CAR_Public/121107.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, November 7, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 221

                               Headlines

AETNA INC: Hearing in Merger-Related Suit in Delaware on Nov. 20
AT&T: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
BARNEY'S BARN: Faces Overtime & Minimum Wage Class Action
BOLTHOUSE FARMS: Recalls Bolthouse Farms(R) 16-Oz. Carrot Chips
BP: 2,300 Potential Plaintiffs Opt Out of Oil Spill Settlement

BRISTOL-MYERS: Agrees to Settle AWP Suits of Miss. and La. AGs
BRISTOL-MYERS: Abilify* Co-Pay Program Suit Dismissal Bid Pending
CASCADE CORP: Being Sold to Toyota for Too Little, Suit Claims
CASH 4: Judge Awards $4MM Attorneys' Fees in Ponzi Class Action
CHAMPION POWER: Recalls 8.6T Portable Generators Due to Fire Risk

CHARLEE BEAR: Recalls "Protein Crunch Bars" Due to Health Risk
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Faces Suits Over Proposed Shaw Group Acquisition
CHINA TRANSINFO: Agrees to Settle TransCloud Merger-Related Suit
COMMERCIAL BARGE: Still Awaits Dismissal of Louisiana Suits
COSTAR GROUP: Awaits Okay of LoopNet Merger-Related Suit Deal

DUTCHESS COUNTY, NY: Sued Over Voter Registration Address Issue
EXPEDIA INC: Sued For Room Reservation Retail Price Fixing
GENON ENERGY: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Action
HALLIBURTON CO: Nov. 12 Fairness Hearing Set in the Macondo MDL

MALKIN HOLDINGS: Settles REIT Class Action for $55 Million
MERCK & CO: Settles Vioxx Class Action for Up to $220 Million
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Athletes Fight Bid to Dismiss Class Action
NRG ENERGY: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
RAYMOND-HADLEY CORP: Recalls Wegmans Brand Gluten Free Mixes

REMINGTON GROUP: Markham Condo Buyers File Class Action
SMART & FINAL: Truck Drivers' Class Certification Bid Denied
SUNTRUST BANKS: Faces ERISA Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
TENNESSEE COMMERCE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
TYSON FOODS: Settles Wage Class Action for $950,000

VIA RAIL: Class Action Over Train Derailment Can Proceed
VISA: Merchant Community Rebukes Class Action Settlement
WAYNE FARMS: Recalls 28,528 Lbs. of Frozen Chicken Products
WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls 31T lbs. of Organic Spinach and Spring Mix
WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Pumpkin Rolls That May Have Plastic Pieces

YAHOO! INC: Seeks Dismissal of E-Mail Class Action


                          *********

AETNA INC: Hearing in Merger-Related Suit in Delaware on Nov. 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion in a
consolidated merger-related lawsuit in Delaware has been scheduled
for November 20, 2012, according to Aetna Inc.'s October 25, 2012
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On August 19, 2012, the Company entered into a definitive
agreement (as amended, and as may be further amended, the "Merger
Agreement") to acquire Coventry Health Care, Inc. ("Coventry") in
a transaction valued at approximately $7.3 billion, based on the
closing price of Aetna common shares on August 17, 2012, including
the assumption of Coventry debt.  Under the terms of the Merger
Agreement, Coventry stockholders will receive $27.30 in cash and
0.3885 Aetna common shares for each Coventry share.

On August 23, 2012, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
captioned Coyne v. Wise et al., C.A. No. 367380, was filed in the
Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, against the
Coventry board of directors, Coventry, Aetna and Jaguar Merger
Subsidiary, Inc. ("Merger Sub").  On August 27, 2012, a second
stockholder class action lawsuit captioned O'Brien v. Coventry
Health Care, Inc. et al., C.A. 367577, was filed in the Circuit
Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, against the Coventry board
of directors, Coventry, Aetna and Merger Sub.  On September 5,
2012, a third putative stockholder class action lawsuit captioned
Preze v. Coventry Health Care, Inc. et al., C.A. 367942, was filed
in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, against the
Coventry board of directors, Coventry, Aetna and Merger Sub.  An
amended complaint was filed on October 1, 2012, and served on
October 19, 2012, in the Preze v. Coventry Health Care, Inc.
action.  The complaints in all three lawsuits generally allege,
among other things, that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties owed to Coventry's public stockholders in
connection with the merger because the merger consideration and
certain other terms in the Merger Agreement are unfair.  The
complaints further allege that Aetna and Merger Sub aided and
abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  In addition,
the complaints generally allege that the proposed merger
improperly favors Aetna and that certain provisions of the Merger
Agreement unduly restrict Coventry's ability to negotiate with
other potential bidders.  The amended complaint in the Preze
action also generally alleges that Aetna's Registration Statement
on Form S-4 filed on September 21, 2012, contained various
deficiencies.  Among other remedies, the complaints generally seek
injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from completing the
proposed merger or, in the event that an injunction is not
awarded, unspecified money damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

On August 31, 2012, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
captioned Brennan v. Coventry Health Care, Inc. et al., C.A. No.
7826-CS, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the Coventry board of directors, Coventry, Aetna
and Merger Sub.  On September 14, 2012, a second putative
stockholder class action lawsuit captioned Nashelsky v. Coventry
Health Care, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 7868-CS, was filed in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Coventry board of
directors, Coventry, Aetna and Merger Sub.  On
September 27, 2012, and September 28, 2012, putative stockholder
class action lawsuits captioned Employees' Retirement System of
the Government of the Virgin Islands v. Coventry Health Care, Inc.
et al., C.A. No. 7905-CS, and Farina v. Coventry Health Care, Inc.
et al., C.A. No. 7909-CS, were filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware against the Coventry board of directors,
Coventry, Aetna and Merger Sub.  An amended complaint was filed on
October 1, 2012, in the Brennan v. Coventry Health Care, Inc.
action.  The complaints generally allege that, among other things,
the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to
the public stockholders of Coventry in connection with the merger
because the merger consideration and certain other terms in the
Merger Agreement are unfair.  The complaints further allege that
Aetna and Merger Sub aided and abetted these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.  In addition, the complaints generally allege that
certain provisions of the Merger Agreement unduly restrict
Coventry's ability to negotiate with other potential bidders and
that the Merger Agreement lacks adequate safeguards on behalf of
Coventry's stockholders against the decline in the value of the
stock component of the merger consideration.  The complaints in
the Employees' Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin
Islands, and Farina actions and the amended complaint in the
Brennan action also generally allege that Aetna's Registration
Statement on Form S-4 filed on September 21, 2012, contained
various deficiencies.  Among other remedies, the complaints
generally seek injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from
completing the proposed merger, rescissionary and other types of
damages and costs and attorneys' fees.

On October 4, 2012, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
entered an order consolidating the four Delaware actions under the
caption In re Coventry Health Care, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 7905-CS, appointing the Employees'
Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands, the
General Retirement System of the City of Detroit, and the Police
and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit as Co- Lead
Plaintiffs.  On October 5, 2012, plaintiffs in the consolidated
Delaware action filed a motion for expedited proceedings, and on
October 10, 2012, plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware action
filed a motion to preliminarily enjoin the defendants from taking
any action to consummate the merger.  The parties have since
reached agreement on the schedule for those proceedings, which was
entered by order of the Court on October 12, 2012.  Pursuant to
that scheduling order, a hearing on plaintiffs' preliminary
injunction motion has been scheduled for November 20, 2012.

One of the conditions to completion of the merger is the absence
of any applicable law (including any order) being in effect that
prohibits completion of the merger.  Accordingly, if a plaintiff
is successful in obtaining an order prohibiting completion of the
merger, then such order may prevent the merger from being
completed, or from being completed within the expected timeframe.


AT&T: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that AT&T stiffed information
technology managers for overtime for four years, a class action
claims in Alameda County Court.


BARNEY'S BARN: Faces Overtime & Minimum Wage Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that employees of an Arkansas
strip club say in a federal class action that club owners stiffed
them for overtime and minimum wages.

Nicole Collins and six other named plaintiffs say Barney's Barn
dba Peaches Gentleman's Club, of Jacksonville, paid no wages at
all to exotic dancers, but forced them to pay unlawful sums just
to work there.

Employees who did not strip also were paid less than minimum wage,
according to the 55-page complaint.

"Defendant paid all waitresses and bartenders $2.00 an hour in
'under-the-table' cash, rather than $2.63 per hour required under
the [Arkansas Minimum Wage Act]," the complaint states.

"Defendant paid all workers other than dancer plaintiffs,
waitresses, and bartenders a 'flat fee' in 'under-the-table' cash
for each shift worked, regardless of the hours that those persons
worked, often resulting in an hourly rate of $5.41 per hour or
less-i.e., far short of both the federal ($7.25) and the Arkansas
state ($6.25) minimum wages and providing no compensation at all
for overtime."

The four dancer plaintiffs say they worked as long as 12 hours a
night, up to 72 hours each week.

Plaintiff Chris Cruthis says he was paid a $65 flat fee each night
to work as a bouncer.

Plaintiff Marcus Stevens said he got a $75 flat fee each night to
work as a disc jockey.

Both men say the club's owners refused to given them any W-2 or
1099 tax forms.

A similar class action was filed by a Dallas-area exotic dancer in
September, who claimed the owners of Baby Dolls Topless Saloons
stiffed her on wages, forced her to live off of tips and to pay a
"house fee" for the right to work there.

The Barney's Barn employees seek actual and punitive damages for
violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act and unjust enrichment.

They are represented by Josh Sanford of Little Rock.


BOLTHOUSE FARMS: Recalls Bolthouse Farms(R) 16-Oz. Carrot Chips
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bolthouse Farms is voluntarily recalling a limited quantity of
Bolthouse Farms(R) 16-ounce Carrot Chips following a routine
sampling event, conducted on October 22, 2012, by a North Carolina
health official.  The Company was notified on October 31, 2012,
that the inspection detected the possibility of Salmonella in the
single 16-ounce bag that was tested.  Bolthouse Farms has not
received any reports of consumer illness or other consumer
complaints related to this product.

Out of an abundance of caution, Bolthouse Farms is retrieving the
Carrot Chips from the marketplace.

No other Bolthouse Farms products are affected by this recall.

Approximately 5,600 cases of the 16-ounce bags shipped to retail
customers in the United States and Canada are being recalled.  The
affected product is labeled as Bolthouse Farms Carrot Chips,
Safeway Farms Carrot Chips, or Farm Stand Carrot Chips and has the
following information and codes on the front right corner of the
bags:

   * Bolthouse Farms
     BEST IF
     USED BY
     NOV 12 2012
     04 T XXXX
     BF 212 J11
     UPC 71464 17209

   * Bolthouse Farms
     BEST IF
     USED BY
     NOV 13 2012
     04T XXXX
     BF 212 J 12
     UPC 71464 17209

   * Safeway Farms*
     BEST IF
     USED BY
     NOV 13 2012
     06 T XXXX S2682
     BF 212 J12 286
     UPC 21130 70217

   * Farm Stand
     BEST IF
     USED BY
     NOV 12-13 2012
     04 T XXXX
     BF 212 J11-12
     UPC 41163 45311

*Safeway Farms Carrot Chips are sold in Safeway stores in
Ketchikan, Alaska; Arizona; California; Hawaii; Idaho; Montana;
Nevada; New Mexico; Oregon; and Washington State, as well as Carrs
stores in Juneau, Alaska; Pak 'N Save stores in California;
Randalls stores in Texas and Tom Thumb stores in Texas.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm326786.htm

Consumers who have purchased these Carrot Chips with these codes
and best by dates should not eat the product.  Consumers are
encouraged to return the product to the store where they purchased
it for an exchange or full refund.  Consumers also can contact
Bolthouse Farms at 1-866-535-3774 (24-hours a day through Monday,
November 5, 2012) for more information.

Salmonella is an organism that can cause a foodborne illness.
Symptoms of infection include diarrhea, fever and abdominal cramps
12 to 72 hours after infection.  The illness usually lasts four to
seven days, and most persons recover without treatment.

                      About Bolthouse Farms

Bolthouse Farms is a farm located in California's fertile San
Joaquin Valley, known for high-quality consumer brands and
innovative products.  Bolthouse Farms is a market share leader in
growing and distributing carrots.  In addition, Bolthouse Farms
produces and sells super-premium juices, smoothies, protein shakes
and cafe beverages under the Bolthouse Farms brand name.  In
recent years, Bolthouse Farms diversified its offerings by
launching a line of premium refrigerated yogurt dressings and
extra virgin olive oil vinaigrettes.  The Bolthouse Farms mission
is to Inspire the Fresh Revolution(TM) and change the way people
consume healthy foods and beverages.  The Company was acquired by
Campbell Soup Company on August 6, 2012.  To learn more about the
Company's mission and see the entire line of current products,
visit http://www.bolthouse.com/


BP: 2,300 Potential Plaintiffs Opt Out of Oil Spill Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kunzelman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
the architects of a proposed class-action settlement of claims
spawned by the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico are confident it
won't be derailed by thousands of businesses and individuals
opting out of the deal.

Nov. 1 was the deadline for claimants to postmark written requests
to opt out of the multibillion-dollar pact between BP PLC and a
team of plaintiffs' attorneys.

Patrick Juneau, administrator of the court-supervised claims
process, said roughly 2,300 potential plaintiffs had asked to opt
out as of Oct. 31.  But Mr. Juneau said a final number won't be
known until early this week.  And some of the opt-out requests are
coming from people who aren't eligible to participate in the
settlement, he added.

BP has the right to terminate the settlement agreement if an
undisclosed number of claimants opt out of the deal.

Steve Herman, one of the lead plaintiffs' attorneys, said in an
e-mail that he sees "very little chance" that the deal will fall
apart based on the number of opt outs.

"Compared to the thousands and thousands of claims that have been
filed, and recognized, the number of opt outs is very low,"
Mr. Herman wrote.  "In fact, many of the objections are from
people who are outside of the settlement that want to get into the
deal."

BP estimates it will pay $7.8 billion to resolve claims through
the uncapped settlement of economic damage and medical claims from
the 2010 disaster.

BP spokesman Scott Dean said the company believes the agreement is
"an historic resolution that is fair and reasonable and amply
meets all the legal requirements for final approval" by U.S.
District Judge Carl Barbier.  The judge will decide whether to
give it his final approval following a "fairness hearing" on
Nov. 8.

"The settlement is a superior alternative to continued lengthy
litigation, provides numerous unique claimant-friendly benefits,
and fulfills BP's commitment to pay all legitimate claims stemming
from the Deepwater Horizon accident," Mr. Dean said in a
statement.

Roughly 75,000 new claims have been filed since the court-
supervised claims process took over for the Gulf Coast Claims
Facility, which was administered by Kenneth Feinberg.  Mr. Juneau
said his team has made offers to nearly 11,500 eligible claimants
worth a total of more than $861 million.  About 97 percent of the
claimants who responded to those offers have accepted them, he
added.

"I've never heard of one being this high," Mr. Juneau said of that
acceptance rate.  "I think it speaks to the claimants' view of the
program."

Some attorneys with large stables of clients have a dimmer view of
the deal, however.

Brent Coon, a Houston-based lawyer, said roughly 5,000 of his
14,000 clients with spill-related claims will ask to opt out of
the settlement.  Mr. Coon said most of them haven't received
offers from Juneau's team and don't know how much money, if any,
they stand to receive.

"The biggest problem with the class is there is no certainty," he
said.  "I can't tell clients to stay in the class when I can't
tell if they're going to be paid or not."

During a recent hearing, Judge Barbier warned claimants that it
could take years for them to resolve their claims if they opt out
of the settlement and pursue their cases individually.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Agrees to Settle AWP Suits of Miss. and La. AGs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company disclosed in its October 24, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2012, that it has reached
agreements in principle to resolve the lawsuits over average
wholesale prices brought by the Mississippi and Louisiana
Attorneys General.

The Company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of private class
actions as well as lawsuits brought by the attorneys general of
various states.  In these actions, plaintiffs allege that
defendants caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of their
products to be inflated, thereby injuring government programs,
entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs based on
AWPs.  The Company remains a defendant in four state attorneys
general lawsuits pending in state courts around the country.
Beginning in August 2010, the Company was the defendant in a trial
in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth Court),
brought by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  In September 2010,
the jury issued a verdict for the Company, finding that the
Company was not liable for fraudulent or negligent
misrepresentation; however, the Commonwealth Court judge issued a
decision on a Pennsylvania consumer protection claim that did not
go to the jury, finding the Company liable for $28 million and
enjoining the Company from contributing to the provision of
inflated AWPs.  The Company has moved to vacate the decision and
the Commonwealth has moved for a judgment notwithstanding the
verdict, which the Commonwealth Court denied.  The Company has
appealed the decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The Company has reached agreements in principle to resolve the
lawsuits brought by the Mississippi and Louisiana Attorneys
General.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Abilify* Co-Pay Program Suit Dismissal Bid Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company's motion to dismiss an antitrust
class action lawsuit remains pending in New York, according to the
Company's October 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

In March 2012, the Company and its partner Otsuka Pharmaceutical
Co., Ltd. were named as co-defendants in a putative class action
lawsuit filed by union health and welfare funds in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY).
Plaintiffs are challenging the legality of the Abilify* co-pay
assistance program under the Federal Antitrust and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations laws, and seeking damages.
The Company and Otsuka have filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess
the outcome of this litigation or its potential impact on the
Company.

The Company has a worldwide commercialization agreement with
Otsuka to codevelop and copromote ABILIFY* for the treatment of
schizophrenia, bipolar mania disorder and major depressive
disorder.


CASCADE CORP: Being Sold to Toyota for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Cascade Corp. is selling
itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Toyota to benefit
Cascade insiders, for $65 a share or $759 million, a union pension
fund claims in Multnomah County Court.


CASH 4: Judge Awards $4MM Attorneys' Fees in Ponzi Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deshayla Strachan at Courthouse News Service reports that a
federal judge awarded about $4 million in attorneys' fees and
costs to a class that sued over the massive Ponzi scheme operated
by Cash 4 Titles.

The Securities and Exchange Commission shut down the scam, which
was also known as C4T Management, in 1999.  Regulators said the
bond-marketing scheme bilked 2,500 investors for $315 million.

Two years later, the Bank of Bermuda offered $67.5 million to
settle a lawsuit filed by the court-appointed receiver and a class
action filed in Florida by lead plaintiff Robert Wolf, according
to the SEC.

U.S. District Judge James Cohn noted that an amended default
judgment entered in 2007 gave Mr. Wolf and the other plaintiffs
$330 million in treble damages.  In the litigation to enforce that
judgment, the defendants transferred $14 million to class counsel
in March 2012.

Two months later, the court entered an order awarding fees and
expenses that granted the class a fee advancement of $1 million.

Judge Cohn granted their demand on Oct. 25 for more than $3.7
million in attorneys' fees and $112,000 for out-of-pocket
expenses.

"Class counsel worked solely on a contingency basis, and were
therefore fully exposed to the risk of an adverse outcome," the
decision states.  "They not only had to win a judgment in this
Court, but also had to litigate in Bahamian courts to ensure
recovery.  They logged 7,753 billable hours on this case, and the
fee requested represents only a 1.4% multiplier over the ordinary
time value of those hours."

A copy of the Order Adopting Report and Recommendation Regarding
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses in Wolff, et al. v.
Cash 4 Titles, et al., Case No. 03-cv-22778 (S.D. Fla.), is
available at:

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/11/02/Cash%204%20Titles.pdf


CHAMPION POWER: Recalls 8.6T Portable Generators Due to Fire Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Champion Power Equipment, of Santa Fe Springs, California,
announced a voluntary recall of about 8,600 portable generators.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Fuel can leak from the generator's carburetor, posing a fire
hazard.

There have been 11 reports of fuel leaking from the generators,
including eight reports of the generators catching fire and two of
property damage.

This recall involves two models of Champion Power Equipment
portable generators.  Both models have a black frame with black
and yellow control panels, a bar handle and two wheels.

Model number 41332 has an open frame.  The words "Champion Power
Equipment" are on the control panel and "8250 starting watts" and
"6500 running watts" are on the side of the fuel tank.

Model number 41532 has side panels that cover the long sides of
the fuel tank.  The words "Champion Power Equipment" are on the
side panel above the control panel, and "9000 starting watts" and
"7000 running watts" are on the control panel.

The model number and serial number are located on the side of the
generator with the handle, on a tag on the crossbar above the
yellow generator end cap.

   Model
   Number         Serial Number Ranges
   ------     ----------------------------
   41332      11NOV2600701 to 11NOV2601500

   41532      11NOV1400151 to 11NOV1400360
              11DEC0700001 to 11DEC0700720
              11DEC1301077 to 11DEC1402602
              11DEC2201801 to 11DEC2203600
              11DEC2501531 to 11DEC2503330
              11DEC2801073 to 11DEC2801325

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13026.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Costco Wholesale stores nationwide from December
2011 through July 2012 for about $699.

Consumers should stop using the recalled generators immediately
and contact Champion Power Equipment for a free repair kit to be
installed by an authorized dealer.  The consumer may also return
the unit to Costco for a full refund.  Champion Power Equipment;
toll-free at (855) 236-9424, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pacific
Time Monday through Friday, e-mail support@cpeauto.com, or online
at http://www.championpowerequipment.com/,then click on the red
"Important Product Recall Notice" link for more information.


CHARLEE BEAR: Recalls "Protein Crunch Bars" Due to Health Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charlee Bear Products announced that it is voluntarily recalling
certain lots of its Protein Crunch Bar products because they have
the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.

The following products are being recalled:

   * Charlee Bear Protein Crunch Bars -- Chicken Recipe with
     Carrots

     - 5.5 oz packages; UPC Code: 8710890000
     - Lot number 19812; Best by date: 07-16-2015
     - Lot number 19912; Best by date: 07-17-2015
     - Lot number 20012; Best by date: 07-18-2015
     - Lot number 20212; Best by date: 07-20-2015

   * Charlee Bear Protein Crunch Bars -- Chicken Recipe with
     Sweet Potatoes

     - 5.5 oz packages; UPC Code: 8710890001
     - Lot number 20112; Best by date: 07-19-2015

There have been no reported animal or human illnesses related to
these products.

The potential for contamination was noted after a finished product
sample of Protein Crunch Bars -- Chicken Recipe with Carrots (Lot
no. 19812) tested positive for the presence of Salmonella.
Charlee Bear is recalling that lot number and, out of an abundance
of caution, the additional lot numbers identified above, all of
which are manufactured by a contract manufacturer that is not
otherwise involved in the production of any other products in the
Charlee Bear line.

Please note that this recall applies only to these lots of Charlee
Bear Protein Crunch Bars.

The recalled Charlee Bear Protein Crunch Bars were distributed
nationally in September and October 2012.

Pets with Salmonella infections may have decreased appetite, fever
and abdominal pain.  If left untreated, pets may be lethargic and
have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever and vomiting.  Infected
but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other
animals or humans.  If your pet has consumed the recalled product
and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

Individuals handling contaminated product can become infected with
Salmonella, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their
hands after having contact with surfaces exposed to this product.
Healthy people who believe they may have been exposed to
Salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the
following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea,
abdominal cramping and fever.  According to the Centers for
Disease Control, people who are more likely to be affected by
Salmonella include infants, children younger than 5 years old,
organ transplant patients, people with HIV/AIDS and people
receiving treatment for cancer.

No illnesses have been reported to date in animals or humans in
connection to these products.

Consumers who have purchased these specific recalled lots of
Charlee Bear Protein Crunch Bars are urged to return them to the
place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions
should visit http://www.charleebear.com/,e-mail
info@charleebear.com or call 1-800-396-8893.

At Charlee Bear, providing safe, wholesome, nutritious all-natural
products is the Company's top priority.  The Company apologizes
for any inconvenience this voluntary recall may have caused and is
working diligently to address the situation.

Lot codes appear below the UPC on the back panel.

   * UPC Codes: 8710890000 or 8710890001

     - Lot 19812, Best By 07/16/2015
     - Lot 19912, Best By 07/17/2015
     - Lot 20012, Best By 07/18/2015
     - Lot 20212, Best By 07/20/2015
     - Lot 20112, Best By 07/19/2015

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm326664.htm


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Faces Suits Over Proposed Shaw Group Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. is facing shareholder class
action lawsuits arising from its proposed acquisition of The Shaw
Group Inc., according to the Company's October 24, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On July 30, 2012, the Company entered into a definitive agreement
(the "Transaction Agreement") to acquire The Shaw Group Inc.
("Shaw") (the "Transaction") for an estimated purchase price of
$3.2 billion.  Pursuant to the Transaction Agreement, at the
effective time of the Transaction (the "Transaction Closing
Date"), each issued and outstanding share of common stock, no par
value, of Shaw (other than any dissenting shares, treasury shares,
or shares held by Shaw, CB&I or their respective subsidiaries)
will be cancelled and extinguished and converted into the right to
receive (i) $41.00 in cash and (ii) an amount of cash in Euros
equal to the par value of 0.12883 shares of CB&I common stock,
which cash will not actually be paid, but will instead be
converted automatically into 0.12883 of a share of CB&I common
stock immediately after the effective time of the Transaction (the
"Transaction Consideration").  Pursuant to the Transaction
Agreement, equity awards relating to shares of Shaw's common stock
will either be cancelled and converted upon the consummation of
the Transaction into the right to receive the Transaction
Consideration (or the cash value thereof) or will be converted
into comparable equity awards of CB&I common stock on generally
the same terms and conditions as prior to the Transaction.  The
Transaction is subject to approval by each company's shareholders,
along with the receipt of certain regulatory approvals and the
satisfaction of other customary closing conditions, and is
expected to close in early 2013.

In connection with the Transaction, purported shareholders of Shaw
have filed putative shareholder class action lawsuits against
Shaw, CB&I, and the directors of Shaw.  Among other remedies, the
plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Transaction. The outcome of any such
litigation is uncertain.  If the cases are not resolved, the
Company says these lawsuits could prevent or delay completion of
the Transaction and result in substantial costs to Shaw and CB&I,
including any costs associated with the indemnification of
directors and officers.  Plaintiffs may file additional lawsuits
against Shaw, CB&I and/or the directors and officers of either
company in connection with the Transaction. The defense or
settlement of any lawsuit or claim that remains unresolved at the
time the Transaction is completed may adversely affect the
combined company's business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows.


CHINA TRANSINFO: Agrees to Settle TransCloud Merger-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
China TransInfo Technology Corp. disclosed in its October 24,
2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission that it entered into an agreement in principle
regarding settlement of certain litigation related to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among the Company, TransCloud
Company Limited ("Parent"), and TransCloud Acquisition, Inc.
("Merger Sub"), dated as of June 8, 2012 (the "Merger").

Three putative class action complaints related to the Merger were
filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Nevada.  Each of
the lawsuits was filed against, among others, the Company and
certain directors of the Company.  On February 24, 2012, Oswald
Velz brought a stockholder class action against the Company and
others in connection with the proposed going private transaction,
alleging that the consideration of the proposed transaction was
grossly inadequate and that Mr. Shudong Xia had breached his
fiduciary duties to the stockholders (Case No.: A-657022).  On
March 1, 2012, Tim Valles brought a stockholder class action
against the Company and others in connection with the proposed
transaction, alleging that the board of directors of the Company
had breached its fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders
(Case No.: A-12-657443-C).  On March 6, 2012, Carl M. Domitrovich
brought a stockholder class action against the Company and others
in connection with the proposed transaction, alleging that the
consideration for the proposed transaction was grossly inadequate
and that the board of directors had breached its fiduciary duties
to the stockholders (Case No.: A-12-657440-C).

On July 13, 2012, the three putative class actions were
consolidated (the "Consolidated Action") under the caption In re
China TransInfo Technology Corp. Shareholders' Litigation
(Consolidated Case No.: A-12-657022-B).  The operative complaint
generally alleges, among other things, that the consideration for
the proposed transaction is grossly inadequate and that the
Company and certain officers and directors of the Company breached
their fiduciary duties.  The operative complaint seeks, among
other things, to enjoin consummation of the Merger.

On October 18, 2012, counsel for the parties in the Consolidated
Action reached an agreement in principle under which they agreed
on the terms of a settlement of all claims relating to the Merger.
In connection with the settlement contemplated by that agreement
in principle, the Consolidated Action and all claims therein will
be dismissed with prejudice.  The terms of the settlement
contemplated by that agreement in principle require that the
Company make certain supplemental disclosures to its Definitive
Proxy Statement filed with the SEC on September 25, 2012, which
supplements are contained in this Current Report on Form 8-K.  The
agreement in principle further contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to
customary conditions, including court approval following notice to
China TransInfo's stockholders.  The proposed settlement is
conditioned upon, among other things, consummation of the Merger
and final approval of the proposed settlement by the court.  In
addition, in connection with the settlement and as provided in the
stipulation of settlement, defendants will be released by the
plaintiffs from all claims arising out of the Merger and the
transactions contemplated by the Merger.  There can be no
assurance that the Merger will be consummated, or that the court
will approve the settlement contemplated by the stipulation.  In
such event, the proposed settlement may be terminated.  The
settlement will not affect the amount of the merger consideration
that Company stockholders are entitled to receive in the Merger.
If the settlement is not approved and the aforementioned
conditions are not satisfied, the Company and the individual
defendants will continue to vigorously defend this action.

The settlement provides that the defendants deny that they engaged
in any wrongdoing, committed any violations of law or acted
improperly in any way, and believe that they acted properly at all
times and that the Consolidated Action has no merit, but wish to
settle the Consolidated Action in order to eliminate the
distraction of further litigation.

China TransInfo Technology Corp. is a provider of end-to-end
intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and related comprehensive
technology solutions servicing the transportation industry in
China.  The goal of the Company is to become the largest provider
of intelligent transportation system products and related
comprehensive technology solutions in China, as well as a major
operator and provider of value-added ITS and location based
services (LBS) to commercial clients and consumers in China.
Substantially all of its operations is conducted through its
Variable Interest Entities (VIE) that are PRC domestic companies
owned principally or entirely by its PRC affiliates.  Through its
VIE, the Company is involved in developing multiple applications
in highway ITS, urban ITS, commercial vehicles ITS plus LBS, and
to a lesser degree, in digital city, and land and resource filling
systems based on Geographic Information Systems (GIS),
technologies which are used to service both the public and private
sector.  The Company is based in Beijing, China.


COMMERCIAL BARGE: Still Awaits Dismissal of Louisiana Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Barge Line Company continues to await final dismissal
of class action lawsuits arising from a collision incident in
Mississippi River involving its subsidiary, according to the
Company's August 14, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

American Commercial Lines Inc. (ACL), the parent of Commercial
Barge Line Company (CBL), and its indirect wholly owned
subsidiary, American Commercial Lines LLC (ACL LLC), have been
named as defendants in the following putative class action
lawsuits, filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana:

  Austin Sicard et al on behalf of themselves and others
  similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin
  Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company, LLC, American
  Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-Baton Rouge
  Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4012, filed on July
  24, 2008;

  Stephen Marshall Gabarick and Bernard Attridge, on behalf of
  themselves and others similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime
  (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing
  Company, LLC, American Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New
  Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-
  4007, filed on July 24, 2008; and

  Alvin McBride, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
  situated v. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc.; Whitefin Shipping
  Co. Ltd.; D.R.D. Towing Co. LLC; American Commercial Lines
  Inc.; The New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association,
  Case No. 09-cv-04494 B, filed on July 24, 2009.

The McBride v. Laurin Maritime, et al. action has been dismissed
with prejudice because it was not filed prior to the deadline set
by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana.

The claims in the Class Action Lawsuits stem from the incident on
July 23, 2008, involving one of ACL LLC's tank barges that was
being towed by DRD Towing Company L.L.C. ("DRD"), an independent
towing contractor.  The tank barge was involved in a collision
with the motor vessel Tintomara, operated by Laurin Maritime, at
Mile Marker 97 of the Mississippi River in the New Orleans area.
The tank barge was carrying approximately 9,900 barrels of #6 oil,
of which approximately two-thirds was released.  The tank barge
was damaged in the collision and partially sunk.  There was no
damage to the towboat.  The Tintomara incurred minor damage.  The
Class Action Lawsuits include various allegations of adverse
health and psychological damages, disruption of business
operations, destruction and loss of use of natural resources, and
seek unspecified economic, compensatory and punitive damages for
claims of negligence, trespass and nuisance.  The Class Action
Lawsuits were stayed pending the outcome of the two actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana seeking exoneration from, or limitation of, liability
related to the incident as discussed in more detail below.

All claims in the Class Action Lawsuits have been settled with
payment to be made from funds on deposit with the Court in the
IINA and IINA and Houston Casualty Company interpleader, mentioned
below.  IINA is DRD's primary insurer and IINA and Houston
Casualty Company are DRD's excess insurers.  The settlement has
final approval from the court.  Settlement funds were provided to
claimants' counsel and the Company expects final dismissal of all
lawsuits against all parties will be entered with prejudice once
all the releases are signed.  Claims under the Oil Pollution Act
of 1990 (OPA 90) were dismissed without prejudice.  There is a
separate administrative process for making a claim under OPA 90
that must be followed prior to litigation. The Company is
processing OPA 90 claims properly presented, documented and
recoverable.  The Company has also received numerous claims for
personal injury, property damage and various economic damages loss
related to the oil spill, including notification by the National
Pollution Funds Center of claims it has received.  Additional
lawsuits may be filed and claims submitted, however OPA 90 has a
three year prescriptive period and any new claim filed after three
years would be subject to dismissal.

The Company is in early discussions with the Natural Resource
Damage Assessment Group, consisting of various State and Federal
agencies, regarding the scope of environmental damage that may
have been caused by the incident.  A suit was filed on July 22,
2009 in the Eastern District of Louisiana entitled Lloyd
Balliviero, d/b/a Buras Marina v. American Commercial Lines LLC,
Summit Environmental Services LLC, and Clean Harbor Environmental
Services, Inc. in Case No. 09-4464 seeking payment for "rental
cost" of its marina for cleanup operations.  ACL and ACL LLC have
also been named as defendants in the following interpleader action
brought by DRD's primary insurer IINA seeking court approval as to
the disbursement of the funds: Indemnity Insurance Company of
North America v. DRD Towing Company, LLC; DRD Towing Group, LLC;
American Commercial Lines, LLC; American Commercial Lines, Inc.;
Waits Emmet & Popp, LLC, Daigle, Fisse & Kessenich; Stephen
Marshall Gabarick; Bernard Attridge; Austin Sicard; Lamont L.
Murphy, individually and on behalf of Murphy Dredging; Deep Delta
Distributors, Inc.; David Cvitanovich; Kelly Clark; Timothy Clark,
individually and on behalf of Taylor Clark, Bradley Barrosse;
Tricia Barrosse; Lynn M. Alfonso, Sr.; George C. McGee; Sherral
Irvin; Jefferson Magee; and Acy J. Cooper, Jr., United States
District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, Civil Action 08-
4156, Section "I-5," filed on August 11, 2008. DRD's excess
insurers, IINA and Houston Casualty Company intervened into this
action and deposited $9,000 into the Court's registry. ACL LLC has
filed two actions in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana seeking exoneration from or
limitation of liability relating to the foregoing incident as
provided for in Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain
Admiralty and Maritime Claims and in 46 U.S.C. sections 30501,
30505 and 30511.  Tintomara interests and DRD also filed
limitation actions.  ACL made a claim for its damages against
Tintomara interests and DRD in their respective limitation
actions.  The Company has also filed a declaratory judgment action
against DRD seeking to have the contracts between them declared
"void ab initio." This action has been consolidated with the
limitation actions and stayed pending the outcome of the
limitation actions.  A trial on the ACL, Tintomara interests and
DRD limitation actions has been concluded and the Company is
awaiting the judge's decision on liability of the parties and
apportionment of ACL and Tintomara's damages.

On August 22, 2011, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana captioned United States of
America v. American Commercial Lines LLC and D.R.D. Towing, LLC,
Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-2076.  The action seeks damages of
approximately $25 million, including certain repayment to the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund for sums it paid related to the cleanup
of the oil spill and to certain claimants for damages cognizable
under OPA 90, a civil penalty under the Clean Water Act in an
amount to be determined at trial as well as a claim for natural
resources damages.  On July 25, 2011 an action was filed in the
25th Judicial District for the Parish of Plaquemines State of
Louisiana captioned Chuc Nguyen, et al. v. American Commercial
Lines, Inc. and its Insurers, ABC Insurance Company and Indemnity
Insurance Company of North America, No. 58936.  The action filed
by numerous commercial fishermen seeks damages for real or
personal property, loss of subsistence use of natural resources
associated with loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity.
The Company participated in the U.S. Coast Guard investigation of
the matter and participated in the hearings which have concluded.
A finding has not yet been announced. Although the Company has
made demand on DRD (including its insurers) and Tintomara
interests for reimbursement of cleanup costs, indemnification and
other damages sustained by the Company there is no assurance that
any other party that may be found responsible for the accident
will have the insurance or financial resources available to
provide such defense and indemnification. The Company has various
insurance policies covering pollution, property, marine and
general liability.  While the cost of cleanup operations and other
potential liabilities are significant, the Company believes it has
satisfactory insurance coverage and other legal remedies to cover
substantially all of the cost.

Commercial Barge Line Company's operations include barge
transportation together with related port services along the
United States Inland Waterways consisting of the Mississippi River
System, the Ohio River and the Illinois River and their
tributaries and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (collectively the
Inland Waterways) and marine equipment manufacturing.  CBL is a
wholly owned subsidiary of American Commercial Lines Inc. (ACL).


COSTAR GROUP: Awaits Okay of LoopNet Merger-Related Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
CoStar Group, Inc. awaits court approval of its settlement of a
consolidated merger-related class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's October 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

In May 2011, LoopNet Inc., the Board of Directors of LoopNet ("the
LoopNet Board") and/or the Company were named as defendants in
three purported class action lawsuits brought by alleged LoopNet
stockholders challenging LoopNet's proposed merger with the
Company.  The stockholder actions alleged, among other things,
that (i) each member of the LoopNet Board breached his fiduciary
duties to LoopNet and its stockholders in authorizing the sale of
LoopNet to the Company, (ii) the merger does not maximize value to
LoopNet stockholders, (iii) LoopNet and the Company have made
incomplete or materially misleading disclosures about the proposed
transaction and (iv) LoopNet and the Company aided and abetted the
breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the members of
the LoopNet Board.  The stockholder actions sought class action
certification and equitable relief, including an injunction
against consummation of the merger.  The parties have stipulated
to the consolidation of the actions, and to permit the filing of a
consolidated complaint.  In June 2011, counsel for the parties
entered into a memorandum of understanding in which they agreed on
the terms of a settlement of this litigation, which could result
in a loss to the Company of approximately $200,000.  The Company
anticipates that the payment will be made by December 31, 2012,
upon the court's final approval of the settlement.

CoStar Group, Inc. -- http://www.costar.com/-- provides
information/marketing services to the commercial real estate
industry in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France.
The Company was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Bethesda,
Maryland.


DUTCHESS COUNTY, NY: Sued Over Voter Registration Address Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-Hudson News reports that four college students have filed a
federal class action lawsuit against the Dutchess County Board of
Elections over Republican Commissioner Erik Haight's requirement
that college students must place their full local address on their
voter registration forms.

The students, from the Culinary Institute of America, Marist
College and Bard College, registered to vote and provided both
street and mailing addresses, but had their applications denied by
Mr. Haight because they did not list their specific on-campus
address, including dormitory room numbers.

The New York Civil Liberties Union said some 100 other students
were also denied the right to register, a number disputed by
Mr. Haight who earlier said it was closer to 50 students.  And he
said many of them properly filled out their forms after he made
the requirement known, and were duly registered.

The lawsuit seeks relief on behalf of the four individually named
students and all similarly situated students.  The students are
represented by the New York Civil Liberties Union and the law firm
of Lowenstein Sandler PC.

"Dutchess County has imposed an unconstitutional burden on the
fundamental right of college students to vote as residents of
their communities, where the are affected by the decisions of
local officials and which they regard as their primary places of
residence," said NYCLU Legal Director Arthur Eisenberg.  "The
right to vote is preservative of all other rights in a democracy,
and deserves the strictest constitutional protection possible."

Mr. Haight disputed the charges.  "Dutchess County BOE has a
longstanding policy since 2003 of requiring dorm names and room
numbers as do BOE's across the state," he said.  "We all know
students don't live inside a mailbox and are required to provide a
residence just like any other voter in Dutchess County.  We simply
don't register voters to PO Boxes and have always required a
residential address as required in New York State Election Law."

The NYCLU is seeking emergency action from the court so that all
students who seek to vote in the Oct. 30 election who registered
to vote may do so.  The hearing on the NYCLU's request for a
preliminary injunction was scheduled to take place at 10:00 a.m.
on Nov. 5 before Judge Karas in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District in White Plains.


EXPEDIA INC: Sued For Room Reservation Retail Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------
Laura Shames, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Expedia, Inc., Hotels.com LP; Travelocity.com LP,
Sabre Holdings Corporation, Priceline.com Incorporated,
Booking.com B.V., Booking.com (USA), Inc., Orbitz Worldwide, Inc.,
Hilton Worldwide, Inc., Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.,
Marriott International, Inc., Trump International Hotels
Management, LLC, Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC,
Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc., and John Does 1-
100, Case No. 3:12-cv-05444 (N.D. Calif., October 22, 2012) is an
antitrust action brought to challenge the Online Retailer
Defendants' conspiracy with the Hotel Defendants to enter into,
maintain and enforce minimum resale price maintenance ("RPM")
agreements.

The Online Retailer Defendants conspired with the Hotel Defendants
and agreed to impose an RPM scheme that would fix the retail price
for room reservations at the price the Hotel Defendants were
selling the Room Reservation ("Rack Rates") and restrain
competition for Room Reservations in the market for online
reservations, Ms. Shames alleges.  She contends that the
Defendants' agreements restrained price competition by requiring
the Hotel Defendants to impose, amend, enforce, and heighten
enforcement of minimum resale price maintenance agreements with
respect to price-cutting Online Retailers.

Ms. Shames is a resident of Wynnewood, Pennsylvania.  She
purchased a hotel room through Expedia for a room at the Hyatt
Vineyard Creek Hotel & Spa and paid an artificially inflated rate.

Expedia is a Delaware corporation based in Bellevue, Washington.
Hotels.com, an affiliate of Expedia, is a Texas limited
partnership headquartered in Dallas, Texas.  Travelocity.com , a
Delaware limited partnership based in Southlake, Texas, is owned
by Sabre.  Booking.com, a company based in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands, owns and operates Booking.com, the leading worldwide
online Room Reservations agency by room nights sold, attracting
over 30 million unique visitors each month via the Internet from
both leisure and business markets worldwide.  Booking.com is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Priceline.com.  Booking.com (USA) is a
Delaware corporation with its primary place of business in New
York.  Booking.com (USA) is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Priceline.com.  Priceline.com is a Delaware corporation based in
Norwalk, Connecticut.

Orbitz Worldwide is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois.  Sabre is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Southlake, Texas.  Intercontinental is a Delaware corporation
with its primary place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.  Starwood
is a Maryland corporation based in Stamford, Connecticut.
Starwood's hotels are primarily operated under the brand names St.
Regis(R), The Luxury Collection(R), Sheraton(R), Westin(R),
W(R),Le Meridien(R), Four Points(R) by Sheraton, Aloft(R)and
Element(R).  Marriott is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Bethesda, Maryland.  Trump International is a
Delaware limited liability company headquartered in New York.
Hilton is a Delaware company based in McLean, Virginia.  Kimpton
is a Delaware limited liability based in San Francisco,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1144 W. Lake St., Suite 400
          Oak Park, IL 60301
          Telephone: (708) 628-4949
          Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
          E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Howard J. Sedran, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: hsedran@lfsblaw.com


GENON ENERGY: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On October 24, 2012, GenOn Energy, Inc. ("GenOn") signed a
memorandum of understanding to settle the previously disclosed
shareholder class action lawsuit captioned In re GenOn Energy,
Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 7721-VCN
pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Merger
Litigation"), according to the Company's October 25, 2012, Form 8-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Merger Litigation relates to the Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of July 20, 2012, by and among NRG Energy, Inc., Plus
Merger Corporation and GenOn.  GenOn was scheduled to mail to its
stockholders on October 26, 2012, a Supplement to Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus in connection with the Merger Litigation.

As previously disclosed beginning on pages 37 and 101 of the Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus, thirteen lawsuits raising claims on
behalf of a purported class of GenOn stockholders were filed
against GenOn Energy, Inc., the members of the GenOn Board, NRG
Energy, Inc., and Plus Merger Corporation.  Nine of these thirteen
lawsuits (one of which was voluntarily dismissed) were filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Delaware court, and such
lawsuits were consolidated on August 24, 2012, as In re GenOn
Energy, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, the Delaware action.  Three
of the remaining actions were filed in Texas state court and
subsequently consolidated, and one was filed in Texas federal
court.

On October 24, 2012, the Company entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs in the Delaware
action, which sets forth the parties' agreement in principle for
settlement.  As explained in the MOU, to avoid the risk that the
Delaware action may delay or otherwise adversely affect the
consummation of the merger and to minimize the expense of
defending such action, the Company has agreed, pursuant to the
terms of the proposed settlement, to make certain supplemental
disclosures related to the proposed merger.  Subject to completion
of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to the plaintiffs,
the MOU contemplates that the parties will enter into a
stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of settlement will be
subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to the GenOn's stockholders.  In the event that
the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will
be scheduled at which the Delaware court will consider the
fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement.  As
explained in the MOU, if the settlement is finally approved by the
Delaware court, the parties anticipate that it will resolve and
release all claims in all actions (including those claims brought
in the Texas state actions and the Texas federal action) brought
on behalf of a non-opt out class of stockholders who held GenOn
common stock any time between and including July 20, 2012, and the
date of the consummation of the merger, that were or could have
been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed merger, the
merger agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to
final approval of the settlement.  In addition, in connection with
the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel
in the Delaware action will file a petition in the Delaware court
for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by GenOn
or its successor.  GenOn or its successor will pay or cause to be
paid any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Delaware
court.  The settlement will not affect the merger consideration.
There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the Delaware court will
approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.  In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.

Founded in 1982 and based in Houston, Texas, GenOn Energy, Inc. --
http://www.genon.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, provides
energy, capacity, ancillary, and other energy services to
wholesale customers in the energy market in the United States.  It
also operates as a wholesale generator of electricity; and
involves in asset management and proprietary trading, fuel oil
management, and natural gas transportation and storage activities.
The Company generates electricity using coal, natural gas, and oil
resources.  It operates 8 generating facilities with a total net
generating capacity of 6,341 megawatt in Maryland, New Jersey, and
Virginia; 23 generating facilities with a total net generating
capacity of 7,483 megawatt in Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania; 7
generating facilities with a total net generating capacity of
5,391 megawatt in California; and 8 generating facilities with a
total net generating capacity of 4,482 megawatt in Florida,
Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, and Texas.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Goldman Sachs
Group Inc. has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out a
mortgage securities class-action lawsuit that it said could cost
Wall Street tens of billions of dollars.

The bank is challenging a September 6 decision by the 2nd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in New York allowing the lawsuit, which
accuses it of misleading investors about the securities' risks.

That court let the NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund, which owned
some mortgage-backed certificates underwritten by Goldman, sue on
behalf of investors in certificates backed by mortgages from the
same lenders, but which the fund did not own itself.

Circuit Judge Barrington Parker wrote for a three-judge panel that
the NECA-IBEW fund could pursue these claims because they
"implicated the same set of concerns" as its own.

Goldman's lawyers argued that the 2nd Circuit created a direct
conflict with the federal appeals court in Boston, which in a
similar case involving Japan's Nomura Asset Acceptance Corp.,
found in January 2011 that a plaintiff could not pursue claims on
behalf of a class that it could not bring by itself.

The stakes are "difficult to overstate," according to an October
26 brief by Theodore Olson, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
and former U.S. solicitor general, who represents Goldman.

"In the context of mortgage-backed securities litigation in which
this case arises, the decision will effectively increase by tens
of billions of dollars the potential liability that financial
institutions face in this and similar class actions," he wrote.
"Moreover, the new standard threatens to expand the scope of class
actions in many other areas of the law."

A split among federal courts often increases the chance that the
Supreme Court will accept an appeal.

The NECA-IBEW fund serves electrical workers and is based in
Decatur, Illinois.  It has an opportunity to respond to Goldman's
filing. If the Supreme Court accepted Goldman's appeal, no
decision would likely be issued before the middle of 2013.

Joseph Daley and Arthur Leahy, partners at Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd who represent the NECA-IBEW fund, did not immediately respond
on Friday to requests for comment.

Goldman and its rivals have faced thousands of lawsuits by
investors seeking to recoup losses on mortgage securities.

Investors typically claim they were misled about the risks
relating to the underlying home loans, most of which were made
before or as the U.S. housing slump took hold in 2007.

The 17 offerings in the NECA-IBEW lawsuit dated from 2007, were
sold under the same registration statement, and contained loans
from many mortgage lenders.

According to court papers, the fund had bought certificates from
two Goldman-led offerings that contained loans from GreenPoint
Mortgage Funding, later part of Capital One Financial Corp., and
Wells Fargo & Co.

The 2nd Circuit let the NECA-IBEW fund represent investors in
these and five other offerings backed by GreenPoint or Wells Fargo
loans. It said the 10 other offerings were too different.

On Nov. 2, JPMorgan Chase & Co. urged a Manhattan federal judge to
put a similar case against it on hold while the Supreme Court
addresses Goldman's appeal.  That case is led by the Fort Worth
Employees' Retirement Fund in Texas.

Goldman's appeal is Goldman Sachs & Co et al v. NECA-IBEW Health &
Welfare Fund et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-528.


HALLIBURTON CO: Nov. 12 Fairness Hearing Set in the Macondo MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The multidistrict litigation court in the proceedings relating to
the Macondo well incident will convene a fairness hearing on
November 12, 2012, to consider two settlement agreements in the
case, according to Halliburton Company's October 23, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The MDL court has ordered the hearings on the certification of the
classes and fairness of the settlements to begin on November 12,
2012, with the initial phase of the MDL trial to commence in
January 2013.  The Company has objected to the settlements.

The semisubmersible drilling rig, Deepwater Horizon, sank on April
22, 2010 after an explosion and fire onboard the rig that began on
April 20, 2010.  The Deepwater Horizon was owned by Transocean
Ltd. and had been drilling the Macondo exploration well in
Mississippi Canyon Block 252 in the Gulf of Mexico for the lease
operator, BP Exploration & Production, Inc., an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of BP p.l.c.  Crude oil flowing from the well
site spread across thousands of square miles of the Gulf of Mexico
and reached the U.S. Gulf Coast.  There were eleven fatalities and
a number of injuries as a result of the Macondo well incident.

Halliburton performed a variety of services for BP Exploration,
including cementing, mud logging, directional drilling,
measurement-while-drilling, and rig data acquisition services.

Since April 21, 2010, plaintiffs have been filing lawsuits
relating to the Macondo well incident.  Generally, those lawsuits
allege either (1) damages arising from the oil spill pollution and
contamination (e.g., diminution of property value, lost tax
revenue, lost business revenue, lost tourist dollars, inability to
engage in recreational or commercial activities) or (2) wrongful
death or personal injuries.  The Company is named along with other
unaffiliated defendants in more than 400 complaints, most of which
are alleged class actions, involving pollution damage claims and
at least seven personal injury lawsuits involving four decedents
and at least 11 allegedly injured persons who were on the drilling
rig at the time of the incident. At least six additional lawsuits
naming the Company and others relate to alleged personal injuries
sustained by those responding to the explosion and oil spill.
Plaintiffs originally filed the lawsuits described above in
federal and state courts throughout the United States.  Except for
certain lawsuits not yet consolidated, the Judicial Panel on
Multi-District Litigation ordered all of the lawsuits against the
Company consolidated in the MDL proceeding before Judge Carl
Barbier in the United States Eastern District of Louisiana.  The
pollution complaints generally allege, among other things,
negligence and gross negligence, property damages, taking of
protected species, and potential economic losses as a result of
environmental pollution and generally seek awards of unspecified
economic, compensatory, and punitive damages, as well as
injunctive relief.  Plaintiffs in these pollution cases have
brought suit under various legal provisions, including The Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), The Clean Water Act (CWA), The
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (ESA), the Outer Continental Shelf Land (OCSLA),
general maritime law, state common law, and various state
environmental and products liability statutes.

Furthermore, the pollution complaints include suits brought
against the Company by governmental entities, including the State
of Alabama, the State of Louisiana, Plaquemines Parish, the City
of Greenville, and three Mexican states.  Complaints brought
against the Company by at least seven other parishes in Louisiana
were dismissed with prejudice, and the dismissal is being appealed
by those parishes.  The wrongful death and other personal injury
complaints generally allege negligence and gross negligence and
seek awards of compensatory damages, including unspecified
economic damages and punitive damages.  The Company has retained
counsel and is investigating and evaluating the claims, the
theories of recovery, damages asserted, and the Company's
respective defenses to all of these claims.

Judge Barbier is also presiding over a separate proceeding filed
by Transocean under the Limitation of Liability Act (Limitation
Action).  In the Limitation Action, Transocean seeks to limit its
liability for claims arising out of the Macondo well incident to
the value of the rig and its freight.  While the Limitation Action
has been formally consolidated into the MDL, the court is
nonetheless, in some respects, treating the Limitation Action as
an associated but separate proceeding.  In February 2011,
Transocean tendered the Company, along with all other defendants,
into the Limitation Action.  As a result of the tender, the
Company and all other defendants will be treated as direct
defendants to the plaintiffs' claims as if the plaintiffs had sued
each of the Company and the other defendants directly.  In the
Limitation Action, the judge intends to determine the allocation
of liability among all defendants in the hundreds of lawsuits
associated with the Macondo well incident, including those in the
MDL proceeding that are pending in his court. Specifically, the
judge will determine the liability, limitation, exoneration, and
fault allocation with regard to all of the defendants in a trial,
which is scheduled to occur in at least two phases beginning in
January 2013.  The initial two phases of this portion of the trial
are scheduled to cover issues arising out of the conduct of
various parties allegedly relevant to the loss of well control,
the ensuing fire and explosion on and sinking of the Deepwater
Horizon, the initiation of the release of hydrocarbons from the
Macondo well, the actions relating to the attempts to control the
flow of hydrocarbons from the well, and the quantification of
hydrocarbons discharged from the well. Subsequent proceedings
would be held to the extent triable issues remain unsolved by the
first two phases of the trial, settlements, motion practice, or
stipulation.  The Company does not believe that a single
apportionment of liability in the Limitation Action is properly
applied, particularly with respect to gross negligence and
punitive damages, to the hundreds of lawsuits pending in the MDL
proceeding.

Damages for the cases tried in the MDL proceeding, including
punitive damages, are expected to be tried following the portion
of the trial described.  Under ordinary MDL procedures, such cases
would, unless waived by the respective parties, be tried in the
courts from which they were transferred into the MDL.  It remains
unclear, however, what impact the overlay of the Limitation Action
will have on where these matters are tried. Document discovery and
depositions among the parties to the MDL are ongoing.  It is
unclear how the judge will address the DOJ's civil action for
alleged violations of the CWA and the OPA.

In April and May 2011, certain defendants in the proceedings
described above filed numerous cross claims and third party claims
against certain other defendants.  BP Exploration and BP America
Production Company filed claims against the Company seeking
subrogation and contribution, including with respect to
liabilities under the OPA, and direct damages, and alleging
negligence, gross negligence, fraudulent conduct, and fraudulent
concealment.  Transocean filed claims against the Company seeking
indemnification, and subrogation and contribution, including with
respect to liabilities under the OPA and for the total loss of the
Deepwater Horizon, and alleging comparative fault and breach of
warranty of workmanlike performance.  Anadarko filed claims
against the Company seeking tort indemnity and contribution, and
alleging negligence, gross negligence and willful misconduct, and
MOEX Offshore 2007 LLC (MOEX), who had an approximate 10% interest
in the Macondo well at the time of the incident, filed a claim
against the Company alleging negligence.  Cameron International
Corporation (the manufacturer and designer of the blowout
preventer), M-I Swaco (provider of drilling fluids and services,
among other things), Weatherford U.S. L.P. and Weatherford
International, Inc. (providers of casing components, including
float equipment and centralizers, and services), and Dril-Quip,
Inc. (provider of wellhead systems), each filed claims against the
Company seeking indemnification and contribution, including with
respect to liabilities under the OPA in the case of Cameron, and
alleging negligence.  Additional civil lawsuits may be filed
against the Company.  In addition to the claims against the
Company, generally the defendants in the proceedings described
above filed claims, including for liabilities under the OPA and
other claims similar to those described above, against the other
defendants described above.  BP has since announced that it has
settled those claims between it and each of MOEX, Weatherford,
Anadarko, and Cameron.  Also, BP and M-I Swaco have dismissed all
claims between them.

In April 2011, the Company filed claims against BP Exploration,
BP p.l.c. and BP America Production Company (BP Defendants), M-I
Swaco, Cameron, Anadarko, MOEX, Weatherford, Dril-Quip, and
numerous entities involved in the post-blowout remediation and
response efforts, in each case seeking contribution and
indemnification and alleging negligence.  The Company's claims
also alleged gross negligence and willful misconduct on the part
of the BP Defendants, Anadarko, and Weatherford.  The Company also
filed claims against M-I Swaco and Weatherford for contractual
indemnification, and against Cameron, Weatherford and Dril-Quip
for strict products liability, although the court has since issued
orders dismissing all claims asserted against Dril-Quip and
Weatherford in the MDL and the Company has dismissed its
contractual indemnification claim against M-I Swaco.  The Company
filed its answer to Transocean's Limitation petition denying
Transocean's right to limit its liability, denying all claims and
responsibility for the incident, seeking contribution and
indemnification, and alleging negligence and gross negligence.

Judge Barbier has issued an order, among others, clarifying
certain aspects of law applicable to the lawsuits pending in his
court.  The court ruled that: (1) general maritime law will apply
and therefore dismissed all claims brought under state law causes
of action; (2) general maritime law claims may be brought directly
against defendants who are non-"responsible parties" under the OPA
with the exception of pure economic loss claims by plaintiffs
other than commercial fishermen; (3) all claims for damages,
including pure economic loss claims, may be brought under the OPA
directly against responsible parties; and (4) punitive damage
claims can be brought against both responsible and non-responsible
parties under general maritime law.  As discussed, with respect to
the ruling that claims for damages may be brought under the OPA
against responsible parties, the Company has not been named as a
responsible party under the OPA, but BP Exploration has filed a
claim against the Company for contribution with respect to
liabilities incurred by BP Exploration under the OPA.

In September 2011, the Company filed claims in Harris County,
Texas against the BP Defendants seeking damages, including lost
profits and exemplary damages, and alleging negligence, grossly
negligent misrepresentation, defamation, common law libel,
slander, and business disparagement.  The Company's claims allege
that the BP Defendants knew or should have known about an
additional hydrocarbon zone in the well that the BP Defendants
failed to disclose to the Company prior to its designing the
cement program for the Macondo well.  The location of the
hydrocarbon zones is critical information required prior to
performing cementing services and is necessary to achieve desired
cement placement.  The Company believes that had the BP Defendants
disclosed the hydrocarbon zone to it, it would not have proceeded
with the cement program unless it was redesigned, which likely
would have required a redesign of the production casing.  In
addition, the Company believes that the BP Defendants withheld
this information from the BP Report and from the various
investigations discussed.  In connection with the foregoing, the
Company also moved to amend its claims against the BP Defendants
in the MDL proceeding to include fraud.  The BP Defendants have
denied all of the allegations relating to the additional
hydrocarbon zone and filed a motion to prevent it from adding its
fraud claim in the MDL.  In October 2011, the Company's motion to
add the fraud claim against the BP Defendants in the MDL
proceeding was denied. The court's ruling does not, however,
prevent it from using the underlying evidence in its pending
claims against the BP Defendants.

In December 2011, BP filed a motion for sanctions against the
Company alleging, among other things, that the Company destroyed
evidence relating to post-incident testing of the foam cement
slurry on the Deepwater Horizon and requesting adverse findings
against it.  A magistrate judge in the MDL proceeding denied BP's
motion.  BP appealed that ruling, and Judge Barbier affirmed the
magistrate judge's decision.

In April 2012, BP announced that it had reached definitive
settlement agreements with the PSC to resolve the substantial
majority of eligible private economic loss and medical claims
stemming from the Macondo well incident.  The PSC acts on behalf
of individuals and business plaintiffs in the MDL.  BP has
estimated that the cost of the pending settlement would be
approximately $7.8 billion, including payments to claimants who
opt out of the settlement, administration costs, and plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and expenses, and has stated that it is possible
the actual cost could be higher or lower.  According to BP, the
proposed settlement does not include claims against BP made by the
DOJ or other federal agencies or by states and local governments.
In addition, BP has stated that the proposed settlement provides
that, to the extent permitted by law, BP will assign to the PSC
certain of its claims, rights and recoveries against Transocean
and the Company for damages not recoverable from BP.  The Company
does not believe that its contract with BP Exploration permits the
assignment of certain claims to the PSC without its consent.

In April and May 2012, BP and the PSC filed two settlement
agreements and amendments with the MDL court, one agreement
addressing economic claims and one agreement addressing medical
claims, as well as numerous supporting documents and motions
requesting that the court approve, among other things, the
certification of the classes for both settlements and a schedule
for holding a fairness hearing and approving the settlements.  In
May 2012, the MDL court preliminarily and conditionally certified
the classes for both settlements and preliminarily approved the
proposed settlements. The MDL court has ordered the hearings on
the certification of the classes and fairness of the settlements
to begin on November 12, 2012, with the initial phase of the MDL
trial to commence in January 2013.  The Company has objected to
the settlement on the grounds set forth above, among other
reasons.  The Company is unable to predict at this time the effect
that the settlements may have on claims against it.

In October 2012, the MDL court issued an order dismissing three
types of plaintiff claims: (1) claims by or on behalf of owners,
lessors, and lessees of real property that allege to have suffered
a reduction in the value of real property even though the property
was not physically touched by oil and the property was not sold;
(2) claims for economic losses based solely on consumers'
decisions not to purchase fuel or goods from BP fuel stations and
stores based on consumer animosity toward BP; and (3) claims by or
on behalf of recreational fishermen, divers, beachgoers, boaters
and others that allege damages such as loss of enjoyment of life
from their inability to use portions of the Gulf of Mexico for
recreational and amusement purposes.  The MDL court also noted
that we are not liable with respect to those claims under the OPA
because the Company is not a "responsible party" under OPA.

The Company intends to vigorously defend any litigation, fines,
and/or penalties relating to the Macondo well incident and to
vigorously pursue any damages, remedies, or other rights available
to it as a result of the Macondo well incident.  The Company has
incurred and expects to continue to incur significant legal fees
and costs, some of which it expects to be covered by indemnity or
insurance, as a result of the numerous investigations and lawsuits
relating to the incident.


MALKIN HOLDINGS: Settles REIT Class Action for $55 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Ilaina Jonas, writing for Reuters, reports that the group leading
an effort to create a publicly traded company with the Empire
State Building as its centerpiece has agreed to pay $55 million to
settle a class-action lawsuit that sought to stop the deal,
according to a regulatory filing.

Malkin Holdings LLC, which plans to create the Empire State Realty
Trust Inc, and its partner, the estate of Leona M. Helmsley, were
sued by some investors in the more than 18 properties that will
constitute the proposed real estate investment trust.

The terms of the agreement, which includes investors in several of
the properties, were included in updated documents describing the
proposed REIT and filed on Nov. 2 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Under the proposed agreement, which must receive court approval,
neither the Malkin Group nor the estate will admit any guilt, and
the class participants have agreed to support the REIT and the
proposed initial public offering.

The fate of the REIT now rests in the hands of the more than 2,800
investors in the Empire State Building who must approve the
consolidation of the properties and the IPO.  Approval requires 80
percent of each of the three investor groups in that building.

A few investors, some of whose parents or grandparents invested in
the Empire State Building in 1961, do not like the plan.  Their
reasons vary.  Some opposed the 50-50 split between the management
company, whose main owner is the Helmsley Trust, and the
investors.  The management company holds a 114-year sublease on
the property.

Others do not want to own a publicly traded company and prefer to
remain a private real estate investor.

"I can't imagine any ESB investor changing a no vote to yes for
this extra 1 percent" said Richard Edelman who opposes the plan.
His grandparents were original investors in the Empire State
Building.

According to the proposed settlement contained in the filing, an
agreement, dated October 10, 2012, was reached after Malkin agreed
to align the tax treatment of the investors with his own.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs could not be reached for immediate
comment.

A representative from Malkin Holdings declined to comment.

Malkin proposed the REIT after the Helmsley Trust said it wanted
to sell its stake in the Empire State Building and its other
properties proposed for the REIT.

The payment and the settlement are conditional upon the approval
of the REIT and the IPO, according to the filing.


MERCK & CO: Settles Vioxx Class Action for Up to $220 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that drugmaker Merck & Co. Inc. has
reached a settlement in a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of
Missouri consumers who used the prescription pain reliever Vioxx
for treatment of arthritis conditions.

The settlement was over claims that New Jersey-based Merck
violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act through the
promotion and sale of Vioxx.  The agreement must still be approved
by Jackson County Circuit Court.

The settlement requires Merck to pay all validated claims
submitted by Missouri Vioxx users, along with attorneys' fees and
other costs.  All told, Merck could pay up to $220 million,
according to the agreement.

Merck admitted no wrongdoing in the settlement.

Vioxx was removed from the market in 2004 after evidence showed it
doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Athletes Fight Bid to Dismiss Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that current and
former student athletes insist that they have standing to sue the
National Collegiate Athletic Association as a class over the
refusal to compensate them for the use of their images.

In a 2009 class action, former UCLA basketball star Edward
O'Bannon claimed that the NCAA forced students to sign the
misleading Form 08-3a if they wanted to play NCAA sports.

The form "commercially exploits former student athletes" by giving
the NCAA the right to profit from their images without
compensation, long after the athletes have left school, according
to the complaint.

Athletes say that the NCAA, Electronic Arts and the Collegiate
Licensing Co. violated federal antitrust laws and conspired to
restrain trade by fixing their compensation at $0.

The plaintiffs seeking antitrust damages want the NCAA to disclose
revenue data from its members to calculate what they are owed.
But the NCAA claims that the information is privileged and not
relevant.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland, Calif., faces a
motion to certify two classes: a declaratory and injunctive relief
class of NCAA basketball or football players whose images were
used after they stopped playing college sports; and an "antitrust
damages" class of athletes whose images have been licensed or
sold.

The NCAA moved to strike, challenging the claims as legally and
procedurally defective.

In an opposition motion filed on Nov. 1, the antitrust plaintiffs
called the NCAA's maneuver "unprecedented, unwarranted, and
evidences a fundamental misunderstanding of how class actions
work."

"Tellingly, defendants cite no case in which a court has ever done
what defendants are asking this court to do -- strike a class
certification motion and supporting papers -- and this court
should not be the first," according to the filing authored by
Hausfeld attorney Michael Lehmann.

The athletes have confined their claims to those stemming from
game footage and likenesses used in video games.  They are not
pursuing claims related to bobblehead dolls or jerseys.

Though the NCAA says that the motion to certify the classes
differs significantly from the amended class action, the
plaintiffs say that the same antitrust claims are at issue.

The athletes also dispute the NCAA's claim that the court has
adopted the plaintiffs' inconsistent position, and the class
should be stricken under the doctrine of judicial estoppel.

"If the [antitrust plaintiffs] were secretly attempting to pursue
some broader case relating to live broadcast revenues, as
defendants now claim, then they gained no advantage from the very
limited discovery relating to television contracts that Magistrate
Judge Cousins and other judges granted," Mr. Lehmann wrote.

"The defendants will have another chance to attempt yet again to
dismantle this case in their upcoming dispositive motions," he
added.  "Therefore, consideration of their arguments here is
premature."

A copy of the Antitrust Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Strike
Motion for Class Certification and Supporting Papers in In Re NCAA
Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation, Case No. 09-
cv-01967 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/11/02/NCAA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          Arthur N. Bailey, Jr., Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery St., 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
                  abailey@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Hilary K. Scherrer, Esq.
          Sathya S. Gosselin, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
                  hscherrer@hausfeldllp.com
                  sgosselin@hausfeldllp.com


NRG ENERGY: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding last
month to settle a consolidated merger-related class action
lawsuit, according to the Company's October 25, 2012, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company says the purpose of its current report on Form 8-K is
to update the joint proxy statement/prospectus (the "Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus") included in the Registration Statement on
Form S-4, file No. 333-183334 (the "Registration Statement"),
filed by NRG Energy, Inc. ("NRG") with the SEC and declared
effective by the SEC on October 5, 2012, concerning the proposed
merger of NRG and GenOn Energy, Inc. ("GenOn").  The Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus was first mailed to the respective
stockholders of NRG and GenOn on or about October 10, 2012.

As previously disclosed beginning on pages 37 and 101 of the Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus, thirteen lawsuits raising claims on
behalf of a purported class of GenOn stockholders were filed
against GenOn Energy, Inc., the members of the GenOn Board, NRG
Energy, Inc., and Plus Merger Corporation.  Nine of these thirteen
lawsuits (one of which was voluntarily dismissed) were filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Delaware court, and such
lawsuits were consolidated on August 24, 2012, as In re GenOn
Energy, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, the Delaware action.  Three
of the remaining actions were filed in Texas state court and
subsequently consolidated, and one was filed in Texas federal
court.

On October 24, 2012, the Company entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs in the Delaware
action, which sets forth the parties' agreement in principle for
settlement.  As explained in the MOU, to avoid the risk that the
Delaware action may delay or otherwise adversely affect the
consummation of the merger and to minimize the expense of
defending such action, the Company has agreed, pursuant to the
terms of the proposed settlement, to make certain supplemental
disclosures related to the proposed merger.  Subject to completion
of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to the plaintiffs,
the MOU contemplates that the parties will enter into a
stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of settlement will be
subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to the GenOn's stockholders.  In the event that
the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will
be scheduled at which the Delaware court will consider the
fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement.  As
explained in the MOU, if the settlement is finally approved by the
Delaware court, the parties anticipate that it will resolve and
release all claims in all actions (including those claims brought
in the Texas state actions and the Texas federal action) brought
on behalf of a non-opt out class of stockholders who held GenOn
common stock any time between and including July 20, 2012, and the
date of the consummation of the merger, that were or could have
been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed merger, the
merger agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to
final approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection with
the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel
in the Delaware action will file a petition in the Delaware court
for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by GenOn
or its successor.  GenOn or its successor will pay or cause to be
paid any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Delaware
court.  The settlement will not affect the merger consideration.

There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the Delaware court will
approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.  In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.


RAYMOND-HADLEY CORP: Recalls Wegmans Brand Gluten Free Mixes
------------------------------------------------------------
The Raymond-Hadley Corp. of Spencer, New York, is recalling
Wegmans Gluten Free; Double Chocolate Brownie Mix, All Purpose
Baking Mix, Honey Cornbread Mix, and Chocolate Cake Mix because
they may be contaminated with the undeclared allergens Milk, Soy,
or Pecan.  People who have an allergy to these allergens run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

Wegmans brand GLUTEN FREE DOUBLE CHOCOLATE BROWNIE MIX 17.2 oz.,
GLUTEN FREE ALL PURPOSE BAKING MIX 16 oz., GLUTEN FREE HONEY
CORNBREAD MIX 16 oz., and GLUTEN FREE CHOCOLATE CAKE MIX 15.3 oz.
were all distributed in the United States through the Wegmans
retail stores.

The mixes are packaged under the Wegmans brand in chipboard boxes
with the following markings on the packages:

   * Wegmans gluten free double chocolate brownie mix 17.2oz.,
     UPC 077890283363, With Enjoy By Dates: 30 OCT 2013 through
     17 MAR 2014.

   * Wegmans Gluten Free All Purpose Baking Mix 16 oz.,
     UPC 077890303412, with Enjoy By Dates: From 26 Mar 2014
     through 24 Apr 2014.

   * Wegmans Gluten Free Honey Cornbread Mix 16oz.,
     UPC 077890303436, with Enjoy By Dates: 25 Mar 2014 through
     16 Apr 2014.

   * Wegmans Gluten Free Chocolate Cake Mix 15.3oz.,
     UPC 077890283332, with Enjoy By Dates: 30 Oct 2013 through
     12 Apr 2014.

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm326750.htm

The voluntary recall was initiated after it was discovered that
milk, soy, and pecan was found in the mixes in packaging that did
not reveal the presence of the allergens.  Subsequent
investigation confirms the allergens as a possible cross-
contaminate in a mix ingredient.

As of November 2, 2012, two reports of rash have been received.

Consumers who have purchased the product listed above are urged to
return it to Wegmans for a full refund.  Consumers with questions
may contact the manufacturer at 1-800-252-2220, Monday - Friday
8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.


REMINGTON GROUP: Markham Condo Buyers File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Niamh Scallan, writing for Toronto Star, reports that a group of
Markham condo buyers has filed a class-action lawsuit against a
developer for allegedly piling on thousands of dollars in what
they call unfair and last-minute charges.

A statement of claim was filed against The Remington Group -- the
key financial backer and developer named in Markham's ambitious
NHL-size arena plan -- and its alleged subsidiary companies on
behalf of condo buyers in Remington's 95-hectare mixed-used
development in downtown Markham.

According to the claim, which seeks more than C$5 million in
damages, the buyers were hit with about C$3,000 each in "increased
development charges" as closing day approached, a last-minute
demand that saw many pay undue fees.

"At that time, we had no choice.  We didn't question it," said
Samir Sa'd, a 69-year-old retiree who said he was surprised to
discover thousands of extra dollars in development charges when he
was buying a one-bedroom condo in Remington's Rouge Bijou Terraces
in 2006.

The Remington Group and its alleged subsidiaries, Rouge Residences
I Inc. and Rouge Residences II Inc., filed a notice of intent to
defend the claim with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
Sept. 28, 2011.  "The defendants intend to defend this action," it
said.

More than a year later, the lawyer representing Remington condo
buyers said the parties are nearing a settlement out of court.

"We are negotiating," said lawyer Sean Grayson with Roy Elliott
O'Connor LLP.  "I'm hopeful we will come to a settlement
relatively quickly . . . within the next couple of weeks."

Neither Remington Group nor the company's lawyer responded to
repeated requests for comment.

The class-action suit has come to light over the past few months
as news emerged of Remington's involvement in Markham's proposed
arena deal.  At a recent public meeting, residents brought up the
lawsuit and spoke about their experience of living in one of
Remington's first developments in the city's highly-touted
downtown.

According to Mr. Sa'd, the only plaintiff named in the class-
action suit, he and another buyer began to investigate the
adjusted charges on their condo agreements and, after discovering
"red flags," decided to pursue legal action.

The suit contends that one of Remington Group's subsidiary
companies prepaid the development charges -- a government fee that
goes toward anything from parks to sanitation systems to education
levies -- as a way to avoid increased rates over time.

When it came to closing day, the suit adds, buyers were charged
the closing-day rate, which had increased from the earlier
prepayment fee.  According to the statement of claim, the
developer paid roughly $300 for each unit, but charged buyers
around $3,000 when closing dates arrived.

While the purchase and sale agreement notes that fees may increase
to compensate for rising municipal levies or development charges,
the claim states the developer had no right to jack up the charges
given that the increase was not required by the City of Markham.

"It is a convention in the real estate industry that purchasers
are only to pay for the development charges that were incurred by
the developer," the claim notes.  "The payment is an unjust
enrichment."

According to Jim Baird, Markham's commissioner of development
services, the municipality sets the development fee based on
infrastructure needs in the area.  He said he couldn't speak
further about the lawsuit as the city is not involved.

In a separate case three years ago, two Remington condo buyers
took the developer to small claims court after they had allegedly
been charged an extra $7,680 to $11,283 for levy increases.  In
early 2011, the judge ruled in favor of the buyers and ordered
Remington Group to repay the levy increases as well as interest
and legal costs.

Two months after the ruling, however, Remington Group filed an
appeal and the parties later settled out of court for an
undisclosed amount.  Toronto lawyer Michael Carlson, who
represented both condo owners on the appeals, said he could not
discuss details of the settlement.

While the outcome is unknown, the case prompted an amendment to
the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act in January 2011 that
prevents developers from charging price adjustments unless they
pay the amount to the third party, which in this case would be the
City of Markham.

As a result of the regulation change, the scope of the current
class-action suit against Remington Group has been limited to
condominium developments with closing dates before 2011.

Mr. Sa'd, still waiting to hear whether the added charges for his
Rouge Bijou Terraces unit will be recouped, said he hoped for a
favorable outcome not just for the money, but as a matter of
principle.

"It's not a money issue," he said.  "It's unethical . . . they
should not take advantage of the little guy."


SMART & FINAL: Truck Drivers' Class Certification Bid Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the California Superior Court for the County
of Los Angeles on Oct. 26 denied class certification in an action
involving claims for alleged unpaid overtime, meal and rest break
violations, business expenses, inadequate wage statements, as well
as violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and the
Private Attorney General Act, commonly known as PAGA.

The proposed class action of over 150 "big rig" truck drivers for
the warehouse grocery store Smart & Final Inc. began in 2008.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Faces ERISA Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that an ERISA class action accuses
directors of SunTrust Banks of self-dealing in the banks' 401(k)
plan at the expense of employees, in Federal Court.


TENNESSEE COMMERCE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm on Nov. 2 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the securities
of Tennessee Commerce Bancorp, Inc. during the period from
April 18, 2008 through September 13, 2012, seeking to recover
damages from violations of federal securities laws.

To join the Tennessee Commerce class action, visit the firm's
Web site at http://rosenlegal.comor call Timothy Brown, Esq. or
Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail
tbrown@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against Tennessee Commerce and its officers and directors for
issuing false and misleading information to investors about the
Company's financial and business condition.  The lawsuit asserts
that defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose that the
Company had serious internal control deficiencies causing it to be
unable to monitor its loan portfolio; obtain up to date and
current appraisals of collateral; follow bank rules of procedures
relating to the Company's allowance for loan losses; and remediate
internal control deficiencies. Consequently, the complaint
alleges, the Company's financial statements were materially false
and misleading.  When this adverse information materialized,
Tennessee Commerce failed and the value of its securities became
worthless -- damaging investors.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE.  YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN
AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 2, 2013. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Timothy Brown, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at
tbrown@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.

Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Timothy Brown, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Weekends Tel: (917) 562-8616
         Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 tbrown@rosenlegal.com
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com


TYSON FOODS: Settles Wage Class Action for $950,000
---------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Tyson Foods, Inc. would pay
$950,000 under the proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit
covering roughly 1,200 workers at a Council Bluffs meat processing
plant who claimed wage violations, but most of the money would go
to their lawyers.

Federal court documents filed on Oct. 31 show Tyson Foods reached
the tentative agreement with attorneys representing the workers.
Both sides are asking for approval from U.S. District Judge John
Jarvey.

The deal would reimburse plaintiffs' lawyers $340,000 for the out-
of-pocket costs they incurred during the litigation and award
$309,000 in compensation for attorneys' fees.  At least three law
firms worked for the plaintiffs in the case, including attorneys
based in Philadelphia, San Francisco and Omaha.

Current and former hourly production workers at the beef and pork
processing plant could claim payments from a $271,000 settlement
fund, based on factors such as how long they worked, whether they
worked more than 40 hours per week, and the types of jobs they
held.  The named plaintiff, America Maxwell, would receive $5,000
while the settlement administrator would get $25,000.

The lawsuit claimed Tyson failed to compensate employees for time
and overtime they spent putting on, taking off and cleaning their
clothes and equipment and sharpening their knives before and after
shifts.  Tyson denied any violations of state and federal wage
laws, and the settlement would not be an admission of wrongdoing.

Judge Jarvey certified the lawsuit as a class-action in July,
ruling that employees dating back to April 29, 2006 could be
eligible to participate.  He is expected to hold a hearing on the
settlement proposal to consider any objections before giving final
approval.

Both sides agreed not to publicize the proposed settlement and to
say only that "the matter has been resolved to the mutual
satisfaction of the parties" in response to media inquiries.


VIA RAIL: Class Action Over Train Derailment Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Karena Walter, writing for QMI Agency, reports that a class action
lawsuit against Via Rail Canada on behalf of dozens of passengers
of a fatal train derailment near Aldershot, Ont., in February has
been certified by the court.

The decision announced on Nov. 1 means a multimillion-dollar class
action suit can proceed against the company and Canadian National
Railway Co.

The train was travelling from Niagara Falls, Ont., to Toronto on
Feb. 26 when it left the tracks at 3:30 p.m., killing three crew
and injuring several passengers.

Passenger Allison Von Wallis, 19, of St. Catharines, said she
joined the class lawsuit after learning the train had allegedly
been speeding.

"It was four times the speed limit," she alleged on Nov. 1.
"That's really ridiculous."

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada said in March the train
entered the crossover from Track 2 to Track 3 at approximately 107
km/h.  The maximum authorized speed at that spot is 24 km/h.

The locomotive and five coaches left the track at the point, with
the locomotive striking a building and being totally destroyed.

The lawsuit, filed March 1, is being led by Sandra Lundy of
Niagara Falls and a couple from Quebec.  Reached at home on
Nov. 1, Ms. Lundy said she wasn't commenting.

Shortly after the crash, Toronto lawyer Ted Charney said Ms. Lundy
had been treated with non-life threatening injuries after a number
of fellow passengers fell on top of her when the train crashed.

"We are determined to obtain justice for those whose lives were
altered by this terrible event," Mr. Charney said in a press
release Thursday, issued by the three law firms involved in the
suit.

"We believe the ruling brings us closer to resolving the matter."

The class action seeks $10 million in compensation for physical
and emotional injury, damage to property and loss of income for
approximately 68 passengers.

Mr. Charney is with law firm Falconer Charney LLP, which is acting
with Sutts, Strosberg LLP in Windsor, Ont., and Koskie Minsky LLP
of Toronto.

It's not known how many of the passengers on board the train were
from Niagara.

Von Wallis was returning to McGill University in Montreal in the
second coach of the train when it crashed.  She said she received
bruises and scratches and saw a counselor for anxiety attacks.

In the same coach was Katharine Yagi, 26, of Fonthill, Ont., who
was also heading back to McGill University where she's studying
for a PhD in biology.

Ms. Yagi, who was not injured in the crash, said she settled with
VIA earlier this year when it offered her C$3,000 and first-class
passes for travel.

She said she felt those who were actually injured should be
involved in the lawsuit and didn't want to seem greedy.  And as a
student she said she needed the money offered.

"I do think about it a lot," she said of the crash.  "It comes up
in conversations with people I haven't seen in a while."

"I did experience the whole wreck."


VISA: Merchant Community Rebukes Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
In objections served on Nov. 1 in the long-standing antitrust
litigation against Visa, MasterCard and the largest banks pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, a
majority of the named class plaintiffs strongly rebuked the
proposed interchange settlement and urged the court to deny its
preliminary approval.  The 10 named plaintiffs were joined by
nearly 1,200 small businesses and recognized brands that share the
view that the proposed settlement locks in the broken interchange
system rather than imposing meaningful reforms.

"The vocal opposition from such a substantial and diverse portion
of the merchant community demonstrates just how ineffective and
unacceptable this proposed settlement is," said Dave Carpenter,
president and CEO of J.D. Carpenter Companies and chairman of the
National Association of Convenience Stores.  "The proposed
settlement is simply a bad deal that further entrenches the
anticompetitive practices of the Visa and MasterCard duopoly and
denies merchants of their legal right to fight for real changes in
court."

The named class plaintiffs opposing the proposed settlement of the
case, which is known as "In Re Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation," are Affiliated Foods
Midwest, Coborn's, Inc., D'Agostino Supermarkets, Jetro Holdings
LLC, National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), NATSO,
National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), National
Cooperative Grocers Association (NCGA), National Grocers
Association (NGA), and National Restaurant Association (NRA).

The named class plaintiffs were joined in multiple briefs in the
action from a growing chorus of members of the merchant class,
including nearly 1,200 small businesses and recognized brands,
such as Abercrombie & Fitch Co., Alon, American Signature, Inc.,
Ascena Retail Group, Inc., AutoZone, Best Buy, Big Lots Stores,
Inc., Boscov's Department Store, LLC, Chico's FAS, Inc., CKE
Restaurants, Inc., Costco Wholesale Corp., Crate & Barrel,
Cumberland Farms, Dick's Sporting Goods, Dillard's, Inc., Dollar
General, Expedia, The Gap, Inc., Giant Eagle, IKEA, J.C. Penney
Corporation, Inc., Jo-Ann Stores, Kum and Go, Kwik Trip, Limited
Brands, Inc., Lowe's, Macy's, Inc., Michaels, The Neiman Marcus
Group, Inc., Papa John's International, Inc., Petco, REI
(Recreational Equipment, Inc.), RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc., Saks
Incorporated, ShopKo, Sports Authority, Starbucks, Target
Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wawa, Wendy's, and a variety
of associations including the American Booksellers Association,
and National Association of College Stores, National Retail
Federation, and Retail Industry Leaders Association.

"The  proposed settlement strips merchants of their legal rights
and will actually make the anticompetitive problems with credit
and debit cards worse than they are today," said NCPA CEO B.
Douglas Hoey, RPh, MBA.  "And, the settlement risks giving Visa
and MasterCard a free hand to strangle newly emerging competition
in the mobile payments market in the cradle."

Oral arguments before the court are scheduled for November 9.


WAYNE FARMS: Recalls 28,528 Lbs. of Frozen Chicken Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Farms Inc., a Decatur, Alabama establishment, is recalling
approximately 28,528 pounds of frozen, fully cooked, chicken
products because they may contain foreign materials -- pieces of a
plastic pen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The products subject to recall include:

   * 900-lb. combo cases containing thirty, 30-lb. bags of Wayne
     Farms, FULLY COOKED GRILL MARKED WHITE MEAT CHICKEN STRIPS

The products were produced on October 3, 2012.  The products bear
the USDA mark of inspection and the case codes "372277174001"
through "372277254005" on the label.  Three combo cases, one each
from September 6, 2012, September 19, 2012, and September 24,
2012, are also affected.  The products were distributed to a
facility in Kentucky for further processing into potential retail
products.

FSIS was alerted to the problem by Wayne Farms after the company
received complaints from a customer who discovered the foreign
matter while preparing to further process the product.  FSIS and
the company have received no reports of injury associated with
consumption of this product.  Anyone concerned about injury should
contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Alan Sterling, the Company's director of marketing and
communications, at (678) 450-3092.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-
MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and
can be reached from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday
through Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day.


WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls 31T lbs. of Organic Spinach and Spring Mix
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. is recalling approximately 31,000 lbs.
of Wegmans Organic Spinach and Spring Mix sold in 5 oz. (UPC 77890
16437) and 11 oz. (UPC 77890 16411) clam shell packages in the
produce department of its stores in New York, Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, Virginia, Maryland, and Massachusetts between October 14
and November 1 due to possible E.coli O157 H:7.

The product is supplied to Wegmans by State Garden, Inc. based in
Chelsea, Massachusetts.

The product, a blend of organic spinach and spring mix, has been
associated with 16 reported illnesses in New York State from
E.coli O157 H:7, which may cause a diarrheal illness, often with
bloody stools.  The symptoms usually appear about three days after
exposure, but can range from one to nine days.  Although most
people recover without specific treatment in five to 10 days, some
people can develop a form of kidney failure called Hemolytic
Uremic Syndrome (HUS).  HUS is most likely to occur in young
children and the elderly.  The condition can lead to serious
kidney damage and even death.  If you have consumed Wegmans
Organic Spinach & Spring Mix and have experienced any symptoms
such as diarrhea or abdominal cramps, please contact your health
care provider.

Wegmans has worked closely with the New York State Department of
Health and Department of Agriculture and Markets since learning
that illnesses may be associated with this product.

Test results indicate that only product with a use-by-date of
October 23 is connected to the reported illnesses, but out of an
abundance of caution Wegmans has removed all code dates of the
product from its stores and has placed phone calls to all
customers who purchased the product using their Shopper Club card,
regardless of the code date purchased.

Consumers who have purchased this product should discard any that
remains in their homes and visit the service desk at Wegmans for a
full refund.  Consumers with questions may contact Wegmans
consumer affairs department toll free at 1(800) WEGMANS (934-6267)
Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time.

Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. is an 81-store supermarket chain with
stores in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland,
and Massachusetts.


WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Pumpkin Rolls That May Have Plastic Pieces
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. is voluntarily recalling all code dates
of Wegmans Pumpkin Roll (sold in the Bakery), sold between
September 1 and October 30, 2012, because the product may contain
pieces of clear plastic from the packaging, which may be sharp or
could present a choking hazard.  The following sizes are included
in the recall:

   * Whole roll, 21 oz. -- UPC: 77890-99686
   * Half roll, 10 oz. -- UPC: 77890-36693
   * Two slices, 6 oz. -- UPC: 77890-36684

This product is sold in all of Wegmans 81 stores in New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and Massachusetts.

The recall was initiated by Wegmans following complaints by
customers who found the plastic pieces.

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.

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.


YAHOO! INC: Seeks Dismissal of E-Mail Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that
Yahoo has asked a federal judge to dismiss a putative class action
alleging that it intercepts, reads and records e-mails sent to its
subscribers.

The June 2012 federal complaint in San Jose, Calif., claims that
Yahoo intentionally intercepts e-mails sent by non-Yahoo
subscribers before relaying them to accountholders, in violation
of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).

Yahoo allegedly uses "devices and techniques" designed to examine
the words, content and thought processes contained within those
e-mails.

The case, led by named plaintiff Carson Penkava, is identical to
two others filed against Google that same month, alleging that the
Internet juggernaut violates California wiretapping laws by mining
for information it uses to push ads to end users.

Sacramento attorneys Clifford Carter and Kirk Wolden represent the
plaintiffs in all three cases.  Noting that discovery in the Yahoo
case is ongoing, they declined to say much about that suit, but
they gave some insight regarding Google.

"It's exactly the same thing," Mr. Wolden told Courthouse News.
"The case involves allegations Google is intercepting e-mails to
Gmail users before their delivery.  They are mining information so
they can deliver targeted ads to their users. Yahoo disputes they
are doing what Google is doing."

Yahoo's motion to dismiss, filed on Oct. 30, says that Penkava
failed to plead facts demonstrating it has violated CIPA. The law
does not address e-mail communications, Yahoo says.

"The CIPA is a state statute governing unauthorized 'wiretaps' and
'eavesdropping' of 'confidential' communications without the
'consent' of all parties," according to the motion authored by
Morrison & Foerster attorney Rebekah Kaufman.  "Nowhere do its
provisions purport to apply to e-mail communications, much less
the routine scanning and access of e-mails in which providers of
electronic communications services (ECS), like Yahoo!, necessarily
must engage to provide e-mail service to their users."

Yahoo further claims that the federal Electronic Communications
Privacy Act (ECPA) trumps state law regarding electronic
communications.  This law "comprehensively regulates how ECS
providers may use, store and access" e-mail communications,
according to the motion.

Congress "intended ECPA to preempt any parallel state legislation,
especially here where application of both the CIPA and ECPA would
subject Yahoo! to criminal penalties and conflicting regulations
in its nationwide provision of e-mail services to its users,"
Yahoo adds.  "Dismissal is proper on these grounds alone."

Yahoo also alleges that the class action violates the dormant
commerce clause in its "attempt to regulate e-mail communication
beyond California's borders."  It also says that the CIPA claim,
as pled, violates the due process and full faith and credit
clauses of the Constitution.

The motion also targets the complaint for failure to state a claim
under the CIPA for pre-delivery access of e-mails.

"Even if ECPA did not present a bar to plaintiffs' application of
the CIPA and there were no Constitutional, due process or
exterritorial concerns, plaintiffs' allegations are inadequate to
state a claim under the CIPA," Yahoo says.

If a judge does not dismiss the case, Yahoo wants the court to
instead strike class allegations.  It says there are individual
issues of fact and that common questions of law do not
predominate.

A hearing on the motions is scheduled for March 21, 2013.

A copy of Yahoo! Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss or,
in the Alternative, Strike Class Action Allegations in First
Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support
Thereof in Penkava v. Yahoo! Inc., Case No. 12-cv-03414 (N.D.
Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/11/02/Yahoo.pdf

Yahoo! Inc. is represented by:

          Rebekah Kaufman, Esq.
          Robert T. Petraglia, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          E-mail: RKaufman@mofo.com
                  RPetraglia@mofo.com

               - and -

          Marc J. Zwillinger, Esq.
          Jacob Sommer, Esq.
          ZWILLGEN PPLC
         1705 N. Street, NW
         Washington, DC 20036
         Telephone: (202) 706-5202
         E-mail: Marc@zwillgen.com
                 Jake@zwillgen.com


                           *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.




                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *