an injunction was warranted.
Plaintiffs have appealed that order.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  Further, Taco Bell intends to
vigorously oppose plaintiffs' appeal.  Taco Bell has taken steps
to address potential architectural and structural compliance
issues at the restaurants in accordance with applicable state and
federal disability access laws.  The costs associated with
addressing these issues have not significantly impacted the
Company's results of operations.  It is not possible at this time
to reasonably estimate the probability or amount of liability for
monetary damages on a class wide basis to Taco Bell.


                           *********

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  * * *