CAR_Public/121203.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, December 3, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 239

                             Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Faces Overtime Class Action in Pennsylvania
AUDIENCE INC: Faces Class Action in California Over IPO
BRICK LTD: Settles Class Action Over Misleading Advertising
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Awaits Decision in "Guzman" Class Suit
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Defends Consolidated Securities Class Suit

BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Faces Suits Alleging WARN Act Violations
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Wage and Hour Suit Deal Paid Out in Sept.
COAL INDIA: Deadline Set for Shareholders to Join Class Suit Set
CREDIT SUISSE: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Trade Loss
CREEKSTONE FARMS: $195,000 Class Action Settlement Awaits Approval

DENDREON CORP: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Wash. Suit
G-U HARDWARE: Recalls 5,000 Window Fittings Due to Injury Hazard
HSBC BANK: Settles Bankers' Overtime Class Action for $15.6-Mil.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Shareholders File Revised Class Action
LIVE NATION: Canadian Courts OK Resale Market Claims Settlement

LIVE NATION: Ticketing Fees Suit Parties in Talks to Modify Deal
LUCKY BRAND: Text-Spam Suit Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Nod
MEYER MARKETING: Recalls 12,900 Kirkland Signature Saute Pans
NEW YORK: Scheindlin to Decide on Stop-and-Frisk Class Action
NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Awaits Final OK of Securities Suit Settlement

NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
NUFARM: Settles Shareholder Class Action for AUD46.6 Million
PACIFIC RETIREMENT: Rogue Valley Manor Residents to File Suit
PARKLANE FINANCIAL: Edwin Harris Among Defendants in Class Action
PEPPERIDGE FARM: Sued Over Cheddar Goldfish Crackers Advertising

REGIONS FINANCIAL: Securities Suit in Ala. Stayed Pending Review
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Funds-Related Class Suit Deal Not Yet Approved
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Suit Over Overdraft Fees Remain Pending
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Units to Seek to End Humboldt Suit Injunction
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Class Cert. Denial in Discrim. Suit Affirmed

SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Awaits Dismissal From "Harkness" Class Suit
SPORTSPOWER LTD: Recalls 1,500 Children's Waterslides
SPORTSPOWER LTD: Recalls 23,400 Trampolines Due to Injury Hazard
SUKHI'S GOURMET: Recalls Red Curry Veggies Over Undeclared Shrimp
TIME WARNER: Appeal From "Fink" Suit Dismissal Remains Pending

TIME WARNER: Appeal in Set-Top Cable Antitrust MDL Pending
TIME WARNER: Sup. Ct. Review of "Brantley" Suit Dismissal Sought
TIME WARNER: Continues to Defend "Downs" Suit vs. Insight
VISA: Majority of Class Plaintiffs to Appeal Settlement Ruling
ZEEK REEWARDS: Former CEO Denies Ponzi Scheme Allegations

                          *********



ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Faces Overtime Class Action in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reports that a Pennsylvania man on
Nov. 26 filed a putative class action against retailer Abercrombie
& Fitch Co. in Philadelphia's Court of Common Pleas, alleging the
company's policies for calculating overtime wages violate the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Paul Oliver alleges that Abercrombie, which operates at least 44
stores in the state, relies on an overtime calculation that
violates state law.  The state law requires that employees receive
overtime wages which are at least one-and-a-half times the regular
rate.


AUDIENCE INC: Faces Class Action in California Over IPO
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Audience Inc. raised $91.5
million in an IPO at $17 per share, a price inflated by false and
misleading statements in its registration statement and
prospectus, a class action claims in Santa Clara County Court.


BRICK LTD: Settles Class Action Over Misleading Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mail Tribune reports that The Brick Ltd. has agreed to pay C$2
million to settle a class-action lawsuit filed three years ago
over claims the retailer's advertising erroneously suggested that
customers pay no additional costs if they purchase goods on
credit.

The Quebec Superior Court approved the settlement on Nov. 27 in a
suit launched by Option consommateurs, a Quebec consumer rights
group.

The Brick's "Do not pay for 15 months" program in fact required a
C$35 annual membership fee.

The furniture chain has agreed to reimburse customers who used
this program before May 1, 2010.

Customers who made purchases before May 1, 2009, will receive
funds directly by mail in January.  Other qualified customers must
first complete a form on the Web site
http://www.brickrecourscollectif.comas of the new year.

The Edmonton-based company earned C$18.7 million in profits in its
latest quarter on C$368.5 million of revenues.

It operates 162 corporate stores, down from 173 a year ago.

Toronto-based Leon's Furniture Ltd. announced earlier this month
that it would purchase The Brick for C$700 million.

Leon's said the deal would enhance the competitiveness of both
chains in an increasingly gritty retail environment even though
both banners will continue to fly separately.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Awaits Decision in "Guzman" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit initiated by Betty
Guzman, according to the Company's November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In January 2011, Betty Guzman filed a class action lawsuit against
the Company, Ashford University and University of the Rockies in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
The complaint is entitled Guzman v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.,
et al, and alleges that the defendants engaged in
misrepresentation and other unlawful behavior in their efforts to
recruit and retain students.  The complaint asserts a putative
class period of March 1, 2005, through the present.  In March
2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which was granted by the Court with leave to amend in October
2011.

In January 2012, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
asserting similar claims and the same class period, and the
defendants filed another motion to dismiss.  In May 2012, the
Court granted the University of the Rockies' motion to dismiss and
granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by
the Company and Ashford University.  The Court also granted the
plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint.  In August
2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint asserting
similar claims and the same class period.  The second amended
complaint seeks unspecified monetary relief, disgorgement of all
profits, various other equitable relief, and attorneys' fees.  The
defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the second amended
complaint, which is currently pending with the court.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.  However, because of the many
questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this
legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.  Based on the
information available to the Company at present, it cannot
reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and
accordingly has not accrued any liability associated with this
action.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Defends Consolidated Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. is defending itself from a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit in California,
according to the Company's November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On July 13, 2012, a securities class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by
Donald K. Franke naming the Company, Andrew Clark, Daniel Devine
and Jane McAuliffe as defendants for allegedly making false and
materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results, specifically the concealment of
accreditation problems at Ashford University.  The complaint
asserts a putative class period stemming from May 3, 2011, to July
6, 2012.  A substantially similar complaint was also filed in the
same court by Luke Sacharczyk on July 17, 2012, making similar
allegations against the Company, Andrew Clark and Daniel Devine.
The Sacharczyk complaint asserts a putative class period stemming
from May 3, 2011, to July 12, 2012.  Finally, on July 26, 2012,
another purported securities class action complaint was filed in
the same court by David Stein against the same defendants based
upon the same general set of allegations and class period.  The
complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and seek unspecified monetary relief, interest, and
attorneys' fees.

On October 22, 2012, the Sacharczyk and Stein actions were
consolidated with the Franke action and the Court appointed the
City of Atlanta General Employees Pension Fund and the Teamsters
Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan as lead plaintiffs.
The Company has not yet responded to these complaints and
anticipates that a consolidated amended complaint will be filed in
December 2012.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the
consolidated action.  However, because of the many questions of
fact and law that may arise, the outcome of these legal
proceedings is uncertain at this point.  Based on information
available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate
a range of loss and accordingly has not accrued any liability
associated with these actions.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Faces Suits Alleging WARN Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. is facing class action lawsuits
alleging violations of the California Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act, according to the Company's
November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On October 24, 2012, a class action complaint was filed in
California Superior Court by former employee Marlo Montano naming
the Company and Ashford University as defendants.  The complaint
asserts a putative class consisting of former employees who were
terminated in January 2012 and July 2012 as a result of a mass
layoff, relocation or termination and alleges that the defendants
failed to comply with the notice and payment provisions of the
California WARN Act.  A substantially similar complaint was also
filed in the same court on the same day by Austin Dilts making
similar allegations and asserting the same putative class.  The
complaints seek back pay, the cost of benefits, penalties and
interest on behalf of the putative class members, as well as other
equitable relief and attorneys' fees.

The Company and Ashford University are currently evaluating these
actions and intend to vigorously defend against them.  Because of
the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of
these legal proceedings is uncertain at this point.  Based on
information available to the Company at present, it cannot
reasonably estimate a range of loss and accordingly has not
accrued any liability associated with these actions.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Wage and Hour Suit Deal Paid Out in Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc.'s court-approved settlement of a
consolidated wage and hour lawsuit was paid out during the three
months ended September 30, 2012, according to the Company's
November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In February 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint filed
as a class action lawsuit naming the Company, Ashford University,
LLC, and certain employees as defendants.  The complaint was filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Diego and
was captioned Stevens v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.  The
complaint generally alleged that the plaintiffs and similarly
situated employees were improperly denied certain wage and hour
protections under California law.

In April 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint filed as
a class action lawsuit naming the Company and Ashford University,
LLC, as defendants.  The complaint was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California in San Diego, and was captioned Moore
v. Ashford University, LLC.  The complaint generally alleged that
the plaintiff and similarly situated employees were improperly
denied certain wage and hour protections under California law.

In May 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint filed as a
class action lawsuit naming the Company as a defendant.  The
complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California in San Diego on May 6, 2011, and was captioned Sanchez
v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.  The complaint generally alleged
that the plaintiff and similarly situated employees were
improperly denied certain wage and hour protections under
California law.

In October 2011, the cases were consolidated because they involved
common questions of fact and law, with Stevens v. Bridgepoint
Education, Inc. designated as the lead case.

In April 2012, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs of the cases to settle the claims on a class-
wide basis.  Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the
Company agreed to pay an amount to settle the plaintiffs' claims,
plus any related payroll taxes.  The Company accrued a $10.8
million expense in connection with the settlement agreement during
the nine months ended September 30, 2012.

On August 24, 2012, the Court granted final approval of the class
action settlement and entered a final judgment in accordance with
the terms of the settlement agreement.  This settlement was paid
out during the three months ended September 30, 2012.


COAL INDIA: Deadline Set for Shareholders to Join Class Suit Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sumit Moitra, writing for Daily News & Analysis, reports that
shareholders of Coal India Limited have 15 days to join the
country's first class action suit filed by TCI Cyprus Holding in
the Calcutta High Court against Coal India.

There is no precedence to this kind of suits in the country, which
in this case has been technically termed as a "representative
action".

"This is a class action suit and any shareholder interested in it
can apply to the court within the next 15 days with their own
claims," a lawyer with Luthra & Luthra, the legal firm
representing TCI, told DNA.

Besides Coal India as an entity, all its 17 directors, its largest
shareholder (the Indian government) and its seven mining
subsidiaries have been made party to the suit.

TCI, which owns 1.007% of Coal India as at September-end, is the
second largest investor in the mining major.

If you don't have an idea how much to claim from Coal India,
here's a clue: TCI has held Coal India and the others responsible
for an estimated INR2,15,250 crore of losses suffered by the
company by not selling coal at market rates to linkage customers
since it went public.

"Additionally, in our plaint, we have sought a decree for a sum of
Rs 9,942.18 crore for the loss in the value of holdings of TCI and
perpetual injunction restraining the government from interfering
with the administration of the company," the lawyer said.

TCI has also prayed for attachment of Coal India's properties if
the judgment goes in its favor.

The Companies Bill 2011 approved by the Union Cabinet in November
provides for class-action lawsuits under Section 245 and 246,
allowing a large number of people with common grievances to sue or
be sued as a group.

"The foundation of this representative action is these
allegations.  The government of India is making an undue
interference in the fixing and regulation of price of coal.  The
fact is that the price of coal fixed by them is much below its
market value, as a result of which the first defendant (Coal
India) is suffering loss.  This price fixing or regulation is made
mostly in case of fuel supply agreements.

"Secondly, there is a large-scale theft or misappropriation of
this resource, which is also a cause of loss to the company, it is
alleged.  The above allegations are denied by Sudipto Sarkar,
learned senior advocate appearing for the first defendant," Judge
IP Mukerji had said while ordering the institution of the class
action suit in October.

While no interim order was given, the court directed filing of
affidavit-in-opposition by November 30.

The next hearing of the case is on December 12.


CREDIT SUISSE: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Trade Loss
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, reports that Credit Suisse AG
demanded on Nov. 26 that a New York federal court throw out a
class action accusing the bank of understating the risks of an
exchange-traded note it issued that led to $340 million in rapid
losses earlier this year.

In its motion to dismiss, the financial services giant tried to
refute investors' claims, stressing that it had provided explicit
warnings of the inherent risks in the security's offering
documents, particularly explaining that it was not designed for
long-term investment.


CREEKSTONE FARMS: $195,000 Class Action Settlement Awaits Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a settlement agreement in a
lawsuit brought by workers against the Creekstone Farms
slaughterhouse in Arkansas City is awaiting approval by the
federal judge overseeing the class action litigation.

U.S. District Judge Eric Melgren will decide whether to approve a
settlement reached in August.  A joint request by the parties that
included details of the deal was filed earlier this month.

Workers alleged Creekstone wasn't paying them for all the time
they worked.  Creekstone said it paid for all time worked,
including overtime.

Under the proposed $195,000 settlement, about $110,000 would be
split among the 144 class members.  The amount paid each worker
would be based on how often the employee worked during the three-
year claim period.

Most of the rest of the settlement would go to workers' attorneys.


DENDREON CORP: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Wash. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dendreon Corporation is still awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated securities suit pending in
Washington, 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.

The Company and three current and former officers are named
defendants in a consolidated putative securities class action
proceeding filed in August 2011 with the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington (the "District
Court") under the caption In re Dendreon Corporation Class Action
Litigation, Master Docket No. C 11-1291 JLR.  Lead Plaintiff, San
Mateo County Employees Retirement Association, purports to state
claims for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a
class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between
April 29, 2010, and August 3, 2011.  A consolidated amended
complaint was filed on February 24, 2012.  In general, the
complaints allege that the defendants issued materially false or
misleading statements concerning the Company, its finances,
business operations and prospects with a focus on the market
launch of PROVENGE and related forecasts concerning physician
adoption, and revenue from sales of PROVENGE as reflected in the
Company's August 3, 2011 release of its financial results for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.  The Company and other defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on
April 27, 2012, and that motion is fully briefed and awaiting
further action by the Court.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of that motion or
of these lawsuits; however, the Company believes the claims lack
merit and intends to defend the claims vigorously.

Dendreon Corporation -- http://www.dendreon.com/-- is a
biotechnology company that engages in the discovery, development,
and commercialization of novel therapeutics to enhance cancer
treatment options for patients.  The Company's product portfolio
includes active cellular immunotherapy and small molecule product
candidates to treat a range of cancers.  The Company offers
PROVENGE (sipuleucel-T), an autologous cellular immunotherapy for
the treatment of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic,
metastatic, castrate-resistant (hormone-refractory), and prostate
cancer.  The Company was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in
Seattle, Washington.


G-U HARDWARE: Recalls 5,000 Window Fittings Due to Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
distributor, G-U Hardware, Inc., of Newport News, Virginia, and
manufacturer, G-U Yapi of Turkey, announced a voluntary recall of
about 5,000 Window Fittings: Tilt-turn Stay Arms and Side-hung
Sash Hinges.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The window fittings can break.  This can cause the window to fall,
posing an injury hazard to consumers.

G-U Hardware has received two reports of windows falling,
including one report of a broken thumb.

This recall involves tilt-turn stay arm and side-hung sash hinge
adjustable window fittings.  They are used to attach a window to a
frame and primarily sold for use in commercial buildings.  The
fittings have clamps, locking pins and stainless steel springs.
"G-U" and the component number are stamped at the ends of the
fitting.  The recalled G-U Hardware window fittings have the
following model names, and model and component numbers:

Window Fitting         Model Name   Model Number    Component #
--------------         ----------   ------------    -----------
Side-hung sash hinge   Jet AK8      6-31064-00-0-1    9-31209
Tilt-turn stay arm     Jet AK8 30   K-15805-00-0-1    9-31209
Tilt-turn stay arm     Jet AK8 50   K-15806-00-0-1    9-31208
Tilt-turn stay arm     Jet AK8 90   K-15807-00-0-1    9-31208

A picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13050.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Turkey and sold by G-U
Hardware directly to hardware wholesalers and window manufacturers
nationwide from October 2002 to December 2011 for between $7 and
$26.

Contact G-U Hardware to arrange for the free replacement and
installation of new window fittings.  For additional information,
contact GU Hardware toll-free at (855) 355-8810 from 7:30 a.m. to
12:00 p.m. and from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Thursday; and from 7:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and from 1:00
p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time Friday, or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.ak-warning.com/


HSBC BANK: Settles Bankers' Overtime Class Action for $15.6-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ama Sarfo, writing for Law360, reports that HSBC Bank USA NA has
agreed to pay $15.6 million to resolve a putative class action
alleging the company withheld overtime wages from some of its
bankers, managers and specialists, according to a proposed
settlement filed on Nov. 26 in New York federal court.

The plaintiffs' class representatives asked the court for
preliminary approval of their settlement, as well as conditional
certification for four subclasses of employees who worked for HSBC
in New York, California, Connecticut and New Jersey, saying
efficiency weighed in favor of a settlement.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Shareholders File Revised Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
FINalternatives reports that JPMorgan Chase shareholders have
trotted out the dreaded epithet -- "hedge fund" -- in a revised
class-action lawsuit against the bank.

The shareholders, led by several public pension funds, accuse the
bank of turning its chief investment office into a "secret hedge
fund."  The move blew up in the bank's face when a trader known as
the "London whale" cost it some $6 billion on bad credit-default
swap index trades.

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon "secretly transformed the CIO from a risk
management unit into a proprietary trading desk whose principal
purpose was to engage in speculative, high-risk bets designed to
generate profits," the revised class-action complaint, filed in
New York federal court, alleges.

The JPMorgan investors, led by the Arkansas Teacher Retirement
System, Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and the state of
Oregon, also named former chief investment officer Ina Drew, chief
financial officer Douglas Braunstein and corporate and investment
banking co-CEO Michael Cavanagh in the complaint, alleging that
"JPMorgan senior management made a conscious, strategic decision
to use the CIO for proprietary trading in pursuit of short-term
profits."

The lawsuit covers investors who bought JPMorgan stock between
Feb. 24, 2010 and May 21, 2012.

The complaint takes particular aim at JPMorgan's decision not to
create a liquidity reserve to backstop the Bruno Iksil -- the
whale -- portfolio.  "Because the company never took the liquidity
reserve it was required to have taken, the company's net income
was overstated by at least $2 billion each quarter during the
class period, rendering JPMorgan's financial statements materially
false."


LIVE NATION: Canadian Courts OK Resale Market Claims Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. received final approvals from all
provinces of its settlement of resale market claims in class
action lawsuits filed in Canada, according to the Company's
November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In February 2009, five putative consumer class action complaints
were filed in various provinces of Canada against TicketsNow,
Ticketmaster, Ticketmaster Canada Ltd. and Premium Inventory, Inc.
All of the cases allege essentially the same set of facts and
causes of action.  Each plaintiff purports to represent a class
consisting of all persons who purchased a ticket from
Ticketmaster, Ticketmaster Canada Ltd. or TicketsNow from February
2007 to present and alleges that Ticketmaster conspired to divert
a large number of tickets for resale through the TicketsNow Web
site at prices higher than face value.  The plaintiffs
characterize these actions as being in violation of Ontario's
Ticket Speculation Act, the Amusement Act of Manitoba, the
Amusement Act of Alberta or the Quebec Consumer Protection Act.
The Ontario case contains the additional allegation that
Ticketmaster's and TicketsNow's service fees violate anti-scalping
laws.  Each lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of the class.

In February 2012, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
that will resolve all of the resale market claims.  The court
approval process for the settlement has been completed, with final
approvals given in all provinces.

As of September 30, 2012, the Company has accrued its best
estimate of the probable costs associated with the resale market
claims of this matter, the full amount of which was funded by an
escrow established in connection with Ticketmaster's 2008
acquisition of TicketsNow.

While it is reasonably possible that a loss related to the primary
market claims of this matter could be incurred by the Company in a
future period, the Company does not believe that a loss is
probable of occurring at this time.  Considerable uncertainty
remains regarding the validity of the claims and damages asserted
against the Company.  As a result, the Company is currently unable
to estimate the possible loss or range of loss for the primary
market claims of this matter.  The Company says it intends to
continue to vigorously defend all claims in all of the actions.


LIVE NATION: Ticketing Fees Suit Parties in Talks to Modify Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the class action lawsuit over ticketing fees continue
to discuss potential modifications to their settlement agreement,
according to Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.'s November 5, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In October 2003, a putative representative action was filed in the
Superior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster's charges to
online customers for shipping fees and alleging that its failure
to disclose on its Web site that the charges contain a profit
component is unlawful.  The complaint asserted a claim for
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and
sought restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i)
the total shipping fees charged by Ticketmaster in connection with
online ticket sales during the applicable period, and (ii) the
amount that Ticketmaster actually paid to the shipper for delivery
of those tickets.  In August 2005, the plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint, then pleading the case as a putative class
action and adding the claim that Ticketmaster's website
disclosures in respect of its ticket order processing fees
constitute false advertising in violation of California's False
Advertising Law.  On this new claim, the amended complaint seeks
restitution or disgorgement of the entire amount of order
processing fees charged by Ticketmaster during the applicable
period.  In April 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint adding new claims
that (a) Ticketmaster's order processing fees are unconscionable
under the UCL, and (b) Ticketmaster's alleged business practices
further violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Plaintiffs later filed a third amended complaint, to which
Ticketmaster filed a demurrer in July 2009.  The Court overruled
Ticketmaster's demurrer in October 2009.

The plaintiffs filed a class certification motion in August 2009,
which Ticketmaster opposed.  In February 2010, the Court granted
certification of a class on the first and second causes of action,
which alleges that Ticketmaster misrepresents/omits the fact of a
profit component in Ticketmaster's shipping and order processing
fees.  The class would consist of California consumers who
purchased tickets through Ticketmaster's Web site from 1999 to
present.  The Court denied certification of a class on the third
and fourth causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster's
shipping and order processing fees are unconscionably high.  In
March 2010, Ticketmaster filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with
the California Court of Appeal, and plaintiffs also filed a motion
for reconsideration of the Superior Court's class certification
order.  In April 2010, the Superior Court denied plaintiffs'
Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's class certification
order, and the Court of Appeal denied Ticketmaster's Petition for
Writ of Mandate.  In June 2010, the Court of Appeal granted the
plaintiffs' Petition for Writ of Mandate and ordered the Superior
Court to vacate its February 2010 order denying plaintiffs' motion
to certify a national class and enter a new order granting
plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class on the first and
second claims.  In September 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion
for Summary Judgment on all causes of action in the Superior
Court, and that same month plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Summary Adjudication of various affirmative defenses asserted by
Ticketmaster.  In November 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion to
Decertify Class.

In December 2010, the parties entered into a binding agreement
providing for the settlement of the litigation and the resolution
of all claims therein.  In September 2011, the Court declined to
approve the settlement in its then-current form.  Litigation
continued, and in September 2011, the Court granted in part and
denied in part Ticketmaster's Motion for Summary Judgment.  The
parties reached a new settlement in September 2011, which was
approved preliminarily, but in September 2012 the Court declined
to grant final approval.  In doing so, the court identified
potential modifications to the settlement, and the parties
continue to discuss such potential modifications and the
possibility of a revised settlement agreement.

Ticketmaster and its parent, Live Nation, have not acknowledged
any violations of law or liability in connection with the matter.

As of September 30, 2012, the Company has accrued $35.4 million,
its best estimate of the probable costs associated with the
settlement.  This liability includes an estimated redemption rate.
Any difference between the Company's estimated redemption rate and
the actual redemption rate it experiences will impact the final
settlement amount; however, the Company does not expect this
difference to be material.


LUCKY BRAND: Text-Spam Suit Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that a California judge
on Nov. 26 gave a preliminary nod to a nearly $10 million class
action settlement between Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc., its
marketing subcontractors and a nationwide class of consumers who
accused them of text-spamming them as part of a 2008 back-to-
school promotion.

All persons who received promotional texts advertising discounted
Lucky Jeans between Aug. 24 and Sept. 15, 2008, will be entitled
to up to $100 under the deal.


MEYER MARKETING: Recalls 12,900 Kirkland Signature Saute Pans
-------------------------------------------------------------
About 12,900 Kirkland Signature Six-Quart Saute Pans with glass
lids were voluntarily recalled by Meyer Marketing Co. Ltd, of
Macau, 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 pan's tempered glass lid can crack, break or shatter, posing a
laceration hazard to consumers.

Meyer has received 97 reports of the pan's glass lids breaking or
shattering.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Kirkland Signature six-quart, black, hard-
anodized aluminum saute pans with glass lids.  The tempered glass
lids have a stainless steel rim and handle.  The pan is about 3
inches deep and the pan and lid each measure about 12 inches in
diameter.  "Kirkland Signature," "6 QT/5.6 L" and "Made in
Thailand" are printed on the bottom of the saute pan.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13708.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Thailand and sold
exclusively at Costco Wholesale stores in the San Francisco Bay
area and in the Northeast from May 2012 through October 2012 for
about $35.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled pans and
glass lids and return them to any Costco store for a full refund.
Costco is contacting its customers directly.  Costco may be
reached toll-free at (877) 782-8242 from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Pacific Time Monday through Friday, or online at
http://www.costco.com/and click on Recalls for more information.


NEW YORK: Scheindlin to Decide on Stop-and-Frisk Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Gearty, writing for New York Daily News, reports that a
federal judge was not happy to learn on Nov. 27 she would be the
one to decide the legality of the NYPD's hugely controversial
stop-and-frisk program, as opposed to a jury.

"Either way the judge is going to be attacked," said Manhattan
Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin.  "It's not a verdict of the
community and I thought that would have been helpful for a case
like this."

Last May, Judge Scheindlin said there was "overwhelming evidence"
thousands of stop-and-frisks were unlawful when she decided to
grant the lawsuit class action status.

The case is one of three ongoing lawsuits challenging aspects of
the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program -- this one focusing on street
stops.

More than 80% of the 2.8 million people subjected to stop-and-
frisks from 2004 to 2009 were black or Latino, according to Judge
Scheindlin's ruling.  The city denies the stops are improper.

One of the plaintiff's lawyers, Darius Charney, said the sole
issue in the case is the constitutionality of the stop-and-frisk
program, so a federal judge was in the best position to decide
that.

"We want this case decided as expeditiously as possible," he said.

The trial is set to begin March 2013.


NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Awaits Final OK of Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
NextWave Wireless Inc. is awaiting final approval of its
settlement of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 29, 2012.

On September 16, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned
"Sandra Lifschitz, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. NextWave Wireless Inc. et al.,
Defendants," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers.  The lawsuit alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or omissions in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified
damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and injunctive,
equitable or other relief on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
March 30, 2007, to August 7, 2008.  A second putative class action
lawsuit captioned "Benjamin et al. v. NextWave Wireless Inc. et
al." was filed on October 21, 2008, alleging the same claims on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during an
extended class period, from November 27, 2006, through August 7,
2008.  On February 24, 2009, the Court issued an Order
consolidating the two cases and appointing a lead plaintiff
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

On May 15, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint,
and on June 29, 2009, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss that
Amended Complaint.  On March 5, 2010, the Court granted the
Company's Motion to Dismiss without prejudice, permitting the lead
plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint.  On March 26, 2010, the
lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint, and
the Company subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss.  On
March 16, 2011, the Court granted the Company's Motion and
dismissed the complaint without prejudice.  On May 5, 2011, the
lead plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint, and the Company
again filed a Motion to Dismiss.  On November 21, 2011, the Court
granted the Company's Motion and dismissed the case with
prejudice.  On December 19, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a
Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Company and its insurance carrier have agreed with the lead
plaintiff on the final terms of a settlement.  The settlement
provides for a full release and dismissal of all claims asserted
against all defendants in the litigation and the appeal, in
exchange for payment of $1.4 million by the Company's insurance
carrier.  The settlement is subject to court approval following
notice to the potential class members.  The Court of Appeals
dismissed the appeal on June 25, 2012, and the case has been
returned to the district court for the approval process.  The
district court has approved the application for preliminary
approval of the settlement and the final approval hearing was
scheduled for November 9, 2012.

The Company continues to maintain the D&O and corporate liability
insurance covering certain risks associated with securities claims
filed against the Company or its directors and officers, with
insurance from multiple carriers, each insuring a different layer
of exposure, up to a total of $50 million.  The Company has
accrued for liabilities equal to the financial deductible of the
Company's D&O policy for the period covering the time the class
action lawsuit for this matter was filed.  Other than accruing for
the Company's financial deductible, the Company has not recorded
any significant accruals for contingent liabilities associated
with this matter based on its belief that a liability in excess of
its insurance coverage, while possible, is not probable.

NextWave Wireless Inc. is a holding company for a significant
wireless spectrum portfolio.  Its continuing operations are
focused on the management of its wireless spectrum interests.  The
Company's total domestic spectrum holdings consist of
approximately 3.9 billion MHz POPs.  The term "MHz-POPs" is
defined as the product derived from multiplying the number of
megahertz associated with a license by the population of the
license's service area.  The Company is headquartered in San
Diego, California.


NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
NextWave Wireless Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle merger-related class action lawsuits, according to the
Company's November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
29, 2012.

On August 1, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with AT&T Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("AT&T") and Rodeo Acquisition Sub Inc., a Delaware
corporation and a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T ("Merger
Sub").  Under the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in
the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and into the
Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation
and a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T (the "Merger").

On August 31, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the
Company, AT&T, Merger Sub, Allen Salmasi, Douglas F. Manchester,
Jack Rosen, Nadar Tavakoli, Carl E. Vogel and William H. Webster
alleging, among other things, that the Company's board of
directors and certain of its executive officers breached various
fiduciary duties in connection with the board of directors'
approval of the proposed Merger and that the Company, AT&T and
Merger Sub aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties.  The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief preventing the
Merger, an order rescinding the proposed Merger in the event it is
not enjoined, and damages as a result of the alleged actions of
the defendants, including attorneys' and experts' fees (the "Weiss
Action").  Subsequently, on September 6, 2012, two additional
complaints were filed in the Superior Court of California, County
of San Diego by Thomas Juzwik and Elias Rodriguez against the
Company, AT&T, Merger Sub, Allen Salmasi, Jack Rosen, William
Webster, Douglas F. Manchester, Robert Symington, Frank Cassou and
Francis Harding, containing substantially similar allegations to
those set forth in the Weiss Action.  The Juzwik, Rodriquez and
Weiss actions are collectively referred to as the actions.

In order to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation and to allow stockholders to vote on the proposal to
adopt the Merger Agreement at the scheduled special meeting, the
Company and the other defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding") with plaintiffs'
counsel on September 20, 2012, in connection with the actions,
pursuant to which the Company, the other named defendants and the
plaintiffs have agreed to settle the actions subject to court
approval.  If the Delaware court approves the settlement, the
Weiss action will be dismissed with prejudice and the plaintiffs
in the Juzwik and Rodriquez actions will dismiss their complaints
based on the settlement of the Weiss action.  The Company
continues to maintain the directors and officers and corporate
liability insurance covering certain risks associated with
securities claims filed against the Company or its directors and
officers with insurance from multiple carriers, each insuring a
different layer of exposure, up to a total of $50 million.  The
Company has accrued for liabilities equal to the financial
deductible of the Company's D&O policy for the period covering the
time the class action lawsuit for this matter was filed.  Other
than accruing for the Company's financial deductible, the Company
has not recorded any significant accruals for contingent
liabilities associated with this matter based on its belief that a
liability in excess of its insurance coverage, while possible, is
not probable.

NextWave Wireless Inc. is a holding company for a significant
wireless spectrum portfolio.  Its continuing operations are
focused on the management of its wireless spectrum interests.  The
Company's total domestic spectrum holdings consist of
approximately 3.9 billion MHz POPs.  The term "MHz-POPs" is
defined as the product derived from multiplying the number of
megahertz associated with a license by the population of the
license's service area.  The Company is headquartered in San
Diego, California.


NUFARM: Settles Shareholder Class Action for AUD46.6 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Battersby, writing for Knox Weekly, reports that Nufarm will
avoid a lengthy trial next year after settling a shareholder class
action for AUD46.6 million.  The shareholders alleged that
Nufarm's 2010 profit forecast was excessively positive and
misleading.

By settling the matter Nufarm avoids drawn-out legal action and
does not admit any fault.  The money will be split among
shareholders.

Justice John Middleton of the Federal Court in Melbourne approved
the settlement on Nov. 28.

The law firms Maurice Blackburn and Slater & Gordon started the
class action in 2011 on behalf of more than 700 shareholders,
including mum and dad investors.  Shareholders alleged Nufarm's
profit forecast of between AUD110 million and AUD130 million for
2009-10 was misleading and deceptive.  Shares dropped from AUD5.35
to AUD3.25 in one week after the company halved the profit
guidance to between AUD55 million and AUD65 million.

The Slater & Gordon lawyer Odette McDonald said the outcome was a
"great result for shareholders".

"It really means a significant reduction in legal costs and a
bigger return for those investors seeking to recoup lost funds",
she said.

In August the Nufarm chairman, Donald McGauchie, said the board
had "carefully considered risks and costs associated with a
protracted litigation, and demand on management's time as the
company implements its strategic growth plans".

It originally agreed to settle for AUD43.5 million but this
increased to AUD46.6 million after more shareholders joined the
action.  A trial was scheduled to start in September 2013.

The AUD43.5 million was booked as a material item in Nufarm's
2011-12 accounts.  The extra AUD3.1 million will be reported in
the current financial year.


PACIFIC RETIREMENT: Rogue Valley Manor Residents to File Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Stiles, writing for Mail Tribune, reports that Rogue Valley
Manor residents say they are through talking with Pacific
Retirement Services.

After two months of mediation, the Manor residents' steering
committee broke off negotiations and has served notice it will
file a class-action suit in Jackson County Circuit Court asking
for $30 million because of what it claims are excessive management
charges by PRS.

Residents of the retirement community have been at odds with the
Manor's corporate parent for months, saying that PRS and its board
have exceeded their authority and removed virtually all decision-
making power from the Rogue Valley Manor's own board.

Manor residents, who overwhelmingly endorsed the legal action,
rapidly raised a legal war chest of hundreds of thousands of
dollars late last summer.

In a 50-page draft complaint, residents seek removal of PRS
control over the Manor; rescission of an Aug. 24 bylaws amendment
that reduced the Rogue Valley Manor board from nine to three
members; and reinstatement of dismissed Manor board members or
appointment of an independent board that cannot be appointed or
removed by PRS.

They also are asking the court to give the Rogue Valley Manor
board the right to select the community's executive director and
for the return of Kevin McLoughlin to that role.  Further, the
residents request an accounting of "excessive management and
related fees collected by PRS" and action to prevent PRS from
transferring or dissipating the Manor's assets.

In August, after a judge declined to intervene on residents'
behalf, Mr. McLoughlin was fired from his post and PRS dismissed
seven of nine Manor board members.  PRS Chief Operating Officer
Mike Morris assumed Mr. McLoughlin's duties on an interim basis.

The dispute first arose over concerns by Manor residents that they
were being charged excessive fees to cover expenses related to PRS
properties beyond the Manor.  PRS operates 10 retirement
facilities in five states as well as other operations, including a
hotel and two golf courses in Medford.  The Manor residents say
that when PRS was established, it was agreed that management
services would be charged at a break-even rate, with no profits to
PRS.

During an hour-plus session with several hundred Manor residents,
Portland attorney David Markowitz said the concerns over excessive
fees were justified.

"The prior board's investigation, and the investigation by my law
office and our forensic accountant, all demonstrate that there are
significant profits being made by PRS on its management fees for
its governance over the Rogue Valley Manor," Mr. Markowitz said in
a video of the meeting that was made available to the Mail
Tribune.  "We have alleged . . . it is an amount in excess of $1
million a year that has continued for years and years and years.
Some years, in excess of $1.5 million of profit that has been used
by PRS not for the benefit of Rogue Valley Manor but in order to
fund its ventures elsewhere, including its losses that it has
sustained in its for-profit failed activities or failing
activities elsewhere."

Residents raised five issues as they began a series of mediation
efforts with PRS officers that ended Nov. 16.  The issues have
been boiled down to three: PRS' governance, its fees and how it
handles the money, and Mr. McLoughlin's future.

"I'm disappointed that no agreement has been met," Mr. Markowitz
said.

Mike Morris, who was in attendance for at least part of the
meeting, told residents PRS intended to present its side of the
matter within two weeks.

"There will be additional information beyond what is discussed
here," Mr. Morris said.  "We look forward to very open discussion
and being able to hear both sides."

After PRS dismissed dissident Manor board members this summer,
residents are seeking assurances that their board would have some
authority.  But Mr. Markowitz said that is not acceptable to PRS.

"Most importantly they want to retain absolute control of the
board," Mr. Markowitz said.  "Not only selection of the nine
(board members), but in the ability to terminate."

While Manor residents are pressing PRS on several issues, they
seem most upset over the dismissal of Mr. McLoughlin, who was
summarily fired in August and told not to set foot on PRS property
after he cleaned out his office.

"You would think that if we could get a truly independent board
that wouldn't be subject to termination then that board could
rehire whoever they wanted for an executive director," Mr.
Markowitz said.  "But PRS so far has said no, which is why so many
of our group is pessimistic of the governance issue ever being
resolved.  Because they (PRS) want to maintain that ultimate
control over decision making."

The biggest issue leading to the lawsuit, Mr. Markowitz said, was
whether Mr. McLoughlin would be returned to his position.

"What we've been told repeatedly is that Kevin will not be
returned voluntarily," Mr. Markowitz said.  "The way we put it in
the last meeting, if you had to choose between a lawsuit between
the Rogue Valley Manor residents and (rehiring) Kevin, which would
you choose, PRS? They chose the lawsuit.  This issue is the one we
can find no compromise, no give, no change in PRS' position."

It remains unclear why Mr. McLoughlin was removed, but Mr.
Markowitz told the residents that the PRS board was not involved
in the dismissal.

"The PRS board continues, we believe, to not know why Kevin's
supervisor fired him and they refuse to talk to Kevin," Mr.
Markowitz said.

Asked point-blank by residents about the circumstances surrounding
Mr. McLoughlin's departure, Mr. Morris declined to offer
specifics.

"Those of you who have been involved in business in your life
understand that personnel decisions are very confidential in
nature," said Mr. Morris, who is the son-in-law of former PRS
Chief Executive Officer Tom Becker.  "The likelihood of having
full disclosure of the details of an employee's termination would
need to come from the employee directly and not from the
employer."

Pressed by a noticeably hostile crowd, he defended the firing
without revealing details.  He did say the termination was not
solely the decision of PRS Chief Executive Officer Brian McLemore.

"The decision to make personnel changes is never a unilateral
decision in our organization, it's never made by one individual,"
Mr. Morris said.  "It is reviewed by our human resources
department and our legal department. In this case it is reviewed
by a team of professionals to make that decision."

Ultimately, the Manor residents were told by their attorneys, the
only way Rogue Valley Manor residents will get their way is if
they prevail in court.

"We recognize litigation is difficult and not their first choice,
but it's their only choice for the independence they are entitled
to at this point," said Shannon Armstrong, also an attorney with
Markowitz, Herbold, Glade & Mehlhaf.


PARKLANE FINANCIAL: Edwin Harris Among Defendants in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Erskine, writing for Herald Business, reports that McInnes
Cooper tax lawyer Edwin Harris has been named in a C$144-million
class action certified by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Launched in 2008, the lawsuit names as defendants: ParkLane
Financial Group Ltd., Trafalgar Associates Ltd., Trafalgar Trading
Ltd., Funds for Canada Foundation, Appleby Services (Bermuda) Ltd.
as trustee for the Bermuda Longtail Trust, McInnes Cooper,
Patterson Palmer (also known as Patterson Palmer Law), Patterson
Kitz (Halifax), Patterson Kitz (Truro), Gleeson Management
Associates Inc., Matt Gleeson and Mary-Lou Gleeson.

Mr. Harris was cited for alleged negligent misrepresentation for
endorsing ParkLane's Donations for Canada Charitable Gift Program,
which generated C$144 million in contributions from 10,000
participants between 2005 and 2009, the class action's lead
lawyer, Margaret Waddell -- john.kulik@mcinnescooper.com -- of
Toronto law firm Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP, said on
Nov. 27.

She also alleged that Mr. Harris was "engaged by ParkLane to
assist in documentation for the program" and provided the company
with legal opinions.

The class action alleges the gift program was a fraud and/or it
was in breach of provincial consumer protection legislation. The
lawsuit also says class action members are entitled to rescind
their agreements and have the money they paid to participate in
the program refunded.

None of the allegations have been proven in court and all of the
defendants have denied liability in the case.

Mr. Harris, a former Dalhousie University law teacher and former
chair of the Canadian Tax Foundation, worked at Patterson Kitz
(Halifax) in 2005 before it merged with McInnes Cooper in 2006.
He was not available for comment on Nov. 27.

But McInnes Cooper general counsel John Kulik --
john.kulik@mcinnescooper.com -- said the firm will continue to
fight the class action, which has already withstood appeal motions
by the defendants.

According to Paliare Roland and co-class action counsel, Landy
Marr Kats LLP, ParkLane offered the gift program as a charitable
tax shelter opportunity sold to Canadians through financial
advisers.

Program participants were allegedly told that for every $2,500
donation they made, a Canadian charity would receive $10,000 and
the donor would receive a charitable tax receipt for $10,000.

Class action counsel said Canada Revenue Agency disallowed the
ParkLane charitable deductions.

The action alleges the charities kept one per cent or less of the
amount for which they issued receipts.  It also alleges the rest
was used to pay the program's promoters and to purchase a royalty
agreement that enabled the charity to receive an interest in a
possible revenue stream to be generated by a computer software
program trading futures contracts on a highly leveraged basis.

Ms. Waddell, who suggested it will be next summer before it will
be determined if the case is ready to go to trial, said most of
the money paid into the program is offshore.

The class action includes any person who participated in
ParkLane's Donations for Canada Charitable Gift Program while
residing in Canada between Jan. 1, 2005, and Dec. 31, 2009,
excluding persons immediately associated with or related to the
defendants.

Information on the class action, including a copy of the notice of
certification, is available at http://www.parklaneclassaction.com


PEPPERIDGE FARM: Sued Over Cheddar Goldfish Crackers Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Calhoun, writing for Denver Westword, reports that Aspen
resident Sonya Bolerjack had filed a class-action complaint
against Pepperidge Farm, Inc., in United States District Court,
District of Colorado, charging that its Cheddar Goldfish Baked
Snack Crackers are not "natural," as advertised on the package.
Here's the start of that suit, on view below in its entirety:

    1. Defendant has made false, misleading statements that are
likely to deceive reasonable consumers.  Defendant has mistakenly
or misleadingly represented that its Cheddar Goldfish crackers
(the "Product") are "Natural," when, in fact, they are not,
because they contain Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the
form of soy and/or soy derivatives.

    2. Defendant's "Natural" statement prominently displayed on
the Product's packaging and/or labeling is false, misleading, and
likely to deceive reasonable consumers, such as Plaintiff and
members of the Class, because the Product is not "Natural," due to
the presence of soybean oil in the Product."

    3. GMOs are plants that grow from seeds in which DNA splicing
has been used to place genes from another source into a plant.
Contrary to Defendants's express or implied representations, the
Product uses plants or plant derivatives grown or created from
GMOs."

There's more, of course, but it all adds up to the fact that
Ms. Bolerjack believes she, and any other plaintiffs who sign on
to this action, deserve $5 million in compensation from Pepperidge
Farm.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Securities Suit in Ala. Stayed Pending Review
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit in Alabama has been stayed
pending an appellate court review of the order granting class
certification, according to the Company's November 5, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In October 2010, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed by
Regions' stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama against Regions and certain former officers of
Regions.  The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities
laws, including allegations that statements that were materially
false and misleading were included in filings made with the SEC.
The plaintiffs have requested equitable relief and unspecified
monetary damages.  On June 7, 2011, the trial court denied
Regions' motion to dismiss this lawsuit.  On June 14, 2012, the
trial court granted class certification.  The Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals is reviewing the trial court's grant of class
action certification.  The case is now stayed pending that review.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Funds-Related Class Suit Deal Not Yet Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in December 2007, Regions Financial Corporation and
certain of its affiliates have been named in class-action lawsuits
filed in federal and state courts on behalf of investors who
purchased shares of certain Regions Morgan Keegan Select Funds
(the "Funds") and shareholders of Regions.  These cases have been
consolidated into class-actions and shareholder derivative actions
for the open-end and closed-end Funds.  The Funds were formerly
managed by Regions Investment Management, Inc. ("Regions
Investment Management").  Regions Investment Management no longer
manages these Funds, which were transferred to Hyperion Brookfield
Asset Management ("Hyperion") in 2008.  Certain of the Funds have
since been terminated by Hyperion.  The complaints contain various
allegations, including claims that the Funds and the defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts relating to
the activities of the Funds.  Plaintiffs have requested equitable
relief and unspecified monetary damages.  These cases are in
various stages and no classes have been certified.  Settlement
discussions are ongoing in certain cases, and the parties have
reached a preliminary settlement in the closed-end Funds class-
action and the shareholder derivative case.  Certain of the
shareholders in these Funds and other interested parties have
entered into arbitration proceedings and individual civil claims,
in lieu of participating in the class actions.  The lawsuits and
proceedings related to the Funds are subject to the
indemnification agreement with Raymond James Financial Inc.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 5,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Suit Over Overdraft Fees Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit related to overdraft fees remain pending,
according to Regions Financial Corporation's November 5, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In September 2009, Regions was named as a defendant in a purported
class-action lawsuit filed by customers of Regions Bank in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
challenging the manner in which non-sufficient funds and overdraft
fees were charged and the policies related to posting order.  The
case was transferred to multidistrict litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and in May
2010 an order to compel arbitration was denied.  Regions appealed
the denial and on April 29, 2011, the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals vacated the denial and remanded the case to the district
court for reconsideration of Regions' motion to compel
arbitration.  On September 1, 2011, the trial court again denied
Regions' motion to compel arbitration.  Regions again appealed the
denial to the Eleventh Circuit, which on March 5, 2012, granted
the motion and ordered that the case be dismissed.  Plaintiffs
filed a motion for rehearing by the full court of appeals, which
was denied on April 30, 2012.  Plaintiffs petitioned for
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, but their petition was
denied on October 9, 2012.  Another purported class-action
alleging these claims was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia in January 2012.  The case is still
early in its development and no class has been certified.
Plaintiffs in these cases have requested equitable relief and
unspecified monetary damages.


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Units to Seek to End Humboldt Suit Injunction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiary defendants anticipate petitioning to end their agreed-
upon injunction in the Humboldt County Action, according to the
Company's November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

In connection with the September 2010 settlement of certain class
action litigation against Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. and
certain of its subsidiaries related to, among other matters,
alleged understaffing at certain California skilled nursing
facilities operated by Skilled's subsidiaries (the "Humboldt
County Action"), Skilled and its defendant subsidiaries
(collectively, the "Defendants") entered into settlement
agreements with the applicable plaintiffs and agreed to an
injunction.  The settlement was approved by the Superior Court of
California, Humboldt County, on November 30, 2010.  Under the
terms of the settlement agreements, the defendant entities
deposited a total of $50.0 million into escrow accounts to cover
settlement payments to class members, notice and claims
administration costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and
certain other payments, including $5.0 million to settle certain
government agency claims and potential government claims that may
arise.  Of the $5.0 million provided for such government claims,
$1.0 million has been released by the court to the Humboldt County
Treasurer-Tax Collector on behalf of the People of the State of
California for their release of the Defendants.  The remaining
$4.0 million is available for the settlement and releases by the
California Attorney General and certain other District Attorneys.
However, in the event that any of these government authorities
instead file certain actions against the Defendants by the second
anniversary of the effective date of the settlement agreement,
which will occur in February 2013, the entire $4.0 million will
revert to the Defendants upon their request to the Settlement
Administrator.

In addition to the $1.0 million paid to the Humboldt County
Treasurer-Tax Collector on behalf of the People of the State of
California, the court also approved payments from the escrow of up
to approximately $24.8 million for attorneys' fees and costs and
$10,000 to each of the three named plaintiffs.  In addition,
approximately $9.3 million of settlement proceeds have been
distributed from the escrow to approximately 3,900 of an estimated
43,000 class members.  Pursuant to the injunction, the twenty-two
Defendants that operate California nursing facilities must provide
specified nurse staffing levels, comply with specified state and
federal laws governing staffing levels and posting requirements,
and provide reports and information to a court-appointed auditor.
The injunction will remain in effect for a period of twenty-four
months unless extended for additional three-month periods as to
those Defendants that may be found in violation.  Defendants
demonstrating compliance for an eighteen-month period that ended
September 30, 2012, may petition for early termination of the
injunction.

The Defendants are required to demonstrate over the term of the
injunction that the costs of the injunction meet a minimum
threshold level pursuant to the settlement agreement, which level,
initially $9.6 million, is reduced by the portion attributable to
any Defendant in the case that no longer operates a skilled
nursing facility during the injunction period.  The injunction
costs include, among other things, costs attributable to (i)
enhanced reporting requirements; (ii) implementing advanced
staffing tracking systems; (iii) fees and expenses paid to an
auditor and special master; (iv) increased labor and labor related
expenses; and (v) lost revenues attributable to admission
decisions based on compliance with the terms and conditions of the
injunction.  To the extent the costs of complying with the
injunction are less than the agreed upon threshold amount, the
Defendants will be required to remit any shortfall to the
settlement fund.  In April 2011, five of the subsidiary Defendants
transferred their operations to an unaffiliated third party
skilled nursing facility operator.  The remaining subsidiary
Defendants continue to monitor their compliance with the terms of
the injunction and to provide the applicable reports and
information to the court-appointed auditor.  Based upon compliance
with the injunction through the requisite eighteen-month period
ended September 30, 2012, and expenditures exceeding the threshold
injunction-related spend requirement, the subsidiary Defendants
anticipate petitioning to end the injunction as of September 30,
2012.

In the course of ongoing communications with the California
Attorney General's Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud & Elder Abuse
("BMFEA") related to the BMFEA matter, representatives of the
California Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice
have indicated their present interest in pursuing an action under
the False Claims Act and certain other legal theories based upon
the jury findings of understaffing in the Humboldt County Action.
While the Company continues to cooperate with the government's
evaluation of the matter, the Company views the government's
apparent legal theories, including the False Claims Act theories,
as lacking support in the established case law and intends to
vigorously defend any such action if brought.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Class Cert. Denial in Discrim. Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed in August
2012 the denial of class certification in the lawsuit alleging age
discrimination, according to Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc.'s
November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 27, 2012.

In December 2005, a lawsuit was filed against Spirit AeroSystems,
Inc. ("Spirit"), Onex Corporation ("Onex") and The Boeing Company
alleging age discrimination in the hiring of employees by Spirit
when Boeing sold its Wichita commercial division to Onex.  The
complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in Wichita, Kansas and
seeks class-action status, an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages and more than 1.5 billion dollars in punitive damages.
The asset purchase agreement from the Boeing Acquisition requires
Spirit to indemnify Boeing for damages resulting from the
employment decisions that were made by the Company with respect to
former employees of Boeing Wichita, which relate or allegedly
relate to the involvement of, or consultation with, employees of
Boeing in such employment decisions.  On June 30, 2010, the U.S.
District Court granted defendants' dispositive motions, finding
that the case should not be allowed to proceed as a class action.
Following plaintiffs' appeal, on August 27, 2012, the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling in
all respects.

In the event this litigation continues, the Company says it
intends to continue to vigorously defend itself.  Management
believes the resolution of this matter will not materially affect
the Company's financial position, results of operations or
liquidity.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Awaits Dismissal From "Harkness" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. is awaiting a court ruling on a
motion seeking dismissal of the Company from the class action
lawsuit styled Harkness et al. v. The Boeing Company et al.,
according to Spirit's November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 27, 2012.

On February 16, 2007, an action entitled Harkness et al. v. The
Boeing Company et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas.  The defendants were served in early July
2007.  The defendants include Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc.,
Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., the Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc.
Retirement Plan for the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers (IBEW), Wichita Engineering Unit (SPEEA WEU) and Wichita
Technical and Professional Unit (SPEEA WTPU) Employees, and the
Spirit AeroSystems Retirement Plan for International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Employees, along with
Boeing and Boeing retirement and health plan entities.  The named
plaintiffs are twelve former Boeing employees, eight of whom were
or are employees of Spirit.  The plaintiffs assert several claims
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and general
contract law and brought the case as a class action on behalf of
similarly situated individuals.  The putative class consists of
approximately 2,500 current or former employees of Spirit.  The
parties agreed to class certification.  The sub-class members who
have asserted claims against the Spirit entities are those
individuals who, as of June 2005, were employed by Boeing in
Wichita, Kansas, were participants in the Boeing pension plan, had
at least 10 years of vesting service in the Boeing plan, were in
jobs represented by a union, were between the ages of 49 and 55,
and who went to work for Spirit on or about June 17, 2005.

Although there are many claims in the lawsuit, the plaintiffs'
claims against the Spirit entities, asserted under various
theories, are (1) that the Spirit plans wrongfully failed to
determine that certain plaintiffs are entitled to early retirement
"bridging rights" to pension and retiree medical benefits that
were allegedly triggered by their separation from employment by
Boeing and (2) that the plaintiffs' pension benefits were
unlawfully transferred from Boeing to Spirit in that their claimed
early retirement "bridging rights" are not being afforded these
individuals as a result of their separation from Boeing, thereby
decreasing their benefits.  The plaintiffs initially sought a
declaration that they are entitled to the early retirement pension
benefits and retiree medical benefits, an injunction ordering that
the defendants provide the benefits, damages pursuant to breach of
contract claims and attorney fees.

Discovery is now complete and currently pending is a motion filed
jointly by plaintiffs and Spirit on September 25, 2012, to dismiss
all claims against Spirit with prejudice.  Plaintiffs' claims
against Boeing entities are not subject to the motion and will
remain pending in the litigation.  Boeing has notified Spirit that
it believes it is entitled to indemnification from Spirit for any
"indemnifiable damages" it may incur in the Harkness litigation,
under the terms of the asset purchase agreement from the Boeing
Acquisition between Boeing and Spirit.  Spirit disputes Boeing's
position on indemnity.

Management believes the resolution of this matter will not
materially affect the Company's financial position, results of
operations or liquidity.


SPORTSPOWER LTD: Recalls 1,500 Children's Waterslides
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Sportspower Ltd., of Hong Kong, announced a voluntary recall of
about 1,500 Liquid Motion waterslides.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The warning labels on the children's waterslide are inadequate for
weight limit and fail to tell consumers never to slide head first.
This poses a risk of serious injuries to consumers, including neck
injuries.

Sportspower has received one report of a man who received a neck
injury after sliding down the waterslide head first.

This recall involves Sportspower Liquid Motion waterslides.
Consumers inflate the waterslide with air and spray it with water
for sliding.  They are used on the ground, not at the pool.  The
waterslides are blue and yellow and measure about 18 feet long by
9 feet high by 5 feet wide.  A "Liquid Motion by Sportspower" logo
is printed on the side.  Recalled waterslides have item number
INF-1375 and UPC 687064031340 located on the packaging.  Pictures
of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13052.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Menards Inc. from April 2010 through July 2010 for
about $300.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled waterslides
and contact Sportspower to receive new labels to affix to the
waterslide.  The labels warn consumers not to use the waterslide
if they are older than 13 years of age and/or weigh more than 100
lbs.  The labels also warn consumers never to slide head first.
Sportspower may be reached toll-free at (888) 965-0565, from 9:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, online at
http://www.sportspowerltd.net/or e-mail
customerservice@sportspowerltd.net for more information.


SPORTSPOWER LTD: Recalls 23,400 Trampolines Due to Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Sportspower Ltd., of Hong Kong, announced a voluntary recall of
about 23,400 trampolines.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The trampoline's metal legs can move out of position and puncture
the jumping area, posing a risk of injury, including deep,
penetrating puncture wounds, cuts and bruises to children and
adults on the trampoline.

Sportspower is aware of one incident of the trampoline leg
separating from the frame while in use, causing the leg to
puncture through the jumping surface.  No injuries have been
reported.

This recall involves Sportspower Parkside model TR-14FT-COM
trampolines.  The trampolines are 14 feet in diameter and were
sold with an enclosure net.  The trampolines have blue or light
blue fabric on the safety matting and enclosure pole sleeves.  The
model number is marked on the packaging and instruction manual.
"Parkside" is printed on the enclosure net.  A picture of the
recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13051.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Sports Authority stores nationwide from April 2007
through May 2012 for about $540.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled trampolines
and contact Sportspower to receive a free repair kit.  Sportspower
may be reached toll-free at (888) 965-0565, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, online at
http://www.sportspowerltd.net/or e-mail
customerservice@sportspowerltd.net for more information.


SUKHI'S GOURMET: Recalls Red Curry Veggies Over Undeclared Shrimp
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sukhi's Gourmet Indian Foods is alerting customers that because of
a label error, a single lot code of Red Curry with Vegetables
contains undeclared shrimp.  Consumers who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to shrimp, run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.  No
illnesses have been reported in connection to this product.  No
other products from Sukhi's have been impacted.

Sukhi's is voluntarily recalling Lot code 3390113612 with a Use-By
Date of 5/14/2013 with a UPC code: 7-67226-02901-6

The product was shipped to distributers in California, Texas,
Minnesota and Georgia, between the dates of 5/21/2012 and
10/15/2013.  A picture of the recalled products is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm329970.htm

Sukhi's became aware of the error, after receiving a customer
complaint.  Investigation into the complaint confirmed that some
boxes of a single lot of Red Curry and Vegetables inadvertently
contained Yellow Curry with Shrimp.  No illnesses have been
reported in connection with this product.

Consumers who have purchased product with this lot code should
return the product to the store where it was purchased to receive
a replacement or a refund.

For questions, consumers can call Sukhi's Gourmet Indian Foods at
1-888-4SUKHIS from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time,
Monday thru Friday.


TIME WARNER: Appeal From "Fink" Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
On August 7, 2009, the plaintiffs in Jessica Fink and Brett Noia,
et al. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., filed an amended complaint in a
purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging that the Company uses a throttling
technique which intentionally delays and/or blocks a user's high-
speed data service.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  On
December 23, 2011, the district court granted with prejudice the
Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' second amended
complaint.  On January 23, 2012, the plaintiffs appealed this
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The
Company says it intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously,
but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 5,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


TIME WARNER: Appeal in Set-Top Cable Antitrust MDL Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. is the defendant in In re: Set-Top Cable
Television Box Antitrust Litigation, ten purported class actions
filed in federal district courts throughout the U.S.  These
actions are subject to a Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") Order
transferring the cases for pretrial proceedings to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  On
July 26, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a third amended consolidated
class action complaint (the "Third Amended Complaint"), alleging
that the Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
various state antitrust laws and state unfair/deceptive trade
practices statutes by tying the sales of premium cable television
services to the leasing of set-top converter boxes.  The
plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, unspecified treble
monetary damages and an injunction to cease such alleged
practices.  On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, which the court granted on
April 8, 2011.  On June 17, 2011, the plaintiffs appealed this
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 5,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The Company says it intends to defend against this lawsuit
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


TIME WARNER: Sup. Ct. Review of "Brantley" Suit Dismissal Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned Brantley, et al. v. NBC
Universal, Inc., et al., have filed a petition for review with the
U.S. Supreme Court of the dismissal of their class action lawsuit,
according to Time Warner Cable Inc.'s November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On September 20, 2007, Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et
al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California against the Company.  The complaint, which also
named as defendants several other cable and satellite providers
(collectively, the "distributor defendants") as well as
programming content providers (collectively, the "programmer
defendants"), alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.  Among other things, the complaint alleged
coordination between and among the programmer defendants to sell
and/or license programming on a "bundled" basis to the distributor
defendants, who in turn purportedly offer that programming to
subscribers in packaged tiers, rather than on a per channel (or "a
la carte") basis.  The plaintiffs, who seek to represent a
purported nationwide class of cable and satellite subscribers, are
seeking, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages
and an injunction to compel the offering of channels to
subscribers on an "a la carte" basis.  In an order dated October
15, 2009, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs' third
amended complaint with prejudice.  On
October 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On March 30, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' lawsuit
and, on May 4, 2012, denied the plaintiffs' petition for a
rehearing en banc.  On August 2, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a
petition for review with the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Company says
it intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but is
unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss.


TIME WARNER: Continues to Defend "Downs" Suit vs. Insight
---------------------------------------------------------
On August 9, 2010, the plaintiffs in Michelle Downs and Laurie
Jarrett, et al. v. Insight Communications Company, L.P. filed a
second amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky, as a purported class action,
alleging that Insight Communications Company, L.P., a subsidiary
of Time Warner Cable Inc., violated Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act by tying the sales of premium cable television
services to the leasing of set-top converter boxes, which is
similar to the federal claim against the Company in In re: Set-Top
Cable Television Box Antitrust Litigation.  The plaintiffs are
seeking, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages
and an injunction to cease such alleged practices.  The Company
says it intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but is
unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 5,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


VISA: Majority of Class Plaintiffs to Appeal Settlement Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
National Cooperative Grocers Association disclosed that on
Nov. 27, 2012, a majority of named class plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal to challenge a ruling from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York granting preliminary approval to
a proposed settlement of a long-standing antitrust class action
filed by merchants against Visa, MasterCard and the largest banks.
The merchant group will ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit to deny preliminary approval due to the legal
defects in the proposed settlement.

More than 1,200 merchants have weighed in with the courts in
opposition to the settlement on the grounds that it locks in the
broken interchange system, deprives merchants of their right to
fight the anticompetitive practices of the Visa, MasterCard
duopoly in court, and constrains innovations that could bring
competition to the marketplace, such as mobile technology.

"This settlement has fatal legal defects and should not get
preliminary approval.  We look forward to presenting the problems
we see in this proposal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,"
said Jeffrey Shinder, managing partner at Constantine Cannon, LLC,
counsel to the merchants objecting to the proposed settlement.

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

"The merchant community is deeply committed to reforms that bring
transparency and competition to the broken electronic payments
market.  The volume and diversity of those objecting to this
flawed proposal is remarkable and continues to grow," said
Mr. Shinder.

The named class plaintiffs were joined in multiple briefs filed
with the court from a growing chorus of members of the merchant
class, including nearly 1200 small businesses and recognized
brands, such as 7-Eleven, Abercrombie & Fitch Co., Alon, American
Signature, Inc., Ascena Retail Group, Inc., AutoZone, Best Buy,
Big Lots Stores, Inc., Boscov's Department Store, LLC, Chico's
FAS, Inc., CKE Restaurants, Inc., Costco Wholesale Corp., Crate &
Barrel, Cumberland Farms, Dick's Sporting Goods, Dillard's, Inc.,
Dollar General, Expedia, The Gap, Inc., Giant Eagle, The Home
Depot, IKEA, J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., Jo-Ann Stores, Kum and
Go, Kwik Trip, Limited Brands, Inc., Lowe's, Macy's, Inc.,
Michaels, The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., Papa John's
International, Inc., Petco, REI (Recreational Equipment, Inc.),
RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc., Saks Incorporated, ShopKo, Sports
Authority, Starbucks, Target Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
Wawa, Wendy's, and a variety of associations including the
American Booksellers Association, and National Association of
College Stores, National Retail Federation, and Retail Industry
Leaders Association.

According to Dow Jones Newswires' Andrew R. Johnson, the objecting
plaintiffs specifically said in their notice they take issue with
a portion of the order that enjoins merchants "from challenging in
any action or proceeding any matter covered by" the settlement
agreement, which has been a sticking point for critics who say the
deal gives overly broad releases from future litigation to the
payments networks.

Critics including Home Depot Inc. (HD) and the National
Association of Convenience Stores, one of the objecting
plaintiffs, have also taken issue with a provision that doesn't
allow merchants to opt out of rule changes that Visa and
MasterCard agreed to make two months after the settlement gained
preliminary approval.

"We are 100% attacking through this appeal what we feel to be the
heart and soul of this settlement, and that is the way the
settlement improperly deprives merchants of their due process
rights through the injunction and the mandatory class,"
Mr. Shinder said in an interview.

Mr. Shinder's clients include D'Agostino Supermarkets Inc., the
National Association of Convenience Stores and National Grocers
Association.

Bob Stolebarger, a partner with Bryan Cave LLP and antitrust
counsel to the Electronic Payments Coalition, which represents
payments networks and banks, said the objecting plaintiffs are
limited in their ability to appeal all of Judge Gleeson's
preliminary approval order, citing case law.  The move also should
not "hinder or delay proceedings at the district court level,"
Mr. Stolebarger said.

The settlement would allow Visa, MasterCard and several card-
issuing banks including Bank of America Corp. and J.P. Morgan
Chase & Co. to put to bed litigation brought against them by
merchants in 2005, accusing the companies of conspiring over fees
retailers pay to accept credit cards, called interchange or swipe
fees.

Visa and MasterCard set the fees, which are collected as revenue
by the banks that issue the payments networks' cards.

The deal has reignited a long-standing battle between merchants
and the payments industry, with some retailers arguing that the
deal will solidify practices by Visa and MasterCard that have led
to rising interchange fees over the years rather than helping
merchants control their costs.

Judge Gleeson said he was granting preliminary approval to the
deal at a court hearing on Nov. 9, and on Nov. 27 signed a formal
order doing so.

A spokesman for Visa declined to comment about the objectors'
appeal plans on Nov. 27.

A spokesman for MasterCard referred to a Nov. 9 statement from
General Counsel Noah Hanft, who said the settlement "represents a
solution reached after years of litigation and months of
negotiation."

Under the deal, merchants who opt in to the settlement stand to
receive payments totaling $6.05 billion.  Visa and MasterCard have
also agreed to temporarily reduce interchange fees by an amount
equal to $1.2 billion, and alter certain rules that merchants have
complained about.  Those rule changes, including the elimination
of a ban against surcharging customers who pay with credit cards,
are set to take effect in two months.

Proponents of the deal have accused critics of embarking on a
smear campaign against the settlement in hopes of drumming up
political support on Capitol Hill for potential legislation that
would permanently limit credit-card swipe fees.

Similar rules that lowered debit-card swipe fees took effect in
October 2011 per a provision of 2010's Dodd-Frank Act called the
Durbin amendment.  The rules didn't affect credit-card swipe fees.

"If they were party to a settlement agreement . . . it would be
very, very hard for them to go up on the Hill" and garner support
for legislation addressing the "interchange issue on the credit
side in the same way that they did on the debit side with the
Durbin amendment," Mr. Stolebarger said.


ZEEK REEWARDS: Former CEO Denies Ponzi Scheme Allegations
---------------------------------------------------------
Nash Dunn, writing for The Dispatch, reports that former Zeek
Chief Executive Officer Paul Burks said he denies allegations that
his company was a large Ponzi and pyramid scheme.

In a formal response filed on Nov. 26 in North Carolina Business
Court, Mr. Burks addressed a class-action lawsuit filed against
him and his company in Davidson County in August.  Going through
the complaint paragraph by paragraph, Mr. Burks largely denied
allegations that he defrauded millions throughout the world
through unregistered offers and sales of securities through Zeek
Rewards and penny auction site Zeekler.com.

This is the first time Mr. Burks has directly addressed
accusations against his former company since mid-August, when he
quickly settled securities fraud charges filed by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, without admitting or denying
anything.  Mr. Burks, a Lexington resident, was forced to pay a $4
million penalty and relinquish his reigns to the company.  The
case has since gone into receivership, and Charlotte attorney
Kenneth Bell is actively pursuing what he estimates is hundreds of
millions of dollars to eventually return to nearly 1 million
people who lost money in the alleged scheme.

The complaint Mr. Burks is now responding to is a separate class-
action lawsuit filed by about 82 local Zeek Rewards affiliates on
Aug. 22.  The lawsuit, targeted at Burks, Zeek Rewards, the
program's parent company, Rex Venture Group, and profiting
investors, seeks damages for all affiliates and demands a jury
trial.  The lawsuit was originally filed in Davidson County
Superior Court but was transferred to North Carolina Business
Court in October.

In his response filed Nov. 26, Mr. Burks denied nearly the entire
original complaint.  The only things he admitted to included that
he is a citizen of Davidson County, that his former company was
shut down by the SEC, that Zeekler.com started in 2010 and allowed
participants to purchase "bids," and that Zeek Rewards was created
in 2011 and that affiliates were able to join, among other things.

Mr. Burks requested to the court that the affiliates "have and
recover nothing," and that their complaint and claims be
"dismissed with prejudice," according to the response.  He also
requested to the court that he recover his costs incurred in the
lawsuit and that those costs and attorney's fees be taxed to the
affiliate claimants.

Mr. Burks also argued that the class-action suit be stayed.  In
the SEC case against Zeek Rewards, the original order appointing
Mr. Bell receiver imposed a "stay of litigation" for any
litigation related to the federal case.  Mr. Burks, who filed a
motion to stay the class-action lawsuit Oct. 4, reiterated in his
filing Monday that the affiliates' lawsuit falls under the
category of related litigation.

"Mr. Burks' response to the lawsuit against him is to hide behind
the receiver and blame the victims," said Lexington attorney Cal
Cunningham, who represents the affiliates who filed the class-
action lawsuit.  "We are prepared to prove our case and have
proposed a cooperative arrangement with the receiver to do so.  We
look forward to a lift of the stay that allows us to go forward."

Mr. Cunningham said if his party is able to work out an
arrangement with the receiver in federal court, there won't be a
need to enter an order staying the lawsuit in state court.  While
he could not discuss specifics of the arrangement, he said both
parties plan to target multiple categories of defendants.

Neither Mr. Burks nor his attorneys could be reached for comment
this week.

Zeek Rewards was one of the first penny auction-based companies to
present profit-sharing opportunities to its customers.  Its users,
or affiliates, essentially invested in the program by purchasing
large quantities of bids for the penny auction site Zeekler.com,
which was also operated by Rex Venture Group.  To earn a profit,
affiliates were required to give those bids away to new customers
and post a daily advertisement for the site online.  For buying
bids, giving them away and placing an ad, affiliates shared in the
company's daily net profits through "rewards" -- bonuses they
could compile over time and eventually turn into cash.

Affiliates could also earn commissions with every friend, family
member or average Joe they signed up.  The longer an affiliate's
"downline," the more money there was to be made, something the SEC
called classic pyramid style.

The SEC, which issued a civil enforcement action against the
company Aug. 17, alleges that the money from new Zeek Rewards
investors was simply financing the payouts for higher-up
affiliates.  About 98 percent of Zeek Rewards' total revenues, and
subsequent payouts to its affiliates, were comprised of funds
received from new investors, according to the SEC's complaint.
The SEC also alleged that affiliates' contributions required
little or no effort, adding that they merely copy and pasted fake
ads and used automated programs to give out bids.

Mr. Burks denied that allegation.

So far, Mr. Bell's investigation has identified about 2.2 million
unique Zeek Rewards users, and he says about 1 million of those
users invested money in the program.

While the majority of Zeek Rewards affiliates lost money,
including some who sent in cashier's checks just hours before the
SEC's action, others profited heavily.  Mr. Bell estimates that
more than 100,000 affiliates made money on the program.

Mr. Bell sent out more than 1,200 subpoenas to affiliates who
"took out more than they put in" in November, asking the
profiteers to surrender their gains or face legal action.

Mr. Bell also filed a motion to intervene in a federal class-
action lawsuit filed in Louisiana on Aug. 24, seeking to stay the
lawsuit and have it transferred to federal court in Charlotte.
That lawsuit also targeted Zeek Rewards, Burks and Rex Venture
Group.


                           *********

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  * * *