CAR_Public/130116.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, January 16, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 11

                             Headlines


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Class Action
EASTMAN KODAK: Plea to Dismiss Securities Suit Still Pending
EASTMAN KODAK: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in New York
ECOLAB INC: Awaits Final OK of Deepwater Horizon Suit Settlements
ECOLAB INC: Continues to Face Wage and Hour Class Action Suits

ECOLAB INC: COREXIT(R)-Related Suits vs. Nalco Remain Pending
FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Inks $5-Million Class Action Settlement
FRS COMPANY: Faces Class Action Over "Healthy Slim" Misleading Ad
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Faces Overtime Pay Class Action
IGNITE RESTAURANT: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas

ISLAND DELIGHTS: Recalls 492 Bags of Coconut Haystack Candy
LABORATORY CORP: "Bryant" and "Plaza" Suits Dismissed in August
LABORATORY CORP: Consolidated Orchid Cellmark Suit Dismissed
LABORATORY CORP: Faces "Sandusky" Consumer Suit in Minnesota
LABORATORY CORP: Inks Definitive Deal in MEDTOX Merger Suit

LABORATORY CORP: "Jansky" Consumer Suit Pending in California
LABORATORY CORP: "Pepe" DNA Samples-Related Suit Pending in Mass.
MCKNIGHT SALES: Class Action Over Junk Faxes Can Proceed
MOBIUS THERAPEUTICS: Recalls Mitosol(R) Kit for Ophthalmic Use
NOVA SCOTIA HOME: Government Neutral on Class Action Certification

SAKURA JAPANESE: Settles Class Action Over Unfair Wages
SKINNYGIRL: Judge Nixes Class Action Over Margarita Ingredients
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Voucher Class Action Settlement Face Issues
SP AUSNET: Bushfire Class Action Claims May Reach 10,000
SUN HEALTHCARE: Awaits Court OK of Merger-Related Suit Settlement

VERISK ANALYTICS: "Roe" Suit vs. Intellicorp Amended in October
VERISK ANALYTICS: Suit v. Xactware Moved to Circuit Court in Sept.
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Still Defends Ingenix-Related Class Suits


                          *********



COX COMMUNICATIONS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vin Gurrieri, writing for Law360, reports that a federal judge on
Jan. 9 refused Cox Communications Inc.'s bid to dismiss a proposed
class action by Oklahoma City customers, ruling that they met the
burden necessary to pursue allegations that the cable service
provider illegally tied monthly set-top box payments to its
premium cable services.

Judge Robin J. Cauthron rejected Cox's assertion that the
customers' suit failed to present facts demonstrating the
existence of a properly defined geographic market, saying the
consumer class met the minimum requirements for bringing their
claims.


EASTMAN KODAK: Plea to Dismiss Securities Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Company is still awaiting a court decision on its
bid to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit in New York,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On January 19, 2012, Eastman Kodak Company and its U.S.
subsidiaries under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code
in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
New York, Case No. 12-10202.  The Company's foreign subsidiaries
(collectively, the "Non-Filing Entities") were not part of the
Bankruptcy Filing.  The Debtors will continue to operate their
businesses as "debtors-in-possession" under the jurisdiction of
the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and the orders of the Bankruptcy
Court.  The Non-Filing Entities will continue to operate in the
ordinary course of business.  On January 20, 2012, the Company and
Kodak Canada Inc. (the "Canadian Borrower" and, together with the
Company, the "Borrowers") entered into a Debtor-in-Possession
Credit Agreement.  As a result of the Bankruptcy, much of the
pending litigation against the Debtors is stayed.  Subject to
certain exceptions and approval by the Bankruptcy Court, during
the chapter 11 process, no party can take further actions to
recover pre-petition claims against the Company.

On February 10, 2012, a suit was filed in federal court in the
Southern District of New York against the Chief Executive Officer,
the President and Chief Operating Officer and the Chief Financial
Officer, as a putative class action suit under the federal
securities laws, claiming that certain Company statements
concerning the Company's business and financial results were
misleading (Timothy A. Hutchinson v. Antonio M. Perez, Philip J.
Faraci, and Antoinette McCorvey).  The Court is expected to rule
shortly on the Company's July 2, 2012 motion to dismiss this case
as against all defendants.

The Company believes that the securities lawsuit is not uncommon
for companies in chapter 11.  On behalf of the defendants in the
case, the Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and
will vigorously defend it on their behalf.   Although the nature
of litigation is inherently unpredictable, the Company does not
expect the case, individually or in the aggregate, to have a
material impact upon the Company.

Founded in 1889, Eastman Kodak Company (OTCQB: EKDKQ), commonly
known as Kodak, is an American multinational imaging and
photographic equipment, materials and services company
headquartered in Rochester, New York, United States and
incorporated in New Jersey.


EASTMAN KODAK: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Company continues to defend a consolidated class
action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On January 19, 2012, Eastman Kodak Company and its U.S.
subsidiaries under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code
in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
New York, Case No. 12-10202.  The Company's foreign subsidiaries
(collectively, the "Non-Filing Entities") were not part of the
Bankruptcy Filing.  The Debtors will continue to operate their
businesses as "debtors-in-possession" under the jurisdiction of
the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and the orders of the Bankruptcy
Court.  The Non-Filing Entities will continue to operate in the
ordinary course of business.  On January 20, 2012, the Company and
Kodak Canada Inc. (the "Canadian Borrower" and, together with the
Company, the "Borrowers") entered into a Debtor-in-Possession
Credit Agreement.  As a result of the Bankruptcy, much of the
pending litigation against the Debtors is stayed.  Subject to
certain exceptions and approval by the Bankruptcy Court, during
the chapter 11 process, no party can take further actions to
recover pre-petition claims against the Company.

Subsequent to the Company's chapter 11 filing, between
January 27, 2012, and March 22, 2012, a number of suits were filed
in federal court in the Western District of New York, as putative
class action lawsuits, against the current and certain former
members of the Board of Directors, the Company's Savings and
Investment Plan (SIP) Committee and certain former and current
executives of the Company.  The lawsuits have been consolidated
into a single action brought under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA), styled as In re Eastman Kodak ERISA
Litigation, and the current and former members of the Board have
been dismissed.  The allegations concern the decline in the
Company's stock price and its alleged resulting impact on SIP and
on the Company's Employee Stock Ownership Plan.  The Company
expects to file its response to the consolidated complaint
shortly.

The Company believes the ERISA lawsuit is not uncommon for
companies in chapter 11.  On behalf of the defendants in the case,
the Company believes that the suits are without merit and will
vigorously defend them on their behalf.  Although the nature of
litigation is inherently unpredictable, the Company does not
expect the case, individually or in the aggregate, to have a
material impact upon the Company.

Founded in 1889, Eastman Kodak Company (OTCQB: EKDKQ), commonly
known as Kodak, is an American multinational imaging and
photographic equipment, materials and services company
headquartered in Rochester, New York, United States and
incorporated in New Jersey.


ECOLAB INC: Awaits Final OK of Deepwater Horizon Suit Settlements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ecolab Inc. continues to await a final court order on two class
settlements in lawsuits relating to the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On April 22, 2010, the deepwater drilling platform, the Deepwater
Horizon, operated by a subsidiary of BP plc, sank in the Gulf of
Mexico after a catastrophic explosion and fire that began on April
20, 2010.  A massive oil spill resulted.  Approximately one week
following the incident, subsidiaries of BP plc, under the
authorization of the responding federal agencies, formally
requested Nalco Company, now an indirect subsidiary of Ecolab, to
supply large quantities of COREXIT(R) 9500, a Nalco oil dispersant
product listed on the U.S. EPA National Contingency Plan Product
Schedule.  Nalco Company responded immediately by providing
available COREXIT and increasing production to supply the product
to BP's subsidiaries for use, as authorized and directed by
agencies of the federal government throughout the incident.  Prior
to the incident, Nalco and its subsidiaries had not provided
products or services or otherwise had any involvement with the
Deepwater Horizon platform.  On July 15, 2010, BP announced that
it had capped the leaking well, and the application of dispersants
by the responding parties ceased shortly thereafter.

In July, August, September, October and December 2010, Nalco
Company was named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in
eight complaints filed by individuals in either the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Ezell v. BP,
plc, et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-01920-KDE-JCW), the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern
Division (Monroe v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00472-M;
Hill v. BP, plc, et al., Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00471-CG-N;
Hudley v. BP, plc, et al., Civil Action No. 10-cv-00532-N), the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida,
Tallahassee Division (Capt Ander, Inc. v. BP, plc, et al., Case
No. 4:10-cv-00364-RH-WCS), the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division (Trehern
v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00432-HSO-JMR) or the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Chatman
v. BP Exploration & Production, Civil Action No. 10-cv-04329;
Brooks v. Tidewater Marine LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 11-cv-
00049).

In April 2011, Nalco Company was also named in Best v. British
Petroleum plc, et al., Civil Action No. 11-cv-00772 (E.D. La.);
Black v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al. Civil Action
No. 2:11-cv-867, (E.D. La.); Pearson v. BP Exploration &
Production, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-863, (E.D. La.);
Alexander, et al. v. BP Exploration & Production, et al., Civil
Action No. 11-cv-00951 (E.D. La.); and Coco v. BP Products North
America, Inc., et al. (E.D. La.).

In October 2011, Nalco Company was also named in Toups, et al. v
Nalco Company, et al., No. 59-121 (25th Judicial District Court,
Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana).  In November 2011, Toups was
removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana. In April 2012, Nalco Company was named in
Esponge v. BP, P.L.C., et al., Case No. 0166367 (32nd Judicial
District Court, Parish of Terrebonne, Louisiana); and Hogan v.
British Petroleum Exploration & Production, Inc., et al., Case No.
2012-22995 (District Court, Harris County, Texas).  In April 2012,
Esponge was removed to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.  In May 2012, Hogan was removed to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas.  In June 2012, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict
Litigation transferred Hogan to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

The complaint in Esponge generally alleges, among other things,
that oil and dispersants have caused and will continue to cause
plaintiffs to lose revenue and/or earning capacity.  The remaining
complaints generally allege, among other things, negligence and
injury resulting from the use of COREXIT dispersant in connection
with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  The complaints seek
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs.  The Chatman case was voluntarily dismissed.

In January 2012, Nalco Company was named, along with other
unaffiliated defendants, in Top Water Charters, LLC v. BP, P.L.C.,
et al., No. 0165708 (32nd Judicial District Court, Parish of
Terrebonne, Louisiana).  The complaint generally alleges, among
other things, negligence and gross negligence relating to the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill and use of chemical dispersants.  The
plaintiffs allege that the oil and dispersants have harmed their
fishing charter businesses and seek unspecified compensatory
damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs.  In
February 2012, Top Water Charters was removed to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

In August and September 2012, Nalco Company was named, along with
other unaffiliated defendants, in Doom v. BP Exploration &
Production, et al., Case No. 12-cv-2048 (E.D. La.) and Kolian v.
BP Exploration & Production, et al., Case No. 12-cv-2338 (E.D.
La.). The complaints generally allege, among other things,
negligence and strict liability relating to the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill and use of chemical dispersants.  The complaints seek
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

All of the mentioned cases pending against Nalco Company have been
administratively transferred for pre-trial purposes to a judge in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana with other related cases under In Re: Oil Spill by the
Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20,
2010, Civil Action No. 10-md-02179 (E.D. La.) ("MDL 2179").
Pursuant to orders issued by Judge Barbier in MDL 2179, the claims
have been consolidated in several master complaints, including one
naming Nalco Company and others who responded to the Gulf Oil
Spill (known as the "B3 Bundle").  Plaintiffs are required by
Judge Barbier to prepare a list designating previously-filed
lawsuits that assert claims within the B3 Bundle regardless of
whether the lawsuit named each defendant named in the B3 Bundle
master complaint.  Nalco Company has received a draft list from
the plaintiffs' steering committee.  The draft list identifies
fifteen cases in the B3 Bundle, some of which are putative class
actions.  Six cases previously filed against Nalco Company are not
included in the B3 Bundle.

Pursuant to orders issued by Judge Barbier in MDL 2179, claimants
wishing to assert causes of action subject to one or more of the
master complaints were permitted to do so by filing a short-form
joinder. A short-form joinder is deemed to be an intervention into
one or more of the master complaints in MDL 2179.  The deadline
for filing short form joinders was April 20, 2011.  Of the
individuals who have filed short form joinders that intervene in
the B3 Bundle, Nalco Company has no reason to believe that these
individuals are different from those covered by the putative class
actions.  These plaintiffs who have intervened in the B3 Bundle
seek to recover damages for alleged personal injuries, medical
monitoring and/or property damage related to the oil spill clean-
up efforts.

On April 18, 2012, BP and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC)
for MDL 2179 filed motions for preliminary approval of two
proposed class action settlements: (1) a proposed Medical Benefits
Class Action Settlement; and (2) a proposed Economic and Property
Damages Class Action Settlement.  Pursuant to the proposed
settlements, class members agree to release claims against BP and
other released parties, including Nalco Energy Services, LP, Nalco
Holding Company, Nalco Finance Holdings LLC, Nalco Finance
Holdings Inc., Nalco Holdings LLC and Nalco Company.  Potential
class members will be permitted to opt-out of the settlements.
The opt-out period closed on November 1, 2012.

On May 2, 2012, the Court preliminarily approved the Medical
Benefits Class Action Settlement and Economic and Property Damages
Class Action Settlement.  A hearing to consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed settlements was
scheduled for November 8, 2012.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, Ecolab Inc. develops and
markets programs, products, and services for the hospitality,
foodservice, healthcare, industrial, and energy markets.  The
company offers specialized cleaners and sanitizers for washing
dishes, glassware, flatware, foodservice utensils, and kitchen
equipment, as well as for laundries and general housekeeping
functions; food safety products and equipment, water filters,
dishwasher racks, and related kitchen sundries; pool and spa
treatment programs; janitorial cleaning and floor care products;
chemical dispensing device systems; and dishwashing machines,
detergents, and rinse additives.


ECOLAB INC: Continues to Face Wage and Hour Class Action Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ecolab Inc. continues to face class action lawsuits alleging
violations of wage and hour laws, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Ecolab, Inc. is a defendant in seven wage hour lawsuits claiming
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) or a similar
state law.  Six of the lawsuits seek certification of a state
class of certain Institutional, Pest Elimination or Ecolab
Equipment Care (formerly GCS) division associates (the suit
involving Pest Elimination associates also seeks nationwide
certification of alleged FLSA violations).  One of these actions,
a federal action alleging various California state law claims, has
been certified for class treatment of California Pest Elimination
employees on certain of the claims and another, a California state
action, has been certified for class treatment of California
Institutional employees.  None of the other lawsuits based on
state law causes of action or FLSA violations have been certified
for class-action status.  A seventh lawsuit, in which a settlement
has been approved by the federal court, sought certification of a
national class of certain independent contractors in the company's
U.S. Other Services segment, as well as the granting of certain
employment benefits.  The settlement amount is not material.  An
eighth lawsuit seeking certification of a national class of
certain Institutional associates has been filed in federal court,
but not yet served.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, Ecolab Inc. develops and
markets programs, products, and services for the hospitality,
foodservice, healthcare, industrial, and energy markets.  The
company offers specialized cleaners and sanitizers for washing
dishes, glassware, flatware, foodservice utensils, and kitchen
equipment, as well as for laundries and general housekeeping
functions; food safety products and equipment, water filters,
dishwasher racks, and related kitchen sundries; pool and spa
treatment programs; janitorial cleaning and floor care products;
chemical dispensing device systems; and dishwashing machines,
detergents, and rinse additives.


ECOLAB INC: COREXIT(R)-Related Suits vs. Nalco Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary Ecolab Inc. continues to defend lawsuits arising from
the use of its COREXIT(R) 9500 oil dispersant product in
connection with the Deepwater Horizon incident, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On April 22, 2010, the deepwater drilling platform, the Deepwater
Horizon, operated by a subsidiary of BP plc, sank in the Gulf of
Mexico after a catastrophic explosion and fire that began on
April 20, 2010.  A massive oil spill resulted.  Approximately one
week following the incident, subsidiaries of BP plc, under the
authorization of the responding federal agencies, formally
requested Nalco Company, now an indirect subsidiary of Ecolab, to
supply large quantities of COREXIT(R) 9500, a Nalco oil dispersant
product listed on the U.S. EPA National Contingency Plan Product
Schedule.  Nalco Company responded immediately by providing
available COREXIT and increasing production to supply the product
to BP's subsidiaries for use, as authorized and directed by
agencies of the federal government throughout the incident.  Prior
to the incident, Nalco and its subsidiaries had not provided
products or services or otherwise had any involvement with the
Deepwater Horizon platform.  On July 15, 2010, BP announced that
it had capped the leaking well, and the application of dispersants
by the responding parties ceased shortly thereafter.

In June, July and August 2010, in April 2011 and in April 2012,
Nalco Company was named, along with other unaffiliated defendants,
in nine putative class action complaints filed in either the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(Parker, et al. v. Nalco Company, et al., Civil Action No. 2:10-
cv-01749-CJB-SS; Harris, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Civil Action
No. 2:10-cv-02078-CJB-SS; Irelan v. BP Products, Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00881; Adams v. Louisiana, et al., Civil
Action No. 11-cv-01051; Elrod, et al. v. BP Exploration &
Production Inc., et al., 12-cv-00981), the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division
(Lavigne, et al. v. BP PLC, et al., Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-
00222-KD-C; Wright, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Civil Action No.
1:10-cv-00397-B) or the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division (Walsh, et al. v.
BP, PLC, et al., Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-00143-RV-MD; Petitjean,
et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 3:10-cv-00316-RS-EMT) on
behalf of various potential classes of persons who live and work
in or derive income from the Coastal Zone.  The Parker, Lavigne
and Walsh cases have since been voluntarily dismissed.  Each of
the remaining actions contains substantially similar allegations,
generally alleging, among other things, negligence relating to the
use of the Company's COREXIT dispersant in connection with the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  The plaintiffs in each of these
putative class action lawsuits are generally seeking awards of
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

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

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, Ecolab Inc. develops and
markets programs, products, and services for the hospitality,
foodservice, healthcare, industrial, and energy markets.  The
company offers specialized cleaners and sanitizers for washing
dishes, glassware, flatware, foodservice utensils, and kitchen
equipment, as well as for laundries and general housekeeping
functions; food safety products and equipment, water filters,
dishwasher racks, and related kitchen sundries; pool and spa
treatment programs; janitorial cleaning and floor care products;
chemical dispensing device systems; and dishwashing machines,
detergents, and rinse additives.


FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Inks $5-Million Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
FalconStor Software, Inc., on Jan. 10 disclosed that it had
reached a settlement in principle of the class action lawsuit
pending against the Company.

Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding signed by counsel for
the class plaintiffs and by counsel for all defendants, FalconStor
will pay $5 million to settle the action.  This amount includes
damages, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and costs of administration
of the settlement.  The Company expects to pay this settlement
with a combination of cash on hand and insurance proceeds.

"The agreement to settle the class action lawsuit represents
another significant step forward for our Company and our
shareholders.  As a result, we have emerged as a stronger company,
better equipped than ever to continue the technological innovation
for which we are known and to increase shareholder value," said
Jim McNiel, president and chief executive officer of FalconStor.
"The improper acts of a few individuals that resulted in the
government investigations and the class action lawsuit were
contrary to our core values and ethical policies.  Over the last
two years, we have taken aggressive measures to improve and to
strengthen our business processes and compliance programs."

In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding, a stipulation
of settlement and a joint motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement will be submitted to the court for its approval no
later than March 11, 2013.  Final settlement of the class action
lawsuit is subject to certain conditions and to approval by the
court.


FRS COMPANY: Faces Class Action Over "Healthy Slim" Misleading Ad
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Latif, writing for BevNET.com, reports that The FRS Company is
facing a class action lawsuit alleging that the company is
engaging in false and misleading advertising related to its
Healthy Slim product line.  Filed in the Los Angeles Superior
Court on Dec. 5, the lawsuit states there is "no generally
accepted scientific evidence within the scientific community" the
active ingredients in FRS Healthy Slim, consumed "either
individually or in combination," will contribute to weight loss
and appetite suppression.

The lawsuit was launched by Santa Monica-based Red Law, LLP on
behalf of lead plaintiff Colin Kelly.  According to its Web site,
Red Law specializes in class action lawsuits, as well as personal
injury and pharmaceutical litigation.

FRS launched Healthy Slim in May 2012 and is formulated with a
number of ingredients, including Slendesta, Quercetin, vitamins,
and fiber, which the company claims are "proven to help curb
appetite and increase energy levels."  Stating that the beverage
"will help consumers achieve their healthy weight goals," Healthy
Slim boasts of its use of Slendesta, a natural protein derived
from potatoes.  FRS claims that the ingredient is "clinically
proven to curb appetite" by signaling to the brain that a body is
full, thereby reducing hunger.  However, the lawsuit states that
"those consistent and uniform claims are false," noting that "not
even Kemin Industries, Inc., the manufacturer of Slendesta,
describes Slendesta as 'clinically proven.'"

The suit claims that the plaintiff purchased Health Slim based on
FRS' advertising that the product would cause weight loss, and
would not have purchased the beverage otherwise.  The plaintiff is
seeking actual and punitive damages, as well as court and attorney
fees.

Calls to FRS were not immediately returned, according to Mr.
Latif.

FRS is the latest beverage company to be hit with a California-
based class-action lawsuit, following several other high profile
cases filed last year against brands including ZICO and Activate.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Faces Overtime Pay Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Steven E.F. Brown, writing for San Francisco Business Times,
reports Computer and printer maker Hewlett-Packard Co. was sued
for "misclassifying its technical support workers" and not paying
them overtime, according to the lawyers filing the complaint.

The class action suit accuses HP of "a common practice" of
classifying technical workers as exempt and therefore not eligible
for overtime.  This violates federal overtime pay laws, the suit
says.

Attorney Jahan Sagafi -- jsagafi@lchb.com -- of Leif Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP said thousands of HP workers were
affected.  They often came to HP when it bought other companies
like Electronic Data Systems of Texas (the company started by Ross
Perot), 3Com, Palm, and Autonomy.  The suit is Benedict v. Hewlett
Packard Company and was filed in U.S. District Court in San
Francisco.

According to Benzinga's Paul Quintaro, Mr. Sagafi and Adam T.
Klein of Outten & Golden LLP announced the filing of a class
action lawsuit on Jan. 10.  "HP's success and substantial revenue
come from the hard work and long hours of its technical support
workers, who keep information technology infrastructure up and
running," stated plaintiff Eric Benedict.  "HP should not be
allowed to underpay these workers in violation of the law."  Mr.
Sagafi noted, "This lawsuit seeks fair compensation for the
thousands of HP technical workers who form the backbone of the
company.  Their tireless overtime work, which we allege has been
unpaid, has helped fuel HP's success."


IGNITE RESTAURANT: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc., is defending itself against a
securities class action complaint in Texas, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 10, 2012.

On July 18, 2012, the Company announced its intention to restate
its financial statements for the years ended December 28, 2009,
January 3, 2011, and January 2, 2012, and the related interim
periods.  On July 20, 2012, a putative class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas against the Company, certain of its current directors and
officers and the underwriters in the initial public offering.  The
plaintiffs allege that all the defendants violated Section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933, the underwriters violated Section 12
of the Securities Act and certain of its directors and officers
have control person liability under Section 15 of the Securities
Act, based on allegations that in light of the July 18, 2012
restatement announcement, the Company's IPO registration statement
and prospectus contained untrue statements of material facts,
omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made
not misleading, and omitted to state material facts required to be
stated therein.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages
and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit, and it is
vigorously defending the lawsuit.  However, it is unable to
predict the outcome of this case and any future related cases.

Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. owns and operates two full service,
casual dining restaurant brands under the names Joe's Crab Shack
and Brick House Tavern + Tap.


ISLAND DELIGHTS: Recalls 492 Bags of Coconut Haystack Candy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Island Delights, Inc., recalled 492 bags of its Coconut Haystack
Candy due to mislabeling and undeclared allergens.  This was
discovered during an audit from the Ohio Department of Agriculture
on January 7, 2013.  The Coconut Haystack Candy contains milk that
is not declared on the product label.  People who have allergies
to milk run the risk of an allergic reaction if they consume these
products.

The recalled units were distributed to retail stores and through
mail orders in the states of AZ, CA, FL, MA, MN, MS, NC, NY, SC,
TX, VA, WA & WY between January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2012.  No
other products are involved.

The mislabeled product can be identified as follows:

   Name                Size    Lot           UPC Code
   ----                ----    ---           --------
   Maple Coconut       2 oz.   13410400.02   0 19694 19020 1
   Haystacks

   Maple Coconut       4 oz.   13410400.04   0 19694 19040 9
   Haystacks

   Maple Coconut       8 oz.   13410400.08   0 19694 19080 5
   Haystacks

   Maple Coconut       2 lb.   13410402.00   no bar code
   Haystack

   Chocolate/Almond    2 oz.   13413100.02   0 19694 71020 1
   Coconut Haystacks

   Chocolate/Almond    4 oz.   13413100.04   0 19694 71040 9
   Coconut Haystacks

   Chocolate/Almond    8 oz.   13413100.08   0 19694 71080 5
   Coconut Haystacks

   Chocolate/Almond    2 lb.   13413102.00   no bar code
   Coconut Haystacks

   Coffee Coconut      2 oz.   13411300.02   0 19694 60020 5
   Haystacks

   Coffee Coconut      4 oz.   13411300.04   0 19694 60040 3
   Haystacks

   Coffee Coconut      8 oz.   13411300.08   0 19694 60080 9
   Haystacks

   Almond Coconut      8 oz.   13413000.02   0 19694 70020 2
   Haystacks

   Almond Coconut      4 oz.   13413000.04   0 19694 70040 0
   Haystacks

   Almond Coconut      8 oz.   13413000.08   0 19694 70080 6
   Haystacks

   Almond Coconut      2 lb.   13413002.00   no bar code
   Haystacks

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm335236.htm

The Company has received no reports of adverse reactions or
illnesses due to the consumption of this product.

The Food and Drug Administration has been notified of this
voluntary recall.

Island Delight is committed to producing safe, quality food
products that customers can enjoy at home every day. Customers may
return affected product to the retailer where it was purchased for
full refund or call Gregory Miller or Ann Crall at 1- 800-866-887-
4100, Monday to Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard
Time.


LABORATORY CORP: "Bryant" and "Plaza" Suits Dismissed in August
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two putative class actions against Laboratory Corporation of
America Holdings commenced by Peggy Bryant and Beverly Plaza
relating to overtime pay were dismissed in August, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In September 2011, a putative class action, Peggy Bryant v.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, alleging on behalf of employees
similarly situated that the Company violated the Federal Fair
Labor Standards Act and applicable state wage laws by failing to
pay overtime.  The complaint sought monetary damages, liquidated
damages equal to the alleged amount owed, costs, injunctive
relief, and attorney's fees.  The case was dismissed with
prejudice in August 2012.

In April 2012, a putative class action, Beverly C. Plaza v.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee, alleging on behalf of employees similarly
situated that the Company violated the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act and applicable state wage laws by failing to pay
overtime.  The complaint sought monetary damages, liquidated
damages equal to the alleged amount owed, costs, injunctive
relief, and attorney's fees.  The case was dismissed without
prejudice in August 2012.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings --
http://www.labcorp.com/-- more commonly known as LabCorp, is an
American S&P 500 company headquartered in Burlington, North
Carolina.  It operates one of the largest clinical laboratory
networks in the world, with a United States network of 36 primary
laboratories.  Before a merger with National Health Laboratory in
1995, the company operated under the name Roche BioMedical.


LABORATORY CORP: Consolidated Orchid Cellmark Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit arising from Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings' acquisition of Orchid Cellmark
Inc. was dismissed in October 2012, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On December 8, 2011, the Company announced that it had reached an
agreement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that allowed the
Company to complete its acquisition of Orchid Cellmark Inc., which
closed on December 15, 2011.  Under the terms of the consent
decree with the FTC, the Company was required to divest certain
assets of Orchid's U.S. government paternity business.  On
December 16, 2011, the Company sold those assets to DNA
Diagnostics Center (DDC), a privately held provider of DNA
paternity testing.  There is one pending petition for appraisal of
shares of Orchid.

Three shareholder class actions, Silverberg v. Bologna, et al.,
Nannetti v. Bologna, and Locke v. Orchid Cellmark, Inc., et al.,
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and
subsequently consolidated into one action, In re Orchid Cellmark
Shareholder Litigation.  The consolidated action challenged the
Orchid acquisition on grounds of alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty and/or other violations of state law.  On May 4, 2011, the
plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a motion for
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the transaction.  On
May 12, 2011, the Court of Chancery denied the motion for
preliminary injunction, and plaintiffs' motion for an expedited
appeal was subsequently denied on May 16, 2011.

On October 2, 2012, the case was dismissed.  Three similar
putative class action lawsuits filed against Orchid in the
Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division, Mercer County and
another similar case filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey were also dismissed.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings --
http://www.labcorp.com/-- more commonly known as LabCorp, is an
American S&P 500 company headquartered in Burlington, North
Carolina.  It operates one of the largest clinical laboratory
networks in the world, with a United States network of 36 primary
laboratories.  Before a merger with National Health Laboratory in
1995, the Company operated under the name Roche BioMedical.


LABORATORY CORP: Faces "Sandusky" Consumer Suit in Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings is facing a class
action lawsuit in Minnesota captioned Sandusky Wellness Center,
LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al., according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota.  The lawsuit alleges that on or about
February 21, 2012, the defendants violated the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited facsimiles to
Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without the
recipients' prior express invitation or permission.  The lawsuit
seeks actual damages or the sum of $0.0005 for each violation,
whichever is greater, and injunctive relief.  The Company says it
will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings --
http://www.labcorp.com/-- more commonly known as LabCorp, is an
American S&P 500 company headquartered in Burlington, North
Carolina.  It operates one of the largest clinical laboratory
networks in the world, with a United States network of 36 primary
laboratories.  Before a merger with National Health Laboratory in
1995, the company operated under the name Roche BioMedical.


LABORATORY CORP: Inks Definitive Deal in MEDTOX Merger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A definitive stipulation resolving a lawsuit over Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings' merger agreement with MEDTOX
Scientific, Inc. was executed in October, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In June 2012, the Company and MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., announced
that they had entered into a definitive agreement and plan of
merger under which the Company would acquire all the outstanding
shares of MEDTOX in a cash tender offer.  The review period under
the Hart Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 ("HSR")
applicable to the acquisition of MEDTOX expired on July 12, 2012,
and the transaction closed on July 31, 2012.

Three shareholder class actions, Carol A. Kiel v. Braun, et al,
Louise Perlman v. MEDTOX Scientific, et al., and John Siciliano v.
MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al., were filed in connection with the
acquisition of MEDTOX in the County of Ramsey, Second Judicial
District for the State of Minnesota.  The lawsuits challenged the
MEDTOX acquisition on grounds of alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty and/or other violations of state law.  The Company and its
merger subsidiary were named only in the Kiel and Perlman cases.
On July 20, 2012, the parties, through their counsel, executed a
Memorandum of Understanding setting forth their agreement in
principle to settle all three of the putative shareholder class
actions.  The Memorandum of Understanding was subsequently
superseded by a Stipulation of Settlement dated October 12, 2012.
Under the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, all claims will
be dismissed with prejudice.  The proposed settlement is subject
to court approval.  The Company also anticipates that counsel for
the plaintiffs will seek an award of attorney's fees and expenses
in an amount to be determined by the court.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings --
http://www.labcorp.com/-- more commonly known as LabCorp, is an
American S&P 500 company headquartered in Burlington, North
Carolina.  It operates one of the largest clinical laboratory
networks in the world, with a United States network of 36 primary
laboratories.  Before a merger with National Health Laboratory in
1995, the company operated under the name Roche BioMedical.


LABORATORY CORP: "Jansky" Consumer Suit Pending in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
On June 7, 2012, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings was
served with a putative class action lawsuit captioned Yvonne
Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco.  The lawsuit alleges that the defendants committed
unlawful and unfair business practices, and violated various other
state laws by changing screening codes to diagnostic codes on
laboratory test orders, thereby resulting in customers being
responsible for co-payments and other debts.  The lawsuit seeks
injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, as well as
recovery of attorney's fees, and legal expenses.  The Company will
vigorously defend the lawsuit.

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings --
http://www.labcorp.com/-- more commonly known as LabCorp, is an
American S&P 500 company headquartered in Burlington, North
Carolina.  It operates one of the largest clinical laboratory
networks in the world, with a United States network of 36 primary
laboratories.  Before a merger with National Health Laboratory in
1995, the company operated under the name Roche BioMedical.


LABORATORY CORP: "Pepe" DNA Samples-Related Suit Pending in Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 7, 2012, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings was
served with a putative class action lawsuit captioned Ann Baker
Pepe v. Genzyme Corporation and Laboratory Corporation of America
Holdings, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.  The lawsuit alleges that the
defendants failed to preserve DNA samples allegedly entrusted to
the defendants and thereby breached a written agreement with
plaintiff and violated state laws.  The lawsuit seeks injunctive
relief, actual, double and treble damages, as well as recovery of
attorney's fees and legal expenses.  The Company will vigorously
defend the lawsuit.

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings --
http://www.labcorp.com/-- more commonly known as LabCorp, is an
American S&P 500 company headquartered in Burlington, North
Carolina.  It operates one of the largest clinical laboratory
networks in the world, with a United States network of 36 primary
laboratories.  Before a merger with National Health Laboratory in
1995, the company operated under the name Roche BioMedical.


MCKNIGHT SALES: Class Action Over Junk Faxes Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Casey Sullivan, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
appeals court ruled on Jan. 9 that a class action accusing a
magazine and book wholesaler of sending junk faxes can proceed,
even though the wholesaler has accused some of the plaintiffs'
attorneys of misconduct.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled
that the lawsuit, brought by two Chicago law firms, Anderson &
Wanca and Bock & Hatch, can proceed against Pittsburgh-based
magazine wholesaler McKnight Sales Co.

Anderson & Wanca and Bock & Hatch filed the case in 2010 on behalf
of a group of plaintiffs led by a Milwaukee-based financial
services company, Reliable Money Order, Inc.  The lawsuit accused
McKnight of sending unsolicited faxes advertising its services.
The faxes, said the plaintiffs, wasted their employee's time, as
well as paper and toner.  The Telephone Consumer Protection Act
imposes damages of $500 per fax on anyone who sends an unsolicited
fax advertisement and up to $1,500 per fax if the transmission is
intentional.  Under the class action allegations, McKnight's
exposure is nearly $5 million, according to court papers.  Last
year, however, McKnight asked the 7th Circuit to dismiss the
lawsuit because of the way Anderson & Wanca attorneys had
recruited clients and found companies to sue.  According to
McKnight, the attorneys approached Caroline Abraham, the owner of
a faxing service that transmits advertisements on behalf of
advertisers.  The attorneys offered Ms. Abraham confidentiality
and used her fax transmission report to gather the names of fax
senders to sue and fax recipients to serve as clients, said
McKnight.  Subsequently, Ms. Abraham's lawyer, Eric Ruben,
received a $5,000 check from Anthony Wanca, a partner with
Anderson & Wanca, in August 2009 after his clients had provided
the firm with documents it had requested, according to McKnight.
In testimony, Mr. Ruben said he thought the check was a "payoff"
of "questionable propriety" for the documents, according to the
ruling, since producing the documents cost much less than $5,000.

The three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit found that the conduct of
the Anderson & Wanca attorneys gave them "serious pause,"
according to the 29-page decision.  But the judges said that the
class action could move forward because the alleged "lapses in
professionalism" by the Anderson & Wanca attorneys would not
"undermine the district court's ability to decide the case."  The
panel, which included 7th Circuit Judges Joel Flaum and John
Tinder and Illinois district court Judge John Tharp, also
suggested that McKnight could raise the allegations with state bar
authorities.  If the court had declined to certify the class
action, McKnight's exposure would have been reduced to a single-
claim $1,500 lawsuit, according to court papers.

According to Ms. Sullivan, lead plaintiffs' lawyers with Anderson
& Wanca and Bock and Hatch did not respond to request for comment
while Eric Samore of SmithAmundsen, a lawyer for McKnight,
declined to comment.

The lawsuit against McKnight is one of at least three other junk
fax class actions, according to court papers.  The case is
Reliable Money Order, Inc. v. McKnight Sales Company, Inc., U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, No. 12-2599.

Brian Wanca -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- of Anderson & Wanca,
represents Reliable Money Order.


MOBIUS THERAPEUTICS: Recalls Mitosol(R) Kit for Ophthalmic Use
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mobius Therapeutics, LLC, of St. Louis, Missouri, announced that
it is conducting a voluntary recall of 2 lots of Mitosol(R)
(mitomycin for solution), 0.2 mg/vial, Kit for Ophthalmic Use.
The Company is taking this voluntary action due to the fact that
it cannot exclude the possibility that the affected lots may be
non-sterile.  These two lots of Mitosol (mitomycin for solution)
Kits may contain a strain of yeast on one or more parts in the kit
and should be considered non-sterile and unsafe for use.

Mitosol(R) (mitomycin for solution), 0.2 mg/vial, Kit for
Ophthalmic Use is an antimetabolite indicated as an adjunct to ab
externo glaucoma surgery.  The user level for this product would
be physicians in hospitals and clinics during surgery.  Use of
these potentially contaminated products could result in serious
eye problems/infections, including possible blindness.  Mobius has
not received any report of adverse events related to this recall.
Customers with affected product in their possession should stop
using the product immediately and contact Mobius at 1-877-393-
6486, Option 2, for safe return of the product.

The impacted product is identified below:

  NDC #          Lot #     Exp Date   Product Description
  -----          -----     --------   -------------------
  49771-002-01   M098260   08/2013    Mitosol(R) (mitomycin for
                                      solution), 0.2 mg/vial,
                                      Kit for Ophthalmic Use

  49771-002-01   M086920   08/2013    Mitosol(R) (mitomycin for
                                      solution), 0.2 mg/vial,
                                      Kit for Ophthalmic Use

These lots were distributed in the following states: AL, AR, DE,
GA, IL, IN, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, NC, NJ, NY, OH, PA, TN, VA, &
WI between the dates of 10/22/2012 and 12/14/2012.

Picture of the recalled products' label is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm335068.htm

Mobius has initiated an investigation to determine the root cause
and corrective and preventative actions.

Mobius has contacted all affected customers by phone call, e-mail
and written notification and they are arranging for return of
unused product and replacing with product from unaffected lots.

Questions may be directed to Mobius by dialing 1-877-EYE-MITO (1-
877-393-6486) and pressing option "2", Monday to Friday, 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. Central Standard Time.  Adverse reactions or quality
problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported
to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either
online, by regular mail or by fax.

   * Online: http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm/

   * Regular Mail: use postage-paid, pre-addressed Form FDA 3500
     available at: http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm/.
     Mail to address on the pre-addressed form.

   * Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.


NOVA SCOTIA HOME: Government Neutral on Class Action Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that Nova Scotia's Premier said his
government is neither for or against certification of a class-
action lawsuit by former residents of a Halifax orphanage who
allege they were abused.

Premier Darrell Dexter said on Jan. 10 that the government as a
named defendant in the case is obligated to file documents under
court procedure.  "There is a law in Nova Scotia around the way
that class actions are pursued and the question is.  'Does it
fit?'" said Premier Dexter. "We'll be part of that discussion the
same way that the claimants will be and obviously the other
defendants."  When asked by reporters whether that meant the
government was opposed to or in support of the class-action,
Premier Dexter replied, "Neither."

The documents filed on Jan. 8 in Nova Scotia Supreme Court offered
little in the way of the government's position on the matter and
consisted of court records related to proceedings in dozens of
cases already in the court system.  A corresponding affidavit
filed by the executive director of the Nova Scotia Home for
Colored Children, Veronica Marsman, denied any knowledge of
systemic abuse at the facility.

Premier Dexter also said the class-action had no effect on whether
the province decides to call a public inquiry into the decade's
old allegations of physical, mental and sexual abuse at the home.
"My chief concern from the beginning was the question of the
criminal investigation . . . but that has been cleared out of the
way as a result of the findings of the RCMP."  Last month, police
announced that they wouldn't be laying criminal charges after
concluding there wasn't enough evidence to support the
allegations.  Although Premier Dexter still won't commit to
calling an inquiry, he says the province is consulting with those
who could be affected should one be called.

The proposed class-action involves about 140 former residents who
allege abuse at the home over a 50-year period up until the 1980s.


SAKURA JAPANESE: Settles Class Action Over Unfair Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Shawn J. Soper, writing for Maryland Coastal Dispatch, reports
that a class action lawsuit against a popular restaurant chain,
including its West Ocean City operation, over unfair wages for
tipped employees was recently closed when the defendants reached a
settlement totaling over $43,000 with several of the plaintiffs in
the case.

In late October, the Sakura Japanese Steakhouse chain was named
the defendant in a class action lawsuit filed by a handful of
former employees in U.S. District Court, alleging unfair labor and
wage practices.  The suit alleged Sakura not only did not meet the
minimum wage requirements under the "tip credit," but also
withheld earnings from tipped employees and used them to
compensate management and back-of-the-house staff.

"The defendants violated the requirements of the tip credit by
keeping and assigning to their own use a substantial portion of
the tips received by the plaintiffs," the complaint reads.
"Specifically, the defendants took the pooled tips belonging only
to the plaintiffs and used the tip money to pay and increase the
salaries and compensation of managerial and non-customarily tipped
employees including but not limited to the general manager, the
chefs, the kitchen the back-of-the-house staff."

The class action suit alleged Sakura's 13 restaurants, including
the West Ocean City location, failed to meet state and federal
minimum wage requirements for its tipped employees.  Employers can
take advantage of a "tip credit" for certain employees, allowing
them to pay the difference between what the employees earn as tips
and the $7.25 mandated minimum wage.  As a result, according to
the complaint, Sakura owed the named plaintiffs and others who
qualify the cash difference of the $3.08 they were paid and the
$7.25 mandated minimum wage, or $4.17 per each hour they worked
and were not compensated correctly under the tip credit.

Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the state Wage and
Hour Law, in order to qualify for the "tip credit," a business
entity must pay employees who receive gratuities at least half of
the mandated $7.25 per hour minimum wage.  In short, the complaint
alleges the plaintiffs should have been paid $3.63 per hour even
if they had received their entire share from the tip pool and the
gratuities weren't divided between the managers and back-of-the-
house staffs.

Sakura settled with the named plaintiffs in the case to the tune
of $43,156.  The highest settlement for an individual plaintiff
was $13,941, while the second highest award was $11,407.  The
lowest came in at $4,230.


SKINNYGIRL: Judge Nixes Class Action Over Margarita Ingredients
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Golding, writing for New York Post, reports that a judge has
nixed a class-action suit over the ingredients in lovelorn ex-
"Real Housewife" Bethenny Frankel's "Skinnygirl" pre-mixed
Margaritas.

Plaintiff Christopher Rapcynski claimed he and countless others
got ripped off because the drink contains low-grade tequila and
not the Blue Agave on the label.

But Manhattan federal Judge Paul Oetken said that since
Mr. Rapcynski admitted he'd have bought the booze "whatever the
price" -- because his wife liked it -- the case would focus solely
on the "particularities" of his purchase.

His lawyer said they were eyeing "all our options."


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Voucher Class Action Settlement Face Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to PointofLaw.com's Ted Frank, Southwest gives away
"premium drink" (i.e., "beer") coupons worth $5 to customers who
buy a Business Select ticket.  Of course, not everyone drinks, and
half of the coupons are thrown away.  After giving out 11 million
or so of these coupons, Southwest changed its policy and held that
the premium drink vouchers were only good on the day of the flight
for which they were sold.  A class action was born, alleging bait
and switch.  There's a lot of publicity over the settlement;
Southwest Airlines is giving away new coupons, i.e., free beer.
Press coverage accepts the claim of class counsel that the
coupons, which will expire in a year, and are only good in flight,
are worth "perhaps more than $29 million"; papers in support of
the settlement go even further and ascribe a value of up to $58
million.  Thus, the attorneys will ask for $7 million.
Mr. Frank said "Thing is, we know from decades of history of
coupon settlements that less than $1 million of these coupons are
going to get used; heck less than $1 million are likely to be
claimed."   The settlement is worth "perhaps more than $29
million" only in the sense that "perhaps" the atoms in the chair
you are sitting on will all simultaneously shift one foot to the
left.  Customers are getting notified by e-mail, but the vouchers
aren't being sent to them by e-mail.  That's because Southwest
wants to limit its liability, but the attorneys want to maximize
their payout; they both have the incentive to exaggerate the true
value of the settlement.  If they told the court the settlement
was worth less than $1 million to the class, the court might ask
questions why a disproportionate share is reserved for the
attorneys; if they asked the court to follow the strictures of the
Class Action Fairness Act, which requires attorney awards to be
tied to the value of redeemed coupons, the attorneys would have no
chance at $7 million.

One hopes a class member sees through this misleading unfairness,
and finds pro bono counsel willing to object.

The class consists of "All Southwest customers who purchased an
Eligible Drink Voucher through the purchase of a Business Select
ticket or otherwise, during the time period before August 1, 2010,
but who did not redeem the Eligible Drink Voucher.  The Class does
not include Southwest customers who obtained drink vouchers or
drink coupons through the Southwest Rapid Rewards program, unless
those customers separately purchased, but did not redeem, Eligible
Drink Vouchers through the purchase of a Business Select ticket or
otherwise."

The case is In re Southwest Airlines Voucher Litigation, No. 11-
cv-8176 (N.D. Ill.).


SP AUSNET: Bushfire Class Action Claims May Reach 10,000
--------------------------------------------------------
The Australian reports that up to 10,000 claims for injury and
damages could be lodged in a class action over a Black Saturday
bushfire that killed 119 people, a judge has been told.

Plaintiff law firm Maurice Blackburn on Jan. 11 won a bid to close
the class, meaning anyone seeking damages arising from the
February 2009 fire at Kilmore East must now register with the
firm.  The proceeding was issued as an open class, so that anyone
who wanted to bring a damages claim under the category of having
suffered loss from the fire could do so after the trial.

But Victorian Supreme Court judge Jack Forrest ruled the class
should be closed and anyone wishing to participate in the action
should register by March 22.  The barrister for the victims,
Lachlan Armstrong from Maurice Blackburn, said closing the class
would more clearly identify the number of victims involved.
Justice Forrest said all parties agreed class closure in one form
or another would help in settlement negotiations, given the size,
complexity and duration of the case.

About 1900 people have registered with Maurice Blackburn to join
in the action, but Mr. Armstrong estimates there is potential for
about 10,000 claims.  Of the claims received, about 900 to 1,000
relate to physical injury encompassing death, as well as
psychiatric injury.  A further 4000 claims have been identified by
insurers while an estimated 5000 people are not insured and have
not registered.  The trial for the class action, which is
Victoria's biggest civil case, is due to begin in March.

Electrical company SP AusNet is being sued over the February 2009
bushfire that killed 119 people and destroyed more than 1000
homes.  SP AusNet has vowed to "vigorously defend" the class
action, which centers on claims relating to the inspection and
maintenance of its assets.  The trial is expected to run for six
months.


SUN HEALTHCARE: Awaits Court OK of Merger-Related Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sun Healthcare Group, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of merger-related lawsuits, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On June 20, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Genesis HealthCare LLC, and Jam Acquisition LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company and an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Genesis (Merger Sub).  The Merger Agreement provides
that Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company, with the
Company continuing as the surviving corporation and an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of Genesis.  The Company anticipates that
the total amount of funds necessary to pay the aggregate Merger
Consideration will be approximately $230 million, not including
refinancing of its existing indebtedness or payment of related
transaction fees and expenses.  The Company's stockholders
approved the proposed Merger at a special stockholders meeting on
September 5, 2012.  The transaction was expected to close in
December 2012 subject to the satisfaction of customary closing
conditions.

Between June 27, 2012, and July 16, 2012, the Company, the members
of its Board of Directors, Genesis and Merger Sub were named as
defendants in connection with the transactions contemplated by the
Merger Agreement in four separate purported class action lawsuits
that were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Orange and in a purported class action lawsuit filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  The Delaware
lawsuit was subsequently dismissed without prejudice and the
Delaware plaintiff then filed a complaint in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Orange on July 31, 2012.  On
August 3, 2012, the parties to the initial four California
lawsuits executed a stipulation to consolidate the first four
California actions, including any subsequently filed actions with
similar allegations relating to the transaction (including the
action filed on July 31, 2012).  The amended complaint filed in
the purported consolidated action alleges, among other things,
that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the stockholders in entering into the Merger Agreement pursuant to
an unfair process, and that the Company, Genesis and Merger Sub
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  In
addition, the complaint filed on July 31, 2012, alleges that the
preliminary proxy statement filed by Sun on July 12, 2012, omitted
or misrepresented material information.  The lawsuits sought,
among other things, to enjoin consummation of the Merger.

In order to minimize the expense of defending the lawsuits, to
avoid the risk of delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and
the related transactions and to provide additional information to
the stockholders at a time and in a manner that would not cause
any delay of the special meeting or the Merger, on August 29,
2012, the Company entered into a memorandum of understanding with
the plaintiffs regarding the terms of a proposed settlement of the
lawsuits, which would include the dismissal with prejudice of all
claims against all of the defendants.  Pursuant to the memorandum
of understanding, Sun agreed to provide certain additional
disclosures, which were included in a proxy supplement filed with
the SEC on August 29, 2012.  The proposed settlement is subject to
customary conditions, including the execution of an appropriate
stipulation of settlement and court approval following notice to
Sun's stockholders.  There can be no assurance that the parties
will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the
court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual
settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by
the memorandum of understanding.  The proposed settlement will not
affect the amount of the Merger Consideration that the
stockholders are entitled to receive in the Merger.

Sun Healthcare Group Inc. and its subsidiaries are providers of
nursing, rehabilitative and related specialty healthcare services
primarily to the senior population in the United States.


VERISK ANALYTICS: "Roe" Suit vs. Intellicorp Amended in October
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Roe amended in October 2012 her class action complaint
related to a consumer report executed by Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s
subsidiary, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On April 20, 2012, the Company was served with a complaint filed
in Alameda County Superior Court in California naming the
Company's subsidiary Intellicorp Records, Inc. titled Jane Roe v.
Intellicorp Records, Inc. et al.  The complaint alleged a
nationwide putative class action on behalf of all persons who have
been the subject of a consumer report furnished to a third party
by Intellicorp for employment purposes and whose report contained
any negative public record of criminal arrest, charge or
conviction during the 5 years preceding the filing of the action
until final resolution.  The complaint alleged violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act and claimed that Intellicorp failed to
implement policies and procedures designed to ensure that criminal
record information provided to employers is complete and up to
date, and failed to notify class members contemporaneously of the
fact that criminal record information was being provided to their
employers and prospective employers.  Intellicorp removed the case
to the United States District Court of the Northern District of
California.  The District Court later granted Intellicorp's motion
to transfer the case, which is now pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

On October 24, 2012, plaintiffs served their First Amended
Complaint alleging a nationwide putative class action on behalf of
all persons who have been the subject of a consumer report
furnished to a third party by Intellicorp for employment purposes
and whose report contained any negative public record of criminal
arrest, charge or conviction without also disclosing the final
disposition of the charges during the 5 years preceding the filing
of the action through the date class certification is granted.
The Complaint continues to allege the previously alleged
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and seeks statutory
damages for the class in an amount not less than $100 and not more
than $1,000 per violation, punitive damages, costs and attorneys
fees as well as unspecified monetary damages for the named
plaintiff.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
resolution of, or estimate the liability related to, this matter,
says the Company.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries provide
customers proprietary data that, combined with analytic methods,
create embedded decision support solutions.  The Company is one of
the largest aggregators and providers of data pertaining to
property and casualty ("P&C") insurance risks in the United States
of America.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Suit v. Xactware Moved to Circuit Court in Sept.
------------------------------------------------------------------
An insurance litigation involving Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s
subsidiary was transferred to the Leon County Circuit in
September, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On February 28, 2012, the Company was served with a complaint
filed in the Florida State Circuit Court for Pasco County naming
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation and the Company's Xactware
subsidiary.  The complaint alleged a class action seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief against defendants and was
brought on behalf of "all individuals who have purchased a new or
renewed a property casualty insurance policy from Citizens" where
Citizens used Xactware's 360Value product to determine replacement
value of the property.  On March 12, 2012, plaintiffs served their
First Amended Complaint on Xactware additionally alleging that:
(1) Citizens and Xactware knowingly made false statements to the
plaintiff class concerning their properties' replacement cost
values; (2) fraud against Xactware based on its alleged
misrepresentation of the replacement value of plaintiffs'
properties; (3) conspiracy against Citizens and Xactware based on
their alleged artificial inflation of the value of plaintiffs'
properties; and (4) products liability against Xactware, claiming
Xactware defectively designed 360Value as used in the Florida
insurance market.  The First Amended Complaint sought declaratory
and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified monetary damages
alleged to be in excess of $1 million for the class.  On May 31,
2012, plaintiff served his Second Amended Complaint which no
longer alleges a class action, but continues to allege: (1) that
Citizens and Xactware artificially inflated the replacement cost
value of plaintiff's property using 360Value; (2) fraud by
Xactware; (3) a conspiracy between Citizens and Xactware; and (4)
products liability against Xactware.  The Second Amended Complaint
similarly seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as
damages representing the difference between the premium plaintiff
paid to Citizens using 360Value and what the premium should have
been if Citizens used an accurate replacement cost value for
plaintiff's property.  Defendants' motion to transfer was granted
and the case was transferred to Leon County Circuit on
September 17, 2012.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
resolution of, or estimate the liability related to, this matter,
says the Company.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries provide
customers proprietary data that, combined with analytic methods,
create embedded decision support solutions.  The Company is one of
the largest aggregators and providers of data pertaining to
property and casualty ("P&C") insurance risks in the United States
of America.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Still Defends Ingenix-Related Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits arising from its use of a database
previously maintained by Ingenix, Inc., according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In 2000, a group of plaintiffs including the American Medical
Association filed a lawsuit against the Company asserting a
variety of claims challenging the Company's determination of
reimbursement amounts for non-network health care services based
on the Company's use of a database previously maintained by
Ingenix, Inc. (now known as OptumInsight).  The parties entered
into a settlement agreement in 2009 and this class action lawsuit,
along with a related industry-wide investigation by the New York
Attorney General, is now resolved.  The Company remains a party to
a number of other lawsuits challenging the determination of out-
of-network reimbursement amounts based on use of the same
database, including putative class actions and multidistrict
litigation brought on behalf of members of Aetna and WellPoint.
The Company was dismissed as a party from a similar lawsuit
involving Cigna and its members.  These lawsuits allege, among
other things, that the database licensed to these companies by
Ingenix was flawed and that Ingenix conspired with these companies
to underpay their members' claims and seek unspecified damages and
treble damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, interest, costs
and attorneys fees.  The Company is vigorously defending these
lawsuits.  The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of
loss, if any, that may result from these matters due to the
procedural status of the cases, motions to dismiss that are
pending in several of the cases, the absence of class
certification in any of the cases, the lack of a formal demand on
the Company by the plaintiffs, and the involvement of other
insurance companies as defendants.

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

UnitedHealth Group Incorporated operates as a diversified health
and well-being company in the United States.



                           *********

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  * * *