CAR_Public/121205.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, December 5, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 241

                             Headlines

ALIYA'S FOODS: Recalls 4,865 Lbs. of Chicken With Basmati Rice
AMR CORP: Judge Refuses to Rule on Frequent Flier Rewards Suit
ARIZONA: Class Action Challenges Gov. Brewer's Immigration Order
AU OPTRONICS: Dec. 6 Claims Deadline Set for Tennessee Consumers
BARNES & NOBLE: Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Data Security

BLACK LANE: Judge Dismisses Class Action vs. Towing Service
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Judge Tosses Defective Tire Class Action
CANADIAN SOLAR: Sup. Ct. Refuses to Hear Appeal in Securities Suit
CARTER'S CRIB: Sued Over Misleading Advertising on Crib Bumpers
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Continues to Defend ARM & HAMMER Deodorant Suit

CRANE CO: Class Suit by New Jersey Homeowners Remains Pending
EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Class Settlement Hearing Set for Jan. 11
EXPEDIA INC: Faces Price-Fixing Antitrust Class Action
HEELYS INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Asset Sale
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action

HSBC FINANCE: Awaits Approval of Settlement of Suits in MDL 1720
HSBC FINANCE: Class Action Suits Over Debt Cancellation Pending
HSBC FINANCE: Defends Class Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance
HSBC FINANCE: Still Awaits Final Decision in Securities Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Remaining Mortgage Foreclosure Suits Pending

JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Face Suits Over LIBOR Investigations
JPMORGAN CHASE: Hearing on Overdraft Fees Suit Deal This Month
JPMORGAN CHASE: Defends Class Suits Related to MBS Offerings
JPMORGAN CHASE: Defends Four CIO-Related Securities Class Suits
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces New Complaint in Jefferson Cty., Alabama

JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Suit Filed by Retirement Plan Participants
JPMORGAN CHASE: Responds to Suits Related to CIO Portfolio
JPMORGAN CHASE: Seeks Dismissal of Madoff-Related Suits in N.Y.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Awaits Approval of Interchange Suit Settlement
KIT DIGITAL: Two Law Firms File Class Action in New York

LONG ISLAND: Faces Hurricane Negligence Class Action
MASCO CORP: Files Renewed Judgment Bid in "Von Der Werth" Suit
MEDTRONICS INC: Awaits Final Approval of INFUSE Suit Settlement
MORTGAGE GUARANTY: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
NORTHWEST BANCSHARES: "Toth" Suit Remains Pending in Penn. Court

NORTHWEST BANCSHARES: Summary Judgment Bid Pending in "Daly" Suit
ORION BANK: Settlement Reached in Class Action v. Former CEO
PHI INC: "Superior Offshore" Class Action Suit Now Concluded
SPI ELECTRICITY: New Courtroom for Class Action Not Yet Ready
SQUIRE LOUNGE: Exotic Dancer Files Minimum Wage Class Action

STEVE MADDEN: Feb. 25 TCPA Suit Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
TISHMAN SPEYER: $68.75MM Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Approval
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Trial in Macondo-Related MDL to Begin in February
US BANCORP: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Visa Litigation
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Defends Suit Over Cold-FX(R) in Canada

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suits Over Medicis Acquisition
VEGGIE PATCH: Recalls Ultimate Meatless Burger and Falafel
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Suits Over Fuel/Environmental Charges Pending
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Awaits Approval of ERISA Class Suit Settlement
ZILLOW INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action

                          *********



ALIYA'S FOODS: Recalls 4,865 Lbs. of Chicken With Basmati Rice
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) is alerting the public of a recall being conducted
by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Canadian
Establishment 720, Aliya's Foods Limited, for approximately 4,865
pounds of frozen butter chicken and rice products imported from
Canada that may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

CFIA oversees the recall in Canada and FSIS is overseeing the
effectiveness in the United States.  FSIS will verify that those
companies who have received product from the Canadian-initiated
recall have been notified and have removed product from commerce,
and will take appropriate action if prohibited activity is found.

Products imported to the United States include:

   * "12.5 oz boxes of "Trader Joe's Butter Chicken with Basmati
     Rice" with product code "2012-10-31" and lot code "30512"

The product being recalled is considered ready-to-eat (RTE) and
subject to pathogen testing since FSIS has zero-tolerance for
pathogens in RTE foods at time of production, even if that food
requires heating for proper serving.

While 19 cartons of product are on hold at the distribution
center, 240 cartons have been distributed to Trader Joe's retail
stores.  Trader Joe's has contacted these stores directly and
instructed them to pull the recalled product off the shelf.

FSIS is concerned that consumers may have received or purchased
this product but have not yet been notified about the recall.  The
retail distribution list will be updated as information is
gathered, and is posted on FSIS' Web site at:

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

Consumers with questions about this product should contact Trader
Joe's at (626) 599-3817.  Media inquiries should be directed to
Alison Mochizuki with Trader Joe's at (626) 599-3779.

FSIS reminds consumers of the critical importance of following
package cooking instructions for frozen or fresh products and
general food safety guidelines when handling and preparing any raw
meat or poultry.

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects
older adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant
women and their newborns.  Less commonly, persons without these
risk factors can be affected.

Listeriosis can cause fever, headache, neck stiffness, and muscle
aches, often preceded by diarrhea or other gastrointestinal
symptoms.  Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages and
stillbirths, as well as serious and sometimes fatal infections in
older adults and persons with weakened immune systems.
Listeriosis is treated with antibiotics.  Persons in the higher-
risk categories who experience flu-like symptoms within 2 months
after eating contaminated food should seek a health care provider.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov.
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.

        FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
the Butter Chicken with Basmati Rice meals that have been recalled
by Aliya's Foods Limited.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/NR_113012_01/index.asp,in
addition to the list of retail stores, to check meat or poultry
products in the consumers' possession to see if they have been
recalled.

    Specific Store-Wide Distribution (Stores and Location)
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Retailer Name         City and State
    -------------         --------------
    Trader Joe's          Danbury, Connecticut
    Trader Joe's          Darien, Connecticut
    Trader Joe's          Fairfield, Connecticut
    Trader Joe's          Orange, Connecticut
    Trader Joe's          West Hartford, Connecticut
    Trader Joe's          Westport, Connecticut
    Trader Joe's          Wilmington, Delaware
    Trader Joe's          Washington, District of Columbia
    Trader Joe's          Gainesville, Florida
    Trader Joe's          Naples, Florida
    Trader Joe's          Sarasota, Florida
    Trader Joe's          Portland, Maine
    Trader Joe's          Annapolis, Maryland
    Trader Joe's          Bethesda, Maryland
    Trader Joe's          Elkridge, Maryland
    Trader Joe's          Gaithersburg, Maryland
    Trader Joe's          Pikesville, Maryland
    Trader Joe's          Rockville, Maryland
    Trader Joe's          Silver Spring, Maryland
    Trader Joe's          Towson, Maryland
    Trader Joe's          Acton, Massachusetts
    Trader Joe's          Arlington, Massachusetts
    Trader Joe's          Boston, Massachusetts
    Trader Joe's          Brookline, Massachusetts
    Trader Joe's          Burlington, Massachusetts
    Trader Joe's          Memorial Dr., Cambridge, Massachusetts
    Trader Joe's          Alewife Brook Parkway, Cambridge, MA
    Trader Joe's          Foxborough, Massachusetts
    Trader Joe's          Framingham, Massachusetts
    Trader Joe's          Hadley, Massachusetts
    Trader Joe's          Hanover, Massachusetts
    Trader Joe's          Hyannis, Massachusetts
    Trader Joe's          Needham Heights, Massachusetts
    Trader Joe's          Peabody, Massachusetts
    Trader Joe's          Saugus, Massachusetts
    Trader Joe's          Shrewsbury, Massachusetts
    Trader Joe's          West Newton, Massachusetts
    Trader Joe's          Nashua, New Hampshire
    Trader Joe's          Newington, New Hampshire
    Trader Joe's          Clifton, New Jersey
    Trader Joe's          Edgewater, New Jersey
    Trader Joe's          Florham Park, New Jersey
    Trader Joe's          Marlton, New Jersey
    Trader Joe's          Millburn, New Jersey
    Trader Joe's          Paramus, New Jersey
    Trader Joe's          Princeton, New Jersey
    Trader Joe's          Shrewsbury, New Jersey
    Trader Joe's          Wayne, New Jersey
    Trader Joe's          Westfield, New Jersey
    Trader Joe's          Westwood, New Jersey
    Trader Joe's          Brooklyn, New York
    Trader Joe's          Colonie, New York
    Trader Joe's          Commack, New York
    Trader Joe's          Garden City, New York
    Trader Joe's          Hartsdale, New York
    Trader Joe's          Hewlett, New York
    Trader Joe's          Lake Grove, New York
    Trader Joe's          Larchmont, New York
    Trader Joe's          Merrick, New York
    Trader Joe's          138 E. 14th St., New York
    Trader Joe's          2073 Broadway, New York
    Trader Joe's          675 6th Avenue, New York
    Trader Joe's          Oceanside, New York
    Trader Joe's          Plainview, New York
    Trader Joe's          Rego Park, New York
    Trader Joe's          Rochester, New York
    Trader Joe's          Scarsdale, New York
    Trader Joe's          Staten Island, New York
    Trader Joe's          Cary, North Carolina
    Trader Joe's          Chapel Hill, North Carolina
    Trader Joe's          East Arbors Dr., Charlotte, NC
    Trader Joe's          Metropolitan Ave., Charlotte, NC
    Trader Joe's          Raleigh, North Carolina
    Trader Joe's          South Charlotte, North Carolina
    Trader Joe's          Wilmington, North Carolina
    Trader Joe's          Winston-Salem, North Carolina
    Trader Joe's          Ardmore, Pennsylvania
    Trader Joe's          Jenkintown, Pennsylvania
    Trader Joe's          Media, Pennsylvania
    Trader Joe's          North Wales, Pennsylvania
    Trader Joe's          Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    Trader Joe's          Washington Rd., Pittsburgh, PA
    Trader Joe's          Penn Ave., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Trader Joe's          State College, Pennsylvania
    Trader Joe's          Wayne, Pennsylvania
    Trader Joe's          Warwick, Rhode Island
    Trader Joe's          Greenville, South Carolina
    Trader Joe's          Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina
    Trader Joe's          Alexandria, Virginia
    Trader Joe's          Arlington, Virginia
    Trader Joe's          Bailey's Crossroads, Virginia
    Trader Joe's          Centreville, Virginia
    Trader Joe's          Charlottesville, Virginia
    Trader Joe's          Fairfax, Virginia
    Trader Joe's          Falls Church, Virginia
    Trader Joe's          Glen Allen, Virginia
    Trader Joe's          Newport News, Virginia
    Trader Joe's          Reston, Virginia
    Trader Joe's          Springfield, Virginia
    Trader Joe's          Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Trader Joe's          Williamsburg, Virginia


AMR CORP: Judge Refuses to Rule on Frequent Flier Rewards Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Uhlman, writing for Law360, reports that a New York
bankruptcy judge declined to rule on Nov. 29 on a bid filed by
American Airlines Inc. parent, AMR Corp., to dismiss a putative
class action alleging the airline breached a contract by gutting
frequent flier rewards for miles earned before 1989.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean H. Lane heard arguments from both sides
on AMR's motion to dismiss.


ARIZONA: Class Action Challenges Gov. Brewer's Immigration Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Times reports that a coalition of immigrant-rights
advocates filed a lawsuit on Nov. 29 seeking to overturn an order
by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer that denies driver's licenses to
illegal immigrants who avoided deportation under a new Obama
administration policy.

The class-action lawsuit seeks to block an Aug. 15 executive order
issued by the governor after the federal government implemented
the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which allows
youths who came to the U.S. illegally as children to live and work
in this country for renewable periods of two years.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Arizona Dream Act
Coalition, an immigrant youth-led organization.

"Federal immigration authorities have lifted the shadow of
deportation from these bright and hardworking DREAMers, but
Arizona insists on pursuing its own immigration policy aimed at
keeping them in the dark," said Jennifer Chang Newell, an ACLU
staff attorney.  "Rather than deny these young people the ability
to drive -- an everyday necessity for most people -- our leaders
should come together to enact long-term solutions that would allow
our talented immigrant youth to achieve the American dream."

The lawsuit alleges that the state has classified young adult
immigrants as not having permission to be in the U.S. and asks a
federal judge to declare the governor's executive order
unconstitutional because it is in conflict with federal law and
denies licenses without valid justification.

"Arizona's creation of its own immigration classification
impermissibly intrudes on the federal government's exclusive
authority to regulate immigration," the lawsuit states.

In June, the Obama administration took steps to block the
potential deportation of as many as 800,000 immigrants from the
U.S. if they were brought to this country before they turned 16,
were younger than 30, had been here for at least five continuous
years, had graduated from high school or obtained an equivalency
certificate (GED), or had served in the military.

Gov. Brewer's executive order was aimed ensuring that Arizona
state agencies adhere to the intent of state law by denying public
benefits to illegal immigrants.

About 11,000 people in Arizona have applied for the deferred-
deportation protection under the Obama administration's policy.

The lawsuit claims that the Arizona policy violates the Supremacy
Clause of the U.S. Constitution by interfering with federal
immigration law, and also violates the Fourteenth Amendment's
Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against certain
noncitizens.  Arizona's motor vehicle division implemented
Gov. Brewer's Sept. 18 order.


AU OPTRONICS: Dec. 6 Claims Deadline Set for Tennessee Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Bianca Phillips at Memphis
Flyer, Memphian Scott Beall has spent around $6,000 on flat-screen
products, but he'll likely soon be getting some of that money
back.  Mr. Beall is the class action representative for Tennessee
in the largest anti-trust consumer class action lawsuit in
history.

The lawsuit was filed against 10 LCD flat-screen television
manufacturers, namely Au Optronics, Chimei, Chunghwa, Epson,
Hannstar, Hitachi, LG, Sharp, Samsung, and Toshiba, for conspiring
to raise and fix prices on flat screen LCD panels and products
containing those panels.  The manufacturers have agreed to pay an
unprecedented settlement of $1.1 billion.

Any Tennessee consumer who purchased a flat-screen product from
one of the above-mentioned companies between January 1999 and
December 2006 is eligible to receive a payment from the
settlement.  The deadline to file a claim is December 6.

"I was ticked off when I discovered that all the prices were the
same and there was no competitive pricing," Mr. Beall said.
"Consumers were over-charged for these products, and they need to
take advantage of this opportunity, file a claim, and receive some
compensation."

To file a claim, visit https://lcdclass.com/

Filing a claim does not require proof of purchase or receipts.


BARNES & NOBLE: Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Data Security
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Dieffenbach, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., a Corporation, Case
No. 3:12-cv-05800 (N.D. Calif., November 9, 2012) is brought to
seek redress from the Defendant's breach of data security, which
resulted in the theft of personal information of numerous
individuals whose credit card and debit card information and PIN
numbers were stolen.

The Defendant failed to adopt and maintain adequate procedures to
protect its customers' information, Ms. Dieffenbach alleges.  She
asserts that as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
willful, reckless and negligent actions, an unauthorized third
party obtained her and Class Members' Personal Information for no
permissible purpose.

Barnes & Noble is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business in New York.  Barnes & Noble is a bookseller that
sells books, eBooks, Nook devices (eBook readers), magazines, food
and beverages, and other items.

Ms. Dieffenbach is a customer that purchased products at a Barnes
& Noble store affected by the breach during the relevant time
period.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Markun, Esq.
          William A. Baird, Esq.
          MARKLIN ZUSMAN & COMPTON LLP
          17383 W. Sunset Blvd, Suite A380
          Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
          Telephone: (310) 454-5900
          Facsimile: (310) 454-5970
          E-mail: tbaird@mzclaw.com

               - and -

          E. Kirk Wood, Esq.
          WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
          2001 Park Place North, Suite 1000
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 612-0243
          Facsimile: (866)747-3905
          E-mail: ekirkwoodl@cs.com


BLACK LANE: Judge Dismisses Class Action vs. Towing Service
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christina Stueve Hodges, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that Madison County Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs ruled
against an East Walton woman in her proposed class action lawsuit
against a Caseyville towing company.

Judge Stobbs dismissed with prejudice both individually and as
representative of a purported class the claims of Tiffany
Craycraft who alleged that Black Lane Auto Parts towed her 2000
Ford Taurus from Highway 157 in Caseyville without her consent.

Ms. Craycraft had been arrested by Caseyville Police at 2:30 a.m.
on April 11, after she was observed disobeying a traffic light.
She was taken into custody by police on an outstanding warrant,
and as a result her vehicle was left on the roadway.
Subsequently, Black Lane towed the vehicle from a turning lane on
Highway 157 on police orders.

Ms. Craycraft, represented by Wood River attorney Thomas Maag, in
a two count complaint sought damages for alleged violations of the
Illinois Vehicle Code under its Anti-Theft Law and Abandoned
Vehicles chapter and under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act,
because when she retrieved her vehicle, she claims she did not
receive a detailed, signed receipt, showing the legal name of the
towing service.

Judge Stobbs wrote in a Nov. 19 order that the issue before the
court regarding alleged violations of the Illinois Vehicle Code,
was one of duty under the Act.

"The Act does not impose a duty on a towing service, conducting a
tow at the direction of law enforcement, to second guess the
police agency's assessment of the traffic hazard created by the
position or location of the unattended vehicle upon the roadway,"
Judge Stobbs wrote.

"The scope of the duties owed by a towing service to render an
individual assessment of the safety of the position of the vehicle
before consenting to a police directed tow, it would have done so.
That it did not is evidence of intent no such duty exists under
the Act.  Given that plaintiff does not contest that the Defendant
acted pursuant to the direction of the law enforcement agency and
that the Court finds that there is no duty to second guess the
agency's assessment of the hazard created by the position or
location of the unattended vehicle, the Plaintiff's cause of
action based on breach of a duty owed, by the towing service,
under section 5/4-203 of the Act cannot stand."

Judge Stobbs also dismissed the second count of Ms. Craycraft's
complaint in which she alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act because she did not receive a detailed receipt.

"The section of the Act relied upon by the Plaintiff only creates
a private cause of action for an alleged breach of the section, in
cases of an unauthorized tow," he wrote.  "As it is uncontroverted
that the tow was authorized by law enforcement, the complaint must
fail."

Attorney Peter Maag, brother of Thomas Maag, said over the
telephone there would be no comment regarding Judge Stobbs'
ruling.

Black Lane Auto Parts attorney Thomas Frenkel said over the
telephone he had no comment.

Madison County case number 12-L-641.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Judge Tosses Defective Tire Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ciaran McEvoy, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey
federal judge on Nov. 29 dismissed a $5 million putative class
action against BMW of North America and tiremaker Bridgestone
Americas Inc., ruling the plaintiff's defective tire allegations
were implausible, vague and lacked "traction."

In two sharply worded opinions, U.S. District Judge William J.
Martini of Newark blasted as meritless the legal arguments of
plaintiff David Greene of Monmouth County, N.J., who sued the
companies after he leased a 2010 BMW 335i convertible with
allegedly faulty tires.


CANADIAN SOLAR: Sup. Ct. Refuses to Hear Appeal in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gray, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that the
Supreme Court of Canada has declined to hear an appeal of a ruling
in a securities class action against Canadian Solar Inc.

The Kitchener, Ont.-based company is facing a potential class
action on behalf of investors who allege it misstated its
financial results in 2009.  The case has not been certified as a
class action and the allegations, which the company denies, have
not been proven in court.

Lawyers for the company had requested leave from the Supreme Court
to appeal an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that declared that
Canadian Solar could be sued by investors in Ontario, despite the
fact that it shares traded on the U.S. NASDAQ.

Bay Street lawyers were watching the case because it diverged from
a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that banned securities class
actions over share purchased on any foreign stock exchange.

Some say Canada's more open courts could become attractive to
plaintiffs lawyers looking to file foreign securities class
actions against multinationals with some sort of presence in
Canada.


CARTER'S CRIB: Sued Over Misleading Advertising on Crib Bumpers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service reports that Carter's
crib bumpers do not protect infants as advertised, but "put
children at greater risk for suffocation or crib death," a mother
claims in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Yaritza Vizcarra says Carter's markets its crib
bumpers -- cushions placed in the bottom of a crib and tied to the
slats -- to protect babies from "crib related injuries."

"Despite the evidence that these bumpers are not safe and pose a
risk of serious injury and death, defendants have turned a blind
eye to the dangers posed by Carter's Crib Bumpers in order to
maintain sales and profits, and continue to sell their products.
In selling their crib bumpers to plaintiff and the class,
defendants have knowingly concealed these serious risks and
affirmatively misrepresented that Carter's Crib Bumpers are safe
if properly installed," the complaint states.

Ms. Vizcarra does not claim that her own baby suffered injury or
death.

Carter's is "one of the largest branded marketers of apparel and
related products for infants and children in the United States,"
according to the complaint.  It sells its crib bumpers separately
for $40 to $70, and for around $175 as part of matching bedding
sets.

"Infant bedding sales exceed $50 million annually -- a number that
includes over 200,000 crib bumpers," according to the complaint.

Ms. Vizcarra says she bought a Carter's Crib Bumper from
(nonparty) Wal-Mart after seeing ads packaging that claimed the
bumpers "are safe if properly installed."

She says these ads are "false, misleading and reasonably likely to
deceive the public" because crib bumpers "actually put children at
greater risk for suffocation or crib death."

She claims the warnings included with Carter's crib bumpers are
inadequate because they claim parents can protect babies from
strangulation simply by "properly secur[ing] the bumper" and
removing it from the crib when the baby can sit up unassisted.

"This statement not only fails to disclose the true risks that
accompany the use of Carter's Crib Bumpers, it also implies that
by following defendants' instructions, use of their Carter's Crib
Bumpers is safe," the complaint states.

"Defendants reaffirm this deceptive message by enclosing a
'naptime to nighttime information sheet' created by the Juvenile
Products Manufacturers Association," which instructs parents to
remove pillows and stuffed animals from the crib while the baby is
sleeping -- but not the bumpers -- according to the complaint.

Ms. Vizcarra says Carter's crib bumpers increase a baby's risk of
injury or death, from suffocation, strangulation by the bumper's
ties, and restriction air circulation around a baby, which can
cause overheating and contribute to sudden infant death syndrome.

Crib bumpers originally were intended to protect babies from
getting their heads stuck between the wide slats on "older style-
cribs," but all cribs now sold in the United States have such
narrow slats that "it is virtually impossible for a baby's head to
fit through" them, according to the complaint.

Ms. Vizcarra claims that crib bumper sales remain high despite
these changes in crib design because "manufacturers and
distributors of crib bumpers, including defendants, perpetuate the
falsehood that crib bumpers eliminate risk of injury or death in
the crib environment.  The opposite is true: crib bumpers are
themselves a hazard, totally superfluous and unneeded -- and at
best, worthless.

"In fact, according to the Center for Disease Control and
Prevention, in 2009 alone, 665 babies died from accidental
suffocation or strangulation while in bed."

Many groups have raised alarms about crib bumpers, including the
American Academy of Pediatrics, which warned in October 2011 that
"bumper pads should not be used in cribs," the complaint states.

Chicago banned crib bumpers in 2011, and many other states are
"considering similar bans," according to the complaint.
Ms. Vizcarra claims that Carter's "reaped enormous profits from
their false marketing and advertising campaign."

She seeks restitution, disgorgement of unjust profits, damages for
consumer law violations and unfair competition, and wants Carter's
ordered to issue corrective advertising.

Ms. Vizcarra is represented by Todd Carpenter --
tcarpenter@bffb.com -- with Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint.

Many crib and baby products have been recalled in recent years due
to strangulation hazards, according to the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission.


CHURCH & DWIGHT: Continues to Defend ARM & HAMMER Deodorant Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Church & Dwight Co., Inc. continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit alleging unfair, deceptive and unlawful
advertising, marketing and sales of ARM & HAMMER Essentials
Natural Deodorant, 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.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action lawsuit alleging unfair, deceptive and unlawful business
practices with respect to the advertising, marketing and sales of
ARM & HAMMER Essentials Natural Deodorant.  Specifically, on March
9, 2012, Plaintiffs Stephen Trewin and Joseph Farhatt, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a complaint
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey alleging violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, violations of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act and breach of implied warranty. Plaintiffs allege,
among other things, that the Company uses a marketing and
advertising campaign that is centered around the claim that the
ARM & HAMMER Essentials Natural Deodorant is a "natural" product
that contains "natural" ingredients and provides "natural"
protection.  The complaint alleges the advertising and marketing
campaign is false and misleading because the product contains
artificial and synthetic ingredients.  Among other things, the
complaint seeks an order certifying the case as a class action,
appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives and appointing
Plaintiffs' counsel to represent the class.  The complaint also
seeks restitution and disgorgement of all amounts obtained by the
Company as a result of the alleged misconduct; compensatory,
actual, statutory and other unspecified damages allegedly suffered
by Plaintiffs and the purported class; up to treble damages for
alleged violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; punitive
damages for alleged violations of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act; an order requiring the Company to immediately cease
its alleged wrongful conduct; an order enjoining the Company from
continuing the conduct and acts identified in the Complaint; an
order requiring the Company to engage in a corrective notice
campaign; an order requiring the Company to pay to Plaintiffs and
all members of the purported class the amounts paid for ARM &
HAMMER Essentials Natural Deodorant; statutory prejudgment and
post-judgment interest; and, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the
allegations asserted in the Complaint.  While an adverse outcome
in this matter is reasonably possible, at this initial stage of
the litigation it is not possible to estimate the amount of any
damages or determine the impact of any equitable relief that may
be granted.


CRANE CO: Class Suit by New Jersey Homeowners Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to recently enacted regulations in New Jersey, Crane Co.
performed certain tests of the indoor air quality of approximately
40 homes in a residential area surrounding a former manufacturing
facility in Roseland, New Jersey, to determine if any contaminants
(volatile organic compound vapors from groundwater) from the
facility were present in those homes.  The Company installed vapor
mitigation equipment in three homes where contaminants were found.
On April 15, 2011, those three homeowners, and the tenants in one
of those homes, filed separate lawsuits against the Company
seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for their
lost property value and nuisance.  In addition, a homeowner in the
testing area, whose home tested negative for the presence of
contaminants, filed a class action lawsuit against the Company on
behalf of himself and 141 other homeowners in the surrounding
area, claiming damages in the nature of loss of value on their
homes due to their proximity to the facility.

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 is not possible at this time to reasonably
estimate the amount of a loss and therefore, no loss amount has
been accrued for the claims because among other things, the extent
of the environmental impact, consideration of other factors
affecting value have not yet advanced to the stage where a
reasonable estimate can be made.

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.


EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Class Settlement Hearing Set for Jan. 11
-----------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to obtain court approval of Equity LifeStyle Properties,
Inc.'s settlement of the class action lawsuit filed by the City of
Santee's tenant association has been scheduled for January 11,
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.

In June 2003, the Company won a judgment against the City of
Santee in California Superior Court (Case No. 777094).  The effect
of the judgment was to invalidate, on state law grounds, two rent
control ordinances the City of Santee had enforced against the
Company and other property owners.  However, the Court allowed the
City to continue to enforce a rent control ordinance that predated
the two invalid ordinances (the "prior ordinance").  As a result
of the judgment the Company was entitled to collect a one-time
rent increase based upon the difference in annual adjustments
between the invalid ordinance(s) and the prior ordinance and to
adjust its base rents to reflect what the Company could have
charged had the prior ordinance been continually in effect.  The
City of Santee appealed the judgment.  The City and the tenant
association also each sued the Company in separate actions
alleging that the rent adjustments pursuant to the judgment
violated the prior ordinance (Case Nos. GIE 020887 and GIE
020524), sought to rescind the rent adjustments, and sought
refunds of amounts paid, and penalties and damages in these
separate actions.  As a result of further proceedings and a series
of appeals and remands, the Company was required to and did
release the additional rents to the tenant association's counsel
for disbursement to the tenants, and the Company has ceased
collecting the disputed rent amounts.

The tenant association continued to seek damages, penalties and
fees in their separate action based on the same claims the City
made on the tenants' behalf in the City's case.  The Company moved
for judgment on the pleadings in the tenant association's case on
the ground that the tenant association's case was moot in light of
the result in the City's case.  On November 6, 2008, the Court
granted the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings without
leave to amend.  The tenant association appealed.  In June 2010,
the Court of Appeal remanded the case for further proceedings.  On
remand, on December 12, 2011, the Court granted the Company's
motion for summary judgment and denied the tenant association's
motion for summary judgment.

On January 9, 2012, the Court entered judgment in favor of the
Company, specifying that the tenant association shall recover
nothing.  On January 26, 2012, the Court set March 30, 2012, as
the date for hearing the Company's motion for attorneys' fees and
the tenant associations' motion to reduce the Company's claim for
costs.  On March 26, 2012, the tenant association filed a notice
of appeal.  On August 16, 2012, the Company and the tenant
association entered a settlement agreement pursuant to which the
tenant association dismissed its appeal in exchange for the
Company's agreement to dismiss its claims for attorneys' fees and
other costs.  Because the matter was a class action by the
tenant's association, the Court will hold a hearing on final
approval of the settlement, which has been scheduled for
January 11, 2013.


EXPEDIA INC: Faces Price-Fixing Antitrust Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Margolick, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Expedia, Inc.; Hotels.com LP; Travelocity.com LP;
Sabre Holdings Corporation; Priceline.com Inc.; Booking.com B.V.;
Booking.com (USA), Inc.; Orbitz Worldwide, Inc.; Hilton Worldwide,
Inc.; Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.; Marriott
International, Inc.; Trump International Hotels Management, LLC;
Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC; and Intercontinental Hotels
Group Resources Inc., Case No. 4:12-cv-05803 (N.D. Calif.,
November 9, 2012) accuses the Defendants of entering into an
antitrust conspiracy to inflate the price of hotel rooms through
agreements known as Resale Price Maintenance ("RPM") agreements.

Instead of actively competing to offer consumers the best possible
prices, the Defendants conspired to inflate the price of hotel
room reservations and to preserve their dominant position in the
industry against competitors that could offer better prices, Mr.
Margolick alleges.  He asserts that the RPM agreements constitute
a conspiracy between the Website Retailer Defendants and Hotel
Defendants to fix, maintain and inflate Rack Rates and to suppress
and restrain competition and trade within the market for online
reservations.

Mr. Margolick is a resident of the state of Illinois.  During the
Class Period, he purchased room reservations for hotel rooms
through at least one of the Website Retailer Defendants.

Expedia is a Delaware corporation based in Bellevue, Washington.
Hotels.com, an affiliate of Expedia, is a Texas limited
partnership headquartered in Dallas, Texas.  Sabre is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Southlake, Texas.  Travelocity.com, a
Delaware limited partnership based in Southlake, Texas, is owned
by Sabre.  Priceline.com is a Delaware corporation based in
Norwalk, Connecticut.  Booking.com, a company based in Amsterdam,
the Netherlands, owns and operates Booking.com, the leading
worldwide online Room Reservations agency by room nights sold,
attracting over 30 million unique visitors each month via the
Internet from both leisure and business markets worldwide.
Booking.com is a wholly owned subsidiary of Priceline.com.
Booking.com (USA) is a Delaware corporation with its primary place
of business in New York.  Booking.com (USA) is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Priceline.com.  Orbitz Worldwide is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.

Kimpton is a Delaware limited liability based in San Francisco,
California.  Intercontinental is a Delaware corporation with its
primary place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.  Starwood is a
Maryland corporation based in Stamford, Connecticut.  Starwood's
hotels are primarily operated under the brand names St. Regis(R),
The Luxury Collection(R), Sheraton(R), Westin(R), W(R),Le
Meridien(R), Four Points(R) by Sheraton, Aloft(R)and Element(R).
Marriott is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Bethesda, Maryland.  Trump International is a Delaware
limited liability company headquartered in New York.  Hilton is a
Delaware company based in McLean, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Guido Saveri, Esq.
          R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
          Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
          SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
          706 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 217-6810
          Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
          E-mail: guido@saveri.com
                  rick@saveri.com
                  cadio@saveri.com

               - and -

          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          Donald L. Sawyer, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
          E-mail: dmillen@fklmlaw.com
                  dsawyer@fklmlaw.com


HEELYS INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Asset Sale
----------------------------------------------------------
David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that lead plaintiff
Mark Gronkiewicz sued the Carrollton-based company, Heelys Inc.,
its board of directors, and The Evergreen Group Ventures LLC in
Dallas County Court on Nov.29.

He says Heelys and Evergreen entered into the asset and purchase
agreement in October.

"Plaintiff brings this class action against Heelys' board of
directors for their breaches of fiduciary duties arising out of
their attempt to sell the company's assets to Evergreen by means
of an unfair process, for an unfair price and without material
information necessary for Heelys' stockholders to determine
whether or not to vote in favor of Proposal 1," the 18-page
complaint states.

"The consideration offered for the proposed transaction fails to
reflect the true value of company assets, given the company's
prior successful trading history."

Heelys estimates shareholders will receive up to $2.37 per share
of common stock in distributions after the sale, according to the
complaint. But the plaintiff says Heelys shares were trading as
high as $2.60 per share in April, which is "notably" more than the
price offered by Evergreen.

"The consideration offered to Heelys' public stockholders in the
proposed transaction is unfair and grossly inadequate because,
among other things, the intrinsic value of Heelys' common stock is
materially in excess of the amount offered for those securities in
the proposed transaction," the complaint states.

The plaintiff alleges the deal is unfair because the defendants
agreed to terms that discourage competing bids, including a "no
solicitation" provision that bans the board from soliciting other
buyers and forced it to terminate any on-going discussions with
other buyers.

"In addition to the 'no shop' and matching rights provisions, the
purchase agreement includes an unreasonable termination fee of
4.25 percent of any consideration received as a result of a
superior proposal," the complaint states.  "This will all but
ensure that no competing offer will be forthcoming."

The plaintiff also alleges the company's recommendation statement
is materially misleading and incomplete, that it fails to disclose
the 53 potential buyers identified by non-party Roth Capital
Partners LLC that were presented to the board in July.  In
particular, the plaintiff says the defendants failed to disclose
the outcome of "preliminary indications of interest" by two
parties referenced in the proxy materials.

"This information, which bears directly on the process undertaken
by the board and the fairness of the consideration offered by the
Heelys' shareholders, is material," the complaint states.  "The
omission of this information regarding the process and
consideration obtained renders all statements pertaining to the
board's belief that the proposed transaction provides a better
opportunity to the company's shareholders than any alternatives
available misleading."

The proposed class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for
breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting.  They are
represented by Balon Bradley of Dallas.

A copy of the Shareholders' Original Class Action Petition in
Gronkiewicz v. Martin, et al., Case No. DC-12-13910 (Tex. Dist.
Ct., Dallas Cty.), is available at http://is.gd/oQeB8O

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Balon B. Bradley, Esq.
          5473 Blair Road, Suite 100
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Telephone: 972-991-1582
          E-mail: balon@bbradleylaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          369 Lexingotn Ave., 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-983-9330


HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit against Hewlett-Packard Company and certain of its
officers.  The class action filed in United States District Court,
Northern District of California, and docketed under 4:12-cv-06074-
YGR is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of HP between
August 19, 2011 and November 19, 2012, both dates inclusive.  This
class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged
violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased HP securities during the
Class Period, you have until January 25, 2013 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 88804-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address and telephone number.

HP provides imaging and printing systems, computing systems, and
information technology services for business and personal use.
The Company's products include laser and inkjet printers,
scanners, copiers and faxes, personal computers, and other
computing and printing systems.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding
the Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, the Company made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) at the time the Company
acquired Autonomy, Autonomy's reported operating results and
historic growth were the product of accounting improprieties; (ii)
at the time the Company had agreed in principle to acquire
Autonomy, HP was looking to unwind the deal due to potential
accounting improprieties discovered in Autonomy's financial
statements; (iii) the Company engaged in inadequate due diligence
during the Autonomy acquisition and, as a result thereof, the
Company materially overpaid for Autonomy; (iv) the Company's
reported goodwill and acquired intangible assets were overstated
and would have to be written down; (v) Autonomy's operating margin
for its Enterprise Services segment was collapsing for several
reasons, including unfavorable revenue mix and underperforming
contracts; and (vi) as a result of the above, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On November 20, 2012, the Company disclosed a non-cash impairment
charge of $8.8 billion related to the Company's acquisition of
Autonomy. Moreover, the Company disclosed that for the first time
beginning in May, 2012, HP had commenced an internal investigation
regarding possible accounting fraud at Autonomy.  On this news, HP
shares declined $1.59 per share or nearly 12%, to close at $11.71
per share on November 20, 2012.


HSBC FINANCE: Awaits Approval of Settlement of Suits in MDL 1720
----------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance Corporation is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of class litigations consolidated in In re Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL
1720, 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.

Since June 2005, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC North America, and
HSBC Holdings plc ("HSBC"), as well as other banks and Visa Inc.
and Master Card Incorporated, have been named as defendants in
four class actions filed in Connecticut and the Eastern District
of New York; Photos Etc. Corp. et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.
(D. Conn. No. 05-CV-01007 (WWE)): National Association of
Convenience Stores, et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.(E.D.N.Y.
No. 05-CV 4520 (JG)); Jethro Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-4521 (JG)); and American
Booksellers Ass'n v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-
5391 (JG)).  Numerous other complaints containing similar
allegations (in which no HSBC entity is named) were filed across
the country against Visa Inc., MasterCard Incorporated and other
banks.  These actions principally allege that the imposition of a
no-surcharge rule by the associations and/or the establishment of
the interchange fee charged for credit card transactions causes
the merchant discount fee paid by retailers to be set at
supracompetitive levels in violation of the Federal antitrust
laws.  These lawsuits have been consolidated and transferred to
the Eastern District of New York.  The consolidated case is: In re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. ("MDL 1720").  A consolidated,
amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on April 24, 2006,
and a second consolidated amended complaint was filed on January
29, 2009.  On February 7, 2011, MasterCard Incorporated, Visa
Inc., the other defendants, including HSBC Finance Corporation,
and certain affiliates of the defendants entered into settlement
and judgment sharing agreements (the "Agreements") that provide
for the apportionment of certain defined costs and liabilities
that the defendants, including HSBC Finance Corporation and the
Company's affiliates, may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the
event of an adverse judgment or global settlement of one or all of
these actions.  The Agreements also cover any other potential or
future actions that are transferred for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings with MDL 1720.

The parties engaged in a mediation process at the direction of the
District Court.  In July 2012, MasterCard Incorporated, Visa Inc.
and the other defendants, including the HSBC defendants, entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") to settle the class
litigations consolidated into MDL 1720.  On October 19, 2012, the
parties submitted fully-executed class settlement agreements to
the District Court along with a motion seeking preliminary
approval of the class settlement.  On October 22, 2012, a
settlement agreement with the individual merchant plaintiffs
became effective.  In the fourth quarter of 2011, the Company
increased its litigation reserves to an amount equal to its
estimated portion of the settlement of this matter.


HSBC FINANCE: Class Action Suits Over Debt Cancellation Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance Corporation continues to defend class action lawsuits
commenced in various states challenging marketing practices
relating to debt cancellation or suspension products, 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.

Between July 2010 and May 2011, eight substantially similar
putative class actions were filed against the Company's
subsidiaries, HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. ("HSBC Bank Nevada") and HSBC
Card Services Inc.: Rizera et al v. HSBC Bank Nevada et al.
(D.N.J. No. 10-CV-03375); Esslinger et al v. HSBC Bank Nevada,
N.A. et al. (E.D. Pa. No. 10-CV-03213); McAlister et al. v. HSBC
Bank Nevada, N.A. et al. (W.D. Wash. No. 10-CV-05831); Mitchell v.
HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al. (D. Md. No. 10-CV-03232); Samuels v.
HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al. (N.D. III. No. 11-CV-00548);
McKinney v. HSBC Card Services et al. (S.D. III. No. 10-CV-00786);
Chastain v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. (South Carolina Court of Common
Pleas, 13th Circuit) (filed as a counterclaim to a pending
collections action); Colton et al. v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et
al. (C.D. Ca. No. 11-CV-03742).  These actions principally allege
that cardholders were enrolled in debt cancellation or suspension
products and challenge various marketing or administrative
practices relating to those products.  The plaintiffs' claims
include breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, unconscionability, unjust enrichment, and
violations of state consumer protection and deceptive acts and
practices statutes.  The Mitchell action was withdrawn by the
plaintiff in March 2011.  In July 2011, the parties in Rizera,
Esslinger, McAlister, Samuels, McKinney and Colton executed a
memorandum of settlement and filed notices of settlement of all
claims in each respective court.  The parties have memorialized
the terms and conditions of the settlement in a formal agreement,
and submitted the settlement on a consolidated basis for approval
by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania in the Esslinger matter.

In February 2012, the District Court granted preliminary approval
of the settlement and scheduled the final approval hearing for
October 1, 2012.  The Company says it is adequately reserved for
the proposed settlement.  A motion for class certification and a
motion to defer consideration of class certification pending
completion of the settlement were heard in the Chastain action.
The motion to defer was granted and the case placed on stay
pending progression of the consolidated settlement.  The plaintiff
in Chastain then sought reconsideration of the District Court's
preliminary approval order.  The request was denied and the
plaintiff has appealed that ruling.

On October 1, 2012, the District Court held a hearing for final
approval of the settlement in the Esslinger matter.  Several
objectors to the settlement appeared at the hearing, including
representatives for the Attorneys General in West Virginia, Hawaii
and Mississippi, where they asserted that claims brought in those
Attorneys General's lawsuits should not be covered by the release
in the Esslinger matter.  Defendants argued that all claims for
recovery by class members, whether brought by the Attorneys
General or otherwise, would be released pursuant to the Esslinger
class settlement.  The District Court requested further
submissions on this issue.  A final approval order has not been
entered.

                 Attorney Generals' Class Suits

In October 2011, the Attorney General for the State of West
Virginia filed a purported class action in the Circuit Court of
Mason County, West Virginia, captioned State of West Virginia ex
rel. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr. et al v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al.
(No. 11-C-93-N), alleging similar claims in connection with the
marketing, selling and administering of ancillary services,
including debt cancellation and suspension products to consumers
in West Virginia.  In September 2012, the Attorney General filed
an amended complaint adding the Company's affiliate, HSBC Bank
USA, N.A, as a defendant.  In addition to damages, the Attorney
General is seeking civil money penalties and injunctive relief.
The action was initially removed to Federal court.  The Attorney
General's motion to remand to State court was granted and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in March 2012.  In
late 2011, the Company received a similar inquiry from another
state's Attorney General, although no action has yet been filed in
that state.

In April 2012, the Attorney General for the State of Hawaii filed
lawsuits against seven major credit card companies, including
certain of the Company's subsidiaries, in the Circuit Court of the
First Circuit for the State of Hawaii, alleging that credit card
customers were improperly and deceptively enrolled in various
ancillary services, including payment protection plans and without
regard to potential eligibility for benefits.  In an action
captioned State of Hawaii ex rel David Louie, Attorney General v.
HSBC Bank Nevada N.A. and HSBC Card Services, Inc., et al. (No.
12-1-0983-04), the Attorney General alleges claims for unfair and
deceptive marketing practices, consumer fraud against elders and
unjust enrichment.  The relief sought includes an injunction
against deceptive and unfair practices, restitution and
disgorgement of profits, and civil monetary penalties.  The action
was removed to Federal court in May 2012.  In June 2012, the
Attorney General filed a motion to remand and a hearing on that
motion was scheduled for November 2012.  The Attorney General has
also filed a motion to consolidate these actions and a hearing on
that motion is scheduled for December 2012.

In June 2012, the Attorney General for the State of Mississippi
filed complaints against six credit card companies, including the
Company's subsidiaries HSBC Bank Nevada and HSBC Card Services
Inc. and the Company's affiliate HSBC Bank USA, N.A. In an action
captioned Jim Hood, Attorney General of the State of Mississippi,
ex. rel. The State of Mississippi v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., HSBC
Card Services, Inc., and HSBC Bank USA, N.A., the Attorney General
alleges claims that are substantially the same as those made in
the West Virginia and Hawaii Attorney General actions consumer
protection and unjust enrichment claims in connection with the
defendants' marketing, selling and administering of ancillary
services, including payment protection plans.  The relief sought
includes injunction against deceptive and unfair practices,
disgorgement of profits, and civil money penalties.  In August
2012, this action was removed to Federal court and the Attorney
General filed a motion to remand.  These actions have been
consolidated for purposes of remand and briefing on the Attorney
General's motion to remand has been stayed pending a decision by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on a matter to
which the Company is not a party.


HSBC FINANCE: Defends Class Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance
--------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance Corporation is defending class action lawsuits
related to lender-placed insurance, 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.

Lender-placed insurance involves a lender obtaining a hazard
insurance policy on a mortgaged property when the borrower fails
to maintain their own policy.  The cost of the lender-placed
insurance is then passed on to the borrower.  Industry practices
with respect to lender-placed insurance are receiving heightened
regulatory scrutiny.  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
recently announced that lender-placed insurance is an important
issue and is expected to publish related regulations sometime in
2012.  In October 2011, a number of mortgage servicers and
insurers, including the Company's affiliate, HSBC Insurance (USA)
Inc., received subpoenas from the New York Department of Financial
Services (the "NYDFS") with respect to lender-placed insurance
activities dating back to September 2005.  The Company has and
will continue to provide documentation and information to the
NYDFS that is responsive to the subpoena.

Between June 2011 and March 2012, several putative class actions
related to lender-placed insurance were filed against various HSBC
U.S. entities, including an action against one of the Company's
subsidiaries captioned Still et al. v. Beneficial Financial I Inc.
et al. (Cal. Super. Ct. Case No. KC062390).  These actions relate
primarily to industry-wide regulatory concerns, and include
allegations regarding the relationships and potential conflicts of
interest between the various entities that place the insurance,
the value and cost of the insurance that is placed, back-dating
policies to the date the borrower allowed it to lapse, self-
dealing and insufficient disclosure.

A recent routine state examination of the Company's mortgage
servicing practices concluded that borrowers were overcharged for
lender-placed hazard insurance coverage based on the terms of the
underlying mortgages during the period from July 2008 through
April 2012, and required the Company to refund excess premiums
charged to impacted borrowers in that state.  In the first quarter
of 2012, the Company recorded an accrual reflecting its estimate
of premiums that will be refunded to the impacted borrowers as
well as borrowers in other states who may have similar contractual
claims.


HSBC FINANCE: Still Awaits Final Decision in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance Corporation is still awaiting entry of a final
judgment in a securities class action lawsuit filed against its
predecessor company, 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.

As a result of an August 2002 restatement of previously reported
consolidated financial statements and other corporate events,
including the 2002 settlement with 46 states and the District of
Columbia relating to real estate lending practices, Household
International Inc., the predecessor of the Company, and certain
former officers were named as defendants in a class action
lawsuit, Jaffe v. Household International, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill.
No. 02 C5893), filed August 19, 2002.  The complaint asserted
claims under Section 10 and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, on behalf of all persons who acquired and disposed of
Household International common stock between July 30, 1999, and
October 11, 2002.  The claims alleged that the defendants
knowingly or recklessly made false and misleading statements of
material fact relating to Household's Consumer Lending operations,
including collections, sales and lending practices, some of which
ultimately led to the 2002 state settlement agreement, and facts
relating to accounting practices evidenced by the restatement.

A jury trial concluded on April 30, 2009, and the jury rendered a
verdict on May 7 partially in favor of the plaintiffs with respect
to Household International and three former officers.  A second
phase of the case was to proceed to determine the actual damages,
if any, due to the plaintiff class and issues of reliance.  On
November 22, 2010, the Court issued a ruling on the second phase
of the case.  On the issue of reliance, the Court ruled that claim
forms would be mailed to class members and that class members who
file claims would be asked to check a "YES" or "NO" box to a
question that asks whether they would have purchased Household
stock had they known false and misleading statements inflated the
stock price.  As for damages, the Court set out a method for
calculating damages for class members who file claims.  As
previously reported, in Court filings in March 2010, plaintiff's
lawyers have estimated that damages could range 'somewhere between
$2.4 billion to $3.2 billion to class members', before pre-
judgment interest.  The defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration from the Court's November 22 ruling.  On January
14, 2011, the Court partially granted that motion, slightly
modifying the claim form, allowing defendants to take limited
discovery on the issue of reliance and reserving on the issue
whether the defendants would ultimately be entitled to a jury
trial on the issues of reliance and damages.  On January 31, 2011
and April 7, 2011, the Court issued other rulings clarifying the
scope of discovery.  Plaintiffs mailed the claim forms with the
modified language to class members.

In December 2011, plaintiffs submitted the report of the Court-
appointed claims administrator to the Court.  That report stated
that the total number of claims that generated an allowed loss was
45,921, and that the aggregate amount of these claims was
approximately $2.23 billion.  Defendants have submitted their
objections to certain claims and the plaintiffs have filed their
response.  At a conference held before the Court on April 20,
2012, the Court referred the issues relating to the claims to a
magistrate judge for resolution.  Plaintiffs objected to this
referral.

In September 2012, the Court issued a ruling on the element of
reliance in this case.  The Court denied defendants' motion in
part and granted it in part.  The Court rejected defendants'
arguments that the presumption of reliance generally had been
defeated either as to the class or as to particular institutional
claimants.  With respect to those claimants who answered "NO" to
the question on the claims form, the Court ruled that such
claimants are entitled to judgment as to liability.  With respect
to those claimants who answered "YES" to the question on the
claims form, or who provided inconsistent answers in multiple
claim form submissions, the Court ruled that further trial
proceedings would be required.  Finally, the Court ruled that
defendants were entitled to judgment with respect to those
claimants who did not answer the claim form question or the
supplemental interrogatory sent to class members.  The Court
appointed a Special Master to apply its order and to identify (1)
the claims on which plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a
matter of law (currently estimated to be approximately $1.5
billion prior to pre-judgment interest); (2) the claims on which
defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law (currently
estimated to be approximately $275 million); and (3) the claims
subject to trial.  The Special Master is also to address the
various ministerial claims issues previously referred to the
Magistrate Judge relating to the processing of claims by the
Court-appointed claims administrator.  The Special Master has not
yet scheduled hearings with the parties.  The District Court has
yet to enter a final judgment.

The Company says the timing and outcome of the ultimate resolution
of this matter is uncertain.  When a final judgment is entered by
the District Court, the parties have 30 days in which to appeal
the verdict to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Company
continues to believe that it has meritorious grounds for appeal of
one or more of the rulings in the case and intends to appeal the
Court's final judgment, which could involve a substantial amount
once it is entered.

Upon appeal, the Company will be required to secure the judgment
in order to suspend execution of the judgment while the appeal is
ongoing by depositing cash in an interest-bearing escrow account
or posting an appeal bond in the amount of the judgment (including
any pre-judgment interest awarded).  Given the complexity and
uncertainties associated with the actual determination of damages,
including the outcome of any appeals, there is a wide range of
possible damages.  The Company believes it has meritorious grounds
for appeal on matters of both liability and damages, and will
argue on appeal that damages should be zero or a relatively
insignificant amount.  If the Appeals Court rejects or only
partially accepts the Company's arguments, the amount of damages,
including pre-judgment interest, could be higher, and may lie in a
range from a relatively insignificant amount to somewhere in the
region of $3.5 billion and, therefore, it is reasonably possible
that future expenses related to this matter could exceed $3.0
billion.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Remaining Mortgage Foreclosure Suits Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to defend itself against remaining
class action lawsuits related to mortgage foreclosures, according
to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

Six purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Firm
relating to its mortgage foreclosure procedures.  Two of the class
actions have been dismissed with prejudice and one settled on an
individual basis.  Of the remaining active actions, one is in the
discovery phase and the other two have motions to dismiss pending.
Additionally, the purported class action brought against Bank of
America involving a loan by EMC Mortgage LLC (formerly EMC
Mortgage Corporation) ("EMC"), an indirect subsidiary of JPMorgan
Chase & Co., has been dismissed.

New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a financial holding
company.  The Company is a global financial services firm and a
banking institution in the United States, with global operations.
The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial services
for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking, financial
transaction processing, asset management and private equity.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Face Suits Over LIBOR Investigations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to face lawsuits arising from
investigations related to London Interbank Offered Rate, according
to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (the "Firm") has received subpoenas and
requests for documents and, in some cases, interviews, from the
U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"), Commodity Futures Trading
Commission ("CFTC"), SEC, European Commission, UK Financial
Services Authority, Canadian Competition Bureau, Swiss Competition
Commission and other regulatory authorities and banking
associations around the world.  The documents and information
sought relate primarily to the process by which interest rates
were submitted to the British Bankers Association ("BBA") in
connection with the setting of the BBA's London Interbank Offered
Rate ("LIBOR") for various currencies, principally in 2007 and
2008.  Some of the other inquiries also relate to similar
processes by which information on rates is submitted to European
Banking Federation ("EBF") in connection with the setting of the
EBF's Euro Interbank Offered Rates ("EURIBOR") and to the Japanese
Bankers' Association for the setting of Tokyo Interbank Offered
Rates ("TIBOR") as well as to other processes for the setting of
other reference rates in various parts of the world during similar
time periods.  The Firm is cooperating with these inquiries.

In addition, the Firm has been named as a defendant along with
other banks in a series of individual and class actions filed in
various United States District Courts alleging that since 2005 the
defendants either individually suppressed the LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR
or EURIBOR rates artificially or colluded in submitting rates that
were artificially low.  Plaintiffs allege that they transacted in
loans, derivatives or other financial instruments whose values are
impacted by changes in U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR
or EURIBOR, and assert a variety of claims including antitrust
claims seeking treble damages.

The U.S. dollar LIBOR actions have been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  In November 2011, the Court entered an
Order appointing interim lead counsel for two proposed classes:
(i) plaintiffs who allegedly purchased U.S. dollar LIBOR-based
financial instruments directly from the defendants in the over-
the-counter market, and (ii) plaintiffs who allegedly purchased
U.S. dollar LIBOR-based financial instruments on an exchange.  In
March 2012, the Court also accepted the transfer of a related
action which seeks to bring claims on behalf of a proposed class
consisting of purchasers of debt securities that pay an interest
rate linked to U.S. dollar LIBOR.  In June 2012, the defendants
moved to dismiss all claims in the U.S. dollar LIBOR individual
and purported class actions.  In July 2012, the Court consolidated
with the pending U.S. dollar LIBOR actions a recently filed action
which asserts claims on behalf of a proposed class consisting of
U.S. community banks that issued loans with interest rates tied to
U.S. dollar LIBOR.

Since July 2012, three new actions have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
first action seeks to bring claims on behalf of a proposed class
consisting of all lending institutions which are either
headquartered or have a majority of their operations in the State
of New York and which originated or purchased loans paying
interest rates tied to U.S. dollar LIBOR.  The second action seeks
to bring claims on behalf of a proposed class composed of
purchasers of over-the-counter transactions in U.S. dollar-based
derivatives from certain non-party commercial banking and
insurance institutions in the United States.  The third action
seeks to bring claims on behalf of a proposed class of all persons
and entities who owned a preferred equity security on which
dividends are payable at a rate tied to U.S. dollar LIBOR.  These
actions have not yet been consolidated with the other U.S. dollar
LIBOR actions.

The Firm also has been named as a defendant in two additional
purported class actions filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  One of these actions seeks
to bring claims on behalf of plaintiffs who allegedly purchased or
sold exchange-traded Euroyen futures and options contracts.  The
other action seeks to bring claims on behalf of plaintiffs in the
United States who allegedly purchased or sold EURIBOR-related
financial instruments, either on an exchange or in over-the-
counter transactions.

New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a financial holding
company.  The Company is a global financial services firm and a
banking institution in the United States, with global operations.
The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial services
for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking, financial
transaction processing, asset management and private equity.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Hearing on Overdraft Fees Suit Deal This Month
--------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing has been scheduled for this month in
connection with JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s $110 million settlement of
a consolidated lawsuit related to overdraft fees involving a
subsidiary, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. has been named as a defendant in several
purported class actions relating to its practices in posting debit
card transactions to customers' deposit accounts.  Plaintiffs
allege that the Firm improperly re-ordered debit card transactions
from the highest amount to the lowest amount before processing
these transactions in order to generate unwarranted overdraft
fees.  Plaintiffs contend that the Firm should have processed such
transactions in the chronological order they were authorized.
Plaintiffs seek the disgorgement of all overdraft fees paid to the
Firm by plaintiffs since approximately 2003 as a result of the re-
ordering of debit card transactions.  The claims against the Firm
have been consolidated with numerous complaints against other
national banks in multi-District litigation pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The
Firm has reached an agreement to settle this matter in exchange
for the Firm paying $110 million and agreeing to change certain
overdraft fee practices.  On May 24, 2012, the Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduled a final
approval hearing in December 2012.

New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a financial holding
company.  The Company is a global financial services firm and a
banking institution in the United States, with global operations.
The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial services
for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking, financial
transaction processing, asset management and private equity.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Defends Class Suits Related to MBS Offerings
------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to defend lawsuits arising from its
and its subsidiaries' roles in mortgage-backed securities
offerings, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (the "Firm") and affiliates, The Bear Stearns
Companies LLC and affiliates and Washington Mutual Inc. affiliates
have been named as defendants in a number of cases in their
various roles as issuer, originator or underwriter in mortgage-
backed securities ("MBS") offerings.  These cases include
purported class action lawsuits, actions by individual purchasers
of securities or by trustees for the benefit of purchasers of
securities, and actions by monoline insurance companies that
guaranteed payments of principal and interest for particular
tranches of securities offerings.  Although the allegations vary
by lawsuit, these cases generally allege that the offering
documents for securities issued by dozens of securitization trusts
contained material misrepresentations and omissions, including
with regard to the underwriting standards pursuant to which the
underlying mortgage loans were issued, or assert that various
representations or warranties relating to the loans were breached
at the time of origination.  There are currently pending and
tolled investor claims involving approximately $130 billion of
such securities.  In addition, there are pending and threatened
claims by monoline insurers and by and on behalf of trustees that
involve some of these and other securitizations.

In the actions against the Firm as an MBS issuer (and, in some
cases, also as an underwriter of its own MBS offerings), three
purported class actions are pending against JPMorgan Chase and
Bear Stearns, and/or certain of their affiliates and current and
former employees, in the United States District Courts for the
Eastern and Southern Districts of New York.  Defendants moved to
dismiss these actions.  In the first of these three actions, the
Court dismissed claims relating to all but one of the offerings.
In the second action, the Court dismissed claims as to certain
offerings and tranches for lack of standing, but allowed claims to
proceed relating to some offerings and certificates, including
ones raised by intervening plaintiffs; both sides have sought to
appeal these rulings.  In the third action, the Court largely
denied defendants' motion to dismiss, and defendants have sought
to appeal certain aspects of the decision.  In a fourth purported
class action pending in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Washington Mutual affiliates, WaMu
Asset Acceptance Corp. and WaMu Capital Corp., along with certain
former officers or directors of WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp., have
been named as defendants.  The Court there denied plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend their complaint to add JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A., as a defendant on the theory that it is a successor to
Washington Mutual Bank.  In October 2011, the Court certified a
class of plaintiff investors to pursue the claims asserted but
limited those claims to the 13 tranches of MBS in which a named
plaintiff purchased. Expert discovery is proceeding.  In July
2012, the Court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Trial was scheduled to begin in September 2012.

In addition to class actions, the Firm is also a defendant in
individual actions brought against certain affiliates of JPMorgan
Chase, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual as issuers (and, in some
cases, as underwriters) of MBS.  These actions involve claims by
or to benefit various institutional investors and governmental
agencies.  These actions are pending in federal and state courts
across the United States and are at various stages of litigation.

EMC Mortgage LLC (formerly EMC Mortgage Corporation) ("EMC"), an
indirect subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co., and certain other
JPMorgan Chase entities currently are defendants in seven pending
actions commenced by bond insurers that guaranteed payments of
principal and interest on approximately $5 billion of certain
classes of 17 different MBS offerings.  These actions are pending
in federal and state courts in New York and are in various stages
of litigation.

In actions against the Firm solely as an underwriter of other
issuers' MBS offerings, the Firm has contractual rights to
indemnification from the issuers.  However, those indemnity rights
may prove effectively unenforceable where the issuers are now
defunct, such as in pending cases where the Firm has been named
involving affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp and Thornburg Mortgage.
The Firm may also be contractually obligated to indemnify
underwriters in certain deals it issued.

The Firm or its affiliates are defendants in actions brought by
trustees of various MBS trusts and others on behalf of the
purchasers of securities issued by those trusts.  The first action
was commenced by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, acting as
trustee for various MBS trusts, against the Firm and the FDIC
based on MBS issued by Washington Mutual Bank and its affiliates.
The other actions are at various initial stages of litigation in
the New York and Delaware state courts, including actions brought
by MBS trustees, each specific to a single MBS transaction,
against EMC and/or JPMorgan Chase, and an action brought by the
Federal Housing Finance Agency, as conservator for Freddie Mac,
related to three trusts, against a WaMu affiliate and the Firm.
These cases generally allege breaches of various representations
and warranties regarding securitized loans and seek repurchase of
those loans, as well as indemnification of attorneys' fees and
costs and other remedies.

The Firm says there is no assurance that it will not be named as a
defendant in additional MBS-related litigation, and the Firm has
entered into agreements with a number of entities that purchased
such securities that toll applicable limitations periods with
respect to their claims.  In addition, the Firm has received
several demands by securitization trustees that threaten
litigation, as well as demands by investors directing or
threatening to direct trustees to investigate claims or bring
litigation, based on purported obligations to repurchase loans out
of securitization trusts and alleged servicing deficiencies.
These include but are not limited to a demand from a law firm, as
counsel to a group of purchasers of MBS that purport to have 25%
or more of the voting rights in as many as 191 different trusts
sponsored by the Firm or its affiliates with an original principal
balance of more than $174 billion (excluding 52 trusts sponsored
by Washington Mutual, with an original principal balance of more
than $58 billion), made to various trustees to investigate
potential repurchase and servicing claims.  Further, there have
been repurchase and servicing claims made in litigation against
trustees not affiliated with the Firm, but involving trusts the
Firm sponsored.

In April 2012, the Court granted the Firm's motion to dismiss a
shareholder complaint filed in New York Supreme Court against the
Firm and two affiliates, members of the boards of directors
thereof and certain employees, asserting claims based on alleged
wrongful actions and inactions relating to residential mortgage
originations and securitizations.  The Plaintiff may appeal the
order.  A second shareholder complaint has been filed in New York
Supreme Court against current and former members of the Firm's
Board of Directors and the Firm, as nominal defendant, alleging
that the Board allowed the Firm to engage in wrongful conduct
regarding the sale of residential MBS and failed to implement
adequate internal controls to prevent such wrongdoing.

New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a financial holding
company.  The Company is a global financial services firm and a
banking institution in the United States, with global operations.
The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial services
for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking, financial
transaction processing, asset management and private equity.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Defends Four CIO-Related Securities Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is defending four securities class action
lawsuits related to synthetic credit portfolio held by its Chief
Investment Office ("CIO"), according to the Company's August 9,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Four putative class actions alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder have been brought on behalf of alleged classes of
purchasers of the Firm's common stock during varying periods
ranging from less than one month to more than two years.  These
actions generally allege that the Firm and certain current and
former officers made false or misleading statements concerning
CIO's trading practices and financial performance.

New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a financial holding
company.  The Company is a global financial services firm and a
banking institution in the United States, with global operations.
The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial services
for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking, financial
transaction processing, asset management and private equity.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces New Complaint in Jefferson Cty., Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is facing a "Complaint in Intervention" filed
by a group of purported creditors of Jefferson County, Alabama
alleging that certain warrants were issued unlawfully and were
thus null and void, according to the Company's August 9, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Civil actions have been commenced against JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(the "Firm") relating to certain Jefferson County, Alabama (the
"County") warrant underwritings and swap transactions.  In
November 2009, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC settled with the SEC to
resolve its investigation into those transactions.  Following that
settlement, the County filed complaints against the Firm and
several other defendants in Alabama state court.  An action on
behalf of a purported class of sewer rate payers has also been
filed in Alabama state court.  The lawsuits allege that the Firm
made payments to certain third parties in exchange for being
chosen to underwrite more than $3 billion in warrants issued by
the County and to act as the counterparty for certain swaps
executed by the County.  The complaints also allege that the Firm
concealed these third-party payments and that, but for this
concealment, the County would not have entered into the
transactions.  The Court denied the Firm's motions to dismiss the
complaints in both proceedings.  The Firm filed mandamus petitions
with the Alabama Supreme Court, seeking immediate appellate review
of these decisions.  The mandamus petition in the County's lawsuit
was denied in April 2011.

In November and December 2011, the County filed notices of
bankruptcy with the trial court in each of the cases and with the
Alabama Supreme Court stating that it was a Chapter 9 Debtor in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama and
providing notice of the automatic stay.  Subsequently, the portion
of the sewer rate payer action involving claims against the Firm
was removed by certain defendants to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama.  In its order finding
that removal of this action was proper, the District Court
referred the action to the District's Bankruptcy Court, where the
action remains pending.

In July 2012, a group of purported creditors of the County filed a
"Complaint in Intervention" in an adversary proceeding between the
indenture trustee for the warrants and certain County creditors
(including the Firm) and the County, alleging that certain
warrants were issued unlawfully and were thus null and void.  The
proposed intervenors also filed a motion seeking certification of
a class of approximately 130,000 homeowners.

New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a financial holding
company.  The Company is a global financial services firm and a
banking institution in the United States, with global operations.
The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial services
for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking, financial
transaction processing, asset management and private equity.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Suit Filed by Retirement Plan Participants
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is facing a securities class action lawsuit
brought by participants of its retirement and other plans,
according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

A putative class action has been brought on behalf of participants
in certain of the Firm's retirement and other plans during the
period after April 12, 2012, who held the Firm's common stock in
those plans.  This action asserts claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") for alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by the Firm, certain affiliates and
certain current and former directors and officers in connection
with the management of those plans.  The complaint generally
alleges that defendants breached the duty of prudence by allowing
investment in the Firm's common stock when they knew or should
have known that it was unsuitable for the plans' investment and
that the Firm and certain current and former officers made false
or misleading statements concerning the soundness of the Firm's
common stock and the prudence of investing in the Firm's common
stock.

New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a financial holding
company.  The Company is a global financial services firm and a
banking institution in the United States, with global operations.
The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial services
for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking, financial
transaction processing, asset management and private equity.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Responds to Suits Related to CIO Portfolio
----------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. disclosed in its August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it is responding to
investigations and litigations related to the synthetic credit
portfolio of its chief investment office.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (the "Firm") is responding to a series of
class actions, shareholder derivative actions, shareholder demands
and government investigations relating to the synthetic credit
portfolio of the Firm's Chief Investment Office ("CIO").  The Firm
has received requests for documents and information in connection
with governmental inquiries and investigations by Congress, the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ("OCC"), the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the "Federal Reserve"),
the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"), the SEC, the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC"), UK Financial Services
Authority, the State of Massachusetts and other government
agencies, including in Japan, Singapore and Germany.  The Firm is
cooperating with these investigations.

New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a financial holding
company.  The Company is a global financial services firm and a
banking institution in the United States, with global operations.
The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial services
for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking, financial
transaction processing, asset management and private equity.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Seeks Dismissal of Madoff-Related Suits in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012, that it has moved to dismiss Madoff-related
lawsuits pending in New York.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (the "Firm"), JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC, and J.P. Morgan Securities plc have been
named as defendants in a lawsuit brought by the trustee (the
"Trustee") for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment
Securities LLC ("Madoff").

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (the "Firm") is a defendant in five other
Madoff-related actions pending in New York state court and one
purported class action in federal District Court in New York.  The
allegations in all of these actions are essentially identical, and
involve claims against the Firm for, among other things, aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and unjust
enrichment.  The Firm has moved to dismiss both the state and
federal actions.

New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a financial holding
company.  The Company is a global financial services firm and a
banking institution in the United States, with global operations.
The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial services
for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking, financial
transaction processing, asset management and private equity.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Awaits Approval of Interchange Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. disclosed in its August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it is awaiting court approval of
a $6.05 billion settlement of a consolidated interchange fee-
related litigation it entered into in July 2012.

A group of merchants and retail associations filed a series of
putative class action complaints relating to interchange in
several federal courts.  The complaints allege, among other
claims, that Visa and MasterCard, as well as certain other banks,
conspired to set the price of credit and debit card interchange
fees, enacted respective rules in violation of antitrust laws, and
engaged in tying/bundling and exclusive dealing.  All cases were
consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York for pretrial proceedings.

In July 2012, Visa, Inc., its wholly-owned subsidiaries Visa
U.S.A. Inc. and Visa International Service Association, MasterCard
Incorporated, MasterCard International Incorporated and various
United States financial institution defendants, including JPMorgan
Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Chase Bank USA, N.A.,
Chase Paymentech Solutions, LLC and certain predecessor
institutions, signed a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") to
enter into a settlement agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") to
resolve the claims of the U.S. merchant and retail association
plaintiffs (the "Class Plaintiffs") in the multi-district
litigation ("MDL 1720").  The MOU outlines certain conditions
precedent to a settlement including: (i) requisite corporate
approvals, (ii) reaching agreement on certain appendices to the
Settlement Agreement, and (iii) reaching negotiated settlements
with the individual plaintiffs whose claims were consolidated with
MDL 1720.  The Settlement Agreement with the Class Plaintiffs is
subject to court approval.

The Settlement Agreement provides, among other things, that a cash
payment of $6.05 billion will be made to the Class Plaintiffs, of
which the Firm's share is approximately 20%.  The Class Plaintiffs
will also receive an amount equal to ten basis points of
interchange for a period of eight months as provided in the
Settlement Agreement.  The eight month period will begin after the
Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement. The
Settlement Agreement also provides for modifications to the credit
card networks' rules, including those that prohibit surcharging
credit transactions.  The Settlement Agreement is subject to final
documentation and approval by the Court.

New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a financial holding
company.  The Company is a global financial services firm and a
banking institution in the United States, with global operations.
The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial services
for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking, financial
transaction processing, asset management and private equity.


KIT DIGITAL: Two Law Firms File Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
on Nov. 30 disclosed that they have filed a class action lawsuit
against KIT digital, Inc. and five of its current and former
officers.  The lawsuit, captioned Slattery v. KIT digital Inc. et
al., 12-CV-8732, is pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired KIT's common stock during the period May 19, 2009 through
November 21, 2012.

The complaint asserts that Defendants, made false and misleading
statements and omissions regarding the Company's internal
financial controls and its accounting for revenue primarily
relating to certain perpetual software license agreements.  These
statements are alleged to have been false and misleading when made
because:  (i) the Company was suffering from grossly deficient
internal controls and therefore was susceptible to accounting
fraud; (ii) Defendants failed to disclose the true nature of the
accounting irregularities regarding their tax issues and loan
provisions; and (iii) the Company's financial statements were
inaccurate in numerous material respects.

If you are a member of the Class, you may, no later than January
29, 2013, request that the court appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for
the Class.  You may contact the attorneys at Block & Leviton or
Wolf Haldenstein to discuss your rights in the case.  You may also
retain counsel of your choice and you need not take any action at
this time to be a class member.  If you have any questions
regarding your rights related to this action or have information
relevant to the claims asserted in the complaint, please contact
Steven P. Harte, Esq. of Block & Leviton, LLP at (617) 398-5600 or
steven@blockesq.com or Gregory Nespole, Esq. of Wolf Haldenstein
at (212) 545-4657 or Nespole@whafh.com


LONG ISLAND: Faces Hurricane Negligence Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a negligence class action in
Nassau County Court claims the Long Island Power Authority and
National Grid USA Service Co. discussed hurricane preparation for
just "40 seconds" at a pre-storm meeting, and did not communicate
basic information to their customers.


MASCO CORP: Files Renewed Judgment Bid in "Von Der Werth" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Masco Corporation 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 it filed a renewed motion
for judgment in October 2012 in the class action lawsuit brought
by Albert Von Der Werth and Valerie Good.

In March 2007, Albert Von Der Werth and Valerie Good filed a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company, its subsidiary Masco
Contractor Services, and several insulation manufacturers seeking
class action status and alleging anticompetitive conduct (the "Von
Der Werth case").  In the Von Der Werth case, plaintiffs allege
that the alleged conspiracy in the Columbus Drywall case
indirectly resulted in an increase in the retail price of
fiberglass insulation they purchased from retailers from 1999 to
2004.  The Von Der Werth case was subsequently transferred to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
and was administratively stayed by the court in February 2010.
The Company, along with its insulation manufacturer co-defendants,
filed a Renewed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in October
2012.  Based upon the advice of its outside counsel, the Company
believes that the conduct of the Company and its insulation
installation companies, which is the subject of the Von Der Werth
case, has not violated any antitrust laws.  While there cannot be
any assurance that the Company will ultimately prevail in this
lawsuit, the Company does not believe that the ultimate
disposition of the Von Der Werth case will be material to the
Company.


MEDTRONICS INC: Awaits Final Approval of INFUSE Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronics Inc. is awaiting final approval of a settlement
resolving a securities class action complaint relating to the
INFUSE bone graft product, according to the Company's September 5,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 27, 2012.

On December 10, 2008, the Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief
Association filed a putative class action complaint against the
Company and certain current and former officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging violations
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 in connection with the INFUSE bone graft product.  On
March 30, 2012, the Company announced that the parties had agreed
to a class-wide settlement, pending notification to class members
and subject to final court approval.

The Company recorded an expense of $90 million related to probable
and reasonably estimated damages under U.S. GAAP in connection
with the settlement in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012, and
paid out the applicable portion of such funds to the plaintiffs'
trust account in August 2012.

Based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Medtronic Inc. is a large medical
technology company and is a Fortune 500 company.


MORTGAGE GUARANTY: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Mortgage Daily reports that when a Pennsylvania attorney was
rejected by Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corp. for a mortgage
insurance policy because she was on maternity leave, she hired
attorneys and complained to the Department of Housing and Urban
Development.  A settlement in the case, which subsequently
snowballed into a class action, has been approved by a federal
judge.

The legal battle started two years ago when MGIC required that the
borrower return to work in order to be approved for a refinance.

So the borrower complained to HUD and then hired two attorneys.
The Justice Department joined the effort, and about 80 women were
identified whose loans were denied or delayed because of MGIC's
concern with their maternity status -- in violation of federal
fair housing laws -- according to the lawsuits.


NORTHWEST BANCSHARES: "Toth" Suit Remains Pending in Penn. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit styled Toth v. Northwest Savings Bank filed
remains pending in Pennsylvania, according to Northwest
Bancshares, 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 May 7, 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in an alleged
class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, captioned as Toth v. Northwest
Savings Bank, No. GD-12-8014.  The Complaint challenges the manner
in which debit card transaction overdraft fees were charged and
the policies related to the posting order of debit card
transactions.  The Complaint asserts various claims under state
law and seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees.  The
Company filed preliminary objections seeking dismissal of the case
on June 29, 2012.  In response, the plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint on September 6, 2012.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the
plaintiff's claims and to oppose any effort to certify a class in
this case.  At this stage of the lawsuit, it is not yet possible
to estimate potential losses, if any.  Although it is not possible
to predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability with
respect to this litigation, management after consultation with
legal counsel, currently does not anticipate that the aggregate
liability, if any, arising out of this proceeding will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, or
cash flows; although, at the present time, management is not in a
position to determine whether such proceeding will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations in any
future quarterly reporting period.


NORTHWEST BANCSHARES: Summary Judgment Bid Pending in "Daly" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions for summary judgment and class certification are pending
in the lawsuit captioned Daly v. Northwest Savings Bank, according
to Northwest Bancshares, 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 July 11, 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in an
alleged class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, captioned as Daly
v. Northwest Savings Bank, No. 2:11-cv-00911-DSC.  The Complaint
challenges the credit disclosures provided to residential mortgage
loan applicants and the policies related to the residential
mortgage loan application process and the prequalification request
process.  The Complaint asserts statutory claims under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681g(g), and seeks statutory
damages and attorneys' fees.  The Company has filed a motion for
summary judgment and intends to continue to vigorously defend
against the plaintiff's claims.  The plaintiff has filed a motion
for class certification and the Company subsequently filed an
opposition.  Both motions are presently pending before the Court.

At this stage of the lawsuit, the Company says it is not yet
possible to estimate potential losses, if any.  Although it is not
possible to predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability
with respect to this litigation, management, after consultation
with legal counsel, currently does not anticipate that the
aggregate liability, if any, arising out of this proceeding will
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position, or cash flows; although, at the present time, management
is not in a position to determine whether such proceeding will
have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of
operations in any future quarterly reporting period.


ORION BANK: Settlement Reached in Class Action v. Former CEO
------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Layden, writing for Naples Daily News, reports that a
settlement has been struck in a federal class-action lawsuit
brought against the former boss of Orion Bank.

Court records show the case -- brought by the bank's former
employees who hoped to recover some of their lost money -- settled
after a mediation hearing Nov. 13.

Jerry Williams, the bank's former CEO, president and chairman,
sits in an Alabama prison after pleading guilty for his
involvement in a bank fraud conspiracy earlier this year.

Former bank employees who invested millions in the company's now-
worthless stock filed the lawsuit in hopes of getting at least
some of their investment back.

"The settlement is a confidential agreement," said Thomas
Buchanan, one of Mr. Williams' attorneys based in Washington, D.C.

The settlement agreement still must be finalized and approved by
the court, he said.  That could happen within 30 days.

After he was sentenced to six years in prison in June, Mr.
Williams was ordered to pay more than $31 million in restitution
for his crimes, most of which will go to the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corp. for its losses on the bank's fraudulent loans.
None of the money he's been ordered to pay will go to Orion's
former employees, some of whom invested their life savings in the
failed Naples bank.  They're not entitled to restitution under
federal law.

Employees originally sued Orion Bancorp Inc., the bank's holding
company, and its directors in 2010, seeking money they lost in a
company retirement plan.  In the plan, employees invested mostly
in Orion stock.

According to the lawsuit, 96 percent of the retirement plan's
assets -- more than $33 million -- were invested in privately held
Orion shares.  Employees alleged violations of the Employee
Retirement Security Act of 1974, which is meant to ensure the
soundness and stability of plans to make sure they pay their
promised benefits.

Orion's holding company and its other directors were ultimately
dropped from the class-action after a judge dismissed most of the
claims in the suit last year.

The judge's ruling left Mr. Williams as the only defendant and
allowed the former employees to only go after the fallen banker
for the personal stock he sold to the retirement plan before Orion
collapsed in 2009.

After the court's ruling last year, Joseph White, a Boca Raton
attorney representing the Orion employees, said the lawsuit had
potentially gone from a $35 million case, down to a $1 million
one.  He could not immediately be reached for comment on Nov. 29
about the settlement, which became public this week in court
records.

In June 2008, Mr. Williams sold 18,182 shares of his personal
Orion stock for $55 a piece to the employee retirement plan, for a
little over $1 million.  Because the plan had no money to buy the
shares, the plan had to borrow money, putting it in debt,
according to court records.

The settlement of the class-action would end the last legal battle
for Mr. Williams involving the failed bank.

Bill Bartels, one of the original plaintiffs in the class-action
lawsuit who later dropped out of it, said on Nov. 29 he had heard
nothing about a settlement.

"I'm not overly optimistic," he said.  "Things have not been going
well so far."

If the settlement was that good, he said, he would have likely
heard about it by now from someone involved in the case.

Mr. Bartels, Orion's former human resources director, worked for
the bank for 12 years and estimates he lost a nest egg once valued
at more than $700,000.

In the scheme that sent Mr. Williams and his co-conspirators to
prison, more than $80 million in loans were made to a borrower,
who was over his loan limit, with $15 million returned to the bank
for the illegal purchase of stock.  The loans were designed to
trick regulators and to make the bank appear in better financial
shape than it was as it teetered on the edge of collapse.

Former employees allege that even as the bank was failing they
were encouraged to invest in the retirement plan and to continue
buying company stock.

At the sentencing, Patrick Miller, a former senior vice president
for Orion and a plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit, described
how he and others invested their life savings in the bank "at the
constant demands and intimidation" of Mr. Williams.

"Many of us felt our job would be in jeopardy if we did not," he
said in court.  "Over time he repeatedly misrepresented to us,
with deceitful promises and lies, that our investment was safe and
managed with high standards of honesty and integrity."


PHI INC: "Superior Offshore" Class Action Suit Now Concluded
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit initiated by Superior Offshore
International Inc. is now concluded, according to PHI, Inc.'s
November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The purported class action captioned Superior Offshore
International Inc. v. Bristow Group Inc., ERA Helicopters, LLC,
Seacor Holdings Inc., ERA Group Inc., ERA Aviation, Inc., and PHI,
Inc., Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-00438, on the docket of the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware, was filed on
June 12, 2009, on behalf of a class defined to include all direct
purchasers of offshore helicopter services in the Gulf of Mexico
from the defendants at any time from January 1, 2001, through
December 31, 2005.  The lawsuit alleged that the defendants acted
jointly to fix, maintain, or stabilize prices for offshore
helicopter services during the time frame in violation of the
federal antitrust laws.  The plaintiff sought unspecified treble
damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees.

On June 23, 2011, the court granted the defendants' motion for
summary judgment, entered final judgment in favor of the
defendants, and dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims.  On
July 22, 2011, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, and on July 27, 2012, that
court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment,
dismissing the case.  The time for any further appeals by
plaintiff has expired and this case is now concluded.


SPI ELECTRICITY: New Courtroom for Class Action Not Yet Ready
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Deery, writing for Herald Sun, reports that a new super-
sized courtroom to be built to accommodate Victoria's biggest
class action will not be completed in time for the case's
scheduled start.

Work on the new courtroom, in the William Cooper Justice Centre,
was expected to start immediately and be completed early next year
when it was announced by Attorney-General Robert Clarke in
October.

But Supreme Court Justice Jack Forrest on Nov. 30 said the Black
Saturday class action would have to be delayed because the new
court will not be ready in time.

He said the six-month trial, involving thousands of litigants in a
class action against electricity company SPI Electricity over the
February 2009 Kilmore East bushfires, would now be listed to start
in March instead of January.

"Work on the refurbishment has commenced but with the Christmas
break contractors are either unavailable or their work cannot be
completed sufficiently," he said.

"The Chief Justice has advised that no other suitable court can be
found to accommodate this trial.

"Regrettably, as I have said, it is simply impractical for the
case to be heard in existing court facilities."

Mr. Clarke said the building industry's summer shutdown had had a
greater effect on scheduling than anticipated.

"While the project team considers that a functional courtroom
could still be made available for the scheduled trial start date,
the Court has concluded that is preferable for the start date to
be rescheduled to allow further works to be completed," he said.

On Nov. 29, Chief Justice Marily Warren called for an urgent
upgrade of the Supreme Court when she said was still struggling
with its 19th century facilities.

"Regardless of progressive reforms and innovations, we are being
held back by our building complex," Chief Justice Warren said in
the court's annual report, tabled in Parliament.

"We struggle to meet the demands of the modern mega trial.  This
will be a confronting problem in . . . bushfire cases and others."

"Sanctuary" for victims and witnesses was lacking, she said, and
Victoria was lagging behind other states.

Justice Jack Forrest said the delayed start of the class action
would not "necessarily be wasted time".

He said the additional time could be used by parties to finalize
any outstanding matters ahead of the trial.


SQUIRE LOUNGE: Exotic Dancer Files Minimum Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jenn Abelson, writing for Boston Globe, reports that a former
exotic dancer at the Squire Lounge in Revere has filed a lawsuit
against the strip club and its operators for allegedly failing to
pay the minimum wage, forcing dancers to share tips with
management, misclassifying them as independent contractors, and
intimidating strippers after they complained about working
conditions.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status.  Filed in Suffolk Superior
Court by Ashley Denisevich, 28, of Malden, it claims she and other
women have suffered substantial "compensatory damages totaling
millions of dollars."  Dancers are required to pay $50 to $100 in
"house fees" per shift, hand over $25 in "late fees" if they are
tardy, and give up 10 percent of their hourly earnings in the VIP
room when customers use credit cards instead of cash, the suit
says.

Ms. Denisevich, who worked at the Squire from February 2011 to
April of this year, alleges dancers are misclassified as
independent contractors and deprived of wages, paid vacations and
sick time, health insurance, unemployment benefits, and other
protections while the Squire reaps enormous profits.

D&B Corp. in Peabody, which operates the Squire Lounge, and
Mark Filtranti, D&B's president, are named as defendants, along
with the club.  Mr. Filtranti did not return calls seeking
comment. Another man who said that he was one of the Squire's
owners but would identify himself only as "Rob" declined to
comment.

After complaining about working conditions at the club,
Ms. Denisevich said in court records, bouncers and managers
attempted to intimidate her and other dancers, "including threats
of 'blackballing' them from employment at other strip clubs."

David Dishman, an attorney representing Ms. Denisevich, said she
was fired after asking to consult with a lawyer and now works at
an establishment that complies with wage laws.  He estimated that
between 100 and 150 dancers would be potential class members for
the case.

This lawsuit comes several years after another group of strippers
successfully sued King Arthur's Lounge in Chelsea for illegally
classifying them as independent contractors.

"What is striking is that most adult entertainment venues revamped
their employment practices with respect to exotic dancers after
the King Arthur's decision in 2009, but three years later the
Squire has not," Mr. Dishman said.

Since then, judges have ruled against at least five strip clubs,
including Centerfolds Worcester, King's Inn in North Dartmouth,
and the Golden Banana in Peabody, for misclassifying dancers.

A number of these cases have resulted in settlements that range
from hundreds of thousands of dollars to more than $1 million,
said Shannon Liss-Riordan, one of the attorneys who represented
dancers in the King Arthur's suit and others.

A Hampden Superior Court judge in Springfield is scheduled to hear
arguments on Nov. 30 in a lawsuit filed against Mardi Gras
Entertainment, a chain that operates five strip clubs in Western
Massachusetts.  The court is being asked to determine if dancers
have been misclassified and whether the case should be given
class-action status.


STEVE MADDEN: Feb. 25 TCPA Suit Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to Mobile Marketing Watch, several weeks ago, a
notification program was launched per the order from the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.  The
effort was designed to alert countless mobile users about a
proposed class action settlement that could affect their rights.

The notification went to persons who had previously received a
text message promoting footwear and apparel company Steve Madden's
products and events.  Given how a resolution to this mess is
shaping up, a boatload of cash payments could be headed for a
large number of people.

The Steve Madden settlement will resolve a class action lawsuit,
titled Ellison v. Steven Madden, Ltd., that alleges the company
sent unsolicited text messages to consumers advertising Steve
Madden's fashion products and promotional events.  According to
the class action lawsuit, these text ads violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act because consumers did not consent to
receive them.

It should be noted that Steven Madden "denies any wrongdoing" but
has agreed to establish a $10 million class action lawsuit
settlement in hopes of expediting a resolution to the litigation.

According to published reports, class members of the Steven Madden
text class action settlement "include all U.S. persons who, from
July 2010 until September 25, 2012, received a text message
promoting Steve Madden products and/or events from the "short
codes" 91919 or 623336."

For now, all eyes are looking ahead to a final fairness hearing
scheduled for February 25, 2013.

All claim forms and related information about this matter can be
obtained at http://is.gd/DQuCA5


TISHMAN SPEYER: $68.75MM Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP and Bernstein Liebhard
LLP, co-lead counsel for the plaintiff tenants in the Roberts v.
Tishman Speyer class action, announced they have signed an
agreement with the defendants to settle all past rent overcharge
claims and future rent claims raised in the action.  The
settlement was preliminarily approved on Nov. 29 by Justice
Richard B. Lowe, III, the Chief Justice of the Appellate Term,
First Department.  The agreement requires final court approval.  A
hearing on final approval is scheduled for April 9, 2013.

The settlement agreement signed on Nov. 29 sets aside $68.75
million to compensate class members for rent overcharges from
January 22, 2003, the start of the class period, through December
31, 2011, the end of the overcharge period.

"Once finally approved, [Thurs]day's $68.75 million settlement
agreement, when combined with past refunds and rent savings the
tenants have already received, will bring the total recovery in
the lawsuit to at least $146.85 million," said Alexander Schmidt
-- schmidt@whafh.com -- of Wolf Haldenstein, the plaintiffs' lead
attorney.  "There will also be future benefits," he added.

The past rent savings and refunds resulted from an interim
agreement that was reached in the case in December 2009 between
the plaintiffs and the two limited partnerships that currently own
Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village, PCV ST Owner LP and ST
Owner LP.  Under that interim agreement $2.4 million in rent was
refunded to class member tenants in 2010, and the tenants saved an
additional $75.7 million in rent over the past three years, Mr.
Schmidt said.  Ronald Aranoff of Bernstein Liebhard, another of
the plaintiffs' lead attorneys added "we believe this settlement
provides an extraordinary recovery for our clients and we couldn't
be happier for them."

Mr. Schmidt noted that the $146.85 million amount could
significantly increase in the future because the settlement sets
future rents based on a "Preferential Rent" formula that will save
tenants at least another ten to twenty million dollars, and
potentially more than a hundred million, over the next eight
years.  The exact amount of future rent savings under the formula
will depend on future rental market conditions and tenant turnover
rates, Mr. Schmidt added.

The settlement also continues rent stabilization through June 2020
for each of the 4,311 formerly decontrolled Stuyvesant Town and
Peter Cooper Village apartments at issue in the suit.  June 2020
is when the residential complexes' New York City "J-51" tax
benefits expire.  The New York Court of Appeals, the state's
highest court, found in October 2009 that the apartments had been
removed improperly from rent stabilization while the complexes
were receiving those tax benefits, which are available only for
rent stabilized buildings.

The current owners of the complexes contributed $58.25 million of
the $68.75 million cash component provided by [Thurs]day's
agreement.  Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company, the owner
until mid-November 2006, contributed $10.5 million.

The settlement concludes almost 18 months of negotiations.
Mr. Aranoff said that [Thurs]day's $68.75 million settlement
includes a generous legal rent formula for the past rent
overcharge claims, which yields damages of almost $10,000 per
leasehold and average damage awards of $3,200 for the 21,250 class
members.

Because the legal rent formula under the interim agreement was
even more generous, Mr. Schmidt said, the rents going forward may
be adjusted upwards by the landlord after the settlement is
finally approved, subject to the Preferential Rent formula caps.

The cash received and saved will not be the only benefits the
class members achieve as a result of this litigation, Mr. Schmidt
said.  "Class members will realize substantial additional benefits
by retaining the full protections of the Rent Stabilization Law
for the next eight years, including, most importantly, the rights
to automatic lease renewal and succession.  The settlement is
eminently fair and reasonable, and a very good result for the
tenants."

The settlement agreement and other pertinent information about the
settlement and the litigation are available at
http://www.berdonclaims.com


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Trial in Macondo-Related MDL to Begin in February
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The first phase of the trial in the lawsuits relating to the
Macondo well incident will begin in February 2013, according to
Transocean Ltd.'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").

The Company is currently unable to estimate the full impact the
Macondo well incident will have on it.  The Company has recognized
a liability for estimated loss contingencies that it believes are
probable and for which a reasonable estimate can be made.  This
liability takes into account certain events related to the
litigation and investigations arising out of the incident.  There
are loss contingencies related to the Macondo well incident that
the Company believes are reasonably possible and for which it does
not believe a reasonable estimate can be made.  These
contingencies could increase the liabilities the Company
ultimately recognizes.  As of September 30, 2012, and
December 31, 2011, the liability associated for estimated loss
contingencies that the Company believes are probable and for which
a reasonable estimate can be made was $1.9 billion and $1.2
billion, respectively, recorded in other current liabilities.

The Company has also recognized an asset associated with the
portion of its estimated losses, primarily related to the personal
injury and fatality claims of the Company's crew and vendors, that
the Company believes is recoverable from insurance.  Although the
Company has available policy limits that could result in
additional amounts recoverable from insurance, recovery of such
additional amounts is not probable and the Company is not
currently able to estimate such amounts.  The Company's estimates
involve a significant amount of judgment.  As a result of new
information or future developments, the Company may adjust its
estimated loss contingencies arising out of the Macondo well
incident or its estimated recoveries from insurance, and the
resulting losses could have a material adverse effect on its
consolidated statement of financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.  In the three months ended
September 30, 2012, the Company received $15 million of cash
proceeds from insurance recoveries for losses related to the
personal injury and fatality claims of its crew and vendors.
Additionally, BP received $57 million of cash proceeds from
insurance recoveries under the Company's insurance program for
losses that were covered under its contractual indemnity of BP.
The payments made to BP resulted in corresponding reductions of
the Company's insurance recoverable asset and contingent
liability.  As of September 30, 2012, and December 31, 2011, the
insurance recoverable asset related to estimated losses primarily
for additional personal injury and fatality claims of the
Company's crew and vendors that it believes are probable of
recovery from insurance was $179 million and $233 million,
respectively, recorded in other assets.

Many of the Macondo well related claims are pending in the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana (the "MDL Court").
The first phase of a three-phase trial was originally scheduled to
commence in March 2012.  In March 2012, BP and the Plaintiff's
Steering Committee (the "PSC") announced that they had agreed to a
partial settlement related primarily to private party
environmental and economic loss claims as well as response effort
related claims (the "BP/PSC Settlement").  The BP/PSC Settlement
agreement provides that (a) the BP/PSC Settlement is subject to
court approvals, (b) to the extent permitted by law, BP will
assign to the settlement class certain of BP's claims, rights and
recoveries against the Company for damages with protections such
that the settlement class is barred from collecting any amounts
from the Company unless it is finally determined that the Company
cannot recover such amounts from BP, and (c) the settlement class
releases all claims for compensatory damages against the Company
but purports to retain claims for punitive damages against it.

In February 2012, prior to the announcement of the BP/PSC
Settlement, BP proposed a settlement to the Company.  Later that
month, but before the announcement of the BP/PSC Settlement, the
Company suggested a settlement of all claims of the plaintiffs
represented by the PSC.

The PSC responded with a settlement proposal.  The Company has not
made a counterproposal to either BP or the PSC after receiving
their respective proposals, and the Company has not had settlement
discussions with either BP or the PSC since the initial proposals.
The settlement amounts proposed by both BP and the PSC were each
far in excess of the amount contemplated by the Company's
settlement discussions with the U.S. Department of Justice (the
"DOJ").  Both of these proposed amounts also far exceeded the
amounts the Company had been willing to consider for a settlement
with either BP or the PSC.

In May 2012, the MDL Court granted preliminary approval of the
economic and property damage class settlement between BP and the
PSC.  After giving consideration to the BP/PSC Settlement, the MDL
Court ordered that the first phase of the trial, at which
liability will be determined, be rescheduled for February 2013.
The MDL Court subsequently issued an order with a projected trial
date of June 2013 for the second phase of the trial, which will
address conduct related to stopping the release of hydrocarbons
between April 22, 2010, and approximately September 19, 2010, and
seek to determine the amount of oil actually released during the
period.  There can be no assurance as to the outcome of the trial,
as to the timing of any phase of trial, that the Company will not
enter into a settlement as to some or all of the matters related
to the Macondo well incident, including those to be determined at
a trial, or the timing or terms of any such settlement.

In April 2011, several defendants in the Macondo well litigation
before the Multi-District Litigation Panel (the "MDL") filed
cross-claims or third-party claims against the Company and certain
of its subsidiaries, and other defendants.  BP filed a claim
seeking contribution under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 ("OPA")
and maritime law, subrogation and claimed breach of contract,
unseaworthiness, negligence and gross negligence.  BP also sought
a declaration that it is not liable in contribution,
indemnification, or otherwise to the Company.  Anadarko Petroleum
Corporation ("Anadarko"), which owned a 25 percent non-operating
interest in the Macondo well, asserted claims of negligence, gross
negligence, and willful misconduct and is seeking indemnity under
state and maritime law and contribution under maritime and state
law as well as OPA.  MOEX Offshore 2007 LLC ("MOEX"), which owns a
10 percent non-operating interest in the Macondo well, filed
claims of negligence under state and maritime law, gross
negligence under state law, gross negligence and willful
misconduct under maritime law and is seeking indemnity under state
and maritime law and contribution under maritime law and OPA.
Cameron International Corporation ("Cameron"), the manufacturer
and designer of the blowout preventer, asserted multiple claims
for contractual indemnity and declarations regarding contractual
obligations under various contracts and quotes and is also seeking
non-contractual indemnity and contribution under maritime law and
OPA.  As part of the BP/PSC Settlement, one or more of these
claims against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries may be
assigned to the PSC settlement class.  Halliburton Company
("Halliburton"), which provided cementing and mud-logging services
to the operator, filed a claim against the Company seeking
contribution and indemnity under maritime law, contractual
indemnity and alleging negligence and gross negligence.
Additionally, certain other third parties filed claims against the
Company for indemnity and contribution.

In April 2011, the Company filed cross-claims and counter-claims
against BP, Halliburton, Cameron, Anadarko, MOEX, certain of these
parties' affiliates, the U.S. and certain other third parties.
The Company seek indemnity, contribution (including contribution
under OPA), and subrogation under OPA, and the Company has
asserted claims for breach of warranty of workmanlike performance,
strict liability for manufacturing and design defect, breach of
express contract, and damages for the difference between the fair
market value of Deepwater Horizon and the amount received from
insurance proceeds.  The Company is not pursuing arbitration on
the key contractual issues with BP; instead, the Company is
relying on the court to resolve the disputes.  With regard to the
U.S., the Company is not currently seeking recovery of monetary
damages, but rather a declaration regarding relative fault and
contribution via credit, setoff, or recoupment.

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.


US BANCORP: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Visa Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
U. S. Bancorp is awaiting court approval of the settlement of Visa
litigation matters, according to U. S. Bancorp'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's payment services business issues and acquires credit
and debit card transactions through the Visa U.S.A. Inc. card
association or its affiliates (collectively "Visa").  In 2007,
Visa completed a restructuring and issued shares of Visa Inc.
common stock to its financial institution members in contemplation
of its initial public offering ("IPO") completed in the first
quarter of 2008 (the "Visa Reorganization").  As a part of the
Visa Reorganization, the Company received its proportionate number
of shares of Visa Inc. common stock, which were subsequently
converted to Class B shares of Visa Inc. ("Class B shares").  Visa
U.S.A. Inc. ("Visa U.S.A.") and MasterCard International
(collectively, the "Card Associations"), are defendants in
antitrust lawsuits challenging the practices of the Card
Associations (the "Visa Litigation").  Visa U.S.A. member banks
have a contingent obligation to indemnify Visa Inc. under the Visa
U.S.A. bylaws (which were modified at the time of the
restructuring in October 2007) for potential losses arising from
the Visa Litigation.  The indemnification by the Visa U.S.A.
member banks has no specific maximum amount.

Using proceeds from its IPO and through reductions to the
conversion ratio applicable to the Class B shares held by Visa
U.S.A. member banks, Visa Inc. has funded an escrow account for
the benefit of member financial institutions to fund their
indemnification obligations associated with the Visa Litigation.
The receivable related to the escrow account is classified in
other liabilities as a direct offset to the related Visa
Litigation contingent liability.  On July 13, 2012, Visa signed a
memorandum of understanding to enter into a settlement agreement
to resolve class action claims associated with the multi-district
interchange litigation (the "MOU agreement"), the largest of the
remaining Visa Litigation matters.  The MOU agreement has not yet
been approved by the court, is not yet binding, and may be
challenged by some class members.  At September 30, 2012, the
carrying amount of the Company's liability related to the Visa
Litigation matters, net of its share of the escrow fundings, was
$65 million and included the Company's estimate of its share of
the temporary reduction in interchange rates specified in the MOU
agreement.  The remaining Class B shares held by the Company will
be eligible for conversion to Class A shares, and thereby become
marketable, upon settlement of the Visa Litigation.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Defends Suit Over Cold-FX(R) in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is defending a
purported class action lawsuit in Canada alleging it made false
representations respecting Cold-FX(R), 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 March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia which seeks an order certifying a
proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor,
Afexa.  The proposed claim asserts that Afexa and the Company made
false representations respecting Cold-FX(R) to residents of
British Columbia who purchased the product during the applicable
period and that the class has suffered damages as a result.  The
Company denies the allegations being made and is defending this
matter.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suits Over Medicis Acquisition
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is facing class action
lawsuits arising from its proposed acquisition of Medicis
Pharmaceutical Corporation, 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.

Several purported holders of public shares of Medicis
Pharmaceutical Corporation have filed putative class action
lawsuits in the Delaware Court of Chancery and the Arizona
Superior Court against Medicis and the members of its board of
directors, as well as one or both of Valeant and Merlin Merger
Sub, Inc. (the wholly-owned subsidiary of Valeant formed in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Medicis by the
Company).  The Delaware actions have been consolidated for all
purposes under the caption In re Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corporation Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 7857-CS (Del. Ch.).
The Arizona action bears the caption Swint v. Medicis
Pharmaceutical Corporation, et. al., Case No. CV2012-055635 (Ariz.
Sup. Ct.).  The actions all allege, among other things, that the
Medicis directors breached their fiduciary duties because they
supposedly failed to properly value Medicis and caused materially
misleading and incomplete information to be disseminated to
Medicis' public shareholders, and that Valeant and/or Merlin
Merger Sub, Inc. aided and abetted those alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.  The actions also seek, among other things,
injunctive and other equitable relief, and money damages.  The
Company believes that these lawsuits lack merit and intends to
vigorously defend against these claims.

Plaintiffs in all such actions have indicated an intent to seek an
order preliminarily enjoining the meeting of Medicis'
stockholders, currently expected to take place on December 7,
2012, and a hearing was scheduled on November 28, 2012, in the
Delaware action in connection with the requested preliminary
injunction in that action.


VEGGIE PATCH: Recalls Ultimate Meatless Burger and Falafel
----------------------------------------------------------
VEGGIE PATCH(R) is voluntarily recalling two products -- The
Ultimate Meatless Burger and Falafel -- due to a risk of
contamination with Listeria monocytogenes.  Listeria monocytogenes
is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal
infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others
with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy persons may suffer
only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headaches,
stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection
can cause miscarriages and stillbirths in pregnant women.

The Ultimate Meatless Burger and Falafel, from VEGGIE PATCH, with
the specific use-by dates and UPC codes listed below were
distributed to a select number of retailers and distributors.

   * 9-ounce trays of refrigerated, fully cooked, VEGGIE PATCH,
     The Ultimate Meatless Burger with a Use-By date,
     Jan/12/2013; UPC code 6-10129-00211-5 (which can be found on
     back of package)

   * 9-ounce trays of refrigerated, fully cooked, VEGGIE PATCH,
     Falafel with a Use-By date, Jan/15/2013;
     UPC code 6-10129-06619-3 (which can be found on back of
     package)

The Ultimate Meatless Burger potentially affected was available
for sale as of November 21, 2012, in the following states; NY, CT,
PA, FL, IL, MD, IN, WI, VA, NJ and DE.  Falafel potentially
affected, was available for sale as of November 21, 2012,
nationwide.

No illnesses have been reported to date.  VEGGIE PATCH discovered
this issue as part of its routine testing of its products.

Consumers who purchased any product with the specific use-by dates
and UPC codes listed above are asked to dispose of the product.
They should e-mail contactus@veggiepatch.com to arrange for a full
refund.  The recall affects only these two items.  Products that
do not contain the specific use-by dates and UPC codes listed are
not affected by the recall.  No other VEGGIE PATCH products or
other use-by dates of The Ultimate Meatless Burger or Falafel are
affected by this recall.  Frozen Veggie Patch products are not
affected by this recall.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm330343.htm

Consumers with questions can contact VEGGIE PATCH at 888-807-0765,
8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, seven days a week, or
at contactus@veggiepatch.com

More information is available on the VEGGIE PATCH Web site at
http://www.veggiepatch.com/

                       About VEGGIE PATCH

VEGGIE PATCH offers tasty, healthy and convenient vegetarian foods
and meatless options ideal for snacks, lunch and dinner.  Products
include main dish items, kid-friendly vegetable and cheese bites
and other appetizers.  All VEGGIE PATCH products are made from
real vegetables, are high in protein and free of trans fats and
MSG.  For more information, visit http://www.veggiepatch.com/


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Suits Over Fuel/Environmental Charges Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2011 and January 2012, Waste Management, Inc. was named
as a defendant in a purported class action in the Circuit Court of
Sarasota County, Florida, and the Circuit Court of Lawrence County
Alabama, respectively.  These cases primarily pertain to the
Company's fuel and environmental charges included on its invoices,
generally alleging that such charges were not properly disclosed,
were unfair and were contrary to the customer service contracts.
The law firm that filed these lawsuits had filed, in 2008, a
purported class action against subsidiaries of WM in Bullock
County, Alabama, making similar allegations.  The prior Alabama
lawsuit was removed to federal court, where the federal court
ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs' national class action claims.
The plaintiffs then elected to dismiss the case without prejudice.
The Company says it will vigorously defend against these pending
lawsuits.  Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
including the early stage of these cases, the unknown size of any
potential class, and legal and factual issues in dispute, the
outcome of these cases cannot be predicted and a range of loss
cannot currently be estimated.

No further updates were reported in 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.

Houston, Texas-based Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/
-- is a waste management, comprehensive waste, and environmental
services company in North America.  Its subsidiaries provide
collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal services.  The
Company is also a developer, operator and owner of waste-to-energy
and landfill gas- to-energy facilities in the United States.  Its
customers include residential, commercial, industrial and
municipal customers throughout North America.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Awaits Approval of ERISA Class Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc., and is awaiting final court approval of a
settlement of a class action lawsuit brought by former
participants of its subsidiary's plans under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 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 April 2002, certain former participants in the ERISA plans of
Waste Management Holdings, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary ("WM
Holdings"), filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia in a case entitled William S. Harris, et al.
v. James E. Koenig, et al.  The lawsuit attempts to increase the
recovery of a class of ERISA plan participants on behalf of the
plan based on allegations related to both the events alleged in,
and the settlements relating to, the securities class action
against WM Holdings that was settled in 1998, the litigation
against WM in Texas that was settled in 2002, as well as the
decision to offer WM common stock as an investment option within
the plan beginning in 1990, despite alleged knowledge by at least
two members of the investment committee of financial misstatement
by WM during the relevant time period.

During the second quarter of 2010, the Court dismissed certain
claims against individual defendants, including all claims against
each of the current members of the Company's Board of Directors.
Previously, plaintiffs dismissed all claims related to the
settlement of the securities class action against WM that was
settled in 2002, and the court certified a limited class of
participants who may bring claims on behalf of the plan, but not
individually.  During the third quarter of 2011, the Court ruled
in favor of WM and two former employees dismissing all claims
brought by the plaintiffs related to the decision to offer WM
stock as an investment option within the plan.

The Company has reached a settlement with the plaintiffs on this
matter, with a proposed class settlement agreement submitted to
the Court on October 17, 2012.  The Company anticipates all the
details with respect to the settlement will be resolved and
finally approved by the Court within the next few months.  The
Company does not believe the settlement could have a material
adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows.

Houston, Texas-based Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/
-- is a waste management, comprehensive waste, and environmental
services company in North America.  Its subsidiaries provide
collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal services.  The
Company is also a developer, operator and owner of waste-to-energy
and landfill gas- to-energy facilities in the United States.  Its
customers include residential, commercial, industrial and
municipal customers throughout North America.


ZILLOW INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Securities law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP on Nov. 30
announced the filing of a class-action securities lawsuit against
Zillow, Inc. on behalf of a proposed class of investors who
purchased Zillow stock during the period from Feb. 15, 2012, to
Nov. 6, 2012, inclusive.

Shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Zillow common
stock during the Class Period are encouraged to contact Hagens
Berman attorney Karl Barth at 206-623-7292 or to contact the
Hagens Berman legal team through e-mail at Zillow@hbsslaw.com to
discuss their legal rights.  Investors can also contact Mr. Barth
by visiting http://www.hb-securities.com/cases/Zillow

Investors who wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the case must
move the court no later than Jan. 28, 2013.  Any member of the
proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Class members need not seek to
become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible
recovery.

Hagens Berman's lawsuit, filed Nov. 29, 2012, in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleges
that Zillow and certain of its officers violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

On Nov. 5, 2012, Zillow announced its third quarter, 2012,
financial results and reduced guidance for the fourth quarter and
the full 2012 year.  On the news, Zillow's stock price fell nearly
18 percent, closing at $28.15 per share.

The complaint alleges that the defendants issued false and
misleading statements to investors during the Class Period,
causing the company's stock to trade at an artificially high
level.  It claims the company misled investors regarding issues
the company was having in signing up new real estate agents as
subscribers, among other issues.

The complaint further alleges that company insiders sold 3.1
million shares of Zillow stock for nearly $115 million while the
stock traded at an artificially high price.

The plaintiff in the case seeks to recover damages on behalf of
the class and is represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP.


                           *********

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  * * *