CAR_Public/121212.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, December 12, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 246

                             Headlines


AETNA INC: Settles N.J. Health Plan and Health Care Class Action
ALLEGHANY CORP: Jan. 10 Hearing on Merger-Related Suit Deal Set
CHICAGO, IL: Faces Homeless Sex Offenders' Class Action
CVS CAREMARK: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
CVS CAREMARK: Appeals Class Certification in "Lauriello" Suit

CVS CAREMARK: PBMs Antitrust Litigation Remains Pending
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Awaits Feb. 7 Hearing on Antitrust Suit Deal
FACEBOOK INC: Judge Names Lead Counsel in IPO-Related Suit
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Disputes Canadian Class Action Over Paxil
HECLA MINING: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in Idaho

ITRON INC: Securities Suit Filed in Washington Now Dismissed
KIA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Gas Mileage Claims
LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Recalls Protandim(R) Dietary Supplements
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP: Continues to Defend Hardboard Trim Suits
NEWELL RUBBERMAID: Still Defends Product Liability Class Suits

OXFORD HEALTH: Supreme Court to Hear Appeal on Arbitration Issue
PACKAGING CORP: Continues to Defend Suit Over Containerboards
PPG INDUSTRIES: Judge Okays $1.3MM Wage-and-Hour Suit Settlement
SEARS ROEBUCK: Craftsman Customers Lose Class Certification Bid
SILENT SNOOZ: Class Action Jury Trial Scheduled for Dec. 16

SINO-FOREST CORP: Shareholders Oppose C$117-Mil. E & Y Settlement
SITEL WORLDWIDE: Unit in Talks to Settle Michigan Class Suit
SITEL WORLDWIDE: Plaintiffs in Settled Suit Sues Insurance Co.
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Barrack, Rodos & Bacine Files Class Action
STARBUCKS CORP: Claims in Tassimo-Related Class Action Trimmed

SUGAR FLOWERS: Recalls Cake Decors Pastillage (Gumpaste) Flowers
TEAVANA HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to Starbucks
THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Final Approval of Class Settlement On Hold
UNITED STATES: Faces New Federal Judges' Suit Demanding Pay Raises
UNITED STATES: Veterans File Partial Summary Judgment Motion

VALHI INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Lead Pigment vs. Unit
WAL-MART STORES: Continues to Face Gender Discrimination Suits
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
WELLS FARGO: Arbitration Bid Denial in Consolidated Suit Affirmed
WELLS FARGO: Only One Foreclosure Doc. Practices Suit Remains

WELLS FARGO: Securities Suits vs. Unit Now Dismissed or Resolved

                          *********



AETNA INC: Settles N.J. Health Plan and Health Care Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
On December 6, 2012, Aetna Inc. entered into a settlement
agreement to settle purported class action litigation regarding
its practices related to the payment of claims for services
rendered to Aetna members by health care providers with whom Aetna
does not have a contract.  The agreement resolves class action
litigation filed on behalf of health plan members and health care
providers.  The first class action case was commenced on July 30,
2007, and the litigation is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey under the caption In re:
Aetna UCR Litigation, MDL No. 2020.

Under the terms of the proposed nationwide settlement, Aetna will
be released from claims relating to its out-of-network
reimbursement practices from the beginning of the applicable
settlement class period through the date the New Jersey Federal
Court preliminarily approves the settlement.  The settlement class
period for health plan members begins on March 1, 2001, and the
settlement class period for health care providers begins on
June 3, 2003.  The agreement contains no admission of wrongdoing.

Under the settlement agreement, the Company will pay $60 million,
the substantial majority of which will be payable upon final court
approval of the settlement, and pay up to an additional $60
million at the end of a claim submission and validation period
that commences upon final court approval of the settlement.  These
payments will fund claims submitted by health plan members who are
members of the plaintiff class and health care providers who are
members of the plaintiff class.  These payments also will fund the
legal fees of plaintiffs' counsel and the costs of administering
the settlement, in each case in amounts to be determined by the
New Jersey Federal Court.

The proposed settlement is subject to preliminary and final court
approval.  Final court approval of the settlement is expected in
mid-2013 but could be delayed by appeals or other proceedings.  In
addition, the Company has the right to terminate the settlement
agreement if more than certain percentages of class members elect
to opt-out of the settlement.

In connection with the proposed settlement, the Company expects to
record an after-tax charge to net income of approximately $78
million in the fourth quarter of 2012.  This charge will be
recorded as an "other item" and will not affect the Company's
operating earnings.  The Company will pay for the settlement with
available resources and expects the settlement payments to occur
over the next twelve to twenty-four months.


ALLEGHANY CORP: Jan. 10 Hearing on Merger-Related Suit Deal Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on Alleghany Corporation's settlement of merger-related
lawsuits has been scheduled for January 10, 2013, according to the
Company's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On November 20, 2011, Alleghany entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Shoreline Merger Sub, LLC (subsequently converted into
a corporation) ("Merger Sub"), and Transatlantic Holdings, Inc.
("Old Transatlantic").  On the Acquisition Date, Old Transatlantic
was merged with (the "merger") and into Merger Sub, which was
renamed "Transatlantic Holdings, Inc.," and became a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Alleghany.

In connection with the merger, Alleghany, Merger Sub and Old
Transatlantic, among others, were named as defendants in three
putative stockholder class action lawsuits filed by Transatlantic
stockholders.  Such lawsuits challenged the merger and alleged
that Alleghany, Merger Sub and Old Transatlantic aided and abetted
an alleged breach of fiduciary duty by Old Transatlantic's board
of directors in connection with the merger, among other
allegations.

On January 30, 2012, Alleghany and the other defendants entered
into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs regarding
the settlement of these putative stockholder class actions against
Alleghany, Merger Sub, Old Transatlantic, Old Transatlantic's
directors, and Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, among
others.  Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, certain
supplemental disclosures were made related to the merger. The
memorandum of understanding contemplated that the parties would
enter into a stipulation of settlement.

On October 12, 2012, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement that includes customary conditions, including court
approval following notice to Old Transatlantic's stockholders.  A
hearing on the settlement has been scheduled for January 10, 2013,
at which the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will
consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
settlement.  If the settlement is finally approved by the court,
it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or
could have been brought challenging any aspect of the merger, the
Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith
(but excluding claims for appraisal under Section 262 of the
Delaware General Corporation Law), among other claims.  In
addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses not to exceed $0.5 million.
Transatlantic will pay, or cause to be paid, any attorneys' fees
and expenses awarded by the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.  There can be no assurance that the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware will approve the settlement.  In such event,
the proposed settlement as contemplated by the stipulation of
settlement may be terminated.

Based in New York, Alleghany Corporation, through its
subsidiaries, engages in the property and casualty, and surety
insurance business in the United States.


CHICAGO, IL: Faces Homeless Sex Offenders' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Chicago unconstitutionally
punishes homeless sex offenders for failing to register their
address, a class action claims in Federal Court.


CVS CAREMARK: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their securities class
action lawsuit against CVS Caremark Corporation 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 November 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of CVS Caremark Corporation
stock between May 5, 2009, and November 4, 2009.  The lawsuit
names the Company and certain officers as defendants and includes
allegations of securities fraud relating to public disclosures
made by the Company concerning the pharmacy benefit management
("PBM") business and allegations of insider trading.  In addition,
a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in December 2009 in the
same court against the directors and certain officers of the
Company.  A derivative lawsuit is a lawsuit filed by a shareholder
purporting to assert claims on behalf of a corporation against
directors and officers of the corporation.  This lawsuit, which
was stayed pending developments in the related securities class
action, includes allegations of, among other things, securities
fraud, insider trading and breach of fiduciary duties and further
alleges that the Company was damaged by the purchase of stock at
allegedly inflated prices under its share repurchase program.  In
January 2011, both lawsuits were transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

In June 2012, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the securities class action.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed a
notice of appeal of the court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.
The derivative lawsuit will remain stayed pending the outcome of
this appeal of the securities class action.


CVS CAREMARK: Appeals Class Certification in "Lauriello" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark Corporation and other defendants took an appeal from
a court order certifying a class in the lawsuit commenced by John
Lauriello, 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.

Caremark was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in
October 2003 in Alabama state court by John Lauriello, purportedly
on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of various
securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark
and others.  Other defendants include insurance companies that
provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled
lawsuits.  The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion
in compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on
allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for
the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed.  A similar
lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur, also in
Alabama state court, naming as defendants, among others, Caremark
and several insurance companies involved in the 1999 settlement.
This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action, but
McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in the Lauriello
action.

Following the close of class discovery, the trial court entered an
Order on August 15, 2012, that granted the plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class pursuant to Alabama Rule of Civil Procedures
23(b)(3) but denied their request that the class also be certified
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1).  In addition, the August 15, 2012 Order
appointed class representatives and class counsel.  The defendants
have filed a notice of appeal with the Alabama Supreme Court and
the plaintiffs have filed a notice of cross-appeal.  The
proceedings in the trial court are stayed by statute pending a
decision on the appeal and cross-appeal by the Alabama Supreme
Court.


CVS CAREMARK: PBMs Antitrust Litigation Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Various lawsuits have been filed alleging that CVS Caremark
Corporation has violated applicable antitrust laws in establishing
and maintaining retail pharmacy networks for client health plans.
In August 2003, Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a
Burns Pharmacy and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs
#4, together with Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National Community
Pharmacists Association filed a putative class action against
Caremark in Pennsylvania federal court, seeking treble damages and
injunctive relief.  This case was initially sent to arbitration
based on the contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark.
In October 2003, two independent pharmacies, North Jackson
Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc.,
filed a putative class action complaint in Alabama federal court
against Caremark and two pharmacy benefit management ("PBM")
competitors, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief.  The
North Jackson Pharmacy case against two of the Caremark entities
named as defendants was transferred to Illinois federal court, and
the case against a separate Caremark entity was sent to
arbitration based on contract terms between the pharmacies and
Caremark.  The Bellevue arbitration was then stayed by the parties
pending developments in the North Jackson Pharmacy court case.  In
August 2006, the Bellevue case and the North Jackson Pharmacy case
were both transferred to Pennsylvania federal court by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated and
consolidated proceedings with other cases before the panel,
including cases against other PBMs.  Caremark appealed the
decision which vacated an order compelling arbitration and staying
the proceedings in the Bellevue case and, following the appeal,
the Court of Appeals reinstated the order compelling arbitration
of the Bellevue case.  Plaintiffs in the Bellevue case dismissed
their lawsuit in federal court and determined not to seek
arbitration and pursued an appeal to the Court of Appeals of the
district court ruling compelling arbitration.

Accordingly, the parties are awaiting a ruling from the Third
Circuit.  Motions for class certification in the coordinated cases
within the multidistrict litigation, including the North Jackson
Pharmacy case, remain pending, and the court has permitted certain
additional class discovery and briefing.  The consolidated action
is now known as the In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust
Litigation.

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.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Awaits Feb. 7 Hearing on Antitrust Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts Inc. is awaiting final approval of its settlement
of an antitrust class action lawsuit, the hearing of which is
currently set for February 7, 2013, according to the Company's
November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In June 2008, Geoffrey Pecover filed an antitrust class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that EA obtained an illegal monopoly in a
discreet antitrust market that consists of "league-branded
football simulation video games" by bidding for, and winning,
exclusive licenses with the National Football League, Collegiate
Licensing Company and Arena Football League.  In December 2010,
the district court granted the plaintiffs' request to certify a
class of plaintiffs consisting of all consumers who purchased EA's
Madden NFL, NCAA Football or Arena Football video games after
2005.

In May 2012, the parties reached a settlement in principle to
resolve all claims related to this action.  As a result, the
Company recognized a $27 million accrual for the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2012 associated with the potential settlement.  In July
2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the court to approve the
settlement.  On October 5, 2012, the court granted its preliminary
approval of the settlement and scheduled a hearing to consider the
court's final approval of the settlement for February 7, 2013.


FACEBOOK INC: Judge Names Lead Counsel in IPO-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Lee Weisbecker, writing for Triangle Business Journal, reports
that a federal judge in Manhattan tapped the law firm hired by the
North Carolina pension system to be one of the lead counsel in the
class action lawsuit stemming from Facebook's $16 billion IPO,
according to Reuters.

The ruling makes the North Carolina system one of the lead
plaintiffs in the pending case, which will turn over the
contention that Facebook misrepresented its financial condition in
the run-up to the May 2012 stock offering.

According to the news agency, U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet
tapped New York City-based Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann,
hired by North Carolina, and Labaton Sucharow, hired by the
Arkansas pension system, to proceed in the litigation.

A rival investor faction had argued that North Carolina's
designated firm shouldn't be tapped because of the "close personal
ties" between state Treasurer Janet Cowell and North Carolina's
Erskine Bowles, a board member at both Facebook and Morgan
Stanley, the lead underwriter on the IPO.  That argument,
apparently, failed to carry the day.

North Carolina pension officials had purchased up to $26 million
worth of Facebook shares prior to the offering, and later claimed
they lost $4 million or so when the IPO tanked.

Debuting at $38 per share, Facebook shares later fell by as much
as 50 percent.  They closed at $26.90 on Dec. 6.

According to The Verge's Nathan Ingraham, as reported by Reuters,
U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet called the plaintiffs in the
proposed class-action case "large, institutional investors with
experience representing shareholder classes in similar litigation
with the resources to pursue the action" -- it sounds like the
judge is taking the case seriously and that Facebook won't be let
off the hook too easily, despite the risks that naturally come
along with investing.

The investors named as lead plaintiffs in this case, which include
state pension funds in North Carolina and Arkansas, are the result
of Judge Sweet's consolidation of the 42 lawsuits that emerged in
the wake of Facebook's IPO.  That public offering was marred by
both tumbling share prices and NASDAQ technical glitches that hurt
Facebook's first day on the market.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Disputes Canadian Class Action Over Paxil
----------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that GlaxoSmithKline says it conducted
its clinical trial program for the anti-depressant drug Paxil
appropriately in marketing the medicine for use by women of
childbearing age.

The statement comes after a B.C. Supreme Court judge certified a
class-action lawsuit launched by a British Columbia mother whose
daughter was born with a hole in her heart.

Lawyers allege the drug caused birth defects when taken during
pregnancy, and say the company didn't properly warn doctors about
the risks.

In a statement, spokeswoman Michelle Smolenaars Hunter says the
company acted appropriately in its clinical trials, marketing,
safety monitoring and updated pregnancy information as new
information became available.

Faith Gibson's daughter Meah Bartram was born just two weeks
before the company warned doctors that taking the drug during
pregnancy could increase the chance of cardiovascular defects.

One of her lawyers, David Klein, argues the company ought to have
known the risks before then, and is pointing to small-scale
studies and studies on similar products that were already
available to the scientific community.

But Smolenaars Hunter says the company acted responsibly.

"The company properly shared documentation and submitted results
from studies on Paxil to regulators," she said in an e-mail on
Dec. 6, "and communicated important safety information to
regulatory agencies, the scientific community and health-care
professionals."

The company says it is currently evaluating its options with
regard to the class certification.

It applies to women who took the drug in Canada.

No allegations have been proven in court.

Mr. Klein said about a dozen women have come forward so far.  A
notice of the suit will soon be distributed across the country.  A
trial isn't expected for a couple years.


HECLA MINING: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in Idaho
-----------------------------------------------------------
An consolidated amended complaint captioned Bricklayers of Western
Pennsylvania Pension Plan, et al. v. Hecla Mining Company et al.
is pending in Idaho, according to Hecla Mining 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 February 1, 2012, a purported Hecla stockholder filed a
putative class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho against Hecla and certain of its officers, one
of whom is also a director.  The complaint, purportedly brought on
behalf of all purchasers of Hecla common stock from
October 26, 2010, through and including January 11, 2012, asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks, among
other things, damages and costs and expenses.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that Hecla, under the authority and control of
the individual defendants, made certain false and misleading
statements and allegedly omitted certain material information
related to operational issues at the Lucky Friday mine.  The
complaint alleges that these actions artificially inflated the
market price of Hecla common stock during the class period, thus
purportedly harming investors who purchased shares during that
time.  A second lawsuit was filed on February 14, 2012, alleging
virtually identical claims.  These complaints have been
consolidated into a single case, a lead plaintiff and lead counsel
has been appointed by the Court (Bricklayers of Western
Pennsylvania Pension Plan, et al. v. Hecla Mining Company et al.,
Case No. 12-0042 (D. Idaho)), and a consolidated amended complaint
was filed on October 16, 2012.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or
estimate damages if plaintiffs were to prevail.  The Company
believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend
them vigorously.


ITRON INC: Securities Suit Filed in Washington Now Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action lawsuit against Itron, Inc. filed in
Washington is now dismissed, according to the Company's November
6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On February 23, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
alleging violations of federal securities laws relating to a
restatement of the Company's financial results for the quarters
ended March 31, June 30, and September 30, 2010.  These revisions
were made primarily to defer revenue that had been incorrectly
recognized on one contract due to a misinterpretation of an
extended warranty obligation.  The effect of the restatement was
to reduce revenue and earnings in each of the first three quarters
of 2010.  As a result of the restatement, total revenue for the
first nine months of 2010 was reduced by $6.1 million and diluted
earnings per share was reduced by $0.11.  On August 22, 2011, the
lead plaintiff in the federal securities lawsuit filed a
consolidated complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss.

On September 11, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington granted defendants' motion to dismiss in
its entirety and dismissed all claims against all defendants
asserted in the consolidated complaint.  On October 30, 2012, the
lead plaintiff dismissed its complaint with prejudice, and the
Court subsequently approved Plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal with
prejudice.


KIA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Gas Mileage Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that Kia Motors America
Inc. was hit with a proposed nationwide class action on Dec. 4 in
California federal court alleging that the automaker has defrauded
consumers by overstating the fuel efficiency of five of its top
car models.

Richard Woodruff claims Kia scored a massive increase in sales of
its model 2011 to 2013 cars -- including the Optima HEV, Rio,
Sorento, Soul and Sportage -- as a result of "extensive and
misleading" marketing campaigns touting the models as achieving
class-leading gas mileage, according to a complaint.


LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Recalls Protandim(R) Dietary Supplements
----------------------------------------------------------
LifeVantage Corporation (NASDAQ: LFVN) announced that it is
contacting affected independent distributors and other customers
to voluntarily recall and replace bottles of its Protandim(R), the
Nrf2 Synergizer(R), dietary supplement from the lots shown below.
The Company is taking this action due to the possible inclusion of
small metal fragments in the final product.  The fragments were
originally discovered in batches of turmeric extract, an
ingredient in Protandim(R) that was purchased from a third party
supplier.

Protandim is packaged in a cylindrical blue bottle and contains
thirty caplets per bottle.  The potentially affected Protandim(R)
lot numbers are shown below.  The lots shown below were
distributed in the United States and Japan between July and
November 2012.  Lot numbers are located on the left side of the
product label when looking at the front of the label, directly
above the RFID scan bar.

      Lot #      Expiration Date
     -------     ---------------
     12-0258        7/02/2015
     12-0259        7/03/2015
     12-0292        7/09/2015
     12-0294        7/11/2015
     12-0295        7/12/2015
     12-0304        7/18/2015
     12-0306        8/16/2015
     12-0307        8/17/2015
     12-0373        8/21/2015
     12-0382        9/21/2015

When the Company was alerted to this issue, it immediately
isolated affected product and began working with its third party
manufacturers, suppliers and industry experts to mitigate any
health risk potential.  After consulting with medical experts, the
Company believes that these materials pose no serious risk to
consumers' health.  Furthermore, the Company has not received any
report of a health problem related to this issue.

Douglas C. Robinson, President and CEO of LifeVantage, stated
"Everyone at LifeVantage is deeply committed to providing the
safest, most pure products for our distributor network and
customers.  In keeping to that high standard, the Company is
offering to replace all bottles of the potentially affected
product.  We are confident that our network marketing distribution
model will allow us to efficiently contact all those affected by
this issue."

Mr. Robinson continued, "In addition, we have implemented even
more stringent, industryleading measures, including several
redundant measures, in our manufacturing process.  First and
foremost, we will always strive to do what is in the best interest
of our customers."

A picture of the recalled products' label is available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm331260.htm

Consumers who have received bottles of Protandim(R) from the lot
numbers identified above are encouraged to cease use of such
product.  The Company will immediately reach out to potentially
affected consumers.  Consumers having questions may contact
LifeVantage directly by calling 866-912-9051 twenty-four hours per
day.


LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP: Continues to Defend Hardboard Trim Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits related to nontreated hardboard trim
products, 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 was named in four putative class action lawsuits filed
against it in United States District Courts during the first
quarter of 2012 related to nontreated hardboard trim product
formerly manufactured at its Roaring River, North Carolina
hardboard plant: Brown v. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation., Case No.
4:12-CV-00102-RP-TJS (S.D. Iowa) (filed March 8, 2012, as a state-
wide putative class); Holbrook v. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation,
et al., Case No. 3:12-CV-00484-JGC (N.D. Ohio) (filed February 28,
2012, as a state-wide putative class); Bristol Village Inc. v.
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:12-CV-00263
(W.D.N.Y.) (filed March 30, 2012, as a state-wide putative class
or, alternatively, as a nation-wide putative class) and Prevett v.
Louisiana-Pacific, Case No. 6:12-CV-348-ORL-18-KRS (M.D. Fla)
(filed March 5, 2012, as a state-wide putative class).  The
Prevett v. Louisiana Pacific lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by
the plaintiffs on May 31, 2012.  This lawsuit was replaced by
Riley v. Louisiana-Pacific, Case No. 6:12-CV-00837-18 (M.D. Fla)
(filed June 4, 2012, as a state-wide putative class).  A fifth
lawsuit, Eugene Lipov v. Louisiana-Pacific, Case 1:12-CV-00439-
JTN (W.D. Mich) (filed May 3, 2012) was filed as a statewide
putative class action in the second quarter of 2012.  These
lawsuits follow two state-wide putative class action lawsuits
previously filed against the Company in United States District
Courts: Ellis, et al. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., Case No. 3:11-
CV-191 (W.D.N.C.); and Hart, et al. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.,
Case No. 2:08-CV-00047 (E.D.N.C.).  The Ellis case was dismissed
by the District Court, which dismissal has been appealed by the
plaintiffs to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, and the Hart case has been certified by the District
Court as a class action.

Plaintiffs moved to combine pretrial matters through a
MultiDistict Litigation (MDL) motion, filed as In Re: Louisiana-
Pacific Corporation Trimboard Siding Marketing, Sales Practice and
Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2366 (U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation) seeking to transfer all cases to the
Eastern District of North Carolina.  Louisiana-Pacific objected to
the MDL motion and on June 11, 2012, the MDL Panel denied
plaintiffs Motion to Transfer.  Subsequently, the Holbrook case
was dismissed by the District Court on August 29, 2012, and has
been appealed by the plaintiffs to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek to certify classes
consisting of all persons that own structures within the
respective states in which the lawsuit were filed (or, in some
cases, within the United States) on which the hardboard trim in
question is installed.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages
and injunctive and other relief under various state law theories,
including negligence, violations of consumer protection laws,
breaches of implied and express warranties, fraud, and unjust
enrichment.

While some individual owners of structures within the putative
classes may have valid warranty claims, the Company believes that
the claims asserted on a class basis are without merit and it
intends to defend these matters vigorously.  The Company has
established warranty reserves for the hardboard trim in question
pursuant to its normal business practices, and the Company does
not believe that the resolution of these lawsuits will have a
material effect on its financial condition, results of operations,
cash flows or liquidity.


NEWELL RUBBERMAID: Still Defends Product Liability Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Newell Rubbermaid Inc. is currently a party to two purported state
class actions and one purported national Canadian class action.
The cases include allegations that a certain model car seat sold
by an affiliate of the Company did not satisfy all requisite
government safety standards.  The Company is vigorously defending
all three actions.

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.

Founded in 1903 and headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Newell
Rubbermaid Inc. -- http://www.newellrubbermaid.com-- designs,
manufactures, and markets consumer and commercial products.  It
operates in three segments: Home & Family, Office Products, and
Tools, Hardware & Commercial Products.


OXFORD HEALTH: Supreme Court to Hear Appeal on Arbitration Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that the Supreme
Court on Dec. 7 agreed to hear an appeal that gives the nine
justices a chance to limit the ability of consumers and businesses
to litigate disputes as a class.

At issue was whether doctors could collectively arbitrate a
dispute over payments with Oxford Health Plans LLC even though the
governing arbitration agreement did not mention class actions.

The court has in recent years made it harder for some parties to
litigate or arbitrate their claims together, which could boost
payouts and lower costs.

In the 2010 case Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds International Corp,
the court said it "cannot be presumed" that parties to a dispute
agreed to accept class arbitration simply by having agreed to
arbitrate in the first place.

And the next year, in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the court gave
businesses a big victory by upholding contracts that required
customers to arbitrate disputes individually, and waive their
right to pursue class-action litigation.

In the Oxford case, an arbitrator allowed class arbitration of a
dispute over that company's alleged failure to properly reimburse
doctors including John Sutter, who challenged how some 16,500
physicians in New Jersey were reimbursed.

The arbitrator allowed class arbitration despite the silence on
that issue of the governing contractual clause, which said: "No
civil action concerning any dispute arising under this agreement
shall be instituted before any court, and all such disputes shall
be submitted to final and binding arbitration."

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia upheld the
Oxford arbitrator's decision in April, saying the arbitrator
simply "construed the text of the arbitration agreement to
authorize and require class arbitration".

But Seth Waxman, a former U.S. solicitor general representing
Oxford, said this effectively gave arbitrators unfettered
discretion to decide whether there was an "implicit" understanding
between parties to allow class arbitration.

He said that while the federal appeals court in New York has taken
a similar approach, the federal appeals court in New Orleans
required more of a contractual or legal basis.

"A party's right not to be dragooned into class arbitration
proceedings that it never agreed to authorize should not depend on
which federal court is asked to enforce the . . . basic precept
that arbitration is a matter of consent, not coercion," Mr. Waxman
wrote.

The doctors, while noting that the agreement was "atypical", urged
the Supreme Court not to take the case.

They said the appellate court split appeared based more on the
facts of the particular cases, and that the issue will become less
important as more parties use agreements with explicit language
about class arbitration.

A decision is expected by the end of June.

The case is Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, U.S. Supreme Court,
No. 12-135.


PACKAGING CORP: Continues to Defend Suit Over Containerboards
-------------------------------------------------------------
During September and October 2010, Packaging Corporation of
America (PCA) and eight other U.S. and Canadian containerboard
producers were named as defendants in five purported class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Sherman
Act.  The lawsuits have been consolidated in a single complaint
under the caption Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America
et al.  The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants
conspired to limit the supply of containerboard, and that the
purpose and effect of the alleged conspiracy was to artificially
increase prices of containerboard products during the period of
August 2005 to the time of filing of the complaint.  The complaint
was filed as a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of all
purchasers of containerboard products during such period.  The
complaint seeks treble damages and costs, including attorney's
fees.  The defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint were
denied by the court in April 2011.

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.

PCA believes the allegations are without merit and will defend
this lawsuit vigorously.  However, as the lawsuit is in the early
stages of discovery, PCA is unable to predict the ultimate outcome
or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Judge Okays $1.3MM Wage-and-Hour Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Heller, writing for Law360, reports that a California
judge on Dec. 6 approved a $1.3 million settlement of a wage-and-
hour class action alleging nearly 800 aerospace workers at three
PPG Industries Inc. plants were shorted on hourly pay because the
company improperly rounded off their time worked.

The value of the settlement represents about 25% of what the
plaintiffs alleged was PPG's maximum liability for failing to pay
all wages, failing to pay overtime wages and failing to provide
meal and rest breaks.  The class includes 790 maintenance and
production workers.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Craftsman Customers Lose Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that a California state trial
judge has refused to certify a class that could have included 40
million customers claiming to have bought Sears Roebuck & Co.'s
Craftsman tools under the mistaken belief that they were made in
the United States.  The judge ruled that the putative class had
"serious problems" with its claims, which he found overly broad
and lacking in uniformity.


SILENT SNOOZ: Class Action Jury Trial Scheduled for Dec. 16
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that a St. Clair County class action complaint over a
snore relief product was removed to federal court last week and
could go to trial later this month.

Court records show that a final pretrial conference in the case
was scheduled to take place on Dec. 6 in Benton before U.S.
District Judge J. Phil Gilbert with a jury trial set for Dec. 16.

Filed in August by Justin Swires, the complaint claims that the
Silent Snooz nasal septum ring manufactured by the defendant,
Incredible Scents, fails to reduce snoring.

Walgreen Co. is also named as a defendant.  Mr. Swires bought the
product from a Walgreen's in St. Clair County.

Mr. Swires claims that Incredible Scents markets and sells Silent
Snooz as a product that has been clinically tested, proven and
patented to reduce the frequency of snoring, even though none of
its allegations are true.

His complaint, which proposes a nationwide class, alleges
Incredible Scents violated consumer protection laws, breached its
expressed warranty and was unjustly enriched.

Mr. Swires' suit seeks restitution not to exceed $75,000 per class
member, as well as other damages and costs that Walgreen Co.
contends in its Dec. 3 notice of removal could exceed $5 million.

In addition, Mr. Swires wants Incredible Scents to remove the
language on the side of its product that says it reduces the
frequency of snoring and give up all the money it has made from
selling Silent Snooz.

Winthrop B. Reed III -- wreed@lewisrice.com -- and David B. Helms
-- dhelms@lewisrice.com -- of Lewis, Rice and Fingersh in St.
Louis submitted the removal notice on the defendants' behalf.

O'Fallon attorney Brian T. Kreisler represents Mr. Swires, who
filed a similar suit last year against the makers of Breathe
Right.


SINO-FOREST CORP: Shareholders Oppose C$117-Mil. E & Y Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gray and Andy Hoffman, writing for The Globe and Mail, report
that a group of major institutional shareholders of Sino-Forest
Corp. is opposing a record C$117-million proposed settlement
agreed to by Ernst & Young LLP, the former auditors of the
disgraced Chinese timber firm.

The embattled former forestry giant was set to go before a Toronto
bankruptcy judge on Dec. 7 to have its restructuring deal, which
would see Sino-Forest's remaining assets transferred to its debt-
holders, approved.

Included in the deal is a massive proposed settlement with Ernst &
Young, which would see the auditing firm freed of any further
liability in the C$9.18-billion potential class-action lawsuit
filed against Sino-Forest by burned investors.

On Dec. 7, lawyers for a breakaway group of Sino-Forest
shareholders, Invesco Canada Ltd., Northwest & Ethical Investments
LP and Comite Syndical National de Retraite Batirente Inc.,
intended to challenge the E & Y settlement.

In court documents, a team of Toronto lawyers led by Won Kim of
Kim Orr Barristers P.C. alleges that the proposed deal with E & Y
would see any investors that choose to opt out of the class-action
case against Sino-Forest "forever precluded" from suing E & Y on
their own.

While the proposed E & Y deal would free the auditor of any
possible obligations to Sino-Forest shareholders suing the
company, the deal was announced the same day the Ontario
Securities Commission issued allegations that the auditing firm
had failed to live up to proper standards reviewing Sino-Forest's
books.

In court documents filed late on Dec. 6, counsel for the investor
group allege that Sino-Forest's court-appointed monitor has been
unable "to verify Sino-Forest's operations, assets, and
receivables in any meaningful way" and had been "unable to verify
more than 8 per cent of Sino-Forest's reported net stocked
forests."

Mr. Kim's filings explain that the class-action against Sino-
Forest has yet to be certified by a judge as a class-action
lawsuit on behalf of all investors.  Normally, once a lawsuit has
been certified, potential class members who wish to instead pursue
their own claims may opt out.  But Mr. Kim argues that in this
case, the E & Y settlement is being approved inside Sino-Forest's
insolvency proceedings in a way that effectively bars his clients
from pursuing their own claims.

Eric Adelson, a senior vice-president and head of legal for
Invesco Canada, in an affidavit, also outlined his firm's
opposition to the Sino-Forest restructuring plan.

Mr. Adelson's affidavit says counsel for E&Y has said the parties
involved will not seek approval from the CCAA court for the
proposed auditor settlement.  Mr. Adelson contends, however, that
"the provisions of the plan, even apart from the E&Y settlement,
appear to affect the legal and practical ability of Invesco and
other investors to seek adjudication of their claims against
defendants in the Sino-Forest litigation."

Invesco Canada controlled more than 3 million Sino-Forest shares
and suffered significant losses when the stock collapsed amid
fraud allegations in 2011.

A spokeswoman for E & Y declined to comment.  Lawyers for the
plaintiffs in the potential class-action against Sino-Forest also
declined comment.  Mr. Kim declined comment.

Mr. Kim and his clients had originally filed their own class
action against Sino-Forest Corp., but a judge awarded control of
the potential class-action to rival law firms Siskinds LLP and
Koskie Minsky LLP.


SITEL WORLDWIDE: Unit in Talks to Settle Michigan Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
SITEL Worldwide Corporation disclosed in its November 6, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2012, that it has engaged in
settlement discussions to resolve a class action lawsuit in
Michigan.

In April 2011, the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, National
Action Financial Services, Inc., now known as NA Liquidating
Company, Inc. ("NA"), was served with a purported class action
filed in United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.  The complaint alleged violations of the federal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act for calls to plaintiff's cell phone in an attempt
to collect a debt not owed by the plaintiff.  The complaint also
allege pre-recorded message calls to debtors on their cell phones
by means of an automated dialing device, without having received
permission from the recipients of the calls in violation of the
TCPA.  NA filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted in part and
denied in part, with the TCPA claim surviving as well as certain
of the FDCPA claims.

As of September 30, 2012, discovery was ongoing, and a reserve of
$84,000 was recorded related to this matter.  Subsequent to
September 30, 2012, the parties have engaged in settlement
discussions.  No reserve was recorded as of December 31, 2011.


SITEL WORLDWIDE: Plaintiffs in Settled Suit Sues Insurance Co.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs of a settled class action lawsuit against a subsidiary
of SITEL Worldwide Corporation initiated a declaratory judgment
action against the Company's insurance carrier, 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 July 2010, the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, National
Action Financial Services, Inc., now known as NA Liquidating
Company, Inc. ("NA"), was served with a purported class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  The complaint alleged NA placed automated
calls to plaintiff's cell phone without his consent, allegedly in
violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").  NA made a demand upon its insurance carrier for
coverage under its errors and omissions insurance policy.  The
insurance carrier denied the existence of a duty to defend or
indemnify NA for the claims at issue relying on certain exclusions
in the policy.  The parties have now settled this matter with
court approval on a non-recourse basis to NA by requiring the
Company to assign certain rights to insurance recoveries for the
benefit of the class plaintiffs in exchange for a release of all
class claims and a covenant not to execute the agreed judgment
against NA.  The plaintiffs initiated a declaratory judgment
action against the Company's insurance carrier in an attempt to
recover their judgment.  NA is not a party to that action.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Barrack, Rodos & Bacine Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine on Dec. 7 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota, Freedman v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., et al.,
No. 12-03070-RHK-JJG, on behalf of purchasers of common stock of
St. Jude Medical, Inc. during the period from October 17, 2012
through and including November 20, 2012.

The complaint charges St. Jude and its chief executive with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  St. Jude
manufactures and markets medical device products, including the
leads that connect implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) to
the heart.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, St. Jude
issued a series of misleading statements concerning an inspection
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the company's
Sylmar, CA production facility.  In 2011, one type of ICD lead
manufactured by St. Jude, known as the Riata, was recalled due to
instances in which the insulation of the Riata leads had
experienced so-called "inside-out" abrasion failures.  In the wake
of this recall, investors expressed significant interest in the
performance of a next-generation ICD lead manufactured by St.
Jude, known as the Durata.  On October 17, 2012, on St. Jude's
third quarter earnings conference call, St. Jude stated that an
ongoing FDA inspection of the company's Sylmar, CA facility was
likely to result in the issuance of a "Form 483," a form used by
FDA investigators to note objectionable conditions or practices,
and could ultimately result in the FDA issuing a Warning Letter to
the company.  Company officials declined to specify the nature of
the problems at the facility or the products affected by them.
One week later, St. Jude publicly released a heavily redacted
version of the Form 483 that the company had received from the
FDA.  Among other information concealed were the names of any St.
Jude products.  Defendants knew, but failed to disclose, that most
of the observations of objectionable conditions listed on the Form
483 related to the Durata product.

On November 20, 2012, after the close of the market, media outlets
reported on the FDA's release of its own version of the same Form
483 issued to the Sylmar, CA facility, which showed that most of
the identified problems pertained to the Durata lead.  On this
news, St. Jude stock fell by $4.34 or 12%, to close the next day
at $31.37 on heavy volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
St. Jude common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, which has significant
experience in prosecuting shareholder claims on behalf of
investors in cases involving FDA-regulated companies.  For more
than 35 years, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine has successfully litigated
major securities actions in courts throughout the United States.
As compiled by the Securities Class Action Clearinghouse at
Stanford University and Cornerstone Research, Barrack, Rodos &
Bacine has served as a lead counsel in some of the most successful
securities class action cases, recovering over $11 billion for
injured investors over the past dozen years, including three of
the top ten case settlements.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from Dec. 7.  To discuss your rights regarding
the appointment of lead plaintiff and for additional information
about your interest in this class action, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Barrack Rodos & Bacine, at 215-963-0600, or
via e-mail to Robert A. Hoffman at rhoffman@barrack.com

A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from
Barrack Rodos & Bacine by visiting our Web site at
http://www.barrack.com/news.html


STARBUCKS CORP: Claims in Tassimo-Related Class Action Trimmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that Michigan U.S.
District Judge Gordon J. Quist determined that plaintiff Pamela
Montgomery on Dec. 6 trimmed claims from a class action brought by
consumers who say Starbucks Corp. and packaging on Tassimo single-
serve brewers misled them about the continued availability of
Starbucks coffee for the brewers, saying no contract existed
between the defendants and Tassimo buyers.


SUGAR FLOWERS: Recalls Cake Decors Pastillage (Gumpaste) Flowers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sugar Flowers Plus Inc of Glendale, California, is recalling Cake
Decors Pastillage (gumpaste) Flowers because of the undeclared use
of egg white wash as a "glue" for the inner petals of flowers.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to egg whites run
the risk of life threatening allergic reaction, anaphylaxis, that
requires immediate medical care if they consume the entire
product.  The following symptoms may also occur:

   * Skin reactions, such as or eczema

   * Allergic conjunctivitis (itchy, red, watery eyes)

   * Gastrointestinal reactions, such as nausea, abdominal pain,
     vomiting or diarrhea.

   * Airway symptoms, such as asthma, wheezing, coughing, or
     runny nose.

   * Angioedema (swelling of lips, tongue, or face)

Cake Decors Pastillage (gum paste) flowers have been distributed
to Hobby Lobby Stores and by direct online sale through Company
Web site, http://www.cakedecors.com/ Some or all Hobby Lobby
Locations may carry the Pastillage (gumpaste) line in the
following states: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, ID, IL, IA, KS,
KY, MD, MI, MS, MO, MT, NY, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK,
OH, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV, WI, WY between the dates of
March 2004 - November 2012.

A recall is being issued after a recent mild allergic reaction was
reported to the Food and Drug Administration in regards to Cake
Decors Pastillage (gumpaste) Line that has been on the market
since 2002.  Consumer complained of itchy (tickling) in throat
after consuming a small portion of outer petal of Pastillage
(gumpaste) Rose - Pink.  Stomach cramps were also reported after
benadryl was taken for initial symptoms.  Consumer was not taken
in for medical care as the symptoms alleviated after a short
period of time.  No medical records were reported or confirmed
that that symptoms were due to consumption of product; however egg
white wash is used within the product as an adhesive to the inner
two petals of the flower but not an ingredient within the
Pastillage (gumpaste) dough itself to form the rose.

Cake Decors Pastillage (gumpaste) are packaged in a white and blue
box with a center cut out to show the product.  Product is
contained within a clear plastic clam shell.  Each box contains 4
flowers, 2 inches in size, one style and color per box.
Information on the reported item is as follows:

   * Rose - Pink UPC code: 8 38437 00003 0

   * UPC Codes for other flowers within the Cake Decors
     Pastillage (gumpaste) line below:

      Rose - Yellow       8 38437 00001 6
      Rose - Red          8 38437 00002 3
      Rose - Pink         8 38437 00003 0
      Rose - Blue         8 38437 00004 7
      Cymbidium - W/M     8 38437 00010 8
      Cattleya - W/P      8 38437 00011 5
      Gladiolus - A/W     8 38437 00012 2
      Gladiolus - P/BUR   8 38437 00013 9

Concerned consumers of Cake Decors Pastillage (gumpaste) Flowers
are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers who have purchased items online or have any questions
and/or concerns may contact the Company on its toll free number:
1-800-972-2935 Monday - Friday 8:00 a.m. - 4 p.m. Pacific Standard
Time or e-mail the Company at sugarflowersplus@gmail.com


TEAVANA HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to Starbucks
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Rosenblum, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Teavana Holdings, Inc., Andrew T. Mack, F.
Barron Fletcher III, Michael J. Nevins, Thomas A. Saunders III,
John E. Kyees, Robert J. Dennis, Starbucks Corporation, and Taj
Acquisition Corp., Case No. 2012CV224005 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton
Cty., November 19, 2012) is brought on behalf of the holders of
Teavana common stock arising out of the proposed acquisition of
Teavana by Starbucks via an alleged unfair process that yielded an
unfair price.

The Proposed Transaction consideration substantially undervalues
the Company and is merely an attempt by Starbucks to acquire
Teavana for a bargain during a temporary downturn in the economy,
Mr. Rosenblum alleges.  He contends that the Proposed Transaction
is the product of a fundamentally flawed process that yielded an
unfair price and was designed to ensure the acquisition of Teavana
by Starbucks on terms preferential to Starbucks and Teavana's
Board members, but detrimental to him and the other public
stockholders of Teavana.

Mr. Rosenblum is a shareholder of Teavana.

Teavana is a Delaware corporation with headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.  Teavana is a specialty retailer of premium loose-leaf
teas, authentic artisanal tea wares, and other tea-related
merchandise.  Teavana offers more than 100 varieties of premium
loose-leaf teas, tea wares such as handcrafted cast-iron, clay and
ceramic tea pots, and other tea-related merchandise through almost
300 company-owned stores in the United States and Canada, through
18 franchised stores primarily in Mexico, and on its Web site.

The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Teavana.
Starbucks is an American global coffee company and coffeehouse
chain based in Seattle, Washington. Starbucks is the largest
coffeehouse company in the world, with 19,972 stores in 60
countries, including 12,937 in the United States, 1,273 in
Canada, 971 in Japan, 790 in the United Kingdom, 657 in China, 453
in South Korea, 356 in Mexico, 276 in Taiwan, 200 in the
Philippines, 158 in Thailand and 1 in India.  Taj Acquisition
Corp., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Starbucks, and a vehicle
through which the Defendants seek to effectuate the Proposed
Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Herman, Esq.
          Ryan K. Walsh, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          3424 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1650
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 504-6500
          Facsimile: (404) 504-6501
          E-mail: jherman@rgrdlaw.com
                  rwalsh@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq.
          Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
          Christopher C. Martins, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  cobrien@rgrdlaw.com
                  mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
                  cmartins@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Randall J. Baron
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr.
          David T. Wissbroecker
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com
                  ricka@rgrdlaw.com
                  DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com



THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Final Approval of Class Settlement On Hold
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James O. Browning in New Mexico last week withheld
final approval of a $2 million settlement of a shareholder class
action lawsuit against Thornburg Mortgage Inc. and its former
officers and directors.

In a Nov. 26 order, Judge Browning granted, in part, a motion
filed by former Thornburg Mortgage Inc. shareholders for final
approval of a proposed settlement, plan of allocation and
certification of class for settlement purposes.  Judge Browning
said the proposed Class meets the requirements of Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The judge said he will certify
the Class for settlement purposes only.  The judge then held that
the Settlement will be fair and reasonable, and will address the
concerns of objecting parties, if: (i) a second distribution of
the un-cashed checks is made to Class members who cashed their
checks in the first distribution; and (ii) a judgment reduction
provision is added to the Settlement Order.

The shareholders launched a class lawsuit against Thornburg and
its officers and directors over the company's collapse.  The
primary issues in the shareholders' motion are: (i) whether the
proposed Class meets the requirements of Rule 23 and may be
certified for settlement purposes; (ii) whether the proposed
Settlement of $2,000,000 is fair and reasonable; and (iii) whether
the requested attorneys' award for 20% of the $2,000,000 recovery,
in addition to costs, is reasonable.  The settlement amount would
be taken from the directors and officers insurance.

Several parties objected to the settlement.  One objecting
shareholder argued the Settlement is "favorable" to the attorneys,
yet shareholders will "not receive a penny a share."  That
shareholder pointed out that, after attorneys are paid, only
$1,200,000 will be left to share amongst at least 200,000,000
shares, resulting in shareholders not receiving a penny a share.

The settling shareholders responded that, while the raw
mathematics of the Settlement would seem to indicate that
$2,000,000 will be divided amongst 200,000 Class members and
amount to $0.01 per share, the actual amount received by Class
members should be higher, because not everybody will submit a
claim.  They also noted that the recovery of $2,000,000 was not a
"home run" for either the class or the counsel, but that the
amount was the best available under the circumstances -- where a
corporate defendant had left the litigation, and the class action
had done well enough to survive a motion to dismiss.  They also
asserted that taking the $2,000,000 out of the D&O insurance would
be a better outcome than trying to achieve a summary judgment or
success at trial against the Individual Defendants.

Judge Browning said the Court cannot order the parties to agree to
a settlement over their objection.  If the parties do not agree to
these revisions, the Court believes the Settlement would not be
fair and reasonable, and will not approve the Settlement.  If
there is no approved settlement, the parties are free to negotiate
different settlement terms and petition the Court for approval in
the future, or the parties may proceed to trial.

The Court directed the parties to file no later than Nov. 29,
2012, a brief or letter stating whether the conditions for
approval that the Court set forth here are acceptable and, if so,
a new settlement or at the least the pages reflecting the changes
and highlighting the changes, so that the Court can enter final
judgment.  If more time is needed, the parties are to report this
to the Court. After the distributions are made, the parties are to
file a report stating precisely who received what and how much.

Meanwhile, Judge Browning ruled that the requested attorneys'
award is reasonable.  Accordingly, the Court awarded attorneys'
fees of $400,000 and expenses of $243,145.

The case is In re Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. Securities Litigation,
No. CIV 07-0815 JB/WDS (D. N.M.).  A copy of the Court's Nov. 26,
2012 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
http://is.gd/Qy9ctJfrom Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Faces New Federal Judges' Suit Demanding Pay Raises
------------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Geiger Smith, writing for Thomson Reuters, reports that pay
raises for federal judges is a cause celebre whose top advocate is
the nation's top judge, Chief Justice of the United States John
Roberts.  And, back in October, the movement for higher judicial
pay achieved a big victory.  As On The Case reported, the Federal
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the six judges who brought a
case demanding their authorized raises were entitled to cost-of-
living pay increases that would bump up their base salary by about
$25,000.  Though that ruling was limited to those six plaintiffs,
we noted at the time that other judges looking for similar pay
increases could simply bring their own suits and cite the Federal
Circuit ruling.

Seven additional federal judges, including Marsha Berzon of the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals and Allyson Duncan of the 4th
Circuit, did just that recently, filing a class action in the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims.  The proposed class would include the
more than 1,000 federal judges who have served during the past six
years.  The suit, filed by attorneys at Susman Godfrey, dedicates
more than a page to the October Federal Circuit opinion, styled
Beer v. United States.

The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, held that federal judges
were entitled to damages in the amount of pay raises they should
have received, under relevant law, since 2003.  The statute of
limitations bars any recovery from before then.  The appeals court
said damages should incorporate base salary increases that should
have been effected under a 1989 ethics law but were blocked by
Congress in certain years.

As the new complaint explains, the Beer ruling noted that the 1989
Act "ensured that real judicial salary would not be reduced in the
face of the elimination of outside income and the operation of
inflation."  It also said that future Congresses could not renege
on that commitment.  If that sounds simple, well, it's far from
it.  Thomson Reuters' earlier report walked through the quagmire
that Congress created in granting and then rescinding (in
piecemeal fashion) the automatic raises, as well as the Federal
Circuit's need to comply with a 1980 U.S. Supreme Court opinion,
U.S. v. Will, that concluded Congress had the power to block
judicial pay raises in certain circumstances.  Suffice to say,
Beer was a rather complicated decision.

Luckily for the new judicial plaintiffs, however, Beer is
currently the law of the land.  Susman partner Harry Susman --
Hsusman@susmangodfrey.com -- told On the Case that a group of
judges who had been following the case approached him when it
became clear that the Federal Circuit would rule on the merits.
One of the plaintiffs, Royal Ferguson, president of the Federal
Judges Association and a U.S. Senior District Court Judge in the
Northern District of Texas, is a long-time acquaintance of Mr.
Susman.  Mr. Susman said he expects the class action to lead the
way in extending the benefits of the Beer decision to other
judges.

Of course, whether Beer will remain good law is far from certain.
The government has until at least early January to appeal the
decision to the Supreme Court.  The government declined to comment
both on the new suit and whether it will appeal Beer; Christopher
Landau of Kirkland & Ellis, who represented the plaintiffs in
Beer, said the government had not indicated to him what it planned
to do.

The judges in the present case filed to stop the statute of
limitations from running, Mr. Susman said, while they continue to
watch how Beer plays out.  The firm is representing the judges on
a pro bono basis.


UNITED STATES: Veterans File Partial Summary Judgment Motion
------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a class of
veterans who say they were used as guinea pigs for Cold War-era
drug experiments continue to argue that the Department of Defense
and Department of the Army should provide them with ongoing
medical care and information about the tests.

Vietnam Veterans of America filed a class action against the Army
and CIA in 2009, claiming that at least 7,800 soldiers had been
used as guinea pigs in Project Paperclip.

Soldiers were allegedly administered at least 250 and perhaps as
many as 400 types of drugs, among them Sarin, one of the most
deadly drugs known, amphetamines, barbiturates, mustard gas,
phosgene gas and LSD.

Using tactics it often attributed to the Soviet enemy, the U.S.
government sought drugs to control human behavior, cause
confusion, promote weakness or temporary loss of hearing and
vision, induce hypnosis and enhance a person's ability to
withstand torture, according to the complaint.

The veterans say that some soldiers died, and others suffered
seizures and paranoia.  They say the CIA knew it had to conceal
the tests from "enemy forces" and the "American public in general"
because the knowledge "would have serious repercussions in
political and diplomatic circles and would be detrimental to the
accomplishment of its mission."

After two failed attempts to dismiss the action, the defendants
succeeded last year in tossing claims against Attorney General
Eric Holder and the CIA.

The Department of Defense and Department of the Army are still on
the hook.

In September, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken granted the
plaintiffs class action status, which could make thousands of
veterans eligible for three types of relief.

The trial could force government agencies to notify participants
of the known health impacts of the substances they received,
mandate health care for those who have suffered diseases and
guarantee due process for veterans denied benefits.

The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment.

"Defendants' own regulations and directives expressly mandate that
they provide this relief to test subjects.  Yet, for decades, they
have failed to do so," the veterans said.

The crux of the veterans' argument is that Administrative
Procedure Act obligates the defendants to provide notice to test
subjects and to provide them medical care.

The veterans also cite an Army regulation involving the use of
volunteers as research subjects.

The 1962 regulation states that participants "will be told as much
of the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment, the method
and means by which it is to be conducted, and the inconveniences
and hazards to be expected, as will not invalidate the results."

It also says subjects "will be fully informed of the effects upon
[the test subject's] health or person which may possibly come from
his participation in the experiment.'"

The Army regulation was updated in 1990, and the veterans say the
defendants have a duty to provide notice "even after the
individual volunteer has completed his or her participation in
research."

The updated regulation also requires the defendants to "establish
a system which will permit the identification of volunteers who
have participated in research," the veterans say.

The veterans also say the court recognized the defendants' duty to
provide ongoing medical care in a 2010 order.

Judge Wilken rejected the defendants' argument that the Army
regulation about medical care was "an additional safeguard," to
address medical needs during experiments, the veterans say.

"The safeguards were put in place to protect a volunteer's health.
The fact that symptoms appear after the experiment ends does not
obviate the need to provide care," the judge wrote.

The plaintiffs also note that in her September class certification
order, Judge Wilken said "nothing in any version of the
regulations or other documents . . . limits these forward looking
provisions to those people who became test volunteers after the
regulation was created."

Judge Wilken is scheduled to rule on the summary judgment motion
on March 14 of next year.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Vietnam
Veterans of America, et al. v. Central Intelligence Agency, et
al., Case No. 09-cv-00037 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/KbxtRn

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gordon P. Erspamer, Esq.
          Eugene Illovsky, Esq.
          Stacey M. Sprenkel, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: 415-268-7000
          E-mail: gerspamer@mofo.com
                  eillovsky@mofo.com
                  ssprenkel@mofo.com


VALHI INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Lead Pigment vs. Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valhi, Inc. continues to defend its subsidiary against lawsuits
relating to the manufacture of lead pigments for use in paints,
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.

NL Industries, Inc.'s former operations included the manufacture
of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint.  NL, other
former manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-
based paint, and the Lead Industries Association (which
discontinued business operations in 2002), have been named as
defendants in various legal proceedings seeking damages for
personal injury, property damage and governmental expenditures
allegedly caused by the use of lead-based paints.  Certain of
these actions have been filed by or on behalf of states, counties,
cities or their public housing authorities and school districts,
and certain others have been asserted as class actions.  These
lawsuits seek recovery under a variety of theories, including
public and private nuisance, negligent product design, negligent
failure to warn, strict liability, breach of warranty,
conspiracy/concert of action, aiding and abetting, enterprise
liability, market share or risk contribution liability,
intentional tort, fraud and misrepresentation, violations of state
consumer protection statutes, supplier negligence and similar
claims.

The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the
defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health
concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including
damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification
for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for
educational programs.  To the extent the plaintiffs seek
compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages
are generally unspecified.  In some cases, the damages are
unspecified pursuant to the requirements of applicable state law.
A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or
withdrawn.  Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trial
stages.  Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary
judgment rulings in favor of either the defendants or the
plaintiffs.  In addition, various other cases (in which the
Company is not a defendant) are pending that seek recovery for
injury allegedly caused by lead pigment and lead-based paint.
Although NL is not a defendant in these cases, the outcome of
these cases may have an impact on cases that might be filed
against NL in the future.

The Company believes that these actions are without merit, and the
Company intends to continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing
and liability and to defend against all actions vigorously.  The
Company does not believe it is probable that the Company has
incurred any liability with respect to all of the lead pigment
litigation cases to which the Company is a party, and liability to
it that may result, if any, in this regard cannot be reasonably
estimated, because:

   * NL has never settled any of the market share, risk
     contribution, intentional tort, fraud, nuisance, supplier
     negligence, breach of warranty, conspiracy,
     misrepresentation, aiding and abetting, enterprise
     liability, or statutory cases;

   * no final, non-appealable adverse verdicts have ever been
     entered against NL; and

   * NL has never ultimately been found liable with respect to
     any such litigation matters, including over 100 cases over a
     twenty-year period for which NL was previously a party and
     for which NL has been dismissed without any finding of
     liability.

Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any amounts for any of
the pending lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation cases.
In addition, the Company has determined that liability to it which
may result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated because there
is no prior history of a loss of this nature on which an estimate
could be made, and there is no substantive information available
upon which an estimate could be based.

Valhi, Inc. is a holding company and operates through its wholly-
owned and majority-owned subsidiaries, including NL Industries,
Inc., Kronos Worldwide, Inc., CompX International Inc., Tremont
LLC and Waste Control Specialists LLC.  The Company is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


WAL-MART STORES: Continues to Face Gender Discrimination Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. continues to defend gender discrimination
lawsuits pending in various states, according to the Company's
September 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
which was commenced as a class-action lawsuit in June 2001 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, asserting that the Company had engaged in a pattern
and practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay,
training, and job assignments, and seeking, among other things,
injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.  On June 21, 2004, the district court issued an
order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  As defined by the district court, the
class included "[a]ll women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic
retail store at any time since December 26, 1998, who have been or
may be subjected to Wal-Mart's challenged pay and management track
promotions policies and practices."  The Company appealed the
order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and subsequently to
the United States Supreme Court.  On June 20, 2011, the Supreme
Court issued an opinion decertifying the class and remanding the
case to the district court.  On October 27, 2011, the plaintiffs'
attorneys filed an amended complaint proposing a class of current
and former female associates at the Company's California retail
facilities, and the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on January
13, 2012.

On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs' attorneys filed a complaint
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas entitled Odle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., proposing a class of
current and former female associates at the Company's Texas retail
facilities, and the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 5,
2012.  The Company's motion to dismiss the Odle case has recently
been granted.

The original Dukes case is still pending in San Francisco, where a
federal judge in October said a group could be certified if it
meets criteria outlined by the Supreme Court. Another case has
been filed in Tennessee.

Management does not believe any possible loss or the range of any
possible loss that may be incurred in connection with this matter
will be material to the Company's financial condition or results
of operations.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge approved a class action settlement for more than 42,000
borrowers who claim Washington Mutual entered into captive
reinsurance arrangements to get kickbacks, referral payments and
unearned fee splits.

Robert Alexander and James Lee Reed claim that they obtained
residential mortgage loans from Washington Mutual Bank in
Dec. 2005 and April 2007, respectively.  Both purchased required
private mortgage insurance from an insurer with whom WaMu had a
captive reinsurance arrangement.

Messrs. Alexander and Reed sued Washington Mutual, Inc. and its
affiliates in the eastern district of Pennsylvania in Oct. 2007,
alleging that WaMu entered into captive reinsurance arrangements
in order to receive kickbacks, referral payments and unearned fee
splits, which were collected in the form of excessive reinsurance
premiums from private mortgage insurers to whom it referred
borrowers, in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act (RESPA).

After several years of litigation, the parties reached a
settlement.  WaMu created a $4 million settlement fund, which
includes payments to all class members on a pro rata basis, a case
contribution award for the representative plaintiff, fees and
costs, and a release and waiver in exchange for the class members'
relief.

Mr. Reed filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a
class action settlement in June 2012.

Three weeks later, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement, conditionally certifying the class for
settlement purposes, approving the form and manner of class
notice, and setting a date for a final approval hearing.

A notice of class action settlement was mailed to more than 42,000
potential class members and posted on a dedicated Web site in
August, and as of Nov. 7, only 5 members had opted out.

The court held a fairness hearing on Nov. 27, where both parties'
counsel -- and no objectors on behalf of the class -- appeared.

Mr. Reed filed an unopposed motion for final approval of class
action settlement, certification of settlement class, approval of
plan of allocation, appointment of class representative, and
appointment of lead class counsel and class counsel.

In addition, WaMu, its Mortgage Reinsurance Co., and successor by
merger to WaMu, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, filed a submission
concerning the settlement.

U.S. District Judge Thomas O'Neill granted Mr. Reed's motion on
Tuesday, Dec. 4.

Judge O'Neill found that Mr. Reed met all requirements for class
certification.

"Allowing the more than one thousand covered homeowners in the
settlement class in this action to file individual lawsuits would
waste judicial resources in the event of litigation, since
representative plaintiff contends that each lawsuit would likely
involve the same evidence regarding defendants' reinsurance
programs as well as the same issue as to whether the programs
violated RESPA.  A class action here promotes judicial economy,
avoids inconsistency, and provides a single forum to resolve
numerous common claims.  I find that the superiority requirement
is satisfied in this case," the 19-page opinion states.

The judge ultimately approved the settlement, indicating that
"continued litigation would be complex, expensive and lengthy."
Judge O'Neill later added that "counsel have capably pursued this
litigation on behalf of the class and negotiated the settlement on
behalf of plaintiffs.  Their work on the claims in this case has
involved the expenditure of a substantial amount of time
resources.  I conclude that counsel's work on this case and their
prior experience suffice to show that these firms are qualified to
fairly and adequately represent the interests of the settlement
class," the court concluded.

A copy of the Memorandum in Alexander, et al. v. Washington
Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-cv-04426 (E.D. Pa.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/07/WaMu.pdf


WELLS FARGO: Arbitration Bid Denial in Consolidated Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in
October the denial of a motion to compel arbitration in a
consolidated class action lawsuit pending in Florida, according to
Wells Fargo & Company's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

A series of putative class actions have been filed against
Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as many
other banks, challenging the high to low order in which the Banks
posted debit card transactions to consumer deposit accounts.
There remain several such cases pending against Wells Fargo Bank
(including the Wachovia Bank cases to which Wells Fargo
succeeded), most of which have been consolidated in multi-district
litigation proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.  The bank defendants moved to compel these
cases to arbitration under recent Supreme Court authority.  On
November 22, 2011, the Judge denied the motion.

On October 26, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of the motion to
compel arbitration.


WELLS FARGO: Only One Foreclosure Doc. Practices Suit Remains
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company 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 only one of eight class
action lawsuits related to foreclosure document practices remains.

Eight purported class actions and several individual borrower
actions related to foreclosure document practices were filed in
late 2010 and in early 2011 against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., in its
status as mortgage servicer or corporate trustee of mortgage
trusts.  Five of those cases had been previously dismissed or
otherwise resolved.  Two of the three remaining purported class
actions were dismissed or otherwise resolved on October 3 and
October 25, 2012.  As a result, seven of the eight purported class
actions have now been dismissed or otherwise resolved.


WELLS FARGO: Securities Suits vs. Unit Now Dismissed or Resolved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Securities lawsuits involving Wachovia Corporation are now
resolved or dismissed, Wells Fargo & Company 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.

A securities class action, now captioned In re Wachovia Equity
Securities Litigation, had been pending under various names since
July 7, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Among other allegations,
plaintiffs alleged Wachovia's common stock price was artificially
inflated as a result of allegedly misleading disclosures relating
to the Golden West Financial Corp. mortgage portfolio, Wachovia's
exposure to other mortgage related products such as collateralized
debt obligations ("CDOs"), control issues and auction rate
securities.  There were four additional cases (not class actions)
containing allegations similar to the allegations in the In re
Wachovia Equity Securities Litigation captioned Stichting
Pensioenfonds ABP v. Wachovia Corp. et al., FC Holdings AB, et al.
v. Wachovia Corp., et al., Deka Investment GmbH v. Wachovia Corp.
et al. and Forsta AP-Fonden v. Wachovia Corp., et al.,
respectively, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On March 31, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York entered a Decision and Order granting
Wachovia's motions to dismiss the In re Wachovia Equity Securities
Litigation and the Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP, FC Holdings AB,
Deka Investment GmbH and Forsta AP-Fonden cases and all of those
cases have subsequently been resolved.  Plaintiffs and Wells Fargo
agreed to settle the Equity Securities Litigation for $75 million
and on January 27, 2012, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement.  On June 12, 2012, an Order finally
approving the class action settlement was filed.

There were four previously disclosed individual actions,
containing allegations similar to the main In re Wachovia Equity
Securities Litigation matter, filed in state courts in North
Carolina and South Carolina.  All four of those cases have now
been finally dismissed.

                           *********

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  * * *