CAR_Public/130205.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, February 5, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 25

                             Headlines


5-HOUR ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Advertising Claims
AMAZON.COM INC: Continues to Defend "Blagman" Suit in New York
BEXCO ENTERPRISES: Recalls 18,000 Million Dollar Baby Dressers
BRISTOL CARE: 8th Cir. Rules Class Action Waiver Enforceable
CARNIVAL CORP: Appeal From "Giglio" Suit Dismissal Pending

CARNIVAL CORP: Continues to Defend "Lobaton" Suit in Illinois
CEPHALON INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Junk Fax Putative Class Action
CLEARWIRE CORP: Agrees to Settle Class Action Over Cellphone Calls
FIRSTCITY FINANCIAL: Being Sold to Varde for Too Little, Suit Says
GEMME JUVENILE: Recalls 300 Chelsea Three-Drawer Dressers

JEFFERIES GROUP: Defends Merger-Related Suits in N.Y. & Delaware
MAINE: LePage Sued For Failure to Provide Group-Home Care Services
MI WINDOWS: Class Action Over Defective Vinyl Windows Tossed
MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Class Cert. Bid Pending in "Williams" Suit
MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Class Cert. Bid in "Hardy" Suit Still Pending

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Ct. Dismisses Saints Ticketholders' Class Suit
NCAA: June 20 Class Cert. Hearing in Ex-Athletes' Class Suit Set
NPC INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Actions Over Labor Law Violations
OHIO: Attorneys in Workers' Comp. Suit Seeks $860MM Restitution
PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION: Gizmo Kills Car Batteries, Suit Claims

REGENCY THEATRES: Faces ADA Violation Class Action in Calif.
SAN JOSE VALLEY: Recalls 1,260 Lbs. of Veal Trimmings Over E. Coli
SPORTSPOWER LTD: Recalls 120,000 Trampolines Due to Fall Hazard
UNITED STATES: Former VA Employees' Class Action Suit May Proceed
WARNER BROS: Hal Needham Sues Over "Hooper" Home Video Royalties

YUM BRANDS: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action in Calif.

* UK Gov't Vows to Push for New Antitrust Class Action System
* EU Group Litigation Approach May Prompt Legal Abuse, ILR Says
* Class Action Law Firms Earn $653MM in Fees in 2012, NERA Says


                           *********



5-HOUR ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Advertising Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Klineman, writing for BevNET, reports that celebrity
lawyer Mark Geragos is shepherding a class-action lawsuit filed
against 5-Hour Energy on Jan. 28 in the U.S. District Court in the
Central District of California.

According to the suit, 5-Hour energy's advertising claims of
"hours of energy now, no crash later" are not scientifically
supported and that its effects are not superior to other caffeine-
based products like coffee or caffeine pills.

Moreover, the plaintiffs allege that 5-Hour has also taken "no
meaningful steps to clear up consumer misconceptions regarding its
product."

Much of the case appears to be based on a recent story in The New
York Times that summarized scientific studies that indicate that
many of the ancillary ingredients in energy drinks do not help
improve brain function or alertness.

The National Advertising Division of the council of Better
Business Bureaus is currently looking into 5-Hour's claims
concerning the "no crash later" part of its marketing strategy,
and has warned that it may refer its investigation results to the
Federal Trade Commission.

By filing in federal court, the plaintiff, Cody Soto, is
attempting to form two classes for his lawsuit: a national class
and a California-based class, allowing for that state's more
liberal consumer protection statutes.

Mr. Geragos is best known as a criminal defense attorney who has
worked with high-profile celebrities like Michael Jackson, Winona
Ryder, and former Congressman Gary Condit.


AMAZON.COM INC: Continues to Defend "Blagman" Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amazon.com, Inc. continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit filed in New York by Norman Blagman, according to the
Company's January 30, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In July 2012, Norman Blagman filed a purported class-action
complaint against the Company for copyright infringement in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company
sells digital music in its Amazon MP3 Store obtained from
defendant Orchard Enterprises and other unnamed "digital music
aggregators" without obtaining mechanical licenses for the
compositions embodied in that music.  The complaint seeks
certification as a class action, statutory damages, attorneys'
fees, and interest.  The Company disputes the allegations of
wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.


BEXCO ENTERPRISES: Recalls 18,000 Million Dollar Baby Dressers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in cooperation
with Bexco Enterprises Inc., dba Million Dollar Baby of
Montebello, California, is announcing a voluntary recall of 18,000
children's four-drawer dressers.  When a young child climbs up on
open dresser drawers, the dresser becomes unstable and poses the
risk of tip over and entrapment.  CPSC and Million Dollar Baby
have received two reports of deaths associated with these
dressers.  An 11-month-old boy from Tulsa, Oklahoma, and a 20-
month-old girl from Camarillo, California, were reported to have
suffocated when their dressers tipped over, entrapping them
between the dresser and the floor.  The cause of the deaths has
not been determined.

This voluntary recall involves "Emily" style four-drawer dressers
with model numbers M4712, M4722, M4732 and M4742 and similar
"Ryan" dressers with the model M4733.  The dressers were sold in
five finishes: Cherry, Ebony, Espresso, Honey Oak and White.  The
model number, "Million Dollar Baby" and "MADE IN TAIWAN" are
printed on a label located on the back of the dresser.  The
recalled dresser measures 33-inches high by 20-inches deep by 40-
inches wide and is a part of the DaVinci children's bedroom
furniture collection.  The dressers are made from pine and wood
composite.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/jDVQms

The recalled dressers were sold at JCPenney and independent
juvenile specialty stores nationwide and online at Amazon.com,
BabiesRUs.com, BabyUniverse.com and other online retailers from
January 2006 through June 2010 for between $230 and $300.

The Million Dollar Baby dressers met applicable voluntary
standards when first produced, but a May 2009 voluntary industry
standard, and subsequent revisions published in October 2009 and
November 2009, requires that tip-over restraints be sold with the
dressers.  The restraints attach to a wall, framing or other
support to help prevent dresser tip-over entrapment hazards to
young children.  Million Dollar Baby is offering free retrofit
kits with tip-over restraints to consumers who have older
dressers.  Included in the kit is an adhesive warning label that
consumers are to attach to the dresser, which describes how to
prevent tip-over injuries.

The dressers were manufactured in Taiwan and the USA.

Consumers should immediately stop using and keep the dresser out
of a child's reach.  Consumers can contact Million Dollar Baby to
receive a free retrofit kit that contains a wall anchor strap,
which attaches to the dresser and wall to help prevent the dresser
from tipping.  The kits can be ordered by visiting the firm's Web
site at http://www.themdbfamily.com/safety2/and click on Safety
HQ or call toll-free at (888) 673-6652 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday.


BRISTOL CARE: 8th Cir. Rules Class Action Waiver Enforceable
------------------------------------------------------------
According to Katherine I. Rand, Esq., of Pierce Atwood, the U.S.
Supreme Court's 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,
upholding the enforceability of a class action waiver in a
consumer arbitration agreement, was applauded by employers, who
initially (reasonably) assumed that Concepcion paved the way for
class action waivers in employment agreements.  The National Labor
Relations Board, however, soon made this area of law murky,
holding that Concepcion did not apply in the employment context.
In In re D.R. Horton, the NLRB concluded that class action waivers
inherently infringe on employees' right under Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to engage in protected
concerted activity.  Earlier this month, in Owen v. Bristol Care,
the first appellate decision discussing the issue since In re D.R.
Horton, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
rejected the NLRB's reasoning and upheld the enforceability of a
class or collective action waiver contained in an employment
arbitration agreement.

The facts relevant to the appeal are few: The employer, Bristol
Care, operates residential care facilities for elderly residents.
The named plaintiff, Sharon Owen, was an administrator at one of
Bristol Care's facilities.  Upon hire, Ms. Owen signed a Mandatory
Arbitration Agreement (MAA), which contained, among other things,
a class or collective action waiver provision, prohibiting Ms.
Owen from arbitrating claims subject to the agreement on a class
basis.

Notwithstanding the MAA, Ms. Owen filed suit against Bristol Care
in September of 2011, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
current and former employees, alleging that the company
intentionally misclassified administrators and failed to pay them
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Bristol Care moved to compel arbitration, but the district court
denied the motion, finding the MAA invalid because of the class
action waiver.  Specifically, the district court held that
Concepcion does not apply when the claims at issue arise under the
FLSA.  Deferring to the rationale of In re D.R. Horton and a
district court decision from the Southern District of New York,
Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., the district court concluded
that class action waivers are fundamentally inconsistent with the
FLSA, which provides the right for collective action, and
therefore invalid in FLSA cases.

The Eighth Circuit quickly disposed of the district court's
rationale, finding no conflict between the FLSA's offering of a
collective action option and the policy established by the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA), favoring arbitration agreements.
Specifically, the Court rejected the notion that the FLSA confers
any "right" upon employees to bring a class action, and noted
that, given the requirement that employees affirmatively "opt in"
to FLSA collective actions, they must also be allowed to "opt out"
via an agreement waiving their ability to pursue wage and hour
claims on behalf of a class.

The Court also rejected Ms. Owen's argument that class action
waivers conflict with the NLRA, which was enacted seven years
after the FAA was initially enacted in 1925.  The Court pointed
out that the FAA was subsequently reenacted in 1947 (after the
NLRA, Norris LaGuardia Act, and the FLSA itself), "suggest[ing]
Congress intended its arbitration protections to remain intact
even in light of the earlier passage of three major labor
relations statutes."

The Court distinguished In re D.R. Horton, which it characterized
as limited to arbitration agreements prohibiting all protected
concerted action.  The MAA, on the other hand, would allow an
employee to file a charge with an administrative agency, which
might result in that agency, e.g. the EEOC, filing suit on behalf
of a class of employees.  However, the Court also stated that it
did not need to, and was not inclined to, defer to the NLRB's
interpretation of Supreme Court precedent such as Concepcion.  In
sum, noting and adopting the position taken by most of the
district courts to consider the issue since In re D.R. Horton, the
Court held the arbitration agreement and class action waiver
enforceable and reversed the district court accordingly.

Wage and hour class actions present a significant risk to
employers because they are often complex and high stakes.  This
risk is usually uninsured, so whether it can be controlled by
contract is a question of great importance.  Owen v. Bristol Care
is a great victory for employers in the Eighth Circuit.  Because
the issue remains unsettled elsewhere, however, employers outside
the Eighth Circuit who incorporate class action waivers into their
arbitration agreements with employees remain at risk that their
agreements will be declared invalid or that they will be charged
with engaging in an unfair labor practice.


CARNIVAL CORP: Appeal From "Giglio" Suit Dismissal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit brought by
Italian business owners and wage earners remains pending before
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, according to
Carnival Corporation's January 29, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
November 30, 2012.

On January 13, 2012, Costa Concordia grounded off the coast of
Isola del Giglio, Italy, and sustained significant damage.  The
incident resulted in casualties and injuries.

On May 3, 2012, an action was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida naming as defendants
Carnival Corporation, Carnival plc, Costa Crociere S.p.A. and
Costa Cruise Lines, Inc. (Giglio Sub v. Carnival Corporation).
The defendants have been served with the action.  The plaintiffs
are a purported class of business owners and wage earners on
Giglio Island in Italy who claim they have been injured as a
result of the ship incident in January 2012.  The plaintiffs
allege negligence, gross negligence and nuisance against the
defendants.  The complaint seeks monetary damages in the amount of
$75 million, punitive damages, interests, costs and an injunction
that future travel near Giglio Island will be conducted at safe
distances.  On September 26, 2012, the court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims to Italy
based on the forum non conveniens doctrine.  The plaintiffs filed
a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit, which is pending.


CARNIVAL CORP: Continues to Defend "Lobaton" Suit in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation continues to defend itself from a class
action lawsuit initiated by Gary Lobaton, according to the
Company's January 29, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
November 30, 2012.

On January 13, 2012, Costa Concordia grounded off the coast of
Isola del Giglio, Italy, and sustained significant damage.  The
incident resulted in casualties and injuries.

On January 26, 2012, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Eastern Division) naming as defendants Costa Crociere S.p.A.,
Carnival Corporation and Carnival plc (Gary Lobaton v. Carnival
Corporation, Carnival plc and Costa Crociere S.p.A.).  The
defendants have been served with the action.  The plaintiff
purports to represent an alleged class of the passengers and crew
of Costa Concordia who were on board the ship during the ship
incident in January 2012.  The complaint alleges the defendants
violated the Athens Convention Relating to the Carriage of
Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, breached contracts with
employees and passengers and acted negligently.  The plaintiff
also alleges unjust enrichment.  The complaint seeks unspecified
monetary and punitive damages, interests and costs, among other
things.


CEPHALON INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Junk Fax Putative Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Stride, writing for Law360, reports that drugmaker Cephalon
Inc. and medical marketing firm SciMedica Group LLC lost their bid
to have a junk fax putative class action tossed for lack of
standing on Jan. 28, when a Pennsylvania federal judge found the
plaintiff had alleged an injury the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act was designed to address.

In an order dated on Jan. 25 and entered on the docket on Jan. 28,
U.S. District Judge Legrome D. Davis Jr. shot down the defendants'
argument that Physicians Healthsource Inc. lacked standing for its
suit.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Agrees to Settle Class Action Over Cellphone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Garden City Group, Inc., settlement administrator in Kwan, et
al. v. Clearwire Corp., et al., No. C09-1392 JLR, issued a
statement regarding the class action settlement.

According to a release, Clearwire and Bureau of Recovery ("BOR")
have agreed to settle a class action in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle (Kwan, et
al. v. Clearwire Corp., et al., No. C09-1392 JLR).

Plaintiffs claim, among other things, that Clearwire and its
vendors placed calls to cellular telephones in violation of
federal and state law, as well as calls to people who asked not to
be called.  Plaintiffs are represented by the Seattle law firm of
Williamson & Williams.  In agreeing to settle, Clearwire and BOR
do not admit any wrongdoing and have asserted defenses.  The
parties agreed to settle to avoid the burden, costs and
uncertainty of further litigation.

As part of the proposed settlement, Clearwire will provide
payments or offsets to Class Members who submit a valid Claim
Form, and will forgive certain indebtedness for Class Members.
Clearwire will also change certain calling practices.


FIRSTCITY FINANCIAL: Being Sold to Varde for Too Little, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that FirstCity Financial is
selling itself too cheaply to Varde Partners and Hotspurs
Holdings, for $10 per share or $225 million (including debt),
shareholders claim in Chancery Court.


GEMME JUVENILE: Recalls 300 Chelsea Three-Drawer Dressers
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in cooperation
with Gemme Juvenile Inc., of Princeville, Quebec, Canada, is
announcing a recall to retrofit 300 children's three-drawer
dressers.  If a young child climbs up open dresser drawers, the
dresser can tip over and pose the risk of entrapment.  CPSC and
the Company have received a report of a two-year-old boy from
Barrington, Illinois, who reportedly suffocated when he climbed on
or up an open lower drawer into the second dresser drawer, causing
the dresser to fall and entrap him between the unit and the floor.

When the dresser drawers are pulled all the way out and then the
additional weight of a young child is applied, the dresser's
center of gravity can be altered and result in instability of the
product and consequently tip over.  A child can become injured in
the fall or suffocate under the weight of the fallen dresser.

This recall involves the Chelsea three-drawer windowed dresser
bearing model number 3033.  The dressers were sold in five
finishes Cappuccino, Cappuccino with a brown top, Ebony, Ebony
with a brown top, and Antique or French White.  A sticker with the
word "Natart" and the firm's logo is affixed to the inside of the
top drawer.  In addition, most dressers will have the model
number, "Natart Juvenile," "Made in Canada" and "Chelsea 3 Drawer
Dresser" printed on another label located on the back of the
dresser.  The recalled dresser measures 35-inches high by 21-
inches deep by 39- inches wide and is part of the Chelsea
children's bedroom furniture collection.  The dresser is composed
of engineered wood, solid wood and wood veneers.  The top drawer
has two clear plastic windows in front.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at: http://is.gd/HJmVJZ

The dressers were sold at Furniture Kidz and other independent
juvenile specialty stores and at Baby.com from January 2005 to
December 2010 for between $600 and $900.

The Chelsea three-drawer dresser met applicable standards when
produced but was manufactured prior to the existence of the May
2009 voluntary industry standard.  That standard requires tip-over
restraints that attach to the interior wall, framing or other
support be included with all dressers to help prevent tip-over
entrapment hazards to young children.

The dressers were manufactured in Canada.

Consumers should immediately stop using and place the dresser out
of a child's reach.  Free retrofit kits that contain wall anchor
straps are being offered to consumers to help prevent the dresser
from tipping.  The kits can be ordered by visiting
http://www.chelseawallanchors.com/,
http://www.NatartJuvenile.com/,e-mailing the firm at
safety@chelseawallanchors.com or calling toll-free at (855) 364-
2619 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday.

Important Message from CPSC: Every two weeks a child dies when a
piece of furniture or a television falls on him or her.  Anchor
all furniture and TVs.


JEFFERIES GROUP: Defends Merger-Related Suits in N.Y. & Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferies Group, Inc. is defending seven merger-related lawsuits
filed in New York and Delaware, according to the Company's January
29, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended November 30, 2012.

On November 12, 2012, the Company agreed to merge with Leucadia
National Corporation, a diversified holding company.  The
transaction is expected to close during the first quarter of 2013
and is subject to customary closing conditions, including approval
to effect the merger by both Leucadia's shareholders and the
Company's shareholders.  Upon the merger, the Company will
continue to operate in its current form and its Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman of the Executive Committee will
remain in their current roles with respect to Jefferies while
assuming the roles of Chief Executive Officer and President,
respectively, at Leucadia.

Seven putative class action lawsuits have been filed in New York
and Delaware concerning the merger transactions whereby Jefferies
Group, Inc. would become a wholly owned subsidiary of Leucadia.
The class actions, filed on behalf of the Company's shareholders,
name as defendants Jefferies Group, Inc., the members of its board
of directors, Leucadia and, in certain of the actions, certain
merger-related subsidiaries.  The actions allege that the
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
merger transactions by engaging in a flawed process and agreeing
to sell Jefferies for inadequate consideration pursuant to an
agreement that contains improper deal protection terms.  The
actions allege that Jefferies and Leucadia aided and abetted the
directors' breach of fiduciary duties and seek, among other
things, an injunction barring the proposed transactions.

The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of this
litigation, including whether the litigation will affect the
closing of the merger with Leucadia.


MAINE: LePage Sued For Failure to Provide Group-Home Care Services
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Gov. Paul LePage and his administration for
allegedly failing to provide group-home care and other services to
nearly 200 intellectually and developmentally impaired adults.

The suit filed on Jan. 28 in Kennebec County Superior Court names
as defendants Gov. LePage, Health and Human Services Commissioner
Mary Mayhew, and Ricker Hamilton, acting director of the Office of
Adults with Cognitive and Physical Disabilities Services.

It was filed by family members and guardians of 18 adults who are
representing 176 people on a waiting list for group-home placement
and other services.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs tells The Portland Press Herald, a
federally approved Medicaid plan requires the state to provide
services to 2,935 eligible Mainers, but the program serves only
2,820.

The defendants refused comment.


MI WINDOWS: Class Action Over Defective Vinyl Windows Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that a federal judge in South Carolina has
dismissed a class action brought by an Illinois man who claimed
that defective vinyl windows installed by the previous owners of
his home caused water intrusion and damage to the interior of his
residence.

In a Jan. 24 order, Judge David C. Norton of the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina ruled in favor of MI
Windows and Doors Inc., agreeing that the plaintiff's multi-count
complaint failed to allege specific allegations of fraud or that
the company had directly deceived the plaintiffs about the quality
of the product.


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Class Cert. Bid Pending in "Williams" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. is still awaiting a court
decision on a motion for class certification in the lawsuit
commenced by Dollie Williams in Alabama, according to the
Company's January 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December
31, 2012.

Dollie Williams, et al., v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., et
al., a civil action, was filed on March 8, 2010, in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Eastern
Division, against the Company and others.  The plaintiffs, who
claim to have been patrons of VictoryLand, allege that the Company
participated in gambling operations that violated Alabama state
law by supplying to VictoryLand purportedly unlawful electronic
bingo machines played by the plaintiffs, and seek recovery of the
monies lost on all electronic bingo games played by the plaintiffs
in the six months prior to the complaint under Ala. Code Sec. 8-1-
150(A).  The plaintiffs have requested that the court certify the
action as a class action.  On March 16, 2012, Walter Bussey and
two other named plaintiffs were voluntarily dismissed.  The
Company awaits a ruling on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, which has been briefed and is pending before the
court.

The Company continues to vigorously defend this matter.  Given the
inherent uncertainties in this litigation, however, the Company is
unable to make any prediction as to the ultimate outcome.  A
finding in this case that electronic bingo was illegal in Alabama
during the pertinent time frame could have adverse regulatory
consequences for the Company in other jurisdictions.


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Class Cert. Bid in "Hardy" Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ozetta Hardy v. Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC, et al., a civil
action, was filed against Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC (an entity
that does not exist), Cornerstone Community Outreach, Inc., and
Freedom Trail Ventures, Ltd., in the Circuit Court of Lowndes
County, Alabama.  On June 3, 2010, Multimedia Games Holding
Company, Inc. and other manufacturers were added.  The plaintiffs,
who claim to have been patrons of White Hall, allege that the
Company participated in gambling operations that violated Alabama
state law by supplying to White Hall purportedly unlawful
electronic bingo machines played by the plaintiffs, and seek
recovery of the monies lost on all electronic bingo games played
by the plaintiffs in the six months prior to the complaint based
on Ala. Code, Sec 8-1-150(A).  The plaintiffs have requested that
the court certify the action as a class action.  On July 2, 2010,
the defendants removed the case to the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division.  The
court has not ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The Company says it continues to vigorously defend this matter.
Given the inherent uncertainties in this litigation, however, the
Company is unable to make any prediction as to the ultimate
outcome.  A finding in this case that electronic bingo was illegal
in Alabama during the pertinent time frame could have adverse
regulatory consequences to the Company in other jurisdictions.

No further updates were reported in the Company's January 30,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Ct. Dismisses Saints Ticketholders' Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Helen G. Berrigan of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed a class
action lawsuit filed by David James Mancina seeking damages
allegedly suffered as a ticket holder for New Orleans Saints
football games for the 2012-2013 season.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter on October 23, 2012,
Saints players were accused of offering cash bounties to teammates
who knocked opponents out of a game, and coaches were accused of
tolerating it.  Mr. Mancina sued National Football League
Commissioner Roger Goodell, claiming Mr. Goodell's suspensions of
coaches and players in the bounty-hunting scandal "punished the
innocent ticket holders more than anyone."  Mr. Mancina complained
that Mr. Goodell's suspensions were "devastating" to "the
confidence and emotional attachment" of the purported class of
85,000 ticketholders.  Mr. Mancina sought more than $5 million in
damages under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law.

The defendants, the NFL and Mr. Goodell, filed a motion to dismiss
the class action suit.

On January 30, 2013, Judge Berrigan determined that dismissal is
appropriate.  The Court adopted in full the reasoning of Mayer v.
Belichick, 2009 WL 792099 (D.N.J.), aff'd, 605 F.3d 223 (3rd Cir.
2010), wherein the Court dismissed on motion the plaintiff ticket
holder's claims for tortious interference with contract, consumer
fraud and deceptive business practices act under state law.

Judge Berrigan concluded that Mr. Goodell has not provided legal
support for the argument that a sport fan has rights greater than
those of a spectator, regardless of how ardent his team devotion
may be.

Moreover, the Court disagrees with the plaintiff's claim that
Louisiana law and its civilian tradition materially alter any
rights addressed in Mayer.  As to the claim under the LUTPA, Mr.
Goodell fails to acknowledge that the statute itself provides "an
action individually but not in a representative capacity to
recover actual damages," Judge Berrigan added.

The case before Judge Berrigan is styled DAVID JAMES MANCINA,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS v. ROGER GOODELL, ETC., ET
AL SECTION "C" (3), Civil Action No. 12-2512.  A copy of Judge
Berrigan's January 30, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/pdIlq2from Leagle.com.


NCAA: June 20 Class Cert. Hearing in Ex-Athletes' Class Suit Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA Today, reports that a federal
judge in California has ruled that lawyers representing current
and former college athletes in a potentially landmark anti-trust
lawsuit against the NCAA over use of their names and likenesses
can proceed with efforts to have the case certified as a class
action and ultimately to gain billions generated by the athletes'
play.

The NCAA and its co-defendants had filed a motion in October
asking U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken to end the class-
certification process, in part because they contended the
plaintiffs had changed their legal strategy in a way that was
unfair.

However, in a ruling on Jan. 29, Judge Wilken wrote that "this is
not reason to preclude Antitrust Plaintiffs from moving for class
certification; instead, these contentions are more properly
considered as arguments supporting denial of the motion for class
certification on its merits."

The judge gave the NCAA and its co-defendants -- video-game maker
Electronic Arts and the nation's leading collegiate trademark
licensing and marketing firm, Collegiate Licensing Co. --
additional opportunities to file papers arguing against class
certification.  But she also wrote the defendants also must argue
why the plaintiffs should not be allowed to amend their legal
approach to the case, if she determines that such a change has
actually occurred.

In addition, Judge Wilken set a court hearing on the class-
certification matter for June 20 in San Francisco.

In short, the judge has decided she will give full consideration
to the athletes' bid for class certification.  If successful, it
would force the NCAA, Electronic Arts and Collegiate Licensing Co.
to defend a case in which the plaintiffs have said they will be
seeking billions in damages on behalf of college football and
men's basketball players.

Lawyers for the named plaintiffs -- among them former basketball
stars Ed O'Bannon, Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell -- also have
said they want to fundamentally change how athletes are
compensated for playing these sports in college.

In a statement, NCAA Chief Legal Officer Donald Remy said:
"Although our motion to strike was denied, the Judge has signaled
skepticism on plaintiff's class certification motion and
recognized the plaintiffs' radical change in their theory of the
case.  This is a step in the right direction toward allowing the
NCAA to further demonstrate why this case is wrong on the law and
that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that this case
satisfies the criteria for class litigation."

The plaintiffs' lawyers said that while they are seeking monetary
damages on behalf of former athletes, they "do not seek
compensation to be paid to current student-athletes while they
maintain their eligibility."  Rather, they see a system under
which "monies generated by the licensing and sale of class
members' names, images and likenesses can be temporarily held in
trust" until the end of the college playing careers.

In a case that began in 2009, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants violated anti-trust law by conspiring to fix at zero
the amount of compensation athletes can receive for the use of
their names, images and likenesses in products or media while they
are in school.  They additionally allege the athletes are required
to sign forms under which they relinquish in perpetuity all rights
pertaining to the use of the names, images and likenesses in ways
including TV contracts, rebroadcasts of games and video game,
jersey and other apparel sales.

Under anti-trust law, the statute of limitations on damages is
four years back from the date of filing.

Thus, the athletes' lawyers are seeking a portion of the revenues
the NCAA and Division I schools and conferences have gotten from
TV contracts and from the licensing and royalties related to
video-game sales from 2005 to present.  Based on expert analysis,
the plaintiffs want a 50-50 split of the revenue for telecasts and
a one-third split for video games.

Jon Solomon, writing for Alabama Live, reports that "The NCAA
tried to shortcircuit their exposure," said Michael Hausfeld, the
ex-players' attorney.  "The judge has basically said it's an open
field and everything will be considered by her.  Now, she may
eventually deny them on their merit, but she's not going to
dismiss them as a procedural defect."

Last fall, a certification expert for the plaintiffs proposed that
current and former football and men's basketball players should
receive 50 percent of television revenue from the NCAA and its
members.  The NCAA claimed that including current players was a
"dramatic expansion" of the damaged class.

"We never separated the claim from live broadcast and
rebroadcast," Mr. Hausfeld said.  "We only spoke about the
restrictions as far as the licensing revenue."

The ruling keeps in play the possibility of current athletes
joining the suit.  Mr. Hausfeld said current athletes are prepared
to join if the court believes that's necessary.

"But it's kind of a non-sensical requirement because if the case
proceeds along a certain time, there will always be a case when
the current athlete is a former athlete," he said.  "That's why
I'm not sure that will be necessary.  The issue doesn't change and
the injunctive relief is of all current and non-current athletes."


NPC INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Actions Over Labor Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that NPC International, which runs
Pizza Huts in 28 states, stiffs workers for overtime and makes
them work off the clock, two class actions claim in Federal Court.


OHIO: Attorneys in Workers' Comp. Suit Seeks $860MM Restitution
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Bell, writing for Columbus Business First, reports that
attorneys in a class action lawsuit against the Ohio Bureau of
Workers' Compensation are seeking $860 million in restitution for
more than 270,000 businesses allegedly overcharged for workers'
compensation premiums.

While hardly good news for the bureau, the amount is down from the
prior $1.3 billion sought by attorneys for the businesses that
claim they paid too much over a number of years because of an
unfair group rating system.

The revised restitution amount came as a result of a ruling in
December by Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Richard
McMonagle.  While ruling in favor of the affected businesses, the
judge ordered their attorneys to revise the restitution total by
deducting the interest the businesses could have earned on the
money they paid for inflated premiums.

Judge McMonagle will hold a hearing on the revised restitution
amount on March 14.

Claims range from pennies to as much as $1.6 million for an Akron-
area business, said Jim DeRoche, one of the attorneys representing
the class-action group.  The average claim is $2,500, he said.
"A fair number of folks have substantial claims," Mr. DeRoche told
Mr. Bell.  "It's not chump change."

He also said the bureau can afford to cover the restitution
charges by tapping the more than $8 billion it has in assets, some
of which stems from the inflated premiums paid by businesses in
the lawsuit.  But the bureau has told Mr. Bell such refunds would
have to come from money the workers' comp system collects from
employers to treat those hurt on the job.

The bureau is appealing Judge McMonagle's ruling in the class
action suit.

In a statement, the bureau said it continues to maintain its
actions were lawful and the plaintiff's claims are without merit.


PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION: Gizmo Kills Car Batteries, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that an insurer
dangles discounts for customers who install an electronic
"Snapshot" gizmo in their car to track driving habits, but the
device drains and kills the car batteries, a man claims in a class
action.

Named plaintiff Alex Morales sued the Progressive Corporation in
Federal Court.  He claims the company hauled in more than
$1 billion in premiums from Snapshot customers in a single year.

The complaint states: "Progressive's Snapshot(R) usage-based
insurance program is a discount program where Progressive's
customers can purportedly save money on their car insurance by
sharing their driving habits with Progressive.  According to
Progressive, seven out of ten drivers who try Progressive's
Snapshot program have qualified for a discount, which can be as
high as 30 percent.  According to Progressive, it is 'simply
asking all drivers, "why wouldn't you try it?"'

"Participating customers are given a device that can fit into the
palm of one's hand, plugs into the vehicle's on-board diagnostic
port, and is powered through the vehicle's battery.  The device
records and sends driving data directly to Progressive, and
Progressive uses that information to calculate a participating
customer's insurance rate.  After installation of the Snapshot
device, driving data is analyzed for 30 days, after which
customers find out if they are eligible for a discount based on
their driving habits.  Progressive claims that Snapshot customers
can make changes to their driving habits that will lead to 'bigger
discounts' and 'huge savings.'  Through Progressive's marketing
and advertising campaign, Progressive implies that Snapshot is
safe for use in vehicles.  Progressive conveyed and continues to
convey this deceptive message through a fully integrated
advertising campaign, which utilizes a variety of media, including
television, newspapers, magazines, direct mail and the Internet.
Progressive's representations, however, are false, misleading and
reasonably likely to deceive the public since Snapshot always
drains a vehicle's battery, making the battery worth less than it
would be without the Snapshot device.  Many times a vehicle's
battery is drained to the point that the battery is
nonfunctional."

Mr. Morales claims he signed up for the Snapshot program in August
2011.

"Progressive mailed plaintiff a Snapshot device which he plugged
into his car's on-board diagnostic port.  Shortly thereafter,
plaintiff experienced occurrences in which his car would not
start.  Several times he was forced to ask others to assist him in
jump-starting his car.  Due to the frequency of his car's failure
to start, plaintiff was compelled to buy jumper cables.  Plaintiff
took his car to an Acura repair facility where he was informed
that his car battery was drained to the point that it was
nonfunctional.  On January 10, 2012, the Acura repair facility
charged plaintiff $91.10 to replace his car's battery.  Plaintiff
never had a problem with his vehicle's battery prior to his use of
Snapshot," according to the complaint.

Mr. Morales adds: "Snapshot utilizes 'telematics' technology,
which is 'a type of machine-to-machine (M2M) communication that
combines GPS, mobile computing and cellular communication.'  The
patents relating to Progressive's Snapshot device state that
tracking of the vehicle for location identification can be done by
Snapshot through a global positioning system ('GPS') antenna and
other locating systems.

"The Snapshot device records and sends the participant's driving
data to Progressive, including information about how hard the
driver brakes, when the car is on the road (time of day), and the
miles driven by the car.  Progressive uses that information to
calculate the customer's insurance rate, including potential
discounts.  Progressive also enables participating customers to
log onto an Internet page where they can track their driving data
gathered by Snapshot, and purportedly monitor their potential
insurance savings."

Mr. Morales claims that "between July 2011 and July 2012,
Progressive collected more than $1 billion in premiums from
customers who utilized Snapshot."

"Progressive misrepresented the purported benefits of Snapshot,
and failed to warn members of the class of the defective and
harmful nature of Snapshot, namely that it causes severe vehicle
battery drainage."

He seeks compensatory and punitive damages for negligence,
negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty, and
consumer law violations.

He is represented by Adam Balkan, with Balkan and Patterson.


REGENCY THEATRES: Faces ADA Violation Class Action in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Regency Theatres violates the
ADA by not providing "assistive listening devices" for the hard of
hearing at its 30 California theaters, a class action claims in
Superior Court.


SAN JOSE VALLEY: Recalls 1,260 Lbs. of Veal Trimmings Over E. Coli
------------------------------------------------------------------
San Jose Valley Veal, a Santa Clara, California establishment, is
recalling approximately 1,260 pounds of veal trimmings that may be
contaminated with E. Coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The following products are subject to recall:

   * 60-pound, cardboard box cases of "SAN JOSE VALLEY VEAL AND
     BEEF INC." boneless veal trimmings.

Boxes may contain the case codes: "L-1 11112," "L-1 11212," "L-1
11512," "L-1 11612," "L-1 11712," "L-1 11812" or "L-1 11912" and
also bear the establishment number "EST. 2828" inside the USDA
mark of inspection.

The products subject to recall were produced between November 1
and November 9, 2012, then, were transported to a federal facility
for further distribution.  FSIS and the establishment are
concerned that some product may be frozen and in customers'
freezers.

The problem was discovered when a customer tested a shipment of
veal and reported non-negative results.  The customer held the
shipment pending laboratory results, but other product from the
producer's same lot had shipped into commerce.

FSIS and the Company have received no reports of illnesses
associated with consumption of these products.  Individuals
concerned about an illness should contact a healthcare provider.

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

E. Coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
dehydration, bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps 2-8 days (3-4
days, on average) after exposure to the organism.  While most
people recover within a week, some develop a type of kidney
failure called HUS.  This condition can occur among persons of any
age but is most common in children under 5-years old and older
adults.  Symptoms of HUS may include fever, abdominal pain, pale
skin tone, fatigue and irritability, small, unexplained bruises or
bleeding from the nose and mouth, decreased urination, and
swelling.  Persons who experience these symptoms should seek
emergency medical care immediately.

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat
products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef
that has been cooked to a temperature of 160 degrees F.  The only
way to confirm that ground beef is cooked to a temperature high
enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that
measures internal temperature.

Consumers and media with questions regarding the recall should
contact company executives, Leo or John Teixeira, at (408) 727-
4404.

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


SPORTSPOWER LTD: Recalls 120,000 Trampolines Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Sportspower Ltd., of Hong Kong, announced a voluntary recall of
about 120,000 Sportspower BouncePro 14' Trampolines (92,000 units
were recalled in May 2012).  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The enclosure netting surrounding these trampolines can break,
allowing children to fall through the netting and be injured.

Sportspower has received an additional nine reports of the
enclosure netting breaking since the May 2012 recall.  There have
been five reports of injuries including broken bones, back and
neck injuries and contusions.

This recall is an expansion of the May 2012 recall of brown tetlon
netting to now include black tetlon netting.  This involves
Sportspower BouncePro 14' Trampolines with model TR-1686-TPR.  UPC
code 687064045552 or 687064042100 is printed on the product's box.
'Sportspower BouncePro 14' is printed on a plate on the leg of the
trampoline frame.  The trampolines are surrounded by enclosure
netting on the perimeter of the trampoline measuring about 6 feet
high.  The netting is designed to contain individuals bouncing on
the trampoline.  A picture of the recalled products is available
at: http://is.gd/mSRTHX

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Walmart stores nationwide from February 2009
through March 2011 for about $300.

Consumers should immediately stop using the trampolines and
contact Sportspower to receive a replacement enclosure netting.
Sportspower may be reached toll-free at (888) 965-0565, from 9:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, online at
http://www.sportspowerltd.net/and click on "Recall Information"
at the bottom of the page for more information, or e-mail the firm
at customerservice@sportspowerltd.net


UNITED STATES: Former VA Employees' Class Action Suit May Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Judge Loren A. Smith of the United States Court of Federal
Claims rejected a motion to dismiss the class action captioned
ROBERT A. ATHEY ET AL., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant, Case No. 99-2051C.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Department of Veterans
Affairs.  They seek correction of their accrued and accumulated
lump-sum annual leave payments, interest on those payments, and
attorneys' fees, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 5596, the Back Pay
Act, 5 U.S.C. Sections 5551-5552 and the Tucker Act 28 U.S.C.
Section 1346(a).

The Defendant argues the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
because the Back Pay Act is not a money-mandating statute.  The
Defendant also argues that the Plaintiffs do not come within the
Back Pay Act's definition of "employee" nor does interest fall
within the definition of "pay" and therefore, the case must be
dismissed.

Judge Smith holds that the Plaintiffs have properly pled 5 U.S.C.
Section 5596, (the Back Pay Act) in conjunction with 5 U.S.C.
Sections 5551-5552 (lump sum payment statutes) which gives the
Federal Claims Court proper and sufficient jurisdiction to hear
the Plaintiffs claims.  Furthermore, the Court holds that within
the Back Pay Act itself, the Plaintiffs' claims adequately fall
within the defined terms of "employee" and "pay."

Ira M. Lechner served as Class Counsel and Attorney for the
Plaintiffs.

Sharon A. Snyder, Trial Attorney, with whom were Jeanne E.
Davidson, Director, Todd M. Hughes, Deputy Director, and Tony
West, Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. and Patricia Smith, Office
of General Counsel, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs,
Washington, D.C., represented the Defendant.

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


WARNER BROS: Hal Needham Sues Over "Hooper" Home Video Royalties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reports that famed stuntman
and director Hal Needham on Jan. 29 filed a class action lawsuit
against Warner Bros Entertainment alleging that the company ripped
him off of home video royalties from Hooper.  The seven-count
complaint, filed by Stuntman Inc., Mr. Needham's loan out company,
is almost identical to filings made against Paramount Pictures,
Universal City Studios, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and
Sony Pictures Entertainment on January 16 over the same issue.
Even the same four cooperating law firms are involved.  In those
cases, as in this one, the studios were taken to legal task for
their practice of paying profit participants based on 20% of home
entertainment revenues.  Mr. Needham, like the plaintiffs in the
other cases, says his contract with Warner Bros over 1978's Hooper
was made before the 20% figure became the industry standard in the
early 1980s.  Like the other cases, Mr. Needham claims his
contract says he should be receiving royalties from 100% of the
home video revenue from the Burt Reynolds film, not 20%.

To put in perspective the kind of money this case would result in
for the 81-year old Cannonball Run helmer, Mr. Needham's suit
claims that Hooper made more than $78 million domestically when it
was released in the late '70s -- that's a successful movie with a
lot of years of home video revenues.  Like the class action suits
filed by representatives of directors Colin Higgins and Stanley
Donen and the trustee of Charles Bronson's estate Larry Martindale
in mid-January, Mr. Needham is seeking unspecified punitive and
other damages.  Mr. Needham, who was given a Governor's Award by
the Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences in 2012, has also
requested a jury trial in the breach of contract suit.


YUM BRANDS: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Yum!
Brands, Inc., has filed a shareholder lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
a class comprising all persons or entities who purchased Yum
securities between October 9, 2012 and January 7, 2013, inclusive.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP.  Please contact us by phone to discuss this
action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or
Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or by e-mail at
shareholders@glancylaw.com.

YUM, together with its subsidiaries, operates quick service
restaurants in the United States and internationally under the
KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell brands.  On November 23, 2012 reports
in the Chinese media disclosed that certain of the Company's
chicken suppliers had been feeding toxic chemicals to chickens
sold to KFC China.  On December 20 and 21, 2012 news outlets
reported that the Company knew well before October 2012, but
sought to conceal, that certain chicken suppliers in China had
injected chickens with excessive antibiotics and other illegal
chemicals.

Then, on January 7, 2013, in a filing with the SEC the Company
lowered its China Division's full-year 2012 guidance for same-
store sales, due to publicity surrounding the Chinese government's
review of Yum's poultry supply.  As a result of these disclosures,
on January 8, 2013 Yum shares dropped 5%, from $67.89 per share to
as low as $64.40 per share.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
slowing economic trends in China were stronger than reported and
could not support Yum's China Division's forecasted sales results
or the Company's increased earnings-per-share growth; (2)
defendants knew but failed to disclose that the Company's own food
safety inspections had already discovered high levels of
antibiotics and other illegal drugs and/or chemicals in chickens
purchased from a Chinese supplier -- Shandong Liuhe Group; and (3)
Yum had continued to buy products from Shandong Liuhe Group until
as late as August 2012.

If you are a member of the Class, you may move the Court to serve
as lead plaintiff no later than March 25, 2013; however, you must
meet certain legal requirements.  If you wish to learn more about
this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, by
telephone at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-
mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our Web site at
http://www.glancylaw.com


* UK Gov't Vows to Push for New Antitrust Class Action System
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Lipman, writing for Law360, reports that the British
government vowed on Jan. 29 to push for a new class action system
for antitrust litigation, a move attorneys say could make the U.K.
the center for private cartel damages cases across Europe.

The plan laid out by the U.K.'s Department for Business Innovation
and Skills would give the country its first opt-out collective
action system for competition cases in a bid to make it easier for
consumers and small businesses to win compensation for price-
fixing.


* EU Group Litigation Approach May Prompt Legal Abuse, ILR Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Stride, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S. Chamber
Institute for Legal Reform voiced concern on Jan. 29 about the
European Union's approach to group litigation under its draft data
protection regulation, saying certain proposals would incentivize
law firms and other profit-driven third parties to promote mass
litigation and fail to protect against legal abuse.

Lisa A. Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's ILR,
wrote in a letter to European Commission Vice President Viviane
Reding that those concerns had been heightened by a 215-page draft
report released last month.


* Class Action Law Firms Earn $653MM in Fees in 2012, NERA Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that securities class
action law firms earned $653 million in fees and expenses related
to federal court cases last year, up 4 percent from 2011, a report
released on Jan. 29 said.

The fees were awarded out of the $3.3 billion recovered in class
actions last year.  Aggregate settlement amounts also increased,
up 22 percent from 2011, according to the report by NERA Economic
Consulting.

The trends reflect larger settlements cut during the year, which
typically do not yield as high fees on a percentage basis as
smaller settlements.

Bruce Vanyo, a partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman, said that when
awarding contingency fees, federal courts typically review the
hours plaintiffs' firms put into a case, even if the attorneys'
work is not really billed hourly.

That sum typically is then multiplied, but the fees themselves
still are tied to the hours.

"So in the bigger settlements, the numbers don't add up as much,"
he said.

The largest fee award in 2012 came in litigation filed in 2004
against American International Group that resulted in two partial
settlements totaling $822.5 million.

The court awarded a little more than $100 million in fees in the
case to firms led by Labaton Sucharow and Hahn Loeser & Parks.

Other large fee awards last year included $55 million from a $200
million settlement with Motorola Inc., $53.55 million for a $315
million settlement with Bank of America Corp's Merrill Lynch and
$35.39 million for a $294.9 million settlement with Bear Stearns,
now owned by JPMorgan Chase & Co.

The median proportion of fees to settlement has also been
declining markedly, NERA said.  In a settlement recovering $100
million to $500 million, fees and expenses were 18.2 percent of
that recovery from 2010 to 2012, compared to 24.2 percent from
1996 to 2009, the report said.

The one exception was for settlements with more than $1 billion
recovered. In those cases, 12.6 percent of the recovery went to
fees and expenses, compared to 8.3 percent from 1996 to 2009.

Even so, the biggest settlement announced last year, a $2.45
billion settlement with Bank of America Corp, is set to provide
the plaintiffs' firms with almost half the median amount for those
big cases, 6.56 percent.

If approved, the firms stand to earn $159 million in fees and
$17.5 million in expenses.  The case was co-led by Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check and
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer.

The report also found a decline in securities class action
filings, in line with data in other reports by Cornerstone
Research and Advisen.

NERA counted 207 lawsuits filed in 2012, down from the 221 average
seen over the last five years.


                           *********

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, Valerie Udtuhan, 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  * * *