CAR_Public/121204.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, December 4, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 240

                             Headlines

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Shareholder Class Action
AMERICAN EXPRESS: 3rd Circuit Affirms Ruling in "Homa" Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Injunction Claims Trial in "Ross" Suit in Jan.
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Awaits Final Okay of "Kaufman" Suit Settlement
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plaintiffs in ERISA Suit May Reinstate Case

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Certiorari Petition in Merchants' Suit Pending
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces "Clarke" Class Action Suit in New York
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Ruling in "Marcotte" Suit vs. Unit Overturned
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Unit Appeals Ruling in "Adams" Suit to Sup. Ct.
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Defrauded Consumers Get Partial Certification

BED BATH: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages
CITY OF EUCLID: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Tax
COMCAST: Supreme Court Set to Decide on Monopoly Class Action
COMEDY STORE: Waitresses File Overtime Class Action
CRANE CO: Summary Judgment Bids in Acquisition Suit Due Jan. 15

CREEKSTONE FARMS: Dec. 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
CRITCHFIELD UTILITIES: Former Employee Files Wage Class Action
FLORIDA: Class Action Status Sought for Disabled Kids' Suit
GENJI LLC: Accused of Not Paying Employees' OT and Minimum Wages
GOLDEN LIVING: Rowdy Meeks Seeks Certification for Wage Suit

HI-CRUSH PARTNERS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in N.Y.
HOTWIRE: Sued for Misrepresenting Prices of Services
JERSEY CENTRAL: Simon Law Group Ready to Amend Class Action
NEW ZEALAND: Post-Harvest Cos. Mull Class Action Over Psa-V
PIONEER FOODS: Price-Fixing Class Action Readmitted in High Court

POSEIDON CONCEPTS: To Vigorously Defend Shareholders' Class Suit
SCHWARTZ LEVITSKY: Paliare Roland Files Class Action Over Audit
SIRIUS XM: Subscribers Seek to Overturn Settlement Ruling
TARGET CORP: Older Workers File Class Action
TOYS "R" US: Faces Class Action Over "Bait-and-Switch" Scheme

TPC GROUP: Defends Consolidated Sawgrass Merger-Related Suit
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Discovery in Securities Suit Postponed Until Jan.
TRI CITY: Recalls 271 Pounds of Jalapeno Vienna Sausage Products
VERIZON: Retired Managers File Class Action Over Pension
WAL-MART STORES: 9th Cir. Agrees to Review Class Certification

                          *********



ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim "company
insiders" at Align Technology sold shares for "illegal insider
proceeds" of $52 million, at prices inflated by false and
misleading financial statements, in Federal Court.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: 3rd Circuit Affirms Ruling in "Homa" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in August 2012
the order issued by the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey in the class action captioned Homa v.
American Express Company et al., according to American Express'
October 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In June 2006, a putative class action captioned Homa v. American
Express Company et al. was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.  The case alleges,
generally, misleading and fraudulent advertising of the "tiered"
"up to 5 percent" cash rebates with the Blue Cash card and seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of New Jersey residents who "applied
for and received an American Express Blue Cash card during the
period from September 30, 2003 to the present."  On August 30,
2011, the District Court granted the Company's motion to compel
and that order was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit on August 22, 2012.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Injunction Claims Trial in "Ross" Suit in Jan.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the approval of a settlement of the damage class
claims in the class action lawsuit titled Ross, et al. v. American
Express Company, et al., are pending, while trial in the
injunction class claims is currently scheduled to begin on January
7, 2013, according to the Company's October 31, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In July 2004, a purported class action complaint, Ross, et al. v.
American Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services
and American Express Centurion Bank, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging that American Express conspired with Visa, MasterCard and
Diners Club in the setting of foreign currency conversion rates
and in the inclusion of arbitration clauses in certain of their
cardmember agreements.  The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and
unspecified damages.  The class is defined as "all Visa,
MasterCard and Diners Club general-purpose cardholders who used
cards issued by any of the MDL Defendant Banks."  American Express
cardholders are not part of the class.  The parties have reached
an agreement to settle the claims asserted on behalf of the damage
class concerning foreign currency conversion rates under which the
Company agreed to pay $49.5 million into a settlement fund.  The
Court preliminarily approved that settlement on November 18, 2011,
and a final approval hearing was held on April 27, 2012.  On April
30, 2012, the Court entered an Order and Final Judgment approving
the settlement and an Order and Final Judgment approving the
allocation plan.  Two notices of appeal from the Order and Final
Judgment approving the settlement were filed on May 29, 2012, and
an additional notice of appeal from both orders entered on
April 30, 2012, was also filed on May 29, 2012.  The claims
asserted by the injunction class concerning cardmember arbitration
clauses are not included in the proposed settlement and will
continue to be litigated.  Trial is currently scheduled to begin
on January 7, 2013.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Awaits Final Okay of "Kaufman" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company is awaiting final approval of its
settlement of a class action lawsuit styled Kaufman v. American
Express Travel Related Services, according to the Company's
October 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in a putative class action captioned
Kaufman v. American Express Travel Related Services, which was
filed on February 14, 2007, and is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  Plaintiffs'
principal allegation is that the Company's gift cards violate
consumer protection statutes because consumers allegedly have
difficulty spending small residual amounts on the gift cards prior
to the imposition of monthly service fees.  The Court
preliminarily certified a settlement class consisting of (with
some exceptions) "all purchasers, recipients and holders of all
gift cards issued by American Express from January 1, 2002,
through the date of preliminary approval of the settlement" and
preliminarily approved the parties' settlement agreement on
September 21, 2011.  A final settlement approval hearing took
place on February 29, 2012, and the Court issued an order on
June 25, 2012, appointing an expert to consider further notice to
the class.  The Company is also a defendant in Goodman v. American
Express Travel Related Services, a putative class action pending
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York that involves allegations similar to those made in
Kaufman.  Plaintiffs in Goodman have intervened in the Kaufman
proceedings and will be subject to any final settlement approved
in Kaufman.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plaintiffs in ERISA Suit May Reinstate Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company disclosed in its October 31, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012, that plaintiffs in the
dismissed consolidated class action lawsuit alleging violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, has the right
to reinstate their case.

In December 2008, a putative class action captioned Obester v.
American Express Company, et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated certain ERISA
obligations by: allowing the investment of American Express
Retirement Savings Plan (Plan) assets in American Express common
stock when American Express common stock was not a prudent
investment; misrepresenting and failing to disclose material facts
to Plan participants in connection with the administration of the
Plan; and breaching certain fiduciary obligations.  Thereafter,
three other putative class actions making allegations similar to
those made in the Obester matter were filed against the defendants
in the Southern District of New York.  In April 2009, these
actions were consolidated as In re American Express ERISA
Litigation.  On November 2, 2010, the District Court granted
American Express' motion to dismiss the consolidated actions.
Plaintiffs appealed but their appeal was later withdrawn but
subject to appellants' right to reinstatement, which on May 31,
2012, was extended to October 31, 2012.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Certiorari Petition in Merchants' Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company's petition for writ of certiorari with
the U.S. Supreme Court in In re American Express Merchants'
Litigation remains pending, according to the Company's October 31,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Since July 2003, the Company has been named in a number of
putative class actions in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful
antitrust tying arrangement between certain of the Company's
charge cards and credit cards in violation of various state and
federal laws.  These cases have all been consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
under the caption: In re American Express Merchants' Litigation.
A case making similar allegations was also filed in the Southern
District of New York in July 2004 captioned: The Marcus
Corporation v. American Express Company, et al.  The Marcus case
is not consolidated.  The plaintiffs in the consolidated actions
seek injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages.
Since April 2004, the parties have been engaged in motion practice
regarding American Express' motion to dismiss the consolidated
action on the grounds that all of the plaintiffs' claims are
subject to arbitration.  On February 1, 2012, the Second Circuit
again reversed the District Court's decision ordering arbitration,
and reaffirmed its prior ruling notwithstanding the decision by
the United States Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v.
Concepcion.  On May 29, 2012, the Second Circuit denied the
Company's petition for rehearing en banc with dissents.  The
Second Circuit has stayed the mandate and the Company has filed a
petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces "Clarke" Class Action Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company is facing a class action lawsuit in New
York, according to the Company's October 31, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In October 2012, a putative class action captioned Clarke v.
American Express Company, et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that
American Express Company, American Express Travel Related
Services, Inc., American Express Centurion Bank and American
Express Bank, FSB violated state consumer protection laws, state
common law and federal statutory law in the marketing, selling and
implementation of a credit card product known as "Account
Protector."  The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages along with injunctive and declaratory relief.
The Company's time to respond to the Complaint has not yet run.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Ruling in "Marcotte" Suit vs. Unit Overturned
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal in Canada overturned in August 2012 a decision
against a subsidiary of American Express Company in the class
action lawsuit captioned Marcotte v. Bank of Montreal, et al.,
according to the Company's October 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

In May 2006, in a matter captioned Marcotte v. Bank of Montreal,
et al., filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of
Montreal (originally filed in April 2003), the Superior Court
authorized a class action against Amex Bank of Canada, Bank of
Montreal, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce, Scotiabank, National Bank of Canada,
Laurentian Bank of Canada and Citibank Canada.  The action alleges
that conversion commissions made on foreign currency transactions
are credit charges under the Quebec Consumer Protection Act (the
"QCPA") and cannot be charged prior to the 21-day grace period
under the QCPA.  The class includes all persons residing in Quebec
holding a credit card issued by one of the defendants to whom fees
were charged since April 17, 2000, for transactions made in
foreign currency before expiration of the period of 21 days
following the statement of account.  The class claims
reimbursement of all foreign currency conversions, CAD$400 per
class member for trouble, inconvenience and punitive damages,
interest and fees and costs.  The trial in the Marcotte action
commenced in September 2008 and was completed in November 2008.
The Superior Court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs
against Amex Bank of Canada on June 11, 2009, and awarded damages
in the amount of approximately C$8.3 million plus interest on the
QCPA claims and individual claims to be made on the non-disclosure
claims.  In addition, the Superior Court awarded punitive damages
in the amount of C$25.00 per cardmember.  The judgment has been
appealed by all banks, including Amex Bank of Canada.

On August 2, 2012, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision
against Amex Bank of Canada and certain of the other co-
defendants.  The remaining co-defendants filed leave to appeal to
the Supreme Court of Canada.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Unit Appeals Ruling in "Adams" Suit to Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company's subsidiary filed in October a request
for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the ruling in
the matter captioned Sylvan Adams v. Amex Bank of Canada,
according to the Company's October 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

In November 2006, in a matter captioned Sylvan Adams v. Amex Bank
of Canada filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of
Montreal (originally filed in November 2004), the Superior Court
authorized a class action against Amex Bank of Canada.  The
plaintiff alleges that prior to December 2003, Amex Bank of Canada
charged a foreign currency conversion commission on transactions
to purchase goods and services in currencies other than Canadian
dollars and failed to disclose the commissions in monthly billing
statements or solicitations directed to prospective cardmembers.
The class, consisting of all personal and small business
cardmembers residing in Quebec that purchased goods or services in
a foreign currency prior to December 2003, claims reimbursement of
all foreign currency conversion commissions, C$1,000 in punitive
damages per class member, interest and fees and costs.  The trial
in the Adams action commenced, and was completed, in December 2008
after the conclusion of the trial in the Marcotte action.  The
Superior Court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs
against Amex Bank of Canada on June 11, 2009, and awarded damages
in the amount of approximately C$13.1 million plus interest on the
non-disclosure claims.  In addition, the Superior Court awarded
punitive damages in the amount of C$2.5 million.  Amex Bank of
Canada appealed the judgment and on August 2, 2012, the Court of
Appeal overturned the decision in part, with regard to the award
of punitive damages.

On October 15, 2012, Amex Bank of Canada filed leave for appeal to
the Supreme Court of Canada.


ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Defrauded Consumers Get Partial Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal
judge on Nov. 27 partly certified a class action alleging Arizona
Beverages USA LLC defrauded consumers by promoting its iced tea
drinks as "all natural" when they contained high fructose corn
syrup, saying the plaintiffs have standing to seek injunctive
relief but not for monetary damages.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg said lead plaintiffs Lauren
Ries and Serena Algozer sufficiently alleged they relied on the
"all natural" claims when they bought the Arizona brand iced tea
beverages.


BED BATH: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Bed Bath & Beyond illegally sends spam text messages to customers
after getting their cell phone numbers in exchange for discount
coupons.


CITY OF EUCLID: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Tax
---------------------------------------------------  
Courthouse News Service reports that the City of Euclid illegally
taxes nonresidents who work there 0.47 percent income tax for the
city's schools, a class action claims in Cuyahoga County Court.


COMCAST: Supreme Court Set to Decide on Monopoly Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Aaron Kase at Lawyers.com, the
U.S. Supreme Court last month heard arguments on a case that could
have a dramatic impact on consumers' ability to join forces in
class action lawsuits against corporations that violate their
rights.

In Comcast v. Behrend, the court will decide how high of a hurdle
plaintiffs must clear to even be certified as a class before they
can proceed with a lawsuit.

Cable customers tried to team up to file a suit against Comcast,
alleging that the Philadelphia-based cable giant created a
monopoly in violation of federal antitrust laws by buying out or
otherwise deterring other cable providers from operating in the
region surrounding the city.  Comcast attempted to block the suit
from proceeding, essentially arguing that class members didn't
have enough in common and therefore shouldn't be allowed to join
together for litigation.

A district court, as well as the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, upheld the class certification.  Now, the Supreme Court
justices will make a final determination that could place another
anti-consumer obstacle in the way of victims seeking recourse.

Last year the court ruled on a similar case, Wal-Mart v. Dukes,
that 1.6 million female Walmart employees could not be certified
as a class to sue the retail chain because they did not have
enough in common.

Federal Rules of Federal Procedure dictate certain criteria for a
class to be certified: It must be made up of enough people suing
over the same issue, and there must be a representative plaintiff
who has a claim typical of the class and who can provide adequate
representation for the class as a whole.

If those criteria are met, the class needs to meet one of several
other standards in order to be certified.  The most common, and
the one the would-be plaintiffs in the Walmart case fall under,
requires that the main issue being litigated is the one that binds
class members together.

"The key thing there is finding that there's predominance,"
explains John Vail, vice president and senior litigation counsel
for the Center for Constitutional Litigation.  "Are the questions
that are common to all the class members big questions in the
overall litigation?"

The rules require the group meet a few more criteria as well.
"Another is superiority, that a class action is a better way than
other ways to adjudicate the claim," Mr. Vail says.  "The other
key one is manageability.  Can you actually bring this claim? Can
you actually get it done in the court room? That was one of the
big issues in Walmart."

Comcast is trying to follow in Walmart's footsteps by arguing that
the plaintiffs don't have enough in common to sue collectively.
"What Comcast was saying was you haven't shown that we hurt
everybody in the same way, and therefore you can't bring the case
as a class," says the attorney.  "The business class is saying
effectively you've got to show you can win before you can even get
certified as a class, not just that it's plausible that you could
win."

A court ruling in favor of Comcast would be a direct blow to
consumer rights, since a class action is the only practical way to
fight back in a situation where a lot of people are getting
cheated out of a small amount of money.  No one is going to hire a
lawyer and file a lawsuit individually against a big corporation
to try to win what could be damages of a few hundred dollars or
less.  "The cases are too expensive to bring in much smaller
units, so Comcast is unlikely to even face suit for its allegedly
anti-competitive conduct" if the court blocks the class
certification, Mr. Vail says.  "It's effectively a get out of jail
free card."


COMEDY STORE: Waitresses File Overtime Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that The Comedy Store stiffs
waitresses and other workers for overtime, a class action claims
in Superior Court.


CRANE CO: Summary Judgment Bids in Acquisition Suit Due Jan. 15
---------------------------------------------------------------
Summary judgment motions are due to be submitted on or before
January 15, 2013, in the Merrimac Industries, Inc. acquisition-
related class action lawsuit pending in New Jersey, according to
Crane Co.'s November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On January 8, 2010, a lawsuit related to the acquisition of
Merrimac Industries, Inc. was filed in the Superior Court of the
State of New Jersey.  The action, brought by a purported
stockholder of Merrimac, names Merrimac, each of Merrimac's
directors, and Crane Co. as defendants, and alleges, among other
things, breaches of fiduciary duties by the Merrimac directors,
aided and abetted by Crane Co., that resulted in the payment to
Merrimac stockholders of an allegedly unfair price of $16.00 per
share in the acquisition and unjust enrichment of Merrimac's
directors.  The complaint seeks certification as a class of all
Merrimac stockholders, except the defendants and their affiliates,
and unspecified damages.  Simultaneously with the filing of the
complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion that sought to enjoin the
transaction from proceeding.  After a hearing on January 14, 2010,
the court denied the plaintiff's motion.  All defendants
thereafter filed motions seeking dismissal of the complaint on
various grounds.  After a hearing on March 19, 2010, the court
denied the defendants' motions to dismiss and ordered the case to
proceed to pretrial discovery.  All defendants have filed their
answers and deny any liability.  The Court certified the class,
and the parties engaged in pre-trial discovery.  Fact discovery
closed in July 2012, and expert discovery, including the exchange
of expert reports and depositions of expert witnesses, closed on
November 30, 2012.  Summary judgment motions are due to be
submitted on or before January 15, 2013.

The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the underlying
claims raised in the complaint.  The Company has given notice of
this lawsuit to Merrimac's and the Company's insurance carriers
and will seek coverage for any resulting loss.  As of
September 30, 2012, no loss amount has been accrued in connection
with this lawsuit because a loss is not considered probable, nor
can an amount be reasonably estimated.

Headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, Crane Co. is a diversified
manufacturer of highly engineered industrial products.  The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.


CREEKSTONE FARMS: Dec. 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has set a
hearing over a proposed class action settlement in a lawsuit by
workers against the Creekstone Farms slaughterhouse in Arkansas
City.

U.S. District Judge Eric Melgren on Nov. 28 set a fairness hearing
on the motion for approval for Dec. 17 at the federal courthouse
in Topeka.

The lawsuit alleged that Creekstone failed to pay employees for
all of the time they worked.  Creekstone Farms 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 many overtime weeks the employee worked
during the three-year claim period.

Most of the rest of the money would go to the employees'
attorneys.


CRITCHFIELD UTILITIES: Former Employee Files Wage Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that a
former employee is suing Critchfield Utilities, LLC, individually
and on behalf of other former employees for allegedly failing to
abide by West Virginia code.

Leslie Klingensmith claims Critchfield has always been obligated
to pay its employees working in West Virginia pursuant to the West
Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act, according to a complaint
filed Nov. 19 in Kanawha Circuit Court.

Mr. Klingensmith claims Critchfield regularly failed to pay
discharged employees all wages due within 72 hours of discharge.

Critchfield also regularly assigned the wages of its West Virginia
employees without having a valid wage assignment, as recognized by
the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act, according to
the suit.

Mr. Klingensmith claims that during the course of his employment,
Critchfield did not present him with a valid wage assignment that
complied with the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act,
and when his employment was terminated on May 18, he did not
receive his final wages until May 25.

The defendant's alleged actions violated West Virginia code,
according to the suit, and caused Mr. Klingensmith and others
similarly situated damages.

Mr. Klingensmith is seeking compensatory damages with pre- and
post-judgment interest.  He is being represented by Todd S.
Bailess, Joy B. Mega, Rodney A. Smith and Jonathan R. Marshall.

The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Tod J. Kaufman.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 12-C-2311


FLORIDA: Class Action Status Sought for Disabled Kids' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that attorneys are seeking class
action status in a lawsuit that alleges state health officials are
violating federal law by unnecessarily warehousing hundreds of
children with disabilities in nursing homes.

Lawyers asked a federal judge on Nov. 27 to include current and
future Florida Medicaid recipients under the age of 21 living in
nursing facilities or at risk for such placements.

The state has repeatedly said it provides all the medically
necessary services to children and that parents ultimately make
the decision about placement.

Earlier this year, the Department of Justice sent a letter to
Florida officials saying investigators visited children in nursing
homes around the state who didn't need to be there.

Federal officials concluded the state has made it difficult for
children to get medical services allowing them to move home.


GENJI LLC: Accused of Not Paying Employees' OT and Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nen Thio, Tju Tjin Liem and Denny Wijaya, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Genji, LLC, Genji
Retail Support, Inc., Genji, Inc. and Doe 1 through and including
Doe 10, Case No. 3:12-cv-05756 (N.D. Calif., November 9, 2012)
accuses the Defendants of not paying the Plaintiffs overtime and
minimum wages for all hours worked.

Genji knowingly and willfully violated provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by not paying the Plaintiffs and the
collective action members their wages, the Plaintiffs allege.
They contend that as a result of the Defendants' practice of
withholding compensation for all hours worked, they have been
similarly damaged in that they have not received timely payment in
full of their earned wages.

Mr. Thio worked for Genji from May 2010 through March 26, 2012.
Ms. Liem worked for one or more of the Defendants from July 2009
through August 2012.  Mr. Wijaya worked for Genji Retail from
November 2010 through August 16, 2012.

Genji is a retail provider of sushi and Japanese cuisine.  Genji
sells its sushi and Japanese cuisine through supermarket sushi
bars at Whole Foods Markets throughout the United States and
Europe.  The Defendants employed Plaintiffs and numerous other
employees at these Whole Foods Markets throughout California.  The
true names and capacities of the Defendants are unknown to the
Plaintiffs at this time.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          Abigail Treanor, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          6424 Santa Monica Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90038
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777
          Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
          E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
                  atreanor@harrisandruble.com

               - and -

          David S. Harris, Esq.
          NORTH BAY LAW GROUP
          116 E. Blithedale Ave., Suite 2
          Mill Valley, California 94941
          Telephone: (415) 388-8788
          Facsimile; (415) 388-8770
          E-mail: dsh@northbaylawgroup.com


GOLDEN LIVING: Rowdy Meeks Seeks Certification for Wage Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Blum, writing for The Recorder, reports that with less
than a week to go before asking a U.S. District Court judge to
certify a collective action and order a class-wide notice under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, a Missouri law firm is working to
contact current and former employees of Golden LivingCenters.

Kansas City, Mo.-based Rowdy Meeks Legal Group LLC -- which filed
the suit last April 12 -- is running an ad in The Daily Southerner
today in which current and former Golden LivingCenters employees
are asked to make contact regarding the action.  The ad is running
in a number of North Carolina newspapers and was placed through
the North Carolina Press Association.

Tracey George, an attorney with the firm, said the class action is
to recover wages for off-the-clock work performed by Golden
LivingCenters hourly employees.

"Golden Living has a policy of requiring work during unpaid meal
breaks," Ms. George said in a written statement.  "Employees are
required to clock out for thirty-minute meal breaks.  However,
Golden Living staffs the facilities so short, many employees are
called back to the floor to assist residents and complete work
before the end of their break (assuming they get to take a break
at all).  (The) GL (Golden Living) time clock system blocks
employees from clocking back in sooner than 30 minutes, so much of
this work is performed off-the-clock.  We believe Golden Living is
fully aware of the unlawful impact of its policies and short
staffing.  We also believe Golden Living's rounding policy most
frequently works to the detriment of its employees by rounding
away time worked."

Ms. George said there was a timeline regarding eligibility to opt
in to the action.

"All employees who worked at Golden Living at any time during the
last three years are eligible to join," Ms. George said.  "They
simply need to contact me to request the opt-in forms.  We will
ask the Court, on December 5, to conditionally certify this
collective action and order class-wide notice under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA)."

A collective action shares some characteristics with class
actions, but are not the same, according to the Web site
Lawyers.com.  In FLSA cases, an employee must opt in, meaning they
must sign a document stating that they wish to be part of the
lawsuit.

Bobbie J. Jarrett, an employee of Golden LivingCenter-Jefferson
City, Mo, initially filed the action last April 20 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District Central Division of
Missouri.

Golden Living's corporate headquarters are in Plano, Texas while
the company's administrative offices are in Fort Smith, Ark.
According to the company's corporate web site, it has more than
300 LivingCenter locations in 21 states, including Golden
LivingCenter-Tarboro at 1000 Western Blvd.

On Aug. 23, the local facility was awarded with the company's 14-
Karat Award.

Only 10 of the company's nursing homes received the 14-Karat Award
in recognition of delivering quality care and services to its
residence in an exemplary manner.


HI-CRUSH PARTNERS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
On November 27, 2012, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who
purchased Hi-Crush Partners LP common units pursuant and/or
traceable to the Prospectus, against the Company and certain of
the Company's officers and directors, alleging claims under
Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The case name is styled Sesholtz v. Hi-Crush Partners LP, et al.,
Civil Action No. 12-8610.  A copy of the complaint filed in this
action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Web site at
http://www.whafh.com

The complaint details that on August 21, 2012, Hi-Crush completed
its initial public offering of 12,937,500 common units
representing limited partner interests in the Partnership sold at
a price to the public of $17 per common unit under the symbol
"HCLP."

The offering was described in a Form S-1 Registration Statement
filed with the SEC and disseminated to investors on July 6, 2012,
and it was amended on August 3, 2012 and August 7, 2012.  Among
other things, the Prospectus touted the existence and benefit of
specific lucrative long-term contracts with large customers,
including Baker Hughes Incorporated.  It was not until after the
IPO that the truth about the problems with Baker Hughes began to
emerge. On November 13, 2012, the Company issued a press release
in which Hi-Crush announced that Baker Hughes had terminated the
supply agreement with Hi-Crush on September 19, 2012.  As a result
of the Company's disclosure of its loss of the Baker Hughes
contract, the price of Hi-Crush Common Units dropped $5.35 to
close at $15.00 -- a one-day decline of over 26%.

The Prospectus contained numerous false and misleading statements
concerning Baker Hughes, one of Hi-Crush's largest customers.  For
instance, the Prospectus failed to inform shareholders that Baker
Hughes had sought to change the material terms of its contract
with the Company as early as February 2012 and was threatening to
cancel its contract altogether prior to the issuance of the
Prospectus.  Further, the Prospectus failed to inform shareholders
that Baker Hughes began refusing to take or pay for Hi-Crush's
sand, prior to the IPO and the issuance of the accompanying
prospectus.  The long-term contract with Baker-Hughes was
unquestionably material to the success of the Company and the IPO.
Indeed, according to Hi-Crush it represented 18.2% of the
Company's revenue in 2012.

Plaintiffs seek to recover pursuant to Sections 11, 12 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, for the material misstatements and
omissions contained in the Prospectus.

If you purchased Hi-Crush common units pursuant and/or traceable
to the Prospectus, you may request that the Court appoint you as
lead plaintiff by January 22, 2013.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class.  Under certain
circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as
"lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in any recovery is not,
however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a
lead plaintiff.  You may retain Wolf Haldenstein, or other counsel
of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm
has approximately 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and
offices in Chicago, New York City, and San Diego.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please
contact:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Alan D. Weiss, Esq.
          Derek Behnke, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (800) 575-0735
          E-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com


HOTWIRE: Sued for Misrepresenting Prices of Services
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
that Hotwire, an Expedia company, "misrepresents the price for the
services it sells by omitting substantial costs that the customer
will have to pay."


JERSEY CENTRAL: Simon Law Group Ready to Amend Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Braun, writing for Examiner.com, reports that on Wednesday
Nov. 28, 2012, the Simon Law Group has stated it is ready to amend
the class action lawsuit filed against the Jersey Central Power
and Light Company (JCP&L).  That suit was filed in Hunterdon
County Superior Court, in New Jersey, a little over two weeks ago
over the utility company's response to Hurricane Sandy.

The Simon Law Group based in Somerville, filed the suit against
JCP&L for its alleged negligence, breach of contract, misconduct,
and consumer fraud in regard to the company's response or lack
thereof after Hurricane Sandy.  In that two week time period, the
lawsuit has grown from 20 claims to about 150-175 according to
Britt Simon.

"We will be filing an amendment with about 150-175 people that
have been added to the lawsuit, we have about another 100 that
have expressed an interest but have not signed on.  I will be
filing the amendment with what we have and I expect that will be
the last one" Mr. Simon said.

Mr. Simon added that "the money is going to the JCP&L stockholders
and not being spent on equipment, there has been no investment to
the infrastructure".  They are leaving essential services like
hospitals and emergency services without power.  And generators
last only so long.  JCP&L has the monopoly, they will have to
justify in court how they have spent the revenue received which
has grown significantly in the last 20 years.  They are putting
band aids on the equipment instead of implementing an aggressive
maintenance program, there were transformers sitting on rotted
poles."

As for the critics on social media sites that have called the firm
"ambulance chasers" and state that the firm is taking advantage of
an unprecedented storm that no one could have anticipated and
looking for publicity, Mr. Simon replied "we are not doing this
for publicity or money, we are not lining our pockets, we are not
a typical law firm that gets involved in class action lawsuits, we
are doing this because we want to help people, we won't get a
nickel out of this if we lose.  This will take years to settle and
I will be investing money and time into this so I am not in this
for the money, I was born, raised and I live here.  I am doing it
because it's the right thing to do."

JCP&L spokesman Ron Morano stated that the company has spent a
significant amount of money on the utilities systems and
infrastructure.  "We have spent $200 million in 2012, and in 2011
we invested over $165 million after Hurricane Irene and the
October snowstorm.  In addition to those two years JCP&L has
invested over $1.6 billion in its equipment since 2001."


NEW ZEALAND: Post-Harvest Cos. Mull Class Action Over Psa-V
-----------------------------------------------------------
SunLive reports that four post-harvest companies are reviewing
legal advice about whether to take legal action over the
introduction of the aggressive kiwifruit disease Psa-V.

Seeka CEO Michael Franks says the advice is 'reasonably strong'
but a decision on a court case and who it would be against won't
be made for six to eight weeks.

The companies which have combined to consider the class action are
Seeka, EastPack, Satara and Mount Pack and Cool.

It is unclear if the action would be against the Government, the
Ministry of Primary Industries (formerly MAF) or companies which
might be implicated in the importation of material which may have
introduced the bacteria to this country, he says.

"Psa was not introduced by growers but they have lost capital
value and suffered distress.  If it is true that it got here
because of a breech at the border then they should be able to seek
redress.  It is too premature for me to say against whom."

New Zealand Kiwifruit Growers Inc. President Neil Trebilco says
the growers' organization is also considering legal action.

"We are still talking with our legal advisors over the possibility
and haven't ruled out taking action but that's not likely in the
immediate future," he says.

Neil says Psa-V, which has been particularly deadly to gold vines,
has probably at least halved the value of the industry.

"The industry was said to be worth around $5 billion and Psa has
more than halved that.  In addition Bay of Plenty gold growers
have not only lost equity they will also have no income from a
gold crop this coming season."

The Sapere Report was commissioned by the Ministry for Primary
Industries (formerly MAF) at the request of the kiwifruit
industry.

"It was a pretty hard hitting, independent report and the Ministry
didn't come out smelling like roses.  They are to be commended for
commissioning the report and have acted on many of its
recommendation."

However, Mr. Trebilco says the report did not identify exactly how
Psa arrived in New Zealand.

Anthers (male flower parts) imported by a Te Puke company have
been implicated but the evidence is not clear, he says.

"In allowing the import, MAF was acting on advice it received in a
scientific paper which said pollen was not a vector for bacteria."

In 2010, shortly after Psa was identified in this country, the
Government made a grant of NZD25 million which was matched by a
further NZD25 million from the kiwifruit industry to help fight
the disease.

Since then significant government and Zespri funds, plus those
from the post-harvest industries have been invested in finding
ways to manage Psa.  Mr. Trebilco says while those funds are for
the good of the entire industry, they do little to help the
immediate needs of growers whose orchards are hard hit.

"However, growers are saying to me now that we have to move on and
learn to deal with Psa.  The reality is that kiwifruit growers
have joined all other fruit growers who have battled bacterial
diseases for decades, or more.  The thing about Psa is that it is
a particularly aggressive bacteria which has struck one variety
very hard."

The good news is that green vines, which early in spring appeared
to be suffering badly, now looked as if they would grow through
the disease and produce a crop, Mr. Trebilco says.

The more Psa tolerant new variety G3 has yet to prove itself but
other new more tolerant varieties were in the pipeline.

"The industry is in for some hard and difficult years but we will
learn from this and will come back stronger."


PIONEER FOODS: Price-Fixing Class Action Readmitted in High Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAPA reports that an application for a class action against three
Western Cape bread makers -- Pioneer Foods, Premier Foods, and
Tiger Consumer Brands -- was referred back to the High Court by
the Supreme Court of Appeal on Nov. 29.

The case was brought by a number of NGOs and five individuals
against the bread bakers.

The matter relates to the Competition Tribunal fining Tiger
Brands, Pioneer Foods, and Premier Foods for their involvement in
bread price fixing.

The SCA judgment referred the matter back to the Western Cape High
Court, but also laid down requirements for such an action.

In order to launch a class action lawsuit, parties seeking redress
must obtain a certificate of a class action from the High Court.

In this matter the Children's Resource Centre, the Black Sash
Trust, the Congress of SA Trade Unions, and the National Consumer
Forum brought an application for a class certification order.

This was on behalf of consumers allegedly harmed by the anti-
competitive conduct of the bread makers.

The initial certification application was dismissed on the grounds
that the aggrieved parties had failed to make out a case for a
sufficiently identifiable class of persons.

On readmitting the case in the High Court, the SCA said the issue
of certification had to be determined on complete papers.

It had to include draft particulars of the claim and affidavits
indicating that there was a prima facie case on the merits.

The SCA held the application had been dealt with as matter of
urgency, and as a result the bread makers had not been able to put
their full case before the court.

It was held that the case of the appellants -- the NGOs and
individuals -- had also changed during the cause of the
litigation.

The court found the proposed class action was also overly broad
and the relief it sought inappropriate.

However, the SCA held the group's claim was potentially plausible,
and with the court laying down the requirements for a class
action, it was appropriate to afford them an opportunity to
correct the flaws in the court papers in line with the new
requirements.

The case could then continue in the High Court with the
requirements laid down by the SCA on Nov. 29.


POSEIDON CONCEPTS: To Vigorously Defend Shareholders' Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Poseidon Concepts Corp. disclosed that on November 27, 2012, a
class action lawsuit was commenced against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice.

The action, which is purportedly brought on behalf of certain
current and former shareholders of Poseidon, seeks damages and
other relief in relation to statements made by the Company in
various public filings.  Poseidon and the other defendants intend
to vigorously defend the lawsuit.


SCHWARTZ LEVITSKY: Paliare Roland Files Class Action Over Audit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP on Nov. 28 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced against the accounting
firm Schwartz Levitsky Feldman LLP.  The action arises out of
Schwartz Levitsky Feldman LLP's involvement as auditors for a 2010
private placement financing and reverse takeover for Southern
China Livestock Inc., a U.S. company with operations based in
China.

In 2010, Schwartz Levitsky Feldman LLP acted as the auditor of an
indirect U.S. holding company that controlled a Chinese company
which claimed to be in the business of breeding and raising
commercial hogs in China.  On March 29, 2010, Expedite 4, Inc.
acquired this holding company in a reverse takeover transaction
intended to permit Southern China Livestock Inc. to become a
public entity in the U.S. without having to undergo the vetting
process traditionally required by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) for new issuers.

After the reverse takeover, and the private placement financing
had closed, investors learned that the Chinese company had little,
if any, control over its hog farm operations, the business was
predominately conducted in cash, and it was therefore highly
susceptible to theft and fraud.  Notably, the sale of hogs in
China was primarily in cash and the cash was handled by employees
who maintained the funds in their own bank accounts over which the
company had no control.  Investors lost in excess of US$7 million.

Over the past decade, reverse takeover transactions such as that
undertaken by Southern China Livestock Inc. were very popular with
Chinese companies trying to enter North American public markets.
However, beginning in around 2008, securities and accounting
regulators in Canada and the U.S. began raising concerns about
this practice, including the lack of scrutiny to which these
companies have been subject before entering the North American
markets.  As a result, this practice has now effectively dried up.

The proposed class action is brought by Excalibur Special
Opportunities LP, a Toronto-based investment fund, on behalf of
the proposed class comprised of all persons or entities who
purchased investment units of Expedite 4, Inc. between March 29,
2010 and December 23, 2010 and who continued to hold the units on
December 23, 2010.

The statement of claim alleges that Schwartz Levitsky Feldman LLP
was negligent in failing to exercise the care, skill and diligence
of a reasonably competent auditor of a public company and breached
its duty of care to the investors by providing an unqualified
"clean" audit opinion of the company's business when the financial
statements were not a fair presentation of its financial position.

None of the allegations in the statement of claim have been proven
in court, and it is expected the defendant will deny liability.

The Plaintiff is represented by the law firm Paliare Roland
Rosenberg Rothstein LLP.  More details regarding the claim are
available at: http://www.southernchinalivestockclassaction.com


SIRIUS XM: Subscribers Seek to Overturn Settlement Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Don Jeffrey, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that some
satellite radio subscribers asked an appeals court to overturn a
class-action settlement between Sirius XM Radio Inc. and its
customers, claiming that the class won too little while lawyers
were awarded too much.

Attorneys for dissenting members of the class argued before the
U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan on Nov. 28, seeking the
rejection of a lower court's approval of the settlement valued at
$180 million.  The judges said they would rule later.

"This settlement has no meaningful value," Paul Rothstein, a
lawyer for the dissenting members, told the three appeals judges.

Subscribers sued Sirius XM Radio in 2009, claiming that it
violated antitrust law when it raised prices after Sirius
Satellite Radio acquired its only competitor, XM Satellite Radio,
in 2008.  They said Sirius broke promises it made in order to win
merger approval from the Federal Communications Commission.

Sirius XM argued that the price increases were justified to cover
higher costs.

In August 2011, Sirius XM won approval of the settlement from U.S.
District Judge Harold Baer in Manhattan before a trial was to take
place.  The settlement provided that the subscription price
remained unchanged for a five-month period ended Dec. 31, 2011,
and subscribers who canceled their plans could reconnect without a
fee.  The deal was valued at $180 million, although no subscriber
received money.

The lawyers who represented the class received $13 million in fees
in a "flagrantly unfair settlement," opposing class members said
in a brief.  "The award of attorneys' fees should be reversed,"
they added.

The $180 million figure was "pulled out of the air" and that $13
million should be distributed to class members, Mr. Rothstein told
the judges on Nov. 28.

Dissenting class members, which include the investment adviser
Asset Strategies Inc., also said that "the $180 million figure put
forth and accepted by the district court as the settlement value
is grossly inflated."

James Sabella, a lawyer for the class, said the $180 million was
based on what subscribers would have paid during the five-month
price freeze.

"They really just don't want the lawyers to be paid," Mr. Sabella
said to the judge today about the dissenting class members.

Those who accepted the settlement argued in their brief that there
were only 85 objectors out of a class of 15.7 million members.

"A long and expensive trial would have been necessary," class
members said in a brief, and winning the case would have been
difficult because the U.S. Justice Department had concluded that
the merger wasn't likely to harm competition.

"Judge Baer was thinking a little something was better than
nothing," U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin on Nov. 28 told a lawyer
for the objectors, noting that two federal agencies had agreed the
merger was fair.  "If it had gone to trial, the most likely result
at the end would be zero.  How was there an abuse of discretion
when there was a likelihood, a significant chance, of a recovery
of zero?"

Sirius XM, based in New York, argued in its brief that the
objectors hadn't sought to put the settlement on hold pending the
outcome of the appeal and the price freeze went into effect.

In January 2012, Sirius XM raised its basic monthly subscription
price to $14.49 from $12.95.  The company said it had 23.4 million
subscribers at the end of September.  Sirius XM broadcasts music
and sporting events and talk shows, including one hosted by Howard
Stern.

The case is Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio, 11-3696, U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit (Manhattan).  The lower- court case
is Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio, 09-10035, U.S. District Court,
District of New York (Manhattan).


TARGET CORP: Older Workers File Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, reports that a former Target
Corp. employee in Arizona accused the retailer on Nov. 27 in a
class action of pushing out older workers as part of a company
initiative to bring in a younger workforce.

Katy Rodriguez, 59, claims she lost her job after more than two
decades with the company after it brought in a slew of younger
workers as part of the retailer's drive to rebrand Target with a
more youthful image.


TOYS "R" US: Faces Class Action Over "Bait-and-Switch" Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Verdon, writing for The Record, reports that a New Jersey law
firm has filed a class-action complaint against Wayne-based Toys
"R" Us that claims the company used a "bait-and-switch" scheme to
boost sales on its Web site.

The complaint charges that Toys "R" Us, during the 2011 holiday
season, promised online customers free gifts with purchases, and
then after a purchase was made, notified customers that the free
gifts were no longer available and substituted a less expensive
gift.

The Collingswood-based law firm Shepherd Finkelman Miller and Shah
LLP named William Probert of Fairfield, Conn., as a plaintiff in
the suit.  If the suit is allowed as a class action, the firm
would seek damages for all Toys "R" Us online customers who did
not receive a promised free gift.

Mr. Probert, according to the complaint, purchased four LEGO sets
from Toysrus.com on Nov. 16, 2011, and did not receive free gifts
worth $15 that were promised if he made those purchases.  Toys "R"
Us allegedly substituted smaller gifts worth $5 or less.  In one
instance, instead of receiving a $15 building set, Mr. Probert
received a LEGO Christmas Tree figurine.

"The representations regarding 'free gift' sets accompanying the
underlying purchases made by [Toys] were deceptive, false and
misleading," the complaint states.

The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in Newark the day
before Thanksgiving.  A summons requiring Toys "R" Us to respond
within 21 days was issued on Nov. 26.

Toys spokeswoman Kathleen Waugh said the company would not comment
on the suit "as this is a matter of pending litigation."

The law firm that filed the suit said it also does not comment on
pending litigation.


TPC GROUP: Defends Consolidated Sawgrass Merger-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
TPC Group Inc. is defending a consolidated class action lawsuit
arising from its proposed merger with Sawgrass Holdings Inc.,
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 August 24, 2012, TPC Group entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Sawgrass Holdings Inc.
("Sawgrass") and Sawgrass Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a wholly
owned subsidiary of Sawgrass.

On September 4, 2012, following the announcement of the Merger
Agreement, Alvin Smilow, Trustee for Herman Smilow 2011
Irrevocable Trust, a purported TPC Group stockholder, filed a
class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware styled Alvin Smilow, Trustee for the Herman Smilow 2011
Irrevocable Trust v. TPC Group Inc., et al., C.A. No. 7829-VCN.
He amended his complaint on September 14, 2012.  On September 14,
2012, Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund, another
purported stockholder of TPC Group, filed a substantially similar
class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery styled
Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund v. Michael T.
McDonnell, et al., C.A. No. 7865-VCN.  On September 21, 2012, West
Palm Beach Police Pension Fund, a third purported TPC Group
stockholder, filed a substantially similar class action lawsuit in
the Delaware Court of Chancery styled West Palm Beach Police
Pension Fund v. Michael E. Ducey, et al., C.A. No. 7884-VCN.

The lawsuits generally allege that TPC Group's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties in entering into the Merger
Agreement by agreeing to inadequate consideration for TPC Group's
stockholders, by improperly putting their personal interests ahead
of the interests of the stockholders, by approving a Merger
Agreement that includes deal protection devices allegedly designed
to ensure that TPC Group will not receive a superior offer, and by
failing to disclose material information in TPC Group's
preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on September 10,
2012.  The lawsuits also allege that TPC Group, Sawgrass, and
Merger Sub aided and abetted the directors in the alleged breaches
of their fiduciary duties.  In addition, one of the lawsuits
alleges that First Reserve and SK Capital aided and abetted the
directors in the alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.  The
lawsuits seek injunctive relief, unspecified actual and punitive
damages, and other relief.

On September 28, 2012, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an
order consolidating the three Delaware lawsuits, and re-captioned
the action In re TPC Group, Inc. Shareholders Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 7865-VCN.  On October 4, 2012, plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended class action complaint, with
substantially the same allegations and claims as in the previously
filed lawsuits.  On October 9, 2012, the Delaware Court of
Chancery granted the parties' scheduling stipulation, which
provides a calendar for discovery, depositions and briefing
leading to a preliminary injunction hearing on November 14, 2012.

The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against all claims asserted.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Discovery in Securities Suit Postponed Until Jan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Commencement of discovery in the securities class action lawsuit
against Transocean Ltd. has been postponed until January 2013,
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 April 22, 2010, the Ultra-Deepwater Floater Deepwater Horizon
sank after a blowout of the Macondo well caused a fire and
explosion on the rig.  Eleven persons were declared dead and
others were injured as a result of the incident.  At the time of
the explosion, Deepwater Horizon was located approximately 41
miles off the coast of Louisiana in Mississippi Canyon Block 252
and was contracted to BP America Production Co. ("BP").

A federal securities class action is currently pending in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, naming the Company
and former chief executive officers of Transocean Ltd. and one of
its acquired companies as defendants.  In the action, a former
shareholder of the acquired company alleges that the joint proxy
statement related to the Company's shareholder meeting in
connection with its merger with the acquired company violated
Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"),
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  The plaintiff claims that the acquired company's
shareholders received inadequate consideration for their shares as
a result of the alleged violations and seeks compensatory and
rescissory damages and attorneys' fees.  In addition, the Company
is obligated to pay the defense fees and costs for the individual
defendants, which may be covered by its directors' and officers'
liability insurance, subject to a deductible.  The Company and the
individual defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the action on
the ground that the plaintiff lacks standing to assert the claims
alleged.

The Company's motion to dismiss the securities law allegations
with regard to its joint proxy statement was denied on October 4,
2012.  An unrelated action pending in the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals involving other parties involves a legal question that
could be relevant to the disposition of this case.  Defendants
have filed a motion asking that this case be stayed until that
appeal has been decided, and the court has postponed commencement
of discovery until January 2013 to allow time for that motion to
be briefed.

Headquartered in Vernier, Switzerland, Transocean Ltd. provides
offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells.
Specializing in technically demanding sectors of the offshore
drilling business with a particular focus on deepwater and harsh
environment drilling services, the Company contracts its drilling
rigs, related equipment and work crews predominantly on a dayrate
basis to drill oil and gas wells.


TRI CITY: Recalls 271 Pounds of Jalapeno Vienna Sausage Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tri City Cheese and Meats, a Kawkawlin, Michigan establishment, is
recalling approximately 271 pounds of Jalapeno Vienna sausage
products because they are misbranded in that they contain
monosodium glutamate (MSG), which is not declared on the label,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service announced.

The following product is subject to recall:

   * "1- and 2.5-lb. Cryovac bags of "Troll Smokehouse Fully
     Cooked Jalapeno Vienna."

The product subject to recall bears the establishment number "EST.
32015" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  This product was
produced October 18, 2012, through November 6, 2012, and packages
have a sell by date of "12/17/12" through "01/03/12."  The product
was distributed to retail establishments in Michigan.

A picture of the recalled products' label is available at:

  http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/RNR_077_2012/index.asp

The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel during a routine
label review.  MSG is a sub-ingredient in the spice blend used to
make the product, but it was not listed on the final product
label.  FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse
reactions due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned
about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Sarah David at (989) 686-3210.

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


VERIZON: Retired Managers File Class Action Over Pension
--------------------------------------------------------
David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that Verizon is
dumping its pension obligations to 41,000 retired managers at the
end of the year and transferring them to Prudential, "simply to
enhance its corporate credit rating," retirees say in a federal
class action.

Lead plaintiff William Lee, on behalf of beneficiaries of the
Verizon Management Pension Plan, sued Verizon Communications and
five affiliates, and The Prudential Insurance Company of America,
in Federal Court.

Verizon announced in October that it will no longer provide
pensions to its 41,000 management retirees and that Prudential
will provide them insurance annuities instead.

The plaintiffs say this "unprecedented" action violates the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act and protections under the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

"Verizon, one of the most financially successful U.S.
corporations, intends to 'de-risk,' or abandon, its long-term
responsibility for financing and paying the pension obligations of
41,000 retirees, simply to enhance its corporate credit rating,"
the 40-page complaint states.

"Verizon is taking advantage of the group of retirees least able
to defend themselves.  Verizon is not engaging in the same or
similar action with respect to nonmanagement employees or those
management retirees formerly represented by unions."

Verizon executive vice president and general counsel Randal Milch
called the lawsuit meritless.

"Verizon's actions regarding its pensions protect the interests of
our retired management employees," Mr. Milch said in a statement.
"The monthly pension benefits of the retirees receiving an annuity
from Prudential will remain unchanged.  Prudential is providing an
irrevocable commitment to make all future annuity payments, and
this promise will be supported by the extra protection of assets
being placed in a separate account at Prudential dedicated to
Verizon retirees."

The plaintiffs disagree with a letter sent to them by Mark Reed,
Verizon's chief administration officer and chairman of the
benefits committee, which calls the move legally permissible under
the plan.

"To the contrary, Verizon's proposed transaction violates the
controlling terms of documents establishing and governing the
Verizon Management Pension Plan, constitutes a breach of ERISA's
fiduciary duty requirements, violates ERISA's prohibition on
discriminatory and intentional interference with retirees' rights
under a pension plan and ERISA, and undermines congressional
intent to provide American pensioners with a uniform safety net
under the auspices of PBGC," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs say that making Prudential the lone insurer to
issue the annuities puts them at risk if Prudential is faced with
"some future unexpected and catastrophic event that could place
many retirees and their beneficiaries in potential financial
ruinous circumstances."

"Verizon's annuity transaction with Prudential is one of the
largest in U.S. history," the complaint states.  "Verizon and
Verizon EBC's decision to shirk their responsibility for plan
funding necessary to support 41,000 management retirees and place
all of that funding responsibility under the auspices of a single
insurer runs counter to ERISA's cardinal charge that fiduciaries
'diversify the investments of the plan so as to minimize the risk
of large losses.'"

The retirees add: "Prudential is not too big to fail.  If the
current economic situation has taught retirees anything, it is
that the funded status of a behemoth insurer can change in an
instant and cause devastating economic harm for the whole
country."  The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief
for ERISA violations.

They are represented by Robert Goodman with Kilgore Kilgore of
Dallas.

In his statement, Verizon's general counsel noted that Prudential
"already provides pension plan services to 3.7 million workers and
retirees nationwide."

"An independent fiduciary conducted an extensive review of the
insurance market and annuity providers and selected Prudential as
the annuity provider, with the safety and protection of pension
plan participants being the sole consideration," Mr. Milch added.


WAL-MART STORES: 9th Cir. Agrees to Review Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Blum, writing for The Recorder, reports that with the
first "suitable seating" class action under review by a trial
judge in San Francisco, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit has decided to weigh in on a related case against Wal-Mart
Stores Inc. that could be worth more than $150 million.

The appeals court on Nov. 27 agreed to review class certification
of roughly 22,000 Wal-Mart cashiers in California who claim they
were denied a place to sit in violation of state labor
regulations.

The class was approved in August by U.S. District Judge Edward
Davila of San Jose, who subsequently stayed proceedings in Brown
v. Wal-Mart Stores, 09-3339, while the Ninth Circuit considered
review.

Meanwhile, U.S. District Judge William Alsup concluded a bench
trial in a similar case against Kmart Corp.  That case focused on
65 cashiers employed by one Kmart store in the Central Valley city
of Tulare and maximum penalties of less than $500,000.

Judge Alsup said he would use the limited trial in Garvey v.
Kmart, 11-2575, to test the merits of the case and the
practicality of classwide certification.  He has sought input from
state labor agencies on their interpretation of the decades-old
wage order stating "all working employees shall be provided with
suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the
use of seats."

The rule seemingly was not enforced prior to the spate of civil
litigation against companies including Target Corp., Bank of
America, CVS Pharmacy and Ralph's Grocery.

The recent claims seek civil fines under California's Private
Attorney General Act of 2004, or PAGA, which means 75 percent of
penalties awarded flow into the state treasury and prevailing
employees are entitled to 25 percent.

Wal-Mart is represented by Theodore Boutrous Jr. and Catherine
Conway of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Los Angeles.  Plaintiffs are
represented by an array of lawyers associated with Righetti
Glugoski in San Francisco; Dostart Clapp & Coveney in San Diego;
and Jones Law Firm in Reno.


                           *********

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  * * *