/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130128.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, January 28, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 19


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Court Tosses Objection to Class Settlement
ANNIE'S INC: Recalls Annie's Homegrown Frozen Pizza Products
AUSTRALIA: Class Suit Unlikely If Regulator Redesign Plan Proceeds
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over LIBOR Rates
FLEETMATICS GROUP: Awaits Ruling on "Prisoner" Suit Dismissal Bid

GOOGLE INC: May File Bid to Transfer Venue in Class Action Suit
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Veloster Sunroofs
LANCE ARMSTRONG: Faces Class Action Over 2005 Inspirational Book
LG DISPLAY: Failed to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Suit Says
MASSACHUSETTS: Ex-Foster Child Takes Witness Stand in Class Action

MATTRESS CLOUD: Recalls 1,400 Mattresses Over Flammability Issue
NEVADA ASSOCIATION: Accord in FDCPA Class Suit Wins Initial OK
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: N.J. Court Denies Class Cert. in FLSA Suit
RALCORP HOLDINGS: Signs MOU to Settle ConAgra Merger-Related Suit
SEQWATER: Better Payout May Prompt Insurers to Join Class Action

SEQWATER: Proposed Flood Class Action Faces Jurisdiction Hurdle
SHOP-VAC: Judge Appoints Milberg Group as Class Counsel in MDL
SPARTECH: Being Sold to PolyOne for Too Little, Suit Claims
SYNGENTA CROP: Lincoln's Water System to Get Settlement Check
VERISIGN: Shareholders File Securities Class Action

YOUNG INNOVATIONS: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in Missouri
ZIMMER: Class Cert. in Durom Cup Hip Implant Class Action Affirmed

* Securities Fraud Class Actions Down Last Year, Study Shows


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Court Tosses Objection to Class Settlement
Nathan Bass, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Stan R.
Boles, a dissatisfied class action member, lost on his objection
to the class certification and class action settlement agreement
negotiated with Anadarko Petroleum Corporation by the class

The Kansas Supreme Court found that the Stevens District Court did
not abuse its discretion in the assessment of class representation
or the character of the agreement.  Justice Lee A. Johnson wrote
the Jan. 11 opinion for the unanimous three-judge panel.

A group of royalty owners who were entitled to receive shares of
the production of natural gas in southwest Kansas brought a class
action against Anadarko Petroleum Corporation in 1998.  Plaintiffs
alleged that APC and its affiliates had underpaid royalties
required by the plaintiffs' leases.

The case proceeded to a bench trial in 2002 and was reargued by
the same judge in 2006 before finally being settled in June 2009.
Prior to settlement, the class was expanded to over 6,000 members
by enlarging the geographical and geological boundaries of the
included wells.

"The district court preliminarily approved the settlement,
directed that notice be given to the class members, and set a
fairness hearing for Sept. 15, 2009.  Appellant Boles was the only
class member to file an objection to the settlement agreement, and
he also filed a motion to intervene in the proceedings and to
conduct further discovery," the opinion states.

"Boles complained about counsel's failure to investigate and
litigate the estimated value of the claims which he referred to as
"non-gathering claims" or "non-gathering deduction claims."

Non-gathering claims refer to claimed reduction in royalties
attributable to downstream events other than the gathering and
fuel costs incurred in the gathering system.  Examples of non-
gathering claims are the failure of APC to account for the sale or
loss of condensate during transmission, failure to extract and
sell nitrogen, and the calculation of costs to extract helium when
paying helium royalties.

The district court allowed Mr. Boles to present an expert, Daniel
Reineke, to testify regarding the valuation of the non-gathering
claims and Mr. Reineke estimated the claims to be $109 million.
He opined that the settlement amount in total should be worth $149
million with the $40 million in gathering claims.

The judge approved the $33 million amount agreed to in the
settlement agreement.

Mr. Boles appealed the district court's approval of the settlement
to the state's highest court and the plaintiff class, as well as
the defendant, Anadarko, asked the Court to affirm the approval of
the settlement.

Justice Johnson started by looking at the objection to the
certification of the amended class.

"The overarching theme of Boles' challenge to the class action
settlement agreement is that it essentially gave away the class
members' non-gathering claims without the efficacy and potential
value of those claims being litigated."

"He relates that complaint to the class certification challenge by
arguing that the relevant factors, especially the adequacy of
representation factor, cannot be met when class counsel chose not
to fully litigate the non-gathering claims," Justice Johnson

K.S.A. 60-223(a) established four factors that must be met before
a class is certified: (1) numerosity, (2) commonality, (3)
typicality, and (4) adequacy of representation.

"Boles' adequacy complaint relies on the first factor in
subsection (g)(1)(A)(i) of federal Rule 23, which considers "the
work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential
claims in the action."  Mr. Boles claims that the class counsel in
this lawsuit failed to adequately identify and investigate the
potential non-gathering claims.

"Discovery in this action was extensive, spanning at least 2
years," Justice Johnson wrote.  "Class counsel expended
considerable work in identifying and investigating potential
claims in this action.

"As a result of that effort, class counsel determined that the
ancillary claims, including the non-gathering claims which
occurred principally downstream from the gathering claims, had no
merit.  That assessment was consistent with the trial court's
review of the non-gathering claims.

"Boles suggests that class counsel is inadequate for failing to
independently determine the precise value of a hypothetical claim
that counsel believes to be without merit and unrecoverable at
trial.  That cannot be the law," Justice Johnson stated.

"Accordingly, we agree with the district court's finding that
class counsel adequately represented the class members, and we
affirm the district court's certification of the amended class."

Justice Johnson then moved on to the approval of the settlement

"Although Boles' expert opined that the class should have settled
the gathering claims for $40 million or more, instead of $33
million, Boles does not present a challenge on appeal to the
district court's approval of the settlement agreement as it
relates to the fully litigated gathering claims.

"Instead, Boles argues that the district court went astray in
permitting the class representative to release the non-gathering
claims as part of the settlement because those claims were
unlitigated and factually unrelated to the gathering claims,
thereby creating a circumstance with insufficient adversity to
protect the due process rights of the class members.

"Although Boles would have us view his non-gathering claims as
being a separate and distinct cause of action, they are in reality
simply additional damages for the class' allegation of a breach of

"[We] have no due process concerns with the settlement of the non-
gathering claims, along with the gathering claims, because they
are based on the same underlying facts and theory of liability.

"In short, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion when it approved the settlement agreement between the
plaintiff class and APC."

ANNIE'S INC: Recalls Annie's Homegrown Frozen Pizza Products
Annie's Inc. (NYSE:BNNY) has initiated a voluntary recall of
Annie's Homegrown Frozen Pizza due to the possible presence of
fragments of flexible metal mesh caused by a faulty screen at a
third-party flour mill.

Affected products are distributed at grocery, mass and natural
food stores throughout the United States.  All varieties of
Annie's RISING CRUST FROZEN PIZZA with a best by date including
and between 09Jan13 and 14Sep13 (January 9, 2013, and
September 14, 2013) are affected.  Recalled varieties are:

   * Organic Four Cheese Pizza, 23.5 oz UPC 013562 200016

   * Organic Pepperoni Pizza, 23.6 oz UPC 013562 200009

   * Organic Supreme Pizza, 25.4 oz UPC 013562 200023

   * Organic Spinach and Mushroom Pizza, 25.0 oz
     UPC 013562 200054

   * Four Cheese Pizza, 22.5 oz UPC 013562 200078

   * Pepperoni Pizza, 22.6 oz UPC 013562 200061

   * BBQ Recipe Chicken Pizza, 23.1 oz UPC 013562 200092

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:


The Company announced the recall after learning a fine metal mesh
screen failed at a third-party flour mill and fragments of
flexible metal mesh were found in the flour and pizza dough.  All
Annie's manufacturers have comprehensive metal control programs
that include magnets and metal detection devices.  Pieces of the
fine wire were too small to be detected and could have found their
way into the finished product.  While no metal has been found in
Annie's finished product, as a precaution, Annie's initiated this
voluntary recall.  There have been no consumer complaints,
illnesses or injuries reported to date.

Annie's says it is committed to providing high-quality products,
and the safety of its consumers is the Company's utmost priority.
The Company is working with the FDA and the USDA and expects a
quick resolution to this issue.  Consumers who have purchased the
product can return it to its place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may call Annie's Homegrown Pizza Recall
Hotline at 1-888-825-6720 or visit
http://www.annies.com/pizzarecall/for more information.  The
hotline will be staffed in person from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Pacific Time, along with a 24-hour a-day recorded message.

                          About Annie's

Founded in 1989, Annie's is a natural and organic food company
that offers products in large packaged food categories.  Annie's
products are made without the artificial flavors and synthetic
colors and preservatives regularly used in many conventional
packaged foods.  Today, Annie's offers over 125 products that are
present in over 25,000 retail locations in the United States and
Canada.  For more information, visit http://www.annies.com/

AUSTRALIA: Class Suit Unlikely If Regulator Redesign Plan Proceeds
ABC News reports that Yenda flood victims want the state
government to fund a multi-million dollar rebuild of the East
Mirrool regulator to limit future flooding.

Association President, and Griffith Councillor Paul Rossetto
believes the one meter of soil at the site is an illegal levee as
an initial check has found no record of permission to do the

Murrumbidgee Irrigation (MI) is yet to comment after Griffith City
Council resolved to write to the company, seeking the removal of
the soil.

Councilor Rossetto says the entire 70 year old structure needs
rebuilding and it is a state responsibility.

"There is another two meters of blocked boards that needs to be
freed up, but that structure needs to be redesigned going
forward," he said.

"So this again is where the Office of Water has to come in,
provide the funding under the state government and redesign the
whole system so that the creek will flow naturally, the way it did

The Yenda Flood Victims group says a class action is now unlikely,
if the works go ahead.

Mr. Rossetto says legal action now is a last resort.

"It's a very far and remote possibility at this stage," he said.

"Firstly, it's going to be very, very expensive and I can't see
the people that have lost everything are going to be able to foot
the money.

"Second is that if the government does come to the party and fixes
the escape and the creek runs naturally then there won't be as
great a need to pursue the class action, because people will be
happy with the situation."

Mr. Rossetto says removing the soil is all MI can do, but the
Office of Water has overriding responsibility for flood planning
and funding in the area, and it needs to redesign the regulator.

"The mechanical doors only open one way, they need to be two way
to let the creek flow straight across the way it used to in 1989,"
he said.

"And then the older board structure needs to be modernized, so
they're talking about piping the main canal under the creek, so
that the creek has natural flow, similar to the Mulwala canal

BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over LIBOR Rates
Courthouse News Service reports that more than a dozen banks and
their subsidiaries conspired to fix, manipulate and artificially
increase LIBOR rates, costing American homeowners billions of
dollars on their mortgages, a class claims in New York court.

The class action case is captioned Heather Earle v. Bank of
America; The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd.; Barclays Bank.

FLEETMATICS GROUP: Awaits Ruling on "Prisoner" Suit Dismissal Bid
Fleetmatics Group PLC is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit originally filed by U.S.
Prisoner Transport, et al., according to the Company's
January 22, 2013, Form F-1 filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On August 14, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Pinellas County, Florida, entitled
U.S. Prisoner Transport, et al. v. Fleetmatics USA, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1200-9933 CI-20.  The Company removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
September 13, 2012, U.S. Prisoner Transport, et al. v. Fleetmatics
USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:12-CV-2079.  The Company moved to
dismiss the complaint on September 20, 2012.  Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on October 4, 2012, and changed the case caption
to Brevard Extraditions, Inc., d/b/a U.S. Prisoner Transport, et
al. v. Fleetmatics USA, LLC, et al.  The amended complaint alleges
that the Company intercepted, recorded, disclosed, and used
thousands of telephone calls in violation of Florida Statutes
Section 934.03.  The amended complaint seeks certification of a
putative class of all individuals and businesses residing in
Florida who spoke with any representatives of the Company's
offices in Florida on the telephone and had their telephone
conversations recorded without their consent or advance notice,
from the date of the earliest recording by the Company through the
present.  The amended complaint seeks statutory damages,
injunctive relief, attorney fees, costs and interest.  Florida
Statutes Section 934.10 permits an aggrieved person to recover
"liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each
day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher."

The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on October 18,
2012, and plaintiffs filed an opposition on November 1, 2012.  The
Company's motion to dismiss is pending before the court.  The
Company moved to stay discovery on October 31, 2012, and the court
denied that motion on December 4, 2012.

The Company says this matter is in its early stages, but there can
be no assurance that this matter will not have a material adverse
effect on its business, financial condition and operating results.

GOOGLE INC: May File Bid to Transfer Venue in Class Action Suit
Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that a federal judge has granted Google Inc.'s request to
file a motion to transfer venue in a Madison County class action

Brought in November by A.K., the next of friend to 16-year-old
J.K., the suit accuses Google of intercepting and using Gmail
subscribers' e-mails to generate advertising revenue in violation
of state and federal privacy laws.

Google and J.K.'s attorneys on Jan. 18 filed a consent motion
regarding sequencing of initial motion practice, asking the
federal court to allow motion practice on the transfer request
before any other motions.

U.S. District Judge G. Patrick Murphy on Jan. 22 granted the

In the consent motion, Google claims that as a Gmail user, J.K. is
bound by the company's terms of service, which includes a clause
on venue that requires claims to be brought in Santa Clara County,

The plaintiff, according to the motion, "intends to object to any
such transfer on the grounds that, inter alia, Plaintiff J.K., as
a minor, did not and could not consent to a venue selection clause
in Google's Terms of Service."

The motion asserts that "briefing the issues of transfer first
would promote efficiency and the interests of justice."

Google also noted in the motion that it intends to move to dismiss
the suit on various grounds under Rule 12 (b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, which focuses on failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.

If the consent motion was granted, Google stated in its filing
that it would bring its transfer request on or before Feb. 12 and
wouldn't file a motion for dismissal until 45 days later after its
transfer request was resolved.

Google last month was given an extension until Feb. 12 to respond
to the complaint.

The consent motion was submitted by Google attorneys Michael
Hermann and Charles Swartwout of Boyle Brasher in Belleville and
the plaintiff's attorneys, Thomas Rosenfeld and Mark Goldenberg of
Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli & Rowland in Edwardsville.

The motion also lists California attorneys Michael Rhodes and
Whitty Somvichian as pro hac vice for Google.

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Veloster Sunroofs
Casey Neeley, writing for glassBYTEs, reports that in a class
action suit filed January 14, counsel for plaintiffs Linda, Sonia
and Fernando Palacios of McAllen, Texas, allege that Hyundai Motor
America knowingly put consumers at risk by selling Veloster models
with faulty sunroofs.

In the complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, it reads, "Hyundai has actively
concealed the exploding sunroof defect from consumers."

Further, plaintiffs allege, "Even when vehicle owners present
their cars after the sunroof has exploded, Hyundai's policy is to
simply replace it with an identical, defective part, act as if the
problem has been solved and continue concealing the exploding
sunroof defect from prospective Veloster purchasers and lessees.
Hyundai knew that potential car buyers and lessees would deem the
exploding sunroof defect to be material such that reasonable
consumers who knew of the defect either would have paid less for
the class vehicles or would not have purchased or leased a class
vehicle at all."

The Palacios say they were motivated to seek legal action after
they found the sunroof to Linda's 2013 Veloster had shattered.

"On or about December 4, 2012, the sunroof exploded while Linda
Palacios was parked.  The explosion sent shattered glass all over
the car, damaging the seats," reads the complaint.

"The force of the explosion was so great that it bent the metal
frame surrounding the sunroof assembly," counsel further alleges
in the complaint.  "By fortunate chance, Mrs. Palacios was not in
the car when the sunroof exploded."

Plaintiffs further contend that upon taking the vehicle to the
Hyundai dealer for repair they were told that there wasn't a known
issue with the Veloster sunroofs and the "repair may not be
covered under warranty."  The Palacios allege further that the
"dealership offered to replace the sunroof but only with an
identical part, presumably containing the identical dangerous

In the complaint, the Palacios also allege Hyundai kept the
information of the defect from consumers to maintain sales of the
Velosters by saying, "Hyundai knows of the exploding sunroof
defect and knows that consumers are not aware of the risk that
their sunroofs could explode without warning. Nevertheless,
Hyundai refused to acknowledge that there was any problem for
[more than] 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 exploding sunroof
defect to purchasers and lessors of 2013 model class vehicles and
continues to market and promote the 2013 model class vehicles as

Hyundai officials say they recognized an issue with the sunroofs,
manufactured by Hankuk Sekurit, in October when it launched an
investigation after receiving multiple consumer complaints through
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). After
evaluating the complaints, Hyundai issued a voluntary recall
notice through NHTSA in December.

"There was an intermittent malfunction with the assembly and
loading robot and occasionally there was contact with the robot
loading arm and the sunroof glass," Jim Trainor, product public
relations senior group manager for Hyundai Motor America, told
glassBYTEs.com(TM)/AGRR(TM) magazine in a December interview.
"That contact in some cases caused damage to the glass which is
what lead to the fracture of that glass in the field."

Mr. Trainor provided the following statement in response to the
lawsuit on Jan. 18, "We haven't seen the lawsuit and are unable to
comment any further."

LANCE ARMSTRONG: Faces Class Action Over 2005 Inspirational Book
News10 reports that a daring move in the courts followed Lance
Armstrong's stunning confession last week to Oprah.

A Sacramento political analyst is part of a class action lawsuit
against the world-famous cyclist.  The lawsuit alleges that
Armstrong made numerous lies and false claims in his inspirational
2005 book.

Rob Stutzman, the former Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications
for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and more than 100 others filed
suit against Armstrong and three publishing groups -- Random
House, Crown Publishing and the Penguin Group -- in the class
action complaint.

The suit claims misrepresentations in Mr. Armstrong's book, It's
Not about the Bike, My Journey Back to Life and Every Second

Mr. Stutzman and another plaintiff, Jonathan Wheeler, a
professional chef and life-long cycling enthusiast, claim that
they recommended the compelling book to several friends.  The
plaintiffs claim they would not have bought the books if they knew
the true facts of Mr. Armstrong's misconduct and his admitted
involvement in the sports doping scandal.

In the complaint, Mr. Stutzman said he "doesn't buy a lot of books
or read a lot" but was inspired by Mr. Armstrong's book.

In the book, Mr. Armstrong documented his triumphant return to
dominate the world of cycling after his devastating bout with
testicular cancer.

According to the complaint, the controversy exceeds a sum or value
of $5 million.

The primary complaints allege false advertising, negligent
representation, fraud and deceit.

Legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Bill Portanova said
lawsuits like this one are filed to prove a point.

"Sometimes they are filed because the bad guys who've been lying
and cheating and make it all the way to the top deserve to be
bothered," said Mr. Portanova.  "Piling on a lawsuit, you
shouldn't have any sympathy, have a guy who's been cheating.
Whether or not this lawsuit will result in a payment coming back
to anyone else is unlikely."

The plaintiffs' attorneys have chosen not to comment about the

In an e-mail, Mr. Stutzman said that he didn't want to comment on
the lawsuit either. He said the complaint speaks for itself.

Mr. Wheeler said the lawsuit isn't just about the book; it's a
lesson for Lance Armstrong.

LG DISPLAY: Failed to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Suit Says
Erika Trujillo on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. LG Display America, Inc., a California corporation; and Does 1
to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 1-13-CV-239865 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Santa Clara Cty., January 22, 2013) seeks recovery of unpaid
vacation wages and unpaid wages for all hours worked at minimum
wage or overtime rate of pay.

The Defendants improperly calculated overtime wages, Ms. Trujillo
alleges.  By her action, she also seeks statutory penalties for
failure to provide accurate wage and hour statements and waiting
time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to
timely pay employees.

The Plaintiff is a resident of California and was employed by the
Defendants in a non-exempt position within the 4 years prior to
the filing of the complaint, at a location in San Diego County,

The Defendants were joint employers of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated non-exempt employees because there was an arrangement
between the Defendants to share employees' services.  The
Defendants operated an integrated enterprise providing services to
clients in California through common management, interrelationship
between operations, centralized control of labor relations, and a
degree of common ownership/financial control.  The Doe Defendants
are individuals unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Jordan D. Bello, Esq.
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          Law Offices of Sahag Majarian II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com

MASSACHUSETTS: Ex-Foster Child Takes Witness Stand in Class Action
Denise Lavoie, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
former foster child Lauren James, now 24, was the opening witness
on Jan. 22 in a case aimed at putting the Massachusetts foster
care system on trial.

Beginning at age 8, Ms. James bounced among at least 14 different
foster homes, along the way being forced to scrub floors, clean up
after dogs, miss meals and take up to five psychiatric mediations
at a time.

The federal class-action lawsuit was filed in 2010 by Children's
Rights, a New York-based child advocacy group that alleges that
thousands of children in state foster care are being abused and
neglected.  The group claims the state Department of Children and
Families has violated the constitutional rights of children by
placing them in unstable and sometimes dangerous situations.

Ms. James described a turbulent childhood marked by the death of
her father just before her 6th birthday and her mother's suicide
when she was 12.  She said she was shuttled between foster homes
and sent to live with her mother between ages 8 and 11.  Then,
after her mother died, she hopped from foster home to foster home.

In most of the homes, she wasn't given enough to eat, and her
weight dropped from 100 pounds to 73 pounds, she said.

In one home, she was forced by the foster parents to do a lot of
housecleaning, including scrubbing floors on her hands and knees
and cleaning up after six Chihuahuas, she said.

In another home, her foster parents made fun of her biological
mother, Ms. James said.  At one point, while she was grieving her
mother's death, her foster parents told her that her father had
"killed himself because he didn't want you," she said.

Ms. James said she often felt depressed but didn't express her
feelings to her case workers very often.  She said she was always
told there were not enough foster homes.

"Really, it doesn't matter because they can't do anything about
it," she said.

Ms. James said she was given lithium beginning at age 6.

"I remember them saying that because my father had bipolar, I was
predisposed to it," she said.

After that, she said, she was put on various psychiatric
medications, up to five at once.  She said the medications made
her feel "absolutely dreadful" and caused her to develop sleep
problems.  At one point, after she was given a new drug to take,
she gained 45 pounds in three or four weeks, she said.

Under cross-examination from Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey
Collins, Ms. James acknowledged she first began taking psychiatric
medication before she was ever placed in foster care.  She
acknowledged that both her biological mother and father had spent
time in psychiatric hospitals.  She also said a boyfriend her
mother had after her father's death was sometimes violent and

She said she herself spent time in a psychiatric hospital as a
child and was diagnosed over the years with various mental
illnesses, including oppositional defiant disorder, bipolar
disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and reactive-attachment

She acknowledged that the state had provided services intended to
stabilize her family and allow her to remain at home with her
mother, but that the services did not work, she said.

Mr. Collins asked Ms. James whether she blamed DCF, at least in
part, for her mother's suicide.

"I don't blame anyone for my mother's death except my mother," she

She also said her mother had spent 4 1/2 years of her childhood in
foster care.

"With that cycle, I have inherited things that I despise and that
the Department of Children and Families has not truly helped to
fix, to help mend," she said.

The lawsuit seeks reforms on behalf of approximately 7,500
children in foster care in Massachusetts.  The non-jury trial is
being heard by U.S. District Judge William Young.

A lawyer for DCF told Judge Young that the department has
increased the number of children being safely cared for at home,
with about 2,000 fewer children in foster care than just a few
years ago.

MATTRESS CLOUD: Recalls 1,400 Mattresses Over Flammability Issue
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Mattress Cloud Inc., of Brooklyn, New York, announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,400 mattresses and mattresses with
foundations.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The mattresses fail to meet the mandatory federal open flame
standard for mattresses, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Mattress Cloud new and renovated (rebuilt)
twin, full, queen and king mattresses sets.  The mattresses were
sold in a variety of colors and fabrics.  "Ultra Support" and
"Ortho Type" are printed on iron-on labels on the mattresses.
Recalled mattresses have a white federal tag with "Manufactured
By: The mattress Cloud, 769 Chauncey, Brooklyn, NY 11207."  The
recall involves all Mattress Cloud mattresses manufactured prior
to January 25, 2012.  Some mattress tags have no date printed on
them which are included in the recall.  Mattress tags with a date
of manufacture on or after January 25, 2012, are not included in
the recall.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at mattress and furniture stores in New Jersey,
New York and Pennsylvania from August 2011 through January 2012
for between $80 and $175.

Consumers should immediately contact The Mattress Cloud to receive
a free replacement mattress and to arrange for the firm to pick up
the recalled mattress.  The Mattress Cloud Inc. may be reached
toll-free at (855) 622-4233, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern
Time Monday through Friday or e-mail the firm at

NEVADA ASSOCIATION: Accord in FDCPA Class Suit Wins Initial OK
Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement in the class action lawsuit captioned
BENITA JONES EBEL, an individual, on behalf of itself and all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NEVADA ASSOCIATION
SERVICES, INC., a Nevada corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:11-cv-
00963-KJD-RJJ, (D. Nev.).

Benita Ebel Jones filed the class action complaint on June 13,
2011, against Nevada Association Services, Inc., asserting class
claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to
the Plaintiff, NAS violated the FDCPA by overshadowing her FDCPA
validation rights in its initial collection notice.

The Court preliminarily finds the proposed settlement to be
fundamentally fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Judge Koppe defined the class as all natural persons who (i)
incurred an alleged debt for personal, family, or household
purposes; (ii) whose alleged debt was referred to NAS for
collection; and (iii) who received an initial collection notice
from NAS between June 13, 2010 and November 1, 2011.

The Court appointed Ms. Jones as the Class Representative.

Jamie S. Cogburn, Esq., and Larson A. Welsh, Esq., both of Cogburn
Law Offices, were appointed as counsel for the Class Members.

The Court appointed First Class, Inc. as the claims administrator,
and directed the firm to send the notice of class action
settlement by first class mail to the members of the class not
later than 20 days after entry of the order.

Any Class Member who desires to be excluded from the class must
mail a written request for exclusion to the claims administrator
with a postmark within 50 days from the Court's entry of the

Any Class Member who intends to object to the fairness of the
settlement must file a written objection with the Court, at United
States District Court, District of Nevada, 333 Las Vegas Blvd.
South, Las Vegas, NV 89101, no later than 14 days before the final
fairness hearing.  Any such Class Member must, within the same
time period, provide a copy of the written objection to Class
Counsel: Jamie S. Cogburn, Esq. and Larson A. Welsh, Esq., Cogburn
Law Offices, 2879 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 200, Henderson, NV 89052
and counsel for NAS: Allison Cannizaro, Esq., Sessions, Fishman,
Nathan & Israel, L.L.C., Lakeway Two, Suite 200, 3850 N. Causeway
Blvd., Metairie, LA 70002-7227.

The Court will conduct a Fairness Hearing on January 31, 2013, at
United States District Court, District of Nevada, 333 Las Vegas
Blvd. South, Las Vegas, NV 89101, commencing at 11:00 A.M.,
Courtroom 3C.

A copy of the District Court's January 22, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/SMhJxTfrom Leagle.com.

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: N.J. Court Denies Class Cert. in FLSA Suit
District Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh denied a motion for class
certification in JEFFRFY BOUDER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PRUDENTIAL
FINANCIAL, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 2:06-cv-04359

Lead Plaintiffs Jeffrey Bouder, John Costa, Christine Musthaler,
Steven Song, David Uchansky, Alan Scott Rudo, Ryan Homes, Timothy
Munson, Joseph Gawron, Sandra King, Julie Sullivan, Michelle
Otten, Vincent Camissa, Goran Oydanich, Robert Paventi, Alex
Tejada, Julie Stalla, Michael Todd Hinchliffe, and Tracy Chosa
filed the lawsuit as a collective action under the Federal Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq., and as a
class action pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23.  The Plaintiffs filed
the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated who suffered damages as a result of violations
of the FLSA, and of the Labor Laws of the States of California,
Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington, and as a result of other
wrongful conduct and improper labor practices allegedly committed
by Defendants Prudential Financial, Inc. and The Prudential
Insurance Company of America.

The Plaintiffs' Third Consolidated Amended Collective and Class
Action Complaint sought certification of a State Law Class
comprised of eleven State Law Classes, seven of which are further
divided into separate State Law Overtime and State Law
"Deductions" Subclasses.

The Court held that with the number of individual State Subclasses
that exist, coupled with the potential for individualized inquiry,
and the individual inquiry that will be necessary regarding the
independent contractor status of at least some of the members of
each Subclass, it foresees significant difficulty in how the case
will be managed and in how it will play out before a jury at

"The need for individualized inquiries to address Prudential's
defense has the potential to cause confusion in its resolution,"
Judge Cavanaugh said.  "Accordingly, the manageability issues
presented by Plaintiffs' Proposed Class prevent the Proposed Class
from satisfying the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3)."

A copy of the District Court's January 18, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/ftummufrom Leagle.com.

RALCORP HOLDINGS: Signs MOU to Settle ConAgra Merger-Related Suit
Ralcorp Holdings, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle a consolidated shareholder lawsuit arising from ConAgra
Foods' proposed acquisition of the Company, according to Ralcorp's
January 22, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On December 28, 2012, Ralcorp Holdings, Inc. filed with the SEC a
definitive proxy statement, dated December 28, 2012, with respect
to the special meeting of Ralcorp shareholders scheduled to be
held on January 29, 2013 (the "Special Meeting").

As previously disclosed in the Definitive Proxy Statement, six
putative class action complaints challenging the proposed
acquisition of Ralcorp by ConAgra Foods were filed in the Circuit
Court of the City of St. Louis, and an additional complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri (the "Federal Action").  Beginning in early January
2013, the parties to the six litigations filed in Missouri state
court, which were subsequently consolidated by court order dated
January 10, 2013, under the caption In re Ralcorp Holdings, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Cause No. 1122-CC09665 (the "Consolidated
State Court Action") commenced expedited discovery.

On January 18, 2013, the parties to the Consolidated State Court
Action and the Federal Action reached an agreement-in-principle
providing for the settlement of the outstanding litigation on the
terms and conditions set forth in a memorandum of understanding
(the "MOU").  Pursuant to the MOU, the defendants agreed to make
certain supplemental and amended disclosures in the Current Report
on Form 8-K.  The MOU further provides that, among other things,
(a) the parties will enter into a definitive stipulation of
settlement (the "Stipulation") and will submit the Stipulation to
the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis for review and
approval; (b) the Stipulation will provide for dismissal of the
outstanding litigation on the merits; (c) the Stipulation will
include a general release of defendants of claims relating to
transaction; and (d) the proposed settlement is conditioned on,
among other things, completion of certain confirmatory discovery,
class certification, and final approval by the Circuit Court of
the City of St. Louis after notice to Ralcorp's shareholders.

The settlement will not affect the timing of the Special Meeting
or the amount of merger consideration to be paid to shareholders
of Ralcorp in connection with the proposed merger.

Pursuant to the proposed settlement, the Company has agreed to
make amended and supplemental disclosures.  Important information
concerning the proposed merger is set forth in the Definitive
Proxy Statement.

The Company and the other defendants have vigorously denied, and
continue vigorously to deny, that they have committed or aided and
abetted in the commission of any violation of law or engaged in
any of the wrongful acts that were or could have been alleged in
the referenced lawsuits, and expressly maintain that, to the
extent applicable, they diligently and scrupulously complied with
any applicable fiduciary and other legal duties and are entering
into the contemplated settlement solely to eliminate the burden
and expense of further litigation, to put the claims that were or
could have been asserted to rest, and to avoid any possible delay
to the closing of the merger that might arise from further
litigation.  Nothing in the Current Report on Form 8-K, the
Memorandum of Understanding or any stipulation of settlement shall
be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under
applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein.

SEQWATER: Better Payout May Prompt Insurers to Join Class Action
Mark Solomons and Tuck Thompson, writing for The Courier-Mail,
report that insurance companies will be offered a better payout
deal than householders in the planned flood class action in a bid
to convince them to sign.

The company financing the action will waive some of its cut of any
settlement as a carrot to attract insurance companies to join in
and boost the scale of the claim.

Household flood victims who joined the class action would have to
pay financing firm IMF 28 per cent of any payout, while insurers
and developers would pay only 22 per cent.

John Walker, of IMF, said the floods had cost the industry
"billions" and he was talking to "insurers, underwriters, brokers,
reinsurers and agents" about coming on board.

"Their support is not essential or critical, but, if it was
provided, the claim will proceed," he said.

Suncorp, which paid out on thousands of flood insurance claims,
said it had been approached but would not join.

A spokeswoman said: "We don't intend to seek recovery of our
losses.  We have determined that we wouldn't join the class

A spokesman for RACQ, which had the second-largest exposure in
2011, said the insurer had not been approached.

IMF had collected about AUD1.2 billion for clients in the last 10
years and averaged a return on its investment of about 28 per
cent, Mr. Walker said.

He expected a lower rate of return on the flood claim because of
its large size.

There was no target in terms of numbers of claimants but the total
size of the claim would have to be at least in the "tens of
millions" for it to make financial sense for his firm, which would
risk upwards of AUD10 million on the suit.

Claimants would be sent questionnaires in the next couple of
months to determine the size of their uninsured losses.

An expert on class actions in Australia said law firm Maurice
Blackburn would not have initiated a case unless it thought it had
an 80 per cent chance of success in the form of a large

Monash University Professor Vince Morabito said: "The fact that
the Commission of Inquiry made findings that point fingers at
certain people and entities is a prima facie arguable case."

Prof. Morabito thought the odds of a settlement were about 50-50
once a judge agreed the case had class-action status.

Of the 15 class actions filed each year since 1993, the cases
settled included payouts ranging from AUD2 million to AUD200

The largest payouts were against securities companies on behalf of
shareholders, rather than people injured by government negligence,
he said.

The Courier-Mail revealed on Jan. 23 that Maurice Blackburn had
released maps last week based partly on official data it knew was
wrong, as part of efforts to recruit householders and business

Property valuer Iain Herriott, who warned a year ago that there
were 4,500 "virtually unsalable" flood-affected homes in Brisbane
and Ipswich, said it would be "near impossible to quantify the
actual and real loss incurred by every individual adversely
affected by the 2011 floods".

Independent hydrologist Max Winders said the controversy
highlighted the weaknesses of official maps, which were based on a
limited number of monitoring sites and on estimates based on

"You just have to be careful in the way this information is
extrapolated," he said.

"You'll see that council's information is of at least similar
accuracy to that which has been determined by Maurice Blackburn."

SEQWATER: Proposed Flood Class Action Faces Jurisdiction Hurdle
Andrew Jennings, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that a
decision is yet to be made about where a class action, which hopes
to claim up to a billion dollars compensation for thousands of
Queensland flood victims, is likely to be filed.

Earlier last week, Maurice Blackburn confirmed its intention to
push ahead with the action -- funded by IMF Australia -- against
the Queensland Government for damages incurred in the 2011 floods.

Although Maurice Blackburn has stated that it is "very confident
the action will go ahead", IMF executive director John Walker has
warned the case's viability depends on how many flood victims are
recruited and how much flood damage was done to those victims'

Another significant obstacle in the process for Maurice Blackburn
and the IMF is that, unlike in NSW and Victoria, Queensland has no
federal jurisdiction, so if the action was to be filed in the
Sunshine State it would have to be in the Supreme Court.

"Obviously we would prefer for Queensland to be the jurisdiction
because that is where the flood damage happened," Maurice
Blackburn principal Damian Scattini told Lawyers Weekly.

"It's still where we would expect it to proceed, but it's not the
only place it can."

Mr. Walker agreed that he would like to see the claim filed in
Queensland, but added that the fact it can't be filed federally in
the state means that NSW and Victoria are still under

He said a final decision should be made within the next month.

The action, if it finally goes ahead, is expected to cost more
than AUD10 million but, if successful, it would force the state
government to fork out hundreds of millions of dollars in

Mr. Walker said the IMF will be assessing over the next two to
three months the budget to make the claim viable.

Although 2,000 people have already signed on to the class action
and another 2,000 have expressed interest, sufficient additional
support of the flood victims is still required in order for it to
proceed, said Mr. Walker.

On Jan. 21, Maurice Blackburn released a map showing areas of
Queensland's southeast flooded in 2011 because of what it said was
the mismanagement of Wivenhoe Dam.

An independent investigation has alleged that the flooding of a
large number of properties down river from Wivenhoe Dam in 2011
would not have occurred had the dam been operated to the standard
expected of a reasonably competent dam operator.

Maurice Blackburn, which believes there is now sufficient evidence
to ensure a class action can proceed, said it expects to announce
whether the class action will go ahead by April.

SHOP-VAC: Judge Appoints Milberg Group as Class Counsel in MDL
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that three New
York law firms will represent consumers who claim that Shop-Vac
misrepresents the horsepower of its vacuums, a federal judge

Shop-Vac wet-dry vacuums allegedly contain high horsepower motors
capable of lifting debris heavier than what a conventional vacuum
would be expected to lift.

Claiming that their Shop-Vacs failed to deliver, however, numerous
consumers across the country have filed class actions against
Shop-Vac or Lowes.

Six separate cases in federal and state courts in New Jersey and
California were filed between February and May 2012 by plaintiffs
with represented from as the Milberg Group -- namely, Milberg LLP,
Lax LLP, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, and Reese Richman LLP, all of New
York; Dilworth Paxson LLP of Pennsylvania, Lite DePalma Greenberg
LLC, and Pinilis Halpern LLP, all of New Jersey; and Baron &
Herskowitz of Florida.

After two of those actions were voluntarily dismissed, several
other plaintiffs initiated actions in various federal courts
across the country.  These plaintiffs are represented by
Pennsylvania-based attorneys known as the Schaffer Group --
namely, Charles Schaffer of Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman and J.
Christopher Munley of Munley, Munley & Cartwright.

The Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation started
transferring the actions to the Middle District of Pennsylvania in
August 2012.

Plaintiffs Alan McMichael, Andrew Harbut, Clay Scott and Scott
Mahoney moved to appoint the Milberg Group as interim counsel on
Aug. 24.

But plaintiffs Emanuele DiMare, Deborah Blaylock, Igor Selizhuk,
Fred Phillips, Charles Kates and Walt Lavespere argued that the
Schaffer Group deserved the appointment.

After holding a hearing, Chief U.S. District Judge Yvette Kane
granted the Milberg Group's motion and denied the Schaffer Group's

Judge Kane found that both groups meet most requirements for
putative class counsel.

"Both groups of attorneys have demonstrated significant experience
in handling class actions, including MDLs (multidistrict
litigations).  Both groups of attorneys appear to have a strong
command of the applicable law," the judge wrote.  "Moreover, the
court is satisfied that both groups of attorneys have significant
resources that they are willing to commit to representing the
putative class. Furthermore, the court is confident that either
group would aid the court in achieving efficiency without
jeopardizing fairness to the parties."

The Milberg Group best fits the bill, according to the ruling.

"The court finds that the expertise, organization, and leadership
ability demonstrated by the Milberg Group renders it most
qualified to further the interests of all putative class members,"
Judge Kane wrote.  "The Milberg Group has conducted thorough and
extensive pre-filing investigation and testing of the potential
claims and initiated legal action months in advance of other

The Schaffer Group failed to convince the court that it completed
comparable investigative work.

"Whereas the Schaffer Group asserts that it began researching
small motor claims in late 2011, and began considering claims
against wet/dry vacuum manufacturers as early as March 2012, the
Milberg Group had already initiated claims as early as February
2012," according to the six-page ruling.

The court tossed aside the Schaffer Group's argument that it has
the support of a majority of the plaintiffs and law firms involved
in the case.

"Other courts have noted that appointment of counsel 'is not
supposed to be a popularity contest, and the number of attorneys
supporting a given candidacy is not included among the factors set
forth in Rule 23(g)," Judge Kane wrote.  "Because application of
the factors listed in Rule 23(g) supports the appointment of the
Milberg Group's suggested leadership structure, the court will
grant the Milberg Group's motion."

SPARTECH: Being Sold to PolyOne for Too Little, Suit Claims
Courthouse News Service reports that Spartech directors are
selling the company too cheaply through an unfair process to
PolyOne Corp., for $393 million, in a cash and stock deal that
values Spartech at $8 a share, shareholders claim in Federal

SYNGENTA CROP: Lincoln's Water System to Get Settlement Check
Jordan Pascale, writing for Lincoln Journal Star, reports that it
appears the Lincoln's Water System is set to get $800,000 from a
class action settlement with Syngenta, the largest manufacturer of
the weed-killer atrazine.

Reached late on Jan. 22, Lincoln officials would not confirm
exactly how much the city would receive or what the money would be
used for.

The case against Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. was settled for
$105 million, with nearly $2 million going to 106 Nebraska
communities to help recoup the cost of removing the herbicide from
their drinking water.

Payment amounts are based on evidence of the levels of atrazine in
the water, how often atrazine had been found in the water, how
long ago atrazine had been found in the water, and the population

A news release from St. Louis-based law firm Korein Tillery, and a
map on the Web site http://www.atrazinesettlement.comindicates
Lincoln's $800,000 payment is the largest in the state.

The lawsuit says the weed-killer, one of the most widely used
herbicides on corn, sorghum and other crops, got into water
systems across the Midwest through runoff from fields where it has
been applied.

Some scientists say it is a potential cause of birth defects, low
birth weights and menstrual problems, but the Environmental
Protection Agency says it is safe under federal guidelines,
according to a 2009 New York Times story.

"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," Stephen
Tillery, senior partner of Korein Tillery said.  "Independent
scientists now believe, however, that even trace amounts can harm
you and your children for generations to come."

Syngenta has denied the allegations in the lawsuit and asserts
that atrazine has been used repeatedly and safely for more than 50

Nearly 37 million people live in the area served by the 1,085
water systems represented in the class action lawsuit.

VERISIGN: Shareholders File Securities Class Action
Courthouse News Service reports that Verisign propped up its stock
price with false and misleading statements and it fell from $46.60
to below $40 in one day when the truth came out, shareholders
claim in a federal class action.

YOUNG INNOVATIONS: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in Missouri
Young Innovations, Inc. is facing a merger-related class action
lawsuit in Missouri, according to the Company's January 22, 2013,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On January 4, 2013, Young Innovations, Inc. (the "Company") began
mailing the definitive proxy statement (the "Proxy Statement")
relating to the special meeting of shareholders of the Company, to
be held on January 30, 2013, at which meeting the shareholders of
the Company will consider and vote upon, among other things, the
proposal to adopt the previously announced Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of December 3, 2012, by and among the Company,
Young Innovations Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company ("Parent"), and YI Acquisition Corp., a Missouri
corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"),
which provides for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the

On January 11, 2013, a purported shareholder class action
complaint, captioned Prime Investors Fund v. Brennan, et al., was
filed in the Circuit Court for St. Louis County, Missouri (the
"Complaint") against the Company, each member of the Company's
Board of Directors, Linden LLC, Parent and Merger Sub.  The
complaint generally alleges that the Company's directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the shareholders by agreeing to sell the
Company at a price that is inadequate and by engaging in a sale
process that was flawed.  The complaint further alleges that
Linden LLC, Parent and Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches
of duty and that the Proxy Statement is materially misleading
and/or incomplete.  The complaint seeks (a) declaration that the
defendants breached, or aided and abetted other defendants' breach
of fiduciary duties, (b) injunctive relief enjoining the merger
until corrective disclosures are made, (c) an award of
compensatory damages and (d) an award for the costs of the action.

In response to the Complaint, on January 22, 2013, the Company
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and mailed to
its shareholders a supplement to the Proxy Statement (the "Proxy
Supplement"), which updates the information in the Proxy Statement
and responds to allegations made by the plaintiffs in the

The Company says it intends to deny these allegations and to
vigorously defend itself and its directors.

ZIMMER: Class Cert. in Durom Cup Hip Implant Class Action Affirmed
On January 22, 2013, the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld
certification of the Zimmer Durom Cup hip implant class action.
Approximately 5,000 Durom acetabular hip implants or "Durom Cups"
were sold in Canada between 2005 and 2011.  So far, more than 60
Canadians have come forward to participate in the national class

The class action is brought on behalf of all people who were
implanted with the Durom Cup in Canada.  Gwen Wilkinson, the
representative plaintiff, reacted to the dismissed appeal,
remarking that "after a long delay . . . it makes me feel really
happy that it's going to speed things along."  Ms. Wilkinson is
hopeful that "the implant never gets put out on the market ever
again to have other people go through what I did."

The Durom Cup is an artificial device used in hip replacement
surgery, alleged to have failed to adhere to patients' hip bones,
causing pain, discomfort and, in many cases, the need for
additional hip replacement surgeries.  The lawsuit alleges that
Zimmer was negligent in the development and manufacture of the
Durom Cup.

Ms. Wilkinson, a 53-year-old nurse who lives in Osoyoos, BC, was
looking forward to retirement when she was implanted with her
Durom Cup in 2008.  Within months of receiving the implant, she
started to experience increasing pain, associated with a feeling
and sound of clicking in her left hip; she describes it as feeling
like her hip was going to "pop out".  The pressure and pain on her
left hip became worse over the ensuing months, leading
Ms. Wilkinson to resort to a cane and narcotic pain relievers.
The lawsuit alleges that, as a result, Ms. Wilkinson had to
undergo otherwise needless surgeries to correct for the failure of
her Durom Cup.  She laments that "having to take time off every
time I had to have a hip surgery has put me further and further
behind.  I was a single mom just trying to raise my son and it
wasn't very fair for a 16-year-old having to look out for me each
time I had to go for hip surgery."  After undergoing a number of
surgeries to repair her hip, Ms. Wilkinson is hopeful: "I can get
back to work . . . . I want to be pain free."

In mid-2008, Zimmer suspended American sales of the Durom Cup
following reports of product failures in patients.  A European
safety notification followed in late-2009.  More than a year
passed after suspending sales in the United States before Zimmer
issued a safety notification in Canada and Health Canada published
a recall.

In the Jan. 22 ruling, the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed
the appeal brought by Zimmer GMBH, Zimmer, Inc., and Zimmer of
Canada Limited, finding that a lower court judge appropriately
certified the lawsuit as a class action.  The Court's decision is
on the Klein Lyons Web site:

Last year, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that an
Ontario Zimmer Durom hip implant class action should move forward
in tandem with this national-scope class action being litigated in
British Columbia.  The plaintiffs in both lawsuits are represented
by the law firm Klein Lyons of Vancouver and Toronto.

* Securities Fraud Class Actions Down Last Year, Study Shows
David McLaughlin, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that the
number of securities fraud class-action cases filed last year fell
19 percent as litigation over mergers and acquisitions and the
credit crisis decreased, according to a report.

Major securities fraud cases in 2012 included litigation against
Facebook Inc. over its initial public offering, and against
JPMorgan Chase & Co. over more than $6 billion in trading losses
at the bank.

The 152 cases filed in 2012 fell from 188 in 2011 and represented
the second-lowest level in 16 years, according to the report by
Stanford Law School and Cornerstone Research, a consulting firm.

"The question is if this is the beginning of a long-term trend or
a reflection that there haven't been any market disruptions in the
past year," Mark Holland, a partner at law firm Goodwin Procter
LLP, said in an interview.  "I think it's an aberration."

Last year marked an end to securities fraud class-actions related
to the credit crisis as no new cases were filed compared to three
in 2011, according to the report.  Credit crisis cases peaked in
2008 at 100.

Federal cases related to mergers and acquisitions dropped to 13 in
2012 compared with 40 in 2010 and 43 in 2011, according to the
report.  Those cases are now being pursued almost exclusively in
state courts.

"The trends that we saw in the last few years just didn't occur
this year," said John Gould, a senior vice president at
Cornerstone, which prepared the report with the Stanford Law
School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse.

                           Major Cases

Although there were no class-action credit-crisis cases, according
to the report, Wall Street banks are still contending with
lawsuits and claims over mortgage securities sold during the
housing boom.

"Even though securities filings are down, it doesn't mean
securities work is down," Mr. Holland said.  "We're still pretty
busy with the backlog."

Class-action securities filings against financial companies fell,
according to the report.  They were defendants in 15 filings, or
10 percent of all filings, compared with 25 filings in 2011 and 43
in 2010.

                          London Whale

In the case against JPMorgan, pension funds accuse the biggest
U.S. bank of transforming the chief investment office from a risk
management unit into a "secret hedge fund."  The so-called London
Whale, the nickname of the U.K.-based trader Bruno Iksil because
his trading book was so large, made a wrong-way bet on credit
derivatives that led to the company's single biggest trading loss
and at one point wiped out as much as $51 billion in market value.

Other companies facing lawsuits filed last year include Hewlett-
Packard Co., which was sued by investors after it recorded an $8.8
billion writedown related to Autonomy Corp., and Wal-Mart Stores
Inc., which was sued over bribery allegations.

Health-care, biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies had a
larger share of filings, with 33 total, or 22 percent of all
filings, compared with 28 filings or 15 percent in 2011, according
to the report.

Michael J. de la Merced, writing for New York Times, reports that
filings against Chinese companies that pursued stock listings in
the United States -- at one point a red-hot topic -- tumbled to 10
cases last year, from 31 in the prior year.

And new lawsuits tied to the financial crisis finally disappeared
for the first time, as the market turmoil of 2008 receded even
further into the distance.



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  * * *