CAR_Public/121220.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, December 20, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 252

                             Headlines

AFFINION GROUP: Trilegiant-Related Suits Pending in Conn., NY
AFFINION GROUP: Webloyalty Still Defends 3 Suits in Calif., Ct.
ATLAS AIR: Class Cert. Bid in Antitrust Suit Still Pending
AUSTRALIA: Dec. 21 Class Action Registration Deadline Set
AUTOMATED REVENUE: ARMS Class Action Group Files Judicial Protest

AVIVA LIFE: Benefit Plan False Marketing Class Action Tossed
BAYER CORP: Judge Dismisses One-A-Day False Ad Class Action
BEN-GURION INT'L: Court Tosses Security Inspection Class Action
CNO FINANCIAL: Tentative Settlement Reached in Yue Lawsuits
CNO FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of "Nicholas" Suit Settlement

CNO FINANCIAL: Trial in Lifetrend MDL to Begin on March 25
CNO FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Ruderman" Class Suit Still Pending
CNO FINANCIAL: "Rowe" Class Suit Still Pending in Illinois
CNO FINANCIAL: Unit Defends Against "Glick" Class Suit
CYBEX INT'L: D&Os Face Class Action Over Proposed Buyout

DUN & BRADSTREET: "Martin" Suit Remains Pending in Illinois
DUNECRAFT INC: Recalls 95,300 Water Balz, Skulls, Orb, Flower Toys
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Faces Discrimination Class Action
IKANOS COMMUNICATIONS: Response in Amended Suit Due on Jan. 16
INTERMEC: Being Sold to Honeywell for Too Little, Suit Claims

K&H SUBWAY: Faces Class Action Over Labor Code Violations
LAKE COUNTY, IN: Judge Okays $7.2MM Jail Class Action Settlement
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Judge Allows Securities Class Action to Proceed
NESTLE WATERS: Faucet Shoppe Sues Over False Water Source Claims
NHLPA: NHL Files Class Action Over Unfair Labor Practice

NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Sued Over Wii GamePad Design Defect
PROSPERITY MORTGAGE: Aspen Denies Duty to Defend Class Action
SUNPOWER CORP: Settles Securities Class Action for $19.7 Million
UTAH: Highway Patrol Sued Over Alleged Wrongful DUI Arrests

* Accounting Standards May Affect EU Class Action Liabilities


                          *********



AFFINION GROUP: Trilegiant-Related Suits Pending in Conn., NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. continues to defend itself against putative
class action complaints in Connecticut and New York involving
Trilegiant Corporation and its membership programs, according to
the Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

Affinion had until Nov. 9 to file a response to an amended
Connecticut case.  It also continues to await court decision on a
plea to compel arbitration in the New York case.

                        Connecticut Case

On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and Trilegiant Corporation in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut.  The complaint asserts various causes
of action on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a
California-only subclass in connection with the sale by Trilegiant
of its membership programs, including claims under the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act, the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and for
unjust enrichment.  On September 29, 2010, the Company filed a
motion to compel arbitration of all of the claims asserted in the
lawsuit.  On February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company's
motion.  On March 28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a
notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, appealing the district court's denial of their
motion to compel arbitration.  On September 7, 2012, the Second
Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court denying
arbitration.  While that issue was on appeal, the matter proceeded
in the district court.  There was written discovery and
depositions.

Previously, the court had set a briefing schedule on class
certification that called for the completion of class
certification briefing on May 18, 2012. However, on March 28,
2012, the court suspended the briefing schedule on the motion due
to the filing of two other overlapping class actions in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut.  The first of
those cases was filed on March 6, 2012, against the Company,
Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Capital
One Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Apollo
Global Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., United Online,
Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l, Inc., FTD Group, Inc.,
Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corp., People
Finderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Raukuten USA,
Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc.  The second of
those cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against the same
defendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue, Inc.,
Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co.  These two cases
assert similar claims as the claims asserted in the earlier-filed
lawsuit in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its
membership programs.  On April 26, 2012, the court consolidated
these three cases.  The court also set an initial status
conference for May 17, 2012.  At that status conference, the court
ordered that Plaintiffs file a consolidated amended complaint to
combine the claims in the three previously separate lawsuits.  The
court also struck the class certification briefing schedule that
had been set previously.  On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting substantially the
same legal claims.  The consolidated amended complaint added
Priceline, Orbitz, Chase Paymentech, Hotwire, and TigerDirect as
Defendants and added three new Plaintiffs; it also dropped
Webloyalty and Rakuten as Defendants.

Defendants had until November 9, 2012 to respond to the
consolidated amended complaint.

                          New York Case

On November 10, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against
the Company, Trilegiant, 1-800-Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA,
N.A. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.  The complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of
several putative nationwide classes that largely overlap with one
another.  The claims asserted are in connection with the sale by
Trilegiant of its membership programs, including claims under the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act, and New York's General Business Law. On April 6,
2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a motion to compel
individual (non-class) arbitration of the plaintiff's claims.  The
Company's co-defendant, 1-800-Flowers.com, joined in the motion to
compel arbitration, and co-defendant Chase Bank filed a motion to
stay the case against it pending arbitration, or alternatively to
dismiss.  The Company does not know when the court will issue a
ruling on these motions.  On December 23, 2011, the plaintiff
sought to dismiss the Company, Trilegiant, and 1-800-Flowers
without prejudice.  On January 4, 2012, the Company and Trilegiant
objected to that dismissal (and 1-800-Flowers joined in that
objection), seeking among other things dismissal with prejudice.
Plaintiff responded to that objection on January 13, 2012, and the
Company does not know when the court will enter a decision.  Also,
on January 13, 2012, the plaintiff sought to dismiss Chase without
prejudice.  On January 17, 2012, Chase filed an objection to the
plaintiff's dismissal request. That issue is currently being
considered by the court.  The Company does not know when the court
will rule on that issue.

                          Arizona Case

On July 13, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Affinion Group, LLC ("AGLLC"), Trilegiant, Apollo Global
Management LLC, and Chase Bank USA, N.A., in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona.  The complaint asserted similar
causes of action as are asserted in a Connecticut litigation on
behalf of putative nationwide classes in connection with the sale
by Trilegiant of its membership programs.  On October 18, 2011,
Trilegiant, AGLLC, and Apollo filed a motion to stay, to which the
plaintiff never responded.  On November 1, 2011, Trilegiant and
AGLLC filed a motion to compel arbitration, and Apollo joined in
that motion and also sought dismissal.  On December 15, 2011, the
plaintiff sought to dismiss the action without prejudice, and on
December 21, 2011, Trilegiant, Affinion, and Apollo filed a brief
urging the court to dismiss the action with prejudice.  On January
17, 2012, Chase filed a motion to transfer this case to the
Eastern District of New York.  On or about February 29, 2012, the
case was dismissed without prejudice. The same lead plaintiff's
law firm also filed a substantially similar class action lawsuit
against the same defendants as well as Avis Rent A Car System,
LLC, Avis Budget Car Rental LLC, Avis Budget Group, Inc., and Bank
of America, N.A. in the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon, Portland Division, on July 14, 2011.  On
December 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal
without prejudice, and the case was terminated by the court on
January 6, 2012.

On August 4, 2011, those same lawyers filed another substantially
similar class action lawsuit against the same defendants sued in
the Arizona lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.  On December 23, 2011, the plaintiff filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal as to Trilegiant, AGLLC, and Apollo.
On February 10, 2012, the court entered an order dismissing the
lawsuit in its entirety without prejudice. On August 8, 2011,
those same lawyers filed a substantially similar class action
lawsuit against AGLLC, Trilegiant Corporation, Apollo Global
Management, LLC, and American Express Company in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. On December
5, 2011, the court granted American Express's motion to compel
arbitration. On December 14, 2011, the plaintiff filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal as to Trilegiant, AGLLC, and Apollo, and the
case was closed by the court on the same day. Finally, on October
25, 2011, these same lawyers filed a substantially similar class
action lawsuit against AGLLC, Trilegiant, Apollo Global
Management, LLC, IAC/InterActiveCorp., Shoebuy.com, and Chase Bank
USA, N.A. in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. On December 14, 2011, the plaintiff filed
a notice of voluntary dismissal as to all of the defendants except
Chase, and the case was terminated by the court on or about
February 21, 2012.

                              JPML

On October 6, 2011, the plaintiffs in the preceding class action
cases (other than the class action cases that were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on
March 6, 2012 and March 25, 2012, respectively) filed a motion
under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ("JPML") seeking coordinated pretrial proceedings of
those class action cases with the case that was filed on June 17,
2010 in the United States Court for the District of Connecticut.
(The plaintiffs later sought to include within the proposed
consolidated action the case they filed on October 25, 2011
(discussed above)).  Plaintiffs in those actions argued that the
factual allegations in the cases raised common issues that made
pretrial transfer appropriate; they sought transfer and
consolidation of the cases to the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut.  All of the defendants opposed that
motion.  On December 9, 2011, the JPML entered an order denying
consolidation and transfer of these cases.

Affinion Group Inc. -- http://www.affinion.com/-- is an affinity
marketing company in Stamford, Connecticut, and is currently
composed of subsidiaries known as Trilegiant Corporation (TLG),
Progeny Marketing Innovations, Affinion International, Affinion
Loyalty Group, Affinion Security Center.  The Company conducted
business before 2005 under the names Benefit Consultants Inc.,
Cendant, CUC International, and Comp-U-Card.  Affinion was formed
in July 2005 and is a privately held company controlled by private
equity concern, Apollo Management LP.  The business's assets were
acquired from the Cendant Corporation (which changed its name to
Avis Budget Group in August 2006).


AFFINION GROUP: Webloyalty Still Defends 3 Suits in Calif., Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Webloyalty Holdings, Inc.,
continues to defend three putative class actions in California and
Connecticut, according to the Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On June 25, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Webloyalty and one of its clients in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California alleging, among other things,
violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, fraud, civil theft,
negligent misrepresentation, fraud, California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act violations, false advertising and California Consumer
Business Practice violations.  The lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's
alleged conduct occurring on and after October 1, 2008.  On
February 17, 2011, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in the lawsuit.  On April 12, 2011, the Court
granted Webloyalty's motion and dismissed all claims against the
defendants.  On May 10, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice appealing
the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Plaintiff filed its opening appeals brief with the Ninth Circuit
on October 17, 2011, and defendants filed their respective
answering briefs on December 23, 2011.  Plaintiff filed its reply
brief on January 23, 2012.  No date for oral argument on
plaintiff's appeal has been set.

On August 27, 2010, another substantially similar class action
lawsuit was filed against Webloyalty, one of its former clients
and one of the credit card associations in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut alleging, among other things,
violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, civil theft,
negligent misrepresentation, fraud and Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act violations.  The lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's
alleged conduct occurring on and after October 1, 2008.  On
December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit, which had since been amended in its entirety.  The court
has not yet scheduled a hearing or ruled on Webloyalty's motion.

On June 7, 2012, another class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
against Webloyalty that was factually similar to the foregoing
California and Connecticut actions.  The action claims that
Webloyalty engaged in unlawful business practices in violation of
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200, et seq. and in violation of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.  Both claims are based on
allegations that in connection with enrollment and billing of the
plaintiff, Webloyalty charged plaintiff's credit or debit card
using information obtained through a data pass process and without
obtaining directly from plaintiff his full account number, name,
address, and contact information, as purportedly required under
Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act.  On September 25, 2012,
Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety.  Webloyalty also sought judicial notice of the
enrollment page and related enrollment and account documents.
Plaintiff's oppositions were due on November 26, 2012 and
Webloyalty's replies were due on December 17, 2012.   A hearing on
Webloyalty's motions is scheduled for January 14, 2013.

Affinion Group Inc. -- http://www.affinion.com/-- is an affinity
marketing company in Stamford, Connecticut, and is currently
composed of subsidiaries known as Trilegiant Corporation (TLG),
Progeny Marketing Innovations, Affinion International, Affinion
Loyalty Group, Affinion Security Center.  The Company conducted
business before 2005 under the names Benefit Consultants Inc.,
Cendant, CUC International, and Comp-U-Card.  Affinion was formed
in July 2005 and is a privately held company controlled by private
equity concern, Apollo Management LP.  The business's assets were
acquired from the Cendant Corporation (which changed its name to
Avis Budget Group in August 2006).


ATLAS AIR: Class Cert. Bid in Antitrust Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. continues to await a court
decision on plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the
consolidated lawsuit over manipulation of fuel surcharges pending
in the U.S., according to the Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc., is the parent company of its
principal operating subsidiary, Atlas Air, Inc., and of Polar Air
Cargo LLC -- Old Polar.

In 2010, Old Polar entered into a plea agreement with the United
States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") relating to the
previously disclosed DOJ investigation concerning alleged
manipulation by cargo carriers of fuel surcharges and other rate
components for air cargo services (the "DOJ Investigation"). Under
the terms of the agreement, approved by the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia, Old Polar will pay a fine of
$17.4 million, payable in five annual installments, of which the
first two payments have been made.  The fine relates to an alleged
agreement by Old Polar with respect to fuel surcharges on cargo
shipped from the United States to Australia during the time period
from January 2000 through April 2003.

As a result of the DOJ Investigation, the Company and Old Polar
have been named defendants, along with a number of other cargo
carriers, in several class actions in the United States arising
from allegations about the pricing practices of a number of air
cargo carriers that have now been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.  The consolidated complaint alleges, among
other things, that the defendants, including the Company and Old
Polar, manipulated the market price for air cargo services sold
domestically and abroad through the use of surcharges, in
violation of United States, state, and European Union antitrust
laws.  The suit seeks treble damages and injunctive relief.
In 2007, the Company and Old Polar commenced an adversary
proceeding in bankruptcy court against each of the plaintiffs in
this class action litigation seeking to enjoin the plaintiffs from
prosecuting claims against the Company and Old Polar that arose
prior to 2004, the date on which the Company and Old Polar emerged
from bankruptcy.  In 2007, the plaintiffs consented to the
injunctive relief requested and the bankruptcy court entered an
order enjoining plaintiffs from prosecuting Company claims arising
prior to 2004.

The court in the antitrust class actions has heard and decided a
number of procedural motions.  Among those was the plaintiffs'
motion to join Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. as an additional
defendant, which the court granted on April 13, 2011.  There was
substantial pre-trial written discovery and document production,
and a number of depositions were taken.  The case is currently in
the class certification phase, with additional depositions
occurring.  The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
filed on October 28, 2011, and the Company filed its response on
May 25, 2012.  The Company is unable to reasonably predict the
court's ruling on the motion or the ultimate outcome of the
litigation.

The Company, Old Polar and a number of other cargo carriers have
also been named as defendants in civil class action suits in the
provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, Canada that are
substantially similar to the class action suits in the United
States.  The plaintiffs in the British Columbia case have
indicated they do not intend to pursue their lawsuit against the
Company and Old Polar.  The Company is unable to reasonably
predict the outcome of the litigation in Ontario and Quebec.

If the Company or Old Polar were to incur an unfavorable outcome
in connection with one or more of the matters described above,
such outcome is not expected to materially affect our business,
financial condition, results of operations, and/or cash flows.

Based in Purchase, N.Y., Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc.
provides outsourced aircraft services to the global air freight
market. The Company, which is the parent of Atlas Air, Inc. and
Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc., has operations in Asia, Europe,
South America, the Middle East, Australia, Africa and the U.S.


AUSTRALIA: Dec. 21 Class Action Registration Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Georja Ryan, writing for Warwick Daily News, reports that it's
been six years of heartache, stress and suffering for thousands of
horse owners affected by the equine influenza outbreak in 2007,
and the fight continues as lawyers reach the next point in their
case.

The deadline for people to register for the EI class action
expires on Friday, Dec. 21, and Gary Turkington from Nobby's
Wattle Brae Stud encouraged anyone affected by the outbreak to put
their hands up now.

"If you have had any losses, hurry up and put your name down,"
Mr. Turkington said.

As one of the 600 class action applicants, Mr. Turkington has been
working with Maurice Blackburn Lawyers and Attwood Marshall
Lawyers to sue the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service.

"I definitely think the more people who stand up and be counted
the better," Mr. Turkington said.

He said he was "feeling confident" they would get the compensation
they deserved.

"I think justice will prevail and I believe they can't turn their
backs on such negligence," he said.

"A lot of people were disadvantaged and they have every right to
compensation for a mistake by the Commonwealth and they should be
held accountable."

He said it had been a long time in the making but was glad to see
some leaps towards an end result.

"I just wish we didn't have to wait five or six years -- when
something so grossly negligent takes so long to get compensated,
so many businesses have suffered because of it," Mr. Turkington
said.

"If they would have come to the party earlier it might have saved
a lot of heartache, but they didn't."

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers principal Damian Scattini confirmed the
case would be filed in the new year and urged those considering
joining the class action to do so before the deadline.

"If people sign up for this action, it costs them nothing as the
case goes along; there is litigation funding," Mr. Scattini said.

"This is the last and best opportunity to recover, from the people
who did this to them, the damage that was caused to them.

"Now is the time for the Commonwealth to make good the damage they
did."

To register for the class action or find out any more information,
visit mauriceblackburn.com.au or Freecall 1800675371.


AUTOMATED REVENUE: ARMS Class Action Group Files Judicial Protest
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gozo News.com reports that a Judicial Protest was filed on Dec. 14
by the Automated Revenue Management Services Ltd. (ARMS) Class
Action group supported by EUCAD.

The group had been preparing to submit a case in the Maltese
Courts "on behalf of a number of EU residents in Malta" who, the
group said "have been charged significantly more for their
electricity and water because their Maltese residency is not
accepted by ARMS on the basis of their Identity Cards and often,
other supporting documentation."

The ARMS Class Action Group have issued details of the Judicial
Protest which are shown below:

"For and on Behalf of Arms Class Action Group

Judicial Protest filed by Patricia Graham, James Parsons and
others: Respectfully disclose before this Honourable Court:

The protestors, for all purposes and effects at law, formally
advise the defendant company and Authority:

1. That the protestors are non-Maltese European Union citizens;

2. That the protestors are being subjected to non-transparent,
equivocal and lengthy administrative practices when applying for
the provision of non-commercial electricity and water services.
In certain instances, information requested by the defendant
company violates the protestors' right to data protection.  These
practices, when broadly compared to the treatment afforded to
Maltese European Union citizens by the defendant company, are also
discriminatory;

3. That the applicants are facing or actually being charged
electricity and water tariffs at financially disadvantageously and
discriminatory rates by the defendant company when compared
generally to Maltese European citizens.  Additionally, the
protestors are not enjoying equal benefits such as the
eco-reduction scheme;

4. That, amongst other things, the distinction existing at Maltese
Law between residential and domestic tariffs finds no counter-part
in the corresponding European legislation as the latter merely
distinguishes between residential and non-residential (commercial)
use and the legality of the said distinction at Maltese law (when
applied to EU citizens) is therefore questioned;

5. That the said administrative practice and higher tariffs being
charged (see 3 and 4 above) violate several EU directives and also
the principal EU Treaty which guarantees freedom of establishment
and the freedom to provide (and receive) services and the right to
good administrative practice provided by the EU Charter.

6. The protestors have the right to benefit from transparent,
simple and inexpensive procedures for dealing with their
complaints. In particular, as consumers they the right to a good
standard of service and complaint handling by their provider.
They have a right to out-of-court dispute settlements procedures
which enables disputes to be settled fairly and promptly,
preferably within three months, with provision, where warranted,
for a system of reimbursement and/or compensation.  They should,
wherever possible, be in line with the principles set out in
Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC of March 30, 1998 on the
principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of-court
settlement of consumer disputes;

Therefore the protestors, while holding the defendant company and
Authority responsible for any damage, whether direct or indirect,
willfully or negligently inflicted on them by the defendants
demand the full reinstatement of their rights.  Additionally, the
protestors reserve their right to be fully reimbursed, including
their right to legal interest from the date when such
reimbursement is due to the date of full effective discharge of
the defendants' obligations, demand that:

They are informed and in detail about the procedure in premise
number six;

In view of the delay already endured by the protestors, that the
defendants resolve all the issue mentioned herein within three
weeks from the date of receipt of this protest;

They are supplied with a comprehensive list of all documents
requested form Maltese Europeans when applying for water and
electricity for their non-commercial use;

They are supplied with a comprehensive list of all documents
requested from non-Maltese Europeans when applying for water and
electricity for non-commercial use;

They are provided with the legal reasoning for every difference in
the information requested in demands three and four and to ensure
that none of the information requested violates the protestors'
right to privacy;

The defendants declare whether they are ready to concede the
illegality of the application of the distinction between
residential and domestic tariffs to European citizens who have a
sole residence in Malta. Or as the case maybe, a secondary
residence in Malta;

The defendants provide the protestors with electricity and water
services for non-commercial use under the same conditions and with
the same ease of access that said services are provided to Maltese
European citizens and with a high level of customer service, as
provided for in the relevant European legislation;

the defendants propose a method of reimbursement in the event that
it results that the protestors have paid higher rates than those
they were entitled to enjoy for non-commercial water and
electricity use;

If the protestors fail to receive a comprehensive and satisfactory
written reply (a copy of which must be provided in the English
language) further legal action will be undertaken against the
defendants.

The defendant company is advised to not terminate or interrupt the
utility services of the protesters at any time during this
dispute.

All legal and judicial expenses reserved."


AVIVA LIFE: Benefit Plan False Marketing Class Action Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Law360, reports that a Texas federal
judge on Dec. 14 threw out a consumer class action by Washington
state physicians and dentists accusing Aviva Life and Annuity Co.
of improperly marketing a tax-free benefit plan without disclosing
IRS concerns over its legality.

Dr. Wing C. Chau and other doctors alleged in the action filed in
Washington state court in 2009 that Aviva defrauded them by
creating a "tax-sheltered investment" vehicle that it told them
would provide tax-free funds for retirement but which only gave
them a death payment.


BAYER CORP: Judge Dismisses One-A-Day False Ad Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Megan Stride, writing for Law360, reports that a South Carolina
federal judge on Dec. 14 dismissed a putative class action that
accused Bayer Corp. of making deceptive claims about the prostate
health benefits of its One-A-Day Men's Health Formula
multivitamins, finding the court lacked jurisdiction after
shutting down a class certification bid.

In an order that denied plaintiff Christopher Spelman's class
certification bid and tossed the case in one fell swoop, U.S.
District Judge Timothy M. Cain found that the plaintiff failed to
show his claim was typical among other proposed class members.


BEN-GURION INT'L: Court Tosses Security Inspection Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Yeshiva World News reports that a Nazareth District Court has
rejected a request to have a discrimination case viewed as a class
action, challenging security inspection for Israeli Arab citizens
at Ben-Gurion International Airport.

The court stated that for one thing, if one wishes to challenge
the Shin Bet's directive, one must present the guidelines as set
forth for these inspections by the Shin Bet, which can only be
addressed in the High Court of Justice.

In another similar case brought before the High Court, the court
was told that in the coming year, 2013, changes in the security
regulations regarding inspections are being implemented.  The
court agreed to place that case on hold pending the announced
changes.

The court rejected the petitioner has a legitimate claim against
El Al, Arikia and other airlines, pointing out they are compelled
to operate in adherence to the regulations set forth by security
agencies.


CNO FINANCIAL: Tentative Settlement Reached in Yue Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of CNO Financial Group, Inc. has negotiated a
tentative settlement aimed at resolving putative class actions
commenced by Celedonia Yue relating to Valulife policies,
according to the Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On March 4, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Celedonia X. Yue, M. D. on
behalf of the class of all others similarly situated, and on
behalf of the General Public v. Conseco Life Insurance Company,
successor to Philadelphia Life Insurance Company and formerly
known as Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company, Cause No.
CV08-01506 CAS.  Conseco Life is an insurance subsidiary of CNO
Financial.  Plaintiff in the putative class action owns a Valulife
universal life policy insuring the life of Ruth S. Yue originally
issued by Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company in 1995.
Plaintiff is claiming breach of contract on behalf of the proposed
national class and seeks injunctive and restitutionary relief
pursuant to California Business & Professions Code Section 17200
and declaratory relief.  The putative class consists of all owners
of Valulife and Valuterm universal life insurance policies issued
by either Massachusetts General or Philadelphia Life and that were
later acquired and serviced by Conseco Life.  Plaintiff alleges
that members of the class will be damaged by increases in the cost
of insurance (a non-guaranteed element ("NGE")) that are set to
take place in the 21st policy year of Valulife and Valuterm
policies. No such increases had yet been applied to the subject
policies.  During 2010, Conseco Life voluntarily agreed not to
implement the cost of insurance rate increase at issue in this
litigation and is following a process with respect to any future
cost of insurance rate increases as set forth in the regulatory
settlement agreement described below under the caption entitled
"Regulatory Examinations and Fines".  Plaintiff filed a motion for
certification of a nationwide class and a California state class.
On December 7, 2009, the court granted that motion.  On October 8,
2010, the court dismissed the causes of actions alleged in the
California state class.  On January 19, 2011, the court granted
the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to the declaratory
relief claim and on February 2, 2011, the court issued an advisory
opinion, in the form of a declaratory judgment, as to what, in its
view, Conseco Life could consider in implementing future cost of
insurance rate increases related to its Valulife and Valuterm
block of policies.  Conseco Life is appealing the court's January
19, 2011 decision and the plaintiff is appealing the court's
decision to dismiss the California causes of action.  These
appeals are pending.  The Company believes the case is without
merit, and intend to defend it vigorously.

On November 15, 2011, a second complaint was filed by Dr. Yue in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District on California,
Celedonia X. Yue, M. D. on behalf of the class of all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the General Public v. Conseco
Life Insurance Company, Cause No. CV11-9506 AHM (SHx), involving
the same Valulife universal life policy described in the preceding
paragraph.  Plaintiff, for herself and on behalf of proposed
members of a national class and a California class is claiming
breach of contract, injunctive and restitutionary relief pursuant
to California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, declaratory relief,
and temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief.  The
putative class consists of all owners and former owners of
Valulife and Valuterm universal life insurance policies issued by
either Massachusetts General or Philadelphia Life and that were
later acquired and serviced by Conseco Life. Plaintiff alleges
that members of the classes will be damaged by increases in the
cost of insurance (a NGE) that took place on or about November 1,
2011.  Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a
motion for certification of a California class.  On April 2, 2012,
the court granted the plaintiff's motions, which Conseco Life is
appealing.  Pending the outcome of that appeal, Conseco Life is
preliminarily enjoined from imposing the 2011 increase in the cost
of insurance on the members of the California class.  Plaintiff
also filed a motion on March 20, 2012 for certification of a
nationwide class. The court has stated that it will not issue a
ruling prior to December 17, 2012 on plaintiff's motion for
certification of a nationwide class.

Conseco Life has reached a tentative agreement with the plaintiff
in the litigation described in the two preceding paragraphs
regarding the material economic terms of a settlement, which would
upon completion and court approval.  The parties are continuing to
negotiate additional non-economic settlement terms. The settlement
is expected to include a reduction in the cost of insurance
increase implemented by Conseco Life in November 2011 and certain
policy benefit enhancements.  Any final settlement would be
subject to a court fairness hearing after notice to the
policyholders covered by the settlement, as well as other
conditions.

The Company recorded an additional pre-tax charge of $21 million
in its Other CNO Business segment for the quarter ended September
30, 2012 relating to the tentative agreement reached in the Yue
litigation. The liability the Company has established related to
the tentative settlement of these cases includes its best
estimates of the costs of implementing the tentative settlement,
if finalized and approved by the court.  While the Company
believes its estimates are adequate to cover these costs, the
estimates are subject to significant judgment and it is possible
that the estimates will prove insufficient to cover the actual
costs.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company for a group of insurance companies operating
throughout the United States that develop, market and administer
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  CNO became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in
connection with the entity's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries include Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington
National Insurance Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Company.


CNO FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of "Nicholas" Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of CNO Financial Group, Inc. is awaiting preliminary
approval of a class settlement in a complaint commenced by Daniel
Nicholas, according to the Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On February 6, 2012, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Daniel B. Nicholas,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Conseco
Life Insurance Company, Cause No. 12cv845.  Plaintiff in the
putative class action owns a Valulife universal life policy
insuring Plaintiff's life originally issued by Massachusetts
General Life Insurance Company (now Conseco Life Insurance
Company) in 1991.  Conseco Life is an insurance subsidiary of CNO
Financial.  Plaintiff is claiming breach of contract on behalf of
the proposed national class and seeks declaratory, injunctive, and
supplemental relief.  The putative class consists of all persons
who own or have owned one or more universal life policies issued
by Conseco Life which provide that the cost of insurance rates
will be determined based upon expectations as to future mortality
experience and who have experienced an increase in the cost of
insurance rates.  Plaintiff alleges that members of the class will
be damaged by cost of insurance charges that were increased due to
general economic downturn, Conseco Life's diminished investment
yields, and mounting policy losses.  On April 20, 2012, the
Company announced that Conseco Life had reached a tentative
settlement in the Nicholas case.  On May 17, 2012, the court
granted the motion to intervene which had been filed by the
Plaintiff in the putative class action commenced by Celedonia Yue
and venue has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.  The plaintiff in the Nicholas
case has filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

In connection with the tentative settlement in the Nicholas
litigation, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of approximately
$20 million in its Other CNO Business segment for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012.  The liability the Company has established
related to the tentative settlement of these cases includes its
best estimates of the costs of implementing the tentative
settlement, if finalized and approved by the court. While the
Company believes its estimates are adequate to cover these costs,
the estimates are subject to significant judgment and it is
possible that the estimates will prove insufficient to cover the
actual costs.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company for a group of insurance companies operating
throughout the United States that develop, market and administer
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  CNO became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in
connection with the entity's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries include Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington
National Insurance Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Company.


CNO FINANCIAL: Trial in Lifetrend MDL to Begin on March 25
----------------------------------------------------------
Trial in a consolidated class action complaint against CNO
Financial Group, Inc.'s insurance subsidiary relating to Lifetrend
policies is set to commence on March 25 next year, according to
the Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

                            Brady Case

On December 24, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Cedric Brady, et. al. individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Conseco, Inc. and Conseco Life Insurance
Company Case No. 3:08-cv-05746.  Conseco Life is an insurance
subsidiary of CNO Financial. The plaintiffs allege that Conseco
Life and Conseco, Inc. committed breach of contract and insurance
bad faith and violated various consumer protection statutes in the
administration of various interest sensitive whole life products
sold primarily under the name "Lifetrend" by requiring the payment
of additional cash amounts to maintain the policies in force and
by making changes to certain NGEs in their policies.  On April 23,
2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding the
additional counts of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, conversion and declaratory relief.  On May 29,
2009, Conseco, Inc. and Conseco Life filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On July 29, 2009, the court granted in part
and denied in part the motion to dismiss.  The court dismissed the
allegations that Conseco Life violated various consumer protection
statutes, the breach of fiduciary duty count, and dismissed
Conseco, Inc. for lack of personal jurisdiction.

                         McFarland Case

On July 2, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Bill W.
McFarland, and all those similarly situated v. Conseco Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 3:09-cv-598-J-32MCR.  The plaintiff
alleges that Conseco Life committed breach of contract and has
been unjustly enriched in the administration, including changes to
certain NGEs, of various interest sensitive whole life products
sold primarily under the name "Lifetrend." The plaintiff seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive
damages and attorney fees.

Conseco Life filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), seeking the establishment of an
MDL proceeding consolidating the Brady case and the McFarland case
into a single action.  On February 3, 2010, the Judicial Panel on
MDL ordered these cases be consolidated for pretrial proceedings
in the Northern District of California Federal Court. On July 7,
2010, plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification
of a nationwide class and a California state class.  On October 6,
2010, the court granted the motion for certification of a
nationwide class and denied the motion for certification of a
California state class.  Conseco Life filed a motion to decertify
the nationwide class on July 1, 2011.  On December 20, 2011, the
court issued an order denying Conseco Life's motion to decertify
the class as to current policyholders, but granted the motion to
decertify as to former policyholders. On March 5, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requesting
that the court enjoin Conseco Life from imposing increased cost of
insurance charges until trial with regard to 157 members of the
class, and on July 17, 2012, the court granted a preliminary
injunction as to 100 members of the class and denied the
plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction as to the other 57
members.  On September 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
partial summary judgment on their breach of contract claim.  On
October 19, 2012, Conseco Life filed a motion to decertify the
nationwide class, and on October 30, 2012, Conseco Life filed its
motion for summary judgment. Trial in the MDL proceeding has been
set for March 25, 2013.  The Company believes these cases are
without merit and intend to defend them vigorously.

On October 25, 2012, a purported nationwide class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
William Jeffrey Burnett and Joe H. Camp v. Conseco Life Insurance
Company, CNO Financial Group, Inc., CDOC, Inc. and CNO Services,
LLC, Case No. EDCV12-01715VAPSPX.  The plaintiffs bring this
action under Rule 23(B)(3) on behalf of various Lifetrend
policyholders who since October 2008 have surrendered their
policies or had them lapse.  Such policyholders are no longer
members of the class covered by the MDL litigation described in
the previous paragraph after the court in the MDL litigation
granted Conseco Life's motion to decertify as to former
policyholders.  Additionally, plaintiffs seek certification of a
subclass of various Lifetrend policyholders who accepted optional
benefits and signed a release pursuant to the regulatory
settlement agreement described below under the caption entitled
"Regulatory Examinations and Fines."  The plaintiffs allege breach
of contract and seek declaratory relief, compensatory damages,
attorney fees and costs.  The Company believes the case is without
merit and intends to defend it vigorously.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company for a group of insurance companies operating
throughout the United States that develop, market and administer
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  CNO became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in
connection with the entity's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries include Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington
National Insurance Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Company.


CNO FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Ruderman" Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal by a CNO Financial Group, Inc. subsidiary challenging a
federal court's summary judgment approval order in the "Ruderman"
lawsuit remains pending in the Florida Supreme Court, according to
the Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On December 8, 2008, a purported Florida state class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Sydelle Ruderman individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Washington National Insurance Company, Case
No. 08-23401-CIV-Cohn/Selzer.  Washington National is an insurance
subsidiary of CNO Financial.  The plaintiff alleges that the
inflation escalation rider on her policy of long-term care
insurance operates to increase the policy's lifetime maximum
benefit, and that Washington National Insurance Company breached
the contract by stopping her benefits when they reached the
lifetime maximum.  The Company takes the position that the
inflation escalator only affects the per day maximum benefit.  The
Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, and the motion
has been fully briefed by both sides.  The court has not yet ruled
on the motion or set it for hearing.  Additional parties have
asked the court to allow them to intervene in the action, and on
January 5, 2010, the court granted the motion to intervene and
granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification.  The court
certified a (B) (3) Florida state class alleging damages and a (B)
(2) Florida state class alleging injunctive relief.  The parties
reached a settlement of the (B) (3) class in 2010, which has been
implemented.  The amount recognized in 2010 related to the
settlement in principle was not significant to the Company's
consolidated financial condition, cash flows or results of
operations.  The plaintiff filed a
motion for summary judgment as to the (B) (2) class which was
granted by the court on September 8, 2010.  The Company has
appealed the court's decision and the appeal is pending.  On
February 17, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals referred
the case to the Florida Supreme Court, which accepted jurisdiction
of the case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-Q
SEC filing.

The Company believes the case is without merit, and intends to
defend it vigorously.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company for a group of insurance companies operating
throughout the United States that develop, market and administer
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  CNO became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in
connection with the entity's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries include Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington
National Insurance Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Company.


CNO FINANCIAL: "Rowe" Class Suit Still Pending in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend itself
against a consumer class action complaint commenced by the Rowes,
according to the Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On January 26, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Samuel Rowe and Estella Rowe, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bankers Life &
Casualty Company and Bankers Life Insurance Company of Illinois,
Case No. 09CV491.  Bankers Life is a subsidiary of CNO Financial.
The plaintiffs are alleging violation of California Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. and 17500 et seq., breach
of common law fiduciary duty, breach of implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing and violation of California Welfare and
Institutions Code Section 15600 on behalf of the proposed national
class and seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive
damages and attorney fees.  The plaintiff alleges that the
defendants used an improper and misleading sales and marketing
approach to seniors that fails to disclose all facts, misuses
consumers' confidential financial information, uses misleading
sales and marketing materials, promotes deferred annuities that
are fundamentally inferior and less valuable than readily
available alternative investment products and fails to adequately
disclose other principal risks including maturity dates, surrender
penalties and other restrictions which limit access to annuity
proceeds to a date beyond the applicant's actuarial life
expectancy.  Plaintiffs have amended their complaint attempting to
convert this from a California only class action to a national
class action. In addition, the amended complaint adds causes of
action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act
(RICO); aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and for
unjust enrichment.  On September 13, 2010, the court dismissed the
plaintiff's RICO claims.  On October 25, 2010, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint re-alleging their RICO claims.
On March 29, 2012, the court denied plaintiff's motion for
certification of a nationwide class and denied plaintiff's motion
for certification of a California class.  The court allowed the
plaintiff the opportunity to file a renewed motion for a
California class, which the plaintiff did on May 21, 2012.  On
July 24, 2012, Bankers Life filed a motion for summary judgment.

The Company believes the case is without merit, and intends to
defend it vigorously.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company for a group of insurance companies operating
throughout the United States that develop, market and administer
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  CNO became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in
connection with the entity's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries include Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington
National Insurance Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Company.


CNO FINANCIAL: Unit Defends Against "Glick" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc.'s subsidiary is defending itself against
a class action complaint commenced by Fay Glick, according to the
Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On August 23, 2012, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston), Fay
Glick, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v.
Bankers Life & Casualty Company, Case No. 1:12-cv-11579.  The
plaintiff is seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and damages
arising from Bankers' alleged systematic business practices of
delaying and/or denying the payment of claims for benefits
provided for under its healthcare insurance policies and recovery
of undisclosed interest that Bankers has charged on any
policyholders who paid premiums on a monthly or "modal" basis (as
opposed to paying premiums on an annual basis).

The Company believes the case is without merit and intends to
defend it vigorously.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company for a group of insurance companies operating
throughout the United States that develop, market and administer
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  CNO became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in
connection with the entity's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries include Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington
National Insurance Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Company.


CYBEX INT'L: D&Os Face Class Action Over Proposed Buyout
--------------------------------------------------------
Don Nollet, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. John Aglialoro, James Carll, Joan Carter, Art Curtis,
Arthur Hicks, Jr., John McCarthy, Harvey Morgan, Robert Smyth,
Cybex International, Inc., UM Holdings, Ltd., and CYB Merger
Corp., Case No. 654133/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., November 29, 2012)
arises out of the proposed buyout of the Company by its
controlling stockholder, UM, Cybex Chairman and CEO John Aglialoro
and his wife, Cybex Director Joan Carter.

The members of Cybex's board of directors, including Mr. Aglialoro
and Ms. Carter, have breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing
to the Proposed Buyout for inadequate consideration and without
any market check or sales process, Mr. Nollet alleges.  He argues
that the analyses of Duff & Phelps, LLP, the Company's own
financial advisor, show an implied per share price of up to $3.16,
well above the $2.55 being offered in the Proposed Buyout.

Mr. Nollet is a shareholder of Cybex common stock.

Cybex is a New York corporation based in Medway, Massachusetts.
Cybex is a manufacturer of premium exercise equipment designed and
marketed primarily for commercial use.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.  UM, a New Jersey
corporation, is a privately-held firm that owns and manages a
portfolio of companies with a mission to increase net worth
through appreciation in the value of an evolving array of assets.
UM, which is owned and managed by Mr. Aglialoro, its subsidiaries
and stockholders collectively own 49.5% of the Company's common
stock.  Merger Sub is a New York corporation wholly-owned by UM
that was created for the purpose of effectuating the Proposed
Buyout.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com


DUN & BRADSTREET: "Martin" Suit Remains Pending in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Nicholas Martin v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.
and Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc., No. 12 CV 215 (USDC
N.D. IL.) remains pending in Illinois, according to The Dun &
Bradstreet Corporation's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On January 11, 2012, Nicholas Martin filed suit against Dun &
Bradstreet, Inc. and Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc. in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) (47 U.S.C. Sec. 227) because
Convergys placed a telephone call to Plaintiff's cell phone using
an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") and because Dun &
Bradstreet, Inc. authorized the telephone call.  The TCPA
generally prohibits the use of an ATDS to place a call to a cell
phone for non-emergency purposes and without the prior express
consent of the called party.  The TCPA provides for statutory
damages of $500 per violation, which may be trebled to $1,500 per
violation at the discretion of the court if the plantiff proves
the defendant willfully violated the Act.  Plaintiff sought to
bring this action as a class action on behalf of all persons who
Defendant(s) called on their cell phone using an ATDS, where the
Defendant(s) obtained the cell phone number from some source other
than directly from the called party, during the period January 11,
2010 to the present.  Both Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. and Convergys
answered the complaint on March 2, 2012.  Discovery has commenced
and at this point, the court has not set any discovery cutoff
dates.  On August 21, 2012, the Court granted Plantiff's motion
for class certification, without prejudice, and gave the
Defendants until December 19, 2012 to seek a ruling that
decertifies the class.  On September 4, 2012, the Defendants each
filed petitions seeking leave to appeal this ruling to the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals.  Discovery is still ongoing.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company
cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter.  No
amount in respect of any potential judgment in this matter has
been accrued in the Company's consolidated financial statements.

The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation is a leading source of commercial
information and insight on businesses, enabling customers to
Decide with Confidence(R) for 170 years.


DUNECRAFT INC: Recalls 95,300 Water Balz, Skulls, Orb, Flower Toys
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Dunecraft Inc., of Cleveland, Ohio, announced a
voluntary recall of about 94,700 Water Balz, Growing Skulls, H2O
Orbs "Despicable Me" and Fabulous Flowers toys in the United
States of America and 600 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.

When the marble-sized toy is ingested, it expands inside the body
and causes a blockage in the small intestine, resulting in severe
discomfort, vomiting, dehydration and could be life threatening.
The toys do not show up on an x-ray and require surgery to be
removed from the body.

The firm received one report of an 8-month-old girl from Humble,
Texas, who ingested a Water Balz and suffered an intestinal
obstruction in August 2011.  The Water Balz had to be surgically
removed.

This recall involves marble-sized toys that absorb water and grow
up to 400 times their original size.  They were sold as Water Balz
(round-shape), Growing Skulls (skull-shape), H2O Orbs "Despicable
Me" (round-shape) and Fabulous Flowers (flower-shape).  They were
sold in packages of six in green, yellow, red, blue and black
colors.  "Dunecraft," the name of the toy and the model number are
printed on the toy's packaging.

                              Model      Amount
   Name                       Number    Recalled
   ----                       ------    --------
   Water Balz                 BC-0338    81,000
   Growing Skulls             BC-0320    11,850
   H2O Orbs "Despicable Me"   DM-0447     1,800
   Fabulous Flowers           BC-0440        36

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13071.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and United
States.  Water Balz and Growing Skulls were sold at Bed Bath &
Beyond, Five Below, Hobby Lobby, Lakeshore Learning Materials,
Microcenter, Urban Outfitters Direct, Wegmans and other stores
nationwide, and online at amazon.com, incrediblescience.com,
keyporthobbies.com, americantoystores.com and other Web sites from
September 2010 through November 2012 for about $3 per package.
The H2O Orbs "Despicable Me" were sold exclusively at Universal
Studios stores during June 2012 for about $3 per package.
Fabulous Flowers were sold exclusively at Milaeger's in Racine,
Wisconsin, from June 2012 through November 2012 for about $3 per
package.

Consumers should immediately take this recalled toy away from
children and contact Dunecraft for a free replacement toy.
Dunecraft Inc. may be reached at (800) 306-4168, from 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or online at
http://www.dunecraft.com/and click on the recall tab for more
information.


FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Faces Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Freedom Mortgage Corp.
discriminates against pregnant women and new mothers in home
loans, a woman claims in a federal class action in San Diego.


IKANOS COMMUNICATIONS: Response in Amended Suit Due on Jan. 16
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ikanos Communications, Inc. agreed with defendants that subject to
court approval, it will have until January 16 next year to respond
to the third amended version of a consolidated class action
lawsuit pending in New York, according to the Company's November
1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In November 2006, three putative class action lawsuits were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the District Court) against the Company, certain then
current and former directors and officers, as well as the lead
underwriters for the Company's initial and secondary public
offerings.  The lawsuits were consolidated and an amended
complaint was filed on April 24, 2007.  The amended complaint
sought unspecified damages for certain alleged misrepresentations
and omissions made by the Company in connection with both its
initial public offering in September 2005 and its follow-on
offering in March 2006.  On June 25, 2007, the Company filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on March 10, 2008,
the District Court dismissed the case with prejudice.  On March
25, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, and on
June 12, 2008, the District Court denied the motion for
reconsideration.  On October 15, 2008, plaintiffs appealed the
District Court's dismissal of the amended complaint and denial of
its motion for reconsideration to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit (the Court of Appeals).  On
September 17, 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's dismissal of the amended complaint, but vacated its
judgment on the motion for reconsideration and remanded the case
to the District Court for further proceedings.  On June 11, 2010,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint in the
District Court, and on November 23, 2010, the District Court
denied the motion.  On January 6, 2011, plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal with the Court of Appeals.  On May 25, 2012, the Court
of Appeals granted plaintiffs' appeal, finding that their proposed
amended complaint succeeded in stating a claim.  The case was
remanded to the District Court for further proceedings, and on
June 19, 2012, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Class Action
Complaint.

The parties have agreed that defendants' response to the Third
Amended Complaint is to be filed on or before January 16, 2013,
subject to Court approval.

The Company says it cannot predict the likely outcome of the
litigation, and an adverse result could have a material effect on
its financial statements.

Ikanos Communications, Inc. is a provider of advanced broadband
semiconductor and integrated firmware products for the digital
home.  The Company develops and markets end-to-end products for
the last mile and the digital home which enable carriers to offer
enhanced triple play services, including voice, video and data.
The Company has developed programmable, scalable chip
architectures, which form the foundation for deploying and
delivering triple play services.  Flexible communication processor
architecture with wire-speed packet processing capabilities
enables high-performance residential gateways for distributing
advanced services in the home.  These products thereby support
telecommunications services providers' triple play deployment
plans to the digital home and have been deployed by service
providers in Asia, Europe and North America.


INTERMEC: Being Sold to Honeywell for Too Little, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Intermec is selling itself
too cheaply through an unfair process to Honeywell, for $600
million or $10 a share, shareholders claim in Delaware Chancery
Court.


K&H SUBWAY: Faces Class Action Over Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Law360, reports that a former
employee of three Subway franchise stores on Dec. 13 claimed in a
putative class action in California state court that store owners
failed to pay him and his colleagues proper overtime wages and
provide legally mandated meal and rest breaks.

Joseph Munoz said Subway franchise owners and operators K&H Subway
Inc., LA Business Venture, Inc. and AAA Subway Investment Group
Inc. violated several sections of California's labor code when
they refused to pay him and other employees overtime wages and
give them adequate meal and rest breaks.


LAKE COUNTY, IN: Judge Okays $7.2MM Jail Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hammond News reports that a federal judge signed off Dec. 14 on a
$7.2 million settlement Lake County has agreed to pay to inmates
who complained about jail conditions.

More than 8,000 people have filed claims and are expected to get a
percentage of the settlement, said attorney Samantha Liskow, whose
Chicago-based firm Loevy & Loevy, represents some inmates in the
case.

U.S. District Court Judge Philip Simon gave preliminary approval
to the settlement agreement earlier this year but made it official
Dec. 14.

Inmates who were confined for 24 hours or longer in a holding cell
at the Lake County Jail between May 13, 2006, and Feb. 1 will be
eligible to submit a claim for payment from the settlement,
according to the agreement.  The deadline for affected people to
file claim forms in the case was Dec. 3, Ms. Liskow said.

Richard Flood, Roberto Cantu, Terrance Smith, Patrick Flood,
Jacqueline Drankus, Edward Walker and David Kurcz sued the county,
former Lake County Sheriff Roy Dominguez, former jail Warden Caren
Jones, former Warden Benny Freeman and unknown jail supervisors in
2008, arguing the jail conditions were "inhumane."

They claimed inmates were held for weeks or months in overcrowded
holding cells after their arrival and had to sleep directly on
concrete.  They also claimed medical care was "nearly nonexistent"
and the floor of the jail had human waste on it, according to the
initial complaint.


LOCKHEED MARTIN: Judge Allows Securities Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Thomson Reuters, reports that the battle
over whether a securities class action against Lockheed Martin
Corp. can move forward despite recantations by several
confidential witnesses cited in the complaint is over: U.S. Senior
District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan ruled on Dec. 14 that the
case can proceed.

In a brief order, the judge denied Lockheed's motion for summary
judgment, which was based on the contractor's assertion that four
of the six former employees quoted anonymously in the plaintiffs'
complaint "completely disclaimed the allegations attributed to
them."  Judge Rakoff not only rejected the company's request to
toss the lawsuit but in a separate second order certified the
shareholder class and appointed the firm responsible for the
disputed witness interviews -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd -- as
lead counsel.

Judge Rakoff's reasoning isn't yet clear, since the judge, in his
typical fashion, said he'd issue a longer written opinion at a
later date.  But Judge Rakoff at an October hearing in which five
of the once-confidential Lockheed witnesses took the stand
questioned the credibility of three of them.  At the hearing,
Judge Rakoff said it was "a more plausible possibility that they
said all sorts of nasty things about the company to (Robbins
Geller's investigator) for a variety of reasons and then chose to
try to cover it up when they were embarrassed by its coming out."

Judge Rakoff's eventual ruling will probably be more significant
for his analysis of the more nuanced questions of hearsay
evidence.  Robbins Geller's outside investigator, who was hired to
dig up evidence that Lockheed Martin misrepresented the
performance of its information technology division, also testified
at the hearing before Judge Rakoff in October.  After reviewing
the investigator's notes and phone records, the judge called him
credible but pondered the reliability of the information that he
obtained, since the investigator said he didn't always check if
the former employees had direct knowledge of the information they
conveyed.  Judge Rakoff said he would have to "look as to whether
the information that plaintiff in good faith relied on was, as it
turns out, double-triple hearsay or worse."

Even without a full explanation from Judge Rakoff, his two brief
orders mark a victory for the securities class action bar, which
has recently encountered a series of defense challenges to the use
of confidential witnesses.  The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 barred discovery until after a case survives a
motion to dismiss, leaving plaintiffs with few options to scrape
up evidence of securities fraud.  That's why so many complaints
now rely heavily on allegations garnered from former employees.

Shareholder lawyer Max Berger -- mwb@blbglaw.com -- of Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann defended the use of confidential
witnesses at a conference the New York City Bar Association hosted
on Dec. 11. Still, his firm and others have had to face defense
accusations in cases against Medtronic, BankAtlantic and Regions
Financial Corp that they misrepresented statements by former
employees.  Such recantations typically come after defendants
learn the identity of the informants, some of whom have severance
or retirement packages subject to confidentiality.

Mr. Berger noted the leverage that defendants have over former
employees as a result of such benefits because the onetime workers
still have friends at the company. "We don't know what precisely
is said, but we do know at times large corporate defendants can be
very intimidating to witnesses who have nothing to gain by
cooperating with us," he said.

But Scott Musoff -- scott.musoff@skadden.com -- of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom, who was speaking on the same panel as
Mr. Berger, said that when defendants reach out to confidential
witnesses, the former employees frequently say they didn't realize
they were being interviewed by plaintiffs' investigators.
Witnesses, according to Mr. Musoff, frequently think they were
speaking with a corporate representative, or else claim that the
plaintiffs have taken their statements were out of context.  There
are "numerous times where you do a little digging on the defense
side and you find that out," he said.

Neither a spokeswoman for Lockheed nor its lawyer, John
Hillebrecht -- john.hillebrecht@dlapiper.com -- of DLA Piper,
responded to requests for comment. Samuel Rudman of Robbins Geller
declined comment.


NESTLE WATERS: Faucet Shoppe Sues Over False Water Source Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
BevNet.com reports that a Chicago-area business has filed a class
action lawsuit against Nestle Waters North America Inc. claiming
that five-gallon jugs of its Ice Mountain Water brand are falsely
advertised as containing spring water when in actuality the water
comes from a municipal source.

The lawsuit, which was filed in October, states that The Chicago
Faucet Shoppe, a plumbing supply company, had been purchasing the
jugs from Nestle since 2008, believing that the water was sourced
from a natural spring.  However, in July 2012 a Nestle
representative allegedly told an official from The Chicago Faucet
Shoppe that the jugs are filled with tap water.

While it is estimated that nearly half of all bottled water --
including The Coca-Cola Co. Inc.-owned Dasani, and PepsiCo-owned
Aquafina -- sold in the U.S. comes from municipal sources, Ice
Mountain Water is marketed as "100% Natural Spring Water."  The
brand features images of ice-capped mountains on its labeling and
tells consumers to "Be Assured" on its Web site, stating that its
water is "sourced only from carefully selected springs."

However, on its Web site NWNA states that the company clearly
identifies the source and quality information on the caps of its
three- and five-gallon products.  In particular, NWNA labels its
five gallon jugs of Ice Mountain Water as being sourced from the
municipal system in Woodridge, Ill., and states that the water is
purified through a reverse osmosis process, according to a recent
story in USA Today, which cited an interview with NWNA spokeswoman
Jane Lazgin.

Nevertheless, the lawsuit alleges that NWNA is misleading
consumers into purchasing -- and paying more for -- water that
they believe is 100 percent natural, spring-sourced water.

"Nestle Waters . . . caused consumers to purchase five-gallon jugs
that they wouldn't have otherwise purchased," the complaint
stated.

The lawsuit is seeking punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other
compensation.

This is not the first time that NWNA has faced a lawsuit claiming
that the company is deceiving consumers about its water sourcing.
The company was sued in 2003 when a group of plaintiffs alleged
that the water used for its Poland Spring brand was marketed as
being sources from a spring "found deep in the woods of Maine" and
"exceptionally well protected by nature."  In actuality, the water
came from a well surrounded by parking lots.  NWNA settled the
case for $10 million in discounts and charitable contributions.


NHLPA: NHL Files Class Action Over Unfair Labor Practice
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that anticipating a possible
antitrust suit, the National Hockey League has brought its labor
fight against hockey players to federal court.

The league filed a class action suit on Dec. 14 in U.S. District
Court in New York, seeking to establish that its now 90-day
lockout is legal.  In a separate move, the NHL filed an unfair
labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board,
claiming the players' association has bargained in bad faith.

The NHL said it believes the union's executive board is seeking
authorization to give up its collective bargaining rights, a
necessary step before players could file an antitrust lawsuit.

NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly declined to comment on the
league's actions on Dec. 14.  The moves were made after the sides
held a bargaining teleconference, following two days of talks that
included federal mediators.

Players' association special counsel Steve Fehr, meanwhile,
declined to comment on the lawsuits or to confirm the union's
plans regarding a so-called disclaimer of interest.  But the union
issued a statement on Dec. 14 to address the NHL's actions.

"The NHLPA has just received a copy of the National Labor
Relations Board charge and has not yet been served with the
lawsuit," the statement said.  "However, based on what we've
learned so far, the NHL appears to be arguing that players should
be stopped from even considering their right to decide whether or
not to be represented by a union.  We believe that their position
is completely without merit."

Mr. Fehr, who took part in the conference call earlier on Dec. 14,
said the league didn't make its legal plans known during its
discussions.

If players choose to pursue a disclaimer of interest, the union
would essentially stop being a collective group to negotiate a
labor deal with the NHL.  The Canadian Press, citing unidentified
sources, said that the union's executive board requested a vote
from its membership on Dec. 13 that would give it the authority to
file a disclaimer.

Such a move wouldn't necessarily doom the entire hockey season
that has already been long-delayed and shortened.

During the NBA lockout last year, the basketball union made a
similar move.  But negotiations continued anyway and a tentative
agreement was reached within a couple of weeks.

The union then reformed in time for players to ratify the new deal
and begin a shortened season.  NFL players took the same route
last year, as well.

By filing the complaint in New York, the NHL guaranteed that the
legality of the lockout would be decided in a court known to be
sympathetic toward management.  The league is concerned that if
the union dissolves and seeks to have the lockout deemed illegal,
players could be due triple their lost salaries if they are
successful.

The sides had spent the previous two days in talks with mediators
in New Jersey.  On Dec. 12, union officials and league brass spoke
separately to mediators and not with each other.  There were face-
to-face talks between the sides on Dec. 11, but no progress of
note was achieved.

Without the presence of mediators on Dec. 14, a small group of
negotiators -- four a side without commissioner Gary Bettman or
union executive director Donald Fehr taking part -- got on the
conference call.

The NHL is looking for an even split of revenues with the players.
When it agreed last week to increase an offer of deferred payments
from $211 million to $300 million -- a package aimed at making the
lower percentage of revenue easier for the union to take -- it was
part of a proposed package that required the union to agree on
three nonnegotiable points.  Instead, the players' association
accepted the raise in funds, but then made counterproposals on the
issues the league stated had no wiggle room.

All games through Dec. 30 have been canceled, 43 percent of the
season, along with the New Year's Day Winter Classic and the All-
Star game on Jan. 27.

A 48-game season was played in 1995 after a lockout stretched into
January.  Mr. Bettman said he wouldn't have a shorter season than
that.  The 2004-05 season was lost completely to a labor dispute.


NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Sued Over Wii GamePad Design Defect
--------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that
Nintendo's new Wii U game controller rattles noisily in use,
distracting consumers from their video games, a class claims in
Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Joubin Rahimi claims that the GamePad controller
for the Wii U has a manufacturing or design defect that causes it
to "rattle" noisily, "thereby impeding the gaming experience."

Nintendo of America released the Wii U, the latest update to its
movement-sensing system, in November 2012.  A basic system costs
approximately $300, and the deluxe costs $350, according to the
complaint in the Northern District of California.

The Wii, predecessor to this version, sold more than 97 million
units as of 2012, according to the complaint.

A GamePad controller is the big selling point for the Wii U,
Mr. Rahimi says.  It comes with a built-in, 6.2-inch touch screen,
motion sensor, "rumble" feature, two analog thumb sticks and two
back-side triggers, according to the complaint.

Mr. Rahimi says he exchanged his Wii U at Best Buy three times,
but each time the controller exhibited the "same disturbing
rattling."  He also says other Nintendo consumers have complained
about the same problem on Internet message boards.

The Kyoto, Japan-based Nintendo knows of the problem, but has not
disclosed it to unsuspecting consumers, and it refuses to make
changes, according to the complaint.

Nintendo customer service center is likewise unhelpful, Mr. Rahimi
claims.

"Rather than solving the actual cause of the problem, Nintendo
merely advised Rahimi that if he held down all the buttons of the
GamePad controller at the same time (an abnormal action to take
while using the video game controller) the rattling would be
diminished," the complaint states (parentheses in original).

The class seeks an injunction and damages for breach of warranty
and violations of California's Consumer Civil Remedies Act,
California's Unfair Competition Law and the federal Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act.

Nintendo is the largest video game manufacturer in the world,
based on revenue, according to the complaint.  It allegedly sold
roughly 637 million video game hardware units and more than 4
billion software units as of September 2012.

Roy Katriel, of San Diego, represents Rahimi.


PROSPERITY MORTGAGE: Aspen Denies Duty to Defend Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that Aspen
Specialty Insurance Co. said on Dec. 14 that it had no duty to
defend a Prosperity Mortgage Co. loan officer in a $40 million
proposed class action over her alleged practice of inflating home
estimates, falsifying documents and issuing fraudulent mortgages.

A professional liability policy and fidelity bond issued by Aspen
to Prosperity should be rescinded and declared void because of
material misrepresentations made by the mortgage company in its
applications, the insurer said in a third-party complaint.
Prosperity sued Aspen and Lloyd's of London in July.


SUNPOWER CORP: Settles Securities Class Action for $19.7 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
SunPower Corp. on Dec. 14 disclosed that it has entered into an
agreement to settle the private securities class action suit
against the company and certain current and former members of
management.  This action is titled, "In re SunPower Securities
Litigation."

The agreement, which is subject to negotiation and execution of a
final settlement document and court approval, provides for the
payment by SunPower of $19.7 million and would lead to the
dismissal of all claims against the defendants.  The company
expects to reflect the impact of the settlement in its fourth
quarter 2012 financial results.

"While we strongly believe that the company and its management
fully met all their legal obligations, we have decided it is more
prudent to focus our efforts on growing new markets and continuing
to expand our leading residential market share position," said
Lisa Bodensteiner, SunPower executive vice president and general
counsel.

According to PV Magazine's Becky Beetz, the "In re SunPower
Securities Litigation," which was launched on behalf of all
purchasers of SunPower securities from April 17, 2008, to November
16, 2009, against SunPower, its CEO Thomas Werner, CFO Dennis
Arriola and former CFO Emmanuel T. Hernandez.

The complainants accused SunPower of false accounting, which
"materially misstated the company's reported financial results".

"After the markets closed on November 16, 2009, SunPower disclosed
that an 'internal review' had uncovered 'unsubstantiated
accounting entries' in the Company's prior financial reports that
understated the Company's cost of goods sold in 2009 and possibly
2008.  The Company also announced it was working to determine if
any restatements of its 2009 interim financial reports and its
2008 annual report would be necessary," wrote law firm Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.  The news prompted SunPower's
stock to fall 20% in a single day.

Meanwhile, in March 2010, SunPower announced it would restate its
financial statements for each quarter and for the year ended
December 28, 2008, as well as the first three quarters in the year
ended January 3, 2010, having completed its internal
investigation.  "The investigation determined that SunPower
finance personnel had falsified certain accounting entries, and
that additional accounting 'errors' had been committed.  SunPower
also admitted material weaknesses in the Company's internal
controls over financial reporting," continued the lawyers.


UTAH: Highway Patrol Sued Over Alleged Wrongful DUI Arrests
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a class-action lawsuit has been
filed against the Utah Highway Patrol over alleged wrongful
arrests for driving under the influence.

Three attorneys filed the complaint on Dec. 14 in 3rd District
Court on behalf of what they contend may be hundreds of Utahns who
were wrongly arrested for drunken driving by former UHP Cpl. Lisa
Steed and other troopers.

Lawyer Robert Sykes claimed Ms. Steed is among troopers who
stopped motorists for minor traffic violations and then wrongly
arrested them for DUI in an effort to make money for the state
through fines and fees.

There was a "conspiracy within the highway patrol to propagate
this kind of conduct," Mr. Sykes alleged, and it was "condoned and
covered up for many years."

Department of Public Safety spokesman Dwayne Baird said the agency
had not yet been served with the suit, and he couldn't comment.

Mr. Sykes and attorneys Michael Studebaker and Lorenzo Miller say
they have so far identified more than 30 individuals who may be
added to the lawsuit and that the number could soar in coming
months.

Thomas Romero and Julie Tapia, who were named as initial
plaintiffs in the complaint, claim they were pulled over and
arrested by Ms. Steed in 2011, but that all charges against them
were later dropped because there was no evidence of alcohol in
their systems.  Both say they are teetotalers.

"I couldn't understand why I was getting arrested when all I had
was something to eat and a can of Pepsi," Mr. Romero told The Salt
Lake Tribune.  "I told her she was making a big mistake."

Ms. Steed was fired in November after she was accused of violating
department policies, falsifying police reports and using
questionable practices when making DUI arrests.

Ms. Steed, who was named 2007 trooper of the year based on some
200 DUI arrests that year, filed an appeal on Dec. 14 in an effort
to win back her job.

Her first appeal with the department was denied earlier this
month, the Deseret News reported.  Her second more formal appeal
with the state was filed by her attorney, Greg Skordas.


* Accounting Standards May Affect EU Class Action Liabilities
-------------------------------------------------------------
CFO Magazine reports that European banks at the center of the
ongoing Libor regulatory investigations may have to take a hit to
their accounts before American banks do, because of differences in
the way accounting standards deal with potential class-action
liabilities.  And the impact on European banks could be bigger,
too.

International financial reporting standards (IFRS) have a lower
threshold for bringing potential litigation risks onto the balance
sheet than do U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, notes
a report by Moody's Investors Service.  In both cases the
liability needs to be "probable" and "reasonably estimable," but
the two standards define those terms differently.  Under IFRS,
probable means "more likely than not," whereas under U.S. GAAP it
means "a cash outflow is likely to occur."

As for the measurement of such a liability, if there is a range of
equally likely possible losses that might occur, "the midpoint of
this range would be recognized as a liability under IFRS, whereas
the low-point of the range would be recognized under U.S. GAAP,"
says Moody's.

To date, only Barclays has settled legal action with regulators in
the United States and the United Kingdom, agreeing to a $453
million (GBP290 million) settlement with the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission and the Financial Services Authority.  Lloyds
Banking Group, RBS, HSBC, UBS, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase, and
Citigroup are all "cooperating with regulators."  Moody's said the
expected level of any fines against the other banks should not be
significant enough to affect their credit ratings.

By far the biggest financial damage to the banks will come from
the 20-plus class-action suits filed by derivatives holders or
corporate borrowers or depositors.  The plaintiffs believe that
traders' alleged manipulation of Libor rates (whether up or down
to suit their books, or downward so as not to send a negative
signal to the interbank markets) has left them disadvantaged.
Moody's says litigation costs for the defendants could be more
likely than fines to have "credit-negative rating implications."

While Moody's doesn't attempt to quantify the potential impact of
class-action litigation against the banks, the credit rater
doesn't have faith in estimates based on the sheer scale of the
interest-rate derivatives market, which has a notional value in
excess of $500 trillion, according to the Bank for International
Settlements.  That's because of "the more sophisticated
institutional nature of those markets and the fact that
institutions are equally likely to benefit as to be damaged by
Libor rate manipulation," Moody's says.  "While such institutions
may still seek to litigate for damages, if they are successful, we
believe that any benefit they had also realized would likely
reduce the size of the final award."

Much more likely is that banks will be sued by sovereigns,
corporations, and municipalities that used Libor in the capital
markets as the basis for either floating-rate instruments or
interest-rate swaps.  However, the legal hurdles facing plaintiffs
are formidable: the burden of proof is onerous "because they will
need to show a sufficient causal link between a defendant bank's
false rate submission and the harm alleged by plaintiffs," Moody's
says.  "For example, because of the way Libor is calculated, a
false submission by any one bank on any particular day may not
have distorted Libor in a material way."

For sterling Libor, for example, of the 16 panel banks'
submissions, the highest 4 and lowest 4 rates were ejected and
Libor calculated as an average of the remaining 8 submissions.
"In addition, some legal theories require that there be a
sufficiently close transactional relationship between the
plaintiff and defendant to justify liability," says Moody's.


                           *********

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  * * *