CAR_Public/130114.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, January 14, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 9

                             Headlines


AEROPLAN: Consumers File Class Action Over Lost Rewards Points
AVON: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on Cosmetic Products
COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Recalls 66 Lithium Rechargeable Batteries
DEBEERS DIAMONDS: Class Action Plaintiffs Set to Get Checks
DELIFISH: Recalls Cold Smoked Products Due to Listeria Risk

GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over "Buzz" Feature
HOWREY: Outten & Golden, Blum Collins Seek Lead Counsel Role
JP MORGAN: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Foreclosures
KIA: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Sorento Design Defect
NATIONAL ASSET: Employees File Suit Over Labor Law Violations

NOVA SCOTIA: Executive Director Denies Alleged Children Abuses
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls 327 Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles
SAC CAPITAL: Investors File Insider Trading Class Action in N.Y.
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Alfred G. Yates Law Firm Files Class Action
TELSTRA: Maddens Assesses Interest in Telecom. Outage Class Action

UNITED STATES: Employers Get Favorable Ruling in BWC Class Action
WAL-MART: 5th Cir. to Issue Ruling on Discrimination Suit Soon
WOODSTOCK: Recalls Packs of Mislabeled Woodstock Tamari Almonds
YAHOO: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages
ZIPCAR: Being Sold to Avis for Too Little, Suit Claims


                          *********



AEROPLAN: Consumers File Class Action Over Lost Rewards Points
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lynda Steele, writing for CTV British Columbia, reports that a
class action lawsuit is underway against Aeroplan to force the
rewards program to reinstate lost points and compensate angry
consumers who were shocked to discover their points had an expiry
date.

Nancy Boome is one of those angry customers.  She went blind three
years ago after a medical emergency, then tripped and shattered
her shoulder.  Shortly after that, she fell off a bridge and broke
her leg in four places.

Ms. Boome needed a vacation.  But when she called Aeroplan to use
her points, she was told they had expired.

"I just felt like, oh let it go, it's only points, and then I
thought no, darn it! I was going to have a nice few days in the
sun down in San Diego and I used my Visa to get those points and
they just took them away," said Ms. Boome.

Cris Nannarone experienced the same thing when he went to book a
flight with his Aeroplan points.

"They said you had 42,000 points, but they're gone.  What do you
mean they are gone?" said Mr. Nannarone.  "I had no idea that they
expired.  How does an air mile expire?"

The points had expired because Aeroplan quietly changed the rules
a few years back.  If you don't earn or redeem points in a year,
you now lose them.

"Not everyone travels within a one year span.  So if you don't
travel within the one year they take away the points and you
didn't know about that," said lawyer Josh Merchant.

Mr. Merchant's law firm is spearheading a class action lawsuit
claiming Aeroplan didn't adequately inform customers about the
policy change.

"We allege they basically tricked the people into losing their air
miles.  Aeroplan isn't losing any sleep if you are losing your air
miles," said Mr. Merchant.

Aeroplan started out as Air Canada's frequent flyer program. Now
it's owned by a company called Aimia.  That company sells Aeroplan
miles to its business partners to offer their customers as an
incentive.  When customers redeem the miles, Aeroplan uses the
money from air mile sales to buy Air Canada seats.  So any miles
earned, but not redeemed, are pure profit for Aeroplan.

"People are angry about this.  People within my own firm are angry
about this.  A lot of people are affected. A lot of people use
Aeroplan.  A lot of people use air miles," said Mr. Merchant.

"I'd like to see people who've lost their points without their
knowledge really, get them reinstated," said Ms. Boome.

Aeroplan's expiration policy also applies to any mile that's not
used seven years from the date it was earned.  The class action
lawsuit demands Aeroplan reinstate expired points, and compensate
consumers.

If you would like to get involved in the class action lawsuit you
will have to sign up with the Merchant Law Group.

There is no financial cost to join the class action.  Aeroplan
says it has strong arguments against the lawsuit and will
vigorously defend itself.

Expired points can be reinstated for a fee, but in many cases it's
not worth it.


AVON: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on Cosmetic Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Avon Products "preys on consumers' fundamental fear of aging" to
push its cosmetics with false claims.


COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Recalls 66 Lithium Rechargeable Batteries
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Columbia Sportswear Company, of Portland, Oregon, announced a
voluntary recall of about 66 (33 jackets with two battery packs
each) Omni-Heat(TM) Lithium-Polymer Rechargeable Batteries.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The batteries have a cell defect which can cause overheating,
posing a fire hazard.

The firm received one report of an overheating battery in Europe.
No incidents or injuries were reported in the U.S.

This recall involves battery packs that power heating systems in
jackets.  The black battery packs are 3.25 inches long by 2.3
inches wide by 0.7 inches deep and marked with "Columbia" on the
top and "OMNI-HEAT(TM)" on the bottom of the pack.  Part number
054978-001 is printed on the side of the battery label.

Two battery packs were included with styles from:

   * Fall 2011 Mens: Electro Amp(TM) Jacket (SM7864) and Circuit
     Breaker(TM) Softshell (SM7855)

   * Fall 2011 Womens: Circuit Breaker(TM) Softshell (SL7856);
     Snow Hottie(TM) Jacket (SL7866), and Snow Hottie(TM) Parka
     (SL7853).

The recalled battery packs were sold with Columbia electric
jackets sold by Columbia online and at Columbia Sportswear stores
in the cities and states listed below between September and
November 2012 for about $260.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13089.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China.  The nine
Columbia Sportswear outlets that carried the jackets with battery
packs are located in:

   * Sunrise, Florida 33304
   * Wrentham, Massachusetts 02093
   * Birch Run, Michigan 48415-9496
   * Albertville, Minnesota 55301
   * Central Valley, New York 10917
   * Las Vegas, Nevada 89106
   * Grove City, Pennsylvania 16127
   * Park City, Utah 84098
   * Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin 53158-1705

Consumers should immediately check the battery packs included with
the electric jacket to determine if they are part of the recall.
Those with affected batteries should immediately remove the
affected battery pack(s) from the jacket and contact Columbia
Sportswear for a free replacement.  Columbia Sportswear Company at
(800) 622-6953 from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Pacific Time, by e-mail
at Columbia@custhelp.com, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.Columbia.com/Recall/


DEBEERS DIAMONDS: Class Action Plaintiffs Set to Get Checks
-----------------------------------------------------------
WSYR-TV reports that complainants in the DeBeers Diamonds class-
action lawsuit could receive their checks in the mail as soon as
this spring.

DeBeers recently updated its Web page to indicate that checks have
already been sent to retailers.

They say money will be sent to consumers in the next few months.

There's really no way of calculating how much each person will
receive if their case has been approved.  Recipients won't know
until the check arrives in the mail.


DELIFISH: Recalls Cold Smoked Products Due to Listeria Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
As precautionary measure, Delifish has decided to expand the
voluntary recall to include cold smoked products related to Julian
dates 235 to 345.  The previous voluntary recall included cold
smoked products related to Julian dates 249 - 291.  There have
been no new detections on products placed on the market in
relation to this expansion.

The expansion means that all cold smoked products that have been
produced in the same period as the product type which initially
tested positive in the U.S.A. are now voluntarily recalled.  The
decision is taken in agreement with the FDA and is carried out as
a precautionary measure.

There have been no complaints or illnesses reported.  Listeria
monocytogenes is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy individuals
may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe
headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria
infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant
women.

Product was possibly distributed in CA, NC, VA, OH, MA, IL, FL,
GA, TX, DE, NJ, NY, PA, WA and Puerto Rico and reached consumers
through retail stores.  Under the following brand names Food
Service Cold Smoked Salmon Trim 1 lb. Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, 6oz
Royal Fjord Smoked Toppers, UPC = 810230000561, Lot #'s = 235 thru
345, and Royal Fjord Sliced Smoked Salmon Loin, 12-14 oz. Lot #'s=
235 thru 345 and 5 lb. cold smoked pieces Lot #'s = 235 thru 345,
Royal Fjord 5 oz. rounds UPC = 810230000127, Lot #'s = 235 thru
345, 4 oz. New England Smoked Salmon UPC = 810230000066 Lot #'s =
235 thru 345, 3oz Pacific Supreme UPC # 058138102448 Lot #'s = 235
thru 345, 20oz Sam's UPC# 073030805167 Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, 2 -
3lb Icy Point NO UPC Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, 8oz Lassco Select
Gourmet UPC # 072840017081 Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, 3oz Bacon
Lascco UPC #072840017036 Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, 5lb Natural
Trimming NO UPC Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, 4lb Trimming with
preservatives NO UPC Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, 6oz Party Platter NO
UPC Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, 16oz Nova (Wheel) UPC # 072840007273
Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, 4oz Nova Lascco UPC #072840017050 Lot #'s
= 235 thru 345, 8oz Nathans UPC # 073030803699 Lot #'s = 235 thru
345, 3oz Nathans UPC # 073030803682 Lot #'s = 235 thru 345, and
4oz 3 Star UPC # 072840017517 Lot #'s = 235 thru 345.

The voluntary recall is carried out as a precautionary measure in
cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and is
based on Listeria detection in a few of the recalled batches.  No
other products supplied by Delifish (a business unit of Marine
Harvest USA) are involved in this case.

Listeria control has a very high attention in the Company with
strict internal standards and routines.  The Company, therefore,
takes this issue seriously and is taking these measures to assure
that products supplied by Delifish are healthy and safe for the
Company's customers and consumers.  The USA FDA has a zero
tolerance for Listeria in products intended to be eaten without
prior heat treatment.  In EU the tolerance limit for such products
is maximum 100 bacteria/gram.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-877-479-8085
for more information including how to return the product for a
full refund.


GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over "Buzz" Feature
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Google invaded privacy and
disseminated private messages through its "Buzz" feature, three
subclasses who opted out of a class action settlement claim in
another federal class action.


HOWREY: Outten & Golden, Blum Collins Seek Lead Counsel Role
------------------------------------------------------------
The Recorder reports that as U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali
prepares to decide which firm to name lead counsel and which
former employees to name class representatives in litigation
stemming from the Howrey bankruptcy, New York-based lawyers from
Outten & Golden and Los Angeles-based lawyers from Blum Collins
filed pointed briefs arguing why they should be chosen and
disputing the other side's qualifications.


JP MORGAN: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Foreclosures
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that JP Morgan Chase forecloses on
homes without owning the underlying notes and mortgages, a class
action claims in Cuyahoga County Court.


KIA: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Sorento Design Defect
----------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Law Journal reports that owners and lessors of Kia
Sorento sport utility vehicles are suing the company over an
alleged design defect that causes sudden engine failure.  The
putative class action charges the problem could have been remedied
as a preventive measure by Kia dealerships, but the company
instead continued to make vehicles with the defect.


NATIONAL ASSET: Employees File Suit Over Labor Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that National Asset Recovery
Services stiffs its phone workers for overtime and regular wages,
a class action claims in Federal Court.


NOVA SCOTIA: Executive Director Denies Alleged Children Abuses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Doucette, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that the
executive director of a Halifax orphanage says she has no
knowledge of staff abusing residents and instead alleges it may
have been the children themselves who physically, sexually and
mentally abused each other, according to an affidavit filed with
the Nova Scotia Supreme Court.

The accusations are contained in the document submitted by
Veronica Marsman in her opposition to the proposed certification
of a class-action lawsuit launched by former residents of the Nova
Scotia Home for Colored Children who allege they were abused.

The proposed class-action involves about 140 former residents who
say they were physically, sexually and mentally abused by staff at
the home over several decades up to the 1980s.

Ms. Marsman, the home's executive director since 2010, also worked
at the orphanage and was a resident there from 1964 until 1966.

"I was not aware of abuse, systemic or otherwise at the home
either as a resident, a staff member, board member or as the
executive director," she says in the affidavit submitted Monday.

Ms. Marsman said that with the exception of individual claims and
media reports, she was only aware of one incident through the
home's records in which a staff member was alleged to have had
sexual contact with a 16-year-old girl in June 1983.  The accused
staff member was suspended and eventually fired, the affidavit
says.

"It is never possible to prevent all such abuse in a residential
environment, but it was carefully monitored in accordance with
standards at the time," Ms. Marsman says in the affidavit.

Her affidavit said that 63 individual actions alleging various
forms of abuse had been filed with the provincial Supreme Court
since 2000 and 59 are still before the court.

The submission included court documents summarizing the state of
proceedings in the 59 cases.

John Kulik, a lawyer for the home, said a class-action lawsuit
isn't needed because the circumstances of the allegations vary
widely.

"This is a case where because of the different time periods
involved, the different staff members involved, different eras,
different administration at the home -- there's no common issues,"
he said in an interview.

Ms. Marsman's affidavit includes a list of former residents who
were accused of abuse in previous court proceedings.  Some of the
names are of people who have alleged they were the victims of
abuse.

"I am informed by counsel for the home and do believe that in the
individual actions the following former residents of the home have
been accused of sexual, physical or mental abuse by plaintiffs in
those actions," her affidavit says.

None of the allegations have been tested in court.

Ray Wagner, whose legal firm is spearheading the class-action
suit, expressed disappointment that the affidavit attempts to cast
blame on the alleged victims.

"We've known right from the start that abuse happened between
residents," said Mr. Wagner.

"But it's been our position that the behavior was learned as a
result of the abuse inflicted upon them by workers and that in
some cases that's all they knew.

"They argue that there is no systemic abuse which flies in the
face of the named 59 residents."

Ms. Marsman's affidavit also said allegations in three of the 63
cases that were filed have been dismissed based on Nova Scotia's
Statute of Limitations, adding that the proposed class-action
would require reviewing incidents that have allegedly occurred
over 50 years.

But Mr. Wagner said the cases expired after the complainants had
died.

"The only way that justice can be done . . . is to have the class-
action," he said.  "Otherwise we will have litigation until I'm
110 years of age."

Last month, Halifax police and the RCMP announced they would not
be laying criminal charges in the case after concluding there was
not enough evidence to support the allegations.


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls 327 Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
About 327 2013 Polaris Ranger(R) 400 recreational off-highway
vehicles were voluntarily recalled by Polaris Industries Inc., of
Medina, Minnesota, 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 recreational vehicle's throttle can fail to operate properly,
which can cause the vehicle's rider to lose control, posing a
crash hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves 2013 Polaris Ranger(R) 400 recreational off-
highway vehicles with model number R13RH45AG and VIN numbers
between 4XARH45A3D4726305 and 4XARH45A7DE648444.  Not all VIN
numbers in the range are included in this recall.  To see a
complete list of recalled VIN numbers visit the firm's Web site.
"Polaris" is stamped on the front of the vehicle above the front
grill.  A "400 HO" decal is located on the right and left side of
the hood and "Ranger 4x4" is printed on the side of the rear bed
box.  The vehicles are green and gray in color.  The model number
is printed in the owner's manual.  A picture of the recalled
products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13716.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and Mexico, and sold at Polaris dealers nationwide from
July 2012 through September 2012 for about $8,300.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Polaris
Ranger vehicles and contact Polaris to schedule a free repair.
Polaris is contacting its customers directly.  Polaris may be
reached toll-free at (888) 704-5290, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Central Time Monday through Friday, or online at
http://www.polarisindustries.com/and click on Help Center under
the Services and Support tab, then Common Rider Questions, then
Service bulletins/recalls to check your VIN number.


SAC CAPITAL: Investors File Insider Trading Class Action in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, reports that Elan Corp. PLC
investors slapped SAC Capital Advisors with a proposed class
action on Jan. 7 in New York federal court, accusing SAC of
reaping $220 million from illegal insider trading related to an
Alzheimer's drug while suppressing negative information about the
drug's trials.

The lawsuit, filed by Elan investor Jeannie Kiser, also targets
SAC founder Steven Cohen; Mathew Martoma, a former portfolio
manager for one of SAC's subsidiaries; and Sidney Gilman, a
professor of neurology at the University of Michigan Medical
School.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Alfred G. Yates Law Firm Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., P.C. announced that it has
filed a class action in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma, # 5:13-cv-00019, on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased the securities of SandRidge
Energy, Inc. between February 24, 2011 and November 8, 2012.

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

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
February 4, 2013.

The Complaint alleges that defendants shocked the market by
disclosing that they had been grossly overstating the proportion
of oil-producing versus natural gas producing assets in the
Company's Mississippian formation throughout the Class Period.
Defendants also disclosed that they intended to sell the remaining
interest in the Company's Permerian Basin assets, though those
assets were the Company's highest-margin oil producing assets.

On this news, SandRidge's stock fell precipitously from its
November 8, 2012 closing price of $6.10 per share to close at
$5.51 per share on November 9, 2012, or 9%, on extremely high
volume of more than six times the average daily trading volume
over the prior three month period.

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

The firm is also investigating actions on behalf of shareholders
for the following companies: Ameristar Casinos, Inc., Arbitron
Inc., Bankrate, Inc., CommonWealth REIT, Duff & Phelps
Corporation, Envivio, Inc., FirstCity Financial Corporation, The
Greenbrier Companies, Inc., Groupon, Inc., and VeriFone Systems,
Inc.

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


TELSTRA: Maddens Assesses Interest in Telecom. Outage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Collins, writing for The Standard, reports that a barrister
has been briefed on a possible class action seeking compensation
over the south-west telecommunications outage late last year.

Warrnambool law firm Maddens expects to have expert advice from
the barrister by the end of January which will help determine if a
major compensation case should be launched.

Maddens' class action principal Brendan Pendergast --
bfp@maddenslawyers.com.au -- told The Standard on Jan. 8 dozens of
businesses had registered their interest.

"We've had a steady trickle from throughout the region, some are
large enterprises, others mid-tier businesses," he said.

"Some are alleging substantial losses.  To calculate losses takes
time and complexity in analysis."

Telstra is processing claims lodged by business operators but
there are concerns it will not be adequate, Mr. Pendergast said.

About 100,000 services were knocked out by a fire in the
Warrnambool Telstra exchange on November 22, affecting domestic
and business clients from as far as Lismore to Portland and north
to Edenhope.

Some Warrnambool customers had to wait three weeks for full
landline and internet services to be restored.

Meanwhile, a survey into the social impact of the shutdown has had
almost 300 responses.  The study, being conducted by RMIT
University's Regional and Rural Futures Research Group at
Hamilton, will help local, state and federal representatives put a
stronger case to Telstra to improve their breakdown service.

RMIT senior research fellow Dr. Sean MacDermott said results would
be analyzed at the end of the month and there was still time for
people to participate.

"The telecommunications breakdown that occurred late last year is
still a current discussion point as some businesses continue to
experience intermittent service," Dr. MacDermott said.

"We need all the facts about how this impacted families and
businesses in the region and what we have lost from it all and
what we gained."

Dr. MacDermott said the survey was recording negative and positive
effects of the outage.

To complete the anonymous survey visit
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/outage

"Some people have rightly said that 25 years ago we got on around
here fine all the time without any mobile phones whatsoever and it
was good to have a break from them again," he said.

"Others have told us that the outage was a business and income-
killer for them.  We want to hear from people now, while the
events of late last year are fresh in their minds."


UNITED STATES: Employers Get Favorable Ruling in BWC Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
George Wilkinson at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP reports that the decision
is in and the employers won.  Judge Richard McMonagle decided the
Bureau of Workers' Compensation overcharged employers who did not
participate in group rating from 2001 to 2009.  Many of those
could now receive refunds based upon the court's future
calculations.  No damages have yet been determined, but the amount
may range from $800,000 to $1.3 billion.  Before spending the
money, employers should know that this is subject to appeal.  The
checks are not, as they say, in the mail.

Judge McMonagle's 28-page Opinion is detailed and thorough.  He
rejects the employers' constitutional equal protection argument
because the group rating program did have an effect on encouraging
safety in the workplace, which is a legitimate state interest. For
constitutional purposes, that is the acid test.

However, the Judge found the program violated two state statutes.
First, the specific statute which enabled group rating said it
should be "retrospective."  The group rating program adopted by
the BWC clearly was prospective.  The difference is that a
retrospective program requires that the employer pay lower
premiums but then pay actual claims or some portion of actual
claims "retrospectively."

A prospective plan, on the other hand, uses the employers' risk
experience to determine what the rates are this year, and once
those premiums are paid, that is the end of it.  This was not a
retrospective plan and the Judge ruled that as such it violated
the statute.

Second, the Judge found that the plan violated the statutory
requirement that the BWC adopt "fixed and equitable rules
controlling the rating system."  The Judge found that the rules
were certainly fixed, which they were, but not equitable.

In making this determination, he has unassailable testimony from
the BWC's own experts who said they were aware that the group
rating program was producing inequitable results for non-group
employers as far back as 1994, and certainly within the class
period starting in 2001.  Thus, the BWC acted inequitably.

The issue then became whether or not the BWC is obligated to repay
the employers.  The answer is yes: the BWC is required to repay
those employers who were, in one year or another, not in group
rating from 2001 to 2009.  There is a limit: only employers in
certain hazard classifications whose premiums were off-balance
more than 23% will receive reimbursement.

So the question now is how much? In this regard, the Judge
accepted the plaintiffs' expert on damages, and essentially
rejected the BWC's expert.  Their opinions differed, according to
the Judge, in how they treated dividends, and that difference was
"staggering."

Apparently, the expert for the plaintiffs determined that
dividends were a discount and the application of the dividends to
the non-group employers would only reduce the amount of damages.
Indeed, according to the plaintiffs' brief in this case, their
expert determined that the damages should be $1.3 billion, taking
into account the dividend treatment as he saw it. The BWC's expert
calculated dividends differently, resulting in little or no
repayments to the non-group employers.  The Judge entirely
accepted the plaintiffs' expert's evaluation, and said damages
would be determined using that calculation.

The Judge was, however, unable to determine exactly what the
amount should be because the BWC, on the eve of trial, produced
additional information that needed to be factored into the
expert's calculation.  For that reason, the decision on how much
the repayment should be has been extended.

Evidence as to the damages is to be submitted to the Court by
January 28th, with the BWC's calculations submitted a month later
and a hearing to be held on March 14, 2013.  The Court will decide
subsequent to that.

For employers in the group some of the time, the Judge rejected
the BWC's request that there be a "cross-subsidy."  The cross-
subsidy would be a reduction of the amount of damages to a
particular employer who participated in group for one year but did
not participate in the following year (i.e., an employer subject
to the unfair non-group treatment in the one year but then
rewarded with group treatment the next).  The Judge rejected the
cross-subsidy argument.  He said each rating year would stand on
its own.  Non-group employers will receive a refund for the years
that they were not in group, if otherwise qualified.

The damages are predicted by plaintiffs' counsel to be $1 billion.
That is essentially one half-year premium for the entire system.
The employers could receive a fairly substantial premium refund
if, in fact, the figures justify it.  It all depends upon their
payroll for the period in question and how many years they were
actually excluded from group rating.

The BWC has the money.  As of the end of the last fiscal year, the
BWC had $7 billion in net assets, essentially monies which are
allocated to take care of contingencies such as this.  For the
BWC, the damages appear manageable.  For the individual employers,
and particularly those excluded from group for the entire eight-
year period, the amount could certainly be material.


WAL-MART: 5th Cir. to Issue Ruling on Discrimination Suit Soon
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Litigation Daily reports that almost two years after the U.S.
Supreme Court killed off a nationwide sex discrimination suit
against Wal-Mart, the fate of a follow-on class action on behalf
of Texas Wal-Mart employees may soon be decided by the Fifth
Circuit.  A federal judge has ruled that the plaintiffs can seek
immediate review of his decision to toss their claims on statute
of limitations grounds last fall.


WOODSTOCK: Recalls Packs of Mislabeled Woodstock Tamari Almonds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Woodstock(R) issued a voluntary recall of Woodstock Tamari
Almonds, because of an incorrect back label on packages of a
single Lot.  This mislabeling incident resulted in an undeclared
allergen (Soy).  People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity
to soy run the risk of a serious or life threatening allergic
reaction if they consume this product.

The front of the retail package is correctly labeled Woodstock All
Natural Tamari Almonds, 7.5 OZ.  However, the back of the retail
package has incorrect back label information -- including
Nutrition Facts, Ingredients, UPC# 0-42563-00838-3.  One code date
is affected: Best By: 10/24/13, Lot 12298, which appears on the
shipping case sticker and on the back of the retail pouch (ONLY
this Best By date is being recalled).  A picture of the recalled
products is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm334691.htm

The product was distributed to retailers in the following states
(Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and District of
Columbia).

The recall was initiated when it was discovered that packages were
mislabeled by the packer.  Although soy ingredient is contained in
the product, the incorrect back label does not list soy in the
ingredients statement.  No other lot numbers of Woodstock Tamari
Almonds are affected.  In addition, the package bears the allergen
advisory statement "Manufactured on shared equipment in a plant
that processes peanuts, tree nuts, soy, wheat (gluten), and milk
products."

No illnesses have been reported to date in association with this
product.

Consumers can return the product to their place of purchase for a
full refund.  Consumers with questions can contact the company at
888-534-0246 x25154, Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time.


YAHOO: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Yahoo! sends spam text
messages to cell phones, a class action claims in Federal Court.


ZIPCAR: Being Sold to Avis for Too Little, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Zipcar is selling itself too
cheaply through an unfair process to the Avis Budget Group, for
$12.25 a share or $500 million, shareholders claim in Chancery
Court.


                           *********

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  * * *