CAR_Public/130109.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, January 9, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 6

                             Headlines


BANKSIA SECURITIES: Insurance Coverage Not Issue in Class Action
BLOOMBERG LP: Faces Overtime Class Action
CITIBANK: Faces Class Action in N.Y. Over Force-Placed Insurance
CLECO CORP: Awaits Louisiana Sup. Ct. Ruling in Customer Suit
CONAGRA FOODS: Recalls Andy Capp's Hot Fries Due to Soy Allergen

DIAGNOSTIC VENTURES: Clifford Chance Wins in Securities Suit
EL PASO PIPELINE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Allen" Suit
EL PASO PIPELINE: "Hite" Merger-Related Class Suit Dismissed
FALCONBRIDGE LTD: Sulfuric Acid Companies Get Favorable Ruling
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: ERISA Violation Class Suit Remains Pending

FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Units Defend RESPA-Violation Suit in Penn.
FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal From Hawaii Suit Dismissal Still Pending
FRESH DEL MONTE: Suits Over Extra Sweet Pineapples Still Pending
FRESH DEL MONTE: Suit Over Extra Sweet Pineapples Pending in Fla.
GOODMAN CO: Recalls 155 Amana Heating and Cooling Units

HOWREY LLP: Outten, Blum Collins Spar to Rep Class in WARN Suit
HSBC BANK: Faces $5-Mil. Class Action in Calif. Over Auto-Dialing
MILFORD WATER: Judge Allows Class Action to Proceed
NAT'L HOCKEY: Files Response to NHL's New York Class Action
NETFLIX INC: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Calif.

PATRIOT COAL: Employees' Class Suit for Lost Wages Still Pending
REMINGTON ARMS: Parker Waichman Files Class Action Over Rifles
SOUTHWEST ICE: Recalls ShurFine Creamery Select Premium Ice Cream
SPIRAL FOODS: Bonsoy Class Action Hearing Scheduled for March
STEHOUWER'S FROZEN: FSIS Lists Stores With Recalled Products

SUPERMEDIA INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Officers
SUPERMEDIA INC: Briefing on Appeal in ERISA Suit Commences
SUPERMEDIA INC: Class Suit Over Benefit Plan Amendments Pending
SUPERMEDIA INC: Summary Judgment Bids in Suit vs. EBC Pending
U.S. STEEL: Antitrust Class Suits Still Pending in Illinois

* Class Action Provisions Under New Bill Good for Shareholders


                          *********

BANKSIA SECURITIES: Insurance Coverage Not Issue in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everard Himmelreich, writing for The Standard, reports that the
amount of insurance carried by directors of the failed Banksia
Securities and Cherry Fund companies should not determine if they
were sued for allegedly not carrying out their duties properly,
the solicitor handling a class action legal case against them
said.

Melbourne solicitor Mark Elliott said if the directors had done
the wrong thing, "they are liable".

"You sue the directors and if they are insured, by default the
insurers run the case," Mr. Elliott said.

His comments came in response to questions from The Standard about
what sort of return investors in the two failed companies could
expect if their class action was successful.

Mr. Elliott's viewpoint on if the directors' level of insurance
influenced the decision to instigate the class action differs from
that of Tony McGrath, a partner in the receivers for the two
failed companies, McGrathNicol.

Mr. McGrath last month told a media teleconference that his firm
would check the level of insurance the directors had before making
any decision to sue them.

Mr. McGrath said his firm needed to do a cost-benefit analysis on
taking a class action against the directors.

"We need to know the extent of insurance coverage they had,"
Mr. McGrath told the December 14 teleconference.

"It is a decision (on whether to sue) we need to make jointly with
debenture holders.

"The risks are high with litigation," Mr. McGrath said.

Mr. Elliott is handling a class action lodged last month with the
Victorian Supreme Court on behalf of more than 16,000 investors
with the two failed companies.

The class action is against Banksia Securities and the associated
Cherry Fund, their directors and the auditors.

Mr. Elliott said investors had the choice to "opt out" of the
class action but they would each be contacted with details of the
case.

"It will be a professionally run and financially resourced class
action," Mr. Elliott said.

He said the class action, which will be run by prominent Melbourne
barrister Norman O'Bryan, would consider an out-of-court
settlement as well as proceeding to a court ruling.

"We will seek an outcome that is acceptable to debenture holders
and approved by the court.

"That can be in a number of ways.  Any settlement will ultimately
have to be approved by the Supreme Court as well as our costs."

Mr. Elliott said if the class action did proceed to court, it
could take a number of years to get a decision.

Banking and Finance Consumer Support Association spokeswoman
Denise Brailey warned the insurance taken out by the company
directors was not likely to cover them for fraud.

News of the class action was also greeted warily by Banksia
investors in the Warrnambool district.

Lynette Lee said she and her husband Roger had been initially
encouraged by a law firm to invest in Banksia, so she was wary of
taking further legal advice about how to recover their investment.

"We are frightened of losing everything," Mrs. Lee said.

Another Warrnambool couple who invested in Banksia, Chris and
Eleonora Symmonds, said that while the class action appeared to be
well organized, they still had doubts.

Mr. Symmonds said he found it difficult to believe that if the
class action failed, all the costs would be borne by the lead
plaintiff in the case, Banksia investor Laurence Bolitho, of
Kyabram.

Mr. Symmonds said the class action was being organized by
prominent lawyers who would "not be cheap".

He queried how much of any settlement in favor of the investors
would go in legal costs.


BLOOMBERG LP: Faces Overtime Class Action
-----------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Bloomberg LP stiffed
"contract representatives" for overtime, a class action claims in
Federal Court.


CITIBANK: Faces Class Action in N.Y. Over Force-Placed Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, Judge David N. Hurd of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of New York issued
a ruling permitting all of the plaintiffs' claims to proceed in a
nationwide class action alleging that Citibank and MidFirst Bank
improperly force-placed high-premium flood insurance policies on
homeowners across the United States.

In their Complaint, plaintiffs Gordon Casey and Duane Skinner
allege that Citibank and MidFirst Bank have a policy and practice
of force-placing unnecessary flood insurance coverage above the
amounts required by their borrowers' mortgage contracts and by
federal law.  Citibank, MidFirst Bank and their affiliates asked
the Court to dismiss the case, asserting that the borrowers'
mortgage contracts permit them to force-place high premium flood
insurance coverage in amounts the banks deem necessary.  However,
the Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss and decided
that the plaintiffs' claims alleging breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, violation of the
Truth in Lending Act, and violation of the New York Deceptive
Practices Act can proceed.

"With respect to borrowers who live in federally designated flood
zones, Citibank, MidFirst Bank, and other banks engaged in the
loan servicing industry have engaged in a classic bait-and-switch,
in which borrowers are informed of one set of flood insurance
requirements at closing and then, later, the banks demand
additional, unwarranted flood insurance coverage," said Shanon
Carson of Berger & Montague, P.C., one of the lead attorneys for
the plaintiffs.  "Through this scheme, Citibank and MidFirst Bank
have harmed thousands of borrowers by force-placing unnecessary
flood insurance at extraordinarily high prices, which often
results in unwarranted fees and other charges.  In addition, each
time the banks require such insurance, they receive lucrative
financial benefits from the insurance companies who place the
flood insurance policies."

"All U.S. borrowers with mortgages serviced by Citibank and
MidFirst Bank who have been forced to purchase flood insurance
policies may be affected by the Court's decision," added Kai
Richter, another of the plaintiffs' attorneys.  "Now they will
have their day in court."

Borrowers who have been subjected to force-placed insurance
policies including customers of Citibank and MidFirst Bank who are
potentially affected by this decision can obtain additional
information by calling Shanon J. Carson, Esq. at (215) 875-4656,
of the law firm, Berger & Montague, P.C.  Mr. Carson can also be
contacted by e-mail at scarson@bm.net

The plaintiffs in this case, Casey, et al. v. Citibank, N.A., et
al., No. 5:12-CV-820 (N.D.N.Y.), are represented by the law firms
of Berger & Montague, P.C., Nichols Kaster, PLLP, and Taus
Cebulash & Landau LLP.

Based in Philadelphia, PA, Berger & Montague, P.C. --
http://www.bergermontague.com-- consists of over 60 attorneys who
represent plaintiffs in complex and class action litigation.

A copy of the Court's decision denying the motions to dismiss
filed by Citibank and MidFirst Bank is available at
http://www.bergermontague.com/media/363057/citi-mtd-decision.pdf

Nichols Kaster, PLLP has offices in Minneapolis, MN and San
Francisco, CA.  Additional information may be obtained by
contacting attorneys Kai Richter and Michelle Drake at 612-256-
3200.  In addition, a copy of the Court's decision is also
available on the firm's Web site -- http://www.nka.com

Taus, Cebulash & Landau, LLP, based in New York City, specializes
in complex consumer and antitrust class action litigation.  Brett
Cebulash and Kevin Landau, the two TCL partners involved in this
matter, can be reached at (212) 931-0704 or via e-mail at
bcebulash@tcllaw.com or klandau@tcllaw.com for more information.

Berger & Montague, P.C., Nichols Kaster, LLP, and Taus Cebulash &
Landau, LLP are currently pursuing class action lawsuits against
numerous banks and insurance companies in the mortgage industry
who are alleged to have engaged in practices similar to Citibank
and MidFirst Bank regarding force-placed hazard insurance and
force-placed flood insurance, including Bank of America, Wells
Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Citizens Bank, GMAC, and others.

Please contact:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Berger & Montague, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-4656
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net

          Kai Richter Nichols Kaster, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3278
          E-mail: krichter@nka.com


CLECO CORP: Awaits Louisiana Sup. Ct. Ruling in Customer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporation is awaiting a Louisiana Supreme Court ruling in
the class action lawsuit brought by customers in Opelousas,
Louisiana, according to the Company's October 30, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On March 9, 2010, a complaint was filed in the 27th Judicial
District Court of St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, on behalf
of three Cleco Power LLC customers in Opelousas, Louisiana.  The
complaint alleges that Cleco Power overcharged the plaintiffs by
applying to customers in Opelousas the same retail rates as Cleco
Power applies to all of its retail customers.  The plaintiffs
claim that Cleco Power owes customers in Opelousas more than $30.0
million as a result of the alleged overcharges.  The plaintiffs
allege that Cleco Power should have established, solely for
customers in Opelousas, retail rates that are separate and
distinct from the retail rates that apply to other customers of
Cleco Power and that Cleco Power should not collect from customers
in Opelousas the storm surcharge approved by the Louisiana Public
Service Commission (LPSC) following hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Cleco Power currently operates in Opelousas pursuant to a
franchise granted to Cleco Power by the City of Opelousas in 1986
and an operating and franchise agreement dated May 14, 1991,
pursuant to which Cleco Power operates its own electric facilities
and leases and operates electric facilities owned by the City of
Opelousas.  In April 2010, Cleco Power filed a petition with the
LPSC appealing to its expertise in declaring that the ratepayers
of Opelousas have been properly charged the rates that are
applicable to Cleco Power's retail customers and that no
overcharges have been collected.  In addition, Cleco Power removed
the purported class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Opelousas
electric customers from the state court to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana in April 2010, so that it
could be properly addressed under the terms of the Class Action
Fairness Act.

On May 11, 2010, a second class action lawsuit was filed in the
27th Judicial District Court for St. Landry Parish, State of
Louisiana, repeating the allegations of the first complaint, which
was submitted on behalf of 249 Opelousas residents.  Cleco Power
has responded in the same manner as with the first class action
lawsuit.

In September 2010, the federal court remanded both cases to the
state court in which they were originally filed for further
proceedings.  In January 2011, the presiding judge in the state
court proceeding ruled that the jurisdiction to hear the two class
actions resides in the state court and not with the LPSC as argued
by both Cleco and the LPSC Staff.  Both Cleco and the LPSC Staff
appealed this ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for the
State of Louisiana.  In September 2011, the Third Circuit denied
both appeals.  In October 2011, both Cleco and the LPSC appealed
the Third Circuit's ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court.  In
November 2011, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted the appeals and
remanded the case to the Third Circuit for further briefing,
argument, and opinion.  In February 2011, the administrative law
judge (ALJ) in the LPSC proceeding ruled that the LPSC has
jurisdiction to decide the claims raised by the class action
plaintiffs.  At its December 2011 Business and Executive Session,
the LPSC adopted the ALJ's recommendation that Cleco be granted
summary judgment in its declaratory action finding that Cleco's
ratepayers in the City of Opelousas have been served under
applicable rates and policies approved by the LPSC and Cleco's
Opelousas ratepayers have not been overcharged in connection with
LPSC rates or ratemaking.  On January 30, 2012, the class action
plaintiffs filed their appeal of such LPSC decision to the 19th
Judicial District Court for Baton Rouge Parish, State of
Louisiana.  On February 15, 2012, the Third Circuit ruled that the
state court, and not the LPSC, has jurisdiction to hear the case.
On March 15, 2012, Cleco Power appealed the Third Circuit's ruling
to the Louisiana Supreme Court asking that it overturn the Third
Circuit decision and confirm the LPSC's exclusive jurisdiction
over this matter.  The LPSC also appealed the Third Circuit's
ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court in March 2012.  On May 18,
2012, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted the writ application of
Cleco Power and the LPSC and set the matter for further briefing
on the merits of the jurisdiction question raised in the writ
application.  Such briefing was completed during the third quarter
of 2012 and the Louisiana Supreme Court heard oral arguments on
September 7, 2012.

A decision from the Louisiana Supreme Court is expected during the
fourth quarter of 2012.

In view of the uncertainty of the claims, management is not able
to predict or give a reasonable estimate of the possible range of
liability, if any, of these claims.  However, if it is found that
Cleco Power overcharged customers resulting in a refund, any such
refund could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows.

Cleco Corp. is a regional energy company that conducts
substantially all of its business operations through its two
primary subsidiaries: (1) Cleco Power LLC, a regulated electric
utility company, which owns 9 generating units with a total
nameplate capacity of 2,524 MW and serves approximately 281,000
customers in Louisiana through its retail business and 10
communities across Louisiana and Mississippi through wholesale
power contracts, and (2) Cleco Midstream Resources LLC, a
wholesale energy business, which owns Cleco Evangeline LLC, which
operates the Coughlin Power Station.


CONAGRA FOODS: Recalls Andy Capp's Hot Fries Due to Soy Allergen
----------------------------------------------------------------
ConAgra Foods, of Omaha, Nebraska, in cooperation with the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is voluntarily recalling a
limited number of packages of its Andy Capp's Hot Fries flavor
product that may contain the Andy Capp's Cheddar Fries flavor,
and, therefore, an undeclared allergen -- soy.  People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to soy run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.
There have been no illnesses reported to date in connection with
this product.

The product was shipped to retail food distributors in New Jersey,
New York and Pennsylvania for distribution to retail stores in
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia,
Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia

The affected product, Andy Capp's Hot Fries, is packaged in .85-
ounce blue poly bags with an Andy Capp's graphic logo and picture
of the hot fries product on the front panel.  This voluntary
recall is limited only to packages of Andy Capp's Hot Fries
bearing the following UPC and Sell By date.  No other Andy Capp's
products are affected.

   Case UPC: 20-0-26200-47169-7
   Unit UPC: 00-0-26200-47168-6
   Batch Code: 5381232500
   Sell By date: August 17, 2013

A picture of the recalled products' label is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm334246.htm

In the event that consumers who have purchased this product
believe they may be impacted by the undeclared soy allergen, they
should return the product to the store where it was purchased for
a full refund.  Consumers with questions about this issue may call
866-518-4177.  This product is a food safety concern only for
people who are allergic to soy.

The affected packages may contain the Andy Capp's Cheddar Fries
flavor.  The allergen, soy, is not declared on the product label.
ConAgra Foods has taken the precautionary measure of notifying the
FDA and is voluntarily recalling about 756 cases of the product
shipped to retail food locations in Connecticut, New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and
Virginia.  ConAgra Foods will work with retail customers to ensure
that the recalled products are removed from store shelves.

ConAgra Foods is also issuing an alert through the Food Allergy &
Anaphylaxis Network (FAAN) in an effort to notify any potentially
impacted consumers.


DIAGNOSTIC VENTURES: Clifford Chance Wins in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A Pennsylvania federal judge ruled that Clifford Chance LLP had no
liability for an alleged scheme that led to the 2003 bankruptcy of
Diagnostic Ventures Inc., releasing the law firm from the long-
running investor class action over the bankruptcy, Dan Packel of
BankruptcyLaw360 reported.

U.S. District Judge Legrome Davis granted summary judgment in
favor of the law firm, concluding there was no evidence that the
investors who claimed they suffered as a result of the scheme had
relied on the firm's supposedly deceptive acts, the report added.

Diagnostic Ventures, Inc., was a healthcare finance company that
extended loans to medical providers to facilitate the purchase of
diagnostic medical equipment and leasehold improvements, and
offered lines of credit for working capital secured by healthcare
receivables.  Founded in 1986, DVI was a publicly traded company
with reported assets of $1.7 billion in 2003.  Its common stock
began trading on the New York Stock Exchange in 1992. It issued
two tranches of 9 7/8% senior notes: the first, issued in 1997,
totaled $100 million; the second, issued in 1998, totaled $55
million.

On Aug. 13, 2003, DVI announced it would file for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection resulting from the public
disclosure of alleged misrepresentations or omissions as to the
amount and nature of collateral pledged to lenders.  In the
ensuing years, its common stock and 1997 Notes were de-listed
from the NYSE, the Securities and Exchange Commission and
Department of Justice undertook investigations, its former Chief
Financial Officer, Steven Garfinkel, pleaded guilty to fraud, the
bankruptcy trustee and multiple lenders filed lawsuits, and the
company dissolved.


EL PASO PIPELINE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Allen" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. is awaiting a court decision on
its and other defendants' motion to dismiss the class action
lawsuit titled Allen v. El Paso Pipeline GP Company, L.L.C., et
al., according to the Company's October 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2012.

In May 2012, a unitholder of El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P.
("EPB") filed a purported class action in Delaware Chancery Court,
alleging both derivative and non-derivative claims, against EPB,
and EPB's general partner and its board. EPB was named in the
lawsuit as both a "Class Defendant" and a "Derivative Nominal
Defendant."  The complaint alleges a breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing in connection with the sale to EPB of a 25%
ownership interest in Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. (SNG).
Defendants believe that this lawsuit is without merit, and have
filed a motion to dismiss.

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

El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. is a Delaware master limited
partnership (MLP) formed in 2007 to own and operate interstate
natural gas transportation and terminaling facilities.  It owns
Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C. (WIC), Southern LNG Company,
L.L.C. (SLNG), Elba Express Company, L.L.C. (Elba Express),
Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. (SNG), Colorado Interstate
Gas Company, L.L.C. (CIG) and Cheyenne Plains Investment Company,
L.L.C. (CPI), which owns Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company,
L.L.C. (CPG).  WIC and CIG are interstate pipeline systems serving
the Rocky Mountain region, SLNG owns the Elba Island LNG storage
and regasification terminal near Savannah, Georgia, and both Elba
Express and SNG are interstate pipeline systems serving the
southeastern region of the United States.  On May 24, 2012, the
Company acquired the remaining interest in CIG and all of CPI and
CPG.  CPG is an interstate pipeline system that extends from the
Cheyenne hub in Weld County, Colorado and extends southerly to a
variety of delivery locations in the vicinity of the Greensburg
Hub in Kiowa County, Kansas.  CPG provides pipeline take-away
capacity from the natural gas basins in the Central Rocky Mountain
area to the major natural gas markets in the Mid-Continent region.
The Company is controlled by its general partner, El Paso Pipeline
GP Company, L.L.C., a wholly owned subsidiary of El Paso LLC
(formerly El Paso Corporation).  El Paso is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc. (KMI).


EL PASO PIPELINE: "Hite" Merger-Related Class Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The merger-related lawsuit captioned Hite Hedge LP, et al. v. El
Paso Corporation, et al. has been dismissed, according to El Paso
Pipeline Partners, L.P.'s October 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. (the Company or EPB) is controlled
by its general partner, El Paso Pipeline GP Company, L.L.C., a
wholly owned subsidiary of El Paso LLC (formerly El Paso
Corporation) (El Paso).  El Paso is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Kinder Morgan, Inc. (KMI).  El Paso's and KMI's merger became
effective on May 25, 2012.

The lawsuit was filed in December 2011, where unitholders of EPB
filed a purported class action complaint in Delaware Chancery
Court against El Paso and its board members, asserting that the
defendants breached their purported fiduciary duties to EPB by
entering into the merger agreement with KMI.  EPB and EPB's
general partner were named in the lawsuit as Nominal Defendants.
The complaint alleges that the merger with KMI will result in
fewer drop down transactions into EPB and has resulted in a
reduction of the price of EPB common units.  In February 2012, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding a derivative claim,
and the defendants responded with a second motion to dismiss in
April 2012.  Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted.  Though an
appeal is likely, the Company believes it unlikely that the
dismissal will be overturned.

El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. is a Delaware master limited
partnership (MLP) formed in 2007 to own and operate interstate
natural gas transportation and terminaling facilities.  It owns
Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C. (WIC), Southern LNG Company,
L.L.C. (SLNG), Elba Express Company, L.L.C. (Elba Express),
Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. (SNG), Colorado Interstate
Gas Company, L.L.C. (CIG) and Cheyenne Plains Investment Company,
L.L.C. (CPI), which owns Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company,
L.L.C. (CPG).  WIC and CIG are interstate pipeline systems serving
the Rocky Mountain region, SLNG owns the Elba Island LNG storage
and regasification terminal near Savannah, Georgia, and both Elba
Express and SNG are interstate pipeline systems serving the
southeastern region of the United States.  On May 24, 2012, the
Company acquired the remaining interest in CIG and all of CPI and
CPG.  CPG is an interstate pipeline system that extends from the
Cheyenne hub in Weld County, Colorado and extends southerly to a
variety of delivery locations in the vicinity of the Greensburg
Hub in Kiowa County, Kansas.  CPG provides pipeline take-away
capacity from the natural gas basins in the Central Rocky Mountain
area to the major natural gas markets in the Mid-Continent region.
The Company is controlled by its general partner, El Paso Pipeline
GP Company, L.L.C., a wholly owned subsidiary of El Paso LLC
(formerly El Paso Corporation).  El Paso is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc. (KMI).


FALCONBRIDGE LTD: Sulfuric Acid Companies Get Favorable Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law360, reports that the Seventh
Circuit sided with sulfuric acid companies that were accused by a
purchaser class of breaking antitrust laws, finding distribution
deals struck between Canadian and U.S. acid producers did not
necessarily harm competition.

The Dec. 27 appellate ruling upholds a district court's
determination that the so-called rule-of-reason test -- which
requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that an agreement's potential
harms to competition outweigh any competitive benefits -- was the
appropriate standard.


FLAGSTAR BANCORP: ERISA Violation Class Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act remains pending, according to
Flagstar Bancorp, Inc.'s October 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

In February 2010, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court alleging
that it violated its fiduciary duty pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") to employees who
participated in the Company's 401(k) plan ("Plan") by continuing
to offer Company stock as an investment option after investment in
the stock allegedly ceased to be prudent.  On July 16, 2010, the
Company moved to dismiss the complaint and asserted, among other
things, that the Plan's investment in employer stock was protected
by a presumption of prudence under ERISA, and that plaintiff's
allegations failed to overcome such presumption.  On March 31,
2011, the court granted the Company's motion and dismissed the
case.  The plaintiffs appealed the matter to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  On July 23, 2012, the Court of
Appeals issued a ruling, reversing the district court's dismissal
and remanding the case to the district court for further
proceedings.

Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. is a Michigan-based savings and loan
holding company founded in 1993.  Its business is primarily
conducted through its principal subsidiary, Flagstar Bank, a
federally chartered stock savings bank.


FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Units Defend RESPA-Violation Suit in Penn.
------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. continue to defend
themselves against a class action alleging violations of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act, according to the Company's
October 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In May 2012, Flagstar Bank and Flagstar Reinsurance Company were
named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, alleging a violation of Section 8 provisions of Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). Section 8 of RESPA
generally prohibits anyone from accepting any fee or thing of
value pursuant to any agreement or understanding that business
related to a real estate settlement service involving a mortgage
loan shall be referred to any person.  Section 8 of RESPA also
prohibits anyone from accepting any portion, split, or percentage
of any charge made or received for the rendering of a real estate
settlement service in connection with a mortgage loan other than
for services actually performed.  The lawsuit specifically alleges
that the Bank and Flagstar Reinsurance Company violated Section 8
of RESPA through a captive reinsurance arrangement, involving
allegedly illegal payments for the referral of private mortgage
insurance business from private mortgage insurers to Flagstar
Reinsurance Company, and Flagstar Reinsurance Company's purported
receipt of an unlawful split of private mortgage insurance
premiums.  The Bank is in the beginning stages of evaluating the
allegations in the complaint, but intends to vigorously defend
against such allegations.

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

Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. is a Michigan-based savings and loan
holding company founded in 1993.  Its business is primarily
conducted through its principal subsidiary, Flagstar Bank, a
federally chartered stock savings bank.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal From Hawaii Suit Dismissal Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 1997, plaintiffs from Costa Rica and Guatemala named certain of
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc.'s U.S. subsidiaries in a purported
class action in Hawaii.  On June 28, 2007, plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed the U.S. subsidiaries named in the action without ties
to Hawaii.  At a hearing held on June 9, 2009, the court granted
summary judgment in favor of the Company's remaining U.S.
subsidiaries with ties to Hawaii, holding that the claims of the
remaining plaintiffs are time-barred.  A final judgment dismissing
all remaining claims and terminating the action was entered on
July 28, 2010.  On August 24, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal.  The appeal is fully briefed and remains pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 30,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 28, 2012.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Suits Over Extra Sweet Pineapples Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. continues to face lawsuits over its
Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples, according to the
Company's October 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
28, 2012.

On March 5, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative
class action complaint against certain of Fresh Del Monte Produce,
Inc.'s subsidiaries in the state court of Tennessee on behalf of
consumers who purchased (other than for resale) Del Monte Gold(R)
Extra Sweet pineapples in Tennessee from March 1, 1996, to May 6,
2003.  The complaint alleges violations of the Tennessee Trade
Practices Act and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.  On
February 18, 2005, the Company's subsidiaries filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint.  On May 15, 2006, the court granted the
motion in part, dismissing plaintiffs' claim under the Tennessee
Consumer Protection Act.

Between March 17, 2004, and March 18, 2004, three alleged
individual consumers separately filed putative class action
complaints against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in
the state court of California on behalf of residents of California
who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra
Sweet pineapples between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003.  On
November 9, 2005, the three actions were consolidated under one
amended complaint with a single claim for unfair competition in
violation of the California Business and Professional Code.  On
September 26, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class
action.  On August 20, 2009, the court denied class certification.
On October 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
court's order denying class certification.  On February 29, 2012,
the oral argument hearing on the appeal was held.  On March 7,
2012, the appeal was rejected and the denial of class
certification was upheld.

Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. is a vertically integrated producer,
marketer and distributor of high-quality fresh and fresh-cut fruit
and vegetables, as well as a producer and marketer of prepared
fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks in Europe,
Africa, the Middle East and countries formerly part of the Soviet
Union.  The Company markets its products worldwide under the DEL
MONTE(R) brand, a symbol of product innovation, quality, freshness
and reliability since 1892.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Suit Over Extra Sweet Pineapples Pending in Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On April 19, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative
class action complaint against Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc.'s
subsidiaries in the state court of Florida on behalf of Florida
residents who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R)
Extra Sweet pineapples between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003.
The only surviving claim under the amended complaint alleges
violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
relating only to pineapples purchased since April 19, 2000.  The
Company's subsidiaries filed an answer to the surviving claim on
October 12, 2006.  On August 5, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify a class action.  The Company's subsidiaries filed an
opposition on January 22, 2009 to which plaintiffs filed a reply
on May 11, 2009.  On November 29, 2011, the court denied the
motion to certify a class action.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 30,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 28, 2012.

Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. is a vertically integrated producer,
marketer and distributor of high-quality fresh and fresh-cut fruit
and vegetables, as well as a producer and marketer of prepared
fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks in Europe,
Africa, the Middle East and countries formerly part of the Soviet
Union.  The Company markets its products worldwide under the DEL
MONTE(R) brand, a symbol of product innovation, quality, freshness
and reliability since 1892.


GOODMAN CO: Recalls 155 Amana Heating and Cooling Units
-------------------------------------------------------
About 155 Amana Packaged Gas/Electric Heating and Cooling units
were voluntarily recalled by Goodman Company L.P., of Houston,
Texas, in cooperation with the CPSC.  Consumers should stop using
the product immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The serial plates on the units have inaccurate information that
could result in installers and servicers using undersized wiring,
posing a fire hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Amana Packaged Gas/Electric Heating and
Cooling units with model number APG154911541BA and serial numbers
beginning with 1206, 1207, 1208, 1209 and 1210.  The model and
serial numbers are printed on the serial plate attached to the
control compartment door on the front of the unit.  The units are
used to provide heating and cooling to homes and commercial
buildings.  Packaged units provide heating and cooling all in one
system.  The gray-colored units measure about 40 inches high by 51
inches wide by 47 inches deep.  Picture of the recalled products
is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13715.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold heating and cooling equipment dealers nationwide
from June 2012 through October 2012 for about $5,600.

Consumers should contact Goodman for a free replacement of the
serial plate label and a free inspection of the installation
wiring.  Goodman is directly contacting customers who purchased
the recalled units.  Goodman may be reached at (800) 394-8084 from
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time, Monday through Friday, or
online at http://www.amana-hac.com/and click on "Product Recall"
for more information.


HOWREY LLP: Outten, Blum Collins Spar to Rep Class in WARN Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ama Sarfo of BankruptcyLaw360 reported that a former Howrey LLP
employee who filed a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act class action against the defunct law firm filed a motion in
California bankruptcy court, contending she and her law firm are
best suited to represent a class of former employees.

Former records specialist Stephanie Langley contends that she
should be named class representative and her law firm Outten &
Golden LLP should be named lead counsel, rather than Blum Collins
LLP, the law firm proposed by former Howrey employee Gail Adams,
the report related.

                         About Howrey LLP

Three creditors filed an involuntary Chapter 7 petition (Bankr.
N.D. Calif. Case No. 11-31376) on April 11, 2011, against the
remnants of the Washington-based law firm Howrey LLP.  The filing
was in San Francisco, where the firm had an office.  The firm
previously was known as Howrey & Simon and Howrey Simon Arnold &
White LLP.  The firm at one time had more than 700 lawyers in 17
offices.  The partners voted to dissolve in March 2011.

The firm specialized in antitrust and intellectual-property
matters.  The three creditors filing the involuntary petition
together have $36,600 in claims, according to their petition.

The involuntary chapter 7 petition was converted to a chapter 11
case in June 2011 at the request of the firm.  In its schedules
filed in July, the Debtor disclosed assets of $138.7 million and
liabilities of $107.0 million.

Representing Citibank, the firm's largest creditor, is Kelley
Cornish, Esq., a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison.  Representing Howrey is H. Jason Gold, Esq., a partner
at Wiley Rein.

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors is represented in
the case by Bradford F. Englander, Esq., at Whiteford, Taylor And
Preston LLP.

In September 2011, Citibank sought conversion of the Debtor's case
to Chapter 7 or, in the alternative, appointment of a Chapter 11
Trustee.  The Court entered an order appointing a Chapter 11
Trustee. In October 2011, Allan B. Diamond was named as Trustee.


HSBC BANK: Faces $5-Mil. Class Action in Calif. Over Auto-Dialing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Law360, reports that HSBC Bank
U.S.A. is auto-dialing people's mobile phones without their
permission in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
according to a $5 million proposed class action launched against
the bank on Jan. 2 in California federal court.

Plaintiff Stephen Comstock accused the bank of negligently and
willfully violating the TCPA when it began calling him without his
permission last October for non-emergency purposes using an
automatic telephone dialing system and prerecorded and artificial
voice messages.


MILFORD WATER: Judge Allows Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------
Matt Tota, writing for Milford Daily News, reports that a
Worcester Superior Court judge authorized a class action lawsuit
against Milford Water Co. that alleges the company failed to
provide potable water and adequate service for nearly two weeks in
August 2009.

During that period, the state Department of Environmental
Protection had instated a boil-water order for the town because
samples taken from the company tested for E. coli bacteria.

Later, 10 plaintiffs sued Milford Water Co. alleging unfair and
deceptive trade practices, negligence, gross negligence, breach of
contract, and breach of common law warranty.  Under state law, the
case will proceed without a dollar amount set for damages.

Judge John S. McCann on Dec. 31 certified a class of plaintiffs
and set the start of the trial for Oct. 5.

In his ruling, Judge McCann defined the class as "all individual
customers of defendant Milford Water Company . . . individual
members of the customers' households, dependents and other
individual users of water who sustained damage or injury on or
about August 5-21, 2009 and thereafter as a result of the boil-
water order."

Three law firms -- Nickless, Phillips and O'Connor, of Fitchburg;
Altman & Altman, of Wilmington; and Bonville & Howard, of
Fitchburg -- have represented the plaintiffs.

Early in the proceedings, Milford Water Co. tried to get the
counts dismissed, but a judge struck down the motion, according to
James L. O'Connor Jr., one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs.

Mr. O'Connor on Jan. 3 said Judge McCann's decision comes after an
exhaustive period of discovery and a slew of motions lodged by
both sides.  The class, he said, includes not only residents but
also people who were merely visiting or passing through the town
during the boil-water order.

"There will be a noticing procedure . . . telling people what they
need to do if they have a claim," he said.

Judge McCann did not mention businesses in his ruling, a point
Mr. O'Connor underscored.

"If there are businesses who were injured or suffered damages,
they would need to seek legal counsel to determine their rights,"
Mr. O'Connor said.  "A restaurant unable to open to serve coffee,
for instance, would need to consult legal counsel."

One of the 10 plaintiffs, George Marotta, of Milford, said on
Jan. 3 that he hopes "justice will prevail."

"We felt we were wronged," Mr. Marotta said.  "We have evidence to
support it."

Milford Water Co. General Manager David Condrey on Jan. 3 said his
company still needed time to examine the ruling before determining
whether to appeal.

"We are going to review the notice and take a look at some of our
options," Mr. Condrey said.

Milford Water Co. has been under fire since the 2009 DEP order.

Attorney General Martha Coakley indicted the company's former
manager, Henry Papuga, last year on charges that he allegedly
manipulated water samples to prompt the state to lift its boil-
water order.

The 61-year-old Papuga has pleaded not guilty to six counts of
tampering with an environmental device or method and two counts of
making false statements.

According to investigators, Mr. Papuga, who retired from the
company in December 2009, added chlorine to six samples, and then
submitted them to local labs for testing.  Ms. Coakley said
Mr. Papuga signed a document attesting to the integrity of the
samples.

Mr. Papuga's Worcester Superior Court trial has seen a number of
delays, but is tentatively scheduled to begin March 4.

Recently, the embattled water company petitioned the state
Department of Public Utilities to raise its rates by 82 percent,
claiming it needs the extra funds to build a new $25 million
treatment plant.

Town officials responded to the company's request with rage.
Voters at last year's special Town Meeting approved allocating
$35,000 to fight the rate increase in court.

Recently, Ms. Coakley vowed to investigate whether the rate hike
is justifiable.  The announcement marked the first time her office
has intervened in a quarrel over water rates.

According to Milford Patch's Mary MacDonald, the plaintiffs are
Paul Bennett, Jameson Mello, Julie Garney, and George and
Elizabeth Marotta.  Mr. Mello also represents the interests of his
underage daughter in the suit, according to the court decision.

In opening the lawsuit to class action, Judge McCann found the
request met the requirements, including that the claims of the
original plaintiffs are "typical of the claims of the class as a
whole," and the accused unfair, or deceptive acts have "caused
similar injury to numerous other persons similarly situated and
the class representatives adequately and fairly represent such
other persons."

According to an earlier court order in the case, some of the
residents who filed suit reported they suffered from diarrhea or
stomach cramps, during and after the week of Aug. 5, 2009, or
sustained financial losses as a result of the water contamination.

According to an Oct. 1 court order, which dismissed several
motions by the Water Co. in the case:

The Milford Water Co. notified the state Department of
Environmental Protection on Aug. 8, 2009 that two routine water
samples collected on Aug. 5 had tested positive for coliform, and
six repeat samples collected Aug. 7 also were presumed to be
positive for coliform.  The state told the Water Co. verbally at 9
p.m. Aug. 8 to put in place a "boil water order" for the entire
town until one round of samples came back bacteria-free.

That same night, Mr. Papuga ordered an increase of water
chlorination.  He also notified town officials, via voicemail
messages, of the information.

The town began notifying residents of the boil water order that
weekend.  On Monday, Aug. 10, 2009, the state DEP told Mr. Papuga,
in writing, that the water "could pose an unacceptable risk to
public health" and that the boil water order should remain in
effect until ended by the DEP in writing.

Under the order, residents were told to boil their tap water for
at least one minute before consuming it, or to consume water from
an alternate source.

The DEP ordered the Water Co. to notify the public and the town
officials of the contamination and the boil order, to initiate an
emergency response plan, to conduct repeat monitoring for coliform
and submit an emergency response report, among other requirements.
"Despite these circumstances," the order stated, "on Aug. 10,
2009, at a Milford Board of Selectmen's meeting aired on local
cable television, Papuga stated "that the water as of right now is
absolutely fine" and "all of our tests have come back that the
water is absolutely perfect to drink."

On Aug. 12 and 13 the water test results still showed contaminated
water.  On Aug. 19, the boil order was lifted for most residents
of Milford, except for some customers near the Hopkinton border,
where water samples still showed the presence of coliform.  The
boil order there was lifted on Aug. 21, 2009.

The plaintiffs in the case, the six residents, contend the source
of the bacterial contamination was holes in the roof of the
Congress Street water tank, and the Water Co.'s failure to clean,
inspect or maintain the tank for an extended period of years.  The
Water Co., according to the court orders, cites the contamination
source as being water from Echo Lake.


NAT'L HOCKEY: Files Response to NHL's New York Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Dadoun, writing for ProHockeyTalk, reports that the National
Hockey League Players' Association has filed its response to the
National Hockey League's class action complaint.

NHL filed a class action complaint in Federal Court in New York.
The league did so in response to the players voting on the matter
of giving the NHLPA's executive board the power to file a
disclaimer of interest.

The union has filed its response, courtesy of TSN legal analyst
Eric Macramalla.

U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer has been assigned to this
case and has scheduled a status conference for Jan. 7.  However,
Judge Engelmayer said that "the parties are directed to meet and
confer on these subjects before Monday Jan. 7."

In other words, the NHL and union should feel free to reach a new
CBA ahead of time.


NETFLIX INC: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Netflix Inc. continues to defend itself against a consolidated
shareholder class action lawsuit in California, according to the
Company's October 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On January 13, 2012, the first of three purported shareholder
class action lawsuits was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors.  Two additional
purported shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the same
court on January 27, 2012 and February 29, 2012, respectively,
alleging substantially similar claims.  These lawsuits have been
consolidated and the Court has selected lead plaintiffs.  Lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on June 26, 2012.  The
consolidated complaint alleges violations of the federal
securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between October 20, 2010, and October 24, 2011.  The
complaint alleges among other things, that the Company issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business practices and violated accounting rules concerning
segment reporting, which led to artificially inflated stock
prices.

Management has determined a potential loss is reasonably possible
however, based on its current knowledge, management does not
believe that the amount of such possible loss or a range of
potential loss is reasonably estimable.

Netflix Inc. is an Internet subscription service for enjoying TV
shows and movies.  Its subscribers can instantly watch as many TV
shows and movies as they want, streamed over the Internet to their
TVs, computers and mobile devices.  Additionally, in the U.S., its
subscribers can receive standard definition DVDs, and their high
definition successor, Blu-ray discs, delivered quickly to their
homes.


PATRIOT COAL: Employees' Class Suit for Lost Wages Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
In late January 2010, the U.S. Attorney's office and the State of
West Virginia began investigations relating to one or more of
Patriot Coal Corporation's employees making inaccurate entries in
official mine records at the Company's Federal No. 2 Mine.  The
Company terminated one employee and two other employees resigned
after being placed on administrative leave.  The terminated
employee subsequently admitted to falsifying inspection records
and has been cooperating with the U.S. Attorney's office.  In
April 2010, the Company received a federal subpoena requesting
methane detection systems equipment used at its Federal No. 2 Mine
since July 2008 and the results of tests performed on the
equipment since that date.  It has provided the equipment and
information as required by the subpoena.  The Company has not
received any additional requests for information.  In January
2012, the terminated employee filed a civil lawsuit against the
Company alleging retaliatory discharge and intentional infliction
of emotional distress.  Additionally, in January 2012, five
employees filed a purported class action lawsuit against the
Company and the terminated employee seeking compensation for lost
wages, emotional distress, and punitive damages for the alleged
intentional violation of employee safety at the mine.  The Company
is vigorously defending both civil lawsuits and the potential
impact of these lawsuits cannot be estimated at this time.

The outcome of other litigation and the investigations is subject
to numerous uncertainties.  Based on the Company's evaluation of
the issues and their potential impact, the amount of any future
loss cannot be reasonably estimated.  However, based on current
information, it believes these matters are likely to be resolved
without a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows.

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

Patriot Coal Corporation -- http://www.patriotcoal.com/-- engages
in the mining, production, and sale of thermal coal primarily to
electricity generators in the eastern United States.  It has
operations and coal reserves in the Appalachia and the Illinois
Basin coal regions.  The Company is also involved in the
production of metallurgical quality coal and sells it to steel
mills and independent coke producers.  It is based in St. Louis,
Missouri.


REMINGTON ARMS: Parker Waichman Files Class Action Over Rifles
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Waichman LLP, a national law firm dedicated to protecting
the rights of victims injured by defective and dangerous products,
has filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the Model 700 Rifle
Series manufactured by Remington Arms is defective and can fire
without a trigger pull due to a mechanism known as the Walker Fire
Control.  The lawsuit was filed on December 31st, 2012 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami
Division.  Remington Arms Company, LLC., Sporting Goods
Properties, Inc. and E.I. Du Pont Nemours and Company have been
named as Defendants. [Case 1:12-cv-24561]

The lawsuit alleges that the Model 700 rifle is dangerous because
of its Walker Fire Control trigger design.  Unlike other firearm
manufacturers, Remington's patented Walker Fire Control utilizes
an internal component known as a "trigger connector;" the
connector supports another internal component called the sear.
When the trigger is pulled, the trigger body pushes the connector
forward, allowing the sear to fall and the rifle to fire.  When
the trigger is pulled and the rifle fires, a gap is created
between the trigger body and the trigger connector.  According to
the complaint, various field debris, manufacturing scrap, burrs
from the manufacturing process, lubrication and moisture can build
up in the gap created during a trigger pull.  This buildup can
allegedly restrict the return of the trigger connector to its
proper location under the sear, predisposing the rifle to
malfunction in the absence of a trigger pull.

The Walker Fire Control was introduced in 1948 and is found in
over 5 million Remington brand firearms.  According to the
Complaint, the Defendants have been aware of the Walker Fire
Control's design flaws since before the product was placed into
commerce.  The suit states that the Defendants have known since
1979 that at least 1 percent of all Model 700 Rifles would
"trick," allowing them to fire unexpectedly without a trigger
pull.  The lawsuit alleges, however, that this percentage is
vastly understated because the "trick condition" has to do with
the design defects inherent in the Walker Fire Control, and
therefore all Model 700 rifles and all other firearm that utilize
this design have a risk of firing without a trigger pull.

According to the lawsuit, the unexpected firing without a trigger
pull is so common that the Defendants have developed abbreviations
to refer to the conditions under which the misfiring occurred.
The "fire on safe release" or "FSR," is only but one common form
of malfunction allegedly associated with the Walker Fire Control.

The lawsuit points out the fact that the Remington Rifle Model
600, which also used the Walker Fire Control, was recalled after a
large settlement was awarded to an accident victim in 1978.
Remington recalled the Model 600 series once the media widely
publicized the alleged malfunctions associated with the Walker
Fire Control and the settlement amount.  According to the
complaint, the recalled Model 600 series exhibited the exact forms
of safety related malfunctions as the Model 700.  In 1975,
Remington audited 615 Model 600 rifles and found that 55.9 percent
of them failed.  However, the suit states that the Defendants
failed to warn, retrofit or recall the effected rifles until after
the widely-publicized settlement in 1978.  The lawsuit alleges
that, despite the fact that the Model 700 rifles employ the same
fire control system as the Model 600 series; the Defendants have
not recalled all Model 700 rifles.

The complaint states that there is no engineering reason to employ
a separate connector that is not physically attached to the
trigger.  According to the lawsuit, no other firearm manufacturer
utilizes such a device and many after-market manufacturers have
created replacement triggers to replace the allegedly defective
Walker Fire Control.  In fact, the complaint states that in
January of 2011, Mr. Walker, designer of the Walker trigger,
himself confirmed that the extra connector serves no engineering
purpose other than to reduce manufacturing costs and make
operation of the trigger pull smoother.

Parker Waichman LLP filed the lawsuit alongside several other
distinguished law firms.  Co-counsel include Bolen Robinson &
Ellis, LLP; Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli Co., LPA;
Neblett, Beard & Arsenault; Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze
LLC.; Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman; Ramler Law Office, P.C.
and Monsees, Miller, Mayer, Presley & Amick, P.C.

Parker Waichman LLP is currently offering free legal consultations
to owners and/or victims of misfires caused by Remington Model
600, Remington Model 700 & other Remington Rifle & Shotgun models.
Please contact their office by visiting the Remington Model 700
rifle injury page at http://yourlawyer.com

Free case evaluations are also available by calling 1 800 LAW INFO
(1-800-529-4636).

Contact: Parker Waichman LLP
         Jordan Chaikin, Esq.
         Telephone: (800) LAW-INFO
                    (800) 529-4636
         E-mail: jchaikin@yourlawyer.com
         Web site: http://www.yourlawyer.com


SOUTHWEST ICE: Recalls ShurFine Creamery Select Premium Ice Cream
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Ice Cream Specialties is voluntarily recalling ShurFine
Brand "Creamery Select (Premium Ice Cream) Dulce de Leche" Ice
Cream (1.75 quarts, 1.66L) because it may contain praline pecan
ice cream, which contains wheat, soy and pecans.  The product is
packed with a ShurFine Praline Pecan lid, but bears the Dulce de
Leche product labeling on the carton.  While no ShurFine product
has been linked to any illness related to allergens at this time,
Southwest Ice Cream Specialties is taking this precautionary
measure because the ice cream inside the carton contains pecans,
soy and wheat that are not declared on the packaging.

To date, no complaints or reactions have been reported.  People
who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to pecans, soy and/or
wheat run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume this product.

This product is produced by the Southwest Ice Cream Specialties
processing facility in McKinney, Texas, and is sold at various
retail outlets under the ShurFine brand name.

Size                  Name                 Flavor
----                  ----                 ------
1.75 quarts (1.66L)   ShurFine "Creamery   Dulce de Leche carton
"scround" container   Select" Premium      with incorrect
                       Ice Cream            product and "ShurFine
UPC #: 015400224840                        Praline Pecan" lid
Date: Best By NOV 8, 2014
Plant Code: 48-3202-F

The affected product has a "Best By" date of November 8, 2014, and
was sold by retailers in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas,
Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas.  The carton carries the above
referenced Universal Product Code (UPC) and plant code 48-3202-F.

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm334451.htm

Consumers who purchased the product may discard it and return the
product package to the place of purchase for a full refund or
exchange. Consumers with questions can contact the Southwest Ice
Cream Specialties at 1-800-587-2259 between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.

The Company says that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has
been notified of this voluntary recall.


SPIRAL FOODS: Bonsoy Class Action Hearing Scheduled for March
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABC reports that lawyers have widened a class action launched over
soy milk sold in Australia with high levels of iodine to include
the Japanese manufacturer and exporter.

Bonsoy was recalled worldwide late in 2009 after it was discovered
that one glass contained seven times the safe dose of iodine.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers launched a class action in 2010 on
behalf of hundreds of Australians who they say suffered severe
thyroid problems and other chronic illnesses as a result of
drinking the milk.

The class action began against Australian brand Spiral Foods but
has now widened to include the two Japanese companies that
manufactured and exported Bonsoy -- Marusan-ai and Muso.

The amended statement of claim alleges the three companies ignored
a 2006 test that revealed Bonsoy contained high levels of iodine.

Lawyers say the high levels stem from the reformulation of Bonsoy
in 2003 to include the iodine-rich kombu, a type of kelp, as an
alternative to using salt.

More than 600 people have joined the class action.

Maurice Blackburn senior associate Irina Lubomirska says the
reformulated Bonsoy was on the market for six years before being
recalled.

"We say that these three companies had test results in mid-2006
which showed Bonsoy contained extremely high levels of iodine, but
they did nothing," she said in a statement.

"On at least three occasions they were contacted by customers
expressing concerns about iodine content of Bonsoy and they did
not act to ensure the product was safe.

"They have breached consumer protection laws in both Australia and
Japan."

Ms. Lubomirska says a quick internet search would have informed
the companies the levels of iodine were not safe.

"It was not until Christmas 2009 that Bonsoy was recalled after
health authorities discovered that one glass of the product
contained seven times the upper safe dose of iodine for adults,"
she said.

"By that time the defective product had been on the market for six
years and hundreds of Bonsoy consumers suffered thyroid illness as
a result."

The case will be heard in court in March.  No date has been set
for a trial.


STEHOUWER'S FROZEN: FSIS Lists Stores With Recalled Products
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
"Stehouwer's Pigs in the Blanket" products that have been recalled
by Stehouwer's Frozen Foods.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/6MmcN6,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.

Retailer Name             City and State
-------------             --------------
Meijer                    Stores throughout IL, IN, KY, MI, OH
D&W Fresh Market          Stores throughout Michigan
Family Fare               Stores throughout Michigan
Harding's Market          Stores throughout Michigan
Village Mkt Food Center   Allegan, Michigan
Mazen Foods               Detroit, Michigan
Dick's Food Market        Dorr, Michigan
Fennville Main St Market  Fennville, Michigan
Shop-N-Save Food Center   Fremont, Michigan
Forest Hills Foods        Grand Rapids, Michigan
Plumb's                   Grand Rapids, Michigan
Hamilton Food Center      Hamilton, Michigan
Leppink's Food Center     Howard City, Michigan
Valu Land                 Lansing, Michigan
Shop-N-Save Food Center   Ludington, Michigan
Value Center Marketplace  Madison Heights, Michigan
Middleville Marketplace   Middleville, Michigan
Plumb's                   Muskegon, Michigan
Plumb's                   Newaygo, Michigan
Plumb's                   North Muskegon, Michigan
Ravenna Foods             Ravenna, Michigan
Valu Land                 Roseville, Michigan
V G's Food Center         Shelby Twp, Michigan
Weicks Foodtown           Shelbyville, Michigan
Village Mkt Food Center   South Haven, Michigan
Leppink's Food Center     Spring Lake, Michigan
Valu Land                 Warren, Michigan
Tenutas Food Lane         Waterford, Michigan
Heartland Marketplace     Westland, Michigan
Big Top Market            Wyoming, Michigan
Duthler's Family Foods    Wyoming, Michigan


SUPERMEDIA INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Officers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SuperMedia, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on a motion for
summary judgment seeking a complete dismissal of a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit filed against its officers,
according to the Company's October 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

In April 30, 2009, May 21, 2009, and June 5, 2009, three separate
putative class action securities lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, against certain of the Company's current and former
officers (but not against the Company or its subsidiaries).  The
lawsuits were filed by Jan Buettgen, John Heffner, and Alan
Goldberg as three separate named plaintiffs on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between August 10, 2007,
and March 31, 2009, inclusive.  On May 22, 2009, a putative class
action securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas against two of the Company's
current officers (but not against the Company or its
subsidiaries).  The lawsuit was filed by Wade L. Jones on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's bonds between March 27, 2008, and
March 30, 2009, inclusive.  On August 18, 2009, the Wade Jones
case from Arkansas federal district court was transferred to be
consolidated with the cases filed in Texas.  The complaints are
virtually identical and generally allege that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial performance and
condition.  Specifically, the complaints allege violations by the
defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 under the
Exchange Act and Section 20 of the Exchange Act.  The plaintiffs
are seeking unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement for
litigation expenses.  Since the filing of the complaints, all four
cases have been consolidated into one court in the Northern
District of Texas and a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiffs'
attorney have been selected (the "Buettgen" case).  On April 12,
2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the entire Buettgen
complaint.  On August 11, 2010, in a one line order without an
opinion, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss.  On May
19, 2011, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion certifying a
class.  Subsequently, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied
the Company's petition for an interlocutory appeal of the class
certification order.  Discovery has commenced.

On September 24, 2012, the Company defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment seeking a complete dismissal.  The Company says
it plans to honor its indemnification obligations and to
vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, SuperMedia Inc. --
http://www.supermedia.com/-- operates as a yellow pages directory
publisher in the United States.  The Company was formerly known as
Idearc Inc. and changed its name to SuperMedia Inc. in January
2010.


SUPERMEDIA INC: Briefing on Appeal in ERISA Suit Commences
----------------------------------------------------------
Briefing has begun in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit on plaintiffs' intent to appeal dismissal of their ERISA
case against SuperMedia, Inc., according to the Company's
October 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On December 10, 2009, a former employee with a history of
litigation against the Company filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, against certain of the Company's current
and former officers, directors and members of the Company's
Employee Benefit Committee.  The complaint attempts to recover
alleged losses to the various savings plans that were allegedly
caused by the breach of fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by
the defendants in administrating the plans from November 17, 2006
to March 31, 2009.  The complaint alleges that: (i) the defendants
wrongfully allowed all the plans to invest in Idearc common stock,
(ii) the defendants made material misrepresentations regarding the
Company's financial performance and condition, (iii) the
defendants had divided loyalties, (iv) the defendants mismanaged
the plan assets, and (v) certain defendants breached their duty to
monitor and inform the EBC of required disclosures.  The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages and
reimbursement for litigation expenses.  At this time, a class has
not been certified.  The plaintiffs have filed a consolidated
complaint.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the entire
complaint on June 22, 2010.  On March 16, 2011, the Court granted
the Company defendants' motion to dismiss the entire complaint;
however, the plaintiffs have repleaded their complaint.  The
Company defendants have filed another motion to dismiss the new
complaint.  On March 15, 2012, the court granted the Company
defendants' second motion dismissing the case with prejudice.  The
plaintiffs have filed a notice of their intent to appeal the
dismissal and briefing in the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
has begun.  The Company plans to honor its indemnification
obligations and vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants'
behalf.

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, SuperMedia Inc. --
http://www.supermedia.com/-- operates as a yellow pages directory
publisher in the United States.  The Company was formerly known as
Idearc Inc. and changed its name to SuperMedia Inc. in January
2010.


SUPERMEDIA INC: Class Suit Over Benefit Plan Amendments Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
SuperMedia Inc.'s class action complaint relating to amendments in
its benefit plans remains pending, according to the Company's
October 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On June 26, 2012, SuperMedia Inc. filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, where the Company seeks a declaratory judgment
concerning the Company's right to enact several amendments that
were recently made to its retiree health and welfare benefit
plans, and more generally the Company's right to modify, amend or
terminate these plans.  Although the court initially consolidated
this case with a November 2009 case commenced by three former Bell
retirees over the Company's employee benefits committee, it later
reversed itself and kept the case separate.  Several of the
defendants have filed motions to dismiss.

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, SuperMedia Inc. --
http://www.supermedia.com/-- operates as a yellow pages directory
publisher in the United States.  The Company was formerly known as
Idearc Inc. and changed its name to SuperMedia Inc. in January
2010.


SUPERMEDIA INC: Summary Judgment Bids in Suit vs. EBC Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Summary judgment motions remain pending in the class action
lawsuit involving SuperMedia, Inc.'s employee benefits committee,
according to the Company's October 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On November 25, 2009, three former Bell retirees brought a
putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against both the
Verizon employee benefits committee and pension plans and the
Company employee benefits committee (the "EBC") and pension plans.
All three named plaintiffs are receiving the single life monthly
annuity pension benefits.  All complain that Verizon transferred
them against their will from the Verizon pension plans to the
Company pension plans at or near the Company's spin-off from
Verizon.  The complaint alleges that both the Verizon and Company
defendants failed to provide requested plan documents, which would
entitle the plaintiffs to statutory penalties under the Employee
Retirement Income Securities Act ("ERISA"); that both the Verizon
and Company defendants breached their fiduciary duty for refusal
to disclose pension plan information; and other class action
counts aimed solely at the Verizon defendants.  The plaintiffs
seek class action status, statutory penalties, damages and a
reversal of the employee transfers.  The Company defendants filed
their motion to dismiss the entire complaint on March 10, 2010.
On October 18, 2010, the Court ruled on the pending motion
dismissing all the claims against the Company pension plans and
all of the claims against the Company's EBC relating to the
production of documents and statutory penalties for failure to
produce same.  The only claims remaining against the Company are
procedural ERISA claims against the Company's EBC.  On November 1,
2010, the Company's EBC filed its answer to the complaint.  On
November 4, 2010, the Company's EBC filed a motion to dismiss one
of the two remaining procedural ERISA claims against the EBC.
Pursuant to an agreed order, the plaintiffs have obtained class
certification against the Verizon defendants and discovery has
commenced.  After obtaining permission from the Court, the
Plaintiffs filed another amendment to the complaint, alleging a
new count against the Company's EBC.  The Company's EBC filed
another motion to dismiss the amended complaint and have filed a
summary judgment motion before the deadline set by the scheduling
order.

On March 26, 2012, the Court denied the Company's EBC's motion to
dismiss.  The parties' summary judgments remain pending.  The
Company says it plans to honor its indemnification obligations and
vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.

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

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, SuperMedia Inc. --
http://www.supermedia.com/-- operates as a yellow pages directory
publisher in the United States.  The Company was formerly known as
Idearc Inc. and changed its name to SuperMedia Inc. in January
2010.


U.S. STEEL: Antitrust Class Suits Still Pending in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
In a series of lawsuits filed in federal court in the Northern
District of Illinois beginning September 12, 2008, individual
direct or indirect buyers of steel products have asserted that
eight steel manufacturers, including United States Steel
Corporation, conspired in violation of antitrust laws to restrict
the domestic production of raw steel and thereby to fix, raise,
maintain or stabilize the price of steel products in the United
States.  The cases are filed as class actions and claim treble
damages for the period 2005 to present, but do not allege any
damage amounts.

U. S. Steel is vigorously defending these lawsuits and does not
believe that it is probable a liability regarding these matters
has been incurred.  The Company is unable to estimate a range of
possible loss at this time.

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


* Class Action Provisions Under New Bill Good for Shareholders
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mohan R. Lavi, writing for The Hindu Business Line, reports that
one of the biggest ironies of the Satyam saga in India was that
the small and marginal shareholders in India did not seem to have
any recourse to legal remedies against the managements' self-
declared financial misadventures.

They were left holding the baby, while their counterparts abroad
could get to file class-action suits seeking damages, compensation
et al.  This could have been due to a fuzzy company law which
ensured that the small shareholder never got to participate in the
action.

The new Companies Bill seeks to redress this situation by
providing for class-action suits.  By definition, a class-action
suit is a lawsuit brought by one party on behalf of a group of
individuals all having the same grievance.  The utility of class-
action suits was proved recently in the case of Hewlett Packard
(HP).

The company announced that one of its billion-dollar acquisitions
-- Autonomy was mired in accounting irregularities and false
statements, resulting in it having to take $8.8 billion impairment
charge.  HP was hit by the first of a number of class-action
lawsuits seeking damages for shareholders, within a week of its
announcement in November.

Their claims include allegations that HP issued false and
misleading statements on its financial performance and prospects
since August 2011, when the Autonomy deal was first announced, and
November this year, when it reported the write-down.

The company puts up a brave face and optimistically states that it
has valid defenses with respect to legal matters pending against
it, but that seems to be a typical corporate safeguard
announcement.

                          Companies Bill

Clause 245 of the Companies Bill is the one to look up to for
class-action suits (CAS).

Class actioners can, among other things stated in the Bill,
restrain the company from committing an act which is ultra vires
the articles or memorandum of the company, declare a resolution
altering the memorandum or articles of the company as void if the
resolution was passed by suppression of material facts, restrain
the company from taking action contrary to any resolution passed
by the members, demand any other suitable action from or against
the company or its directors for any fraudulent, unlawful or
wrongful act.

The auditor, including audit firm of the company, can be taken to
task for any improper or misleading statement of particulars made
in his audit report.

A minimum of 100 shareholders or a percentage that may be
prescribed (this would come in the much-awaited Rules) can get
together and file a CAS for a company that has share-capital,
whereas the number is 1/5 for a company without share capital.

In a significant move, the provision states that where the members
or depositors seek any damages or compensation or demand any other
suitable action from or against an audit firm, the liability shall
be of the firm as well as of each partner who was involved in
making any improper or misleading statement of particulars in the
audit report, or who acted in a fraudulent, unlawful or wrongful
manner.

Once an application is filed, the Tribunal has vast powers of
discretion to admit the application and pass orders in accordance
with the provisions of law.

To prevent a group of people from going hammer and tongs at
companies on trivial issues, a proviso in the Bill states that
where any application filed before the Tribunal is found to be
frivolous or vexatious, it shall, for reasons to be recorded in
writing, reject the application and make an order that the
applicant shall pay to the opposite party such cost, not exceeding
one lakh rupees, as may be specified in the order.

For a group of 100, this amount appears too small (Rs 1,000 per
head if everyone contributes equally) to deter frivolous
litigation and has to be high enough to serve as a deterrent.

The provisions on CAS in the Bill seem to serve the purpose and
are stronger than the erstwhile Section 374 of the Companies Act
on oppression and mismanagement.

One awaits the rules that would accompany the Bill to ascertain
other requirements that need to be met.  If there could be a way
to reduce the turnaround time for cases to be disposed of at the
Tribunal, one would have a robust company law in India.  As
always, the key lies in implementation.


                           *********

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., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2013. 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 $775 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 A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *