CAR_Public/121211.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, December 11, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 245

                             Headlines


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: "Echavez" Labor Suit Remains Pending
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: "Cruz" Suit Deal Got Final Approval in Nov.
AMGEN INC: Suit Over Co-Pay Assistance Voluntarily Dismissed
APPLE REIT SIX: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
APPLE REIT SEVEN: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit

APPLE REIT EIGHT: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
APPLE REIT NINE: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
APPLE REIT TEN: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
AVIAT NETWORKS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Stay Securities Suit
BAYER CORP: Says Expert's Qualifications in Vitamin Suit Dubious

CANTINA FOODS: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in "Northstar" Suit Pending in 9th Cir.
CHRYSLER GROUP: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Brake Warranties
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Awaits Class Cert. Bid Ruling in Virginia Suit
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Unit Faces "Childress" Class Suit in Indiana

CREXUS INVESTMENT: Shareholder Files Suit to Stop Buyout by Annaly
CYBEX INT'L: Recalls 430 Units of Leg Press Due to Risk of Injury
DREAM ON ME: Recalls 50,000 Bath Seats Due to Drowning Hazard
DREAM ON ME: Recalls 900 Bed Rails Due to Suffocation Hazard
ENTERGY CORP: Appeal From Class Certification Ruling Pending

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: "Irwin" Suit vs. WellPoint Dismissed in August
GRANDIN ROAD: Recalls 2,200 Metal Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
HEARST CORP: Steps Up Fight Against Interns' Class Action
INSURANCE INFORMATION: Faces Class Action Over False Reports
JUSTMUGSHOTS.COM: Attorney Files Suit Against Mug Shot Web Sites

KIT DIGITAL: HMEPS Seeks to Expand Securities Class Action
LIBERTY MEDIA: Faces Shareholder Class Action Suits in Delaware
LIBERTY MEDIA: Faces "Montero" Shareholder Suit in New York
LOJACK CORP: Awaits Court Approval of Wage and Hour Suits Deal
MAXIMUS INC: Faces Class Action Over Fine Surcharges

NATIONAL HOCKEY: Loses Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Class Action
NEW YORK CITY, NY: Judge Decertifies Backpay Plaintiffs Class
ONE WORLD: Recalls 12,800 RIDGID Roofing & Framing Nailers
RENAL CARE: January 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SEI INVESTMENTS: Judge Certifies Ponzi Scheme Class Action

SUZANNA'S KITCHEN: Recalls 35.8T Lbs. of Breaded Chicken Products
TIME WARNER: Faces Suit For Breach of Customer Agreements
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Suits Over Fuel Temperature Pending
US BANCORP: Faces Class Action in California Over Autodialers
WELLS TIMBERLAND: Agrees to Settle Securities Suit for $4.9-Mil.

WESTERN UNION: Prelim. Settlements Reached in Colorado Suits
WHITEHAVEN INCOME: Faces Class Action Over Predatory Loans
ZEEK REWARDS: Class Action Transferred to Charlotte Court

                          *********



ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: "Echavez" Labor Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. continues to defend itself against a labor
class action complaint filed by Amber Echavez, according to the
Company's September 5, 2012, Form 20-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 28,
2012.

On October 17, 2011, Amber Echavez, a former employee, filed an
action against Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and two of its subsidiaries
(collectively, the "Defendants") in the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, California.  She alleged the Defendants violated
California labor laws by failing to provide suitable seats for her
and for other current and former employees.  She sought to
maintain the suit as a class action on behalf of a class of retail
sales employees and also as a representative action under
California's Private Attorney General Act of 2004 ("PAGA").  On
November 23, 2011, the Defendants removed the action to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California and
on February 6, 2012, moved (1) to dismiss the action for failure
to state a claim and (2) to strike plaintiff's class allegations.
On March 12, 2012, the Court entered an order denying Defendants'
motion to dismiss and granting Defendants' motion to strike
plaintiff's class allegations.  The parties are continuing to
litigate plaintiff's claims.

Abercrombie & Fitch Co., through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is
a specialty retailer of high-quality, casual apparel for men,
women and kids with an active, youthful lifestyle.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: "Cruz" Suit Deal Got Final Approval in Nov.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. in November obtained final court approval
of its settlement of a class action lawsuit filed by Spencer de la
Cruz, according to the Company's December 4, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 27, 2012.

On December 21, 2007, Spencer de la Cruz, a former employee, filed
an action against Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch
Stores, Inc. (collectively, the "Defendants") in the Superior
Court of Orange County, California.  He sought to allege, on
behalf of himself and a putative class of past and present
employees in the period beginning on December 19, 2003, claims for
failure to provide meal breaks, for waiting time penalties, for
failure to keep accurate employment records, and for unfair
business practices.  By successive amendments, plaintiff added 10
additional plaintiffs and additional claims seeking injunctive
relief, unpaid wages, penalties, interest, and attorney's fees and
costs.  Defendants denied the material allegations of plaintiffs'
complaints throughout the litigation and asserted numerous
affirmative defenses.  On July 23, 2010, plaintiffs moved for
class certification in the action.  On December 9, 2010, after
briefing and argument, the Court granted in part and denied in
part plaintiffs' motion, certifying sub-classes to pursue meal
break claims, meal premium pay claims, work related travel claims,
travel expense claims, termination pay claims, reporting time
claims, bag check claims, pay record claims, and minimum wage
claims.  The parties continued to litigate questions relating to
the Court's certification order and to the merits of plaintiffs'
claims until January 25, 2012. On that date, the named plaintiffs
and the Defendants signed a memorandum of understanding which,
subject to final Court approval, was intended to result in a full
and final settlement of all claims in the action on a class-wide
basis.  A formal Settlement Agreement and related papers were
filed with the Court on February 21, 2012 and the Court scheduled
a hearing on March 14, 2012 to determine whether to provide
preliminary approval to the proposed settlement and to order that
notice of the proposed settlement be given to the absent members
of the settlement class.  On March 14, 2012, the Court continued
the hearing to April 18, 2012.  On April 24, 2012, the Court
granted preliminary approval to a revised proposed settlement,
ordered notice to the settlement class and scheduled a hearing
(the "Fairness Hearing") to determine whether the settlement
should be finally approved and the litigation dismissed.  As of
January 28, 2012, the Company increased its litigation reserve to
cover the expected cost of the proposed settlement.  The Fairness
Hearing was held on September 12, 2012, and on November 5, 2012,
the Court filed a final order approving the settlement.

Abercrombie & Fitch Co., through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is
a specialty retailer of high-quality, casual apparel for men,
women and kids with an active, youthful lifestyle.


AMGEN INC: Suit Over Co-Pay Assistance Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen 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 the class action lawsuit
challenging the lawfulness of its prescription co-pay assistance
programs was voluntarily dismissed.

A class action lawsuit titled American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan
and Sergeants Benevolent Association Health and Welfare Fund,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Amgen and Pfizer Inc. (Pfizer) was filed on March 7, 2012, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  That
lawsuit was dismissed and re-filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on March 27, 2012.  The
complaint challenged the lawfulness of prescription co-pay
assistance programs implemented by Amgen and Pfizer for certain of
their products, including Amgen's Enbrel(R) and Sensipar(R).  On
October 4, 2012, all claims against Amgen in this lawsuit were
voluntarily dismissed.


APPLE REIT SIX: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple REIT Six, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its and other
defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated 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.

On December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York ordered that three putative class
actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et
al., Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., and Leff v. Apple
REIT Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and amended the caption of
the consolidated matter to be In re Apple REITs Litigation.  The
District Court also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
the consolidated action and ordered lead plaintiffs to file and
serve a consolidated complaint by February 17, 2012.  The Company
was previously named as a party in all three of the class action
lawsuits.

On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In
re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO,
filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors,
Inc., Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., Apple
Fund Management, LLC, Apple REIT Seven, Inc., Apple REIT Eight,
Inc., Apple REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten, Inc., their
directors and certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc.
and David Lerner.  The consolidated complaint, purportedly brought
on behalf of all purchasers of Units in the Company and the other
Apple REIT Companies, or those who otherwise acquired these Units
that were offered and sold to them by David Lerner Associates,
Inc., or its affiliates and on behalf of subclasses of
shareholders in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Florida,
asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.  The term the "Apple REIT Companies" means Apple REIT
Six, Inc., Apple REIT Seven, Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc., Apple
REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten, Inc.  The consolidated
complaint also asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and unjust
enrichment, and claims for violation of the securities laws of
Connecticut and Florida.  The complaint seeks, among other things,
certification of a putative nationwide class and the state
subclasses, damages, rescission of share purchases and other costs
and expenses.

On February 16, 2012, one shareholder of the Company and Apple
REIT Seven, Inc., filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Laurie Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:12-cv-782-ERK-RER, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against the Company, Apple REIT
Seven, Inc., Glade M. Knight, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc.,
David Lerner Associates, Inc., and certain executives of David
Lerner Associates, Inc.  The complaint, purportedly brought on
behalf of all purchasers of Units of the Company and Apple REIT
Seven, Inc., or those who otherwise acquired these Units, asserts
claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach
of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, negligence, breach of
written or implied contract (against the David Lerner Associates,
Inc. defendants only), and for violation of New Jersey's state
securities laws.  On March 13, 2012, by order of the court, Laurie
Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al. was consolidated
into the In re Apple REITs Litigation.

On April 18, 2012, the Company, and the other Apple REIT
Companies, served a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
in the In re Apple REITs Litigation.  The Company and the other
Apple REIT Companies accompanied their motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint with a memorandum of law in support of
their motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  The briefing
period for any motion to dismiss was completed on July 13, 2012.

The Company believes that any claims against it, its officers and
directors and other Apple entities are without merit, and intends
to defend against them vigorously.  At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.


APPLE REIT SEVEN: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Apple REIT Seven, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its and
other defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated 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.

On December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York ordered that three putative class
actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et
al., Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., and Leff v. Apple
REIT Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and amended the caption of
the consolidated matter to be In re Apple REITs Litigation.  The
District Court also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
the consolidated action and ordered lead plaintiffs to file and
serve a consolidated complaint by February 17, 2012. The Company
was previously named as a party in all three of the class action
lawsuits.

On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In
re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO,
filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors,
Inc., Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., Apple
Fund Management, LLC, Apple REIT Six, Inc., Apple REIT Eight,
Inc., Apple REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten, Inc., their
directors and certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc.
and David Lerner.  The consolidated complaint, purportedly brought
on behalf of all purchasers of Units in the Company and the other
Apple REIT Companies, or those who otherwise acquired these Units
that were offered and sold to them by David Lerner Associates,
Inc., or its affiliates and on behalf of subclasses of
shareholders in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Florida,
asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.  The term the "Apple REIT Companies" means Apple REIT
Six, Inc., Apple REIT Seven, Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc., Apple
REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten, Inc.  The consolidated
complaint also asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and unjust
enrichment, and claims for violation of the securities laws of
Connecticut and Florida.  The complaint seeks, among other things,
certification of a putative nationwide class and the state
subclasses, damages, rescission of share purchases and other costs
and expenses.

On February 16, 2012, one shareholder of the Company and Apple
REIT Six, Inc., filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Laurie Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:12-cv-782-ERK-RER, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against the Company, Apple REIT Six,
Inc., Glade M. Knight, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., David
Lerner Associates, Inc., and certain executives of David Lerner
Associates, Inc.  The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of
all purchasers of Units of the Company and Apple REIT Six, Inc.,
or those who otherwise acquired these Units, asserts claims for
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, negligence, breach of written
or implied contract (against the David Lerner Associates, Inc.
defendants only), and for violation of New Jersey's state
securities laws.  On March 13, 2012, by order of the court, Laurie
Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al. was consolidated
into the In re Apple REITs Litigation.

On April 18, 2012, the Company, and the other Apple REIT
Companies, served a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
in the In re Apple REITs Litigation.  The Company and the other
Apple REIT Companies accompanied their motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint with a memorandum of law in support of
their motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  The briefing
period for any motion to dismiss was completed on July 13, 2012.

The Company believes that any claims against it, its officers and
directors and other Apple entities are without merit, and intends
to defend against them vigorously.  At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.


APPLE REIT EIGHT: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Apple REIT Eight, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its and
other defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated 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.

On December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York ordered that three putative class
actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et
al., Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., and Leff v. Apple
REIT Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and amended the caption of
the consolidated matter to be In re Apple REITs Litigation.  The
District Court also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
the consolidated action and ordered lead plaintiffs to file and
serve a consolidated complaint by February 17, 2012.  The Company
was previously named as a party in all three of the class action
lawsuits.

On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In
re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO,
filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors,
Inc., Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., Apple
Fund Management, LLC, Apple REIT Six, Inc., Apple REIT Seven,
Inc., Apple REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten, Inc., their
directors and certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc.
and David Lerner.  The consolidated complaint, purportedly brought
on behalf of all purchasers of Units in the Company and the other
Apple REIT Companies, or those who otherwise acquired these Units
that were offered and sold to them by David Lerner Associates,
Inc., or its affiliates and on behalf of subclasses of
shareholders in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Florida,
asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.  The term the "Apple REIT Companies" means Apple REIT
Six, Inc., Apple REIT Seven, Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc., Apple
REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten, Inc.  The consolidated
complaint also asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and unjust
enrichment, and claims for violation of the securities laws of
Connecticut and Florida.  The complaint seeks, among other things,
certification of a putative nationwide class and the state
subclasses, damages, rescission of share purchases and other costs
and expenses.

On April 18, 2012, the Company, and the other Apple REIT
Companies, served a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
in the In re Apple REITs Litigation.  The Company and the other
Apple REIT Companies accompanied their motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint with a memorandum of law in support of
their motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  The briefing
period for any motion to dismiss was completed on July 13, 2012.

The Company believes that any claims against it, its officers and
directors and other Apple entities are without merit, and intends
to defend against them vigorously.  At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.


APPLE REIT NINE: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple REIT Nine, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its and
other defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated 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.

On December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York ordered that three putative class
actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et
al., Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., and Leff v. Apple
REIT Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and amended the caption of
the consolidated matter to be In re Apple REITs Litigation.  The
District Court also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
the consolidated action and ordered lead plaintiffs to file and
serve a consolidated complaint by February 17, 2012.  The Company
was previously named as a party in all three of the class action
lawsuits.

On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In
re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO,
filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors,
Inc., Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., Apple
Fund Management, LLC, Apple REIT Six, Inc., Apple REIT Seven,
Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten, Inc., their
directors and certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc.
and David Lerner.  The consolidated complaint, purportedly brought
on behalf of all purchasers of Units in the Company and the other
Apple REIT Companies, or those who otherwise acquired these Units
that were offered and sold to them by David Lerner Associates,
Inc., or its affiliates and on behalf of subclasses of
shareholders in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Florida,
asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.  The term the "Apple REIT Companies" means Apple REIT
Six, Inc., Apple REIT Seven, Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc., Apple
REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten, Inc.  The consolidated
complaint also asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and unjust
enrichment, and claims for violation of the securities laws of
Connecticut and Florida.  The complaint seeks, among other things,
certification of a putative nationwide class and the state
subclasses, damages, rescission of share purchases and other costs
and expenses.

On April 18, 2012, the Company, and the other Apple REIT
Companies, served a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
in the In re Apple REITs Litigation.  The Company and the other
Apple REIT Companies accompanied their motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint with a memorandum of law in support of
their motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  The briefing
period for any motion to dismiss was completed on July 13, 2012.

The Company believes that any claims against it, its officers and
directors and other Apple entities are without merit, and intends
to defend against them vigorously.  At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.


APPLE REIT TEN: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple REIT Ten, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its and other
defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated 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.

On December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York ordered that three putative class
actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et
al., Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., and Leff v. Apple
REIT Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and amended the caption of
the consolidated matter to be In re Apple REITs Litigation.  The
District Court also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
the consolidated action and ordered lead plaintiffs to file and
serve a consolidated complaint by February 17, 2012.  The Company
was previously named as a party in all three of the class action
lawsuits.

On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In
re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO,
filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors,
Inc., Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., Apple
Fund Management, LLC, Apple REIT Six, Inc., Apple REIT Seven,
Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc. and Apple REIT Nine, Inc., their
directors and certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc.
and David Lerner.  The consolidated complaint, purportedly brought
on behalf of all purchasers of Units in the Company and the other
Apple REIT Companies, or those who otherwise acquired these Units
that were offered and sold to them by David Lerner Associates,
Inc., or its affiliates and on behalf of subclasses of
shareholders in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Florida,
asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933. The consolidated complaint also asserts claims for breach
of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty,
negligence, and unjust enrichment, and claims for violation of the
securities laws of Connecticut and Florida.  The term the "Apple
REIT Companies" means Apple REIT Six, Inc., Apple REIT Seven,
Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc., Apple REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT
Ten, Inc.  The complaint seeks, among other things, certification
of a putative nationwide class and the state subclasses, damages,
rescission of share purchases and other costs and expenses.

On April 18, 2012, the Company, and the other Apple REIT
Companies, served a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
in the In re Apple REITs Litigation.  The Company and the other
Apple REIT Companies accompanied their motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint with a memorandum of law in support of
their motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  The briefing
period for any motion to dismiss was completed on July 13, 2012.

The Company believes that any claims against it, its officers and
directors and other Apple entities are without merit, and intends
to defend against them vigorously.  At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.


AVIAT NETWORKS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Stay Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Aviat Networks, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on a motion to
stay a class action filed lawsuit in Delaware, 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
28, 2012.

Certain of the Company's former executive officers and directors
were named in a complaint filed on July 18, 2011, in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware by plaintiff
Howard Taylor.  Plaintiff purports to bring this action
derivatively on behalf of Aviat Networks, which is named as a
nominal defendant.  Plaintiff brings a claim for breach of
fiduciary duty against the officer and director defendants based
on the allegations of securities law violations alleged in a class
action and also alleges that the defendants caused the Company to
acquire the Microwave Communications Division, Harris Corporation,
at an inflated price.  Plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified
damages and other relief on behalf of Aviat Networks, as well as
payment of costs and attorneys' fees.

On September 27, 2012, the Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss and granted plaintiff leave to amend by October 18, 2012,
only as to the allegations related to the class action.  On
October 18, 2012, Plaintiff did not amend but filed a motion for a
stay of the action and sent a demand to the Company's Board that
it investigate and pursue the claims that were dismissed by the
Court.

Aviat Networks, Inc. -- http://www.aviatnetworks.com/-- engages
in the design, manufacture, and sale of a range of wireless
networking products, solutions, and services worldwide.  The
Company was formerly known as Harris Stratex Networks, Inc. and
changed its name to Aviat Networks, Inc. in January 2010.  The
Company is headquartered in Santa Clara, California.


BAYER CORP: Says Expert's Qualifications in Vitamin Suit Dubious
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that Bayer
Corp. on Dec. 4 said plaintiffs in a class action who allege the
company falsely advertised some of its vitamins are attempting to
use an expert "of dubious qualifications" in support of their case
in an effort to shift the burden of proof to Bayer.

Bayer said the plaintiffs' tactics are part of a pattern in
litigation against the company.  The class, which was granted
certification in February, claims Bayer falsely advertised its
One-A-Day multivitamins as supporting prostate health despite
scientific evidence to the contrary.


CANTINA FOODS: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
Beef and Cheese Pastellios that have been recalled by Cantina
Foods.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/Rkap5w,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.

Retailer Name          City and State
-------------          --------------
Citgo Food Mart        389 Fillmore Ave., Buffalo, New York
City Market            1245 E. Delavan Ave., Buffalo, New York
Discount Food Mart     407 Grant Street, Buffalo, New York
Gulf Gas Station       1079 Military Road, Buffalo, New York
Gulf Gas Station       2183 Genesee Street, Buffalo, New York
Gulf Food Mart         650 Tonawanda Street, Buffalo, New York
Jersey Food Market     315 Jersey Street, Buffalo, New York
Mobil Gas Station      2323 Broadway Street, Buffalo, New York
Moonlight Market       983 Tonawanda Avenue, Buffalo, New York
Ontario Express Mkt.   245 Ontario Street, Buffalo, New York
Red Top Market         930 George Urban Blvd, Buffalo, New York
Riverside Market       740 Tonawanda Street, Buffalo, New York
Sunoco Gas Station     221 Niagara Street, Buffalo, New York
Sunoco Gas Station     755 East Delavan Ave., Buffalo, New York
Sunoco Gas Station     1981 Fillmore Avenue, Buffalo, New York
Sunoco Gas Station     4401 Union Road, Buffalo, New York
Sunoco Gas Station     460 Elmwood Avenue, Buffalo, New York
Supermarket Express    143 Walden Avenue, Buffalo, New York
Trade Fair Food Mart   364 Eggert Road, Buffalo, New York
Trade Fair Food Mart   1345 E. Delavan Ave., Buffalo, New York
Vulcan Market          90 Vulcan Street, Buffalo, New York


CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in "Northstar" Suit Pending in 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM) (Northstar
lawsuit).  The lawsuit, which alleges violations of state law and
federal securities law in connection with the fund's investment
policy, names as defendants Schwab Investments (registrant and
issuer of the fund's shares) and Charles Schwab Investment
Management, Inc. (CSIM), the investment advisor for The Charles
Schwab Corporation's proprietary mutual funds.  Allegations
include that the fund improperly deviated from its stated
investment objectives by investing in collateralized mortgage
obligations (CMOs) and investing more than 25% of fund assets in
CMOs and mortgage-backed securities without obtaining a
shareholder vote.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and
rescission damages, unspecified equitable and injunctive relief,
costs and attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs' federal securities law
claim and certain of plaintiffs' state law claims were dismissed
in proceedings before the court and following a successful
petition by defendants to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On
August 8, 2011, the court dismissed plaintiffs' remaining claims
with prejudice.  Plaintiffs have again appealed to the Ninth
Circuit, where the case is currently pending.

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.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Brake Warranties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Alston, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey
federal judge on Dec. 4 dismissed a putative class action mounted
against Chrysler Group LLC by Dodge Journey owners over allegedly
defective brakes, finding that Chrysler neither breached its
warranties nor compelled the plaintiffs to pay for repairs.

U.S. District Judge Esther Salas nixed the claims of the two named
plaintiffs, ruling that Chrysler did not breach warranties and was
not responsible for the cost of the plaintiffs' brake repairs
because the repairs fell outside the 12,000-mile warranty period
covering the braking system.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Awaits Class Cert. Bid Ruling in Virginia Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corporation is awaiting a court decision on a
motion for class certification in the consolidated lawsuit pending
in Virginia, 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 28, 2012.

Between June 3, 2011, and July 21, 2011, four putative class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, entitled City of Roseville
Employee's Retirement System v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et
al. (No. 1:11-cv-00610-TSE-IDD), Murphy v. Computer Sciences
Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-00636-TSE-IDD), Kramer v.
Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-00751-TSE-IDD)
and Goldman v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-
777-TSE-IDD).  On August 29, 2011, the four actions were
consolidated as In re Computer Sciences Corporation Securities
Litigation (No. 1:11-cv-610-TSE-IDD) and Ontario Teachers' Pension
Plan Board was appointed lead plaintiff.  A consolidated class
action complaint was filed by plaintiff on September 26, 2011, and
names as defendants CSC, Michael W. Laphen, Michael J. Mancuso and
Donald G. DeBuck. A corrected complaint was filed on October 19,
2011.  The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities
laws in connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions
regarding the business and operations of the Company.
Specifically, the allegations arise from the Company's disclosure
of the Company's investigation into certain accounting
irregularities in the Nordic region and its disclosure regarding
the status of the Company's agreement with NHS.  Among other
things, the plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages.  The
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification with the court on
September 22, 2011, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
on October 18, 2011.  A hearing was held on November 4, 2011.

On August 29, 2012, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion and
Order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss.
The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to the
plaintiff's claims in connection with alleged misrepresentations
and omissions concerning the Company's operations in the Nordic
Region.  The court granted in part and denied in part the motion
to dismiss with respect to the plaintiff's claims in connection
with alleged misrepresentations and omissions concerning the
Company's internal controls and the Company's contract with the
NHS.  The court also granted the plaintiff leave to amend its
complaint by September 12, 2012, and maintained the stay of
discovery until the sufficiency of the amended complaint had been
decided.  The court further denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification without prejudice.  On September 12, 2012, the
plaintiff filed a notice advising the Court that it had determined
not to amend its complaint and renewed its motion for class
certification.  On September 21, 2012, the court issued an Order
setting the hearing on the motion for class certification for
October 12, 2012, directing the parties to complete discovery by
January 11, 2013, and scheduling the final pretrial conference for
January 17, 2013.

On October 9, 2012, the defendants filed their answer to the
plaintiff's complaint.  On October 12, 2012, the hearing on the
motion for class certification was rescheduled to November 1,
2012.  On October 31, 2012, the parties filed a joint motion with
the court requesting that the hearing on the motion for class
certification be rescheduled to a later date.  On November 1,
2012, the court issued an order setting the hearing for class
certification for November 15, 2012.

The defendants deny the allegations and intend to defend their
position vigorously.  The Company is unable to estimate any
possible loss or range of loss associated with this matter at this
time.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Unit Faces "Childress" Class Suit in Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corporation's subsidiary is facing a class
action lawsuit entitled Andrea M. Childress v. Experian
Information Services, Inc. and CSC Credit Services, Inc., in
Indiana, 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 28, 2012.

On October 19, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court of the Southern District of
Indiana, entitled Andrea M. Childress v. Experian Information
Services, Inc. and CSC Credit Services, Inc.  The complaint
alleges Fair Credit Reporting Act claims regarding reports
prepared about consumers who filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy
protection and subsequently withdrew their bankruptcy filing
before court approval of a bankruptcy plan.  Plaintiff, on behalf
of the class, seeks statutory and punitive damages, injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees.  The Company intends to vigorously
defend the allegations. The Company is unable to estimate any
possible loss or range of loss associated with this matter at this
time.


CREXUS INVESTMENT: Shareholder Files Suit to Stop Buyout by Annaly
------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Cremona, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. CreXus Investment Corp., Patrick J. Corcoran, Ronald
Daniel Kazel, Kevin J. Riordan, Robert B. Eastep, Nancy Jo
Kuenstner, Annaly Capital Management, Inc., and Fixed Income
Discount Advisory Company, Case No. 653972/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
November 16, 2012) is brought on behalf of shareholders of CreXus
against its Board of Directors to enjoin a proposed buyout plan,
pursuant to which Annaly will acquire all outstanding CreXus
common shares not currently owned by Annaly for $12.50 per share.

CreXus is managed by Annaly's wholly owned subsidiary, Fixed
Income Discount Advisory Company ("FIDAC").  Additionally, two
FIDAC employees serve on the CreXus Board, exercising all indicia
of control and domination over CreXus, Mr. Cremona asserts.
Annaly and CreXus share CreXus' executive office space in New
York.

Annaly was privy to confidential, non-public information about the
Company's future prospects that is unavailable to other potential
suitors and CreXus shareholders, thus, having inappropriately
misappropriated that information in formulating its offer for the
Company, Mr. Cremona contends.  He argues that Annaly seeks to use
its control and insider knowledge to consummate the Buyout through
the acquiescence of a Board beholden to Annaly to the detriment of
CreXus shareholders.

Mr. Cremona is a shareholder of CreXus.

CreXus is a Maryland corporation headquartered in New York.
CreXus acquires, manages and finances, directly or through its
subsidiaries, commercial mortgage loans and other commercial real
estate debt, commercial real property, commercial mortgage-backed
securities and other commercial and residential real estate-
related assets.  CreXus is taxed as a real estate investment
trust.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of
the Company.  Annaly is a Maryland corporation and is the largest
mortgage REIT listed on the New York Stock Exchange.  FIDAC
specializes in managing residential and commercial mortgage loans
and securities, collateralized debt obligation liquidations and
provides other financial services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


CYBEX INT'L: Recalls 430 Units of Leg Press Due to Risk of Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------------
About 430 units of Leg Press were voluntarily recalled by Cybex
International Inc., of Owatonna, Minnesota, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.  Consumers should
stop using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The weight platform locking mechanism can fail and the backrest
can disengage during normal use, posing a risk of injury to the
consumer.

Cybex has received four reports of incidents.  No injuries have
been reported.

This recall involves Cybex model 16110 plate-loaded leg presses
used in commercial gyms.  The leg presses have a metal frame, an
adjustable backrest and can be ordered in a variety of colors.
The name "Cybex" is located on the outer left side of the upper
frame.  The Serial Number label can be found on the lower main
frame near the floor and ranges from D072216110 through
G091416110.  A picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13709.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at authorized Cybex dealers and distributors
nationwide from July 2009 to September 2012 for about $4,035.

Commercial locations should immediately stop using these leg
presses until they order and install a free repair kit.  Cybex
International is contacting its customers directly.  Cybex
International may be reached toll-free at (888) 678-3846, from
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, by e-
mail at Recall16110@cybexintl.com or online at
http://www.cybexintl.com/and click on Service & Support, then
Service and then Recalls for more information.


DREAM ON ME: Recalls 50,000 Bath Seats Due to Drowning Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Dream On Me Inc., of South Plainfield, New Jersey, announced a
voluntary recall of about 50,000 Dream On Me Bath Seats.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The bath seats fail to meet federal safety standards, including
the requirements for stability.  Specifically, the bath seats can
tip over, posing a risk of drowning to babies.

CPSC and Dream On Me have received five reports involving these
bath seats, including a report of a near drowning involving a 12-
month-old baby girl.  The baby did not require medical treatment.

The recall includes all Dream On Me bath seats.  Some of the seats
have a Dream On Me label under or on the rear of the bath seats.
Model numbers are also printed underneath the bath seats and on
the product packaging and include the following product models and
colors:

   Model Name         Model Number             Color
   ----------         ------------   --------------------------
   Baby Bath Seat     251B, 251O,    Green with orange tray,
                      251P, 251Y     orange with beige tray
                                     or yellow with green tray

   Ultra 2 in 1       252B, 252P     Solid pink, blue or white
   Infant Bath Tub                   body and a blue or pink
   and Toddler Bath                  bottom
   Seat

   Niagra Baby Bath   253B, 253G,    White or blue body with a
   Seat               253P, 253Y     green, pink or orange insert

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13061.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at small
retail stores and online retailers including Amazon.com and
Wayfair.com from July 2012 through September 2012 for between $25
and $40.

Consumers should stop using the recalled bath seats immediately
and contact Dream On Me to receive a free replacement bath tub.
Dream On Me may be reached toll-free at (877) 201-4317 from 9:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or online at
http://www.dreamonme.com/and click on Recalls for more
information.


DREAM ON ME: Recalls 900 Bed Rails Due to Suffocation Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Dream On Me Inc., of South Plainfield, New Jersey, announced a
voluntary recall of about 900 Dream On Me Bed Rails.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The bed rail can separate from the mattress allowing a child's
body to become entrapped if it slips between the rail and the
mattress.  This poses suffocation and strangulation hazards to
children.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Dream On Me Bed Rails.  The bed rails are
used to keep young children from falling out of bed.  They have a
white metal frame covered by blue or pink mesh fabric and metal
arms that extend about 11/2 feet under the mattress.  The bed
rails measure 17 inches high x 41 inches long.  "Dream on Me" is
printed on the top rail.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13060.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at small
independent stores and online at amazon.com and wayfair.com from
September 2011 through May 2012 for between $15 and $30.

Consumers should stop using the bed rails immediately and contact
Dream On Me for a refund.  Dream On Me may be reached toll-free at
(877) 201-4317 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday, or online at http://www.dreamonme.com/and click
on "Recalls" for more information.


ENTERGY CORP: Appeal From Class Certification Ruling Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Entergy Corporation and other defendants' appeal from an order
certifying a class in the lawsuit filed in Texas remains 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.

In August 2003, a lawsuit was filed in the district court of
Chambers County, Texas by Texas residents on behalf of a purported
class of the Texas retail customers of Entergy Gulf States, Inc.
who were billed and paid for electric power from January 1, 1994,
to the present.  The named defendants include Entergy Corporation,
Entergy Services Inc., Entergy Power Inc., Entergy Power Marketing
Corp., and Entergy Arkansas Inc.  Entergy Gulf States, Inc. was
not a named defendant, but was alleged to be a co-conspirator.
The court granted the request of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. to
intervene in the lawsuit to protect its interests.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants implemented a "price gouging
accounting scheme" to sell to plaintiffs and similarly situated
utility customers higher priced power generated by the defendants
while rejecting less expensive power offered from off-system
suppliers.  In particular, plaintiffs allege that the defendants
manipulated and continue to manipulate the dispatch of generation
so that power is purchased from affiliated expensive resources
instead of buying cheaper off-system power.

Plaintiffs stated in their pleadings that customers in Texas were
charged at least $57 million above prevailing market prices for
power.  Plaintiffs seek actual, consequential and exemplary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and disgorgement of profits.
The plaintiffs' experts have tendered a report calculating damages
in a large range, from $153 million to $972 million in present
value, under various scenarios.  The Entergy defendants have
tendered expert reports challenging the assumptions,
methodologies, and conclusions of the plaintiffs' expert reports.

The case is pending in state district court, and in March 2012 the
court found that the case met the requirements to be maintained as
a class action under Texas law.  On April 30, 2012, the court
entered an order certifying the class.  The defendants have
appealed the order to the Texas Court of Appeals - First District.
The appeal is pending and proceedings in district court are stayed
until the appeal is resolved.

Entergy Corporation -- http://www.entergy.com/-- is an integrated
energy company engaged primarily in electric power production and
retail distribution operations.  Entergy owns and operates power
plants with approximately 30,000 megawatts of electric generating
capacity.  Entergy delivers electricity to 2.7 million utility
customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.  Entergy
has annual revenues of more than $11 billion and approximately
15,000 employees.  The Company is based in New Orleans, Louisiana.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: "Irwin" Suit vs. WellPoint Dismissed in August
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Irwin v. WellPoint Health
Networks, et al., was dismissed in August, according to Express
Scripts Holding 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 25, 2003, plaintiff in Irwin v. WellPoint Health
Networks, et al. (Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services),
filed a complaint in California state court against WellPoint
Health Networks and certain related entities, including one of the
acquired NextRX subsidiaries (collectively "WellPoint"), the
Company's predecessor, Express Scripts, Inc. ("ESI"), and other
pharmacy benefit managers ("PBMs") alleging his right to sue under
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL).  ESI was dismissed in
2008, but WellPoint remained a defendant.  This case purported to
be a class action against the PBM defendants on behalf of self-
funded, non-Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") health plans and individuals with no prescription drug
benefits that have purchased drugs at retail rates.  On May 6,
2004, WellPoint invoked an arbitration clause and the case against
WellPoint was stayed and sent to arbitration.  On February 24,
2006, plaintiff served an arbitration demand against WellPoint
alleging that numerous WellPoint business practices violated the
UCL and made claims on behalf of California residents who paid
taxes, California residents who were beneficiaries of non-ERISA
health plans, and California residents who obtained prescription
benefits from non-ERISA health plans.  On October 11, 2006,
WellPoint filed its response to the arbitration demand.

No further activity occurred until July 16, 2012, when WellPoint
filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's arbitration demand for
failure to prosecute the case for over nine years.  On August 16,
2012, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the arbitration action and
the court dismissed the case on August 20, 2012.


GRANDIN ROAD: Recalls 2,200 Metal Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
About 2,200 Metal Chairs were voluntarily recalled by retailer,
Grandin Road, of West Chester, Ohio; importer, Cinmar, LLC, of
West Chester, Ohio; and manufacturer, K&K Exporters of Bareilly,
Uttar Pradesh, India, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission.  Consumers should stop using the
product immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The chairs' back legs can bend when a seated person leans back.
This poses fall and injury hazards to consumers.

Grandin Road is aware of eight reports of the chairs' back legs
bending, including three reports of minor injuries.

This recall involves vintage-inspired, iron chairs with item
number 45665, located on the sales receipt.  The chairs have a
shaped metal seat and legs over a metal tube frame.  They have a
back that consists of an arched metal tube with a metal center
plate.  The chairs were sold in apricot, blue, green, red or
yellow under Grandin Road's Alsace Furniture Collection.  "Made in
India" is printed on a white sticker located underneath the
chairs' seat.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13710.html

The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold at
Grandin Road catalog and online at www.grandinroad.com from
September 2011 to February 2012 for between $149 and $189.

Consumers should stop using the recalled chairs immediately and
contact Grandin Road for instructions on how to receive a full
refund in the form of a merchandise credit for the value of the
purchase price, plus applicable shipping, handling and taxes.
Grandin Road is contacting its customers directly.  Grandin Road
may be reached toll-free at (888) 298-4651, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or
http://www.grandinroad.com/and click on Product Safety
Information for more information.


HEARST CORP: Steps Up Fight Against Interns' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
According to International Business Times' Christopher Zara, New
York magazine's Charlotte Cowles reports that a number of former
Hearst interns received an e-mail on Nov. 30 from the company's
legal counsel, who was soliciting "stories from interns who valued
the opportunities and experiences they received from their
internships."

The brief e-mail was later forwarded to New York magazine,
although Ms. Cowles does not say by whom.  In it, the lawyer
acknowledges the lawsuit and says to "please disregard this
message" if the recipient is involved in the class action.  It is
unclear how many former interns received the letter.

The lawsuit was filed in February on behalf of Xuedan "Diana"
Wang, a former intern at the Hearst-owned fashion glossy Harper's
Bazaar.  Ms. Wang, who was 27 at the time, had worked six previous
unpaid internships before coming to the magazine with the hopes of
parlaying an internship into a career in fashion.  After four
grueling months of 55-hour workweeks -- in which she said she
schlepped bags of clothing around New York City and assigned tasks
to teams of fellow unpaid interns -- Ms. Wang's editor declined to
write a letter of recommendation and she was unable to find a job.

"I knew I couldn't do any more internships after this," she said
in an interview with Time magazine.  "Thinking of the spring
interns who would come in with high hopes just like my fellow
interns and I had -- I decided that someone had to put a stop to
this practice."

Ms. Wang's lawsuit has since been granted class-action status and
now involves some 3,000 former Hearst interns who are seeking back
pay for the time they worked.  The lawsuit asserts that Hearst's
internship program violates New York state labor laws.  While
unpaid internships are legal under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
federal provisions stipulate that they must provide an educational
experience for the intern.

Hearst is not commenting on the litigation, but the company
released a statement in February defending its policies.  "The
internship programs at each of our magazines are designed to
enhance the educational experience of students who are receiving
academic credit for their participation, and are otherwise fully
in compliance with applicable laws," the statement said.  "We
intend to vigorously defend this matter."

Ms. Wang's case came on the heels of another high-profile lawsuit
involving unpaid movie interns.  Last year, Alex Footman and Eric
Glatt, who worked on the Darren Aronofsky film "Black Swan," sued
Fox Searchlight over work they say they should have been paid for.
In August, lawyers for Footman and Glatt sought to expand the case
to include all interns who participated in programs run by Fox
Entertainment Group.

Both lawsuits have helped spark a national conversation about the
ethics of unpaid internships, long a standard practice in so-
called glamour industries such as publishing and entertainment.

Approximately 1 million Americans work as interns each year, and
half are unpaid.  Defenders of the practice say unpaid internships
offer green college students and grads the chance to gain valuable
experience and make professional connections they would not
otherwise make.  Critics, however, say unpaid interns are being
exploited by unscrupulous employers who are simply looking for
free labor.

Ms. Wang's case against Hearst is expected to be decided early
next year.


INSURANCE INFORMATION: Faces Class Action Over False Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Insurance Information
Exchange falsely told a potential employer that a man had been
convicted of "indecent assault and battery on child" and "sexual
abuse in the first degree," a man says in a federal class action
in Ohio.


JUSTMUGSHOTS.COM: Attorney Files Suit Against Mug Shot Web Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that an Ohio attorney has filed a
class-action lawsuit against Internet Web sites that make money by
posting mugshots of people who get arrested.

Toledo lawyer Scott Ciolek filed the suit against five commercial
Web sites in Lucas County last week.  He claims more than 259,000
Ohioans have been cataloged on various sites and, to have a photo
removed -- even if a person has been found not guilty or the
charges were dismissed -- the sites charge a removal fee.

The five defendants are justmugshots.com, bustedmugshots.com,
mugshotsonline.com, findmugshots.com, and mugremove.com, according
to toledoBlade.com.

"They have to pay these Web sites to remove their photo, which is
extortion," Mr. Ciolek told The Blade for a story published on
Dec. 5.

The lawsuit names two plaintiffs, and Mr. Ciolek said more
plaintiffs and defendants could be named.

None of the sites named in the suit returned calls or e-mails form
the newspaper seeking comment.

One of the plaintiffs, Phillip Kaplan of Toledo, said that
although his 2011 charge for failure to disperse was dismissed
earlier this year, his mugshot remains online.

He estimates he's gotten at least a dozen calls and messages from
people asking if he's seen his photo online.  A freelance designer
and copywriter, Mr. Kaplan said his eternal presence on the
Internet could be keeping him from full-time employment.

"I don't get a lot of callbacks," he said.  "One of the first
things people do is type a name into Google.  I think it's
affected my opportunities at more gainful employment.  It affects
a lot of peoples' chances at employment."

He said he's willing to "dig up" the arrest again in hopes of
ending the practice of "eternally running somebody's photos whose
case has been dismissed.  . . . This is the illegal selling of
peoples' images.  You can't sell someone's likeness back to them."

Mugshot photos are public record, available to anyone.  Many first
appear on law enforcement agency Web sites.  The legal issues
don't begin until a company starts to profit from the photos,
Mr. Ciolek said.

"The real issue lies in the commercial use of it," he said.  Ohio
law states that a persona cannot be used for commercial gain
without the individual's written consent.  Newsworthiness, public
affairs and sports broadcasts are the few exceptions.

Mr. Ciolek has created a Web site for Ohio residents whose
mugshots have been posted on any private site at:
http://is.gd/FTSJlZ


KIT DIGITAL: HMEPS Seeks to Expand Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Houston Municipal Employees Pension System ("HMEPS"), the court-
appointed lead plaintiff acting on behalf of shareholders in the
In re KIT Digital, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:12-cv-04199-
VM, on Dec. 5 disclosed, through lead counsel Bernstein Liebhard
LLP, that it is preparing a consolidated class action complaint
that expands the class period in the action to include recently
revealed facts related to KIT Digital's financial accounting
problems.

KIT Digital, a New York-based video management software and
services company, and certain of its senior executives, are being
charged with artificially inflating the price of KIT Digital stock
by issuing materially false and misleading statements, in
violation of the federal securities laws.

The consolidated class action complaint will include allegations
arising from defendants' alleged false and misleading statements
concerning KIT Digital's business operations, financial condition,
revenue recognition, internal controls, financial accounting,
business integrations, and financial prospects.  HMEPS seeks to
recover damages on behalf of all class members who purchased or
otherwise acquired KIT Digital securities from May 19, 2009
through November 21, 2012.

If you have any questions concerning the litigation, and/or have
information relating to the fraud alleged at KIT Digital, please
contact one of plaintiff's lead counsel, Laurence J. Hasson, at
(212) 779-1414 or lhasson@bernlieb.com



LIBERTY MEDIA: Faces Shareholder Class Action Suits in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Media Corporation is facing shareholder class action
lawsuits in Delaware, 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 21, 2012, plaintiff City of Miami Police Relief and
Pension Fund (the "Fund") filed a complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against Liberty, Sirius XM
Radio, Inc. ("SIRIUS XM"), Liberty Radio LLC and certain Liberty
designees on the board of directors of SIRIUS XM (David J.A.
Flowers, Gregory B. Maffei, John C. Malone, Carl E. Vogel, and
Vanessa A. Wittman (together, the "Sirius Designees")).  On August
23, 2012, plaintiff Brian Cohen filed a complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the same individuals and
seeking substantially similar relief as set forth in the complaint
filed by the Fund.  By Order of the Court dated October 2, 2012,
the two actions were consolidated under the caption In re Sirius
XM Shareholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 7800-CS (Del. Ch.).
Plaintiffs the Fund and Brian Cohen filed an Amended Verified
Class Action and Derivative Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") in
the consolidated action on October 5, 2012.  The Amended Complaint
alleges that Liberty and the Sirius Designees are breaching their
alleged fiduciary duties to the SIRIUS XM stockholders by
acquiring shares of SIRIUS XM common stock in the market and
applying to the Federal Communications Commission for consent to
the transfer of de jure control of the various FCC licenses and
authorizations held by SIRIUS XM or its subsidiaries.  The Amended
Complaint also seeks a declaration that a provision in an
investment agreement entered into between Liberty and SIRIUS XM
that prohibits SIRIUS XM from adopting certain anti-takeover
provisions is invalid under Delaware law and a declaration that
upon the expiration of the three year standstill in the investment
agreement Liberty became an interested stockholder subject to the
restrictions and limitations set forth by Section 203 of the
Delaware General Corporation Law.

On August 23, 2012, plaintiff Brian Cohen filed a complaint in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Cohen v.
Sirius XM Radio Inc., et al., Case No. 7806 (Del. Ch.).  The
allegations and relief sought in this action are against the same
individuals and are substantially similar to those in the In re
Sirius XM Shareholder Litigation.


LIBERTY MEDIA: Faces "Montero" Shareholder Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Media Corporation is facing a shareholder class action
lawsuit brought by Andrew Montero 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.

On August 27, 2012, plaintiff Andrew Montero brought a shareholder
class action on behalf of the shareholders of the common stock of
SIRIUS XM against SIRIUS XM, the Sirius Designees, Liberty and
Liberty Radio LLC.  The action, captioned Montero v. Sirius XM
Radio Inc., Index No. 653012/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Cnty. of New
York), was commenced in the Supreme Court for the State of New
York in New York County.  Mr. Montero alleges breaches of
fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and
seeks a declaratory judgment, with allegations and relief sought
substantially similar to those in the City of Miami litigation.


LOJACK CORP: Awaits Court Approval of Wage and Hour Suits Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
LoJack Corporation is awaiting court approval of its $8.1 million
settlement of claims in wage and hour class action lawsuits 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 April 5, 2006, Mike Rutti vs. LoJack Corporation, Inc. was
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California, or the District Court, by a former employee
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, or the FLSA,
the California Labor Code, and the California Business &
Professions Code, and seeking class action status, or the Federal
Court Case.  In September 2007, the Company's motion for summary
judgment was granted and the District Court dismissed all of the
plaintiff's federal law claims.  The plaintiff appealed the grant
of summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, or the Ninth Circuit, and, in August 2009, the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's grant of summary
judgment on all claims except as to the claim for compensation for
the required postliminary data transmission, or the Data
Transmission Claim, for which the dismissal was reversed.  The
plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing and, on March 2, 2010,
the Ninth Circuit amended its decision to affirm the District
Court's grant of summary judgment on all claims except as to (a)
the Data Transmission Claim and (b) the claim for compensation for
commuting under state law, or the Commuting Claim. The plaintiff
later sought to pursue the Commuting Claim in the State Court
Case.  The plaintiff moved for conditional certification of the
Data Transmission Claim under the FLSA and, on January 14, 2011,
the District Court granted the plaintiff's motion.  On October 7,
2011, the parties filed a joint stipulation with the District
Court stating that they had reached a settlement of the Data
Transmission Claim.  On November 7, 2011, the parties filed a
joint motion for approval of the settlement as required by the
FLSA.  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Federal Court
Case would be dismissed, the plaintiffs would release the Company
of the claims asserted in the Federal Court Case and all other
wage-and-hour claims (except, in the case of two plaintiffs, the
claims asserted in the State Court Case) and the Company would pay
to the plaintiffs an aggregate amount of approximately $115,000
and pay to their attorneys an amount for attorneys' fees and costs
to be determined by the District Court upon motion but not to
exceed $1,100,000.

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company recorded an
accrual in the amount of $1,250,000 with respect to the terms of
the Federal Court Case settlement, of which $901,000 remained
accrued at September 30, 2012.  Nothing in the settlement would
constitute an admission of any wrongdoing, liability or violation
of law by the Company.  Rather, the Company has agreed to the
settlement to resolve the Federal Court Case, thereby eliminating
the uncertainties and expense of further protracted litigation.
On November 28, 2011, the District Court approved the settlement
with the plaintiff and dismissed the Federal Court Case with
prejudice.  Plaintiffs then submitted an application for
attorneys' fees and costs, to which the Company filed several
objections.  On August 1, 2012, the District Court awarded
plaintiffs' counsel $901,000 in attorneys' fees and costs for the
Federal Court Case.

Due to the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims by the District
Court in September 2007, in November 2007, the plaintiff and a
second plaintiff filed in the Superior Court of California for Los
Angeles County, or the Superior Court, Mike Rutti, Gerson Anaya
vs. LoJack Corporation, Inc. to assert wage-and-hour claims under
California law on behalf of current and former Company
technicians, or the State Court Case.  In September 2009, the
Superior Court granted class certification with respect to nine
claims and denied class certification with respect to five claims.
The Company sought appellate review of this decision.  On March
26, 2010, the California Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate
District granted the Company's request in part, denying
certification with respect to certain claims but affirming
certification with respect to certain other claims.

On July 29, 2011, the Superior Court granted class certification
of the remaining claims except for a vehicle maintenance expense
reimbursement claim.  As a result, in the State Court Case, there
were 16 certified claims, including the Commuting Claim; a Data
Transmission Claim arising under state law; claims for various
amounts of unpaid time; claims for reimbursement of work tools
expenses and the cost of washing a Company vehicle; claims for
unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code
section 17200; and claims for waiting-time penalties and penalties
under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act.  On
June 29, 2012, the Company filed for summary judgment against more
than 40 class members, as well as for summary adjudication of
several class claims.

On October 18, 2012, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement, or the Settlement Agreement, with the named plaintiffs
in these wage-and-hour class and collective action lawsuits.
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Company has
agreed to pay up to $8,100,000, including plaintiffs' attorneys'
fees and costs, to resolve all remaining claims related to the
State Court Case.  The Company previously disclosed that it
estimated the range of possible loss with respect to the State
Court Case to be between $970,000 and $30,000,000.  The Settlement
Agreement involves no admission of wrongdoing, liability or
violation of the law by the Company.  In addition, the Settlement
Agreement bars the named plaintiffs in the State Court Case from
pursuing further claims against the Company.  Finally, although
the Company filed a notice of appeal with respect to the
attorneys' fee award in the Federal Court Case, the Company has
agreed to waive that appeal as part of the Settlement Agreement
and to pay the $901,000 awarded by the federal court.

The Settlement Agreement is subject to both preliminary and final
approval by the Superior Court.  Following preliminary approval by
the Superior Court, California class members will be sent a notice
of the settlement and given the opportunity to decide whether to
participate in the settlement.  The Company could pay less than
$8,100,000 in settlement of the State Court Case depending on the
level of participation by class members in the settlement.
Following the notice period, the parties may move for final
approval of the settlement.

During the three months ended September 30, 2012, the Company
recorded an additional accrual in the amount of $6,930,000 with
respect to its expected obligations under the Settlement
Agreement, bringing the total amount accrued for the State Court
Case as of September 30, 2012, to $8,100,000.


MAXIMUS INC: Faces Class Action Over Fine Surcharges
----------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford at Courthouse News Service reports that Houston
and a private contractor are adding an illegal $300 surcharge to
fines for drivers convicted of failure to display a license, a
class action claims in Federal Court.

Named plaintiff Bertha Fontenot sued Houston, Maximus Inc. and its
successor, Courtview Justice Solutions Inc.

Maximus is a publicly traded Virginia company based in Reston, Va.
It employs more than 8,800 people worldwide, according to its Web
site.

Courtview Justice Solutions is a Delaware corporation with its
home office in North Canton, Ohio.  It provides case management
systems for courts, attorneys and jails, according to its Web
site.

In a statement on the Maximus Web site, its CEO Richard Montoni
says: "We partner with government agencies across North America,
Australia, the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia to operate more
efficient and cost-effective health and human services programs."

Ms. Fontenot claims that in April 2003 the Houston City Council
approved a $20 million contract with Maximus to design and
implement a "a new near-paperless case management system that
would replace the Houston Municipal Court's 1980s legacy
technology with a state of the art system" for the more than 1
million traffic tickets the city processes each year.

The system, known as the Municipal Courts Integrated Management
System, or ICMS, went live in April 2006, Ms. Fontenot says.

"Significant problems arose during the implementation of the ICMS.
During the course of the project, disputes between defendant city
of Houston and defendant Maximus resulted in litigation and
mediation," the complaint states.

"In 2008, defendant city of Houston and defendant Maximus entered
into a settlement agreement under which Maximus had to refund $7
million that it had been paid.

"The City of Houston was allowed to continue to utilize the ICMS
system, with support provided on a time-and-materials basis by
defendant Maximus and its successor, defendant Courtview.

"At the same time, defendant City of Houston retained the services
of other vendors to attempt to bring online alternatives for a new
court data and case management system.  Defendant city of Houston
now refers to the ICMS developed and supported by defendant
Maximus and its successor, defendant Courtview, as a 'Failed
System.'"

The city has budged $14 million to replace the system, Ms.
Fontenot says.

"Despite knowing that the ICMS was a failure, defendant City of
Houston continued to utilize ICMS to process traffic citations
issued by the Houston Police Department," the complaint states.

Ms. Fontenot says Texas enacted a "Driver Responsibility Program"
that allows cities to impose surcharges for convictions on these
charges: driving while intoxicated, driving without a valid
driver's license, driving without valid insurance and driving with
a suspended registration.

A failure to display a license conviction is not subject to the
surcharge, Ms. Fontenot says.

She says the first conviction for failure to display a license is
punishable by a fine of $200 or less; the second conviction within
one year after the first is punishable by a fine of not more than
$200, and a third conviction within one year after the second by a
fine of not more than $500.

"With implementation of the new system, defendants began reporting
convictions of violating Section 521.025 (failure to have license
on your person and display; which is not a surchargeable offense)
as being a conviction of Section 521.021 (driving without a valid,
required license; which is a surchargeable offense)," the
complaint states.

"As a result of the misconduct of defendant City of Houston,
defendant Maximus and defendant Courtview, persons convicted of
Section 521.025 (failure to have license on your person and
display) are subjected to significant penalties in the form of
'surcharges' of up to $300 that are not authorized by any
legislative enactment or lawful authority of any sort.

"As a practical matter, such persons are convicted of one offense
but then -- because of defendants -- penalized as though they had
been convicted of any entirely different and more serious offense.

"Defendants report to the Texas Department of Public Safety, and
imposition of the surcharge, comes without notice or hearing."

Ms. Fontenot seeks class damages for due process violations and
defamation.

She also wants an injunction ordering defendants to stop reporting
failure to display license convictions as failure to have a
license, and a declaration that defendants' invalid surcharges
violate the U.S. Constitution.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Norman, Esq.
          CROWLEY NORMAN LLP
          Three Riverway, Suite 1775
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 651-1771
          E-mail: rnorman@crowleynorman.com


NATIONAL HOCKEY: Loses Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Rosen, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that a group of
baseball and hockey fans can go forward with claims that the
National Hockey League and Major League Baseball violate U.S.
antitrust law in their control over television and Internet
broadcast rights.

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin in New York on Dec. 5 denied
the leagues' request to dismiss the suits, filed by subscribers to
broadcasts of hockey and baseball games.  The group sued the
leagues; individual clubs; regional TV sports networks; Comcast
Corp. (CMCSA), the largest U.S. cable broadcaster; and DirecTV LLC
(DTV), the largest U.S. satellite television provider.

The plaintiffs, seeking to represent other MLB and NHL viewers in
a class-action suit, claim the practice of dividing live game
broadcasts into exclusive territories, protected by local
blackouts, is anti-competitive.  They also targeted the sale of
"out-of-market" packages only through the leagues.

"Plaintiffs have adequately alleged harm to competition with
respect to the horizontal agreements among individual hockey and
baseball clubs, as part of the NHL and MLB, to divide the
television market," Judge Scheindlin said on Dec. 5 in a written
opinion.

The cases are Laumann v. National Hockey League, 1:12- cv-01817,
and Garber v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, 12-cv-3704,
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).


NEW YORK CITY, NY: Judge Decertifies Backpay Plaintiffs Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that New York City's
Board of Education discriminated against black and Latino teachers
by requiring them to pass a standardized test that wasn't properly
validated to become licensed to teach in the city's schools, a
U.S. judge ruled on Dec. 5.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood in Manhattan came
in a long-running class action.  The ruling permits the plaintiffs
to seek the appointment of a monitor to evaluate whether the
current version of the test has any of the invalid provisions in
place from 1996 to 2000.

At the same time, Judge Wood decertified the class of plaintiffs
insofar as it was seeking back pay.  The decision follows a
landmark 2011 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores
Inc. v. Dukes, which limited the ability of plaintiffs to group
together in class actions.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said Judge Wood's ruling left the door
open for teachers who took the test and number in the hundreds if
not thousands to seek damages individually or for the court to
certify smaller classes.

The Dec. 5 ruling marked the latest instance of a federal judge
taking issue with New York City employment tests.  A federal judge
in Brooklyn in March ordered the city to pay up to $128.7 million
after finding New York City Fire Department exams had
"discriminatory effects" on minority applicants from 1999 to 2007.

"These are two major federal court decisions invalidating public
employment tests," said Baher Azmy, the legal director at the
Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents the plaintiffs
in both cases.

Eamonn Foley, a lawyer with the New York City Law Department, in a
statement said the judge was correct to decertify the class with
regard to its back pay and injunctive relief demands and that the
city didn't break the law with regard to its use of an earlier
test.

"The city is reviewing its options with regard to the remaining
portions of the decision," he said.

The lawsuit was filed in 1996 by four teachers -- three black and
one Latina -- who claimed that the testing practices of the New
York State Education Department and the New York City Board of
Education were discriminatory.

To gain permanent licenses, the teachers had to pass the National
Teacher Core Battery exam, which the state began using in 1984,
and its successor, the Liberal Arts and Sciences Test, introduced
in 1993.  A newer version of the LAST has been in place since 2000
and wasn't at issue, the decision said.

The lawsuit claimed that white teachers passed at a higher rate
than blacks and Latinos and that the exam had a disparate impact.
First-time black and Latino takers of the LAST passed at 57.9
percent and 55.1 percent, compared to a 90.25 percent pass rate
for whites, the plaintiffs said in a 2003 filing.

Those who failed the exam lost their conditional licenses.  As a
result, they could only work as substitute teachers and had lower
salaries, benefits and seniority, the plaintiffs said.

About 8,000 to 15,000 teachers have suffered demotion,
termination, reduced pay and other losses because they failed the
tests, according to the Center for Constitutional Rights.  The
center's Web site did not provide a time frame for that statistic.

The city contended the exam was job-related, but Judge Wood found
that the test wasn't properly validated.

In granting the motion to decertify the class related to monetary
damages for back pay, Judge Wood said the class could remain
intact for the purpose of seeking a court finding that the board
violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Damages could, though, still be in play, said Joshua Sohn, a
lawyer at DLA Piper working pro bono for the plaintiffs.  How the
damages would be determined will be the subject of a response from
the plaintiffs the court requested by Dec. 13.

"(The decision) leaves the possibility to certify subclasses for
damages, or we could propose some other framework to get there,"
Mr. Sohn said.

A status conference is scheduled for Jan. 10.

Since the case was filed, it has wound its way through the courts
and passed through four judges.

A class of plaintiffs was certified in 2001 by former U.S.
district judge Constance Baker Motley in Manhattan, the second
judge to oversee the case after receiving it from Judge Deborah
Batts.  Following a five-month bench trial in 2003, the judge
found the city and state's use of the exam did not violate Title
VII.

In 2006, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge
Motley's findings.  The appeals court tossed the teachers' claims
against the state, leaving just the city as a defendant.

Judge Motley died in 2005 before the 2nd Circuit ruled, so the
case was later reassigned to Judge Sydney Stein.  It was then
transferred again, this time to Judge Wood in 2009.

The case is Gulino v. Board of Education, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York, No. 96-08414.

For Gulino: Joshua Sohn, DLA Piper.

For the New York City Board of Education: Eamonn Foley, New York
City Law Department.


ONE WORLD: Recalls 12,800 RIDGID Roofing & Framing Nailers
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, One World Technologies Inc., of Anderson, South
Carolina, and manufacturer, De Poan Pneumatic Corporation, of
Taiwan, announced a voluntary recall of about 8,400 RIDGID Coil
Roofing Nailers and 4,400 RIDGID Clipped Head Framing Nailers.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The trigger assembly on the nailers can malfunction and
involuntarily discharge a fastener, posing a laceration or injury
hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled pneumatic nailers are used to secure fasteners into
roofs and woodwork.  The orange and gray hand held drill-shaped
tools have the name "RIDGID" on the side of the nailers in white
type on a black panel.  The model and serial numbers are located
on the side of the nail tray/magazine where the fasteners are
loaded.  Recalled nailers have the following serial number range:

    * Coil Roofing Nailer model R175RNE:   ER114600001 through
                                           ER1217008424

    * Clipped Head Framing Nailer          ER114600001 through
      model R350CHE:                       ER1215004424

Nailers with a blue dot on the product packaging are not included
in the recall.  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13059.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at Home
Depot stores nationwide and online at homedepot.com between
January 2012 and September 2012 for about $230.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled nailers and
contact One World Technologies for a free replacement nailer.  One
World Technologies may be reached at (800) 597-9624 from 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or online at
http://www.ridgid.com/and click on Safety Notices for more
information.


RENAL CARE: January 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP pursuant to an order of the
Chancery Court for the State of Tennessee, Twentieth Judicial
District, at Nashville:

INDIANA STATE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF LABORERS AND HOD CARRIERS
PENSION FUND,

        On Behalf of Itself and                         )
        All Others Similarly Situated and               )
        Derivatively                                    )
        on Behalf of RENAL CARE GROUP, INC.,            )
        Plaintiff,                                      )
        vs.                                             )
        GARY BRUKARDT, et al.,                          )
        Defendants,                                     )
        - and -                                         )
        RENAL CARE GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, )
        Nominal Party.


                        CLASS ACTION
                     Case No. 05-1392-II
                     Chancellor Bonnyman


        TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO HELD THE COMMON STOCK OF
RENAL CARE GROUP, INC. ("RENAL CARE") AT ANY TIME FROM AND
INCLUDING MAY 4, 2005 (THE DATE THAT THE ACQUISITION OF RENAL CARE
BY FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE AG FOR $48 PER SHARE (THE "ACQUISITION")
WAS PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED) THROUGH AND INCLUDING MARCH 31, 2006 (THE
CLOSING DATE OF THE ACQUISITION).

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS AND DERIVATIVE ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Tennessee
Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Chancery Court for
the State of Tennessee, Twentieth Judicial District, at Nashville
(the "Court"): (i) of the pendency of this action (the "Action")
as a class and derivative action on behalf of the persons and
entities described above (the "Class"), except for certain persons
and entities who are excluded from the Class by definition; and
(ii) that a Settlement for $4 million in cash has been proposed.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Claudia Bonnyman, at
the Davidson County Courthouse, 1 Public Square, Nashville, TN
37201, at 1:30 p.m. CST, on January 18, 2013: (i) to determine
whether the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) to determine whether the
Settled Claims against Defendants and other Released Persons
should be dismissed with prejudice; (iii) to determine whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and
reasonable; and (iv) to consider the application of Plaintiff's
Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY
BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.  If you have not yet
received the full printed Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class and Derivative Action (the "Notice") and Proof
of Claim and Release form (the "Claim Form"), you may obtain
copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator:

Renal Care Shareholder Litigation Claims Administrator c/o Gilardi
& Co. LLC P.O. Box 990 Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990

Copies of the Notice and Claim Form may also be downloaded from
the Claims Administrator's Web site at http://www.gilardi.com

If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim
Form no later than March 4, 2013.  If you are a Class Member and
do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by any
Judgment entered in the Action whether or not you make a Claim.
To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written
request for exclusion that is received by the Claims Administrator
no later than January 4, 2013, in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Notice.  Any objections to the proposed
Settlement, Plan of Allocation and/or application for attorneys'
fees and expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to
Plaintiff's Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel no later than
January 4, 2013 in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Notice.  If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper
Claim Form, you will not share in the Settlement Fund but you will
nevertheless be bound by the Judgment of the Court.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and
Claim Form, may be made to Plaintiff's Lead Counsel:

          Rick Atwood, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (800) 449-4900

Further information may be obtained by contacting the Claims
Administrator.

Dated: November 16, 2012

By Order of the Court


SEI INVESTMENTS: Judge Certifies Ponzi Scheme Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Lodge, writing for The Advocate, reports that a civil suit by
86 defrauded investors was certified by a Baton Rouge judge on
Dec. 5 as a class action against Louisiana's regulator of
financial institutions and a Pennsylvania company that compiled
customer financial statements on behalf of convicted swindler
Robert Allen Stanford.

The ruling by state District Judge R. Michael Caldwell could open
the door for some 1,000 investors damaged by Stanford's fraudulent
$7.2 billion scheme to join the suit.  Those people now have the
option to join the original plaintiffs in seeking judgments
against the Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions, or OFI,
and the financial services firm of SEI Investments Co.

If investors win that suit, OFI and SEI could share liability for
as much as $1 billion in losses in Louisiana, according to
estimates by their attorneys.

SEI took investment-performance information from Mr. Stanford, now
serving a prison term of 110 years, and used it for financial
statements that went to investors.  But both the Pennsylvania firm
and OFI deny failing any obligations to investors.

"I do certify this lawsuit as a class action," Judge Caldwell told
a courtroom populated by former Stanford investors and attorneys
for all sides in the litigation.

The judge noted his decision merely opens the door for more
defrauded investors to join the lawsuit against OFI and SEI.
Additional litigation will be needed to determine whether those
investors are entitled to recover any money from the two
defendants for allegedly failing an obligation to warn them of
indicators of fraud on Stanford's part.

Many people lost their money, Judge Caldwell said, adding that
there were more than 1,000 investor accounts at Stanford Trust Co.
in Baton Rouge.

Additional investors' money was drawn into the scheme through
Stanford Group Co.

"Some of them lost all of their money," Judge Caldwell said of the
victims.  "Some of them lost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and
some of them lost millions."

Phil Preis, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said Judge
Caldwell's ruling "affords the people of Louisiana their day in
court."  Mr. Preis said his clients "are overjoyed."

Zachary resident and Stanford victim Kathy Mier said, "I am very,
very, very excited, very happy.  Someone has listened, and I'm
ready to go on."

Mrs. Mier and her husband, Louis Mier, lost $240,000 of their
retirement nest egg to Stanford, 62.

"For the first time in a long time, I felt like someone really
listened to us, and we're moving forward with our fight," Kathy
Mier said.

Debbie and Ken Dougherty, of Central, recovered their principal
investment in Stanford's certificates of deposit at his bank on
the Caribbean island of Antigua before federal officials shut down
his operations in February 2009.  But they continue to face
demands from a court-appointed receivership in Dallas for return
of more than $100,000 in profits.

"I know this is just one hurdle, but it's huge," Debbie Dougherty
said after Judge Caldwell's certification of the class action
lawsuit.  "If we can get something for those folks who got
nothing, then this (court fight) will be worth it."

Attorneys for OFI and SEI, however, said long before Judge
Caldwell's ruling that the government agency and financial
services corporation did not violate any obligations to investors
and will fight investor claims in court.

"The role of OFI is to regulate, not to ensure that those who
invest in companies subject to OFI regulation will never lose
money as a result of criminal actions," OFI attorney David Latham
wrote in one court filing.

In May 2011, however, former Stanford employee-turned-
whistleblower Charles W. Rawl testified in Washington, D.C.,
before the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations.  Mr. Rawl told members of Congress that he advised
OFI officials of corrupt Stanford practices in 2008.

In late summer 2008, Mr. Rawl testified, OFI officials blocked
future sale of additional Stanford bank certificates of deposit
into Individual Retirement Accounts at Stanford Trust Co.

Mr. Preis said after Judge Caldwell's ruling: "The state examined
the trust company.  For a period of four years, we allege, they
(OFI officials) knew of (Stanford's) Ponzi scheme."

A Ponzi is not a legitimate investment program.  From beginning to
end, it is intended to do nothing more than drain money from
investors and transfer those assets to criminals.  Early investors
are paid dividends in order to attract new investors, whose money
prolongs the scheme.

Both the Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S.
Attorney's Office in Houston alleged in 2009 that Stanford's
operations were fraudulent from the beginning.  Federal judges in
Dallas and Houston have since agreed with that assessment.

But those court rulings have yet to benefit any defrauded
investors.  And they did not target any blame toward OFI and SEI.

SEI attorney J. Gordon Cooney Jr. told Judge Caldwell two months
ago that SEI did not falsify any information in investors'
financial statements, which routinely showed healthy profits, even
as Mr. Stanford's worldwide empire was collapsing.

All financial information used in those statements was provided by
Mr. Stanford or his employees, Mr. Cooney added.  He said SEI did
not knowingly participate in the dissemination of false
information to investors.


SUZANNA'S KITCHEN: Recalls 35.8T Lbs. of Breaded Chicken Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanna's Kitchen, a Duluth, Georgia establishment, is recalling
approximately 35,800 pounds of breaded chicken products because
they may contain pieces of plastic, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The products subject to recall include:

   * Cases containing twelve (12), 12-oz. cartons of "FREEBIRD
     FULLY COOKED CHICKEN NUGGETS," with an identifying case code
     of "6220" and use-by date of March 15, 2014, ink-jetted on
     each case and carton.  These cases have a Julian code of
     "2075."

   * Cases containing twelve (12), 12-oz. cartons of "FREEBIRD
     FULLY COOKED GLUTEN FREE/SOY FREE CHICKEN PATTIES," with an
     identifying case code of "6244" and use-by date of
     September 6, 2013, ink-jetted on each case and carton.
     These cases have a Julian code of "1249."

   * 10-lb. bulk cases of "FULLY COOKED CHICKEN NUGGETS," with an
     identifying case code of "6221" and use-by date of March 15,
     2014, ink-jetted on the case.  These cases have a Julian
     code of "2075," and were shipped to a foodservice
     distributor in California for further distribution.

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/Recall_079_2012_Release/index.asp

The nuggets and patties subject to recall bear the USDA mark of
inspection and were produced on March 15, 2012, and September 6,
2011, respectively.  These products were produced for a separate
federally-inspected establishment and distributed to retail stores
nationwide, unless otherwise noted.

The problem was discovered as a result of consumer complaints
about finding pieces of plastic in the products.  The plastic
pieces may have originated from the plastic bag the products were
held in prior to production.  FSIS and the Company have received
no reports of injury or illness at this time.  Anyone concerned
about an injury or illness from consumption of these products
should contact a healthcare provider.

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

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact the
Freebird Consumer Hotline, at (800) 724-0206.  News reporters with
questions about the recall should contact Suzanna's Kitchen, at
(800) 241-2455.

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


TIME WARNER: Faces Suit For Breach of Customer Agreements
---------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Lenett, Individually, Representatively, and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Time Warner Cable Inc., Case No.
BER-L-008594-12 (N.J. Super. Ct., Bergen Cty., November 13, 2012)
is brought for declaratory judgment, an injunctive order, and
class-wide relief to stop Time Warner's alleged blatant breach of
its customer agreements and consumer fraud in assessing a
deceptive new Internet Modem Lease Fee on millions of its
customers as of October 15, 2012.

Prior to October 15th, the Company provided customers with
Internet modems included as part of their monthly service plans,
but is now charging millions of customers an extra $3.95 per month
for the privilege of "leasing" old modems, which are used pieces
of equipment that the Company supplied and typically wrote off as
worthless years ago, Ms. Lenett alleges.  She asserts that to
prevent Time Warner's massive consumer fraud and breach of
contract, she seeks a declaratory judgment and injunction to stop
the media giant from following through on its scheme to charge
this surprise fee to its customers in New Jersey.

Ms. Lenett is a resident of Fort Lee, New Jersey.

Time Warner is headquartered in New York City.  Time Warner is the
second largest cable provider in the land.  The Company describes
itself as "among the largest providers of video, high-speed data
and voice services in the United States, connecting more than 15
million customers to entertainment, information and each other."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven L. Wittels, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN L. WITTELS, P.C.
          18 Half Mile Road
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 319-9945
          Facsimile: (914) 273-2563
          E-mail: slwittels@gmail.com

               - and -

          Richard Roth, Esq.
          THE ROTH LAW FIRM, PLLC
          295 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 542-8882
          Facsimile: (212) 542-8883
          E-mail: rich@rrothlaw.com


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Suits Over Fuel Temperature Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits over motor fuel temperatures remain pending
in Kansas, according to TravelCenters of America LLC's November 6,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Beginning in December 2006, a series of class action lawsuits was
filed against numerous companies in the petroleum industry,
including the Company's predecessor and the Company's
subsidiaries, in U.S. district courts in over 20 states.  Major
petroleum refiners and retailers were named as defendants in one
or more of these lawsuits.  The plaintiffs in the lawsuits
generally allege that they are retail purchasers who purchased
motor fuel at temperatures greater than 60 degrees Fahrenheit at
the time of sale.  One theory alleges that the plaintiffs
purchased smaller amounts of motor fuel than the amount for which
defendants charged them because the defendants measured the amount
of motor fuel they delivered by volumes which, at higher
temperatures, contain less energy.  A second theory alleges that
fuel taxes are calculated in temperature adjusted 60 degree
gallons and are collected by governmental agencies from suppliers
and wholesalers, who are reimbursed in the amount of the tax by
the defendant retailers before the fuel is sold to consumers.
These "tax" cases allege that, when the fuel is subsequently sold
to consumers at temperatures above 60 degrees, the retailers sell
a greater volume of fuel than the amount on which they paid tax,
and therefore reap unjust benefit because the customers pay more
tax than the retailer pays.  The Company believes that there are
substantial factual and legal defenses to the theories alleged in
these so called "hot fuel" lawsuits.  The "temperature" cases seek
nonmonetary relief in the form of an order requiring the
defendants to install devices that display the temperature of the
fuel and/or temperature correcting equipment on their retail fuel
pumps and monetary relief in the form of damages, but the
plaintiffs have not quantified the damages they seek.  The "tax"
cases also seek monetary relief.  Plaintiffs have proposed a
formula (which the Company disputes) to measure these damages as
the difference between the amount of fuel excise taxes paid by
defendants and the amount collected by defendants on motor fuel
sales.

Plaintiffs have taken the position in filings with the Court that
under this approach, the Company's damages for an eight-year
period for one state would be approximately $10.7 million.  The
Company denies liability and disagrees with the plaintiffs'
positions.  All of these cases have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas pursuant to multi-
district litigation procedures.  On May 28, 2010, that Court ruled
that, with respect to two cases originally filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas, it would grant
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of plaintiffs seeking
injunctive relief (implementation of fuel temperature equipment
and/or posting of notices regarding the effect of temperature on
fuel).

On January 19, 2012, the Court amended its prior ruling, and
certified a class with respect to plaintiffs' claims for damages
as well.  A TA entity was named in one of those two Kansas cases,
but the Court ruled that the named plaintiffs were not sufficient
to represent a class as to TA.  Several defendants in the Kansas
cases, including major petroleum refiners, have entered into
multi-state settlements, which have not yet been approved by the
Court.  Following a September 2012 trial against the remaining
defendants in the Kansas cases, the jury returned a unanimous
verdict in favor of those Kansas defendants, and the judge
likewise ruled in the Kansas defendants' favor on the sole non-
jury claim.  The Court has not issued a decision on class
certification with respect to the remaining cases that have been
consolidated in the multi-district litigation.

Because various motions are pending, the Company says it cannot
estimate its ultimate exposure to loss or liability, if any,
related to these lawsuits.  However, the continued cost of
litigating these cases 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.


US BANCORP: Faces Class Action in California Over Autodialers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that US Bancorp and U.S. Bank use
autodialers and prerecorded messages to contact consumers on their
cellphones, a class claims in the United States District Court of
the Central District of California.


WELLS TIMBERLAND: Agrees to Settle Securities Suit for $4.9-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Timberland REIT, Inc. reached an agreement in principle in
October 2012 to settle a securities class action lawsuit for $4.9
million, 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 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
Director; Wells Capital, the owner of the Company's advisor; Wells
Management Company, Inc. ("Wells Management"); certain affiliates
of Wells Real Estate Funds, Inc. ("Wells REF"); the directors of
Piedmont REIT; and certain individuals who formerly served as
officers or directors of Piedmont REIT prior to the closing of an
internalization transaction by Piedmont REIT 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.  The lawsuit has been removed from the Court's
trial calendar pending resolution of a request for interlocutory
appellate review of certain legal rulings made by the Court.

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 April 24, 2012, the
plaintiff filed its response to the defendants' motion for summary
judgment.  On May 7, 2012, the defendants filed their reply in
support of their 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 had reached 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 Wells REF believes that it
has meritorious defenses to the claims of liability and damages in
these actions, Wells REF 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 Wells REF's financial results, financial
condition, or liquidity.


WESTERN UNION: Prelim. Settlements Reached in Colorado Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company reached a preliminary agreement in
principle, and has yet to submit a definitive settlement
agreement, to resolve two class action lawsuits pending in
Colorado, 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 and one of its subsidiaries are defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits: James P. Tennille v. The Western
Union Company and Robert P. Smet v. The Western Union Company,
both of which are pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The original complaints asserted claims
for violation of various consumer protection laws, unjust
enrichment, conversion and declaratory relief, based on
allegations that the Company waits too long to inform consumers if
their money transfers are not redeemed by the recipients and that
the Company uses the unredeemed funds to generate income until the
funds are escheated to state governments.  The Tennille complaint
was served on the Company on April 27, 2009.  The Smet complaint
was served on the Company on April 6, 2010.  On September 21,
2009, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
Tennille complaint and gave the plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint.  On October 21, 2009, Tennille filed an amended
complaint.  The Company moved to dismiss the Tennille amended
complaint and the Smet complaint.  On November 8, 2010, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment and conversion claims.  On February 4, 2011, the Court
dismissed plaintiffs' consumer protection claims.  On March 11,
2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds a claim
for breach of fiduciary duty, various elements to its declaratory
relief claim and Western Union Financial Services, Inc. as a
defendant.  On April 25, 2011, the Company and Western Union
Financial Services, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the breach of
fiduciary duty and declaratory relief claims.  Western Union
Financial Services, Inc. also moved to compel arbitration of the
plaintiffs' claims and to stay the action pending arbitration.  On
November 21, 2011, the Court denied the motion to compel
arbitration and the stay request. Both companies appealed the
decision.

On January 24, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit granted the companies' request to stay the District
Court proceedings pending their appeal.  The plaintiffs have not
sought and the Court has not granted class certification.

A preliminary agreement in principle has been reached with the
plaintiffs and is subject to the negotiation and execution of a
definitive settlement agreement between the parties and the
Court's approval.  The preliminary agreement would result in a
substantial amount of the settlement proceeds to be paid from the
Company's existing related unclaimed property liabilities.  If a
settlement agreement is not completed or approved, the Company and
Western Union Financial Services, Inc. intend to vigorously defend
themselves against both lawsuits.


WHITEHAVEN INCOME: Faces Class Action Over Predatory Loans
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Whitehaven Income Fund and
affiliates make predatory loans at illegal interest rates to
plaintiffs in personal injury lawsuits, a man claims in a federal
class action in New York.


ZEEK REWARDS: Class Action Transferred to Charlotte Court
---------------------------------------------------------
The-Dispatch.com reports that a federal class-action complaint
targeted at the operators of an alleged Ponzi scheme, Zeek
Rewards, has been transferred to the U.S. District Court in
Charlotte.

The complaint, originally filed by nine of the program's former
affiliates in district court in New Orleans on Aug. 24, alleges
the company and its former chief executive officer, Paul Burks,
intentionally misled users with false representations to entice
them to buy into the business.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission froze Zeek's assets
Aug. 17, filing fraud charges against the company they say was
operating a $600 million pyramid and Ponzi scheme.  A court-
appointed receiver has begun an investigation into what money is
left.

Meanwhile Mr. Burks, who lives in Lexington, has agreed to
cooperate with the receiver and is being forced to pay a $4
million penalty.  Mr. Burks has not confirmed or denied any
allegations.

The court-appointed receiver in the SEC case, Kenneth Bell, filed
a motion to stay and transfer the federal class-action lawsuit
Oct. 30 on the grounds that the original order appointing him
receiver included a stay of all related lawsuits.  Mr. Burks also
filed his own motion to stay and transfer the class-action Nov. 5.

U.S. District Court Judge Carl J. Barber ordered on Dec. 3 that
the class-action suit be stayed and transferred to district court
in Charlotte.


                           *********

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  * * *