CAR_Public/121126.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, November 26, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 234

                                   Headlines

AMAZON.COM INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Internet Cookies
AMERICAN VANGUARD: Blanco v. AMVAC Class Suit Stayed in Del. Ct.
ARAMARK UNIFORM: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
AT&T INC: Hearing on "MBA Surety" Suit Deal Set for Feb. 2013
AT&T INC: Litigation on NSA-Related Lawsuits Has Now Ended

AT&T INC: Gets Prelim. OK of "Luque" Wage and Hour Suit Deal
AT&T INC: "Stoffels" Class Action Suit in Texas Now Ended
BEEBE MEDICAL: Judge Approves $123-Mil. Class Action Settlement
BRAVO BRIO: Defends Wage and Hour Violations Class Suit in Iowa
CAROLINA PRIME: Recalls Total Pet Care All Natural Bullstrips

CHEMED CORP: Briefing on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Ongoing
CHEMED CORP: Appeals Ct. Ruling Reiterated in "Santos" Suit
CHEMED CORP: "Morangelli" Unpaid Wages Suit Pending in New York
FIRST CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Proposed Pac West Merger
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Faces Citizens Acquisition-Related Class Suits

FIRSTMERIT CORP: Appeals Class Cert. in Interest Calculation Suit
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Dismissal of Indirect Lending Suit Now Final
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Overdraft Fees Suit Still Pending in Lake Cty.
GLOBAL CULINARY: Recalls 1,331 Lbs. of Chicken Empanadas With MSG
HUNTER DOUGLAS: Recalls 4,400 Cellular & Pleated Window Coverings

JO-ANN STORES: Recalls 1,800 Foam Pumpkin Turkey Craft Kits
KAWASAKI MOTORS: Judge Dismisses Faulty Odometer Class Action
KAYAK: Faces Class Action Over Priceline's Proposed Buyout
LONG ISLAND: Faces Class Action Over Power Outage
LONG ISLAND: Group of Attorneys Files Notice of Claim

LOS ANGELES LAKERS: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages
NETSPEND HOLDINGS: Awaits Approval of "Baker" Suit Settlement
NIGHTHAWK RADIOLOGY: March 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
NORTHEAST REVENUE: Sued Over Erroneous Delinquent Garbage Bills
OLD NATIONAL: Dismiss to Bid Checking Acct.-Related Suit Pending

OLD REPUBLIC: ORHP Faces "Friedman" Class Suit in California
ON-LINE INFORMATION: Faces Suit Over E-Filing "Convenience Fee"
PRIMERA: Sued Over Limited Coverage for Autism Therapy
RIO QUEEN: Recalls 840 Cartons of "Karol" Cherry Tomatoes
ROBERT MERICLE: 1,600 Claimants to Share in Class Settlement

SARA LEE: Recalls 3,381 Pounds of Butter Streusel Coffee Cakes
WEST COAST: Faces Class Suit Over Proposed Merger With Columbia
WHOLE ALTERNATIVES: Recalls Harris Teeter Dried Apricots, Raisins
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Cookies Due to Undeclared Nut Allergens

* Plaid Cymru Leader Calls for Class Action v. Banks, Energy Firms




                          *********



AMAZON.COM INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Internet Cookies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that a Washington state
federal judge on Nov. 15 tossed a proposed class action alleging
Amazon.com Inc. used Internet cookies to gather users' personal
information without their permission to boost ad sales and company
profits, saying the parties have reached a settlement.

U.S. District Judge Robert S. Lasnick dismissed without prejudice
the suit brought by lead plaintiffs Nicole Del Vecchio and Robert
Nichols alleging Amazon collected its customers' private
information for years and capitalized on the hundreds of millions
of visits to its Web sites by selling ads.


AMERICAN VANGUARD: Blanco v. AMVAC Class Suit Stayed in Del. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against a wholly-owned subsidiary of
American Vanguard Corporation has been stayed, according to the
Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On or about July 21, 2011, an action encaptioned, Blanco v. AMVAC
Chemical Corporation et al., was filed with the Superior Court of
the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County (No. N11C-07-
149 JOH) on behalf of an individual plaintiff residing in Costa
Rica against several defendants, including, among others, AMVAC,
The Dow Chemical Company, Occidental Chemical Corporation, and
Dole Food Company.  In the action, plaintiff claims personal
injury (sterility) arising from the alleged exposure to DBCP
between 1979 and 1980 while working as a contract laborer in a
banana plantation in Costa Rica.  Defendant Dow filed a motion to
dismiss the action as being barred under the applicable statute of
limitations, as this same plaintiff filed the same claim in
Florida in 1995 and subsequently withdrew the matter.  Plaintiff
contends that the statute of limitations was tolled by a prior
motion for class certification, which was denied.  AMVAC also
contends that the plaintiff could not have been exposed to any
AMVAC supplied DBCP in Costa Rica.

On August 8, 2012, the court denied Dow's motion to dismiss based
upon applicable statutes of limitation.  In response to that
denial, on August 20, 2012, defendants filed a motion for
interlocutory appeal and, on September 18, 2012, the Delaware
Supreme Court granted interlocutory appeal on the question of
whether the State of Delaware will recognize cross jurisdictional
tolling (that is, whether it is proper for a Delaware court to
follow the class action tolling of another jurisdiction, in this
case, Texas, rather than its own two year statute of limitations).
Pending the ruling on appeal, the Blanco matter is stayed.

Whatever the outcome on appeal, AMVAC intends to defend the matter
vigorously.  The Company does not believe that a loss is either
probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss
contingency for the matter.


ARAMARK UNIFORM: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Aramark Uniform & Career
Apparel Group stiffs workers for overtime and violates other labor
laws, a class action claims in Alameda County Court.


AT&T INC: Hearing on "MBA Surety" Suit Deal Set for Feb. 2013
-------------------------------------------------------------
A final fairness hearing with respect to AT&T Inc.'s settlement of
a class action lawsuit initiated by MBA Surety Agency, Inc.
against its subsidiary is scheduled for February 2013, according
to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

In October 2010, the Company's wireless subsidiary was served with
a purported class action in Circuit Court, Cole County, Missouri
(MBA Surety Agency, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC), in which the
plaintiffs contend that the Company violated the Federal
Communications Commission's rules by collecting Universal Service
Fees on certain services not subject to such fees, including
Internet access service provided over wireless handsets commonly
called "smartphones" and wireless data cards, as well as
collecting certain other state and local fees.  Plaintiffs define
the class as all persons who from April 1, 2003, until the present
had a contractual relationship with the Company for Internet
access through a smartphone or a wireless data card.  Plaintiffs
seek an unspecified amount of damages as well as injunctive
relief.

On October 25, 2012, the Circuit Court in St. Louis, Missouri, to
which the case had been transferred, granted preliminary approval
to a settlement in which the Company receives a complete release
of claims from members of the settlement class.  Under the
settlement, the Company's liability to the class and its counsel
is capped at approximately $150 million, the amount that was
collected from customers but not owed or remitted to the
Government.  The Court has scheduled a final fairness hearing in
February 2013, at which time the Court will consider, among other
things, whether the settlement should be finally approved as fair,
reasonable and adequate.

A Fortune 500 company, AT&T Inc. is one of the 30 stocks that make
up the Dow Jones Industrial Average.  The Company's segments are
strategic business units that offer different products and
services over various technology platforms.  The Company is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


AT&T INC: Litigation on NSA-Related Lawsuits Has Now Ended
----------------------------------------------------------
The litigation on lawsuits alleging AT&T Inc. provided assistance
to the National Security Agency in connection with intelligence
activities has now ended, according to the Company's November 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Twenty-four lawsuits were filed alleging that the Company and
other telecommunications carriers unlawfully provided assistance
to the National Security Agency in connection with intelligence
activities that were initiated following the events of
September 11, 2001.  In the first filed case, Hepting et al v.
AT&T Corp., AT&T Inc. and Does 1-20, a purported class action
filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of
California, plaintiffs alleged that the defendants disclosed and
are currently disclosing to the U.S. Government content and call
records concerning communications to which Plaintiffs were a
party.  Plaintiffs sought damages, a declaratory judgment and
injunctive relief for violations of the First and Fourth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
and other federal and California statutes.  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.  The United States asserted the
"state secrets privilege" and related statutory privileges and
also filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the complaint.
The court denied the motions, and the Company and the United
States appealed.  In August 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court without
deciding the issue in light of the passage of the FISA Amendments
Act, a provision of which addresses the allegations in these
pending lawsuits (immunity provision).  The immunity provision
requires the pending lawsuits to be dismissed if the Attorney
General certifies to the court either that the alleged assistance
was undertaken by court order, certification, directive or written
request or that the telecom entity did not provide the alleged
assistance.

In September 2008, the Attorney General filed his certification
and asked the district court to dismiss all of the lawsuits
pending against the AT&T Inc. telecommunications companies.  The
court granted the Government's motion to dismiss and entered final
judgments in July 2009.  In addition, a lawsuit seeking to enjoin
the immunity provision's application on grounds that it is
unconstitutional was filed.  In March 2009, the Company and the
Government filed motions to dismiss this lawsuit.  The court
granted the motion to dismiss and entered final judgment in July
2009.  All cases brought against the AT&T entities have been
dismissed.  In August 2009, plaintiffs in all cases filed an
appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  In December 2011,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissals in all
cases.  In March 2012, the Plaintiffs in all but three cases filed
a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme
Court.  The plaintiffs in two of the three cases filed petitions
for rehearing with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, both of
which have been denied.  The plaintiffs in the third case did not
file a petition in either court.

On October 9, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the remaining
plaintiffs' petition, thereby ending the litigation.

A Fortune 500 company, AT&T Inc. is one of the 30 stocks that make
up the Dow Jones Industrial Average.  The Company's segments are
strategic business units that offer different products and
services over various technology platforms.  The Company is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


AT&T INC: Gets Prelim. OK of "Luque" Wage and Hour Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Inc.'s settlement of the wage and hour lawsuit styled Luque,
et al. v. AT&T Corp. et al., got preliminary approval last month,
according to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

Two wage and hour cases were filed in federal court in December
2009 each asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(Luque et al. v. AT&T Corp. et al., U.S. District Court in the
Northern District of California) (Lawson et al. v. BellSouth
Telecommunications, Inc., U.S. District Court in the Northern
District of Georgia).  Luque also alleges violations of a
California wage and hour law, which varies from the federal law.
In each case, plaintiffs allege that certain groups of wireline
supervisory managers were entitled to paid overtime and seek class
action status as well as damages, attorneys' fees and/or
penalties. Plaintiffs have been granted conditional collective
action status for their federal claims and also are expected to
seek class action status for their state law claims.  The Company
has contested the collective and class action treatment of the
claims, the merits of the claims and the method of calculating
damages for the claims.  A jury verdict was entered in favor of
the Company in October 2011 in the U.S. District Court in
Connecticut on similar FLSA claims.

In April 2012, the Company settled these cases, subject to court
approval, on terms that will not have a material effect on its
financial statements.  On October 12, 2012, the court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement in Luque.

A Fortune 500 company, AT&T Inc. is one of the 30 stocks that make
up the Dow Jones Industrial Average.  The Company's segments are
strategic business units that offer different products and
services over various technology platforms.  The Company is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


AT&T INC: "Stoffels" Class Action Suit in Texas Now Ended
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Stoffels v. SBC Communications
Inc. has now ended, according to AT&T Inc.'s November 2, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In May 2005, the Company was served with a purported class action
in U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas (Stoffels v. SBC
Communications Inc.), in which the plaintiffs, who are retirees of
Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Southwestern Bell and Ameritech,
contend that the cash reimbursement formerly paid to retirees
living outside their company's local service area, for telephone
service they purchased from another provider, is a "defined
benefit plan" within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA).  In January 2011, the
trial court entered a final judgment in the Company's favor.
Plaintiffs appealed the judgment to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals and in April 2012, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower
court's judgment in the Company's favor dismissing the case.  In
July 2012, Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in
the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on October 1, 2012,
thereby ending the litigation.

A Fortune 500 company, AT&T Inc. is one of the 30 stocks that make
up the Dow Jones Industrial Average.  The Company's segments are
strategic business units that offer different products and
services over various technology platforms.  The Company is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


BEEBE MEDICAL: Judge Approves $123-Mil. Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The "worst case of single perpetrator sexual abuse in the
country," according to counsel, Schochor, Federico & Staton, P.A.,
has been settled.  On Nov. 19, Delaware Superior Court Judge
Joseph Slights III approved the $123 million settlement for
victims of former Delaware pediatrician Earl Bradley, accused of
sexually abusing over 900 children.  The case, C.A. Nos. N10C-05-
023 (JRS) & N10C-10-317 (JRS), was a civil class action lawsuit
filed by the families of the victims against Beebe Medical Center,
the Medical Society of Delaware and independent physicians.

Schochor, Federico & Staton, P.A. represented the largest number
of plaintiffs of all law firms involved in the case, which took
over 16 months to resolve.  The attorneys chose mediation instead
of litigation for a quicker, more efficient resolution of the case
to bring about a swift closure for the victims involved.

In conjunction with other counsel, Schochor, Federico & Staton,
P.A. was able to negotiate a settlement package of $123 million.
Of that amount, $119 million came from six different insurance
companies covering Beebe Medical Center, $3 million from the
Medical Society of Delaware, and $1 million in free medical and
mental health care from the hospital for the victims.

"The damages caused by child sexual abuse are far reaching," said
Phil Federico, partner.  "We want to ensure that these children
have access to appropriate medical and mental health care to begin
the healing process."

Managing partner Jonathan Schochor notes that the case is far from
over in the hearts of the victims and their families.  "We have
achieved an extraordinary result for our clients under very
difficult circumstances," he said.  "Now, our clients will be
afforded an opportunity to obtain the finest medical care
available to help them cope with what occurred and lead productive
lives."

The attorneys at Schochor, Federico & Staton interviewed each
client to determine the nature and extent of abuse.  They also
submitted evidence that included a copy of a letter written by
Dr. Bradley's sister to the defendant hospital and the medical
society, warning them about her brother's pedophilia.

According to The News Journal's Esteban Parra, under the Nov. 19
settlement's terms, the money would be put into a pool for
victims, similar to the system used for victims in priest sex-
abuse cases.

A mediator will evaluate each claim and separate them into
different categories based on the severity of abuse.  A settlement
amount then will be assigned to each category and all approved for
that category will be paid.

"The approval of this class-action settlement marks the end of
litigation arising from Dr. Bradley's 15-year reign of terror and
abuse in Sussex County," Superior Court Judge Joseph R. Slights
III wrote in his 56-page decision.

"Although no amount of monetary or nonmonetary compensation can
atone for Dr. Bradley's atrocities, the settlement approved
[Mon]day provides Dr. Bradley's victims with means by which to
facilitate the healing process," Judge Slights said.  "It is not
for this court to tell this class of innocent victims, or the
greater Sussex County community, how to go about the physical,
emotional and spiritual healing that all who have followed this
case so sincerely wish for these children and their families."

The settlement pool will be financed by Beebe Medical Center's
insurance carriers, $111.8 million; the hospital, $8.2 million;
and other defendants, $3.2 million).  The Lewes hospital, which
had employed Dr. Bradley, was accused of failing to report his
behavior to authorities following an investigation in 1996.

Dr. 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.  Police discovered the
recordings and used them as evidence against him.

Ben T. Castle, a lawyer representing the victims, said they still
were working through Judge Slights' opinion.

"We're pleased to finally get to this point, and hopefully these
victims will be seeing some compensation fairly soon," Mr. Castle
said.

"We are gratified that the court found in the way that it did,"
said Michael M. Mustokoff, who represented Beebe hospital.

Other lawyers declined comment or could not be reached.


BRAVO BRIO: Defends Wage and Hour Violations Class Suit in Iowa
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Inc. is defending a class action
lawsuit alleging violations of Iowa wage and hour laws, according
to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
23, 2012.

On May 24, 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in a class
action lawsuit alleging certain violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act as well as certain Iowa wage and hours laws.  The
Company has answered the complaint and denied the allegations.
The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these
allegations and intends to continue to vigorously defend against
them, including challenging the plaintiffs' efforts to certify a
class.  Due to the preliminary nature of this matter, the Company
cannot currently estimate with any degree of certainty the amount
or range of potential loss relating to such action, if any.


CAROLINA PRIME: Recalls Total Pet Care All Natural Bullstrips
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Prime Pet Inc., a manufacturer and distributor of dog
treats, is voluntarily recalling the following product:

   * Priority Total Pet Care All Natural Bullstrips in a 5-count
     package

   * UPC: 0-21130-42080-3

   * Lot Code: 20082712 S 3195 and Lot Code: 20090312 S3195

The UPC can be located on the back label of each package.  The lot
Code is located on a sticker on the back of each bag of the 5
count product.  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm329167.htm

This lot of product has yielded a positive test for Salmonella
when tested by the Colorado Dept. of Agriculture.  Carolina Prime
Pet is not aware of any reported cases of illness related to this
product.

Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and there is
risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially
if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having
contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these
products.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever.
Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including
arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye
irritation, and urinary tract symptoms.  Consumers exhibiting
these signs after having contact with this product should contact
their healthcare providers.

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

Priority Total Pet Care All Natural Bullstrips are sold in Safeway
stores in Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii,
Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, Virginia,
Washington DC and Wyoming as well as Vons, Pavilions and Pak 'N
Save stores in California; Randalls and Tom Thumb stores in Texas;
Genuardi's stores in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and Dominick's
stores in Illinois.  This product was distributed from about the
first of September until now.

Customers who purchased the recalled dog treats should discontinue
use immediately, and return items to the purchase location for
replacement, refund, or discard.

No other products are included in this recall.

For further information, please call Carolina Prime Pet Inc. at 1-
888-370-2360 (Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time).


CHEMED CORP: Briefing on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing is continuing with respect to Chemed Corporation and
other defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint in the
class action lawsuit commenced by the Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters Pension Fund, according to the Company's November 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On January 12, 2012, the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension
Fund filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the Company, Kevin
McNamara, David Williams, and Timothy O'Toole.  On April 9, 2012,
the Court issued orders (a) renaming the lawsuit as In re Chemed
Corp. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-28 (S.D.
Ohio); (b) appointing the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension
Fund and the Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W.
as Lead Plaintiffs; and (c) approving Lead Plaintiffs' selection
of Labaton Sucharow LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as
Co-Lead Counsel.  On June 18, 2012, Lead Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint alleging violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all
Defendants, and violation of Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against Messrs. McNamara, Williams, and
O'Toole.  The lawsuit's allegations concern the VITAS Healthcare
Corporation hospice segment of the Company's business.  Lead
Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
Chemed Capital Stock between February 15, 2010, and November 16,
2011, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and attorneys'
fees and expenses, arising from Defendants' failure to disclose an
alleged fraudulent scheme to enroll ineligible hospice patients
and to fraudulently obtain payments from the federal government.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on
August 17, 2012, which are continuing to be briefed.  Defendants
believe the claims are without merit, and intend to defend
vigorously against them.

Regardless of the outcome, the Company says litigation adversely
affects it through defense costs, diversion of management time,
and related publicity.


CHEMED CORP: Appeals Ct. Ruling Reiterated in "Santos" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chemed Corporation disclosed in its November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012, that an appellate court
reiterated in September 2012 its previous ruling affirming denial
of class certification on the travel time, meal and rest period
claims, and reversed the trial court's denial on the off-the-clock
and sales representation exemption claims in the class action
lawsuit filed by Bernadette Santos, et al.

VITAS Healthcare Corporation is party to a class action lawsuit
filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, in
September 2006 by Bernadette Santos, Keith Knoche and Joyce White,
Bernadette Santos, et al. v. Vitas Healthcare Corporation of
California, BC359356.  This case alleges failure to pay overtime
and failure to provide meal and rest periods to a purported class
of California admissions nurses, chaplains and sales
representatives.  The case seeks payment of penalties, interest
and Plaintiffs' attorney fees.  The Company contests these
allegations.  In December 2009, the trial court denied Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  In July 2011, the Court of
Appeals affirmed denial of class certification on the travel time,
meal and rest period claims, and reversed the trial court's denial
on the off-the-clock and sales representation exemption claims.
Plaintiffs filed an appeal of this decision.  In September 2012,
in response to an order of reconsideration, the Court of Appeals
reiterated its previous rulings.

Regardless of the outcome, the Company says litigation adversely
affects it through defense costs, diversion of management time,
and related publicity.


CHEMED CORP: "Morangelli" Unpaid Wages Suit Pending in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
On March 1, 2010, Anthony Morangelli and Frank Ercole filed a
class action lawsuit in federal district court for the Eastern
District of New York, Morangelli et al. v. Chemed Corporation, et
al., 1-10-cv-00876-BMC, seeking unpaid minimum wages and overtime
service technician compensation from Chemed and its subsidiary,
Roto-Rooter Group, Inc.  They also seek payment of penalties,
interest and plaintiffs' attorney fees.  The Company contests
these allegations.  In September 2010, the Court conditionally
certified a nationwide class of service technicians, excluding
those who signed dispute resolution agreements in which they
agreed to arbitrate claims arising out of their employment.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Regardless of the outcome, the Company says litigation adversely
affects it through defense costs, diversion of management time,
and related publicity.


FIRST CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Proposed Pac West Merger
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that First California Bank is
selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Pac West
Bancorp, in a stock swap valued at $231 million, shareholders say
in a class action in Los Angeles Superior Court.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Faces Citizens Acquisition-Related Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit Corporation is facing class action lawsuits arising
from its proposed acquisition of Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc.,
according to the Corporation's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2012.

On September 12, 2012, the Corporation and Citizens Republic
Bancorp, Inc. ("Citizens"), a Michigan corporation, entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement").

In September and October 2012, six shareholder class action
lawsuits were separately filed in the Genesee County Circuit Court
of Michigan by purported shareholders of Citizens Republic Bancorp
against Citizens, the members of Citizens' board of directors, and
the Corporation, arising out of the Corporation's proposed
acquisition of Citizens.  The lawsuits generally allege that the
terms and the price of the proposed acquisition are unfair to
Citizens' shareholders and that the Citizens' directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Citizens' shareholders by approving the
proposed transaction.  It is alleged that the Corporation aided
and abetted the breaches of duties by Citizens' directors.
Plaintiffs, on behalf of all Citizens' shareholders, seek
injunctive relief against the consummation of the proposed
transaction, request rescission of the transaction or damages to
the extent the transaction is consummated, and costs and attorney
fees.

Based on information currently available, consultation with
counsel, available insurance coverage and established reserves,
Management believes that the eventual outcome of all claims
against the Corporation and its subsidiaries will not,
individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect
on its consolidated financial position or results of operations.
However, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these
matters, if unfavorable, may be material to the results of
operations for a particular period.  The Corporation has not
established any reserves with respect to any of this disclosed
litigation because it is not possible to determine either (i)
whether a liability has been incurred or (ii) to estimate the
ultimate or minimum amount of that liability or both at this time.

Headquartered in Akron, Ohio, FirstMerit Corporation --
http://www.firstmerit.com/-- operates as a bank holding company
for FirstMerit Bank, N.A. that provides various banking,
fiduciary, financial, insurance, and investment services to
corporate, institutional, and individual customers.  The Company
was founded in 1855.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Appeals Class Cert. in Interest Calculation Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit Corporation's wholly-owned subsidiary, FirstMerit Bank,
N. A., has appealed the class certification ruling in the lawsuit
alleging improper interest calculation, according to the
Corporation's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

In August 2008, a lawsuit was filed in the Cuyahoga County Court
of Common Pleas against the Bank.  The breach of contract
complaint was brought as a putative class action on behalf of Ohio
commercial borrowers who had allegedly had the interest they owed
calculated improperly by using the 365/360 method.  The complaint
seeks actual damages, interest, injunctive relief and attorney
fees.  In June 2012, the trial court certified the class, and the
Bank has appealed the determination.

Headquartered in Akron, Ohio, FirstMerit Corporation --
http://www.firstmerit.com/-- operates as a bank holding company
for FirstMerit Bank, N.A. that provides various banking,
fiduciary, financial, insurance, and investment services to
corporate, institutional, and individual customers.  The Company
was founded in 1855.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Dismissal of Indirect Lending Suit Now Final
-------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of an indirect lending class action lawsuit against
FirstMerit Corporation in Ohio is now final, according to the
Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

In April 2012 a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, against
the Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary, FirstMerit Bank,
N. A. (the "Bank").  The complaint was brought as a putative class
action on behalf of all persons who purchased a motor vehicle in
Ohio from an Ohio motor vehicle dealer, which purchase and sale
was financed by the Bank.  The lawsuit alleges a violation of the
Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, breach of
common law of agency, a violation of the Ohio Retail Installment
Sales Act and a violation of the federal Truth in Lending Act.
The complaint seeks disgorgement of fees, treble damages, interest
and attorney fees.  In June 2012, the court granted the
Corporation's and Bank's motion to dismiss, and that decision is
now final.

Headquartered in Akron, Ohio, FirstMerit Corporation --
http://www.firstmerit.com/-- operates as a bank holding company
for FirstMerit Bank, N.A. that provides various banking,
fiduciary, financial, insurance, and investment services to
corporate, institutional, and individual customers.  The Company
was founded in 1855.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Overdraft Fees Suit Still Pending in Lake Cty.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed in
the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court
of Common Plea against FirstMerit Corporation and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, FirstMerit Bank, N. A.  The complaints were brought as
putative class actions on behalf of Ohio residents who maintained
a checking account at the Bank and who incurred one or more
overdraft fees as a result of the alleged re-sequencing of debit
transactions.  The lawsuit that had been filed in Summit County
Court of Common Pleas was dismissed without prejudice on July 11,
2011.  The remaining lawsuit in Lake County seeks actual damages,
disgorgement of overdraft fees, punitive damages, interest,
injunctive relief and attorney fees.

No further updates were reported in the Corporation's November 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Headquartered in Akron, Ohio, FirstMerit Corporation --
http://www.firstmerit.com/-- operates as a bank holding company
for FirstMerit Bank, N.A. that provides various banking,
fiduciary, financial, insurance, and investment services to
corporate, institutional, and individual customers.  The Company
was founded in 1855.


GLOBAL CULINARY: Recalls 1,331 Lbs. of Chicken Empanadas With MSG
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Global Culinary Investments, a Spring, Texas establishment, is
recalling approximately 1,331 pounds of chicken empanadas because
they contain monosodium glutamate (MSG), which is not declared on
the label, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service announced.

The products subject to recall include:

   * 10-lb. bulk cases, each containing 50 count bags of "Luca
     Chicken Empanada," bearing the identifying case code of
     "10853349004002."

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "P-
44923" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The products were
produced on various dates from September 4, 2012, through November
21, 2012.  The products have a best by date between March 4, 2013,
and May 21, 2013.

The 10-lb bulk cases listed above were distributed for
institutional use in the Houston, Texas area.

FSIS was alerted to the problem by Global Culinary Investments.
The Company discovered the problem when they reviewed their
supplier's broth label.  The Company began producing this product
on September 4, 2012.  FSIS and the Company have received no
reports of injury associated with the consumption of these
products.  Anyone concerned about injury should contact a
healthcare provider.

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
the Company's Chief Operating Officer, Juan Pablo Sarmiento, at
(281) 298-1272.

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


HUNTER DOUGLAS: Recalls 4,400 Cellular & Pleated Window Coverings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
About 4,400 shades were voluntarily recalled by Hunter Douglas
Fabrication Co., of West Sacramento, California, in cooperation
with the CPSC.  Consumers should stop using the product
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The products subject to recall include Standard cordlock top-
down/bottom-up Duette and Applause honeycomb shades; standard
cordlock top-down/bottom-up Hunter Douglas pleated shades; Hunter
Douglas Brilliance Privacy View pleated shades and standard
cordlock Duette and Applause Duolite shades.

Some of the cords inside the breakaway cord stop were tied in a
single knot which can prevent the cord stop from functioning as
designed to break away.  A child can become entangled in a cord
loop and strangle.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves custom-made cellular and pleated window
coverings, sold in various colors and featuring a breakaway cord
stop.  These honeycomb and pleated shades have a top-down and
bottom-up function allowing for the raising and lowering of the
shades from the top down or from the bottom up.  The Hunter
Douglas logo is printed on the tassels on the single cords that
descend from the breakaway cord stop.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13707.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold by Hunter Douglas dealers nationwide from January
2011 through August 2012.  Custom shade prices vary widely based
on size, style and dealer.  Retail prices for these recalled
shades range from $240 up.

CPSC urges consumers to check their window coverings to see if the
cords inside the breakaway cord stop are tied in a single knot.
The breakaway cord stop is the plastic device that attaches two
cords from the end of the blind to a single cord used to adjust
the blind.  Blinds have adjustment cords on both ends of the head
rail with a cord stop on each.  If there is a knot in the two
cords inside the cord stop, stop using these window coverings and
contact Hunter Douglas for a free repair kit with instructions on
untying the knot.  Hunter Douglas will also be contacting
consumers to provide repair kits.  For additional information,
contact Hunter Douglas at (800) 997-2389 from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.hunterdouglas.com/connector/

The CPSC notes that in homes where children live or visit, examine
all shades and blinds to make sure there are not accessible cords
on the front, side or back of the product.  CPSC recommends the
use of cordless window coverings in these homes.


JO-ANN STORES: Recalls 1,800 Foam Pumpkin Turkey Craft Kits
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Jo-Ann Stores Inc., of Hudson, Ohio, and manufacturer,
Ningbo Golden Time Gifts and Crafts, of China, announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,800 Foam Pumpkin Turkey Craft Kits.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Magnets holding the pumpkin shell pieces together can become
loose, posing an ingestion hazard to young children.  If
swallowed, these magnets can link together inside a child's
intestines and clamp onto body tissues, causing intestinal
obstructions, perforations, sepsis and death.  Internal injury
from magnets can pose serious lifelong health effects.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled product is an adult seasonal craft item that, when
assembled, resembles a turkey with a pumpkin-shaped body.  Before
assembly, the product resembles a pumpkin that has been cut in
half.  The kit comes with various foam pieces that are used to
decorate the outer pumpkin shell and has six small magnets that
hold the pieces together.  The product is packaged in a round,
clear plastic container.  A picture of the recalled products is
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13046.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Jo-Ann Fabric and Craft Stores nationwide from
August of 2012 to October of 2012 for approximately $8.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled kit and
return it for a full refund to any Jo-Ann Fabric and Craft Store.
Jo-Ann Fabric and Craft Stores toll free at (888) 739-4120, from
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or
online at http://www.joann.com/-- go to the PRODUCT RECALL link
on the bottom right corner of the page.


KAWASAKI MOTORS: Judge Dismisses Faulty Odometer Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois federal
judge on Nov. 15 dismissed a nationwide class action alleging
Kawasaki Motors Corp. manufactured a line of motorcycles with
faulty odometers, ruling that the Federal Odometer Act's anti-
tampering provisions were not meant to apply to purported design
defects.

Judge William T. Hart ruled that a memory chip installed in the
odometers of Kawasaki's Vulcan motorcycles, which allegedly caused
the odometers to register more miles than were actually traveled,
could not be considered a post-manufacture device under the Act's
anti-tampering provisions.


KAYAK: Faces Class Action Over Priceline's Proposed Buyout
----------------------------------------------------------
Sean O'Neill, writing for Tnooz, reports that an unnamed investor
in Kayak shares is filing a class-action lawsuit to stop the
proposed buyout of Kayak by Priceline at a value of approximately
$40 per KYAK share, according to San Diego-based investor advocacy
group Shareholders Foundation.

It's not uncommon for billion-dollar acquisitions to draw
shareholder suits, which rarely scuttle transactions.  The
Kayak/Priceline transaction is valued at $1.8 billion.

A law firm specializing in shareholder lawsuits, Powers Taylor of
Dallas, had been attempting to find investors who might be harmed
by the acquisition, but declined to issue a statement.  Ditto for
The Briscoe Law Firm, another such firm in Texas.

The lead plaintiff is unknown but in these types of lawsuits is
often an institutional investor, though anyone who bought shares
during the class period would automatically be a member of the
class without having to do anything.

According to a release:

"The plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties owed to KYAK stockholder by agreeing to sell the
company too cheaply and via an unfair process."

"The plaintiff claims that the offer is unfair to KYAK
stockholders and undervalues the company . . . . via an unfair
process."

It seems that the issue is the size of premium paid by buyer in
light of the company's growth, anticipated operation results, net
asset value and future profitability.

In other words, was there enough "upside" based on trailing price-
to-earnings ratios and similar financial metrics since Kayak's IPO
as well as financial forecasts by market-makers and analysts?

A Priceline spokesperson declined to comment. Kayak didn't respond
to Tnooz's request for comment by press time.

Investors may be asking themselves if the $40 price is fair. A 29%
percent premium over the price per share on the day of the
transaction is fairly good for recent large acquisitions in the
US.

Investors may also be asking the fairness question.

But investors looking for even more financial reward than they had
previously expected may not want to hold their breath.  These
types of lawsuits have a poor track record of success in the
courts, except when companies were shown to be engaging in
improper accounting practices.


LONG ISLAND: Faces Class Action Over Power Outage
-------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Long Island Power
Authority didn't restore power to the Rockaways soon enough after
Sandy, a class action claims in Suffolk County Court.  New Jersey
residents filed a similar class action against Firstenergy Corp.
and Jersey Central Power & Light, in Hunterdon County Court


LONG ISLAND: Group of Attorneys Files Notice of Claim
-----------------------------------------------------
Attorney Kenneth Mollins, with his team of law firms Parker
Waichman LLP and Douglas & London, filed their Notice of Claim
with the Long Island Power Authority at its office in Nassau
County on November 15, 2012.  The notice, which is required under
the law since LIPA is a public authority, put LIPA on notice that
a claim is being made and that LIPA has a reasonable amount of
time to settle the claim before full-blown litigation is brought
to bear on LIPA and its contractor, National Grid.

They include Parker Waichman LLP, the largest personal injury firm
on Long Island, has been at the center of numerous Class Action
lawsuits.  The firm has also been very active in Mass Tort
litigation.  In fact, Jerrold S. Parker, co-founder of Parker
Waichman LLP, has served on many Plaintiffs' Steering Committees
including the current Actos multidistrict litigation entitled In
Re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation (MDL No.
6:11-md-2299).

Douglas & London, another member of the team, is one of the most
prestigious personal injury firms in New York City.  It has also
been involved in Class Action litigations, and the founding
partners, Gary Douglas and Michael London, have served on numerous
Plaintiffs' Steering Committees as well.  Mr. Mollins' team seems
ideally suited to take LIPA to task for its failures before,
during, and after Storm Sandy.  Having already filed a Class
Action lawsuit on behalf of individual homeowners affected by the
loss of power caused by LIPA's failure to prepare for Sandy, these
firms have now moved aggressively to proceed on behalf of Long
Island's business owners who suffered substantial economic losses
while under LIPA's care.

A Notice of Appearance was filed on behalf of Parker Waichman LLP
and Douglas & London in the Nassau County Supreme Court on
November 15th.  The case is Jeff Mollins, et al. v. Long Island
Power Authority, et al. (Index No. 602288/2012).  The notice
confirms the collaboration of all three firms, who are dedicated
to pursuing the litigation on behalf of LIPA customers and
business owners who suffered damages due to the protracted power
outages.

LIPA and National Grid have received substantial criticism from
officials and Long Islanders for their conduct.  Governor Cuomo
himself has called their response to Sandy dismal and the Attorney
General of the State of New York has begun an investigation into
their actions.  On the heels of one of the worst failures in
history by a power provider, LIPA's own Chief Operating Officer,
Steve Hervey, resigned. Parker Waichman LLP and Douglas & London
will assist Mr. Mollins in what may become one of the largest
Class Actions in New York State history.  Mr. Mollins confirms
that between 650,000 and 1 million LIPA customers may join the
class, with damages well into the tens of millions of dollars.
With the addition of Long Island businesses as plaintiffs,
potential damages may reach hundreds of millions of dollars.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

          THE LIPA CLAIMS HOTLINE
          Telephone: 800-800-2828
          Web site: http://www.lipaclaimshotline.com


LOS ANGELES LAKERS: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Los Angeles Lakers send
spam text messages to people who don't want them, which costs them
money, a class action claims in Federal Court.


NETSPEND HOLDINGS: Awaits Approval of "Baker" Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
NetSpend Holdings, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of a class action lawsuit filed by Frederick J. Baker
in New Jersey, according to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Frederick J. Baker ("Baker") filed a purported consumer class
action case against NetSpend, as well as one of its Issuing Banks
and card associations (collectively, the "Defendants"), in the U.S
District Court (the "Court") for the District of New Jersey in
November 2008 seeking damages and unspecified equitable relief.
In May 2009, Baker filed an amended complaint alleging that the
Defendants violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), the
New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act
(TCCWNA) and claiming unjust enrichment in connection with the
Defendants' alleged marketing, advertising, sale and post-sale
handling of NetSpend's gift card product in the State of New
Jersey.  In March 2011, the court heard oral arguments on
Defendants' motion to dismiss Baker's amended complaint.  In
January 2012, the court granted Defendants' motion in part and
dismissed all claims except for the cause of action based on the
alleged violation of the CFA.  NetSpend filed its answer and
affirmative defenses in February 2012.

NetSpend has reached an agreement in principle with the attorneys
representing the purported plaintiffs in this case to contribute
approximately $0.1 million to a fund that would be used to
reimburse the consumers who may have been inadvertently
overcharged and to reimburse the attorneys representing the
plaintiffs for up to $0.3 million in fees.  This settlement is
subject to approval by the Court.


NIGHTHAWK RADIOLOGY: March 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott LLP on Nov. 20 issued a statement regarding the
Nighthawk Radiology Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

In re NIGHTHAWK RADIOLOGY HOLDINGS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS, Master File No. 2:09-cv-
00659-EJL-CWD, Judge: Hon. Edward J. Lodge, SUMMARY NOTICE

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED SHARES OF NIGHTHAWK
RADIOLOGY HOLDINGS, INC. COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MAY 2, 2007 AND MAY
7, 2008, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD")

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the District of Idaho, a hearing will be
held on March 13, 2013 at 9:30 a.m., before the Honorable Edward
J. Lodge, at the United States District Court for the District of
Idaho, 550 W. Fort Street, Boise, Idaho 83724, for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the above-
captioned action ("Action") for the sum of $650,000 in cash
("Settlement Fund"), should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether, thereafter, this Action
should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set
forth in the Settlement Agreement dated May 25, 2012; (3) whether
the Plan of Distribution of settlement proceeds is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and should, therefore, be approved; (4)
the reasonableness of the application of Plaintiff's Counsel for
the reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in connection
with this Action, together with interest thereon; (5) whether
Plaintiff should be reimbursed for its reasonable costs and
expenses (including lost wages) directly related to its
representation of the Class in this Action; and (6) whether the
Court should grant certification to the putative class.

This litigation is a securities fraud class action brought on
behalf of those persons who purchased the common stock of
Nighthawk Radiology Holdings, Inc. ("Nighthawk") during the Class
Period ("Class Members"), against Nighthawk and four of its
current and/or former key executives and directors, for allegedly
issuing materially false and misleading public statements about:
(1) the claimed benefits of Nighthawk's corporate acquisitions;
(2) Nighthawk's customer retention rates; (3) Nighthawk's staffing
levels; and (4) Nighthawk's revenue and earnings guidance.
Plaintiff alleges that these purportedly false and misleading
statements inflated the price of Nighthawk's stock, resulting in
damage to Class Members when the truth was revealed.  Defendants
deny all of Plaintiff's allegations.

If you purchased Nighthawk common stock during the Class Period,
your rights may be affected by this Action and the settlement
thereof.  If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency
and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to Nighthawk
Securities Litigation, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 9905, Dublin, Ohio 43017-
5805, or by downloading this information at
http://www.NighthawkSecuritiesLitigation.com

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release postmarked no later than February 28, 2013, establishing
that you are entitled to a recovery.  You will be bound by any
judgment rendered in the Action unless you request to be excluded,
in writing, to the above address, postmarked by February 20, 2013.

Any objection to any aspect of the settlement must be filed with
the Clerk of the Court no later than February 27, 2013, and
received by the following no later than February 20, 2013:

          Walter W. Noss, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT LLP
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101

          Lead Counsel for Plaintiff

          Gregory L. Watts, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
          Seattle, WA 98104-7036

          Lead Counsel for Defendants

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  DATED: October 31, 2012 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF IDAHO


NORTHEAST REVENUE: Sued Over Erroneous Delinquent Garbage Bills
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Lockwood, writing for The Scranton Times Tribune, reports that
a Scranton woman filed a federal class-action lawsuit on Nov. 19
over the recent issuing of 7,800 delinquent garbage bills in the
city spanning from 1999 through 2011.

Tara Reilly erroneously received a delinquent garbage bill from
2005-09, totaling $1,380.74, according to the lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

The lawsuit names as defendant Northeast Revenue Service LLC of
Wilkes-Barre, a firm hired by Scranton in February to collect
delinquent garbage bills from 1999 through 2011.  The city is not
named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

After notices of trash-fee delinquencies were sent out by
Northeast Revenue, the city's treasurer's office became swamped
with residents either paying the bills or contesting them as
erroneously issued, said Treasurer Chris Boland.

Ms. Reilly's lawsuit claims Northeast Revenue has violated the
federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Pennsylvania Fair
Credit Extension Uniformity Act and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

The billing notices were "false, deceptive, misleading and
unfair," according to suit, because:

- They failed to say they were being sent by a debt collector;

- They did not contain required validation/verification
information;

- They failed to state the recipient had 30 days to dispute the
debt in writing or it would be assumed to be valid; and

- They contained false sums allegedly due.

Ms. Reilly did not owe any garbage bills to the city, the lawsuit
said.  Rather, she purchased a property in 2011 that had
delinquent bills from 2005-09, but those bills were all satisfied
as part of the closing, the lawsuit states.

"As a result of defendant's conduct, plaintiff and the class have
sustained actual damages including payment of unsubstantiated
waste disposal fees and out-of-pocket expenses," states the
lawsuit, which seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages.
It also seeks to be maintained as a class action due to the large
number of potential plaintiffs who, if they all sued individually,
would risk having inconsistent or varying adjudications.

Sean Shamany, treasurer of Northeast Revenue, said the notices of
delinquent waste-disposal fees stated that Northeast had been
retained by the city to collect the fees from information provided
by the city.  The notices also stated that a recipient who
believed the delinquent bill was in error was advised to call
Northeast Revenue or see a representative in City Hall to discuss
the bill, he said.

"We just sent out notices from information we obtained from the
city and that we were contracted to do," Mr. Shamany said.

Mr. Boland said that if a property owner produces proof of
payment, such as a receipt or canceled check, the treasurer's
office will certify that the fee was paid.  Most people have been
understanding of the situation, though it has been an
inconvenience for those who received erroneous bills, said Mr.
Boland.  Some are unhappy with having the burden of proof placed
upon them or having to obtain canceled checks from banks to prove
the trash fees were paid, he said.

"People who got them in error are upset by it, which is
understandable, and by the fact that they have to prove they paid
it," Mr. Boland said.  "To get records as clear and clean as
possible, this is (the) process we've had to go through. I
apologize to anyone who got a bill in error."

Ms. Reilly's attorney, Brett Datto of Philadelphia, said of his
client, "She feels as though it's wrong, and that anybody trying
to collect a debt that does not comply with the law should be held
accountable."

In most years, delinquent trash bills would have been mailed in
late January to mid-February.  This year, however, the delinquency
notices for 2011 were significantly delayed by the transition to a
new collection agency, officials have said.

The transition left the city without an easily accessible record
of which property owners still owe all or part of the $178 annual
fee from 2011 and earlier.  The delinquencies were previously
collected by Northeast Credit and Collections, which stopped
working for the city at the end of 2010.  Northeast Revenue was
hired in August 2011 to collect delinquent real estate taxes, and
the collection of back garbage fees was added to its contract in
February.  Northeast used the city's written records to compile an
electronic database of who had and had not paid trash fees,
officials have said.

The city typically has collected $700,000 to $800,000 in
delinquent garbage fees annually, officials have said.  So far,
from Nov. 13 to Nov. 19, $115,000 has been collected in delinquent
trash fees, Mr. Boland said.


OLD NATIONAL: Dismiss to Bid Checking Acct.-Related Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Old National Bancorp is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit challenging its checking account
practices, according to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In November 2010, Old National was named in a class action lawsuit
challenging Old National Bank's checking account practices
associated with the assessment of overdraft fees.  On May 1, 2012,
the plaintiff was granted permission to file a First Amended
Complaint which names additional plaintiffs and amends certain
claims.  The plaintiffs seek damages and other relief, including
restitution.  Old National believes it has meritorious defenses to
the claims brought by the plaintiffs.  At this phase of the
litigation, it is not possible for management of Old National to
determine the probability of a material adverse outcome or
reasonably estimate the amount of any loss.  No class has yet been
certified and discovery is ongoing.  On June 13, 2012, Old
National filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint,
which has not yet been ruled upon.  On September 7, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.

Old National Bancorp -- http://www.oldnational.com/-- operates as
a holding company for Old National Bank, which provides financial
services to individuals and commercial customers primarily in
Indiana, eastern and southeastern Illinois, and central and
western Kentucky.  The Company was founded in 1834 and is
headquartered in Evansville, Indiana.


OLD REPUBLIC: ORHP Faces "Friedman" Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation's subsidiary is facing a
class action lawsuit in California alleging breach of home
warranty contracts, according to the Company's November 2, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On September 26, 2012, a purported national class action lawsuit
was filed against Old Republic Home Protection Company in the
Superior Court of California for Riverside County (Friedman v. Old
Republic Home Protection Company, Inc.).  The lawsuit alleges that
the Company operates in breach of its home warranty contracts, in
breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, in
violation of various provisions of the California Civil Code and
Business and Professions Code, and is guilty of false advertising.
The stated class period is from November 24, 2004, through the
present.  The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief,
restitution, damages, costs and attorneys' fees in unspecified
amounts.  The firm representing the plaintiff had previously filed
similar lawsuits against the Company, which were unsuccessful.
The Company succeeded in having the case removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on October
24, 2012, and believes it has strong defenses to the allegations
and to the certification of any class in this matter.

Old Republic International Corporation is among U.S.'s 50 largest
publicly held insurance organizations, with a substantial interest
in major segments of the industry.  The Company is primarily a
commercial lines underwriter, serving many of America's leading
industrial and financial services companies as valued customers.
The Company is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


ON-LINE INFORMATION: Faces Suit Over E-Filing "Convenience Fee"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that an attorney
claims in a federal class action that a private company "coerces"
Alabama lawyers into paying a "convenience fee" for filing civil
lawsuits electronically -- and that civil cases in Alabama now
have to be filed that way.

Mark Erdberg sued On-Line Information Services Inc., "which has
contracted to provide efiling services and collect court costs in
civil matters in Alabama."

Mr. Erdberg claims the defendant, an Alabama corporation,
illegally charges attorneys a 4 percent "convenience fee" on top
of regular court fees when they file civil lawsuits through the
state's online court system.

Electronic filing of civil court cases has been available in
Alabama since 2005, and since then more than 500,000 lawsuits have
been e-filed in Alabama, Mr. Erdberg says.

While attorneys choosing to e-file their documents have been
charged the convenience fee since the program was instituted, in
September the Alabama Supreme Court adopted new administrative
rules that require all attorneys to file civil cases
electronically.

Mr. Erdberg says that flies in the face of a 2000 Alabama statute
that authorized state officers to accept credit card payments.

That statute states in part: "When a party elects to make a
payment to state government by credit card and a surcharge or
convenience fee is imposed, the payment of the surcharge or
convenience fee shall be deemed voluntary by the party and shall
not be refundable."

Under the system imposed by the state Supreme Court, "there are no
other alternative methods of payment for attorneys.  Even though
this system is now mandatory, a four percent (4%) 'convenience
fee' is added to each court cost charged," Mr. Erdberg says.

Mr. Erdberg says the mandatory e-filing violates due process and
equal protection rights, and laws on interstate commerce.

He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and recovery of past
amounts charged for the class consisting of all attorneys who paid
the convenience fee since Aug. 1, 2005.

He is represented by G. Daniel Evans of Birmingham.


PRIMERA: Sued Over Limited Coverage for Autism Therapy
------------------------------------------------------
Q13 FOX News reports that parents want what's best for their kids
and for families of children with autism, providing them the
necessary therapy can be difficult and expensive.

Companies traditionally haven't covered autism therapy the same
way they do other chronic medical conditions, despite the state's
Mental Health Parity Act requiring them to provide such coverage.

Last spring, several families banded together to file class action
lawsuits against insurance companies like Group Health, Regence
and Primera, asking them to get rid of annual treatment limits and
not deny coverage after a child turns seven years old.

"When you're looking at a year of therapy and you have 12 visits,
that goes pretty quickly," Jennifer O'Neal, whose son Zachary is
autistic, said.  "Your benefits are maxed out in the first three
months."

After that, most families with autistic kids have to pay for
treatment out of pocket.

"That's financially devastating," Kristen Griffin said.  "People
are losing their homes and choosing between food and services for
their kids because these services do help, but they're not cheap."

The Griffin family is suing Primera for denying coverage to their
son -- the family received a stack of bills telling them they owed
the company $24,000.

"These parents pay for premiums just like everybody else, and the
fact their child has a developmental condition instead of a
medical condition shouldn't mean they get any less coverage,"
attorney Ele Hamburger said.

As a judge reviews the cases, Group Health announced it will
temporarily suspend coverage limits and require that patients show
improvement within two months to continue treatment.

Attorneys expect a judge to rule on these class action suits by
February 2013, but said the state insurance commissioner could get
involved and require insurance companies to make these changes by
the end of the year.


RIO QUEEN: Recalls 840 Cartons of "Karol" Cherry Tomatoes
---------------------------------------------------------
Rio Queen Citrus, Inc. of Mission, Texas, is recalling 840 cartons
of 12/1 Dry Pints of Mexican cherry tomatoes in "Karol" brand
boxes, because they have the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

The "Karol" cherry tomatoes were distributed through retail stores
in the states of Texas & South Carolina.

The product was originally distributed in a bulk container of 12/1
Dry Pints in boxes labeled "Karol" with the Lot No. "01W45"
stamped in the upper, right-hand corner on the face of the box.
The box states "Distributed by Interstate Fruit & Vegetable",
which is an affiliated business of Rio Queen Citrus, Inc.  These
packages were distributed at the retail level between November 10
and November 19, 2012.  At the retail level, the tomatoes may have
been packaged in an alternative container depending on the area
and retailer.  A picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm329213.htm

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing by
FDA revealed the presence of Salmonella in a sample taken from the
product, identified by Lot No. "01W45."

Further distribution of the product has been suspended while FDA
and the company continue their investigation as to the source of
the problem.

Consumers who have purchased Mexican cherry tomatoes in the listed
states are asked to contact their retail store or place of
purchase to determine if they were among the facilities to receive
this product.  Consumers with questions may contact the company at
956-205-7400, Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Central
Standard Time).


ROBERT MERICLE: 1,600 Claimants to Share in Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Janoski, writing for Citizen's Voice, reports that one
thousand and sixty-six former defendants in Luzerne County
Juvenile Court who claim their rights were violated in the kids-
for-cash case and 548 of their parents would split about $12.2
million from a proposed $17.75 million settlement with wealthy
developer Robert K. Mericle, their attorneys told a federal judge
on Nov. 19.

Philadelphia attorneys David S. Senoff and Sol H. Weiss, speaking
on behalf of the legal team pursuing class-action claims against
Mr. Mericle and other defendants, presented details of the
settlement during a two-hour, 20-minute conference with U.S.
District Judge A. Richard Caputo, who must approve the agreement.

Mr. Mericle has admitted paying $2.1 million to two former Luzerne
County judges who conspired to place juveniles in two for-profit
detention centers built by his construction firm.

"Robert Mericle and Mericle Construction believe this settlement
is a positive step forward for this community," Mericle attorney
Eric Kraeutler told Judge Caputo.

After setting aside $4.35 million for attorney's fees and $1.2
million to settle any appeals of settlement amounts by individual
plaintiffs, the agreement would pay $5,000 to each of 763
plaintiffs who were incarcerated in the Mericle-built centers.
Those plaintiffs would also be eligible for additional payments
based on several factors, including their age at the time of
incarceration, the length of their stay at one of the centers and
the severity of the charges against them.

Payments of $1,000 to $5,000 would go to 197 plaintiffs who were
incarcerated in other facilities, while $500 would be paid to
plaintiffs sentenced to probation.  More than $600,000 would be
paid to 548 parents to reimburse them for fines, costs and fees
levied by disgraced former juvenile court judge Mark A. Ciavarella
Jr., who is serving 28 years in prison for racketeering and
conspiracy.

The settlement includes payments to former juvenile offenders who
were not sent to the Mericle-built centers on the theory that the
kids-for-cash conspiracy made all of Judge Ciavarella's juvenile
court rulings suspect.

The state Supreme Court vacated each of the thousands of juvenile
court rulings Judge Ciavarella made from 2005-2008, finding that
he denied defendants their right to counsel, incarcerated them on
minor charges and pressured juvenile probation officials to
recommend incarceration over other forms of discipline.

The only witness at the Nov. 19 settlement conference was
University of Texas at Austin law professor Lynn Baker, an expert
on class-action settlements who testified the Mericle settlement
was fair based on several factors, including the percentage of
potential clients participating --  more than 40 percent, which is
high in such cases, she said.

Ms. Baker also noted that the settlement was structured so that
all of the money after attorneys' fees and appeals costs will go
to plaintiffs.  After the base settlements were calculated,
additional payments or "enhancements" based on the details of each
plaintiff's case were adjusted to exhaust the remaining settlement
money.

"Every single dollar in this settlement has left the defendant
permanently," Ms. Baker said.

The settlement involves only Mericle and Luzerne County, which was
a defendant in the class-action suits but will pay no money.
Caputo ruled earlier that the county had no liability.

Claims against other defendants, including the companies that own
and operate the two detention centers -- Pa. Child Care LLC,
Western Pa. Child Care LLC and Mid-Atlantic Youth Services Corp.
-- remain active.

Bernard M. Schneider, an attorney for the companies, urged Judge
Caputo to reject the settlement on Nov. 19, arguing that
plaintiffs placed in his clients' facilities should not be paid
more than other plaintiffs because they failed to present evidence
that they suffered increased damages.

Mr. Schneider said the plaintiffs should not be approved as a
class for purposes of the litigation and doing so would restrict
his ability to present evidence that individual actions by
individual plaintiffs led them to Judge Ciavarella's courtroom and
the penalties he imposed.

But Judge Caputo countered that he had already ruled that the
court "can't replicate criminal trials in a civil case."

Mr. Schneider also argued that some of the documents used to
verify claims for the settlement would not be available for his
clients to protect themselves in court.

A former co-owner of the companies, Robert J. Powell, admitted to
paying $770,000 to former Luzerne County judge Michael T. Conahan,
Judge Ciavarella's onetime co-defendant, who is serving 17 1/2
years in prison.  Mr. Powell, who testified for the prosecution in
Judge Ciavarella's trial, is serving an 18-month prison sentence.

Mr. Mericle, who also testified for the prosecution, pleaded
guilty to failing to report a felony.  His sentencing is on hold
pending testimony in another case involving free renovations his
construction company allegedly performed on a building owned by a
former state senator.


SARA LEE: Recalls 3,381 Pounds of Butter Streusel Coffee Cakes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Lee(R) is voluntarily initiating a product recall of Sara Lee
Butter Streusel Coffee Cake with the UPC # 3210002342 and a BEST
BY DATE of October 16, 2013, as a precautionary measure because
the product may contain pecans, an undeclared allergen, that are
not listed on the label.  This national recall affects 3,381
pounds of product with the BEST BY DATE of October 16, 2013, on
the side panel.

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm329217.htm

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

No other Sara Lee branded products, including Sara Lee branded
fresh bakery products, are affected by this voluntary recall.  The
company has received no reports of illnesses associated with this
product.

Consumers may return affected product to the store where it was
purchased for a full refund.  Consumers who may have questions or
concerns should call the special toll-free consumer line at
1.888.747.7611.  The consumer line is open on Wednesday,
November 21, from 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Central, closed on
Thanksgiving, open on Friday, November 23 from 8:00 a.m. - 5:00
p.m. Central, and beginning on November 26, open Mondays through
Fridays, from 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.


WEST COAST: Faces Class Suit Over Proposed Merger With Columbia
---------------------------------------------------------------
West Coast Bancorp is facing a class action lawsuit arising from
its proposed merger with Columbia Banking System, Inc., according
to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On September 25, 2012, Bancorp entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Columbia Banking System,
Inc., ("Columbia"), a Washington corporation, pursuant to which a
newly formed subsidiary of Columbia will merge with and into
Bancorp (the "Merger"), with Bancorp continuing as the surviving
corporation (the "Surviving Corporation").  As soon as reasonably
practicable following the Merger, and as part of a single
integrated transaction, the Surviving Corporation will be merged
with and into Columbia (the "Second Step Merger" and together with
the Merger, the "Mergers").  Consummation of the Merger remains
subject to customary closing conditions, including receipt of
requisite shareholder and regulatory approvals.

On October 3, 2012, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah
against Bancorp, its directors, and Columbia challenging the
Merger: Gary M. Klein v. West Coast Bancorp, et al., Case No.
1210-12431.  The complaint names as defendants Bancorp, all of the
current members of Bancorp's board of directors, and Columbia.
The complaint alleges that the Bancorp directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Bancorp and Bancorp shareholders by agreeing
to the proposed Merger at an unfair price.  The complaint also
alleges that the proposed Merger is being driven by an unfair
process, that the directors approved provisions in the Merger
Agreement that constitute preclusive deal protection devices, that
certain large shareholders of Bancorp are using the Merger as an
opportunity to sell their illiquid holdings in Bancorp, and that
Bancorp directors and officers will obtain personal benefits from
the Merger not shared equally by other Bancorp shareholders.  The
complaint further alleges that Bancorp and Columbia aided and
abetted the directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.
The defendants believe this action is without merit.


WHOLE ALTERNATIVES: Recalls Harris Teeter Dried Apricots, Raisins
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Alternatives, LLC, of Louisville, Kentucky, is initiating a
voluntary recall of Harris Teeter brand six ounce packages of
dried apricots UPC code 7203670494 and Harris Teeter brand eight
ounce packages of dried golden raisins UPC code 7203670490 because
the products contain undeclared sulphur dioxide.

Sulphur dioxide is one of several types of sulfites used to
preserve foods, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires
that the presence of sulphur dioxide in foods be declared on the
product label.  Consumers who have a severe sensitivity to sulphur
dioxide may run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled dried apricots and dried golden raisins were
distributed in Harris Teeter stores.  The apricots are packaged in
6 ounce, clear plastic bags and raisins in 8 ounce, clear plastic
bags and all lot numbers and code dates are affected.  Pictures of
the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm329024.htm

The recall was initiated after Whole Alternatives discovered the
product was distributed in packages which did not declare sulphur
dioxide as an ingredient on the label.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

Consumers who have purchased this product and who may be sensitive
to sulphur dioxide should not consume the product and are urged to
return it to the place of purchase.  Consumers with questions may
contact Whole Alternatives at 502-561- 5530, Monday through Friday
8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

This recall is being made with the knowledge of the Food and Drug
Administration.

The Company thanks its consumers for their understanding and
cooperation in this regard.


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Cookies Due to Undeclared Nut Allergens
------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market is recalling bulk cookie items because they
contain almonds and pecans, two undeclared allergens.  These
products were sold loose as Cookies-by-the-Pound, a self-service
section in the Bakery area of the store.  The two products are:

   * Wedding Cookies (contain pecans)
   * Almondine Wedding Cookies (contain almonds)

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm329035.htm

Consumers with almond or pecan allergies who have purchased
Wedding Cookies or Almondine Wedding Cookies from the Cookies-by-
the-Pound section are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to almonds or
pecans run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products.

Wedding Cookies and Almondine Wedding Cookies were distributed in
Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee
between October 22 and November 15 2012.  One illness has been
confirmed in Georgia.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the point-
of-sale signs on the almond- and pecan-containing products were
missing this allergen information.  Consumers with questions may
contact 512-542-0060 Monday to Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Central Daylight Time excluding November 22 - 23, 2012.

Customers are encouraged to return any of these products to Whole
Foods Market for a full refund.

For Claims or questions, contact:

          Aaron Lee
          Whole Foods Market, Inc.
          Telephone: (678) 638-5840
          Time: 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time


* Plaid Cymru Leader Calls for Class Action v. Banks, Energy Firms
------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Shipton, writing for WalesOnline, reports that Plaid Cymru
leader Leanne Wood on Nov. 20 called on the Welsh Government to
spearhead legal action against banks and energy companies over
market rigging.

Ms. Wood made the appeal during First Minister's Questions, urging
the Welsh Government to co-ordinate a so-called class action by
the Welsh public sector to recoup financial losses incurred
through the actions of banks and energy companies.

She declared: "Such a move would pave the way for successful
action by Welsh consumers."

Barclays was fined GBP290 million for deliberately distorting
Libor, the inter-bank lending rate.  Several other banks remain
under investigation by UK, European Union and United States
authorities.  An inquiry is also under way by energy regulator
Ofgem and the Financial Services Authority after whistle-blowers
claimed traders working for gas and electricity companies were
manipulating the markets.

The leader of the Party of Wales said that many local authorities
had short-term cash balances which they loaned to banks and other
financial institutions, sometimes just overnight.  According to
public service law experts, Bevan Brittain, the interest rates for
such term lending is normally influenced by Libor.

Ms. Wood said that rate rigging could have affected mortgages that
are directly linked to Libor, pushing up rates higher than they
need have been.  Conversely, when banks pushed rates down savers
and investors would have received lower returns.

Losses from energy market manipulations would be in the form of
artificially inflated bills.  Earlier this year Barclays was fined
for the practice involving the electricity market in the United
States.

Class action is not used very often in the England and Wales legal
system but since 2000 rules for representative actions have been
introduced and were used by mining union Nacods case in its claims
over miners' compensation.  So-called Group Litigation Orders are
made in these cases where plaintiffs opt into a register to record
claims.

Ms. Wood pointed out that because group litigants were liable to
pay opposing costs it was unlikely that ordinary members of the
public would be able to afford to bring test cases.  "But legal
action by the Welsh public sector would set a precedent for
further action on their behalf," she argued.


                           *********

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  * * *