CAR_Public/121227.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, December 27, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 255

                             Headlines


1905 STORY: Faces Suit for Unpaid Overtime Wages
AARON'S INC: Bid to Decertify Class in "Kunstmann" Suit Pending
AARON'S INC: Discovery in "Korrow" Class Action Suit Has Closed
AARON'S INC: Expects Less Than 10% Class Size in "Jewell" Suit
AGILYSYS INC: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suit in Calif.

AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: "Silverstrand" Suit Appeal Under Advisement
AUSTRALIA: 600 People Join Class Action Over Horse Flu Outbreak
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Awaits Decision in Suit Over Overdraft Fees
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Securities Suit Settlement Approved in Oct.
BRISTOW GROUP: "Superior" Class Action Lawsuit Now Dismissed

CARDINAL HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing
CBS CORP: Continues to Defend Unit From Suits Over E-book Sales
CC STAFFING: Sued for Failing to Pay Employees' Overtime Wages
CEVA FREIGHT: Underpaid Drivers Lose Class Certification
CHARLIE ROSE: Settles Interns' Class Action For About $250,000

DISH NETWORK: Faces FCRA Violations Suit in New York
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Judge Dismisses Special Ed Class Action
GODADDY GROUP: Ex-Workers File Lawsuit for Unpaid Overtime
HAIN CELESTIAL: Seeks Dismissal of "Organic" Label Class Action
HEELYS: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Sale to Sequential Brands

ICAHN ENTERPRISES: To Seek Dismissal of "Silsby" Class Suit
IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Settles Shareholder Class/Derivative Actions
KEM REST: Faces Class Suit Over FLSA Violations in New York
KIT DIGITAL: Newman Ferrara Files Securities Class Action
KIT DIGITAL: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Class Action

LG CHEM: Sued Over Conspiracy to Fix and Raise Battery Prices
MUDDY OUTDOORS: Recalls 1,500 Tree Climbing Sticks
NUCOR CORP: Still Defends Antitrust Class Suits in Illinois
OKLAHOMA GAS: "Price I" Suit vs. OGE Energy Units Now Closed
SACRAMENTO INTERNATIONAL: Faces ADA Class Action Over Terminal B

SASSY INC: Recalls 45,300 Hug N' Tug Baby Toys
SCHURMAN RETAIL: Recalls 108 PAPYRUS Signature Collection Frames
SCHURMAN RETAIL: Recalls 530 PAPYRUS Red 17-Inch Decorative Trees
SCHURMAN RETAIL: Recalls 55,700 PAPYRUS Signature Ornaments
SCHWEGEL'S FOOD: Faces Class Action Over Check Cashing Fees

SIRIUS XM: Appeals Court Upholds $180MM Class Action Settlement
SKYLINE NAILS: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime and Minimum Wages
SUNTRUST BANKS: Captive Reinsurance Suit Dismissal Bids Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend 3 Suits Over Overdraft Fees
SUNTRUST BANKS: Motions to Dismiss Lehman-Related Suits Pending

SUNTRUST BANKS: No Appeal Was Filed From Dismissal of TRUPs Suit
SUNTRUST BANKS: Plea to Dismiss Colonial Securities Suit Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: Awaits Cir. Ct. Direction in Pending ERISA Suit
SUNTRUST BANKS: Suit Over Classic Mutual Funds Dismissed in Oct.
SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Continues to Defend Overdraft Fees MDL

SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Settlement of Merger-Related Suits Okayed
TENET HEALTHCARE: Appeal in "Doe" Class Suit Still Pending
TENET HEALTHCARE: Class Cert. Denial in Wage & Hour Suit Affirmed
TENET HEALTHCARE: Awaits Okay of $12-MM "Dunn" Suit Settlement
TOYOTA INC: Settles Sudden Acceleration Suit for $1.4 Bil.

UDI'S HEALTHY: Recalls Bags of Gluten Free Au Naturel Granola


                          *********



1905 STORY: Faces Suit for Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------
Hoq M. Shirajul, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. 1905 Story Operating Corp. d/b/a Popeye's Restaurant
and Jay Syed, Case No. 1:12-cv-08797 (S.D.N.Y., December 4, 2012)
alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Shirajul contends that pursuant to the FLSA, he is entitled to
recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) liquidated
damages and (3) attorneys' fees and costs.  He alleges that the
Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay him his lawfully
earned overtime wages in direct contravention of the FLSA and the
New York Labor Law.

Mr. Shirajul is a resident of Queens County, New York.

1905 Story is a New York corporation based in Brooklyn, New York.
Jay Syed is the chairman or chief executive officer of the
Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
          271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 576-1857
          Facsimile: (212) 576-1888
          E-Mail: robert@kraselnik.com


AARON'S INC: Bid to Decertify Class in "Kunstmann" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. is still awaiting for a court decision on its motion
for decertification of the class in the lawsuit filed by Kunstmann
et al., according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In Kunstmann et al. v. Aaron Rents, Inc., originally filed with
the United States District Court, Northern District of Alabama, on
October 29, 2008, plaintiffs alleged that the Company improperly
classified store general managers as exempt from the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  Plaintiffs
seek to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for
all similarly situated general managers nationwide for the period
January 25, 2007, to present.  After initially denying plaintiffs'
class certification motion in April 2009, the Court ruled to
conditionally certify a plaintiff class in early 2010.  The
current class includes 247 individuals.  The Company has filed its
motion to decertify the class action as well as a motion for
summary judgment on plaintiff's individual claims.  On October 4,
2012 the Court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment as
to Mr. Kunstmann individually finding that there were too many
factual disputes regarding Mr. Kunstmann's job duties to enter
judgment at this time.  The Court has not yet ruled on the
Company's motion for decertification.  The parties were ordered by
the Court to attend mediation on March 1, 2012, and March 12,
2012, which did not result in settlement.


AARON'S INC: Discovery in "Korrow" Class Action Suit Has Closed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the class action lawsuit initiated by Margaret
Korrow, et al., has closed, according to Aaron's, Inc.'s
November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In Margaret Korrow, et al. v. Aaron's, Inc., originally filed in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Law Division
on October 26, 2010, plaintiff filed a lawsuit on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated alleging that the Company is
liable in damages to plaintiff and each class member because the
Company's lease agreements issued after March 16, 2006,
purportedly violated certain New Jersey state consumer statutes.
The Company removed the lawsuit to the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on December 6, 2010.
Plaintiff on behalf of herself and others similarly situated seeks
equitable relief, statutory and treble damages, pre- and post-
judgment interest and attorneys' fees. To date, no class has been
certified.  Discovery on this matter has closed.  The Company says
it intends to vigorously defend itself in this litigation.


AARON'S INC: Expects Less Than 10% Class Size in "Jewell" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said 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 expects the class size in the lawsuit
brought by Kurtis Jewell to represent less than 10% of the
potential class members.

The matter of Kurtis Jewell v. Aaron's, Inc. was originally filed
in the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division on October 28, 2011, and was transferred on
February 23, 2012, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta Division) (Civil No.:1:12-
CV-00563-AT).  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other non-
exempt employees who worked in Company stores, alleges that the
Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") when it
automatically deducted 30 minutes from employees' time for meal
breaks.  Plaintiff claims he and other employees actually worked
through meal breaks or were interrupted during the course of their
meal break and asked to perform work.  As a result of the
automatic deduction, plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to
account for all of his working hours when it calculated overtime,
and consequently underpaid him.  Approximately 20 employees have
opted-in to this lawsuit pursuant to the FLSA's opt-in provisions.

On September 28, 2012, the Court issued an order granting
conditional certification of a class consisting of all hourly
store employees from October 27, 2008, to the present.  The
Company filed a request for interlocutory appeal, which the Court
denied and notice was distributed to the class members.  With
limited exceptions, the time period for class members to opt in
has expired.  The Company expects the class size to represent less
than ten percent of the potential class members and intends to
vigorously defend itself in the litigation.


AGILYSYS INC: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Agilysys, Inc. continues to defend itself against a wage and hour
class action lawsuit in California, 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 9, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California alleging violations of federal and state
wage and hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining primarily to
pay for missed meals and rest periods and failure to reimburse
business expenses.  The lawsuit purports to be a class action and
seeks substantial damages.  At this time, the Company says it is
not able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit, or any possible
monetary exposure associated with the lawsuit.  The Company's
management believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit and that their claims are not appropriate for class action
treatment.  The Company is vigorously defending these claims.


AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: "Silverstrand" Suit Appeal Under Advisement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action complaint was originally filed on
March 18, 2010, in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, entitled Silverstrand Investments et.
al. v. AMAG Pharm., Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-10470-
NMG, and was amended on September 15, 2010, and on
December 17, 2010.  The second amended complaint, or SAC, filed on
December 17, 2010, alleged that the Company and its former
President and Chief Executive Officer, former Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, its Board, and certain
underwriters in its January 2010 offering of common stock violated
certain federal securities laws, specifically Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and that the
Company's former President and Chief Executive Officer and former
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer violated
Section 15 of such Act, respectively, by making certain alleged
false and misleading statements and omissions in a registration
statement filed in January 2010.  The plaintiff sought unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock pursuant to its common stock offering on or
about January 21, 2010.  On August 11, 2011, the Court issued an
Opinion and Order dismissing the SAC in its entirety for failure
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.  A separate
Order of Dismissal was filed on August 15, 2011.  On September 14,
2011, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, or the Court of Appeals.

After briefing was completed by all parties, the Court of Appeals
heard oral argument on May 11, 2012, and took the matter under
advisement.

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 is currently unable to predict the outcome or
reasonably estimate the range of potential loss associated with
this matter, if any, and have, therefore, not recorded any
potential estimated liability as the Company does not believe that
such a liability is probable nor does it believe that a range of
loss is currently estimable.


AUSTRALIA: 600 People Join Class Action Over Horse Flu Outbreak
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that a Hunter Valley Olympic equestrian says the
2007 horse flu outbreak nearly broke him and thousands of others,
and compensation is not much to ask.

Equine influenza wreaked havoc across the Hunter, bringing the
thoroughbred breeding season to a halt.

It also disrupted equestrian Heath Ryan's teaching and breeding
business, as he prepared for the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

A total of 600 people have now joined a class action against the
Commonwealth.

The case alleges negligence on the part of the Government's
quarantine agency, Australian Quarantine Inspection Service
(AQIS).

Mr. Ryan is taking part after calculating more than a million
dollars in losses after EI closed in on his Lochinvar property.

"It nearly killed me," he said.

"You know, when this EI hit it was like an implosion.

"One evening everything was serene, the next morning, they were
all just wracked with coughing and there was gunk coming out of
their noses."

Mr. Ryan says thousands of others were also hit hard.

"I can tell you in 2007 there were lots and lots and lots of
little Australians that just went down without a sound," he said.

"There was no mercy, there was no support, Government support for
these people and they went down because of EI."

Lawyers in Sydney and Brisbane are handling the class action and
the deadline to join was on Dec. 21.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Awaits Decision in Suit Over Overdraft Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
BancorpSouth, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its petition
for leave to appeal the class certification order in the lawsuit
filed by an Arkansas customer over 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.

On May 18, 2010, the Company's wholly-owned subsidiaries,
BancorpSouth Bank (the "Bank"), was named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit filed by an Arkansas customer of
the Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Florida.  The lawsuit challenges the manner in which overdraft
fees were charged and the policies related to posting order of
debit card and ATM transactions.  The lawsuit also makes a claim
under Arkansas' consumer protection statute. The plaintiff is
seeking to recover damages in an unspecified amount and equitable
relief.  The case was transferred to pending multi-district
litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.  On May 4, 2012, the judge presiding over the multi-
district litigation entered an order certifying a class in this
case.  The Company has filed a petition for leave to appeal the
class certification order, which, if granted, would provide the
Company with an immediate right to appeal the class certification
order.

At this stage of the lawsuit, management of the Company cannot
determine the probability of an unfavorable outcome to the
Company.  There are significant uncertainties involved in any
purported class action litigation.  Although it is not possible to
predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability with
respect to this litigation, management is currently of the opinion
that the outcome of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, consolidated financial position
or results of operations.

                       About BancorpSouth

BancorpSouth Inc. is a financial holding company headquartered in
Tupelo, Mississippi.  BancorpSouth Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary
of BancorpSouth, Inc., operates 290 commercial banking, mortgage,
insurance, trust and broker dealer locations in Alabama, Arkansas,
Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee and Texas,
and an insurance location in Illinois.  BancorpSouth's common
stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol
BXS.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Securities Suit Settlement Approved in Oct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
BancorpSouth, Inc.'s settlement of a securities class action
lawsuit 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 May 12, 2010, the Company and its Chief Executive Officer,
President and Chief Financial Officer were named in a class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's
common stock.  On September 17, 2010, an Executive Vice President
of the Company was added as a party to the lawsuit.  The amended
complaint alleges that the defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial results.  In particular, the allegations relate to the
Company's recording and reporting of its unaudited financial
statements, including the allowance and provision for credit
losses, and its internal control over financial reporting leading
up to the filing of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2009.  The plaintiff sought class
certification, an unspecified amount of damages and awards of
costs and attorneys' fees and other equitable relief.  On May 24,
2012, the Company reached a settlement with the plaintiff.
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, subject to final court
approval, the Company's insurance carriers funded the settlement
payment, other than an immaterial amount of incidental expenses
that the Company has covered.  On July 11, 2012, the court
preliminarily approved the settlement on the terms submitted by
the parties and granted final approval of the settlement on
October 31, 2012.  The Company says this settlement will not have
a material adverse effect on the Company's business, consolidated
financial position or results of operations.

                       About BancorpSouth

BancorpSouth Inc. is a financial holding company headquartered in
Tupelo, Mississippi.  BancorpSouth Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary
of BancorpSouth, Inc., operates 290 commercial banking, mortgage,
insurance, trust and broker dealer locations in Alabama, Arkansas,
Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee and Texas,
and an insurance location in Illinois.  BancorpSouth's common
stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol
BXS.


BRISTOW GROUP: "Superior" Class Action Lawsuit Now Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed by Superior Offshore International,
Inc. is now dismissed, according to Bristow Group Inc.'s November
7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On June 12, 2009, Superior Offshore International, Inc. v. Bristow
Group Inc., et al, Case No. 1:09-cv-00438, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware.  The purported class
action complaint, which also named other providers of offshore
helicopter services in the Gulf of Mexico as defendants, alleged
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Among other things,
the complaint alleged that the defendants unlawfully conspired to
raise and maintain the price of offshore helicopter services
between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2005.  The plaintiff was
seeking to represent a purported class of direct purchasers of
offshore helicopter services and was asking for, among other
things, unspecified treble monetary damages and injunctive relief.
In September 2010, the court granted the Company's and the other
defendants' motion to dismiss the case on several grounds. The
plaintiff then filed a motion seeking a rehearing and seeking
leave to amend its original complaint, which was partially granted
to permit limited discovery.  The Company and the other defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted and the
case was dismissed.  The plaintiff appealed the judgment in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  On July 27, 2012,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in
the Company's favor on all points and upheld the dismissal of the
case.  Since the time for the plaintiff to move for rehearing or
seek Supreme Court review has expired and the time for appeal has
passed, the case is now dismissed.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Cardinal Health and Owens &
Minor, which control 72 percent of the U.S. market for "sutures
and endomechanical products," collude to fix prices and restrain
competition, a hospital claims in a federal antitrust class action
in Philadelphia.


CBS CORP: Continues to Defend Unit From Suits Over E-book Sales
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation continues to defend its subsidiary against
lawsuits related to sales of e-books, 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 are pending against the following parties
relating to the sale of e-books: Apple Inc., Hachette Book Group,
Inc., HarperCollins Publishers, LLC, Holtzbrinck Publishers LLC
d/b/a Macmillan, Penguin Group (USA) Inc. and the Company's
subsidiary, Simon & Schuster, Inc. (collectively, the "Publishing
parties").

On April 10, 2012, for purposes of settlement and without any
admission of wrongdoing or liability, Simon & Schuster and two of
the other Publishing parties entered into a settlement stipulation
and proposed final judgment (the "Stipulation") with the United
States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") in connection with the
DOJ's investigations of agency distribution of e-books. In
furtherance of this settlement, on April 11, 2012, the DOJ filed
an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Publishing parties and
concurrently filed the Stipulation with the court.  On September
7, 2012, the Stipulation was approved by the court and final
judgment was entered.  The Stipulation does not involve any
monetary payments by Simon & Schuster, but will require the
adoption of certain business practices for a 24 month period and
certain compliance practices for a five year period.

On June 11, 2012, for purposes of settlement and without any
admission of wrongdoing or liability, Simon & Schuster entered
into a proposed settlement agreement to resolve the antitrust
action filed by a number of states and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico against several of the Publishing parties in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas, which was
transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York ("States") on April 30, 2012.  The proposed
settlement provides that, certain Publishing parties, including
Simon & Schuster, will pay agreed upon amounts for consumer
restitution, among other things, and also requires the adoption of
certain business and compliance practices, which are substantially
similar to those described in the Stipulation with the DOJ.  The
proposed settlement is subject to court approval.  On September
14, 2012, the court granted preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement, which all states (except Minnesota), the District
Columbia and the United States territories joined.  On October 15,
2012, Simon & Schuster paid the agreed upon amounts into an escrow
account pending final court approval.  The court is scheduled to
conduct a final settlement approval hearing on February 8, 2013.
The Company believes that this settlement with the States and the
Stipulation with the DOJ will not have a material adverse effect
on its results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

On December 9, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL") issued an order consolidating
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York various purported class action lawsuits that private
litigants had filed in federal courts in California and New York.
On January 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint with the court against the Publishing
parties.  These private litigant plaintiffs, who are e-book
purchasers, allege that, among other things, the defendants are in
violation of federal and/or state antitrust laws in connection
with the sale of e-books pursuant to agency distribution
arrangements between each of the publishers and e-book retailers.
The consolidated amended class action complaint generally seeks
multiple forms of damages for the purchase of e-books and
injunctive and other relief.  On March 2, 2012, the Publishing
parties filed a motion to dismiss this action.  On May 15, 2012,
the court denied the motion to dismiss.  The Company believes that
the States' settlement, if approved by the court, would likely
resolve the class claims of those private litigant plaintiffs in
the MDL litigation who reside in the areas covered by the States'
settlement and who do not opt-out of such settlement.

Commencing on February 24, 2012, similar antitrust lawsuits have
been filed under Canadian law against the Publishing parties by
private litigants in Canada, purportedly as class actions.  Simon
& Schuster intends to vigorously defend itself in the MDL and
Canadian matters.

In addition, the European Commission (the "EC") and Canadian
Competition Bureau are conducting separate competition
investigations of agency distribution arrangements of e-books in
this industry and Simon & Schuster is cooperating with these
investigations.  On September 19, 2012, the EC began accepting
public comment on the terms of a proposed settlement.  The
proposed settlement between the EC and certain Publishing parties,
including Simon & Schuster, requires the adoption of certain
business and compliance practices similar to those described in
the Stipulation with the DOJ, subject to public comment.

Founded in 1986 and headquartered in New York, CBS Corporation --
http://cbscorporation.com/-- together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a mass media company in the United States and
internationally.  The Company is composed of an Entertainment
segment, a Cable Networks segment, a Publishing segment, a Local
Broadcasting segment, and an Outdoor segment.


CC STAFFING: Sued for Failing to Pay Employees' Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alice Ogues, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CC Staffing, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1-
50, inclusive, Case No. 3:12-cv-06135 (N.D. Calif., December 4,
2012) is brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Labor Code and Business and Professions Code.

Ms. Ogues alleges that the Defendants failed to pay her and
similarly situated employees overtime wages by failing to include
all applicable remuneration when calculating their regular rates
of pay, failed to reimburse them for all necessary business
expenditures, made unlawful deductions from wages, failed to
provide them with all required meal and rest periods, failed to
provide them with accurate written wage statements, and failed to
timely pay them all of their final wages following termination or
separation of employment.  Based on these alleged Labor Code
violations, she seeks to recover unpaid wages, restitution, civil
and statutory penalties and related relief.

Ms. Ogues was employed by the Defendants as a registered nurse at
healthcare facilities in California during the relevant time
period.

CC Staffing is a Delaware corporation.  Ms. Ogues is ignorant of
the Doe Defendants' true names, capacities, relationships, and
extent of participation in the conduct alleged herein.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SHAUN SETAREH
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 711
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com


CEVA FREIGHT: Underpaid Drivers Lose Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
The HR Specialist reports that a North Carolina judge has
decertified a class action against CEVA Freight, a freight hauler.
The suit had alleged the company was underpaying some 2,000
drivers across the nation.

U.S. District Court Judge Frank D. Whitney had certified the class
in January 2011, but depositions taken since then show that many
of the drivers negotiated individual contracts with the carrier.
Judge Whitney cited the Supreme Court decision in Wal-Mart v.
Dukes in his decision to decertify the class because it lacked the
commonality necessary for a class-action suit.

Unless the drivers' attorneys can win certification on appeal, the
individual drivers will have to pursue remedies individually.  As
a practical matter, many will not because their individual
circumstances will not entice a lawyer to represent them.


CHARLIE ROSE: Settles Interns' Class Action For About $250,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that a
class action lawsuit brought by a former intern at the Charlie
Rose show has been settled for about $250,000.

On Dec. 18, attorneys for Lucy Bickerton, who sued on behalf of
herself and others situated, told a New York court that a deal had
been struck to end litigation that contended violations of New
York's labor laws arising from a failure to pay the show's
interns.

Ms. Bickerton sued in March, alleging that she wasn't paid despite
working 25 hours a week for three months in the summer of 2007.
In her original complaint, she said there were 10 other interns
working for Rose during the time she spent on the show.  A 2008
graduate of Wesleyan University, Ms. Bickerton said her duties
included assembling background research and press packets,
escorting guests, digesting Mr. Rose's interviews and cleaning.

The lawsuit didn't get very far before negotiations commenced.
Mr. Rose never responded to the claims.

According to court documents filed last week, each class member
will receive $110 for each week that he or she interned on the
show, up to a maximum of 10 weeks.  The payment is noted to be
based on an average internship day of 6 hours, and an average
internship week of 2.5 days.  The class covers those interns who
worked on the show between March 14, 2006, and Oct. 1, 2012.

To settle the claims, Mr. Rose has also agreed to pay the
plaintiff's attorneys $50,000 for legal work -- an amount on top
of class members' settlement awards.

Ms. Bickerton told The New York Times that the settlement was "a
really important moment for this movement against unpaid
internships."

Other lawsuits against media and entertainment companies are
ongoing.

The biggest might be a challenge against the internship programs
at Fox Entertainment Group.  Originally a lawsuit that involved
two interns who worked on Fox Searchlight's Black Swan, a New York
judge allowed in October the class action to include a class of
interns who worked at various production divisions as well as
corporate interns.

Labor attorneys have cautioned that Hollywood could see more
litigation over internship programs unless they follow protocol
from the Department of Labor that internships be expressly
educational, for the benefit of the intern, that the intern
doesn't displace regular employees, that the employer derives no
immediate advantage from the intern, that the intern is not
entitled to a job after the internship, and that the intern
understands that he or she is not entitled to wages.  The
interpretation of these criteria hasn't been particularly well
addressed in courts as of yet.

In arguing for a judge's approval, the plaintiff's lawyers note,
"The determination whether interns are employees covered by the
[New York Labor Laws] would be fact-intensive, requiring
Plaintiffs to present evidence regarding the nature of the
internship program, the activities in which interns participated
and the benefits that they provided to Defendants, all of which
would likely be disputed by Defendants . . .  While Plaintiff
believes that she would ultimately prevail, the settlement
eliminates these risks and will allow all class members to recover
now."


DISH NETWORK: Faces FCRA Violations Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
Scott Ernst, individually and as a representative of the classes
v. Dish Network, LLC, Dish Network Service, LLC, and Sterling
Infosystems, Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-08794 (S.D.N.Y., December 4,
2012) relates to the Defendants' alleged improper creation,
procurement, and use of consumer reports.

Ms. Ogues alleges that working together, DISH Network, a well-
known provider of direct broadcast satellite services, and
Sterling Infosystems, a large consumer reporting agency, have
systematically and willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.  DISH Network has violated the law by procuring consumer
reports on its field technicians without first obtaining their
consent, and by taking adverse action against its technicians
without first providing them with a copy of the report and an
opportunity to contest its contents, Mr. Ernst asserts.  He adds
that Sterling Infosystems has violated the law by including
irrelevant and outdated information in its reports, and by failing
to provide free copies of reports to consumers who request them.

Mr. Ernst is a resident of Cokato, Minnesota (Wright County).

DISH Network, L.L.C. and DISH Network Service, L.L.C. are Colorado
limited liability companies, headquartered in Englewood, Colorado.
Sterling Infosystems is a company incorporated in Delaware with
its principal place of business in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          Adam Hansen, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
          E-mail: fisher@nka.com
                  drake@nka.com
                  ahansen@nka.com


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Judge Dismisses Special Ed Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Zoe Tillman at The Blog of Legal
Times, a class action against the District of Columbia, in which
officials were accused of failing to provide for students with
special needs came to a close.

U.S. District Senior Judge Paul Friedman joined the bench in 1994.
Less than a year later, he became presiding judge of the class
action.  On Dec. 19, 17 years later, the case came to a close, an
event Judge Friedman called "historic."

"These class actions have been among the most important cases I've
been involved with in my years on the bench," Judge Friedman said
on Dec. 19 during a final fairness hearing on a settlement reached
by the parties.

Judge Friedman entered an order dismissing the case several hours
after the hearing on Dec. 19.  During the hearing, he spoke about
children affected by the school system's problems who appeared
before him in earlier stages of the case and said that on Dec. 19
he felt confident in the city's progress.

The case, known as Petties v. D.C., is one of six remaining class
actions against the District over its ability to care for some of
its most vulnerable residents, including students with special
needs.  The Petties case had two parts -- first, the effectiveness
of the city's system for paying non-D.C. public schools that took
in local students with special needs, and second, the quality of
transportation services provided to those children.

The plaintiffs and the city reached a settlement on the payment
side of the case over the summer and Judge Friedman ended court
oversight of the transportation system on Nov. 8.  The Dec. 19
hearing was about formally vacating past court orders and
dismissing the class action.  No objections were filed to the
settlement agreement.

"We've come a long way," co-lead class counsel Steven Ney told
Judge Friedman on Dec. 19.

Still, Mr. Ney said in his remarks the city could do much more to
improve the quality of special education within its public
schools, with the goal of no longer needing to send so many
children to other non-public schools.  "There needs to be more
local options," he said.

The case hit a minor snag earlier this month when a little boy was
left on a bus unattended for more than six hours.  Mr. Ney said
school and city officials demonstrated that they had systems in
place for responding to problems.  But he agreed with Judge
Friedman that such incidents were "aberrational" and not a sign
that deeper problems originally at play in the case were
resurfacing.

Ending the case and court oversight is also a big win for the
city, which has made ending the costly and time-consuming class
actions a priority.  The D.C. attorney general's office has
estimated that the city has spent more than $1.7 million annually
on fees related to those cases.

D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan attended the Dec. 19 hearing
and said he hoped the resolution of this case would set precedent
for seeking the dismissal of other cases.

"We're very grateful for the judge's patience in this matter," Mr.
Nathan said.


GODADDY GROUP: Ex-Workers File Lawsuit for Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Erika Morphy, writing for E-Commerce Times, reports that several
tech specialists are telling GoDaddy where to go -- in legal terms
-- for policies they claim cheated them out of compensation.
Among other things, they had to work through lunch breaks, arrive
early to set up their stations, and stay late to conclude calls --
all without pay, according to the complaint.  They're seeking
class-action status, which could add thousands to the suit.

Attorneys representing four former GoDaddy employees in a suit
over unpaid overtime are seeking to have the suit expanded to a
collective action.

Michelle Matheson, a partner with Matheson & Matheson and the
attorney of record on the suit, and Eric Epstein, an employment
attorney in Los Angeles, represent the former employees of
GoDaddy, all of whom worked in the company's inbound contact
center in Arizona as technical sales and support specialists.
Specifically they are alleging that they were not correctly paid
overtime under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

When reached for comment by the E-Commerce Times, GoDaddy declined
to respond to the allegations.

"We don't comment on pending litigation but have every intention
of vigorously defending ourselves," GoDaddy spokesperson Nick
Fuller told the E-Commerce Times.

                      Centers in Arizona, Iowa

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court of Phoenix
early last year.  Recently the attorneys received a schedule for
the action, which includes a deadline in the first quarter of 2013
to file paperwork to ask the court to certify the suit as a
collective action.

If the court grants that motion, the suit would include at least
3,000 class members that the attorneys, through preliminary
discovery, determined are in Arizona.  They also hope to have the
suit expanded to include individuals currently or previously
employed in GoDaddy's center in Iowa.

"We believe there are hundreds if not thousands of employees that
fall in this category of class," Mr. Epstein told the E-Commerce
Times.

                   Eroding Pay Minute by Minute

Various practices chipped away at employees' hourly pay at the
GoDaddy center, the attorneys allege -- essentially getting work
out of them without compensating them for their time.

For example, the company would require the employees to start
taking calls at the beginning of their shift at a certain time --
but to do that they had to arrive at their desk five minutes
earlier to start their computers and get the systems up, Ms.
Matheson said.  Conversely, they would clock out at the end of
their shift but remain at their desks for another five minutes
shutting everything down.

Another allegation is that the employees were required to log out
of their systems for the lunch period.  However, the employees
would usually work through lunch to get all of their work done
before the end of the shift, according to Ms. Matheson.

Employees also lost pay when taking calls near the end of their
shift.  The company's policy did not allow them to end the call
when their shift ended -- they had to see it through to resolution
-- "but their supervisor would adjust the time card to show they
had logged out," said Ms. Matheson.

The case is Casey Corbin, Christopher Flournoy, Toby Harris and
Allan Reeser v. GoDaddy Group Inc.  The case number is 12-CV-
00370-SRB.

If the suit doesn't get the collective action status it is
seeking, it will move forward on behalf of the four plaintiffs,
Ms. Matheson said.  "If other people come forward, we might be
able to add them to the suit on an individual basis, if that is
the case."


HAIN CELESTIAL: Seeks Dismissal of "Organic" Label Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, reports that The Hain
Celestial Group Inc. urged a California federal judge on Dec. 21
to toss a putative class action claiming it tricked consumers into
believing its Avalon Organics and Jason brand cosmetics were
predominantly organic, arguing the word "organic" on their labels
doesn't refer to products or ingredients.

Hain's attorney, William Friedman -- wfriedman@cov.com -- of
Covington Burling LLP, pushed U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler
to dismiss Rosminah Brown and Eric Lohela's claims that Jason's
"pure, natural and organic" tagline and Avalon Organics' name,
which appear on their products' front labels.


HEELYS: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Sale to Sequential Brands
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Heelys is selling itself too
cheaply through an unfair process to Sequential Brands, for $63.2
million, or about $2.30 a share, shareholders claim in Delaware
Chancery Court.


ICAHN ENTERPRISES: To Seek Dismissal of "Silsby" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Icahn Enterprises L.P. said 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 file a motion
to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit in New York.

On March 28, 2012, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York, entitled Silsby v. Icahn et al.
Defendants include Carl C. Icahn and two officers of Dynegy Inc.
and certain of its directors.  As initially filed, the action
purports to be brought as a class action on behalf of Dynegy
shareholders who acquired their shares between September 2011 and
March 2012.  The Complaint alleges violations of the federal
securities laws in defendants' allegedly making false and
misleading statements in securities filings that artificially
inflated the price of Dynegy stock.  The individual defendants are
alleged to have been controlling persons of Dynegy.  Plaintiff is
seeking damages in an unspecified amount.  Subsequent to the
filing of this action, Dynegy filed for bankruptcy, and a U.S.
bankruptcy court has approved a Plan of Reorganization.  Plaintiff
is proceeding with the action and has filed an amended complaint
which purports to be a class action on behalf of Dynegy
shareholders who acquired their securities between July 10, 2011,
through March 9, 2012.  However, the Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses to the claims and intends to file a motion to
dismiss.


IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Settles Shareholder Class/Derivative Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Holdings, Inc., a specialty finance company with a focus
on providing liquidity solutions to owners of illiquid financial
assets, on Dec. 19 disclosed that the company and all other
relevant parties have executed a non-binding term sheet to settle
the shareholder class action lawsuits and derivative demands
instituted against the Company and certain of its current and
former directors and officers.

The proposed settlement terms, while non-binding and subject to
certain contingencies, provide for the resolution of all of the
class action lawsuits and derivative actions.  As contemplated,
the class action settlement would include a cash payment by
Imperial to the class of $12 million, $11 million of which is to
be contributed by Imperial's Directors & Officers insurance
carriers, and 2 million warrants with an exercise price of $10.75
to be issued by the Company.  In addition, to settle the
derivative actions, Imperial will agree to implement certain
corporate governance reforms, if ratified by a shareholder vote,
and will pay stock valued at $500,000 and cash to be contributed
by its primary D&O carrier of $1.5 million for attorney's fees.
Imperial has also agreed to establish a $500,000 trust to cover
certain individual insurance claims made on its D&O policies as
well to provide advancement of legal fees and indemnification for
certain individuals covered under the policies.  All parties have
agreed to endeavor to enter into definitive settlement agreements
by January 15, 2013.

Antony Mitchell, CEO of Imperial Holdings commented, "We are
pleased to have reached an understanding in respect of all
outstanding class action and derivative litigation against the
Company and to have secured the cooperation of our D&O carriers in
resolving these matters.  We will work diligently to memorialize
this understanding in formal settlement agreements by January 15th
and will then seek court approval."


KEM REST: Faces Class Suit Over FLSA Violations in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. Kem Rest., Inc. d/b/a Don Giovanni Ristorante,
Thompson Rest. Inc. d/b/a Don Giovanni Ristorante, Marilyn Cohen,
and John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:12-cv-08810 (S.D.N.Y.)
(December 4, 2012) is brought on behalf of similarly situated
current and former employees of the Defendants under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Carlos alleges that he and the proposed class members are
entitled to (i) compensation for wages paid at less than the
statutory minimum wage, (ii) unpaid wages from the Defendants for
overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay
as required by law, and (iii) liquidated damages pursuant to the
FLSA because the Defendants' violations were willful.

Mr. Carlos is a resident of in Queens, New York.

Kem Rest. and Thompson Rest. are New York corporations
headquartered in New York.  They operate as a common enterprise
all doing business under the name Don Giovanni Ristorante, sharing
common ownership and management and operating for a common
business purpose.  Marilyn Cohen is an owner or part owner and
principal of the Don Giovanni Defendants, who has the power to
hire and fire employees, set wages and schedules, and retain their
records.  The Doe Defendants represent the other owners, officers,
directors and managing agents of the Don Giovanni defendants,
whose identities are unknown at this time.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Stein, Esq.
          Michael Samuel, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884
          E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com
                  michael@samuelandstein.com


KIT DIGITAL: Newman Ferrara Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Newman Ferrara LLP on Dec. 19 disclosed that it filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Hughes v. KIT digital Inc., et al.,
12-cv-9210) on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of KIT
digital, Inc. for violations of federal securities laws.

Investors who purchased KIT securities between May 19, 2009 and
November 21, 2012 may apply with the Court to be appointed Lead
Plaintiff no later than January 29, 2013.  The Lead Plaintiff will
direct the litigation on behalf of the other class members.  The
Court will select the Lead Plaintiff from among applicants
claiming the largest investment losses.

The Complaint alleges that KIT and certain of its officers issued
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) there were irregularities with KIT's accounting relating to
improper revenue recognition for certain license agreements; (2)
KIT's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (3) KIT's internal
controls were deficient and incapable of producing adequate
financial reporting; and (4) as a result of the above, KIT's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On November 21, 2012, KIT announced that, because of revenue being
improperly recognized in its financial statements, KIT needed to
restate its financial statements for each of the first three
quarters and full years in 2009, 2010 and 2011 and for the first
two quarters of 2012.  On this news, shares of KIT stock plummeted
64% in value to a November 23, 2012 price of $0.74 per share and
dropped another 16% on the following trading day to $0.62 per
share.

Investors who purchased shares of KIT stock during the Class
Period and lost more than $100,000 are encouraged to contact
Newman Ferrara attorney Roy Shimon at rshimon@nfllp.com or call
(212) 619-5400 to discuss this lawsuit or the Lead Plaintiff
process.

Newman Ferrara -- http://www.nfllp.com-- maintains a multifaceted
practice based in New York City with attorneys specializing in
complex commercial and multi-party litigation, securities fraud
and shareholder litigation, consumer protection, civil rights, and
real estate.


KIT DIGITAL: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio has filed a securities class
action lawsuit against KIT digital, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  KIT digital is a global provider of on-demand Internet
Protocol-based video asset management systems.

The lawsuit alleges violations of United States securities laws on
behalf of purchasers of KIT digital common stock between May 19,
2009 and November 21, 2012.  The complaint was filed Dec. 18, 2012
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, as Hughes v. KIT digital et al., 12-civ-9210 (S.D.N.Y.).

That same day, the Company announced that it had dismissed its
independent auditor, Grant Thornton LLP, and that its stock would
be delisted from the NASDAQ Stock Market effective Dec. 21, 2012.
To receive a copy of the complaint, please call Berman DeValerio
at (800) 516-9926.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
investors wishing to serve as the lead plaintiff in the case must
file a motion for appointment with the court no later than January
29, 2013.

The lawsuit alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and
78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the United States
Securities Exchange Commission on behalf of Class Period
investors.

According to the lawsuit, the Defendants made material false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about
KIT digital's business.  Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that
the Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose (1) that there were irregularities with the Company's
accounting relating, in part, to revenue recognition for certain
license agreements; (2) that the Company's financial statements
were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles; (3) that the Company's internal controls were
deficient and incapable of producing adequate financial reporting,
as was revealed later in the Class Period; and (4) as a result of
the above, the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 21, 2012, after the stock markets closed, the Company
announced that it would restate its financial statements for the
fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011 and for the first two quarters
of 2012 because of accounting errors and irregularities relating
to the recognition of revenue for software license agreements.
Upon this announcement, the Company's share price fell $1.33 per
share on November 23, to close at $0.74.  The decline in KIT
digital's stock price represented a loss of over 64%.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than January
29, 2013, request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff for
the class.  You may contact Berman DeValerio to discuss your
rights and interest in the case.  Please note that you may also
retain counsel of your choice or, alternatively, take no action at
this time, in which case you will still remain a class member.

Berman DeValerio -- http://www.bermandevalerio.com-- is a
national law firm representing investors for violations of
securities and antitrust laws. The firm has 41 lawyers in Boston,
San Francisco and Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Contact:

         Emily St. John Cohen, Esq.
         Berman DeValerio
         Telephone: (415) 433-3200
         E-mail: ecohen@bermandevalerio.com


LG CHEM: Sued Over Conspiracy to Fix and Raise Battery Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Martinez, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. LG Chem, Ltd., LG Chem America, Inc.,
Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America,
Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., Sanyo North America Corporation, Sony
Corporation, Sony Energy Devices Corporation, Sony Electronics,
Inc., Samsung SDI Co. Ltd., Samsung SDI America, Inc., Hitachi,
Ltd., Hitachi Maxell, Ltd., Maxell Corporation of America, and
John Does 1-100, Case No. 4:12-cv-06151 (N.D. Calif., December 4,
2012) alleges that the Defendants, which are the world's largest
manufacturers of Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries, are engaged
in a conspiracy to unlawfully fix and artificially raise the
prices of these batteries.

The Defendants and other conspirators agreed, combined and
conspired to inflate, fix, raise, maintain, or artificially
stabilize prices of Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries, Mr.
Martinez alleges.  He contends that as a direct result of the
anti-competitive and unlawful conduct alleged in the action, he
and the members of the proposed classes paid artificially inflated
prices for Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries during the Class
Period and have, thereby, suffered antitrust injury to their
business or property.

Mr. Martinez is a resident of Los Angeles, California.  During the
Class Period, he purchased a laptop computer containing a Lithium
Ion Rechargeable Battery manufactured by a Defendant.

LG Chem is a Korean corporation based in Seoul, South Korea.  LG
Chem is an affiliate of Seoul-based conglomerate LG Electronics.
LG Chem America is a New Jersey corporation based in Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, and a wholly owned subsidiary of LG Chem.

Panasonic Corp. is a Japanese corporation based in Osaka, Japan.
Panasonic Corp. was formerly known as Matsushita Electric
Industrial Co.  Panasonic manufactures and sells Lithium Ion
Rechargeable Batteries under the Panasonic name and also under the
name of Defendant and wholly owned subsidiary Sanyo Electric Co.,
Ltd.  Panasonic Corporation of North America, formerly known as
Matsushita Electric Corporation of America, is a Delaware
Corporation based in Secaucus, New Jersey, and a wholly owned and
controlled subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation.  Sanyo is a
Japanese corporation based in Osaka, Japan.  Sanyo North America
Corporation is a Delaware corporation based in San Diego,
California, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Sanyo Electric Co.,
Ltd.

Sony Corporation is a Japanese corporation based in Tokyo, Japan.
Sony Energy is a Japanese corporation based in Fukushima, Japan.
Sony Energy Devices Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Sony Corporation.  Sony Electronics is a Delaware corporation
based in San Diego, California and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Sony Corporation.

Samsung SDI is a Korean corporation based in Gyeonggi, South
Korea, and 20% owned by the Korean conglomerate Samsung
Electronics, Inc.  Samsung SDI America is a California corporation
based in San Jose, California, and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Samsung SDI.

Hitachi Ltd. is a Japanese company based in Tokyo, Japan.  Hitachi
Maxell is a Japanese corporation based in Tokyo, Japan, and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Hitachi, Ltd.  Maxell is a New Jersey
corporation based in Woodland Park, New Jersey.

The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Lithium Ion
Rechargeable Batteries throughout the United States and the world.
The Defendants collectively controlled approximately two-thirds or
more of the worldwide market for Lithium Ion Rechargeable
Batteries throughout this period, and over 80 percent of the
market in the early part of this period.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          James Robert Noblin, Esq.
          Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          700 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 275
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Telephone: (415) 477-6700
          Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
          E-mail: cand.uscourts@classcounsel.com
                  gn@classcounsel.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Mark A. Delaney, Esq.
          Whitney E. Street, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 1303
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          Fascimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: Jeff@blockesq.com
                  Mark@blockesq.com
                  Whitney@blockesq.com


MUDDY OUTDOORS: Recalls 1,500 Tree Climbing Sticks
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Muddy Outdoors, of Albia, Iowa, and manufacturer,
Classic Asia Group, of China, announced a voluntary recall of
about 1,500 Muddy Outdoors tree climbing sticks.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The climbing sticks can break, posing risk of serious injury or
death to users.

The firm has received four reports of the climbing sticks
breaking.  There have been no reported injuries.

The recalled Muddy Outdoors climbing sticks are used to climb
trees.  They consist of a 20-inch black center stick with tree
cleats and fold-out steps on each end.  A black and burnt orange-
colored rope fastened by a cam cleat secures the stick to the
tree.  The tree cleats have single metal tabs or posts.  Model
number 70401 or 70404 is printed on the packaging.  The climbing
sticks were sold individually or in packs of four.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13078.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Bass
Pro, Cabela's, Dick's Sporting Goods, Scheels and other hunting
and outdoor stores nationwide from July 2012 through October 2012
for about $50 when sold individually and $160 when sold in a pack
of four.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled climbing
sticks and return them to Muddy Outdoors for a refund or a free
replacement product.  Muddy Outdoors may be reached toll-free at
(877) 366-8339, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Central Time Monday
through Friday, or online at http://www.gomuddy.com/and click on
"Muddy Info-Latest News" or "Products-Muddy Outdoors-Sticks"
section for more information.


NUCOR CORP: Still Defends Antitrust Class Suits in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nucor Corporation has been named, along with other major steel
producers, as a co-defendant in several related antitrust class-
action complaints filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel
purchasers in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  The majority of these complaints were filed
in September and October of 2008, with two additional complaints
being filed in July and December of 2010.  Two of these complaints
have been voluntarily dismissed and are no longer pending.  The
plaintiffs allege that from April 1, 2005, through December 31,
2007, eight steel manufacturers, including Nucor, engaged in
anticompetitive activities with respect to the production and sale
of steel.  The plaintiffs seek monetary and other relief.
Although the Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit and will vigorously defend against them, the Company cannot
at this time predict the outcome of this litigation or estimate
the range of Nucor's potential exposure.

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.


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

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

On September 18, 2009, the court entered its order denying class
certification.  On October 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed for a
rehearing of the court's denial of class certification.  On
March 31, 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for
rehearing.  On July 20, 2011, the two OGE Energy subsidiaries
filed motions for summary judgment.

On January 25, 2012, the court denied portions of the motions for
summary judgment related to the legal issue of the plaintiffs'
claims regarding civil conspiracy.  In an order dated January 23,
2012, the court granted the plaintiffs additional time to perform
discovery prior to the consideration of the motions for summary
judgment as they relate to the plaintiffs' other claims.  On
February 7, 2012, the two OGE Energy subsidiaries filed an
application in the Kansas Court of Appeals seeking appeal of the
trial court's denial of their motions for summary judgment.  On
February 23, 2012, the Kansas Court of Appeals denied this
application.  On March 23, 2012, the two OGE Energy subsidiaries
filed an application with the Kansas Supreme Court seeking appeal
of the Kansas Court of Appeals' decision.  On July 19, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the two OGE Energy
subsidiaries from the action.

On September 19, 2012, the court issued a final order dismissing
the two OGE Energy subsidiaries from this case.  OGE Energy
considers this case closed.


SACRAMENTO INTERNATIONAL: Faces ADA Class Action Over Terminal B
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Moffitt, writing for Capital Public Radio, reports that a
group representing disabled airline passengers has filed a class
action lawsuit claiming the new Terminal B at Sacramento
International Airport does not meet requirements of the Americans
With Disabilities Act.

Shawna Parks is an attorney for the organization "Disability
Rights Advocates."  She says Terminal B fails to provide counters
that are accessible to wheelchair-bound travelers, "It's an issue
under federal and state law that there need to be lowered sections
of the counters . . . both at the retail shops, and also at the
ticketing area, baggage claim offices and other types of counters.

The suit asks the County to satisfy federal Americans with
Disability Act requirements, "There are some counters where they
do get it right.  So, for example, if you go to the information
counters in Terminal B, there are lowered sections of the counter.
So it's clear that at some point somebody understood what the
requirements were.

Ms. Parks says the restroom doors are too hard to push open and
there are no curb ramps at accessible loading zones, "We know that
this is an industry-wide issue which is why . . . one of the
reasons we decided to tackle it with this new terminal."

One plaintiff is suing for damages.  Ms. Parks says the number of
disabled plaintiffs could reach the thousands.

The County Airport System says the design of Terminal B complies
with all state and federal laws.


SASSY INC: Recalls 45,300 Hug N' Tug Baby Toys
----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Sassy, Inc., of Kentwood, Michigan, announced a
voluntary recall of about 45,300 Sassy(R)-branded Hug N' Tug Puppy
and Monkey and Carter's(R)-branded Hug N' Tug Monkey Toys.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The beads inside the clear plastic sphere at the center of the
toys can be released and pose a choking hazard to young children.

The firm has received 12 reports of beads being released from the
plastic clear plastic sphere body on Sassy-branded toys.  There
have been no such reports on the Carter's-branded toys.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recalled toys for infants can be attached to a stroller or car
seat using a ring connector on the toy's head.  They have arms and
legs that can be easily pulled back and forth for play.  The toys
are approximately 12 inches tall, made of multi-colored fabrics,
contain rattle beads inside a clear plastic sphere body and have
the face of either a puppy or monkey.  Recalled styles include:
Sassy Hug N' Tug Puppy, model #80213; Sassy Hug N' Tug Monkey
model #80214 and Carter's-branded Hug N' Tug Monkey, models #61083
that were sold on a blue packaging card and #61540 sold on a grey
packaging card.  Sassy(R)-branded toys have "Sassy(R)" written on
the sewn-in label located on the back of the character's head.
The Carter's(R)-branded toys have "Carter's(R)" written in red on
the blue plastic ring connected to the toy's head and also the
sewn-in label located on the back of the character's head.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13079.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at mass
merchandisers such as Toys R Us and Target, independent specialty
stores nationwide and online retailers such as Amazon.com and
Carters.com between July 2012 and October 2012 for Sassy-branded
models; and from August 2011 to October 2012 for the Carter's-
branded models.  Carter's-branded models were also sold in
Carter's retail stores.  The Sassy-branded models sold for
approximately $8 and the Carter's-branded models for approximately
$14.

Consumers should immediately take the toys from children and
contact Sassy for instructions on how to return the product for a
free replacement toy.  Sassy may be reached at (800) 323-6336 from
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.sassybaby.com/and go to the
Product Recall Information link.


SCHURMAN RETAIL: Recalls 108 PAPYRUS Signature Collection Frames
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with importer, Schurman Retail Group, of Fairfield,
California, and manufacturer, Idianale Inc./Dekokraft, Inc., of
Pasig City, Philippines, announced a voluntary recall of about 105
2012 PAPYRUS Signature Collection Picture Frames in the United
States of America and about 3 in Canada.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The presence of Aspergillus mold spores were discovered on the
products, posing a risk of respiratory or other infections in
individuals with chronic health problems or who have impaired
immune systems.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled table stand picture frames are made of a metallic-
looking resin material and come in two colors and sizes:

    Model         Size            UPC Code
    -----         ----            --------
    Green Frame   4 by 6 inches   90000165335
    Red Frame     5 by 7 inches   90000165557

The recalled products are packaged in a decorative box made of a
heavy paperstock with a distressed painting and jeweled lid
finish.  The UPC code can be found on the back of the product's
hangtag with the PAPYRUS logo or on a label on the bottom of the
box.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13082.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the Philippines and
sold at PAPYRUS stores in the U.S. and Canada from September 2012
to November 2012 for approximately $44 and $48.

Consumers should immediately place the frames in a container and
return the product and the decorative box to their nearest PAPYRUS
or contact Schurman Retail Group for instructions on how to return
the product.  Schurman Retail Group may be reached toll free at
(855) 730-7998 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday or online at http://www.papyrusonline.com/and
click on Recalls for more information.


SCHURMAN RETAIL: Recalls 530 PAPYRUS Red 17-Inch Decorative Trees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with importer, Schurman Retail Group, of Fairfield,
California, and manufacturer, Idianale Inc./Dekokraft, Inc., of
Pasig City, Philippines, announced a voluntary recall of about 455
2012 PAPYRUS Signature Collection Trees in the United States of
America and about 75 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The presence of Aspergillus mold spores were discovered on the
products, posing a risk of respiratory or other infections in
individuals with chronic health problems or who have impaired
immune systems.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled decorative tree is made of a metallic-looking resin
and painted red with a gold base and raised gold and red
embellishments.  It stands 17-inches high and is packaged in a
decorative box made of heavy paperstock, distressed painting
finish and jeweled lid details.  The UPC code, 9000165441, can be
found on the back of the product's hangtag with the PAPYRUS logo
or on a label on the bottom of the box.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13081.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the Philippines and
sold at PAPYRUS stores in the U.S. and Canada September 2012 to
November 2012 for about $54.

Consumers should immediately put the tree in a container return it
and the decorative box to their nearest PAPYRUS or contact
Schurman Retail Group for instructions on how to return the
product.  Schurman Retail Group may be reached toll free at (855)
730-7998 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday or online at http://www.papyrusonline.com/and click on
Recalls for more information.


SCHURMAN RETAIL: Recalls 55,700 PAPYRUS Signature Ornaments
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with importer, Schurman Retail Group, of Fairfield,
California, and manufacturer, Idianale Inc./Dekokraft, Inc., of
Pasig City, Philippines, announced a voluntary recall of about
45,500 2012 PAPYRUS Holiday Signature Ornaments in the United
States of America and about 10,200 in Canada.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The presence of Aspergillus mold spores were discovered on the
products, posing a risk of respiratory or other infections in
individuals with chronic health problems or who have impaired
immune systems.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled holiday ornaments come in 24 styles and are made of
colorfully painted metallic-looking resin.  They range from
approximately three to six inches in height and are packaged
individually in decorative boxes made of heavy paperstock,
distressed painting finish and jeweled lid details.  The UPC code
can be found on the back of the product's hangtag with the PAPYRUS
logo or on a label on the bottom of the box.

   Name/Description                              UPC Code
   ----------------                              --------
   Ornament Flamingo pink                        90000165304
   Ornament Star red                             90000165328
   Ornament Green Royal Frogs Set of 2           90000165342
   Ornament Skiers Male Female Set of 2          90000165359
   Ornament Cupcake Set of 3                     90000165366
   Ornament Round ball with diamonds Set of 3    90000165373
   Ornament Tree                                 90000165397
   Ornament Angel with harp red and pink         90000165403
   Ornament Angel blowing horn blue              90000165410
   Ornament Santa Red                            90000165427
   Ornament Ballerina green with fan             90000165434
   Ornament Angel folding hands green            90000165465
   Ornament Unicorn silver w/ gold mane & tail   90000165472
   Ornament Hummingbird blue                     90000165496
   Ornament Angel holding green tree             90000165502
   Ornament Ballerina white                      90000165526
   Ornament Santa holding tree                   90000165540
   Ornament Bird blue                            90000165571
   Ornament Horse Pink and gold                  90000165588
   Ornament Ballerina frog white                 90000165595
   Ornament Heart Magenta                        90000165601
   Ornament Frog Prince Sitting green            90000165564
   Ornament Angel holding harp                   90000165489
   Ornament Reindeer green with pink and gold    90000165458

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13080.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the Philippines and
sold at PAPYRUS and Carlton Cards Stores in the U.S. and Canada
for between $24 and $44.

Consumers should immediately place the ornament in a container and
return the product and decorative box to their nearest PAPYRUS or
Carlton Cards Store, or contact Schurman Retail Group for
instructions on how to return the product.  Schurman Retail Group
may be reached toll free at (855) 730-7998 between 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or online at
http://www.papyrusonline.com/and click on Recalls for more
information.


SCHWEGEL'S FOOD: Faces Class Action Over Check Cashing Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christina Stueve Hodges, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that the plaintiff in a proposed class action lawsuit
against an Alton grocery store over check cashing fees has filed a
motion for class certification.

Plaintiff Julie Wheeler claims she cashed a check for $68.80 at
defendant Schwegel's Food Markets and was charged a 75-cent fee in
violation of the Illinois Check Cashing Act.

Ms. Wheeler claims Illinois state law does not allow for check
cashing fees of more than 50 cents or 1 percent of the face value
of the check.

"The defendant has wronged consumers in the thousands of dollars,"
the motion states.  "The class action device is an effective tool
to efficiently seek a recovery for others, such as Julie Wheeler.

Ms. Wheeler, represented by Peter J. Maag of Maag Law Firm in Wood
River, is requesting an order certifying the lawsuit as a class
action lawsuit, with herself as class representative.

"Julie Wheeler and her counsel have the necessary financial
resources to adequately and vigorously litigate this class action,
and Julie Wheeler and Class counsel are aware of their fiduciary
responsibilities to Class members and are determined to diligently
discharge those duties by vigorously seeking the maximum possible
recovery for the class."

Schwegel's filed a motion to dismiss Nov. 9, stating another
corporate entity, Pearl Market, Inc., operates the market.

Joseph Brown of Lucco, Brown, Threlkeld and Dawson represent the
defense.

The case is assigned to Associate Judge Thomas Chapman.

Madison County Circuit Court case number: 12-L-1316.


SIRIUS XM: Appeals Court Upholds $180MM Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Don Jeffrey and Bob Van Voris, writing for Bloomberg News, report
that Sirius XM Radio Inc. and its customers won appeals court
approval of a class-action lawsuit settlement challenged by some
satellite radio subscribers who claimed they got too little and
lawyers too much.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan on Dec. 20 affirmed a
ruling by a lower court that approved the suit settlement, valued
at $180 million.  Plaintiffs' lawyers were awarded $13 million in
fees.

"Competent counsel appeared on both sides, and settlement was
reached only after contentious negotiations," the appeals judges
said in their opinion.  "Thus the district court did not abuse its
discretion when it presumed the proposed settlement was
procedurally fair."

Subscribers sued Sirius XM Radio in 2009, claiming that it
violated antitrust law when it raised prices after Sirius
Satellite Radio acquired its only competitor, XM Satellite Radio,
in 2008.  They said Sirius broke promises it made to win merger
approval from the Federal Communications Commission.

Sirius XM argued that the price increases were justified to cover
higher costs.

In August 2011, Sirius XM won District Court approval of a
settlement before a trial was to take place.  The accord provided
for an unchanged subscription price for five months ending last
Dec. 31.

The appeal is Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio, 11-3696, Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit (Manhattan).  The lower-court case
is Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio, 09-10035, U.S. District Court,
District of New York (Manhattan).


SKYLINE NAILS: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime and Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy "Patricia" Yanza, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Skyline Nails & Spa Corp. d/b/a Skyline Nails & Spa
and Tsomo Tsering, Case No. 1:12-cv-08798 (S.D.N.Y., December 4,
2012) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff contends that she is entitled to recover from
Defendants unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Ms. Yanza is a resident of Queens, New York.  She worked as a
manicurist for the Defendants' Skyline Nails & Spa, a nail salon
located in New York.

Skyline Nails is a New York corporation based in New York.  Tsomo
Tsering is the chairman or chief executive officer of Skyline
Nails.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
          271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 576-1857
          Facsimile: (212) 576-1888
          E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com


SUNTRUST BANKS: Captive Reinsurance Suit Dismissal Bids Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss two class action lawsuits related to "captive
reinsurance" arrangements remain pending, according to SunTrust
Banks, Inc.'s November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. ("STM") and Twin Rivers Insurance Company
("Twin Rivers") have been named as defendants in two putative
class actions alleging that the companies entered into illegal
"captive reinsurance" arrangements with private mortgage insurers.
More specifically, plaintiffs allege that SunTrust's selection of
private mortgage insurers who agree to reinsure loans referred to
them by SunTrust with Twin Rivers results in illegal "kickbacks"
in the form of the insurance premiums paid to Twin Rivers.
Plaintiffs contend that this arrangement violates the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") and results in unjust
enrichment to the detriment of borrowers.  The first of these
cases, Thurmond, Christopher, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et
al., was filed in February 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  This case was stayed by the
Court pending the outcome of Edwards v. First American Financial
Corporation, a captive reinsurance case that was pending before
the U.S. Supreme Court at the time.  The second of these cases,
Acosta, Lemuel & Maria Ventrella et al. v. SunTrust Bank, SunTrust
Mortgage, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California in December 2011.  This case
was stayed pending a decision in the Edwards case also.  In June
2012, the U.S. Supreme Court withdrew its grant of cert. in
Edwards and, as a result, the stays in these cases were lifted.
Motions to dismiss are pending in both cases.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend 3 Suits Over Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. continues to defend itself against three
class action lawsuits relating to the imposition of overdraft fees
on customer accounts, according to the Company's November 7, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The Company has been named as a defendant in three putative class
actions relating to the imposition of overdraft fees on customer
accounts.  The first such case, Buffington et al. v. SunTrust
Banks, Inc. et al., was filed in Fulton County Superior Court on
May 6, 2009.  This action was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division on
June 10, 2009, and was transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida for inclusion in Multi-District
Litigation Case No. 2036 on December 1, 2009.  Plaintiffs assert
claims for breach of contract, conversion, unconscionability, and
unjust enrichment for alleged injuries they suffered as a result
of the method of posting order used by the Company, which
allegedly resulted in overdraft fees being assessed to their joint
checking account, and purport to bring their action on behalf of a
putative class of "all SunTrust Bank account holders who incurred
an overdraft charge despite their account having a sufficient
balance of actual funds to cover all debits that have been
submitted to the bank for payment," as well as "all SunTrust
account holders who incurred one or more overdraft charges based
on SunTrust Bank's reordering of charges."  Plaintiffs seek
restitution, damages, expenses of litigation, attorneys' fees, and
other relief deemed equitable by the Court.  The Company filed a
Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Compel Arbitration and both
motions were denied.  The denial of the motion to compel
arbitration was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Eleventh Circuit remanded this matter back to the District
Court with instructions to the District Court to review its prior
ruling in light of the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility
LLC v. Concepcion.  The District Court then denied SunTrust's
motion to compel arbitration for different reasons.  SunTrust
appealed this decision to the Eleventh Circuit and, on March 1,
2012, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court's decision
and ordered that SunTrust's Motion to Compel Arbitration be
granted. Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en
banc, which was denied.  Plaintiffs have filed a petition for a
writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The second of these cases, Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank, was filed
in the Fulton County State Court on July 12, 2010, and an amended
complaint was filed on August 9, 2010.  Plaintiff asserts that all
overdraft fees charged to his account which related to debit card
and ATM transactions are actually interest charges and therefore
subject to the usury laws of Georgia.  Plaintiff has brought
claims for violations of civil and criminal usury laws,
conversion, and money had and received, and purports to bring the
action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who have incurred such
overdraft fees within the last four years where the overdraft fee
resulted in an interest rate being charged in excess of the usury
rate.  SunTrust has filed a motion to compel arbitration.  On
March 16, 2012, the Court entered an order holding that SunTrust's
arbitration provision is enforceable but that the named plaintiff
in the case had opted out of that provision pursuant to its terms.
The court explicitly stated that it was not ruling at that time on
the question of whether the named plaintiff could proceed with the
case as a class rather than as an individual action.  SunTrust has
filed an appeal of this decision.

The third of these cases, Byrd v. SunTrust Bank, was filed on
April 23, 2012, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee.  This case is substantially similar
to the Bickerstaff matter.  SunTrust has filed a Motion to Compel
Arbitration.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Motions to Dismiss Lehman-Related Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss small class action lawsuits involving a
subsidiary of SunTrust Banks, Inc., and related to Lehman Brothers
Holdings, Inc.'s stock offerings 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.

Beginning in October 2008, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc.
(STRH), along with other underwriters and individuals, were named
as defendants in several individual and putative class action
complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York and state and federal courts in Arkansas,
California, Texas and Washington.  Plaintiffs allege violations of
Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 for allegedly
false and misleading disclosures in connection with various debt
and preferred stock offerings of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.
("Lehman Brothers") and seek unspecified damages.  All cases have
now been transferred for coordination to the multi-district
litigation captioned In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities
Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all
claims asserted in the class action.  On July 27, 2011, the
District Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to
dismiss the class claims against STRH and the other underwriter
defendants.  A settlement with the class plaintiffs was approved
by the Court on December 15, 2011.  The class notice and opt-out
process is complete and the class settlement approval process has
been completed.  A number of individual lawsuits and smaller
putative class actions remain pending and will move forward, each
on its own schedule.  Motions to dismiss are pending in each of
these cases.


SUNTRUST BANKS: No Appeal Was Filed From Dismissal of TRUPs Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. disclosed in its November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012, that the deadline for appealing
decisions, including dismissal of the consolidated lawsuit over
the sale of SunTrust Capital IX 7.875% Trust Preferred Securities,
has passed and no appeal was filed.

Beginning in May 2009, the Company, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey,
Inc. (STRH), SunTrust Capital IX, officers and directors of the
Company, and others were named in three putative class actions
arising out of the offer and sale of approximately $690 million of
SunTrust Capital IX 7.875% Trust Preferred Securities ("TRUPs") of
SunTrust Banks, Inc.  The complaints alleged, among other things,
that the relevant registration statement and accompanying
prospectus misrepresented or omitted material facts regarding the
Company's allowance for loan and lease loss reserves, the
Company's capital position, and its internal risk controls.
Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged losses in connection with their
investment in the TRUPs or to rescind their purchases of the
TRUPs.  These cases were consolidated under the caption Belmont
Holdings Corp., et al., v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, and on November 30, 2009, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed.  On January 29, 2010, Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  This motion
was granted, with leave to amend, on September 10, 2010.  On
October 8, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in
an attempt to address the pleading deficiencies identified in the
Court's dismissal decision.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 21, 2011.  The District Court denied the motion to dismiss
as to Plaintiff's claims that the Company misrepresented the
adequacy of its loan loss reserves for 2007 but dismissed all
other claims against the Company and limited discovery in the
initial stages of the case to the question of SunTrust's
subjective belief as to the adequacy of those reserves at the time
of the offering.  SunTrust subsequently filed a motion for
reconsideration of this decision and a motion to stay discovery
pending resolution of that motion.  The Court granted the motion
to stay, granted the motion for reconsideration, and dismissed the
case in its entirety.  The deadline for appealing these decisions
has passed and no appeal was filed.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Plea to Dismiss Colonial Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in July 2009, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. ("STRH"),
the full-service corporate and investment banking arm of SunTrust
Banks, Inc., certain other underwriters, The Colonial BancGroup,
Inc. ("Colonial BancGroup") and certain officers and directors of
Colonial BancGroup were named as defendants in a putative class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama, Northern District entitled In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc.
Securities Litigation.  The complaint was brought by purchasers of
certain debt and equity securities of Colonial BancGroup and seeks
unspecified damages.  Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11
and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and
misleading disclosures in the relevant registration statement and
prospectus relating to Colonial BancGroup's goodwill impairment,
mortgage underwriting standards, and credit quality.  On August
28, 2009, The Colonial BancGroup filed for bankruptcy.  The
defendants' motion to dismiss was denied in May 2010, but the
Court subsequently has ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint.  This amended complaint has been filed and the
defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.

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.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Awaits Cir. Ct. Direction in Pending ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in July 2008, SunTrust Banks, Inc., officers and
directors of the Company, and certain other Company employees were
named in a putative class action alleging that they breached their
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 ("ERISA") by offering the Company's common stock as an
investment option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the
"Plan").  The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the Company stock in their Plan
accounts from May 2007 to the present and seek to recover alleged
losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their
investment in Company stock.

The Company Stock Class Action was originally filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, but was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia, Atlanta Division, (the "District Court") in November
2008.

On October 26, 2009, an amended complaint was filed.  On
December 9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted in
part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  Defendants and plaintiffs filed separate motions for
the District Court to certify its October 25, 2010 order for
immediate interlocutory appeal.  On January 3, 2011, the District
Court granted both motions.

On January 13, 2011, defendants and plaintiffs filed separate
petitions seeking permission to pursue interlocutory appeals with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ("the Circuit
Court").  On April 14, 2011, the Circuit Court granted defendants
and plaintiffs permission to pursue interlocutory review in
separate appeals.  The Circuit Court subsequently stayed these
appeals pending decision of a separate appeal involving The Home
Depot in which substantially similar issues are presented.  On May
8, 2012, the Circuit Court decided this appeal in favor of The
Home Depot.  The Company awaits further direction from the Circuit
Court.

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.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Suit Over Classic Mutual Funds Dismissed in Oct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit over SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s Classic Mutual
Funds was dismissed 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, 2011, the Company, officers and directors of the
Company, and certain other Company employees were named in a
putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") by offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as
investment options in the Plan.  The plaintiff purports to
represent all current and former Plan participants who held the
STI Classic Mutual Funds in their Plan accounts from April 2002
through December 2010 and seeks to recover alleged losses these
Plan participants supposedly incurred as a result of their
investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds.  On October 30, 2012,
the Court dismissed all claims in this action.

The Affiliated Funds Class Action is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the
"District Court").  On June 6, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, and, on June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.  On March 12, 2012, the Court
granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.  The
Company believes that based on the Court's Order, the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's remaining claims
and has filed a motion to dismiss the remainder of the case on
this ground.


SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Continues to Defend Overdraft Fees MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. continues to defend itself in a
multidistrict litigation over 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.

On July 29, 2011, Susquehanna Bank was named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit filed by two New Jersey customers
of the bank in the United States District Court of Maryland.  The
lawsuit challenges the manner in which checking account overdraft
fees were charged and the policies related to the posting order of
debit card and other checking account transactions.  The lawsuit
makes claims under New Jersey's consumer fraud act and under the
common law for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion and unjust
enrichment.  The case was transferred for pretrial proceedings to
pending multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.  No class has been certified
and, at this stage of the lawsuit, it is not yet possible for the
Company to estimate potential loss, if any.  Although it is not
possible to predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability
with respect to this litigation, management, after consultation
with legal counsel, currently does not anticipate that the
aggregate liability, if any, arising out of this proceeding will
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position, or cash flows; although, at the present time, management
is not in a position to determine whether such proceeding will
have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of
operations in any future quarterly reporting period.


SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Settlement of Merger-Related Suits Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. received final approval and judgment
in August 2012 with respect to its settlement of merger-related
lawsuits, 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 February 17, 2012, Susquehanna acquired all of the outstanding
common stock of Tower Bancorp, Inc. ("Tower"), headquartered in
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, through the merger of Tower with and
into Susquehanna.  The results of operations acquired in the Tower
transaction have been included in Susquehanna's financial results
since the acquisition date, February 17, 2012.

On July 1, 2011, a verified shareholder derivative complaint was
filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County,
Pennsylvania, against Tower, the members of its board of
directors, and Susquehanna.  The complaint in the lawsuit, Stephen
Bushansky vs. Andrew S. Samuel, et. Al., C.A. No. 2011-cv-6519
(EQ) (the "Tower State Court"), asserts that the members of
Tower's board of directors ("Individual Defendants") breached
their fiduciary duties by causing Tower to enter into the Tower
merger and further asserts that Susquehanna aided and abetted
those alleged breaches of duties.  The complaint seeks, among
other relief, an order declaring that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties, awarding damages on behalf of
Tower for the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Individual Defendants (including punitive and actual damages,
plaintiffs' counsel fees and experts' fees) and enjoining the
Tower merger and the use of any defensive measures under the Tower
merger agreement or rescinding the Tower merger (if consummated).
On July 21, 2011, Mr. Bushansky served a written demand (the
"Bushansky Demand") on Tower's board of directors alleging that
the transaction was unfair, that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties and requesting that the Individual
Defendants terminate the transaction as structured.

On July 8, 2011, a purported shareholder of Tower, James T.
Duffey, served a written demand (the "Duffey Demand") on Tower's
board of directors requesting that the board remedy its alleged
failure to engage in an independent and fair process surrounding
the Tower merger and requesting formation of a special committee
to renegotiate the terms of the Tower merger.

On July 25, 2011, a purported shareholder of Tower, Edgar L.
Johnston, Jr., served a written demand ("Johnston Demand") on
Tower's board of directors requesting that the board remedy its
alleged failure to engage in an independent and fair process
surrounding the Tower merger.

On September 26, 2011, a class action and derivative complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania against Tower and the members of its board of
directors.  The complaint in the lawsuit, Edgar L. Johnston, Jr.
vs. Andrew S. Samuel, et al., Case No. 11-1777, asserts that the
members of Tower's board of directors ("Individual Defendants")
breached their fiduciary duties by causing Tower to enter into the
Tower merger and further asserts that Tower aided and abetted
those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties (the "Tower Federal
Action").  The lawsuit also alleged that the disclosure provided
in the joint proxy statement/prospectus of Susquehanna and Tower
(the "Tower Joint Proxy/Prospectus") included in the registration
statement on Form S-4 filed by Susquehanna with the SEC (File No.
333-176367), failed to provide required material information
necessary for Tower's shareholders to make a fully informed
decision concerning the Tower merger in violation of Section 14(a)
of the Exchange Act.  The complaint seeks, among other relief, an
order declaring that the Individual Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties and that the Tower Joint Proxy/Prospectus is
materially misleading in violation of the Exchange Act, accounting
for and awarding damages on behalf of Tower for the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by the Individual Defendants
(including punitive and actual damages, plaintiff's counsel fees
and experts' fees) and enjoining or rescinding the Tower merger
(if consummated).

On September 28, 2011, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting any of
the allegations in the complaint, Susquehanna, Tower and the other
named defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the
"MOU") with all Plaintiffs in both the Tower State Action and the
Tower Federal Action (collectively the "Tower Actions").  Under
the terms of the MOU, Tower, the other named defendants and
Susquehanna and all plaintiffs agreed to settle the Tower Actions,
the Bushansky Demand and the Duffey Demand (collectively, the
"Demands"), subject to court approval.  All Parties to the Tower
Actions filed in the Tower Federal Action a Stipulation of
Settlement dated March 9, 2011.  Pursuant to the Stipulation, the
Court Preliminary approved a Class Action and Derivative
settlement on June 12, 2012.

On August 22, 2012, the Court entered its Order and Final Judgment
in the Tower Federal Action approving the settlement, certifying a
settlement class and releasing all claims in all Actions and
Demands.  On September 6, 2012, the Plaintiff in the Tower State
Action filed a Praecipe to Settle, Discontinue and End that action
with prejudice.  Plaintiffs in both Actions applied jointly to the
Federal Court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the
amount of $332,500.  Pursuant to the MOU and the Stipulation of
Settlement the Company did not oppose Plaintiffs' request for the
award of fees and expenses and a part of the Order and Final
Judgment, the Court approved the sum of $332,500 for Plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and expenses.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Appeal in "Doe" Class Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation is a defendant in a class action
lawsuit in which the plaintiffs claim that in April 1996 patient
identifying records from a psychiatric hospital that the Company
closed in 1995 were temporarily placed in an unsecure location
while the hospital was undergoing renovations.  The lawsuit, Doe,
et al. v. Jo Ellen Smith Medical Foundation, was filed in the
Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in Louisiana in
March 1997 and is currently pending.  The plaintiffs' claims
include allegations of tortious invasion of privacy and negligent
infliction of emotional distress.  The plaintiffs contend that the
class consists of approximately 5,000 persons; however, only eight
individuals have been identified to date in the class
certification process.  The plaintiffs have asserted each member
of the class is entitled to common damages under a theory of
presumed "common damage" regardless of whether or not any members
of the class were actually harmed or even aware of the incident.
The Company believes there is no authority for an award of common
damages under Louisiana law.  In addition, the Company believes
that there is no basis for the certification of this proceeding as
a class action under applicable federal and Louisiana law
precedents.  However, the trial court has denied the Company's
motions for summary judgment and its motion to decertify the
class.

In March 2012, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the Company's
interlocutory appeal of the trial court's decision on summary
judgment based on procedural grounds, noting that the Company
retains an adequate remedy to appeal any adverse judgment that
might be rendered by the trial court.  In April 2012, the Company
filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's denial of its motion
to decertify the proceeding as a class action.  The notice of
appeal was granted, and the trial has been stayed pending the
outcome of the 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.

At this time, the Company says it is not able to estimate the
reasonably possible loss or reasonably possible range of loss
given: the small number of class members that have been identified
or otherwise responded to the class certification process; the
novel theories asserted by plaintiffs, including their assertion
that a theory of presumed common damage exists under Louisiana
law; uncertainties as to the timing and outcome of the appeals
process; and the failure of the plaintiffs to provide any evidence
of damages.  The Company says it intends to vigorously contest the
plaintiffs' claims.

                     About Tenet Healthcare

Dallas, Texas-based Tenet Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: THC) --
http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is a health care services company
whose subsidiaries and affiliates own and operate acute care
hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers and diagnostic imaging
centers.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Class Cert. Denial in Wage & Hour Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal of the State of California affirmed in October
2012 a judgment denying class certification in two coordinated
wage and hour lawsuits, Tenet Healthcare Corporation 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.

On October 4, 2012, the Court of Appeal of the State of California
affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County
denying class certification in two coordinated proposed class
action lawsuits, McDonough, et al. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation
(which was filed in June 2003) and Tien, et al. v. Tenet
Healthcare Corporation (which was filed in May 2004).  As
previously reported, the plaintiffs in both cases alleged that the
Company's hospitals violated certain provisions of California's
labor laws and applicable wage and hour regulations.  The
plaintiffs in both cases were seeking back pay, statutory
penalties and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts.  The
plaintiffs may seek further appeals; however, based on available
information, the Company does not believe that the ultimate
resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on
its business, financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.

                     About Tenet Healthcare

Dallas, Texas-based Tenet Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: THC) --
http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is a health care services company
whose subsidiaries and affiliates own and operate acute care
hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers and diagnostic imaging
centers.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Awaits Okay of $12-MM "Dunn" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation is awaiting court approval of its $12
million settlement of a class action lawsuit commenced by Dunn, et
al., according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2012.

In January 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle for approximately $12 million a purported class action
lawsuit filed in the Civil District Court for the Parish of
Orleans on behalf of persons allegedly injured following Hurricane
Katrina at Lindy Boggs Medical Center (one of the Company's former
New Orleans area hospitals).  The parties executed the final
settlement agreement in August 2012, subject to court approval.
The settlement, which will be covered in full by the Company's
excess insurance carrier, will be apportioned among the claimants
in the case -- which is captioned Dunn, et al. v. Tenet Mid-City
Medical, L.L.C. (formerly d/b/a Lindy Boggs Medical Center), et
al.

                     About Tenet Healthcare

Dallas, Texas-based Tenet Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: THC) --
http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is a health care services company
whose subsidiaries and affiliates own and operate acute care
hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers and diagnostic imaging
centers.


TOYOTA INC: Settles Sudden Acceleration Suit for $1.4 Bil.
----------------------------------------------------------
The attorneys representing Toyota owners who claim that their
vehicles are prone to sudden, unexplained acceleration
announced on December 26, 2012, that Toyota has agreed to a
settlement valued between $1.2 and $1.4 billion, which includes
direct payments to consumers as well as the installation of a
brake-override system in an estimated 3.25 million vehicles.

The case was filed in 2010 after drivers across the country began
reporting that Toyota vehicles suddenly and unintentionally
accelerated.  Toyota has long maintained that the vehicles were
free from electronic flaws causing the acceleration.
Neither the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), nor the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) was able to find any defects in Toyota's source code that
could cause these events.

After a flurry of lawsuits were filed against Toyota, Judge James
Selna consolidated the cases in U.S. District Court in California
and appointed attorney Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro as co-lead counsel on May 14, 2010, placing
Berman in charge of directing the class litigation and leading
settlement discussions with the Japanese auto manufacturer.

"After two years of intense work, including deposing hundreds of
engineers, pouring over thousands of documents and examining
millions of lines of software code, we are pleased that Toyota has
agreed to a settlement that was both extraordinarily hard-fought
and is exceptionally far-reaching," said Berman.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Toyota will install a
brake-override system in vehicles subject to floor mat entrapment
recalls.  Brake-override systems cut power to the throttle under
certain circumstances when the car receives simultaneous signals
to accelerate and to stop.

In addition, the settlement establishes a fund of $250 million to
be paid to former Toyota owners who sold their cars during the
period from Sept. 1, 2009, through Dec. 31, 2010, to compensate
those owners for an alleged reduced value as a result of publicity
concerning unintended acceleration.

A separate fund of $250 million will be established to compensate
current owners whose vehicles are not eligible for a brake-
override system.  The amount consumers receive depends on the
model and year of their Toyota, and the state in which the car was
purchased.

The settlement also provides that all 16 million current owners
will be eligible for a customer care plan that will warranty
certain parts that plaintiffs allege are tied to unintended
acceleration for between three and 10 years.

The agreement also provides $30 million in education grants to
independent academic institutions to further the study of auto
safety and to enhance driver education. "We hope that this
research can aid in finding out the causes of unintended
acceleration, and the solutions to fixing those issues," said
Berman.

The total value of the settlement is estimated to be between $1.2
and $1.4 billion.  This estimate amounts to the largest settlement
of this type in US history in terms of dollars paid out and number
of vehicles involved.

Judge Selna is expected to review the proposed settlement on
Dec. 28, 2012, and if he agrees with its fairness, will grant
preliminary approval.

Current and former Toyota owners will receive information about
the settlement and instructions on filing a claim in the coming
months.

"From the very start, this was a challenging case," Berman added.

"We brought in automotive experts, physicists and some of the
world's leading theoreticians in electrical engineering to help us
understand what happened to drivers experiencing sudden
acceleration.  We are extraordinarily proud of how we were able to
represent the interests of Toyota owners, and believe this
settlement is both comprehensive in its scope and fair in
compensation."

Limited details of the settlement are available at
www.hbsslaw.com/toyota, www.ToyotaELsettlement.com or by calling
1-877 283-0507.  More information will be available once the court
gives preliminary approval to the settlement.

Broadcast quality video featuring Steve Berman commenting on the
settlement is available at ftp.clatterdin.com  The username to
access the clips is "HBSS" and the password is "generic."

                        About Hagens Berman

Seattle-based Hagens represents whistleblowers, investors and
consumers in complex and class-action litigation.  The firm has
offices in 10 U.S. cities including New York, Boston, Chicago,
Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.


UDI'S HEALTHY: Recalls Bags of Gluten Free Au Naturel Granola
-------------------------------------------------------------
Udi's Healthy Foods, LLC of Denver, Colorado, is voluntarily
recalling its 12-ounce bags of "Udi's Gluten Free Au Naturel
Granola" with UPC 6-98997-80615-8 and "Best By 041913 12265 1"
because they may contain undeclared almonds.  People who are
allergic to almonds run the risk of a serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

Recalled "Udi's Gluten Free Au Naturel Granola" products were
distributed through retail stores in California, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Washington beginning on or about
September 24, 2012.  The product comes in a 12-ounce, clear
plastic bag marked with BEST BY 041913 12265 1 on the back of the
bag, underneath the Nutrition Facts panel.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm332920.htm

No illnesses or allergic reactions involving this product have
been reported to date.

The recall was initiated voluntarily by the company after it was
discovered that almonds were mixed in with the oats in the Au
Naturel 12-ounce product by mistake at the end of the Au Naturel
production run.

The recall is limited to products with "UPC 6-98997-80615-8" and
"Best By 041913 12265 1."  It does not extend to any other Udi's
products or lot codes.

Consumers who have purchased 12-ounce packages of "Udi's Gluten
Free Au Naturel Granola" with the above UPC code and Best By date
are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full
refund.  Consumers with questions may contact the Company at 201-
421-3970, Monday - Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern
Time.

                 About Udi's Healthy Foods, LLC

Udi's Healthy Foods LLC (Udi's) is a leader in the fast growing
market for gluten-free foods in North America.  Udi's markets a
diversified and growing range of gluten-free products under the
well-recognized Udi's Gluten Free Foods brand in the retail
market, and since mid-2011, food service channels.  Udi's Gluten
Free Foods is a leading brand in gluten-free bread and bakery
products.  In addition, Udi's markets other gluten-free products
in the frozen pizza and granola categories.


                           *********

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  * * *