CAR_Public/121115.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, November 15, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 227

                               Headlines

AK STEEL: Hearing on Zanesville Retirees Suit Deal on Dec. 21
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Appeal From CO2 Suit Dismissal Still Pending
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Sup. Ct. to Hear Pro-Arbitration Arguments
BILLS: Faces Class Action Over Excesses Text Messages
BLIZZARD: Disputes Class Action Over Account Authenticator

CELLCOM ISRAEL: Provides Update on Network Malfunction Suit
CLEARWIRE CORP: Awaits Final Okay of "Minnick" Suit Settlement
CLEARWIRE CORP: Faces "Wuest" Class Action Suit in California
CLEARWIRE CORP: Got Prelim. Okay of "Dennings" Suit Settlement
CLEARWIRE CORP: Received Prelim. Approval of "Newton" Suit Deal

CLEARWIRE CORP: Settlement Negotiations in "Kwan" Suit Ongoing
EASTMAN KODAK: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
ELI LILLY: Awaits Dist. Ct. Ruling in Employee Suits in Indiana
FIRST AMERICAN: Class Suits Over Business Practices Still Pending
FOXBOROUGH, MA: Faces Class Action Over Protective Custody Policy

FREDERICK'S OF HOLLYWOOD: Mediation in "Weber" Suit on Nov. 29
FRISCH'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Suit Over Minimum Wage Act Violations
GOLD RESOURCES: Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
JIMMY DEAN: Recalls 1,110 Lbs. of French Toast & Sausage Sandwich
LINNCO LLC: Briefing & Hearing in Royalty Payments Suit Deferred

NAVISTAR CANADA: Awaits Hearing Results on Employee Class Action
ORLANDO, FL: Set to Appear in Court Over Red-Light Cameras
PFIZER INC: Settles Pristiq Class Action for $67.5 Million
PRINCE GEORGE, WA: Public Schools System Faces Class Action
SEI INVESTMENTS: Awaits Cert. Ruling in Stanford-Related Suit

SEI INVESTMENTS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ETF-Related Suit
SP AUSNET: New Courtroom Prepared for Bushfire Class Action
TELLABS INC: "Makor" Securities Suit Dismissed in June
TRAVELERS COS: Appeal From "Safeco" Suit Deal Approval Pending
TRAVELERS COS: Appeals From Antitrust Suit Deal Order Pending

TRAVELERS COS: Appeals in Asbestos-Related Suits Still Pending
UNION PACIFIC: Class Cert. Appeal in Antirust Suit Still Pending
ZYNGA INC: Continues to Face Securities Class Action Lawsuits


                          *********

AK STEEL: Hearing on Zanesville Retirees Suit Deal on Dec. 21
-------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing with respect to AK Steel Holding Corporation's
settlement of a class action lawsuit over changes to retirees'
health benefits has been scheduled for December 21, 2012,
according to the Company's October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On December 15, 2011, four former members of the Zanesville Armco
Independent Organization, now the United Autoworkers Union, filed
a purported class action against AK Steel in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1-
11CV00877 (the "Zanesville Retiree Action"), alleging that AK
Steel did not have a right to make changes to their healthcare
benefits.  The named plaintiffs in the Zanesville Retiree Action
sought, among other things, injunctive relief for themselves and
the other members of a proposed class, including an order
retroactively rescinding certain changes to retiree healthcare
benefits negotiated by AK Steel with its union.  The proposed
class the plaintiffs seek to represent consists of all individuals
who worked at AK Steel's Zanesville Works under collective
bargaining agreements negotiated between the union and AK Steel,
or a predecessor of AK Steel, and who retired from such employment
between 1960 and May 20, 2006, and whose negotiated health and
related benefits have been or may be improperly modified, amended
or terminated by AK Steel.  The proposed class also includes the
spouses, surviving spouses and/or eligible dependents of those
retirees.  On December 15, 2011, plaintiffs also filed a motion
for preliminary injunction, seeking to prevent certain scheduled
January 2012 changes to retiree healthcare for members of the
purported class from taking effect.  Because of timing issues, the
proposed changes were implemented in January 2012.  By mutual
agreement of the parties, however, AK Steel has agreed effective
February 1, 2012, and continuing through at least July 31, 2012,
to re-institute the contribution rates in effect in 2011 for all
Zanesville retirees who retired between February 1, 1984, and May
19, 2006.  As a result of that interim agreement, the Plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary injunction was dismissed without prejudice
as moot on
December 23, 2011.

In the third quarter of 2012, the Company reached a tentative
settlement agreement ("Class Settlement") with the retirees who
initiated the litigation.  The participants in the Class
Settlement consist generally of all retirees, as well as their
spouses, surviving spouses and/or eligible dependents, of those
retirees in the proposed class (collectively referred to
hereinafter as "Class Members").  Pursuant to the Class
Settlement, AK Steel will provide company-paid health and life
insurance to Class Members through December 31, 2015, at the
premium rates that were in effect in 2010.  The Company also will
make combined lump sum payments totaling $10.6 million to a
Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association trust (the "VEBA
Trust)" and to plaintiffs' counsel.  More specifically, AK Steel
will make three cash contributions to the VEBA Trust as follows:
$3.1 million on July 1, 2013; $3.1 million on July 1, 2014; and
$3.1 million on July 1, 2015.  The balance of the $10.6 million
will be paid to plaintiff's attorneys to cover plaintiffs'
obligations with respect to attorneys' fees.

Effective January 1, 2016, AK Steel will transfer to the VEBA
Trust all the Company's other postretirement benefit ("OPEB")
obligations owed to the Class Members under the Company's
applicable health and welfare plans and will have no further
liability for any claims incurred by Class Members after
December 31, 2015, relating to their OPEB obligations.  The VEBA
Trust will be utilized to fund all such future OPEB obligations to
the Class Members.  Trustees of the VEBA will determine the scope
of the benefits to be provided to the Class Members.

The Class Settlement is subject to final approval by the Court.
In connection with the settlement, on September 13, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed an unopposed Motion for an Order Conditionally
Certifying Classes, and the parties filed a Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Proposed Class
Notice.  On September 18, 2012, the Court held a hearing on these
motions and issued orders granting both motions on September 19,
2012.  Notice of the settlement was sent to all Class Members on
September 28, 2012.  The Class Members will be given the
opportunity to object to the settlement in writing and at a
hearing conducted by the Court to determine whether to approve the
settlement.  The deadline for filing objections to the settlement
was November 12, 2012.  A fairness hearing with respect to the
settlement has been scheduled for December 21, 2012.  The Court
will decide after that hearing whether or not to grant final
approval of the settlement.

If the Court does grant final approval of the settlement, a
judgment ("Judgment") approving the settlement will be entered.
The Judgment may be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit.  If such an appeal is still pending at the
time a payment is due from AK Steel to the VEBA Trust under the
terms of a settlement, the payment will not occur until the
Judgment approving the settlement is final and not subject to
further appeals or judicial review.  If the Judgment is not
approved on appeal, the Zanesville Retiree Action would return to
the trial court and the parties would continue to litigate whether
the Company has a right to reduce OPEB benefits provided to any
Class Members as to whom the settlement no longer applies.

Once the settlement is final and no longer subject to appeal, the
Company's only remaining liability with respect to the OPEB
obligations to the Class Members will be to provide existing
company-paid health and life insurance to Class Members through
December 31, 2015, and to contribute the payments due to the VEBA
Trust under the settlements. The Company will have no other
liability or responsibility with respect to OPEB obligations to
the Class Members. Based on current valuation assumptions, the
Company's total OPEB liability (prior to any funding of the VEBA
Trust) is projected to increase by approximately $3.0 million, and
there would be a one-time charge of approximately $3.8 million for
legal fees and the reversal of previous amortization of the prior
plan amendment.  The remaining portion of the plan amendment would
be amortized over approximately two years.

AK Steel Holding Corporation's operations consist of seven
steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky,
Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels,
including premium-quality coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled
products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are
sold in hot band, sheet and strip form.  The Company is
headquartered in West Chester, Ohio.


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Appeal From CO2 Suit Dismissal Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal challenging the dismissal of a class action lawsuit
relating to carbon dioxide emissions remains pending, according to
American Electric Power Company, Inc.'s July 27, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In October 2009, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a
decision by the Federal District Court for the District of
Mississippi dismissing state common law nuisance claims in a
putative class action by Mississippi residents asserting that CO2
emissions exacerbated the effects of Hurricane Katrina.  The Fifth
Circuit held that there was no exclusive commitment of the common
law issues raised in plaintiffs' complaint to a coordinate branch
of government and that no initial policy determination was
required to adjudicate these claims.  The court granted petitions
for rehearing.  An additional recusal left the Fifth Circuit
without a quorum to reconsider the decision and the appeal was
dismissed, leaving the district court's decision in place.
Plaintiffs filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the
court to remand the case to the Fifth Circuit and reinstate the
panel decision.  The petition was denied in January 2011.
Plaintiffs refiled their complaint in federal district court.  The
court ordered all defendants to respond to the refiled complaints
in October 2011.  In March 2012, the court granted the defendants'
motion for dismissal on several grounds, including the doctrine of
collateral estoppel and the applicable statute of limitations.
Plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

No updates were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-Q filing.

Management says it will continue to defend against the claims.
Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that
are reasonably possible of occurring.

Headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, American Electric Power Company,
Inc., generates, transmits, and distributes electric power in
Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Sup. Ct. to Hear Pro-Arbitration Arguments
------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Baynes and Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, report
that the Supreme Court on Nov. 9 agreed to consider whether
American Express Co may invoke an arbitration clause to prevent
merchant customers from banding together in an antitrust lawsuit
against the company.

The court accepted the credit card and travel services company's
appeal from a February ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in New York that voided the clause, and allowed merchants
including the Italian Colors Restaurant in Oakland, California to
pursue a class-action lawsuit.

A decision could determine the extent to which companies might
rely on arbitration clauses to fend off class-action lawsuits,
which can allow litigants to obtain larger recoveries at lower
cost.

Since 1999, American Express has required merchant customers to
waive their right to sue the company in a class action.

But a group of restaurants, retailers and other customers sued in
2003, saying the New York-based company violated antitrust law in
its effort to force them to pay inflated fees on charge card
transactions.

A two-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit said the company's mandatory
arbitration clause violated antitrust law, because many merchants
would find it economically unfeasible to pursue their claims
individually.

American Express said that ruling created a "sweeping, unwritten
loophole" in federal arbitration law that should be overturned.

The Supreme Court has in recent years shown deference to
arbitration clauses, while narrowing the ability of various
plaintiffs to bring class-action lawsuits.

In a 2011 case involving AT&T Inc., the court gave businesses a
big victory by upholding contracts that required customers to
submit to individual arbitrations to resolve disputes, and waive
their right to pursue class-action litigation.  A California law
had prohibited such waivers.

The same year, the court decertified a class of as many as 1.5
million female workers at Wal-Mart Stores Inc. who alleged gender
bias in pay and promotions.

The Supreme Court will likely hear oral arguments in the American
Express case early next year, with a decision to follow by the end
of June.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was involved with the case when she
was a federal appeals court judge, did not take part in the
decision to accept American Express' appeal.

The case is American Express Co et al v. Italian Colors Restaurant
et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-133.


BILLS: Faces Class Action Over Excesses Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------
Gene Warner, writing for Buffalo News, reports that Bills faces a
class action over fans text messages.

Like many other Buffalo expatriates who have moved far away from
Ralph Wilson Stadium, Jerry Wojcik wanted to stay connected to his
hometown Bills.

So earlier this season, the Florida resident signed up for a Bills
program that sends fans text messages.

Trouble is, he says, the text alerts became too frequent.  So now
he and his attorneys are suing the Bills, in the form of a class-
action lawsuit, complaining that the team sent him a few extra
messages.

In their legal papers, his attorneys claim that after he signed up
for a Bills program that pledged to send him no more than five
text alerts per week, he instead received six messages one week
and seven a few weeks later.

That's a total of three extra texts, over several weeks.

Some people clearly would label this a frivolous lawsuit.

"I'm just appalled," a Bills fan with personal knowledge of the
case said, before turning sarcastic.  "Obviously, he was
grievously harmed and is deserving of a pile of season-ticket
money."

Buffalo attorney Thomas H. Burton, who has served as both a
plaintiffs' and defense attorney, sounded concerns about the
effect such lawsuits have on public perceptions of the legal
system.

"I like to think that the plaintiff attorneys, at least around
here, bring these claims when someone has a legitimate and
meaningful injury and real damages," Mr. Burton said.  "My sense
is that as long as you stick to the good substantive cases,
citizens and jurors don't have a bad view of the system.

"I'm not sure suing over text messages fits the bill."

Mr. Wojcik's attorneys, both also from Western New York, have a
totally different view.

Text message spam costs Americans hundreds of millions of dollars
per year, attorneys Scott D. Owens and James S. Giardina stated,
in written replies to e-mail questions.  They also cited two spam-
settlement cases of about $20 million and $47 million.

"Furthermore, a 'frivolous lawsuit' is one that has little chance
of succeeding in court," the two attorneys stated.  "This case is
exactly the opposite.  We have a defendant who appears to have
violated a federal law on multiple occasions, affecting thousands
of people.  Whether you are a fan of the Bills or not, no one
should spam their customers.  The [Telephone Consumer Protection
Act] has been on the books for more than 20 years.  The Bills
either knew or should have known that they were breaking the law."

But attorney Michael Schiavone, of Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria,
who's representing the Bills, pointed out that the intent of that
law was to protect consumers against unwanted and unsolicited
phone calls; the law later was extended to text messages.

"Clearly, that's not what happened here," Mr. Schiavone said,
referring to the belief that Mr. Wojcik signed up for the mobile
alerts.

Owens and Giardina say they don't know how large the class will be
for this class-action lawsuit, but their research suggests similar
pro sports teams have mobile-marketing databases ranging anywhere
from 4,000 to 93,000 subscribers.

While the attorneys cited only two occasions when the Bills sent
more than five messages per week, they say the exact number of
violations will be found later.

The lawsuit has a decidedly local flavor.  Mr. Wojcik is a native
Western New Yorker in his mid-30s who moved to Tampa Bay in 2001,
and both his attorneys also have local roots.  Mr. Owens is a
Williamsville East and University at Buffalo graduate, while
Mr. Giardina graduated from Sweet Home High School and UB Law
School. Each spends a substantial part of his practice on
Telephone Consumer Protection Act cases.

In the court papers, filed in U.S. District Court in the Middle
District of Florida, Mr. Wojcik and his attorneys claim that on
Sept. 12, while visiting the team's Web site, he read an ad about
receiving mobile text messages from the Bills.

"Get up to the minute news and team alerts sent directly to your
phone!" the program's terms and conditions state, according to
court papers.   "You will be opted in to receive 3-5 messages per
week for a period of 12 months."

After Mr. Wojcik subscribed, the Bills texted him a message
confirming his participation.  In his second full week after
signing up, from Sept. 23-29, Mr. Wojcik received six text
messages from the Bills, the court papers state.  Several weeks
later, from Oct. 14-20, he received seven.

Those excessive texts, auto-dialed to all the subscribers, were
made without their consent and in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, the lawsuit claims.

The suit seeks statutory damages of $500 per excessive call for
negligent violations and up to $1,500 per call for willful
violations.  Those amounts could be multiplied by the thousands of
subscribers receiving the excessive texts.

The complaint, though, does not specify the claimed harm caused by
the extra messages.

And the court papers don't explain why, if Mr. Wojcik were harmed
by the extra message late in September, he didn't drop out of the
program.

Mr. Wojcik could not be reached to comment.

Mr. Burton, the attorney who's been on both the plaintiff and
defense sides, came up with his own resolution for the dispute:

"Maybe the Bills should just send this guy a bucket of chicken
wings and a case of Labatt's beer and call the whole thing even."


BLIZZARD: Disputes Class Action Over Account Authenticator
----------------------------------------------------------
Erik Kain, writing for Forbes, reports that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against video game maker Blizzard, the creators of
Diablo III, World of Warcraft, and Starcraft.

The lawsuit alleges that the company "fails to disclose to
consumers that additional products must be acquired after buying
the games in order to ensure the security of information stored in
online accounts that are requisites for playing," according to a
press release from law firm Carney Williams Bates Pulliam &
Bowman, PLLC.  "This deceptive upselling, coupled with Blizzard's
negligence in maintaining proper security protocols, compromised
millions of customers' e-mail addresses, passwords, answers to
personal security questions, and other items of sensitive
information."

The suit, Benjamin Bell et al. vs Blizzard Entertainment, was
filed in California earlier last week.

"Blizzard requires all of its customers to establish accounts with
its online gaming service, Battle.net," according to the firm's
Hank Bates, "but it fails to disclose to consumers, prior to
purchase, that they'll need additional products called
authenticators to keep information stored in these accounts safe.
Even though the company frequently receives complaints about
accounts being hacked, it simply tells the customer to attach an
authenticator to their account.  Blizzard doesn't inform people
about this requirement when they purchase the game, and that
amounts to a deceptive trade practice.  Worse still, Blizzard has
failed to maintain adequate levels of security for its customers,
time and again, which led to a significant loss of private data in
Blizzard's safekeeping."

Earlier this year, Blizzard confirmed that a security breach had
occurred with the possible loss of customers' personal data.
Still, security breach or not, Blizzard says they find the lawsuit
absurd.

"This suit is without merit and filled with patently false
information," a Blizzard spokesperson said in an e-mail, "and we
will vigorously defend ourselves through the appropriate legal
channels.

"We want to reiterate that we take the security of our players'
data very seriously, and we're fully committed to defending our
network infrastructure.  We also recognize that the cyber-threat
landscape is always evolving, and we're constantly working to
track the latest developments and make improvements to our
defenses."

Blizzard continues: "The suit's claim that we didn't properly
notify players regarding the August 2012 security breach is not
true.  Not only did Blizzard act quickly to provide information to
the public about the situation, we explained the actions we were
taking and let players know how the incident affected them,
including the fact that no names, credit card numbers, or other
sensitive financial information was disclosed.  You can read our
letter to players and a comprehensive FAQ related to the situation
on our Web site."

Blizzard also disputes claims that the Authenticator is required
to achieve a minimal level of account security.

"This claim is also completely untrue," according to Blizzard,
"and apparently based on a misunderstanding of the Authenticator's
purpose.  The Battle.net Authenticator is an optional tool that
players can use to further protect their Battle.net accounts in
the event that their login credentials are compromised outside of
Blizzard's network infrastructure.  Available as a physical device
or as a free app for iOS or Android devices, it offers players an
added level of security against account-theft attempts that stem
from sources such as phishing attacks, viruses packaged with
seemingly harmless file downloads, and Web sites embedded with
malicious code.

"When a player attaches an Authenticator to his or her account, it
means that logging in to Battle.net will require the use of a
random code generated by the Authenticator in addition to the
player's login credentials.  This helps our systems identify when
it's actually the player who is logging in and not someone who
might have stolen the player's credentials by means of one of the
external theft measures, or as a result of the player using the
same account name and password on another Web site or service that
was compromised.  Considering that players are ultimately
responsible for securing their own computers, and that the extra
step required by the Authenticator is an added inconvenience
during the log in process, we ultimately leave it up to the
players to decide whether they want to add an Authenticator to
their account.  However, we always strongly encourage it, and we
try to make it as easy as possible to do."

The suit's plaintiffs seek damages and to prevent Blizzard from
"tacking on additional, undisclosed costs to ensure security in
the form of a post-point-of-sale Authenticator."

The suit also demands that Blizzard no longer require Battle.net
accounts for any game that's not an MMO.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Provides Update on Network Malfunction Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. on Nov. 11 provided an update with respect to
a purported class action pending against the Company in respect to
the network malfunction that occurred on December 1, 2010.  An
amendment has been filed with the court under the previously
reported procedural agreement among the plaintiffs of several
purported class actions filed against the Company in relation to
the malfunction.  The plaintiffs included causes of actions and
remedies allegedly sought in purported class actions dismissed
under the procedural agreement and updated the claimed amount of
approximately NIS61 million to NIS350 per customer in a private
calling plan and NIS700 per customer in a business calling plan
and added approximately NIS1.182 billion for non monetary damages
as well as the relative portion of the monthly payment relating to
the hours of the malfunction.

The Company believes that part of the amendment is not in line
with the procedural agreement and will address the amendment when
responding to the claim.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Awaits Final Okay of "Minnick" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clearwire Corporation is awaiting final approval of its settlement
of a class action lawsuit initiated by Chad Minnick, et al.,
according to the Company's October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

In April 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Clearwire U.S. LLC in Superior Court in King County, Washington by
a group of five plaintiffs (Chad Minnick, et al.).  The lawsuit
generally alleges that the Company disseminated false advertising
about the quality and reliability of its services; imposed an
unlawful early termination fee, referred to as ETF; and invoked
allegedly unconscionable provisions of the Company's Terms of
Service to the detriment of subscribers.  Among other things, the
lawsuit seeks a determination that the alleged claims may be
asserted on a class-wide basis; an order declaring certain
provisions of the Company's Terms of Service, including the ETF
provision, void and unenforceable; an injunction prohibiting the
Company from collecting ETFs and further false advertising;
restitution of any ETFs paid by the Company's subscribers;
equitable relief; and an award of unspecified damages and
attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint
adding seven additional plaintiffs.  The Company removed the case
to the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.  On July 23, 2009, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.  The Court stayed discovery pending
its ruling on the motion, and on February 2, 2010, granted the
Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety.  Plaintiffs appealed
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On March 29, 2011, the
Court of Appeals entered an Order Certifying Question to the
Supreme Court of Washington requesting guidance on a question of
Washington state law.

On May 23, 2012, the Washington Supreme Court issued a decision
holding that an ETF is a permissible alternative performance
provision.  The Court of Appeals has stayed the matter.  The
parties have agreed to settle the lawsuit.  The Court has granted
preliminary approval of the settlement.

The Company says it has accrued an estimated amount it anticipates
to pay for the settlement in Other current liabilities.  The
amount accrued is considered immaterial to the financial
statements.

Kirkland, Washington-based Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ: CLWR) --
http://www.clearwire.com/-- through its operating subsidiaries,
is a provider of 4G mobile broadband network services in 68
markets, including New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas,
Philadelphia, Houston, Miami, Washington, D.C., Atlanta and
Boston.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Faces "Wuest" Class Action Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clearwire Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit in
California brought by Richard Wuest, according to the Company's
October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In August 2012, Richard Wuest filed a purported class action
against Clearwire in the California Superior Court, San Francisco
County.  Plaintiff alleges that Clearwire violated California's
Invasion of Privacy Act, Penal Code 630, notably Section 632.7,
which prohibits the recording of communications made from a
cellular or cordless telephone without the consent of all parties
to the communication.  Plaintiff seeks statutory damages and
injunctive relief, costs, attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment
interest.  Clearwire has filed a motion to remove the matter to
federal court.  Clearwire's answer or other response was due
November 2, 2012.

The Company says the litigation is in the early stages, its
outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential loss cannot be
made at this time.

Kirkland, Washington-based Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ: CLWR) --
http://www.clearwire.com/-- through its operating subsidiaries,
is a provider of 4G mobile broadband network services in 68
markets, including New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas,
Philadelphia, Houston, Miami, Washington, D.C., Atlanta and
Boston.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Got Prelim. Okay of "Dennings" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington has
granted preliminary approval to Clearwire Corporation's settlement
of a class action lawsuit filed by Angelo Dennings, according to
the Company's October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

In November 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Clearwire by Angelo Dennings in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington.  The complaint generally
alleges the Company slow network speeds when network demand is
highest and that such network management violates the Company's
agreements with subscribers and is contrary to the Company's
advertising and marketing claims.  Plaintiffs also allege that
subscribers do not review the Terms of Service prior to
subscribing, and when subscribers cancel service due to network
management, the Company charge an early termination fee, referred
to as ETF, or restocking fee that they claim is unconscionable
under the circumstances.  The claims asserted include breach of
contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
and unjust enrichment.  Plaintiffs seek class certification;
unspecified damages and restitution; a declaratory judgment that
Clearwire's ETF and restocking fee are unconscionable under the
alleged circumstances; an injunction prohibiting Clearwire from
engaging in alleged deceptive marketing and from charging ETFs;
interest; and attorneys' fees and costs.  On January 13, 2011, the
Company filed concurrent motions to compel arbitration and in the
alternative, to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.  In response to Clearwire's
motions, plaintiff abandoned its fraud claim and amended its
complaint with fourteen additional plaintiffs in eight separate
jurisdictions.  Plaintiff further added new claims of violation of
Consumer Protection statutes under various state laws.  On March
31, 2011, Clearwire filed concurrent motions to (1) compel the
newly-added plaintiffs to arbitrate their individual claims, (2)
alternatively, to stay this case pending the United States Supreme
Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No. 09-893,
referred to as Concepcion, and (3) to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiffs did not oppose Clearwire's motion to stay the
litigation pending Concepcion, and the parties stipulated to stay
the litigation.

The parties have agreed to settle the lawsuit.  The Court has
granted preliminary approval of the settlement.

The Company says it has accrued an estimated amount it anticipates
to pay for the settlement in Other current liabilities.  The
amount accrued is considered immaterial to the financial
statements.

Kirkland, Washington-based Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ: CLWR) --
http://www.clearwire.com/-- through its operating subsidiaries,
is a provider of 4G mobile broadband network services in 68
markets, including New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas,
Philadelphia, Houston, Miami, Washington, D.C., Atlanta and
Boston.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Received Prelim. Approval of "Newton" Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California has
granted preliminary approval of Clearwire Corporation's settlement
of a class action lawsuit alleging false advertising, according to
the Company's October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

In March 2011, a purported class action was filed against
Clearwire in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.  The case, Newton v. Clearwire, Inc. [sic], alleges
Clearwire's network management and advertising practices
constitute breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair
competition under California's Business and Professions Code
Sections 17200 et seq., and violation of California's Consumers'
Legal Remedies Act.  Plaintiff contends Clearwire's advertisements
of "no speed cap" and "unlimited data" are false and misleading.
Plaintiff alleges Clearwire has breached its contracts with
customers by not delivering the Internet service as advertised.
Plaintiff also claims slow data speeds are due to Clearwire's
network management practices.  Plaintiff seeks class
certification; declaratory and injunctive relief; unspecified
restitution and/or disgorgement of fees paid for Clearwire
service; and unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs.  On
June 9, 2011, Clearwire filed a motion to compel arbitration.  The
parties have agreed to settle the lawsuit.  The Court has granted
preliminary approval of the settlement.

The Company says it has accrued an estimated amount it anticipates
to pay for the settlement in Other current liabilities.  The
amount accrued is considered immaterial to the financial
statements.

Kirkland, Washington-based Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ: CLWR) --
http://www.clearwire.com/-- through its operating subsidiaries,
is a provider of 4G mobile broadband network services in 68
markets, including New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas,
Philadelphia, Houston, Miami, Washington, D.C., Atlanta and
Boston.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Settlement Negotiations in "Kwan" Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement negotiations in the class action lawsuit brought by
Rosa Kwan are ongoing, according to Clearwire Corporation's
October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In September 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Clearwire in King County Superior Court, brought by
representative plaintiff Rosa Kwan.  The complaint alleges the
Company placed unlawful telephone calls using automatic dialing
and announcing devices and engaged in unlawful collection
practices.  It seeks declaratory, injunctive, and/or equitable
relief and actual and statutory damages under federal and state
law.  On October 1, 2009, the Company removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.  The parties stipulated to allow a Second Amended
Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on December 23, 2009.  The
Company then filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On
February 22, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss in part, dismissing certain claims with prejudice and
granting plaintiff leave to further amend the complaint.
Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint adding additional state
law claims and joining Bureau of Recovery, a purported collection
agency, as a co-defendant.  On January 27, 2011, the court granted
the parties' stipulation allowing plaintiff to file a Fourth
Amended Complaint adding two new class representatives.  The
Company then filed motions to compel the newly-added customer
plaintiffs to arbitrate their individual claims.

On January 3, 2012, the Court denied without prejudice the
Company's motions to compel arbitration because of factual issues
to be resolved at an evidentiary hearing.  The parties stipulated
to allow a Fifth Amended Complaint.  The evidentiary hearing and
the matter are stayed pending settlement negotiations.  The
parties completed a mediation and reached a preliminary settlement
in principal.  Settlement negotiations are ongoing.

The Company says it has accrued an estimated amount it anticipates
to pay for the settlement in Other current liabilities.  The
amount accrued is considered immaterial to the financial
statements.  This case is in the early stages of litigation and
its outcome is unknown.

Kirkland, Washington-based Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ: CLWR) --
http://www.clearwire.com/-- through its operating subsidiaries,
is a provider of 4G mobile broadband network services in 68
markets, including New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas,
Philadelphia, Houston, Miami, Washington, D.C., Atlanta and
Boston.


EASTMAN KODAK: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Leonard, writing for Innovation Trail, reports that a
shareholder class action lawsuit brought by investors who
purchased stock in Eastman Kodak during 2011 was dismissed by U.S.
District Judge Harold Baer on Nov. 8.

The case had been mounted by a group of shareholders who claimed
that the Kodak's share price had been artificially inflated
following statements by the company's CEO, CFO and COO, and that
this was in violation of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act.

Kodak filed for bankruptcy on January 19th, 2012 and the case was
brought against the current Kodak CEO Antonio Perez and three
former executives because of the company's Chapter 11 status.  The
suit says in part:

During the Class Period, Perez was responsible for the issuance of
false and misleading statements about Kodak and failed to disclose
the true and material facts about the Company's digital
transformation, liquidity, financial condition and prospects and
bankruptcy considerations.

Reuters reports that Judge Baer ruled that there was no evidence
that the executives deliberately misled investors about the
company's plans for transformation or its financial situation.

Kodak's share prices during the period covered by the lawsuit fell
from approximately $4 to 30 cents.


ELI LILLY: Awaits Dist. Ct. Ruling in Employee Suits in Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company is awaiting a ruling from an Indiana
district court on the status of remaining plaintiffs in employee
lawsuits against the Company after an appellate court upheld the
district court's decision on the related claims of Schaefer-Rose,
according to the Company's July 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
(Schaefer-LaRose, et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company, filed November
14, 2006), claiming that the Company's pharmaceutical sales
representatives should have been categorized as "non-exempt"
rather than "exempt" employees, and claiming that the Company owes
them back wages for overtime worked, as well as penalties,
interest, and attorneys' fees.  Other pharmaceutical industry
participants face similar lawsuits.  The case was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana and
involves approximately 400 plaintiffs.  In September 2009, the
district court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment
with regard to Ms. Schaefer-LaRose's claims and ordered the
plaintiffs to demonstrate why the entire class action should not
be decertified within 30 days.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the summary judgment decision and also opposed
decertification, and in October 2010, the court denied plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration but decided not to decertify the class
action at this time.  In May 2012, the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed the District Court's summary judgment ruling.
The Company is waiting for the district court to rule on the
status of the remaining plaintiffs.  The Company believes the
lawsuit is without merit and are prepared to defend against it
vigorously.

Eli Lilly and Company -- http://www.lilly.com/-- is an
innovation-driven corporation, which is into developing a growing
portfolio of pharmaceutical products by applying the latest
research from its own worldwide laboratories and from
collaborations with eminent scientific organizations.
Headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, the Company provides
answers, through medicines and information, for some of the
world's most urgent medical needs.


FIRST AMERICAN: Class Suits Over Business Practices Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation continues to defend itself
from various class action lawsuits challenging practices in its
title insurance business, according to the Company's October 26,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The Company and its subsidiaries are parties to a number of non-
ordinary course lawsuits.  Frequently these lawsuits are similar
in nature to other lawsuits pending against the Company's
competitors.

For those non-ordinary course lawsuits where the Company has
determined that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable,
a liability representing the best estimate of the Company's
financial exposure based on known facts has been recorded. Actual
losses may materially differ from the amounts recorded.

For a substantial majority of these lawsuits, however, it is not
possible to assess the probability of loss.  Most of these
lawsuits are putative class actions which require a plaintiff to
satisfy a number of procedural requirements before proceeding to
trial.  These requirements include, among others, demonstration to
a court that the law proscribes in some manner the Company's
activities, the making of factual allegations sufficient to
suggest that the Company's activities exceeded the limits of the
law and a determination by the court -- known as class
certification -- that the law permits a group of individuals to
pursue the case together as a class.  In certain instances the
Company may also be able to compel the plaintiff to arbitrate its
claim on an individual basis.  If these procedural requirements
are not met, either the lawsuit cannot proceed or, as is the case
with class certification or compelled arbitration, the plaintiffs
lose the financial incentive to proceed with the case (or the
amount at issue effectively becomes de minimus).  Frequently, a
court's determination as to these procedural requirements is
subject to appeal to a higher court.  As a result of, among other
factors, ambiguities and inconsistencies in the myriad laws
applicable to the Company's business and the uniqueness of the
factual issues presented in any given lawsuit, the Company often
cannot determine the probability of loss until a court has finally
determined that a plaintiff has satisfied applicable procedural
requirements.

Furthermore, because most of these lawsuits are putative class
actions, it is often impossible to estimate the possible loss or a
range of loss amounts, even where the Company has determined that
a loss is reasonably possible.  Generally class actions involve a
large number of people and the effort to determine which people
satisfy the requirements to become plaintiffs -- or class members
-- is often time consuming and burdensome.  Moreover, these
lawsuits raise complex factual issues which result in uncertainty
as to their outcome and, ultimately, make it difficult for the
Company to estimate the amount of damages which a plaintiff might
successfully prove.  In addition, many of the Company's businesses
are regulated by various federal, state, local and foreign
governmental agencies and are subject to numerous statutory
guidelines.  These regulations and statutory guidelines often are
complex, inconsistent or ambiguous, which results in additional
uncertainty as to the outcome of a given lawsuit -- including the
amount of damages a plaintiff might be afforded -- or makes it
difficult to analogize experience in one case or jurisdiction to
another case or jurisdiction.

Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and
its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses.  These lawsuits
include, among others, cases alleging, among other assertions,
that the Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its
agents:

   -- charged an improper rate for title insurance in a refinance
      transaction, including:

      * Hamilton v. First American Title Insurance Company, et
        al., filed on August 25, 2008, and pending in the
        Superior Court of the State of North Carolina, Wake
        County,

      * Haskins v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on September 29, 2010, and pending in the United States
        District Court of New Jersey,

      * Lang v. First American Title Insurance Company of New
        York, filed on March 9, 2012, and pending in the United
        States District Court of New York,

      * Levine v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on February 26, 2009, and pending in the United States
        District Court of Pennsylvania,

      * Lewis v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
        November 28, 2006, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the District of Idaho,

      * Loef v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
        August 16, 2008, and pending in the United States
        District Court of Maine,

      * Mitchell-Tracey v. First American Title Insurance
        Company, et al., filed on April 30, 2012, and pending in
        the United States District Court for the Northern
        District of Maryland,

      * Raffone v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on February 14, 2004, and pending in the Circuit Court,
        Nassau County, Florida, and

      * Slapikas v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on December 19, 2005, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

        All of these lawsuits are putative class actions.  A
        court has only granted class certification in Loef,
        Hamilton, Lewis, Raffone and Slapikas.  An appeal to a
        higher court is pending with respect to the granting of
        class certification in Hamilton.  For these reasons, the
        Company has been unable to assess the probability of loss
        or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss or,
        where the Company has been able to make an estimate, the
        Company believes the amount is immaterial to the
        financial statements as a whole.

   -- purchased minority interests in title insurance agents as
      an inducement to refer title insurance underwriting
      business to the Company or gave items of value to title
      insurance agents and others for referrals of business, in
      each case in violation of the Real Estate Settlement
      Procedures Act, including:

      * Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation, filed on
        June 12, 2007, and pending in the United States District
        Court for the Central District of California.

        In Edwards a narrow class has been certified, however, a
        motion to decertify that class and to compel arbitration
        is pending.  For these reasons, the Company has been
        unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate the
        possible loss or the range of loss.

   -- conspired with its competitors to fix prices or otherwise
      engaged in anticompetitive behavior, including:

      * Klein v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
        filed on July 10, 2012, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the District of Colombia, and

      * McCray v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
        filed on October 15, 2008, and pending in the United
        States District Court of Delaware.

        These lawsuits are putative class actions for which a
        class has not been certified.  For these reasons, the
        Company has not yet been able to assess the probability
        of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of
        loss.

   -- engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, including:

      * Gale v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
        filed on October 16, 2006, and pending in the United
        States District Court of Connecticut, and

      * Katin v. First American Signature Services, Inc., et al.,
        filed on May 9, 2007, and pending in the United States
        District Court of Massachusetts.

        Katin is a putative class action for which a class has
        not been certified.  The class originally certified in
        Gale was subsequently decertified.  For these reasons,
        the Company has not yet been able to assess the
        probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the
        range of loss.

   -- failed to pay required compensation and provide required
      rest periods, including:

      * Bartko v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on November 8, 2011, and pending in the Superior Court of
        the State of California, Los Angeles.

        Bartko is a putative class action for which a class has
        not been certified.  For these reasons, the Company has
        not yet been able to assess the probability of loss or
        estimate the possible loss or the range of loss.

   -- overcharged or improperly charged fees for products and
      services provided in connection with the closing of real
      estate transactions, denied home warranty claims, recorded
      telephone calls, acted as an unauthorized trustee and gave
      items of value to developers, builders and others as
      inducements to refer business in violation of certain other
      laws, such as consumer protection laws and laws generally
      prohibiting unfair business practices, and certain
      obligations, including:

      * Carrera v. First American Home Buyers Protection
        Corporation, filed on September 23, 2009, and pending in
        the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
        Los Angeles,

      * Chassen v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
        filed on January 22, 2009, and pending in the United
        States District Court of New Jersey,

      * Coleman v. First American Home Buyers Protection
        Corporation, et al., filed on August 24, 2009, and
        pending in the Superior Court of the State of California,
        County of Los Angeles,

      * Eide v. First American Title Company, filed on
        February 26, 2010, and pending in the Superior Court of
        the State of California, County of Kern,

      * Gunning v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on July 14, 2008, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,

      * Kaufman v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
        filed on December 21, 2007, and pending in the Superior
        Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

      * Kirk v. First American Financial Corporation, filed on
        June 15, 2006, and pending in the Superior Court of the
        State of California, County of Los Angeles,

      * Sjobring v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
        filed on February 25, 2005, and pending in the Superior
        Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

      * Smith v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
        November 23, 2011, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the Western District of Washington,

      * Tavenner v. Talon Group, filed on August 18, 2009, and
        pending in the United States District Court for the
        Western District of Washington, and

      * Wilmot v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
        filed on April 20, 2007, and pending in the Superior
        Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

        All of these lawsuits, except Sjobring, Tavenner and
        Coleman, are putative class actions for which a class has
        not been certified.  In Sjobring a class was certified
        but that certification was subsequently vacated.  In
        Coleman, class certification was denied.  For these
        reasons, the Company has not yet been able to assess the
        probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the
        range of loss.

While some of the lawsuits may be material to the Company's
operating results in any particular period if an unfavorable
outcome results, the Company does not believe that any of these
lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
overall financial condition or liquidity.


FOXBOROUGH, MA: Faces Class Action Over Protective Custody Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremie Smith, writing for Foxborough Patch, reports that two
additional people are joining the class action lawsuit challenging
the town of Foxborough's policy of holding people in protective
custody during Gillette Stadium events, according to the Law
Offices of Howard Friedman.

The suit alleges over a thousand people were held in protective
custody unlawfully because they were intoxicated but not
incapacitated, according to a press release issued by the Law
Offices of Howard Friedman.

Michael Burgess, 42, a police officer in Massachusetts and Lindsey
Schmidt, 23 of Portland, Maine have joined original plaintiffs
Dr. Timothy Dutton and Paul Weldner in a lawsuit against the town
and Foxborough Police Chief Edward O'Leary filed on Sept. 24.

Mr. Burgess was allegedly placed into protective custody by
Foxborough Police officers at the 2011 New England Country Music
Festival at Gillette Stadium and Schmidt was allegedly placed into
protective custody before entering Gillette Stadium for the 2012
New England Country Music Festival this past August.

Mr. Burgess and Ms. Schmidt will join Dr. Dutton at a press
conference on Nov. 12 in Boston to announce the class action
lawsuit.  An amended complaint in the lawsuit was to be filed on
Nov. 12, according to the Law offices of Howard Friedman.

Dr. Dutton commented on Foxborough Patch's Aug. 21 article,
"Foxborough Police Report 'Few Problems' During Bruce Springsteen
Concert at Gillette Stadium," calling Foxborough Police
"vigilantes" after he was allegedly taken into protective custody.

"The security surrounding these events are vigilantes," said
Dr. Dutton.  "So are the Foxboro Police.  My girlfriend was nabbed
for barely stumbling in the ticket line, breathalyzed, handcuffed
and detained for nothing more than having a good time.  I was told
to move on or join her.  I joined her.  For the next six hours I
received inhumane treatment that the Foxboro Police all enjoyed.
Lawsuit coming."

Dr. Dutton remained true to his word.

The lawsuit, according to the Law Offices of Howard Friedman,
alleges that it is unconstitutional to take people into custody
simply because they are perceived to be under the influence of
alcohol.

Mr. Weldner and Dr. Dutton reportedly planned to attend the
Springsteen concert in Foxborough on Aug. 18, according to a press
release issued by the Law Offices of Howard Friedman.

"They drank alcohol before the concert, but they were not
incapacitated," according to the press release. "They had rented a
bus so they could travel safely."

Foxborough Police officers, according to attorney Friedman's
office, detained Mr. Weldner and Dr. Dutton before they entered
the concert and placed them into protective custody along with
over 60 others.

"Protective custody is a joke," said Dr. Dutton.  "I was detained
in a cell with a man who had spent one year in jail for attempted
murder for stabbing someone eight times. There were plenty of
other innocent people like me in this lockup."

The civil lawsuit, brought by Boston attorneys Howard Friedman and
David Milton of the Law Offices of Howard Friedman P.C., seeks
money damages for violations of the class members' constitutional
rights, as well as an end to the policy.  The lawsuit, filed in
the United States District Court in Boston, is called Paul Weldner
et al., v. Edward O'Leary, et al., C.A. No. 12-11771-DPW.

A copy of the original complaint can be found here:

     http://www.civil-rightslaw.com/storage/weldner.pdf


FREDERICK'S OF HOLLYWOOD: Mediation in "Weber" Suit on Nov. 29
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick's of Hollywood Group Inc. disclosed in its October 26,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended July 28, 2012, that parties to the
class action lawsuit brought by Michelle Weber have agreed to stay
discovery proceedings in order to conduct a mediation, which is
scheduled for November 29, 2012.

On February 2, 2012, a former California store employee filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court,
County of San Francisco, naming Frederick's of Hollywood, Inc.,
one of the Company's subsidiaries, as a defendant (Michelle Weber,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
Frederick's of Hollywood, Inc., Case No. CGC-12-517909).  The
complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide
meal and rest periods and termination compensation and violations
of California's Unfair Competition Law.  The complaint seeks,
among other relief, collective and class certification of the
lawsuit (the class being defined as all California retail store
hourly employees), unspecified damages, costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court
might find just and proper.  The Company contests these
allegations and deny any liability with respect to the lawsuit.
The Company answered the Plaintiff's first amended complaint on
April 2, 2012.  The parties have agreed to stay discovery
proceedings in order to conduct a mediation, which is scheduled
for November 29, 2012.  Therefore, the Company is unable to
predict the likely outcome and whether such outcome may have a
material adverse effect on its results of operations or financial
condition.  Accordingly, no provision for a loss contingency has
been accrued as of July 28, 2012.


FRISCH'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Suit Over Minimum Wage Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frisch's Restaurants, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act,
according to the Company's October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 18, 2012.

On September 18, 2012, a former employee (plaintiff) filed a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and class
action under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act for
allegations of off-the-clock work, unpaid overtime, and minimum
wage violations as a result of alleged improper application of the
Tip Credit.  As part of the collective action, the plaintiff seeks
recovery for all individuals who worked as a server at any
Frisch's Big Boy restaurant operated by the Company during the
three year period, September 18, 2009, through September 18, 2012.
The class action is limited to servers who worked for the Company
at Frisch's Big Boy restaurants located in Ohio during the last
three years.

The Company has not answered the complaint, but expects to deny
all allegations and will vigorously defend the matter, including
efforts by the plaintiff to certify the class.  If successful on
these claims, the plaintiff and any class members would be
entitled to unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees.
Although employee unfair practice claims are not covered by
insurance, no loss provision has been made in the consolidated
financial statements for amounts that would be payable by the
Company as management has not fully evaluated the merits of the
claim.


GOLD RESOURCES: Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Shuman Law Firm on Nov. 10 disclosed that it has filed a
lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Gold
Resource Corporation common stock during the period between
January 30, 2012 and October 17, 2012.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights and interests with respect
to this matter, please contact Kip B. Shuman or Rusty E. Glenn
toll free at (866) 974-8626 or e-mail Mr. Shuman at
kip@shumanlawfirm.com or Mr. Glenn at rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

The complaint charges Gold Resource and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The Company, based in Colorado Springs, Colorado, mines,
mills and produces metal concentrates that contain gold, silver,
copper, lead and zinc at its El Aguila mining project in the
southern state of Oaxaca, Mexico.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's operational status and financial projections.
Specifically, it is alleged that defendants misrepresented and/or
failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (a) that overly
aggressive expansion of Gold Resource's underground mining
operations in the first quarter of 2012 had created operational
difficulties in the mine, which were lowering mine production; (b)
that Gold Resource was mining in lower grade zones of the deposit;
(c) that significant operational efficiency improvements were
required at the mine, including the need to upgrade electric power
throughout the mine, expand ventilation and handle increased
ground water the deeper the mine went, which limited the Company's
ability to mine higher grade stopes; (d) that decreases in long-
hole stoping were forcing the Company to process more diluted
development ore and mine from areas of the deposit with lower
metal grades; (e) that as a result of the foregoing, tonnes from
stoping, as a percentage of milled ore, had decreased from an
estimated year-to-date high of 55% during the first quarter of
2012 to an estimated year-to-date low of 15% during the second
quarter of 2012; and (f) that during the third quarter of 2012, a
dispute had arisen between the Company and the buyer of its metal
concentrates, with the buyer claiming net adjustments (reductions)
to the Company's provisional third quarter 2012 invoices.


JIMMY DEAN: Recalls 1,110 Lbs. of French Toast & Sausage Sandwich
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Dean(R) is voluntarily recalling a partial production run of
the brand's butcher wrapped Food service product, Jimmy Dean
French Toast & Sausage Sandwich with the code "12292P1" on the
back label under the products ingredient statement, as a
precautionary measure because the product may contain the
undeclared allergens egg and soy, not listed on the label.  This
recall is due to a labeling error, in which the wrong ingredient
statement may have been applied to a small number of sandwiches.
The recall affects 1,110 pounds of product with the code 12292P1
on the back panel.

People who are allergic to egg or soy could have a serious or
life-threatening reaction if they consume this product.  For
consumers who are not allergic to egg or soy, there is no safety
issue with the product.

The following states are included in this recall: Iowa, Maine,
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania and Virginia.

The item included in the voluntary recall is part of a partial
production run only for Jimmy Dean French Toast & Sausage Sandwich
with the UPC CODE 5450051434 and the code 12292P1 on the back of
the packaging.  Pictures of the recalled products' labels are
available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm327725.htm

No other Jimmy Dean branded products, including Jimmy Dean
Delights French Toast Griddlers sold at traditional grocery
chains, are affected by this voluntary recall and the company has
received no reports of illnesses associated with this product.

Consumers may return affected product to the store where it was
purchased for a full refund.  Consumers who may have questions or
concerns should call the special toll-free consumer line at
1.888.914.1247.  The consumer line is available from 9:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. Central Time Saturday and Sunday, and 7:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. Central Standard Time Monday - Friday.


LINNCO LLC: Briefing & Hearing in Royalty Payments Suit Deferred
----------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing and hearing on class certification in a statewide class
action royalty payment dispute have been deferred pending an
appellate resolution of interlocutory appeals of two unrelated
lawsuits, according to LinnCo, LLC's October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits,
including claims from royalty owners related to disputed royalty
payments and royalty valuations.  The Company has established
reserves that management currently believes are adequate to
provide for potential liabilities based upon its evaluation of
these matters.  For a certain statewide class action royalty
payment dispute where a reserve has not yet been established, the
Company has denied that it has any liability on the claims and has
raised arguments and defenses that, if accepted by the court, will
result in no loss to the Company.  Discovery related to class
certification has concluded.  Briefing and the hearing on class
certification have been deferred by court order pending the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals' resolution of interlocutory appeals of
two unrelated class certification orders.  As a result, the
Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of
possible loss, if any.  In addition, the Company is involved in
various other disputes arising in the ordinary course of business.

The Company says it is not currently a party to any litigation or
pending claims that it believes would have a material adverse
effect on its overall business, financial position, results of
operations or liquidity; however, cash flow could be significantly
impacted in the reporting periods in which such matters are
resolved.


NAVISTAR CANADA: Awaits Hearing Results on Employee Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Boughner, writing for Chatham Daily News, reports that a
hearing on a class action against Navistar Canada Inc. by Cathy
Baker and Joe Lucier on behalf of company union employees was set
to be heard Nov. 14 in Windsor.

Navistar idled its Chatham truck plant in 2009 when no contract
agreement could be reached between the CAW and the company
affecting approximately 1,000 workers.

A final closure agreement has yet to be worked out between the CAW
and the company.

The matter was to be heard by Justice Gates at the Windsor Court
House at 10:00 a.m. and was open to the public.

The company has filed a motion claiming essentially that as a
matter of law the court has no jurisdiction to hear the workers'
claim.

The plaintiffs, Ms. Baker and Mr. Lucier, have also filed an
affidavit in support of their position. The affidavit was sworn by
former hourly worker Ken Claes.


ORLANDO, FL: Set to Appear in Court Over Red-Light Cameras
----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Tracy and Robert Nolin, writing for Orlando Sentinel, report
that lawyers will argue before the Florida Supreme Court early
next year whether the cities of Orlando and Aventura had the right
to install red-light cameras before they were approved by the
Legislature.

The stakes are higher than simply deciding whether their actions
were legal.  If the court rules against the two cities, it could
set the stage for a "claw-back" of millions of dollars in fines
paid by motorists caught driving through an intersection after the
light turned red.

And if Orlando and Aventura, which is in South Florida, have to
issue refunds, other cities could be forced to follow suit.

Getting at that cash is the ultimate goal of attorneys from a West
Palm Beach law firm who will square off with the cities in
Tallahassee, probably in February or March.

It is targeting more than the $4.3 million from Orlando collected
from 2008 to 2010 -- when Florida authorized the cameras -- but
also an estimated $15 million to $20 million that other cities
such as Aventura brought in during a similar time frame.

"We're looking forward to continuing the good fight," said Dave
Kerner, a lawyer with the West Palm Beach firm of Schuler,
Halvorson, Weisser and Zoeller.

Other cities that enacted the law early include West Palm Beach,
Pembroke Pines and Juno Beach in South Florida, all of which
settled the suits against them for lesser than full refunds.  West
Palm Beach, for example, agreed to pay each cited motorist $26.57.

If Mr. Kerner's firm ultimately prevails, much of the money would
be refunded to those who paid the fines, though the amount each
would get has not been determined.  The law firm also would be
paid, with the amount decided by a judge.

But it will not be easy getting at the money, even if the Supreme
Court sides with Mr. Kerner's firm.

Mr. Kerner would have to expand his client list from one to
thousands by winning class-action status for the case, meaning he
would need a court to certify the firm represents virtually all
the people who paid the fines from before mid-2010.  A previous
attempt for class-action status was rejected by an Orange circuit
judge.

Mr. Kerner said he thinks he can get that standing if he wins in
the Supreme Court, although he would not go into detail.  If he is
successful, he would have to go back to court and win again on
behalf of his new clients.

Orlando officials are skeptical that Mr. Kerner and his firm will
win either argument, but would not offer their reasoning, saying
that should be discussed in court, not in the news media.

The case before the Supreme Court focuses partly on a ticket
issued in May 2009 to Michael Udowychenko, a Kissimmee attorney.
He paid the $125 fine but hired Mr. Kerner's firm to argue the
cameras were illegal.

The case has bounced around the judicial system since with some
conflicting decisions.  That led to the state Supreme Court
announcing on its Web site on Nov. 6 that it would hear oral
arguments after first considering written briefs.

Orlando issued 48,579 red-light tickets from Sept. 1, 2008, to
July 1, 2010, when the law changed allowing red-light cameras
statewide.  The city charged each offender $125 per ticket, but
some offenders never paid.  The fine went up to $158 when the
state approved the cameras.

Now, nearly 100 cities and counties in Florida have cameras,
including Orange County, Apopka, Ocoee, Winter Park, Maitland,
Kissimmee and Winter Springs.  Nationwide, close to 700
jurisdictions have installed the cameras, according to the U.S.
PIRG Education Fund, a consumer group.

The 5th District Court of Appeal in Daytona Beach has ruled that
Orlando did not have the right to start a red-light-camera system
in 2008, but that decision does not affect the way the program has
been run since the state law passed.

The 3rd DCA in South Florida, however, also has ruled that cities
were allowed to operate red-light cameras without state approval.

The Supreme Court is expected to resolve that dispute.

Orlando officials have said they launched the ticket-by-camera
program before the state sanctioned them because Mayor Buddy Dyer
and city commissioners had concluded it would reduce crashes and
save lives.

But critics have contended the cameras are all about raising money
for cash-strapped governments.

One national study found that red-light cameras saved 159 lives in
14 of the nation's biggest cities from 2004 to 2008.  If similar
programs had been operating in all large U.S. cities, 815 deaths
could have been avoided during those four years, the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety said.


PFIZER INC: Settles Pristiq Class Action for $67.5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel and Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, report
that Pfizer Inc. agreed to pay $67.5 million to settle a class-
action lawsuit by former Wyeth Inc. shareholders who said they
were misled about risks associated with the antidepressant
Pristiq.

The all-cash settlement was disclosed on Nov. 9, one month
after Pfizer agreed to pay $164 million to settle a separate
lawsuit accusing it of misleading investors about clinical trial
results for the arthritis drug Celebrex.

Wyeth shares lost more than $7.6 billion of market value on
July 24, 2007, after the company said the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration would not approve Pristiq to treat "hot flashes"
in post-menopausal women until it learned more about potential
heart and liver problems associated with the drug.

Shareholders led by the Pipefitters Union Local 537 Pension
Fund in Boston said Wyeth's failure to reveal adverse effects
sooner caused its stock price to be inflated during the June 26,
2006, to July 24, 2007, class period.

Pfizer bought Wyeth in 2009.  Several former Wyeth officials,
including onetime Chief Executive Robert Essner, are also
defendants in the case.

Christopher Loder, a Pfizer spokesman, said the defendants
denied wrongdoing in agreeing to settle.

Laurie Largent and David Rosenfeld, lawyers for the
plaintiffs, did not immediately respond to requests for a
comment.

Pristiq generated $461 million of sales from January to
September for Pfizer.

Analysts once hoped annual sales would top $2 billion for
the drug, whose chemical name is desvenlafaxine.

The settlement followed nearly six months of mediation.  It
requires approval by U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan in
Manhattan, who certified the class action in September.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs plan to seek attorneys' fees of
roughly $16.5 million, plus as much as $650,000 for expenses,
court papers show.

The case, which has a Michigan retirement system as the
named plaintiff, is City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System
v. Wyeth et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New
York, No. 07-10329.


PRINCE GEORGE, WA: Public Schools System Faces Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
NBC Washington reports that the Prince George's County Public
Schools system is facing a lawsuit from the union that represents
the schools' principals and administrators.

The Association of Supervisory and Administrative School
Personnel, or ASASP, filed a $100 million federal class action
suit against the schools on November 2.

The suit names the County School Board as well as former
Superintendent Dr. William Hite.  It claims 100 school
administrators and principals were demoted or fired under
Dr. Hite, and were the targets of age and race discrimination.

"Dr. Hite alone replaced almost half of the principals in the
schools," said Doris Reed, Executive Director of ASASP.  "That
kind of action reflects on what is happening in the schools."

Dr. Hite served as superintendent of the Prince George's County
Public Schools from 2009 until earlier this year.  He is now the
superintendent of the Philadelphia School District.

Ms. Reed said the administrative changes during that time period
likely affected students.

"When you have administrators in the schools who are so
demoralized, it's going to roll down to the children," Ms. Reed
said.

Almost 30 plaintiffs are named in the suit.

A Prince George's County School spokesperson said the system will
not comment on the lawsuit until it goes to court.


SEI INVESTMENTS: Awaits Cert. Ruling in Stanford-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company is awaiting a court decision on a motion
for class certification in the putative class action pending in
East Baton Rouge related to a Company subsidiary's role in
providing back-office services to Stanford Trust Company,
according to SEI's October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

SEI has been named in six lawsuits filed in Louisiana.  Five
lawsuits were filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for the
Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana.  One of the five
actions purports to set forth claims on behalf of a class and also
names the Company's wholly-owned limited purpose federal thrift
subsidiary, SEI Private Trust Company (SPTC), as a defendant.  Two
of the other actions also name SPTC as a defendant.  All five
actions name various defendants in addition to SEI, and, in all
five actions, the plaintiffs purport to bring a cause of action
under the Louisiana Securities Act.  The putative class action
originally included a claim against SEI and SPTC for an alleged
violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act.  Two of the
other five actions include claims for violations of the Louisiana
Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy.  In addition, another
group of plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit in the 23rd Judicial
District Court for the Parish of Ascension, State of Louisiana,
against SEI and SPTC and other defendants asserting claims of
negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
violations of the uniform fiduciaries law, negligent
misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of the
Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana Racketeering Act and
conspiracy.  The underlying allegations in all the actions are
purportedly related to the role of SPTC in providing back-office
services to Stanford Trust Company.  The petitions allege that SEI
and SPTC aided and abetted or otherwise participated in the sale
of "certificates of deposit" issued by Stanford International
Bank.  Two of the five actions filed in East Baton Rouge have been
removed to federal court, and plaintiffs' motions to remand are
pending.  These two cases have been transferred by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas.  On August 31, 2011, the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
issued an order and judgment that the causes of action alleged
against SEI and SPTC in the two remanded actions were preempted by
federal law and the Court dismissed these cases with prejudice.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted an expedited
appeal of the United States District Court's order and judgment.
The appeal was briefed, and oral argument was held on February 7,
2012.  On March 19, 2012, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit reversed the decision of the United States District
Court and remanded the actions for further proceedings.  On April
2, 2012, SEI filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit a petition for rehearing en banc of the panel's
opinion.  On April 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
denied the petition for rehearing.  On July 18, 2012, the Company
filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme
Court, seeking review of the decision by the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to permit the claims against
SEI to proceed.  The Company believes that the trial court
correctly concluded that the claims against SEI were barred by the
federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act and is
requesting that the Supreme Court reinstate that dismissal.

The case filed in Ascension Parish was also removed to federal
court and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to the Northern District of Texas.  The schedule for
responding to that complaint has not yet been established.  The
plaintiffs in the remaining two cases in East Baton Rouge have
granted SEI an extension to respond to the filings.  SEI and SPTC
filed exceptions in the putative class action pending in East
Baton Rouge, which the Court granted in part and dismissed the
claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and denied
in part as to the other exceptions.  SEI and SPTC filed an answer
to the East Baton Rouge putative class action; plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification; and SEI and SPTC also filed a
motion for summary judgment against certain named plaintiffs which
the Court stated will not be set for hearing until after the
hearing on the class certification motion.  Following the decision
by the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, the Court in the East Baton Rouge action issued an order
staying the proceedings in the East Baton Rouge class action
pending the outcome of the appeal of the order and judgment of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Following the panel opinion of the Court of Appeals on March 19,
2012, the Court in the East Baton Rouge action held a hearing on
class certification on September 20, 2012.  The Court in the East
Baton Rouge action has not yet issued its decision on the class
certification motion.  While the outcome of this litigation is
uncertain given its early phase, SEI and SPTC believe that they
have valid defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the
lawsuits vigorously.

Because of the uncertainty of the make-up of the classes, the
specific theories of liability that may survive a motion to
dismiss, the lack of discovery regarding damages, causation,
mitigation and other aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss,
the Company is not reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss,
if any, with respect to the foregoing lawsuits.

Based in Oaks, Pennsylvania and founded in 1968, SEI Investments
Co. -- http://www.seic.com/-- is a publicly owned investment
manager.  The firm provides wealth management and investment
advisory services to its clients through its subsidiaries.


SEI INVESTMENTS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ETF-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have taken an appeal from the dismissal of their class
action lawsuit filed against a subsidiary of SEI Investments
Company, according to the Company's October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

One of SEI's principal subsidiaries, SEI Investments Distribution
Co. (SIDCO), has been named as a defendant in certain putative
class action complaints (the Complaints) related to leveraged
exchange traded funds (ETFs) advised by ProShares Advisors, LLC.
The first complaint was filed on August 5, 2009.  To date, the
Complaints have been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York and in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.  The three complaints
filed in the District of Maryland have been voluntarily dismissed
by the plaintiffs.  Two of them were subsequently re-filed in the
Southern District of New York.  Two of the complaints filed in the
Southern District of New York have also been voluntarily dismissed
by plaintiffs.  The Complaints are purportedly made on behalf of
all persons that purchased or otherwise acquired shares in various
ProShares leveraged ETFs pursuant or traceable to allegedly false
and misleading registration statements, prospectuses and
statements of additional information.  The Complaints name as
defendants ProShares Advisors, LLC; ProShares Trust; ProShares
Trust II, SIDCO, and various officers and trustees to ProShares
Advisors, LLC; ProShares Trust and ProShares Trust II.  The
Complaints allege that SIDCO was the distributor and principal
underwriter for the various ProShares leveraged ETFs that were
distributed to authorized participants and ultimately
shareholders.  The complaints allege that the registration
statements for the ProShares ETFs were materially false and
misleading because they failed adequately to describe the nature
and risks of the investments.  The Complaints allege that SIDCO is
liable for these purportedly material misstatements and omissions
under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The Complaints
seek unspecified compensatory and other damages, reasonable costs
and other relief. Defendants have moved to consolidate the
complaints, which motion has been granted.  The Court appointed
lead plaintiff on July 13, 2010, and an amended consolidated class
action complaint was filed on September 25, 2010, asserting
substantially the same claims.  This complaint subsequently was
further amended by the plaintiffs.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint and on September
7, 2012, the District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued an opinion dismissing with prejudice the plaintiffs'
amended complaint.  On October 3, 2012, plaintiffs filed with the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals a notice of appeal of the District
Court's decision.

While the outcome of this litigation is uncertain given its early
phase, SEI believes that it has valid defenses to plaintiffs'
claims and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

Based in Oaks, Pennsylvania and founded in 1968, SEI Investments
Co. -- http://www.seic.com/-- is a publicly owned investment
manager.  The firm provides wealth management and investment
advisory services to its clients through its subsidiaries.


SP AUSNET: New Courtroom Prepared for Bushfire Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that a massive Black
Saturday bushfire class action will be held in a new courtroom
large enough to house the trial, the Victorian government says.

Some 1,500 victims of the February 2009 Kilmore East bushfire,
which killed 119 people and razed more than 1000 homes, are suing
electricity company SP AusNet.

Victorian Supreme Court Justice Jack Forrest had warned the trial,
scheduled to begin in January, could be delayed because there was
no courtroom big enough to house the case.

But a new courtroom in Melbourne is being refurbished and is due
for completion in January, in time for the start of the Kilmore
East trial, Attorney-General Robert Clark said on Nov. 12.

"Until now, Victorian courts have had to seek use of the Federal
Court facilities . . . to hold very large trials, and these
facilities have not always been available," Mr. Clark said in a
statement.

The new courtroom, located in the William Cooper Justice Centre,
would seat up to 40 lawyers at its bar tables and include public
gallery seating for up to 100 people, he said.

An additional floor will host conference rooms, retreat and
counselling rooms and media facilities.

SP AusNet has vowed to "vigorously defend" the class action, which
centres on claims relating to the inspection and maintenance of
its assets.


TELLABS INC: "Makor" Securities Suit Dismissed in June
------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities class action complaint captioned Makor
Issues & Rights, Ltd. v. Tellabs, Inc. was formally dismissed with
prejudice last June 15, according to Tellabs'
August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2012.

On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois against
Tellabs; Michael Birck, Chairman of the Board of Tellabs; and
Richard Notebaert, former CEO, President and Director of Tellabs.
Thereafter, eight similar complaints were also filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.  All nine of
these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on December 3,
2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed
against Tellabs, Mr. Birck, Mr. Notebaert, and certain other of
the Company's current or former officers and/or directors.  The
consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class
period (December 11, 2000 to June 19, 2001) the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by making materially false
and misleading statements, including, among other things,
allegedly providing revenue forecasts that were false and
misleading, misrepresenting demand for the Company's products, and
reporting overstated revenue for the fourth quarter 2000 in its
financial statements.  Further, certain of the individual
defendants were alleged to have violated the federal securities
laws by trading the Company's securities while allegedly in
possession of material, non-public information about the Company
pertaining to these matters.  The consolidated amended complaint
seeks unspecified restitution, damages and other relief.

On January 17, 2003, Tellabs and the other named defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint in its entirety. On May 19, 2003, the Court granted the
Company's motion and dismissed all counts of the consolidated
amended complaint, while affording plaintiffs an opportunity to
replead.  On July 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended class action complaint against Tellabs, Messrs. Birck and
Notebaert, and many (although not all) of the other previously
named individual defendants, realleging claims similar to those
contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class
action complaint.  The Company filed a second motion to dismiss on
August 22, 2003, seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all
claims alleged in the second consolidated amended class action
complaint.  On February 19, 2004, the Court issued an order
granting that motion and dismissed the action with prejudice.  On
March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
United States Federal Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit,
appealing the dismissal.  The appeal was fully briefed and oral
argument was heard on January 21, 2005.  On January 25, 2006, the
Seventh Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing
in part the judgment of the district court, and remanding for
further proceedings.  On February 8, 2006, defendants filed with
the Seventh Circuit a petition for rehearing with suggestion for
rehearing en banc.  On April 19, 2006, the Seventh Circuit ordered
plaintiffs to file an answer to the petition for rehearing, which
was filed by the plaintiffs on May 3, 2006.  On July 10, 2006, the
Seventh Circuit denied the petition for rehearing with a minor
modification to its opinion, and remanded the case to the district
court.  On September 22, 2006, defendants filed a motion in the
district court to dismiss some (but not all) of the remaining
claims.  On October 3, 2006, the defendants filed with the United
States Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking
to appeal the Seventh Circuit's decision.  On January 5, 2007, the
defendants' petition was granted.  The United States Supreme Court
heard oral arguments on March 28, 2007.  On June 21, 2007, the
United States Supreme Court vacated the Seventh Circuit's judgment
and remanded the case for further proceedings.  On November 1,
2007, the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments for the remanded
case.  On January 17, 2008, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion
adhering to its earlier opinion reversing in part the judgment of
the district court, and remanded the case to the district court
for further proceedings.  On February 24, 2009, the district court
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On August 13,
2010, the Court granted in large part Tellabs' motion for summary
judgment.  Subsequently, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit
and on July 27, 2011, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of class action settlement and dismissed the
lawsuit without prejudice.  The lawsuit was dismissed with
prejudice on June 15, 2012.  All settlement amounts were paid by
Tellabs' insurers.

Tellabs, Inc., is a telecommunications company that designs and
manufactures equipment for service providers.


TRAVELERS COS: Appeal From "Safeco" Suit Deal Approval Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Indemnity Company, a subsidiary of The Travelers
Companies, Inc., is one of the Settlement Class plaintiffs and a
class member in a class action lawsuit captioned Safeco Insurance
Company of America, et al. v. American International Group, Inc.
et al. (U.S. District Court, N.D. Ill.) in which the defendants
are alleged to have engaged in the under-reporting of workers'
compensation premium in connection with a workers' compensation
reinsurance pool in which several subsidiaries of the Company
participate.  On July 26, 2011, the court granted preliminary
approval of a class settlement pursuant to which the defendants
agreed to pay $450 million to the class.  The settlement includes
a plan of allocation of the settlement proceeds among the class
members.  On December 21, 2011, the court entered an order
granting final approval of the settlement, and on February 28,
2012, the district court issued a written opinion regarding its
approval of the settlement.  Three parties who objected to the
settlement have appealed the court's orders approving the
settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 18,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The Company anticipates that its allocation from the settlement
fund, in the event the court's approval of the class settlement is
affirmed, will be approximately $90 million.  This amount is
treated for accounting purposes as a gain contingency in
accordance with FASB Topic 450, Contingencies, and accordingly,
has not been recognized in the Company's consolidated financial
statements.


TRAVELERS COS: Appeals From Antitrust Suit Deal Order Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005, four putative class action lawsuits were brought against
a number of insurance brokers and insurers, including The
Travelers Companies, Inc., by plaintiffs who allegedly purchased
insurance products through one or more of the defendant brokers.
The plaintiffs alleged that various insurance brokers conspired
with each other and with various insurers, including the Company,
to artificially inflate premiums, allocate brokerage customers and
rig bids for insurance products offered to those customers.  To
the extent they were not originally filed there, the federal class
actions were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey and were consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings with other class actions under the caption In re
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.  On August 1, 2005,
various plaintiffs, including the four named plaintiffs in the
class actions, filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint naming various brokers and insurers, including the
Company, on behalf of a putative nationwide class of
policyholders.  The complaint included causes of action under the
Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO), state common law and the laws of the various states
prohibiting antitrust violations.  The complaint sought monetary
damages, including punitive damages and trebled damages, permanent
injunctive relief, restitution, including disgorgement of profits,
interest and costs, including attorneys' fees.

All defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state
a claim.  After giving plaintiffs multiple opportunities to
replead, the court dismissed the Sherman Act claims on August 31,
2007, and the RICO claims on September 28, 2007, both with
prejudice, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
the state law claims.  The plaintiffs appealed the district
court's decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.  On August 16, 2010, the Third Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of all Sherman Act and RICO claims
against certain defendants, including the Company, except for
Sherman Act and RICO claims involving the sale of excess casualty
insurance through a single defendant broker, as well as all state
law claims, which they remanded to the district court for further
proceedings.  On October 1, 2010, defendants, including the
Company, filed renewed motions to dismiss the remanded claims.  On
March 18, 2011, the Company and certain other defendants entered
into an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the lawsuit, under
which the Company agreed to pay $6.75 million.  Preliminary
approval of the settlement was granted on June 27, 2011.  On
September 14, 2011, the court conducted a final fairness hearing,
and on March 30, 2012, the court granted final approval of the
settlement.  On April 27, 2012, three members of the settlement
class appealed the court's order granting final approval of the
settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Those appeals are pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 18,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


TRAVELERS COS: Appeals in Asbestos-Related Suits Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from a March 1, 2012 decision related to settlements in
asbestos-related lawsuits remain pending in the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals, according to The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s
October 18, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action
lawsuits (Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed
against Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC) and other insurers
(not including The St. Paul Companies, Inc. (SPC)) in state court
in West Virginia.  These and other cases subsequently filed in
West Virginia were consolidated into a single proceeding in the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia.  The plaintiffs
allege that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade
practices in violation of state statutes by inappropriately
handling and settling asbestos claims.  The plaintiffs seek to
reopen large numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose
liability for damages, including punitive damages, directly on
insurers.  Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and
settling of asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii
state courts.  These lawsuits are collectively referred to as the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state
court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant,
alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to
certain users of asbestos products.  The plaintiffs seek damages,
including punitive damages.  Lawsuits seeking similar relief and
raising similar allegations, primarily violations of purported
common law duties to third parties, have also been asserted in
various state courts against TPC and SPC.  The claims asserted in
these lawsuits are collectively referred to as the Common Law
Claims.

The federal bankruptcy court that had presided over the bankruptcy
of TPC's former policyholder Johns-Manville Corporation issued a
temporary injunction prohibiting the prosecution of the Statutory
Actions (but not the Hawaii Actions), the Common Law Claims and an
additional set of cases filed in various state courts in Texas and
Ohio, and enjoining certain attorneys from filing any further
lawsuits against TPC based on similar allegations.
Notwithstanding the injunction, additional common law claims were
filed against TPC.

In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions.  This settlement includes a lump-sum
payment of up to $412 million by TPC, subject to a number of
significant contingencies.  In May 2004, the parties reached a
settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future
Common Law Claims against TPC.  This settlement requires a payment
of up to $90 million by TPC, subject to a number of significant
contingencies.  Among the contingencies for each of these
settlements is a final order of the bankruptcy court clarifying
that all of these claims, and similar future asbestos-related
claims against TPC, are barred by prior orders entered by the
bankruptcy court ("the 1986 Orders").

On August 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order
approving the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders
barred the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially
all Common Law Claims pending against TPC ("the Clarifying
Order").  The Clarifying Order also applies to similar direct
action claims that may be filed in the future.

On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order
while vacating that portion of the order that required all future
direct actions against TPC to first be approved by the bankruptcy
court before proceeding in state or federal court.

Various parties appealed the district court's March 29, 2006
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On
February 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating
on jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the
Clarifying Order.  On February 29, 2008, TPC and certain other
parties to the appeals filed petitions for rehearing and/or
rehearing en banc, requesting reinstatement of the district
court's judgment, which were denied.  TPC and certain other
parties filed Petitions for Writ of Certiorari in the United
States Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit's
decision, and on December 12, 2008, the Petitions were granted.

On June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of TPC,
reversing the Second Circuit's February 15, 2008 decision,
finding, among other things, that the 1986 Orders are final and
generally bar the Statutory and Hawaii actions and substantially
all Common Law Claims against TPC.  Further, the Supreme Court
ruled that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue the
Clarifying Order.  However, since the Second Circuit had not ruled
on certain additional issues, principally related to procedural
matters and the adequacy of notice provided to certain parties,
the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Second Circuit for
further proceedings on those specific issues.  On October 21,
2009, all but one of the objectors to the Clarifying Order
requested that the Second Circuit dismiss their appeal of the
order approving the settlement, and that request was granted.

On March 22, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in which
it found that the notice of the 1986 Orders provided to the
remaining objector was insufficient to bar contribution claims by
that objector against TPC.  On April 5, 2010, TPC filed a Petition
for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the Second Circuit,
requesting further review of its March 22, 2010 opinion, which was
denied on May 25, 2010.  On August 18, 2010, TPC filed a Petition
for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking
review of the Second Circuit's March 22, 2010 opinion, and a
Petition for a Writ of Mandamus seeking an order from the Supreme
Court requiring the Second Circuit to comply with the Supreme
Court's June 18, 2009 ruling in TPC's favor.  The Supreme Court
denied the Petitions on November 29, 2010.

The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii actions and the Common
Law Claims actions filed Motions to Compel with the bankruptcy
court on September 2, 2010, and September 3, 2010, respectively,
arguing that all conditions precedent to the settlements have been
met and seeking to require TPC to pay the settlement amounts.  On
September 30, 2010, TPC filed an Opposition to the plaintiffs'
Motions to Compel on the grounds that the conditions precedent to
the settlements, principally the requirement that all contribution
claims be barred, have not been met in light of the Second
Circuit's March 22, 2010 opinion.  On December 16, 2010, the
bankruptcy court granted the plaintiffs' motions and ruled that
TPC was required to fund the settlements.  On
January 20, 2011, the bankruptcy court entered judgment in
accordance with its December 16, 2010 ruling and ordered TPC to
pay the settlement amounts plus prejudgment interest.  On
January 21, 2011, TPC filed an appeal with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York from the bankruptcy court's
January 20, 2011 judgment.  On January 24, 2011, certain of the
plaintiffs in the Common Law Claims actions appealed that portion
of the bankruptcy court's January 20, 2011 judgment that denied
their request for an order of contempt and for sanctions.  On
March 1, 2012, the district court ruled in TPC's favor and
reversed the bankruptcy court, finding that the conditions to the
settlements had not been met, and that TPC is not obligated to pay
the settlement amounts.  The district court also upheld the
bankruptcy court's order denying the plaintiffs' motion for an
order of contempt and for sanctions.  The district court further
ruled that, since TPC is not obligated to go forward with the
settlements, it was unnecessary to address the issue of pre-
judgment interest.  The plaintiffs appealed the district court's
March 1, 2012 decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and
those appeals are pending.

SPC, which is not covered by the Manville bankruptcy court rulings
or the settlements, is a party to pending direct action cases in
Texas state court asserting common law claims.  All such cases
that are still pending and in which SPC has been served are
currently on the inactive docket in Texas state court.  If any of
those cases becomes active, SPC intends to litigate those cases
vigorously.  SPC was previously a defendant in similar direct
actions in Ohio state court.  Those actions have all been
dismissed following favorable rulings by Ohio trial and appellate
courts.  From time to time, SPC and/or its subsidiaries have been
named in individual direct actions in other jurisdictions.


UNION PACIFIC: Class Cert. Appeal in Antirust Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a class certification ruling in the antitrust
lawsuits involving Union Pacific Corporation and a subsidiary
remains pending, according to the Company's October 18, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

As previously reported, 20 small rail shippers (many of whom are
represented by the same law firms) filed virtually identical
antitrust lawsuits in various federal district courts against the
Company and four other Class I railroads in the U.S (one railroad
was eventually dropped from the lawsuit).  The original plaintiff
filed the first of these claims in the U.S. District Court in New
Jersey on May 14, 2007, and the additional plaintiffs filed claims
in district courts in various states, including Florida, Illinois,
Alabama, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.  These
lawsuits allege that the named railroads engaged in price-fixing
by establishing common fuel surcharges for certain rail traffic.

The Company received additional complaints following the initial
claim, increasing the total number of complaints to 30.  In
addition to lawsuits filed by direct purchasers of rail
transportation, a few of the lawsuits involved plaintiffs alleging
that they are or were indirect purchasers of rail transportation
and seeking to represent a purported class of indirect purchasers
of rail transportation that paid fuel surcharges.  These
complaints added allegations under state antitrust and consumer
protection laws.  On November 6, 2007, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the rail fuel
surcharge cases be transferred to Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S.
District Court in the District of Columbia for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.  Subsequently, the direct
purchaser plaintiffs and the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaints against the Company's
subsidiary, Union Pacific Railroad Company ("UPRR") and three
other Class I railroads.

One additional shipper filed a separate antitrust lawsuit during
2008.  Subsequently, the shipper voluntarily dismissed the action
without prejudice.

On October 10, 2008, Judge Friedman heard oral arguments with
respect to the defendant railroads' motions to dismiss.  In a
ruling on November 7, 2008, Judge Friedman denied the motion with
respect to the direct purchasers' complaint, and pretrial
proceedings are underway in that case.  On December 31, 2008,
Judge Friedman dismissed the complaints of the indirect purchasers
based upon state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust
enrichment laws.  He also ruled, however, that these plaintiffs
could proceed with their claim for injunctive relief under the
federal antitrust laws, which is identical to a claim by the
direct purchaser plaintiffs.  The indirect purchasers appealed
Judge Friedman's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia.  On April 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed Judge Friedman's
ruling dismissing the indirect purchasers' claims based on various
state laws.

With respect to the direct purchasers' complaint, Judge Friedman
conducted a two-day hearing on October 6 and 7, 2010, on the class
certification issue and the railroad defendants' motion to exclude
evidence of interline communications.  On April 7, 2011, Judge
Friedman issued an order deferring any decision on class
certification until the Supreme Court issued its decision in the
Wal-Mart employment discrimination case.

On June 21, 2012, Judge Friedman issued his decision certifying a
class of plaintiffs to be represented by the eight named
plaintiffs.  The class includes all shippers that paid a rate-
based fuel surcharge to any one of the defendant railroads for
rate-unregulated rail transportation from July 1, 2003, through
December 1, 2008.  This is a procedural ruling, which does not
affirm any of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs and does not
affect the ability of the railroad defendants to disprove the
allegations made by the plaintiffs.  On July 5, 2012, the
defendant railroads filed a petition with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia requesting that the court
review the class certification ruling.  On August 28, 2012, a
panel of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia referred
the petition to a merits panel of the court to address the issues
in the petition and to address whether the district court properly
granted class certification.

The Company denies the allegations that its fuel surcharge
programs violate the antitrust laws or any other laws.  The
Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit, and it
will vigorously defend its actions.  Therefore, the Company
currently believes that these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on any of its results of operations, financial
condition and liquidity.


ZYNGA INC: Continues to Face Securities Class Action Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. continues to face securities class action lawsuits,
according to the Company's October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On July 30, 2012, a purported securities class action captioned
DeStefano v. Zynga Inc. et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-04007-JSW, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company, and certain of the
Company's current and former directors, officers, and executives.
Additional purported securities class actions containing similar
allegations have since been filed in the Northern District.  On
September 26, 2012, the court consolidated various of the class
actions as In re Zynga Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No.
12-cv-04007-JSW.  In addition, a securities class action captioned
Reyes v. Zynga Inc., et al. was filed on August 1, 2012, in San
Francisco County Superior Court, and removed to the Northern
District on September 28, 2012.  The various class action
complaints allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and financial projections.  The
various plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between
December 16, 2011, and July 25, 2012.  The complaints assert
claims for unspecified damages, and an award of costs and expenses
to the putative class, including attorneys' fees.  The Company
believes it has meritorious defenses and will vigorously defend
these actions.

The Company says the actions have only recently been filed and
there has been no discovery or other proceedings.  Accordingly,
the Company is not in a position to assess whether any loss or
adverse effect on its financial condition is probable or remote or
to estimate the range of potential loss, if any.


                           *********

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  * * *