CAR_Public/121218.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Tuesday, December 18, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 250

                             Headlines


ADIDAS: Sued Over Bogus Claims on "Tech-Fit Compression Gear"
AMERICAN MATTRESS: Recalls 1,500 Renovated/Rebuilt Mattresses
BROADWIND ENERGY: Class Cert. Bid Pending in Securities Suit
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Awaits Dismissal Bid Ruling in Kansas Suit
CHINA EDUCATION: March 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

CLAUDIA'S CANINE: Recalls Dogcandy(R) Hound Cakes
EASY-REST INC: Recalls 3,800 "Classic" Foam Core Mattresses
ENESCO LLC: Recalls 1,600 Shelly's Diner(R) Collectible Ceramic
ENSIGN GROUP: Proposed Medicare Coverage Settlement Filed in Oct.
ENSIGN GROUP: Still Awaits Approval of Staffing Suit Settlement

EXELON CORP: Bid to Dismiss Zion Station Suit Remains Pending
EXELON CORP: Constellation Securities Class Action Suits Pending
GAIA HERBS: Sued for Misrepresenting Ginkgo Products' Efficacy
GEORGE JUNIOR: Employee Files FLSA Class Action in Pennsylvania
GOLIVE! MOBILE: Faces Class Action in Colorado Over Cramming

GREENBERG TRAURIG: Ex-Shareholder Challenges Arbitration Bid
HERSHEY CO: Judge Allows Consumers to Sue as Class in Cartel Suit
JEFFERIES GROUP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware
KEYBANK: Class Action Plaintiffs Challenge Arbitration Bid
METABOLIX INC: "Coyne" Suit Still Pending in Massachusetts

METLIFE INC: Sun Life Seeks Indemnification for Canadian Suits
METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Sales Practices
METLIFE INC: GM Retirees Appeal Dismissal of Suit vs. MLIC
METLIFE INC: MTL Has Yet to Finalize "Roberts" Suit Settlement
METLIFE INC: "Birmingham" Suit Plaintiff Wants Case Remanded

METLIFE INC: Seeks Dismissal of "Westland" Class Action Suit
METLIFE INC: Still Awaits Ruling on Judgment Bid in Nevada Suit
NORCOLD INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective RV Refrigerators
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Settles Coupon Class Action for $58 Million
TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls 110 Cases of Hearts of Romaine 10 oz. Bags

UNITED COMMTEL: Faces FLSA Violations Class Suit in California
UNITED STATES: Cold War Experiment Suit Set for Trial Next Year
WAL-MART: Brad Seligman to File for Class Certification in April


                          *********

ADIDAS: Sued Over Bogus Claims on "Tech-Fit Compression Gear"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Adidas pushes its pricey
"tech-fit compression gear" with bogus claims that the clothes
"give your muscles more energy and less fatigue when you train," a
class action claims in Superior Court.


AMERICAN MATTRESS: Recalls 1,500 Renovated/Rebuilt Mattresses
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
American Mattress Manufacturing, of Atlanta, Georgia, announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,500 mattresses and mattresses with
foundations.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The mattresses fail to meet the mandatory federal open flame
standard for mattresses, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves American Mattress Manufacturing's renovated
(rebuilt) twin, full, queen and king-size mattresses, and
mattresses with built-in Bunkie boards.  The used mattresses were
stripped to the springs and rebuilt by American Mattress
Manufacturing in a variety of fabrics and colors.  The recalled
mattresses have a yellow tag with "American Mattress Mfg. Co.,
1899 Metropolitan Parkway, Atlanta, GA 30315."  Rebuilt mattresses
with a federal tag, indicating they meet the federal mattress
flammability standard, are not included in this recall.  Pictures
of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13068.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at Bren-Wil Mattress Wholesale, in Millbrook,
Alabama; A&R Furniture, in Macon, Georgia; Ahnn's Mattress, in
Hampton, Georgia; Blair Village Pawn Shop, in Atlanta, Georgia;
E&S Mattress Discount, in Columbus, Georgia; General Furnishing,
in Loganville, Georgia; HRC Furniture, in Jackson, Georgia;
Mattress for Less, in Macon, Georgia; Mattress 4 Sale, in
Riverdale and Forest Park, Georgia; Starlite Furnishing, in
Chamblee, Georgia; Mega Mattress Outlet, in Jackson, Mississippi,
from December 2010 through September 2011 for between $30 and
$200.

Consumers should immediately contact American Mattress
Manufacturing and arrange to have the recalled mattress sets
picked up, rebuilt to be compliant with the federal flammability
standards and returned to the consumer.  American Mattress
Manufacturing may be reached toll-free at (855) 628-6344, from
10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or
online at http://www.americanmattressmfg.com/and click on the
recall link for more information.


BROADWIND ENERGY: Class Cert. Bid Pending in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Broadwind Energy, Inc. disclosed in its November 7, 2012, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012, that a motion for class
certification is pending in a putative class action filed in
Illinois.

On February 11, 2011, a putative class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, against the Company and certain of its
current or former officers and directors.  The lawsuit is
purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between March 17, 2009, and August 9, 2010.  A lead
plaintiff has been appointed and an amended complaint was filed on
September 13, 2011.  The amended complaint names as additional
defendants certain of the Company's current and former directors,
certain Tontine entities, and Jeffrey Gendell, a principal of
Tontine.  The complaint seeks to allege that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and/or Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing or
causing to be issued a series of allegedly false and/or misleading
statements concerning the Company's financial results, operations,
and prospects, including with respect to the January 2010
secondary public offering of the Company's common stock.  The
plaintiffs allege that the Company's statements were false and
misleading because, among other things, the Company's reported
financial results during the class period allegedly violated
generally accepted accounting principles because they failed to
reflect the impairment of goodwill and other intangible assets,
and the Company allegedly failed to disclose known trends and
other information regarding certain customer relationships at Brad
Foote. In support of their claims, the plaintiffs rely in part
upon six alleged confidential informants, all of whom are alleged
to be former employees of the Company.

On November 18, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.  On
April 19, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Company's motion.  The Court dismissed all claims with prejudice
against each of the named current and former officers except for
J. Cameron Drecoll and held that the plaintiffs had failed to
state a claim for any alleged misstatements made after March 19,
2010.  In addition, the Court dismissed all claims with prejudice
against the named Tontine entities and Mr. Gendell.  The Court
denied the motion with respect to certain of the claims asserted
against the Company and Mr. Drecoll.  The Company filed its answer
and affirmative defenses on May 21, 2012.  On June 22, 2012,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification which is not yet
fully briefed.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend the remaining
claims asserted against it.

Broadwind Energy, Inc. provides technologically advanced high-
value products and services to customers in the energy, mining and
infrastructure sectors, primarily in the United States.  Its most
significant presence is within the U.S. wind industry, where its
product and service portfolio provides its customers, including
wind turbine manufacturers, wind farm developers and wind farm
operators, with access to a broad array of component and service
offerings.  The Company is based in Naperville, Illinois.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Awaits Dismissal Bid Ruling in Kansas Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on
plaintiffs' motion to dismiss certain defendants, including
CenterPoint Energy defendants, from their lawsuits pending in
Kansas court, 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.

CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp. and, together with
its subsidiaries, CERC), and certain of its subsidiaries are
defendants in two mismeasurement lawsuits brought against
approximately 245 pipeline companies and their affiliates pending
in state court in Stevens County, Kansas.  In one case (originally
filed in May 1999 and amended four times), the plaintiffs purport
to represent a class of royalty owners who allege that the
defendants have engaged in systematic mismeasurement of the volume
of natural gas for more than 25 years.  The plaintiffs amended
their petition in this lawsuit in July 2003 in response to an
order from the judge denying certification of the plaintiffs'
alleged class.  In the amendment, the plaintiffs dismissed their
claims against certain defendants (including two CERC Corp.
subsidiaries), limited the scope of the class of plaintiffs they
purport to represent and eliminated previously asserted claims
based on mismeasurement of the British thermal unit (Btu) content
of the gas.  The same plaintiffs then filed a second lawsuit,
again as representatives of a putative class of royalty owners in
which they assert their claims that the defendants have engaged in
systematic mismeasurement of the Btu content of natural gas for
more than 25 years.  In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, along with statutory penalties, treble
damages, interest, costs and fees.  In September 2009, the
district court in Stevens County, Kansas, denied plaintiffs'
request for class certification of their case and, in March 2010,
denied the plaintiffs' request for reconsideration of that order.

In July 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss certain
defendants from both lawsuits, including the remaining CenterPoint
Energy defendants.

CERC believes that there has been no systematic mismeasurement of
gas and that these lawsuits are without merit.  CERC and
CenterPoint Energy do not expect the ultimate outcome of the
lawsuits to have a material impact on the financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows of either CenterPoint Energy
or CERC.


CHINA EDUCATION: March 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Dec. 13 disclosed that the United
States District Court Central District of California, Western
Division has approved the following announcement of a proposed
class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of publicly-
traded common stock of China Education Alliance, Inc.:

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY-TRADED
COMMON STOCK OF CHINA EDUCATION ALLIANCE, INC. FROM MAY 15, 2008
THROUGH AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 7, 2010 AND WHO WERE ALLEGEDLY
DAMAGED THEREBY

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that this class action is pending and that
a settlement of it for $2,425,000 has been proposed.  A hearing
will be held on March 11, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5 before
the Honorable Christina A. Snyder, United States District Judge of
the Central District of California, 312 North Spring Street, Los
Angeles, California 90012 (the "Settlement Hearing") for the
purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement should
be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
whether the proposed plan for distribution of the settlement
proceeds is fair, reasonable and adequate; and (3) whether the
application for an award of attorneys' fees of 25% of the
settlement amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than
$100,000, and award to Lead Plaintiffs of not more than a total of
$4,500, should be approved.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT
FUND.  If you think you may be a member of the Class but have not
received the full printed Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action and the Proof of Claim and Release form
you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting:

    China Education Alliance Securities Litigation
    c/o Strategic Claims Services
    P.O. Box 230
    600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3
    Media, PA 19063
    Telephone: (866) 274-4004
    Web site: http://www.strategicclaims.net

or by printing them at http://www.strategicclaims.net

The motion for payment of attorneys' fees and costs will be filed
with the Court and posted at this Web site by February 4, 2013.

For any questions or inquiries, other than requests for copies of
the Notice and Proof of Claim, please contact Counsel for the
Class:

    Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
    Phillip Kim, Esq.
    The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
    New York, NY 10016
    212-686-1060

To participate in this settlement, you must submit a Proof of
Claim no later than January 25, 2013. You will be bound by the
Order and Final Judgment rendered in the Litigation whether or not
you file a claim.  As more fully described in the Notice, if you
wish to object to the proposed settlement or motion for fees and
costs, your objection must be received by February 18, 2013.  If
you want to exclude yourself from the Class, you can do so by
filing a request; your request for exclusion must be received by
February 11, 2013, in the manner described in the Notice.

Further information may be obtained by directing your inquiry in
writing to the Claims Administrator, Strategic Claims Services, at
the address listed above or through the Web site.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: NOVEMBER 19, 2012

BY ORDER OF THE COURT


CLAUDIA'S CANINE: Recalls Dogcandy(R) Hound Cakes
-------------------------------------------------
The product in question is a single production run and packed in a
7.5 ounce paw print bag marked with a best by date of 08-2015.
The best by date can be found on the ingredient label on the back
of the package just above the UPC bar code.  The UPC for the
Blueberry Hound Cake is: 692614010058; The UPC for the Holiday
Hound Cake is: 692614010041.

The recall applies to 7.5 oz. bags of DogCandy(R) Holiday Hound
Cake and Blueberry Hound Cake because the cakes have the potential
to become moldy.  These cakes were manufactured specifically for
PetSmart Corporation and distributed to approximately 130 PetSmart
stores in 36 states.  No other products have been impacted.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm332005.htm

Selected stores in the following states carried the cakes:
Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Mold was found on several cakes after they were delivered to the
stores.  Under investigation the Company discovered that the cakes
contained higher moisture content due to the product being
packaged while still warm.  The Company has taken every precaution
and implemented new additional procedures to correct the issue.

Claudia's Canine Cuisine(R) has not received any reports of
illness associated with the affected product.  If a consumer
purchased one of these cakes, the Company asks to return it to the
nearest PetSmart store for a full refund or send to Claudia's
Canine Cuisine(R) 100 Four Paws Lane, Maumelle, Arkansas 72113 and
indicate if the consumer wants a refund or a replacement product.
All shipping fees will also be reimbursed.

Consumers who have purchased any of the 7.5 oz. bags of
DogCandy(R) Holiday Hound Cake and/or Blueberry Hound Cake should
discontinue use of the product.  Consumers with questions may
contact Claudia's Canine Cuisine(R) Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m. to
5:30 p.m. (Central Standard Time) by calling 1-501-851-0002.  The
consumers may also send an e-mail to:
info@claudiascaninecuisine.com


EASY-REST INC: Recalls 3,800 "Classic" Foam Core Mattresses
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Easy-Rest Inc., of Portland, Oregon, announced a voluntary recall
of about 3,800 Classic by Easy-Rest Foam Core Mattresses.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The mattresses fail to meet the mandatory federal open flame
standard for mattresses, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Easy-Rest "Classic" model mattresses sold in
twin (model CL533) and in full size (model CL546).  Some
mattresses were also sold with a foundation.  The mattresses have
a red, zippered fabric cover over a five-inch foam core.  "Classic
5," the model number and the date of manufacture are printed on
the federal label attached to the mattress.  The lot number is
printed at the bottom of the state label attached to the mattress.
"Easy-Rest Inc." is printed on both tags.

                   Model
   Mattress        Number     Lot Numbers
   --------        ------     -----------
   Classic Twin    CL533      151, 152, 156,
                              161, 164, 167, 169,
                              171, 172, 179,
                              181, 183, 186,
   Classic Full    CL546      1004, 1005
                              SE001, SE102, SE103, SE104
                              2001, 2002, 2003, 31112

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13069.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
mattress and furniture stores in Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Ohio, Oregon, Utah and
Washington from September 2011 through September 2012 for between
$100 and $200.

Consumers should immediately contact the retailer or Easy-Rest to
receive a free zippered mattress liner to be placed over the foam
core and under the existing mattress cover.  Easy-Rest Inc. may be
reached collect at (602) 442-6609 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Pacific Time Monday through Friday, online at
http://www.easyrestinc.com/under "Important Recall Notice" or e-
mail at easyrestinfo@gmail.com for more information.


ENESCO LLC: Recalls 1,600 Shelly's Diner(R) Collectible Ceramic
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Enesco, LLC, of Itasca, Illinois, announced a voluntary recall of
about 1,600 units of Shelly's Diner(R) Collectible Ceramic.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The diner's power adapter can overheat and melt the adapter's
plastic housing, posing a fire hazard.

Enesco has received two reports of power adapters partially
melting due to overheating.  No injuries or property damage were
reported.

The recalled product is part of the Department 56 Original Snow
Village collection of lighted buildings and comes with a
traditional power cord that lights the interior and a separate
power adapter that lights the exterior.  The collectible is a
ceramic building shaped like a diner and is approximately 10 1/4
inches long by 6 1/4 inches high and 4 1/2 inches deep.  This
recall includes diners with date codes 03 12 JP01 or 05 12 JP01
stamped on the bottom of the diner.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13067.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
holiday stores and gift shops nationwide and online at amazon.com
from July 2012 through September 2012 for about $120.

Consumers should immediately stop using the diner's power adapter
and contact Enesco for a free replacement adapter or a full
refund.  Enesco, LLC may be reached at (800) 436-3726 from 7:30
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday Central Time or online at
http://www.department56.com/recall/for more information.


ENSIGN GROUP: Proposed Medicare Coverage Settlement Filed in Oct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed federal class action settlement that would end the
Medicare coverage standard for skilled nursing, home health and
outpatient therapy services that a beneficiary's condition must be
expected to improve was filed in October 2012, according to The
Ensign Group, Inc.'s November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

A proposed federal class action settlement was filed in federal
district court on October 16, 2012, that would end the Medicare
coverage standard for skilled nursing, home health and outpatient
therapy services that a beneficiary's condition must be expected
to improve.  The proposed settlement would require the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services to issue guidance stating that
skilled nursing, home health and outpatient therapy services can
be covered under Medicare so long as the beneficiary's clinical
condition required skilled care in order to maintain the
beneficiary's current condition or to prevent or slow further
deterioration.  Implementation of the provisions of this
settlement agreement could impact reimbursement for the Company's
services favorably.


ENSIGN GROUP: Still Awaits Approval of Staffing Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ensign Group, Inc. is still awaiting court approval of its
settlement of a class action lawsuit alleging violations of state-
established minimum staffing requirements, 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.

Healthcare litigation is common and is filed based upon a wide
variety of claims and theories, and the Company is routinely
subjected to varying types of claims.  One particular type of
lawsuit arises from alleged violations of state-established
minimum staffing requirements for skilled nursing facilities.
Failure to meet these requirements can, among other things,
jeopardize a facility's compliance with conditions of
participation under certain state and federal healthcare programs;
it may also subject the facility to a notice of deficiency, a
citation, civil money penalty, or litigation.  These "staffing"
lawsuits have become more prevalent in the wake of a previous
substantial jury award against one of the Company's competitors,
and the Company expects the plaintiff's bar to become increasingly
aggressive in their pursuit of these staffing and similar claims.
The Company is currently defending one such staffing class-action
claim filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, and has reached a
tentative settlement with class counsel that is awaiting court
approval.  The total costs associated with the settlement,
including attorney's fees, estimated class payout, and related
costs and expenses, are projected to be $5 million of which,
$2,596,000 of this amount was recorded in the quarter ended June
30, 2012, with the balance having been expensed in prior periods.
Assuming that the settlement is approved by the court, the
settlement will not have a material ongoing adverse effect on the
Company's business, financial condition or results of operations.

Other claims and lawsuits, including class actions, continue to be
filed against the Company and other companies in the industry.  If
there were a significant increase in the number of these claims or
an increase in amounts owing should plaintiffs be successful in
their prosecution of these claims, this could materially adversely
affect the Company's business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows.


EXELON CORP: Bid to Dismiss Zion Station Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit related to Zion Station
decommissioning remains pending in Illinois, according to Exelon
Corporation'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 1, 2010, Exelon Generation Company, LLC completed an
Asset Sale Agreement (ASA) with EnergySolutions Inc. and its
wholly owned subsidiaries, EnergySolutions, LLC (EnergySolutions)
and ZionSolutions under which ZionSolutions has assumed
responsibility for decommissioning Zion Station, which is located
in Zion, Illinois, and ceased operation in 1998.  On July 14,
2011, four people filed a purported class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
naming ZionSolutions and Bank of New York Mellon as defendants and
seeking, among other things, an accounting for use of Nuclear
Decommissioning Trust (NDT) funds, an injunction against the use
of NDT funds, the appointment of a trustee for the NDT funds, and
the return of NDT funds to customers of ComEd to the extent
legally entitled thereto.  If the plaintiffs prevail on the merits
of their claims, some or all of the NDT funds may no longer be
available to ZionSolutions for decommissioning Zion Station, in
which case, the contractual arrangement would require
ZionSolutions to utilize a line of credit to complete the
decommissioning.  In addition, the appointment of a NDT fund
trustee in this matter could impact Generation's future
decommissioning activities at other stations by setting a
precedent for the appointment of trustees for NDT funds.

On July 20, 2012, ZionSolutions and Bank of New York Mellon filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failing to state a
claim.  The matter is currently under review by the court.


EXELON CORP: Constellation Securities Class Action Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation continues to defend securities class action
lawsuits filed by Constellation Energy Group, Inc. debenture
holders, 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 March 12, 2012, Constellation Energy Group, Inc. merged into
Exelon with Exelon continuing as the surviving corporation
pursuant to the transactions contemplated by the Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement").  As a result of the
merger transaction, Exelon Generation Company, LLC includes the
former Constellation customer supply and generation businesses.
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, formerly Constellation's
regulated utility subsidiary, is now a subsidiary of Exelon.

Three federal securities class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Courts for the Southern District of New
York and the District of Maryland between September 2008 and
November 2008 against Constellation.  The cases were filed on
behalf of a proposed class of persons who acquired publicly traded
securities, including the Series A Junior Subordinated Debentures
(Debentures), of Constellation between January 30, 2008, and
September 16, 2008, and who acquired Debentures in an offering
completed in June 2008.  The securities class actions generally
allege that Constellation, a number of its former officers or
directors, and the underwriters violated the securities laws by
issuing a false and misleading registration statement and
prospectus in connection with Constellation's
June 27, 2008 offering of Debentures.  The securities class
actions also allege that Constellation issued false or misleading
statements or was aware of material undisclosed information which
contradicted public statements, including in connection with its
announcements of financial results for 2007, the fourth quarter of
2007, the first quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2008 and
the filing of its first quarter 2008 Form 10-Q.  The securities
class actions seek, among other things, certification of the cases
as class actions, compensatory damages, reasonable costs and
expenses, including counsel fees, and rescission damages.

The Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion
to transfer the two securities class actions filed in Maryland to
the District of Maryland, and the actions have since been
transferred for coordination with the securities class action
filed there.  On June 18, 2009, the court appointed a lead
plaintiff, who filed a consolidated amended complaint on September
17, 2009.  On November 17, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety.  On August 13,
2010, the District Court of Maryland issued a ruling on the motion
to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim
with respect to the claims of the common shareholders under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and limiting the lawsuit to those
persons who purchased Debentures in the June 2008 offering.  In
August 2011, plaintiffs requested permission from the court to
file a third amended complaint in an effort to attempt to revive
the claims of the common shareholders.

Constellation filed an objection to the plaintiffs' request for
permission to file a third amended complaint and, on March 28,
2012, the District Court of Maryland denied the plaintiffs'
request for permission to revive the claims of the common
shareholders.

Given that limited discovery has occurred, that the court has not
certified any class and the plaintiffs have not quantified their
potential damage claims, Exelon is unable at this time to provide
an estimate of the range of possible loss relating to these
proceedings or to determine the ultimate outcome of the securities
class actions or their possible effect on its financial results.


GAIA HERBS: Sued for Misrepresenting Ginkgo Products' Efficacy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harold M. Hoffman, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Gaia Herbs, Inc., Case No. L-008695-12 (N.J. Super.
Ct., Bergen Cty., November 20, 2012) seeks redress for nationwide
injury inflicted on the country's consumer public.

The Defendant advertised, promoted, marketed, distributed and sold
a dietary supplement known as Ginkgo Leaf Liquid Phyto-Caps, based
upon false and misrepresented claims of product efficacy,
including claims that its consumption would improve memory,
cognitive function and recall, Mr. Hoffman alleges.  He contends
that in truth and in fact, the product can deliver none of the
benefits promised by the Defendant.

Mr. Hoffman is a resident of the County of Bergen, New Jersey.  He
asserts that he was exposed to and read, saw and heard the
Defendant's advertising and marketing claims and promises with
respect to its product, and thereafter purchased Ginkgo Leaf
Liquid Phyto-Caps in November 2012.

Gaia is a Delaware corporation based in Brevard, North Carolina.
Gaia advertises, markets and sells a variety of dietary
supplements to consumers throughout the nation.

The Plaintiff represented himself in the lawsuit:

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


GEORGE JUNIOR: Employee Files FLSA Class Action in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Pinchot, writing for The Herald, reports that an employee of
George Junior Republic of Pennsylvania is seeking class-action
status for himself and other employees he alleges are not being
paid for some work time.

George Junior Republic of Pennsylvania, which operates a Pine
Township residential treatment facility for delinquent and
dependent boys for parent company George Junior Republic, said all
employees are properly paid.

Grant Galloway, 51 Lake St., sued in September in U.S. District
Court, Pittsburgh, alleging George Junior Republic required
counselor/parent assistants to stay overnight beyond their
assigned shifts, without being paid for the time.

The assistants supervise and monitor resident youths when
counselor/parents are off duty.

Mr. Galloway alleges violations of the U.S. Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act.

In its response filed last month, George Junior denied the
allegations and said Mr. Galloway misinterpreted a previous court
decision as to whether "sleep time" is paid time.

George Junior said employees work 52-hour shifts that include two
eight-hour sleeping periods.  If employees are not disturbed
during their sleep time, they are not paid for that time, which is
considered off duty.

Mr. Galloway is seeking three years of damages and interest, plus
costs and attorney's fees.


GOLIVE! MOBILE: Faces Class Action in Colorado Over Cramming
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that GoLive! Mobile and Airpush
defraud people with (nonparty) Android smart phones by cramming, a
class action claims in Colorado Federal Court.


GREENBERG TRAURIG: Ex-Shareholder Challenges Arbitration Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
Francine Friedman Griesing, the former Greenberg Traurig
shareholder suing the firm in New York for gender discrimination
in a proposed $200 million class action, has asked a Pennsylvania
federal court to dismiss the law firm's motion to compel
arbitration or, at the least, change the venue.

On the same day Ms. Griesing filed her proposed class action
against Greenberg Traurig in the Southern District of New York,
the law firm filed a petition in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania to compel arbitration, which it said was required
under the firm's partnership agreement.

Now, Ms. Griesing said, the Pennsylvania court should dismiss the
petition or transfer it to the Southern District of New York.

"To do otherwise would deprive Ms. Griesing the right to litigate
her civil rights claims in the forum of her choice and would send
a message to employers that they can dictate an employee's choice
of forum simply by filing a related case elsewhere," Ms. Griesing
said in her motion.

Ms. Griesing is represented in the Southern District case by David
Sanford -- dsanford@sanfordheisler.com -- and a team of attorneys
at Sanford Heisler.  Sanford also signed onto Ms. Griesing's
motion in the Pennsylvania case, in which Neil J. Hamburg --
hamburgnj@hamburg-golden.com -- and Jodi S. Wilenzik --
wilenzikjs@hamburg-golden.com -- of Hamburg & Golden also entered
their appearance on behalf of Ms. Griesing.

Ms. Griesing said Title VII cases like the one she filed in New
York are governed by specific venue provisions and allow for an
action to be brought in any judicial district in which the alleged
unlawful employment practices occurred.  She said she filed her
action in New York because that is where Greenberg Traurig's chief
executive officer, Richard Rosenbaum, works.

Ms. Griesing further noted a district court can dismiss any action
in favor of a related pending action in another jurisdiction.  She
said the pre-emptive filing of the Pennsylvania action before
Griesing filed her New York action was "blatant forum shopping."

In its motion to compel arbitration filed in Pennsylvania on
December 3, Greenberg Traurig said the shareholder agreement
Griesing signed included an arbitration clause.  That clause said
the arbitration would be held either in Miami, where the firm is
headquartered, or in the city where the shareholder is employed.
Greenberg Traurig also added that any of the shareholders who
would potentially be members of the putative class are also bound
by the arbitration clause.

Greenberg Traurig is represented in the arbitration matter by
Baker Botts in Washington and Freemann Law Offices in
Philadelphia.

"Francine Griesing refused to submit her claim to arbitration as
required by the firm's shareholder agreement and instead filed in
federal court," Greenberg Traurig said in a statement on Dec.12.
"Accordingly, the firm filed a petition in federal court in
Philadelphia to compel arbitration."

Ms. Griesing sued Greenberg Traurig on December 3 after the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found "reasonable cause to
believe" the firm discriminated against women attorneys by
compensating them less than their male counterparts, according to
the complaint.

Ms. Griesing, who worked at the firm from April 2007 through
January 2010, alleged she was told to look for other employment
after complaining about Greenberg Traurig's compensation policies,
which she said created a "boys club of origination" that stifled
women's ability to generate business and bill as many hours as
men.

Ms. Griesing now has her own firm, Griesing Law, with eight
attorneys in Philadelphia.

Mr. Sanford said at the time Ms. Griesing filed her complaint
that, while Ms. Griesing was the only member of the suit at that
time, he expects the class to reach nearly 215 members, who worked
at the firm dating back to 2007.  He said they are seeking $200
million in damages.

Mr. Sanford also said at the time, in response to Greenberg
Traurig's motion to compel arbitration, that he was confident Ms.
Griesing would get her day in court.

Greenberg Traurig, however, adamantly denied Ms. Griesing's
claims.

"The lawsuit filed on Dec. 13 by Francine Griesing and her
attorneys is an affront to the accomplished, talented women of
Greenberg Traurig, who, like all of our lawyers, are compensated
based on merit," Greenberg Traurig executive committee member
Hilarie Bass said in the statement when the suit was filed.  "It
is nothing more than a financially motivated publicity stunt
without merit, backed by neither fact nor law."

Ms. Bass continued that the complaint misrepresents the EEOC
investigation, which she said included only a small number of
women in one office of the firm and in which Ms. Griesing was the
only complainant.

Attorneys for Ms. Griesing and Greenberg Traurig weren't
immediately available on Dec. 12 for comment on the latest filing
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

According to Ms. Griesing's complaint, Greenberg Traurig has a
closed compensation system in which Mr. Rosenbaum is the sole
decision-maker on all promotion and compensation matters, with the
advice of four other male shareholders who serve as the
compensation committee.

Greenberg Traurig has three shareholder levels, consisting of the
300 level, 500 level and 1,000 level.  The 1,000 level is the most
highly compensated, and less than 10 percent of that level are
female attorneys, according to the complaint.  The 1,000-level
shareholders get nearly exclusive access to the firm's retreats
where they can network and refer business, Ms. Griesing alleged in
the complaint.  According to the complaint, the 1,000-level
shareholders are estimated to earn $1 million more per year than
other shareholders.

Most new shareholders are placed in the 300 or 500 levels and are
required to remain in the 500 level for a certain period of time
before becoming eligible for the 1,000 level, according to the
complaint.  Ms. Griesing was hired at the 300 level, where all but
one of the female Philadelphia shareholders were placed.
According to the complaint, men with similar or less
qualifications were placed in the 500 level.  The 300 level is
equivalent to a nonequity partner, Mr. Sanford said.

"By assigning women to lower levels and delaying their promotion,
the firm denies its female shareholders compensation and
opportunities to which they are otherwise entitled," Ms. Griesing
alleged in the complaint.

She alleged the compensation system lacks sufficient standards,
quality controls, implementation metrics, transparency and
oversight.


HERSHEY CO: Judge Allows Consumers to Sue as Class in Cartel Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that candy
lovers who claim that a worldwide chocolate cartel inflated the
price of chocolate for years can sue as a class and retain expert
testimony, a federal judge ruled.

In an antitrust class action filed in late 2007, Hershey, Mars,
Nestle and Cadbury were accused of running a worldwide chocolate
cartel that conspired to fix prices on chocolate from 2002 through
2007.

The class claims that the chocolate industry's structure is
conducive to collusive behavior, in that a small number of
manufacturers control a large percentage of the market, preventing
demand from fluctuating.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all
pre-trial matters for 91 related actions in April 2008.

In May 2011, direct purchasers sought class certification, and a
hearing was held in November 2011.

The next month, Cadbury settled for $1.3 million and was dismissed
from the case.

Hershey, Mars, and Nestle -- which produce about 75 percent of the
U.S. chocolate market -- filed two motions in limine to exclude
expert testimony.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Conner, in Scranton, Pa., denied
the motions on Friday, Dec. 7.

Judge Conner found that the plaintiffs -- specifically, all those
who directly purchased standard and king-size chocolate bars for
resale from the defendants between December 2002 and December 2007
-- met requirements for class certification.

Judge Conner tossed the chocolate companies' claim that because
individual customers paid different prices or bought different
brands of candy, the class representatives' claims are neither
typical nor aligned with those of the class.

"The same allegations of a conspiracy to fix the price of
chocolate confectionary products will be made for all class
members.  The fact that class members ultimately paid a different
price for certain products is a damages conundrum which class
counsel has chosen to address through expert witnesses.  It does
not impact the court's assessment of adequacy under Rule
23(a)(4)," the judge wrote.

Judge Conner also brushed aside the defendants' argument that
proving fraudulent concealment necessitates an individualized
inquiry into when each class plaintiff knew or should have known
about the alleged conspiracy.

"First, the court notes that fraudulent concealment for a single
year of the alleged conspiracy is not the predominant issue in
this matter.  Class certification is still appropriate regardless
of whether it is ultimately determined that the statute of
limitations should be tolled.  Second, the linchpin of direct
purchasers' fraudulent concealment claim will be defendants'
conduct, i.e., precisely what they did to cover up their allegedly
collusive activities.  These acts are all common to the class and
will require common proof at trial," the 56-page opinion states.

The judge generally ruled in favor of the plaintiffs' expert,
James T. McClave, but was not persuaded by the defendants' expert,
John H. Johnson.

"[McClave] observes, and the court concurs, that list prices are
quite relevant to the underlying claims because direct purchasers
allege that defendants colluded to increase list prices, thereby
raising the starting point for price negotiations, ultimately
inflating the prices paid," Judge Conner wrote.

The court approved Dr. McClave's calculation that the ultimate
damages amassed for candy bars will total approximately $726
million.

"In summary, the court finds that Dr. McClave presents
statistically feasible methods for estimating damages on a class-
wide basis," Judge Conner concluded.

The original four defendants controlled more than 80 percent of
the $16 billion U.S. chocolate market in 2006, and half of the
world market, according to a 2007 class action filed in Newark.
Hershey's controlled 45 percent of the U.S. chocolate market in
2006, Mars 27 percent, Nestle 9 percent, and Cadbury about 4
percent, according to the Newark complaint.

Mars controlled 15 percent of the world market, Nestle 13 percent,
and Hershey's and Cadbury 8 percent each, according to that
complaint.  The chocolatiers then employed more than 400,000
people.

A copy of the Memorandum in In Re: Chocolate Confectionary
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 08-mdl-1935 (M.D. Pa.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/13/Chocolate.pdf


                         Daubert Review

A month after the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over the role
of Daubert review at the class certification stage, Judge Conner
granted class status to direct purchasers of chocolate candies
from major manufacturers after conducting an unabridged Daubert
analysis of their two expert witnesses, according to Saranac Hale
Spencer of The Legal Intelligencer.

Since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit hasn't
squarely addressed the extent to which expert testimony proffered
by parties seeking class status should be analyzed and other
circuits are split on the question, Judge Conner had little
guidance.

The direct purchasers' proof of predominance to satisfy the class
certification standard was based wholly on the testimony of its
witnesses, Judge Conner said.  So, he decided that he had to
examine the reliability of that testimony before deciding on the
class certification.

"Despite the paucity of relevant precedent in the Third Circuit
and the discordant views percolating in the circuits, the court
finds that a thorough Daubert analysis is appropriate at the class
certification stage of this MDL in light of the court's
responsibility to apply a 'rigorous analysis' to determine if the
putative class has satisfied the requirements of Rule 23," Judge
Conner said in In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litigation.

The multidistrict litigation consolidates 91 actions filed by
various purchasers -- including distributors, convenience stores
and grocery stores -- against the Hershey Co., Mars and Nestle USA
that allege the three companies, which produce about 75 percent of
the country's chocolate candies, conspired for five years to
increase the prices for their products, according to the opinion.

Judge Conner held that the testimony of both Dr. Robert Tollison
and Dr. James McClave satisfied the standard of the Federal Rule
of Evidence 702 and Daubert, which was first laid out with regard
to scientific testimony in the U.S. Supreme Court's 1993 opinion
in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals and was later expanded
to apply to all expert testimony.

"The crux of Dr. Tollison's testimony is his opinion that various
features of the chocolate confectionary industry create an
environment which is conducive to price-fixing," Judge Conner
said.  "In addition, Dr. Tollison utilizes the econometric
analyses undertaken by Dr. McClave to assert classwide antitrust
injury."

The models offered by Dr. McClave "demonstrate inflated prices
during the class period which cannot be explained by non-collusive
conduct," according to the opinion.

Dr. McClave told the court that the class was overcharged by 7
percent to 8.6 percent for regular-sized candy bars and 9.5
percent to 11 percent for king-sized.  That amounts to
approximately $524 million and $202 million, respectively,
according to the opinion.

After Judge Conner dismissed the defendants' Daubert motions
regarding the two experts, he went on to hold that the class had
met the standard for certification under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3) -- meeting the bar for predominance and
superiority.

Regarding the more onerous standard of predominance, Judge Conner
said, the "direct purchasers have thoroughly satisfied this
burden."

"Based upon the direct purchasers' expert testimony, the court
finds that proof of antitrust injury may be accomplished with
evidence common to the class despite the facts that: (1) chocolate
confectionary products are heavily branded and (2) many class
members paid different net prices for these products," Judge
Conner said.

Likewise, Judge Conner held that having the direct purchasers
proceed as a class is superior to handling their suits separately.

Judge Conner's opinion is a "pretty good example of how one would
comply" if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that Daubert review is
appropriate at the class certification stage, said H. Laddie
Montague Jr., of Berger & Montague in Philadelphia.  Mr. Montague
is on the team representing the class.

"I thought he handled it very well," he said of Judge Conner's
treatment of the Daubert issue.

If Daubert review of expert witnesses at the class certification
stage definitively becomes law as the result of a Supreme Court
ruling in Comcast v. Behrend, then Judge Conner's opinion in this
case would comply, Mr. Montague said.  The Comcast case originated
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

A Hershey spokesman said the company would continue to fight the
plaintiffs' allegations.

"We believe the allegations in this case are without merit," said
Jeff Beckman, a spokesman for Hershey.  "Hershey will vigorously
defend itself as the legal process unfolds," he said.

Jonathan Brightbill -- jonathan.brightbill@kirkland.com -- and
Thomas Yannucci -- thomas.yannucci@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland &
Ellis in Washington, D.C., are representing Hershey.


JEFFERIES GROUP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Jefferies Group is selling
itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Leucadia National
Corp., for $2.6 billion, in a stock swap, shareholders claim in
Delaware Chancery Court.


KEYBANK: Class Action Plaintiffs Challenge Arbitration Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Graham, writing for The Recorder, reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit didn't sound ready on
Dec. 11 to throw out California's Broughton/Cruz doctrine on
compulsory arbitration.

But that will probably come as cold comfort to about 120
vocational students trying to bring a class action against a bank
they accuse of cheating them out of tuition.

During an hour of much-anticipated en banc arguments in Kilgore v.
KeyBank, most of the court sounded inclined to leave in place the
California rule that exempts claims for public injunctive relief
from compelled arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.

But the court also suggested it would construe the rule narrowly,
with several judges questioning whether the students were
genuinely acting on behalf of the public, notwithstanding their
allegations of unfair competition.  "As I understand it, what the
plaintiffs really want is a court order that says they don't have
to repay KeyBank," Judge Richard Tallman said to Andrew Pincus --
apincus@mayerbrown.com -- representing amicus curiae U.S. Chamber
of Commerce.  "The school's out of business, so what are we
protecting the public from?"

Judge Andrew Hurwitz, the court's newest member, contrasted the
students' claims to one involving public health or safety.
"Assume I had a contract with a water company that said I'd
arbitrate any claims with them, and I found out there was poison
in the water," Judge Hurwitz said to Mr. Pincus, a Mayer Brown
partner.  "Would I be limited to arbitration?"

"Yes," said Mr. Pincus, because under the U.S. Supreme Court's
2011 decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion "even if there's a
good policy reason for the state law rule that tries to displace
the rules of the FAA, that state rule has to give way."

"That's a broader position than I think you need to take," Judge
Hurwitz told him, and several other judges appeared to agree.

Kilgore was brought by students who had enrolled in a school for
aspiring helicopter pilots.  The suit alleges that the school was
a sham -- that it duped limited-income students to take out big
loans from KeyBank and then shut its doors in 2008 before many
students could complete their training.  The suit seeks to enjoin
KeyBank from enforcing the loans and continuing to violate
California's Unfair Competition Law.

KeyBank had sought to compel arbitration based on the loan
contracts, but the plaintiffs argued that under California's
Broughton and Cruz precedents, class actions seeking injunctive
relief on behalf of the public can't be forced into arbitration.
A Ninth Circuit panel disagreed last March, declaring
Broughton/Cruz overruled by Concepcion, but at the urging of the
plaintiff bar the full Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc.

James Sturdevant, an attorney representing the students, argued on
Dec. 11 that arbitrators are limited to specific and discreet
awards limited to the parties before them.

But Mr. Sturdevant, of the Sturdevant Law Firm, was forced to play
defense throughout his argument.  Public injunctive relief may be
"a nice term," Judge Milan Smith told him.  "But the reality is
here it doesn't really mean anything, does it?"

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski asked Mr. Sturdevant if California could
eliminate the right of arbitrators to issue injunctions.  When
Mr. Sturdevant struggled to formulate his answer, Judge Kozinski
pressed repeatedly on whether it was yes or no.

"I don't know.  It's not like being in front of an optometrist,"
Mr. Sturdevant retorted, drawing laughter around the courtroom.

"When you read the opinion in this case, it's going to be like
being in front of an optometrist," Judge Kozinski fired back,
drawing more snickers.  "It's going to say yes or no to you."

Judge Hurwitz, Judge Tallman and others suggested the claims could
be fashioned as declaratory relief and submitted to arbitration
first, then depending on the rulings they could decide later how
to proceed on a public injunction.

"That's putting the cart before the horse," Mr. Sturdevant said.

"What's wrong with putting the cart before the horse?" Judge
Kozinski asked.  "Why not do it differently in this case and avoid
the whole question of public injunction?"

Judge Morgan Christen asked why an arbitrator couldn't issue an
injunction.  "Setting aside that they've never done it before,"
she asked, "why couldn't they?"

"Well, if they did it, they'd probably be out of business," Judge
Harry Pregerson responded.

"At least for claims under the unfair competition law,"
Mr. Sturdevant added.

Scott O'Connell, the Nixon Peabody partner representing KeyBank,
had an easier time than Mr. Sturdevant.  When Judge William
Fletcher asked how anybody could stop KeyBank's allegedly
deceptive practices, Mr. O'Connell argued that the bank stopped
writing loans to the helicopter school in 2005, three years before
it shut down.  The demand for injunction is just "artful
pleading," he insisted.

Judge Fletcher said he's "tempted to agree with you that it's
simply not a public injunction."


METABOLIX INC: "Coyne" Suit Still Pending in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit commenced by Hilary Coyne
remains pending in Massachusetts, according to Metabolix, 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 February 17, 2012, a purported shareholder class action, Hilary
Coyne v. Metabolix, Inc., Richard P. Eno, and Joseph Hill, Civil
Action 1:12-cv-10318 (the "class action"), was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming
the Company and certain officers of the Company as defendants.
The class action alleges that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the
Company's disclosures during the period from March 10, 2010,
through its January 12, 2012 press release announcing that Archer
Daniels Midland Company ("ADM") had given notice of termination of
the Telles LLC joint venture for PHA biopolymers, all in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5.  The class action seeks certification as a class
action, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, plaintiff's
costs and attorneys' fees, and unspecified equitable or injunctive
relief.  The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 15,
2012, that supersedes the initial complaint and demands identical
relief based on substantially similar allegations.


METLIFE INC: Sun Life Seeks Indemnification for Canadian Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as
successor to the purchaser of the Canadian operations of
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MLIC"), a subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc., filed a lawsuit captioned Sun Life Assurance
Company of Canada v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Super. Ct.,
Ontario, October 2006), in Toronto, seeking a declaration that
MLIC remains liable for "market conduct claims" related to certain
individual life insurance policies sold by MLIC and that have been
transferred to Sun Life.  Sun Life had asked that the court
require MLIC to indemnify Sun Life for these claims pursuant to
indemnity provisions in the sale agreement for the sale of MLIC's
Canadian operations entered into in June of 1998.  In January
2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely notice of its
claim for indemnification but, because it found that Sun Life had
not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted MLIC's motion for
summary judgment.  Both parties appealed.  In September 2010, Sun
Life notified MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Sun Life in Toronto, Kang v. Sun Life Assurance Co.
(Super. Ct., Ontario, September 2010), alleging sales practices
claims regarding the same individual policies sold by MLIC and
transferred to Sun Life.  An amended class action complaint in
that case was served on Sun Life, again without naming MLIC as a
party.  On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified MLIC that a
purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in
Vancouver, Alamwala v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Sup. Ct., British
Columbia, August 2011), alleging sales practices claims regarding
certain of the same policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun
Life.  Sun Life contends that MLIC is obligated to indemnify Sun
Life for some or all of the claims in these lawsuits.

The Company says it is unable to estimate the reasonably possible
loss or range of loss arising from this litigation.

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.


METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Sales Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Over the past several years, MetLife, Inc. has faced numerous
claims, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper
marketing or sales of individual life insurance policies,
annuities, mutual funds or other products.  Some of the current
cases seek substantial damages, including punitive and treble
damages and attorneys' fees.  The Company continues to vigorously
defend against the claims in these matters.  The Company believes
adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial
statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for
sales practices matters.

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.


METLIFE INC: GM Retirees Appeal Dismissal of Suit vs. MLIC
----------------------------------------------------------
Retired employees of General Motors have appealed the dismissal of
their class action lawsuit filed against a subsidiary of MetLife,
Inc., according to MetLife's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2012.

Merrill Haviland, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
(E.D. Mich., removed to federal court on July 22, 2011), was filed
by 45 retired General Motors ("GM") employees against Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company ("MLIC") and the amended complaint includes
claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of contract,
fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent
insurance acts, unfair trade practices, and Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") claims based upon GM's 2009
reduction of the employees' life insurance coverage under GM's
ERISA-governed plan.  The complaint includes a count seeking class
action status.  MLIC is the insurer of GM's group life insurance
plan and administers claims under the plan.  According to the
complaint, MLIC had previously provided plaintiffs with a "written
guarantee" that their life insurance benefits under the GM plan
would not be reduced for the rest of their lives.  On June 26,
2012, the district court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss the
complaint.  Plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.


METLIFE INC: MTL Has Yet to Finalize "Roberts" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roberts, et al. v. Tishman Speyer Properties, et al. (Sup. Ct.,
N.Y. County, filed January 22, 2007), was filed by a putative
class of market rate tenants at Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper
Village against parties, including MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiaries,
Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company ("MTL") and Metropolitan
Insurance and Annuity Company.  Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity
Company has merged into MTL and no longer exists as a separate
entity.  These tenants claim that MTL, as former owner, and the
current owner improperly deregulated apartments while receiving J-
51 tax abatements.  The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief and
damages for rent overcharges.  In October 2009, the New York State
Court of Appeals issued an opinion denying MTL's motion to dismiss
the complaint.  MTL has reached a settlement in principle, subject
to finalizing the settlement terms and court approval.  The
Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for this lawsuit.

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.


METLIFE INC: "Birmingham" Suit Plaintiff Wants Case Remanded
------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System has asked an
Alabama court to remand to state court its class action lawsuit
against MetLife, Inc., 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.

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common equity units in or traceable to a public offering in
March 2011, the plaintiff filed an action alleging that MetLife,
Inc., certain current and former directors and executive officers
of MetLife, Inc., and various underwriters violated several
provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 related to the filing of
the registration statement by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to
issue, materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions
concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of
dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to
beneficiaries or escheated to the states.  The lawsuit is
captioned City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v.
MetLife, Inc., et. al. (N.D. Alabama , filed in state court on
July 5, 2012, and removed to federal court on August 3, 2012).
Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.
Defendants removed this action to federal court, and plaintiff has
moved to remand the action to state court.  The defendants intend
to defend this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: Seeks Dismissal of "Westland" Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. and other defendants are seeking the dismissal of
the class action lawsuit styled City of Westland Police and Fire
Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y., filed
January 12, 2012), 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.

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011,
the plaintiff filed an action alleging that MetLife, Inc. and
several current and former executive officers of MetLife, Inc.
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to
issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning
MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in
insurance benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or
escheated to the states.  In May 2012, plaintiff amended the
complaint to add defendants including members of the MetLife, Inc.
Board of Directors and several other parties and to add claims for
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  Plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.  Defendants
have moved to dismiss the action.


METLIFE INC: Still Awaits Ruling on Judgment Bid in Nevada Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on its
subsidiary's motion for summary judgment in the consolidated class
action lawsuit pending in Nevada, 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 putative class action lawsuits captioned Keife, et al. v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed in state court
on July 30, 2010, and removed to federal court on
September 7, 2010); and Simon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (D. Nev., filed November 3, 2011), which have been
consolidated, raise breach of contract claims arising from
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's ("MLIC's") use of the Total
Control Accounts ("TCA") to pay life insurance benefits under the
Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance ("FEGLI") program.
Specifically, plaintiffs allege that under the terms of the FEGLI
policy, MLIC is required to make "immediate" payment of death
benefits in "one sum."  MLIC, plaintiff alleges, breached this
duty by instead retaining the death benefits in its general
investment account and sending beneficiaries a "book of drafts"
known as the "TCA Money Market Option" as the only means by which
funds can be accessed.  As damages, plaintiffs seek disgorgement
of the difference between the interest paid to the account holders
and the investment earnings on the assets backing the accounts.
In September 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification of the breach of contract claim, which the court has
stayed.  On April 28, 2011, the court denied MLIC's motion to
dismiss.  On May 4, 2012, MLIC moved for summary judgment.

Various state regulators have also taken actions with respect to
retained asset accounts.  The Department of Financial Services
issued a circular letter on March 29, 2012, stating that an
insurer should only use a retained asset account when a
policyholder or beneficiary affirmatively chooses to receive life
insurance proceeds through such an account and providing for
certain disclosures to a beneficiary, including that payment by a
single check is an option.  In connection with an ongoing market
conduct exam, MLIC has entered into a consent order with the
Minnesota Department of Commerce regarding MLIC's use of TCAs as a
default option.

The Company says it is unable to estimate the reasonably possible
loss or range of loss arising from the TCA matters.


NORCOLD INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective RV Refrigerators
---------------------------------------------------------------
RV News Service reports that consumers in California and Florida
have filed a lawsuit alleging that the manufacturers of Norcold
brand gas absorption refrigerators, used in RVs and boats,
knowingly sold defective refrigerators that posed a serious fire
risk but hid that information from the public and federal
regulators.  The class action lawsuit, filed on Dec. 12 in Orange
County, Calif., seeks relief on behalf of all persons who
purchased or owned RVs or boats in California and Florida equipped
with three models of Norcold-brand gas absorption refrigerators.
The complaint names Norcold, Inc., Thetford Corporation and Dyson-
Kissner-Moran Corporation (DKM) as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that since 1999, Norcold's refrigerators have
caused at least 2,000 fires resulting in millions of dollars in
property damage, personal injury and death.  The refrigerators
contain flammable gases under high pressure, including hydrogen.
The gases are heated by electricity or propane to circulate and
provide the refrigeration effect.  Fires are caused when defects
in the refrigerator design release the flammable gases, which can
then explosively ignite and spread quickly through the
refrigerator compartment and into the passenger area of the RV.

The lawsuit alleges that the companies knew of the potential fire
hazard associated with its refrigerators, but rather than
eliminate the design and manufacturing defects or provide an
adequate warning of the potential safety risks to users of the
product they tried to conceal and minimize these dangers through a
series of limited manufacturer-initiated product safety recalls
through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), beginning in 2000.

In each product safety recall, Norcold represented that there was
a single failure modality in a limited portion of their product
population.  They provided a retrofit that would fix that defect,
rendering the refrigerators safe to use.  But in truth, the
lawsuit alleges, the refrigerators had a number of different
failures that were common to all of the product lines, information
that was never adequately disclosed to NHTSA or users of the
product, nor remedied by the retrofit campaigns.  Further it's
alleged that the devices provided by the companies to "fix" the
defects were not only ineffective to remedy the propensity of the
refrigerators to cause fires, but were designed, when triggered,
to render the refrigerators inoperable and unrepairable, requiring
users to purchase new refrigerators that contained the same design
and manufacturing defects as the originals, and which had the same
propensity to cause fires.

According to Caleb Marker, one of the attorneys who represent the
RV owners, "One of the fundamental purposes of this litigation is
to hold Norcold and its co-defendants accountable for putting an
unsafe product into the marketplace when they were fully aware
that the product posed a serious risk of devastating fires that
cause property damage, injury or death to consumers.  It is also
unfair for defendants to force consumers to bear the cost of
remedying the design defects inherent in their products."

Consumers can get more information or a copy of the complaint at
http://www.zrclassaction.com


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Settles Coupon Class Action for $58 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Cassens Weiss, writing for ABA Journal, reports that a
Chicago lawyer who sued Southwest Airlines over a change to its
free-drink coupon policy has agreed to a settlement valued at up
to $58 million.

The class action suit by Adam Levitt had claimed Southwest
breached a contract with passengers when it decided in 2010 that
it would not honor unused $5 drink vouchers without an expiration
date.  The settlement is valued at between $29 million and $58
million, the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin reports.

The vouchers were given to passengers who purchased Business
Select seats with the airline.

A motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was granted,
Mr. Levitt's lawyer, Joseph Siprut, tells the ABA Journal in an
e-mail.  Mr. Siprut told the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin that the
settlement is "a grand-slam victory for the class."

Mr. Siprut told the Law Bulletin that class members can recover
without the actual physical voucher.  "All you have to do is fill
out the claim form and attest to the fact that you had 'X' number
of vouchers that you never had a chance to redeem," Mr. Siprut
said.

Former ABA President H. Thomas Wells Jr., a partner at Maynard
Cooper & Gale in Birmingham, Ala., represented Southwest Airlines.
Southwest had obtained dismissal of all consumer fraud counts in
the class action, and the breach of contract claim was the only
remaining count at the time of settlement.  "We were confident
that if the case were litigated, Southwest would have prevailed,"
Mr. Wells tells the ABA Journal in an e-mail.

The coupons at issue were intended to be used only when passengers
were flying on a Business Select fare, he said, and contained the
same information as the boarding passes, including the date and
confirmation number.  Customers know they can't use their boarding
pass on another day for another flight, Mr. Wells says, yet the
plaintiffs argued they should be able to use their drink coupons
on other flights since there was no explicit expiration date.

The $58 million settlement value is based on the fact that the
airline sold about 11.6 million Business Select tickets for the
period in question, and the coupons were valued at $5 each.  The
figure assumes no one used their free drink coupons.  The actual
value will be based on claims filed for replacement drink coupons.


TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls 110 Cases of Hearts of Romaine 10 oz. Bags
----------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Farms Retail, Inc., of Salinas, is initiating a
precautionary recall of 110 cases of Taylor Farms Hearts of
Romaine 10 oz. bags with an expiration date of 12-13-12.  This
product is being recalled out of an abundance of caution following
a single random finished package test conducted by the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) which tested positive for Listeria
monocytogenes.  There have been no complaints or illnesses
reported in association with this recall.  No other Taylor Farms
products or brands are included in this recall.

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people and others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

Details of the recalled product are:

  Brand          Item Description     Best By     State
  -----          ----------------     -------     -----
  Taylor Farms   Hearts of Romaine,   12-13-12    CA, FL
                 10 oz. bag

  UPC Number: 0 30223 04032 3
  Package Code: TFRS332A09

The "Best By" Code Date for the recalled products can be located
on the top/middle right portion of the front label.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm332111.htm

The Company is cooperating with the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) and California Department of Public Health (CDPH) regarding
this recall.

Customers who have purchased this product are urged not to consume
the product and should dispose of it.  Consumers may contact
Taylor Farms Retail, Inc. for further information at 866-508-7048
Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pacific Standard
Time.  Consumers with concerns about an illness from consumption
of this product should contact a health care provider.


UNITED COMMTEL: Faces FLSA Violations Class Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cornelius Wren and Sylvester Jackson, On Behalf of Themselves and
All Others Similarly Situated v. United CommTel, L.L.C., Ericsson,
Inc., and EUS, Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-06022 (N.D. Calif., November
27, 2012) is brought on behalf of employees, who worked more than
40 hours in a workweek as technicians for the Defendants.

The Defendants paid the Plaintiffs either a fixed salary or a set
hourly rate, the Plaintiffs say.  However, they contend, the
Defendants did not pay them overtime pay at the overtime rates
required under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California
Labor Code.  The Plaintiffs add that they were also not
compensated at the FLSA required minimum wage.

Cornelius Wren is a resident of Caddo Parish, in Shreveport,
Louisiana.  Sylvester Jackson is a resident of Collin County, in
Dallas, Texas.  The Plaintiffs are non-exempt employees that
installed telecommunication equipment in cellular telephone towers
for the Defendants.

United CommTel is a Texas limited liability company.  Ericsson and
EUS are Delaware corporations.  The Defendants conduct business in
the California market.  They advertise, employ workers, own
property, and contract with residents and businesses in
California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
          711 W. Alabama St.
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com

               - and -

          Lorraine T. Peeters, Esq.
          CAFFARELLI & SIEGEL LTD.
          425 Market St., Ste. 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 512-5230
          Facsimile: (415) 963-3497
          E-mail: l.peeters@caffarelli.com


UNITED STATES: Cold War Experiment Suit Set for Trial Next Year
---------------------------------------------------------------
BioEdge reports that at 81, retired Colonel James S. Ketchum is
still mulling over the morality of chemical warfare tests he
carried out on US soldiers during the Cold War at Edgeworth
Arsenal, a research facility near Baltimore.

In a profile in the New Yorker he discusses the controversial
experiments with hallucinogens to disable enemy soldiers.  They
are now the subject of a class action suit filed in 2009 by the
law firm Morrison & Foerster.  It claims that its ageing clients
suffered "multiple diseases and ailments tied to a diabolical and
secret testing program, whereby U.S. military personnel were
deliberately exposed, by government and military agencies, to
chemical and biological weapons and other toxins without informed
consent."  The case will go to trial next year and Dr. Ketchum
will be a star witness.

The New Yorker says that "The soldiers were never told what they
were given, or what the specific effects might be, and the Army
made no effort to track how they did afterward.  Edgewood's most
extreme critics raise the specter of mass injury -- a hidden
American tragedy."

The profile is not flattering.  Dr. Ketchum and his associates in
the late 50s and early 60s had odd personal lives and dabbled in
drugs themselves.  They often worked with drugs rejected by the
pharmaceutical industry.  One official explained, "The
characteristics we are looking for in these agents are in general
exactly opposite to what the pharmaceutical firms want in drugs,
that is the undesirable side effects."

The profile highlights the alleged lack of informed consent.
After the Nuremburg Trials, the US Army could hardly ignore the
need for consent.  But the subjects were soldiers and non-
cooperation was rare.  "Doctors informed the volunteers in
generalities and asked them to sign a consent form - usually long
before any specific test was announced.  The forms were designed
to offer few details; as one version was drafted, the words
'mental disturbance or unconsciousness' were replaced with
'discomfiture.'"

Dr. Ketchum has written memoirs of his experiences at Edgeworth.
He wrote of himself:

"Why was a kook like him picked for a politically delicate, high
profile, security headache? Here he was cranking literally
hundreds of unblemished, freshly washed and combed, bright-eyed
young men through a drug machine.  Making them nuts for a few
hours or a few days, and then, like calves who had been branded,
watching them for a short time to be sure they were okay, and
sending them back to their pastures.  It was such a risk, if you
looked at it objectively."

As he points out, there was no follow-up.  Although no one died
during the experiments, many men suffered psychological
derangement for days or weeks.  What happened after they were
discharged is unknown.


WAL-MART: Brad Seligman to File for Class Certification in April
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Foster, writing for The Recorder, reports that Wal-Mart's
effort to kill the new iteration of the long-running Dukes gender
discrimination suit with an early trip to the Ninth Circuit was
rebuffed on Dec. 10.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco wrote in a
nine-page order denying Wal-Mart's request for an interlocutory
appeal that early review wouldn't "materially advance" the
litigation and that there is "no substantial grounds for
difference of opinion" on whether the plaintiffs have yet
demonstrated a sufficient commonality of discrimination against
female employees on a corporation-wide basis.

In September Judge Breyer rejected Wal-Mart's bid to dismiss the
claims of a smaller proposed class of women in Dukes v. Wal-Mart,
01-02252.  A year earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a
nationwide class was too big to pursue similar gender
discrimination claims.  In the new version of the suit, the same
lead named plaintiff alleges that Wal-Mart managers deliberately
discriminate against female employees in select regions of Wal-
Mart stores based on their sex, denying them promotions and pay
increases.

In his order, Judge Breyer wrote that Wal-Mart, in moving for the
interlocutory appeal before he rules on class certification, "now
doubles down on its position that plaintiff's motion for class
certification does not deserve to see the light of day."  To Wal-
Mart's point that there is a lack of detail regarding a "common
mode of exercising discretion," Judge Breyer counters that, the
"record is devoid of evidence and detail on that point on account
of Wal-Mart's insistence on litigating (and relitigating) class
certification prior to a motion for class certification."

While Judge Breyer acknowledged that the case raises a novel
question about statute of limitations, he said the case would
benefit from developing a record.

"At this point in the litigation, an interlocutory appeal could
dispose of plaintiffs' class claims -- but so could the class
certification motion set to be submitted in January, which would
have the added benefit of developing the record on the Rule 23
commonality issue," he wrote.

Theodore Boutrous Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher, who represents Wal-Mart, did not respond to a
request for comment.

Brad Seligman, of Berkeley's The Impact Fund, said he tentatively
expects to file a motion for class certification on April 13.


                           *********

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  * * *