CAR_Public/130213.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, February 13, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 31

                             Headlines



ADVANCEPIERRE FOODS: Recalls 15,328 Lbs. of Country Fried Steaks
AMAG PHARMA: 1st Cir. Revives Class Action Over Feraheme Risks
AMERICANS FOR RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP: Faces Robocall Class Action
BAYER CORP: Class Member Balks at Attorneys' $5.1MM Fee Bid
CANADA: Committee to Probe HRSDC Student Loan Data Privacy Breach

CANADA: HRC Victims Urge NDP Leader to Provide Compensation
CITIGROUP: 2nd Cir. to Hear Oral Argument on SEC Policy
COMMONWEALTH BANK: New Claimants Participate in Class Action
DANIEL ACKER: Faces Sexual Abuse Class Action in Shelby County
DELL: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims

DIRECTSAT: Class Decertification in Technicians' Suit Upheld
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Court Decertifies Delivery Drivers' Class Action
FARMERS INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over Improper Payouts
HORIZON BLUE: Makes Fresh Class Action Bid Over Illegal Scheme
HYUNDAI: Class Action Over Faulty Veloster Sunroofs Dismissed

LG PHILIPS: RD Provides Financing to TFT-LCD Class Suit Attorneys
MARRIOTT INT'L: Blind Employee Files Discrimination Class Action
ONESOURCE DOCUMENT: Napoli Files Class Action Over Excessive Fees
PERVASIVE SOFTWARE: Shareholders File Suit Over Sale to Actian
PFIZER INC: Faces Consumer Class Action Over Zoloft

PHUMAN SINGH: President Sued For Squandering Company Resources
POWER BALANCE: Case Management Conference in Class Suit Postponed
RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Settles Overtime Class Action for $2 Million
SIRIUS XM: Faces Suit in N.Y. For Overcharging Subscribers
SNC-LAVALIN GROUP: May 8 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set

SOIL SOLUTIONS: Class Action Notices Expected in Mid-February
UBS AG: 7th Circuit Tosses Class Action Over Tax Evasion
UNITED STATES: Faces Suit for Snubbing Alien Citizens Applications
UNITED TELEPHONE: Ohio Sup. Ct. Hears Class Action Oral Argument
WELLS FARGO: "Brown Suit" Plaintiff May File New Certification Bid

WICKHAM SECURITIES: Shareholders Mull Class Action
WMS INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Acquisition
WYNN RESORTS: Gets Favorable Ruling in Kastroll's CAFA Suit

* Business Groups Oppose Britain's "Collective Actions" System


                           *********



ADVANCEPIERRE FOODS: Recalls 15,328 Lbs. of Country Fried Steaks
----------------------------------------------------------------
AdvancePierre Foods, an Enid, Oklahoma establishment, is recalling
approximately 15,328 pounds of frozen, fully cooked country fried
steak products because they may contain foreign materials --
pieces of plastic, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The products subject to recall include:

   * 22.75-oz. pouches of "Fast Classics Country Fried Steaks."

   * 8.5-lb. cases, each containing six pouches of "Fast Classics
     Country Fried Steaks."

All products were produced on December 21, 2012.  The packages
bear the establishment number "EST. 2260Y" in the USDA mark of
inspection on the front of the package and a "BEST BY" date of
March 21, 2014, stamped on a label on the back of the package
along with the case code of 1523560202.  Pictures of the recalled
products' labels are available at: http://is.gd/HA4a8H

The products were distributed to one retail chain in Alabama,
Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa,
Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota,
Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wyoming.  When available,
the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS Web
site at:

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

The firm alerted FSIS after the Company received complaints from
two customers who each received an oral injury upon eating the
product.  The problem was a result of a piece of a plastic bin
being introduced into the production process and then being broken
into smaller pieces.  Anyone concerned about an injury or illness
should contact a healthcare provider.

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

Consumers with questions about the recall may contact
AdvancePierre Consumer Affairs at (855) 328-8888.  Media with
questions about the recall should contact Jennifer Hutchison, the
company's accounts director, at (312) 573-5468 or (630) 258-8752.

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


AMAG PHARMA: 1st Cir. Revives Class Action Over Feraheme Risks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360, reports that the First Circuit
on Feb. 4 revived a putative class action accusing AMAG
Pharmaceuticals Inc. and its bank underwriters of misleading
investors about the risks associated with iron deficiency
treatment Feraheme, ruling the investors had made a reasonable
claim that AMAG had failed to disclose relevant information on
those risks.

The investors are led by Silverstrand Investments LLC, Safron
Capital Corp. and Briarwood Investments Inc.


AMERICANS FOR RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP: Faces Robocall Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susanna Kim, writing for ABC News, reports that a lawsuit seeking
federal class-action status in Colorado is accusing an Arizona
non-profit of conducting illegal robocalls to campaign for Mitt
Romney during the presidential election.

Marlo Edholm, 34, filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court in
Denver on Feb. 4 against Americans for Responsible Leadership, a
non-profit group in Arizona.

Ms. Edholm, a recent nursing school graduate from Denver, said she
received at least five illegal robocalls to her cell phone from
the group.

She said the calls are a violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, according to the lawsuit.  The law prohibits
unsolicited robocalls to cell phones, which can cost the telephone
call recipient money for the minutes used.

Americans for Responsible Leadership spent millions of dollars
last year supporting Republican candidates, including presidential
candidate Mitt Romney and opposing ballot initiatives in Arizona.

The group's stated purpose on its Web site is to "promote the
general welfare of the citizens of the United States of America by
educating the public about concepts that advance government
accountability, transparency, ethics and related public policy
issues."

In January, ProPublica said it obtained Americans for Responsible
Leadership's application to the Internal Revenue Service for tax-
exempt status, which stated that it would not "spend any money
attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election, or
appointment of any person to any Federal, state, or local public
office or to an office in a political organization."

Multiple calls to the three men who registered Americans for
Responsible Leadership with the IRS were not returned.

"The annoyance is getting calls that you haven't asked to receive
and you're getting charged for them," said Joseph Mellon, attorney
for Ms. Edholm.

On Sept. 11, 2012, the Federal Communications Commission published
an enforcement advisory in light of the 2012 election season. The
advisory reminded campaigns and consumers that pre-recorded voice
messages and auto-dialed calls to cell phones and other mobile
services, including paging services, are prohibited. The two
exceptions are if the calls are made for emergency purposes or
with prior express consent.

Mr. Mellon said he believes groups representing either party may
have used robocalling to campaign during the last election.

"This is not a partisan issue," he said.

He added that his client was registered to vote, but he is not
sure how she may have been targeted to receive a call.

"She doesn't fit the profile of a politically active type of
person," he said.

According to the court case, the calls Ms. Edholm received were
said to be from two people, "Olivia" and "Pam," who stated they
represented Americans for Responsible Leadership.

On Friday, Nov. 2, 2012, she received this pre-recorded message on
her cell phone, according to the court document:

"Hello, my name Olivia and I'm a volunteer with Americans for
Responsible Leadership.  I'm calling because I'm worried about our
future.  Twenty-three million Americans are out of work, we're
sixteen trillion dollars in debt, and we borrow four billion
dollars a day.  It's disappointing, but President Obama's policies
haven't worked.  That's why I encourage you to vote for Mitt
Romney.  He has real world business experience and knows how to
fix the economy.  He can break through the partisan gridlock in
Washington because as Governor of Massachusetts, he worked with a
legislature that was 90 percent Democrat to reduce the state's
debt.  Thank you very much for your time.  Paid for by Americans
for Responsible Leadership and not authorized by any candidate or
candidate's committee. www.ARL-national.org."

Mr. Mellon said he hopes to learn from the discovery process how
many calls were made to cell phones.

If the court finds the group conducted illegal robocalls, the
lawsuit states that Ms. Edholm "and the other members of the
proposed class are entitled to statutory damages of $500.00 for
each unlawful robocall and an injunction prohibiting ARL from
engaging in similar conduct in the future."


BAYER CORP: Class Member Balks at Attorneys' $5.1MM Fee Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
According to Ted Frank of PointofLaw.com, fewer than 20,000 class
members have bothered to go through the arduous claim procedures
in the Bayer Corp. class action, which caps recovery for most of
those class members at $4 unless they saved several-year-old
receipts for aspirin products.  But the attorneys -- led by Hagens
Berman -- are asking for $5.1 million for themselves.

The fee is supposedly justified because about $8-$9 million will
end up in the hands of cy pres recipients such as the American
Heart Association.  "Of course, Bayer already gives money to the
AHA (and the AHA returns the favor by endorsing Bayer aspirin over
other brands of aspirin), so this is really just a change in
accounting entries rather than any sort of class benefit,"
Mr. Frank said.

"I'm a class member and I have objected through my pro bono
attorney Adam Schulman of the Center for Class Action Fairness
(which, as always, is not affiliated with the Manhattan
Institute)," Mr. Frank said.

The case is In re Bayer Corp. Combination Aspirin Prods. Mktg. &
Sales Pract. Lit., No. 09-md-2023 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y.).


CANADA: Committee to Probe HRSDC Student Loan Data Privacy Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kady O'Malley, writing for CBC News, reports that it seems that
the camera session on Feb. 5 resulted in a compromise of sorts.

According to the just-posted minutes, the committee will indeed
embark on an investigation into the student loans privacy breach,
but the minister will not be invited to testify.  Instead, members
will put their questions to the "appropriate departmental
officials."

Here's the motion:

"It was agreed, -- That the Committee invite the Deputy Minister
of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and the
appropriate departmental officials to appear before the committee
before March 7th, 2013 to explain how the privacy breach at HRSDC
affecting 583,000 Canadians occurred, what actions have been taken
since to ensure security of personal data throughout the
department, and what long term solution for affected Canadians
will be put in place to protect their identity."

Undaunted, it seems, by the less than enthusiastic response from
the government when party privacy critic Charlie Angus attempted
to get his colleagues on the privacy committee to support a
similar motion earlier last week, the New Democrats aren't ready
to abandon their efforts to kickstart a parliamentary inquiry into
the recent student loans data breach.

On Feb., NDP labour critic Chris Charlton will introduce the
following motion at Human Resources:

"That the Committee invite Minister Finley to appear before the
committee before March 7th, 2013 to explain how the privacy breach
at HRSDC affecting 583,000 Canadians occurred, what actions have
been taken since to ensure security of personal data throughout
the department, and what long term solution for affected Canadians
will be put in place to protect their identity."

As predicted, the Conservatives lost no time in shutting down
public discussion of the motion, on the somewhat abstract grounds
that the breach itself is currently the object of a class action,
which could theoretically trigger the traditional caution
practices when dealing with matters before the courts, as
government member and motion mover Colin Mayes was quick to
explain.


CANADA: HRC Victims Urge NDP Leader to Provide Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marie Slark and Patricia Seth, plaintiffs in a class action
lawsuit between the Huronia Regional Centre (HRC) and the province
of Ontario, are asking Ontario's Premier-designate, Kathleen Wynne
to listen to British Columbia's NDP leader Adrian Dix.  On Feb. 5,
just weeks in advance of BC's provincial election, Mr. Dix
promised that the first thing he would do if elected BC's premier
would be to extend compensation for former residents of the now-
closed Woodlands School.  Many of the residents of this school
suffered abuses similar to what Ms. Slark and Ms. Seth endured at
HRC.

Patricia Seth went to live at HRC when she was just six years old
and was not discharged from the institution until 17 years later.
Ms. Seth said: "We need Ms. Wynne to do what Mr. Dix has done.
Living [at HRC] was like being in jail.  We had no freedom.  We
had no hope."  Marie Slark, who resided at HRC from the age of
seven until 16 said: "When I lived at Huronia I never had any
control of my life.  I hated it there.  Why won't the new Premier
say what Mr. Dix is saying?"

Ms. Slark and Ms. Seth are proceeding with a class action lawsuit
against the Ontario government to seek justice and compensation
for the severe abuse they endured while residing at HRC.  HRC
opened in 1876, housing people who were deemed to have cognitive
and other disabilities.  At its peak, more than 2,500 people lived
at HRC and by the mid-1970s, the Ontario government operated 16
such facilities.  The Liberal government closed the last of these
institutions on March 31, 2009.

Now, former residents of HRC are seeking justice.  However, since
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified their lawsuit as a
class action on July 30, 2010, government lawyers have, on
multiple occasions, needlessly delayed the process and progress of
the case.

These delays have been emotionally devastating for the plaintiffs,
many of whom are now elderly.  "Many of us will pass away before
we see justice," said Ms. Slark.  "But we won't give up.  It
wasn't okay what they did to us."

Koskie Minsky LLP is representing the former HRC residents
involved in the C$2-billion class action lawsuit against the
province of Ontario.

The class action alleges residents of HRC suffered inhumane
treatment from 1945 until its closure in 2009 and that the
province of Ontario failed to properly care for and protect those
under its care.


CITIGROUP: 2nd Cir. to Hear Oral Argument on SEC Policy
-------------------------------------------------------
Thomson Reuters' Alison Frankel reports that the 2nd Circuit Court
of Appeals was set to get an earful on Feb. 8 on the Securities
and Exchange Commission's policy of permitting defendants to
settle SEC cases without admitting to the allegations against
them.  A three-judge panel was scheduled (snowstorm permitting) to
hear oral arguments in the joint appeal by Citigroup and the SEC
of U.S. Senior District Judge Jed Rakoff's rejection of their $285
million settlement.  Judge Rakoff's controversial decision to
squash the deal turned on the SEC's now infamous "neither admit
nor deny" policy, which the judge found to be contrary to the
public's interest in the "cold, hard, solid facts" of the
government's case.  Since the November 2011 ruling, the SEC has
repeatedly justified its policy as a necessary expedient, both to
critics demanding accountability from defendants and to a handful
of federal judges who followed Judge Rakoff's lead and questioned
"neither admit nor deny" settlements.  To call the Feb. 8
appellate consideration of the SEC's policy hotly anticipated is
an understatement.

But according to a panel of securities lawyers speaking on Feb. 6
at a D&O symposium hosted by the Professional Liability
Underwriting Society, there's another SEC practice that also has a
major impact on the integrity of the markets: the agency's refusal
to share investigative materials with securities class action
lawyers until after private plaintiffs' cases have survived
defense dismissal motions.  Samuel Rudman -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com
-- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd raised the point, and, as you
might expect, he complained about the SEC's practice of
withholding documents and testimony the agency obtains in
investigations, even in response to Freedom of Information Act
requests by plaintiffs' lawyers.  The surprise came when panel
moderator (and defense lawyer) Boris Feldman -- ncarvalho@wsgr.com
-- of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati agreed with Mr. Rudman that
turning over such information to shareholder lawyers would help
the SEC police the markets.

"If you really wanted to maximize deterrence, you should share
information with the plaintiffs bar," Mr. Feldman said.  "That
would be terrible for me and my clients, but it changes everything
right away."

That's because of two factors.  The SEC can obtain documents and
testimony from defendants quickly, but under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act class action lawyers have to wait
until their cases have survived dismissal motions.  Class actions,
on the other hand, can be much more expensive for defendants to
resolve than SEC enforcement actions.  Consider the example of
Bank of America's alleged misstatements to investors about its
merger with Merrill Lynch.  BofA settled with the SEC for $150
million in 2010, after Judge Rakoff balked at the original $35
million settlement; the bank had to cough up $2.43 billion in 2012
to settle the securities class action stemming from the merger.

So under the current system, Mr. Feldman explained, defendants can
delay big-money securities class action claims for years, even if
the SEC is concurrently investigating the supposed wrongdoing.
Defendants, he said, would have much more to fear if private
lawyers were armed with documents and testimony from the
government case -- and that fear could deter wrongdoing.

Ms. Frankel followed up on Feb. 7 with another member of the PLUS
panel, Max Berger -- mwb@blbglaw.com -- of Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossman (who, incidentally, negotiated that $2.43
billion BofA settlement for shareholders).  Mr. Berger said that,
of course, it's not the SEC's job to help shareholders, or their
lawyers, win securities class actions, and he wouldn't expect the
agency ever to share its work product.  He also said that once
class actions survive dismissal and plaintiffs are permitted to
conduct discovery, shareholder lawyers can obtain material from
the SEC (and other government agencies) by serving document
requests.  But in the crucial early stages of securities class
actions, when plaintiffs have to include detailed and specific
allegations in their complaints in order to fend off dismissal,
the SEC offers no help.

"When we really need it is at the pleading stage," Mr. Berger
said. "(But) the answer is always going to be, 'This is an ongoing
investigation and we can't share materials with you.'" Like
Mr. Rudman of Robbins Geller, Mr. Berger said that the SEC
routinely denies his firm's FOIA requests.

He told Thomson Reuters he doesn't think there's any legal
prohibition on the SEC making investigatory information public,
although a policy of sharing information with the plaintiffs bar
would obviously complicate the SEC's interactions with defendants.
Keeping the facts private, after all, is the whole reason
defendants want to be able to reach "neither admit nor deny"
settlements with the agency.

SEC spokesman John Nester sent an e-mail response to Thomson
Reuters' questions about the agency's practices on information
sharing.  He said, "There's no such policy, except that commission
rules generally prohibit disclosure of non-public investigative
materials to anyone during the course of an investigation or
litigation."  Plaintiffs' lawyers have the same rights and access
as anyone else to information the SEC obtains, Mr. Nester said.
Moreover, he said, plaintiffs' lawyers already enjoy the benefit
of the SEC's work in enforcement actions.

"An SEC action represents the culmination of months or years of
painstaking investigation and testimony," Mr. Nester said in the
e-mail.  "Behind the detailed factual allegations spelled out in
an SEC complaint, there is a robust evidentiary record to support
our claims.  As a result, our complaints are valuable roadmaps for
plaintiff counsel that clearly describe the conduct that we
believe violates the federal securities laws and the evidence to
support those claims."

One side note on the Feb. 6 discussion of the SEC policy of
refusing to share information with plaintiffs: Judge Rakoff was
also on the PLUS panel.  Unfortunately for the audience, he
avoided opining on any other SEC policies.


COMMONWEALTH BANK: New Claimants Participate in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Story, writing for Financial Standard, reports that new
claimants will participate in a class action brought against the
Commonwealth Bank of Australia over the sale of complex debt
instruments by Gloucester Shire Council in New South Wales and
self-managed superannuation fund Clurname in the Federal Court
last year.

Piper Alderman the law firm running the action told Financial
Standard on Feb. 7 that new claimants have already emerged
following the ads placed in newspapers on Feb. 6, calling for
disgruntled investors to come forward, and expects others to
follow suit.

Piper Alderman partner Amanda Banton said the (open) class action
relates to a case of non-disclosure around AUD140 million that
(CBA) investors lost on synthetic collateralized debt obligations
(CDO) -- one of the catalysts responsible for triggering the GFC.

If CBA is found to be in breach of section 192A of the
Corporations Act (based on non-disclosure) -- which would ground a
case for negligence -- Ms. Banton said there would be implications
for CBA licensing, and possible ASIC penalties.

It's understood there was significant non-disclosure of the risks
associated with the CDOs, and that Piper Alderman is seeking to
recover (full) damages for all those investors who suffered
financial losses due to the advice provided by CBA to invest (in
those CDOs).

Anyone who lost money by investing in three specific investments
sold by CBA -- Pure Portfolio Notes; Oasis Portfolio Notes; and
Palladin Portfolio Notes -- between January 2006 and December 2007
is eligible to join the class action.

However, they must register before February 21.

CBA is arguing that investors made their own decisions to proceed
with the investments based on the material that was provided, and
as such plans to defend its position and any other allegations
through the courts.

Based on a Piper Alderman's experience in a similar case last year
-- in which the Federal Court found Standard & Poor's and ABN Amro
liable for advice they gave to 13 local councils that bought
complex financial instruments -- Ms. Banton expects this class
action against CBA in relation to CDOs to take a year to 18 months
to complete.


DANIEL ACKER: Faces Sexual Abuse Class Action in Shelby County
--------------------------------------------------------------
WBRC reports that five people have filed a class action lawsuit
against former Shelby County teacher Daniel Acker, Jr. and the
Shelby County School Board.  The 40-page claim was filed on Feb. 1
in federal court.  The lawsuit details sexual abuse claims made by
five people.

Mr. Acker pleaded guilty last year to sexually abusing half a
dozen girls while teaching in the Shelby County School System.
One of victims says Mr. Acker fondled her in 1991 when he was her
4th grade teacher.  The Shelby County Grand Jury did not indict
Mr. Acker.  Despite the allegations, the Shelby County School
Board allowed Mr. Acker to remain in the classroom.  Over the next
two decades, Mr. Acker told authorities that he abused multiple
female students after the original 1991 complaint.

Most recently Mr. Acker was employed as a bus driver.

"Among other failures, Acker was allowed to be in situations where
he was alone in the classroom, school sponsored events, and school
bus with Plaintiffs, and the School Board failed to monitor
Acker's interactions with students despite knowing of the
allegations raised by Hurt (Lopez) and others in the DHR's finding
of reason to suspect child abuse," the lawsuit stated.

In the suit, the women blame the Shelby County School Board for
allowing Mr. Acker to remain in the classroom, despite seeing a
report by the Department of Human Resources that concluded that
Mr. Acker abused Lopez in 1991 and that he was a risk to children.

The class action claim is calling for monetary damages from Mr.
Acker, the School Board and former and current School Board
members.


DELL: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Dell computer is selling
itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Michael Dell,
Silver Lake Partners and others, for $13.65 a share or
$24.4 billion, shareholders claim in a class action in Chancery
Court.


DIRECTSAT: Class Decertification in Technicians' Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Celentino at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge properly barred satellite technicians from fighting their
minimum wage and overtime claims as a class, the 7th Circuit
ruled.

DirectSat USA provides installation and maintenance services for
DirecTV products.  The company employs service technicians in the
Midwest and Northeast.  Technicians are paid for each job they
complete, rather than receiving an hourly wage.

In several class and collective actions, seeking to represent
2,341 technicians nationwide, workers alleged violations of under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and parallel state laws.

They claimed that DirectSat compelled technicians to do work for
which they were not compensated, such as picking up tools prior to
their first service call each day, causing them to work more than
40 hours per week without overtime.

U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb originally certified three
subclasses: technicians who under-recorded hours, technicians who
were not compensated for work before or after service calls, and
technicians whose wages for nonproductive work were calculated
improperly.

After plaintiffs' lawyers failed to propose a specific litigation
plan and method for calculating damages, however, Judge Crabb
decertified the subclasses and left the case to proceed as one
action with three plaintiffs.  That trio settled with DirectSat
but later took advantage of a provision to appeal their class
decertification.

A three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit upheld decertification.

If DirectSat had simply forbidden the technicians from lunch
breaks, resulting in more than a 40-hour workweek, it would be
easy to compute damages, according to the ruling.  But DirectSat's
piece-rate pay system makes calculation nearly impossible.

"Remember that the technicians are paid on a piece-rate system,
which implies -- since workers differ in their effort and
efficiency -- that some, maybe many, of the technicians may not
work more than 40 hours a week and may even work fewer hours;
others may work more than 40 hours a week," Judge Richard Posner
wrote for the panel.

The court shot down a solution proposed by lawyers for the
plaintiffs, who called for the testimony of 42 "representative"
class members.

"To extrapolate from the experience of the 42 to that of the 2341
would require that all 2341 have done roughly the same amount of
work, including the same amount of overtime work, and had been
paid the same wage," Judge Posner wrote.  "No one thinks there was
such uniformity."

Without uniformity, some class members who worked less overtime
would enjoy a substantial windfall from the damages award, while
members who worked more overtime could remain largely
uncompensated, according to the ruling.

Moreover, because most DirectSat workers do not record their
hours, they would have to estimate from memory.

While this could suffice to some extent, "what can't support an
inference about the work time of thousands of workers is evidence
of the experience of a small, unrepresentative sample of them,"
Judge Posner noted.

Judge Posner criticized plaintiffs' counsel for failing to propose
a reasonable calculation method.

"They must think that like most class action suits this one would
not be tried -- that if we ordered a class or classes certified,
DirectSat would settle," he wrote.  "That may be a realistic
conjecture, but class counsel cannot be permitted to force
settlement by refusing to agree to a reasonable method of trial
should settlement negotiations fail.  Essentially they asked the
district judge to embark on a shapeless, freewheeling trial that
would combine liability and damages and would be virtually
evidence-free so far as damages were concerned."

Judge Posner added that the class members would be more likely to
obtain monetary relief by complaining to the Department of Labor,
which enforces the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The three named plaintiffs in the appeal were Aaron Espenscheid,
Gary Idler and Michael Clay. They were represented by Axley
Brynelson LLP.


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Court Decertifies Delivery Drivers' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cathleen Flahardy, writing for Inside Counsel, reports that
Domino's Pizza drivers who sued the company for mishandling their
tips were dealt a blow on Feb. 4 by a federal appeals court.

The 8th Circuit decertified the class action that 1,600 Domino's
Pizza delivery drivers filed, saying they didn't have enough in
common for class certification.  The court, citing Wal-Mart Stores
v. Dukes in its ruling, knocked down a federal court ruling in
November 2011 that certified the class.

The drivers filed suit against Domino's in Minnesota, claiming the
company wrongfully withheld gratuities from them and forced them
to share gratuities with other drivers in violation of the
Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act.  The class included Domino's
drivers who worked for the company in Minnesota from March 6,
2006, to Feb. 28, 2010.

The disagreement stemmed from confusion over a delivery charge
Domino's first instituted in 2005 for $1 and raised in 2008 to
$1.50.  While some drivers communicated the charge to customers,
other didn't.  Additionally, Domino's sometimes told customers
about the charge -- when they ordered online, for example -- and
other times didn't mention it.  By 2009, the company began
communicating to some customers that the charge was not a tip for
drivers, and eventually, in 2010, it began communicating that
message to all customers.

The variety of transactions "made it unreasonable for some
customers to construe the delivery charge as a payment for
personal services, thereby preventing one-stroke determination of
a class-wide question," the 8th Circuit wrote on Feb. 4, remanding
the case back to the lower court.


FARMERS INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over Improper Payouts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jess Davis, writing for Law360, reports that a Texas man on Feb. 5
launched a $5 million putative class action against Farmers
Insurance Group Inc. in federal court, alleging the insurer failed
to properly reimburse policyholders who have private health
insurance for medical expenses based on a flawed reading of state
tort reform laws.

Theodore Morawski alleges Farmers and several of its Texas
subsidiaries intentionally short car insurance policyholders by
reimbursing them for medical expenses at rates lower than their
policies provide, in a breach of contract and violation of state
insurance laws.


HORIZON BLUE: Makes Fresh Class Action Bid Over Illegal Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Journal, reports that
plaintiff lawyers are making another attempt at a class-action
suit accusing Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of an illegal scheme
to cut reimbursements to certain health care providers -- and this
time they claim to have a smoking gun.


HYUNDAI: Class Action Over Faulty Veloster Sunroofs Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Penny Stacey, writing for glassBYTEs.com, reports that a class-
action complaint filed against Hyundai alleging that the company
knowingly put consumers at risk by selling Veloster models with
faulty sunroofs has been dismissed without prejudice -- less than
a month after it was originally filed.  The complaint was filed by
plaintiffs Linda Palacios, Sonia Palacios and Fernando Palacios
and alleged that "Hyundai has actively concealed the exploding
sunroof defect from consumers."

The stipulation for dismissal was filed on January 25 -- exactly
10 days after the case was filed on January 15 -- and notes that
the parties "hereby give notice that they voluntarily dismiss
their claims in this action without prejudice."

"This dismissal disposes of all claims and all parties in this
action," write the plaintiffs.

When a case is dismissed without prejudice, it means that "the
plaintiff is allowed to bring a new suit on the same claim within
the period of limitation it is dismissal without prejudice,"
according to information from uslegal.com.  Generally, when a case
is dismissed without prejudice so quickly after being filed, it
has been settled, but glassBYTEs.com has not been able to confirm
that a settlement was reached in this case.

The plaintiffs, who reside in McAllen, Texas, had alleged that
Linda Palacios' sunroof shattered around December 4, 2012, while
the vehicle was parked, sending shattering glass all over and
damaging the vehicle's seats.

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

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

At press time, counsel for the Palacios had not yet responded to
requests for comment on the details of the dismissal.


LG PHILIPS: RD Provides Financing to TFT-LCD Class Suit Attorneys
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fees have been recommended for the attorneys in the class action
suits against Asian companies accused of conspiring to bilk US
customers out of billions of dollars in the sale of TFT-LCD
panels, technology developed in the US.  Plaintiffs in the case
claim that the companies and their US subsidiaries conspired to
raise and fix the prices of thin film transistor liquid crystal
display (TFT-LCD) panels.  Considered to be the most important
technological advance of the 20th century, TFT-LCD panels were
developed at Westinghouse and RCA's US Research and Development
laboratories.  Since 2001, one of the three engineers credited for
developing the technology, Fang-Chen Luo, has been the head of
research and development at Taiwan-based AU Optronics (AUO), a
principal defendant in the anti-trust litigation.  Class actions
were brought against the conspirators on behalf of individuals and
businesses who purchased TFT-LCDs directly and indirectly from the
Defendants.  Now that settlement amounts have been finalized, RD
Legal Funding, LLC is providing immediate financing to the
plaintiff's attorneys involved in the litigation.

Worldwide, since 2011, over 9.4 billion electronic devices using
TFT-LCD technology have been in use, more than the world's
population of 7 billion.  The panels are used in computer monitors
and notebooks, televisions, mobile phones, and other electronic
devices.

Bernard J. Lechner developed the transistor-capacitor addressing
circuit which is used in today's active-matrix LCDs at RCA
Laboratories in 1969.  This invention started the race to
construct a flat television that could hang on the wall.  Working
at Westinghouse during the 1970s, Peter Brody and Dr. Luo extended
Mr. Lechner's active matrix work, and, based on CdSe TFT
technology developed by Brody during the 1960s, produced the first
LCDs employing an integrated array of TFTs.  In 1974 Dr. Luo
demonstrated the world's first TFT-LCD panel at Westinghouse.

In 1996, Dr. Luo joined AUO as the head of research and
development.  One of the principal companies named in a US
Department of Justice's (DOJ) Sherman Antitrust suit, AUO is the
world's third largest producer of large-sized TFT-LCD panels;
second largest manufacturer of TFT-LCD panels for digital cameras;
and third largest manufacturer of panels for digital video
camcorders and in-car displays.  AUO's Web site reports that in
2011 the company earned $12.5 billion in total sales revenue.

The DOJ charged AUO Taiwan and its US subsidiary with conspiring
from 2001 through 2006 to fix prices world-wide for TFT-LCD panels
at secret monthly meetings in Taiwan hotels, karaoke bars, and tea
rooms with co-conspirators including LG Philips, Samsung,
Chunghwa, Chi Mei, and HannStar.  Dr. Luo was not named in the
suit.  AUO chose to test the Antitrust Division's case rather than
plead guilty. In September 2012, AU Optronics was found guilty and
fined $500 million.

AU Optronics, Toshiba, and LG agreed to pay a combined $571
million settlement for one of the class action lawsuits filed by
customers, retailers, and consumers.  Other manufacturers
including Hitachi, Sharp, and Samsung, agreed in December 2011 to
pay $538 million to settle their suits.

TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation attorneys are urged to contact RD
Legal at 1-800-565-5177 or go to legalfunding.com/solutions for
more information about immediate post-settlement financing.  For
well over a decade, RD Legal has been one of the nation's leading
providers of attorney post-settlement financing.


MARRIOTT INT'L: Blind Employee Files Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Bishop, writing for Law360, reports that a blind Marriott
International Inc. employee lodged a putative class action in
California federal court on Feb. 6 alleging the company
discriminates against blind and disabled employees by using
inaccessible software that keeps them from management positions.

Ali Faraj, an event billing specialist with Marriott, contends
that he's been excluded from advancing to a management position
because Marriott refuses to configure or modify its Siebel
Customer Relation Management software so that disabled employees
like Mr. Faraj, who uses screen-reading software, can work as
managers.


ONESOURCE DOCUMENT: Napoli Files Class Action Over Excessive Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On February 5, 2013, the law offices of Napoli Bern Ripka
Shkolnik, LLP filed a class action complaint against OneSource
Document Management Inc. for overcharging patients seeking access
to their medical records.  OneSource operates in the medical
records field and partners with health care providers to deliver
records to patients, attorneys, and insurance companies.

The class alleges OneSource violated New York State laws by
charging patients in excess of the statutory limits that may be
charged by health care providers.  The class representative was
improperly charged 280% more per page than allowed under New York
State law.  In addition to the improper cost per page, the
complaint alleges that clients were charged excessive processing
fees and mailing costs.  In sum, the class representative was
charged nearly $50 in total for three pages of medical records.

New York State has enacted legislation to protect patient access
to their medical records regardless of their ability to afford the
retrieval costs.   The class seeks OneSource's compliance with New
York State law and the return of all improperly charged costs and
fees to class members.


PERVASIVE SOFTWARE: Shareholders File Suit Over Sale to Actian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Pervasive Software is selling
itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Actian, for $9.20
a share or $162 million, shareholders claim in Travis County
Court.


PFIZER INC: Faces Consumer Class Action Over Zoloft
---------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that plaintiffs' attorneys have
filed a class complaint on behalf of millions of consumers of
Zoloft, alleging they were misled about the effectiveness of the
prescription antidepressant.  The suit is the first consumer class
action filed over Zoloft, according to Baum, Hedlund, Aristei &
Goldman, which has filed similar consumer class actions over the
drugs Paxil, Celexa and Lexapro.


PHUMAN SINGH: President Sued For Squandering Company Resources
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chandrashekhar Gowda, on behalf of Himself as a Shareholder of
2735 Indus Inc., and the Right of 2735 Indus Inc., and on behalf
of All other Shareholders of Said Corporation Similarly Situated
v. Phuman Singh, Lakhvir Singh and 2735 Indus Inc., Case No.
151232/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., February 8, 2013) accuses Phuman Singh
of causing excessive expenses to be incurred so as to prevent any
dividends from being paid to the Plaintiff.

Phuman Singh failed to perform his duties imposed upon him as
director and officer of the Company in that he did not give proper
care or oversight to the business and affairs of the Company, Mr.
Gowda alleges.  Mr. Gowda adds that Phuman Singh did not
administer the affairs of the Company in a skillful, careful and
diligent manner, but on the contrary, neglected, suffered and
permitted monies, property and effects of the Company to be taken,
wasted and squandered.

Mr. Gowda is a resident of the county of Queens, New York.  He
owns 25% of the Company, and is the vice-president and secretary
of the Company.

2735 Indus Inc. is a closely held domestic corporation, which was
incorporated in the state of New York.  The Company operated a
restaurant located in Broadway, New York, doing business as Amla.
Phuman Singh is a resident of New York and owns 75% of the
Company.  He is the president and treasurer of the Company.
Lakhvir Singh is a resident of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avish Dhaniram, Esq.
          Pitchayan & Associates, P.C.
          72-30 Broadway, 3rd Floor
          Jackson Heights, NY 11372
          Telephone: (718) 478-9272
          E-mail: info@pitchayanlaw.com


POWER BALANCE: Case Management Conference in Class Suit Postponed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen vacated an upcoming case management
conference slated for Feb. 14 in the lawsuit, C.F.C., minor, by
and through CHRISTINE F., his parent and guardian, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. POWER
BALANCE LLC; a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants,
Case No. 3:11-CV-00487-EMC (N.D. Calif.).

The Plaintiff filed the request to vacate.  According to the
Plaintiff's counsel, the Plaintiff is informed by Garrick
Hollander of the law firm Winthrop Couchot, counsel for Power
Balance, which is in bankruptcy, that (1) Power Balance is
currently preparing a Disclosure Statement; (2) a hearing
regarding the Disclosure Statement is set for March 2013; and (3)
a hearing regarding confirmation of the Debtor's Chapter 11 Plan
of Reorganization is expected to take place in May or June 2013.

The Plaintiff proposed that the case management conference be held
after June 2013, which is the expected date for the hearing
regarding Power Balance's Chapter 11 Plan.

Attorneys for Plaintiff, C.F.C., a minor, by and through,
Christine F., his parent and guardian, are:

     Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
     Howard Hirsch, Esq.
     LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
     San Francisco, CA
     E-mail: mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com

          - and -

     Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
     SCOTT + SCOTT LLP
     San Diego, CA
     E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com

A copy of the Court's Feb. 5 order is available at
http://is.gd/EQJdWpfrom Leagle.com.

                About Power Balance Technologies

Power Balance LLC filed for Chapter 11 (Bankr. C.D. Calif. Case
No. 11-25982) on Nov. 18, 2011.  Judge Theodor Albert presides
over the case. Garrick A. Hollander, Esq., at Winthrop Couchot,
serves as the Debtor's counsel.  In its petition, Power Balance
estimated $1 million to $10 million in assets and $10 million to
$50 million in debts.  The petition was signed by Henry G.
Adamanym, Jr., chairman.

Power Balance -- http://www.powerbalance.com-- is the creator of
the original Power Balance Performance Technology(TM) silicone
wristband and the leader in the market for Performance Technology
sports accessories.  The company is headquartered in Orange
County, CA and distributes its products in the US and
internationally in more than 40 countries.


RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Settles Overtime Class Action for $2 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Donahue, writing for Law360, reports that Marriott
International Inc. subsidiary The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co. LLC will
pay $2 million to settle claims that it underpaid overtime wages
to thousands of California employees, according to court documents
filed on Feb. 1.

Ritz-Carlton will pay out to roughly 1,500 current and former
employees at three luxury hotels in San Francisco, Half Moon Bay
and Lake Tahoe, putting to rest allegations that the chain
violated California state wage and hour laws by skimping on
overtime.


SIRIUS XM: Faces Suit in N.Y. For Overcharging Subscribers
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sirius XM Radio overcharges
"certain of its subscribers" in violation of contract, a class
action claims in New York County Supreme Court.


SNC-LAVALIN GROUP: May 8 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
This notice is directed to all persons, wherever they may reside
or be domiciled, who acquired securities of SNC-Lavalin Group Inc.
during the period from and including November 6, 2009 to and
including February 27, 2012, other than certain excluded persons
associated with the defendants.

THE CERTIFICATION ORDERS

On September 19, 2012, Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice certified the action The Trustees of the Drywall
Acoustic Lathing and Insulation Local 675 Pension Fund, et al. v
SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., et al., Court File No. CV-12-453236-00CP
as a class proceeding, and appointed the Trustees of the Drywall
Acoustic Lathing and Insulation Local 675 Pension Fund and 0793094
B.C. Ltd. as representative plaintiffs.

On January 24, 2013, Justice Francoeur of the Quebec Superior
Court authorized the action Delaire v SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., et
al., Court File No. 200-06-000141-120 as a class proceeding, and
appointed Jean-Paul Delaire as representative plaintiff.

The Ontario Action has been certified on behalf of the following
class: all persons, wherever they may reside or be domiciled, who
acquired securities of SNC during the Class Period, except for:
(1) SNC's past and present subsidiaries, affiliates, officers,
directors, legal representatives, heirs, predecessors, successors
and assigns, and any spouse or child of the defendants Ian A.
Bourne, David Goldman, Patricia A. Hammick, Pierre H. Lessard,
Edythe A. Marcoux, Lorna R. Marsden, Claude Mongeau, Gwyn Morgan,
Michael D. Parker, Hugh D. Segal, Lawrence N. Stevenson, Gilles
Laramee, Michael Novak, Pierre Duhaime, Riadh Ben A‹ssa and
Stephane Roy; and (2) those persons who are members of the class
authorized in the Quebec Action, as described in the next
paragraph.

The Quebec Action has been authorized on behalf of the following
class: all persons who acquired securities of SNC during the Class
Period, who were resident or domiciled in the Province of Quebec
at the time they acquired such securities, and who are not
precluded from participating in a Quebec class action by virtue of
Article 999 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure, except for the
Excluded Persons.

Under Article 999 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure, a Class
Member that is a legal person established for a private interest,
partnership or association is part of the class authorized in the
Quebec Action only if, at all times during the period from March
1, 2011 to February 29, 2012, not more than 50 persons bound to it
by contract of employment were under its direction or control, and
if it is dealing at arms length with the representative of the
group.  Persons excluded from the class in the Quebec Action by
virtue of Article 999 are included in the class in the Ontario
Action.

The certification and authorization orders mean that the Ontario
Action and the Quebec Action may proceed to trial as class actions
involving claims under securities legislation described below for
damages for misrepresentations in SNC's disclosure documents.

Certification and authorization are preliminary procedural
matters.  The merits of the claims in the actions, or the
allegations of fact on which the claims are based, have not been
finally determined by the courts.  The defendants deny that the
claims in the actions have merit.

THE LEAVE ORDERS

On September 19, 2012, Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice also granted leave to the plaintiffs in the
Ontario Action to commence an action under the secondary market
liability provisions of the Ontario Securities Act and the
analogous provisions of the securities legislation of each other
Canadian jurisdiction.

On January 24, 2013, Justice Francoeur of the Quebec Superior
Court also granted leave to the plaintiff in the Quebec Action to
commence an action under the secondary market liability provisions
of the Quebec Securities Act.

The only claims being pursued in the class actions are
misrepresentation claims under the secondary market liability
provisions of the Securities Act of each Canadian province and
territory.  These claims are subject to damages caps, which limit
the amount of damages that can be recovered from the defendants.
Plaintiffs' class counsel believe that the potential total damages
for the matters alleged in this case may exceed the damages caps.
If you wish to pursue other claims against the defendants relating
to the matters at issue in the class actions, you should
immediately seek independent legal advice because these other
claims will be compromised if you do not opt out.  See "Additional
Information" for how to access the claims and the certification
orders setting out the matters at issue in the class actions.

DO NOTHING IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CLASS ACTIONS

Class Members who want to participate in the Ontario Action and
the Quebec Action are automatically included and need not do
anything at this time.

YOU MUST OPT OUT IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CLASS
ACTIONS

Class Members who do not want to participate in the class actions
must opt out.  If you want to opt out of the class actions, you
must send a signed letter stating that you elect to opt out of the
class in the SNC class actions and provide the additional
information.

In order for your opt out request to be valid, it must include all
of the following information: (i) the date(s) on which you
purchased and sold SNC securities; (ii) the number of securities
purchased and sold; (iii) the price at which you purchased and
sold SNC securities; and (iv) your name, address, telephone number
and signature.  If you are submitting an opt out request on behalf
of a corporation or other entity, you must state your position and
provide your authority to bind the corporation or entity.

Your opt out request may be sent by fax or mail to:

          NPT RicePoint Class Action Services
          Re: SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. Securities Litigation
          P.O. Box 3355 London, ON N6A 4K3 Canada
          Fax: (519) 432-6544

In order for your opt out request to be valid, it must be
postmarked or received no later than May 8, 2013 and it must
contain all the requested information.

Each Class Member who does not opt out of the class actions will
be bound by the terms of any judgment or settlement, whether
favorable or not, and will not be allowed to prosecute an
independent action against any of the defendants for any of the
factual matters raised in the class actions.  If the class actions
are successful, you may be entitled to share in the amount of any
award or settlement recovered.  In order to determine if you are
entitled to share in the award or settlement and the amount, if
any, of your share, it may be necessary to conduct an individual
determination.  There may be costs payable by you if it is
determined that you are not entitled to share in the award or
settlement.  You will have the opportunity to decide if you wish
to proceed with your individual determination before it begins.

No person may opt out a minor or a mentally incapable member of
the class without permission of the courts after notice to The
Children's Lawyer and/or the Public Guardian and Trustee, as
appropriate.

A Class Member who opts out will not be entitled to participate in
the class actions and will not be entitled to share in the amount
of any award, if the class actions are successful, or in any
settlement achieved, if any.

CLASS COUNSEL AND LEGAL FEES

The plaintiffs and the class in the Ontario Action are represented
by Siskinds LLP and Rochon Genova LLP.  The plaintiffs and the
class in the Quebec Action are represented by Siskinds, Desmeules,
Avocats.

In the Ontario Action, Siskinds LLP and Rochon Genova LLP are
acting on a contingency basis, such that legal fees, disbursements
and applicable taxes will be payable only in the event of success
in the Ontario Action.  Siskinds LLP and Rochon Genova LLP are
also paying all disbursements incurred in the Ontario Action.

In the event of success in the class actions, class counsel will
make a motion to the courts to have their fees and disbursements
approved.

As a Class Member, you will not be required to pay any costs in
the event that the class actions are unsuccessful.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

This notice was approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
and the Quebec Superior Court.  The court offices cannot answer
any questions about the matters in this notice.  The claims,
orders of the courts and other information are available on class
counsel's Web sites at http://www.classaction.caand
http://www.rochongenova.com

NOTICE TO BROKERAGE FIRMS

Please deliver this notice promptly by e-mail to your clients who
purchased SNC securities during the Class Period and for whom you
have valid e-mail addresses.  If you have clients who purchased
SNC securities during the Class Period for whom you do not have
valid e-mail addresses, please contact NPT RicePoint Class Action
Services to obtain hard copies of this notice for the purpose of
mailing the notice to those clients or provide to NPT RicePoint
the mailing address for those clients so they can mail the notices
directly to those clients.  Brokerage firms may cumulatively
request up to $15,000 in total for the expenses incurred relating
to the distribution of this notice to the Class Members.  If the
amounts submitted in aggregate exceed $15,000, each brokerage
firm's claim shall be reduced on a pro rata basis.

The publication of this notice was authorized by the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice and the Quebec Superior Court


SOIL SOLUTIONS: Class Action Notices Expected in Mid-February
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Vandenack, writing for The Elkhart Truth, reports that a
federal judge's decision granting class-action status to a lawsuit
aimed at shuttering the Soil Solutions wood recycling facility
doesn't change the issues underlying the simmering dispute.

The latest version of the suit, filed by neighbors living around
the facility last October, still maintains that smoke, dust and
other emissions from the operation cause health problems and pose
an environmental threat.  Soil Solutions, which filed its response
late last week, still denies any wrongdoing.

With newly granted class-action status, though, the number of
plaintiffs theoretically spikes, from the 151 named in the
original suit when first filed October 2009 up to 1,748, the
number estimated to live in the broader class area outlined in
court papers.

Marianne Holland, spokesman for the Hoosier Environmental Council,
said Tuesday, Feb. 5, that a notice will be sent by around
mid-February to the 1,700 or so people, explaining the case.
They'll be able to stay in the case as plaintiffs, or, if they
choose, to opt out.

A Hoosier Environmental Council lawyer, Kim Ferraro, is handling
the case for the neighbors.

The neighbors filed their suit in U.S. District Court in South
Bend, initially against VIM Recycling, long a focus of attention
-- and ire at times -- of environmental officials and people
living around the plant.  VIM later sold the operation to Soil
Solutions and the case was expanded to include the new firm.

The case has taken twists and turns, and the latest major
development came Jan. 29, when District Judge Philip Simon granted
class-action status to the case, as sought by the plaintiffs.
With his ruling, the number of plaintiffs may grow to include
those living in an area around the facility bound by the St.
Joseph River to the north, Old U.S. 33 to the south, Ash Road to
the west and Chanel View and Elliot Park to the east.

The plant is located west of Elkhart off Old U.S. 33.  In his
ruling, Judge Simon cited plaintiffs' estimates that there are 644
households in the class area around the company and 1,748 people.

For purposes of the lawsuit, the plaintiffs -- if the case is
ultimately decided in their favor -- seek compensation for
property damage caused by the wood grinding operation, according
to Holland.  The plaintiffs also ask that the wood recycling
business be closed down.

Contacted on Feb. 5, Stacy Petrovas, one of the Soil Solutions
owners, reiterated company defenders' contentions that the
operation doesn't pose a risk.  "We are completely different than
VIM and we haven't done the things we're accused of," he said.

The firm operates within Indiana environmental norms, Mr. Petrovas
said, and it has the proper permits.  Furthermore, the width of
roadways between wood heaps on company grounds fall within Indiana
guidelines, as do the sizes of the piles, previous points of
contention with Indiana authorities when VIM operated the
facility.

Soil Solutions asks that the case be dismissed.

The Old U.S. 33 operation takes scrap wood from area manufacturers
and grinds it into mulch and animal bedding.


UBS AG: 7th Circuit Tosses Class Action Over Tax Evasion
--------------------------------------------------------
The Litigation Daily reports that Seventh Circuit Judge Richard
Posner has tossed a proposed class action against UBS AG stemming
from the bank's admission that it helped wealthy customers evade
taxes.  Judge Posner likened the suit to "suing one's parents to
recover tax penalties one has paid, on the ground that the parents
had failed to bring one up to be an honest person who would not
evade taxes and so would not subject himself to penalties."


UNITED STATES: Faces Suit for Snubbing Alien Citizens Applications
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that The Department of Homeland
Security, Citizenship and Immigration Services refuses to do its
nondiscretionary duty to accept, and adjudicate, admitted aliens'
applications for adjustment of status, a class action claims in
Federal Court.


UNITED TELEPHONE: Ohio Sup. Ct. Hears Class Action Oral Argument
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bricker & Eckler LLP reports that the Ohio Supreme Court heard
oral argument on Feb. 6 in the potentially landmark Ohio class
action case Stammco v. United Tel. Co. of Ohio, Ohio Supreme Court
Case No. 2012-016912-0169.  Bricker & Eckler has previously
discussed the facts of this case, the appellants' merit brief and
the appellees' merit brief.

Briefly, Stammco alleges that Sprint engaged in the practice of
"cramming," or causing unauthorized charges to be placed on their
customers' telephone bills.  The proposed class includes Stammco
and other Sprint customers who were subjected to these allegedly
unauthorized charges.

This case has been pending for more than eight years and has
already made one trip to the Ohio Supreme Court.  In Stammco's
first trip to the Ohio Supreme Court in March 2010, the Court
reversed class certification, holding that the class as defined
was ambiguous and not readily identifiable.  The Court then
remanded the case, tasking the trial court with redefining the
class.

On remand, the trial court denied class certification, holding
that: (1) plaintiffs' revised class definition was failsafe, (2)
the action was brought against the wrong party, and (3) the action
imposed a duty on UTO and Sprint that was not required by law.

The Sixth District Court of Appeals reversed, relying on Ojalvo v.
Bd. Of Trustees of Ohio State Univ., 12 Ohio St.3d 230, 466 N.E.2d
875, holding that any consideration of merits issues in deciding
class certification is erroneous.

At oral argument, Michael Farrell for appellant Sprint argued that
the class definition -- even if no longer ambiguous -- still
results in an unidentifiable class.  He explained that ambiguity
and identifiability are related -- but distinct -- issues.  His
example was this: a class definition that includes all people who
visited Columbus in 2012 is not ambiguous, but it is, nonetheless,
impossible to identify every single person who entered the city of
Columbus in a given year.  An unambiguous, yet unidentifiable
class.

Here, Mr. Farrell noted, determining whether a particular charge
was "authorized" is a complicated question that has, in the named
plaintiff's case, taken two depositions and written discovery to
determine -- and it is still an open question.  Further,
Mr. Farrell noted that if the class is not certified, customers do
have a remedy in small claims court.

Dennis Murray for appellee Stammco argued that the trial court
here improperly made two critical merits determinations, which he
says is prohibited by the Court's precedent.  Mr. Murray also
distinguished the U.S. Supreme Court's recent WalMart v. Dukes
case, noting that Dukes was decided in the employment context and
involved thousands of individual employment decisions.

When asked by Justice Lanzinger whether any prior cramming cases
had been certified across the country, Mr. Murray responded that
the only certified cases were in the context of a settlement.
Mr. Farrell, on the other hand, noted that no contested cramming
cases have been certified.

Finally, Mr. Murray argued that the class is identifiable by
simply reviewing Stammco's records.  Stammco's records, he says,
will demonstrate who was charged, which customers complained and
each instance in which a charge was reversed.  This information
can then be crunched by statisticians to determine how many
customers likely had unauthorized charges on their bills.  Mr.
Murray further pointed to an FCC investigation in which Sprint
purportedly admitted that its records would reflect which
customers were overcharged and refunded.

In his rebuttal, Mr. Farrell objected to the use of a statistical
sample to determine liability, noting that such a procedure
violates the due process rights of both the defendant and absent
class members.  Further, he challenged the Court to clarify its
decision in Ojalvo in light of the Dukes case with regard to when
a trial court can consider merits issues in a class action
context.  Justice Pfeiffer had the last word, noting that the
Court "accepted the challenge."


WELLS FARGO: "Brown Suit" Plaintiff May File New Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action captioned ANTHONY BROWN, on behalf of
himself Civil and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendants, No.
11-1362 (JRT/JJG), (D. Minn.), the Plaintiff obtained court
approval to file a new motion for class certification.

In his complaint, Mr. Brown alleged that Wells Fargo violated the
Electronic Fund Transfers Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1693a et seq.
On July 25, 2012, the Court issued an order holding that as matter
of law, Wells Fargo Bank failed to provide "prominent and
conspicuous [fee] notice" on its ATMs, and it therefore granted
summary judgment to Mr. Brown on his claim that Wells Fargo Bank
violated the EFTA.  The Court further found, however, that Mr.
Brown had not defined a certifiable class that met the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and it denied his motion for
class certification.  Accordingly, Mr. Brown requested for
permission to file a second motion for class certification.

Because final judgment has not been entered and because Mr. Brown
seeks to address deficiencies noted in the Court's July 25 order,
the Court granted Mr. Brown's request to file a new motion for
class certification, District Judge John R. Tunheim ruled.

Judge Tunheim directed Mr. Brown to file his motion within 30 days
of the date of the Court's Order.

A copy of the District Court's February 7, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/osmGIgfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Curtis P. Zaun, Esq.
          Minneapolis, MN

Counsel for Defendants:

          Shari L. J. Aberle, Esq.
          Erin A. Collins, Esq.
          James K. Langdon, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Connelly, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP
          Minneapolis, MN
          E-mail: aberle.shari@dorsey.com
                  collins.erin@dorsey.com
                  langdon.jim@dorsey.com


WICKHAM SECURITIES: Shareholders Mull Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Bridie Jabour, writing for Brisbane Times, reports that
shareholders may launch a class action against an investment fund
which went into liquidation owing AUD27 million to more than 300
self-funded retirees.

Shine Lawyers are investigating Wickham Securities and one of its
trustees, Sandhurst Trustees Limited, for a possible class action
on behalf of shareholders.

Wickham Securities went in liquidation on Feb. 6 with the
potential for investors to get back as little as 6 per cent of the
money they put into the company.

Shine Lawyers department manager of professional negligence and
shareholder action Jan Saddler said the firm was investigating the
company and trustee on behalf of some investors.

"One of the things that we're looking at is whether or not that
trustee was in breach of any duties or obligations it owed the
holders," she said.

She said they were investigating whether the Corporations Act was
breached and at the moment the investigation was quite broad.

"[Thurs]day and [Fri}day we've been taking many calls from people
and [Fri]day we've spoken to in excess of 20 people who are
wanting to sign up and become clients of Shine while we're
investigating this," she said.

"They want to be part of anything related to a possible action and
we've got 15 or 20 other people to call."

Shine Lawyers triggered their own investigation after Wickham
Securities started going into administration but said they had no
date for when a potential class action would be launched.

"It's still some time away and I couldn't possibly put an estimate
on when that would be," Ms. Saddler said.

Wickham Securities is a mortgage finance lender which provided
funds for borrowers buying or refinancing commercial property.

The day after Wickham Securities was put into administration, the
Australian Securities and Investment Commission launched legal
action against its chairman Brad Sherwin, who ran the company with
his brother-in-law Peter Siemons.

Mr. Sherwin's assets include a string of private companies and his
wife's stake in a four-year-old racehorse named Boomalicious.

The corporate regulator has alleged Mr. Sherwin misled investors
and made false representations.

During the same week, Mr. Sherwin was hospitalized.


WMS INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------
Todd J. Behme, writing for Crain's Chicago Business, reports that
a shareholder has filed a class-action lawsuit over the planned
acquisition of slot machine maker WMS Industries Inc., alleging
that the deal process was designed to ensure terms were
preferential for WMS board members but bad for public WMS
stockholders.

Investor Audrey Gardner alleges that the proposed deal "is the
product of a fundamentally flawed process that yielded an unfair
price and was designed to ensure the acquisition of WMS by
Scientific Games on terms preferential to Scientific Games and
WMS' board members, but detrimental to (Ms. Gardner) and the other
public stockholders of WMS," according to a complaint filed on
Feb. 5 in Cook County Circuit Court.

Ms. Gardner also alleges that the proposed acquisition "contains
certain deal-protection provisions that essentially preclude
superior competing proposals" for Waukegan-based WMS, according to
the complaint.

Ms. Gardner's complaint says the $26-per-share price "drastically
undervalues (WMS') prospects and is the result of an entirely
unfair sales process."

WMS representatives did not immediately return messages on Feb. 6.
The suit names as defendants WMS, New York-based Scientific Games
and WMS' directors, including Chairman and CEO Brian Gamache.

Lawyers for Ms. Gardner also did not immediately return messages
on Feb. 6.

Law360 reported the case on Feb. 5.


WYNN RESORTS: Gets Favorable Ruling in Kastroll's CAFA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lloyd D. George granted, without prejudice, Wynn
Resorts, Ltd.'s motion for summary judgment in KANE KASTROLL,
etc., Plaintiff, v. WYNN RESORTS, LTD, Defendant, No. 2:09-cv-
2034-LDG-VCP, (D. Nev.).

The Court found that Wynn has shown by a preponderance of evidence
that an overwhelming majority of Ms. Kastroll's putative class
are, or would be, citizens of Nevada, requiring the court to
decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction.

The putative class action, filed pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act, alleged that Wynn Resorts failed to provide its
employees a safe workplace environment because the levels of
second hand smoke at Wynn Las Vegas Resort and Casino are
dangerous and unhealthy.  Ms. Kastroll, a full-time blackjack
dealer at the Wynn, filed the case on behalf of "[a]ll former,
current, and future nonsmoking employees of the WYNN LAS VEGAS who
were, are, or in the future will be exposed to unsafe levels of
second-hand smoke."  Future employees included "any out-of-state
job applicant for a casino position at the Wynn."

A copy of the District Court's February 6, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/Z7gFqmfrom Leagle.com.


* Business Groups Oppose Britain's "Collective Actions" System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Longstreth, writing for Reuters, reports that a
groundbreaking proposal in Britain making it easier to bring
antitrust class actions has business groups worldwide fearful that
London will become a center for litigation abuses.

Britain's government recently proposed a system of "collective
actions" that would allow individuals and businesses be part of a
class of plaintiffs even if they do not participate in the
lawsuit.  The proposal, which has yet to be drafted into
legislation, would make it easier for individuals and small
businesses to recoup damages from price-fixing cases.

The proposal would move Britain closer to the American class-
action system, which Europeans have long resisted and derided for
what they call its excesses.  Under the current system in Britain,
all members of a collective action must actively opt into a case
and participate.

The government said changes are needed because it has become too
costly to bring private lawsuits alleging anti-competitive
behavior.

"What is needed from government is to create the legal framework
that will empower individual consumers and businesses to represent
their own interests," wrote Britain's business minister Vince
Cable in a paper outlining the government's proposal.

Mr. Cable, a Liberal Democrat in Conservative Party Prime Minister
David Cameron's coalition government, is seen as a champion of the
average citizen and a critic of the financial sector.  Mr. Cameron
has not publicly commented on the proposal.

Business groups in Britain and abroad have already lambasted the
proposal.  Confederation of British Industry Chief Policy Director
Katja Hall said in a statement the government's proposal had "let
the litigation genie out of the bottle by adopting U.S.-style
collective actions."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform echoed
those concerns in a statement, predicting it would bring Britain
closer to the "toxic U.S.-style litigation culture" and that it
would burden business and hurt consumers.

Between 2005 and 2008, there were only 41 antitrust cases of any
kind that reached a judgment, according to the British government.
By contrast, there were 677 private antitrust lawsuits filed in
the United States last year alone, according to statistics
compiled by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

The government stressed it wanted to guard against "frivolous or
unmeritorious litigation."  The proposal would not allow two basic
features of the American class-action antitrust practice:
contingency fees which allow plaintiffs' lawyers to earn around a
third of damages collected in many lawsuits; and treble damages
which automatically triple damages under U.S. antitrust law.

Taking away those elements will make Britain "less attractive" to
some American trial lawyers thinking of moving to London, said
Jon Lawrence, a litigator at the London corporate law firm
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer.

The proposal also keeps Britain's "loser pays" rule that makes
those who bring unsuccessful cases pay the other side's costs.
Few small businesses will want to risk losing, said Robert Lande,
a law professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law who
specializes in antitrust.

Another element of the British proposal that could discourage
American class-action attorneys is a judicial test to assess the
adequacy of the representative plaintiff, said Vincent Smith, a
partner at the London law firm Sheppard & Smith.  The goal of the
provision, according to the government, is to prevent
unmeritorious lawsuits from going forward.

American class-action attorneys who are used to choosing their own
clients without a high degree of scrutiny will have to be prepared
to change how they operate, Mr. Smith said.

Many have described the British government's proposal as a radical
departure from the current system, and some lawyers said they
expect the government eventually to take more steps to make the
system friendlier to plaintiffs.

Michael Hausfeld, one of a few American plaintiffs' lawyers with
operations in London, said he was "cautiously optimistic" about
business opportunities for his firm under the plan.

Mr. Hausfeld played down the prohibition against contingency fees
and treble damages.  He noted that Britain allows for plaintiffs
to collect interest on damages accrued prior to a judgment, which
could help make up for the lack of treble damages.

He also noted that under Britain's rules, successful lawyers can
seek a multiplier of their regular hourly fees.



                           *********

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  * * *