CAR_Public/130122.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, January 22, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 15

                             Headlines


227 CHERRY STREET: Sued for Garage Closure During Hurricane Sandy
AMERICAN DAIRY: Faces Two Class Suits For Breach of Contract
AMERICAN ORIENTAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Calif. Suit
ANGEL CITY: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Wage and Hour Laws
CARGILL MEAT: Accord on Workers' Class Suit Wins Preliminary OK

CARMAX INC: Appeal in "Fowler" Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
CINTAS CORP: Awaits Ruling on Rehearing Bid in "Serrano" Suit
CITIZENS INC: SPFIC Continues to Defend Louisiana Class Suit
COMMERCIAL METALS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suits
CORNER STORE: Awaits OK of Valero's Fuel Temperature Suit Deal

CORNER STORE: Ultramar Defends Price Fixing Suits in Canada
ELOQUA: Being Sold to Oracle for Too Little, Suit Claims
ENIGMA SOFTWARE: Sued for Charges Despite Software Cancellation
FINISAR CORP: Calif. Court Tosses Securities Class Action Suit
KPMG: Two Auditors Face Class Suit Over TierOne Corp. Collapse

LIFE PARTNERS: Class Cert. Appeal in Suit vs. Unit Pending
MATTEL AND FISHER: Infant Sleepers Prone to Molds, Suit Claims
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Awaits Approval of Canadian Suit Settlement
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Has Paid Full Amount of DRAM Suit Settlement
NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Still Defending Suit Over Defective GamePads

OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Defends Genaera Liquidating Trust Suit
ROBBINS & MYERS: Only One Merger-Related Suit Remains Pending
SIOUX HONEY: Judge Rejects Sue Bee Clover Honey Class Action
SQUARE INC: Sent Text Messages Without Prior Consent, Suit Says
STARLINE TOURS: Sued for Not Paying All Hours Worked by Employees

TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Chrome 6 Exposure Suits
ZEP INC: "Britto and Cowan" Class Suit Remains Pending
ZILLOW: Faces Securities Suit For Misleading Statements


                          *********



227 CHERRY STREET: Sued for Garage Closure During Hurricane Sandy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Abraham Lee, Chee Kheong Sam and Aldous Wong,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
Plaintiffs, brought on December 14, 2012, a class action Complaint
with the Supreme Court of the State of New York against Defendants
Cherry Street, LLC, Park-It Management, and Central Parking System
of New York, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated individuals that paid a monthly fee in consideration for
the right to park their vehicles at the parking garage located at
227 Cherry Street, New York, New York 10002, on October 28, 2012.

Plaintiffs are seeking damages and other appropriate relief for
their claims arising out of Defendants' negligence and gross
negligence relating to their: (1) misleading and false
representations made to Monthly Parking Customers that the 227
Cherry Street Parking Garage would remain open during Hurricane
Sandy a/k/a "Superstorm" Sandy; (2) Defendants' failure to notify
Monthly Parking Customers that their vehicles must be removed from
the 227 Cherry Street Parking Garage by 4:00 p.m. on Sunday,
October 28, 2012; and (3) Defendants' failure to respond to
multiple requests by Monthly Parking Customers after 4:00 p.m. on
Sunday, October 28, 2012, to open the gate to the 227 Cherry
Street Parking Garage for the purpose of removing their  vehicles,
obtaining personal property and evacuating "Zone A" in lower
Manhattan.  They also seek damages and other appropriate relief
for Defendants' failure to exercise due care to adequately secure
the 227 Cherry Street Parking Garage premises subsequent to the
multiple warnings issued by the National Hurricane Center and by
New York City government officials for Zone A prior to Superstorm
Sandy, and for their negligence and conduct relating to mitigation
of damages following the storm.

Plaintiffs Abraham Lee, Chee Kheong Sam and Aldous Wong are
citizens of the State of New York and reside in New York County
and are individuals who were Monthly Parking Customers on
October 28, 2012, at the parking garage located at 227 Cherry
Street, New York, New York 10002.

Cherry Street, LLC, is a limited liability corporation
incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of New York,
with its address of authorized service located at 405 Lexington
Avenue, New York, New York 10174.  It owned the 227 Cherry Street
Parking Garage.

Park-It Management is a New York company, with its principal place
of business located at 250 West 26th Street, 4th Floor, New York,
New York 10001.  It managed, maintained, operated, supervised,
controlled and staffed 227 Cherry Street Parking Garage.

Central Parking System of New York, Inc. is a Tennessee
corporation, licensed to conduct business in the State of New
York, with numerous offices located throughout New York City.  It
also managed, maintained, operated, supervised, controlled and
staffed 227 Cherry Street Parking Garage.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK, LLP
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7413
          New York, New York 10118
          Telephone: (212) 267-3700
          Facsimile: (212) 587-0031

               - and -

          Jeanne M. Christensen, Esq.
          IMBESI CHRISTENSEN
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 3002
          New York, New York 10123
          Telephone: (212) 736-5588
          Facsimile: (212) 658-9177
          E-mail: jchristensen@lawicm.com


AMERICAN DAIRY: Faces Two Class Suits For Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that two class actions in Hennepin
County Court accuse American Dairy Queen Corp. of breaching
franchise contracts by increasing franchisees' payments for
promotions.


AMERICAN ORIENTAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Calif. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Oriental Bioengineering, Inc. is awaiting a court
decision on its motion to dismiss a consolidated shareholders'
lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's
January 7, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On June 22, 2012, a complaint, 12 cv 5476, was filed in the
Federal District Court for the Central District of California by
Kevin McGee against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.  On July 5, 2012, a second
complaint, 12 cv 05789, was filed by Michael Kane against a
similar group of defendants.  The complaints, brought as putative
class actions on behalf of all persons other than the Defendants
who purchased the common stock of the Company between
September 27, 2010, and June 15, 2012, were virtually identical
and were based entirely on supposed "inconsistencies" raised by
the Company's then auditors and the subsequent termination of
those auditors by the Company.  The complaints alleged violations
of Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and
rules promulgated thereunder.  On October 16, 2012, the court
granted the motion of Richard Deutner and Rent EDV Dienstleistungs
GmbH for appointment as lead Plaintiff and, thereafter, ordered
that the amended consolidated complaint be filed no later than
November 19, 2012.  On that date, Plaintiff filed and served an
amended consolidated complaint, which repeated the allegations set
forth in the original complaint and added allegations to the
effect that the Company's restatement of its financial statements
evidenced allegedly knowing and intentional misstatements of
material facts in the Company's public filings.  The Company and
two former and one current director have been served with the
amended consolidated complaint.  Responses were due December 19,
2012.

In accordance with the schedule set by the Court, the served
Defendants, including the Company, served and filed a motion
seeking dismissal of the amended consolidated complaint in the
action.  The motion seeks dismissal of all causes of action.  The
Company denies the allegations.  No prediction can be made,
however, as to the final outcome of the matter.


ANGEL CITY: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Wage and Hour Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Aceves, an individual; Class Representative, Individually,
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Current and Former
Employees of Defendants v. Angel City Trading, Inc., a
corporation; and Does 1 through 150, inclusive, Case No. BC498280
(Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., December 28, 2012) seeks
remedy for alleged wage and hour law violations by Angel City
Trading.

The complaint says the Defendants are engaged in a pervasive and
unlawful scheme to deprive their employees of the protections
granted to them by California wage and hour laws.  During the
Class Period, the Defendants failed to compensate employees for
all hours worked, and failed and refused to pay overtime wages,
the Class Members relate.

Mr. Aceves is a resident of Los Angeles County, California.

Angel City is a California corporation headquartered in Los
Angeles, California.  The Plaintiff is currently unaware of the
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis P. Wilson, Esq.
          WILSON TRIAL GROUP
          3322 W. Victory Boulevard
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (818) 843-1788
          E-mail: wilsontrialgroup@att.net

               - and -

          Tony Luti, Esq.
          THE LUTI LAW FIRM
          7095 Hollywood Boulevard, Number 351
          Hollywood, CA 90028
          Telephone: (323) 960-2600
          E-mail: tony@lutilaw.com


CARGILL MEAT: Accord on Workers' Class Suit Wins Preliminary OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California on January 16, 2013,
granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the class action
lawsuit captioned Barbosa v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp.

Court-appointed Class Representatives Christina Barbosa and
Patricia Aguillera Barrios filed the lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated individuals against
Defendants Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., and Does 1-50.

The Court provisionally certified the Settlement Class as all
current and former hourly production and support employees of the
Defendant's meat packing facility in Fresno, California between
February 2, 2009, and January 16, 2013, who do not timely opt out
of the Settlement.

A final fairness hearing is scheduled in Courtroom 7 on the date
and time set forth in the implementation schedule, which will be
issued separately by the Court.

A copy of the Court's January 16, 2013 order is available at
http://is.gd/RFaX53from Leagle.com.

The settlement class is represented by:

          R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
          43364 10th Street West
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Tel No: (661) 949-2595
          Fax: (661) 949-7524

               - and -

          THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          P.O. Box 1021
          Unionville, PA 19375
          Tel No: (610) 324-2848

The Claims Administrator may be reached at:

          Dahl Administration LLC
          6465 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 420
          Minneapolis, MN 55426
          Tel No: (952) 562-3600
          Fax: (952) 562-3625


CARMAX INC: Appeal in "Fowler" Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class action
lawsuit against CarMax, Inc.'s subsidiaries, CarMax Auto
Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West
Coast, Inc., in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles.  Subsequently, two other lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v.
CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and Justin Weaver v.
CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, were consolidated as part
of the Fowler case.  The allegations in the consolidated case
involved: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or
compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of
terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks
and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime; (4) failure to comply
with itemized employee wage statement provisions; and (5) unfair
competition/California's Labor Code Private Attorney General Act.
The putative class consisted of sales consultants, sales managers,
and other hourly employees who worked for the company in
California from April 2, 2004, to the present.  On May 12, 2009,
the court dismissed all of the class claims with respect to the
sales manager putative class.  On June 16, 2009, the court
dismissed all claims related to the failure to comply with the
itemized employee wage statement provisions.  The court also
granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication with regard to
CarMax's alleged failure to pay overtime to the sales consultant
putative class.  The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling
regarding the sales consultant overtime claim.  On May 20, 2011,
the California Court of Appeal affirmed the court's ruling in
favor of CarMax.  The plaintiffs filed a Petition of Review with
the California Supreme Court, which was denied.  As a result, the
plaintiffs' overtime claims are no longer part of the case.

The claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales
consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and
rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay
wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest
breaks; and (3) unfair competition/California's Labor Code Private
Attorney General Act.  On June 16, 2009, the court entered a stay
of these claims pending the outcome of a California Supreme Court
case involving unrelated third parties but related legal issues.
Subsequently, CarMax moved to lift the stay and compel the
plaintiffs' remaining claims into arbitration on an individualized
basis, which the court granted on
November 21, 2011.  Plaintiffs filed an appeal that is currently
pending with the California Court of Appeal.  The Fowler lawsuit
seeks compensatory and special damages, wages, interest, civil and
statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and the
recovery of attorneys' fees.

No further updates were reported in the Company's January 9, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended November 30, 2012.

The Company says it is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the
amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable
outcome in these matters.


CINTAS CORP: Awaits Ruling on Rehearing Bid in "Serrano" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation is still awaiting an appellate court decision
with respect to its petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc
in the class action lawsuit filed by Mirna E. Serrano, et al.,
according to the Company's January 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
November 30, 2012.

Cintas is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit, Mirna
E. Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano), filed on
May 10, 2004, and pending in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.  The Serrano
plaintiffs alleged that Cintas discriminated against women in
hiring into various service sales representative positions across
all divisions of Cintas.  On November 15, 2005, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) intervened in the Serrano
lawsuit.  The Serrano plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other
remedies.  On October 27, 2008, the United States District Court
in the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in
favor of Cintas limiting the scope of the putative class in the
Serrano lawsuit to female applicants for service sales
representative positions at Cintas locations within the state of
Michigan.  Consequently, all claims brought by female applicants
for service sales representative positions outside of the state of
Michigan were dismissed.  Similarly, any claims brought by the
EEOC on behalf of similarly situated female applicants outside of
the state of Michigan have also been dismissed from the Serrano
lawsuit.  In September 2010, the Court in Serrano dismissed all
private individual claims and all claims of the EEOC and the 13
individuals it claimed to represent.  The EEOC appealed the
District Court's summary judgment decisions and various other
rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.

On November 9, 2012, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit
reversed the District Court's opinion and remanded the claims back
to the District Court.  On November 21, 2012, Cintas filed a
Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing en banc requesting that a
full panel of the Sixth Circuit review the decision issued by the
three-judge panel and reverse the three-judge panel's decision.
The Sixth Circuit ordered the EEOC to respond to the Petition for
Rehearing and Rehearing en banc, and the EEOC filed its response
on December 14, 2012.

As of January 9, 2013, the Sixth Circuit has not yet ruled on
Cintas' Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing en banc.

                        Avalos Litigation

Cintas is a defendant in another purported class action lawsuit,
Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Avalos), which
was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division.  The Avalos plaintiffs alleged that
Cintas discriminated against women, African-Americans and
Hispanics in hiring into various service sales representative
positions in Cintas' Rental division only throughout the United
States.  The Avalos plaintiffs sought injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other
remedies.  The claims in Avalos originally were brought in the
lawsuit captioned Robert Ramirez, et al. v. Cintas Corporation
(Ramirez), filed on January 20, 2004, in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco
Division.  On May 11, 2006, the Ramirez and Avalos African-
American, Hispanic and female failure to hire into service sales
representative positions claims and the EEOC's intervention were
consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Serrano case and
transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division.  The consolidated case
was known as Mirna E. Serrano/Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v.
Cintas Corporation (Serrano/Avalos).  On March 31, 2009, the
United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division entered an order denying class certification to
all plaintiffs in the Serrano/Avalos lawsuits.   Following denial
of class certification, the Court permitted the individual Avalos
and Serrano plaintiffs to proceed separately.  In the Avalos case,
the Court dismissed the remaining claims of the individual
plaintiffs who remained in that case after the denial of class
certification.  On May 11, 2010, Plaintiff Tanesha Davis, on
behalf of all similarly situated plaintiffs in the Avalos case,
filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's summary judgment
order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The Appellate Court has made no determination regarding the merits
of Davis' appeal.

Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, Cintas Corporation is a
publicly traded company that operates more than 430 facilities
throughout North America.  The Company provides specialized
services to businesses, including the design and manufacturing of
corporate identity uniform programs, entrance mats, restroom
supplies, promotional products, first aid and safety products,
fire protection services and document management services to
approximately 900,000 businesses.


CITIZENS INC: SPFIC Continues to Defend Louisiana Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Citizens, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend a class action
lawsuit commenced by the state of Louisiana, according to the
Company's January 9, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Security Plan Fire Insurance Company ("SPFIC"), a Company
subsidiary, is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit in
Louisiana styled The State of Louisiana v. AAA Insurance (the
"Road Home Litigation"), which was filed in the Civil District
Court for the Parish of Orleans on August 23, 2007.  The Louisiana
Attorney General filed the Road Home Litigation as a putative
class action lawsuit in state court against SPFIC and
approximately 200 other insurers on behalf of the State of
Louisiana, as assignee, and on behalf of a class of Road Home fund
recipients alleging that SPFIC and the other insurers have failed
to pay all damages owed under their policies.  The insurers
removed the matter to federal court.  The defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, and in March 2009, the district court granted
part of the defendants' motion, dismissing all of the extra-
contractual claims, including the bad faith and breach of
fiduciary duty claims.  As a result, the remaining claims are for
breach of contract and declaratory relief on the alleged
underpayment of claims by the insurers.  The court did not dismiss
the class action allegations.  The defendants also had moved to
dismiss the complaint on grounds that the State had no standing to
bring the lawsuit as an assignee of insureds because of anti-
assignment language in the insurers' policies.  The court denied
the defendants' motion for reconsideration on the assignment issue
but found the matter was ripe for consideration by the federal
appellate court.  The defendants filed a petition for permission
to appeal to the Fifth Circuit.  The Fifth Circuit accepted
review.

On July 20, 2011, the Fifth Circuit ruled there was no public
policy which precludes an anti-assignment clause from applying to
post loss assignments, but the anti-assignment language must be
evaluated on a policy by policy basis and unambiguously express
that the non-assignment clause applies to post-loss assignments.
In October 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana denied the State's motion to remand to state
court.  The Road Home Litigation remains pending in federal
district court.  The State has yet to identify the specific claims
it contends are at issue in the Road Home Litigation, or the
alleged deficiencies in adjusting those claims.  Each individual
claim at issue will require an individual analysis.  A number of
the claims may be subject to individual defenses.  To date, there
has been no discovery in the Road Home Litigation.  The Company
anticipates the State will vigorously pursue the matter in the
district court and are uncertain as to the impact a case by case
analysis of claims will have on SPFIC.  An estimate of possible
loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time as a result of
the Fifth Circuit or federal district court's rulings in the Road
Home Litigation.  SPFIC intends to vigorously defend any remaining
proceedings.


COMMERCIAL METALS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Metals Company continues to defend antitrust lawsuits
filed by purchasers of steel products, according to the Company's
January 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 30, 2012.

On September 18, 2008, the Company was served with a class action
antitrust lawsuit alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, brought by Standard Iron Works of Scranton, Pennsylvania,
against nine steel manufacturing companies, including Commercial
Metals (CMC).  The lawsuit, filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleges that the
defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
price at which steel products were sold in the United States by
artificially restricting the supply of such steel products.  The
lawsuit, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all purchasers of steel products directly from the
defendants between January 1, 2005, and September 2008, seeks
treble damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees and
pre- and post-judgment interest.  Document discovery has taken
place but motions for class certification are not yet pending nor
have any depositions been taken.  The Company believes the case is
without merit and intends to defend it vigorously.

Since the filing of the direct purchaser lawsuit, a case has been
filed in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of a class of indirect purchasers in approximately 28
states naming the same defendants and containing allegations
substantially identical to those of the Standard Iron Works
complaint.  That case has in effect been stayed.  Another indirect
purchaser action was filed in Tennessee state court, again naming
the same defendants but contending that the conspiracy continued
through 2010.  The case has been removed to federal court and
plaintiffs have moved to remand.  The motion to remand has not yet
been decided and no motion practice or discovery has taken place.

The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and plans
to defend them vigorously.  Due to the uncertainty and the
information available at this time, the Company cannot reasonably
estimate a range of loss relating to these cases.

Commercial Metals Company -- http://www.cmc.com/-- engages in
recycling, manufacturing, fabricating, and distributing steel and
metal products, and related materials and services in the United
States and internationally.  The company was founded in 1915 and
is headquartered in Irving, Texas.


CORNER STORE: Awaits OK of Valero's Fuel Temperature Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corner Store Holdings, Inc. is awaiting approval of Valero Energy
Corporation's settlement of a class action lawsuit over fuel
temperature, according to the Company's January 9, 2013, Form 10-
12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On December 13, 2006, a class action complaint was filed against
Valero Energy Corporation, Shell Oil Products Company LLC,
ConocoPhillips, Chevron USA, Inc., Tesoro Refining and Marketing
Company, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Costco Wholesale Corporation, The
Kroger Company and a few other retailers in San Francisco federal
court.  The Company was spun off from Valero.  The complaint
accused the defendants of violating state consumer protection laws
by failing to adjust the volume or price of fuel when the fuel
temperature exceeded 60 degrees Fahrenheit.  Following this
filing, numerous other federal complaints were filed and
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
(Multi-District Litigation Docket No. 1840, In re: Motor Fuel
Temperature Sales Practices Litigation).  In mid-April 2012,
Valero and certain of the other defendants reached a preliminary
class settlement with the plaintiffs.

On September 28, 2012, the court initially denied approval of this
settlement concluding that the settling parties had failed to show
how the settlement sufficiently benefited the class members.  The
settling parties, including Valero, agreed with the court and
supplemented the record to demonstrate how the settlement will
benefit the class, and the Company expects that the settlement
will ultimately be approved.

Because a portion of Valero's alleged liability in the class
action allegedly arises out of the Company's retail operations,
the Company has agreed to indemnify Valero for 50 percent of the
monetary portion of the settlement (or otherwise 50 percent of any
monetary payment that Valero ultimately may be obligated to pay in
final resolution of the class action).  The Company has also
agreed to certain actions required under the proposed settlement
agreement on a prospective basis, including the posting of fuel
temperatures at the Company's U.S. retail sites.  The proposed
settlement agreement includes a full release from liability for
Valero and its affiliates, including the Company.

The Company has recorded a loss contingency liability with respect
to this matter.  However, if the settlement is not approved, the
Company may suffer a loss with respect to one or more of the
lawsuits in excess of the amount accrued due to the inherent
uncertainty of litigation.  The Company believes that such an
outcome in any one of these lawsuits could have a material adverse
effect on its results of operations or financial position.  An
estimate of the possible loss or range of loss from an adverse
result in all or substantially all of these cases cannot
reasonably be made.


CORNER STORE: Ultramar Defends Price Fixing Suits in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corner Store Holdings, Inc.'s affiliate continues to defend class
action lawsuits in Canada alleging illegal price fixing, according
to the Company's January 9, 2013, Form 10-12B/A filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Ultramar Ltd., Valero Energy Corporation's principal Canadian
subsidiary ("Ultramar"), was named as a defendant in four class
actions alleging that Ultramar and other competitors engaged in
illegal price fixing in four distinct markets in the province of
Quebec.  The Company was spun off from Valero.  The cases were
filed in June 2008 following a guilty plea by Ultramar and an
employee and charges laid against several alleged co-conspirators.
As a result, four class actions were filed on the same day in the
matters of (i) Simon Jacques vs Ultramar et al in the Superior
Court of Quebec, District of Quebec City, (ii) Daniel Thouin/
Marcel Lafontaine vs Ultramar et al, Superior Court of Quebec,
District of Montreal, (iii) Michael Jeanson et al vs Ultramar et
al, Superior Court of Quebec, District of Hull and (iv) Thibeau vs
Ultramar et al, Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal.
As required pursuant to the civil procedure rules in effect, the
first filed claim is given priority, and the others are suspended
pending final judgment on the first filed claim.  The guilty plea
followed an extensive government investigation and was confined to
a limited time period and limited geographic area around Thetford
Mines and Victoriaville in Quebec.  The plaintiffs attempted to
widen the scope, alleging the existence of a conspiracy extending
between 2002 and 2008 throughout Quebec.  The court allowed a time
range of 2002 to 2006 but did not expand the geographic area
beyond the four limited markets identified by the investigation.
A hearing on class suitability took place in September 2009, and
in November 2009, the court authorized the action to proceed on a
class basis for the limited geographic area.  A statement of claim
was filed but the proceedings were suspended until May 5, 2011.
The suspension was a result, in part, of damage proof issues for
plaintiffs that developed pre-discovery.  The court required the
plaintiffs to file a report on damages on May 5, 2011.  Ultramar
intends to vigorously contest the scope of alleged liability and
damages.

On June 10, 2011, Ultramar was served with a "new" amended motion
to institute a class action in the matter of Daniel Thouin/Marcel
Lafontaine v. Ultramar Ltd., et al., Superior Court of Quebec,
District of Quebec.  This matter had previously been put in
abeyance to allow the first filed claim to proceed.  The plaintiff
changed the venue and the geographical scope of its recourse
alleging that defendants colluded in other regions of Quebec.  By
issuing this motion, the attorney for the plaintiff (the same as
for the other price fixing matter) is trying to extend its claim
outside the limited territory authorized by the court in the
Jacques matter.  On September 6, 2012, the Superior Court of
Quebec granted the plaintiff's motion to extend the scope of the
territory to be covered by the action.

Ultramar's alleged liability in these claims arises entirely out
of the Company's retail operations in Canada.  As a result, the
Company expects that it will agree to indemnify and hold harmless
Valero fully from any liability associated with these claims
pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement.  The
Company does not believe that this case has merit, and it intends
to vigorously contest the matter.

The Company has not recorded a loss contingency liability with
respect to this matter, but due to the inherent uncertainty of
litigation, the Company believes that it is reasonably possible
that the Company may suffer a loss with respect to one or more of
the lawsuits.  An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss
from an adverse result in all or substantially all of these cases
cannot be reasonably made due to a number of factors, the most
significant of which is that no amount of damages has been
specified by the plaintiffs.


ELOQUA: Being Sold to Oracle for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Eloqua is selling itself too
cheaply through an unfair process to Oracle Corp., for $23.50 a
share or $871 million, shareholders claim in Chancery Court.


ENIGMA SOFTWARE: Sued for Charges Despite Software Cancellation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Enigma Software Group keeps
charging customers for its purported virus protection software
even after they cancel, a class action claims in Federal Court.


FINISAR CORP: Calif. Court Tosses Securities Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila granted a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint captioned IN RE FINISAR
CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 5:11-cv-01252 EJD,
(N.D. Cal.)

Lead Plaintiff Martin Derchi-Russo filed the class action on
behalf of all persons who purchased Finisar Corporation stock
between December 1, 2010, and March 8, 2011, against Finisar and
corporate officers Eitan Gertel, Jerry S. Rawls and Kurt Adzema.
The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants made certain misleading
statements about the Company's performance during the second
quarter of fiscal year 2011.

Finisar, a technology company that develops and sells fiber optic
subsystems and components, experienced six consecutive fiscal
quarters of revenue growth prior to December 2010.  Mr. Derchi-
Russo alleged that the Defendants misled investors as to the
nature of that growth.  Through the course of annual negotiations
with customers, Finisar learned that it was experiencing a serious
slowdown in business, particular from customers in China, Mr.
Derchi-Russo disclosed.

Judge Davila ruled that the causes of action in the complaint are
dismissed with leave to amend, and that Mr. Derchi-Russo may file
an amended complaint on or before February 6, 2013.

The court further scheduled a Case Management Conference March 8,
2013 at 10:00 a.m., and directed the parties to file an updated
Joint Case Management Statement on or before March 1.

A copy of the District Court's January 16, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/co64njfrom Leagle.com.


KPMG: Two Auditors Face Class Suit Over TierOne Corp. Collapse
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that KPMG auditors Darren Bennett
and John Aesoph issued TierOne Corp. a clean audit just before the
bank collapsed, investors claim in a federal class action.


LIFE PARTNERS: Class Cert. Appeal in Suit vs. Unit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a class certification ruling in the lawsuit against
a subsidiary of Life Partners Holdings, Inc. remains pending,
according to the Company's January 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
November 30, 2012.

The Company is a party to a class action lawsuit filed in the
191st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, and styled
Helen Z. McDermott, Individually and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated v. Life Partners, Inc., Cause No. 11-02966.  On
November 20, 2012, the court certified this action as a class
action with a class consisting of 38 persons.  LPI has appealed
this ruling and intends to vigorously defend the allegations in
the lawsuit, including opposing certification of the purported
class.  Because of the appeal regarding the certification of the
class, the trial setting may be further postponed.


MATTEL AND FISHER: Infant Sleepers Prone to Molds, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Mattel and Fisher Fisher-
Price sell Rock 'n Play Infant Sleepers that are susceptible to
growth of unsafe mold, a class action claims in Federal Court.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Awaits Approval of Canadian Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of three class action lawsuits in Canada, according to
the Company's January 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
November 29, 2012.

Three putative class action lawsuits alleging price-fixing of
dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) products also have been filed
against the Company in Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia,
Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, asserting
violations of the Canadian Competition Act and other common law
claims (collectively the "Canadian Cases").  The claims were
initiated between December 2004 (British Columbia) and June 2006
(Quebec).  The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, restitution,
costs, and attorneys' fees.  The substantive allegations in these
cases are similar to those asserted in the DRAM antitrust cases
filed in the United States.  Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was denied in the British Columbia and Quebec cases
in May and June 2008, respectively.  Plaintiffs subsequently filed
an appeal of each of those decisions.  On November 12, 2009, the
British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed, and on November 16,
2011, the Quebec Court of Appeal also reversed the denial of class
certification and remanded the cases for further proceedings.  On
October 16, 2012, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
resolving these three putative class action cases subject to
certain conditions including final court approval of the
settlement.  The settlement amount did not have a material effect
on the Company's business, results of operations or financial
condition.

The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of pending
matters against it and, therefore, cannot estimate the range of
possible loss, except as noted in the U.S. indirect purchaser
cases and the Canadian Cases.  The final resolution of these
alleged violations of antitrust laws could result in significant
liability and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations or financial condition.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Has Paid Full Amount of DRAM Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. disclosed in its January 7, 2013, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended November 29, 2012, that as of November 29, 2012, it
had paid the full amount into an escrow account of its $67 million
settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit.

At least sixty-eight purported class action price-fixing lawsuits
have been filed against the Company and other dynamic random-
access memory (DRAM) suppliers in various federal and state courts
in the United States and in Puerto Rico on behalf of indirect
purchasers alleging a conspiracy to increase DRAM prices in
violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair
competition law, and/or unjust enrichment relating to the sale and
pricing of DRAM products during the period from April 1999 through
at least June 2002.  The complaints seek joint and several
damages, trebled, in addition to restitution, costs and attorneys'
fees.  A number of these cases have been removed to federal court
and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California for consolidated pre-trial proceedings.  In
July 2006, the Attorneys General for approximately forty U.S.
states and territories filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.  The complaints allege,
among other things, violations of the Sherman Act, Cartwright Act,
and certain other states' consumer protection and antitrust laws
and seek joint and several damages, trebled, as well as injunctive
and other relief.  On October 3, 2008, the California Attorney
General filed a similar lawsuit in California Superior Court,
purportedly on behalf of local California government entities,
alleging, among other things, violations of the Cartwright Act and
state unfair competition law.  On June 23, 2010, the Company
executed a settlement agreement resolving these purported class-
action indirect purchaser cases and the pending cases of the
Attorneys General relating to alleged DRAM price-fixing in the
United States. Subject to certain conditions, including final
court approval of the class settlements, the Company agreed to pay
approximately $67 million in aggregate in three equal installments
over a two-year period.

As of November 29, 2012, the Company had paid the full amount into
an escrow account in accordance with the settlement agreement.

The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of pending
matters against it and, therefore, cannot estimate the range of
possible loss, except as noted in the U.S. indirect purchaser
cases and the Canadian Cases.  The final resolution of these
alleged violations of antitrust laws could result in significant
liability and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations or financial condition.


NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Still Defending Suit Over Defective GamePads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joubin Rahimi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, vs. Nintendo Of America Inc. was filed with the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
December 13, 2012, and is related to Nintendo's newest video game
system, known as the Wii U.  The Wii U's main piece of hardware,
known as the GamePad controller, has a design and/or manufacturing
defect that causes the controller to rattle and emit noise,
thereby impeding the gaming experience -- the very purpose for
which the item is manufactured and purchased. The complaint
asserts Nintendo is and has been aware of the problem, but has
failed to disclose as much to unsuspecting consumers, and has
refused to rectify it.

Mr. Rahimi brought the action on behalf of himself and all other
California purchasers of Nintendo's Wii U video game systems,
alleging claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, violations of California's Civil Remedies Act,
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, as well as on
behalf of purchasers nationwide of the Wii U controller, alleging
a violation of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Mr. Rahimi is a resident of California.

Nintendo of America Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws
of the State of Washington, and having its principal place of
business at 4600 15th Avenue Northeast in Redmond, Washington
98052. Nintendo is the United States distributor for Nintendo Co.,
Ltd., a Japanese corporation headquartered in Kyoto, Japan.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. is a multinational electronics company and is
the largest video game manufacturer in the world by revenue.
Indeed, as of September 30, 2012, Nintendo Co., Ltd. was reported
to have sold approximately 637.7 million video game hardware
units, and some 4.01 billion video game software units. As the
United States distributor for Nintendo Co., Ltd., Defendant
Nintendo of America Inc. was the entity responsible for injecting
the Wii U video game console into the United States stream of
commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
          THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM
          12707 High Bluff Drive, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 350-4342
          Facsimile: (8581430-3719


OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Defends Genaera Liquidating Trust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc. is defending a class action lawsuit
initiated against Genaera Liquidating Trust, according to the
Company's January 9, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
September 30, 2012.

In July 2012, the Company received notice that it was being named,
along with twenty six other parties, as a defendant in a class
action lawsuit being brought against the Genaera Liquidating Trust
("Trust").  The Company purchased biotechnology assets from the
Trust in 2009.  The Company does not believe the allegations
against the Company in the complaint have merit and intends to
defend the case vigorously.  Recognizing that the outcome of
litigation is uncertain, management believes that the litigation
is unlikely to have a materially adverse impact to the Company's
financial statements.


ROBBINS & MYERS: Only One Merger-Related Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Only one of the three merger-related lawsuits filed against
Robbins & Myers, Inc. remains pending, according to the Company's
January 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 30, 2012.

On August 8, 2012, Robbins & Myers, Inc. ("Robbins & Myers"), and
National Oilwell Varco, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("NOV"),
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement").  The Merger Agreement provides that, upon the terms
and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement,
Robbins & Myers will merge with an affiliate of NOV, with Robbins
& Myers surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of NOV (the
"Merger").  The Merger Agreement has been unanimously approved by
the Boards of Directors of both Robbins & Myers and NOV.

In connection with the proposed merger with an affiliate of
National Oilwell Varco, Inc., on August 13, 2012, August 17, 2012,
and October 5, 2012, respectively, shareholder derivative and
class action complaints were filed in the District Court of
Montgomery County, Texas, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, and the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against the Company, its
directors, and National Oilwell Varco, Inc. and its affiliate.
The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its
shareholders and that National Oilwell Varco aided and abetted the
Company's directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.
The complaints seek, among other things, injunctive relief,
rescission of the merger agreement and the plaintiffs' costs and
disbursements in pursuing the actions, including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees.

On October 22, 2012, the plaintiff dismissed the action pending in
Texas State Court with prejudice and on January 4, 2013, the
plaintiff dismissed the action pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  The plaintiff
in the remaining lawsuit pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio agreed not to pursue
injunctive relief to enjoin the special meeting of shareholders
and in return, the Company withdrew its pending motion to dismiss
and agreed to allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint.

Robbins & Myers, its directors and each of the other named
defendants are defending and will continue to defend the remaining
lawsuit.  The Company does not expect that this lawsuit will have
a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of
operations or completion of the merger.

Robbins & Myers, Inc. and its subsidiaries is a supplier of
engineered equipment and systems for critical applications in
global energy, industrial, chemical and pharmaceutical market


SIOUX HONEY: Judge Rejects Sue Bee Clover Honey Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sioux Honey Association
Cooperative should not face a class action over the absence of
pollen in Sue Bee Clover Honey, a federal judge ruled.


SQUARE INC: Sent Text Messages Without Prior Consent, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Ball, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Square, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Does 1
through 10, Case No. 3:12-cv-06552 (N.D. Calif., December 28,
2012) is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons to
whom the Defendants caused text messages to be sent without prior
express consent utilizing an automatic dialing system.

The Defendants' conduct was the proximate and actual cause of
monetary loss and other damage incurred by him and the class
members, Mr. Ball asserts.  He argues that the Defendants
willfully and knowingly violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.  Therefore, he asks the Court award him and the class treble
damages.

Mr. Ball is a resident of Stanton, California.

Square Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San
Francisco, California.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal J. Fialkow, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NEAL J. FIALKOW INC.
          215 North Marengo Avenue, Third Floor
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 584-6060
          Facsimile: (626) 584-2950
          E-mail: nfialkow@pacbell.net

               - and -

          Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq.
          GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON & SELDEN, LLP
          801 South Figueroa Street, Ste. 2170
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 542-2100
          Facsimile: (213) 542-2101
          E-mail: agundzik@gghslaw.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SAHAG MAJARIAN, II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


STARLINE TOURS: Sued for Not Paying All Hours Worked by Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Harp, an individual; Class Representative, Individually, and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Current and Former
Employees of Defendants v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc., a
corporation; Starline Sightseeing Tours, Inc. a corporation,
Starline Tours USA, Inc. a corporation, Vahid Sapir, an
individual, Fred Sapir, an individual and Does 1 through 150,
inclusive, Case No. BC498279 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
December 28, 2012) accuses the Defendants of failing to compensate
the proposed class members for all hours worked, pay overtime
compensation, provide meal and rest periods, and reimburse
expenses.

The Defendants are engaged in a pervasive and unlawful scheme to
deprive their employees of the protections granted to them by
California wage and hour laws, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Los Angeles, California.  The
Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as driver/delivery
worker in California.

The Defendants are California corporations headquartered in Los
Angeles, California.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.  The Plaintiff is currently unaware of
the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis P. Wilson, Esq.
          WILSON TRIAL GROUP
          3322 W. Victory Boulevard
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (818) 843-1788
          E-mail: wilsontrialgroup@att.net

               - and -

          Tony Luti, Esq.
          THE LUTI LAW FIRM
          7095 Hollywood Boulevard, Number 351
          Hollywood, CA 90028
          Telephone: (323) 960-2600
          E-mail: tony@lutilaw.com


TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Chrome 6 Exposure Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Industries, Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits
arising from exposure to chrome 6, according to the Company's
January 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
November 30, 2012.

In late April 2008, a lawsuit was filed in Riverside County
Superior Court of the State of California styled Virginia
Shellman, et al. v. Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al.  The
lawsuit against three of the Company's subsidiaries purports to be
a class action complaint for medical monitoring for a putative
class defined as individuals who were allegedly exposed to chrome
6 emissions from the Company's Crestmore cement plant.  The
complaint alleges an increased risk of future illness due to the
exposure to chrome 6 and other toxic chemicals.  The lawsuit
requests, among other things, establishment and funding of a
medical testing and monitoring program for the class until their
exposure to chrome 6 is no longer a threat to their health, as
well as punitive and exemplary damages.

Since the Shellman lawsuit was filed, five additional putative
class action lawsuits have been filed in the same court.  The
putative class in each of these cases is the same as or a subset
of the putative class in the Shellman case, and the allegations
and requests for relief are similar to those in the Shellman case.
As a consequence, the court has stayed four of these lawsuits
until the Shellman lawsuit is finally determined.

Since August 2008, additional lawsuits have been filed in the same
court against Texas Industries, Inc. or one or more of the
Company's subsidiaries containing allegations of personal injury
and wrongful death by approximately 3,000 individual plaintiffs
who were allegedly exposed to chrome 6 and other toxic or harmful
substances in the air, water and soil caused by emissions from the
Crestmore plant.  The court has dismissed Texas Industries, Inc.
from the lawsuits, and the Company's subsidiaries operating in
Texas have been dismissed by agreement with the plaintiffs.  Most
of the Company's subsidiaries operating in California remain as
defendants.  The court has dismissed from these lawsuits
plaintiffs that failed to provide required information, leaving
approximately 2,000 plaintiffs.

Since January 2009, additional lawsuits have been filed against
Texas Industries, Inc. or one or more of its subsidiaries in the
same court involving similar allegations, causes of action and
requests for relief, but with respect to the Company's Oro Grande,
California cement plant instead of the Crestmore plant.  The
lawsuits involve approximately 300 individual plaintiffs.  Texas
Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries operating in Texas have been
similarly dismissed from these lawsuits.  The court has dismissed
from these lawsuits plaintiffs that failed to provide required
information, leaving approximately 250 plaintiffs.  Prior to the
filing of the lawsuits, the air quality management district in
whose jurisdiction the plant lies conducted air sampling from
locations around the plant.  None of the samples contained chrome
6 levels above 1.0 ng/m3.

The plaintiffs allege causes of action that are similar from
lawsuit to lawsuit.  Following dismissal of certain causes of
action by the court and amendments by the plaintiffs, the
remaining causes of action typically include, among other things,
negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional
distress, trespass, public and private nuisance, strict liability,
willful misconduct, fraudulent concealment, unfair business
practices, wrongful death and loss of consortium. The plaintiffs
generally request, among other things, general and punitive
damages, medical expenses, loss of earnings, property damages and
medical monitoring costs.  As of January 9, 2013, none of the
plaintiffs in these cases has alleged in their pleadings any
specific amount or range of damages.  Some of the lawsuits include
additional defendants, such as the owner of another cement plant
located approximately four miles from the Crestmore plant or
former owners of the Crestmore and Oro Grande plants.

The Company says it will vigorously defend all of these lawsuits
but it cannot predict what liability, if any, could arise from
them.  The Company also cannot predict whether any other lawsuits
may be filed against the Company alleging damages due to injuries
to persons or property caused by claimed exposure to chrome 6.

The Company is a defendant in other lawsuits that arose in the
ordinary course of business.  In the Company's judgment the
ultimate liability, if any, from such legal proceedings will not
have a material effect on its consolidated financial position or
results of operations.


ZEP INC: "Britto and Cowan" Class Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Zep Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit captioned
Britto and Cowan v. Zep Inc. and Acuity Specialty Products, Inc.
brought by its subsidiary's current and former sales
representatives, according to the Company's January 7, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended November 30, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in Britto and Cowan v. Zep Inc. and
Acuity Specialty Products, Inc., a lawsuit that was commenced in
December 2010, and a lawsuit known as Aguilar, et al v. Zep Inc.
and Acuity Specialty Products, Inc. that was commenced on December
24, 2012.  Both lawsuits are pending in the Superior Court in
Alameda County, California.  The plaintiffs, who are current and
former sales representatives employed by Acuity Specialty
Products, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company ("Acuity"), allege
that Acuity failed to reimburse them for work-related expenses and
failed to pay their wages by assessing unlawful deductions from
commissions.  Messrs.  Britto and Cowan are also seeking to
recover statutory and/or civil penalties pursuant to the
California Labor Private Attorney General Act.

The lawsuit filed by Britto and Cowan was brought on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of a putative class that includes all of
Acuity's current sales representatives based in California and all
former sales representatives based in California who were employed
by Acuity on December 30, 2006, or thereafter.  Approximately 171
persons were employed by Acuity in California as sales
representatives on December 30, 2006, and thereafter and, are
therefore, members of the putative class proposed by Britto and
Cowan.  The Company has reached settlements with approximately
one-half of the members of the putative class.  Britto and Cowan
have indicated that they intend to contest the validity of the
settlements.  The Company believes that the basis for their
challenge, as it has been explained to the Company, is without
merit.

On May 7, 2012, the Court issued a ruling with respect to Britto's
and Cowan's motion for class certification in which it denied the
motion with respect to all causes of action asserted.  At the same
time, the Court denied another motion filed by Britto and Cowan in
which they sought leave to amend their complaint to add a claim
based on the Company's alleged failure to comply with requirements
of the California Labor Code relating to the form of wage
statements.  On June 1, 2012, Britto and Cowan filed a motion for
leave to intervene in the lawsuit on behalf of 54 individual
plaintiffs and a motion for reconsideration of the Court's
decision denying class certification.

On July 30, 2012, the Court granted Britto's and Cowan's motion
for leave to permit individual plaintiffs to intervene in their
lawsuit.  The Court also denied a motion for reconsideration of
the Court's decision denying class certification.  After the
Court's action, 55 plaintiffs intervened in the lawsuit.  The
interveners asserted, in addition to the claims related to expense
reimbursement and commission deductions, a claim based on the
Company's alleged failure to comply with requirements of the
California Labor Code relating to the form of wage statements.

The Company appealed the Court's July 30, 2012 decision granting
the motion for leave to intervene.  On December 20, 2012, the
Court of Appeal upheld the Company's appeal of the trial court's
decision to permit individual plaintiffs to intervene in the
lawsuit filed by Messrs. Britto and Cowan.  The decision of the
Court of Appeal directs the trial court to deny the motion for
leave to intervene and directs the plaintiffs to reimburse the
Company for its costs of the appeal.  As a result of the Court of
Appeal's decision, the purported class-action lawsuit filed by
Messrs. Britto and Cowan now involves only Messrs. Britto and
Cowan.  However, on December 24, 2012, 54 of the current and
former sales representatives who sought to intervene in the
lawsuit filed by Messrs. Britto and Cowan filed a lawsuit against
the Company in which they asserted against the Company on behalf
of themselves individually the same claims that they sought to
assert by intervening in the lawsuit filed by Messrs. Britto and
Cowan.  This lawsuit seeks to put the named plaintiffs in the same
position they would have occupied if they had been allowed to
intervene in the lawsuit filed by Messrs. Britto and Cowan.

During the fiscal year ended August 31, 2011, the Company
established a $1.8 million accrual with respect to its potential
liability to the plaintiffs in the Britto and Cowan lawsuit.
During fiscal year 2012, this accrual was reduced by the
approximately $0.2 million in payments made to settle the claims
of certain current and former sales representatives.  Based on the
facts known as of January 7, 2013, the Company's current accrual
of $1.6 million continues to represent its best estimate of the
probable settlement cost related to this litigation.

The Company believes that it has substantial factual and legal
defenses to the claims made in the lawsuits, and it intends to
assert the defenses aggressively.  If the Company is not
successful in its defense against the claims asserted in the
lawsuits and if there is an adverse verdict on the merits from
which there is no successful appeal, or in the event of a
negotiated settlement of the litigation, the resulting liability
could be material to the Company's financial condition or results
of operations.  However, because of the uncertainty of the outcome
of the lawsuits, including the amount of damages, if any, any
plaintiff may be able to prove, and because the Company's
liability, if any, arising from the litigation, including the
amount of any damages awarded if plaintiffs are successful in the
litigation or any negotiated settlement, could vary widely, the
Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible losses or range of
loss that may arise from the litigation in excess of the estimated
amounts.


ZILLOW: Faces Securities Suit For Misleading Statements
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that officers and directors of
Zillow dumped $26 million of their shares at prices inflated by
false and misleading statements about the company, a class action
claims in Federal Court.


                           *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *