---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, December 10, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 244

                             Headlines


ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit
AMBASSADORS GROUP: Securities Class Action Suit Now Dismissed
ARBITRON INC: Securities Suit Filed in New York Now Terminated
AUDIENCE INC: To Respond to IPO-Related Complaint in Feb. 2013
BABY MATTERS: Sued by CPSC Over Infant Recliners-Related Deaths

CNX GAS: Landowners' Coalbed Methane Class Action May Drag
COOPER MINI: Faces Class Action Over Defective Engines
COPYRIGHT SOCIETY: MCSN's Copyright Suit Gets Class Action Status
CREDIT SUISSE: 2nd Cir. Agrees to Hear Appeal in MBS Class Action
EQUINIX INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit

FACEBOOK INC: Sponsored Stories Settlement Gets Initial Court OK
GENTIVA HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid in "Rindfleisch" Suit Pending
GENTIVA HEALTH: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Suit
HARBORTOUCH: Sued Over Unauthorized Credit Card Processing Fees
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Defends Staffing Class Suit vs. Facilities

KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Defends Suits Over Employee-Related Claims
MECOX LANE: Wins Securities Class Action But Net Income Drops
MOODY'S CORP: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending
MOODY'S CORP: May Trial on Fraud Claims in "Abu Dhabi" Suit Set
MOODY'S CORP: Units Seek Summary Judgment in Consolidated Suit

NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Court Says Mandatory Arbitration Policy Binding
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: 7th Cir. Sends Class Action to Federal Court
PENNZOIL QUAKER: Faces Two Class Actions Over Pollution
PRICE CHOPPER: Recalls Mislabeled CMC Cinnamon Nut Coffee Cakes
PRIME GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Five Mile Merger

RALCORP: Being Sold to Conagra for Too Little, Suit Claims
RANBAXY INC: Faces Class action Over Generic Lipitor Recall
SOUNDBITE COMM: FCC Ruling May Avert Suits Over Opt-Out Text Msg.
STEC INC: Believes Federal Suit Deal Will Free State Suit Claims
STEC INC: Awaits OK of $35.8-MM Consolidated Securities Suit Deal

TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit
UBS AG: Judge Approves Arbitration Bid in Overtime Suit
UPONOR WIRSBRO: Sued Over Defective Brass Plumbing Components
WELLS CORE: Awaits Approval of $4.9MM Securities Suit Settlement
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Durom Securities Class Action Suit Now Closed

                          *********

ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
On August 10, 2010, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased
Alphatec Holdings, Inc.'s common stock between December 19, 2009,
and August 5, 2010, against the Company and certain of its
directors and executives alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  On
February 17, 2011, an amended complaint was filed against the
Company and certain of its directors and officers adding alleged
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  HealthpointCapital,
Jefferies & Company, Inc., Canaccord Adams, Inc., Cowen and
Company, Inc., and Lazard Capital Markets LLC are also defendants
in this action.  The complaint alleges that the defendants made
false or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material facts, about the Company's business, financial condition,
operations and prospects, particularly relating to the Scient'x
transaction and the Company's financial guidance following the
closing of the acquisition.  The complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief.

On March 21, 2012, the court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss the plaintiff's complaint against all defendants and gave
the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.  On April 19,
2012, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint and the defendants
have answered this amended complaint with a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 6,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against this complaint; however no
assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of this
lawsuit.

Alphatec Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.alphatecspine.com/-- a
medical technology company, designs, develops, manufactures, and
markets products for the surgical treatment of spine disorders,
primarily focusing on the aging spine in the United States and
internationally.  The Company was incorporated in 2005 and is
headquartered in Carlsbad, California.


AMBASSADORS GROUP: Securities Class Action Suit Now Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action lawsuit against Ambassadors Group,
Inc. is now dismissed, according to the Company's November 6,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On July 14, 2009, a securities class action was filed against the
Company and certain of its executive officers on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased its Common Stock between
February 8, 2007, and October 23, 2007, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.  As
previously disclosed by the Company in a Current Report on Form 8-
K filed with the SEC on April 18, 2011, an agreement was reached
to settle the securities class action.  Under the terms of the
settlement, the Company's insurance carriers have paid the
settlement amount of $7.5 million, in complete settlement of all
claims, without any admission of wrongdoing or liability by the
Company or any party in the action.  Throughout the litigation,
the Company and the individual defendants have denied, and
continue to deny, the allegations made against them.  The
settlement agreement, which includes a release for all defendants
and other provisions common in such agreements, was preliminarily
approved by the Court on September 6, 2011.  On June 28, 2012, the
Court entered a final order approving the settlement and related
matters.

On October 9, 2012, the Court entered an order directing entry of
judgment and dismissal of the complaint and the claims therein
with prejudice.  As the settlement is covered and was funded by
the Company's insurance carrier, the settlement is not expected to
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition or results of operations.


ARBITRON INC: Securities Suit Filed in New York Now Terminated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action lawsuit against Arbitron Inc. is now
terminated after the parties' settlement received final approval
in October, according to the Company's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On April 30, 2008, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 630
Pension-Annuity Trust Fund filed a securities class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of a purported Class of all purchasers of
Arbitron common stock between July 19, 2007, and November 26,
2007.  The plaintiff asserts that Arbitron, Stephen B. Morris (our
former Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer), and Sean
R. Creamer (currently the Company's Executive Vice President, and
Chief Operating Officer) violated federal securities laws.  The
plaintiff alleges misrepresentations and omissions relating, among
other things, to the delay in commercialization of the Company's
Portable People Meter(TM) ("PPM(R)") ratings service in November
2007, as well as stock sales during the period by company insiders
who were not named as defendants and Messrs. Morris and Creamer.
The plaintiff sought class certification, compensatory damages
plus interest and attorneys' fees, among other remedies.  On
September 22, 2008 the plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint.  On November 25, 2008, Arbitron, Mr. Morris, and Mr.
Creamer each filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Class Action
Complaint.  In September 2009, the plaintiff sought leave to file
a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in lieu of oral argument
on the pending Motions to Dismiss.  The court granted leave to
file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint and denied the
pending Motions to Dismiss without prejudice.  On or about October
19, 2009, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action
Complaint.  Arbitron and each of Mr. Morris and Mr. Creamer again
moved to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint.
Briefing on motions to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint was completed in March 2010.

On September 24, 2010, the Court granted Mr. Creamer's motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's claims against him, and all claims against
Mr. Creamer were dismissed with prejudice.  The motions to dismiss
the Second Amended Class Action Complaint by Arbitron and Mr.
Morris were denied.  Arbitron and Mr. Morris each then filed
answers denying the claims.  On September 6, 2011, the Court
entered an order granting the plaintiff's motion to certify the
action as a class action, to appoint the lead plaintiff as class
representative, and to appoint its counsel as lead counsel.  The
court defined the class as all purchasers of common stock of the
Company who were damaged through purchasing stock during the
period July 19, 2007, through November 26, 2007.

On February 3, 2012, as a result of a mediation process overseen
by an independent mediator, the Company and its insurers agreed to
settle the case for $7 million, which will be funded by insurance.
Because this is a class action, settlements of this type are
subject to preliminary and final review by the Court with an
opportunity for class members to respond to the proposed
settlement and object if they so desire.  In May 2012, the Court
issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement and Notice
of the settlement was sent to the class members.  None of the
defendants in the settlement admitted any wrongdoing with respect
to the allegations in the case.  The Court held a hearing on final
approval of the settlement on October 19, 2012, and issued its
Order of Final Approval of the Settlement on October 23, 2012,
which also terminated the case.


AUDIENCE INC: To Respond to IPO-Related Complaint in Feb. 2013
--------------------------------------------------------------
Audience, Inc. disclosed in its November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2012, that it anticipates filing a response to
a shareholder class action complaint in February 2013.

On September 13, 2012, a purported shareholder filed a class
action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California
for Santa Clara County against the Company, the members of its
board of directors, two of its executive officers and the
underwriters of its initial public offering.  The complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock issued in or traceable to the IPO and
contains claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act.  The complaint seeks, among other things,
compensatory damages, rescission and attorney's fees and costs.
Pursuant to a scheduling order set by the Court, the Company
anticipates filing a response to the complaint in February 2013.

The Company believes that the allegations in the complaint are
without merit and intends to vigorously contest the action.
However, there can be no assurance that the Company will be
successful in its defense and it cannot currently estimate a range
of any possible losses it may experience in connection with this
case.  Accordingly, the Company is unable at this time to estimate
the effects of this complaint on its financial condition, results
of operations or cash flows.


BABY MATTERS: Sued by CPSC Over Infant Recliners-Related Deaths
---------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort to prevent children from suffering further harm, U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) staff filed an
administrative complaint against Baby Matters, LLC, of Berwyn,
Pennsylvania, the manufacturer of Nap Nanny(R) and Nap Nanny
Chill(TM) infant recliners.

The complaint alleges that the Nap Nanny Generation One and Two,
and Chill model infant recliners contain defects in the design,
warnings and instructions, which pose a substantial risk of injury
and death to infants.  The Commission voted 3-0 to approve the
filing of the complaint, which seeks an order requiring that the
firm notify the public of the defect and offer consumers a full
refund.

CPSC is aware of four infants who died in Nap Nanny Generation Two
recliners and a fifth death involved the Chill model.

To date, CPSC has received a total of over 70 additional incident
reports of children nearly falling out of the product.  The staff
alleges that the products create a substantial risk of injury to
the public.

CPSC staff filed the administrative complaint against Baby
Matters, LLC after discussions with the company and its
representatives failed to result in an adequate voluntary recall
plan that would address the hazard posed by consumer use of the
product in a crib or without the harness straps being securely
fastened.

In July 2010, CPSC and Baby Matters, LLC issued a joint recall
news release
[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10309.html]to
announce an $80 coupon to Generation One owners toward the
purchase of a newer model and improved instructions and warnings
to consumers who owned the Generation Two model of Nap Nanny
recliners.

At the time of the July 2010 recall, CPSC was aware of one death
that had occurred in a Nap Nanny recliner and 22 reports of
infants hanging or falling out over the side of the Nap Nanny even
though most of the infants had been placed in the harness.
Subsequently, despite the improvements to the warnings and
instructions, the complaint alleges that additional deaths using
Nap Nanny recliners have been reported, including one in a Chill
model.

The Nap Nanny is a portable infant recliner designed for sleeping,
resting and playing.  The recliner includes a shaped foam base
with an inclined indentation for the baby to sit and a fitted
fabric cover with a three point harness.  Five thousand Nap Nanny
Generation One and 50,000 Generation Two models were sold between
2009 and early 2012 and have been discontinued.  One hundred
thousand Chill models have been sold since January 2011. All were
priced around $130.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10309.html

                    Commissioner's Statement

The Commission has voted to issue an administrative complaint
against Baby Matters, LLC, the manufacturer of the Nap Nanny, an
infant recliner.  My heart goes out to the parents and families of
children who are injured or lose their lives in incidents
associated with consumer products.  Yet not every incident that
occurs in the presence of a product was necessarily caused by that
product.  Properly identifying and addressing a causal link is a
key responsibility of the Commission.  I joined my colleagues in
voting to issue the complaint because I believe that the legal
theory described in the complaint concerning the reasonably
foreseeable misuse of Baby Matters' products deserves a thorough
vetting by an administrative law judge.  This concept remains
nebulous and incompletely defined even as the agency has dealt
with it over the years.  Should this case come up for the
Commission's consideration, I look forward to reviewing the facts
and considering the legal arguments of all parties.


CNX GAS: Landowners' Coalbed Methane Class Action May Drag
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael L. Owens, writing for Bristol Herald Courier, reports that
after nearly four hours of questioning lawyers on the wonky world
of coalbed methane and class-action court procedure, U.S.
Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent rested a chin on her hand,
drew in a long breath and sighed.

"I don't even want to think about, or try to comprehend, doing a
case more difficult than this," she said on Nov. 30.

It's now up for her to decide whether five cases filed against
energy companies CNX Gas and EQT Production for millions of
dollars in royalties on natural gas siphoned from underneath
Southwest Virginia can move forward as class action suits by more
than a thousand land owners.  Otherwise, the case might die in its
tracks.

A decision will not likely come anytime soon, she said.
Landowner representative David S. Stellings noted during the
hearing that his clients cannot win unless the case is fought as a
class-action suit that represents many people with a similar
argument at once.  It's not possible for each landowner to fight
for royalties individually, he said.

"If we have to go deed by deed . . . this case is done," he told
Judge Sargent.  "Even if it's $10,000 in [royalties] . . . you're
going to have to spend $10,000 or more to prove that it's yours."

In one set of cases, a small group of landowners say they were
shortchanged when leasing gas because the energy companies
deducted from royalties the post-production costs of moving and
cleaning the product.

The other cases involve a 20-year-old state law allowing energy
companies to siphon gas from coal seams without the landowners'
permission, and then dump a percentage of the disputed royalties
in a closed escrow account until ownership can be decided in
court.  Slightly more than $27 million is tied up in the escrow
accounts from the process, called forced pooling.

In a class-action case, the landowners say they can prove a claim
to the royalties and that not enough money was dumped into the
escrow accounts.

Wade Massie, an attorney for the Pittsburg, Penn.-based EQT,
argued that the question of who owns the escrow royalties is not a
legal issue to be answered in a courtroom.  Instead, a new law
needs to be enacted to settle the question, he said.

"If there is a problem, it is not something that the court can
solve and not a problem that the gas companies can solve, but that
the legislature can solve," he argued.

Judge Sargent shot back by noting that no one seems to have ever
attempted to find a successful resolution.

"The legislators have had 20 years," she said.  "I've been puzzled
all along why EQT appears to be fighting a resolution."

Ownership of coalbed methane first came into question in the 1980s
when companies found a way to separate the gas from coal.  Before
then, it was thought of as a deadly and explosive nuisance.
The 1990 Virginia Gas Act calls for forced pooling so businesses
can drill first and determine ownership later.  But the practice
is allowed only if energy companies can map out the pooling lots
for the state's Gas and Oil Board and list the deeds of the
landowners involved.

About two years ago, attorneys representing the landowners --
called the Virginia Gas Owner's Litigation Group -- filed suit
against EQT and CNX over the royalties.  Until now, both sides
have set the stage to make or break a class action suit by arguing
such legal questions as whether coalbed methane is a substance
separate from the coal it's found in.  The answer, Judge Sargent
decided earlier this year, is yes.

This means that landowners have a right to the gas as long as they
signed over only coal ownership, and not mineral rights, to energy
companies.  That decision alone might allow landowners to bypass
hauling every coal owner into court to determine gas ownership and
instead go straight to arguing for royalties.

On Nov. 30, Mr. Stellings argued that the energy companies
answered the question of royalty ownership every time they mapped
out forced-pooling lots for the Gas and Oil Board.

"It's outrageous," he said.  "It's good enough for [the energy
companies] to get their money, but it's not good enough for us to
get our money."

Judge Sargent seemed to agree with his reasoning.

"Why would a person be included as a gas owner if they did not own
the gas?" she asked early in the hearing.

As for cases on the leased gas units, defense attorney Johnathan
Blank, representing the Canonsburg, Penn.-based CNX Gas, argued
that the leases vary too much for a class-action case.

For example, he noted that a deed leasing only the coal from 1904,
nearly a century before the industry figured out how to separate
the coalbed methane, might have a different meaning from a
similarly worded deed in 1994.  The best way to work it out, he
argued, was to let circuit court judges rule on small batches of
similar leases.

"You can't figure it out unless you go deed by deed," he said.
"You may have to have a thousand cases, but it will be much easier
once that first case is done."

Judge Sargent seemed to question the notion of tying up the courts
by settling each royalty account that way.

"Ten years, twenty years, fifty years down the road, we're in the
same fix," she said.


COOPER MINI: Faces Class Action Over Defective Engines
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Cooper Mini 2007-09 R56
and 2008-09 R55 with N12 or N14 engines have timing chain
tensioners that fail prematurely, a class action claims in Federal
Court.


COPYRIGHT SOCIETY: MCSN's Copyright Suit Gets Class Action Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tade Makinde, writing for Nigerian Tribune, reports that in what
may be a landmark case in the copyright struggle in Nigeria, the
Musical Copyright Society Nigeria (MCSN), through its Attorney,
Dr. Ope Banwo, has filed and certified as a class action, the very
first class lawsuit on copyright infringement at the Federal High
Court against the Copyright Society of Nigeria (COSON) and all
other copyright work users in Nigeria.

In the suit No. FHC/L/CS/1267/12 between MCSN vs. COSON and six
others, MCSN sought for the order of the court certifying the
plaintiff's claims as a class action, particularly as presented
against the defendants in the suit in respect of the plaintiff's
copyright in the works in its repertoire exploited by the
defendants and an order of the court in respect of the
exploitation of the copyright works in the plaintiff's repertoire
restraining any unnamed person falling with the class of the
defendants against whom this action has been brought in a
representative capacity from opting out from defending this action
except with the leave of the court and an order of the Court
granting leave to advertise the notice and order certifying the
class action against the defendants in a national newspaper.

After hearing the argument of MCSN's counsel, Mr. Yemi Salman of
Banwo & Igbokwe Chambers, the court, presided over by Justice M.
B. Idris, on November 27, 2012, granted all the orders sought by
MCSN against the seven defendants and all other users of copyright
works in MCSN's repertoire in Nigeria and adjourned the hearing of
the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction to December 10,
2012, pending the final determination of the suit.

The court approved the seven representative defendants namely
COSON; Intercontinental Distillers Limited; Wema Bank Plc; PZ
Cussons, Vmobile (Airtel); Motorola Nigeria Limited and
Glaxonsmithkline Consumer Nigeria Plc, to defend the class action
suit on behalf of all copyright users in the country.

As with all class actions, decisions given in the case will be
binding on all users of copyright works regardless of whether they
are before the court or not.

In his reaction, Banwo, MCSN's director of legal affairs, stated
that this is the first class action lawsuit to be filed in Nigeria
on copyright matters and in the ongoing war between MCSN as a
copyright owner, assignee and exclusive licensee and the approved
sole collecting society, COSON.

He stated that MCSN is seeking to put an end to the issue of who
has rights to collect, and be paid for exploitation of musical
works in its repertoire of works in Nigeria, by suing COSON and
all copyright users as represented by the defendants in the suit
(i.e TV stations; all radio stations; hotels; nightclubs, etc.),
in one class action lawsuit.

"The immediate consequence of this action is that it will stop all
copyright work users to be cautious in paying any royalties to
COSON or any other body except the proven owner of copyright in
the work, until all the issues before the court is determined," he
added.

He disclosed further that the MCSN has also filed for an
injunction against COSON to prevent it from spending or
distributing the royalties it has collected so far from rights
users to their members since most of the money belonged to works
in the repertoire of MCSN.

"What MCSN is asking in one of the reliefs is for COSON to give
account of all the monies it has collected on MCSN's repertoire
since its days as the Performing and Mechanical Rights Society
(PMRS) till now as COSON since COSON was sued in its own name,
including its predecessor-in-title by whatever name so-called.  As
it is, any company that continues to pay any royalty to COSON
before the determination of the lawsuit will be committing
contempt of court.

"Let them come and convince the court why royalties belonging to
MCSN should be paid to COSON, or why COSON should be collecting
royalties on works that do not belong to their collecting
society," he cautioned.

According to the Chairman of MCSN, Mr. Orits Williki, "We cannot
be intimidated from protecting the works and rights of our
musicians who have entrusted us with the responsibilities of
making sure that their sweat is not pirated and used with
impunity.

"MCSN, as their legal assignee, also wants to ensure that monies
due to them from rights users are paid to their chosen
organization, and not COSON or any other body created and forced
upon musicians by the NCC. Now that the court has allowed us to
sue every copyright user in one class action suit, this matter
will be settled once and for all," he told R.


CREDIT SUISSE: 2nd Cir. Agrees to Hear Appeal in MBS Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Litigation Daily reports that the Second Circuit agreed on
Nov. 26 to hear an interlocutory appeal that Credit Suisse filed
in a securities class action over a $640 million MBS offering the
bank underwrote for IndyMac.  The bank's lawyers at Gibson Dunn
want the appeals court to reverse a prior ruling granting class
certification.


EQUINIX INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Equinix, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a securities class action lawsuit pending in California,
according to the Company's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On March 4, 2011, an alleged class action entitled Cement Masons &
Plasterers Joint Pension Trust v. Equinix, Inc., et al., No. CV-
11-1016-SC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, against Equinix and two of its
officers.  The lawsuit asserts purported claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
allegedly misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results.  The lawsuit is purportedly brought on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
29, 2010, and October 5, 2010, and seeks compensatory damages,
fees and costs.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November
7, 2011.

On March 2, 2012, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
without prejudice and gave plaintiffs thirty days in which to
amend their complaint.  Pursuant to stipulation and order of the
court entered on March 16, 2012, the parties agreed that
plaintiffs would have up to and through May 2, 2012, to file a
Second Amended Complaint.  On May 2, 2012, plaintiffs filed a
Second Amended Complaint asserting the same basic allegations as
in the prior complaint.  On June 15, 2012, defendants moved to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.  On September 19, 2012, the
Court took the hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint off calendar and notified the parties that it
would make its decision on the pleadings.  Subsequently, on
September 24, 2012, the Court requested the parties submit
supplemental briefing on or before October 9, 2012.  The
supplemental briefing was submitted on October 9, 2012.


FACEBOOK INC: Sponsored Stories Settlement Gets Initial Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Bailey, writing for Mercury News, reports that a federal
judge gave preliminary approval on Dec. 3 to a negotiated
settlement of a class-action lawsuit over Facebook's use of its
members' names and photos in online advertising, while a public
interest lawyer vowed to continue pressing objections that the
deal fails to protect minors.

Under the settlement, Facebook would set aside $20 million to
provide a cash payment of up to $10 each to Facebook users who
objected to their names being used in so-called "Sponsored
Stories" advertisements.  Facebook also agreed to create new user
controls that will let people opt out of the program.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg ruled on Dec. 3 that the
settlement meets the requirements for preliminary approval, adding
in a written order that it "has no obvious deficiencies" and
"appears to be the product of serious" negotiations between
lawyers for Facebook and a group of users who filed suit against
the ad program.  Both sides told the judge last month they felt
the agreement was a fair settlement.

But attorneys for the nonprofit Center for Public Interest Law had
argued that Facebook should be required to get affirmative consent
from parents before using the name or photo of any Facebook user
who is under 18.  Center attorney Robert Fellmeth said on Dec. 3
that he will file a further objection to the settlement and vowed
to take the case to appellate court if Judge Seeborg grants final
approval.

The case involves a key element of Facebook's effort to build
advertising around its users' likes and recommendations.  The
"Sponsored Stories" program lets companies pay Facebook to
distribute messages to a user's friends when that user clicks the
"Like" button or takes other action on an advertiser's Facebook
page.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid in "Rindfleisch" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' motions in the lawsuit captioned Lisa Rindfleisch et
al. v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc., for partial summary judgment
and class certification remain pending, according to the Company's
November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On May 10, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled
Lisa Rindfleisch et al. v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York against the Company in which five former employees
alleged wage and hour law violations.  The former employees
claimed they were paid pursuant to "an unlawful hybrid"
compensation plan that paid them on both a per visit and an hourly
basis, thereby voiding their exempt status and entitling them to
overtime pay.  The plaintiffs alleged continuing violations of
federal and state law and sought damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as under the New York Labor Law
and North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA").  On October 8,
2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to transfer the venue
of the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.  On April 13, 2011, the Court
granted plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the
FLSA claims as a collective action.

On May 26, 2011, the Court bifurcated the FLSA portion of the
lawsuit into a liability phase, in which discovery is scheduled to
close on January 15, 2013, and a damages phase, to be scheduled
pending outcome of the liability phase.  Following a motion for
partial summary judgment by the Company regarding the New York
state law claims, plaintiffs agreed voluntarily to dismiss those
claims in a filing on December 12, 2011.  Plaintiffs filed a
motion for certification of a North Carolina state law class for
NCWHA claims on January 20, 2012.  The Company filed a motion for
partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' claims under the NCWHA on
March 22, 2012.

On August 29, 2012, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for
certification of a North Carolina state law class.  Plaintiffs
also filed a motion for partial summary judgment with regard to
the Company's liability for plaintiffs' FLSA claims on April 3,
2012, and continue to seek class certification of allegedly
similar employees and seek attorneys' fees, back wages and
liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA.

Based on the information the Company has at this time in the
Rindfleisch lawsuit, the Company is unable to assess the probable
outcome or potential liability, if any, arising from this
proceeding on the business, financial condition, results of
operations, liquidity or capital resources of the Company.  The
Company does not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible
loss or range of loss can be made for this lawsuit at this time.
The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this lawsuit.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services, Inc. is still awaiting a court decision
on its motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit, according to the Company's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Between November 2, 2010, and October 25, 2011, five shareholder
class actions were filed against Gentiva and certain of its
current and former officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Each of these
actions asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Company's
participation in the Medicare Home Health Prospective Payment
System ("HH PPS").  Following consolidation of the actions, and
the appointment of Los Angeles City Employees' Retirement System
as lead plaintiff and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as lead counsel,
on April 16, 2012, a consolidated shareholder class action
complaint, captioned In re Gentiva Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 10-CV-5064, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint, which
names Gentiva and certain current and former officers and
directors as defendants, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, in connection with the
Company's participation in the HH PPS.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the Company's public disclosures
misrepresented and failed to disclose that the Company improperly
increased the number of in-home therapy visits to patients for the
purposes of triggering higher reimbursement rates under the HH
PPS, which caused an artificial inflation in the price of
Gentiva's common stock during the period between July 31, 2008,
and October 4, 2011.

On June 15, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  That motion is fully briefed and is now pending before
the court.

Given the preliminary stage of the action, the Company is unable
to assess the probable outcome or potential liability, if any,
arising from the action on the business, financial condition,
results of operations, liquidity or capital resources of the
Company.  The Company does not believe that an estimate of a
reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made for the
action at this time.  The defendants intend to defend themselves
vigorously in the action.


HARBORTOUCH: Sued Over Unauthorized Credit Card Processing Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Harbortouch fka United Bank
Card charges merchants unauthorized fees for credit-card
processing, a class action claims in Hunterdon County Court.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Defends Staffing Class Suit vs. Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. is defending its facilities that are
subject of a class action lawsuit alleging they did not meet
relevant staffing requirements, according to the Company's
November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Various states in which the Company operates hospitals and nursing
and rehabilitation centers have established minimum staffing
requirements or may establish minimum staffing requirements in the
future.  While the Company seeks to comply with all applicable
staffing requirements, the regulations in this area are complex
and the Company may experience compliance issues from time to
time.  Failure to comply with such minimum staffing requirements
may result in one or more facilities failing to meet the
conditions of participation under relevant federal and state
healthcare programs and the imposition of significant fines,
damages or other sanctions.  Private litigation involving these
matters also has become more common, and certain of the Company's
facilities are the subject of a class action lawsuit involving
claims that these facilities did not meet relevant staffing
requirements from time to time since 2006.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Defends Suits Over Employee-Related Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. is defending lawsuits alleging employee-
related claims, according to the Company's November 6, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The Company's operations are subject to a variety of federal and
state employment-related laws and regulations, including but not
limited to the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act, regulations of the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Office of Civil
Rights and state attorneys general, federal and state wage and
hour laws and a variety of laws enacted by the federal and state
governments that govern these and other employment-related
matters.  Accordingly, the Company is currently subject to
employee-related claims, class action and other lawsuits and
proceedings in connection with the Company's operations, including
but not limited to those related to alleged wrongful discharge,
illegal discrimination and violations of equal employment and
federal and state wage and hour laws.  Because labor represents
such a large portion of the Company's operating costs, non-
compliance with these evolving federal and state laws and
regulations could subject the Company to significant back pay
awards, fines and additional lawsuits and proceedings.  These
claims, lawsuits and proceedings are in various stages of
adjudication or investigation and involve a wide variety of claims
and potential outcomes.  Based upon currently available
information, the Company has recorded a $5 million loss provision
related to these claims, lawsuits and proceedings during the nine
months ended September 30, 2012, but the actual losses may be more
than the provision for loss.


MECOX LANE: Wins Securities Class Action But Net Income Drops
-------------------------------------------------------------
SinoCast Daily Business Beat reports that Chinese online apparel
and accessory retailer Mecox Lane Ltd. won a lawsuit triggered by
several US law firms days ago.

It debuted on the US stock market on October 26, 2010, becoming
the first Chinese B2C platform to get listed and from that time,
it drew rising attention of some US law firms.  On December 3 that
year, Kahn Swick & Foti triggered a class-action lawsuit against
it and three days later, Sarraf Gentile also did so.  Later, those
including Howard G. Smith and Brower Piven took a similar move.
All of the law firms triggered the class-action lawsuits on behalf
of shareholders of it, believing that its IPO prospectus included
fraudulent information and its top executives and directors went
against the US 1993 Securities Act.

Yin Ying, director responsible for public relations at it, said in
an interview recently that it formally received an indictment in
January last year and at that time, a total of seven US law firms
wanted to trigger a class-action lawsuit against it.  Two of them
won a nod to do so later and they were asked to be merged into one
namely Westend finally.  On the requirements of the US Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC), Mecox disclosed all-round
information in the IPO prospectus, thus it invited a US law firm
namely Latham & Watkins to take charge of the case.  The lawsuit
triggered by Westend was turned down by a court in New York on
March 5 this year and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit declared on November 29 that the Chinese firm won the
case.  And according to the verdict, it had the right to claim for
related fees.

Yin reiterated that many law firms in the US were mainly engaged
in triggering a class-action lawsuit against a target that was
suspected by them.  Related cost was quite low, but once they won
a case, the return on investment was pretty.

Mecox won the lawsuit finally, but saw net income for the third
quarter of this year drop 32.3% from a year ago.  Its share price
once reached a record high of $18.5, but dropped to a large extent
in the past two years.  And this August, it even fell below US$1
per share.  In accordance with concerned rules and regulations by
the Nasdaq, it will be at the risk of delisting from the US bourse
provided that the share price fails to exceed US$1 on 10
consecutive trading days within 180 days.


MOODY'S CORP: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Two purported class action complaints have been filed by purported
purchasers of Moody's Corporation's securities against the Company
and certain of its senior officers, asserting claims under the
federal securities laws.  The first was filed by Raphael Nach in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
July 19, 2007.  The second was filed by Teamsters Local 282
Pension Trust Fund in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on September 26, 2007.  Both actions
have been consolidated into a single proceeding entitled In re
Moody's Corporation Securities Litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  On June 27, 2008, a
consolidated amended complaint was filed, purportedly on behalf of
all purchasers of the Company's securities during the period
February 3, 2006, through
October 24, 2007.  Plaintiffs allege that the defendants issued
false and/or misleading statements concerning the Company's
business conduct, business prospects, business conditions and
financial results relating primarily to Moody's Investors
Service's ratings of structured finance products, including
residential mortgage-backed security (RMBS), collateralized debt
obligation (CDO) and constant-proportion debt obligations.  The
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and
their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in connection with
the case.

The Company moved for dismissal of the consolidated amended
complaint in September 2008.  On February 23, 2009, the court
issued an opinion dismissing certain claims and sustaining others.
On January 22, 2010, plaintiffs moved to certify a class of
individuals who purchased Moody's Corporation common stock between
February 3, 2006, and October 24, 2007, which the Company opposed.
On March 31, 2011, the court issued an opinion denying plaintiffs'
motion to certify the proposed class.  On April 14, 2011,
plaintiffs filed a petition in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit seeking discretionary permission to appeal
the decision.  The Company filed its response to the petition on
April 25, 2011.  On July 20, 2011, the Second Circuit issued an
order denying plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 6,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

For claims, litigation and proceedings not related to income
taxes, where it is both probable that a liability is expected to
be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated,
the Company records liabilities in the consolidated financial
statements and periodically adjusts these as appropriate.  In
other instances, because of uncertainties related to the probable
outcome and/or the amount or range of loss, management does not
record a liability but discloses the contingency if significant.
As additional information becomes available, the Company adjusts
its assessments and estimates of such matters accordingly.  In
view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of
litigation, regulatory, enforcement and similar matters and
contingencies, particularly where the claimants seek large or
indeterminate damages or where the parties assert novel legal
theories or the matters involve a large number of parties, the
Company cannot predict what the eventual outcome of the pending
matters will be or the timing of any resolution of such matters.
The Company also cannot predict the impact (if any) that any such
matters may have on how its business is conducted, on its
competitive position or on its financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.  As the process to resolve the pending
matters progresses, management will continue to review the latest
information available and assess its ability to predict the
outcome of such matters and the effects, if any, on its operations
and financial condition.  However, in light of the large or
indeterminate damages sought in some of them, the absence of
similar court rulings on the theories of law asserted and
uncertainties regarding apportionment of any potential damages, an
estimate of the range of possible losses cannot be made at this
time.


MOODY'S CORP: May Trial on Fraud Claims in "Abu Dhabi" Suit Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial on the remaining fraud claims against rating agencies,
including two subsidiaries of Moody's Corporation, in the
purported class action filed by Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, is
scheduled for May 2013, according to the Company's November 6,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On August 25, 2008, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank filed a purported
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York asserting numerous common-law causes of
action against two subsidiaries of the Company, another rating
agency, and Morgan Stanley & Co.  The action relates to securities
issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance
(the "Cheyne SIV") and seeks, among other things, compensatory and
punitive damages.  The central allegation against the rating
agency defendants is that the credit ratings assigned to the
securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and misleading.  In
early proceedings, the court dismissed all claims against the
rating agency defendants except those for fraud and aiding and
abetting fraud.  In June 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion
for class certification, and additional plaintiffs were
subsequently added to the complaint.

In January 2012, the rating agency defendants moved for summary
judgment with respect to the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud
claims.  Also in January 2012, in light of new New York state case
law, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint that reasserted previously dismissed claims against all
defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, and related aiding and abetting claims.  In May
2012, the court, ruling on the rating agency defendants' motion to
dismiss, dismissed all of the reasserted claims except for the
negligent misrepresentation claim, and on September 19, 2012,
after further proceedings, the court also dismissed the negligent
misrepresentation claim.  On August 17, 2012, the court ruled on
the rating agencies' motion for summary judgment on the
plaintiffs' remaining claims for fraud and aiding and abetting
fraud.  The court dismissed, in whole or in part, the fraud claims
of four plaintiffs as against Moody's but allowed the fraud claims
to proceed with respect to certain claims of one of those
plaintiffs and the claims of the remaining 11 plaintiffs.  The
court also dismissed all claims against Moody's for aiding and
abetting fraud.  Trial on the remaining fraud claims against the
rating agencies, and on claims against Morgan Stanley for aiding
and abetting fraud and for negligent misrepresentation, is
scheduled for May 2013.  According to plaintiffs' most recent
litigation disclosures, plaintiffs have asserted that their total
alleged compensatory damages against all defendants, consisting of
alleged lost principal and lost interest, plus statutory interest,
are approximately $713 million.  However, this figure includes
approximately $303 million dollars of damages asserted in
connection with claims that have been dismissed against Moody's
via the court's August 17, 2012 ruling.  Three of the four
plaintiffs whose claims were dismissed against Moody's, with
claims aggregating approximately $288 million, have filed motions
for reconsideration.

For claims, litigation and proceedings not related to income
taxes, where it is both probable that a liability is expected to
be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated,
the Company records liabilities in the consolidated financial
statements and periodically adjusts these as appropriate.  In
other instances, because of uncertainties related to the probable
outcome and/or the amount or range of loss, management does not
record a liability but discloses the contingency if significant.
As additional information becomes available, the Company adjusts
its assessments and estimates of such matters accordingly.  In
view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of
litigation, regulatory, enforcement and similar matters and
contingencies, particularly where the claimants seek large or
indeterminate damages or where the parties assert novel legal
theories or the matters involve a large number of parties, the
Company cannot predict what the eventual outcome of the pending
matters will be or the timing of any resolution of such matters.
The Company also cannot predict the impact (if any) that any such
matters may have on how its business is conducted, on its
competitive position or on its financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.  As the process to resolve the pending
matters progresses, management will continue to review the latest
information available and assess its ability to predict the
outcome of such matters and the effects, if any, on its operations
and financial condition.  However, in light of the large or
indeterminate damages sought in some of them, the absence of
similar court rulings on the theories of law asserted and
uncertainties regarding apportionment of any potential damages, an
estimate of the range of possible losses cannot be made at this
time.


MOODY'S CORP: Units Seek Summary Judgment in Consolidated Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rating agencies, including two subsidiaries of Moody's
Corporation, filed a motion for summary judgment in September 2012
dismissing the remaining claims against them in the consolidated
class action lawsuit pending in New York, according to the
Company's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

In October 2009, plaintiffs King County, Washington, and Iowa
Student Loan Liquidity Corporation each filed substantially
identical putative class actions in the Southern District of New
York against two subsidiaries of the Company and several other
defendants, including two other rating agencies and IKB Deutsche
Industriebank AG.  These actions arise out of investments in
securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called
Rhinebridge plc (the "Rhinebridge SIV") and seek, among other
things, compensatory and punitive damages.  Each complaint
asserted a claim for common law fraud against the rating agency
defendants, alleging, among other things, that the credit ratings
assigned to the securities issued by the Rhinebridge SIV were
false and misleading.  The case is pending before the same judge
presiding over the litigation concerning the structured investment
vehicle called Cheyne Finance (the "Cheyne SIV").  In April 2010,
the court denied the rating agency defendants' motion to dismiss.
In June 2010, the court consolidated the two cases and the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that, among other things,
added Morgan Stanley & Co. as a defendant.

In January 2012, in light of new New York state case law, the
court permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that
asserted claims against the rating agency defendants for breach of
fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and
aiding and abetting claims.  In May 2012, the court, ruling on the
rating agency defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the
new claims except for the negligent misrepresentation claim and a
claim for aiding and abetting fraud; on September 28, 2012, after
further proceedings, the court also dismissed the negligent
misrepresentation claim.  Plaintiffs have thus far not sought
class certification.  On September 7, 2012, the rating agencies
filed a motion for summary judgment dismissing the remaining
claims against them.

In the course of the proceedings, the two plaintiffs have asserted
that their total compensatory damages, consisting of alleged lost
principal and lost interest, plus statutory interest, equal
approximately $70 million.  In June 2012, defendants IKB Deutsche
Industriebank AG and IKB Credit Asset Management GmbH informed the
court that they had executed a confidential settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs.

For claims, litigation and proceedings not related to income
taxes, where it is both probable that a liability is expected to
be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated,
the Company records liabilities in the consolidated financial
statements and periodically adjusts these as appropriate.  In
other instances, because of uncertainties related to the probable
outcome and/or the amount or range of loss, management does not
record a liability but discloses the contingency if significant.
As additional information becomes available, the Company adjusts
its assessments and estimates of such matters accordingly.  In
view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of
litigation, regulatory, enforcement and similar matters and
contingencies, particularly where the claimants seek large or
indeterminate damages or where the parties assert novel legal
theories or the matters involve a large number of parties, the
Company cannot predict what the eventual outcome of the pending
matters will be or the timing of any resolution of such matters.
The Company also cannot predict the impact (if any) that any such
matters may have on how its business is conducted, on its
competitive position or on its financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.  As the process to resolve the pending
matters progresses, management will continue to review the latest
information available and assess its ability to predict the
outcome of such matters and the effects, if any, on its operations
and financial condition.  However, in light of the large or
indeterminate damages sought in some of them, the absence of
similar court rulings on the theories of law asserted and
uncertainties regarding apportionment of any potential damages, an
estimate of the range of possible losses cannot be made at this
time.


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Court Says Mandatory Arbitration Policy Binding
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Fuchs, writing for Metropolitan News-Enterprise, reports
that Northrop Grumman Corporation's mandatory arbitration policy
was binding on an at-will employee, a district Court of Appeal
ruled on Nov. 29.

Div. One, in an unpublished opinion by Justice Victoria Gerrard
Chaney, held, however, that a class action waiver contained in the
policy might be unenforceable, and remanded the matter to the
trial court for further proceedings.

Plaintiff Krishna Papudesi began her employment as a systems
analyst with Northrop in 2003.  As a condition of her employment
she signed a one-page agreement which provided, in part, that her
employment was at-will and for no definite period of time.  She
also agreed to "comply with the rules and policies of Northrop."
The document was silent, however, as to how disputes between the
parties were to be resolved.  The final paragraph contained a
standard integration clause, which said that the document
constituted the entire agreement between Northrop and Papudesi
with respect to the subject matters covered therein.

In 2006, Northrop distributed to its employees its new mandatory
14-page dispute resolution procedure, which provided for binding
arbitration before JAMS or AAA.  It stated that the arbitrator
would be vested with "authority to decide any disputes regarding
discovery," and that any party that sought more than three
depositions would be required to hold a joint meeting with the
arbitrator to discuss discovery issues, limitations and
scheduling.

The policy also contained a clause stating that both Northrop and
its employees waived the right to bring any covered claim as a
class action.

The document concluded with the following language:
"By accepting or continuing employment on or after November 1,
2006, all covered employees agree to submit any covered disputes
to binding arbitration, rather than to have such disputes heard by
a court or jury."

Ms. Papudesi continued to work for Northrop until her employment
was terminated in 2008.

In 2010, Ms. Papudesi sent Northrop a demand letter for wrongful
termination and infliction of emotional distress.  Northrop
demanded arbitration and Ms. Paudesi complied.

But while arbitration proceedings were ongoing, Ms. Papudesi filed
a class action lawsuit in which she alleged that Northrop had
failed to pay overtime wages, provide meal and rest periods, pay
wages in a timely manner, or provide itemized wage statements.

Northrop moved to compel arbitration and stay all civil court
proceedings, arguing that its dispute resolution policy
constituted a valid agreement to submit any employment disputes to
binding arbitration.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Richard Fruin disagreed, finding
that Northrop's policies were invalid because they constituted an
attempt to modify Ms. Papudesi's original employment contract and
had not been signed by either Ms. Papudesi or an officer of
Northrop as required by the agreement.  He did not rule on
Ms. Papudesi's claim that the agreement, if valid, was
unconscionable or whether the class action waiver was enforceable.

In reversing Judge Fruin's decision, the panel held that among the
"matters covered" by the agreement were the at-will nature of Ms.
Papudesi's employment and Ms. Papudesi's compliance with
Northrop's policies.  Nothing in the contract, however, Judge
Chaney said, prohibited Northrop from introducing new policies
without a signed writing.  Ms. Papudesi was an at-will employee
and Northrop was entitled to alter the terms of her employment by
instituting new policies as it saw fit.

Although the trial court declined to reach the issue of whether
the policy, if valid, was, unconscionable, the panel found that
the record was sufficient to allow a review of the matter.

Judge Chaney noted that unconscionability has both a procedural
element, which focuses on oppression or surprise arising from
unequal bargaining power, and a substantive element, which looks
to the results and determines whether they are overly harsh or
one-sided.  In making its evaluation, the court is to use a
sliding scale: the more procedurally unconscionable a contract is,
the less substantive unconscionability is necessary and vice
versa.

Northrop had superior bargaining power, the panel said, and
presented the policy on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.  Accordingly,
the policy was procedurally unconscionable to a degree.

But, it added, Ms. Papudesi could not have been surprised by the
terms of the arbitration policy and, therefore, it was necessary
for her to show significant substantive unconscionability for the
policy to be unenforceable.

Ms. Papudesi argued that Northrop's arbitration policy is
unconscionable because it limits discovery and remedies.  But the
panel disagreed because the policy places no limit on the
arbitrator's discretion to expand discovery, and gives the
arbitrator the authority to order any discovery necessary for a
full exploration of issues in dispute.

Both JAMS and AAA discovery rules, moreover, come into play in
situations not covered by the policy's discovery rules.  Together,
Judge Chaney wrote, Northrop's policy and the JAMS and AAA rules
entitle employees to adequate discovery.

Ms. Papudesi argued the arbitration policy was also invalid under
Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 433, which held that in
certain circumstances a class waiver that interferes with an
employee's unwaivable statutory rights is unenforceable.

Northrop countered that no Gentry analysis was needed because the
U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in AT&T Mobility, LLC v.
Concepcion (2011) 131 S.Ct. 1740 overruled Gentry.  In that case
the court held that a categorical state rule invalidating class
arbitration waivers is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.
The panel disagreed, concluding that Gentry survives because it
sets forth not a categorical rule but a multifactor test that
rests in part on whether a class action is, in the words of
Gentry, "likely to be a significantly more effective practical
means of vindicating the rights of the affected employees than
individual litigation or arbitration."

Because the trial court incorrectly ruled, however, that no valid
arbitration agreement existed, it declined to consider the factors
set forth in Gentry and curtailed plaintiff's discovery on the
relevant issues.  As a Gentry analysis is fact intensive, the
record was, therefore, insufficient to permit the panel to make a
determination on the enforceability of the class waiver, the
justice said.

Presiding Justice Robert M. Mallano and Justice Jeffrey W. Johnson
concurred in the opinion.

Scott A. Kruse -- skruse@gibsondunn.com -- Eugene Scalia --
escalia@gibsondunn.com -- Jesse A. Cripps --
jcripps@gibsondunn.com -- and Lynn Hang of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
represented defendant Northrup Grumman.

Ms. Papudesi was represented by Michael D. Singer and J. Jason
Hill of Cohelan Khoury & Singer, and by Aegis Law Firm and Kashif
Haque.

The case is Papudesi v. Northrop Grumman Corporation; B235730


NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: 7th Cir. Sends Class Action to Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Litigation Daily reports that after winning a ruling that
Northwestern Mutual Insurance Co. improperly changed its approach
to paying dividends to 3,600 policyholders in Wisconsin, attorney
David Boies pressed an intriguing argument that the decision
should apply nationwide.  The Seventh Circuit has now sent the
case to federal court, concluding that removal is mandatory under
the Class Action Fairness Act.


PENNZOIL QUAKER: Faces Two Class Actions Over Pollution
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a Pennzoil Quaker State
refinery continues to pollute Shreveport despite numerous lawsuits
against it, 178 plaintiffs say in two class actions in Caddo
Parish Court.


PRICE CHOPPER: Recalls Mislabeled CMC Cinnamon Nut Coffee Cakes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Price Chopper Supermarkets is issuing a voluntary recall on
certain Cinnamon Nut Coffee Cakes purchased only at the Mountain
Rd. store in Worcester, Massachusetts, because they were
incorrectly labeled as Pumpkin Coffee Cakes and therefore did not
list tree nuts as an ingredient.  The cakes were purchased at the
Mountain Road store only (located at 72 Pullman St. in Worcester),
were purchased after October 11, 2012, and would have an
expiration date between October 17 and October 25.

Other than this labeling issue, the product is safe for
consumption for those not allergic to nuts.  Pictures of the
recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm330781.htm

In addition to alerting the media, Price Chopper has initiated its
Smart Reply notification program, which uses purchase data and
consumer phone numbers on file in connection with the company's
AdvantEdge (loyalty) card to alert those households that may have
purchased the product in question.


PRIME GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Five Mile Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prime Group Realty Trust on Nov. 30 disclosed that on November 21,
2012, Ms. Patricia Fox filed a putative class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against the Company, the Company's Trustees (Messrs.
Jeffrey A. Patterson, James G. Glasgow, Jr., Scott R. Leitman,
David L. Reynolds, John M. Sabin, Shawn R. Tominus and George R.
Whittemore), and Five Mile Capital Partners LLC and various of its
affiliates.  The action relates to the previously announced
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of September 28, 2012,
between the Company and Five Mile pursuant to which Five Mile
agreed to acquire the Company's outstanding Series B preferred
shares (other than shares held by Five Mile) for $5.25 in cash per
Series B preferred share, subject to approval of the merger by the
holders of a majority of the Company's common shares and at least
2/3rds of the Company's Series B preferred shares.  In the
complaint, the plaintiff alleges, among other things, that (i) the
Company and the Company's trustees breached their contractual
obligations with respect to the Series B preferred shares by
approving the proposed merger, (ii) the Company's trustees and
Five Mile breached alleged fiduciary duties to the Series B
preferred shareholders by approving the proposed merger, and (iii)
Five Mile would be unjustly enriched to the detriment of the
Series B preferred shareholders as a result of the consummation of
the merger.  Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
including enjoining the completion of the proposed merger, as well
as damages.

The Company believes that the allegations contained in the
complaint are without merit and intends to defend the action
vigorously.  The Company may incur significant expenses and costs
to defend against the allegations contained in the complaint.

Prime Group Realty Trust -- http://www.pgrt.com-- is a self-
administered and self-managed real estate investment trust (REIT)
which owns, manages, leases, develops and redevelops office and
industrial real estate in metropolitan Chicago.  The Company
currently owns 1 office property containing an aggregate of
167,756 net rentable square feet and interests in one joint
venture that owns one office property comprised of approximately
1.14 million net rentable square feet.  The Company leases and
manages approximately 1.31 million square feet comprising all of
its wholly-owned properties and its 330 N. Wabash Avenue joint
venture property.


RALCORP: Being Sold to Conagra for Too Little, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Ralcorp is selling itself too
cheaply to Conagra, for $90 a share or $6.8 billion, shareholders
claim in City Court.


RANBAXY INC: Faces Class action Over Generic Lipitor Recall
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360, reports that Ranbaxy Inc. was
hit with a putative class action filed in New Jersey federal
court, alleging the company's recall of its generic version of
blockbuster cholesterol treatment Lipitor did not warn or
compensate consumers adequately of the drug.

Ranbaxy, the American arm of India-based drugmaker Ranbaxy
Laboratories Ltd., began recalling 41 lots of generic Lipitor, or
atorvastatin, from retailers Nov. 9, because of concerns the pills
might contain tiny glass fragments, comparable to fine grains of
sand less than one millimeter in size.


SOUNDBITE COMM: FCC Ruling May Avert Suits Over Opt-Out Text Msg.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Jenna Greene at The Blog of
Legal Times, in a move that seems likely to shut down a hot new
category of class actions, the Federal Communications Commission
has ruled that companies can send a one-time text message
confirming a consumer's request to opt out of receiving more text
messages.

It sounds innocuous enough, but Barclays Banks paid about $8
million to settle a class action earlier this year stemming from
the following text: "You will no longer receive text alerts from
Barclaycard to this number.  If you have questions, call 866-408-
4070" (the bank did not admit wrongdoing).  Other entities
including Citibank, American Express; NASCAR Holdings; the
National Football League; Redbox Automated Retail and GameStop
face similar class actions.

The FCC in a declaratory ruling issued on Nov. 29 found that a
text confirming a consumer's request that no additional text
messages be sent does not violate the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991.  However, the FCC stressed that the ruling
applies only when the company received prior expressed consent to
send the consumer text messages.

The ruling was prompted by a petition from SoundBite
Communications Inc., which sends text messages on behalf of about
400 companies, including banks, utilities and retailers.

Represented by Patton Boggs partner Monica Desai, SoundBite in its
February 2012 petition complained that current and threatened
lawsuits mean "companies that lawfully utilize mobile marketing
strategies to sustain and grow their businesses are exposed to
hundreds of millions of dollars of potential liability, and that
exposure is growing by the day."

SoundBite argued that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which
forbids companies from using autodialers to barrage consumers'
cell phones with telemarketing calls without prior consent, does
not apply to a text acknowledging an opt-out request.  "The type
of immediate, one-time reply messages sent by SoundBite to confirm
a subscriber's opt-out request is consistent with the [the act]
and consistent with the public interest," Ms. Desai wrote on
behalf of SoundBite.

Further, she said, the mobile industry has widely endorsed opt-out
confirmation text messages as a best practice.

Comments in support of SoundBite's petition were filed by groups
including the American Bankers Association and the Consumer
Bankers Association, which were represented by Wilkinson Barker
Knauer; Twilio Inc., represented by Arent Fox; and the Future of
Privacy Forum, represented by Hogan Lovells.

Mobile Marketing Association General Counsel Cara Frey wrote that
a final confirmation text "ensures that the consumer has a
'receipt' for his or her opt-out request and ensures that the
consumer knows he or she will not receive any future text messages
from that particular marketer.  Closing this circle of
communication protects the consumer and is therefore good public
policy."

However, Delicia Reynolds Hand, legislative director for the
National Association of Consumer Advocates, countered in FCC
comments that "The consumer will know they will not receive
additional unwanted texts by simply not receiving any additional
texts."  She continued, "Most mobile phone carriers charge for all
messages sent by and to a consumer even if a message is not
actually received.  Thus, consumers should only receive messages
on their cell phones that they have actually consented to
receive."

The FCC backed SoundBite. "Consumers have not complained about
receiving confirmation texts.  In fact, our review shows that at
least some consumers complain about not receiving a confirmation
text after sending an opt-out request from receiving further text
messages," the agency stated.

The FCC concluded, "The record demonstrates that, whether or not
texts impose some incremental cost on consumers, such confirmation
messages ultimately benefit and protect consumers by helping to
ensure, via such confirmation, that the consumer who ostensibly
opted out in fact no longer wished to receive text messages from
entities from whom the consumer previously expressed an
affirmative desire to receive such messages."

Ms. Desai in an interview said the "FCC was fantastic in acting so
quickly on this.  They recognized it was a common sense issue."


STEC INC: Believes Federal Suit Deal Will Free State Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEC, Inc. believes that a contemplated settlement of a federal
class action lawsuit would result in a release of the class claims
asserted in a securities action pending in state court, according
to the Company's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On July 1, 2011, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and several of its senior officers and directors in the
Superior Court of Orange County, California.  The complaint
alleges claims against the Company, several of its senior officers
and directors, and four of its underwriters for violations of
Section 11 and Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and further
alleges claims against several of the Company's senior officers
and directors for violations of the control person provisions of
Section 15 of the Securities Act.  The complaint, which arises out
of the same underlying factual allegations as the federal court
class action, seeks compensatory damages and rescission or a
rescissory measure of damages where applicable, reasonable costs
and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and other
relief the Court may deem just and proper.  On August 4, 2011, the
defendants removed the action to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California.  The plaintiffs moved to
remand and on October 7, 2011, the Court entered an order
remanding the case back to the Superior Court of Orange County,
California.  On November 16, 2011, the defendants moved to stay
the case pending the resolution of the class action lawsuit
pending in federal court.  On November 16, 2011, the defendants
also filed a general demurrer to the complaint.

On February 17, 2012, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
stay and declined to rule on the defendants' general demurrer.
The Company believes that the contemplated settlement of the
federal class action would result in a release of the class claims
asserted in this Superior Court action.  Accordingly, no accrued
liabilities have been recorded in STEC's consolidated financial
statements for this Superior Court action.


STEC INC: Awaits OK of $35.8-MM Consolidated Securities Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEC, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its $35.8 million
settlement of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
commenced in federal court, according to the Company's November 6,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

From November 6, 2009, through March 2, 2010, seven class action
complaints were filed against the Company and several of its
senior officers and directors in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California.  The Court consolidated
the complaints and appointed certain plaintiffs as the
representative plaintiffs for the class (the "Lead Plaintiffs").
The Court replaced the former Lead Plaintiffs with a new Lead
Plaintiff.  The new Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint that the Court dismissed without prejudice.  Thereafter,
on February 22, 2011, the new Lead Plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint, on behalf of all persons and entities who
acquired the Company's common stock between June 16, 2009, and
February 23, 2010.  The second amended complaint alleges claims
against the Company and several of its senior officers and
directors for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and related claims against several of its senior
officers and directors for violations of the control person
provisions of Section 20A and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
In addition, the second amended complaint alleges claims against
the Company, several of its senior officers and directors, and
four of its underwriters for violations of Section 11 and Section
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), and
related claims against several of the Company's senior officers
and directors for violations of the control person provisions of
Section 15 of the Securities Act.  The second amended complaint
alleges generally that the Company and the individual defendants
made materially false or misleading public statements and/or
failed to disclose material facts in public statements relating to
the Company and its business, in the case of the Exchange Act
claims, during the period of June 16, 2009, through February 23,
2010, and, in the case of the Securities Act claims, in the
Company's registration statement filed under the Securities Act.
The second amended complaint seeks compensatory damages for all
damages sustained as a result of the defendants' alleged actions
and further seeks reasonable costs and expenses, rescission,
counsel fees, and other relief the Court deems just and proper.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss and on June 17, 2011, the
Court entered an order granting the underwriters' motion to
dismiss the Securities Act claims without prejudice and denying
the Company's motion to dismiss the Exchange Act claims.  The
defendants answered the second amended complaint on July 15, 2011.
On November 21, 2011, the new Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification and appointment of class counsel.

On January 12, 2012, the plaintiff in the class action lawsuit
pending in the Superior Court of Orange County, California filed a
motion for leave to intervene.  The defendants opposed both of
these motions.  On March 7, 2012, the Court denied both motions
without prejudice and stayed the action, other than discovery, to
allow the new Lead Plaintiff to cure the issue that resulted in
the order denying its motion for class certification.  On
March 23, 2012, the new Lead Plaintiff sought permission from the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to appeal
from the order denying without prejudice its motion for class
certification.  The defendants opposed this request, which the
Ninth Circuit denied on June 14, 2012.  On June 19, 2012, the
Court entered an order granting the new Lead Plaintiff's motion
and certifying a class consisting of all persons and entities
that, between June 16, 2009, and February 23, 2010, inclusive,
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock
of STEC, Inc., and were damaged thereby.  The defendants
subsequently sought permission from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to appeal from the class
certification order, and that request remains pending.

On July 30, 2012, the parties to the federal class action attended
a mediation to explore a potential settlement.  During the July 30
mediation, the parties considered a settlement that would create a
fund for the benefit of the settlement class, with no admission or
concession of wrongdoing by the Company or the other defendants,
in exchange for a full and complete release of all claims that
were or could have been asserted in the federal class action,
including claims under both the Exchange Act and the Securities
Act.  On October 5, 2012, the Company entered into a Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement (the "Settlement Agreement") to settle
the federal class action.  The Settlement Agreement provides for
the resolution of all the pending claims in the federal class
action litigation, without any admission or concession of
wrongdoing by the Company or the other defendants.

The Company says it and the other defendants have entered into the
Settlement Agreement to eliminate the uncertainty, distraction,
burden and expense of further litigation.  The Settlement
Agreement provides for a fund of $35.8 million in exchange for a
full and complete release of all claims that were or could have
been asserted in the federal class action.  As previously
disclosed in the Company's Form 10-Q filed on
August 7, 2012, the Company had recorded as of June 30, 2012, an
estimated settlement accrual of $35 million and an insurance claim
receivable of $20 million, resulting in a net charge of $15
million recorded as a component of other expense.  On October 18,
2012, the Company's insurance carriers agreed to contribute
$562,500 of the additional settlement cost of $750,000.  As a
result, the Company has recorded an additional settlement accrual
of $750,000 and an additional insurance claim receivable of
$562,500, resulting in a net charge of $187,500 recorded as a
component of other expense for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2012.  The Settlement Agreement remains subject to
court approval and certain other conditions, including notice to
class members and an opportunity for class members to object to or
opt out of the settlement.  At this time, there can be no
assurance that the conditions to effect the settlement will be
met, that the Settlement Agreement will receive the required court
and other approvals or that the settlement will become final.  The
Company expects the settlement of the federal class action will
also result in a full release of the class claims asserted in the
previously disclosed class action in the Superior Court of Orange
County, California.  The settlement does not resolve the related
federal and state shareholder derivative litigation.


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
TravelCenters of America LLC continues to defend itself against an
antitrust class action lawsuit pending in Pennsylvania, according
to the Company's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On April 6, 2009, five independent truck stop owners, who are
plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit against Comdata
Network, Inc., or Comdata, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, filed a motion to amend their
complaint to add the Company as a defendant, which was allowed on
March 25, 2010.  The amended complaint also added as defendants
Ceridian Corporation, Pilot Travel Centers LLC and Love's Travel
Stops & Country Stores, Inc.  Comdata markets fuel cards which are
used for payments by trucking companies at truck stops.  The
amended complaint alleged antitrust violations arising out of
Comdata's contractual relationships with truck stops in connection
with its fuel cards.  The plaintiffs have sought unspecified
damages and injunctive relief.  On March 24, 2011, the Court
dismissed the claims against the Company in the amended complaint,
but granted plaintiffs leave to file a new amended complaint.
Four independent truck stop owners, as plaintiffs, filed a new
amended complaint against the Company on April 21, 2011,
repleading their claims.  On May 6, 2011, the Company renewed its
motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice while discovery
otherwise proceeded.  The Court denied the Company's renewed
motion to dismiss on March 29, 2012, and the Company filed an
answer to the complaint on April 30, 2012.  A trial schedule for
the matter has not been set.

The Company believes that there are substantial factual and legal
defenses to the plaintiffs' claims against it, but that the costs
to defend this case could be significant.

TravelCenters of America, LLC -- http://www.tatravelcenters.com/-
- operates and franchises travel centers primarily along the U.S.
interstate highway system.  The Company was formed as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Hospitality Properties Trust.  Its customers
include long haul trucking fleets and their drivers, independent
truck drivers and motorists.  The Company offers a broad range of
products and services, including diesel fuel and gasoline, truck
repair and maintenance services, full service restaurants, more
than 20 different brands of quick serve restaurants, or QSRs,
travel and convenience stores and various driver amenities.  The
Company is based in Westlake, Ohio.


UBS AG: Judge Approves Arbitration Bid in Overtime Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond and Suzanne Barlyn, writing for Reuters, report that
a U.S. judge has sided with a UBS AG request for arbitration in a
proposed class-action lawsuit seeking overtime pay brought by
three former financial advisers at a brokerage unit of the bank.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones in Manhattan marks
the latest legal skirmish over contract clauses that require
arbitration.  The court battles follow a landmark U.S. Supreme
Court decision handed down last year.

Arbitration provides companies a way to resolve disputes with
employees and customers privately outside the courts.

Plaintiffs' lawyers contend that so-called "class-action waivers"
in arbitration agreements prevent workers from suing employers
because of the cost of going it alone.

In the UBS case, the plaintiffs argued the waivers in their
contracts conflicted with Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority's arbitration rules that say class-action claims may not
be arbitrated.

Judge Jones found that FINRA rules recognize that parties can
enter into agreements beyond the scope of its code and do not
affect enforcement of those agreements.

"The court accordingly finds that there is nothing within the
FINRA rules which would preclude enforcement of the arbitration
agreements between the parties," Judge Jones said.

Judge Jones also rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the
arbitration agreements were unenforceable.

The lawsuit, filed in March, names Eliot Cohen, Philip Ricasata
and Charles Shoemaker as the plaintiffs suing on behalf of a group
of current and former financial advisers at UBS.  They accused UBS
of violating the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and California
state law by not paying them overtime.

Jeffrey Smith, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at law firm Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz said: "We're disappointed in the
result and we're reviewing the opinion."

Megan Stinson, a spokeswoman for UBS, said the company was
"pleased with [the] result."

Contracts that require brokers to waive class-action rights and
pursue compensation claims in individual FINRA arbitrations are
becoming more common, said Marc Dobin, a securities arbitration
lawyer in Jupiter, Florida, who represents brokers.

The purpose is to discourage brokers from filing claims, but the
strategy could backfire for big brokerages, which could face
potentially thousands of individual overtime cases.

"Instead of fighting one war with a unified enemy, they could be
fighting 1,500 battles across the country," Mr. Dobin said.

In April 2011, the Supreme Court enforced contract provisions
between two consumers suing a unit of AT&T and the company that
required arbitration, and waived their ability to bring a class
action.

While the AT&T case was about consumer rights, companies have
since sought to apply it to employment cases such as the one
facing UBS.

Apart from employment, Charles Schwab Corp also used the Supreme
Court ruling to add a new provision to millions of account
agreements in October precluding customers from starting or
joining class-action lawsuits against the brokerage.

FINRA is pursuing a disciplinary case against Schwab, arguing that
FINRA rules do not allow arbitrators to hear class action cases.
Its rules also restrict brokerages from limiting investor rights
to file court cases in certain situations.

The case is Cohen, et al., v. UBS Financial Services, Inc., et
al., U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 12-02147.


UPONOR WIRSBRO: Sued Over Defective Brass Plumbing Components
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Uponor Wirsbro Co. high-zinc-
content brass plumbing components are defective and cause leaks
that damage homes, a class action claims in Federal Court.


WELLS CORE: Awaits Approval of $4.9MM Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc., is awaiting court approval of
a settlement, pursuant to an agreement in principle reached in
October, resolving a securities class action lawsuit for a total
payment of $4.9 million in cash, according to Wells Core Office
Income REIT, Inc.'s November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont Office Realty Trust,
Inc. ("Piedmont REIT") filed a putative class action and
derivative complaint, presently styled In re Wells Real Estate
Investment Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation, in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland against, among others,
Piedmont REIT; Leo F. Wells, III, the Company's President and a
director; Wells Capital, Inc. ("Wells Capital"), an affiliate of
Wells Core Office Income REIT Advisory Services, LLC (the
"Advisor"), the Company's Advisor; Wells Management Company, Inc.
("Wells Management"), the Company's property manager; certain
affiliates of Wells Real Estate Funds, Inc. ("WREF"); the
directors of Piedmont REIT; and certain individuals who formerly
served as officers or directors of Piedmont REIT prior to the
closing of the internalization transaction on April 16, 2007.

The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the
federal proxy rules and breaches of fiduciary duty arising from
the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction and the related
proxy statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, as
amended. The complaint sought, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and nullification of the Piedmont REIT
internalization transaction.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
attempted to assert class action claims on behalf of those persons
who received and were entitled to vote on the Piedmont REIT proxy
statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, and derivative
claims on behalf of Piedmont REIT.

On March 31, 2008, the Court granted in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The Court dismissed five
of the seven counts of the amended complaint in their entirety.
The Court dismissed the remaining two counts with the exception of
allegations regarding the failure to disclose in the Piedmont REIT
proxy statement details of certain expressions of interest in
acquiring Piedmont REIT.  On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint, which alleged violations of the federal
proxy rules based upon allegations that the proxy statement to
obtain approval for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction
omitted details of certain expressions of interest in acquiring
Piedmont REIT.  The second amended complaint sought, among other
things, unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind the
internalization transaction, and to cancel and rescind any stock
issued to the defendants as consideration for the internalization
transaction.  On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised
certain defenses to the second amended complaint. Subsequent to
the filing of the second amended complaint, the plaintiff said it
intended to seek monetary damages of approximately $159 million
plus prejudgment interest.

On June 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  On September 16, 2009, the Court granted the
plaintiff's motion for class certification.  On September 20,
2009, the defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal
immediately the Court's order granting the motion for class
certification with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  The
petition for permission to appeal was denied on October 30, 2009.

On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the
second amended complaint to add additional defendants.  The Court
denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend on June 23, 2009.

On December 4, 2009, the parties filed motions for summary
judgment.  On August 2, 2010, the Court entered an order denying
the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting, in part,
the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.  The Court
ruled that the question of whether certain expressions of interest
in acquiring Piedmont REIT constituted "material" information
required to be disclosed in the proxy statement to obtain approval
for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction raises questions
of fact that must be determined at trial.

On November 17, 2011, the Court issued rulings granting several of
the plaintiff's motions in limine to prohibit the defendants from
introducing certain evidence, including evidence of the
defendants' reliance on advice from their outside legal and
financial advisors, and limiting the defendants' ability to relate
their subjective views, considerations, and observations during
the trial of the case.  On February 23, 2012, the Court granted
several of the defendants' motions, including a motion for
reconsideration regarding a motion the plaintiff had filed seeking
exclusion of certain evidence impacting damages, and motions
seeking exclusion of certain evidence proposed to be submitted by
the plaintiff.

On March 20, 2012, the Court granted the defendants leave to file
a motion for summary judgment.  On April 5, 2012, the defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment.  On September 26, 2012, the
Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and
entered judgment in favor of the defendants.  On October 12, 2012,
the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals.

On October 22, 2012, Piedmont REIT announced that the parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit on October
12, 2012.  Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the
plaintiff will dismiss the appeal and release all defendants from
liability in exchange for total payment of $4.9 million in cash by
Piedmont REIT and its insurer.  The settlement, which is subject
to Court approval following the negotiation and execution of
definitive agreements and the provision of notice to the class,
will resolve the appeal and result in the final disposition of the
litigation.

Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, and Wells Management believe that the
allegations contained in the complaint are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend this action if for any reason the
settlement is not approved.  Although WREF believes that it has
meritorious defenses to the claims of liability and damages in
these actions, WREF is unable at this time to predict the outcome
of the appeal of this action or, if reinstated, reasonably
estimate a range of damages, or how any liability and
responsibility for damages might be allocated among the 17
defendants in the action, which includes 11 defendants not
affiliated with Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, or Wells Management.
The ultimate resolution of this matter could have a material
adverse impact on WREF's financial results, financial condition,
or liquidity.


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Durom Securities Class Action Suit Now Closed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Plumbers and Pipefitters Local
Union 719 Pension Fund v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., et al., is now
closed, according to the Company's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In August 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana naming the Company and two of
its executive officers as defendants.  The complaint related to a
putative class action on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between January 29, 2008, and July 22,
2008.  The complaint alleged that the defendants violated the
federal securities law by allegedly failing to disclose
developments relating to the Company's orthopaedic surgical
products manufacturing operations in Dover, Ohio and the Durom
Cup.  The plaintiff sought unspecified damages and interest,
attorneys' fees, costs and other relief.  In December 2008, the
lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint that alleged the
same claims and related to the same time period.  The defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in February
2009.  In December 2009, the District Court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss, without prejudice.  In January 2010, the
plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the consolidated
complaint.  In January 2011, the District Court denied the
plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the consolidated complaint
and dismissed the case.  In February 2011, the plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.  The appellate court heard oral argument in the appeal in
October 2011.

On May 21, 2012, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's
dismissal of the case.  The plaintiffs' deadline to challenge the
Seventh Circuit's decision has passed, and the case is now closed.

Zimmer Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.zimmer.com/-- through its
subsidiaries, engages in the design, development, manufacture, and
marketing of orthopedic reconstructive devices, spinal and trauma
devices, dental implants, and related surgical products in the
Americas, Europe, and the Asia Pacific.  The company was founded
in 1927 and is headquartered in Warsaw, Indiana.


                           *********

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  * * *