CAR_Public/121226.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, December 26, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 254

                             Headlines


APACHE CORP: Suit Over Royalty Payments in Texas Now Resolved
APPLE INC: Seeks Summary Judgment in iPhone Privacy Class Action
ARCTIC CAT: Recalls 3,900 Bearcat Snowmobiles Due to Fire Hazard
BC PARTNERS: Laid-Off Workers at Texas Units File Class Action
CANON USA: Recalls 500 WFT-E7A Wireless File Transmitters

COMMODITY ADVISORS: Bid to Dismiss Appeal in Ambac Suit Pending
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Broker and Parent Still Awaits Cert. Ruling
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Broker Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Suits
CONAGRA FOODS: Judge Tosses PAM Deceptive Labeling Class Claims
DILLARD'S INC: Settles Sick Leave Class Action for $2 Million

EHEALTH ONTARIO: Judge Certifies Employees' Class Action
FANNIE MAE: Continues to Defend 2008 Consolidated Class Action
FANNIE MAE: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over Transfer Taxes
FANNIE MAE: Directors & Officers Dismissed From 2008 ERISA Suit
FANNIE MAE: Discovery Commences in 2008 Securities Litigation

FANNIE MAE: Summary Judgment Motions in Securities Suit Pending
FIFTH THIRD: Awaits Court Approval of Antitrust Suit Settlement
FIFTH THIRD: To Seek Review of 6th Cir. Ruling in ERISA Suits
FIORUCCI FOODS: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
FREDERICK'S OF HOLLYWOOD: Faces Overtime Class Action in Calif.

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Alfred G. Yates Law Firm Files Class Action
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: "North Port" Suit Dismissal Bids Pending
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Containerboard Product-Related Suits Pending
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Adversary Suit vs. LNL Stayed Through Jan. 20
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Bezich" Suit vs. Unit

POWERCOR: Settles Black Saturday Bushfire Class Action
SIGMA PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
SNYDER'S-LANCE: Unit Continues to Defend "McPeak" Class Suit
SPI ELECTRICITY: 500 Residents Join Black Saturday Class Action
STANDARD PARKING: Faces Class Action Over Locked Garage

STAR NETWORKS: Sued Over Hazardous, High-Powered Magnetic Balls
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Sanders" Class Action Suit Dismissed
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Sheer" Suit Remains Pending in Arizona
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Slack" Suit Still Pending in Washington
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Tennessee Suit Settlement Approved in Oct.

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Wage & Hour Suits Remain Pending in Calif.
TRUE TASTE: Recalls Vacuum Packed Hot Smoked Fish Products
TRUSTMARK CORP: Stanford Suits Referred to Magistrate Judge
TRUSTMARK CORP: TNB Defends Two Class Suits Over Overdraft Fees
USG CORP: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Drywall Price-Fixing

                          *********



APACHE CORP: Suit Over Royalty Payments in Texas Now Resolved
-------------------------------------------------------------
One of two class action lawsuits over royalty payments has been
resolved, according to Apache Corporation's November 7, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Two potential class action lawsuits are pending in respect of oil
and gas royalties paid by the Company: Foster v. Apache
Corporation, Civil Action No. CIV-10-0573-HE, in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, and Joyce
Holder Trust v. Apache Corporation, Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-
03872, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division.  In the Foster case, on
August 20, 2012, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  The plaintiff has filed a motion for
reconsideration, which is pending.  In the Holder case, following
a class certification hearing in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, the parties resolved the
matter with no material impact on the Company's financial
position, results of operations, or liquidity, and with the
settlement providing for denial of class certification and
dismissal of the case.


APPLE INC: Seeks Summary Judgment in iPhone Privacy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that Apple
says it deserves summary judgment in a federal class action that
says iPhones and iPads collect and distribute users' personal
information.

The multidistrict litigation at issue involves 19 class action
hopefuls, centralized before U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San
Jose, Calif.  It advances claims that Apple conspires with
application developers to capture users' Unique Device IDs (UDID),
the unique identifying number Apple assigns to each of its iPhones
and iPads, and hands it off to third parties without consent.

Though Judge Koh upheld portions of the first amended complaint in
June 2012, Apple now says there has been enough development to
warrant summary judgment on the entire third amended consolidated
class action complaint.

"The lawsuit never should have been brought," according to the
motion authored by Gibson Dunn attorney S. Ashlie Beringer.
"There was never a factual basis for it, never a law broken and
never a person harmed.  Plaintiffs invented 'facts' to circumvent
the court's Sept. 20, 2012 order dismissing the complaint for lack
of standing.  Discovery has now definitely established those
alleged 'facts' to be without a basis."

Apple claims that the plaintiffs lack Article III standing and
have failed to prove allegations of violations of California's
Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

"Apple now has deposed all four of the named plaintiffs and has
conducted a forensic analysis of plaintiffs' iPhones,"
Ms. Beringer added.

Deposition showed that, "contrary to their allegations, plaintiffs
admit they have not suffered any injury in fact," the motion
states.  "Specifically, plaintiffs admit they have suffered no
harm whatsoever -- not in 'consumed iDevice resources' or in any
other way."

Apple says the plaintiffs "admit" that they have not lost any
money or property, that they do not really know if their
information was tracked or distributed, and that Apple's alleged
misrepresentations did not inform their decision to buy iPhones.

Four days after Apple filed this Dec. 14 motion for summary
judgment, it filed a very similar second motion.

On Dec. 17, in between these two Apple filings, the plaintiffs
moved for class certification.

Judge Koh is scheduled to resolve the certification issue on
Feb. 28, 2013, while the summary judgment issue is slated for a
hearing on April 11, 2013.

A copy of the Defendant Apple Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion
for Summary Judgment; Supporting Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in In re iPhone Application Litigation, Case No. 11-
md-02250 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/19/appsummj.pdf

Apple Inc. is represented by:

          S. Ashlie Beringer, Esq.
          Joshua Jessen, Esq.
          Molly Cutler, Esq.
          Jacob A. Walker, SBN 271217
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1881 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 849-5300
          E-mail: aberinger@gibsondunn.com
                  jjessen@gibsondunn.com
                  mcutler@gibsondunn.com
                  jwalker@gibsondunn.com


ARCTIC CAT: Recalls 3,900 Bearcat Snowmobiles Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 3,900 Arctic Cat Snowmobiles were voluntarily recalled by
Arctic Cat Inc., of Thief River Falls, Minnesota, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.  Consumers
should stop using the product immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The fuel tank can leak, posing a fire hazard.

Arctic Cat has received three reports of snowmobiles leaking fuel
when set-up at dealerships due to damage during the production
process.  Arctic Cat has received no reports of fires, property
damage or injuries related to the recalled vehicles.

The recall involves model year 2013 wide-track versions of the
Arctic Cat Bearcat series.

The Bearcat 570 XT and 570 WT have seats for an operator and a
passenger.  The model name and the letters "XT" or "WT" are on
each side of the hood and the number "570" is near the rear of the
tunnel on each side.  Both vehicles have blue hoods.

The Bearcat Z1 XT has seats for an operator and a passenger.  The
model name and the letters "XT" are on each side of the hood and
"Z1" is near the rear of the tunnel on each side.  It has a blue
hood.

The Bearcat Z1 XT GS is a single-rider vehicle.  The model name
and the letters "GS" are on each side of the hood and "Z1" is near
the rear of the tunnel on each side.  It has an orange hood, a
winch on the front and a light bar located behind the operator's
seat.

The Bearcat Z1 XT LTD has seats for an operator and a passenger.
The model name, the letters "XT" and the word "Limited" are on
each side of the hood and "Z1" is near the rear of the tunnel on
each side.  It has a black hood and tunnel.

Recalled vehicles have the last six digits of the vehicle
identification number (VIN) in the following ranges: 808110
through 808130 and 108866 through 120615.  The VIN appears on a
sticker attached to the tunnel on the rider's right side and is
also engraved in the same area.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13712.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at Arctic Cat dealerships nationwide from May
2012 through October 2012 for between $9,000 and $13,500.

Consumers should stop using the snowmobiles immediately and
contact their local Arctic Cat snowmobile dealer to schedule a
free repair.  Arctic Cat is contacting its customers directly.
Arctic Cat may be reached at (800) 279-6851, from 8:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, at
http://www.arcticcat.com/,and click on Customer Service, then
select "Recalls/Bulletins" for more information.


BC PARTNERS: Laid-Off Workers at Texas Units File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Law360, reports that New York-based
private equity group BC Partners Ltd. was hit with a class action
on Dec. 14 by laid-off employees of its Texas subsidiaries, ATI
Enterprises Inc. and ATI Acquisition Co., alleging workers were
not given fair warning of staff cutbacks after BC acquired the
companies two years ago.

Sonja Cook and Tiffany Evinger said BC failed to give them and
more than 170 other employees working in BC's North Richland
Hills, Texas, facility 60 days' advance written notice that they
would be terminated.


CANON USA: Recalls 500 WFT-E7A Wireless File Transmitters
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Canon U.S.A. Inc., of Lake Success, New York, announced a
voluntary recall of about 500 WFT-E7A Wireless File Transmitters.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

A chemical used in the rubber part on the top cover of the product
can result in a reaction that changes the rubber from black to
white and poses a risk of skin irritation to the consumer.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Canon WFT-E7A wireless file transmitters,
which allow photographers to transfer image data securely without
the use of cables and wires.  The transmitters are black, 5.3
inches wide, 1.2 inches tall and 2.4 inches deep and weigh 5.8
ounces.  The Canon logo, the words "Wireless File Transmitter" and
a rubberized cover are on the top of the transmitter.  A digital
access port and an Ethernet access port are on one side of the
unit and a battery compartment is on the opposite side.  An LCD
panel and a power switch are on the back of the transmitter and a
tripod screw hole is in the center of the unit.  The first two
digits of the serial number of recalled units are "03" through
"06" and the fifth digit is "1."  Serial numbers are on a gray
metallic plate on the bottom of the unit.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13076.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Japan and sold at B&H
Photo, Best Buy and camera and mass merchandise stores nationwide
and Amazon.com and other online retailers from May 2012 through
October 2012 for about $850.

Consumers should immediately stop using the transmitter and
contact Canon U.S.A. for a free repair.  Canon Customer Support
Center may be reached toll-free at (855) 902-3277, from 8:00 a.m.
to midnight Eastern Time Monday through Friday and 10:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. Eastern Time Saturday (except holidays), or online at
http://www.usa.canon.com/,and click on "Recalled for Repair."


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Bid to Dismiss Appeal in Ambac Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Advisors Fund L.P. is awaiting a court decision on a
motion to dismiss an appeal from the approval of a settlement in
the lawsuit captioned IN RE AMBAC FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-
12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

Certain Citigroup affiliates have been named as defendants arising
out of their activities as underwriters of securities in actions
brought by investors in securities of issuers adversely affected
by the credit crisis, including AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,
Ambac and Lehman, among others.  These matters are in various
stages of litigation.  As a general matter, issuers indemnify
underwriters in connection with such claims.  In certain of these
matters, however, Citigroup affiliates are not being indemnified
or may in the future cease to be indemnified because of the
financial condition of the issuer.

On September 28, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York approved a stipulation of settlement
with the underwriter defendants in IN RE AMBAC FINANCIAL GROUP,
INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION and judgment was entered.  A member of
the settlement class has appealed the judgment to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On December 22,
2011, the underwriter defendants moved to dismiss the appeal.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Broker and Parent Still Awaits Cert. Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s commodity broker and its parent are
still awaiting a court decision on a motion seeking class
certification in the consolidated bond litigation filed against
them, according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-12G/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

On September 30 and October 28, 2008, Citigroup, certain Citigroup
entities, certain current and former directors and officers of
Citigroup and Citigroup Funding, Inc., and certain underwriters of
Citigroup notes (including CGM) were named as defendants in two
alleged class actions filed in New York state court but since
removed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  These actions allege violations of Sections
11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, arising
out of forty-eight corporate debt securities, preferred stock, and
interests in preferred stock issued by Citigroup and related
issuers over a two-year period from 2006 to 2008.  On December 10,
2008, these two actions were consolidated under the caption IN RE
CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION, and lead plaintiff and counsel
were appointed.  On January 15, 2009, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint.

On March 13, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  On July 12, 2010, the district court issued an order
and opinion granting in part and denying in part defendants'
motion to dismiss.  The court's order, among other things,
dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Section 12 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, but denied defendants' motion to dismiss
certain claims under Section 11 of that Act.  A motion for partial
reconsideration of the latter ruling in pending.  On September 30,
2010, the district court entered a scheduling order in IN RE
CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION.  Fact discovery has commenced.  On
March 11, 2011, lead plaintiffs in IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND
LITIGATION filed a motion seeking class certification.  Plaintiffs
have not yet quantified the alleged class's alleged damages.

Because of the preliminary stage of the proceedings, Citigroup
cannot at this time estimate the possible loss or range of loss,
if any, for this action or predict the timing of its eventual
resolution.

Several institutions and sophisticated investors that purchased
debt and equity securities issued by Citigroup and related issuers
have also filed actions on their own behalf against Citigroup and
certain of its subsidiaries in the Southern District of New York
and the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County.  These
actions assert claims similar to those asserted in the IN RE
CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION and IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND
LITIGATION actions.  Collectively, these investors seek damages
exceeding $1 billion.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Broker Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s commodity broker continues to
defend itself from class action lawsuits alleging violations of
wage and hour laws, according to the Company's November 7, 2012,
Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

Numerous financial services firms, including Citigroup and its
affiliates, were named in alleged class actions alleging that
certain present and former employees in California were entitled
to overtime pay under state and federal laws; were subject to
certain allegedly unlawful deductions under state law; or were
entitled to reimbursement for employment related expenses incurred
by them.  The first of these class actions filed in the Fall of
2004 in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, BAHRAMIPOUR v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.,
sought damages and injunctive relief on behalf of an alleged class
of California employees.  Similar complaints have been
subsequently filed against CGM on behalf of certain statewide or
nationwide alleged classes in (i) the United States District
Courts for the Southern District of New York, the District of New
Jersey, the Eastern District of New York, the District of
Massachusetts, and the Middle District of Pennsylvania; and (ii)
the New Jersey Superior Court.  Without admitting any liability,
CGM reached an agreement in principle, which is subject to court
approval, to a nationwide settlement for up to approximately $98
million of various class actions asserting violations of state and
federal laws relating to overtime and violations of various state
laws relating to alleged unlawful payroll deductions.  Additional
alleged class action lawsuits alleging a variety of violations of
state and federal wage and hour laws have been filed against
various other Citigroup businesses.


CONAGRA FOODS: Judge Tosses PAM Deceptive Labeling Class Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Dec. 17 dismissed the bulk of the plaintiffs'
claims in a class action alleging ConAgra Foods Inc. violated
federal law and misled consumers with deceptive labeling that made
products like PAM cooking spray seem healthier than they are.

The Dec. 17 ruling marked a setback for the plaintiffs, who will
be forced to replead claims that ConAgra violated California's
Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.


DILLARD'S INC: Settles Sick Leave Class Action for $2 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shan Li, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that department
store chain Dillard's Inc. has agreed to pay $2 million to settle
a class-action lawsuit accusing the retailer of breaking federal
disability laws by requiring workers seeking sick leave to
disclose private medical conditions.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said it started
its investigation after a Dillard's worker in El Centro in
Southern California's Imperial County alleged she was fired in
2006 for refusing to reveal her exact medical problems to a
manager who would not accept her doctor's note.

"The assistant manager said [the doctor's note] doesn't say what's
wrong with you," said Corina Scott, a former Dillard's cosmetics
clerk.  "I firmly refused to tell, and she said, 'OK, you're
terminated.'"

The EEOC alleges that Dillard's implemented a nationwide policy in
2005 that affected thousands of workers, requiring those asking
for excused absences for illness to not only give a doctor's note
but also disclose the medical condition they were being treated
for.  That violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, which
protects workers from being forced to disclose private medical
information, the commission said.

Anna Park, the commission's regional attorney, said some workers
felt they had no choice but to reveal extremely personal problems
such as cancer and mental illnesses.

"People felt obliged to do it just to keep their jobs," Ms. Park
said.

The commission said it also investigated complaints that Dillard's
fired workers for taking more sick leave than the maximum number
of days allowed by the retailer, which also violated federal
disability discrimination laws.

As part of the settlement, Dillard's not only agreed to pay $2
million to compensate workers affected but also to hire a
consultant to review and revise its employment policy.


EHEALTH ONTARIO: Judge Certifies Employees' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reports that a
Superior Court judge has certified three of four claims brought by
employees of beleaguered eHealth Ontario.

The case, Perrenoud v. eHealth Ontario, deals with eHealth's
decision to cancel employees' performance awards and merit
increases for the last two fiscal years.  The cancellation
followed on a request for review from the Minister of Finance.

The defendants opposed certification on the basis that eHealth had
no contractual obligation to pay the awards and increases.  The
defendants also raised some technical objections to the common
issues raised by the plaintiffs, but found they were not fatal,
and allowed the plaintiffs to amend.

"This case is a further example of the "purposive and generous
manner" in which the court will apply the s. 5(1) test.  "It will
permit amendments to technical flaws in order to grant
certification where doing so would achieve the purposes of the
CPA," writes Mari Maimets in Stikeman Elliott's Canadian Class
Actions Law blog.


FANNIE MAE: Continues to Defend 2008 Consolidated Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association continues to defend itself
against a consolidated class action lawsuit in New York, according
to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

Fannie Mae is a defendant in two consolidated class actions filed
in 2008 and currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York -- In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities
Litigation and In re 2008 Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation.  On
February 11, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered that the cases be coordinated for pretrial proceedings.

Given the early status of these matters, the absence of a
specified demand or claim by the plaintiffs, and the substantial
and novel legal questions that remain, including those raised by
Federal Housing Finance Agency's regulation and the Director of
FHFA's determination, the Company says it is currently unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising
from these lawsuits.


FANNIE MAE: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over Transfer Taxes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association continues to defend itself
against lawsuits related to transfer taxes, according to the
Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

A number of lawsuits have been filed against the Company in
multiple states challenging its right to claim an exemption under
its charter from transfer taxes in connection with the recordation
of deeds upon transfers of real property by sale or foreclosure.
These lawsuits may lead to additional lawsuits in the various
jurisdictions that impose these taxes.  The plaintiffs in several
of these lawsuits seek to represent a nationwide class of
localities.  In addition, the Company has filed a lawsuit against
the state of Illinois and four counties seeking a judgment that
the Company is exempt from these transfer taxes.  If these
lawsuits are decided against it, the Company says it may be
required to pay past transfer taxes, damages, fees and/or costs.
Although the Company believes that its charter provides it with an
exemption from these taxes and, therefore, it has a valid defense
in these lawsuits, in March 2012 a federal district court in
Michigan held in two cases that the Company is not exempt from
Michigan transfer taxes under its charter.

The Company, along with Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA")
and Freddie Mac, filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal the two
Michigan decisions with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit, which was granted on September 5, 2012.  The Company
filed its opening brief on November 6, 2012.

On August 9, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia issued an opinion in a tax-related case holding that the
Company is exempt from District of Columbia real estate
recordation taxes under its charter.  Similarly, on September 18,
2012, a separate district court in Michigan held that the Company
is exempt from Michigan transfer taxes under its charter.  The
plaintiff in one of the Michigan cases filed a motion with the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking an order
transferring all related cases filed as of that date, as well as
all subsequently filed related actions, to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings; the motion, which the Company
opposed, was denied on September 27, 2012.

The Company does not expect the outcome of these lawsuits to have
a material impact on its results of operations or financial
condition.


FANNIE MAE: Directors & Officers Dismissed From 2008 ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seven former and current directors and officers of Federal
National Mortgage Association were dismissed from the lawsuit
styled In re 2008 Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation, according to the
Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

In a consolidated complaint filed on September 11, 2009,
plaintiffs allege that certain of the Company's current and former
officers and directors, including former members of Fannie Mae's
Benefit Plans Committee and the Compensation Committee of Fannie
Mae's Board of Directors, as fiduciaries of Fannie Mae's Employee
Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP"), breached their duties to ESOP
participants and beneficiaries by investing ESOP funds in Fannie
Mae common stock when it was no longer prudent to continue to do
so.  Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of participants and
beneficiaries of the ESOP whose accounts invested in Fannie Mae
common stock beginning April 17, 2007.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other fees and costs, and
injunctive and other equitable relief.  On February 1, 2012,
plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint to add new
factual allegations and the court granted plaintiffs' motion.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 2, 2012, adding two
current Board members and then-CEO Michael J. Williams as
defendants.

On October 22, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions to dismiss.  The court dismissed with
prejudice seven former and current directors and officers who
joined the Board of Directors or Benefit Plans Committee after
Fannie Mae was placed into conservatorship.  The court allowed
plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty and failure to monitor claims
to go forward, but dismissed plaintiffs' conflict of interest
claim.


FANNIE MAE: Discovery Commences in 2008 Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in the class action lawsuit titled In re
Fannie Mae 2008 Securities Litigation, according to Federal
National Mortgage Association's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2012.

In a consolidated amended complaint filed on June 22, 2009, lead
plaintiffs Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management
Board and Boston Retirement Board (for common shareholders) and
Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System (for preferred
shareholders) allege that the Company, certain of its former
officers, and certain of its underwriters violated Sections
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  Lead plaintiffs
also allege that the Company, certain of its former officers, and
its outside auditor, violated Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  Lead plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including
rescission, damages, interest, costs, attorneys' and experts'
fees, and other equitable and injunctive relief.  On October 13,
2009, the Court entered an order allowing Federal Housing Finance
Agency ("FHFA") to intervene.

On November 24, 2009, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Securities Act claims as to all defendants.  On
September 30, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss the Securities Exchange Act
claims.  As a result of the partial denial, some of the Securities
Exchange Act claims remained pending against the Company and
certain of its former officers.  Fannie Mae filed its answer to
the consolidated complaint on December 31, 2010.  On July 28,
2011, lead plaintiffs filed motions to certify a class of persons
who, between November 8, 2006, and September 5, 2008, inclusive,
purchased or acquired (a) Fannie Mae common stock and options or
(b) Fannie Mae preferred stock.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended joint consolidated class action
complaint on March 2, 2012, and added FHFA as a defendant.  On
August 30, 2012, the court denied defendants' motions to dismiss
the second amended complaint, allowing plaintiffs' Securities
Exchange Act claims premised on Fannie Mae's subprime and Alt-A
disclosures to proceed along with plaintiffs' claims premised on
Fannie Mae's risk management disclosures.  Discovery has
commenced.


FANNIE MAE: Summary Judgment Motions in Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain motions for summary judgment remain pending in the lawsuit
against Federal National Mortgage Association styled In re Fannie
Mae Securities Litigation, according to the Company's November 7,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Fannie Mae is a defendant in a consolidated class action lawsuit
initially filed in 2004 and currently pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia.  In the consolidated complaint
filed on March 4, 2005, lead plaintiffs Ohio Public Employees
Retirement System and State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio
allege that the Company and certain former officers, as well as
its former outside auditor, made materially false and misleading
statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  Plaintiffs contend that Fannie Mae's accounting
statements were inconsistent with GAAP requirements relating to
hedge accounting and the amortization of premiums and discounts,
and seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and
other fees and costs.  On January 7, 2008, the court defined the
class as all purchasers of Fannie Mae common stock and call
options and all sellers of publicly traded Fannie Mae put options
during the period from April 17, 2001, through December 22, 2004.
On October 17, 2008, Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA"), as
conservator for Fannie Mae, intervened in this case.

On August 18, 2011, the parties filed various motions for summary
judgment.  On September 20, 2012, the court granted summary
judgment to defendant Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's former
Chief Executive Officer, on all claims against him.  On
October 16, 2012, the court granted summary judgment to defendant
J. Timothy Howard, Fannie Mae's former Chief Financial Officer, on
all claims against him.  The other motions for summary judgment
remain pending.

FHFA adopted a regulation on June 20, 2011, that provides in part
that while the Company is in conservatorship, FHFA will not pay
claims by the Company's current or former shareholders, unless the
Director of FHFA determines it is in the interest of the
conservatorship.  FHFA's regulation has been challenged by lead
plaintiffs in a separate lawsuit also pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia.

In September and December 2010, plaintiffs served expert reports
claiming damages to plaintiffs under various scenarios ranging
cumulatively from $2.2 billion to $8.6 billion.  Given the
substantial and novel legal questions that remain, including those
raised by FHFA's regulation and the Director of FHFA's
determination, the Company is currently unable to estimate the
reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this
litigation.


FIFTH THIRD: Awaits Court Approval of Antitrust Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp is awaiting court approval of its settlement
of a consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

During April 2006, Bancorp was added as a defendant in a
consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed
against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial
institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.  The plaintiffs, merchants operating
commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations,
claim that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks are
unreasonable and seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages.
In addition to being a named defendant, Bancorp is also subject to
a possible indemnification obligation of Visa and has also entered
into with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named defendants
judgment and loss sharing agreements.

On October 19, 2012, the parties to the litigation entered into a
settlement agreement and the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
preliminary court approval of the settlement agreement.  Pursuant
to the terms of the settlement agreement, and assuming the
settlement receives a preliminary approval from the court, which
the Company cannot assure will be received, Bancorp will be
obligated to deposit $46 million into a class settlement escrow
account.  In addition, Bancorp is obligated to deposit an
additional $4 million in another settlement escrow in connection
with the settlement of claims from plaintiffs not included in the
class action.  Bancorp has remaining reserves related to this
litigation of approximately $50 million as of September 30, 2012,
$49 million as of December 31, 2011, and $31 million as of
September 30, 2011.


FIFTH THIRD: To Seek Review of 6th Cir. Ruling in ERISA Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp disclosed in its November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012, that it intends to petition the
Supreme Court to review and reverse an appellate court decision in
two cases alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

For the year ended December 31, 2008, five putative securities
class action complaints were filed against Bancorp and its Chief
Executive Officer, among other parties.  The five cases have been
consolidated under the caption Local 295/Local 851 IBT Employer
Group Pension Trust and Welfare Fund v. Fifth Third Bancorp. et
al., Case No. 1:08CV00421, and are currently pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  The
lawsuits allege violations of federal securities laws related to
disclosures made by Bancorp in press releases and filings with the
SEC regarding its quality and sufficiency of capital, credit
losses and related matters, and seeking unquantified damages on
behalf of putative classes of persons who either purchased
Bancorp's securities or TruPS, or acquired Bancorp's securities
pursuant to the acquisition of First Charter Corporation.  These
cases remain in the discovery stages of litigation.  The impact of
the final disposition of these lawsuits cannot be assessed at this
time.  In addition, two cases were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Bancorp
and certain officers alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") based on
allegations similar to those set forth in the securities class
action cases filed during the same period of time.  The two cases
alleging violations of ERISA were dismissed by the trial court,
but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed the trial
court decision.

Bancorp says it intends to petition the Supreme Court to review
and reverse the Sixth Circuit decision and seek a stay of
proceedings in the trial court pending appeal.  The impact of the
final disposition of these ERISA lawsuits cannot be assessed at
this time.


FIORUCCI FOODS: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
mortadella products that have been recalled by Fiorucci Foods,
Inc.

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

    Specific Store-Wide Distribution (Stores and Location)
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Retailer Name           City and State
    -------------           --------------
    ShopRite                Stores in CT, MD, NJ, NY and PA
    Grade A Markets         563 Newfield Ave., Stamford, CT
    Grade A Markets         495 Hope Street, Stamford, CT
    Safeway                 Governors Place, Bear, Delaware
    ShopRite                Chestnut Hill Plaza, Newark, DE
    ShopRite                W. Newport Pike, Wilmington, DE
    ShopRite                Rocky Run Parkway, Wilmington, DE
    ShopRite                S. Walnut St., Wilmington, DE
    Martinez Dist. Market   3081 NW 74th Ave., Miami, Florida
    Restaurant Depot        Mannheim Rd., Des Plaines, Illinois
    Restaurant Depot        1304 E. Maple Rd., Troy, Michigan


FREDERICK'S OF HOLLYWOOD: Faces Overtime Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Frederick's of Hollywood
stiffs workers for overtime, a class action claims in Los Angeles
Superior Court.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Alfred G. Yates Law Firm Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., P.C. has filed a class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Hewlett-Packard
Company common stock during the period between August 19, 2011 and
November 20, 2012.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Alfred G. Yates Jr., at 1-800-391-5164, toll
free, or at yateslaw@aol.com by e-mail.  Please visit
http://yatesclassactionlaw.com

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
January 25, 2013.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
concealed that the Company had gained control of Autonomy in 2011
based on financial statements that could not be relied upon
because of serious accounting manipulation and improprieties.  As
a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, the
Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period, reaching a high of $29.89 per share on February 16,
2012.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
HPQ securities during the Class Period.

The firm is also investigating actions on behalf of shareholders
for the following companies: Align Technology Inc., Caribou Coffee
Company, Inc., Compuware Corporation, Epoch Investment Partners,
Inc., Hi-Crush Partners LP, Intermec, Inc., SandRidge Energy,
Inc., and Zillow, Inc.

If you are a shareholder of any of the above companies and wish
learn more about any of the investigations or have any questions,
please contact Alfred G. Yates Jr., Esquire at 1-800-391-5164,
toll free, or at yateslaw@aol.com by e-mail.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: "North Port" Suit Dismissal Bids Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss a class action lawsuit commenced by North Port
Firefighters' Pension against a subsidiary of International Paper
Company remain pending, according to the Company's November 7,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Temple-Inland Inc. is also a defendant in a lawsuit captioned
North Port Firefighters' Pension v. Temple-Inland Inc., filed in
November 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas and subsequently amended.  The lawsuit alleges a
class action against Temple-Inland and certain individual
defendants contending that Temple-Inland misrepresented the
financial condition of Guaranty Financial Group during the period
December 12, 2007, through August 24, 2009.  Temple-Inland
distributed the stock of Guaranty Financial Group to its
shareholders on December 28, 2007, after which Guaranty Financial
Group was an independent, publicly held company.  The action is
pled as a securities claim on behalf of persons who acquired
Guaranty Financial Group stock during the putative class period.
Although focused chiefly on statements made by Guaranty Financial
Group to its shareholders after it was an independent, publicly
held company, the action repeats many of the same allegations of
fact made in the Tepper litigation.  On June 20, 2012, all
defendants in the lawsuit filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint.

The Company believes the claims made against Temple-Inland in the
North Port lawsuit are without merit, and the Company intends to
defend them vigorously.  The lawsuit is in its preliminary stages,
and thus, the Company believes it is premature to predict the
outcome or to estimate the amount or range of loss, if any, which
may be incurred.

Each of the individual defendants in both the Tepper litigation
and the North Port litigation has requested advancement of their
costs of defense from Temple-Inland and has asserted a right to
indemnification by Temple-Inland.  The Company believes that all
or part of these defense costs, a portion of the settlement amount
in the Tepper litigation and any potential damages awarded against
the individual defendants in the North Port litigation and covered
by any Temple-Inland indemnity would be covered losses under
Temple-Inland's directors and officers insurance.  The carriers
under the applicable policies have been notified of the claims and
each has responded with a reservation of rights letter.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Containerboard Product-Related Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2010, eight containerboard producers, including
International Paper Company and Temple-Inland Inc., were named as
defendants in a purported class action complaint that alleged a
civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The lawsuit is
captioned Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America (N.D.
Ill.).  The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in
August 2005, conspired to limit the supply and thereby increase
prices of containerboard products.  The alleged class is all
persons who purchased containerboard products directly from any
defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the
period August 2005 to November 2010.  The complaint seeks to
recover an unspecified amount of treble actual damages and
attorney's fees on behalf of the purported class.  Four similar
complaints were filed and have been consolidated in the Northern
District of Illinois.  Moreover, in January 2011, International
Paper was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court
in Cocke County, Tennessee, alleging that International Paper
violated Tennessee law by conspiring to limit the supply and fix
the prices of containerboard from mid-2005 to the present.
Plaintiffs in the state court action seek certification of a class
of Tennessee indirect purchasers of containerboard products,
damages and costs, including attorneys' fees.

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

The Company disputes the allegations made and intends to
vigorously defend each action.  However, because both actions are
in the preliminary stages, the Company is unable to predict an
outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Adversary Suit vs. LNL Stayed Through Jan. 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
An adversary proceeding involving a subsidiary of Lincoln National
Corporation is stayed through January 20, 2013, according to the
Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On July 23, 2012, The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
("LNL") was added as a noteholder defendant to a putative class
action adversary proceeding ("Adversary Proceeding") captioned
Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A.
et al., Adv. Pro. No. 10-03547 (JMP) and instituted under In re
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in the United States Bankruptcy
Court in the Southern District of New York.  Plaintiff  Lehman
Brothers Special Financing Inc. ("LBSF") seeks to (i) overturn the
application of certain priority of payment provisions in 47
collateralized debt obligation transactions on the basis such
provisions are unenforceable under the Bankruptcy Code; and (ii)
recover funds paid out to Noteholders in accordance with the Note
agreements.

The Adversary proceeding is stayed through January 20, 2013, and
LNL's response is currently due to be filed on March 5, 2013.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Bezich" Suit vs. Unit
------------------------------------------------------------
On June 13, 2009, a single named plaintiff filed a putative
national class action in the Circuit Court of Allen County,
Indiana, captioned Peter S. Bezich v. LNL, No. 02C01-0906-PL73,
asserting he was charged a cost-of-insurance fee that exceeded the
applicable mortality charge, and that this fee breached the terms
of the insurance contract.  The parties are conducting fact
discovery, and no class certification motion has yet been filed.
Lincoln National Corporation disputes the allegations and is
vigorously defending this matter.

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


POWERCOR: Settles Black Saturday Bushfire Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Belinda Merhab, writing for The Australian Associated Press,
reports that a Victorian farmer who led a class action against an
electricity distributor whose powerlines were allegedly
responsible for starting a Black Saturday bushfire says he hopes
future fires will be prevented by his case.

Terry Place, 54, had 240 acres of land destroyed and lost fencing,
a large hay shed and a yearling when bushfires tore through his
dairy farm at Pomborneit, in Victoria's southwest, on February 7,
2009.

He led a class action against power distributor Powercor, whose
powerlines were alleged to have sparked the blaze.

Following a five-week hearing in the Victorian Supreme Court, the
parties settled the case on Dec. 19 -- the day Justice Jack
Forrest was to deliver his judgment.

Under the settlement, estimated to be worth about AUD10 million,
Powercor will pay victims 100 per cent of the losses they incurred
as a result of the bushfire based on worth the day the fire hit.

But Powercor will maintain its denial of legal liability for the
blaze.

Mr. Place said while he was happy and relieved a settlement was
reached, he was disappointed there would be no admission of
liability.

"I would have loved to have got satisfaction from a judge saying
they should have done this or they should have done that,"
Mr. Place told AAP.

"I don't think this should happen to anybody.

"I just wanted to make sure that any little bit we can do, if we
can stop one per cent or five per cent of fires ever happening
like this again."

He said he hoped the settlement would help the people of
Pomborneit to rebuild.

The settlement is subject to approval by Justice David Beach on
January 31 next year.

Brendan Pendergast, commercial litigation principal at Maddens
Lawyers, described the settlement as a huge win, reflecting the
inadequate maintenance of Powercor's powerlines.

"Although Powercor maintains denial of legal liability for the
blaze, it is difficult not to conclude that the settlement
reflects a concern by the power provider that the court would have
found that the fire began when sparks from clashing Powercor-owned
lines ignited dry grass," he said.

About 30 residents had joined the class action and more may join
now the settlement has been reached.

In a statement, Powercor said it could now move forward and focus
on continuing to provide a safe and reliable electricity supply as
well as working with government and regulators to continue
implementing recommendations from the Bushfires Royal Commission.


SIGMA PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Business Spectator reports that the Federal Court has approved a
settlement from Sigma Pharmaceuticals Ltd. over a class action,
and says trading in the second half has been in line with
expectations.

In a statement to the Australian Securities Exchange, Sigma said
the payment was expected to be made within seven days.

"The settlement does not involve any admission of liability by
Sigma," the group said.

In October, Sigma, owner of the Amcal and Guardian pharmacy
chains, agreed to make the payment after shareholder action was
brought against the group.

The case related to alleged breached of continuous disclosure
rules by the pharmaceutical giant.

"As a result of the Federal Court approval, the settlement payment
will now be distributed to class members," the group said.

"Once that is completed, the matter will come back before the
Federal Court for final orders including that the class action
against Sigma be dismissed."

In September and October 2009, Sigma completed a AUD297 million
capital raising to fund the purchase of some pharmaceutical brands
and a manufacturing facility.

In March 2010, Sigma announced lower cash flows as the company was
forced to heavily discount generic drugs, and its shares dropped
48 per cent weeks later when it reported a AUD389 million full-
year loss.

The class action was brought by shareholders who bought Sigma
shares between September 7, 2009 and February 25, 2010.

Sigma has agreed to pay AUD57.5 million, which covers the claim,
interest, litigation costs and applicants' legal fees.

The settlement will be reported in the group's financial result as
a material non-recurring item.

Sigma said second-half trading had been travelling as expected,
although sales have been slightly stronger than flagged.

This is expected to flow through to gross profit, the group said.

"Consistent with the first half result, logistic costs have been
higher than expected, which is likely to largely offset the gross
profit benefit at the EBIT line," Sigma said.

"In addition, a recent fridge failure in the Newcastle
Distribution Centre and associated remediation works will result
in an unbudgeted expense of approximately AUD3 million."

Sigma said its cash on hand at the end of the year was likely to
be lower as a result of settlement, an ongoing share buyback and
dividend payments.


SNYDER'S-LANCE: Unit Continues to Defend "McPeak" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
On January 19, 2012, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by
Joseph A. McPeak individually and allegedly on behalf of other
similarly situated individuals against S-L Distribution Company,
Inc., a subsidiary of Snyder's-Lance, Inc.  The complaint alleges
a single cause of action for damages for violations of New
Jersey's Franchise Practices Protection Act.  S-L Distribution
Company, Inc. believes it has meritorious defenses to this claim
and intends to vigorously defend against this action.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 7,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 29, 2012.


SPI ELECTRICITY: 500 Residents Join Black Saturday Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
7News reports that about 500 residents have joined a class action
for losses caused by the Black Saturday bushfires in the
Murrindindi area, in north-east Victoria, in 2009.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn is leading the class action against
five defendants, which includes SPI Electricity, the Department of
Sustainability and Environment and the Country Fire Authority.

All five parties have until April to enter their pleas.

Meanwhile, a sod turning ceremony, on the anniversary in February
of Black Saturday, will mark the start of work on memorials to
honour those killed in the Mitchell Shire.

The council is spending AUD160,000 on memorials in Kilmore East,
Clonbinane, Wandong-Heathcote Junction, Upper Plenty and Sunday
Creek, with a central memorial at Broadford combining all the
elements.

Mayor Bill Melbourne says a 3D bronze plate in the Broadford
memorial will show the path the fire took through the
municipality.

He says the designs are the result of extensive community
consultation.

"What the community has told us that they want is an area where,
and they're called seating rings, so where people can sit down in
these areas that are designed for the memorials and just reflect
on what happened," he said.

"It's planned to have a bronze plate that will have a 3D profile
of the shire's topography . . . which will show the journey of the
fire within the towns that were affected by the fire and this will
be in a polished bronze plaque."

The work is expected to be completed by June next year.


STANDARD PARKING: Faces Class Action Over Locked Garage
-------------------------------------------------------
Julia Marsh, writing for The New York Post, reports that a lower
Manhattan parking garage prevented customers from fleeing
Hurricane Sandy when it locked its facility without warning just
before the storm made landfall, a Manhattan class action lawsuit
charges.

About 50 cars were held captive, only to be totaled by
floodwaters, the suit claims.

One man tried to retrieve his Infiniti to evacuate his wheelchair-
bound daughter -- but he found the gate shuttered, the filing
stated.

"They put people's lives in jeopardy," said Carmelo Aviles, 47,
whose 23-year-old daughter is paralyzed and was stuck in the
family's seventh story apartment without heat or electricity for
five days.

Attendants at the 24/7 garage, at 227 Cherry St., repeatedly
assured customers that it would remain open throughout the storm,
papers state.

"We are not closing," an attendant told several monthly customers
just after Mayor Bloomberg announced a mandatory evacuation for
the area, the papers state.

By 4:00 p.m. on Oct. 28, the garage was locked and protected from
the surge by an only four, 3-foot sandbags, the filing states, and
the company ignored repeated pleas from customers trying to access
their vehicles.

Customers were finally allowed in Nov. 9 and only after they
signed a liability waiver.  Some of the car owners had
comprehensive insurance, others did not.  Owners also lost
personal property ranging from car seats to GPS devices.  The suit
is seeking unspecified damages.

Michael Wolf, an executive at Standard Parking, said the
"hurricane did, of course, have a significant impact on the 227
Cherry St. parking facility."  He declined to comment on the
pending lawsuit.


STAR NETWORKS: Sued Over Hazardous, High-Powered Magnetic Balls
---------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort to prevent children from suffering further harm, U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) staff filed an
administrative complaint
[http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/adjudicative/starnetworks1a.pdf]
on December 17, 2012, against Star Networks USA, LLC, of
Fairfield, New Jersey, alleging that their Magnicube Magnet Balls
and Magnet Cubes contain defects in their design, packaging,
warnings and instructions, which pose a substantial risk of injury
[http://www.cpsc.gov/info/magnets/]to the public.  The Commission
voted 2-1 to approve the filing of the complaint, which seeks,
among other things, an order that the firm stop selling Star
Networks Magnicube Magnet Balls and Magnet Cubes, notify the
public of the defect, and offer consumers a full refund.

The Commission staff filed the administrative complaint against
Star Networks after discussions with the company and its
representatives failed to result in a voluntary recall plan that
CPSC staff considered to be adequate and the company resumed sale
of these products in November.

Magnicube Magnet Balls and Magnet Cubes sets contain from 125 to
1,027 high-powered rare earth magnets, manufactured in China.  The
complaint estimates about 22,000 sets were sold, priced from $20
to $80.

In response to a request from CPSC staff in July 2012, 11 firms,
including Star Networks, voluntarily agreed to stop selling
similar products.  CPSC staff called upon these firms to cease the
manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale of high-powered,
manipulative magnetic products after young children and teenagers
swallowed multiple magnets, which connected inside their
gastrointestinal tracts and caused internal injuries requiring
surgery.

The staff's complaint alleges that CPSC has received dozens of
reports of ingestions of high-powered small magnets identical in
form, substance and content to Magnicube Magnet Balls and Magnet
Cubes.  The reports include ingestions of magnets by toddlers who
placed similar magnets in their mouths and ingested them, as well
as older children and teenagers who accidentally ingested this
type of products while using it to mimic piercings of the tongue,
lip, or cheek.

When two or more magnets are swallowed, they can pinch or trap the
intestinal walls or other digestive tissue between them, resulting
in acute and long term health consequences.  Magnets that attract
through the walls of intestines result in progressive tissue
injury.  Such conditions can lead to infection, sepsis, and
possibly death.  Medical professionals may not be aware of the
dangers posed by ingestion and the corresponding need for
immediate medical intervention in such cases, exacerbating the
life-threatening injuries.

Zen Magnets, importer of Zen Magnets(TM) Rare Earth Magnet Balls,
Maxfield & Oberton, importer of Buckyballs(R) and Buckycubes(TM),
and now Star Networks, which reversed its earlier withdrawal of
the product, are the only companies to date that have refused to
comply with the staff's request.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Sanders" Class Action Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company disclosed in its November 7, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2012, that the class action
lawsuit initiated by Michael Sanders has been dismissed.

On July 1, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by Michael
Sanders against Swift Transportation and Interstate Equipment
Leasing, LLC ("IEL"): Michael Sanders individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc. and
Interstate Equipment Leasing, Case No. 10523440 in the Superior
Court of California, County of Alameda, or the Sanders Complaint.
The putative class involves both owner-operators and driver
employees alleging differing claims against Swift and IEL.  Many
of the claims alleged by both the putative class of owner-
operators and the putative class of employee drivers overlap the
same claims as alleged in the Sheer Complaint with respect to
owner-operators and the Burnell Complaint as it relates to
employee drivers.  As alleged in the Sheer Complaint, the putative
class includes owner-operators of Swift during the four years
preceding the date of filing alleging that Swift misclassified
owner-operators as independent contractors in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and various California state
laws and that such owner-operators should be considered employees.
As also alleged in the Sheer Complaint, the owner-operator portion
of the Sanders Complaint also raises certain related issues with
respect to the lease agreements that certain owner-operators have
entered into with IEL.  As alleged in the Burnell Complaint, the
putative class in the Sanders Complaint includes drivers who
worked for the Company during the four years preceding the date of
filing alleging that the Company failed to provide proper meal and
rest periods, failed to provide accurate wage statements upon
separation from employment, and failed to timely pay wages upon
separation from employment.  The Sanders Complaint also raises two
issues with respect to the owner-operators and two issues with
respect to drivers that were not also alleged as part of either
the Sheer Complaint or the Burnell Complaint.  These separate
owner-operator claims allege that Swift failed to provide accurate
wage statements and failed to properly compensate for waiting
times.  The separate employee driver claims allege that Swift
failed to reimburse business expenses and coerced driver employees
to patronize the employer.  The Sanders Complaint seeks to create
two classes, one which is mostly (but not entirely) encompassed by
the Sheer Complaint and another which is mostly (but not entirely)
encompassed by the Burnell Complaint.  On January 17, 2012, the
court entered an order dismissing plaintiff's case and granting
Swift's motion to compel arbitration.  The plaintiffs have filed
an appeal to the January 17, 2012 order.

The plaintiffs have withdrawn their appeal and the case has been
dismissed.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Sheer" Suit Remains Pending in Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------------
On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Swift Transportation Company and Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC
("IEL"): John Doe 1 and Joseph Sheer v. Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc., and Interstate Equipment Leasing, Inc., Jerry Moyes, and
Chad Killebrew, Case No. 09-CIV-10376 filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the Sheer
Complaint.  The putative class involves owner-operators alleging
that Swift Transportation misclassified owner-operators as
independent contractors in violation of the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act, or FLSA, and various New York and California state
laws and that such owner-operators should be considered employees.
The lawsuit also raises certain related issues with respect to the
lease agreements that certain owner-operators have entered into
with IEL.  At present, in addition to the named plaintiffs,
approximately 200 other current or former owner-operators have
joined this lawsuit.  Upon the Company's motion, the matter has
been transferred from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to the United States District Court
in Arizona.  On May 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
conditionally certify an FLSA collective action and authorize
notice to the potential class members.

On September 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin Swift and IEL from collecting
payments from plaintiffs who are in default under their lease
agreements and related relief.  On September 30, 2010, the
District Court granted Swift's motion to compel arbitration and
ordered that the class action be stayed pending the outcome of
arbitration.  The court further denied plaintiff's motion for
preliminary injunction and motion for conditional class
certification.  The Court also denied plaintiff's request to
arbitrate the matter as a class.  The plaintiff filed a petition
for a writ of mandamus asking that the District Court's order be
vacated.  On July 27, 2011, the court denied the plaintiff's
petition for writ of mandamus and plaintiff's filed another
request for interlocutory appeal.  On December 9, 2011, the court
permitted the plaintiffs to proceed with their interlocutory
appeal.

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

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against any
arbitration proceedings.  The final disposition of this case and
the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at this
time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Slack" Suit Still Pending in Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
On September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Troy
Slack on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation Company: Troy Slack, et al v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation
Corporation in the State Court of Washington, Pierce County, or
the Slack Compliant.  The Slack Compliant was removed to federal
court on October 12, 2011, case number 11-2-11438-0.  The putative
class includes all current and former Washington State based
employee drivers during the three year statutory period alleging
that they were not paid overtime in accordance with Washington
State law and that they were not properly paid for meal and rest
periods.  The Company says it intends to vigorously defend
certification of the class as well as the merits of these matters
should the class be certified.  The final disposition of this case
and the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be
determined at this time.

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


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Tennessee Suit Settlement Approved in Oct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company's settlement of a consolidated class
action lawsuit in Tennessee was approved in October 2012,
according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On March 11, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed by Michael
Ham, Jemonia Ham, Dennis Wolf, and Francis Wolf on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated persons against Swift
Transportation: Michael Ham, Jemonia Ham, Dennis Wolf and Francis
Wolf v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. 2:09-cv-02145-
STA-dkv, or the Ham Complaint.  The case was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western Section of Tennessee Western
Division.  The putative class involves former students of the
Company's Tennessee driving academy who are seeking relief against
it for the suspension of their Commercial Driver Licenses, or
CDLs, and any CDL retesting that may be required of the former
students by the relevant state department of motor vehicles.  The
allegations arise from the Tennessee Department of Safety, or
TDOS, having released a general statement questioning the validity
of CDLs issued by the State of Tennessee in connection with the
Swift Driving Academy located in the State of Tennessee.  The
Company has filed an answer to the Ham Complaint.  The Company has
also filed a cross claim against the Commissioner of the TDOS, or
the Commissioner, for a judicial declaration and judgment that the
Company did not engage in any wrongdoing as alleged in the
complaint and a grant of injunctive relief to compel the
Commissioner to redact any statements or publications that allege
wrongdoing by the Company and to issue corrective statements to
any recipients of any such publications.  The Commissioner's
motion to dismiss the Company's cross claim has been dismissed by
the court.

On or about April 23, 2009, two class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, respectively:
Michael Pascarella, et al. v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.,
Sharon A. Harrington, Chief Administrator of the New Jersey Motor
Vehicle Commission, and David Mitchell, Commissioner of the
Tennessee Department of Safety, Case No. 09-1921(JBS), in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, or
the Pascarella Complaint; and Shawn McAlarnen et al. v. Swift
Transportation Co., Inc., Janet Dolan, Director of the Bureau of
Driver Licensing of The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation,
and David Mitchell, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of
Safety, Case No. 09-1737 (E.D. Pa.), in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, or the McAlarnen
Complaint.  Both putative class action complaints involve former
students of the Company's Tennessee driving academy who are
seeking relief against it, the TDOS, and the state motor vehicle
agencies for the threatened suspension of their CDLs and any CDL
retesting that may be required of the former students by the
relevant state department of motor vehicles.  The potential
suspension and CDL re-testing was initiated by certain states in
response to the general statement by the TDOS questioning the
validity of CDL licenses the State of Tennessee issued in
connection with the Swift Driving Academy located in Tennessee.
The Pascarella Complaint and the McAlarnen Complaint are both
based upon substantially the same facts and circumstances as
alleged in the Ham Complaint.  The only notable difference among
the three complaints is that both the Pascarella and McAlarnen
Complaints name the local motor vehicles agency and the TDOS as
defendants, whereas the Ham Complaint does not.  The McAlarnen
Complaint has been dismissed without prejudice because the
McAlarnen plaintiff has elected to pursue the Director of the
Bureau of Driver Licensing of the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation for damages.  The Company has filed an answer to
the Pascarella Complaint.  The Company has also filed a cross-
claim against the Commissioner for a judicial declaration and
judgment that the Company did not engage in any wrongdoing as
alleged in the complaint and a request for injunctive relief to
compel the Commissioner to redact any statements or publications
that allege wrongdoing by the Company and to issue corrective
statements to any recipients of any such publications.  The
Commissioner's motion to dismiss the Company's cross claim has
been dismissed by the court.

On May 29, 2009, the Company was served with two additional class
action complaints involving the same alleged facts as set forth in
the Ham Complaint and the Pascarella Complaint.  The two matters
are Gerald L. Lott and Francisco Armenta on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc. and David Mitchell the Commissioner of the Tennessee
Department of Safety, Case No. 2:09-cv-02287, filed on May 7,
2009, in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Tennessee, or the Lott Complaint; and Marylene Broadnax on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Swift
Transportation Corporation, Case No. 09-cv-6486-7, filed on May
22, 2009, in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, State of
Georgia, or the Broadnax Complaint.  While the Ham Complaint, the
Pascarella Complaint, and the Lott Complaint all were filed in
federal district courts, the Broadnax Complaint was filed in state
court.  As with all of these related complaints, the Company has
filed an answer to the Lott Complaint and the Broadnax Complaint.
The Company has also filed a cross-claim against the Commissioner
for a judicial declaration and judgment that the Company did not
engage in any wrongdoing as alleged in the complaint and a request
for injunctive relief to compel the Commissioner to redact any
statements or publications that allege wrongdoing by the Company
and to issue corrective statements to any recipients of any such
publications.  The Commissioner's motion to dismiss the Company's
cross claim has been dismissed by the court.  The portion of the
Lott complaint against the Commissioner has been dismissed as a
result of a settlement agreement reached between the approximately
138 Lott class members and the Commissioner granting the class
members 90 days to retake the test for their CDL.

The Pascarella Complaint, the Lott Complaint, and the Broadnax
Complaint were consolidated with the Ham Complaint in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and
discovery is ongoing.

In November 2011 and February 2012, the Company engaged in
voluntary mediation in an attempt to resolve the matter and
mitigate the costs and risks of ongoing litigation.  On
September 14, 2012, the parties submitted to the court a petition
for approval of a settlement agreement in resolution of the entire
matter.  On October 22, 2012, the United States District Court for
the Western District of Tennessee approved the settlement
agreement wherein Swift has agreed to make certain payments to
qualifying class members on a claims made basis which will be
within a dollar range of $2.0 million to $2.5 million in the
aggregate and Swift will also agree to relinquish any legal claims
to amounts owed by class members during the May 2005 through
February 2008 class period for unpaid academy tuition.

The cost of settlement to Swift, including cash payments, related
costs and unpaid tuition charge offs, is not expected to result in
any additional material charges or financial impact to the
Company.  Although Swift will relinquish its legal rights to
amounts owed to it by class members for unpaid academy tuition,
such amounts were fully reserved for in prior periods in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and thus
no additional charges will be recorded for the relinquishment of
such unpaid tuition receivables in connection with the settlement.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Wage & Hour Suits Remain Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by John
Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons against Swift Transportation Company: John
Burnell and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation
Co., Inc., Case No. CIVDS 1004377, filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, for the County of San Bernardino, or the
Burnell Complaint.  On September 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift,
the matter was removed to the United States District Court for the
central District of California, Case No. EDCV10-00809-VAP.  The
putative class includes drivers who worked for the Company during
the four years preceding the date of filing alleging that the
Company failed to pay the California minimum wage, failed to
provide proper meal and rest periods, and failed to timely pay
wages upon separation from employment.  The Burnell Complaint was
subject to a stay of proceedings pending determination of similar
issues in a case unrelated to Swift, Brinker v Hohnbaum, which was
currently pending before the California Supreme Court.  An opinion
was entered in the Brinker matter and in August 2012, the stay in
the Burnell Complaint was lifted.

On April 5, 2012, the Company was served with an additional class
action complaint alleging facts similar to those as set forth in
the Burnell Complaint.  This new class action is James R. Rudsell,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation
Company, Case No. CIVDS 1200255, in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Bernadino, or the Rudsell
Complaint.

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

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend certification of
the class in both matters as well as the merits of these matters
should the classes be certified.  The final disposition of both
cases and the impact of such final dispositions of these cases
cannot be determined at this time.


TRUE TASTE: Recalls Vacuum Packed Hot Smoked Fish Products
----------------------------------------------------------
True Taste, LLC of Kenosha, Wisconsin, is recalling it's vacuum
packaged Hot Smoked Rainbow Trout, Hot Smoked Whitefish, Hot
Smoked Herring, Hot Smoked Mackerel, Hot Smoked Salmon Steak, Cold
Smoked Mackerel, and Cold Smoked Whitefish because they have the
potential to be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a
bacterium which can cause life-threatening illness or death.
Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not
look or smell spoiled.

Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-vision
and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in breathing,
weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation
may also be common symptoms.  People experiencing these problems
should seek immediate medical attention.

The recalled product is vacuum packaged and can be identified with
either the True Taste Label in CA and IL or the Lowell Foods Label
in IL.  The recalled product has a white sticker applied to the
package with two sets of numbers.  The first set of numbers
represent the date of processing the second set of numbers
represents the best if used by date.  This recall includes all
production dates beginning on 01/01/2012 through current.

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm332786.htm

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
recall.

The potential for contamination was identified after routine
samples collected by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture,
Trade and Consumer Protection found that the product did not meet
the 3.5% minimum requirement for water phase salt.  The sample
analysis reported water phase salt concentrations of 2.2% (hot
smoked white fish); 3.0% (hot smoked herring); and 3.4% (hot
smoked rainbow trout).

Consumers that may still have packages of the recalled smoked fish
in their homes should not consume the product and are urged to
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.

True Taste LLC has voluntarily halted production and is
cooperating fully with the involved regulatory authorities.  This
recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration.

Consumer questions should be directed to Vlad Shneyderman, 252-
697-9255, Monday - Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Central Standard
Time.


TRUSTMARK CORP: Stanford Suits Referred to Magistrate Judge
-----------------------------------------------------------
The two class action lawsuits against Trustmark Corporation
related to the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group were
referred to a magistrate judge for hearing and determination of
certain pretrial issues, according to the Company's November 7,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Trustmark's wholly-owned subsidiary, Trustmark National Bank
(TNB), has been named as a defendant in two lawsuits related to
the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group.  The first is a
purported class action complaint that was filed on August 23,
2009, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif
Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze,
Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, naming TNB and four
other financial institutions unaffiliated with the Company as
defendants.  The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent
transfers from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and
other monies received by each defendant from entities controlled
by R. Allen Stanford (collectively, the "Stanford Financial
Group") and (ii) damages allegedly attributable to alleged
conspiracies by one or more of the defendants with the Stanford
Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the
asserted grounds that defendants knew or should have known the
Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent
scheme.  Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial.  Plaintiffs did
not quantify damages.  In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed
to federal court by certain defendants and then transferred by the
United States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court
in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford
related matters are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.
In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the lawsuit, and the motions to dismiss have been fully
briefed by all parties.  The court has not yet ruled on the
defendants' motions to dismiss.  In August 2010, the court
authorized and approved the formation of an Official Stanford
Investors Committee to represent the interests of Stanford
investors and, under certain circumstances, to file legal actions
for the benefit of Stanford investors.  In December 2011, the
Official Stanford Investors Committee filed a motion to intervene
in this action.  In January 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to
join the Official Stanford Investors Committee as an additional
plaintiff in this action.  Trustmark opposed these two motions.
The court has not yet ruled on the intervention and joinder
motions.  In September 2012, the district court referred the case
to a magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain
pretrial issues.

The second Stanford-related lawsuit was filed on December 14,
2009, in the District Court of Ascension Parish, Louisiana,
individually by Harold Jackson, Paul Blaine, Carolyn Bass Smith,
Christine Nichols, and Ronald and Ramona Hebert naming TNB
(misnamed as Trust National Bank) and other individuals and
entities not affiliated with the Company as defendants.  The
complaint seeks to recover the money lost by these individual
plaintiffs as a result of the collapse of  the Stanford Financial
Group (in addition to other damages) under various theories and
causes of action, including negligence, breach of contract, breach
of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental
reliance, conspiracy, and violation of Louisiana's uniform
fiduciary, securities, and racketeering laws.  The complaint does
not quantify the amount of money the plaintiffs seek to recover.
In January 2010, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.  On March 29,
2010, the court stayed the case.  TNB filed a motion to lift the
stay, which was denied on February 28, 2012.  In September 2012,
the district court referred the case to a magistrate judge for
hearing and determination of certain pretrial issues.

TNB's relationship with the Stanford Financial Group began as a
result of Trustmark's acquisition of a Houston-based bank in
August 2006, and consisted of correspondent banking and other
traditional banking services in the ordinary course of business.
Both Stanford-related lawsuits are in their preliminary stages and
have been previously reported in the press and disclosed by
Trustmark.

The Company says all pending legal proceedings are being
vigorously contested.  In the regular course of business,
Management evaluates estimated losses or costs related to
litigation, and provision is made for anticipated losses whenever
Management believes that such losses are probable and can be
reasonably estimated.  At the present time, Management believes,
based on the advice of legal counsel and Management's evaluation,
that (i) the final resolution of pending legal proceedings will
not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material impact on
Trustmark's consolidated financial position or results of
operations and (ii) a material adverse outcome in any such case is
not reasonably possible.

Trustmark Corporation -- http://www.trustmark.com/-- operates as
the bank holding company for Trustmark National Bank, which
provides banking and financial solutions to individuals and
corporate institutions in Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, and
Texas.  The Company was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in
Jackson, Mississippi.


TRUSTMARK CORP: TNB Defends Two Class Suits Over Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation's subsidiary is defending two class action
lawsuits related to overdraft fees, according to the Company's
November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Trustmark's wholly-owned subsidiary, Trustmark National Bank
(TNB), is the defendant in two putative class actions challenging
TNB's practices regarding "overdraft" or "non-sufficient funds"
fees charged by TNB in connection with customer use of debit
cards, including TNB's order of processing transactions, notices
and calculations of charges, and calculations of fees.  Kathy D.
White v. TNB was filed in Tennessee state court in Memphis,
Tennessee and was removed on June 19, 2012, to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.  (Plaintiff
Kathy White had filed an earlier, virtually identical action that
was voluntarily dismissed.)  Leroy Jenkins v. TNB was filed on
June 4, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi.  The White and Jenkins pleadings are
matters of public record in the files of the courts.  In both
cases, the plaintiffs purport to represent classes of similarly-
situated customers of TNB.  The White complaint asserts claims of
breach of contract, breach of a duty of good faith and fair
dealing, unconscionability, conversion, and unjust enrichment.
The Jenkins complaint includes similar allegations as well as
federal-law claims under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA)
and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).  On
July 19, 2012, the plaintiff in the White case filed an amended
complaint to add plaintiffs from Mississippi and also to add
federal EFTA claims.  Trustmark contends that amended complaint
was procedurally improper.

On October 4, 2012, the plaintiff in the White case moved for
leave to add two Tennessee plaintiffs.  That motion is pending for
decision.  Trustmark has filed preliminary dismissal motions, and
discovery has begun, in the White case; the Jenkins case has not
yet entered the active discovery stage.  Each of these complaints
seeks the imposition of a constructive trust and unquantified
damages.  These complaints are largely patterned after similar
lawsuits that have been filed against other banks across the
country.

The Company says all pending legal proceedings are being
vigorously contested.  In the regular course of business,
Management evaluates estimated losses or costs related to
litigation, and provision is made for anticipated losses whenever
Management believes that such losses are probable and can be
reasonably estimated.  At the present time, Management believes,
based on the advice of legal counsel and Management's evaluation,
that (i) the final resolution of pending legal proceedings will
not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material impact on
Trustmark's consolidated financial position or results of
operations and (ii) a material adverse outcome in any such case is
not reasonably possible.

Trustmark Corporation -- http://www.trustmark.com/-- operates as
the bank holding company for Trustmark National Bank, which
provides banking and financial solutions to individuals and
corporate institutions in Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, and
Texas.  The Company was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in
Jackson, Mississippi.


USG CORP: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Drywall Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that drywall
manufacturers conspired to raise prices by 35 percent this year
and stopped offering discounts for big jobs to monitor any
"defection" from the conspiracy, which involves practically all
the drywall sold in North America, a buyer claims in an antitrust
class action.

Sierra Drywall Systems sued the eight companies that "manufacture
and sell almost all of the gypsum board sold in the United
States," according to the federal complaint.

The market for drywall, also known as gypsum board, is enormous:
The average new home in the United States contains more than 7
tons of it, Sierra says.

Named as defendants are USG Corp., United States Gypsum Co., New
NGC Inc., LaFarge North America, CertainTeed Corp., Georgia-
Pacific, American Gypsum Co., TIN Inc. dba Temple-Inland, and
PABCO Building Products.

Sierra claims that five of the defendant companies announced 35
percent price hikes in rapid succession this year.

"Gypsum board -- also known as drywall, wallboard, sheetrock or
plasterboard -- is used in over 90 percent of all new residential
and commercial construction projects in the United States.  On
average, a new home built in the United States contains more than
7.31 metric tons of gypsum," Sierra says in its complaint.

Arizona-based Sierra Drywall claims that "from at least September
2011 through the present, the defendants, manufacturers of gypsum
board, combined and conspired to fix and raise the prices at which
they sold gypsum board in the United States beginning with large
and coordinated price increases that all became effective on or
about January 1 or 2, 2012.  In advance of these coordinated
increases, during late September through mid-October 2011, five of
the eight defendant manufacturers announced that they were raising
gypsum board prices in January 2012 by an unprecedented 35 percent
to their customers and indicated those prices increases would
remain in place throughout 2012."

The remaining defendants sent letters to their customers
indicating they would impose similar price increases, the
complaint states.

Sierra claims the price increase was led by American Gypsum, which
has a relatively small market share.  "Absent assurances and
agreement that its 'competitors' would follow, such 'leadership'
by a small player would have been contrary to American Gypsum's
self interest," Sierra says in the complaint.

Despite a soft construction market, "Defendants also maintained
substantially higher prices in the face of significant industry
overcapacity that would have made it virtually impossible for any
defendant independently to impose and maintain a substantial price
increases on its customers in the absence of collusion," according
to the 37-page complaint.

Sierra claims that "at virtually the same time, each of the
defendants also abruptly abolished its use of a decades-old
competitive pricing practice known as job quotes.  . . . Job
quotes permitted customers to lock in the price of gypsum board
for the entire course of a construction project.  Notwithstanding
the pivotal role this pricing model had historically played in the
industry for more than four decades, each defendant abruptly
eliminated the practice in late 2011, at the same time that they
put in place the industry-wide price increases described above."

Sierra claims that the elimination of job quotes allowed the
defendants to monitor each others' pricing to ensure no co-
conspirator undercut the others.

"Prior to the elimination of job quotes, as much as 70 percent of
all gypsum board was sold pursuant to a job quote.  If job quotes
had remained in place, a defendant's failure to implement
collusive price increases would not necessarily mean defection
from a conspiracy, but could simply be pricing consistent with the
job quote practice.  With the practice eliminated, however, any
failure to impose price increases on customers would be more
readily recognized by co-conspirators as cheating.  Thus, by
collusively eliminating the job quote policy, defendants not only
ensured more immediate and consistent implementation of their
conspiratorial 2012 price increase, but facilitated the monitoring
of the conspiracy," according to the complaint.

The defendants "collectively account for over 99 percent of the
gypsum board sold in the United States and Canada," the complaint
states.  "The three largest defendants account for more than 60
percent of the U.S. sales of gypsum board."

USG controls 25 percent of the North American market, National
Gypsum 23 percent, Saint Gobain/CertainTeed 13 percent, and
Georgia-Pacific and American Gypsum 10 percent each, according to
the complaint.

Sierra seeks treble damages for conspiracy and antitrust
violations.

It is represented by Elizabeth Fegan -- beth@hbsslaw.com -- with
Hagens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro, of Oak Park.



                           *********

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  * * *