CAR_Public/130204.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, February 4, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 24

                             Headlines


AMERICAN REALTY: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in New York
ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: To Defend Gold Miners' Silicosis Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Fired Pregnant Worker File Class Action
BRE-X MINERALS: Deloitte Seeks Leave to Discontinue Class Action
BRP MEXICO: Recalls 25,000 Can-Am Side-By-Side Off Road Vehicles

CANADA: Her Majesty The Queen Faces Suit Over Lost Hard Drive
COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Recalls 10,040 Men's/Women's Heated Jackets
FACEBOOK: May 2 "Sponsored Story" Settlement Claim Deadline Set
GOOGLE INC: UK Citizens File Class Action Over iPhone Tracking
HIPSTER INC: Faces Consumer Suit Over Mobile Device "Hacking"

LIVING ESSENTIALS: Sued for Misrepresenting Energy Drink Benefits
MINNESOTA: DNR Faces Two Class Actions Over Data Breach
MINNESOTA: Crowder Teske Files Data Breach Class Action v. DNR
NEXIUM: Linda Nussbaum Loses Antitrust MDL Lead Counsel Bid
NTS REALTY: Faces Merger-Related Class Action in Kentucky

PHILADELPHIA: Class Cert. Bid in Traffic Violations Suit Denied
STALLINGS HEAD: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
SYNGENTA CROP: Municipalities Get Share in Atrazine Settlement
TEXXXAN.COM: 17 Women File Class Action Over Humiliating Photos
US GYPSUM: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Drywall Price Fixing

US TELEPACIFIC: Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Brennan" Suit Upheld

* CBI Balks at UK Government's Class Action Law Proposals
* No. of Securities Suit Settlements Hit Record Lows, NERA Says


                           *********



AMERICAN REALTY: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Randell Quaal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. American Realty Capital Trust III, Inc., American
Realty Capital Operating Partnership III, L.P., Nicholas S.
Schorsch, Edward Michael Weil, Jr., Scott J. Bowman, Edward G.
Rendell, David Gong, American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., ARC
Properties Operating Partnership, L.P., and Tiger Acquisition,
LLC, Case No. 650329/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January 30, 2013) is
brought on behalf of holders of the common stock of ARCT III to
enjoin the shareholder vote relating to the acquisition of all of
the outstanding shares of ARCT III common stock by ARCP and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Tiger, until ARCT III shareholders are
provided with sufficient information to cast a fully informed
vote.

Mr. Quaal asserts that in facilitating the acquisition of ARCT III
by ARCP for inadequate consideration and through a flawed process,
each of the Defendants breached and aided the other Defendants'
breaches of their fiduciary duties.  He adds that the ARCT III
Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties by failing to
maximize the consideration available to ARCT III shareholders.

Mr. Quaal is a shareholder of ARCT III.

ARCT III is a Maryland corporation based in New York.  Operating
as a real estate investment trust, the Company is required to
distribute at least 90% of REIT taxable income to its shareholders
annually.  ARCT III OP is a Delaware limited partnership based in
New York.  ARCT III is the sole general partner of ARCT III OP
with a 99.9% stake in ARCT III OP.  ARCT III conducts
substantially all of its business through ARCT
III OP.  The remaining 0.1 % stake in ARCT III OP is held by
American Realty Capital Trust III Special Limited Partner, LLC,
which is 100% owned by AR Capital, LLC.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.  ARCP is a Maryland
corporation based in New York.  ARCP operates as a REIT.  ARCP OP
is a Delaware limited partnership based in New York.  ARCP is the
sole general partner of ARCP OP.  Tiger is a Delaware corporation
and a wholly-owned subsidiary of ARCP formed solely for the
purpose of consummating the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A.P. Brower, Esq.
          Brian C. Kerr, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN, A Professional Corporation
          A Professional Corporation
          475 Park Avenue South, 33d Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 501-9000
          Facsimile: (212) 501-0300
          E-mail: brower@browerpiven.com
                  kerr@browerpiven.com


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: To Defend Gold Miners' Silicosis Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf News reports that thousands of ex-gold miners suffering from
silicosis have launched a class action suit in South Africa, in
what could prove the final nail in the coffin of the country's
battered but vital mining sector.

Already buckling under huge operational costs and seemingly
endless labor unrest, some 30 gold mine operators were last month
slapped with litigation by thousands of their former employees.

The plaintiffs -- mostly black migrant laborers from nearby
countries and South Africa's far flung mountainous villages of the
Eastern Cape region -- allegedly contracted the lung disease while
drilling gold bearing rocks.

Already theirs is the biggest class action in South Africa's legal
history, involving more than 17,000 complainants.

And the list is growing by around 500 people each month, according
to lead attorney Richard Spoor.

That stream could very well become a torrent.

Academic calculations estimate some 280,000 people have worked in
gold mines for a minimum of 10 years, long enough to inhale
dangerous levels of silica dust.

Research has shown that between 20 and 30% per cent of all gold
mine workers contracted silicosis.

Black miners working in often unsafe conditions during apartheid
were hardest hit.

Activists argue the disease is preventable, if only operators
invest in making the mines safe.

The disease has virtually been wiped out in other gold mining
countries such as Australia, the US and Britain.

"But in South African we continue to hear thousands each year, who
have been disabled by this disease," said Mr. Spoor, whose oldest
client started working in 1965.

If the miners are successful, it could cost the industry millions
of dollars, but mining experts warn it could also cost jobs.

"There will be no golden goose anymore," warned mining consultant
Peter Major.  "There may be some feathers, some intestines and
maybe a beak [but] there will be no goose, no golden bar ever
again."

That would be an epoch-ending event for a country whose very
foundations were built on the gold reefs and diamond deposits.

"Do you really want to put mining companies down forever in
country that has 30 percent unemployment," asked Mr. Major.

"We are almost getting to the stage now where it looks like 'let's
kick the guy, let's put the boots to him now that he's down on the
ground'."

A watershed Constitutional Court ruling in 2011 which allowed sick
workers to sue their employers has emboldened the gold mine
workers and opened the floodgates.

The mass suit -- filed last month and likely to be heard within
months -- is sure to play havoc with investors' sentiment.

But so far there has been no such flight by investors.

Emerging market analyst Peter Nomura is of the opinion the case
may not immediately move markets.

Markets "may well change particularly if there are large pay-
outs," he said.

Depending on commodity prices, operators may in the long run
consider selling their companies, he added.

But some of the larger operators, already facing a few cases
brought by smaller groups of miners, are not taking the latest
case lightly.

"The application raises a number of complex legal and factual
issues, and AngloGold Ashanti plans to respond through the
appropriate court procedures to defend the case on its merits,"
said spokesman Alan Fine.

"Silicosis is an issue that not only challenges the mining
industry, but South Africa as a whole," said Mr. Fine.

The consequences of the suit may yet shift into unexpected
directions.

Some activists argue that government should also be charged with
complicity in the case as they grant mining royalties and collect
taxes.

The state's occupational health compensation department did not
respond to requests for comment.


BANK OF AMERICA: Fired Pregnant Worker File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law360, reports that a Bank of America
Corp. office was hit with a proposed class action on Jan. 28 in
Pennsylvania federal court, led by a woman who claims she was
fired because she was pregnant.

Filing on behalf of a putative class of current and former
employees, named plaintiff Ola Fajinmi is accusing the company and
two supervisors at a Glen Mills, Pa., location of violating the
Family and Medical Leave Act.  Ms. Fajinmi says she was
discriminated against once she became pregnant and was fired.


BRE-X MINERALS: Deloitte Seeks Leave to Discontinue Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Beeforth, Esq. of FMC Law reports that Deloitte & Touche
Inc., the long-acting trustee for the Estate of Bre-X Minerals
Ltd., has brought motions in the Alberta and Ontario courts
seeking leave to discontinue the class action litigation that it
has been prosecuting against, amongst others, former Bre-X
principal John Felderhof and his ex-wife Ingrid Felderhof, as well
as the Estate of founder and CEO David Walsh.

As a brief background, in October 1997, an action was commenced in
Alberta by investors who lost money on the collapse of Bre-X.  In
November 1997, the Alberta Bankruptcy Court authorized Deloitte to
prosecute the class action on behalf of these investors; shortly
thereafter, Deloitte was granted carriage in Ontario in January
1998 (collectively, the "Deloitte Action").  The Deloitte Action
asserted that John Felderhof failed to promptly disclose material
changes relating to Bre-X's gold mining properties, and that he
conspired with others to deceive investors by issuing false
statements, announcements and press releases.

Deloitte's motions for discontinuance are being brought for two
reasons: Deloitte no longer has the financial resources to
prosecute the Deloitte Action, and it believes that there is no
reasonable prospect of significant recovery from the Felderhofs or
the Walsh Estate.  Deloitte's motions are opposed by David Carom,
one of the plaintiffs in a second class action against the
Felderhofs and the Walsh Estate which, until recently, was in a
litigation partnership with the Deloitte Action.

In anticipation of Deloitte's Ontario discontinuance motion
hearing (currently scheduled for March 4, 2013), Mr. Carom
recently brought a cross-motion seeking an order that Ingrid
Felderhof and Jeannette Walsh (David Walsh's widow) attend to be
examined as witnesses under Rule 39.03 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, and that Ingrid Felderhof allow class counsel to obtain
an appraisal of a property in the Cayman Islands.  Deloitte
opposed the cross-motion based on its concern that its
discontinuance motion could be affected in the event that either
of the proposed witnesses failed to comply with any order made by
the court.

At the cross-motion hearing (2012 ONSC 7278), Perell J. held that
since neither of the proposed witnesses had actually been served
with a summons, the appropriate decision was to adjourn the cross-
motion to allow Mr. Carom to serve summonses.  Perell J. noted,
however, that had summonses been served, he saw no basis for
striking them out.  With respect to the request for an appraisal,
Perell J. dismissed the motion without prejudice due to the lack
of advice concerning his jurisdiction to make such an order,
noting that Ingrid Felderhof was not a party to the Ontario
litigation.

            About Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP (FMC)

FMC -- http://www.fmc-law.com-- is a Canadian business and
litigation law firms with more than 500 lawyers in six full-
service offices located in the country's key business centers.


BRP MEXICO: Recalls 25,000 Can-Am Side-By-Side Off Road Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
BRP Mexico S.A. de C.V., of Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, announced a
voluntary recall of about 25,000 Can-Am(R) Commander Side-by-Side
Off Road Vehicles.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Debris such as leaves, hay and grass in wet terrain areas can
collect in the vehicle's exhaust pipe area in a short period of
time.  A hot exhaust pipe and accumulated debris that has dried,
poses a risk of fire.

The firm has received 18 reports of fires related to accumulated
debris in the exhaust pipe area, including one report of minor
burns to the hand.

This recall involves 2011, 2012 and early 2013 model gas-powered
Can-Am Commander side-by-side vehicles.  The model name is printed
on the vehicle's side panel.  Models included in the recall are:

                                           Model Year 2013
Model Year 2011      Model Year 2012      (w/o Front Grill Kit)
---------------      ---------------      --------------------
Can-Am Commander     Can-Am Commander     Can-Am Commander
800R and 1000        800R and 1000        800R and 1000

Can-Am Commander XT  Can-Am Commander XT  Can-Am Commander XT
800R and 1000        800R and 1000        800R and 1000

Can-Am Commander X   Can-Am Commander X   Can-Am Commander X
1000                 1000                 1000

                      Can-Am Commander     Can-Am Commander
                      Limited 1000         Limited 1000

                                           Can-Am Commander DPS
                                           800R and 1000

A picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://is.gd/TFNz56

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold at Can-
Am dealers nationwide from April 2010 through November 2012 for
between $11,700 and $21,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vehicles,
check their exhaust for accumulated debris as described in the
Cleaning Procedure of Exhaust Area guide and contact a BRP dealer
to schedule a free update kit repair.  The guide is available to
consumers at their local BRP dealer or online at http://www.can-
am.brp.com/.  BRP has notified registered consumers directly about
this recall and the vehicle's cleaning guide.  BRP may be reached
toll-free at (888) 638-5397, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern
Time Monday through Friday, or online at http://www.can-
am.brp.com/ and click on "recall information" under the owner
center for more information.


CANADA: Her Majesty The Queen Faces Suit Over Lost Hard Drive
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action
against Her Majesty the Queen claims Canada's Ministry of Human
Resources and Skills Development lost a hard drive with
confidential information on 583,000 students with outstanding
loans.


COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Recalls 10,040 Men's/Women's Heated Jackets
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Columbia Sportswear Company, of Portland, Oregon, announced a
voluntary recall of about 9,600 Men's and Women's Heated Jackets
in the United States of America and 640 in Canada.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The heated inner wrist cuff can overheat, posing a burn hazard.

No incidents of jacket wrist cuffs overheating were reported in
the U.S.  The firm received reports of one incident in Europe and
one in Canada.  No injuries were reported.

This recall involves seven models of men's and women's 2012
Columbia Omni-Heat(TM) electric heated jackets.  They are
polyester and have the Columbia name printed on the front upper
left side.  The jackets have two battery packs located in inner
pouches.  Jackets with the following names and style numbers are
being recalled:

   MEN'S
   -----
   Circuit Breaker(TM) II Jacket              SM7051
   Electro AMP(TM) Jacket                     SM7061
   Electro(TM) Interchange Jacket             SM7886
   Electric Big Game(TM) Interchange Jacket   HM7198

   WOMEN'S
   -------
   Circuit Breaker(TM) II Jacket              SL7022
   Electro AMP(TM) Jacket                     SL7021
   Electro(TM) Interchange Jacket             SL7885

The style number can be found on both the large white care label
and the small white security tag sewn into the left inside seam of
the jacket.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/gs6QDu

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Bass
Pro Outdoor World, Dick's Sporting Goods and other major retailers
and sporting or outdoor stores nationwide; and online at
Amazon.com and Columbia.com from May 2012 to January 2013 for
between $250 and $1,200.

Consumers should immediately stop using the heated jackets and
check the style number to determine if they are part of the
recall.  Those with recalled jackets should disconnect both
batteries from the electrical connections inside the battery
pouches and contact Columbia Sportswear for a full refund with
proof of purchase.  Without proof of purchase, the following
refund prices will apply:

   Men's and Women's Circuit Breaker(TM) II Jacket    $275
   Men's and Women's Electro AMP(TM) Jacket           $250
   Men's and Women's Electro(TM) Interchange Jacket   $300
   Men's Electric Big Game(TM) Interchange            $300

Columbia Sportswear Company may be reached toll-free at (866) 201-
9073 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, or online at http://www.Columbia.com/,click on Recall
Information at the bottom of the page, then select 2012 Heated
Jacket Recall.


FACEBOOK: May 2 "Sponsored Story" Settlement Claim Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Segall, writing for CNNMoney, reports that Facebook may
have to pay some of its users up to $10 each to settle a class-
action lawsuit over its "Sponsored Stories" ads, according to
legal notices recently sent out.

But don't get your hopes up just yet: Your chances of actually
seeing that much cash are pretty slim.

In April 2011, five Facebook users filed a lawsuit against the
social network giant over its recently launched Sponsored Stories
advertising product, which includes users' names and profile
picture.  If you click 'Like' on a brand like Target, your friends
might start seeing Target-related ads with your face next to them.

The move didn't sit well with some of Facebook's 1 billion users,
but there's no way to opt out.

Facebook offered last year to settle the lawsuit by making changes
to its service terms to more clearly explain how Sponsored Stories
works.  It also agreed to pay $20 million into a settlement fund.

Facebook and the suing parties agreed to channel most of that
settlement cash to Internet privacy advocacy groups.  U.S.
District Judge Richard Seeborg vetoed the plan, though.  He felt
some portion of the cash should go directly to Facebook's users.

Or, at least, he wanted the two sides to explore that option.
With a class size that could approach 100 million people, cash
payments might not be feasible, he acknowledged.

"The issue this presents appears to be a novel one," he wrote in
his ruling in August.  "Are some class actions simply too big to
settle?"

The two sides went back to the drawing board and came up with a
new proposal, which the court accepted: Class members will be
eligible to receive payments of up to $10 each from the settlement
fund.  That's why some Facebook users received e-mailed settlement
notices over the past few days.  Sent from the address
legalnotice@facebookmail.com  the message looks like it could be
spam, but it's not -- it's legit.

Here's the catch: The more people who make claims, the less each
individual will receive.

The plaintiffs' lawyers fees will be deducted from the $20 million
settlement fund. (The court is still determining how much they'll
get, but the lawyers have asked for $7.5 million, plus around
$283,000 in expenses.) Whatever is left gets divided up by the
number of claimants.

If the fund has $12 million after legal fees and 1.2 million
people make claims, everyone gets $10.  But if 12 million people
make claims, everyone gets only $1.

If the number of claims makes it "economically infeasible" to pay
everyone cash, the two sides go back to plan A: the cash will go
entirely to non-for-profit advocacy groups.  The Web site
http://www.fraleyfacebooksettlement.comlays out the terms of the
proposed deal and the 14 groups that might collect a share of the
settlement cash.

Those who received the settlement notice have until May 2, 2013,
to decide if they want to submit a claim.  A final hearing on the
case is slated to take place in June.


GOOGLE INC: UK Citizens File Class Action Over iPhone Tracking
--------------------------------------------------------------
RT reports that Google is embroiled in its biggest privacy battle
yet in the UK over reportedly tracking users' online habits.  At
least 10 UK citizens began legal action with dozens more lining
up.  According to media estimates up to 10 million Britons could
join in.

Google is accused of evading security settings on Apple's devices
and Safari's web browser in order to keep tabs on people's online
preferences.

This is the first group claim over privacy issues that the tech-
giant is facing in the UK, the lawyer behind the action Dan Tench
told The Guardian.

"It is particularly concerning how Google circumvented security
settings to snoop on its users.  One of the things about Google is
that it is so ubiquitous in our lives and if that's its approach,
then it's quite concerning," Mr. Tench said.

On top of that there are plans in the works to launch an umbrella
privacy action suit, which could potentially bring in millions of
people in the UK.

Google executives reportedly received a letter from two users
prior to the launch of legal proceedings.

The tech-giant is being sued for breaches of privacy and
confidence, computer misuse and trespass, and breach of the Data
Protection Act of 1998.

Claimants want Google to reveal how much data was secretly
collected, for how long, and how the information is being used.

The point of the claim is not to make money off Google, but to
send a message, argued a privacy campaigner working on the legal
claims, Alexander Hanff.

"This lawsuit is about sending a very clear message to
corporations that circumventing privacy controls will result in
significant consequences.  The lawsuit has the potential of
costing Google tens of millions, perhaps even breaking 100 million
pounds [US$15.7 million] in damages given the potential number of
claimants -- making it the biggest group action ever launched in
the UK," Mr. Hanff says.

Some users responded by creating a Facebook group titled 'Safari
Users against Google's Secret Tracking' to gather support for the
new claims against Google.  The page promises to hold Google
responsible for any privacy breaches.

The group was set up "to provide information for anyone who used
the Safari internet browser between September 2011 and February
2012, and who was illegally tracked by Google," reads the group's
statement.  "Any users in the UK may have a claim against Google
for this breach of their privacy.  Other users, who have set up
this group, are taking action against Google to hold them to
account."

The day after the page was created, it already garnered over one
hundred 'likes'.

One Facebook user, Vitor Costa, commented on the secrecy aspect
behind Google's privacy breaches, questioning "what they are doing
with this information."

The legal action follows a US ruling that approved a $22.5 million
fine to penalize Google for a privacy breach between summer 2011
and spring 2012.  The fine resulted after allegations that Google
secretly kept tabs on millions of Safari web users, while leading
them to believe that their online activities could not be traced
as long as they did not change the browser's privacy settings.

The FTC came to the conclusion that Google's stealth tracking
(which allowed the company to bypass Safari's settings)
contradicted its own privacy assurances.

Google is not new to privacy violation accusations.  In the past
it faced many allegations such as, keeping tabs on Wi-Fi users
with its StreetView cars and privacy failures of Google's previous
social network, Google Buzz.

Also, European Union lawmakers have been continuing to pressure
Google to boost personal security controls and limit the
collection of data without users consent.

But new Google services such as Conversations API, which merges
offline consumer info with online intelligence, allowing
advertisers to target users based on what they do at the keyboard
and at the mall, only raise more privacy-based questions.


HIPSTER INC: Faces Consumer Suit Over Mobile Device "Hacking"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Espitia, Vanessa Zendejas, and Joe A. Sanchez Fraire,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals v. Hipster, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
3:13-cv-00432 (N.D. Calif., January 30, 2013) is a consumer class
action involving the "computer hacking" of mobile devices.

Hipster offered to the public an 'App,' a downloadable computing
program designed to provide an enhanced user capability for a
mobile device.  The Hipster App ostensibly was designed to permit
users to create postcards from photos taken on iPhone and Android
devices.  Users were given the option to share photographic
postcards with others through their mobile device.

However, the Plaintiffs allege, when users downloaded the Hipster
App onto their mobile devices, the Hipster App engaged in
additional activities that were not disclosed to the user.  The
Plaintiffs contend that the Hipster App, without seeking to obtain
consent and without notice to the user, sought out and retrieved
the list of personal contacts on the user's mobile device, which
was then copied and surreptitiously uploaded to Hipster's third-
party servers.  The Plaintiffs add that other highly sensitive
information, like passwords and geo-location, were also obtained
by the Hipster App.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Dallas County, Texas.  They
downloaded and used the Defendant's App during the Class Period.

Hipster Inc. is a privately held Delaware corporation
headquartered in Alto, California.  Hipster operates an Internet
business as a smartphone-based social network utilizing an
application software that performs specific functions for a web-
based platform on mobile devices.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          E-mail: dparisi@parisihavens.com
                  shavens@parisihavens.com

               - and -

          Alan Himmelfarb, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ALAN HIMMELFARB
          80 W. Sierra Madre Blvd., # 304
          Sierra Madre, CA 91024
          Telephone: (626) 325-3104
          E-mail: consumerlawl@earthlink.net

               - and -

          Joseph H. Malley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY
          1045 North Zang Blvd.
          Dallas, TX 75208
          Telephone: (214) 943-6100
          E-mail: malleylaw@gmail.com


LIVING ESSENTIALS: Sued for Misrepresenting Energy Drink Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Living Essentials misrepresents the alleged benefits of its 5-Hour
Energy drinks; similar federal class actions were filed in St.
Louis, New Orleans and Fort Myers, Fla.


MINNESOTA: DNR Faces Two Class Actions Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Mark Saxenmeyer, writing for KAAL-TV, reports that there's more
fall-out over the data breach at the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources: two class action lawsuits have now been filed.

At least five thousand people had their motor vehicle records
accessed -- without authorization -- by a former DNR employee.

The attorney who filed the latest suit says the breach is a clear
sign that people who work at the DNR, and possibly other state
agencies, are not being properly trained or supervised.

Victims of this invasion of privacy say they want to know why they
were selected, and what, if anything, was done with their
information.

"I became just creeped out.  It was unsettling," said Danielle
Prenevost, a north Minneapolis resident.  When she received a
letter from the DNR explaining to her that an employee had
"engaged in unauthorized viewing" of her private data, she started
wondering.

"What was he looking for, what was he using the information for?"
she said.

The DNR says the man in question, John A. Hunt, was fired for
wrongful access to people's driver's licenses -- that he was
viewing the data during off hours without a job-related reason for
doing so.

The letter Ms. Prenevost received from the DNR went on to say, "We
have no indication that your data was disclosed to others, sold,
or used inappropriately."  Yet the DNR also suggested victims of
the breach continue to monitor their personal credit in case the
information is somehow exploited in the future.

The DNR's investigation also revealed that 90 percent of the
people accessed were female.

"That's not a good feeling," Ms. Prenevost said.

News of this data breach comes just months after former police
officer Anne Rasmussen racked up more than a million dollars in
settlements after she sued 150 officers in 16 departments
statewide, claiming they used government databases to snoop on
her.

"I want a deeper investigation," Ms. Prenevost said.  "Are there
others like him? And if there are, the higher-ups need to be held
more accountable for that."

Class action attorney Tom Lyons agreed, telling 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS
on Jan. 26, "This makes you wonder if there's more going on here
than just the actions of one rogue employee. We don't know where
this is going to end up."

The suit Lyons filed targets both John A. Hunt and the state, but
perhaps surprisingly, Ms. Prenevost wants no part of it.

"I don't think that getting any monetary compensation from the
state is going to help," she said.  "But they do need to put
safeguards in place to make sure this doesn't continue."

Because two class action suits have been filed, it's now up to the
courts to determine how to proceed.  They could be merged, or the
first one filed could simply trump the second.

John A. Hunt has not been charged criminally.  According to the
Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, a review of its finding has been
sent to county attorneys.

It's now up to them to decide what to do next.


MINNESOTA: Crowder Teske Files Data Breach Class Action v. DNR
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Winkler, writing for 45 News, reports that attorneys say an
ex-DNR employee broke state and federal law and could cost the
state millions.

Attorneys at Crowder, Teske, Katz & Micko have filed a class
action complaint on behalf of a Washington County man and as many
as 5,000 others whose personal drivers license information was
wrongfully accessed by former DNR manager John A. Hunt.

Attorneys say the breach violates a federal law called The Drivers
Privacy Protection Act.

In addition to possible damages and attorney fees, the law carries
a $2,500 penalty for each breach.  The DNR sent 5,000 letters
notifying victims, which means a suit could cost the department
more than $12 million dollars.

Attorneys believe the number of victims may actually be closer to
20,000.

Victims include other DNR employees, celebrities, and several
female anchors at KSTP.

Attorneys say the majority of victims are women.


NEXIUM: Linda Nussbaum Loses Antitrust MDL Lead Counsel Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Thomson Reuters, reports that the
Federal Judicial Center says that the preferred way to determine
lead counsel in a complex multidistrict litigation is for
plaintiffs' lawyers to meet and reach a consensus on which firms
should direct the case.  But that's not always the way things work
out.  Just ask Linda Nussbaum -- lnussbaum@gelaw.com -- at Grant &
Eisenhofer, who recently lost a bid to lead an antitrust class
action by drug wholesalers accusing AstraZeneca and three generic
drugmakers of conspiring to keep AZ's blockbuster heartburn drug
Nexium off of the market. Ms. Nussbaum accused three other big
pharmaceutical antitrust players -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro,
Garwin Gerstein & Fisher and Berger & Montague -- of plotting to
exclude her and then misrepresenting her stellar record.  In the
end, Ms. Nussbaum's rivals won the battle for lead counsel, but
not without also incurring the disgust of the judge overseeing the
case.

In a Jan. 24 order appointing the Hagens group to lead the case,
U.S. District Judge William Young of Boston meted out blame for
the "unseemly squabble" among plaintiffs' firms.  "This squabble
reflects most poorly on all counsel involved since it appears
driven more by a desire to participate to a greater degree in a
potential award of attorneys' fees than by any nuanced
professional judgment concerning how to assemble the strongest
possible team of counsel," he wrote.  Judge Young also said he
planned to make sure that the cost of "this sad and unprofessional
quarrel" is not passed along to the firms' clients.

But even the strong words in Judge Young's order don't convey how
truly nasty the showdown between Ms. Nussbaum and Bruce Gerstein
-- bgerstein@garwingerstein.com -- of Garwin Gerstein became, with
these two leaders of the plaintiffs' antitrust bar flinging
accusations of borderline ethics back and forth for a month.  Lead
counsel jostling in mega-antitrust and product liability
litigation is the rule, not the exception, as indicated by the
briefs debating leadership of the Nexium indirect purchasers'
case, also before Judge Young.  Plaintiffs' lawyers, however,
usually realize after a round or two of briefing that they're
better off reaching an agreement than parading dirty laundry
before the court and the defendants; that's what happened in the
indirect purchasers' wing of the Nexium case.  This story is for
anyone who doubts the wisdom of finding consensus.

The fight began on Dec. 17, when Thomas Sobol -- tom@hbsslaw.com
-- of Hagens Berman, representing the drug wholesaler American
Sales Company, moved to be appointed lead counsel.  Two weeks
later, on New Year's Eve, Ms. Nussbaum filed a cross-motion on
behalf of Meijer Inc. suggesting that four firms jointly lead the
case as co-counsel: her firm, Mr. Sobol's firm, Garwin Gerstein
and Berger & Montague.  Unbeknownst to Ms. Nussbaum, the other
three firms had already met and decided to team up, as Hagens
Berman revealed in an amended motion on Dec. 31.  "Hagens Berman
admittedly has changed its position," the motion said.  "A three-
firm leadership structure has been successful in other similar
cases on behalf of a similar proposed class of direct purchasers."
Ms. Nussbaum responded with a motion a couple of days later
suggesting again that her firm join the lead group, since her
credentials were every bit as good as those of the other
candidates. If the judge was worried about too large a group, she
said, he should just appoint her and Hagens Berman.

Though Ms. Nussbaum noted "a not insubstantial degree of regret
... (that) the three other plaintiffs groups have chosen to
exclude" her, the dispute to that point was polite, at least
publicly.  But in a brief on Jan. 8, Mr. Gerstein escalated
matters.  "There have been a number of troubling instances in the
past which raise serious questions regarding Ms. Nussbaum's
fidelity to the class's interests," his brief said.  In a number
of similar antitrust cases against makers of popular drugs, Mr.
Gerstein claimed, Ms. Nussbaum and her client Meijer had pulled
out after being named to lead the case, stranding co-lead counsel
and plaintiffs.  "Thus, unlike the other plaintiffs here, based on
the aforementioned track record, Meijer is far from the most
reliable plaintiff to serve the interests of the class," his brief
said.  Then, in an indication of how well the firms in the dispute
know one another's business, Mr. Gerstein reached all the way back
to a 2001 case that involved claims by both drug wholesalers and
contract purchasers to accuse Ms. Nussbaum of having "an obvious
conflict" and acting against the interests of the wholesalers.

Ms. Nussbaum then accused Mr. Gerstein of attacking her for his
own diabolical purposes.  "Shock and dismay are terms perhaps too
frequently used," she wrote in a brief on Jan. 10.  "But those
words are particularly apt here.  Bruce Gerstein, counsel for
Value Drug and Burlington Drug, has stepped over the line.  Meijer
and Ms. Nussbaum take umbrage at Mr. Gerstein's misleading
accusations. His attempts to impugn the character of Ms. Nussbaum
and Meijer, a class representative that he, as part of a
leadership group, has represented and personally praised time and
time again, are not well-taken," the Nussbaum brief said.  Mr.
Gerstein was all too happy to praise Meijer when he needed its
support, Ms. Nussbaum asserted, but was now deploying "baseless
rhetoric" to paint standard class action procedures by Ms.
Nussbaum and her client as "sinister."

Earlier this month, an exasperated Judge Young ordered the four
firms to get together and work things out.  That only led to two
more rounds of bitter briefs in which Mr. Gerstein, Mr. Sobol and
David Sorensen of Berger & Montague scrutinized Ms. Nussbaum and
her client and Ms. Nussbaum defended her record and descried their
supposed exaggerations and misrepresentations.  She also claimed
that Mr. Sobol had revealed confidences by her client.  In the
meantime, both sides solicited support from drug wholesalers who
haven't filed suits in the consolidated litigation but would be
members of a class of direct purchasers.  Several of these absent
class members were pulled into the dispute (most in support of the
three-firm dispute).  And when Mr. Sobol of Hagens Berman proposed
ending the feud and adding Ms. Nussbaum, another plaintiff's
lawyer said that if Ms. Nussbaum joined the lead counsel group, he
also would demand to join.

Judge Young's order shut off the stream of invective, but you can
see how the whole thing left him in disgust.


NTS REALTY: Faces Merger-Related Class Action in Kentucky
---------------------------------------------------------
NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership disclosed that on
January 27, 2013, the Company received notice that a putative
class action lawsuit was filed on January 25, 2013 in the
Jefferson County Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky
against the Company, each of the members of the board of directors
of the Company's managing general partner, NTS Realty Capital,
Inc. ("Realty Capital"), NTS Realty Partners, LLC, Realty Capital,
NTS Merger Parent, LLC and NTS Merger Sub ("Merger Sub") alleging,
among other things, that the board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the unitholders of the Company in connection
with the board's approval of the merger between Merger Sub and the
Company (the "Merger").  The complaint seeks, among other things,
to enjoin the defendants from completing the Merger as currently
contemplated.

Interested parties are urged to read relevant documents, when and
if filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange
Commission because they will contain important information.  NTS
will file a proxy statement and other documents regarding the
proposed merger with the SEC, and the definitive proxy statement
will be sent to unitholders seeking their approval of the matters
discussed above at a special meeting of unitholders.  Unitholders
are urged to read the proxy statement and any other relevant
document when they become available because they will contain
important information about the Company, the proposed merger and
related matters.  Interested parties may obtain a free copy of the
definitive proxy statement (when available) and other documents
filed by us with the SEC at the SEC's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov

The Company, its managing general partner and its managing general
partner's directors, executive officers and other members of its
management and employees (including J.D. Nichols and Brian F.
Lavin) may be deemed participants in the solicitation of proxies
from the unitholders of the Company in connection with the
proposed transactions.  Information regarding the special
interests of persons who may be deemed to be such participants in
the proposed transactions will be included in the proxy statement
described above.  Additional information regarding the directors
and executive officers of the Company's managing general partner
is also included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2011, which was filed with the SEC on
March 23, 2012, and subsequent statements of changes in beneficial
ownership on file with the SEC.  These documents are available
free of charge at the SEC's Web site at http://www.sec.gov

          About NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership

NTS currently owns, wholly, as a tenant in common with
unaffiliated co-owners, or through joint venture investments with
affiliated and unaffiliated third parties, twenty-four properties
comprised of fifteen multifamily properties, seven office
buildings and business centers and two retail properties.  The
properties are located in and around Louisville and Lexington,
Kentucky, Nashville and Cordova, Tennessee, Richmond, Virginia,
Fort Lauderdale and Orlando, Florida, Indianapolis, Indiana and
Atlanta, Georgia.


PHILADELPHIA: Class Cert. Bid in Traffic Violations Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Curtis Joyner denied a motion for class
certification in the lawsuit captioned DANIELLE SHELLER, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, ET AL., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 11-cv-2371, (E.D. Pa.).

Each of the Plaintiffs were stopped by members of the Philadelphia
Police Department due to alleged violations of the city of
Philadelphia's Live Stop policy, including expired vehicle
registrations and driving without a proper license.  Their
Complaint alleges that the Defendant violated state and federal
due process protections with the Live Stop policy, which describes
the manner in which the PPD implements Pennsylvania Vehicle Code,
75 Pa.C.S. Section 6309.2.  The Plaintiffs have moved for class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on
November 9, 2012.

Judge Joyner denied the Plaintiffs' request for class
certification without prejudice, saying the Plaintiffs have not
sufficiently demonstrated the numerosity prerequisite to class
certification.

"Given the many moving parts in the class definition and the lack
of clarity about the procedures the PPA and the Traffic Court use,
it might be advisable for the Plaintiffs to refrain from moving
again for class certification until these issues have been or are
ready to be decided," she added.  "However, the Plaintiffs are
free to move again for class certification whenever they feel they
have the evidence and arguments necessary to fulfill the
requirements of Rule 23."

A copy of Judge Joyner's January 28, 2013 Memorandum and Order is
available at http://is.gd/WrAemXfrom Leagle.com.


STALLINGS HEAD: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
10-oz. packages of "Richard's Hog Head Cheese" that have been
recalled by Stallings Head Cheese Co., Inc.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/Kk2sVo,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.

  Retailer Name           City and State
  -------------           --------------
  Robie's                 Abbeville, Louisiana
  Stelly's                Abbeville, Louisiana
  Young's Grocery         Abbeville, Louisiana
  Artigues Abita Mkt      Abita Springs, Louisiana
  Benedetto's Market      Addis, Louisiana
  Carter's Supermarket    Albany, Louisiana
  Food Mart               Alexandria, Louisiana
  Joe's Grocery           Alexandria, Louisiana
  Mac's Fresh Market      Alexandria, Louisiana
  Berry Best Produce      Amite, Louisiana
  Food Depot              Amite, Louisiana
  Sunflower               Angie, Louisiana
  Russell's Food Center   Arnaudville, Louisiana
  Breaux's Foodland       Baldwin, Louisiana
  Raintree Market         Baldwin, Louisiana
  Bastrop Super Foods     Bastrop, Louisiana
  Save U More             Bastrop, Louisiana
  Bet-R-Grocery           Baton Rouge, Louisiana
  Calandro's Supermarket  Perkins Rd., Baton Rouge, Louisiana
  Calandro's Supermarket  Government St., Baton Rouge, Louisiana
  Calvin's Supermarket    Baton Rouge, Louisiana
  Hi Nabor Supermarket    3446 Drusilla, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
  Hi Nabor Supermarket    Jones Creek, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
  Hi Nabor Supermarket    Winborne Ave., Baton Rouge, Louisiana
  Matherne's              Baton Rouge, Louisiana
  Piggly Wiggly           Baton Rouge, Louisiana
  Ralph's Market          Baton Rouge, Louisiana
  Reeve's Supermarket     Baton Rouge, Louisiana
  Balestra's              Belle Chase, Louisiana
  Food Depot              Bogalousa, Louisiana
  Travis Grocery          1400 W. 10th Street, Bogalousa, LA
  Travis Grocery          101 Derbigney, Bogalousa, Louisiana
  Bourg Supermarket       Bourg, Louisiana
  Majoria Supermarket     Bouttee, Louisiana
  Hebert Super Market     Breaux Bridge, Louisiana
  Hebert's of Henderson   Breaux Bridge, Louisiana
  Hebert's Superette      Breaux Bridge, Louisiana
  Ree's Street Market     Breaux Bridge, Louisiana
  Piggly Wiggly           Bunkie, Louisiana
  Short Stop              Bunkie, Louisiana
  Robert Family Market    Bush, Louisiana
  Lee's Hardware Store    Carencro, Louisiana
  Mac's Fresh Market      Carencro, Louisiana
  Piggly Wiggly           Cecilia, Louisiana
  Centerville Market      Centerville, Louisiana
  Oak Point Fresh Market  Central, Louisiana
  B&G Fresh Market        Chalmette, Louisiana
  Chitimacha Trading Post Charenton, Louisiana
  Piggly Wiggly           Chauvin, Louisiana
  Davis One Stop          Cheneyville, Louisiana
  Piggly Wiggly           Church Point, Louisiana
  Rod's                   Church Point, Louisiana
  Westons Grocery         Church Point, Louisiana
  Ford's Food Center      Colfax, Louisiana
  Rivertown Market        Coushatta, Louisiana
  IGA                     Covington, Louisiana
  Cajun Mart              Crowley, Louisiana
  Crawfish Nest & Market  Crowley, Louisiana
  Cuccio's                Crowley, Louisiana
  Lagrange Food Mart      Crowley, Louisiana
  Super Foods             Crowley, Louisiana
  Carter's Supermarket    8439 Vincent Road, Denham Springs, LA
  Carter's Supermarket    92585 Cockerham Rd, Denham Springs, LA
  Oak Point Fresh Market  Denham Springs, Louisiana
  Cashios Food Villa      Destrehan, Louisiana
  Champagne's             Duson, Louisiana
  Pit Stop                Elizabeth, Louisiana
  Tony's Super Foods      Elton, Louisiana
  Champagne's             Erath, Louisiana
  Champagne's             Eunice, Louisiana
  Big Star                Farmerville, Louisiana
  Main's Folsom Market    Folsom, Louisiana
  Wag-A-Bag               Forest Hill, Louisiana
  Franklin Supermarket    Franklin, Louisiana
  Jack Brown's Grocery    Franklinton, Louisiana
  Galliano Food Store     Galliano, Louisiana
  Harvest Supermarket     Geismar, Louisiana
  Marceaux's              Geuydan, Louisiana
  G&G Superette           Glenmora, Louisiana
  Blair Lamendola Super   Gonzales, Louisiana
  Ralph's Market          6341 Hwy 44, Gonzales, Louisiana
  Ralph's Market          15013 Hwy 44, Gonzales, Louisiana
  Sureway Grocery Store   Grand Isle, Louisiana
  Brown's Neighborhood    Grand Lake, Louisiana
  Budget Savers           Gretna, Louisiana
  Casey Jones Supermarket Gretna, Louisiana
  Brown's Food Center     Hackberry, Louisiana
  Piggly Wiggly           Hammond, Louisiana
  Piggly Wiggly           Haynesville, Louisiana
  Shawn's Super Center    Hessmer, Louisiana
  Piggly Wiggly           Homer, Louisiana
  Cannatas                1977 Prospect Blvd., Houma, Louisiana
  Cannatas                6289 West Park Ave., Houma, Louisiana
  Marcel's Supermarket    Houma, Louisiana
  Piggly Wiggly           Independence, Louisiana
  Prupera's Supermarket   Innis, Louisiana
  Foret's                 Iowa, Louisiana
  Bergeron's on the Bayou Jarreau, Louisiana
  Robie's                 Jeanerette, Louisiana
  IGA                     Jena, Louisiana
  Piggly Wiggly           Jennigs, Louisiana
  Super Foods             Jennigs, Louisiana
  Ford's Food Center      612 Fourth St., Jonesville, Louisiana
  Ford's Food Center      1515 Fourth St., Jonesville, Louisiana
  IGA                     Kaplan, Louisiana
  Larry's Super Foods     Kaplan, Louisiana
  Pecan Island Food       Kaplan, Louisiana
  Piggly Wiggly           Kaplan, Louisiana
  Market Basket           Kinder, Louisiana
  Robert's Food Store     Labadieville, Louisiana
  Lishman's City Market   Lacombe, Louisiana
  Acadian Superette       Lafayette, Louisiana
  Adrien's Supermarket    Lafayette, Louisiana
  Breaux's Mart           Lafayette, Louisiana
  Champagne's             Lafayette, Louisiana
  Corner Pantry           Lafayette, Louisiana
  Guidry's Produce        Lafayette, Louisiana
  Healeaux's Grocery      Lafayette, Louisiana
  Lagneaux's              Lafayette, Louisiana
  Mikes Country Corner    Lafayette, Louisiana
  Trumans                 Lafayette, Louisiana
  Piggly Wiggly           Lafitte, Louisiana
  Bernell's               Lake Arthur, Louisiana
  Jones' Grocery          Lake Charles, Louisiana
  Jong's                  Lake Providence, Louisiana
  Food 4 Less             Laplace, Louisiana
  Matherne's              Laplace, Louisiana
  Stelly's                Lebeau, Louisiana
  Glynn's Grocery         Lecompte, Louisiana
  Steve's Jiffy Stop      Lecompte, Louisiana
  Water Street Market     Lecompte, Louisiana
  Champagne's             Leonville, Louisiana
  Carter's                Livington, Louisiana
  Loranger Supermarket    Loranger, Louisiana
  Miller's Market         Loreauville, Louisiana
  Lydia Food Store        Lydia, Louisiana
  Piggly Wiggly           Madisonville, Louisiana
  Piggly Wiggly           Mamou, Louisiana
  Bobben's Supermarket    Mar, Louisiana
  Harvest Food            Marksville, Louisiana
  Labories                Marrero, Louisiana
  Ragusa Food Store       Marrero, Louisiana
  Super Laborie Food Mkt  Marrero, Louisiana
  Dorignac's Supermarket  Matarie, Louisiana
  Nunu's Country Market   Maurice, Louisiana
  Cannatella's            Melville, Louisiana
  Guidry's Grocery        Mermemtau, Louisiana
  Canseco's               Metarie, Louisiana
  Lagenstein's            Metarie, Louisiana
  Zuppardo's Economic     Metarie, Louisiana
  Broussard's             Milton, Louisiana
  Country Market          Monroe, Louisiana
  Johnny's Grocery        Moreauville, Louisiana
  Cannatas                Morgan City, Louisiana
  Mayon's Market          Morgan City, Louisiana
  TB's                    Morse, Louisiana
  Bi Lo grocery           New Iberia, Louisiana
  Daspit Grocery          New Iberia, Louisiana
  Menard Brothers         New Iberia, Louisiana
  Simoneaud's             East Main St., New Iberia, Louisiana
  Simoneaud's             E Admiral Doyle, New Iberia, Louisiana
  Canseco's               New Orleans, Louisiana
  Lakeview Grocery        New Orleans, Louisiana
  Zara's Supermarket      New Orleans, Louisiana
  Langlois                New Roads, Louisiana
  IGA                     Oakdale, Louisiana
  A&B Quick Stop          Opelousas, Louisiana
  Benny's Superette       Opelousas, Louisiana
  Ma-Jik Grocers/Flea Mkt Opelousas, Louisiana
  Nuba Fast Foods         Opelousas, Louisiana
  Piggly Wiggly           1305 Heather Dr, Opelousas, Louisiana
  Piggly Wiggly           8410 Hwy 182, Opelousas, Louisiana
  Super Stop              Opelousas, Louisiana
  Tommy's Mobile          Opelousas, Louisiana
  Vidrine's Grocery       Opelousas, Louisiana
  Romero's Food Center    Ossun, Louisiana
  Budden's                Palmetto, Louisiana
  Randall's               Parks, Louisiana
  Cypress Point           Patterson, Louisiana
  Matherne's              Paulina, Louisiana
  Jubilee Foods           Pearl River, Louisiana
  Pierre Part Store       Pierre Part, Louisiana
  Ball Foods              Pineville, Louisiana
  Mac's Fresh Market      Pineville, Louisiana
  Lambright Grocery       Pitkin, Louisiana
  Piggly Wiggly           Plaindealing, Louisiana
  Bordelon's Superette    Plancheville, Louisiana
  Butcher Boy Super VA    Plaquemine, Louisiana
  Payless                 Platterville, Louisiana
  Bohnings Supermarket    Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  Parker's Superfoods     Port Vincent, Louisiana
  Champagne's             Rayne, Louisiana
  Trahan's Foods          Rayne, Louisiana
  Greg's Neighborhood Mkt Reserve, Louisiana
  Robert Supermarket      Robert, Louisiana
  Don's Specialty Meats   Scott, Louisiana
  Early's Food Store      Scott, Louisiana
  Piggly Wiggly           Simmesport, Louisiana
  Lishman's City Market   39522 Hwy 190 E, Slidell, Louisiana
  Lishman's City Market   4020 Ponchartrain, Slidell, Louisiana
  Mizer's                 Slidell, Louisiana
  Carter's Supermarket    Spriongfield, Louisiana
  Feliciana Super-Value   St Francisville, Louisiana
  St. Francisville Market St Francisville, Louisiana
  Delaune's Super Market  St. Amant, Louisiana
  Tureau's Grocery        St. Amant, Louisiana
  Cade's                  St. Martinville, Louisiana
  Joyce's Supermarket     1620 S Main St., St. Martinville, LA
  Joyce's Supermarket     1620 S Main St., St. Martinville, LA
  Piggly Wiggly           St. Martinville, Louisiana
  Southern Meat Market    Sterlington, Louisiana
  Misse's                 Sulpher, Louisiana
  Janise Supermarket      Sunset, Louisiana
  Bestway                 Tallulah, Louisiana
  Gobears Neighborhood    Thibodeaux, Louisiana
  L&N Grocery             Thibodeaux, Louisiana
  Mac's Fresh Market      Tioga, Louisiana
  Piggly Wiggly           Vacherie, Louisiana
  Champagne's             Ville Platte, Louisiana
  Paul's Meat Market      Ville Platte, Louisiana
  Tabacco Tavern          Ville Platte, Louisiana
  Tom's Market            Vivan, Louisiana
  John's Supermarket      Walker, Louisiana
  Ardoin's                Washington, Louisiana
  Chatman's               Washington, Louisiana
  Main Street Grocery     Washington, Louisiana
  Harvest Food            West Monroe, Louisiana
  Piggly Wiggly           Westwego, Louisiana
  Daigle's Supermarket    White Castle, Louisiana
  Ford's Food Center      Winnsboro, Louisiana
  Ford's Food Center      Wisner, Louisiana
  Parkside Grocery        Woodworth, Louisiana
  Nunu's Fresh Market     Youngsville, Louisiana
  Pat's Grocery           Youngsville, Louisiana
  Hills Grocery           Anahuac, Texas
  Food Town               1700 Decker St., Baytown, Texas
  Food Town               3517 N Main St., Baytown, Texas
  Thrif-Tee               Dayton, Texas
  Ziegler's Food          Dickinson, Texas
  Arlan's                 Galveston, Texas
  Big City Foods          Houston, Texas
  Center Watkins          Houston, Texas
  Food Town               Houston, Texas
  Foodarama               15915 S. Post Oak, Houston, Texas
  Foodarama               4425 W. Fuqua, Houston, Texas
  Foodarama               10810 S Post Oak Rd., Houston, Texas
  Foodarama               7320 Antoine Drive, Houston, Texas
  Foodland                Houston, Texas
  Super Value Foods       Houston, Texas
  Foodarama               Missouri City, Texas
  Food Town               Pearland, Texas
  Arlan's                 Santa Fe, Texas
  Chris Food King         Texas City, Texas


SYNGENTA CROP: Municipalities Get Share in Atrazine Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Blake, writing for Lima News, reports that getting involved in
a class action lawsuit wasn't something officials at several area
municipalities had much experience with.  Joining a multistate
lawsuit against a Swiss herbicide producer proved beneficial as
coffers in six area communities recently got a boost.

As previously reported, Lima received more than $227,000 from the
settlement with Switzerland-based Syngenta, the world's largest
manufacturer of the weed killer atrazine.  Lima, Celina, Delphos,
Findlay, Ottawa and Van Wert were among the 81 communities in Ohio
and nearly 1,100 communities nationwide to join the lawsuit.

Farmers use the chemical to treat corn crops.  Eventually, as
rainfall washes it into streams and rivers the chemical ends up in
a community's water supply.  The settlement ordered municipalities
to be paid for the cost of removing the chemical from drinking
water.

"It wasn't at levels that would have caused concern but there was
a presence,"said John Williams, municipal director for Ottawa.
"It wasn't a health issue and it never exceeded the limits but
with any level you have to treat it."

As part of the settlement, Ottawa received more than $165,000.
Findlay received more than $102,000.  Van Wert got more than
$74,000.  Celina received more than $21,000 and Delphos received
more than $18,000.  The settlements were based upon not only the
amount of atrazine in the water supply but how many years a
community could document the presence.

"It was more than we expected," said Jay Fleming, safety-service
director for Van Wert.  "I don't know that I recall another class
action lawsuit the city has responded to in my years here.  We
responded because we had atrazine in the system. In these economic
times, these are nice surprises."

Officials in Lima, Delphos, Ottawa and Findlay said the funds
would go back into their respective water funds to help pay for
operations, testing and additional projects.  Officials in Van
Wert haven't decided how to use the funds, Mr. Fleming said.


TEXXXAN.COM: 17 Women File Class Action Over Humiliating Photos
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that seventeen women
filed a class action against a "revenge porn" website, claiming it
let their exes publish humiliating intimate photos and private
facts about them without permission.

Lead plaintiff Hollie Toups sued the site, Texxxan.com, web host
GoDaddy.com, the unnamed persons or entities that host the site
and all of its subscribing members, in Orange County District
Court, Orange, Texas.

The complaint states: "Godaddy.com hosts the website
www.Texxxan.com, which is a 'revenge porn' website.  This explicit
website is dedicated to publishing intimate photos of young women,
and also publishing private facts about these women, all of which
are done without obtaining permission or authorization from the
women who are the victims of this website.  This website is
significantly designed to cause severe embarrassment, humiliation,
and emotional distress to all of the women plaintiffs, and to all
the women victims that are sought to be named as plaintiffs
through class-action certification (discussed infra).

"The defendants who own this website, or who contribute to its
contents, or who subscribe to this website, are fully aware that
they do not have permission from any of the women victims to
publish their photographs or their other personal information.  As
such, the defendants that are currently named and the defendants
who shall be identified and joined later are all acting in a
deliberately reprehensible manner to participate in activity that
they know to be malicious, hurtful and harmful."

The plaintiffs claim the website serves no useful, social or
economic purpose, that it is "merely a blight upon society and a
sick, cowardly enterprise for the specific purpose of inflicting
emotional distress and harm upon each and every plaintiff."

The women seek an injunction to shut down the site, but it appears
that the unknown administrators of the site have already taken it
offline.

In seeking class status, the women say the number of women in
Texas who could be targeted by the site is so large that joinder
is impossible.

"The very purpose of this website is to target Texas women for
malicious revenge pornography," the complaint states.

The women are represented by John Morgan of Beaumont, who told the
Houston Chronicle that he is "going after the revenge porn
industry" and "those sickos who post private information of women
without their knowledge."

"The only way to destroy this industry is to go after the people
who fund it," Mr. Morgan told the Chronicle.

About half of the women do not know who posted their photos on the
site, while the other half suspect their former partners, Morgan
said.

At least 13 more women have joined the lawsuit since it was filed,
according to the San Antonio Current.  Mr. Morgan said he expects
more women to join.

Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, is not
optimistic about the lawsuit's chances at success.

"No matter how much the lawyers hype their lawsuit in the media,
it's mostly dead on arrival," Mr. Goldman wrote for Forbes.com.
"All of the defendants -- other than the users actually submitting
the revenge porn -- are protected by 47 USC 230, the law that says
websites aren't liable for third-party content."

Mr. Goldman wrote that the same law explicitly protects website
users, and that a recently enacted anti-SLAPP law in Texas was
designed to discourage anti-free speech lawsuits such as this one.

"If the courts determine that the revenge porn relates to a
'matter of public concern' (not likely, but it is possible), the
plaintiffs' lawyers will be writing checks to the improperly
targeted defendants," Mr. Goldman warned.

Describing the class action claim as "weak," Mr. Goldman said the
plaintiffs' best chance is to bring individual suits against the
defendants who did them wrong.

"(I)n this particular case, revenge porn plaintiffs often can find
the defendants, because (we hope) there's a limited number of
people who have nude depictions of the plaintiff," Mr. Goldman
wrote.

The plaintiffs seek actual and punitive damages and injunctive
relief for breach of privacy, negligence, wrongful appropriation
of names of likenesses, intentional infliction of emotional
distress and civil conspiracy.


US GYPSUM: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Drywall Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that a
Florida man and a New York resident have joined forces in bringing
a class action antitrust suit against U.S. Gypsum Company,
CertainTeed Corp. and others over allegations that the defendants
have, dating back to at least September 2011, conspired to fix,
raise, maintain and stabilize the price of gypsum board, more
commonly known as drywall.

Attorneys for Robert Pitter, who hails from Southwest Ranches,
Fla., and Nicholas L. DeMarco, a resident of Albany, N.Y., filed a
federal antitrust action at the U.S. District Court in
Philadelphia Jan. 23 against eight defendants who engage in the
manufacture and sale of gypsum board, which is alternatively known
as drywall, wallboard, sheetrock and plasterboard.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the two plaintiffs and others
similarly situated, claims that from at least the fall of 2011
through the present, the defendants combined and conspired to fix
and raise the prices at which they sold the commodity across the
United States, beginning with large and coordinated price
increases that became effective on or about Jan. 1 or 2 of last
year.

"In advance of these coordinated increases, during late September
through mid-October 2011, five of the eight defendant
manufacturers announced to their customers that they were raising
gypsum board prices in January 2012, each by an unprecedented 35%
and indicated those price increases would remain in place
throughout 2012,"the lawsuit reads.

Because gypsum board is a commodity product, the complaint states,
in the absence of collusion, the defendants' price increases would
have contravened each defendant's independent self-interest, "as
anyone could have profited and gained market share by undercutting
the others during a period where the defendants had substantial
unused capacity."

The suit further states that contrary to prior history in the
industry, the defendants not only announced these coordinated
price increases, they also successfully maintained much higher
prices throughout 2012, despite the fact that the increases were
imposed during a soft construction market.

"Defendants also maintained substantially higher prices in the
face of significant industry overcapacity that would have made it
virtually impossible for any Defendant independently to impose and
maintain a substantial price increase on its customers in the
absence of collusion," the lawsuit says.

The defendants also simultaneously abolished their use of a
decades-old competitive pricing practice known as "job quotes,"
the suit states, a practice that allowed customers to lock in the
price of gypsum board for the entire course of a construction
project.

Each defendant "abruptly" eliminated this practice in late 2011,
according to the complaint, which was around the same time they
put into place the industry-wide price increases that are subject
of the litigation.

The suit states that plaintiff Mr. Pitter indirectly purchased
gypsum board manufactured by defendant USG Corporation in Davie,
Fla., and as a result, has suffered injury in that he paid more
for that product than he would have paid in the absence of the
defendants' misconduct.

Similarly, plaintiff Mr. DeMarco indirectly bought gypsum board
made by that same defendant and suffered the same injuries as his
co-plaintiff.

The lawsuit, which says that the manufacturers of gypsum board see
annual sales of more than $5 billion, accuses the defendants of
violating the Sherman Act.

The class of plaintiffs outlined in the lawsuit would be those who
indirectly purchased gypsum board in the United States from
Jan. 1, 2012 through the present.

The complaint alleges violations of federal and state antitrust
laws, state consumer protection and unfair competition laws, and
unjust enrichment laws.

The plaintiffs seek judicial class action certification as well as
attorney's fees, interest and other damages.

The complaint was jointly filed by Kenneth I. Trujillo --
ktrujillo@trrlaw.com -- and Ira Neil Richards -- ira@trrlaw.com --
attorneys with Philadelphia-based Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards,
and Jeffrey C. Block -- jeff@blockesq.com -- Whitney E. Street --
whitney@blockesq.com -- and Mark A. Delaney -- mark@blockesq.com
-- lawyers with the Boston firm of Block & Leviton.

The federal case number is 2:13-cv-00384-MMB.


US TELEPACIFIC: Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Brennan" Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 30, 2013, the Court of Appeals of California affirmed
denial of a motion to compel arbitration in the class action
lawsuit captioned JOURNEY BRENNAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
U.S. TELEPACIFIC CORP., Defendant and Appellant, No. G046225.

U.S. Telepacific provided telecommunication services to Mr.
Brennan in 2008.  When Mr. Brennan became unhappy with U.S.
Telepacific's services, he sought termination of the parties
"Account Agreement" and "Service Contract" but was informed he was
required to pay an early termination fee of over $4,000.

In late 2010, Mr. Brennan filed the class action on behalf of
himself and other members of the class for unfair competition,
violation of Civil Code section 1671, subdivision (d) for unlawful
liquidated damages, breach of contract and of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and money had
and received, seeking damages and injunctive relief.

U.S. Telepacific filed a motion to compel arbitration after the
decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, which restricted
states from imposing certain limitations on the enforceability of
arbitration agreements.  The lower court denied the motion, ruling
the Defendant had not shown the existence of a binding arbitration
agreement and had there been such an agreement, it would be
unenforceable as unconscionable. It stated "the arbitration
provision was not brought to the attention of nor accepted by nor
known to the plaintiff."

U.S. Telepacific appealed the denial of its motion to compel
arbitration arguing that the lower court erred in finding it
failed to meet its burden to show an enforceable arbitration
agreement.

The court of appeals ruled that there is insufficient evidence to
show the existence of an enforceable agreement to arbitrate, and
affirmed denial on that basis.

The Plaintiff is entitled to costs on appeal.

Daniel M. Kolkey, Esq. -- dkolkeygibsondunn.com -- Christopher
Chorba, Esq. -- cchorba@gibsondunn.com -- Babak Lalezari, Esq. --
blalezari@gibsondunn.com -- and Melissa Case, Esq., of Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, represent the Defendant and Appellant.

Amber L. Eck, Esq. -- ambere@zhlaw.com -- Aaron M. Olsen, Esq. --
aarono@zhlaw.com -- of Zeldes & Haeggquist LLP; Omel A. Nieves,
Esq. -- nieves@huntortmann.com -- Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq. --
odenbreit@huntortmann.com -- and Alison C. Gibbs, Esq. --
gibbs@huntortmann.com -- of Hunt Ortmann Palffy Nieves Lubka
Darling & Mah, Inc. represent the Plaintiff and Respondent.

A copy of the Appeals Court's January 30, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/tKl3wpfrom Leagle.com.


* CBI Balks at UK Government's Class Action Law Proposals
---------------------------------------------------------
Rowena Mason, writing for The Telegraph, reports that Britain is
at risk of falling prey to a damaging "class action" culture like
America under plans to help consumers get compensation when they
are ripped off, major businesses have warned.

The Government is facing a backlash from the CBI, Britain's
biggest business group, after it proposed new laws making it
easier for people to be part of "class action" litigation.

Under the plans, a single umbrella lawsuit could automatically get
compensation for people affected by competition scandals, such as
price-fixing by airlines or big retail chains.

Jo Swinson, a business minister, said it is important that people
can "take appropriate action" when companies abuse their position
in the market.

However, the CBI said proposed new laws would "let the litigation
genie out of the bottle" and could hold back the country's
economic growth.

Katja Hall, chief policy director of the CBI said it would not be
a good move to "adopt US-style collective actions".

"By grouping potential claimants together indiscriminately these
'opt-out' actions fail the growth test and will fuel a litigation
culture in the UK," she said.

"It is absolutely right that victims of competition law breaches
are properly and swiftly compensated but there are better ways to
do this than resorting to litigation, like using alternative
dispute resolution."

The Government argues that its plans are necessary to make sure
people get their money back when businesses act in an
uncompetitive way.

It said many people at the moment find it too difficult and costly
to go to court in order to seek redress.

Under the new regime, one group representing all victims will be
able to launch the lawsuit and affected individuals would have to
opt-out if they did not want to be part of the action being fought
on their behalf.

Ms. Swinson said businesses found guilty of uncompetitive behavior
would be able to avoid big battles if they settle with all
consumers before it reaches court.

"Businesses who want to voluntarily offer compensation will be
able to do so through collective settlement and will be protected
from expensive and lengthy legal action," she said.

Some consumer groups have already won successful class action
lawsuits when people have lost money because of mis-selling
scandals.  In one previous case, Which? got an out of court
settlement for JJB Sport customers of up to GBP20 each when they
were overcharged for replica football shirts.

However, they have found it difficult to contact all the people
involved and persuade them to sign up to legal action.

Richard Lloyd, executive director of Which?, said the new laws
will "give consumers more power against unscrupulous businesses.

"In the small number of cases where this will apply, collective
legal action and settlements will automatically include everyone
who has been affected so more people should get redress and
sooner," he said.

"The proposals will help to put consumers in the driving seat and
will also act as a meaningful deterrent to dodgy or dishonest
firms.  This is good for consumers, responsible businesses and the
wider economy."


* No. of Securities Suit Settlements Hit Record Lows, NERA Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
The number of securities class action cases resolved in 2012
plummeted to record lows according to Recent Trends in Securities
Class Action Litigation: 2012 Full-Year Review, a biannual report
released on Jan. 29 by NERA Economic Consulting.

One hundred and fifty-two cases were dismissed or settled in 2012,
compared to the 244 securities class actions resolved in 2011.
Only 93 securities class actions were settled in 2012 -- also a
record low since 1996 and a 25% reduction over 2011.

Filings of securities class actions only slightly declined in
2012, with a total of 207 class actions filed in federal courts
last year, compared to the average rate of 221 over the previous
five years.  Trends authors also observed a decline in the pace of
filings over the course of 2012, with the fewest filings occurring
in December.

Sizeable reductions in credit-crisis litigation and cases with a
Chinese company as defendant were largely offset by filings of
merger objection cases, which accounted for 25% of new filings in
2012.  Of the 53 merger objection cases filed in federal court in
2012, 33 cases allege a violation of Section 14 of the Securities
Exchange Act, while the remaining 20 allege breach of fiduciary
duty, but no violation of federal securities law.

Filings of "standard" securities class actions, those involving
alleged violations of Rule 10b-5, Section 11, or Section 12, have
declined in recent years compared to the period of 2005-2008.
Such filings accounted for 142 cases in 2012, compared to the
average of 144 class action cases annually during 2009-2011 and
the average of 173 cases from 2005-2008.

"There have been some interesting developments in securities class
actions in 2012. A large reduction in the number of cases settled
was coupled with an even larger reduction in the number of cases
dismissed, yet settlement dollars have increased," said NERA
Senior Consultant and Trends co-author Dr. Renzo Comolli.
"Meanwhile, in the last few years, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
have been getting compressed. All of this happens against the
backdrop of new filings that are changing more in nature than in
number."

Key Findings of Recent Trends in Securities Class Action
Litigation: 2012 Full-Year Review

Case Resolutions

-- A record of 152 cases were dismissed or settled in 2012, the
lowest number of any year since 1996.  It corresponds to a 37%
reduction from 2011, when 244 securities class actions were
resolved.

-- Ninety-three securities class actions were settled in 2012, a
25% reduction over 2011 and also the lowest number of settlements
since 1996.

Settlement Amounts

-- The average settlement amount in 2012 was $36 million, only
slightly above the $35 million average over 2007-2011 [excludes
settlements above $1 billion, settlements in IPO laddering cases,
and settlements in merger objection cases].

-- The median settlement amount in 2012 was $12 million, the
highest since passage of the PSLRA. Last year, 2012, was only the
second year in which the median settlement exceeded $10 million.

-- The total value of all settlements in 2012 reached $3.3
billion.

Filings

Allegations

-- In 2011, 31% of filings contained allegations of breach of
fiduciary duty; 29% had allegations involving misleading earnings
guidance; and close to 25% of filings included accounting
allegations.

Foreign Companies

-- Case filings against foreign-domiciled companies declined in
2012, from the record 62 cases in 2011.  Filings against Chinese
companies also dropped significantly in 2012 with 16 suits versus
the 37 in 2011.

Circuit

-- Forty-three percent of all filings in 2012 were concentrated in
the Second Circuit (56 cases) and Ninth Circuit (four cases).
Filings in the Ninth Court dropped significantly over the 60 cases
filed in 2011.

Sector

-- Securities class action filings against defendants in the
finance sector continued to decline in 2012, accounting for 13% of
filings, compared to the peak of nearly half of all filings in
2008 and 2009.  The health and technology services sector
accounted for 22% of securities class action filings; and energy
and non-energy minerals sector grew to 10%.

Time to File

-- In 2012, the average time to file was 110 days, down from a
high of 229 days in 2009 and 153 days in 2011.  The percentage of
cases that are filed within one year has also been increasing,
from 66% in 2009 to 92% in 2012.

Motions

-- A motion to dismiss was filed in more than 96% of securities
class actions over the 2000-2012 period.  Of those motions, 47%
were granted; 15% were voluntary dismissed by plaintiffs; 14% were
denied in their entirety; and 17% of the motions were granted in
part.

-- The fraction of motions to dismiss that are granted has
increased in recent years.

-- Among securities class actions that were settled, in 46% of
such cases a motion to dismiss was partially granted or partially
denied, while in 37% of cases a motion was simply denied.

-- Seventy-seven percent of all securities class actions are
resolved before a motion for class certification is filed.  In 75%
of cases where decision was reached on motion for class
certification, the class was certified (at least in part).

Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Expenses

While aggregate plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses for all
federal settlements increased by 4% of 2011 ($653 million in total
for 2012), fees as a whole have declined over the period of 2010-
2012 compared to 1996-2009.

NERA Securities Class Action Trends Report Series

NERA has been analyzing trends in securities class actions for
more than 20 years.  Two reports are published per year: a mid-
year study and an annual review at year's end.  This year-end
study, Recent Trends in Securities Class Action Litigation: 2012
Full-Year Review, is co-authored by Dr. Renzo Comolli, Dr. Ronald
I. Miller, Svetlana Starykh, and Sukaina Klein.

For more details and to read the report, visit:
http://www.nera.com/recenttrends

                           About NERA

NERA Economic Consulting -- http://www.nera.com-- is a global
firm of experts dedicated to applying economic, finance, and
quantitative principles to complex business and legal challenges.
For over half a century, NERA's economists have been creating
strategies, studies, reports, expert testimony, and policy
recommendations for government authorities and the world's leading
law firms and corporations.



                           *********

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  * * *