CAR_Public/121119.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, November 19, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 229

                               Headlines

ALLERGAN: Faces Class Action Over Eye Drop Deceptive Scheme
AMAZON.COM INC: Discharged Employee Files Late Wage Class Action
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Appeal From CO2 Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
APPLE: Wants Judge to Reject Class Certification Bid in Wage Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Accused of Recording Calls Without Prior Consent

BEEBE MEDICAL: Judge Has Yet to Rule on Bradley Settlement
BIKE FRIDAY: Recalls 3,800 Tikit Folding Bikes Due to Fall Risk
BLACK LANE: Attorney Seeks Read Up on Summary Judgment Motion
BLYTH INC: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Securities Class Action
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Napoli Bern Ripka Files Class Action

CARBO CERAMICS: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit
CROWDFLOWER INC: Faces Suit for Failing to Pay Minimum Wage
ELI LILLY: Awaits Ct. Decision on "Schaefer-LaRose" Plaintiffs
GOLD RESOURCE: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action
KENNY'S FARMHOUSE: Recalls Various Cheeses Due to Health Risk

LAND O' LAKES: Class Counsel to Get $8MM Share From Settlement
LEAR CORP: Appeal From Feb. 10 Bank. Ct. Ruling on Claims Pending
MONAVIE AND JUICEY: Sued Over False Claims on Acai Juice
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: "Miller" Suit Pending in Michigan Cir. Ct.
NORTHERN TRUST: Defends Suits Over Securities Lending Program

NORTHERN TRUST: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in Illinois
POWERCOR: Supreme Court Hears Colac-Camperdown Line Issues
QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued for Misleading Shareholders
REDBOX AUTOMATED: Faces Privacy Class Action in Michigan
SEALECTION: Sued Over Defective Polyurethane Foam Insulation

SEARS ROEBUCK: Must Face Class Action Over Washer Mold
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Lead Pigment & Lead-Based Paint Suits Pending
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Doc. Production Bid Pending in Antitrust Suit
TIME WARNER: Faces Two Class Actions Over Modem Rental Fee
TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles Investor Class Action for $25.5 Million

UNITED BANCORP: Continues to Defend EFTA Violation Suit vs. Bank
UNITED STATES: Legal Challenge to Cobell Settlement Withdrawn
USG CORP: Knauf Tianjin Wallboard Suit Deal Hearing This Month
WAL-MART: Judge Approves Settlement of Workers' Compensation Suit
XCEL ENERGY: Appeal From "Comer II" Suit Dismissal Still Pending


                          *********

ALLERGAN: Faces Class Action Over Eye Drop Deceptive Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that four Illinois and Missouri residents filed a federal
lawsuit earlier this month against a dozen pharmaceutical
companies that they claim engaged in an unfair and deceptive
scheme to make more money off prescription eye drops.

Plaintiffs Charlene Eike, Shirley Fisher, Jordan Pitler and Alan
Raymond brought their class action complaint Nov. 1 in the U.S.
District Court in East St. Louis.

Ms. Eike lives in the Chicago suburbs, Ms. Fisher is from Granite
City and Messrs. Pitler and Raymond are Missouri residents.

The suit names several companies that distribute, market,
manufacture, sell and research eye drop products as defendants,
including Allergan, Alcon Laboratories, Bausch and Lomb, Pfizer,
Prasco and Merck & Co.

The plaintiffs' complaint alleges violations of Illinois' Consumer
Fraud Act and Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act and focuses
on the size of eye drops used in the defendants' products.  They
contend that the matter in controversy exceeds $5 million and
includes at least 100 class members.

The defendants, the suit contends, "separately engaged in an
unfair and unscrupulous scheme . . . to increase its profits by
selling prescription eye drops in a form that compels consumers to
buy and spend money for expensive medication that inherently goes
to waste."

As of result of the alleged scheme, the plaintiffs assert that
they and other consumers have been forced to buy more of
defendants' products than they should have.

Citing scientific studies and journal articles, including a few
funded by some of the defendants, the plaintiffs contend there is
no reason that eye drops should be larger than 15 uL, or
microliters. The defendants' products, the suit states, emit drops
two to three times that size.

Those same studies, recommend an eye drop size between 5 and 15uL.
Decreasing the size wouldn't make the product less effective, but
would simply reduce overflow, waste and cost of the product to the
consumer, the suit states.

"Defendants, which rank among the most medically and
scientifically sophisticated companies in the world, know full
well that the basis of this lawsuit is true and well-founded," the
suit asserts.  "Yet, defendants have persisted in their unlawful,
unfair and unethical practices of selling the medicine in
dispensers that emit much larger drops."

The plaintiffs contend that "the amount of overpayment that
consumers have been compelled to make because of these large drop
sizes is huge."

As an example, the suit points to a 2008 cost analysis study on
glaucoma medications.  The average drop size in defendant
Allergan's glaucoma drug, Alphagan, was 43 uL and the bottle held
about 5.17 milliliters of medication, according to the suit.

If a glaucoma patient used the recommended dose of one drop in
each eye three times a day, the Allergan's bottle of prescription
eye drops would last 20 days.

Based on those estimates, the suit states that the patient would
go through 18 bottles a year. At $90 a pop, the patient would
spend about $1,600 a year on glaucoma eye drops, according to the
suit.

"However, approximately 65% of the medication, the amount over 15
uL, would be wasted," the plaintiffs contend.  "The wasted
medication would cost the patient approximately $1,067 a year."

The suit seeks certification of nine different classes, which are
broken down by the consumer's place of residence and the company
that manufactured or sold the eye drops they used.

The case is No. 3:12-cv-01141-DRH-DGW.

The plaintiffs are represented by St. Louis attorneys Richard
Cornfeld, John G. Simon and Stephanie H. To.

As of Nov. 13, no one had entered an appearance on behalf of the
defendants.


AMAZON.COM INC: Discharged Employee Files Late Wage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harmon Marks, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that a
discharged customer service agent is suing Amazon.com, Inc. and
Amazon.com NCCS, Inc., for allegedly failing to pay her and other
former employees within 72 hours of discharge.

Jennifer L. Bathauer, a Cabell County resident, complains she was
fired last June 4, then got all due wages June 22, in violation of
the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Attorneys Todd S. Bailess and Joy B. Mega of Charleston signed off
on her case Sept. 28, noting the out-of-state defendants conduct
business in Lincoln County.

Plaintiff seeks jury trial in Lincoln Circuit Court "pursuant to
rule 23 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of
the following proposed class: All persons formerly employed by the
Defendants in West Virginia from five years prior to the filing of
this Complaint through class certification who were discharged and
not paid all wages timely."

Ms. Bathauer stipulates that individually she seeks a recovery of
no more than $75,000, not including litigation costs and interest.

The complaint also stipulates awarding "Plaintiff and each member
of the class" specified damages and all remedies afforded under
the WPCA, court costs, injunctive relief, and such further relief
deemed just and equitable.

The case is expected to be ready for trial next September, with
Judge Jay M. Hoke presiding.

Lincoln Circuit Court case number: 12-C-111


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Appeal From CO2 Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit over CO2
emissions remains pending, according to American Electric Power
Company, Inc.'s October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
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.

Management 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.


APPLE: Wants Judge to Reject Class Certification Bid in Wage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that Apple, Google
and others urged a federal judge against certifying a class that
claims that the late Steve Jobs and other leading Silicon Valley
CEOs suppressed wages via "gentleman's agreements."

Seven companies face claims that they agreed not to recruit one
another's employees in CEO-to-CEO e-mails, and "conspired to
suppress, and actually did suppress, employee compensation to
artificially low levels" from 2005 to 2009.

Five former employees filed the all-employee suit in October.
They say the firms enacted the poaching ban to maintain stable
internal salary structures.

The suit against Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm
and Pixar was filed in Alameda County Superior Court and removed
to the federal court in San Jose.

On Nov. 12, the companies said U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh should
reject certification for a proposed class of 60,000 to 100,000
employees who were employed "in widely varying jobs and received
vastly different compensation set by each defendant's unique
practices."

"The common injury sometimes found in price-fixing cases is absent
here," their 32-page brief states.  "This case does not involve
agreements to reduce hiring or fix wages.  Rather, plaintiffs
alleged that certain pairs of defendants, as part of an
'overarching conspiracy,' agreed not to make unsolicited cold
calls to each other's employees."

The companies also say that certification would violate the due
process clause and the Rules Enabling Act.

"Whether and to what extent any employee suffered injury as a
result of the alleged 'do-not-cold-call' agreements cannot
possibly be determined 'in one stroke' by common proof," according
to the brief authored by O'Melbeny & Myers attorney Michael
Tubach.  "Nor can the indefensible statistical methods of
plaintiffs' expert substitute for the individualized inquiries
required to determine whether anyone was harmed, directly or
indirectly, because certain cold calls were not made."

In a separate motion, the companies said Judge Koh should strike
the testimony of class expert, Dr. Edward Leamer.

Dr. Leamer's "unreliable" analysis alleges that "all or nearly
all" class members were undercompensated as a result of bilateral
agreements among the companies, according to the motion.

It "is rife with fundamental errors and contrary to the evidence,"
according to this filing authored by Bingham McCutchen attorney
Frank Hinman.

"Leamer's opinions about the effects of an alleged suppression of
competition on class members' compensation are supported by no
factual knowledge of competition in the labor markets he purports
to address, the extent of any information suppression, or the
actual effect on any class members, let alone 'all or nearly all'
of them," the 30-page motion states.

"If one runs Leamer's model disaggregated for each defendant, it
concludes that some defendants overcompensated their employees as
a result of the alleged agreements -- a result flatly contrary to
plaintiffs' theory that the agreements suppressed the compensation
of all defendants' employees," Mr. Hinman added.

The companies claim that the plaintiffs "have presented no viable
means to determine antitrust impact or damages classwide."

"Lumping all employees' claims together would violate the Rules
Enabling Act," they added.

The suit would "violate defendants' due process right to assert
'every available' defense against each class member," according to
the brief.

"Lacking concrete evidence of any harm, plaintiffs advance a novel
theory of indirect impact on the class that has not support in law
or economics," the companies added.

"In short, plaintiffs' motion ignores the individualized factual
issues that must be resolved to determine who was injured and the
extent of injury caused by the alleged agreements.  Plaintiffs'
profoundly flawed statistical analysis assumes, rather than
demonstrates, predominance of common issues."


BANK OF AMERICA: Accused of Recording Calls Without Prior Consent
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abdullah Byanooni individually and on behalf of a class and
subclass of similarly situated individuals v. Bank of America
Corporation, Bank of America N.A., FIA Card Services, N.A. and
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC-12-523353 (Calif.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., August 17, 2012) arises out of the
Defendants' policy and practice of recording and intercepting
calls made to the telephone numbers 800-831-4419, 704-386-5681,
800-283-4262, and 800-732-9194 without the consent of all parties.

The Defendants' policy and practice of recording and intercepting
telephone conversations without the consent of all parties
violates California's Invasion of Privacy Act, Mr. Byanooni
contends.  He argues that as a result of the Defendants'
violations, all individuals who called the telephone numbers were
recorded and monitored and eavesdropped upon by the Defendants
surreptitiously and without disclosure, and are entitled to an
award of statutory damages and injunctive relief as set forth in
the Penal Code.

Mr. Byanooni is a resident of California.

Bank of America is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina.  BANA is a federally chartered national
banking association based in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America.  FIA Card Services is
a federally chartered national banking association based in
Delaware and a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America.  Bank
of America, BANA and FIA Card Services regularly do business
throughout the United States and systematically and continuously
do business in California and with California residents.  The
Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants.

Bank of America removed the lawsuit on October 26, 2012, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of San
Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Company argues that the removal is
proper because the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5
million.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:12-cv-05483
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq.
          David H. Yeremian, Esq.
          Justin Kachadoorian, Esq.
          ORSHANSKY & YEREMIAN LLP
          16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1245
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 205-1212
          Facsimile: (818) 205-1616
          E-mail: anthony@oyllp.com
                  david@oyllp.com
                  justin@oyllp.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Miller, Esq.
          STEVEN L. MILLER, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 645
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 986-8900
          Facsimile: (818) 990-7900
          E-mail: stevenlmiller@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David S. Reidy, Esq.
          Matthew J. Brady, Esq.
          Ashley L. Shively, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          101 Second Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
          Telephone: (415) 543-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 391-8269
          E-mail: dreidy@reedsmith.com
                  mbrady@reedsmith.com
                  ashively@reedsmith.com


BEEBE MEDICAL: Judge Has Yet to Rule on Bradley Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Sean O'Sullivan, writing for The News Journal, reports that
attorneys seeking to win approval for a $123 million class-action
settlement related to the child sexual abuse committed by former
Lewes pediatrician Earl Bradley spent the day in court on Nov. 13
detailing the struggles of bringing all sides together.

They explained the difficulties of getting insurance companies to
pay.  They showed how the future of Beebe Medical Center was on
the line.  They talked about how the class-action resolution was
historic and unprecedented.

Then, a woman, the parent of one of Mr. Bradley's young victims,
stood to tell the court something she thought was missing: "an
apology."

The mother, who was not identified but submitted her name in
writing to the court under seal, told Superior Court Judge Joseph
R. Slights III that it was impossible for anyone to know what the
families and child victims have gone through.

She then expressed her concern that with the settlement
potentially being divided among more than 900 plaintiffs, the ones
who suffered the most horrific abuse will not get the assistance
they need.

She said her 8-year-old, who was seen in one of the videos
Mr. Bradley made, has tried to kill herself.

"My kid is living it every day," she said.  "None of the
settlement to me is clear."

The videos showed Mr. Bradley molesting dozens of his young
patients.  Experts have said it is the worst case of a
pediatrician abusing his patients they have ever seen.

Judge Slights did not immediately rule on the proposed settlement
that both sides crafted over the summer and fall.  He said he
would issue a written ruling no later than Nov. 19.

Under the settlement's terms, the $123 million would be put into a
pool for victims, similar to the pool that was set up for victims
in priest sex abuse cases involving the Diocese of Wilmington.  A
mediator, Thomas Rutter, will evaluate each of more than 900
claims and separate them into one of five categories, depending on
the severity of abuse suffered.  A settlement amount will then be
assigned to each category, and all approved for that category will
be paid.

Mr. Bradley was convicted in August 2011 of multiple counts of
child rape involving his young patients and sentenced to 14 life
terms plus 164 years in prison.  He documented his crimes on
videos -- sometimes involving children that were only months old ?
that he stored at his pediatrics office along Del. 1.  The
recordings were discovered by police and used as evidence against
him.

At the Nov. 13 hearing, a series of witnesses, including class-
action attorney and former U.S. Senate candidate Alex Pires, told
the court how Beebe Medical Center sought to settle claims with
victims almost from the start and did not pursue legal defenses
that may have prevailed at trial.

Mr. Pires, who serves on several boards at Beebe, said from the
outset he looked at the sheer number of potential victims and
individual lawsuits and "I said this could be the end of Beebe."

Mr. Pires said he still expects the number of class members in the
lawsuit to grow to as much as 1,400 before the deadline to join
expires on Dec. 14.

No matter who was at fault, Mr. Pires said if the case went to
trial, he believed Beebe would not survive.  Mr. Pires said Beebe
CEO Jeffrey M. Fried decided to take his advice and made the
decision not to fight but to try to settle.  The hospital not only
dropped what could have been successful defenses but took steps to
protect victims and their families, according to witnesses.

For example, several people testified that the hospital made sure
the settlement did not require that children give a deposition or
testify because that could potentially retraumatize them.

Mr. Pires noted that after news of Mr. Bradley's crimes broke in
late 2009, "things started to fall apart" as Beebe's credit rating
plummeted and the hospital was listed by ratings agencies as
"troubled."

Mr. Fried testified that $43.4 million disappeared from the
hospital's balance sheets, due to loans that were abruptly called
in and collateral that had to be posted to keep other loans from
being called.

Mr. Beebe offered early on to contribute $5.7 million to the
settlement -- and was the first party to offer any financial
settlement -- something mediators said was an important first step
and show of good faith.  The hospital later upped its offer to
$7.2 million, with a promise to offer $1 million of medical
services to victims for 15 years.

But while Beebe wanted to settle quickly, attorney and insurance
expert James Murray testified that the hospital's insurance
carriers were extremely reluctant.  One policy had a specific
exclusion for sex abuse claims.  For over a year, the insurance
companies made no financial offer.  When they finally did, in
April 2012, it was for $20 million to $30 million.

What finally broke the logjam was a mediation session overseen by
former Delaware Supreme Court Justice Joseph T. Walsh on June 28
and 29 at a law office in Philadelphia, according to testimony.

The parent of a child victim who spoke at the close of testimony
said it all rang a bit hollow to her.

She said over the past few years it has not appeared to her that
Beebe has suffered.  She said it looks to her like Beebe has
seemed to "grow and prosper while my life is on hold."

Another parent said she does not know if she will ever be able to
trust a doctor again.

One other parent spoke, telling Judge Slights that rehabilitation
for the young victims, not a dollar amount, should be the guiding
focus.


BIKE FRIDAY: Recalls 3,800 Tikit Folding Bikes Due to Fall Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Green Gear Cycling Inc., doing business as Bike Friday, of Eugene,
Oregon, announced a voluntary recall of about 3,800 Tikit Folding
Bicycles.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The tikit bike's handlebar stem can break and cause the rider to
lose control, posing a fall hazard to the consumer.

The firm has received six reports of breaking handlebar stems,
resulting in two reports of injuries including scrapes, bruises
and a head laceration that required stitches.

This recall involves all models of tikit brand folding bicycles.
The 16-inch wheel custom bicycles were sold in various colors.
The Bike Friday tikit brand decal is affixed to the bike frame.  A
picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13038.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold through Bike Friday direct and dealers nationwide
from January 2007 through September 2012 for between $900 and
$5,000.

Consumers should immediately stop riding the bicycle and contact
Bike Friday to schedule a free repair.  Consumer Contact: Bike
Friday; (800) 777-0258, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Pacific Time
Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.BikeFriday.com/(FAQs)
and click on "tikit stem recall" for more information.


BLACK LANE: Attorney Seeks Read Up on Summary Judgment Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Stueve Hodges, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that plaintiff attorney Thomas Maag says the defense
attorney in a Madison County class action case he is pursuing
needs to read up on what a motion to dismiss is versus what a
summary judgment motion is.

Mr. Maag reacted Nov. 7 to a motion for leave to file supplemental
public records instanter that attorney Thomas Frenkel of
Carbondale filed Nov. 5 in a class action case he is defending
against Black Lane Auto Parts of Caseyville.

Mr. Maag is representing Tiffany Craycraft, who claims Black Lane
towed her 2000 Ford Taurus without her consent.  She seeks damages
for alleged violations of the Illinois Vehicle Code under its
anti-theft law and abandoned vehicles chapter, as well as under
the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, because when she retrieved her
vehicle, she claims she did not receive a detailed, signed
receipt, showing the legal name of the towing service.

Court documents show Ms. Craycraft was arrested by Caseyville
Police at 2:30 a.m. on April 11, after she was observed disobeying
a traffic light.  Subsequently, Black Lane towed the vehicle from
a turning lane on Highway 157 on police orders.

Mr. Maag wrote that Mr. Frenkel's attempt to file supplemental
public records is a "bad faith attempt to prejudice the
plaintiff."

"Plaintiff respectfully contends that counsel for Defense needs to
read Barber-Colman Company v. A&K Midwest Insulation, which is the
lead case in the Fifth District (our appellate district) on what a
motion to dismiss is, and what a summary judgment motion is,"
Mr. Maag wrote.

According to Mr. Maag, the defense record is "deficient" and that
is why it seeks to file more documents on its motion to dismiss,
even after oral arguments.

"Furthermore, the stated basis for the additional documents is
that defendant wishes to show that one of the plaintiff's
allegations is not true," Mr. Maag wrote.

"As was pointed out, this is a motion to dismiss, not a summary
judgment motion."

Mr. Maag has asked Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs to deny the
defense motion to dismiss.

On Oct. 31, the court took under advisement oral arguments
involving Black Lane's motion to dismiss.

According to Mr. Frenkel, Missouri and Illinois motor vehicle
registration records were requested Sept. 4.  Mr. Frenkel wrote
that Illinois records have been received but not records from
Missouri.

Mr. Frenkel states the purpose of obtaining the records is to
inform the court of the status of Ms. Craycraft's vehicle
registration on the date of its tow.

He argues that unregistered vehicles are properly towed.

Madison County case number 12-L-641.


BLYTH INC: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Nov. 13 announced that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut on behalf of purchasers of Blyth, Inc.
common stock during the period between March 14, 2012 and November
6, 2012.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from Nov. 13.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman
or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/blyth/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Blyth and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Blyth is a marketing and manufacturing company that sells personal
and decorative products throughout North America.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and future prospects.  In
particular, the complaint alleges that the nature and ongoing
viability of the strong results being reported for ViSalus, Inc.,
a multilevel weight loss marketing company the Company owns a
controlling interest in, were being overstated, and that this was
masking declining performance in the Company's other operating
units and product lines.

The complaint alleges that beginning with a September 21, 2012
Moody's Investors Services cut in its outlook for the Company, the
market began to learn through a series of partial disclosures
ending on November 6, 2012, that the Company's financial soundness
and business metrics were not as they had been represented during
the Class Period.  As Blyth's stock price was pummeled with each
of these revelations, more than $462 million in market
capitalization was simply erased.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Blyth common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  With nearly 200 lawyers in
nine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $2 trillion.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Napoli Bern Ripka Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP, has filed a
$250,000,000 class action complaint against Cablevision Systems
Corp. and its affiliates to enjoin Cablevision from continuing to
charge customers for services the company did not provide during
the post Hurricane Sandy aftermath.  The complaint was filed on
behalf of over one million Cablevision customers residing in New
York who have lost television, internet, and telephone services
since Hurricane Sandy devastated the tri-state area.

The complaint alleges that Cablevision customers, to this day,
continue to pay for non-existent cable, internet, and telephone
services.  The lawsuit seeks to enjoin Cablevision's improper
practice of withholding rebates to its customers who lost service
unless until a customer complains to the company.  On November 13,
2012, Bard v. Cablevision Systems Corp., et. al., Index No.
602291/2012, was filed and alleges that customers have been
wrongfully charged for services and not automatically refunded for
bills sent to customers while Cablevision's services were
disrupted.

The class understands that services could not be provided under
the circumstances after the storm, but the complaint alleges that
Cablevision was obligated to immediately rebate every customer for
the period of time service was disrupted.  In addition, because
the class alleges that Cablevision knew, or reasonably should have
known, that it could not supply its services, Cablevision should
not have accepted payments for services not provided to the class
members during the disruption time period.

The lawsuit also asserts that Cablevision has refused to give
customers any rebate for their approximate payment of $150 a
month, unless a customer contacts Cablevision and complains about
the service disruption.  Cablevision is aware that nearly its
entire customer base has not made telephone or internet complaints
about the outage and is relying upon Cablevision's public
assurances in the press that it was working diligently to restore
service.


CARBO CERAMICS: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARBO Ceramics Inc. and other defendants seek dismissal of a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in New York,
according to the Company's October 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On February 9, 2012, the Company and two of its officers, Gary A.
Kolstad and Ernesto Bautista III, were named as defendants in a
purported class-action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (the "February SDNY
Lawsuit"), brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
Company's Common Stock between October 27, 2011, and January 26,
2012 (the "Relevant Time Period").  On April 10, 2012, a second
purported class-action lawsuit was filed against the same
defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or sold CARBO Ceramics Inc. option contracts during the
Relevant Time Period (the "April SDNY Lawsuit, and collectively
with the February SDNY Lawsuit, the "Federal Securities Lawsuit").
In June 2012, the February SNDY Lawsuit and the April SDNY Lawsuit
were consolidated, and will now proceed as one lawsuit.  The
lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws arising
from statements concerning the Company's business operations and
business prospects that were made during the Relevant Time Period
and requests unspecified damages and costs.  In September 2012,
the Company and Messrs. Kolstad and Bautista filed a motion to
dismiss this lawsuit, which is expected to be considered by the
court after response and reply briefs are filed by the parties
during the fourth quarter of 2012.

While the Federal Securities Lawsuit is in its preliminary stages,
the Company does not believe it has merit, and plans to vigorously
contest and defend against it.

The Company says it cannot predict the ultimate outcome or
duration of the lawsuit.


CROWDFLOWER INC: Faces Suit for Failing to Pay Minimum Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Otey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CrowdFlower, Inc., Lukas Biewald and Chris Van Pelt,
Case No. 4:12-cv-05524 (N.D. Calif., October 26, 2012) is a
collective action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, on
behalf of Plaintiff and a nationwide class of all people who
performed crowd-sourced work in the United States in response to
any online request by CrowdFlower for crowd-sourced work, or any
online notification by CrowdFlower that crowd-sourced work was
available.

Although it describes itself as providing the "World's Largest
Workforce," CrowdFlower, however, pays its workforce wages well
below the required federal minimum wage rate, Mr. Otey alleges.
In many instances, he contends, CrowdFlower fails to pay any cash
wages at all for work performed, in violation of the FLSA.

Mr. Otey is a resident of Astoria, Oregon.  In 2012, and possibly
also late 2011, he was employed by CrowdFlower to perform simple
repetitive crowd-sourced online tasks for the benefit of
CrowdFlower while under CrowdFlower's supervision and control.

CrowdFlower is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San
Francisco, California.  CrowdFlower is an Internet based
technology company that was established in late 2007.  From its
inception, CrowdFlower has used technology to distribute to a
large work force simple repetitive tasks which can be better
performed by human labor than computers.  CrowdFlower was founded
in 2007 by Lukas Biewald and Chris Van Pelt.  Mr. Biewald is the
current Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Mr. Van Pelt is
the current Chief Technology Officer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William T. Payne, Esq.
          Ellen M. Doyle, Esq.
          STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          429 Forbes Avenue, 17th floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
          E-mail: wpayne@stemberfeinstein.com
                  edoyle@stemberfeinstein.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
          WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
          11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 997-9150
          Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
          E-mail: markp@wp-attorney.com

               - and -

          Ira Spiro, Esq.
          Jennifer Connor, Esq.
          SPIRO MOORE LLP
          11377 W. Olympic Blvd., Fifth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 235-2468
          Facsimile: (310) 235-2456
          E-mail: ira@spiromoore.com
                  jennifer@spiromoore.com


ELI LILLY: Awaits Ct. Decision on "Schaefer-LaRose" Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company disclosed in its October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012, that it is still awaiting a
court decision on the status of the remaining plaintiffs in the
class action lawsuit filed by Schaefer-LaRose, et al.

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 its 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 that time.

In May 2012, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
District Court's summary judgment ruling.  In June 2012, the
United States Supreme Court ruled, in a case against another
pharmaceutical company, that sales representatives employed by
that company were exempt from the overtime requirements of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Company is waiting for the district court to rule on the
status of the remaining plaintiffs in the Schaefer-LaRose case.
The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and is 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.


GOLD RESOURCE: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on Nov. 13 announced the filing of
a class-action securities lawsuit against Gold Resource
Corporation alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on behalf of purchasers of GORO common stock during the
period from Jan. 30, 2012 through Nov. 8, 2012, inclusive.

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado.  A copy of the complaint may be obtained
from Hagens Berman or from the court and is available on Hagens
Berman's Web site at http://hb-securities.com/cases/GORO

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements to
investors in violation of the securities laws by misrepresenting
and failing to disclose significant production problems at the
Company's El Aguila mining project in Oaxaca, Mexico.

The complaint further alleges that the defendants materially
overstated the Company's reported production statistics, revenues
and net income during the first and second quarters of 2012 by
improperly including "sales" of product that were invoiced, but
not actually delivered to the Company's buyers.

On July 19, 2012, the company announced preliminary production
results for the second quarter of 2012, and, for the first time,
disclosed some of the serious production problems that were
plaguing the Company, the lawsuit states.  On the news, GORO
shares dropped more than 30 percent from $24.99 to close at $17.34
per share.

On Oct. 17, 2012, the Defendants announced continuing production
problems at the Company during the third quarter.  The lawsuit
claims this caused the Company's stock to tumble again, down
another 10 percent, from $20.15 per share to a close of $18.01 per
share.

Finally, on Nov. 8, 2012, the Company shocked investors when it
announced that:

1. Investors should no longer rely on its previously issued
financial statements for the quarters ended March 31, 2012 or June
30, 2012;

2. The Company's system of accounting internal controls had a
"material weakness;"

3. The March 31, 2012 and June 30, 2012 financial statements
contained at least $3.7 million in improperly recognized income;
and

4. The March 31, 2012 and June 30, 2012 financial statements would
require restatement. On the news, GORO shares lost another $0.50
per share to close at $16.48 on Nov. 9, 2012.

Investors who wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the case must
move the court no later than Dec. 24, 2012.  Shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired GORO common stock between Jan. 30,
2012, and Nov. 8, 2012, inclusive, are encouraged to contact
attorney Karl Barth at 206-623-7292 or to contact the Hagens
Berman legal team through e-mail at GORO@hbsslaw.com

Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  Class members need
not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any
possible recovery.

The plaintiff in the case seeks to recover damages on behalf of
the class and is represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP.
Hagens Berman is a nationwide investor-protection law firm,
prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving financial
fraud.

For more information about Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, or to
review a copy of the complaint filed in this action, you may visit
our website at http://hb-securities.com/cases/GORO

                       About Hagens Berman

Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP --
http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a class-action law firm, with offices
in ten cities across the country.  Founded in 1993, we represent
plaintiffs in class actions and multi-state, large-scale
litigation that seek to protect the rights of investors,
consumers, workers and whistleblowers.

If you have any questions about this notice, the action, your
rights or your interests, please contact:

          Karl P. Barth, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP
          1918 Eighth Ave.
          Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: GORO@hbsslaw.com


KENNY'S FARMHOUSE: Recalls Various Cheeses Due to Health Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny's Farmhouse Cheese (KFHC), due to the abundance of caution,
is conducting a voluntary recall due to routine testing based on
the Company's concern for its customers.  A testing confirmed the
presence of Listeria monocytogenes in a few samples of the
following cheeses.  At this time, no illnesses have been reported,
but to ensure that all suspect product is removed from the
marketplace, KFHC is initiating a voluntary recall in cooperation
with the Milk Safety Branch of the Kentucky Department of Health
Services (KDHS) and the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA).

   (1) Colby, Colby Cheese, 8 oz, 5 lb, 10 lb, or 25 lb block,
       vacuum packed, Lot # 120724

   (2) Chipotle Colby, Flavored Colby Cheese, 8 oz, 5 lb, 10 lb,
       or 25 lb block, vacuum packed, Lot #120711

   (3) Monterey Jack, Jack Cheese, 8 oz, 5 lb, 10 lb, or 25 lb
       block, vacuum packed, Lot # 120719

   (4) Mild Cheddar, Cheddar Cheese, 8 oz, 5 lb, 10 lb, or 25 lb
       block, vacuum packed Lot # 120625

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm328059.htm

These specific cheeses and lot numbers were distributed or sold
beginning on September 20th, 2012 to locations in Alabama,
Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia to
distributors, restaurants and farmer's markets.  Anyone that has
distributed any of the cheeses identified above needs to
immediately notify their customers of the voluntary recall and
instruct them to return any affected cheeses for a full refund.
The cost of the returned cheese will be reimbursed.  Anyone
identifying the above cheeses in their inventory needs to
isolate/quarantine this cheese and immediately contact Kenny's
Farmhouse Cheese to arrange product return for a full refund.

Listeria monocytogenes is a bacteria which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, pregnant women and others with weakened immune systems.
Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal
pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages,
stillbirths and fetal infection among pregnant women.

If you have any questions or seek additional information, please
call 888-571-4029 or 270-434-4124 or e-mail udderway@yahoo.com.
Hours of operations are Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Central Standard Time.


LAND O' LAKES: Class Counsel to Get $8MM Share From Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that attorneys who
snagged a $25 million settlement over an alleged conspiracy to fix
the price of eggs in the United States can collect nearly $8
million, a federal judge ruled.

The fee award of $7.5 million represents 30 percent of the
settlement fund approved in July by U.S. District Judge Gene
Pratter.  That deal requires Land O' Lakes, its subsidiary Moark
LLC, and Moark subsidiary Norco Ranch to help advance the case
against the other alleged co-conspirators.

Plaintiffs in the consolidated case include direct purchasers --
grocery stores, food manufacturers, restaurants and other
businesses that bought eggs from some of the nation's largest egg
suppliers -- and indirect purchasers, the individual consumers who
bought eggs through other channels.

They say egg producers and trade groups engineered a supply-
management conspiracy to reduce U.S. egg production and keep
prices high.  As part of that conspiracy, the producers allegedly
coordinated the disposal of hens and exported eggs abroad at a
loss.

The settlement marks a deal with direct purchasers only.  Other
claims remain pending.  Attorneys for the direct purchasers
requested $7.5 million in fees, plus more than $566,000 to cover
their litigation expenses.  They later reduced their expenses
calculation to more than $487,000.

Garden City Group, the third party administrator of the
settlement, notified class members of the requested fees and
informed them how to a file an objection.

The court says no class members came forward to oppose the
proposed award.

Judge Pratter approved the motion on Nov. 9, though he shrank the
expenses calculation to $434,944.79.

The 13-page memorandum accompanying the order praises the skill
demonstrated by class counsel.

"Moreover, Plaintiffs' counsel appear to have reasonably divided
their work between partners and other lawyers and staff," Judge
Pratter wrote.  "For instance, all but two of the firms who
submitted supplemental declarations directed at least some of
their work to associates or staff.  Additionally, the ratio of
non-partner personnel who worked on the case to partners who did
so is approximately 1.65:1.4.  Given the complexity of this
litigation and the corresponding appropriate need for and use of
heavy involvement by experienced attorneys, the court finds that
this ratio is reasonable, and that plaintiffs' counsel
sufficiently directed work to lower-level personnel.

"Plaintiffs' counsel represent that, based on their hourly rates
and hours worked, their total lodestar through the date of the
final fairness hearing on the Moark settlement amounts to
$11,001,332.40.  In performing an independent calculation of the
lodestar, the court calculates it as $10,817,088.90.  The
difference between these two figures is insignificant, as the
lodestar of plaintiffs' counsel generates a multiplier of 0.68,
while that of the court generates one of 0.69.  Both multipliers
indicate that the court should approve the proposed award."

In entering the $53,000 reduction, Judge Pratter noted that
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h) allows for the award of only
nontaxable costs.

"Because only nontaxable costs may be awarded to plaintiffs'
counsel by rule, the court has reviewed the dozens of declarations
submitted by counsel to disentangle their nontaxable and taxable
costs, and to evaluate the reasonableness of their nontaxable
costs," Judge Pratter wrote.  "Based on this review, the court
finds that the nontaxable costs sought by plaintiffs' counsel are
reasonable, and therefore awards plaintiffs' counsel $434,944.79,
the amount of nontaxable costs that the court calculates counsel
has accrued."

A copy of the Order in In Re: Processed Egg Producs Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 08-md-2002 (E.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/11/14/Eggs.pdf


LEAR CORP: Appeal From Feb. 10 Bank. Ct. Ruling on Claims Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lear Corporation's appeal from a February 10, 2012 bankruptcy
court ruling issued on its motion to enforce its 2009 Plan of
Reorganization and to seek dismissal of pending class action
complaints related to automotive wire harnesses remains pending,
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 29, 2012.

On October 5, 2011, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan against the Company and several other global
suppliers of automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust and related laws.  Since that time, a
number of other plaintiffs have filed substantially similar class
action complaints against the Company and these and other
suppliers and individuals in a number of different federal
district courts, and it is possible that additional similar
lawsuits may be filed in the future.  Plaintiffs purport to be
direct and indirect purchasers of automotive wire harnesses
supplied by the Company and/or the other defendants during the
relevant period.  The complaints allege that the defendants
conspired to fix prices at which automotive wire harnesses were
sold and that this had an anticompetitive effect upon interstate
commerce in the United States.  The complaints further allege that
defendants fraudulently concealed their alleged conspiracy.  The
plaintiffs in these proceedings seek injunctive relief and
recovery of an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs and
expenses relating to the proceedings, including attorneys' fees.

On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation entered an order transferring and coordinating the
various civil actions, for pretrial purposes, into one proceeding
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.  On May 14, 2012, three purported classes of plaintiffs
-- direct purchasers of automotive wire harnesses; automotive
dealers that indirectly purchased automotive wire harnesses or
vehicles containing such harnesses; and indirect purchasers that
purchased or leased vehicles containing automotive wire harnesses
(or purchased replacement automotive wire harnesses for their
vehicles) -- filed consolidated amended complaints in the
consolidated proceeding.  With respect to the Company, the
consolidated amended complaints are substantially similar to the
individual complaints that had been filed in the various
jurisdictions.  On July 13, 2012, the Company filed a motion to
have these actions dismissed for failure to state a claim for
relief, because plaintiffs failed to plead a plausible claim
against the Company and because, even if it existed, such a claim
would be barred following the Company's emergence from bankruptcy.

Beginning in early 2012, single putative class action complaints
were filed in the Superior Courts of Justice in Ontario and Quebec
against the Company and several other global suppliers of
automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of Canadian laws
related to competition.  The allegations in these complaints are
substantially similar to those complaints that have been filed in
the United States.

On November 17, 2011, the Company filed a motion with the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
seeking entry of an order enforcing the Company's 2009 Plan of
Reorganization and directing dismissal of the pending class action
complaints.  The bankruptcy court heard oral argument on the
motion and, on February 10, 2012, ruled that claims against the
Company alleging violation of antitrust law are enjoined to the
extent that they arose prior to the Company's emergence from
Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings on November 9, 2009.  The
bankruptcy court further held that the District Court was the
appropriate forum to address antitrust claims arising after the
Company's emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.  The
Company is currently appealing the bankruptcy court's decision on
the issue of claims against the Company after November 9, 2009,
not being enjoined.

The Company says the ultimate outcome of this litigation, and
consequently, an estimate of the possible loss, if any, related to
this litigation, cannot reasonably be determined at this time.
However, the Company believes the plaintiffs' allegations against
it are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in
these proceedings.


MONAVIE AND JUICEY: Sued Over False Claims on Acai Juice
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Monavie and Juicey Acai push
acai juice through a multi-level marketing scheme with false
claims that its health benefits were proven through "millions of
dollars in clinical research," a class action claims in Federal
Court.


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: "Miller" Suit Pending in Michigan Cir. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit initiated by Gaylord L. Miller against a
subsidiary of Mueller Industries, Inc., is pending in Michigan,
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 29, 2012.

A purported class action was filed in Michigan Circuit Court by
Gaylord L. Miller, and all others similarly situated, against a
subsidiary of the Company, Extruded Metals, Inc., in March 2012
under nuisance, negligence, and gross negligence theories.  It is
brought on behalf of all persons in the City of Belding, Michigan,
whose property rights have allegedly been interfered with by
fallout and/or dust and/or noxious odors, allegedly attributable
to Extruded Metals' operations.  Plaintiffs allege that they have
suffered interference with the use and enjoyment of their
properties.  They seek compensatory and exemplary damages and
injunctive relief.  The Company intends to vigorously defend this
matter.  At this time, the Company is unable to determine the
impact, if any, that this matter will have on its financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows.  A mediation
between the parties was held November 8, 2012.

Mueller Industries, Inc. manufactures copper tube and fittings;
brass and copper alloy rod, bar and shapes; aluminum and brass
forgings; aluminum and copper impact extrusions; plastic fittings
and valves; refrigeration valves and fittings; and fabricated
tubular products.  Mueller's operations are located throughout the
United States and in Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, and China.
Mueller's business is importantly linked to (1) the construction
of new homes; (2) the improvement and reconditioning of existing
homes and structures; and (3) the commercial construction market
which includes office buildings, factories, hotels, hospitals,
etc.  The Company is headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.


NORTHERN TRUST: Defends Suits Over Securities Lending Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Trust Corporation is defending class action lawsuits
brought by participants of its securities lending program,
according to the Corporation's October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2012.

A number of participants in the Company's securities lending
program, which is associated with the Corporation's asset
servicing business, have commenced either individual lawsuits or
putative class actions in which they claim, among other things,
that the Company failed to exercise prudence in the investment
management of the collateral received from the borrowers of the
securities, resulting in losses that they seek to recover.  The
cases assert various contractual, statutory and common law claims,
including claims for breach of fiduciary duty under common law and
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).  Based
on the Company's review of these matters, it believes it operated
its securities lending program prudently and appropriately.  At
this stage of these proceedings, however, it is not possible for
management to assess the probability of a material adverse outcome
or reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss.

Northern Trust Corporation is a financial holding company that
provides asset servicing, fund administration, asset management,
fiduciary and banking solutions for corporations, institutions,
families and individuals worldwide.  The Corporation conducts
business through various U.S. and non-U.S. subsidiaries, including
The Northern Trust Company (Bank).  The Corporation was founded in
1889 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


NORTHERN TRUST: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
On August 24, 2010, a lawsuit (hereinafter referred to as the
"Securities Class Action") was filed in federal court in the
Northern District of Illinois against Northern Trust Corporation
and three of its present or former officers, including the present
and former Chief Executive Officers of the Corporation, on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of Corporation stock during the
period from October 17, 2007, to October 20, 2009.  The amended
complaint alleges that during the purported class period the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by allegedly taking insufficient provisions for credit losses with
respect to the Corporation's real estate loan portfolio and
failing to make sufficient disclosures regarding its securities
lending business.  Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount.  At this stage of the lawsuit, the Company
says it is not possible for management to assess the probability
of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of
any potential loss.

No further updates were reported in 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.

Northern Trust Corporation is a financial holding company that
provides asset servicing, fund administration, asset management,
fiduciary and banking solutions for corporations, institutions,
families and individuals worldwide.  The Corporation conducts
business through various U.S. and non-U.S. subsidiaries, including
The Northern Trust Company (Bank).  The Corporation was founded in
1889 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


POWERCOR: Supreme Court Hears Colac-Camperdown Line Issues
----------------------------------------------------------
The Standard reports that the Supreme Court has heard Powercor was
put on notice before Black Saturday that there were problems on
the Colac-Camperdown line.

The claim came during closing submissions on Nov. 13 in a class
action between lead plaintiff Terrence Place and Powercor into a
fire at Weerite and Pomborneit on February 7, 2009.  A finding is
expected to be delivered next month.

Counsel representing the plaintiff, Tim Tobin, said there were
reports of clashing on the line prior to the fire and there was a
record of a Powercor employee saying there were issues on the line
but Powercor "sat on their hands".

Mr. Tobin said it was not a matter related to the windy weather on
the day and no one had come before the court and indicated weather
conditions on the day were outside the expected parameters.

He said no one was saying it was a hurricane or that the
temperature was never expected in the area.

Mr. Tobin said the power lines had clashing marks on them, which
had been seen by the court on a site visit.

Questioned by Justice Jack Forrest, Mr. Tobin said the evidence
was that the marks were from clashing.

Mr. Tobin said there should be a finding that Powercor hadn't
exercised reasonable care.  If it had, the clashing wouldn't have
occurred, he said.  Mr. Tobin said the wind and temperature on
Black Saturday was not extraordinary and the combination of the
two hadn't caused the clashing.

Justice Forrest said Powercor had responded following incidents
demonstrating clashing of lines prior to Black Saturday, but the
real question was did it respond adequately.  He asked why
Powercor should be required to do any more than rely on reports
coming in and if it needed to go out to every line in the state.

On Nov. 12, the court heard from counsel representing Powercor,
David Curtain, who said the clashing could not have caused an
initial fire of the size alleged.

He said the plaintiff's case was that within 30 seconds there was
a nine-foot (three-metre) wide fire.

On Nov. 13, Mr. Tobin said the court had heard evidence that
phalaris grass was a very flammable species and would take off
very quickly.

Justice Forrest said he would hand down his decision on the matter
on Dec. 19 in Warrnambool.


QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued for Misleading Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Questcor Pharmaceuticals
drove up its stock price with false and misleading statements, and
when the truth came out it tanked from $50.52 to $26.35 in a
single day, shareholders claim in Federal Court.


REDBOX AUTOMATED: Faces Privacy Class Action in Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Redbox Automated Retail
shares consumer information with third parties, in violation of
the Michigan Video Rental Privacy Act, a class action claims in
Federal Court.


SEALECTION: Sued Over Defective Polyurethane Foam Insulation
------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reports that a Michigan couple has filed a
class action lawsuit against the manufacturers and installers of a
spray foam insulation that they say released harmful chemicals
into their home.

Joel and Anna Lisa Stegink filed the complaint Nov. 8 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Michigan, alleging that
the Sealection polyurethane foam (SPF) insulation is touted as a
safe "green" product, but instead contains several chemicals
deemed hazardous by federal health standards.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Must Face Class Action Over Washer Mold
------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Celentino at Courthouse News Service reports that Sears,
Roebuck & Co. will have to face class action claims over mold
buildup in allegedly defective Kenmore-brand washing machines, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled.

The class is suing Sears under the warranty statutes of six states
over allegedly defective washing machines purchased after 2001.

One group argued that Kenmore "high-efficiency" front-loading
washers did not clean themselves adequately because of low water
level and temperature.  As a result, mold buildup on the washer
drum would allegedly cause foul odors.  Common household cleaners
are inadequate to eliminate the mold, the class claimed.

A second group alleged that faulty soldering of the washers'
control unit would shut down the machines mid-cycle.  Sears
allegedly knew of the problem but charged each owner hundreds of
dollars to repair the unit.

U.S. District judge Sharon Coleman allowed the control-unit class
to proceed, but denied certification to the mold class.  Judge
Coleman accepted Sears' argument that because Whirlpool, the
original manufacturer, made several design modifications, models
would differ in their level of defect.  As a result, she
determined, individual cases of fact predominate the suit.

But the 7th Circuit rejected this reasoning on Nov. 13 and
reinstated the mold class.

"The basic question in the litigation -- were the machines
defective in permitting mold to accumulate and generate noxious
odors? -- is common to the entire mold class, although the answer
may vary with the differences in design," Judge Richard Posner
wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel.  "The individual
questions are the amount of damages owed particular class
members."

Trial courts must decide whether common questions of law or fact
predominate over individual questions when making certification
decisions.

In this case, "a class action is the more efficient procedure for
determining liability and damages in a case such as this involving
a defect that may have imposed costs on tens of thousands of
consumers, yet not a cost to any one of them large enough to
justify the expense of an individual suit," the court determined.

Because design changes did not eliminate the odor problem in most
cases, it is possible that customers who bought later in the
product cycle would experience the problem.

"Should it turn out as the litigation progresses that there are
large differences in the mold defect among the five differently
designed washing machines, the judge may wish to create
subclasses; but that possibility is not an obstacle to
certification of a single mold class at this juncture," Judge
Posner wrote.

The eight-page ruling also notes that the 6th Circuit recently
upheld certification of an almost-identical mold class in a suit
against Whirlpool.

"For us to uphold the District Court's refusal to certify such a
class would be to create an intercircuit conflict -- and a
gratuitous one, because, as should be apparent from the preceding
discussion, we agree with the Sixth Circuit's decision," Judge
Posner wrote.

The judges also affirmed certification of the control-unit class.

The 7th Circuit has heard multiple washing machine class actions
against Sears.  Most recently, the court begrudgingly advanced a
set of "copycat" suits over machine drums.  The ruling could force
Sears to fight claims across the country that it falsely
advertised the drums as being made entirely of stainless steel.

A copy of the decision in Butler, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck and
Co., Nos. 11-8029, 12-8030 (7th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/11/14/ken.pdf


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Lead Pigment & Lead-Based Paint Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Sherwin-Williams Company continues to defend lawsuits arising
from its manufacture and sale of lead pigments and lead-based
paints in the past, 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's past operations included the manufacture and sale of
lead pigments and lead-based paints.  The Company, along with
other companies, is and has been a defendant in a number of legal
proceedings, including individual personal injury actions,
purported class actions, and actions brought by various counties,
cities, school districts and other government-related entities,
arising from the manufacture and sale of lead pigments and lead-
based paints.  The plaintiffs' claims have been based upon various
legal theories, including negligence, strict liability, breach of
warranty, negligent misrepresentations and omissions, fraudulent
misrepresentations and omissions, concert of action, civil
conspiracy, violations of unfair trade practice and consumer
protection laws, enterprise liability, market share liability,
public nuisance, unjust enrichment and other theories.  The
plaintiffs seek various damages and relief, including personal
injury and property damage, costs relating to the detection and
abatement of lead-based paint from buildings, costs associated
with a public education campaign, medical monitoring costs and
others.  The Company is also a defendant in legal proceedings
arising from the manufacture and sale of non-lead-based paints
that seek recovery based upon various legal theories, including
the failure to adequately warn of potential exposure to lead
during surface preparation when using non-lead-based paint on
surfaces previously painted with lead-based paint.  The Company
believes that the litigation brought to date is without merit or
subject to meritorious defenses and is vigorously defending such
litigation.  The Company has not settled any lead pigment or lead-
based paint litigation.  The Company expects that additional lead
pigment and lead-based paint litigation may be filed against the
Company in the future asserting similar or different legal
theories and seeking similar or different types of damages and
relief.

Notwithstanding the Company's views on the merits, litigation is
inherently subject to many uncertainties, and the Company
ultimately may not prevail.  Adverse court rulings or
determinations of liability, among other factors, could affect the
lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation against the Company
and encourage an increase in the number and nature of future
claims and proceedings.  In addition, from time to time, various
legislation and administrative regulations have been enacted,
promulgated or proposed to impose obligations on present and
former manufacturers of lead pigments and lead-based paints
respecting asserted health concerns associated with such products
or to overturn the effect of court decisions in which the Company
and other manufacturers have been successful.

Due to the uncertainties involved, management is unable to predict
the outcome of the lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation,
the number or nature of possible future claims and proceedings, or
the effect that any legislation and/or administrative regulations
may have on the litigation or against the Company.  In addition,
management cannot reasonably determine the scope or amount of the
potential costs and liabilities related to such litigation, or
resulting from any such legislation and regulations.  The Company
has not accrued any amounts for such litigation.  With respect to
such litigation, including the public nuisance litigation, the
Company does not believe that it is probable that a loss has
occurred, and it is not possible to estimate the range of
potential losses as there is no prior history of a loss of this
nature and there is no substantive information upon which an
estimate could be based.  In addition, any potential liability
that may result from any changes to legislation and regulations
cannot reasonably be estimated.  In the event any significant
liability is determined to be attributable to the Company relating
to such litigation, the recording of the liability may result in a
material impact on net income for the annual or interim period
during which such liability is accrued.  Additionally, due to the
uncertainties associated with the amount of any such liability
and/or the nature of any other remedy which may be imposed in such
litigation, any potential liability determined to be attributable
to the Company arising out of such litigation may have a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, liquidity
or financial condition.  An estimate of the potential impact on
the Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial
condition cannot be made due to the aforementioned uncertainties.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Doc. Production Bid Pending in Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. is awaiting a court decision on a motion to
compel production of additional documents in the lawsuit alleging
violations of federal antitrust laws filed against Delta Air
Lines, Inc. and AirTran Holdings, LLC, according to Southwest's
October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On May 2, 2011, the Company acquired all of the outstanding equity
of AirTran Holdings, Inc., now known as AirTran Holdings, LLC.
AirTran is currently subject to pending antitrust litigation, and
if judgment were to be rendered against AirTran in the litigation,
such judgment could adversely affect the Company's operating
results.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta
Air Lines, Inc. ("Delta") and AirTran in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta on
May 22, 2009. The complaint alleged, among other things, that
AirTran attempted to monopolize air travel in violation of Section
2 of the Sherman Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-
per-bag fees for the first item of checked luggage in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The initial complaint sought treble
damages on behalf of a putative class of persons or entities in
the United States who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees
on domestic flights beginning
December 5, 2008.  After the filing of the May 2009 complaint,
several nearly identical complaints also seeking certification as
class actions were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta,
Georgia; Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada.  All of the
cases were consolidated before a single federal district court
judge in Atlanta.  A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in
the consolidated action on February 1, 2010, which broadened the
allegations to add claims that Delta and AirTran conspired to
reduce capacity on competitive routes and to raise prices in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  In addition to treble
damages for the amount of first baggage fees paid to AirTran and
to Delta, the Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks injunctive
relief against a broad range of alleged anticompetitive
activities, as well as attorneys' fees.  On August 2, 2010, the
Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that AirTran and Delta had
violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the Court let stand the
claims of a conspiracy with respect to the imposition of a first
bag fee and the airlines' capacity and pricing decisions.  On June
30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class, which
AirTran and Delta have opposed.  The Court has not yet ruled on
the class certification motion.

Although the original period for fact and expert discovery had
ended, on February 3, 2012, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for supplemental discovery.  The period for supplemental discovery
against AirTran ended on May 3, 2012, but Delta was ordered to
produce certain additional documents by July 16, 2012.  AirTran
and Delta moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs'
remaining claims on August 31, 2012.  On
September 12, 2012, plaintiffs moved to compel Delta to search for
and produce additional documents, and the Court has suspended the
briefing schedule for the motions for summary judgment while it
considers the motion to compel.  The motion to compel has been
fully briefed and has been submitted to the Court for decision.

AirTran denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in
the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and intends to defend
vigorously any and all such allegations.


TIME WARNER: Faces Two Class Actions Over Modem Rental Fee
----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Morra, writing for The Consumerist, reports that Time Warner
Cable unceremoniously gave customers two-weeks notice that they
would soon be paying a monthly modem rental fee for equipment that
was already installed -- the cable company is now a defendant in
two identical lawsuits filed earlier on Nov. 13.

The suits, filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey and the
Supreme Court of New York, allege that, among other things, TWC
violated its own Terms of Service by not providing enough notice
to customers about the fees.  The plaintiffs also claim that TWC
told customers they could avoid the fee by using a modem they
purchase, it failed to inform customers about the possible
problems of using a personal modem -- like not being able to
access TWC's phone service.

The notice sent by TWC is at the heart of many of the allegations
in the lawsuits.  First, it was sent out too close to the start of
the fee, claim the plaintiffs.

The TWC Terms of Service seem pretty clear on the amount of time
required for these kinds of announcements:

                    Pricing and Service Changes

Unless otherwise provided by applicable law, Time Warner Cable
will notify you 30 days in advance of any price or service change.
Notice of these changes may be provided on your monthly bill, as a
bill insert, as a separate mailing, in the Legal Notice section of
the newspaper, on the cable system channel(s) or through other
written means.

The plaintiffs say that TWC failed to do its best to make sure
that all customers were notified of the upcoming change.

"It's a massive hi-tech consumer fraud accomplished by low-tech
methods," says lead lawyer Steven L. Wittels.  "Send customers
confusing notice of the fee in a junk mail postcard they'll throw
in the garbage, sock them with a $500 million dollar a year rate
hike, then announce on your website that customer satisfaction is
your #1 priority."

In addition to the problems with third-party modems being useless
for TWC phone customers, the lawsuits claim that customers were
misled by the cable company's Terms of Service which state that
"Time Warner Cable will repair and/or replace the equipment we use
to provide your services at no charge."

The biggest concern is whether or not these cases will get their
day in court, as TWC recently updates its subscriber agreement to
include a forced arbitration clause that would seem to negate any
attempt to bring a class-action against the cable company.

But Mr. Wittels points out to Consumerist that Section 15 (b) of
the TWC subscriber agreement states that "claims for injunctive
orders or similar relief must be brought in a court."  And since
the case is seeking an injunction against TWC's modem fees, he
argues that the company's own agreement compels this to go before
a judge.

Additionally, the suit seeks to "invalidate the unconscionable
class action waiver and arbitration clause" in the TWC subscriber
agreement.  Again, the complaint turns TWC's own document against
the defendant:

Section 15(d) of Defendant's Subscriber Agreement anticipates that
this provision is susceptible to legal challenge, and
acknowledges: "If the prohibition against class action and other
claims brought on behalf of third parties contained in Section
15(b) is found to be unenforceable, then all of Section 15 will be
null and void."

The complaint says that even though TWC is allegedly pulling in
$40 million a month from these fees, the individual monthly
payments are so small, "it makes no financial sense for an
individual customer to challenge the monthly surcharge, aside from
the fact that many customers don't even realize they've been
defrauded.

"With this declaratory and injunctive action, and class action,
however, consumers have tools they can use to even the playing
field, to make sure that companies like Time Warner engage in fair
and upright business practices," the complaint continues.

"Plaintiff therefore seeks an individual, declaratory, injunctive
and/or class remedy to enjoin Defendant Time Warner Cable from
continuing its dishonest modem lease fee billing practices, and to
return to Plaintiff and the Class all misappropriated lease modem
surcharges thus far collected."

A TWC rep declined to comment on the suits.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles Investor Class Action for $25.5 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Kyung-Hoon, writing for Reuters, reports that Toyota Motor
Corp. agreed on Nov. 13 to pay $25.5 million to settle a U.S.
shareholder class action lawsuit accusing the company of not
disclosing safety and quality issues related to recalls and
reports of unintended vehicle acceleration in 2010.

The proposed cash settlement was detailed in documents filed by
the plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.


UNITED BANCORP: Continues to Defend EFTA Violation Suit vs. Bank
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Bancorp, Inc. continues to defend its subsidiary against a
class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Electronic Funds
Transfer 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 30, 2012.

A class action lawsuit was filed against the Company's subsidiary
bank, United Bank & Trust ("UBT" or the "Bank") in early 2011 that
alleges the Bank violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act
("EFTA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1693 et seq., by allegedly failing to
provide adequate notice of automated teller machines ("ATMs") fees
at the Bank's ATMs.  The plaintiff is seeking class certification
of the lawsuit, statutory damages, payment of costs of the lawsuit
and payment of reasonable attorneys' fees.  In the third quarter
of 2012, the class was certified by the court.  The Company is
unable to determine potential liability in this case.  Although
the Bank intends to continue to vigorously defend the lawsuit, the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is neither probable nor
remote, and as such, no conclusion can be made at this time.  The
Bank believes this lawsuit is a routine legal proceeding occurring
in the ordinary course of its business as an operator of ATMs.
The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit, but that
disclosure of the potential liability is prudent.

Founded in 1974, United Bancorp, Inc. --
http://www.unitedbancorp.com/-- is a Michigan corporation
headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and is the holding company
for United Bank & Trust, a Michigan-chartered bank organized over
115 years ago.  The Company's bank offers a full range of services
to individuals, corporations, fiduciaries and other institutions.
Banking services include checking accounts, NOW accounts, savings
accounts, time deposit accounts, money market deposit accounts,
safe deposit facilities and money transfers.  Lending operations
provide real estate loans, secured and unsecured business and
personal loans, consumer installment loans, credit card and check-
credit loans, home equity loans, accounts receivable and inventory
financing, and construction financing.


UNITED STATES: Legal Challenge to Cobell Settlement Withdrawn
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maryann Batlle, writing for Cronkite News, reports that the last
legal challenge to a $3.4 billion government settlement with
Native Americans was withdrawn, clearing the way for payments to
as many as 500,000 tribal members, including about 30,000
Arizonans.

Carol Eve Good Bear, Charles Colombe and Mary Aurelia Johns asked
the U.S. Supreme Court to disregard their appeal of the so-called
Cobell settlement, which resolved a 1996 class-action suit by
Native Americans who claimed the federal government had mismanaged
trust land funds for decades.

Federal officials could not say on Nov. 13 how soon payments under
the settlement might start to go out -- the Interior Department
referred calls to the Justice Department, which referred calls
back to Interior.

At stake are payments to as many as a half-million tribal members,
including about 30,000 people from seven Arizona different tribes
-- the Tohono O'odham, Navajo, Salt River Pima-Maricopa, San
Carlos Apache, Hopi, Gila River and Colorado River tribes.

The total $3.4 billion dollar settlement would be divided into
three parts.  Of the total, about $1.5 billion would go directly
to affected Native Americans in the form of Individual Indian
Money accounts.  The federal government uses such accounts to
deposit money from use or sales of trust assets, such as timber
harvesting or grazing leases.

Another $1.9 billion would be used to buy back and consolidate
"fractionated" land, tribal lands that have been divided
repeatedly between heirs over generations.  Up to $60 million
would go to fund scholarships and vocational training programs for
American Indian and Alaska Natives.

Attorneys in the class-action suit could receive about $99 million
in fees, which would come out of settlement funds, according to an
informational site on the settlement.

The tribes and the federal government reached settlement of the
suit in late 2009, and Congress and the president approved signed
off on the deal in 2010.  But legal challenges have tied up the
money since then and many people have died without receiving a
check -- including lead plaintiff Elouise Cobell, a member of the
Blackfeet tribe of Montana who died of cancer in October 2011.

"It's a shame that so many people had to wait before being paid,"
said Dennis Gingold, an attorney for Cobell plaintiffs.

Mr. Gingold called the appeals "meritless."  David C. Harrison, an
attorney for Ms. Good Bear and the others, did not respond to
requests for comment Tuesday.

The Supreme Court had declined to hear a separate Cobell challenge
in October.

John R. Lewis, executive director of the Inter Tribal Council of
Arizona Inc., said the trust settlement is about more than just
money.

"I think it's important to recognize that there has been an
injustice done to tribes and the payments are an acknowledgement
of that," Mr. Lewis said.


USG CORP: Knauf Tianjin Wallboard Suit Deal Hearing This Month
--------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation disclosed in its October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012, that the court has set a hearing
this month to determine whether to issue final approval of a class
settlement resolving claims of all homeowners who filed lawsuits
against a Company subsidiary alleging damages from Knauf Tianjin
wallboard, including both property damage and bodily injury
claims.

The Company's subsidiary, L&W Supply Corporation, is one of many
defendants in lawsuits relating to Chinese-made wallboard
installed in homes primarily in the southeastern United States
during 2006 and 2007.  The wallboard was made in China by a number
of manufacturers, including Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co., or
Knauf Tianjin, and was sold or used by hundreds of distributors,
contractors, and homebuilders.  Knauf Tianjin is an affiliate or
indirect subsidiary of Knauf Gips KG, a multinational manufacturer
of building materials headquartered in Germany.  The plaintiffs in
these lawsuits, most of whom are homeowners, claim that the
Chinese-made wallboard is defective and emits elevated levels of
sulfur gases causing a bad smell and corrosion of copper or other
metal surfaces.  Plaintiffs also allege that the Chinese-made
wallboard causes health problems such as respiratory problems and
allergic reactions.  The plaintiffs seek damages for the costs of
removing and replacing the Chinese-made wallboard and other
allegedly damaged property as well as damages for bodily injury,
including medical monitoring in some cases.  Most of the lawsuits
against L&W Supply are part of the consolidated multi-district
litigation titled In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2047, pending in New Orleans,
Louisiana.  The focus of the litigation has been on plaintiffs'
property damage claims and not their alleged bodily injury claims.

L&W Supply's sales of Knauf Tianjin wallboard, which were confined
to the Florida region in 2006, were relatively limited.  The
amount of Knauf Tianjin wallboard potentially sold by L&W Supply
Corporation could completely furnish approximately 250-300
average-size houses; however, the actual number of homes involved
is greater because many homes contain a mixture of different
brands of wallboard.  Of the claims made to date, the Company has
identified approximately 290 homes where the Company has confirmed
that L&W Supply delivered, or could have delivered, Knauf Tianjin
wallboard to the home.  The Company has resolved the claims
relating to approximately 250 of those homes as indicated.

In early 2011, the Company entered into an agreement with Knauf
that effectively caps the Company's responsibility for property
damage claims relating to Knauf Tianjin wallboard at a fixed
amount per square foot for the property at issue.  In 2012, the
Company entered into a homeowner class settlement resolving claims
of all homeowners who filed lawsuits alleging damages from Knauf
Tianjin wallboard, including both property damage and bodily
injury claims.  Pursuant to the class settlement, the Company will
contribute the same fixed amount per square foot set forth in its
agreement with Knauf.  The Company's per-square-foot contribution
is limited to those homes to which it supplied Knauf Tianjin
wallboard, and only one payment is required per home.  The class
settlement has been preliminary approved by the judge presiding
over the multi-district litigation.  Eligible homeowners were sent
notice of the settlement and had until September 28, 2012, to
indicate whether they accept the settlement or have elected to opt
out and continue to pursue their claims in litigation.  Fewer than
ten homeowners opted out of the Company's class settlement, and
the Company does not believe that L&W Supply delivered Knauf
Tianjin wallboard to any of the homes involved.  The court has set
a hearing in November 2012 to determine whether to issue final
approval of the settlement.  For all claims against the Company
relating to Knauf Tianjin wallboard that are not resolved by the
class settlement, including claims of homeowners who do not
participate in the class settlement, the Company's original
settlement with Knauf remains in effect and caps its
responsibility for Knauf Tianjin property damage claims.

Although the vast majority of Chinese drywall claims against the
Company relate to Knauf Tianjin board, the Company has received
some claims relating to other Chinese-made wallboard sold by L&W
Supply Corporation.  Most, but not all, of the other Chinese-made
wallboard the Company sold was manufactured by Knauf at other
plants in China.  The Company is not aware of any instances in
which the wallboard from the other Knauf Chinese plants has been
determined to cause odor or corrosion problems.  A small
percentage of claims made against L&W Supply Corporation relate to
Chinese-made wallboard that was not manufactured by Knauf, but
which is alleged to have odor and corrosion problems.  Those
claims are not encompassed within the Company's settlement with
Knauf or the recent homeowner class settlement.

As of September 30, 2012, the Company has an accrual of $8 million
for its estimated cost of resolving all the Chinese wallboard
property damage claims pending against L&W Supply and estimated to
be asserted in the future, and, based on the terms of the
Company's settlement with Knauf, the Company has recorded a
related receivable of $4 million.  The Company's accrual does not
take into account litigation costs, which are expensed as
incurred, or any set-off for potential insurance recoveries.  The
Company's estimated liability is based on the information
available to the Company regarding the number and type of pending
claims, estimates of likely future claims, and the costs of
resolving those claims.  The Company's estimated liability could
be higher if the other Knauf Chinese wallboard that it sold is
determined to be problematic, the number of Chinese wallboard
claims significantly exceeds the Company's estimates, or the cost
of resolving bodily injury claims is more than estimated.

Considering all factors known to date, the Company does not
believe that these claims and other similar claims that might be
asserted will have a material effect on its results of operations,
financial position or cash flows.  However, there can be no
assurance that the lawsuits will not have such an effect.


WAL-MART: Judge Approves Settlement of Workers' Compensation Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Huspeni, writing for Denver Business Journal, reports that
a federal judge in Denver on Nov. 13 approved a class-action
lawsuit settlement involving 13,521 employees of Wal-Mart Stores
who had alleged improper payments of workers' compensation claims.

The case came out of a Colorado Springs Wal-Mart employee's
workers' compensation claim.

The settlement in the case -- Josephine Gianzero et al. v. Wal-
Mart Stores Inc. et al. -- requires the retail giant and
co-defendant Claims Management Inc. (CMI), its adjustor, to pay $4
million.

Other co-defendants are American Home Assurance Co. and Concentra
Health Services in Colorado.

Concentra's insurer, Lexington Insurance, agreed to pay another $4
million to settle the case, according to a written statement from
law firm Koncilja & Associates of Denver, who represented the
plaintiffs.

"The defendants denied all allegations of wrongdoing and
vigorously defended the case for over three years," according to
the statement.

Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart Stores operates the Walmart and
Sam's Club chains. American Home Assurance provides the company's
workers compensation insurance.  Concentra operates medical
facilities where Wal-Mart employees received treatment.

The plaintiffs alleged Wal-Mart, CMI and Concentra officials
"interfered with and limited the independent judgment of certain
medical providers who treated injured workers employed by [Wal-
Mart] in Colorado who sustained on-the-job injuries," the release
states.

Denver-based U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn approved the
settlement, and also ordered four years of injunctive relief where
Wal-Mart and CMI agreed to provide training for its workers
compensation adjustors.

Concentra agreed to provide "periodic training to its marketing
and sales force in Colorado, regarding the prohibition of
dictation of care provisions" outlined in the states' workers
compensation laws.

Checks will be cut to the 13,521 plaintiffs: $520 to those who
were treated at a Concentra facility and $50 to those who were
treated at other facilities.  They don't have to provide proof of
claim, according to the release.

In a statement, Wal-Mart Stores spokesman Randy Hargrove said:
"The health, safety, and well being of our associates are
important to [Wal-Mart].  If associates are injured at work, we
and CMI are committed to making available the best treatment and
care, so that they can get better."

Mr. Hargrove added: "It is up to the doctors to determine the best
course of treatment for each person."

Concentra Chief Medical Officer Dr. Tom Fogarty said in a
statement: "Concentra remains committed to improving America's
health one patient at a time with proven outcomes for every
patient, regardless of their employer or role within a company,
compliant with Colorado law."


XCEL ENERGY: Appeal From "Comer II" Suit Dismissal Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit against
Xcel Energy Inc., et al., remains pending, 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 May 2011, less than a year after their initial lawsuit was
dismissed, plaintiffs in the purported class action lawsuit
captioned Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc. et al. filed a second lawsuit
against more than 85 utility, oil, chemical and coal companies in
the U.S. District Court in Mississippi.  The complaint alleges
defendants' CO2 emissions intensified the strength of Hurricane
Katrina and increased the damage plaintiffs purportedly sustained
to their property.  Plaintiffs base their claims on public and
private nuisance, trespass and negligence.  Among the defendants
named in the complaint are Xcel Energy Inc., and its subsidiaries,
Southwestern Public Service Company, Public Service Company of
Colorado, Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation,
and Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.  The
amount of damages claimed by plaintiffs is unknown.  The
defendants, including Xcel Energy Inc., believe this lawsuit is
without merit and filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

In March 2012, the U.S. District Court granted this motion for
dismissal.  In April 2012, plaintiffs appealed this decision to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  Although Xcel
Energy believes the likelihood of loss is remote based primarily
on existing case law, it is not possible to estimate the amount or
range of reasonably possible loss in the event of an adverse
outcome of this matter.  No accrual has been recorded for this
matter.


                           *********

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  * * *