CAR_Public/130123.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, January 23, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 16

                             Headlines


20TH CENTURY FOX: Faces Class Action Over Home Video Royalties
AIS RECOVERY: Class Action Removed to Virginia Federal Court
ALAMEDA COUNTY: Faces Class Action Over False Arrests
AMERICAN SIGNATURE: Recalls 2,158 Hayward Push Back Chairs
BELMONT CONFECTIONS: Recalls Dymatize Nutrition Elite Gourmet Bars

BISHOP ROSEN: Stockbroker Loses Bid to Dodge Arbitration
BP: Deadline for Oyster Leaseholders to File Claim Approaching
CARGILL MEAT: Mo. Court Approves Settlement of Workers' Class Suit
COVIDIEN INC: Claims in "McKinney" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
DOLAN NORTHWEST: Recalls 1,100 Burien Floor Lamps Over Shock Risk

DUFF & PHELPS: Being Sold to Dakota for Too Little, Suit Claims
FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Signs MOU to Settle Class Suit for $5-Mil.
HONEST TEA: Sued Over Amount of Catechins in Green Tea Product
HUMPHREY'S MARKET: Recalls 2,764 Pounds of Poultry Products
HY CITE: Recalls 1.7-MM Units of Royal Prestige Thermal Cookware

HYUNDAI: Veloster Sunroof Explodes Without Warning, Suit Claims
JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Arbitration Waivers Unenforceable, Suit Says
KING'S DELIGHT: Recalls 1,572 Lbs. of Gluten-Free Chicken Nuggets
KINNIKINNICK FOODS: Recalls Frozen Pie Crusts Over Undeclared Egg
LJD HOLDINGS: Recalls 33,500 Lbs. of Cooked Meat/Poultry Products

MIRAMICHI REGIONAL: Class Action Appeal Adjourned Until June
MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Faces Suits Over Restatement Announcement
NEWS CORP: April 26 Hearing on "Forsta AP-Fonden" Suit Accord Set
PATRIOT COAL: Brower Piven Named Lead Counsel in Class Suit
POWERTEC INC: Recalls 565 Weight Workbenches Due to Injury Hazard

RED BULL: Faces Suit Over False Claims on Energy Drink
SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over C&S Transaction
SUPERVALU INC: Wisconsin Suit Remains Stayed Pending IOS Ruling
SYNGENTA CROP: Sends Checks Under $105-MM Atrazine Settlement
SYNGENTA CROP: Jasper City Gets Share in Atrazine Settlement

TARGET CORP: Recalls 168,000 Hand-Held Air Misters
UNITIL CORP: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Suit vs. Fitchburg
US CENTURY: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over TARP Funds
UTILIQUEST LLC: Failed to Pay Regular & Overtime Wages, Suit Says
WESTERN HEALTH: Feb. 8 Class Action Case Management Meeting Set

* Increase in Employment Class Actions to Continue This Year


                          *********



20TH CENTURY FOX: Faces Class Action Over Home Video Royalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Belloni, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that four
Hollywood studios have been hit with class-action lawsuits
alleging they systematically underpay profit participants on
movies distributed via home video.

20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures, Universal Pictures and Sony
Pictures were sued on Jan. 16 in Los Angeles Superior Court by
talent whose decades-old contracts allow them to share in the
revenue from hit films.  The suit against Fox was filed by
filmmaker Stanley Donen over his 1975 movie Lucky Lady; the suit
against Sony was filed by Larry Martindale, trustee of the estate
of late actor Charles Bronson, over the 1975 film Hard Times; the
suits against Paramount and Universal were filed by filmmaker
Colin Higgins over the films Foul Play and The Best Little
Whorehouse in Texas, respectively.

The suits seek to challenge a studio practice of accounting to
profit participants based on only 20 percent of home video
revenue.  During the rise of the VCR in the early 1980s, studios
began paying talent based on a 20 percent royalty.  That rate soon
became an industry standard (despite protests from talent unions
and lawyers) and has been written into many contracts for film and
television.

But the plaintiffs' contracts predate the 1980s, so they argue
that they should be entitled to share in 100 percent of home video
revenue.  The plaintiffs cite language in their contracts to
support the claim.

"Rather than include 100 percent of the money earned from home
video distribution when accounting to profit participants, [Sony]
only includes 20 percent of the earnings and, on information and
belief, wrongfully retains the balance," the Bronson lawsuit
alleges, mirroring language in the other suits.

Exact damages are not alleged, but the claims could total in the
millions of dollars.

For instance, the Bronson suit alleges that his Hard Times
contract contains a profit-participation definition that allows
the late actor to share in 10 percent of "all" gross receipts that
the studio collects.  But the studio has been paying him based
only on 20 percent of revenue.  "As a result, 80 percent of the
income derived from the home video distribution is not being
credited as income to Plaintiff and the Class when [Sony] accounts
to profit participants," the suit alleges.

The four lawsuits were filed on behalf of other potential class
members who might be added later, meaning the lawyers for the
plaintiffs likely are talking to other film stars and directors
who made movies before the 1980s who might be added to the suit.

The four lawsuits, filed by teams from L.A.'s Johnson & Johnson,
Kiesel & Larson, Pearson Simon Warshaw & Penny, allege causes of
action for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant, money
had and received, declaratory judgment, open book account,
conversion and a violation of California's business and
professionals code.


AIS RECOVERY: Class Action Removed to Virginia Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that a
lawsuit involving AIS Recovery Solutions has been removed from
Ohio County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia at Wheeling because the action
involves citizens of different states.

AIS Recovery Solutions is doing business as American Info Source.

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC; and Cavalry Investments, LLC were
also named as defendants in the suit.

Nicholas Stewart and Thomas Edward Jones filed the lawsuit after
AIS filed claims on behalf of Calvary against their deceased
family members' estates, according to a notice of removal filed
Jan. 11 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
West Virginia at Wheeling.

James Stewart Jr. died on Nov. 21, 2011, and on May 23, the
defendant filed a claim in the amount of $1,065.56, claiming the
debt arose prior to Jan. 10, 2000, according to the suit.

Annette Irene Jones died on Sept. 11, 2011, and on May 11, the
defendant filed a claim in the amount of $853.26, claiming the
debt arose out of an account opened on Dec. 7, 2000, and the
payment made was on Aug. 17, 2001, according to the suit.

Nicholas Stewart and Thomas Jones claim the alleged attempted
collection of a time-barred debt is in violation of the West
Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act.

The plaintiffs bring the action individually and as administrators
of the named estates and on behalf of all others similarly
situated under Rule 23 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil
Procedure, according to the suit.

The lawsuit was removed to federal court from Ohio Circuit Court
because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and because the
action is between citizens of different states, the removal notice
says.

Nicholas Stewart and Thomas Jones are seeking an order prohibiting
defendants and/or their agents from altering, deleting or
destroying any documents or records which could be used to
identify the members of the class; certification of the proposed
class; judgment on the legal claims asserted in the suit; and
compensatory and punitive damages with pre- and post-judgment
interest.  They are being represented by Jason E. Causey and
Christopher J. Regan of Bordas & Bordas, PLLC.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia at
Wheeling case number: 5:13-cv-2


ALAMEDA COUNTY: Faces Class Action Over False Arrests
-----------------------------------------------------
Angela Marie Watkins at Courthouse News Service reports that eight
Occupy Oakland protesters claim in a federal class action that
Oakland and Alameda County falsely arrested them and subjected
them to unconstitutional conditions in jail.

Lead plaintiff Steven Angell was one of about 409 people arrested
by the Oakland Police and Alameda County Sheriffs offices during a
march on Jan. 28, 2012.

Five hundred to 1,000 people gathered that day in Frank Ogawa
Plaza in downtown Oakland.  Soon after the march began, "officers
began to attack the crowd, pushing from behind, rushing in
swinging batons, discharging 'flash-bang' grenades and tear gas,"
the complaint states.

The class claims that police and sheriff's deputies surrounded 400
to 500 people, and arrested them for failure to disperse though
police never ordered them to disperse.

"Class members corralled at the detainment area, without probable
cause or lawful justification, were forced to stand or sit in the
street for hours.  Class members were not allowed to use toilet
facilities, so the only place to relieve themselves was on the
street or in their clothing.  Some class members were placed on
buses and held there for further long periods without access to
toilet facilities, and some had medical conditions that required
access to toilet facilities, and ended up soiling themselves and
urinating on the bus," the complaint states.

The class claims its members denied access to phones and toilet
facilities, and were held for 12 to 85 hours in various Alameda
County jails without being charged.

One class member claims he is HIV-positive and was denied his
medication for 2 days.

The class claims that Alameda County jailers and deputies
encouraged other prisoners threaten, intimidate, and attack the
Occupy Oakland people.

"When class members were transferred out of holding cells into the
main housing units, ACSO staff and deputies maliciously informed
other in-custody individuals that all deprivations and problems
they experienced were the fault of class members, in an attempt to
foment hostility and violence by regular incarcerated individuals
against class members ACSO staff and deputies engaged in threats,
taunts and other verbal abuse against class members," the
complaint states.

Most class members were not charged with a crime but some received
citations.  All members now have arrest records and some suffered
physical injuries, according to the complaint.

The class wants the defendants enjoined from violating the First
Amendment, destruction of any biological samples taken from class
members, sealing of their arrest records, and damages for
injuries.

Their lead counsel is Yolanda Huang, of Berkeley.


AMERICAN SIGNATURE: Recalls 2,158 Hayward Push Back Chairs
----------------------------------------------------------
About 2,158 Reclining Chairs were voluntarily recalled by American
Signature Inc., of Columbus, Ohio, in cooperation with the CPSC.
Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The chair can tip over backwards when used in its fully reclined
position, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled chairs are Hayward Push Back reclining arm chairs.
They are 38 inches high and covered in brown or black faux leather
fabric with double-needle baseball stitching.  The brown chair is
item number HGB-805-1.  The black chair is item number HGB-805-2.
The item number is on the upper right-hand side of the product tag
attached to the bottom side of the chair's footrest.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13719.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Value City Furniture stores and American Signature
Furniture stores from June 2012 to August 2012 for about $150.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chairs and
contact American Signature to receive free replacement legs.
Consumers may also return the chairs for a store credit equal to
the full price of the chair.  American Signature is contacting its
customers directly.  American Signature Inc. may be reached at
(800) 743-4577, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday or online at http://www.vcf.com/or
http://www.asfurniture.com/,then click on Safety Recalls.


BELMONT CONFECTIONS: Recalls Dymatize Nutrition Elite Gourmet Bars
------------------------------------------------------------------
Belmont Confections Inc. is recalling Dymatize Nutrition Elite
Gourmet Cookies & Cream bars and Dymatize Nutrition Elite Gourmet
Fudge Brownie bars in both the 1.5 oz and 3 oz packages because
they may contain undeclared peanuts.  Belmont became aware of the
problem via a complaint to the distributor Dymatize Inc.  People
who have allergies to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The recalled Dymatize Nutrition Elite Gourmet Bars were
distributed to U.S. and International retail stores and through
mail orders via e-commerce March 14, 2012, to December 18 2012.

The Dymatize Nutrition Elite Gourmet Cookies & Cream bars and
Dymatize Nutrition Elite Gourmet Fudge Brownie bars come in 12-
pack box for the 3 oz bar and 6-pack box for the 1.5 oz bars.  The
retail boxes are wrapped in clear plastic and the packages are
marked with the following Best By and Lot Codes # printed on the
top panel of the retail box:

                                        Lot Nos.
  Product Name            UPC Code      Affected   Best by Date
  ------------          ------------    --------   ------------
  Dymatize Nutrition    705016993147     12200A      SEP 2013
  Elite Gourmet
  Cookies & Cream
  1.5 oz (42.5 g)

  Dymatize Nutrition    705016993147     12249A      NOV 2013
  Elite Gourmet
  Cookies & Cream
  1.5 oz (42.5 g)

  Dymatize Nutrition    705016993147     12310A      JAN 2014
  Elite Gourmet
  Cookies & Cream
  1.5 oz (42.5 g)

  Dymatize Nutrition    705016993147     12353A      FEB 2014
  Elite Gourmet
  Cookies & Cream
  1.5 oz (42.5 g)

  Dymatize Nutrition    705016993000     12072A      MAY 2013
  Elite Gourmet
  Cookies & Cream
  3 oz (85 g)

  Dymatize Nutrition    705016993000     12200A      SEP 2013
  Elite Gourmet
  Cookies & Cream
  3 oz (85 g)

  Dymatize Nutrition    705016993000     12310A      JAN 2014
  Elite Gourmet
  Cookies & Cream
  3 oz (85 g)

  Dymatize Nutrition    705016993000     12353A      FEB 2014
  Elite Gourmet
  Cookies & Cream
  3 oz (85 g)

  Dymatize Nutrition    705016993130     12199A      SEP 2013
  Elite Gourmet
  Fudge Brownie
  1.5 oz (42.5 g)

  Dymatize Nutrition    705016993130     12244A      OCT 2013
  Elite Gourmet
  Fudge Brownie
  1.5 oz (42.5 g)

  Dymatize Nutrition    705016993130     12311B      JAN 2014
  Elite Gourmet
  Fudge Brownie
  1.5 oz (42.5 g)

  Dymatize Nutrition    705016993130     12352B      FEB 2014
  Elite Gourmet
  Fudge Brownie
  1.5 oz (42.5 g)

  Dymatize Nutrition    705016993079     12084A      MAY 2013
  Elite Gourmet
  Fudge Brownie
  3 oz (85 g)

  Dymatize Nutrition    705016993079     12199A      SEP 2013
  Elite Gourmet
  Fudge Brownie
  3 oz (85 g)

  Dymatize Nutrition    705016993079     12205A      SEP 2013
  Elite Gourmet
  Fudge Brownie
  3 oz (85 g)

  Dymatize Nutrition    705016993079     12311B      JAN 2014
  Elite Gourmet
  Fudge Brownie
  3 oz (85 g)

  Dymatize Nutrition    705016993079     12352B      FEB 2014
  Elite Gourmet
  Fudge Brownie
  3 oz (85 g)

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm335748.htm

Consumers who have purchased boxes of the 1.5 oz and 3.0 oz bars
of Dymatize Nutrition "Elite Gourmet" (Cookies & Cream bars and
Fudge Brownie bars), are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund.

This recall is only for the aforementioned bars and does not
impact any other products sold by Dymatize.

Consumers with questions may contact Alicia Graham at phone #
(330) 759-3100 ext. 203 Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time.


BISHOP ROSEN: Stockbroker Loses Bid to Dodge Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------
Eric Hornbeck, writing for Law360, reports that a stockbroker
can't use a class action to avoid arbitration of his overtime wage
claims against brokerage Bishop Rosen & Co. Inc., a New York state
judge ruled on Jan. 16 in a case over the hotly contested issue.

The former Bishop Rosen stockbroker, Roger Spann, can't use the
"magical words of 'similarly situated'" to skirt a Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority rule that prohibits the regulatory
body from hearing class actions.


BP: Deadline for Oyster Leaseholders to File Claim Approaching
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Thompson, writing for NOLA.com, reports that the federal
judge overseeing the massive litigation over the BP Deepwater
Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico ordered Jan. 16 those who
opted-out of BP's economic and property damage settlement be
offered a chance to get back in.  The judge also ordered the
court-appointed claims administrator to remind registered oyster
leaseholders who did not opt-out of the settlement that the
deadline to file a claim is approaching.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier, who gave preliminary approval to
the settlement in early 2012 as legal teams prepared for trial,
had previously extended the deadline to rejoin the settlement to
Dec. 15, 2012.  Judge Barbier approved the terms of the settlement
late last month.

The judge had reserved the ability to allow people to opt back in
after that deadline at the "sole and unilateral discretion" of the
court.

On Jan. 26, Judge Barbier directed Patrick Juneau, the Lafayette
lawyer who took over the spill claims process in March, to send a
letter to eligible claimants who asked to be excluded from the
deal to take their temperature on rejoining the settlement class.

The judge's order comes ahead of a Jan. 23 deadline for a $2.3
billion settlement to cover seafood-related claims by commercial
fishing vessel owners and others.

The entire settlement aims to resolve more than 100,000 claims,
which BP estimates could cost about $7.8 billion or more.
However, there's is no limit to payouts under the medical
settlement, which also includes provisions for individuals to file
for benefits in the future, if they are able to show their
illnesses were caused by the spill.

Judge Barbier issued a second order on Jan. 16 instructing
Mr. Juneau's office to send letters to registered oyster
leaseholders who did not opt-out of the settlement as a reminder
that the deadline to file a claim is approaching.

The proposed settlements deal with medical, economic and property
claims resulting from BP's Macondo well blowout, which killed 11
rig workers and caused one of the worst environmental disasters in
U.S. history.

The British oil giant is preparing for the Feb. 25 start of a
trial that will determine what fines the responsible parties
should pay for violating a variety of federal environmental laws.


CARGILL MEAT: Mo. Court Approves Settlement of Workers' Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri on January 17,
2013, approved a settlement of a workers' compensation lawsuit
captioned Shackleford vs. Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation.

Court-appointed class representatives Todd Shackleford and Martha
Woolery filed the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated individuals against Cargill.  Mr. Shackleford
and Ms. Woolery are hourly production workers at Cargill's turkey
processing facility in California, Missouri. They sought relief on
a collective and class wide basis relating to, among other things,
Cargill's alleged practice and policy of not fully compensating
its employees for time spent donning and doffing required
protective gear and equipment.  On June 27, 2012, the parties
participated in a settlement conference with Magistrate William
Knox and were able to reach an agreement in principle to resolve
the plaintiffs' claims.

The Court certifies the case as a collective action under Section
16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act and appoints Brady &
Associates as class counsel, and Dahl Administration LLC as the
Claims Administrator.

The Court also finds that the Agreement is fair, reasonable and
adequate, and is in the best interests of the FLSA Collective
Class members.

The Court directs the Claims Administrator to mail the Notice of
Settlement, Consent to Join, and "Computation of Your Settlement
Share," by First-Class mail to the last known address of each
settlement class member. The Administrator will also mail to the
Named Plaintiffs and those individuals who have already opted in,
the Notice of Settlement and "Computation of Your Settlement
Share."

FLSA Collective Class Members must exercise their right to opt-in
to the Settlement within 60 days of the mailing or other
distribution of the Notice.

A copy of the District Court's January 17, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/gY9rNLfrom Leagle.com.


COVIDIEN INC: Claims in "McKinney" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt granted a motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' claims in the class action complaint captioned
Amy McKinney, wife of and Harley Kyle McKinney, on behalf of
themselves and all those similarly situated v. Covidien, Inc.,
Civil Action No. 12-1242 (E.D. La.)

The Court held that the Plaintiffs' complaint does not provide the
Defendant with "fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and
the grounds upon which it rests."

Although a complaint does not need "detailed factual allegations,
. . . more than labels and conclusions are necessary, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do," Judge Engelhardt ruled.

The Plaintiffs' claims asserted under the Louisiana Products
Liability Act are dismissed without prejudice to their right to
amend those allegations, no later than 20 days from January 17,
2013.

A copy of the District Court's January 17, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/CY798wfrom Leagle.com.


DOLAN NORTHWEST: Recalls 1,100 Burien Floor Lamps Over Shock Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Dolan Northwest LLC, of Portland, Oregon, doing business as
Seattle Lighting, Globe Lighting, Builders Lighting and
Destination Lighting, announced a voluntary recall of about 1,100
Burien Floor Lamps.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The on/off foot switch on the lamps can fail and melt, resulting
in shock and fire hazards.

The firm has received three reports of melting switches, resulting
in one report of property damage to the surrounding floor.

This recall involves Burien model floor lamps with four individual
light sockets and white glass shades on top of four individual
tubes of varying lengths.  The lamps are approximately 72 inches
tall and were sold in stainless steel and bronze finishes.  Model
number 1117 and the date of manufacture in YYYY.MM format are
printed on a label affixed to the underside of the base.  Dates of
manufacture included in the recall are between 2010.11 (November
2011) and 2012.09 (September 2012).  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13099.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Seattle Lighting, Globe Lighting, Builders Lighting showrooms in
the Pacific Northwest and online at DestinationLighting.com from
November 2010 through September 2012 for about $190.

Consumers should immediately stop using and unplug the recalled
lamp and return it to the store for a repair.  The store will
replace the on/off foot switch with a new plug and dimmer.
Consumers who purchased the lamps online should contact Dolan NW
for a replacement lamp.  Dolan NW LLC may be reached toll-free at
(888) 213-5758, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday to
Friday, by e-mail at floorlamprecall@destinationlighting.com or
online at http://seattlelighting.com/,http://globelighting.com/,
http://builderslighting.com/or http://destinationlighting.com/
for more information.


DUFF & PHELPS: Being Sold to Dakota for Too Little, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Duff & Phelps Corp. is
selling itself too cheaply to Dakota Acquisition, for $15.55 a
share or $666 million, shareholders claim in New York County
Supreme Court.


FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Signs MOU to Settle Class Suit for $5-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
FalconStor Software, Inc. entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle a class action lawsuit for $5 million,
according to the Company's January 10, 2013, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

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

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

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

                    About FalconStor Software

FalconStor Software, Inc. delivers disk-based backup, continuous
data protection, WAN-optimized replication and disaster recovery
automation.  FalconStor solutions are available through a
worldwide network of partners, including solution providers, top-
tier strategic partners and major OEMs.  FalconStor maintains
headquarters in Melville, N.Y., and offices throughout Europe and
the Asia Pacific region.  For more information, visit
http://www.falconstor.com/or call 1-866-NOW-FALC (866-669-3252).


HONEST TEA: Sued Over Amount of Catechins in Green Tea Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harold M. Hoffman, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Honest Tea, Inc., Case No. L-009636-12 (N.J. Super.
Ct., Bergen Cty., December 27, 2012) seeks redress for an alleged
marketing fraud perpetrated on the public related to the Company's
Honey Green Tea product.

The Defendant's promises, claims, representations and product
labeling concerning the concentration of catechins in its product
were false, Mr. Hoffman alleges.  In truth and in fact, he
contends, based upon sophisticated, independent laboratory
analysis, the Defendant's product contained only 62.7% of claimed
catechins.  Catechins are compounds found in green tea that in
test tube studies show antioxidant, anticarcinogenic,
antitumorigenic, anti-microbial and weight-loss properties.

Mr. Hoffman is a resident of the County of Bergen, New Jersey.  He
purchased Honey Green Tea in October of 2012.

Honest Tea is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Bethesda,
Maryland.  Honest Tea advertised, marketed, distributed and sold
Honey Green Tea in commerce throughout the United States,
including multiple retail locations throughout the state of New
Jersey.

The Plaintiff represented himself in the lawsuit:

          Harold H. Hoffman, Esq.
          240 Grand Avenue
          Englewood, NJ 07631
          Telephone: (201) 569-0086
          E-mail: hoffman.esq@verizon.net


HUMPHREY'S MARKET: Recalls 2,764 Pounds of Poultry Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Humphrey's Market, Inc., a Springfield, Illinois establishment, is
recalling approximately 2,764 pounds of frozen, ready-to-eat (RTE)
and raw poultry products because they were produced without the
benefit of inspection.  The products were also misbranded after
being repackaged and may contain soy, wheat and milk, known
allergens not declared on the label.

The following RTE products are subject to recall:

   * Cryovac packages of "Mesquite Chicken Breast" containing
     4-oz. portions

   * Cryovac packages of "Italian Chicken Breast" containing
     3.5-oz. portions

   * Cryovac packages of "Grilled Chicken Breast" containing
     4-oz. portions

   * Cryovac packages of "Italian Tomato Basil Chicken Breast"
     containing 4-oz. portions

   * Cryovac packages of "BBQ Glazed Chicken Breast" containing
     3.1-oz. portions

The following raw products are subject to recall:

   * Cryovac packages of "Lemon Pepper Chicken Breast" containing
     5-oz. portions

   * Cryovac packages of "Bacon-wrapped Turkey Breast Filet"
     containing 5-oz. portions

The products subject to recall were repackaged on various dates
through January 7, 2013, then shipped into commerce, without the
required ingredient statement and other labeling features on the
immediate product container.  The repackaged products were sent to
a distributor for direct home delivery in Kansas, Missouri and
Nebraska.

The problem was discovered during a routine food safety assessment
(FSA) at the plant by FSIS.  Agency enforcement personnel
determined that the products were produced without the benefit of
inspection, proper record-keeping, and adherence to food safety
and sanitation plans approved by FSIS and without correct
labeling.

FSIS has received no reports of illness due to consumption of
these products.  Anyone concerned about an illness should contact
a health care provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that recalled product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and members of the media who have questions regarding
the recall can contact the Company's office administrator, Grant
Bradley, at (217) 544-7445.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at
http://www.AskKaren.gov/. "Ask Karen" live chat services are
available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-
MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and
can be reached from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day.


HY CITE: Recalls 1.7-MM Units of Royal Prestige Thermal Cookware
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Hy Cite Enterprises LLC, of Madison, Wisconsin, and
manufacturer, Meyer Europe, SRL, of Verdellino, Italy, announced a
voluntary recall of about 1.7 million units of Royal Prestige 9-
Ply Thermal Wall Cookware.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The cookware can collapse, crimp or severely deform when exposed
to heat, posing a burn and fire hazard to the consumer and nearby
property.

The Company is aware of 1,136 reports of cookware collapsing,
crimping or deforming, including one report of consumers getting
spattered with hot oil when the pan collapsed inward while
cooking.

This recall involves stainless steel 9-ply "Thermal Wall" pans
sold under the "Royal Prestige" brand name.  The products were
sold individually and in sets.  The following cookware is included
in this recall:

   * 1.5 qt. saucepan
   * 2 qt. saucepan
   * 3 qt. Dutch oven
   * 4 qt. Dutch oven
   * 6 qt. Dutch oven
   * 8 qt. Dutch oven
   * 8" skillet
   * 10.5" skillet
   * 10" paella pan
   * 14" paella pan

Recalled pots and pans have a seal including "Thermal Wall" and
"9-Ply" imprinted on the bottom of the pot or pan.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13098.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Italy and sold at
independent distributors of Hy Cite Enterprises sold this product
through door-to-door sales for between $250 to $800 for individual
products and from $800 and $3,500 for sets.

Consumers should stop using the cookware immediately and contact
Hy Cite for instructions for sending the cookware to the firm for
repair.  Damaged pots and pans will be replaced.  Hy Cite
Enterprises may be reached at (800) 609-9577 from 8:00 a.m. to
9:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Central Time on Fridays, and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Central
Time on Saturdays or at http://www.royalprestige.com/or
http://www.hycite.com/and go to the Recall Information link.


HYUNDAI: Veloster Sunroof Explodes Without Warning, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that the sunroof
on the 2012-2013 Hyundai Veloster "explodes without warning,"
turning the car into a potential death trap, a family claims in a
federal class action.

Linda, Sonia and Fernando Palacios sued Hyundai Motor America,
claiming sunroofs explode in the Veloster 2012 and 2013 models.

Hyundai claimed at first that there was no problem with the
$17,600 car but now offers to replace damaged vehicles with an
identical part, and "act as if the problem had been solved,"
according to the complaint.

"Hyundai's only purported 'solution' to the problem is to replace
the exploded sunroof with an identical one.  Hyundai offers
customers no assurance that the sunroof will not explode again,
leaving customers and their passengers potentially in danger every
time they drive," the complaint states.

"Hyundai knows of the exploding sunroof defect and knows that
consumers are not aware of the risk that their sunroofs could
explode without warning," it states.  "Nevertheless, Hyundai
refused to acknowledge that there was any problem for over a year
and has recently issued only a partial recall limited to 2012
Veloster vehicles manufactured from November 1, 2011 through
April 17, 2012.  Hyundai has still not informed current owners and
lessees of other class vehicles about the exploding sunroof
defect, has not disclosed the exploding sunroof defect to
purchasers and lessors of 2013 model class vehicles, and continues
to market and promote the 2013 model class vehicles as safe."

The Palacios, of McAllen, Texas, say Hyundai has sold thousands of
the vehicles, whose sunroofs come as a $2,000 "premium option."

They dispute the boast that Hyundai makes on its website:  "'We
loaded Veloster with safety inside and out."

In fact, "The class vehicles present a safety hazard and are
unreasonably dangerous to consumers," the complaint states.  "The
exploding sunroof defect can cause glass to fly throughout the car
at high speed and without warning, putting passengers at risk of
physical injury.  The explosion and flying glass can also injure
or startle the driver, thereby contributing to car accidents,
which can cause personal injury or death."

The family claims that the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration has received "numerous" complaints about the car.
"One woman explained: 'All of the sudden there was a loud bang
like a gunshot, and I heard something raining down on my car.  I
looked in the mirror and saw glass flying everywhere.  The glass
was in my hair, down the back of my shirt and my pants,'" the
complaint states, apparently quoting a complaint to the NHTSA.
(Ellipses in complaint.)

Plaintiffs Sonia and Fernando Palacios say they bought a 2013
Veloster for their mom, Linda Palacios, last year.  They say
Hyundai never warned them about the defect.

"On or about December 4, 2012, the sunroof exploded while Linda
Palacios was parked," the complaint states.  "The explosion sent
shattered glass all over the car, damaging the seats.  The force
of the explosion was so great that it bent the metal frame
surrounding the sunroof assembly.  By fortunate chance,
Mrs. Palacios was not in the car when the sunroof exploded."

The family says a Hyundai dealership denied there was a problem
with the sunroof, and said that parts might not be covered by the
warranty.

"Later, the dealership offered to replace the sunroof but only
with an identical part, presumably containing the identical
dangerous defect.  The dealership could give Mrs. Palacios no
assurance that the sunroof would not explode again.  The
dealership did not offer to repair the seats damaged by the
exploding glass," the complaint states.

The Palacios seek class damages for consumer law violations,
unfair business practices, breach of implied warranty, breach of
warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and breach of
express warranty.

They are represented by Michael Caddell with Caddell and Chapman,
of Houston.

Hyundai did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Arbitration Waivers Unenforceable, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Lipman, writing for Law360, reports that a Second Circuit
ruling that class arbitration waivers are unenforceable if they
make it too expensive for individuals to enjoy their statutory
rights bars JPMorgan Chase Bank NA from enforcing a similar
clause, an Ohio man accusing the bank of antitrust violations told
the Sixth Circuit on Jan. 15.

Christopher Lowry sued JPMorgan in early 2012, accusing the bank
of violating the Clayton Act by charging improper fees on his auto
loan, assessing inflated interest rates and paying illegal
kickbacks connected to the loan.


KING'S DELIGHT: Recalls 1,572 Lbs. of Gluten-Free Chicken Nuggets
-----------------------------------------------------------------
King's Delight, a Gainesville, Georgia establishment, is recalling
approximately 1,572 pounds of frozen chicken nuggets labeled as
gluten-free because they contain wheat, a known allergen that is
not declared on the label, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The product subject to recall include:

   * 8-oz. cartons of "APPLEGATE(R) Naturals Gluten-Free Chicken
     Nuggets."

The establishment number "P-2617" can be found printed on the side
of each carton.  The products were packaged on September 19, 2012.
The lot number "210864" and the best before date "08/28/13" are
printed on each carton's side panel.  The UPC code "25317-00556"
is printed on the back of each carton.  The products were
distributed to retail stores in Indiana, Maryland, Oregon and
Washington.  Consumers who purchased these products should return
them to the store for a full refund.

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/Recall_003_2013_Release/index.asp

The firm notified FSIS of the problem after a consumer familiar
with the product noted a color difference.  Upon investigation, it
was determined that chicken nuggets containing wheat were
mislabeled on September 19, 2012.  FSIS and the company have
received no reports of illness or adverse reactions due to
consumption of this product.  Anyone concerned about an illness or
adverse reaction should contact a physician.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS Web site at

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Open_Federal_Cases/index.asp

Consumers with questions regarding the recall should contact Gerry
Clarkson, Applegate Consumer Affairs Specialist, at (800) 587-
5858.  Media with questions regarding the recall should contact
Joe Forsthoffer at (410) 251-0363.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at
http://www.AskKaren.gov/or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.
"Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday
from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA
Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is
available in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday.  Recorded
food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.  For
information on how to report a problem with a meat, poultry or
processed egg product to FSIS at any time, visit

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Problems_With_Food_Products


KINNIKINNICK FOODS: Recalls Frozen Pie Crusts Over Undeclared Egg
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kinnikinnick Foods of 10940 120 street, Edmonton, AB is warning
consumers with Egg Allergies not to consume Kinnikinnick Frozen
Pie Crust because it contains EGG products which may not be
indicated on an applied ingredient label.  Products without an
ingredient label applied to the box are not subject to this recall
as they correctly list the product as containing eggs.

The product being recalled is:

   Kinnikinnick Pie Crust (frozen)
   Weight: 290 g/10 oz Qty/Pkg: 2
   UPC: 62013300600 9

Distributed in the United States:

   BB2013NO30    BB2013NO19    BB2013DE04
   BB2013DE12    BB2013NO23    BB2013DE05
   BB2013DE13    BB2013NO27    BB2013DE06
   BB2013DE14    BB2013NO28    BB2013DE11
   BB2013DE17    BB2013NO29

The product is distributed across United States.

This incorrectly labeled Kinnikinnick Frozen Pie Crust may cause a
serious or life-threatening reaction in persons with allergies to
EGGS.

Consumers who are allergic to EGGS should return the product to
point of sale for a refund.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with this recall.

Consumers can contact Kinnikinnick Foods by calling 780-424-2900
or by e-mailing info@kinnikinnick.com.

For more information, media please contact:

          Jerry Bigam
          Kinnikinnick Foods Inc.
          Edmonton, AB
          Canada 802212900


LJD HOLDINGS: Recalls 33,500 Lbs. of Cooked Meat/Poultry Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LJD Holdings, Inc., doing business as B and D Foods, a Boise,
Idaho establishment, is recalling approximately 33,500 pounds of
fully cooked meat and poultry products due to possible
contamination with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The following product is subject to recall:

   * 10-lb. boxes, containing 2, 5-lb bags of "ROYAL "THE TEMPURA
     KING" ROYAL TEMPURA CHICKEN, Fully Cooked Tempura Chicken
     Breast," bearing an identifying code of "A-4615."  This
     product was distributed to foodservice and/or institutional
     customers in California, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Utah and
     Washington.

   * 10-lb. boxes, containing 2, 5-lb bags of "BLINGS! CHICKEN
     BREAST WITH PARMESAN FLAVORING," bearing an identifying code
     of "A-4844."  This product was distributed to foodservice
     and/or institutional customers in Idaho and Montana.

   * 10-lb. boxes, containing 2, 5-lb bags of "STEAKHOUSE TEMPURA
     SEASONED BEEF & BINDER STRIPS," bearing an identifying code
     of "A-1070-10."  This product was distributed to foodservice
     and/or institutional customers in Idaho and Montana.

   * 30-lb. boxes of "KETTLE COOKED CHICKEN BREAST PIECES,"
     bearing an identifying code of "A-3900."  This product was
     distributed to an industrial customer in Ohio.

   * 30-lb. boxes of "FULLY COOKED PORK STRIPS," bearing an
     identifying code of "A-3025-30."  This product was
     distributed to an industrial customer in Arizona and
     California.

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.
6266" or "Est. P-6266" inside the USDA mark of inspection, as well
as an identifying case code of "110622."  The products were
produced on December 6, 2012, and distributed to foodservice and
institutional customers, as well as an industrial customer in the
distribution areas noted.

The problem was discovered by the company through microbiological
testing and the products are being recalled due to concerns of
cross-contamination.  FSIS and the company have not received
reports of illnesses due to consumption of these products.  Anyone
concerned about an illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers with questions regarding the recall should contact the
Company's Chief Administrative Office, Gary Shaw at (208) 344-1183
ext. 106.  Media with questions about the recall should contact
the Company's President, Tim Andersen at (208) 344-1183 ext. 101.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-
MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and
can be reached from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday
through Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day.  The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring
System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://is.gd/vlfH9I


MIRAMICHI REGIONAL: Class Action Appeal Adjourned Until June
------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that an appeal of a decision to dismiss
a class-action lawsuit against a former pathologist and a New
Brunswick hospital corporation has been adjourned until June.

The case was to be heard on Jan. 16, but three judges of the New
Brunswick Court of Appeal said lawyers didn't provide all of the
documents necessary to proceed.

"This case needs to be presented to this court properly and in a
thorough fashion," said Chief Justice J. Ernest Drapeau.

Last March, Judge Jean-Paul Ouellette of the Court of Queen's
Bench dismissed the class-action suit sought by three patients of
Dr. Rajgopal Menon, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to
establish an identifiable class.

Dr. Menon worked as a pathologist at the Miramichi Regional
Hospital between 1995 and 2007 until an audit of his work found 18
per cent of 227 breast and prostate cancer reports were
incomplete.  The review also concluded that three per cent of
those tests were incorrect.

A later review of 23,000 tests done by Dr. Menon found a complete
or partial change in the results in about a quarter of the cases.

Judge Ouellette suggested that each claimant could file separate
lawsuits, but Albert John Gay, Kimberley Ann Doyle and James Bliss
Wilson appealed, arguing they should have the ability to present
the case as a group.

One of their lawyers, Raymond Wagner, said the Court of Appeal is
being thorough because it is the first time they'll deliver a
decision on a class-action in the province.

"It is the first time they are going to give their stamp of what
the Class Proceeding Act should look like in this province, so
that's extremely important," he said outside the court.

The appeal of Judge Ouellette's ruling is now set to be heard for
three days beginning June 11.


MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Faces Suits Over Restatement Announcement
-----------------------------------------------------------
ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. is facing class action and
derivative lawsuits arising from its June 11, 2012 announcement of
the restatement of its financial results, according to the
Company's January 11, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October
31, 2012.

On February 15, 2012, the staff of the Division of Enforcement of
the SEC initiated with the Company an informal inquiry, and later
a formal action, regarding the Company's treatment of rebates
associated with volume discounts provided by vendors.  To date,
the SEC has not asserted any formal claims.

Following the June 11, 2012 announcement of the pending
restatement (the "June 11, 2012 Announcement"), shareholders of
the Company commenced three purported class actions in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts arising
from the circumstances described in the June 11, 2012 Announcement
(the "Securities Actions"), entitled, respectively:

   * Irene Collier, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others
     Similarly Situated, vs. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc.,
     Joseph C. Lawler and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11044-
     DJC, filed June 12, 2012 (the "Collier Action");

   * Alexander Shnerer Individually And On Behalf Of All Others
     Similarly Situated, vs. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc.,
     Joseph C. Lawler and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11078-
     DJC, filed June 18, 2012 (the "Shnerer Action"); and

   * Harold Heszkel, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
     Similarly Situated v. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc.,
     Joseph C. Lawler, and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11279-
     DJC, filed July 11, 2012 (the "Heszkel Action").

Each of the Securities Actions purports to be brought on behalf of
those persons who purchased shares of the Company between
September 26, 2007 through and including June 8, 2012 (the "Class
Period") and alleges that failure to timely disclose the issues
raised in the June 11, 2012 Announcement during the Class Period
rendered defendants' public statements concerning the Company's
financial condition materially false and misleading in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On July 13, 2012, a fourth shareholder commenced a purported
derivative action in United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts against the Company (as nominal defendants), and
certain of its current and former directors and officers,
entitled, Samuel Montini, Derivatively On Behalf Of ModusLink
Global Solutions, Inc. v. Joseph C. Lawler, Steven G. Crane,
Francis J. Jules, Virginia G. Breen, Michael J. Mardy, Edward E.
Lucente, Jeffrey J. Fenton, Joseph M. O'Donnell, William R.
McLennan, Thomas H. Johnson, And Anthony J. Bay, Defendants, And
ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., A Delaware Corporation, Nominal
Defendant, Case 1:12-CV-11296-DJC and on July 31, 2012, a fifth
shareholder commenced a purported derivative action in United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against
the Company (as nominal defendants), and certain of its current
and former directors and officers, entitled, Edward Tansey,
Derivatively On Behalf Of ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. v.
Joseph C. Lawler, Steven G. Crane, Francis J. Jules, Virginia G.
Breen, Michael J. Mardy, Edward E. Lucente, Jeffrey J. Fenton,
Joseph M. O'Donnell, William R. McLennan, Thomas H. Johnson, And
Anthony J. Bay, Defendants, And ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc.,
A Delaware Corporation, Nominal Defendant, Civil Action No. 12-CV-
11399 (DJC) (collectively, the "Derivative Actions").  The
Derivative Actions further assert that as a result of the
individual defendants' alleged actions and course of conduct, the
Company is now the subject of the Securities Actions and will
incur related expenses and a possible judgment against it.  These
litigation matters also arise from the issues raised in the June
11, 2012 Announcement and allege that the individual defendants
breached their duty of loyalty to the Company by allowing
defendants to cause, or by themselves causing, the Company to make
improper statements regarding its business prospects and/or by
failing to prevent the other Individual Defendants from taking
such purportedly illegal actions.

Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome, the
Company believes it has meritorious defenses, will deny liability,
and intends to defend this litigation vigorously.

On October 10, 2012, a sixth shareholder, Donald Reith, served
upon the Company's Board of Directors a demand to institute
litigation and take other purportedly necessary, but unidentified,
remedial measures to redress and prevent a recurrence of purported
breaches of fiduciary duties on the part of the Board and
unspecified corporate officers allegedly arising from the same
facts and circumstances asserted in the Derivative Actions.


NEWS CORP: April 26 Hearing on "Forsta AP-Fonden" Suit Accord Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In connection with the lawsuit captioned Forsta AP-Fonden v. News
Corporation, et al., on January 11, 2013, News Corporation
commenced mailing of the Notice of Pendency of Class Action,
Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Settlement Hearing, and Right
to Appear to holders of the Company's Class B common stock, par
value $0.01 per share, in accordance with the Scheduling Order
dated December 10, 2012, according to the Company's
January 11, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

                        Purpose of Notice

Pursuant to an Order of the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the "Court") dated December 10, 2012, and further
pursuant to Chancery Court Rule 23, the Notice is sent to all non-
U.S. persons or entities, who held shares of Class B common stock
of News Corporation, to inform them of (i) the Court's
determination to provisionally certify, for purposes of the
settlement only, the action as a non-opt-out class action pursuant
to Chancery Court Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) on behalf of
the Class, (ii) the proposed settlement of the Action (the
"Settlement") as provided for in a Stipulation of Settlement (the
"Stipulation") dated November 30, 2012, and (iii) their right to
participate in a hearing to be held on April 26, 2013, at 10:00
a.m., before the Court of Chancery in the New Castle County
Courthouse, at 500 North King Street, in Wilmington, Delaware
19801 (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court
should (a) finally certify the Action as a non-opt-out class
action pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Court
of Chancery Rules; (b) certify named plaintiff Forsta AP-fonden
("Plaintiff") in the Action as representative of the Class, and
Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A. and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP as co-lead counsel; (c) approve the Settlement as fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class; and
(d) consider a request for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses to counsel for Plaintiff.

If the Court approves the Settlement, the parties will ask the
Court at the Settlement Hearing to enter an Order and Final
Judgment dismissing the Action with prejudice in accordance with
the terms of the Stipulation.  The Court has the right to adjourn
the Settlement Hearing without further notice.  The Court also has
the right to approve the Settlement with or without modifications,
and to enter its final judgment dismissing the Action on the
merits and with prejudice and to order the payment of attorneys'
fees and expenses without further notice.

                   Background of the Action

On April 18, 2012, News Corp. announced that based on information
then available to the Company, the Board determined that
approximately 36% of the Company's Class B common stock was owned
by Non-U.S. stockholders; and the combined ownership of Class A
common stock and Class B common stock by Non-U.S. stockholders was
approximately 22% of the combined outstanding shares of Class A
common stock and Class B common stock.  The Company advised that,
under applicable U.S. federal law, no broadcast station licensee
may be owned by a corporation if more than 25% of that
corporation's stock is owned or voted by Non-U.S. Stockholders
(the "Foreign Ownership Threshold").  The Company is the parent of
broadcast station licensees in connection with its ownership and
operation of 27 U.S. television stations.  Based on its
determination, the Company announced its decision to suspend 50
percent of the voting rights of News Corp. Class B common stock
held by non-U.S. shareholders in order to remain in compliance
with U.S. law governing the dissemination of broadcast licenses
(the "Suspension").  The Board effected the Suspension in reliance
upon authority granted pursuant to Article IV, Section 5 of the
Company's certificate of incorporation.

On April 18, 2012, the Murdoch Family Trust, the K.R. Murdoch 2004
Revocable Trust, K. Rupert Murdoch and his minor children (the
"Murdoch Family Interests"), which owned approximately 39.7% of
the Class B common stock, entered into an agreement with the
Company, whereby the Murdoch Family Interests agreed to limit
their voting rights during the Suspension period (the "Murdoch
Letter Agreement").

On May 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a verified class action complaint
(the "Original Complaint") in the Court captioned Forsta AP-Fonden
v. News Corporation et al., C.A. No. 7580-CS, against defendants
News Corp., Jose Maria Aznar, Natalie Bancroft, Peter L. Barnes,
James W. Breyer, Chase Carey, David F. DeVoe, Viet Dinh, Roderick
I. Eddington, Joel I. Klein, Andrew S.B. Knight, K. Rupert
Murdoch, James R. Murdoch, Lachlan K. Murdoch, Arthur M. Siskind,
and John L. Thornton (the "Individual Defendants," and together
with News Corp., the "Defendants"), alleging, among other things,
that by enacting the Suspension the Individual Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties and the Defendants violated the Company's
Certificate of Incorporation and Delaware statutory law.

On May 30, 2012, Plaintiff also filed a motion to expedite
proceedings and a motion for a preliminary injunction against the
application and enforcement of the Suspension at any stockholder
meeting where a stockholder vote is to take place, including the
Company's 2012 annual meeting of the stockholders (the "Annual
Meeting").

On June 11, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Original Complaint and a brief in support of the motion.

On June 28, 2012, News Corp. announced that the board of directors
had authorized management to explore the separation, into two
separate public companies, of the Company's publishing business
and its media and entertainment business (the "Separation"), and
in connection therewith, it was anticipated that a special
shareholder meeting will be convened during the first half of
calendar 2013 to vote on the Separation.

On July 24, 2012, Plaintiff's counsel provided to Defendants'
counsel a final draft copy of Plaintiff's amended complaint.

On August 1, 2012, Plaintiff served its first request for
production of documents directed to Defendants.

On August 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed a verified amended and
supplemented class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint")
that, in addition to the claims and allegations in the Original
Complaint, sought a declaratory judgment of the right to vote on
the Separation, among other things.

On August 2, 2012, Plaintiff also filed an amended motion to
expedite proceedings and an amended motion for a preliminary
injunction against the application and enforcement of the
Suspension at the Annual Meeting.

On August 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed an opening brief in support of
expedition.

On August 9, 2012, News Corp. filed a Request for Declaratory
Ruling with the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC"),
seeking permission from the FCC to allow all shares owned by the
suspended non-U.S. stockholders to be voted in connection with the
Separation.

On August 9, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint and a brief in support of the motion and in
opposition to Plaintiff's amended motion for expedited
proceedings.

On August 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed a reply brief in support of
expedition.

Counsel for the parties to the Action engaged in arm's-length
negotiations and, on August 28, 2012, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle the Action and, through their
respective counsel, executed a Memorandum of Understanding (the
"MOU") memorializing the material terms of an agreement in
principle to settle the Action.

On September 6, 2012, Plaintiff's counsel submitted the MOU to the
Court with a letter informing the Court that the parties had
reached an agreement in principle to settle the Action.

The Defendants provided to Plaintiff additional discovery as
agreed by the parties ("Confirmatory Discovery") to further
confirm the fairness and reasonableness of the Settlement.
Specifically, Defendants provided Plaintiff with documents in
response to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production of Documents
and the deposition of Viet Dinh, an outside director of the
Company.

                   Reasons for the Settlement

Plaintiff, through its counsel, completed an investigation of the
claims and allegations asserted in the Action, as well as the
underlying events that are relevant to the Suspension.  In
connection with their investigation, counsel for Plaintiff
reviewed the confidential documents produced by Defendants, and
have also conducted additional factual and legal research
concerning the validity of Plaintiff's claims, including the
deposition of Viet Dinh.  While Plaintiff believes that the claims
that it has asserted have merit, it also believes that the
Settlement provides substantial benefits for the Class.  Plaintiff
and its counsel believe the benefits of the Settlement provide the
Class with significant benefits designed to create more
accountability and monitoring of the Company's foreign ownership
levels and to minimize the effect of the Suspension while ensuring
the Company's compliance with U.S. federal law governing foreign
ownership and voting power by non-U.S. stockholders.  In addition
to the benefits provided by the Settlement to the Class, Plaintiff
and its counsel have considered: (i) the attendant risks of
continued litigation and the uncertainty of the outcome of the
Action; (ii) the probability of success on the merits and the
allegations contained in the Action; (iii) the desirability of
permitting the Settlement to be consummated according to its
terms; and (iv) whether the terms and conditions of the Settlement
are fair, reasonable, and adequate, and that it is in the best
interests of Plaintiff and members of the Class to settle the
Action.

Plaintiff and its counsel have determined that a settlement of the
Action on the terms reflected in the Stipulation is fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class.

Defendants have vigorously denied, and continue to deny: (i) any
wrongdoing or liability with respect to all claims, events, and
transactions complained of in the Action; (ii) that they engaged
in any wrongdoing; (iii) that they committed any violation of law;
(iv) that they breached or aided and abetted any breach of any
fiduciary or disclosure duties; (v) that they acted improperly in
any way; and (vi) any liability of any kind to Plaintiff or the
Class in the Action.  Notwithstanding their denial of liability,
in order to: (i) avoid the distraction, burden, and expense of
further litigation; (ii) dispose of potentially burdensome and
protracted litigation; and (iii) finally put to rest and terminate
the claims asserted in the Action, Defendants consider it
desirable that the Action be settled and dismissed on the merits,
with prejudice, and without costs to any party (except as set
forth).

Plaintiff's entry into the Settlement is not an admission as to
the lack of any merit of any of the claims asserted in the Action.

                           Settlement

In consideration for the settlement and dismissal with prejudice
of the Action and the releases provided herein, News Corp. will
file a petition (the "Petition") with the FCC requesting certain
relief within five business days after entry of an order by the
Court of Chancery approving the Settlement.  Plaintiff will have
the opportunity to review and comment on the Petition.  Subject to
reasonable objection by the Company's counsel -- including
Delaware counsel, other outside counsel, FCC counsel, and in-house
counsel -- the Company will incorporate Plaintiff's comments in
the Petition.  For the avoidance of doubt, the parties agree that
the filing of the Petition, and not the result (if any), together
with the other terms, constitutes the consideration for any
settlement.  None of the parties knows how or when the FCC will
rule on the Petition, so the Company is under no further
obligation to take any other action with respect to the requested
relief if the FCC denies or fails to act on the Petition.  For the
avoidance of doubt, the Company will timely respond to objections
or opposition and will cooperate with and respond to requests for
information or questions (if any) from the FCC, as soon as
reasonably practicable after such requests are made.  The Company
will not otherwise be required to take action relating to the
Petition and the requested relief.

The Petition to the FCC will request permission to comply with 47
U.S.C. Section 310(b)(4) for any meeting of stockholders of the
Company (or any Company successor holding the Company's broadcast
licenses) in the following manner: The current Suspension will
remain in place for each vote of stockholders, provided that the
Audit Committee of the Company's board of directors (the "Audit
Committee") will modify or withdraw the Suspension if it
determines that a reduction in foreign voting power warrants the
change.  Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, for each vote of
its stockholders to which the Suspension would apply, the Company
would (i) determine the number of shares held by foreign
stockholders that are present at the meeting and that would be
entitled to vote but for the Suspension, and (ii) count as votes
cast all voted shares held by foreign stockholders, up to a total
of 25 percent of the shares voted.  If voted shares held by
foreign stockholders represent more than 25 percent of the shares
voted, the shares voted by foreign stockholders would be reduced
pro rata until the voted shares held by foreign stockholders
represent only 25 percent of the shares voted.

The Company will amend the Audit Committee Charter to provide that
the Audit Committee will determine on a regular basis the total
number of voting shares held by non-U.S. citizens.  The Audit
Committee's determination will be made at least annually and
disclosed in the Company's annual meeting proxy materials, except
that in connection with the 2012 Annual Meeting of stockholders
the Company announced the change in additional proxy materials.
The Audit Committee will have the power and authority of the
Company's board of directors to modify or eliminate the then-
existing Suspension percentage based on that determination.  The
Audit Committee will seek to modify the then-existing Suspension
percentage in such a way as to reduce the number of shares
suspended to the lowest number that the Audit Committee
determines, in the exercise of its business judgment, will provide
adequate protection against exceeding the 25 percent threshold in
the circumstances, taking into account all information reasonably
available to it.  The Company will not alter the agreed-upon
procedure as long as it is subject to 47 U.S.C. Section 310(b)(4).
On September 28, 2012, News Corp. announced that the Audit
Committee conducted a review of News Corp.'s foreign ownership and
reduced the percentage of shares affected by the Suspension to 40%
from 50%.

In connection with the 2012 Annual Meeting and pursuant to 8 Del.
C. Section 213(a), the Company set two record dates.  The Company
set a record date at least 55 days before the 2012 Annual Meeting
for determining the stockholders entitled to notice of the 2012
Annual Meeting.  The Company set an additional record date 20 days
before the 2012 Annual Meeting for determining the stockholders
entitled to vote at the 2012 Annual Meeting so as to enable the
Audit Committee to review information from stockholders and, as it
deemed appropriate in accordance herewith, modified the Suspension
percentage from 50% to 40%.  Additionally, the proxy cards and
ballots for the 2012 Annual Meeting requested stockholders to
confirm their citizenship.

The Company will not act to give its consent to amend, modify or
terminate the Murdoch Letter Agreement without prior approval of
the Audit Committee upon a determination that any such amendment,
modification or termination is in the best interests of the
Company and its stockholders.  To the extent that the Audit
Committee determines to amend, modify or terminate the Murdoch
Letter Agreement in connection with any vote related to the
Separation, the Audit Committee shall only do so by unanimous vote
of the Committee.

Plaintiff provided comments on the draft proxy statement for the
2012 Annual Meeting.  The Company considered and included comments
provided by Plaintiff.

Without admitting any wrongdoing, Defendants acknowledge that the
filing and prosecution of the Action and negotiations between the
parties' counsel resulted in Defendants' agreement to enter into
the Settlement.

Defendants have denied and continue to deny committing,
threatening, or attempting to commit any violation of law or
breach of any duty to Plaintiff, News Corp.'s shareholders, or any
other person or entity.  Defendants are entering into this
Settlement solely because it will eliminate the uncertainty,
distraction, burden, and expense of further litigation.

                   Class Action Certification

The Court has provisionally ordered that, for settlement purposes
only, the Action shall be maintained as a non-opt-out class action
pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) on
behalf of any and all non-U.S. holders of News Corp. Class B
common stock between April 18, 2012, and October 16, 2012,
including any and all of their respective successors in interest,
predecessors, representatives, trustees, executors,
administrators, heirs, assigns or transferees, immediate and
remote, and any person or entity acting for or on behalf of, or
claiming under, any of them, and each of them (the "Class"), but
excluding Defendants and Released Persons.

                       Settlement Hearing

The Court has scheduled a Settlement Hearing which will be held on
April 26, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., in the New Castle County
Courthouse, at 500 North King Street, in Wilmington, Delaware
19801, to:

   (a) determine whether the provisional class action
       certification should be made final;

   (b) determine whether the Settlement should be approved by the
       Court as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best
       interests of the Class;

   (c) determine whether an Order and Final Judgment should be
       entered pursuant to the Stipulation;

   (d) consider Plaintiff's counsel's application for an award of
       attorneys' fees and expenses; and

   (e) rule on such other matters as the Court may deem
       appropriate.

The Court has reserved the right to adjourn the Settlement Hearing
or any adjournment thereof, including consideration of the
application for attorneys' fees, without further notice of any
kind other than oral announcement at the Settlement Hearing or any
adjournment thereof.

The Court has also reserved the right to approve the Settlement at
or after the Settlement Hearing with such modification(s) as may
be consented to by the parties to the Stipulation and without
further notice to the Class.


PATRIOT COAL: Brower Piven Named Lead Counsel in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERNESTO ESPINOZA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. RICHARD M. WHITING and MARK N.
SCHROEDER, Defendants, Nos. 4:12cv1711 SNLJ, 4:12cv1815 RSW,
Consolidated No. 4:12cv2167 FRB (E.D. Mo.), District Judge Stephen
N. Limbaugh appointed:

     (a) the Patriot Coal Investor Group -- consisting of Dr. Jan
         Arnett, Douglas Keehn, Dennis Doucet, Kevin Lowery, and
         Thomas J. Podraza -- as Lead Plaintiff for the Class
         pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3)(B), as
         amended by Section 101(b) of the Private Securities
         Litigation Reform Act of 1995;

     (b) Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, the Patriot
         Coal Investor Group's lawyers, to serve as Lead Counsel;
         and

     (c) Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze, LLC, to serve as
         Liaison Counsel.

The Court denied the request for appointment of lead plaintiff and
lead counsel filed by (1) John Ziants; (2) James Karas and Denis
Dehne; (3) James Schmitt, Karel Rybacek, and Douglas Combs; (4)
the Cambridge Retirement System; and (6) Richard Sitko.

The consolidated securities class action cases are brought on
behalf of all persons who purchased Patriot Coal Corporation
securities between Oct. 21, 2010 and July 6, 2012 against certain
officers of Patriot Coal.  The officers are alleged to have made
false and misleading statements concerning Patriot Coal's court-
ordered environmental remediation efforts.

A copy of the Court's Jan. 16, 2013 Memorandum and Order is
available at http://is.gd/A0Dw94from Leagle.com.

                        About Patriot Coal

St. Louis-based Patriot Coal Corporation (NYSE: PCX) is a producer
and marketer of coal in the eastern United States, with 13 active
mining complexes in Appalachia and the Illinois Basin.  The
Company ships to domestic and international electricity
generators, industrial users and metallurgical coal customers, and
controls roughly 1.9 billion tons of proven and probable coal
reserves.

Patriot Coal and nearly 100 affiliates filed voluntary Chapter 11
petitions in U.S. bankruptcy court in Manhattan (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
Lead Case No. 12-12900) on July 9, 2012.  Patriot said it had
$3.57 billion of assets and $3.07 billion of debts, and has
arranged $802 million of financing to continue operations during
the reorganization.

Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP is serving as legal advisor, Blackstone
Advisory Partners LP is serving as financial advisor, and AP
Services, LLC is providing interim management services to Patriot
in connection with the reorganization.  Ted Stenger, a Managing
Director at AlixPartners LLP, the parent company of AP Services,
has been named Chief Restructuring Officer of Patriot, reporting
to the Chairman and CEO.  GCG, Inc. serves as claims and noticing
agent.

The U.S. Trustee appointed a seven-member creditors committee.
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP serves as its counsel.
Houlihan Lokey Capital, Inc., serves as its financial advisor and
investment banker.  Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions, LLC, serves as its
information agent.

On Nov. 27, 2012, the New York bankruptcy judge moved Patriot's
bankruptcy case to St. Louis.  The order formally sending the
reorganization to Missouri was signed December 19 by the
bankruptcy judge.


POWERTEC INC: Recalls 565 Weight Workbenches Due to Injury Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Powertec, Inc., of Long Beach, California, announced a voluntary
recall of about 565 Weight Workbenches.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The weld on the backrest adjustment brackets of the weight
workbench can break, posing an injury hazard to consumers.

Powertec is aware of one incident involving a minor injury.

The recalled workbenches are free-standing and typically used for
free weight workouts. They have black, square tube, steel bases
with a jet black, vinyl, adjustable bench seat and backrest.
"Powertec" is embossed on the backrest pad and printed on a
sticker located on the upright or the base frame of the workbench.
Model names and numbers included in this recall are listed in the
table below.  The model name and number are located on the
product's packaging.

  Model Name                Model No.   Key Features
  ----------                ---------   ------------
  Workbench Multipress       WB-MP11     Multi-press component
  with Isolateral Arms                   and optional leg lift
                                         attachment
  Workbench Olympic Bench    WB-OB11     Adjustable bench rack
                                         and optional leg lift
                                         attachment
  Workbench Utility Bench    WB-UB11     Optional leg lift
                                         attachment

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13096.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
specialty fitness stores nationwide and online at
www.powertecfitness.com from September 2011 to May 2012 for
between $299 and $549.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product until they
order and install a free safety retrofit repair kit.  Consumers
can also return the product for a full refund.  To order the free
repair kit or for instructions on receiving a full refund, contact
Powertec toll-free at (877) 525-5710 any time, send an e-mail to
Info@PowertecFitness.com, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.PowertecFitness.com/and click on Important Safety
Notice.


RED BULL: Faces Suit Over False Claims on Energy Drink
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Red Bull pushes its "energy
drink" with false claims about its effects, a class action claims
in Federal Court.


SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over C&S Transaction
------------------------------------------------------------
SuperValu Inc. continues to defend itself against a lawsuit
arising from a 2003 transaction with C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.,
according to the Company's January 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 1, 2012.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the
Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy
to restrain trade and allocate markets.  In the 2003 transaction,
the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as
part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold
certain assets of the Company to C&S which were located in New
England.  Since December 2008, three other retailers have filed
similar complaints in other jurisdictions.  The cases have been
consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota.  The complaints allege that
the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the use of non-
compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing down of
the distribution facilities that the Company and C&S purchased
from each other.  Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

On July 16, 2012, the Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.  The case is now limited to the two named retailers
as plaintiffs.  The Company says it is vigorously defending these
lawsuits.

Predicting the outcomes of claims and litigation and estimating
related costs and exposures involves substantial uncertainties
that could cause actual outcomes, costs and exposures to vary
materially from current expectations.  The Company regularly
monitors its exposure to the loss contingencies associated with
these matters and may from time to time change its predictions
with respect to outcomes and its estimates with respect to related
costs and exposures.  With respect to the matter, the Company
believes the chance of a negative outcome is remote.  It is
possible, although management believes it is remote, that material
differences in actual outcomes, costs and exposures relative to
current predictions and estimates, or material changes in such
predictions or estimates, could have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.


SUPERVALU INC: Wisconsin Suit Remains Stayed Pending IOS Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against
SuperValu Inc., as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC
("IOS"), Inmar, Inc., Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.,
Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services, in the
United States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a
grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company who
allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and the
other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon
processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an
illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  The
plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.  The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this
lawsuit, however all proceedings have been stayed in the case
pending the result of the criminal prosecution of certain former
officers of IOS.

No further updates were reported in the Company's January 10,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 1, 2012.

Predicting the outcomes of claims and litigation and estimating
related costs and exposures involves substantial uncertainties
that could cause actual outcomes, costs and exposures to vary
materially from current expectations.  The Company regularly
monitors its exposure to the loss contingencies associated with
these matters and may from time to time change its predictions
with respect to outcomes and its estimates with respect to related
costs and exposures.  With respect to the matter, the Company
believes the chance of a negative outcome is remote.  It is
possible, although management believes it is remote, that material
differences in actual outcomes, costs and exposures relative to
current predictions and estimates, or material changes in such
predictions or estimates, could have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.


SYNGENTA CROP: Sends Checks Under $105-MM Atrazine Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The St. Louis law firm of Korein Tillery announced on Jan. 16 that
checks are now being sent to water systems across the country in
the final phase of a class action settlement with Syngenta, the
largest manufacturer of the weed killer atrazine. (City of
Greenville v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Case No.: 3:10-cv-
00188-JPG-PMF)

A suspected endocrine disruptor, atrazine is the subject of an
Environmental Protection Agency special review to determine its
connection to possible adverse health problems, especially in
developing fetuses.  Tens of millions of pounds of the weed killer
are sprayed on new corn crops each year, much of which ends up in
the rivers and streams providing water to communities across the
country.

The Swiss company Syngenta is the largest manufacturer of atrazine
in the world.  Although banned in Europe, (International Journal
of Occupational and Environmental Health) atrazine continues to be
heavily used in this country.  A growing number of independent
scientists in the United States are calling for tighter
restrictions here too.

Stephen M. Tillery -- STillery@koreintillery.com -- senior partner
of Korein Tillery, said, "Science has been fighting an uphill
battle against giant pesticide manufacturers like Syngenta who
claim that a little weed killer in your drinking water won't hurt
you. Independent scientists now believe that even trace amounts
can harm you and your children for generations to come."

The settlement was meant to help reimburse communities for past
expenses associated with the removal of atrazine.  Mr. Tillery
said the percentage of participation by class members was
unprecedented.  "Every cent of the settlement fund will be
distributed to class members."  Nearly 1100 community water
providers filed claims and are receiving a portion of the fund.

For more information visit http://www.atrazinesettlement.com

Korein Tillery is an AV-rated, award-winning law firm with offices
in St. Louis and Chicago that has won significant verdicts and
settlements over the past decade in Class Action, ERISA/Pension
Fund Litigation, and Environmental Litigation.  The firm
represents individuals and businesses in local, state, federal and
international venues in complex multi-party litigation.


SYNGENTA CROP: Jasper City Gets Share in Atrazine Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
According to Dubois County Free Press, the Jasper Municipal
Utilities has received $110,466.33 as a result of the $105 million
settlement of a class action lawsuit over atrazine.

The Jasper Water Treatment Facility removes the chemical from the
city's water supply and the settlement funds are intended to help
reimburse the costs of removing the weed killer from the Jasper
community water system.  Atrazine is sprayed on corn and other
crops and frequently runs off of fields and into waterways used as
drinking water sources.

"The City of Jasper, through its water utility, has constructed
and maintained a cutting edge water treatment system designed to
protect and provide clean drinking water to its customers," said
Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP attorney Bill Kaiser --
bkaiser@bgdlegal.com -- who represented Jasper Municipal Utilities
in the suit.  "This settlement will help defray some of the costs
associated with the future maintenance of this system."

The St. Louis law firm of Korein Tillery and the Dallas law firm
of Barron & Budd have represented water providers across the
country against Syngenta, the world's largest atrazine
manufacturer, based in Switzerland.  Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP
served as the local counsel for Jasper Municipal Utilities.  The
local utility was one of 1,085 water systems, providing water to
nearly 37 million people, to benefit from this settlement.
Individual amounts were calculated based on the contamination
history of the claimants.

Settlement facts:

    * 1,085 cities and towns across America filed settlement
claims.

    * Settlement amounts were determined by past atrazine
detections.

    * The case was originally filed in Illinois in 2004, but
expanded to other states in 2010.

    * The law firms involved were Korein Tillery of St. Louis,
Baron & Budd of Dallas, and Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP of Jasper.

    * On October 23, 2012 a federal judge in Illinois approved the
$105 million settlement.

    * About 37 million people live in the areas served by the
claimants in this case.

The judge ruled that it is up to the water providers and the local
governments to determine how these funds are used.

Jasper Municipal Utilities manager Bud Hauersperger was
unavailable for comment when this report was published.


TARGET CORP: Recalls 168,000 Hand-Held Air Misters
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Target Corp., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, announced a voluntary
recall of about 168,000 Hand-Held Air Misters.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The Air Mister can shatter during use, posing an injury hazard.

Target has received three reports of incidents of misters
shattering, including one in which a consumer received
lacerations.

The recall is for hand-held devices designed to spray a mist for
personal cooling.  The Air Misters are 8 inches tall and hold 2
ounces of water at the "Fill" line.  They are clear plastic
cylinders with colored tops and bases.  The tops and bases come in
black, blue, green and pink.  A nylon carrying strap is attached
to the tops.  Instructions for use are written in white lettering
on the outside of the clear plastic cylinder.  Picture of the
recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13097.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Target stores nationwide from February 2012 to May
2012 for approximately $2.50.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled misters and
return them to any Target store for a full refund.  Target Guest
Relations may be reached at (800) 440-0680 from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or online at
http://www.target.com/,click on Product Recalls at the bottom of
the page, and then select Sports, Outdoor & Recreation.


UNITIL CORP: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Suit vs. Fitchburg
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts' Worcester Superior Court denied a motion to
certify a class in the lawsuit captioned Bellerman et al v.
Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company, according to Unitil
Corporation's January 11, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against
Unitil Corporation's (the "Company") Massachusetts based utility,
Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company ("Fitchburg"), in
Massachusetts' Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captioned
Bellerman et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company).  As
previously reported, the complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
damages, including the cost of temporary housing and alternative
fuel sources, emotional and physical pain and suffering and
property damages allegedly incurred by customers in connection
with the loss of electric service during the ice storm in
Fitchburg's service territory in December 2008.  Following several
years of discovery, the plaintiffs in the complaint filed a motion
with the Court to certify the case as a class action.

On January 7, 2013, the Court issued its decision denying
plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action.  As a
result of this decision, the lawsuit will now continue with only
the twelve named plaintiffs seeking damages.  Future proceedings
may include an appeal of this decision or a trial on the claims of
the twelve named plaintiffs.  The Company continues to believe the
lawsuit is without merit and will defend itself vigorously.


US CENTURY: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over TARP Funds
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bandell, writing for South Florida Business Journal, reports
that a lawsuit filed on behalf of minority shareholders alleges
U.S. Century Bank and some of its directors depleted the bank's
capital and wasted taxpayer funds for personal benefit.

The complaint, which seeks class action status for more than 400
minority shareholders, says the taxpayer TARP funds were
"squandered" and used to "bail out" the business ventures of
certain current and former directors.

Many of the minority shareholders are professionals and small
business owners who were customers of the bank.

U.S. Century Bank is the nation's largest "undercapitalized" bank
and in urgent need of capital after its sale to C1 Bank fell
through in December.  The Doral-based bank also owes the federal
government $50.2 million borrowed from the Troubled Asset Relief
Program (TARP).

The minority shareholders would have recovered only 1.5 cents on
the dollar if the C1 Bank deal had gone through and taxpayers
faced a major haircut on TARP.

Coral Gables attorney Gonzalo Dorta represents shareholder Jesus
R. Tome, who is also an attorney, and his wife in the class action
lawsuit filed on Jan. 9.

Mr. Dorta is also the attorney representing the Tomes, along with
six other U.S. Century Bank shareholders, in a lawsuit filed in
November for breach of contract against the bank and also as a
shareholder derivative action demanding that the current and
former directors pay damages to the bank to compensate for the
money they allegedly deprived it of.

U.S. Century Bank has vowed to fight the November lawsuit.  The
bank's spokeswoman declined comment on the latest lawsuit.

There's a strategy behind Mr. Dorta's multiple types of claims.
Winning a shareholder class action lawsuit against U.S. Century
Bank at the moment would essentially be futile because the bank is
low on capital.  Winning a derivative claim against its current
and former directors might result in them paying the bank, which
would provide money to pay the shareholder class action claim.

The bank has a $20 million directors and officers liability
insurance policy that could potentially be tapped to pay claims,
according to U.S. Century Bank shareholder documents.  Some of its
current and former directors are successful businessmen.

"The matters alleged are quite serious.  It remains to be seen if
the plaintiffs can prove them," said non-party to the litigation
Barton S. Sacher, founding shareholder of Sacher, Zelman, Hartman,
Paul, Beiley & Sacher, P.A. and a former senior enforcement
attorney for the Securities and Exchange Commission.  "I would be
surprised if the regulators, whether it's the FDIC, the SEC or
others, are not already looking into these allegations."

Among those currently at the bank, the class action lawsuit names
Chairman Ramon Rasco, a partner in Coral Gables-based law firm
Rasco, Klock, Reininger, Perez, Esquenazi, Vigil & Nieto, and
President and CEO Carlos Davila.  The complaint also names former
directors Sergio Pino, the head of Century Homebuilders; Carlos M.
Garcia, a developer; Armando Guerra, a real estate investor and
former VP of Sedano's Pharmacy; Agustin Herran, a developer and
president of Sedano's Supermarkets; Manuel Herran, chairman of
Sedano's Supermarkets; Rodney Barreto, a developer and head of
consulting firm Floridian Partners; and former senior lending
officer Abel Montouri.

Mr. Barreto is one of the key figures working to bring the Super
Bowl back to Miami Gardens and a major advocate involving in
securing public funding for the renovation of Sun Life Stadium.

The complaint charges that the bank directors abused their power
to exploit business opportunities and advance risky extensions of
credit to keep their development projects and business ventures
from insolvency at the expense of minority shareholders.  The
directors secured U.S. Century Bank loans for their family,
friends and business associates at unusually favorable terms not
available to other customers, the complaint says.

"Upon information and belief, the TARP money was used to bail out
and rescue the collapsing business and real estate investments of
the controlling shareholders and directors, Rasco, Pino, Garcia,
Guerra and the Herrans," the complaint stated.

The complaint cited the nine U.S. Century Bank branches leased to
directors at rates allegedly higher than market rates and $22
million in insider transactions they benefited from.

The Business Journal detailed those insider transactions, such as
leases, legal fees and asset sales, in December.  Another Business
Journal story found that bank insiders benefited by about $16.8
million from 2006 through 2009 by receiving more favorable loan
and deposit rates than non-insider customers.

The charges against the bank in the complaint include breach of
fiduciary duty, negligence and waste of corporate assets for not
properly overseeing the lending functions of the bank and allowing
it to act as a "lending pool" for the speculative real estate
projects of directors.

The breach of fiduciary duty charge is also made against the
individual directors and officers and named wrongful acts they
allegedly did.  All of the directors were charged with failing to
monitor insider lending to board members and allowing branches to
be placed in locations that benefited Messrs. Pino, Guerra and
Agustin Herran.

Mr. Pino responds "I recommended hundreds of customers to U.S.
Century Bank," Mr. Pino said in an e-mail.  "At no time I
participated in decision making on a loan or a branch site where I
or my family had an interest in it.  It is my understanding that
every loan was done with the support of professional appraisals
with the support of our own U.S. Century Bank professional
management and the support of the most decent fellow board members
that I have ever worked with and excluding my participation."

Mr. Pino added that professional appraisals were ordered for the
branch sites.

For Mr. Pino individually, the complaint says that he used U.S.
Century Bank to finance buyers in his real estate developments,
including Century Gardens Village in Kendall, and the loans were
often under-collateralized and poorly underwritten, which led to
many foreclosures.  A search of court records by the Business
Journal found that U.S. Century bank held 35 loans for a total of
$7.2 million in three Century Homebuilders projects in Miami-Dade
County.  Most of the loans were made in 2009 -- a year when home
sales were tough to finance.

Mr. Pino confirmed that some of the borrowers were U.S. Century
Bank shareholders as well.

"We have never used U.S. Century Bank to fund my products," Mr.
Pino said.  "Those you mention in Gardens Village were loans to
U.S. Century Bank shareholders who happen to buy a house from
Century Garden Village.  It is my understanding they are the best
loans U.S. Century Bank currently have (sic) on their real estate
portfolio."

The complaint alleges that Mr. Pino's loans from U.S. Century Bank
were on terms more favorable than what other customers received.
It also says that he used U.S. Century Bank to help him sell
depreciating real estate assets.

Public records show that U.S. Century Bank gave a $15.8 million
loan to DYL Merrick Park Development for a site in Coral Gables
that it bought for $24.5 million in 2006 from Mr. Pino's Merrick
Arc, which paid only $11.2 million for it two years earlier.  The
loan wound up in foreclosure -- and that's not the only time such
a situation happened.

Mr. Pino said he never encouraged the bank to make any deals.

The complaint also charges Messrs. Agustin Herran and Guerra for
using U.S. Century Bank to help him dispose of depreciated real
estate assets.

For Mr. Barreto, the complaint says he had the bank restructure a
$17.5 million U.S. Century Bank loan on several gas stations on
terms highly favorable to him after he left the bank.  Mr. Barreto
previously defended the interest rate reduction on that loan in a
Business Journal story.

In Mr. Rasco's case, the complaint says he amassed nearly $2
million in legal fees from the bank for primarily insider loan
closings (a monetary figure confirmed by the bank's financial
filings) and authorizing loans to his political friends, as well
as the partners, secretaries and staff members of his law firm, on
favorable terms.

For Mr. Garcia, the complaint says he utilized his director status
to have U.S. Century Bank buy a Homestead property from him for
$1.6 million, only to sell it in 2012 for $575,000 -- without
building a branch there.

As to current CEO Davila, who joined the bank in September, and
Mr. Montouri, the complaint says they breached their fiduciary
duty by failing to monitor insider loans and transactions and
promoting an "elite lending program" with less underwriting
scrutiny for friends and affiliates of board members and
controlling shareholders.

At the same time, the derivative lawsuit was amended for a third
time to include many of the allegations against directors present
in the minority shareholder class action.  However, former U.S.
Century Bank CEO Octavio Hernandez was voluntarily dismissed from
that lawsuit.  The plaintiff attorney declined to say why.


UTILIQUEST LLC: Failed to Pay Regular & Overtime Wages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey H. Allen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. UtiliQuest, LLC, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. CGC-12-525644 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.,
October 31, 2012) is filed by employees of UtiliQuest.

The Plaintiff alleges that UtiliQuest failed to properly calculate
and pay its employees' regular and overtime pay.  He adds that
UtiliQuest failed to pay earned wages, to issue wage instruments
in conformity with the California Labor Code, to provide accurate
wage statements and to provide meal period breaks.

Mr. Allen was a resident of the state of California during the
entire time that he worked for UtiliQuest.

UtiliQuest is a Georgia limited liability company headquartered in
Alpharetta, Georgia.  The identities of the Doe Defendants are
currently unknown.

The Company removed the lawsuit on January 4, 2013, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of San
Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  UtiliQuest argues that the removal is
proper because the parties are from different states.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:13-cv-00049 to the
proceeding.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Eric S. Beane, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400
          North Tower
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704
          Telephone: (310) 595-3000
          Facsimile: (310) 595-3300
          E-mail: eric.beane@dlapiper.com


WESTERN HEALTH: Feb. 8 Class Action Case Management Meeting Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Crocker, writing for The Western Star, reports that a case
management meeting in the breach of privacy lawsuits filed against
Western Health is scheduled to take place at the Supreme Court in
Corner Brook on Feb. 8.

Scott Burden, of Brothers and Burden Law Office, is representing
some 250 to 300 people who had their personal information
inappropriately accessed by a former employee of the health
authority.

The breach was uncovered last May following an investigation into
a complaint.  The investigation looked at the access to patient
records from June 2011 to May 2012 and found that 1,043 files had
been inappropriately accessed.

Western Health went public with the breach on Aug. 1 and said it
would be sending letters of apology to those affected.  The
employee involved was fired and at the time Susan Gillam, CEO of
the health authority, said it would not be pursuing criminal
charges against that person.

In the weeks that followed two class-action lawsuits were filed
with the Supreme Court.

Mr. Burden's suit names Valerie Dyke and Catherine Allen-Vater as
representative plaintiffs and lists Donna Colbourne, the former
clerk accused of the breach, and Western Health as defendants.

A suit being handled by St. John's lawyer Bob Buckingham lists
Barbara Hynes as the representative plaintiff.

Mr. Burden said on Jan. 16 that Western Health has not filed a
statement of defense in response to the statements of claim filed
against it.

However, he said that was "nothing unexpected," as the rules don't
indicate the health authority has to do so.

Mr. Burden said during the case management meeting all sides will
receive direction from the judge on how the matter should proceed.

The next step would involve having the class-action certified, but
Mr. Burden noted it's too early in the process to discuss that.


* Increase in Employment Class Actions to Continue This Year
------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that employment class action law and collective action
litigation will become more sophisticated and continue to expose
employers to significant financial costs this year, a new report
shows.

Released earlier last week by Seyfarth, Shaw LLP, the Ninth Annual
Workplace Class Action Litigation Report analyzes 2012's landmark
rulings on employment-related disputes and predicts several trends
for class action attorneys and employers to keep an eye on in
2013.

Gerald L. Matman Jr., co-chair of the firm's class action
litigation practice group in Chicago, served as the report's
general editor.

"The events of the past year in the workplace class action world
demonstrate the array of bet-the-company litigation issues that
businesses face continue to evolve on a landscape that is
undergoing significant change," the report asserts.

Employers, the report adds, should expect that these types of
lawsuits "increasingly will combine claims under multiple
statutes, thereby requiring the defense bar to have a cross-
disciplinary understanding of substantive employment law," among
other procedures.

With more governmental enforcement litigation and regulatory
oversight of workplace issues last year than in previous years,
the report also suggests that businesses will face challenges "to
integrate their litigation and risk mitigation strategies to
navigate these exposures."

According to the report, 2012 saw "significant change for
workplace class action litigation" thanks to a trio of 2011 U.S.
Supreme Court decisions handed down in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
Dukes, et al.; AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, et al; and Smith, et
al. v Bayer Corp.

Referring to it as the "800-pound gorilla" in the courtroom last
year, the report notes that the Wal-Mart ruling "had a wide-
ranging impact on virtually all types of class actions pending in
both federal and state courts throughout the nation."

In analyzing more than 1,000 decisions, the report shows that as
of the close of 2012, "Wal-Mart had been cited a total of 541
times in lower court rulings, a remarkable figure for a decision
rendered in June of 2011."

The court in Wal-Mart overturned a district court order that
certified a class seeking relief and back-pay, holding that
individualized monetary relief claims can't be certified under
Rule 23, which governs class actions in federal courts.

"Rule 23 decisions in 2012 pivoted off of Wal-Mart and leverage
points in class action litigation increased or decreased depending
on the manner in which judges interpreted and applied Wal-Mart,"
the report states.

Besides its finding over individualized monetary relief claims,
the Wal-Mart ruling, according to the report, clarified Rule 23's
commonality requirement and rejected previous readings of Supreme
Court precedent on the rule's burden of proof.

"As a result, Wal-Mart fostered a tidal wave of decisions in 2012,
as litigants and courts grappled with the ruling's implications in
a wide variety of class action litigation contexts," the report
states.

The court in Concepcion, according to the report, determined that
the Federal Arbitration Act preempted state precedent in
California that deemed class action waivers in consumer contracts
unenforceable.

"The decision has been hailed by business interests, which prefers
the speed and efficiency of bilateral arbitration for resolving
claims arising from consumer and employment contracts," the report
states.  "Consumer and civil rights advocates suggest the decision
closes the door on many small-dollar consumer claims and allows
corporations to perpetrate frauds unchecked."

This ruling, according to the report, had been cited in 325
rulings by the end of last year.

Both the rulings in Wal-Mart and Concepcion "had a profound
influence in shaping the course of class action litigation rulings
in 2012, beginning a new wave of creative case law theories that
will continue to evolve and impact employers in the defense of
their cases in 2013," the report states.

The report notes that these two rulings have spurred courts to
review previous class certification orders in pending cases and
defendants to file new motions to decertify classes.

This point about "creative case law theories" was listed as one of
six emerging trends that Seyfarth's report suggests employers pay
attention to this year.

Another trend, according to the report, is the impact of the Wal-
Mart ruling on settlement strategies.

"Employers settled fewer employment discrimination class actions
and at a fraction of the levels experienced from 2006 to 2011,"
the report states, adding that a total of about $48 million was
reported for the top 10 settlements in 2012, compared to $363
million in 2010.

As a result, the report states that "the plaintiffs' class action
bar is 're-booting' its approach to class litigation and this
trend may reverse itself in 2013."

In addition, the report points to government enforcement as
another emerging trend for 2013.

The report shows that more discrimination charges were filed with
the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2012 than in all
but one previous year in the commission's 48-year history, making
2013 ripe for the filing of these lawsuits.

The EEOC's investigation program, which identifies claims
affecting large groups of alleged victims, saw a four-fold
increase last year from 2011, a trend of "significant importance
to employers, for it evidences an agency with a laser-focus on
high-impact, big stakes litigation."

The report also hypothesizes that last year's increase in class
action and collective action filings will continue in 2013 "as
businesses retool operations in an improving economy and the Obama
Administration renews an emphasis on enforcing workplace laws."

In addition, the report notes that wage and hour litigation will
continue to outpace other types of workplace class actions.  It
shows that nearly 900 more Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuits were
filed in 2012 than in 2011.

"Significant growth in wage and hour litigation also was centered
at the state court level, and especially in California, Illinois,
New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and
Washington," the report states.

It adds, "The crest of the wave of wage and hour litigation is
still not in sight and this trend is likely to continue in 2013."

The report also stresses the need for attorneys to pay attention
to the "new approaches to class-wide theories of certification,
liability and damages related to the Rule 23 developments" that
came out of the Wal-Mart decision.

"The tight-knit plaintiffs' class action bar has moved quickly to
respond to Wal-Mart and craft new approaches," the report states,
adding that this has "in turn impacted defense litigation
strategies."

One of the main lessons to learn from last year, according to
Seyfarth's report, is that the plaintiffs' bar and governmental
enforcement attorneys "are apt to be equally, if not more,
aggressive in 2013 in bringing class action and collective action
litigation against employers."


                           *********

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  * * *