CAR_Public/130117.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, January 17, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 12

                             Headlines



ABBVIE INC: AWP Litigation vs. Parent Still Pending in Mass.
ABBVIE INC: FTC's Writ of Certiorari in AndroGel Suit Pending
AMERICAN GREETINGS: Suits Over Weiss' Acquisition Offer Pending
AMERICAN GREETINGS: Parties Seek Stay of Baker and Collier Suits
AMERISTAR CASINOS: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to Pinnacle

ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Silicosis Liability May Reach $100 Billion
ASTRAZENECA: Sued For Conspiring Over Generic Form of Nexium
AT&T INC: Settles Cramming Class Action for $5.5 Million
AVON PRODUCTS: Faces Class Action Over Anew Product
BIOMIMETIC THERAPEUTICS: Judge Tosses Shareholder Class Action

BLUEGREEN CORP: Still Faces BFC Merger-Related Class Action Suit
CLS TRANSPORT: Sup. Ct. Agrees to Review "Iskanian" Case
CPI CORP: Faces "Hellmann" ERISA-Violation Suit in Missouri
CPI CORP: IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund's Suit Dismissed in Nov.
CPI CORP: To Seek Class Decertification in "Paige" Suit

FANNIE MAE: Faces Class Action Over Refusal To Pay Transfer Tax
JP MORGAN: Customers File Suit Asserting False Advertising Claims
LONGWEI PETROLEUM: Cohen Milstein Files Class Action in New York
PETSMART: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
QIAO XING: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action in N.J.

RITE AID: Judge Directs Payment of $20.9MM to Former Managers
SILVERCORP METALS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.Y.
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Injunction in Humboldt Suit Terminated
TRICAN WELL: Faces $10-Mil. Overtime Class Action in Texas

* Employers Change Approach to Resolving Workplace Class Actions


                          *********



ABBVIE INC: AWP Litigation vs. Parent Still Pending in Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------
Several cases, brought as purported class actions or
representative actions on behalf of individuals or entities, are
pending against Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie Inc.'s parent, that
allege generally that Abbott and numerous other pharmaceuticals
companies reported false pricing information in connection with
certain drugs that are reimbursable under Medicare and Medicaid
and by private payors.  These cases, brought by private
plaintiffs, state Attorneys General, and other state government
entities, generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees. The federal court cases were consolidated for
pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under the Multi District Litigation
Rules as In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price
Litigation, MDL 1456, which now includes only one state Attorney
General lawsuit filed in August 2006 on behalf of the State of
South Carolina.  In addition, several cases are pending against
Abbott in state courts: Commonwealth of Kentucky, filed in
September 2003 in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Kentucky;
State of Wisconsin, filed in June 2004 in the Circuit Court of
Dane County, Wisconsin; State of Illinois, filed in February 2005
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois; State of South
Carolina (on behalf of its state health plan), filed in August
2006 in the Court of Common Pleas, Fifth Judicial Circuit of
Richland County, South Carolina; State of Alaska, filed in October
2006 in the Superior Court for the Third Judicial District in
Anchorage, Alaska; State of Idaho, filed in January 2007 in the
District Court of the Fourth Judicial District in Ada County,
Idaho; State of Utah, filed in November 2007 in the Third Judicial
District in Salt Lake County, Utah; State of Louisiana, filed in
October 2010 in the Nineteenth Judicial District, Parish of Baton
Rouge, Louisiana.

No further updates were reported in the Company's January 2, 2013,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.


ABBVIE INC: FTC's Writ of Certiorari in AndroGel Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission's writ of certiorari filed with the
United States Supreme Court seeking a review of a decision
dismissing the bulk of its claims in the AndroGel Antitrust
Litigation remains pending, according to AbbVie Inc.'s January 2,
2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Several pending lawsuits filed against Unimed Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company Abbott Laboratories,
AbbVie Inc.'s parent, acquired in February 2010) et al. were
consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia under the Multi
District Litigation Rules as In re AndroGel Antitrust Litigation,
MDL No. 2084.  These cases, brought by private plaintiffs and the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC), generally allege Solvay's 2006
patent litigation involving AndroGel was sham litigation and the
patent litigation settlement agreement and related agreements with
three generic companies violate federal and state antitrust laws
and state consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws.
Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees. MDL 2084 includes: (a) 3 individual
plaintiff lawsuits: Supervalu, Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. et al., was filed in April 2010 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia; and Rite Aid Corp. et
al. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. and Walgreen Co. et al.
v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., both of which were filed
in June 2009 in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania and subsequently transferred to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia;
(b) 7 purported class actions: Meijer, Inc. et al. v. Unimed
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. et
al. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., and Louisiana
Wholesale Drug Co., Inc. et al. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et
al., all of which were filed in May 2009 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; Fraternal
Order of Police v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., filed in
September 2009 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia; Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc. v. Solvay
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., filed in October 2009 in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee;
LeGrand v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., filed in September
2010 in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia; and Health Net, Inc. v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
filed in February 2011 in the Northern District of Georgia; and
(c) a lawsuit brought by the FTC, Federal Trade Commission v.
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., filed in May 2009 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

In February 2010, Solvay's motion to dismiss the cases was
partially granted and all of the FTC's claims and all of the
plaintiffs' claims except those alleging sham litigation were
dismissed.  In May 2012, that decision was affirmed on appeal by
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and
in October 2012, the FTC filed a writ of certiorari with the
United States Supreme Court seeking a review of the decision.  In
September 2012, the District Court granted summary judgment in
favor of Solvay on the remaining claims of the private plaintiffs.


AMERICAN GREETINGS: Suits Over Weiss' Acquisition Offer Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Greetings Corporation continues to defend class action
lawsuits arising from the non-binding proposal from the Company's
Chief Executive Officer and the Company's President and Chief
Operating Officer to acquire all of the outstanding Class A and
Class B common shares that are not currently owned by the Weiss
family, according to the Company's January 2, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended November 23, 2012.

On September 26, 2012, American Greetings Corporation announced
that the Board of Directors had received a non-binding proposal
(the "Going Private Proposal") dated September 25, 2012, from Zev
Weiss, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and Jeffrey Weiss,
the Company's President and Chief Operating Officer, on behalf of
themselves and certain other members of the Weiss family and
related parties, to acquire all of the outstanding Class A and
Class B common shares not currently owned by them for $17.18 per
share.  On September 27, 2012, Dolores Carter, a purported
shareholder, filed a putative class action and shareholder
derivative lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga
County, Ohio, against American Greetings Corporation and all of
the members of its Board of Directors, alleging that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties in evaluating the Going Private
Proposal and seeking declaratory relief.  Subsequently, eight more
lawsuits were filed in Cuyahoga County state court against
American Greetings Corporation and its Board of Directors.  One
lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed.  The remaining lawsuits were
consolidated and remain pending with the commercial docket in
Cuyahoga County court.  On December 6, 2012, the court appointed
the lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel.

On November 6, 2012, R. David Wolfe, a purported shareholder,
filed a putative class action in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio against American Greetings
Corporation, certain members of the Weiss family, the Irving I.
Stone Oversight Trust, Irving Stone Limited Liability Company,
Irving I. Stone Support Foundation and Irving I. Stone Foundation,
alleging breach of fiduciary duties against certain Weiss
defendants by proposing and pursuing the Going Private Proposal
(the "Wolfe Litigation") and seeking declaratory relief.  Shortly
thereafter, on November 9, 2012, the Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees' Retirement System filed a similar, purported class
action against the same defendants as the Wolfe Litigation, also
alleging breach of fiduciary duties against certain Weiss
defendants and seeking declaratory relief (the "LMPERS
Litigation").

On November 30, 2012, the Wolfe Litigation plaintiff filed Motions
to (1) Consolidate the Wolfe and LMPERS Litigations; (2) for
Appointment as Co-lead Plaintiff; (3) for Appointment as Co-Lead
Plaintiff's Counsel, and (4) for Partial Summary Judgment.  On
December 14, 2012, the Corporation filed its Oppositions to the
Motions (a) to Consolidate the Wolfe and LMPERS Litigation, (b)
for Appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiff and (c) for Appointment as
Co-Lead Plaintiff's Counsel.  On the same day, American Greetings
Corporation also filed a Motion to Dismiss the action.

Management says it is unable to estimate a range of reasonably
possible losses for these cases in which the damages have not been
specified and (i) the proceedings are in the early stages, (ii)
there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being
certified or the ultimate size of the class, (iii) there is
uncertainty as to the outcome of the pending appeals or motions,
(iv) there are significant factual issues to be resolved, and/or
(v) there are novel legal issues presented.  However, for these
cases, management does not believe, based on currently available
information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a
material adverse effect on the Corporation's financial condition,
though the outcomes could be material to the Corporation's
operating results for any particular period, depending, in part,
upon the operating results for such period.

Based in Brooklyn, Ohio, American Greetings Corporation sells
paper greeting cards, electronic greeting cards, party products
(such as wrapping papers and decorations), and electronic
expressive content (e.g., ringtones and images for cell phones).
In addition to the American Greetings brand, the Company owns the
Carlton Cards, Tender Thoughts and Gibson brands of greeting
cards.


AMERICAN GREETINGS: Parties Seek Stay of Baker and Collier Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in two parallel class action lawsuits against American
Greeting Corporation filed a joint motion to stay the litigations
for 60 days to allow them to engage in private mediation,
according to the Company's January 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
November 23, 2012.

American Greetings Corporation is a defendant in two putative
class action lawsuits involving corporate-owned life insurance
policies (the "Insurance Policies"): one filed in the Northern
District of Ohio on January 11, 2012, by Theresa Baker as the
personal representative of the estate of Richard Charles Wolfe
(the "Baker Litigation"); and the other filed in the Northern
District of Oklahoma on October 1, 2010, by Keith Collier as the
personal representative of the estate of Ruthie Collier (the
"Collier Litigation").

In the Baker Litigation, the plaintiff claims that American
Greetings Corporation (1) misappropriated its employees' names and
identities to benefit itself; (2) breached its fiduciary duty by
using its employees' identities and personal information to
benefit itself; (3) unjustly enriched itself through the receipt
of corporate-owned life insurance policy benefits, interest and
investment returns; and (4) improperly received insurance policy
benefits for the insurable interest in Mr. Wolfe's life.  The
plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of all pecuniary benefits
associated with the subject Insurance Policies, including
investment returns, interest and life insurance policy benefits
that American Greetings Corporation received from the deaths of
the former employees whose estates form the putative class. The
plaintiff also seeks punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs and attorney's fees.  On April 30, 2012, American
Greetings Corporation filed a Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's
Complaint.  Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff filed a Motion for
Class Certification.  The court stayed the plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification until the Motion to Dismiss was decided.  On
September 19, 2012, the Ohio federal court ordered the Baker
plaintiff to file an amended complaint and then denied without
prejudice the Corporation's Motion to Dismiss the Baker Litigation
as moot.  On October 1, 2012, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint.  On October 18, 2012, American Greetings Corporation
filed its Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.  Class
certification has not been decided in either of these cases.

In the Collier Litigation, the plaintiff claims that American
Greetings Corporation did not have an insurable interest when it
obtained the subject Insurance Policies and wrongfully received
the benefits from those policies.  The plaintiff seeks damages in
the amount of policy benefits received by American Greetings
Corporation from the subject Insurance Policies, as well as
attorney's fees and costs and interest.  On April 2, 2012, the
plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint, adding
misappropriation of employee information and breach of fiduciary
duty claims as well as seeking punitive damages.  On April 20,
2012, American Greetings Corporation filed a Motion to Transfer
the case to the Ohio federal court.  On July 6, 2012, the court
granted the Corporation's Motion to Transfer and transferred the
case to the Northern District of Ohio, where the Baker Litigation
is pending.

As requested by the court, the parties filed a joint proposed
scheduling order on October 29, 2012, setting the Collier and
Baker Litigations on parallel procedural tracks.  On January 2,
2013, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay the Collier and
Baker Litigations for 60 days to allow the parties to engage in
private mediation.  The same law firm represents the individual
plaintiffs in the Collier and Baker matters.

Based in Brooklyn, Ohio, American Greetings Corporation sells
paper greeting cards, electronic greeting cards, party products
(such as wrapping papers and decorations), and electronic
expressive content (e.g., ringtones and images for cell phones).
In addition to the American Greetings brand, the Company owns the
Carlton Cards, Tender Thoughts and Gibson brands of greeting
cards.


AMERISTAR CASINOS: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to Pinnacle
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim in a
lawsuit filed in Clark County Court that Ameristar Casinos is
selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Pinnacle
Entertainment, for $26.50 a share or $2.8 billion.  The
shareholders want $33 a share.


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Silicosis Liability May Reach $100 Billion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Findlay, writing for Macleans.ca, reports that more than
30 gold companies in South Africa are facing a class action
lawsuit on behalf of 17,000 former miners who say that, as a
result of their work, they are sick with silicosis, a
debilitating, irreversible lung disease.  The mining companies may
be liable for as much as $100 billion, according to Bloomberg
News.  The lawsuit comes at a difficult time for the mines, which
saw massive drops in profit last year due to labor disruptions.

Class action lawsuits are unusual in South Africa, which does not
have a long history of this type of litigation.  In November 2012,
a class action lawsuit was successfully brought against companies
found guilty of running a bread cartel -- "a seminal judgment,"
says Wouter De Vos, professor emeritus of law at the University of
Capetown.  "The miners' case will likely be the most important
case to follow."

Lawyer Richard Spoor, who filed the silicosis suit against some of
the country's biggest mining firms -- including AngloGold Ashanti
and Harmony Gold -- says the number of plaintiffs is increasing by
500 people a month.  "People in South Africa can't afford
litigation," says Mr. De Vos.  "Class action is the only means to
give them access to justice."


ASTRAZENECA: Sued For Conspiring Over Generic Form of Nexium
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a pension plan claims
Astrazeneca, Ranbaxy, Teva and others conspired to delay
introduction of a generic form of Nexium for up to 6 years, in a
federal antitrust class action.


AT&T INC: Settles Cramming Class Action for $5.5 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Jan. 11 preliminarily approved a settlement worth
more than $5.5 million between AT&T Inc. and a class of thousands
of customers who say the telephone company illegally billed them
for third-party services, like roadside assistance and diet plans,
that they hadn't ordered.

Under the settlement, AT&T customers who were billed for third-
party services from Jan. 1, 2005 to the present will be able to
ask the phone company for a complete inventory of the charges, and
then file claims to get their money.


AVON PRODUCTS: Faces Class Action Over Anew Product
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Avon makes false and
misleading claims about its Anew product line, preying "on
consumers' fundamental fear of aging and their eternal hope that
products exist that can eliminate the signs of aging," a class
claims.


BIOMIMETIC THERAPEUTICS: Judge Tosses Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Law360, reports that a Tennessee
federal judge on Jan. 10 tossed a shareholder class action against
BioMimetic Therapeutics Inc. and its two top executives, ruling
that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the orthopedics company
lied about the progress of approval for a bone injury treatment
that decimated its stock price.

U.S. District Judge Kevin H. Sharp granted BioMimetic's bid to
dismiss the suit, finding that under the pleading requirements of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, the investors failed
to adequately support their claims.


BLUEGREEN CORP: Still Faces BFC Merger-Related Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Corporation continues to face a consolidated class
action complaint challenging the Company's proposed merger with
BFC Financial Corporation, according to the Company's
December 31, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Between November 16, 2011, and February 13, 2012, seven purported
class action lawsuits related to Bluegreen's proposed merger with
BFC Financial Corporation ("BFC") were filed against Bluegreen,
the members of Bluegreen's board of directors, BFC and BFC's
subsidiary formed for the purpose of the merger.  Four of these
lawsuits have been consolidated into a single action in Florida.
The other three lawsuits, which were filed in Massachusetts, have
been stayed.  The lawsuits seek to enjoin the merger or, if it is
completed, to recover relief as determined by the applicable
presiding court to be appropriate.  The four Florida lawsuits have
been consolidated into one action.  On April 9, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint
which alleges that the individual director defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by (i) agreeing to sell Bluegreen without
first taking steps to ensure adequate, fair and maximum
consideration, (ii) engineering a transaction to benefit
themselves and not the shareholders, and (iii) failing to protect
the interests of Bluegreen's minority shareholders.  In the
complaint, the plaintiffs also allege that BFC breached its
fiduciary duties to Bluegreen's minority shareholders and that the
merger subsidiary aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties by Bluegreen's directors and BFC.  In addition,
the complaint includes allegations relating to claimed violations
of Massachusetts law.  The complaint seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, along with damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.  The three Massachusetts lawsuits make substantially the
same allegations and claims as in the Florida cases.  The
Massachusetts court has stayed all three actions through January
2013 in favor of the consolidated action proceeding in Florida.
On September 13, 2012, the Court in the Florida consolidated
action denied Bluegreen's motion to dismiss the litigation,
meaning the action will continue.  Bluegreen subsequently answered
the complaint.

On November 15, 2012, Bluegreen and BFC announced publicly that
they were terminating their November 2011 merger agreement and had
entered into a definitive agreement pursuant to which Bluegreen
would be acquired in a cash transaction.  As a result of this
announcement, on November 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Motion
with the Florida Court for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint
in order to challenge the structure of and consideration for the
new merger.  On November 30, 2012, the Florida Court granted the
plaintiffs' motion.   The Supplemental Complaint alleges that the
merger consideration remains inadequate and continues to be unfair
to Bluegreen's minority shareholders.


CLS TRANSPORT: Sup. Ct. Agrees to Review "Iskanian" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
The HR Specialist reports that the California Supreme Court has
agreed to review a case that enforced a class-action waiver and
required a limousine driver to arbitrate his wage-and-hour claims.
Seven justices voted to review Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles
LLC, a California Court of Appeal decision holding that the
Federal Arbitration Act "conclusively invalidates" a decision that
ruled a class-action waiver could be unconscionable under
California law.

The court will decide whether the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 AT&T
Mobility LLC v. Concepcion case overruled a 2007 California case
(Gentry v. Superior Court) in the context of nonwaivable labor law
rights.  It will also consider whether Concepcion permits
arbitration agreements to override the statutory right to bring
representative claims under California's Private Attorneys General
Act.

The Supreme Court's Concepcion decision allows employers to use
arbitration agreements, but state courts often require contracts
to be fair.  Agreements that are too one-sided often cross the
line into what state courts call "unconscionable contracts."
Under common law, unconscionable contracts are not enforceable.


CPI CORP: Faces "Hellmann" ERISA-Violation Suit in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
CPI Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit in Missouri filed by
Theodore J. Hellmann, according to the Company's December 31,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended November 10, 2012.

The Company, several of its current or former officers and
employees and The Charles Schwab Trust Company have been named as
defendants in a lawsuit entitled Theodore J. Hellmann v. CPI
Corporation, et. al., filed November 21, 2012, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Case
No.: 4:12-cv-02177.  The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are
fiduciaries of the CPI Corp. Employees Profit Sharing Plan and
Trust (the "Plan") under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act ("ERISA") and that Defendants breached their ERISA fiduciary
duties to the Plan's participants whose individual accounts
included investments in the Company's common stock during an
alleged Class Period of August 31, 2010, to the present, when
Plaintiffs allege that the common stock was an imprudent
investment. Plaintiff also alleges that all defendants are liable
as co-fiduciaries for one another's alleged breaches.  Plaintiff
purports to assert these claims on behalf of the Plan as well as a
proposed class of other Plan participants and requests, among
other things, restoration of losses to the Plan, damages, a
constructive trust and an allocation of losses allegedly
attributable to the decline in the Company's stock price to the
accounts of Plan participants.  Responsive pleadings are not yet
due in this case.  Nevertheless, the Company believes the claims
are without merit and it will vigorously defend the case on behalf
of itself and its officers and employees.  It is not possible at
this time to determine the ultimate outcome of this action or to
estimate the potential impact on the Company's results of
operations, liquidity or financial position.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, CPI Corp. provides portrait
photography services at more than 2,500 locations in the United
States, Canada, Mexico and Puerto Rico and provides on location
wedding photography and videography services through an extensive
network of contract photographers and videographers.


CPI CORP: IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund's Suit Dismissed in Nov.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. CPI
Corp., et al., was voluntarily dismissed in November 2012,
according to the Company's December 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended November 10, 2012.

The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit entitled IBEW Local 98
Pension Fund v. CPI Corp., et al., filed January 13, 2012, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Civil Action No. 4:12-CV-75 AGF.  IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund
(IBEW) commenced a putative securities class action against CPI
Corp. (CPI), Renato Cataldo, Dale E. Heins and David M. Meyer on
January 13, 2012.  The Complaint was brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired CPI common stock
between April 20, 2010, and December 21, 2011, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  IBEW alleged on behalf of the purported class
that, as a result of the defendants' allegedly false statements
and omissions, CPI common stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.  By court stipulation dated
February 9, 2012, the parties agreed that not later than 60 days
after entry of an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Lead
Counsel, the Lead Plaintiff shall file a consolidated amended
class action complaint, which shall be deemed the operative
complaint and the Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to
the Consolidated Complaint within 60 days after service of the
Consolidated Complaint.  On March 13, 2012, plaintiffs IBEW and
George David filed a motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiffs and
for approval of Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel.  That motion was granted
on August 3, 2012.  The parties filed a Stipulation of Voluntary
Dismissal on November 6, 2012.  The dismissal is with prejudice as
to the named plaintiffs, IBEW and George David.  The Court entered
a Memorandum and Order of Dismissal on November 9, 2012.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, CPI Corp. provides portrait
photography services at more than 2,500 locations in the United
States, Canada, Mexico and Puerto Rico and provides on location
wedding photography and videography services through an extensive
network of contract photographers and videographers.


CPI CORP: To Seek Class Decertification in "Paige" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
CPI Corp. said in its December 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
November 10, 2012, that it will file a motion for class
decertification in the coming months in the class action lawsuit
initiated by Shannon Paige, et al.

The Company and two of its subsidiaries are defendants in a
lawsuit entitled Shannon Paige, et al. v. Consumer Programs, Inc.,
filed March 8, 2007, in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC367546.  The
case was subsequently removed to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, Case No. CV 07-2498-FMC
(RCx).  The Plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to pay him
and other hourly associates for "off the clock" work and that the
Company failed to provide meal and rest breaks as required by law.
The Plaintiff is seeking damages and injunctive relief for himself
and others similarly situated.  On October 6, 2008, the Court
denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification but allowed
Plaintiffs to attempt to certify a smaller class, thus reducing
the size of the potential class to approximately 200.  Plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking certification of the smaller class on
November 14, 2008.  The Company filed its opposition on December
8, 2008.  In January 2009, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification as to their claims that they worked "off the
clock."  The Court also deferred ruling on Plaintiff's motion for
class certification as to their missed break claims and stayed the
action until the California Supreme Court ruled on a pending case
on the issue of whether an employer must merely provide an
opportunity for employees to take a lunch break or whether an
employer must actively ensure that its employees take the break
(Brinker Restaurant v. S. C. (Hohnbaum)).  The California Supreme
Court ruled on the Brinker case on April 12, 2012.  The Court held
that employers do not have to ensure that a meal period is taken,
but have only to make it available.  Pursuant to order of the
Court in the Paige case, the parties filed briefs in May on the
impact of the Brinker case.  On July 16, 2012, the Court certified
a class limited to meal and rest breaks claims for Sears Portrait
Studio managers working in California.  The parties have commenced
post-certification discovery, and the Company will file a motion
for class decertification in the coming months.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and continues
its vigorous defense on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries
against these claims, however, an adverse ruling in this case
could require the Company to pay damages, penalties, interest and
fines.  It is not possible to determine the ultimate outcome of
this action or to estimate the potential impact on the Company's
results of operations, liquidity or financial position.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, CPI Corp. provides portrait
photography services at more than 2,500 locations in the United
States, Canada, Mexico and Puerto Rico and provides on location
wedding photography and videography services through an extensive
network of contract photographers and videographers.


FANNIE MAE: Faces Class Action Over Refusal To Pay Transfer Tax
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
illegally refuse to pay the local option transfer tax on property
sales, Spokane claims in a federal class action for Washington
counties and cities.


JP MORGAN: Customers File Suit Asserting False Advertising Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that JP Morgan Chase did not tell
customers who accepted mortgage modifications that it would report
them to credit reporting agencies, a class action for false
advertising, wrongful credit reporting and unfair competition
claims in Superior Court.


LONGWEI PETROLEUM: Cohen Milstein Files Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC on Jan. 11
disclosed that it has filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of common stock of Longwei Petroleum
Investment Holding Limited from May 17, 2010 through January 3,
2013, inclusive.

Longwei is an energy company engaged in the wholesale distribution
of finished petroleum products in the People's Republic of China.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted
materially adverse facts, about Longwei's business and financial
condition.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges (1) Longwei failed
to disclose a material related party investment totaling $32
million made by Longwei's subsidiary, Shanxi Zhinghe Energy
Conversion Co. Ltd.; (2) Longwei failed to disclose that Yongjun
Cai, its Chief Executive Officer, was a minority owner of three of
Longwei's operating subsidiaries; and (3) Longwei greatly
exaggerated its wholesale fuel sales.  As a result of these
materially false and misleading statements, Longwei's stock was
artificially inflated during the Class Period.  On January 3,
2013, an internet report published by Geoinvesting.com disclosed
these materially false and misleading statements and omissions.
On this news, Longwei's stock fell 73%, closing at $0.62 per share
on January 3, 2013, down from $2.30 per share on January 2, 2013.

If you purchased shares in Longwei during the period from May 17,
2010 through January 3, 2013, inclusive, you may, no later than
March 5, 2013, move the court to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff.
There are certain legal requirements to serve as Lead Plaintiff.
Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as
Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to
remain an absent class member.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as Lead Plaintiff.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has significant experience in
prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving
securities fraud.  The firm has offices in Washington, D.C., New
York, Philadelphia, and Chicago, and is active in major litigation
pending in federal and state courts throughout the nation,
including the Southern District of New York.

If you have any questions about this notice or the action, or with
regard to your rights, please contact either of the following:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Cameron Clark
          Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (888) 240-0775
                     (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                  cclark@cohenmilstein.com


PETSMART: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Petsmart stiffs hourly
workers for overtime, a class action claims in Superior Court.


QIAO XING: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm on Jan. 12 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the securities
of Qiao Xing Mobile Communication Company Ltd. between September
10, 2010 and May 2, 2012.  The case filed by the firm is pending
in the U.S. District Court for District of New Jersey.

To join the Qiao Xing Mobile class action, visit the firm's
Web site at http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-
free, at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.

The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against Qiao Xing Mobile and its present and former officers and
directors for issuing false and misleading information to
investors about the Company's financial and business condition.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges defendants concealed the
Company's lack of internal controls and corporate governance
failures, which rendered the Company's public statements during
the Class Period materially false and misleading.  As a result,
the Company's stock has been delisted and the Company's has gone
"dark."  The Complaint alleges that when this adverse information
began to enter the market the price of Qiao Xing Mobile securities
dropped damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 18, 2013.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or
to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free,
at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


RITE AID: Judge Directs Payment of $20.9MM to Former Managers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that Rite Aid
can pay former assistant store managers $20.9 million to settle a
series of class actions concerning overtime, a federal judge
ruled.

U.S. District Judge Jon Jones III said that more than 7,000
received notices identifying them as potential class members, and
that more than 1,961 class members have submitted claims forms
since the settlement was entered in June 2012.

Judge Jones is managing the settlement of a series of lawsuits
filed suit in federal and state courts across the country against
Rite Aid Corp. and Eckerd Corp.

Lead plaintiff Shirley Craig represents employees who once worked
as assistant managers or co-managers for the pharmacy chain.  They
say Rite Aid denied them overtime in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and state law.

The class filed an unopposed motion for final approval of class
and collective action settlement, attorneys' fees, and incentive
awards to class representatives in September 2012.

Class representative Jennifer Hearn filed an objection in October,
asserting that the settlement does not adequately compensate New
Jersey class members and fails to reflect differences in New
Jersey law.

Judge Jones held a fairness hearing in December, attended by class
counsel, counsel for Rite Aid and Ms. Hearn's attorney.

He approved the proposed settlement and awarded attorneys' fees
and incentive awards on January 7.

"This settlement is the result of years of daily communication
between class counsel and counsel for Rite Aid and is the product
of arms-length bargaining and well-informed negotiations and
mediations undertaken with the able and excellent guidance of U.S.
Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson," Judge Jones wrote.  "The
parties assert, and the individual dockets reflect, that
substantial discovery, including but not limited to hundreds of
depositions and requests for documents, has been undertaken in
many of the cases subject to this omnibus settlement.  Finally,
only one objection has been filed, and thus the number of
objectors is but an infinitesimal fraction of the total population
of the settlement class, weighing in favor of applying the
fairness presumption."

The complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation
easily favor approval of the settlement, according to the ruling.

"Discovery disputes would abound in many of these individual cases
resulting in additional and unnecessary delay and expense," Judge
Jones wrote.  "Not only would continued litigation of these cases
result in a massive expenditure of class counsel's resources, it
would likewise place a substantial drain on judicial resources."

The reasonableness of the settlement fund also supports approval,
he said.

"The $20.9 million proposed settlement will result in an average
payment of $1,845 to each of the 7,342 class members, and each
class member will receive an award proportional to his or her
unpaid overtime worked during the applicable limitations period.
Faced with substantial litigation risks as to the remaining (and
dispositive) questions of law, these proportionate settlement
awards are indeed fair and reasonable," the 35-page opinion
states.

The court awarded class counsel more than $6.9 million in
attorneys' costs and fees. Ms. Craig received an incentive award
of $7,500, and 20 other class representatives will each get
$5,000.


SILVERCORP METALS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit against Silvercorp Metals, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action filed, in United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 13-Civ-
279, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Silvercorp
between June 24, 2010 and September 13, 2011, both dates
inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors as a result of
alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Silvercorp securities
during the Class Period, you have until March 1, 2013 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address and telephone number.

Silvercorp Metals engages in the acquisition, exploration,
development, and mining of precious and base metal properties in
China and Canada.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
Company overstated the quality and quantity of its ore reserves.
Silvercorp's own filings with the Chinese authorities demonstrated
that it had lower production than represented in its filings with
the SEC.

On September 13, 2011, a report was published disclosing that
Silvercorp had been misleading the investing public about the
quality and quantity of its minerals production.  When the truth
regarding the quantity and quality of Silvercorp's minerals
production was disclosed, Silvercorp's stock price fell $1.54 per
share or nearly 20% to close at $6.30.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates
its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  It has offices in New York, Chicago, and San
Diego.


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Injunction in Humboldt Suit Terminated
----------------------------------------------------------
A motion for early termination of an injunction related to the
Humboldt County Action, with respect to 17 California nursing
facilities that subsidiaries of Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.
still operate, was granted in December 2012, according to the
Company's January 2, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In conjunction with the September 2010 settlement by Skilled
Healthcare Group, Inc. (the "Company") and certain of its
subsidiaries, including 22 subsidiaries that operated skilled
nursing facilities in California (collectively, the "Defendants"),
of class action litigation against them (the "Humboldt County
Action"), the Defendants agreed to an injunction under which the
subsidiary Defendants were required to provide specified nurse
staffing levels, comply with specified state and federal laws
governing staffing levels and posting requirements, and provide
reports and information to a court-appointed auditor.  The
injunction was to remain in effect for a period of 24 months
unless extended for additional 3-month periods for non-compliance.
Defendants demonstrating compliance for an 18-month period that
ended September 30, 2012, were permitted to petition the court for
early termination of the injunction.  On April 1, 2011, the five
subsidiary Defendants that at the time operated skilled nursing
facilities in Humboldt County (the "Former Humboldt County
Facilities") transferred their operations to an unaffiliated third
party skilled nursing facility operator.

On November 14, 2012, the Defendants filed a motion to terminate
the injunction and vacate the final judgment in the Humboldt
County Action.  Based upon compliance with the injunction through
the requisite 18-month period, on December 21, 2012, the Superior
Court of California, Humboldt County, granted the Defendants'
motion for early termination of the injunction, and the injunction
has now ended, with respect to the 17 California nursing
facilities that the subsidiary Defendants still operate.  In its
order, the court determined that the injunction termination did
not apply to the Former Humboldt County Facilities.  However, the
2010 court-approved stipulation and order establishing the
injunction provides that the injunction applies to the named
defendants and any successor licensees of the applicable nursing
facilities, but only if those successor licensees are affiliates
of the named defendants.  As noted, the Former Humboldt County
Facilities have been operated by an unaffiliated third party since
April 2011.  Therefore, under the terms of the injunction it does
not apply to the Former Humboldt County Facilities unless an
affiliate of the Defendants operates them.  The Defendants' motion
to vacate prior findings in the Humboldt County Action was also
not granted.


TRICAN WELL: Faces $10-Mil. Overtime Class Action in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Keahey, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports
that a field engineer has filed a $10 million lawsuit against an
oil and gas well company for misclassifying the engineers as
exempt employees and not paying overtime wages.

Joseph Gauthier, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed suit against Trican Well Service Ltd. on
Jan. 9 in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of salaried field engineers who
worked for Trican and were allegedly denied their rights under
applicable federal wage and hour laws.

Mr. Gauthier was employed by the defendant out of its facility in
Longview.  He was classified as an exempt employee and was not
paid overtime wages, according to the suit.

The defendants are accused of violating the Fair Labor Standards
Act by misclassifying employees as exempt.

On behalf of the class members, Mr. Gauthier is asking for an
award of more than $10 million in damages for unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, civil penalties, interest,
attorney's fees and court costs.

The plaintiff is represented by Josh Sandford of Sandford Law Firm
PLLC in Little Rock, Ark.

Case No. 6:13-cv-00046


* Employers Change Approach to Resolving Workplace Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Green, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that any
employer who wondered what effect the U.S. Supreme Court's Wal-
Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes gender discrimination case would have on
private class action cases needn't look any further than the top
10 employment discrimination class action settlements of 2012.  At
roughly $49 million in settlements, that total came in at the
lowest level since 2006 and was far shy of the pre-Dukes total of
$346 million in 2010.

"That's a pretty dramatic difference," says Gerald Maatman Jr.,
who co-chairs the class action litigation group at Seyfarth Shaw
and co-authored the 800-plus page "Annual Workplace Class Action
Litigation Report," which the firm published January 14.

Following the 2011 Dukes decision, Mr. Maatman says that employers
are changing their approach to resolving workplace class actions.
"When I'm defending these big cases, the approach now at the
mediation table or the settlement table is: 'Mr. Plaintiffs
lawyer, if you thought your case was worth a dollar prior to
[Dukes], we think it's worth a dime now.'"

This latest edition of the workplace litigation report offers a
circuit-by-circuit and state-by-state review of significant class
action rulings rendered in 2012.  It analyzes the most significant
class and collective action settlements over the past 12 months
and offers insights into what's ahead in 2013.

As influential as the Dukes decision was, Mr. Maatman says the
plaintiffs class action bar is hardly standing still.  "We saw a
lot of new sorts of theories and approaches being utilized to try
to work around Dukes," he says.  And although their opponents on
the management side tried to extend the ruling to the wage-and-
hour context, Mr. Maatman says that by and large, judges declined
to buy into their argument.

The report cites six key trends in its overview of workplace class
action developments last year:

1. The U.S. Supreme Court's rulings in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v.
Dukes and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion altered the course of class
actions and litigation.

Both cases were widely cited throughout the lower courts last
year. Concepcion fed significant litigation over workplace
arbitration agreements.  In those cases, like with real estate,
says Mr. Maatman, "location, location, location is everything."
He says, "There are cases going both ways and judges going both
ways, even within the same jurisdiction," adding that "the final
chapter hasn't been written."

2. Government enforcement litigation reached new "white-hot"
levels in 2012.

The heightened activity was particularly apparent at the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. According to the report,
more discrimination charges were filed with the EEOC in 2012 than
in all but one previous year since the founding of the commission:
99,412 charges against private sector employers.  Although the
EEOC filed half the number of lawsuits as in 2011, Mr. Maatman
says the EEOC is focusing on its systemic investigation program.
"Basically, the EEOC caught its breath" in 2012 says Mr. Maatman.
He thinks the agency is gearing up to bring more, and higher-
stakes, lawsuits in 2013.  "If you're involved in litigation with
the EEOC in 2013, I think you've got a tiger by the tail.  It's
very difficult to defend one of those cases."

3. Dukes influenced settlement strategies in workplace class
actions in a profound way.

The SCOTUS decision helped employers defeat and devalue
discrimination class actions, and it resulted in fewer and lower-
cost settlements.

4. The continued dislocations in the U.S. economy during 2012
fueled more class action and collective action litigation over
wage-and-hour laws.

When the economy is such that it's harder to find another job
after an employee has been terminated, Mr. Maatman says, "there is
no economic disincentive to sue."

5. Wage-and-hour litigation continued to outpace all other types
of workplace class actions.

"We saw an inability of employers to utilize the lessons of
[Dukes] to defeat, fracture, or break up wage-and hour-class
actions," according to Mr. Maatman.  "Everybody thinks the wave is
going to crest," he says, but the report's authors predict the
increasing trend will continue in 2013.

6. The plaintiffs class action bar is a tight-knit community, and
developments in Rule 23 and Sec. 216(b) case law in 2012 saw rapid
strategic changes based on evolving decisions and developments.

"You're seeing this shake-out period where plaintiffs lawyers are
rebooting and retheorizing how they can still certify a case,"
says Mr. Maatman.  "So if you're an employer, you're basically
saying, 'Dukes is out there, and I can utilize it -- rely upon it
-- but it's not the last word."



                           *********

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  * * *