CAR_Public/121206.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, December 6, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 242

                                Headlines

ACE LTD: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Claims in Insurance Suit
ACE LTD: "Van Emden" Suit vs. Illinois Union Remains Stayed
ALLSTATE CORP: Class Cert. Appeal in Claim Handling Suit Pending
ALLSTATE CORP: Awaits Sup. Ct. Ruling in Wage and Hour Suit
ALLSTATE CORP: Continues to Defend Hurricane Katrina-Related Suit

ALLSTATE CORP: Judgment Proceedings to Occur in 1st Half of 2013
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Still Awaits Decision in "Krueger" Suit
ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Awaits Final OK of Overdraft Fees Suit Deal
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Calif.
CAMBREX CORP: Appeal From Lorazepam Suit Judgment Remain Pending

CANADA: Former First Nations Day-School Students File Class Action
COLUMBUS, OH: School District Sued Over "Data Scrubbing"
CONOMO POINT, MA: Residents File Class Action Over Rent Hike
COVELLI ENTERPRISES: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
DAVITA INC: Appeal in Wage and Hour Suit Still Pending in Calif.

DAVITA INC: Calif. Class Suit vs. Unit Concluded in September
DREAM VACATIONS: RICO Class Action Against Owner Can Proceed
EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Seek Class Cert. Denial in Membership Suit
EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Faces Class Suit by Homeowner's Group in Utah
HERBAL GROUPS: Sued For False Advertising on Lubra Joint Efficacy

HSBC BANK: Settles Class Action Over Debt Plan for $23.5 Mil.
HSBC USA: Briefing on Appeals in Madoff-Related Suits Completed
HSBC USA: Continues to Defend Lender-Placed Insurance Class Suits
HSBC USA: Continues to Defend "Levin" Suit in New York
HSBC USA: Settlement With Individual Merchants Effective in Oct.

INNOVATION VENTURES: Can Pursue Claims v. Class Action Lawyers
MECOX LANE: Second Circuit Affirms Class Action Dismissal
P&L RAILROAD: Town Hall Meeting Held to Discuss Class Action
PARKLANE FINANCIAL: Court Certifies Class Action Over Gift Program
RANBAXY: Faces Class Action Over Atorvastatin Recall

SEACOR HOLDINGS: Appeal Briefs in "Robin" Suit Fully Submitted
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Defends Suits vs. Unit Related to OT Payments
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Fee Motion in Antitrust Suit Denied in October
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Awaits Summary Judgment Bid Rulings in MDL 2179
SEACOR HOLDINGS: "Wunstell" Class Action Suit Remains Stayed

VECTOR GROUP: Appeal From Dismissal of "Smith" Suit Pending
VECTOR GROUP: "Brown" Suit vs. Liggett Concluded in September
VECTOR GROUP: "Parsons" Suit vs. Liggett Still Stayed in W.V.
VECTOR GROUP: "Young" Suit vs. Liggett Remains Dormant
WALMART: Among Defendants in Warehouse Workers' Class Action

ZILLOW: Shareholders File Securities Class Action

                          *********



ACE LTD: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Claims in Insurance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Limited is awaiting court decisions on its motion to dismiss
claims in a consolidated class action lawsuit filed in New Jersey
by commercial insurance policyholders, 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.

ACE Limited, ACE INA Holdings Inc., and ACE USA, Inc., along with
a number of other insurers and brokers, were named in a series of
federal putative nationwide class actions brought by insurance
policyholders.  The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPML) consolidated these cases in the District of New Jersey.  On
August 1, 2005, plaintiffs in the New Jersey consolidated
proceedings filed two consolidated amended complaints -- one
concerning commercial insurance and the other concerning employee
benefit plans.  The employee benefit plans litigation against ACE
Limited has been dismissed.

In the commercial insurance complaint, the plaintiffs named ACE
Limited, ACE INA Holdings Inc., ACE USA, Inc., ACE American
Insurance Co., Illinois Union Insurance Co., and Indemnity
Insurance Co. of North America.  They allege that certain brokers
and insurers, including certain ACE entities, conspired to
increase premiums and allocate customers through the use of "B"
quotes and contingent commissions.  In addition, they allege that
the broker defendants received additional income by improperly
placing their clients' business with insurers through related
wholesale entities that acted as intermediaries between brokers
and insurers.  Plaintiffs also allege that broker defendants tied
the purchase of primary insurance to the placement of such
coverage with reinsurance carriers through the broker defendants'
reinsurance broker subsidiaries.  The complaint asserts the
following causes of action against the ACE defendants: Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), federal
antitrust law, state antitrust law, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

In 2006 and 2007, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' first two
attempts to properly plead a case without prejudice and permitted
plaintiffs one final opportunity to re-plead.  The amended
complaint, filed on May 22, 2007, purported to add several new ACE
defendants: ACE Group Holdings, Inc., ACE US Holdings, Inc.,
Westchester Fire Insurance Company, INA Corporation, INA Financial
Corporation, INA Holdings Corporation, ACE Property and Casualty
Insurance Company, and Pacific Employers Insurance Company.
Plaintiffs also added a new antitrust claim against Marsh, the ACE
defendants, and other insurers based on the same allegations as
the other claims but limited to excess casualty insurance.  In
2007, the Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiffs'
antitrust and RICO claims with prejudice.  The Court also declined
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law
claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice.  Plaintiffs
appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.  On August 16, 2010, the Third Circuit affirmed, in part,
and vacated, in part, the District Court's previous dismissals
with instructions for further briefing at the District Court on
remand.  Defendants renewed their motions consistent with the
Third Circuit's instructions.  On June 28, 2011, the District
Court administratively terminated defendants' motions without
prejudice to re-file after adjudication of issues related to a
proposed class settlement involving a number of other parties and
stayed the case.  On October 17, 2011, the Court lifted the stay
and, shortly thereafter, entered an order permitting defendants to
re-file their motions to dismiss.  Defendants did so on October
21, 2011.  On April 30, 2012 the Court entered a discovery
scheduling order.  On May 31, 2012, the Court once again
administratively terminated defendants' motions to dismiss.  On
September 25, 2012, at defendants' urging, the Court ordered that
the defendants' motions to dismiss would be reinstated.

As of October 30, 2012, plaintiffs have not specified an amount of
alleged damages and the Court has not decided defendants' renewed
motions to dismiss.  The Court has also not determined if this
case may proceed as a class action and has, therefore, not
determined the size or scope of any class.  As a result, ACE is
unable to reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of
losses, if any, arising from this litigation.


ACE LTD: "Van Emden" Suit vs. Illinois Union Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit brought by Van Emden Management Corporation
and involving a subsidiary of ACE Limited remains stayed in
Massachusetts, 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.

Van Emden Management Corporation v. Marsh & McLennan Companies,
Inc., et al. (Case No. 05-0066A; Superior Court of Massachusetts),
a class action in Massachusetts, was filed on January 13, 2005.
Illinois Union Insurance Company is named.  The Van Emden case has
been stayed pending resolution of the consolidated proceedings in
the District of New Jersey or until further order of the Court.


ALLSTATE CORP: Class Cert. Appeal in Claim Handling Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation's appeal from the order certifying a
class in the lawsuit challenging aspects of its claim handling
practices in Montana remains pending, according to the Company's
October 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Allstate is vigorously defending a class action lawsuit in Montana
state court challenging aspects of its claim handling practices in
Montana.  The plaintiff alleges that the Company adjusts claims
made by individuals who do not have attorneys in a manner that
unfairly resulted in lower payments compared to claimants who were
represented by attorneys.  In January 2012, the court certified a
class of Montana claimants who were not represented by attorneys
with respect to the resolution of auto accident claims.  The court
certified the class to cover an indefinite period that commences
in the mid-1990s.  The certified claims include claims for
declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount.  Injunctive relief may include a claim process
by which unrepresented claimants could request that their claims
be readjusted.  No compensatory damages are sought on behalf of
the class.  To date no discovery has occurred related to the
potential value of the class members' claims.  The Company has
asserted various defenses with respect to the plaintiff's claims
which have not been finally resolved, and has appealed the order
certifying the class.  The proposed injunctive relief claim
process would be subject to defenses and offsets ordinarily
associated with the adjustment of claims.  Any differences in
amounts paid to class members compared to what class members might
be paid under a different process would be speculative and subject
to individual variation and determination dependent upon the
individual circumstances presented by each class claimant.  In the
Company's judgment a loss is not probable.

Based in Northbrook, Illinois, The Allstate Corporation --
http://www.allstate.com/-- is a personal lines insurer.  Its
Allstate Protection segment sells auto, homeowners,
property/casualty, and life insurance products in Canada and the
U.S.


ALLSTATE CORP: Awaits Sup. Ct. Ruling in Wage and Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation is awaiting a court decision on
plaintiffs' petition for review with the Illinois Supreme Court of
a trial court decision finding in favor of Allstate on all claims
in a wage and hour class action lawsuit, 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.

Allstate has been vigorously defending a lawsuit in regards to
certain claims employees involving worker classification issues.
This lawsuit is a certified class action challenging a state wage
and hour law.  In this case, plaintiffs sought actual damages in
an amount to be proven at trial, liquidated damages in an amount
equal to an unspecified percentage of the aggregate underpayment
of wages to be proven at trial, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.  Plaintiffs have not made a settlement demand nor have they
alleged the amount of damages with any specificity.  The case was
bifurcated between liability and damages and is currently focused
only on liability issues.  No discovery has taken place regarding
plaintiffs' alleged damages.  In December 2009, the liability
phase of the case was tried, and, in July 2010, the trial court
issued its decision finding in favor of Allstate on all claims.
The plaintiffs appealed the decision in favor of Allstate to the
first level appellate court.

In May 2012, the court heard oral argument on the plaintiffs'
appeal and affirmed the trial court's decision.  The plaintiffs
have subsequently filed a petition for review with the Illinois
Supreme Court asking it to review the lower courts' decisions.
Only liability issues are being addressed on appeal and no damages
may be awarded at this stage of the proceedings.  In the event the
trial court's order were to be overturned, however, the parties
would need to conduct damages discovery, and a trial on damages
would have to take place, before any damages could be awarded.  In
the Company's judgment a loss is not probable.

Based in Northbrook, Illinois, The Allstate Corporation --
http://www.allstate.com/-- is a personal lines insurer.  Its
Allstate Protection segment sells auto, homeowners,
property/casualty, and life insurance products in Canada and the
U.S.


ALLSTATE CORP: Continues to Defend Hurricane Katrina-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation continues to defend itself against a
lawsuit filed by the Louisiana Attorney General in the aftermath
of Hurricane Katrina, 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.

Allstate is vigorously defending a lawsuit filed in the aftermath
of Hurricane Katrina and currently pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("District
Court").  This matter was filed by the Louisiana Attorney General
against Allstate and every other homeowner insurer doing business
in the State of Louisiana, on behalf of the State of Louisiana, as
assignee, and on behalf of certain Road Home fund recipients.
Although this lawsuit was originally filed as a class action, the
Louisiana Attorney General moved to dismiss the class in 2011 and
that motion was granted.  In this matter the State alleged that
the insurers failed to pay all damages owed under their policies.
The claims currently pending in this matter are for breach of
contract and for declaratory relief on the alleged underpayment of
claims by the insurers.  All other claims, including extra-
contractual claims, have been dismissed.  The Company had moved to
dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the State had no
standing to bring the lawsuit as an assignee of insureds because
of anti-assignment language in the underlying insurance policies.
The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the motion.

The District Court has issued a case management order requiring
the State to produce specific detail by property supporting its
allegations of breach of contract.  Additionally, the case
management order requires the State to deliver a settlement
proposal to Allstate and the other defendant insurance companies.
There are many potential individual claims at issue in this
matter, each of which will require individual analysis and a
number of which may be subject to individual defenses, including
release, accord and satisfaction, prescription, waiver, and
estoppel.  The Company has filed a motion seeking to force the
State to provide more specificity as to its claims in this matter.
The Company believes that its adjusting practices in connection
with Katrina homeowners claims were sound and in accordance with
industry standards and state law.  There remain significant
questions of Louisiana law that have yet to be decided.  In the
Company's judgment, given the issues, a loss is not probable.

Based in Northbrook, Illinois, The Allstate Corporation --
http://www.allstate.com/-- is a personal lines insurer.  Its
Allstate Protection segment sells auto, homeowners,
property/casualty, and life insurance products in Canada and the
U.S.


ALLSTATE CORP: Judgment Proceedings to Occur in 1st Half of 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------
Summary judgment proceedings in lawsuits relating to The Allstate
Corporation's agency program reorganization are expected to occur
in the first half of 2013, according to the Company's October 31,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The Company is defending certain matters relating to the Company's
agency program reorganization announced in 1999.  Although these
cases have been pending for many years, they currently are in the
early stages of litigation because of appellate court proceedings
and threshold procedural issues.

These matters include a lawsuit filed in 2001 by the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging retaliation
under federal civil rights laws ("EEOC I") and a class action
filed in 2001 by former employee agents alleging retaliation and
age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
("ADEA"), breach of contract and ERISA violations ("Romero I").
In 2004, in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I litigation, the
trial court issued a memorandum and order that, among other
things, certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class
of agents who had signed a release, for purposes of effecting the
court's declaratory judgment that the release was voidable at the
option of the release signer.  The court also ordered that an
agent who voided the release must return to Allstate "any and all
benefits received by the [agent] in exchange for signing the
release."  The court also stated that, "on the undisputed facts of
record, there is no basis for claims of age discrimination."  The
EEOC and plaintiffs asked the court to clarify and/or reconsider
its memorandum and order and in January 2007, the judge denied
their request.  In June 2007, the court reversed its prior ruling
that the release was voidable and granted the Company's motions
for summary judgment, ruling that the asserted claims were barred
by the release signed by most plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit ("Third Circuit").

In July 2009, the Third Circuit vacated the trial court's entry of
summary judgment in the Company's favor and remanded the cases to
the trial court for additional discovery, including additional
discovery related to the validity of the release and waiver.  In
its opinion, the Third Circuit held that if the release and waiver
is held to be valid, then all of the claims in Romero I and EEOC I
are barred.  Thus, if the waiver and release is upheld, then only
the claims in Romero I asserted by the small group of employee
agents who did not sign the release and waiver would remain for
adjudication.  In January 2010, following the remand, the cases
were assigned to a new judge for further proceedings in the trial
court. Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on July 28,
2010.  Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified "make whole relief,"
including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated
damages, lost investment capital, attorneys' fees and costs, and
equitable relief, including reinstatement to employee agent status
with all attendant benefits for up to approximately 6,500 former
employee agents.  Despite the length of time that these matters
have been pending, to date only limited discovery has occurred
related to the damages claimed by individual plaintiffs, and no
damages discovery has occurred related to the claims of the
putative class.  Nor have plaintiffs provided any calculations of
the putative class's alleged back pay or the alleged liquidated,
compensatory or punitive damages, instead asserting that such
calculations will be provided at a later stage during expert
discovery.  Damage claims are subject to reduction by amounts and
benefits received by plaintiffs and putative class members
subsequent to their employment termination.  Little to no
discovery has occurred with respect to amounts earned or received
by plaintiffs and putative class members in mitigation of their
alleged losses.  Alleged damage amounts and lost benefits of the
approximately 6,500 putative class members also are subject to
individual variation and determination dependent upon retirement
dates, participation in employee benefit programs, and years of
service.  Discovery limited to the validity of the waiver and
release is in process and the court is currently considering
various motions relating to discovery.  At present, no class is
certified.  Summary judgment proceedings on the validity of the
waiver and release are expected to occur in the first half of
2013.

A putative nationwide class action has also been filed by former
employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA, including a
worker classification issue ("Romero II").  These plaintiffs are
challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and are
seeking to have exclusive agent independent contractors treated as
employees for benefit purposes.  Romero II was dismissed with
prejudice by the trial court, was the subject of further
proceedings on appeal, and was reversed and remanded to the trial
court in 2005.  In June 2007, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the case.  Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
with the Third Circuit.  In July 2009, the Third Circuit vacated
the district court's dismissal of the case and remanded the case
to the trial court for additional discovery, and directed that the
case be reassigned to another trial court judge.  In its opinion,
the Third Circuit held that if the release and waiver is held to
be valid, then one of plaintiffs' three claims asserted in Romero
II is barred.  The Third Circuit directed the district court to
consider on remand whether the other two claims asserted in Romero
II are barred by the release and waiver.  In January 2010,
following the remand, the case was assigned to a new judge (the
same judge for the Romero I and EEOC I cases) for further
proceedings in the trial court.

On April 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified "make whole" or other
equitable relief, including losses of income and benefits as a
result of their decision to retire from the Company between
November 1, 1999, and December 31, 2000.  They also seek repeal of
the challenged amendments to the Agents Pension Plan with all
attendant benefits revised and recalculated for thousands of
former employee agents, and attorney's fees and costs.  Despite
the length of time that this matter has been pending, to date only
limited discovery has occurred related to the damages claimed by
individual plaintiffs, and no damages discovery has occurred
related to the claims of the putative class.  Nor have plaintiffs
provided any calculations of the putative class's alleged losses,
instead asserting that such calculations will be provided at a
later stage during expert discovery.  Damage claims are subject to
reduction by amounts and benefits received by plaintiffs and
putative class members subsequent to their employment termination.
Little to no discovery has occurred with respect to amounts earned
or received by plaintiffs and putative class members in mitigation
of their alleged losses.  Alleged damage amounts and lost benefits
of the putative class members also are subject to individual
variation and determination dependent upon retirement dates,
participation in employee benefit programs, and years of service.
As in Romero I and EEOC I, discovery at this time is limited to
issues relating to the validity of the waiver and release and the
court is considering various motions related to discovery.  Class
certification has not been decided.  Summary judgment proceedings
on the validity of the waiver and release are expected to occur in
the first half of 2013.

In these agency program reorganization matters, the threshold
issue of the validity and scope of the waiver and release is yet
to be decided and, if decided in favor of the Company, would
preclude any damages being awarded in Romero I and EEOC I and may
also preclude damages from being awarded in Romero II.  In the
Company's judgment a loss is not probable.  Allstate has been
vigorously defending these lawsuits and other matters related to
its agency program reorganization.

Based in Northbrook, Illinois, The Allstate Corporation --
http://www.allstate.com/-- is a personal lines insurer.  Its
Allstate Protection segment sells auto, homeowners,
property/casualty, and life insurance products in Canada and the
U.S.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Still Awaits Decision in "Krueger" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ameriprise Financial, Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on
its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by Roger
Krueger, et al., according to the Company's November 5, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In October 2011, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Roger
Krueger, et al. vs. Ameriprise Financial, et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against
the Company, certain of its present or former employees and
directors, as well as certain fiduciary committees on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of the Ameriprise Financial 401(k)
Plan.  The alleged class period is from October 1, 2005, to the
present.  The action alleges that Ameriprise breached fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
as amended ("ERISA"), by selecting and retaining primarily
proprietary mutual funds with allegedly poor performance
histories, higher expenses relative to other investment options
and improper fees paid to Ameriprise Financial or its
subsidiaries.  The action also alleges that the Company breached
fiduciary duties under ERISA because it used its affiliate
Ameriprise Trust Company as the Plan trustee and record-keeper and
improperly reaped profits from the sale of the record-keeping
business to Wachovia Bank, N.A.  Plaintiffs allege over $20
million in damages.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
February 7, 2012.  On April 11, 2012, the Company filed its motion
to dismiss the Amended Complaint.  The Court held a hearing on the
motion to dismiss on June 13, 2012, and the Company is awaiting
the decision.

The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss,
if any, that may result from this matter due to the early
procedural status of the case, the pending motion to dismiss, the
absence of class certification, the lack of a formal demand on the
Company by the plaintiffs and plaintiffs' failure to allege any
specific, evidence-based damages.


ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Awaits Final OK of Overdraft Fees Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Banc-Corp is awaiting final approval of a settlement of
a class action lawsuit filed against its subsidiary captioned
Harris v. Associated Bank, N.A., 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.

A putative class action lawsuit, Harris v. Associated Bank, N.A.
(the "Bank"), was filed in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Wisconsin in April 2010, alleging that the
Bank unfairly assessed and collected overdraft fees and seeking
restitution of the overdraft fees, compensatory, consequential and
punitive damages, and costs.  The case was subsequently
consolidated into the Multi District Litigation ("MDL"), In re:
Checking Account Overdraft Litigation MDL No. 2036 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  A
settlement agreement which requires payment by the Bank of $13
million for a full and complete release of all claims brought
against the Bank received preliminary approval from the court on
July 26, 2012.  In the second quarter of 2012, the Bank settled
with an insurer for $2.5 million as contribution to the settlement
amount and received approximately $1.5 million as partial
reimbursement for defense costs.  By entering into such an
agreement, the Bank has not admitted any liability with respect to
the lawsuit.  The settlement amount was previously accrued for in
the financial statements.

Founded in 1964 and headquartered in Green Bay, Wisconsin,
Associated Banc-Corp -- http://www.associatedbank.com-- a bank
holding company, offers various banking and financial services to
individuals and businesses primarily in Wisconsin, Illinois, and
Minnesota.


BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2004, certain current and former hourly restaurant team
members filed a putative class action lawsuit against Brinker
International, Inc. in California Superior Court alleging
violations of California labor laws with respect to meal periods
and rest breaks.  The lawsuit sought penalties and attorney's fees
and was certified as a class action by the trial court in July
2006.  In July 2008, the California Court of Appeal decertified
the class action on all claims with prejudice.  In October 2008,
the California Supreme Court granted a writ to review the decision
of the Court of Appeal and oral arguments were heard by the
California Supreme Court on November 8, 2011.  In April 2012, the
California Supreme Court issued an opinion affirming in part,
reversing in part, and remanding in part for further proceedings.
The California Supreme Court's opinion resolved many of the legal
standards for meal periods and rest breaks in the Company's
California restaurants and the Company intends to vigorously
defend its position on the remaining issues upon remand to the
trial court.  It is not possible at this time to reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any.

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 26, 2012.


CAMBREX CORP: Appeal From Lorazepam Suit Judgment Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 1998, Cambrex Corporation and a subsidiary were named as
defendants along with Mylan Laboratories, Inc. ("Mylan") and Gyma
Laboratories, Inc. ("Gyma") in a proceeding instituted by the
Federal Trade Commission in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia (the "District Court").  Lawsuits were
also commenced by several State Attorneys General and class action
complaints by private plaintiffs in various state courts.  The
lawsuits alleged violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act
arising from exclusive license agreements between the Company and
Mylan covering two Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (Lorazepam
and Clorazepate).

All cases have been resolved except for one brought by four health
care insurers.  In the remaining case, the District Court entered
judgment after trial in 2008 against Mylan, Gyma and Cambrex in
the total amount of $19,200, payable jointly and severally, and
also a punitive damage award against each defendant in the amount
of $16,709.  In addition, the District Court ruled that the
defendants were subject to a total of approximately $7,500 in
prejudgment interest.  Several motions are currently pending in
connection with the defendant's appeal of the judgment.

In 2003, Cambrex paid $12,415 to Mylan in exchange for a release
and full indemnity against future costs or liabilities in related
litigation brought by the purchasers of Lorazepam and Clorazepate,
as well as potential future claims related to the ongoing matter.
Mylan has submitted a surety bond underwritten by a third-party
insurance company in the amount of $66,632.  In the event of a
final settlement or final judgment, Cambrex expects any payment
required by the Company to be made by Mylan under the indemnity.

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.

Cambrex Corporation -- http://www.cambrex.com/-- is an innovative
life sciences company providing products, services and
technologies to accelerate the development and commercialization
of small molecule therapeutics.  The Company is headquartered East
Rutherford, New Jersey.


CANADA: Former First Nations Day-School Students File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Hoekstra and Lori Culbert, writing for Vancouver Sun,
report that former First Nations students who attended day schools
in B.C. have signed on to a class-action suit to seek compensation
similar to that agreed to by Canada for students at residential
schools.

Unlike residential schools such as Lejac, near Fraser Lake in
northern B.C. or at Port Alberni on Vancouver Island -- where
students stayed in dormitories and spent 10 months a year away
from home -- day-school students were able to go home after school
hours to their families in nearby communities.

Although day-school students say they had similar experiences of
abuse, as well as loss of their language and culture, they were
left out of a 2006 settlement agreement that compensated
residential school students.

More than C$3 billion has already been paid to residential school
students under the agreement, which was followed by a historic
apology by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2008.

The day schools in B.C. include Catholic-run elementary schools
such as Immaculata in Burns Lake, which came into focus recently
when the Georgia Straight reported eight former native students
allege former Vancouver Olympics CEO John Furlong emotionally and
physically abused them while he was a young gym teacher in 1969
and 1970.

Mr. Furlong has filed a lawsuit against the newspaper and reporter
who wrote the story, and has repeatedly denied the allegations.

Winnipeg lawyer Joan Jack, who started the day-school, class-
action suit in 2009 seeking C$15 billion in damages, said
thousands of First Nation day students across Canada have signed
up for the suit, including a large number from northern B.C.  She
wouldn't provide specifics on the schools, but her Web site says
students from 85 B.C. schools have joined.

The suit has not been certified by the Federal Court, a rigorous
process that can take years.  The federal government has not
responded to it.

"Survivors of day schools tell me they were beaten for speaking
their language.  They were humiliated.  Some of them tell me they
were sexually abused, physically abused," said Ms. Jack, who
recently joined forces with Winnipeg lawyer Louay Alghoul on the
suit.

"The Canadian public has to realize that killing the Indian in the
child didn't just happen at residential school," said Jack.

Several former Immaculata students interviewed by The Vancouver
Sun indicated an interest in receiving compensation for their
treatment in the Catholic-run day school.  Immaculata was one of a
dozen schools built by Bishop Fergus O'Grady of the Prince George
Diocese in the late 1950s.  Bishop O'Grady, who is now dead, used
a volunteer group, called Frontier Apostles, to build, support and
teach in the schools.

Pius Charlie, a member of Burns Lake Indian Band (Ts'il Kaz Koh)
who attended Immaculata in the 1960s and 1970s, says he would like
to see compensation for day students.

Mr. Charlie said students were forbidden from speaking their
native Carrier language, and were beaten if they did.  "They
brushed our teeth with salt water, fed us dog biscuits.  Oh my
god, it's pretty gruesome."

Under the 2006 settlement agreement, students who attended
residential schools were eligible for common experience payments,
which provided C$10,000 for the first year spent living in a
residential school and C$3,000 for each subsequent year.  As of
the end of September, about C$1.6 billion had been paid out.

An independent adjudication process also allowed former students
to apply for additional compensation for serious physical, sexual
or other abuse leading to psychological damage.  Another $1.7
billion has been paid out through that process by the end of
September.

The settlement also provided C$205 million in programs for former
students and their families for healing, truth, reconciliation and
commemoration of abuses suffered at residential schools.

In order to take part in the settlement, former First Nation
residential school students have to give up their right to sue in
court.

The Assembly of First Nations launched a class-action suit over
the harm experienced by First Nation students in residential
schools run by religious groups in 2005.  Another class-action
suit was also launched recently in B.C.  It seeks compensation for
students at residential schools who lived at home because the
residential schools were in their communities.

The Tk'emlups te Secwepemc in the B.C. Interior and the Sechelt
Indian Band filed their statement of claim in August and hope it
will grow to include other First Nations in Canada.

The new suit has seen interest from other First Nations in B.C.,
Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, says Jo-Anne Gottfriedson, a
coordinator for the suit.


COLUMBUS, OH: School District Sued Over "Data Scrubbing"
--------------------------------------------------------
WBNS-10TV reports that a Columbus City Schools parent has filed
lawsuit against the school district in connection with alleged
data scrubbing.

The parent, Marvin Perkins, is now hoping to make the lawsuit a
class-action suit so other parents can join him in his fight.

The Columbus City School District is one of five districts in the
state accused of altering its data so students' test scores would
not count against the district.

The district is accused of changing some student grades from Fs to
Ds.

A father of a student in a Medina Middle School said that he feels
he was tricked about how his child's school was performing.

The lawsuit claims that state report cards need to be recalculated
for those schools and that affected students are entitled to
remedial education at the expense of the district.

The lawsuit is asking for $25,000 to possibly tutor the children,
if needed.

Attorney John Sherrod said that the father, Marvin Perkins, feels
very strongly about the issue and wants the alleged scrubbing
stopped.

"He wants it to be fixed," Mr. Sherrod said.

Columbus City Schools officials said that they were notified of
the lawsuit on November 29.

Officials said that they were unable to give 10TV News a comment
until their legal department reviewed the suit.

Superintendent Gene Harris has said there is no evidence of
schools changing records.

Mr. Perkins' son, Markel, used to go to Medina Middle School,
which the state auditor said he found withdrew students without
reason and possibly benefitted by an increase in overall test
scores.

"Mr. Perkins is a placeholder for these class members," Sherrod
said.  "He's standing up for this entire class."

Some parents of students at Medina Middle School said that they
had not heard of the lawsuit.

"I want her to actually learn her grades and earn them and know
what's going on," said mother Sharon Maxwell.

Kitty Yuck said that she put her daughter in school thinking that
she would get a good education.

"She's not," Ms. Yuck said.

A final report of the auditor's investigation has not been
released, but Auditor Dave Yost has said it was clear that several
Columbus schools manipulated student data, possibly to improve
their report card standing.

This marks the first lawsuit to take aim at the impact of data
scrubbing.


CONOMO POINT, MA: Residents File Class Action Over Rent Hike
------------------------------------------------------------
James Niedzinski, writing for GloucesterTimes.com, reports that
more than one dozen residents of Conomo Point have once again
filed a class action lawsuit, this time accusing the town of
raising their rent astronomically.

The complaint was filed by Christopher Weld Jr. of the Boston-
based firm Todd and Weld LLP on Nov. 28.

In the complaint, Mr. Weld outlines a plight anyone can relate to
-- increased rent.

Last year, Essex officials approached Mark F. Tyburski, of the
Quincy-based Tyburski Appraisal Corp., to appraise properties on
northern Conomo Point, in order to offer a fair market price to
residents.

"The lawsuit is essentially about the substantially increased
lease rates," Mr. Weld said during a phone interview on Nov. 30.

Calls to the town's law firm, Kopelman and Paige in Boston, on
Nov. 30 for comment on this story were not returned by press time.

The town offered second-year bridge leases to residents of Conomo
Point and gave the residents a deadline of Nov. 30 to sign the
leases.  However, many did not.

Mr. Weld outlined specific examples of the increased rates in the
complaint.

"The Lemcke lease's rent in 2011 was $903.59," said Mr. Weld.
"Tyburski opined for a fair market rental value for 2012 of
$27,000 -- an increase of over 21 times."

Joan Herrmann has been living at 172 Conomo Point Road for the
past 25 years.  She said she simply could not afford to keep
living in her home if the rent jumped so high.

She said she paid $1,540.21 a month last year as rent for her
bridge lease.

The complaint issued by Mr. Weld states the town has proposed a
year two rental rate of $8,070 a month for Ms. Herrman.

"That's not even including taxes," she said during a phone
interview on Nov. 30.  "I receive about $16,000 a year in Social
Security.  Adding $6,000 in taxes would be devastating."

Ms. Herrmann, a year-round resident, said the conditions of the
streets and lack of water on Conomo Point should not warrant such
an increased jump in rent.

Mr. Tyburski said on Nov. 30 he could not go into specifics about
the appraisals due to confidentially agreements.

"It's a very complicated issue; markets change," he said.

In drawing up the appraisals in October, Mr. Tyburski recommended
they be based on sales of similar properties.  A majority of the
comparisons used in his report were to properties on Plum Island
in Newburyport.  Mr. Tyburski included more than 30 different
properties to compare to those at Conomo Point.

The plaintiffs contacted their own appraiser to get a second
opinion, John Petersen of the Boston-based firm Petersen,
LaChance, Regan, and Pino LLC.

The court filing states Mr. Petersen shared his findings with the
town; as a result, the rate of return on sites was dropped from 5
percent to 2.5 percent, but would increase each year, if the town
decided to renew the leases.

Mr. Petersen's appraisal showed Ms. Herrmann's two-year rate would
be just shy of $3,500, rather than Mr. Tyburski's appraisal rate
of more than $8,000.

Mr. Petersen's findings showed Mr. Tyburski's rates were, on
average, about 25 percent to 30 percent of the fair market rental
rate.

The rates established by the town did not support either
appraisal, according to the complaint, and plaintiffs have taken
the town to court over the issue.

The hearing about the appraisals is set for today, Dec. 6, at 2:00
p.m. at Lawrence District Court on 2 Appleton St.

Dec. 6 is also the same day that town staff will host a public
hearing about how to proceed with Conomo Point.  Earlier last
week, Mark Lynch, chairman of the Conomo Point Planning Committee,
stressed the importance of public input during this forum.


COVELLI ENTERPRISES: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rich Lord, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that a
federal judge on Nov. 30 approved the settlement of a class-action
lawsuit in which Covelli Enterprises, a major Panera Bread
franchisee, was accused of denying promotions to black employees.

Under the settlement, any African American who worked for
Covelli's Panera stores for longer than a year and wanted a
promotion between Jan. 11, 2008, and Jan. 11, 2012, can get
payment for alleged lost opportunities.

For each hour worked after their first year, they can get 70 cents
-- about what they would have gotten if promoted.

The settlement is driven by the claim of Guy Vines, of Castle
Shannon, that the company kept black employees on kitchen duty
rather than moving them to cashier jobs and denied them
promotions.

Mr. Vines is to get an additional $10,000 and plaintiffs' attorney
Sam Cordes $66,000 under the settlement.

Covelli, based in Warren, Ohio, has said it did not discriminate,
and is settling to avoid costs and distractions.

U.S. District Judge Gary L. Lancaster found in his 20-page opinion
that the proposed settlement with some 200 to 300 current or
former employees of Covelli is "fair, within the range of
reasonableness, and is not obviously deficient in any way."


DAVITA INC: Appeal in Wage and Hour Suit Still Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A wage and hour claim, which has been styled as a class action, is
pending against DaVita Inc. in the Superior Court of California.
The Company was served with the complaint in this lawsuit in April
2008, and it has been amended since that time.  The lawsuit, as
amended, alleges that the Company failed to provide meal periods,
failed to pay compensation in lieu of providing rest or meal
periods, failed to pay overtime, and failed to comply with certain
other California Labor Code requirements.  In September 2011, the
court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Plaintiffs have appealed that decision.  The Company says it
intends to continue to vigorously defend against these claims.
Any potential settlement of these claims is not anticipated to be
material to the Company's consolidated financial statements.

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.


DAVITA INC: Calif. Class Suit vs. Unit Concluded in September
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit in California involving a subsidiary of
DaVita Inc. was concluded in September, 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 June 2004, the Company's subsidiary, DVA Renal Healthcare, was
served with a complaint filed in the Superior Court of California
by one of its former employees who worked for its California acute
services program.  The complaint, which is styled as a class
action, alleges, among other things, that DVA Renal Healthcare
failed to provide overtime wages, defined rest periods and meal
periods, or compensation in lieu of such provisions and failed to
comply with certain other California Labor Code requirements.  The
parties reached an agreement last year to fully resolve this
matter for an amount that did not materially impact the Company's
financial results.  That settlement has now received final
approval from the court.  Settlement payments have been made to
the class members.  On September 18, 2012, the court found that
the conditions in its order approving the settlement had been met,
and that the matter is concluded.


DREAM VACATIONS: RICO Class Action Against Owner Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Karin Price Mueller, writing for The Star-Ledger, reports that a
class-action lawsuit can move forward against alleged huckster
Daryl Turner and nearly a dozen travel clubs that have been linked
to the South Jersey man.

A federal appeals court reversed a lower court's ruling, saying
customers who claimed Mr. Turner's travel companies bilked them
out of thousands of dollars showed enough evidence to pursue their
suit.

The court upheld the dismissal for two defendants: Vacation Travel
Club and FIA Card Services.

The continuation of the suit against Mr. Turner and the other
travel companies came as good news to Jay Schlesinger, a former
Turner client who is not involved in the class action case.  The
Edison man had paid $4,893 to Dream Vacations International -- one
of the companies named in the suit -- in June 2009, but he said he
never received the benefits he was promised.

"I'd like to see Turner really sweating," said Mr. Schlesinger,
who got his money back through a dispute with Chase, his credit
card, after The Star-Ledger's Bamboozled column presented a paper
trail of evidence to Chase.  "The guy needs to be locked up.  He
needs to be punished for what he put so many people through."

The initial class action suit was brought in 2009 against Turner
and a variety of his travel companies, including Dream Vacations
International, Bentley Travel, Dreamworks Vacation Club, Five
Points Travel and Modern Destinations Unlimited.

It alleged customers were swindled when they were convinced to pay
thousands of dollars for travel club memberships but they never
received the promised discounts for travel services.

The complaint was made under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) alleging that Mr. Turner and his
companies' "racketeering activity" included mail fraud and wire
fraud.

The judge dismissed that case without prejudice on March 15, 2010,
saying the plaintiffs' complaint wasn't specific enough.

Attorney Gary Meyers of Denville amended the complaint, which went
before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  The
appeals court reversed the district judge's decision, allowing the
case -- Grant vs. Turner -- to move on.

In the meantime, hundreds, if not thousands, of additional
customers are waiting for refunds.  Some 700 consumers filed
complaints with the Division of Consumer Affairs in New Jersey.
Still others claimed they were defrauded by Turner businesses in
other states, including Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania
and New Hampshire, according to the attorneys general of those
states.

Law enforcement in New Jersey has been quiet about the Turner case
in recent months.

Back in July 2011, Mr. Turner was arrested for his travel-related
activities.

The Division of Criminal Justice executed a search warrant at
Mr. Turner's home, arresting Mr. Turner and charging him with
second-degree theft by deception -- which carries a maximum
sentence of 10 years in prison and a $150,000 fine -- for stealing
more than $75,000 from consumers, the state said.  Mr. Turner was
later released on bail.

The state also seized eight bank accounts, five luxury cars -- a
2011 Land Rover, a 2003 Land Rover, a 2007 Bentley, a 2001 Ferrari
and a 1999 Porsche -- and a 2002 Wellcraft Scarab Excel speedboat.
Plus, it placed a lien on a Marlton home owned by Mr. Turner, the
state's Division of Criminal Justice said.

He shared the home with his wife, Robyn Bernstein, whom the
Bamboozled column found to be listed as an officer on corporate
filings for some of Mr. Turner's travel companies.

The criminal charge came after Mr. Turner signed a $3 million
settlement in February 2011 with Consumer Affairs, in which he
pledged to pay nearly $2.2 million in restitution to customers of
11 travel companies.  No funds have been paid to the state from
the settlement.

The state said a second civil case filed by Consumer Affairs in
June 2011 against Mr. Turner, Ms. Bernstein, VIP Executives and
Travel Deals -- a company about which the state received an
additional 170 consumer complaints -- is pending.

The Division of Criminal Justice said its criminal case is also
pending, and the investigation continues.

"The theft by deception charge is an indictable offense and it
will be presented to a grand jury," said spokesman Peter Aseltine,
who wasn't able to give a timetable.  "Every defendant does get
bail and he was charged, which is all we can try to do to keep him
in jail."

Mr. Aseltine said the state still holds the assets that were
seized from Mr. Turner upon his arrest, but he couldn't say how
much was in the bank accounts or what the assets were worth.

Attorney Meyers said he was pleased with most of the court's
ruling, but he was disappointed that FIA Card Services, which Mr.
Meyers argued worked in conjunction with the travel companies by
offering financing at travel club seminars, would not be part of
the case.

"They took away the deep pockets and left us with the empty
pockets," he said.  "The tragedy is that people get away with
these things.  That's the reality right now."

Mr. Turner's attorney, Richard Gallucci, did not respond to
requests for comment.


EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Seek Class Cert. Denial in Membership Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on
its motion for class certification denial in the lawsuit arising
from membership terms in its Thousand Trails network of
campgrounds, according to the Company's November 5, 2012, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On July 29, 2011, the Company was served with a class action
lawsuit in California state court filed by two named plaintiffs,
who are husband and wife.  Among other allegations, the lawsuit
alleges that the plaintiffs purchased a membership in the
Company's Thousand Trails network of campgrounds and paid annual
dues; that they were unable to make a reservation to utilize one
of the campgrounds because, they were told, their membership did
not permit them to utilize that particular campground; that the
Company failed to comply with the written disclosure requirements
of various states' membership camping statutes; that the Company
misrepresented that it provides a money-back guaranty; and that
the Company misrepresented that the campgrounds or portions of the
campgrounds would be limited to use by members.

Allegedly on behalf of "between 100,000 and 200,000" putative
class members, the lawsuit asserts claims for alleged violation
of: (1) the California Civil Code Sections 1812.300, et seq.; (2)
the Arizona Revised Statutes Sections 32-2198, et seq.; (3)
Chapter 222 of the Texas Property Code; (4) Florida Code Sections
509.001, et seq.; (5) Chapter 119B of the Nevada Administrative
Code; (6) Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq., (7)
Business & Professions Code Sections 17500; (8) Fraud --
Intentional Misrepresentation and False Promise; (9) Fraud --
Omission; (10) Negligent Misrespresentation; and (11) Unjust
Enrichment.  The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission
of the membership agreements and refund of the member dues of
plaintiffs and all others who purchased a membership from or paid
membership dues to the Company since July 21, 2007; general and
special compensatory damages; reasonable attorneys' fees, costs
and expenses of lawsuit; punitive and exemplary damages; a
permanent injunction against the complained of conduct; and pre-
judgment interest.

On August 19, 2011, the Company filed an answer generally denying
the allegations of the complaint, and asserting affirmative
defenses.  On August 23, 2011, the Company removed the case from
the California state court to the federal district court in San
Jose.  On July 23, 2012, the Company filed a motion to deny class
certification.  On July 24, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for leave to amend their class action complaint to add four
additional named plaintiffs.  On August 28, 2012, the Court held a
hearing on the Company's motion to deny class certification and on
the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend.  The Court took the
motions under submission and has not yet ruled on them.
Separately, on September 14, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for class certification, which is being briefed and was scheduled
for hearing on November 6, 2012.


EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Faces Class Suit by Homeowner's Group in Utah
---------------------------------------------------------------
Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
in Utah commenced by Utah Manufactured Homeowner's Action Group,
Inc., according to the Company's November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On October 9, 2012, the Company was served with a class action
lawsuit in Utah state court filed by the "Utah Manufactured
Homeowner's Action Group, Inc." against numerous owners and
operators of numerous Utah manufactured home communities, two of
which are owned by the Company.  Among other allegations, the
lawsuit alleges that the defendants unlawfully impose service
charges or fees on residents that are greater than the defendants'
actual costs of providing the utility services, and that when
residents question or object defendants threaten to evict or
otherwise punish and intimidate the residents.  The lawsuit
asserts claims that the alleged conduct violates Utah Code 57-16-
4(ii)(c) and results in unjust enrichment to the defendants.  The
lawsuit demands a jury trial and seeks, among other relief,
damages in an amount to be determined but not less than $1.0
million; costs and fees; punitive and/or exemplary damages, as
appropriate; and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.  The
Company believes that the lawsuit's allegations are without merit
with respect to the Company, and intends to vigorously defend the
litigation.


HERBAL GROUPS: Sued For False Advertising on Lubra Joint Efficacy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harold M. Hoffman, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Herbal Groups, Inc., and Patrick S. Galvin, Case No.
L-008403-12 (N.J. Super. Ct., Bergen Cty., November 13, 2012)
seeks redress for nationwide injury allegedly inflicted by the
Defendants on the United States consumer public.

The Defendants, on a nationwide basis, advertised, promoted,
marketed, distributed and sold a dietary supplement known as Lubra
Joint, based upon false and misrepresented claims of product
efficacy, Mr. Hoffman alleges.  He adds that the Defendants also
misrepresented the price of a purportedly "free trial" of the
product, and further misrepresented the uniqueness of the
product's purported, constituent ingredients.

Mr. Hoffman is a resident of the County of Bergen, in New Jersey.
He asserts that he was exposed to and read, saw and heard the
Defendants' advertising and marketing claims and promises with
respect to Lubra Joint, and thereafter, purchased Lubra Joint, in
October of 2012.

Herbal Groups is a California corporation headquartered in
Chatsworth, California.  Mr. Galvin is a resident of the state of
California.  The Defendants manufacture, advertise, market and
sell Lubra Joint, a dietary supplement in tablet form, as
guaranteed to provide relief from joint pain.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harold M. Hoffman, Esq.
          240 Grand Avenue
          Englewood, NJ 07631
          Telephone: (201) 569-0086
          E-mail: hoffman.esq@verizon.net


HSBC BANK: Settles Class Action Over Debt Plan for $23.5 Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erin McAuley at Courthouse News Service reports that a class of 16
million HSBC credit cardholders can split more than $23.5 million
to settle claims the bank charged fees for unsolicited debt-
cancelation and-suspension plans, a federal judge ruled.

"Absent the settlement, this case could result in significant
expenditures on both sides in responding to [HSBC's] motion to
dismiss, completing discovery, litigating any summary judgment
motions, and preparing for potentially enormous trial with various
expert and class member witnesses," U.S. District Judge Berle
Schilller wrote.  "Accordingly, this factor favors settlement."

HSBC marketed the plans as services that suspended or canceled
required minimum monthly payments on credit cards if the
cardholder would be, under specific circumstances, unable to pay.

The plans also excused cardholders from paying monthly interest
charges and fees for a period of time, but the cardholders would
have to pay $1.35 for every $100 of their month-ending card
balances.  On average, cardholders paid less than $200 total for
the plans, the court found.

In its July 2010 complaint against HSBC Bank Nevada NA and HSBC
Card Services, the class claimed that HSBC enrolled clients in the
plans without consent, and that it marketed and administered the
plans deceptively.

A second amended complaint brought allegations against HSBC
Finance Corp.

HSBC moved to dismiss in November 2010, but the court suspended
the case and urged the parties to settle.

After filing a notice of settlement in July 2011, the court
granted conditional approval in February and conducted a final
approval hearing this past October.

The agreement settles a total of six class actions filed against
HSBC in 2010 and 2011 relating to the plans.  It includes all
cardholders enrolled in the plans after July 2, 2004.

HSBC will dish out $23.5 million to pay settlement costs and
claims.  Any class member who did not already receive benefits or
a refund, and was enrolled for a year or less, may claim a $30
settlement award.  Class members whose claims for benefits were
improperly denied under a plan may claim a $60 settlement, and all
others who did not yet receive a refund and were dissatisfied with
the plan may claim $15.  No class member can receive more than
$150.

Remaining funds will be distributed as a cy pres award to
charities, according to the ruling.

"This court believes that the settlement represents a fair
compromise between two parties seeking to end litigation whose
outcome is murky and uncertain," Judge Schiller wrote.  "The
settlement, as a product of lengthy negotiation and mediation
between experienced attorneys who vigorously represented their
clients' interest, will therefore be approved."

The final settlement also affords more than $7 million in
attorneys' fees, and more than $100,000 in costs.  Class
representatives will take $3,500 each.

A copy of the Memorandum in Esslinger, et al. v. HSBC Bank Nevada,
N.A., et al., Case No. 10-cv-03213 (E.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/03/HSBC.pdf


HSBC USA: Briefing on Appeals in Madoff-Related Suits Completed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on three appeals in class action lawsuits arising from
Bernard L. Madoff's Ponzi scheme was completed in September,
according to HSBC USA Inc.'s November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2012.

In December 2008, Bernard L. Madoff ("Madoff") was arrested for
running a Ponzi scheme and a trustee was appointed for the
liquidation of his firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities
LLC ("Madoff Securities"), an SEC-registered broker-dealer and
investment adviser.  Various non-U.S. HSBC companies provided
custodial, administration and similar services to a number of
funds incorporated outside the United States whose assets were
invested with Madoff Securities.  Plaintiffs (including funds,
funds investors and the Madoff Securities trustee) have commenced
Madoff-related proceedings against numerous defendants in a
multitude of jurisdictions. Various HSBC companies have been named
as defendants in lawsuits in the United States, Ireland,
Luxembourg and other jurisdictions.  Certain lawsuits (which
include U.S. putative class actions) allege that the HSBC
defendants knew or should have known of Madoff's fraud and
breached various duties to the funds and fund investors.

In November 2011, the District Court judge overseeing three
related putative class actions in the Southern District of New
York, captioned In re Herald, Primeo and Thema Funds Securities
Litigation (S.D.N.Y. Nos. 09-CV-0289 (RMB), 09-CV-2558 (RMB)),
dismissed all claims against the HSBC defendants on forum non
conveniens grounds, but temporarily stayed this ruling as to one
of the actions against the HSBC defendants -- the claims of
investors in Thema International Fund plc -- in light of a
proposed amended settlement agreement between the lead plaintiff
in that action and the relevant HSBC defendants (including,
subject to the granting of leave to effect a proposed pleading
amendment, HSBC Bank USA).  In December 2011, the District Court
lifted this temporary stay and dismissed all remaining claims
against the HSBC defendants, and declined to consider preliminary
approval of the settlement.  In light of the District Court's
decisions, HSBC has terminated the settlement agreement.  The
Thema plaintiff contests HSBC's right to terminate.  Plaintiffs in
all three actions filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where the actions are
captioned In re Herald, Primeo and Thema Funds Securities
Litigation (2nd Cir, Nos. 12-156, 12-184, 12-162).  Briefing in
these appeals was completed in September 2012, and oral argument
has not yet been scheduled.


HSBC USA: Continues to Defend Lender-Placed Insurance Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 HSBC USA Inc.'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 actions against the Company and its
subsidiaries captioned Montanez et al v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation
(USA) et al. (E.D. Pa. No. 11-CV-4074); Maxwell et al v. HSBC
Mortgage Corporation (USA) et al. (S.D.N.Y. No. 12-CV-1699); West
et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) et al. (South Carolina
Court of Common Pleas, 14th Circuit No. 12-CP-00687).  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.

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.


HSBC USA: Continues to Defend "Levin" Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit captioned Ofra Levin et al v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al
remains pending in New York, according to HSBC USA Inc.'s November
5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In February 2011, an action captioned Ofra Levin et al v. HSBC
Bank USA, N.A. et al (E.D.N.Y. 11-CV-0701) was filed in the
Eastern District of New York against HSBC Bank USA, HSBC USA and
HSBC North America Holdings Inc. ("HSBC North America") on behalf
of a putative nationwide class and New York sub-class of customers
who allegedly incurred overdraft fees due to the posting of debit
card transactions to deposit accounts in high-to-low order.  Levin
asserts claims for breach of contract and the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, conversion, unjust enrichment, and
violation of the New York deceptive acts and practices statute.
The plaintiffs dismissed the Federal court action after the case
was transferred to the multi-district litigation pending in Miami,
Florida, and re-filed the case in New York state court on March 1,
2011.  The action, captioned Ofra Levin et al v. HSBC Bank USA,
N.A. et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 650562/11), alleges a variety of common
law claims and violations on behalf of a New York class, including
breach of contract and implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, conversion, unjust enrichment and a violation of the New
York deceptive acts and practices statute.  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint in May 2011.  In June 2012, the
court denied in part and granted in part the motion to dismiss,
granting plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint with regard to
plaintiffs' claims for conversion and unjust enrichment.

On October 11, 2012, the parties attended a hearing before the
Court at which time plaintiff's counsel sought to withdraw as
counsel for the named plaintiff in the matter and to amend the
complaint to, among other things, substitute a new named
plaintiff.  The Court granted the motion to amend, but found the
motion to withdraw procedurally defective.  The Court will permit
plaintiff's counsel to re-file a motion to withdraw, and the
parties await further proceedings in the case.


HSBC USA: Settlement With Individual Merchants Effective in Oct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement agreement with individual merchant plaintiffs in
lawsuits over interchange fees became effective in October 2012,
according to HSBC USA Inc.'s November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2012.

HSBC USA Inc. is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC North
America Holdings Inc. ("HSBC North America"), which is an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC Holdings plc ("HSBC").

Since June 2005, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC
North America and HSBC, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. and
MasterCard 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. 3:05-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 Asps' 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 Bank USA, 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 Bank USA 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 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.  In connection
with the execution of the MOU, the Company increased its
litigation reserves by an immaterial amount in anticipation of a
related short-term reduction in interchange fees.


INNOVATION VENTURES: Can Pursue Claims v. Class Action Lawyers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ciaran McEvoy, writing for Law360, reports that a California state
appellate court on Nov. 29 held that Innovation Ventures LLC can
pursue malicious prosecution claims against four lawyers and a law
firm that brought an unsuccessful class action alleging the
company deceived consumers about its 5-Hour Energy drink, saying
the lawyers may have acted wrongfully.

In a 20-page unpublished opinion, a three-judge panel ruled that
claims against plaintiff Vi Nguyen should be dismissed under
California's anti-strategic lawsuits against public participation
statute, which is designed to prevent lawsuits that target free
speech.


MECOX LANE: Second Circuit Affirms Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
Mecox Lane Limited, which operates one of China's leading online
platforms for apparel and accessories, announced on Dec. 3 that
the previous judgment of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to dismiss a class action lawsuit
filed against the Company and several of its officers and
directors was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

On November 29, 2012, in the case of Westend Group v. Mecox Lane
Limited, et al., No. 12-1326-cv, the Court of Appeals affirmed, by
a summary order of a three-judge panel, Mecox Lane's victory in
District Court, where the plaintiff's claims under Section 11 of
the Securities Act, along with derivative claims under Section 15
of the Securities Act, were dismissed without prejudice.  The
Court of Appeals held, as the District Court had previously held,
that the plaintiff had failed to state a Section 11 claim upon
which relief could be granted.  The Company is allowed to file a
record of all allowable costs incurred to be paid by plaintiff.
The Company intends to do so.


P&L RAILROAD: Town Hall Meeting Held to Discuss Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
WLKY reports that dozens of people in West Point showed up for a
town hall meeting looking to learn more about a lawsuit filed
following a train derailment near their homes.

The class-action suit was filed in Hardin County, and attorneys
behind it held a question and answer session on Nov. 30.

There are four plaintiffs currently listed on the lawsuit, but the
meeting gave others living in West Point the opportunity to join.

More than 60 people showed up to that meeting, hosted by a team of
attorneys from Louisville, Paducah and Louisiana.

It all stems from what happened on Oct. 29.  A train derailment
near West Point leaked toxic chemicals, and a subsequent explosion
during the clean up process led to a five-mile shelter in place
and the evacuation of about 1,200 people.

Attorneys responsible for the suit said anyone who had to be
evacuated, or any business forced to shut down during the
derailment can make a legitimate claim for damages.

The suit names P&L Railroad, CSX Transportation and RJ Corman as
defendants, and hundreds of people could potentially be on board
with the suit against them.

"They carry chemicals like that all the time.  I'm terrified now.
I'm terrified of what they're not telling us, versus what they are
telling us," said West Point resident Peggy Thompson.

"I just want to make sure in the long run, me and my son know what
we're breathing in, and if we have a problem in the future they're
going to take care of it," said West Point resident Polly Craig.

The defendants have 20 days to file an answer in this case, but
the entire process won't be a quick one.


PARKLANE FINANCIAL: Court Certifies Class Action Over Gift Program
------------------------------------------------------------------
MELODIKA.net reports that a class action has been certified by the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice in a class action brought by
Michael Cannon against ParkLane Financial Group Limited, Trafalgar
Associates Limited, Trafalgar Trading Limited, Funds for Canada
Foundation, Appleby Services (Bermuda) Ltd. as trustee for the
Bermuda Longtail Trust, Edwin C. Harris Q.C., Patterson Palmer
also known as Patterson Palmer Law, Patterson Kitz (Halifax),
Patterson Kitz (Truro), McInnes Cooper, Gleeson Management
Associates Inc., Matt Gleeson and Mary-Lou Gleeson.

The claim alleges, among other things, that the Defendants were
negligent in creating and operating the ParkLane Donations for
Canada Charitable Gift Program in the years 2005-2009, and that
the promotional materials about the Gift Program contained
misrepresentations.  The claim alleges that the Gift Program was a
fraud and/or that it was in breach of provincial consumer
protection legislation therefore that the Class Members are
entitled to rescind the agreements, and to be repaid the money
they paid to participate in the Gift Program.

None of the allegations has been proven in court, and the
Defendants deny liability.

The Class is comprised of any person who participated in the
ParkLane Donations for Canada Charitable Gift Program while
resident in Canada during the period between January 1, 2005 and
December 31, 2009, excluding persons immediately associated with
or related to the Defendants.

Further information regarding the class action, including a copy
of the notice of certification as a class action is available on
Class Counsel's Web site at http://www.parklaneclassaction.com


RANBAXY: Faces Class Action Over Atorvastatin Recall
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Ranbaxy's November recall of atorvastatin, generic Lipitor, sent
to retailers only, did not inform consumers that glass particles
were found in the drug, nor how to get a refund.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Appeal Briefs in "Robin" Suit Fully Submitted
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc. said 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 briefing in the appeal from
the dismissal of the class action lawsuit initiated by Terry G.
Robin, et al., is now fully submitted but no date has been set for
oral argument.

On July 14, 2010, a group of individuals and entities purporting
to represent a class commenced a civil action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Terry G. Robin, et
al. v. Seacor Marine, L.L.C., et al., No. 2:10-cv-01986 (E.D. La.)
(the "Robin Case"), in which they assert that support vessels,
including vessels owned by the Company, responding to the
explosion and resulting fire that occurred aboard the semi-
submersible drilling rig, the Deepwater Horizon, were negligent in
their efforts to save lives and put out the fire and contributed
to the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon and subsequent oil spill.
The action now is part of the overall multi-district litigation,
In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179
("MDL").  The complaint seeks compensatory, punitive, exemplary,
and other damages.  In response to this lawsuit, the Company filed
petitions seeking exoneration from, or limitation of liability in
relation to, any actions that may have been taken by vessels owned
by the Company to extinguish the fire.  Pursuant to the Limitation
of Liability Act, those petitions imposed an automatic stay on the
Robin Case, and the court set a deadline of April 20, 2011, for
individual claimants to assert claims in the limitation cases.

Approximately 66 claims were submitted by the deadline in all of
the limitation actions.  On June 8, 2011, the Company moved to
dismiss these claims (with the exception of one claim filed by a
Company employee) on various legal grounds.  On October 12, 2011,
the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety,
dismissing with prejudice all claims that had been filed against
the Company in the limitation actions (with the exception of one
claim filed by a Company employee that was not subject to the
motion to dismiss).

The Court entered final judgments in favor of the Company in the
Robin Case and each of the limitation actions on November 21,
2011.  On December 12, 2011, the claimants appealed each of those
judgments to the Unites States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.  The claimants' opening brief was submitted on May 7,
2012, and the claimants filed a reply brief on June 1, 2012.  The
appeal is now fully submitted but no date has been set for oral
argument, if any.

The Company says it is unable to estimate the potential exposure,
if any, resulting from this matter but believes it is without
merit and will continue to vigorously defend the action.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Defends Suits vs. Unit Related to OT Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc. is defending its subsidiary against class
action lawsuits alleging failure to pay overtime with respect to
individuals, who provided service on the Deepwater Horizon spill
response, 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.

O'Brien's Response Management Inc. ("ORM"), a subsidiary of the
Company, is defending against five collective action lawsuits,
each asserting failure to pay overtime with respect to individuals
who provided service on the Deepwater Horizon spill response (the
"DPH FLSA Actions") under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
Four of the cases -- Dennis Prejean v. O'Brien's Response
Management, Inc. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01045) (the "Prejean
Action"); Baylor Singleton et. al. v. O'Brien's Response
Management Inc., et. al. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01716) (the
"Singleton Action"); Himmerite et al. v. O'Brien's Response
Management Inc. et al. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01533) (the
"Himmerite Action"); and Chann Chavis v. O'Brien's Response
Management Inc. et al. (S.D. Tx., Case No.: 4:12-cv-02045) (the
"Chavis Action") -- were each brought on behalf of certain
individuals who worked on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response
and who were classified as independent contractors.  The Prejean,
Himmerite and Singleton Actions were each filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and
then subsequently consolidated with the In re: Oil Spill
Multidistrict Litigation (N.D. La., Case No. 10-md-02179) (the
"Oil Spill MDL").  The Himmerite and Singleton Actions have since
been automatically stayed pending further scheduling by the Court,
pursuant to the procedures in the Oil Spill MDL.  In the Prejean
Action, ORM has answered the complaint, a scheduling order has
been issued and Plaintiffs have, among other things, filed a
Motion for Conditional Certification, which has been stayed
pending further scheduling by the Court in accordance with the
procedures of the Oil Spill MDL.  The limitations periods for
potential plaintiffs to opt-in to the Prejean, Himmerite and
Singleton actions have all been tolled pending further action by
the court.  ORM has filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court's order tolling the limitations periods in these actions.

The Chavis Action was filed on July 7, 2012, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and ORM
answered the complaint in that matter.  The other DPH FLSA Action,
Mark Blackman et. al. v. Midwest Environmental Resources, Inc.,
et. al. (N.D. Fla., Case No.: 3:11-cv-146) (the "Blackman
Action"), was filed by five individual Plaintiffs on March 28,
2011, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Florida, against ORM and several other Defendants.
The complaint in the Blackman Action alleges that the named
Plaintiffs and class of workers they are suing on behalf of,
identified in the complaint as "Safety Techs," were not
appropriately compensated for all of their work time in violation
of the FLSA.  On July 8, 2011, the Court stayed all proceedings in
the Blackman Action.  On May 8, 2012, the Court ruled on various
motions to dismiss brought by ORM and by the other Defendants,
denying them in part, granting them in part, and providing the
Plaintiffs with leave to amend the complaint.  On June 6, 2012,
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and on
June 20, 2012, Defendant ORM answered the amended complaint,
denying all of the Plaintiffs' claims.  On July 6, 2012, the Court
issued a scheduling order setting discovery and dispositive motion
deadlines.  On August 27, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Conditional Certification.  Defendants' response to Plaintiffs'
motion is due January 31, 2013.

The Company says it is unable to estimate the potential exposure,
if any, resulting from any of the five DPH FLSA Actions, but
believes they are without merit and will continue to vigorously
defend against them.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Fee Motion in Antitrust Suit Denied in October
---------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc. and other defendants' motion for payment of
certain excessive costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees in an
antitrust lawsuit was denied in October 2012, according to the
Company's October 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On June 12, 2009, a purported civil class action was filed against
the Company, Era Group Inc., Era Helicopters LLC and three other
defendants (collectively, the "Defendants") in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware, Superior Offshore
International, Inc. v. Bristow Group Inc., et al., No. 09-CV-438
(D. Del.).  The Complaint alleged that the Defendants violated
federal antitrust law by conspiring with each other to raise, fix,
maintain or stabilize prices for offshore helicopter services in
the U.S. Gulf of Mexico during the period January 2001 to December
2005.  The purported class of plaintiffs included all direct
purchasers of such services and the relief sought included
compensatory damages and treble damages.  On September 4, 2009,
the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint.  On
September 14, 2010, the Court entered an order dismissing the
Complaint.  On September 28, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for reconsideration and amendment and a motion for re-argument
(the "Motions").  On November 30, 2010, the Court granted the
Motions, amended the Court's September 14, 2010 Order to clarify
that the dismissal was without prejudice, permitted the filing of
an amended Complaint, and authorized limited discovery with
respect to the new allegations in the amended Complaint.
Following the completion of such limited discovery, on February
11, 2011, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment to
dismiss the amended Complaint with prejudice.  On June 23, 2011,
the District Court granted summary judgment for the Defendants.
On July 22, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  On July 27, 2002,
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's
grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

On August 9, 2011, Defendants moved for certain excessive costs,
expenses, and attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C. Section 1927 (the
"Fee Motion").  On October 9, 2012, the District Court denied the
Fee Motion.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Awaits Summary Judgment Bid Rulings in MDL 2179
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc.'s subsidiaries are awaiting court rulings on
their motions for summary judgment re-asserting their derivative
immunity and implied preemption arguments in one of the master
complaints over clean-up activities generally, and the use of
dispersants specifically, filed in In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179, according to the Company's
October 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On December 15, 2010, O'Brien's Response Management Inc. ("ORM"),
a Company subsidiary, and then-SEACOR subsidiary National Response
Corporation ("NRC") were named as defendants in one of the several
consolidated "master complaints" that have been filed in the
overall multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179.  The master complaint naming
ORM and NRC asserts various claims on behalf of a putative class
against multiple defendants concerning the clean-up activities
generally, and the use of dispersants specifically.  The Company
believes that the claims asserted against ORM and NRC in the
master complaint have no merit and on February 28, 2011, ORM and
NRC moved to dismiss all claims against them in the master
complaint on legal grounds.  On September 30, 2011, the Court
granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss that ORM
and NRC had filed (an amended decision was issued on October 4,
2011 that corrected several grammatical errors and non-substantive
oversights in the original order).  Although the Court refused to
dismiss the referenced master complaint in its entirety at that
time, the Court did recognize the validity of the "derivative
immunity" and "implied preemption" arguments that ORM and NRC
advanced and has directed ORM and NRC to (i) conduct limited
discovery to develop evidence to support those arguments and (ii)
then re-assert the arguments.  The Court did, however, dismiss all
state-law claims and certain other claims that had been asserted
in the referenced master complaint, and dismissed the claims of
all plaintiffs that have failed to allege a legally-sufficient
injury.  A schedule for limited discovery and motion practice was
established by the Court and, in accordance with that schedule,
ORM and NRC filed for summary judgment re-asserting their
derivative immunity and implied preemption arguments on May 18,
2012.  Those motions were argued on July 13, 2012, and are still
pending decision.  In addition to the indemnity provided to ORM,
pursuant to contractual agreements with the responsible party, the
responsible party has agreed, subject to certain potential
limitations, to indemnify and defend ORM and NRC in connection
with these claims in the MDL.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: "Wunstell" Class Action Suit Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
On July 20, 2010, two individuals purporting to represent a class
commenced a civil action in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, John Wunstell, Jr.
and Kelly Blanchard v. BP, et al., No. 2010-7437 (Division K) (the
"Wunstell Action"), in which they assert, among other theories,
that Mr. Wunstell suffered injuries as a result of his exposure to
certain noxious fumes and chemicals in connection with the
provision of remediation, containment and response services by
O'Brien's Response Management Inc. ("ORM"), a subsidiary of SEACOR
Holdings Inc.  The action now is part of the overall multi-
district litigation, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater
Horizon," MDL No. 2179.  The complaint also seeks to establish a
"class-wide court-supervised medical monitoring program" for all
individuals "participating in BP's Deepwater Horizon Vessels of
Opportunity Program and/or Horizon Response Program" who allegedly
experienced injuries similar to those of Mr. Wunstell.  The
Company believes this lawsuit has no merit and will continue to
vigorously defend the action.  Pursuant to contractual agreements
with the responsible party, the responsible party has agreed,
subject to certain potential limitations, to indemnify and defend
ORM in connection with the Wunstell Action and claims asserted in
the MDL.

By court order, the Wunstell Action has been stayed as a result of
the filing of the overall MDL against SEACOR subsidiaries, ORM and
National Response Corporation on December 15, 2010.

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.


VECTOR GROUP: Appeal From Dismissal of "Smith" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit captioned
Smith v. Philip Morris remains pending, according to Vector Group
Ltd.'s October 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Since 1954, Vector Group Ltd.'s subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC
("Liggett") and other United States cigarette manufacturers have
been named as defendants in numerous direct, third-party and
purported class actions predicated on the theory that cigarette
manufacturers should be liable for damages alleged to have been
caused by cigarette smoking or by exposure to secondary smoke from
cigarettes.  New cases continue to be commenced against Liggett
and other cigarette manufacturers.

As of September 30, 2012, there were four actions pending for
which either a class had been certified or plaintiffs were seeking
class certification, where Liggett is a named defendant, including
one alleged price fixing case.  Other cigarette manufacturers are
also named in these actions.

In Smith v. Philip Morris, a Kansas state court case filed in
February 2000, plaintiffs allege that cigarette manufacturers
conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount in actual and
punitive damages.  Class certification was granted in November
2001.  On January 18, 2012, the trial court heard oral argument on
defendants' motions for summary judgment and on March 23, 2012,
the court granted the motions and dismissed plaintiffs' claims
with prejudice.  On July 18, 2012, plaintiffs noticed an appeal.

Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company and is principally engaged
in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States
through its Liggett Group LLC and Vector Tobacco Inc.
subsidiaries.  The Company is also engaged in the real estate
business through its New Valley LLC subsidiary, which is seeking
to acquire additional operating companies and real estate
properties.  New Valley owns 50% of Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC,
which operates the largest residential brokerage company in the
New York metropolitan area.  The Company is headquartered in
Miami, Florida.


VECTOR GROUP: "Brown" Suit vs. Liggett Concluded in September
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit involving a subsidiary of Vector Group
Ltd., titled Brown v. Philip Morris USA, was concluded in
September 2012, according to the Company's October 31, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Since 1954, Vector Group Ltd.'s subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC
("Liggett") and other United States cigarette manufacturers have
been named as defendants in numerous direct, third-party and
purported class actions predicated on the theory that cigarette
manufacturers should be liable for damages alleged to have been
caused by cigarette smoking or by exposure to secondary smoke from
cigarettes.  New cases continue to be commenced against Liggett
and other cigarette manufacturers.

As of September 30, 2012, there were four actions pending for
which either a class had been certified or plaintiffs were seeking
class certification, where Liggett is a named defendant, including
one alleged price fixing case.  Other cigarette manufacturers are
also named in these actions.

In April 2001, in Brown v. Philip Morris USA, a California state
court granted in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification
and certified a class comprised of adult residents of California
who smoked at least one of defendants' cigarettes "during the
applicable time period" and who were exposed to defendants'
marketing and advertising activities in California.  On
September 24, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the case
with prejudice against Liggett and certain of the other
defendants.  The dismissal was approved by the court on
September 27, 2012, and this matter is concluded.

Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company and is principally engaged
in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States
through its Liggett Group LLC and Vector Tobacco Inc.
subsidiaries.  The Company is also engaged in the real estate
business through its New Valley LLC subsidiary, which is seeking
to acquire additional operating companies and real estate
properties.  New Valley owns 50% of Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC,
which operates the largest residential brokerage company in the
New York metropolitan area.  The Company is headquartered in
Miami, Florida.


VECTOR GROUP: "Parsons" Suit vs. Liggett Still Stayed in W.V.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Since 1954, Vector Group Ltd.'s subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC
("Liggett") and other United States cigarette manufacturers have
been named as defendants in numerous direct, third-party and
purported class actions predicated on the theory that cigarette
manufacturers should be liable for damages alleged to have been
caused by cigarette smoking or by exposure to secondary smoke from
cigarettes.  New cases continue to be commenced against Liggett
and other cigarette manufacturers.

As of September 30, 2012, there were four actions pending for
which either a class had been certified or plaintiffs were seeking
class certification, where Liggett is a named defendant, including
one alleged price fixing case.  Other cigarette manufacturers are
also named in these actions.

In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a case pending in
West Virginia, a class was commenced on behalf of all West
Virginia residents who allegedly have personal injury claims
arising from exposure to cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers.  The
complaint seeks to recover $1 million in compensatory and punitive
damages individually and unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages for the class.  The case is stayed as a result of the
December 2000 bankruptcy of three of the defendants.

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.

Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company and is principally engaged
in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States
through its Liggett Group LLC and Vector Tobacco Inc.
subsidiaries.  The Company is also engaged in the real estate
business through its New Valley LLC subsidiary, which is seeking
to acquire additional operating companies and real estate
properties.  New Valley owns 50% of Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC,
which operates the largest residential brokerage company in the
New York metropolitan area.  The Company is headquartered in
Miami, Florida.


VECTOR GROUP: "Young" Suit vs. Liggett Remains Dormant
------------------------------------------------------
Since 1954, Vector Group Ltd.'s subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC
("Liggett") and other United States cigarette manufacturers have
been named as defendants in numerous direct, third-party and
purported class actions predicated on the theory that cigarette
manufacturers should be liable for damages alleged to have been
caused by cigarette smoking or by exposure to secondary smoke from
cigarettes.  New cases continue to be commenced against Liggett
and other cigarette manufacturers.

As of September 30, 2012, there were four actions pending for
which either a class had been certified or plaintiffs were seeking
class certification, where Liggett is a named defendant, including
one alleged price fixing case.  Other cigarette manufacturers are
also named in these actions.

In November 1997, in Young v. American Tobacco Co., a purported
personal injury class action was commenced on behalf of plaintiff
and all similarly situated residents in Louisiana who, though not
themselves cigarette smokers, are alleged to have been exposed to
secondhand smoke from cigarettes which were manufactured by the
defendants, and who suffered injury as a result of that exposure.
The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages.  In October 2004, the trial
court stayed this case pending the outcome of an appeal in another
matter, which has been concluded.  There has been no further
activity in Young.

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.

Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company and is principally engaged
in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States
through its Liggett Group LLC and Vector Tobacco Inc.
subsidiaries.  The Company is also engaged in the real estate
business through its New Valley LLC subsidiary, which is seeking
to acquire additional operating companies and real estate
properties.  New Valley owns 50% of Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC,
which operates the largest residential brokerage company in the
New York metropolitan area.  The Company is headquartered in
Miami, Florida.


WALMART: Among Defendants in Warehouse Workers' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Eidelson, writing for The Nation, reports that attorneys
representing workers in Walmart warehouses on Nov. 30 announced
the filing of a motion to add the retail giant as a defendant in
an ongoing federal wage theft lawsuit.  If successful, the motion
would advance efforts by organized labor to punish Walmart for
alleged rampant abuses, and to establish its responsibility for
the actions of its contractors and subcontractors in California
and elsewhere.

Lawyers say the wage theft class action could involve as many as
1,800 workers in Southern California's Inland Empire (its class
action status has been provisionally certified for a smaller
group).  Mira Loma, California, workers from three warehouses
brought charges to the California Department of Labor Standards
enforcement last year.  Workers say that they exclusively move
goods for Walmart; each of the subcontractors that hired them was
employed by the Walmart contractor Schneider Logistics.

On a media conference call with the attorneys, Warehouse worker
David Acosta said he worked unpaid overtime, and sometimes worked
up to sixteen hours a day with only a single break.  "There were
years without respect," Mr. Acosta said in Spanish.  "Our dignity
was thrown to the floors."

According to workers, one of those subcontractors, Rogers-Premier,
responded to a worker-prompted state investigation by moving to
lay off all of its employees in one of the warehouses.  With
support from Warehouse Workers United, a project of the union
federation Change to Win, workers sought, and won, a rare judicial
restraining order enjoining the layoffs.  That federal district
court injunction, and two others against the warehouse companies,
are currently on appeal.

The court also found Schneider to be a "joint employer" with
responsibility for working conditions, allowing it to be named as
a defendant in a suit filed in October 2011 alleging rampant wage
theft and retaliation.  In July, a Change to Win attorney called
this "a first step in breaking down this fissured industry."  A
June report from the National Employment Law Project found that
Walmart "is intimately involved in the daily operations of the
Schneider operations, which solely move Walmart goods"; Walmart
responded in July that it "does not have any direct contract with
Schneider's subcontractors."

"Our breaks and rest periods weren't being respected . . . "
warehouse worker Jose Tejada told reporters in February.  "If you
answered, or complained, you would get fired for no reason.  Or
sometimes as punishment . . . you would work both the night and
the day shift, and on top of that they would only pay you for the
morning shift."

WWU has been hoping for months that the discovery phase of the
lawsuit would yield enough evidence to also have Walmart itself
named as a defendant.  Attorneys say that's now happened.  The
motion will be heard in court on January 7.

Attorneys argue for including Walmart as a defendant based on six
legal theories, including that Walmart controls the means of
production and determines the terms and conditions of employment;
that contractors are acting as Walmart's agent; that Walmart is a
co-conspirator; that Walmart has been negligent; and that Walmart
has committed unfair business practices.  Attorneys said on the
conference call that Walmart keeps a full-time staff person in an
on-site office and gives its contractor directives ranging from
when to reduce staffing on a particular truck to when ink needs to
be refilled in a printer.

Attorney Michael Rubin told reporters that Schneider was ordered
on Nov. 29 by a judge to pay nearly $100,000 in legal fees due to
"evidence of massive discovery violations," including "documents
that were destroyed."

Reached by e-mail, Walmart spokesperson Dan Fogleman said, "We
disagree with the plantiffs' perception as stated in their filing.
Walmart is Schneider's customer.  We have a set of business needs
that we pay them to meet just like any company might hire an
accounting firm to do taxes or an advertising firm to help launch
a new product.  While we have a set of quality standards that must
be met, the third party service providers we utilize are
responsible for running their day-to-day business.  They manage
their people completely independent of us."


ZILLOW: Shareholders File Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that insiders at
Zillow dumped $115 million of their own stock at prices inflated
by the company's false and misleading financial statements,
investors claim in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Jonathan Reinschmidt claims the online real estate
services company concealed that it had lost a major advertiser,
was having trouble signing up new subscribers and losing old ones.

During the class period -- from Feb. 15 to Nov 6. this year --
Zillow issued glowing press releases about its prospects, and the
share price reached a high of $46.17, according to the complaint.

During this time, officers dumped their shares and made millions.

Zillow co-founders Richard Barton, who is executive chairman of
the board, and Lloyd Frink, who is vice chairman, sold 1.1 and 1.3
million shares respectively, netting more than $80 million,
according to the complaint.

Company officers "knew that the adverse facts specified herein had
not been disclosed to and were being concealed from the public and
that the positive representations being made were then materially
false and misleading," the complaint states.

But when Zillow disclosed its third quarter financial results on
Nov. 5, it was "hammered by massive sales," according to the
complaint.

"During the class period, defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the company's business practices
and financial results.  Specifically, defendants concealed the
difficulties Zillow was having signing up new real estate agents
as subscribers and the churn it was experiencing in existing
subscribers.  As a result of defendants' false statements,
Zillow's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
class period, reaching a high of $46.17 per share on September 20,
2012.  While Zillow's stock price was inflated, company insiders
sold 3.1 million shares of their own Zillow stock for proceeds of
nearly $115 million, including $103 million worth of stock sold by
the officers named as defendants herein.  The company also was
able to raise $156 million in proceeds through a follow-on
offering, just eight weeks before reducing projections and just 30
days after assuring investors that the Form S-3 Registration
Statement was not intended for a follow-on offering but was just
part of 'good housekeeping,'" the complaint states.

A follow-on offering allows company directors and insiders to sell
privately owned shares.

"On November 5, 2012, after the market closed, Zillow issued a
press release announcing its third quarter 2012 financial results.
Additionally, Zillow provided an update to its fourth quarter and
full year 2012 revenue guidance, revealing revenue expectations in
the range of $30.0 to $31.0 million for the fourth quarter of 2012
and revenue guidance for the full year 2012 of $113.0 million.
This guidance fell below analysts' estimates.  Furthermore, Zillow
announced that its estimates of home valuation, referred to as
'Zestimates,' had lost a large display advertiser,
Foreclosure.com, and therefore defendants expected weakness in the
company's display advertising business," the complaint states.

"These disclosures caused Zillow stock to collapse $6.22 per share
to close at $28.15 per share on November 6, 2012, a one-day
decline of nearly 18% on volume of 7.4 million shares.

"As a result of defendants' false statements, Zillow stock traded
at artificially inflated levels during the class period.  However,
after the above revelations seeped into the market, the company's
shares were hammered by massive sales, sending them down 39
percent from their class period high."

Defendants include CEO Spencer Rascoff, who sold 54,500 shares for
$2.1 million; CFO Chad Cohen, who sold 50,791 shares for $1.76
million, and Chief Technology Officer David Beitel, who sold
257,500 shares for $9.2 million, according to the complaint.

Investors claim Zillow has no "safe harbor" because the company
knew its forward-looking financial statements were false or
misleading.  They say Zillow violated securities laws and want
damages for purchasing Zillow stock at inflated prices.

They are represented by Steve Berman with Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro.


                           *********

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  * * *