CAR_Public/121217.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Monday, December 17, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 249

                             Headlines

AMEDISYS INC: Reconsideration Bid Pending in La. Securities Suit
BABY JOGGER: Recalls 10,600 City Versa Strollers Due to Fall Risk
BANK OF AMERICA: Ruling Provides Clarity on Limited Scope of SCRA
BUDGET RENT-A-CAR: Faces Suit for Charges Over Bogus Damage Repair
CARRIAGE SERVICES: "Leathermon" Class Action Suit Remains Pending

CITY GEAR: Faces Class Action Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
GAMMON GOLD: March 13 Settlement Claims Bar Deadline Set
GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Must Face White Chocolate Class Action
IMMERSION CORP: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
INTERSTATE REALTY: Sued Over Misclassification of Site Managers

LEXMARK INT'L: Appeal From "Molina" Suit Awards Remains Pending
MELA SCIENCES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
NOVATION COMPANIES: Appeal From N.Y. Suit Dismissal Still Pending
OGE ENERGY: "Price I" Class Suit vs. Subsidiaries Now Closed
OGE ENERGY: "Price II" Class Suit vs. Subsidiaries Now Closed

PEABODY ENERGY: Faces United Mine Workers' Suit in West Virginia
PHILIPS ORAL: Judge Narrows AirFloss Misleading Ad Class Action
QUANTA SERVICES: Settles Dispute with Insurers Over Wildfire Suit
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Ocean Pointe Class Suit Remains Pending
SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces Suits Over Proposed Merger with SoftBank

SPRINT NEXTEL: Awaits Ruling on Class Cert. Bid in "Bennett" Suit
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Sued for Misleading Shareholders on Durata
STEEL DYNAMICS: Class Cert. Bid Antitrust Suit Still Pending
STEINER LEISURE: Awaits Final OK of "Ferrari" Suit Settlement
SUNRISE SENIOR: Faces Two Class Suits Over Proposed HCN Merger

TELETECH HOLDINGS: Defends "Calkins" Class Action Suit vs. Unit
TEXAS: Out-of-State Residents Sue Over Traffic Tickets
WAL-MART STORES: Bid to Appeal in Narrowed Gender Bias Suit Denied

* Supreme Ct. to Clarify Key Issues on Class Action Arbitration
* U.S. District Judge Calls for Review of Class Action System


                          *********


AMEDISYS INC: Reconsideration Bid Pending in La. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on a motion for
reconsideration filed by plaintiffs from a June 28, 2012 court
ruling dismissing a consolidated securities lawsuit in Louisiana,
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.

                Securities Class Action Lawsuits

On June 7, 2010, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana against the Company and certain of its current and
former senior executives.  Additional putative securities class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana on July 14, July 16, and July 28,
2010.

On October 22, 2010, the Court issued an order consolidating the
putative securities class action lawsuits and the Federal
Derivative Actions for pre-trial purposes.  In the same order, the
Court appointed the Public Employees Retirement System of
Mississippi and the Puerto Rico Teachers' Retirement System as co-
lead plaintiffs (together, the "Co-Lead Plaintiffs") for the
putative class.  On December 10, 2010, the Court also consolidated
the class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") with the putative
securities class actions and Federal Derivative Actions for pre-
trial purposes.

On January 18, 2011, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended,
consolidated class action complaint (the "Securities Complaint")
which supersedes the earlier-filed securities class action
complaints.  The Securities Complaint alleges that the defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose
material facts about the Company's business, financial condition,
operations and prospects, particularly relating to its policies
and practices regarding home therapy visits under the Medicare
home health prospective payment system and the related alleged
impact on its business, financial condition, operations and
prospects.  The Securities Complaint seeks a determination that
the action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of all
persons who purchased the Company's securities between August 2,
2005, and September 28, 2010, and an unspecified amount of
damages.

All defendants previously moved to dismiss the Securities
Complaint.  On June 28, 2012, the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Louisiana granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Securities Complaint.  On July 26, 2012, the Co-Lead
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration.  Through that
motion, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs have asked the Court to rescind its
June 28, 2012 dismissal order and to reverse its decision to grant
the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  In the alternative, the Co-
Lead Plaintiffs have asked the Court to modify its dismissal order
to grant Co-Lead Plaintiffs permission to file a second amended
complaint.  Defendants filed a response in opposition to the Co-
Lead Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration in late August 2012.
That motion is fully-briefed and remains pending before the court.

                       Derivative Actions

On July 2, 2010, an alleged shareholder of the Company filed a
derivative lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana, purporting to assert claims on
behalf of the Company against certain of its current and former
officers and directors.  Three similar derivative lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana on July 15, July 21, and August 2, 2010 (together,
the "Federal Derivative Actions").  The Company is named as a
nominal defendant in all of those actions.  On October 22, 2010,
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana issued an order consolidating the Federal Derivative
Actions with the putative securities class action lawsuits and for
pre-trial purposes.

On January 18, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Federal Derivative
Actions filed a consolidated, amended complaint (the "Derivative
Complaint") which supersedes the earlier-filed derivative
complaints.  The Derivative Complaint alleges that certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company by making allegedly false
statements, by allegedly failing to establish sufficient internal
controls over certain of the Company's home health and Medicare
billing practices, by engaging in alleged insider trading, and by
committing unspecified acts of waste of corporate assets and
unjust enrichment.  All defendants in the Federal Derivative
Actions, including the Company as a nominal defendant, have moved
to dismiss the Derivative Complaint.  That motion is fully briefed
and remains pending before the court.

On July 23, 2010, a derivative lawsuit was filed in the Nineteenth
Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of
Louisiana.  That action also purports to assert claims on behalf
of the Company against certain of its current and former officers
and directors.  On December 8, 2010, the Court entered an order
staying the action in deference to the earlier-filed derivative
actions pending in federal court.

                   ERISA Class Action Lawsuit

On September 27, 2010, and October 22, 2010, separate putative
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against the Company,
certain of its current and former senior executives and members of
the Company's 401(k) Plan Administrative Committee.  The lawsuits
allege violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA") since January 1, 2006, and July 1, 2007, respectively.
The plaintiffs brought the complaints on behalf of themselves and
a class of similarly situated participants in the Company's 401(k)
plan.  The plaintiffs assert that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the 401(k) Plan's participants by causing the
401(k) plan to offer and hold Amedisys common stock during the
respective class periods when it was an allegedly unduly risky and
imprudent retirement investment because of the Company's alleged
improper business practices.  The complaints seek a determination
that the actions may be maintained as a class action, an award of
unspecified monetary damages and other unspecified relief.  As
noted, on December 10, 2010, the Court consolidated the putative
ERISA class actions with the putative securities class actions and
derivative actions for pre-trial purposes.  In addition, on
December 10, 2010, the Court appointed interim lead counsel and
interim liaison counsel in the ERISA class action.

On March 10, 2011, Wanda Corbin, Pia Galimba and Linda Trammell
(the "Co-ERISA Plaintiffs"), filed an amended, consolidated class
action complaint (the "ERISA Complaint"), which supersedes the
earlier-filed ERISA class action complaints.  The ERISA Complaint
seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a class
action on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
participants in the Company's 401(k) plan from
January 1, 2008, through present.  All of the defendants have
moved to dismiss the ERISA Complaint.  That motion is fully
briefed and remains pending before the court.

The Company says it is unable to assess the probable outcome or
reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, arising from
the SEC investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil
Investigative Demands ("CIDs"), the Stark Law matter the Company
has disclosed to The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
("CMS"), the Office of Counsel to the Inspector General of the
United States Department of Health and Human Services (the "OIG")
Self-Disclosure issue and the securities, shareholder derivative,
ERISA and wage and hour litigation given the preliminary stage of
these matters.  The Company intends to continue to vigorously
defend itself in the securities, shareholder derivative, ERISA and
wage and hour litigation matters.  No assurances can be given as
to the timing or outcome of the SEC investigation, the U.S.
Department of Justice CIDs, the Stark Law matter the Company has
disclosed to CMS, the OIG Self-Disclosure issue or the securities,
shareholder derivative, ERISA and wage and hour litigation matters
or the impact of any of the inquiry, investigation or litigation
matters on the Company, its consolidated financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows, which could be material,
individually or in the aggregate.

The Company recognizes that additional putative securities class
action complaints and other litigation could be filed, and that
other investigations and actions could be commenced, relating to
matters involving the Company's home therapy visits and therapy
utilization trends or other matters.

Amedisys, Inc. -- http://www.amedisys.com/-- is one of America's
leading home health and hospice companies.  The Company is
headquartered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.


BABY JOGGER: Recalls 10,600 City Versa Strollers Due to Fall Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Baby Jogger LLC, of Richmond, Virginia, announced
a voluntary recall of about 8,400 Baby Jogger City Versa(TM)
strollers in the United States of America and 2,200 in Canada.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The stroller frame can fail to lock in place and collapse while in
use, posing a fall hazard to children in the stroller.

Baby Jogger has received six reports of incidents with the
stroller's frame failing to lock.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves all Baby Jogger City Versa(TM) model
strollers manufactured between May 15 and August 20, 2012.  The
date of manufacture is printed on the stroller's black plastic
side hinge below "Baby Jogger" and "City Versa."  "City Versa" is
also printed on the stroller's fabric in the child's leg area.
The strollers have charcoal-colored metal frames with black,
silver, red or green fabric stroller seats and canopies.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13065.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
buybuy Baby and other juvenile product stores nationwide and
online at buybuybaby.com, albeebaby.com, diapers.com and other
online retailers from July 2012 through October 2012 for about
$450.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled strollers and
contact Baby Jogger for a free replacement stroller frame.  Baby
Jogger may be reached toll-free at (877) 506-2213, from 8:30 a.m.
to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday,
http://www.babyjogger.com/and click on "Recall Information" at
the bottom of the page, or e-mail at recall@babyjogger.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Ruling Provides Clarity on Limited Scope of SCRA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, in a putative class
action handled by Robert Maddox, Mike Pennington, and Keith
Anderson, the Northern District of Alabama recently dismissed a
lawsuit for alleged violations of the Servicemembers' Civil Relief
Act ("SCRA").  The decision in Murphy v. Bank of America, Case
No.: 2:12-CV-2520-VEH (N.D. Ala. Nov. 28, 2012) provides much-
needed clarity on the very limited scope of the SCRA.

The lawsuit alleged violations of Section 518 of the SCRA
pertaining to credit reporting, Section 527 relating to reduction
of the loan's interest rate, and a claim under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA").  The Plaintiff was an Air Force reservist
who was deployed to Afghanistan in September 2010 and did not make
his regularly scheduled mortgage payments while on active duty.
The Plaintiff alleged he had been told that he did not need to
make payments and that his credit would not be reported on during
his active duty time.  The creditor disputed this and continued to
report the Plaintiff's delinquency.  The plaintiff claimed this
violated the SCRA and sought class-wide damages.

Section 518 of the SCRA sets out that application by a service
member for a stay pursuant to the SCRA "shall not itself (without
regard to other considerations) provide the basis for . . . a
determination by a lender or other person that the service member
is unable to pay the civil obligation or liability . . ."  The
court found, as other district courts have held, that Section 518
is an anti-retaliation provision that prohibits only
discrimination or retaliation for a service member seeking a stay
under the SCRA.  If the creditor has a valid and alternative
reason for its action -- i.e. simply reporting payment and
delinquency information in a standard fashion -- there can be no
violation of Section 518.  The court even pointed out that an
application for a stay under the SCRA can be considered by the
creditor, however it cannot be the sole basis for any of the
prohibited activities under Section 518.  In this instance, the
Plaintiff's Complaint failed to allege that the creditor adversely
reported his credit because he had applied for a stay under the
SCRA.  The plaintiff was seven months behind on his mortgage
payments and this provided a valid and alternative reason for the
creditor to make the adverse credit reports as it would do with
any other borrower.  The court specifically noted that nothing in
Section 518, or any other section of the SCRA, excuses a service
member from making his or her mortgage payments while on active
duty.

After dismissing the Section 518 claim, the court quickly
dismissed the Plaintiff's Section 527 claims as well.  Section 527
requires lenders to reduce the interest rate for protected service
members to 6%.  Service members are only eligible for this
interest rate reduction if their loan was taken out prior to their
entry onto active duty and when they provide notice to the lender
of their active duty status.  In this instance, the Plaintiff's
loan had a fixed rate of 4.875% -- well below 6% to begin with
and, thus, he could not sustain a viable claim under Section 527.
Finally, the court dismissed the FCRA claims because they were
premised on the allegations under the SCRA.  Because the creditor
was found not to have violated the SCRA, there could be no
possible FCRA violation either.

Overall, the case demonstrates that while the SCRA provides
numerous protections to service members while on active duty (and
deservedly so), a court will not expand its reach to make the
statute say what it does not say.  The statute does not purport to
prohibit normal credit reporting of actual delinquencies on the
same basis as for other borrowers, and the court refused to read
such a prohibition into the statute.


BUDGET RENT-A-CAR: Faces Suit for Charges Over Bogus Damage Repair
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Budget Rent-a-Car charges
customers for bogus damage repairs to rental cars, a class action
claims in British Columbia Supreme Court.


CARRIAGE SERVICES: "Leathermon" Class Action Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On August 17, 2007, five plaintiffs filed a putative class action
against the current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery in
Madison, Indiana, including Carriage Services, Inc.'s subsidiaries
that owned the cemetery from January 1997 until February 2001, on
behalf of all individuals who purchased cemetery and burial goods
and services at Grandview Cemetery.  The lawsuit is captioned
Leathermon, et al. v. Grandview Memorial Gardens, Inc., et al.,
United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Case
No. 4:07-cv-137.  Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and
claim that the cemetery owners performed burials negligently,
breached Plaintiffs' contracts and made misrepresentations
regarding the cemetery.  The Plaintiffs also allege that the
claims occurred prior, during and after the Company owned the
cemetery.  On October 15, 2007, the case was removed from
Jefferson County Circuit Court, Indiana to the Southern District
of Indiana.  On April 24, 2009, shortly before Defendants had been
scheduled to file their briefs in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint
to add new class representatives and claims, while also seeking to
abandon other claims.  The Company, as well as several other
Defendants, opposed Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint
and add parties.  In April 2009, two Defendants moved to
disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel from further representing
Plaintiffs in this action.  On June 30, 2010, the Court granted
the Defendants' motion to disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel.  In that
order, the Court gave Plaintiffs 60 days within which to retain
new counsel.

On May 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandamus
with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals seeking relief from the
trial court's order of disqualification of counsel. On May 19,
2010, the Defendants responded to the petition of mandamus.  On
July 8, 2010, the Seventh Circuit denied Plaintiffs' petition for
writ of mandamus.  Thus, pursuant to the trial court's order,
Plaintiffs were given 60 days from July 8, 2010, in which to
retain new counsel to prosecute this action on their behalf.
Plaintiffs retained new counsel and the trial court granted the
newly retained Plaintiffs' counsel 90 days to review the case and
advise the Court whether or not Plaintiffs would seek leave to
amend their complaint to add and/or change the allegations as are
currently stated therein and whether or not they would seek leave
to amend the proposed class representatives for class
certification.  Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend both the class
representatives and the allegations stated within the complaint.
Defendants filed oppositions to such amendments.  The Court issued
an order permitting the Plaintiffs to proceed with amending the
class representatives and a portion of their claims; however,
certain of Plaintiffs' claims have been dismissed.  Discovery in
this matter will now proceed.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 7,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The Company says it intends to defend this action vigorously.
Because the lawsuit is in its preliminary stages, the Company is
unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome to it
or to estimate the amount or range of any potential loss, if any,
at this time.


CITY GEAR: Faces Class Action Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cole Epley, writing for Memphis Business Journal, reports that a
collective action complaint filed against Memphis-based clothing
retailer City Gear LLC seeks more than $25 million in damages in
response to allegations of unpaid overtime compensation and
purported violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, but company
officials report they've yet to be officially served with process
papers.

Filed in U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Tennessee
on Dec. 11, the complaint alleges "that Defendants have violated
the wage-and-hour provisions of the FLSA by depriving Plaintiffs,
as well as others similarly situated to Plaintiffs, of their
lawful overtime wages."

Andrew Melzer, an attorney in the New York office of Sanford
Heisler LLP, is representing the plaintiffs in the case and called
the alleged violations "very cut-and-dried."

"It's really a fairly simple violation," Mr. Melzer said.  "They
are trying to get away with paying people hourly wages but not
paying them overtime."

The complaint contends City Gear store managers and assistant
managers are converted to hourly employees if they fail to log 45
hours during the work week, hours for which they are allegedly
denied overtime pay.

Defendants listed in the complaint are City Gear LLC, a.k.a.
Shelmar Retail Partners LLC, Shelmar Retail Partners Inc., Shelmar
Inc., Marty's LLC, Marty's Inc., Holliday's Fashions and
Holliday's General Service Corp.

Mike Longo, CEO of City Gear, declined to respond in-depth to the
allegations and noted he became aware of the complaint only after
being contacted by MBJ.  He did, however, point out factual
inaccuracies in the complaint.

"Holliday's and City Gear have nothing to do with each other.
They are not the same company or entity.  That in and of itself
says that there are flaws within whatever they're purporting," he
said.

City Gear, which had revenue of $64.5 million in 2011, employs 175
people in Memphis and 500 nationally, according to MBJ research.
The plaintiffs in the complaint each worked in local stores,
according to legal representation.


GAMMON GOLD: March 13 Settlement Claims Bar Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
This notice is to everyone who acquired securities of Gammon Gold
Inc. ("Gammon", now known as AuRico Gold Inc.) from Underwriters
in Canada pursuant to Gammon's Short Form Prospectus, dated April
19, 2007 (the "Prospectus"), and to everyone who acquired
securities of Gammon on the TSX during the period from October 10,
2006 to August 10, 2007 (the "Class Members").

READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AS IT MAY AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. YOU
MAY NEED TO TAKE PROMPT ACTION.

Please note: This is a summary notice, produced for publication
purposes, announcing Court approval of the settlement reached in
this litigation.  A long form notice, containing additional
detail, is available on the Administrator's Web site:
http://www.nptricepoint.comor counsel's Web site:
http://www.classaction.ca

           COURT APPROVAL OF THE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

In February 2008, the Plaintiff commenced an action in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice (the "Court") against Gammon and some of
its officers and directors (the "Gammon Defendants") as well as
the underwriters of Gammon's Prospectus (collectively, the
"Defendants").  The Plaintiff alleged that this Prospectus, and
certain other of Gammon's public filings, contained
misrepresentations about the gold equivalent ounce production at
Gammon's principal mining property.

Since that time, the litigation has been vigorously contested.
The Court has certified the claims of persons who purchased Gammon
securities in Canada from the underwriter defendants pursuant to
the Prospectus dated April 19, 2007 ("primary market purchasers")
as well as the claims of persons who purchased Gammon securities
over the TSX in the period between October 10, 2006 and August 10,
2007 ("secondary market purchasers").  At the time the Settlement
was reached, the certification of the secondary market purchasers'
claims remained subject to further appeal by the Gammon
Defendants.

On October 5th, 2012 the Parties executed a settlement agreement
(the "Settlement") to resolve this litigation.  The Settlement
provides that Gammon pay C$13,250,000.00 (the "Settlement
Amount"), including all of the Plaintiff's legal fees,
disbursements, taxes, and administration expenses.  In return for
the Settlement Amount, the Defendants will receive releases and
the class action will be dismissed.  The Settlement is a
compromise of disputed claims and is not an admission of
liability, wrongdoing or fault on the part of any of the
Defendants, all of whom have denied, and continue to deny, the
allegations made against them.

A complete copy of the Settlement is available on the Web site of
Siskinds LLP (along with Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP,
"Class Counsel"): http://www.classaction.caor from the
Administrator.

On December 4, 2012, the Court approved the Settlement and
declared that it is fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of
the Class.

The Court also awarded Class Counsel legal fees, expenses, and
applicable taxes in the amount of C$3,745,775.00 ("Class Counsel
Fees").  As is customary in these cases, Class Counsel conducted
the class action on a contingent fee basis, meaning that Class
Counsel funded the expenses of the litigation and was not paid as
the matter proceeded.  The amount awarded as Class Counsel Fees
includes C$161,350.00 as reimbursement for amounts spent by Class
Counsel in the conduct of the class action.  The remainder of this
amount, net of applicable taxes, represents Class Counsel's only
compensation for conducting the class action.  Class Counsel Fees
will be deducted from the Settlement Amount before it is
distributed to Class Members.  Expenses incurred or payable
relating to approval, notification, implementation, and
administration of the Settlement ("Administration Expenses"), will
also be paid from the Settlement Amount before it is distributed
to Class Members.

            ADMINISTRATION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

The Court has appointed NPT RicePoint as the Administrator of the
Settlement.  The Administrator will oversee the claims and opt-out
processes and will distribute the Settlement Amount. Class Members
may obtain additional information about the Settlement and a copy
of the Claim Form by contacting the Administrator or visiting the
Administrator's Web site.  The Administrator's contact information
appears below.

Class Members who wish to receive compensation from the Settlement
Amount must mail or otherwise submit a completed Claim Form (which
may be obtained from the Administrator) and all supporting
documents to the Administrator no later than March 13, 2013 (the
"Claims Bar Deadline").

Class Members who do not opt and who file a valid Claim Form prior
to the Claims Bar Deadline will be paid a pro rata share of the
balance of the Settlement Amount, following deduction of all fees,
expenses, and taxes.  The long form notice contains complete
instructions on how to make a claim to receive compensation from
the Settlement Amount and an explanation as to how the Settlement
Amount will be distributed.

All Class Members will be bound by the terms of the Settlement
unless they exclude themselves from the Class ("opt out").  Class
Members who do not opt out will not be able to make or continue
any other claim or legal proceeding in relation to the matters
alleged in the Action against the Defendants, or any other person
released by the Settlement.  Class Members who do not want to be
bound by the Settlement must opt out.  However, Class Members who
opt out of the Settlement will be barred from making a claim and
receiving compensation from the Settlement Amount.

If you wish to opt out of this Settlement you must submit a fully
completed Opt-Out Form AND the documents identified therein to the
Administrator no later than February 11, 2013 (the "Opt-Out
Deadline").

For further information regarding the terms of the Settlement,
allocation of the Settlement Amount, filing a claim under and/or
opting out of the Settlement, or to obtain a Claim Form or request
to opt out, visit the Administrator's Web site:
http://www.nptricepoint.comor contact the Administrator by
calling: 1-866-432-5534.

The law firms of Siskinds LLP and Paliare Roland Rosenberg
Rothstein LLP are counsel to the Plaintiff in the class
proceeding, and can be reached at:

          Siskinds LLP
          680 Waterloo Street
          London, ON
          N6A 3V8
          Telephone: 1-800-461-6166 ext. 2380
          Web site: http://www.classaction.ca
          E-mail: nicole.young@siskinds.com

          Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
          155 Wellington St West 35th Floor
          Toronto, ON
          M5V 3H1

Please do not contact the Court with inquiries about the class
action or the Settlement.  All inquiries should be directed to the
Administrator or Siskinds LLP.

PUBLICATION OF THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE


GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Must Face White Chocolate Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that Ghirardelli is
still on the hook in a federal class action that complains its
white chocolate chips do not contain any white chocolate.

Scott Miller bought a package of Ghirardelli white chocolate chips
in June, and discovered the next day that they did not taste like
white chocolate.

"He reviewed the ingredients list on the packaging and noticed
that the white chips contained no white chocolate, cocoa, or cocoa
butter," according to U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler's
background summary.

In his class action, Mr. Miller claimed Ghirardelli misrepresented
the white chocolate content in its chocolate chips, wafers, white
chocolate flavor, mocha mix, and frappes.

He sued for violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, false advertising, unfair competition, and common-law fraud.

Mr. Miller sued in San Francisco Superior Court in August, and
Ghirardelli removed the case to Federal Court.

The case has not yet reached class certification stage.
Ghirardelli sought dismissal.

Ghirardelli claimed that Mr. Miller did not have standing to sue
over white chocolate products he did not buy.

Judge Beeler agreed, and found Mr. Miller had standing to sue only
over the white chocolate chips.

The four other Ghirardelli products Mr. Miller complained about
are all different from each other, both in labeling and
composition, the judge found.

"This is not the type of case where similar products or similar
misrepresentations injured Miller in the same way as the unnamed
plaintiffs," Judge Beeler wrote.

But Mr. Miller has standing to sue Ghirardelli over the chocolate
chips.

"The court does not disagree with Ghirardelli that 'assessing a
label's deceptiveness requires evaluating label statements in
context,'" Judge Beeler wrote.  "Reading this label as a whole and
in context with the allegations about the marketing, the court
cannot say, as a matter of law, that no reasonable consumer would
be deceived by the baking chips label."

Judge Beeler also found that Mr. Miller's allegations are
sufficient to state a claim for fraud, and refused to dismiss that
claim.

"For the reasons discussed above, the court GRANTS Ghirardelli's
motion on the ground that Miller lacks standing for the products
he did not purchase and DENIES the motion in all other respects.
Miller may file an amended complaint within 21 days."

A copy of the Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate
Company, et al., Case No. 12-cv-04936 (N.D. Calif.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/12/Ghirardelli.pdf


IMMERSION CORP: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities
litigation remains pending, according to Immersion Corporation's
November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In September and October 2009, various putative shareholder class
action and derivative complaints were filed in federal and state
court against the Company and certain current and former Immersion
directors and officers.

On September 2, 2009, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers.  Over the following
five weeks, four additional class action complaints were filed.
(One of these four actions was later voluntarily dismissed.)  The
securities class action complaints name the Company and certain
current and former Immersion directors and officers as defendants
and allege violations of federal securities laws based on the
Company's issuance of allegedly misleading financial statements.
The various complaints assert claims covering the period from May
2007 through July 2009 and seek compensatory damages allegedly
sustained by the purported class members.

On December 21, 2009, these class actions were consolidated by the
court as In Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation.  On
the same day, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel.  Following the Company's restatement of its
financial statements, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint on April 9, 2010.  Defendants moved to dismiss the
action on June 15, 2010, and that motion was granted with leave to
amend on March 11, 2011.  Lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on April 29, 2011.  Defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint on July 1, 2011.  On December 16, 2011, the
motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice and on December 19,
2011, judgment was entered in favor of defendants.

On January 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  In May 2012, plaintiff filed
his opening appeals brief.  On July 13, 2012, the Company filed
its response brief.  On September 4, 2012, plaintiff filed his
reply.


INTERSTATE REALTY: Sued Over Misclassification of Site Managers
---------------------------------------------------------------
On December 11, 2012, Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik disclosed
that on October 25, 2012, the San Francisco employment lawyers
Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a lawsuit against Interstate
Realty Management Company ("IRM") alleging IRM misclassified their
Site Managers as exempt from overtime.  Goerzen, et al. vs.
Interstate Realty Management Company, Case No. 679545 is currently
pending in the Stanislaus County Superior Court for the State of
California.

The Class Action Complaint alleges that the Site Managers spent
the majority of their time performing non-exempt job tasks during
their shifts.  The Complaint states that the Site Managers
possessed a very minor role in supervising other employees.
Accordingly, the Complaint claims that the Site Managers were
misclassified as exempt and should have been properly classified
as non-exempt employees entitled to overtime wages and other
related benefits.

The San Francisco law firm Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
represents employees of large corporations in suits for unpaid
overtime wages.


LEXMARK INT'L: Appeal From "Molina" Suit Awards Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lexmark International, Inc.'s appeal from a $7.8 million award to
class members and a $5.7 million award in attorneys' fees in the
lawsuit initiated by Ron Molina, remains pending, according to the
Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On August 31, 2005, former Company employee Ron Molina filed a
class action lawsuit, captioned Molina v. Lexmark, in the
California Superior Court for Los Angeles under a California
employment statute which in effect prohibits the forfeiture of
vacation time accrued.  This statute has been used to invalidate
California employers' "use or lose" vacation policies.  The class
is comprised of less than 200 current and former California
employees of the Company.  The trial was bifurcated into a
liability phase and a damages phase.  On May 1, 2009, the trial
court Judge brought the liability phase to a conclusion with a
ruling that the Company's vacation and personal choice day's
policies from 1991 to the present violated California law.  In a
Statement of Decision, received by the Company on August 27, 2010,
the trial court Judge awarded the class members approximately $8.3
million in damages which included waiting time penalties and
interest but did not include post judgment interest, costs and
attorneys' fees.  On November 17, 2010, the trial court Judge
partially granted the Company's motion for a new trial solely as
to the argument that current employees are not entitled to any
damages.  On March 7, 2011 the trial court Judge reduced the
original award to $7.8 million.  On October 28, 2011, the trial
court Judge awarded the class members $5.7 million in attorneys'
fees.

The Company filed a notice of appeal with the California Court of
Appeals objecting to the trial court Judge's award of damages and
attorneys' fees.  The appeal is pending.

The Company believes an unfavorable outcome in the matter is
probable.  The range of potential loss related to this matter is
subject to a high degree of estimation.  In accordance with the
accounting guidance for contingencies, if the reasonable estimate
of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is a
better estimate, the minimum amount of the range is accrued.
Because no amount within the range of potential loss is a better
estimate than any other amount, the Company has accrued $1.8
million for the Molina matter, which represents the low-end of the
range. At the high-end of the range, the class has sought $16.7
million in damages along with $5.7 million in attorneys' fees,
plus post judgment interest.  Thus, it is reasonably possible that
a loss exceeding the $1.8 million already accrued may be incurred
in this matter, ranging from $0 to $22.4 million, excluding post
judgment interest, costs and any additional attorneys' fees which
may be assessed against the Company.

Established in 1991, Lexmark International, Inc. --
http://www.lexmark.com/-- is a developer, manufacturer and
supplier of printing, imaging and document workflow solutions for
the office.  The Company also operates in the office imaging and
ECM markets.  Lexmark's products include laser printers, inkjet
printers, multifunction devices, dot matrix printers and
associated supplies, solutions and services and ECM software
solutions and services.  The Company is headquartered in
Lexington, Kentucky.


MELA SCIENCES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their consolidated securities
class action lawsuit against MELA Sciences, Inc., according to the
Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On November 19, 2010, a purported securities class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, naming as defendants the Company and certain
of its officers and directors, entitled Randall J. Pederson,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
MELA Sciences, Inc., Joseph V. Gulfo, Richard I. Steinhart, and
Breaux Castleman, No. 7:10-cv-08774-JFM.  Two similar complaints
were also filed, one on December 2, 2010 and the other on January
20, 2011, in the same District Court, entitled Amy Steigman,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
MELA Sciences, Inc., Joseph V. Gulfo, Richard I. Steinhart, and
Breaux Castleman, No. 7:10-cv-09024-JFM; and Martin Slove and
Linda Slove, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MELA Sciences, Inc., Joseph V. Gulfo, Richard I.
Steinhart, and Breaux Castleman, No. 1:11 cv-00429-JFM.  These
three securities class actions were consolidated into one action
on February 15, 2011, entitled In re MELA Sciences, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 10-Civ-8774-JFM ("securities class
action").

The securities class action plaintiffs assert violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging, among other things,
that defendants made misstatements and omissions regarding the
Company's product, MelaFind(R), and its prospects for U.S. Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval, on behalf of
stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock during the
period from February 13, 2009, through November 16, 2010, and seek
unspecified damages.  On May 2, 2011, the securities class action
plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint, alleging
similar claims to their prior complaints.  On July 29, 2011,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint in its entirety.  Plaintiff's opposition to the motion
to dismiss was filed on September 23, 2011.  In light of the
Company's receipt of the Approvable Letter from the FDA for the
MelaFind(R) PMA Application on September 22, 2011, plaintiffs
filed a motion for leave to amend the consolidated amended
complaint on November 18, 2011, which defendants opposed.

On September 19, 2012, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend the consolidated amended complaint.  On
September 28, 2012, the court reinstated and granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  On
October 22, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
Judgments denying Lead Plaintiffs' motion to amend the
consolidated amended complaint and granting Defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to vigorously defend against the securities class action; however,
as with any litigation, the Company cannot predict with any degree
of certainty the eventual outcome of this litigation.  An adverse
outcome could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business and its business could be materially harmed.


NOVATION COMPANIES: Appeal From N.Y. Suit Dismissal Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit in New York
remains pending, according to Novation Companies, Inc.'s November
7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated.  Defendants in the case included
NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation ("NMFC") and its individual
directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the Company
("affiliated defendants") and several unaffiliated investment
banks and credit rating agencies.  The case was removed to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants
violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage
loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by
plaintiff and the purported class members.  On August 31, 2009,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims,
which the court granted on March 31, 2011, with leave to amend.
Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 16, 2011, and
the Company again filed a motion to dismiss.

On March 29, 2012, the court dismissed the plaintiff's second
amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead.
The plaintiff filed an appeal, which remains pending.

Given the court's ruling in an early stage of the litigation, the
Company says it cannot provide an estimate of the range of any
loss.  The Company believes that the affiliated defendants have
meritorious defenses to the case and expects them to defend the
case vigorously.


OGE ENERGY: "Price I" Class Suit vs. Subsidiaries Now Closed
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Will Price, et al. v. El Paso
Natural Gas Co., et al. (Price I) involving subsidiaries of OGE
Energy Corp. is now closed, according to the Company's
November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On September 24, 1999, various subsidiaries of OGE Energy were
served with a class action petition filed in the District Court of
Stevens County, Kansas, by Quinque Operating Company and other
named plaintiffs alleging the mismeasurement of natural gas on
non-Federal lands.  On April 10, 2003, the court entered an order
denying class certification.  On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs (now
Will Price, Stixon Petroleum, Inc., Thomas F. Boles and the Cooper
Clark Foundation, on behalf of themselves and other royalty
interest owners) filed a motion seeking to file an amended class
action petition, and the court granted the motion on July 28,
2003.  In its amended petition, Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company
(OG&E) and Enogex Inc. were omitted from the case but two of OGE
Energy's other subsidiary entities remained as defendants.  The
plaintiffs' amended petition seeks class certification and alleges
that 60 defendants, including two of OGE Energy's subsidiary
entities, have improperly measured the volume of natural gas.  The
amended petition asserts theories of civil conspiracy, aiding and
abetting, accounting and unjust enrichment.  In their briefing on
class certification, the plaintiffs seek to also allege a claim
for conversion.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest.  The plaintiffs also reserved the right to seek punitive
damages.

On September 18, 2009, the court entered its order denying class
certification.  On October 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed for a
rehearing of the court's denial of class certification.  On
March 31, 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for
rehearing.  On July 20, 2011, Enogex LLC and Enogex Energy
Resources LLC, wholly-owned subsidiary of Enogex LLC (EER) (prior
to June 30, 2012, the legal name was OGE Energy Resources LLC)
filed motions for summary judgment.  On January 25, 2012, the
court denied portions of the motions for summary judgment related
to the legal issue of the plaintiffs' claims regarding civil
conspiracy.  In an order dated January 23, 2012, the court granted
the plaintiffs additional time to perform discovery prior to the
consideration of the motions for summary judgment as they relate
to the plaintiffs' other claims.

On February 7, 2012, Enogex LLC and EER filed an application in
the Kansas Court of Appeals seeking appeal of the trial court's
denial of their motions for summary judgment.  On February 23,
2012, the Kansas Court of Appeals denied this application.  On
March 23, 2012, Enogex LLC and EER filed an application with the
Kansas Supreme Court seeking appeal of the Kansas Court of
Appeals' decision.  On July 19, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to dismiss Enogex LLC and EER from the action.  On
September 19, 2012, the court issued a final order dismissing
Enogex LLC and EER from this case.  OGE Energy considers this case
closed.


OGE ENERGY: "Price II" Class Suit vs. Subsidiaries Now Closed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Will Price, et al. v. El Paso
Natural Gas Co., et al. (Price II) involving subsidiaries of OGE
Energy Corp. is now closed, according to the Company's
November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs (same as those in the amended
petition in Price I) filed a new class action petition in the
District Court of Stevens County, Kansas, naming the same
defendants and asserting substantially identical legal and/or
equitable theories as in the amended petition of the Price I case.
Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E) and Enogex Inc. were not
named in this case, but two of OGE Energy's other subsidiary
entities were named in this case.  The plaintiffs allege that the
defendants mismeasured the British thermal unit content of natural
gas obtained from or measured for the plaintiffs.  In their
briefing on class certification, the plaintiffs seek to also
allege a claim for conversion.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs and pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest.  The plaintiffs also reserved the right to seek
punitive damages.

On September 18, 2009, the court entered its order denying class
certification.  On October 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed for a
rehearing of the court's denial of class certification.  On
March 31, 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for
rehearing.  On July 20, 2011, Enogex LLC and Enogex Energy
Resources LLC, wholly-owned subsidiary of Enogex LLC (EER) (prior
to June 30, 2012, the legal name was OGE Energy Resources LLC)
filed motions for summary judgment.  On January 25, 2012, the
court denied portions of the motions for summary judgment related
to the legal issue of the plaintiffs' claims regarding civil
conspiracy.  In an order dated January 23, 2012, the court granted
the plaintiffs additional time to perform discovery prior to the
consideration of the motions for summary judgment as they relate
to the plaintiffs' other claims.  On February 7, 2012, Enogex LLC
and EER filed an application in the Kansas Court of Appeals
seeking appeal of the trial court's denial of their motions for
summary judgment.  On February 23, 2012, the Kansas Court of
Appeals denied this application.

On March 23, 2012, Enogex LLC and EER filed an application with
the Kansas Supreme Court seeking appeal of the Kansas Court of
Appeals' decision.  On July 19, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to dismiss Enogex LLC and EER from the action.  On
September 19, 2012, the court issued a final order dismissing
Enogex LLC and EER from this case.  OGE Energy considers this case
closed.


PEABODY ENERGY: Faces United Mine Workers' Suit in West Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peabody Energy Corporation is facing class action lawsuit in West
Virginia commenced by the United Mine Workers of America, et al.,
according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On October 23, 2012, eight individual plaintiffs and the United
Mine Workers of America filed a putative class action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
against Peabody Holding Company, LLC, Peabody Energy Corporation
and an unrelated coal company.  The lawsuit seeks to have the
court obligate the defendants to maintain certain Patriot Coal
Corporation benefit plans at their current levels and to find the
defendants actions in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.  The Company believes that the lawsuit is
without merit and will vigorously defend against it.


PHILIPS ORAL: Judge Narrows AirFloss Misleading Ad Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Dec. 7 pared a class action accusing Philips Oral
Healthcare Inc. of misleading consumers about its Sonicare
AirFloss plaque removal product, saying plaintiffs couldn't raise
breach of contract claims because they failed to adequately prove
Philips violated its warranties but leaving unfair competition
claims intact.

In the class action filed last June, Lilia Perkins alleged Philips
violated express and implied warranties by creating misleading
advertising that tricks consumers into believing the AirFloss is
equivalent to traditional dental floss.


QUANTA SERVICES: Settles Dispute with Insurers Over Wildfire Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quanta Services, Inc. entered into a $33.8 million settlement
resolving disputes with insurers over coverage relating to
lawsuits arising from two California wildfires, according to the
Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On June 18, 2010, PAR Electrical Contractors, Inc. (PAR), a wholly
owned subsidiary of Quanta, was named as a third party defendant
in four lawsuits in California state court in San Diego County,
California, all of which arise out of a wildfire in the San Diego
area that started on October 21, 2007, referred to as the Witch
Creek fire.  The California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection issued a report concluding that the Witch Creek fire
was started when the conductors of a three phase 69 kV
transmission line, known as TL 637, owned by San Diego Gas &
Electric (SDG&E), touched each other, dropping sparks on dry
grass.  The Witch Creek fire, together with another wildfire
referred to as the Guejito fire that allegedly merged with the
Witch Creek fire, burned a reported 198,000 acres, over 1,500
homes and structures and is alleged to have caused two deaths and
numerous personal injuries.

Numerous lawsuits have been filed directly against SDG&E and its
parent company, Sempra, claiming SDG&E's power lines caused the
fire.  The court ordered that the claims be organized into the
four lawsuits and grouped the matters by type of plaintiff,
namely, insurance subrogation claimants, individual/business
claimants, governmental claimants, and a class action matter, for
which class certification has since been denied.  PAR is not named
as a direct defendant in any of these lawsuits against SDG&E or
its parent.  SDG&E has reportedly settled many of the claims.  On
June 18, 2010, SDG&E joined PAR to the four lawsuits as a third
party defendant, seeking contractual and equitable indemnification
for losses related to the Witch Creek fire.  SDG&E's claims for
indemnity relate to work done by PAR involving the replacement of
one pole on TL 637 about four months prior to the Witch Creek
fire.  While Quanta does not believe that the work done by PAR was
the cause of the contact between the conductors, PAR notified its
various insurers of the claims.  All but one of the insurers
contested coverage.  On August 5, 2011, PAR and Quanta filed a
lawsuit in California state court against those insurers seeking a
determination that coverage exists under the policies.

On November 5, 2012, PAR, Quanta, PAR's insurers and SDG&E entered
into a mutual settlement agreement pursuant to which SDG&E agreed
to release PAR, Quanta and PAR's insurers in exchange for payment
by PAR's insurers of a negotiated settlement amount and payment by
PAR of $33.8 million, of which $7.5 million was previously
expensed and $26.3 million will be funded by an insurer as part of
the previously recorded $35.0 million liability and corresponding
insurance recovery receivable associated with a reimbursement-type
policy.  In the settlement, one other insurer reserved its rights
to contest coverage and seek reimbursement from PAR of the $25.0
million this insurer will pay to SDG&E as part of the settlement.
As such, PAR and Quanta have not released this insurer from the
coverage lawsuit filed in California state court.  PAR intends to
vigorously pursue its actions for coverage against the insurer if
the insurer asserts a claim for reimbursement.


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Ocean Pointe Class Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. continues to defend itself against
a consolidated class action lawsuit arising from alleged premature
corrosion of its strap tie holdown products installed in buildings
in a housing development known as Ocean Pointe in Honolulu,
Hawaii, 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.

Four lawsuits (the "Cases") have been filed against the Company in
the Hawaii First Circuit Court: Alvarez v. Haseko Homes, Inc. and
Simpson Manufacturing, Inc., Civil No. 09-1-2697-11 ("Case 1"); Ke
Noho Kai Development, LLC v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., and
Honolulu Wood Treating Co., LTD., Case No. 09-1-1491-06 SSM ("Case
2"); North American Specialty Ins. Co. v. Simpson Strong-Tie
Company, Inc. and K.C. Metal Products, Inc., Case No. 09-1-1490-06
VSM ("Case 3"); and Charles et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc. et al.
and Third Party Plaintiffs Haseko Homes, Inc. et al. v. Simpson
Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et al., Civil No. 09-1-1932-08 ("Case
4").  Case 1 was filed on November 18, 2009.  Cases 2 and 3 were
originally filed on June 30, 2009.  Case 4 was filed on August 19,
2009.  The Cases all relate to alleged premature corrosion of the
Company's strap tie holdown products installed in buildings in a
housing development known as Ocean Pointe in Honolulu, Hawaii,
allegedly causing property damage.  Case 1 is a putative class
action brought by the owners of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe
houses.  Case 1 was originally filed as Kai et al. v. Haseko
Homes, Inc., Haseko Construction, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing,
Inc., Case No. 09-1-1476, but was voluntarily dismissed and then
re-filed with a new representative plaintiff.  Case 2 is an action
by the builders and developers of Ocean Pointe against the
Company, claiming that either the Company's strap tie holdowns are
defective in design or manufacture or the Company failed to
provide adequate warnings regarding the products' susceptibility
to corrosion in certain environments.  Case 3 is a subrogation
action brought by the insurance company for the builders and
developers against the Company claiming the insurance company
expended funds to correct problems allegedly caused by the
Company's products.  Case 4 is a putative class action brought,
like Case 1, by owners of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe homes.
In Case 4, Haseko Homes, Inc. ("Haseko"), the developer of the
Ocean Pointe development, has brought a third party complaint
against the Company alleging that any damages for which Haseko may
be liable are actually the fault of the Company.  None of the
Cases alleges a specific amount of damages sought, although each
of the Cases seeks compensatory damages, and Case 1 seeks punitive
damages.  Cases 1 and 4 have been consolidated.

On July 13, 2012, the Court denied, without prejudice, a motion by
the homeowner plaintiffs in Case 4 to certify a Fourth Amended
Class Action Complaint.  In addition, on July 13, 2012, the Court
in Case 4 dismissed several claims that the homeowner plaintiffs
had asserted against the Company.  On October 1, 2012, the Court
granted summary judgment in favor of the Company and against the
homeowner plaintiffs with respect to additional claims the
homeowner plaintiffs had asserted against the Company.  The
Company continues to investigate the facts underlying the claims
asserted in the Cases, including, among other things, the cause of
the alleged corrosion; the severity of any problems shown to
exist; the buildings affected; the responsibility of the general
contractor, various subcontractors and other construction
professionals for the alleged damages; the amount, if any, of
damages suffered; and the costs of repair, if needed.

At this time, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable
for any property damage allegedly suffered and the extent of such
liability, if any, are unknown.  Management believes the Cases may
not be resolved for an extended period.  The Company intends to
defend itself vigorously in connection with the Cases.

Based on facts currently known to it, the Company believes that
all or part of the claims alleged in the Cases may be covered by
its insurance policies.  On April 19, 2011, an action was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii,
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Simpson
Manufacturing Company, Inc., et al., Civil No. 11-00254 ACK.  In
this action, Plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ("National Union"), which issued certain
Commercial General Liability insurance policies to the Company,
seeks declaratory relief in the Cases with respect to its
obligations to defend or indemnify the Company, Simpson Strong-Tie
Company Inc., and a vendor of the Company's strap tie holdown
products.  By Order dated November 7, 2011, all proceedings in the
National Union action have been stayed.  If the stay is lifted and
the National Union action is not dismissed, the Company intends
vigorously to defend all claims advanced by National Union.

On April 12, 2011, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company ("Fireman's
Fund"), another of the Company's general liability insurers, sued
Hartford Fire Insurance Company ("Hartford"), a third insurance
company from whom the Company purchased general liability
insurance, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v.
Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Civil No. 11 1789 SBA (the
"Fireman's Fund action").  The Company has intervened in the
Fireman's Fund action and has moved to stay all proceedings in
that action as well, pending resolution of the underlying Ocean
Pointe Cases.

On November 21, 2011, the Company commenced a lawsuit against
National Union, Fireman's Fund, Hartford and others in the
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the City and
County of San Francisco (the "San Francisco coverage action").  In
the San Francisco coverage action, the Company alleges generally
that the separate pendency of the National Union action and the
Fireman's Fund action presents a risk of inconsistent
adjudications; that the San Francisco Superior Court has
jurisdiction over all of the parties and should exercise
jurisdiction at the appropriate time to resolve any and all
disputes that have arisen or may in the future arise among the
Company and its liability insurers; and that the San Francisco
coverage action should also be stayed pending resolution of the
underlying Ocean Pointe Cases.  The Company intends to move for
such a stay if necessary.

Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. -- http://www.simpsonmgf.com/--
through its subsidiaries, engages in the design, engineering,
manufacture, and sale of building products.  It offers wood-to-
wood, wood-to-concrete, and wood-to-masonry connectors; screw
fastening systems and collated screws; stainless steel fasteners;
pre-fabricated shear walls and moment-frames; truss plates; and a
range of adhesives, chemicals, mechanical anchors, carbide drill
bits, and powder-actuated tools for concrete, masonry, and steel
markets, as well as a range of concrete repair products and
engineered materials for the repair, strengthening, and
restoration of asphalt and masonry construction.  The Company
markets its products to the residential construction, light
industrial and commercial construction, remodeling, and do-it-
yourself markets primarily in the United States, Canada, Europe,
Asia, and the South Pacific.  Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. was
founded in 1956 and is based in Pleasanton, California.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces Suits Over Proposed Merger with SoftBank
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel Corporation is facing class action lawsuits arising
from its proposed merger with SoftBank Corp., according to the
Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On October 15, 2012, SOFTBANK CORP. and certain of its wholly-
owned subsidiaries (together, "SoftBank") and Sprint entered into
a Bond Purchase Agreement (Bond Agreement) and an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement) pursuant to which SoftBank would
invest, in aggregate, approximately $20.1 billion for an
approximately 70% controlling interest in a subsidiary (New
Sprint), an entity owning 100% of the equity interest in Sprint
subsequent to consummation of the transaction, with the remaining
30% interest in New Sprint being publicly traded.

In the merger, which is subject to shareholder and regulatory
approval, SoftBank will further capitalize New Sprint with an
additional $17.0 billion.  Approximately $4.9 billion will be used
to purchase a new issuance of New Sprint common stock at $5.25 per
share and the remaining consideration, approximately $12.1
billion, will be distributed to Sprint shareholders in exchange
for their shares of Sprint.  Sprint shareholders can elect to
receive cash consideration of $7.30 per share or one share of New
Sprint per share of Sprint subject to proration.  Upon
consummation of the merger, SoftBank will receive a five-year
warrant to purchase 54,579,924 shares in New Sprint at $5.25 per
share for consideration of approximately $300 million upon
exercise.  Upon consummation of the merger, Sprint will be a
wholly-owned subsidiary of New Sprint.  New Sprint will be renamed
Sprint Corporation and will be a publicly traded company, with 70%
ownership held by SoftBank and 30% publicly traded, based on the
assumed exercise of outstanding warrants.  The Merger Agreement
contains customary conditions and covenants for a transaction of
this nature, including certain termination rights, whereby Sprint
may be required to pay a termination fee of $600 million to
SoftBank.

Under the terms of the Export Development Canada (EDC) facility,
the secured equipment credit facility and the Company's revolving
credit facility, consummation of the merger would constitute a
change of control that would require repayment of all outstanding
balances thereunder.  Amounts outstanding under the EDC facility
and secured equipment credit facility, which were approximately
$577 million in the aggregate at September 30, 2012, would become
due and payable at the time of closing.  In addition, the
Company's $2.2 billion revolving bank credit facility would expire
upon a change of control, of which approximately $1.0 billion was
outstanding as of September 30, 2012, through letters of credit,
including the letter of credit required by the Report and Order.
Sprint expects to enter into discussions with existing lenders
under these arrangements to obtain waivers for the proposed
transaction.

As of September 30, 2012, approximately $8.8 billion of the
Company's senior notes and guaranteed notes provided holders with
the right to require the Company to repurchase the notes if a
change of control triggering event (as defined in the Company's
indenture and supplemental indentures governing applicable notes)
occurs, which includes both a change of control (which will occur
upon consummation of the merger) and a ratings decline of the
applicable notes by each of Moody's Investor Services and Standard
& Poor's Rating Services.  If the Company is required to make a
change of control offer, it will offer a cash payment equal to
101% of the aggregate principal amount of notes repurchased plus
accrued and unpaid interest.

In addition, the Company has recently received several complaints
asserting class actions for breach of fiduciary duty and other
theories relating to the transaction.  The Company says it intends
to vigorously defend these lawsuits and because these cases are
still in the preliminary stages, has not yet determined what
effect the lawsuits will have, if any, on its financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Awaits Ruling on Class Cert. Bid in "Bennett" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel Corporation is still awaiting a court decision on
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of bondholders in the
lawsuit captioned Bennett v. Sprint Nextel Corp., according to the
Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

In March 2009, a shareholder brought a lawsuit, Bennett v. Sprint
Nextel Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, alleging that the Company and three of its former officers
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 by failing adequately to disclose certain alleged
operational difficulties subsequent to the Sprint-Nextel merger,
and by purportedly issuing false and misleading statements
regarding the write-down of goodwill.  The plaintiff seeks class
action status for purchasers of the Company's common stock from
October 26, 2006, to February 27, 2008.  On January 6, 2011, the
Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss.  Subsequently, the
Company's motion to certify the January 6, 2011 order for an
interlocutory appeal was denied, and discovery has begun.
Plaintiff moved to certify a class of bondholders as well as
owners of common stock, and the Company has opposed that motion.
The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to
defend the matter vigorously.  The Company does not expect the
resolution of this matter to have a material adverse effect on its
financial position or results of operations.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Sued for Misleading Shareholders on Durata
------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical inflated its share price by false statements
about the safety of its Durata defibrillator, and the stock fell
by 11% after the truth came out, shareholders claim in Federal
Court.


STEEL DYNAMICS: Class Cert. Bid Antitrust Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class in their antitrust lawsuit
against Steel Dynamics, Inc. and other steel manufacturing
companies remains pending, according to the Company's November 7,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The Company is involved, along with eight other steel
manufacturing companies, in a class action antitrust complaint
filed in federal court in Chicago, Illinois, that alleges a
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at
which steel products were sold in the United States starting in
2005, by artificially restricting the supply of such steel
products.  All but one of the Complaints purport to be brought on
behalf of a class consisting of all direct purchasers of steel
products during the period of the alleged conspiracy.  The other
Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class consisting
of all indirect purchasers of steel products within the same time
period.  All Complaints seek treble damages and costs, including
reasonable attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and
injunctive relief.  On January 2, 2009, Steel Dynamics and the
other defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss all of the direct
purchaser lawsuits, but this motion was denied.  The parties have
been conducting discovery related primarily to class certification
matters, and on May 24, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Class Certification.  A time frame for hearing this Motion has not
yet been determined.

Due to the uncertainties of litigation, the Company says it cannot
presently determine the ultimate outcome of this litigation.
However, the Company believes that, based on the information
available to the Company at this time, there is not presently a
"reasonable possibility" (as that term is defined in ASC 450-20-
20) that the outcome of these legal proceedings would have a
material impact on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations, or liquidity.


STEINER LEISURE: Awaits Final OK of "Ferrari" Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steiner Leisure Limited is awaiting final approval of its
settlement of a class action lawsuit brought by Yvette Ferrari
against a subsidiary, according to the Company's November 7, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In April 2011, a complaint was filed in California Superior Court,
Los Angeles Central Division, against Bliss World LLC and related
entities (Yvette Ferrari v. Bliss World LLC, et al) on behalf of
an employee of Bliss claiming violations of various California
requirements relating to the payment of wages.  The action was
presented as a class action.  The parties to this action have
agreed to settle the matter.  Because of the putative class action
nature of the lawsuit, that agreement is subject to approval by
the court.  While the court has issued a preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement, final approval has not yet been granted.
Management currently believes that the amount of such liability
would not be material to the Company's financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows.


SUNRISE SENIOR: Faces Two Class Suits Over Proposed HCN Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. is facing two class action lawsuits
arising from its proposed merger with Health Care REIT, Inc.,
according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On August 21, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Health Care REIT, Inc.
("HCN"), pursuant to which the parties agreed that, upon
satisfaction of the terms and subject to the conditions set forth
in the Merger Agreement, HCN would acquire the Company in an all-
cash merger in which the Company's tockholders would receive
$14.50 in cash for each share of Sunrise common stock.

On September 6, 2012, a complaint, captioned Perricone Family
Trust, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated vs.
Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., Health Care REIT, Inc., Paul J.
Klaassen, Glyn F. Aeppel, Thomas J. Donohue, Stephen D. Harlan,
Lynn Krominga, William G. Little and Mark S. Ordan, Case No. 7837,
was filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware,
challenging the proposed Merger of Sunrise with Health Care REIT.
The complaint challenges the proposed Merger on behalf of a
putative class of Sunrise public stockholders, and names as
defendants Sunrise, its directors and HCN.  The complaint
generally alleges that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed Merger and that
the entity defendants aided and abetted that breach.  The
complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief against the
Merger and an award of plaintiffs' expenses.

In addition, on October 23, 2012, a complaint captioned William
Bunyan vs. Mark Ordan, Glyn Aeppel, Thomas Donohue, Stephen
Harlan, Paul Klaassen, Lynn Krominga, William Little, Sunrise
Senior Living, Inc., Health Care REIT, Inc., Brewer Holdco, Inc.,
Brewer Holdco Sub, Inc. and Red Fox Inc., Case No. 1-12cv 1185
CMH/TRJ, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, also challenging the proposed Merger
of Sunrise with Health Care REIT.  The complaint challenges the
proposed Merger on behalf of a putative class of Sunrise public
stockholders, and names as defendants Sunrise, its directors, HCN
and their respective subsidiaries party to the proposed Merger.
The complaint generally alleges that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
Merger and violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by omitting material facts
from Sunrise's preliminary merger proxy statement and that the
entity defendants aided and abetted such breaches.  The complaint
seeks, among other things, damages, injunctive relief against the
merger and an award of plaintiffs' expenses.

Sunrise believes that the claims asserted in these lawsuits are
without merit, and intends to defend itself vigorously against the
claims.  Because of the early stage of this lawsuit, the Company
says it cannot at this time estimate an amount or range of
potential loss in the event of an unfavorable outcome.


TELETECH HOLDINGS: Defends "Calkins" Class Action Suit vs. Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
TeleTech Holdings, Inc. is defending its subsidiary against a
class action lawsuit brought by David Calkins, according to the
Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On October 12, 2012, David Calkins filed an amended class action
complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Santa Clara, against TeleTech Services Corp. and Google Inc.
("Google"), as co-defendants.  The action alleges that the
defendants violated California Penal Code Section 632 by recording
telephone calls made on behalf of Google to residents in
California without disclosing that the calls might be recorded.
The plaintiff seeks class certification, cash statutory damages
and attorney fees.  Pursuant to the Company's agreement with
Google, Google has made a claim for full indemnification from the
Company for all expenses incurred by Google in connection with the
lawsuit.  The ultimate outcome of this litigation, and
consequently, an estimate of the possible loss, if any, related to
this litigation, cannot reasonably be determined at this time.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in these
proceedings.


TEXAS: Out-of-State Residents Sue Over Traffic Tickets
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Gov. Rick Perry et al. fine
out-of-state residents more for traffic tickets than they fine
Texas residents, a class action claims in Federal Court.


WAL-MART STORES: Bid to Appeal in Narrowed Gender Bias Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that a
federal judge refused to let Wal-Mart appeal its objections to a
more narrow class of female employees who want to sue the retailer
for sex discrimination as a class.

In a 2001 federal complaint led by Betty Dukes, a putative class
claimed that Wal-Mart Stores received paid women less and offered
them fewer promotions than it offered men in comparable positions.

Though a San Francisco federal judge initially certified a class
that would cover estimated 1.5 million women, making it the
largest civil rights case in U.S. history, the Supreme Court
disbanded that class in 2011 on the basis of lacking commonality.
On remand, the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint that
seeks to certify a narrower class than that rejected by the high
court.

The Bentonville, Ark.-based company responded with a motion to
strike the class allegations.  It claims that the statute of
limitations bars the claims, and that the newly proposed class
still fails to meet the commonality requirement.

Denying that motion, the Northern District of California set a
deadline of Jan. 11, 2013, for the class-certification motion.

Undeterred, Wal-Mart sought leave to file an interim appeal with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said the request "doubles down"
on Wal-Mart's position that the class certification motion "does
not deserve to see the light of day."

He denied the request on Dec. 10 "on the grounds that (1)
immediate appeal would not, at this time, materially advance the
ultimate termination of the litigation in light of the impending
certification motion, and (2) no substantial grounds for
difference of opinion exist regarding the commonality issue."

A copy of the Order Denying Request for Certification for
Interlocutory Appeal in Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
Case No. 01-cv-02252 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/12/walmart.pdf


* Supreme Ct. to Clarify Key Issues on Class Action Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aubry Holland, David Prahl, Lynne Hermle, writing for Orrick -
Global Employment Law Group, report that in the last several
years, the enforcement of agreements to arbitrate disputes,
whether between businesses or between businesses and their
employees, has become a hotly contested issue in the courts.  The
U.S. Supreme Court issued two significant pronouncements in this
area in the past few years.  In 2010, in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v.
Animalfeeds International Corp., 130 S.Ct. 1758 (2010), the Court
held that where an agreement to arbitrate is silent on the
question of whether a plaintiff can arbitrate her claims on behalf
of a proposed class of similarly situated individuals (similar to
a class action lawsuit), class arbitration is not permissible.
Last year, in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011),
the Court held that (1) under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"),
arbitration agreements are to be enforced "according to their
terms"; and (2) state law rules prohibiting the use of "class-
action waiver" provisions, in which a party waives his or her
right to arbitrate claims on a class basis, are preempted by the
FAA.  Together, these cases stand for the fundamental proposition
that the parties to arbitration agreements should be bound by the
clear terms of such agreements, especially with respect to class
arbitration issues.

The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in two cases that
should further clarify the law in this area.  In In Re American
Express Merchants' Litigation, No. 12-133, (petition granted Nov.
9, 2012), the Court will address the question of whether a
plaintiff who has signed an arbitration agreement containing a
valid class-action waiver provision can avoid the enforcement of
the provision where she demonstrates, through competent evidence,
that it would be "economically irrational" to arbitrate her claims
on an individual basis.  The decision that will go before the
Supreme Court -- issued by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals --
holds that a plaintiff may avoid having to arbitrate her claims on
an individual basis where she makes such a showing.  This appears
to flatly contradict the Supreme Court's recent pronouncements in
the Stolt-Nielsen and Concepcion cases.  It also conflicts with
Coneff v. AT&T Corp., 673 F. 3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2012), in which the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals expressly disagreed with the Second
Circuit on this issue.

In Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, No. 12-135 (petition granted
Dec. 7, 2012), the Court is poised to resolve a circuit split
regarding the proper interpretation of Stolt-Nielsen in the
context of generally worded arbitration agreements that do not
expressly reference class arbitration.  On one hand, the Second
and Third Circuits have held that arbitrators have virtually
unlimited discretion to impose class arbitration proceedings as
long as they find at least an implicit agreement to arbitrate on a
class basis -- even if the contractual language at issue states
nothing more than that the parties agree to resolve all disputes
through arbitration.  In Jock v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., 646 F.
3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 2011), a divided Second Circuit panel upheld
an arbitrator's determination that an arbitration contract
implicitly authorized class arbitration notwithstanding the
absence of any reference to class claims in the contract.  And in
Sutter v. Oxford Health Plans LLC, 675 F. 3d 215, 224 (3d Cir.
2012) -- the decision now on appeal to the Supreme Court-the Third
Circuit upheld an arbitrator's decision to order class arbitration
despite the lack of any express language authorizing it based on a
finding that the arbitrator's determination in this regard was not
"totally irrational".  On the other hand, the Fifth Circuit has
held that (1) under Stolt-Nielsen, courts must meaningfully review
the contractual basis underlying an arbitrator's decision to
impose class arbitration; and (2) broadly worded arbitration
clauses cannot alone be the basis for class arbitration.  See Reed
v. Florida Metro. Univ., Inc., 681 F. 3d 630, 642-43, 646 (5th
Cir. 2012), reh'g denied, June 15, 2012.

The American Express and Oxford Health Plans cases should provide
much-needed clarity in an area of law in which decisions have been
all over the map.  American Express provides an opportunity for
the Supreme Court to reverse a troubling trend within the Second
Circuit in which courts invalidate otherwise-valid class action
waiver provisions in the face of Concepcion and Stolt-Nielsen,
often at the expense of businesses in the financial services
industry.  Oxford Health Plans provides an opportunity for the
Court to reiterate and re-emphasize its directive in Stolt-
Nielsen -- that class arbitration cannot be imposed unless the
parties expressly agree to it.  Decisions from the Court in these
cases are expected sometime in the summer of 2013.


* U.S. District Judge Calls for Review of Class Action System
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that a prominent
federal judge on Dec. 11 called for a review of how securities
class actions are conducted, saying the current system was
producing small settlements that cost too much.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan said there should be an
examination of the way plaintiffs' lawyers are paid, the standards
allowing lawsuits to move forward, as well as a decades-old
premise underlying this kind of litigation.

"It's a jerry-rigged system never thought through from beginning
to end," he said.

Judge Kaplan, who presided over securities litigation stemming
from the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., was speaking
at a conference on securities litigation hosted by the New York
City Bar Association.

He noted that securities litigation sprang from the Securities Act
of 1933 but was not explicitly provided for by that law.

Instead, securities class actions evolved out of a series of court
decisions and, later, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
(PSLRA) of 1995.  And that process, which was "nobody's plan," has
developed in some "unexpected and unintended ways."

The judge, who was nominated by former president Bill Clinton,
zeroed in on the small size of settlements, which he suggested
were a product of some of the current incentives.

The median ratio of settlements to investor losses has declined
from 7 percent in 1996 to an all-time low of 1 percent in 2011,
according to research firm NERA Economic Consulting.  A new report
on Dec. 11 by NERA found the median settlement so far in 2012 was
$11.1 million, up from $7.5 million last year.

Those statistics are before taking into account the fees of
plaintiffs' lawyers, which can be up to a third of settlements,
Judge Kaplan said.  Adding in "comparable" costs on the defense
side, "we as a society are probably paying about a dollar for
every dollar recovered in securities class action settlements,"
Judge Kaplan said.

Plaintiffs' lawyers have an "incentive to settle and thereby earn
a sure fee rather than try a case and take that risk," he said.

Besides looking at how plaintiffs' lawyers are paid, Judge Kaplan
also said that there should be an examination of how they get
their clients.

Under the PSLRA, the plaintiff with the largest losses typically
is named lead plaintiff.  That has resulted in institutional
investors like public pension funds dominating the field.

But Judge Kaplan cited a report by Columbia Law School professor
John Coffee that said plaintiffs' lawyers hire lobbyists and
contribute campaign funds to officials who oversee those pension
funds.

"It needs to be looked at, I suggest," he said.

Judge Kaplan also said "troublesome" questions have arisen over
the basic premise underlying a seminal 1988 U.S. Supreme Court
case, Basic Inc. v. Levinson, which enshrined the so-called
presumption of reliance in a fraud-on-the-market case underlying
all modern securities class actions.

Under that theory, stock prices are assumed to take into account
all available information to investors.  Any misstatement by a
company can, under this theory, harm investors, whether they
personally knew of it or not, since a fraud on the entire market
is assumed to affect the price of the stock.

But Judge Kaplan said recent research found that stock prices do
not incorporate all known information due to "structural
obstacles" in the sale of securities.  Investors also don't always
rely on price to buy stocks, sometimes buying and selling them on
the assumption they always go up, he said.

Judge Kaplan said that modern securities class actions depend on
the idea that plaintiffs are presumed to have relied on a
misstatement in a fraud-on-the-market case.

"If the foundations are on sand like the houses on the south shore
of Staten Island, they're not going to bear the weight upon them,"
he said, referring to the effect of Superstorm Sandy on parts of
New York.

Judge Kaplan also suggested that the current system for dismissing
lawsuits may be failing.

Under the PSLRA, plaintiffs cannot take depositions or obtain
evidence from defendants until after a court holds the allegations
in their complaint are plausible and deny a motion to dismiss.

But recent U.S. Supreme Court cases have heightened that pleading
standard.  Judge Kaplan estimated that as much as 30 percent of
class actions today are dismissed before discovery can be taken.

"You have to wonder if too many healthy babies are being thrown
out with the bath water," he said.


                           *********

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  * * *