CAR_Public/130214.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, February 14, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 32

                             Headlines

ABIOMED INC: Expects Two Securities Suits to Be Consolidated
ADVANCEPIERRE FOODS: FSIS Lists Stores With Recalled Products
AECOM TECHNOLOGY: Australian Unit Defends Class Action Suit
AGL RESOURCES: Consolidated Class Suit vs. Nicor Units Pending
BUY.COM INC: Faces Class Action Over Song-Beverly Act Violation

CENTEX: Lake Elsinore Residents Mull Suit Over Mello-Roos Taxes
CHICAGO, IL: Police Officer Files Overtime Class Action
CHINESE DRYWALL: Judge Approves Five Class Action Settlements
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Dismissed as Defendant From "Childress" Suit
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Securities Suit Trial Set for May 21

CYBEX INT'L: Plaintiff's Bid to Enjoin Shareholder Vote Denied
DAIICHI SANKYO: Faces Gender Discrimination Suit in California
EMCORE CORP: Consolidated Securities Class Litigation Has Ended
ENER1 INC: $4M Accord in Suit Over Failed Car Investment Gets OK
EXPEDIA INC: Awaits Ruling on Cert. Bid in "Pine Bluff" Suit

EXPEDIA INC: Awaits Ruling on Cert. Bid in "Breckenridge" Suit
EXPEDIA INC: Bid for Summary Judgment in "Gallup" Suit Pending
EXPEDIA INC: Canadian Consumer Plaintiffs Obtain Class Standing
EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Hotel Booking Practices
EXPEDIA INC: Judgment in "San Antonio" Suit Expected This Year

EXPEDIA INC: Goodlettsville & Brentwood Did Not Appeal Judgment
EXPEDIA INC: Hearing in "Los Angeles" Suit Set for April 18
EXPEDIA INC: Class Cert. Hearing in "Nassau" Suit on April 9
EXPEDIA INC: Hotwire Faces Two Consumer Suits in Connecticut
EXPEDIA INC: Miami-Dade Litigation Over Occupancy Taxes Stayed

EXPEDIA INC: Rome and Cartersville Appeal Class Action Judgment
EXPEDIA INC: Trial in "McAllister" Suit Set for Sept. 2013
FEDEX OFFICE: "Minor Suit" Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Certification in Celexa Suit Denied
GOLDEN CORRAL: Faces Class Action Over Food Safety Violations

GOOGLE INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Vulnerable Android Apps
INTERCONTINENTALEXCHANGE INC: Merger Suits Pending in Del. & N.Y.
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Class Cert. Bid Pending in "Babstock" Suit
INTERNATIONAL GAME: ERISA Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. Approval
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Settlement in "IBEW" Suit Approved in Oct.

KEYSTONE MANAGEMENT: Fire Victims Get Okay to File Class Action
KPMG LLP: Gender Discrimination Class Action May Proceed
MACMILLAN: Settles E-book Consumer Class Action for $20 Million
MADISON SQUARE: New York Suit Currently in Discovery Phase
MCDONALD'S: Bid For More People to Join Class Action Rebuffed

NCR CORP: "De Leon" Suit Remanded to Alameda County Superior Court
NEW LEAF: Suit Over Lead Content in Product Pending in Calif.
SIRIUS XM: Faces Class Action Over Administrative Fee
SONAR CAPITAL: Judge Dismisses Insider Trading Class Action
TD AMERITRADE: Yield Plus Fund Suit Dismissal Bids Pending

TELLABS INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Illinois
TOKYO ELECTRIC: Sued Over 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Meltdown
VISA INC: "Attridge" Class Suit Stayed Until April 19, 2013
VISA INC: Awaits Final Approval of Interchange Suit Settlement
VISA INC: Awaits Final OK of Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases Deal

VISA INC: Canadian Unit Continues to Face Merchant Class Suits


                           *********

ABIOMED INC: Expects Two Securities Suits to Be Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abiomed, Inc. said in its February 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2012, that it expects that the two securities class
action lawsuits against it will be consolidated.

On November 16 and 19, 2012, two purported class action complaints
were filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by alleged
purchasers of the Company's common stock, on behalf of themselves
and persons or entities that purchased or acquired the Company's
securities between August 5, 2011, and October 31, 2012.  The
complaints allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws in connection with disclosures related to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and the marketing and
labeling of the Company's Impella 2.5 product and seek damages in
an unspecified amount.  The Company says it expects that the Court
will consolidate these complaints.

Based in Danvers, Massachusetts, Abiomed, Inc. --
http://www.abiomed.com-- is a provider of medical devices that
provide circulatory support.  Its products are designed to enable
the heart to rest by improving blood flow and/or performing the
pumping of the heart.


ADVANCEPIERRE FOODS: FSIS Lists Stores With Recalled Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that Walmart stores in AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, FL,
GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NM, NV,
OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA and WY received country fried steak
products that have been recalled by AdvancePierre Foods.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/HA4a8H,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.


AECOM TECHNOLOGY: Australian Unit Defends Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
AECOM Technology Corporation's main Australian subsidiary is
defending itself against a class action lawsuit for its role in
connection with a traffic forecast, according to the Company's
February 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2012.

In 2005 and 2006, the Company's main Australian subsidiary, AECOM
Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM Australia), performed a traffic forecast
assignment for a client consortium as part of their project to
design, build, finance and operate a tolled motorway tunnel in
Australia.  To fund the motorway's design and construction, the
client formed a special purpose vehicle (SPV) that raised
approximately $700 million Australian dollars through an initial
public offering (IPO) of equity units in 2006 and approximately an
additional $1.4 billion Australian dollars in long term bank
loans.  The SPV (and certain affiliated SPVs) went into insolvency
administrations in February 2011.

A class action lawsuit, which has been amended to include
approximately 770 of the IPO investors, was filed against AECOM
Australia in the Federal Court of Australia on May 31, 2012.
Separately, KordaMentha, the receivers for the SPVs, filed a
lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia on May 14, 2012,
claiming damages that purportedly resulted from AECOM Australia's
role in connection with the traffic forecast.  WestLB, one of the
lending banks to the SPVs, filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court of
Australia on May 18, 2012.  Centerbridge Credit Partners (and a
number of related entities) and Midtown Acquisitions (and a number
of related entities), both claiming to be assignees of certain
other lending banks, previously filed their own proceedings in the
Federal Court of Australia and then subsequently withdrew the
lawsuits.  None of the lawsuits specify the amount of damages
sought and the damages sought by WestLB are duplicative of damages
already included in the receivers' claim.

AECOM Australia intends to vigorously defend the claims brought
against it.


AGL RESOURCES: Consolidated Class Suit vs. Nicor Units Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit involving its Nicor
subsidiaries is pending, according to AGL Resources Inc.'s
February 6, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In the first quarter of 2011, three putative class actions were
filed against Nicor Energy Services Company and Northern Illinois
Gas Company, doing business as Nicor Gas Company, and in one case
against Nicor Inc. -- an acquisition completed in December 2011
and former holding company of Nicor Gas.  In September 2011, the
three cases were consolidated into a single class action pending
in state court in Cook County, Illinois.  The plaintiffs purport
to represent a class of customers of Nicor Gas who purchased
appliance warranty and service plans from Nicor Services and/or a
class of customers of Nicor Gas, who purchased the Gas Line
Comfort Guard product from Nicor Services.  In the consolidated
action, the plaintiffs variously allege that the marketing, sale
and billing of the Nicor Services appliance warranty and service
plans and Gas Line Comfort Guard violate the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, constitute common law
fraud and result in unjust enrichment of Nicor Services and Nicor
Gas.  The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of the classes they purport
to represent, actual and punitive damages, interest, costs,
attorney fees and injunctive relief.  While the Company is unable
to predict the outcome of these matters or to reasonably estimate
the Company's potential exposure related thereto, if any, and has
not recorded a liability associated with this contingency, the
final disposition of this matter is not expected to have a
material adverse impact on the Company's liquidity or financial
condition.


BUY.COM INC: Faces Class Action Over Song-Beverly Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Buy.com will not let visitors
make credit card purchases unless they provide a phone number,
violating the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, a class claims.


CENTEX: Lake Elsinore Residents Mull Suit Over Mello-Roos Taxes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Toni McAllister, writing for Lake Elsinore-Wildomar Patch, reports
that officials with a national home building company say they are
looking into allegations by some Lake Elsinore residents who claim
they were bamboozled by the giant builder.

Nearly 100 residents turned out Jan. 31 during a public meeting at
the Lake Elsinore Senior Center with paperwork in hand showing
that Centex, which is now part of Michigan-based PulteGroup Inc.,
may have misrepresented the terms of their Mello-Roos.

The residents are part of Lake Elsinore's Community Facilities
District 88-3, a swath of the city that has more than 2,000 homes
surrounding McVicker Canyon Park.  Residents there say the Mello-
Roos tax they are paying is lasting longer than what was disclosed
to them when they bought their homes.  Many thought the tax would
end in 2012, others claim they were told dates such as the year
2015 or 2017.

City Attorney Barbara Leibold maintains all documents filed with
city clearly show the tax continues until the year 2020.

"The city claims the bonds were always for 30 years, and all the
builders told everyone the taxes would only be for 20 years," said
resident Dianne Chavarria.

Builders form Community Facilities Districts to seek public
financing through the sale of bonds. The financing pays for public
improvements and services in the community, such a schools, parks,
etc.  Those living in a CFD pay off the bonds through special
taxes commonly known as Mello-Roos.

Ms. Chavarria has spearheaded an effort to reach out to her
neighbors who may have been sold a bill of goods and is gathering
paperwork to prepare for what is expected to be a class action
lawsuit.

"You were provided bad information," Ms. Leibold told residents,
some of whom bought their homes 20 years ago when sales in the
development first began.  "Those developer documents are
incorrect.  They [the builders] had a legal obligation to disclose
accurately the Mello-Roos."

On Feb. 1, Patch contacted PulteGroup and as of Feb. 7 company
spokeswoman Jacque Petroulakis maintains, "We are still looking
into the matter."

Centex is one of several builders named in CFD 88-3, however it
appears they were the master builder and the first to sell homes
there.

In 2005, a Los Angeles group of homeowners won a settlement in a
class action lawsuit that claimed developers misrepresented the
residents' tax liability under Mello-Roos and disclosure laws.  A
total of 164 homes in the Sonata and Whispering Oaks developments
in the City of Saugus were involved, with the buyers claiming
their Mello-Roos tax had been erroneously disclosed by Haskell
Canyon Ranch LLC/Curtis Development Corp./Curtis Ventures Inc.  As
part of a settlement agreement, the defendant was ordered to
compensate the homeowners.

Curtis Development Corp. has been linked to Curtis-Elsinore Ranch
Company, which was attached to one parcel in Lake Elsinore's CFD
88-3.  Ms. Chavarria said she is not aware of any homeowners who
purchased from Curtis-Elsinore and attempts to reach Curtis
Development Corp. have been unsuccessful.

Meanwhile Ms. Chavarria has asked that any homeowners who feel
they may have been cheated reach out to her at (951) 245-0049.


CHICAGO, IL: Police Officer Files Overtime Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
WLS/FOX reports that a class-action suit started by a police
officer is attempting to get his employer to make compensation for
calls answered on a company phone after working hours.

Sgt. Jeffrey Allen is suing the city for frequently answering his
"required-to-use" department BlackBerry when he's off duty.

Sgt. Allen claims that since he has been using the phone during
his own time, he is entitled to overtime pay.

"If they have a half-hour phone call outside of work hours to a
superior about a search warrant they're going to work on the next
day, that is something that needs to be paid for," said Sgt.
Allen's attorney, Paul Geiger.

The suit was filed three years ago, but now has a green light to
move forward as a class action.  It is unclear how many of the 200
crime officers would join the suit.

Mr. Geiger said the lawsuit has merit because it seeks to enforce
already longstanding statutes.

The major problem is that technology has outpaced the law.

"Labor law in the U.S. needs a real housecleaning," said labor
expert and University of Illinois-Chicago professor Robert Bruno.
"It would seem to me that every one of those phone calls is a
work-related call, and it will add up."

The city has said there are work policies and procedures that
allow officers to request overtime.


CHINESE DRYWALL: Judge Approves Five Class Action Settlements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys Russ Herman, court-appointed liaison counsel, and Arnold
Levin, court-appointed lead counsel, in the Chinese Drywall
Federal litigation, MDL 2047, are gratified on Feb. 7 that the
presiding Federal judge, the Honorable Judge Eldon E. Fallon, has
issued an order approving five class action settlements with
manufacturers, builders, suppliers and installers of Chinese
drywall and their various insurers.

These settlements are estimated to be in excess of $1 billion,
though the total value of which will depend primarily on the
actual costs of remediation, the funding for which is uncapped.
The settlements will benefit more than 10,000 property owners
whose homes and properties have been damaged by defective Chinese
drywall.  These settlements were achieved after several years of
settlement discussions and court-ordered conferences and are based
on the precedents set by the 2010 Hernandez case and Knauf Pilot
Program initiated in the fall of 2010, which were previously
approved by Judge Fallon.

A fairness hearing on this settlement took place November 13,
2012.  The court's order certified the Interior/Exterior Building
Supply, LP, settlement; the Banner settlement; the L&W Supply
Corporation settlement; the Knauf settlement; and the Global
participating builders, suppliers and installers settlement.

The balance of the case will continue as the Federal Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals determines whether another Chinese manufacturer
and supplier of defective drywall, Taishan entities (including
Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. and Taian Taishan Plasterboard Co. Ltd.),
which is owned and operated by the People's Republic of China, may
also be held liable for damage to an additional 4,000 - 5,000
properties in the future.

Lead counsel Arnold Levin said he is "thrilled that the court has
issued an order and is hopeful that homeowners will now be able to
get their homes remediated and put their lives back together."

It is estimated that between 12,000 - 20,000 homes and businesses
have been built using the defective drywall between 2005 and 2008,
primarily in Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and
Virginia.  The defective drywall has been associated with
unpleasant and potentially harmful odors and fumes that corrode
metals, including air conditioning units, fixtures and other
appliances.

A copy of federal order no. 16570 is available at
http://www.hhklawfirm.com

For further information from the PSC, contact:

          Russ Herman, Esq.
          HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ LLC
          Mobile: (504) 400-5699
          E-mail: rherman@hhklawfirm.com
          Web site: http://www.hhklawfirm.com

          Arnold Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: alevin@lfsblaw.com
          Web site: http://www.lfsblaw.com

According to The Associated Press, Knauf agreed to create an
uncapped fund to pay for repairing roughly 5,200 properties,
mostly in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.  A separate
fund capped at $30 million will pay for other types of losses,
including those by people who blame drywall for health problems.

Attorneys' fees and costs paid by Knauf are capped at $160 million
and will not be deducted from homeowners' shares of the settlement
money.

A total of about 300 plaintiffs have opted out of the five
settlements, according to Mr. Levin.

Judge Fallon, who presides over more than 10,000 claims involving
Chinese drywall, refused in September to dismiss property owners'
claims against a different Chinese drywall maker, Taishan Gypsum
Co. Ltd.

Taishan, which argues that U.S. courts don't have jurisdiction
over claims against it, appealed Judge Fallon's ruling.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Dismissed as Defendant From "Childress" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corporation disclosed in its February 6, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended December 28, 2012, that it was dismissed as
a defendant from the class action lawsuit commenced by Andrea M.
Childress.

On October 19, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court of the Southern District of
Indiana, entitled Andrea M. Childress v. Experian Information
Services, Inc. and CSC Credit Services, Inc.  The complaint
alleges Fair Credit Reporting Act claims regarding reports
prepared about consumers who filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy
protection and subsequently withdrew their bankruptcy filing
before court approval of a bankruptcy plan.  Plaintiff, on behalf
of the class, seeks statutory and punitive damages, injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees.  On February 4, 2013, CSC was
dismissed without prejudice from this lawsuit by plaintiff's
notice filed with the court.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Securities Suit Trial Set for May 21
-------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated securities class action lawsuit against
Computer Sciences Corporation is scheduled for May 21, 2013,
according to the Company's February 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 28, 2012.

Between June 3, 2011, and July 21, 2011, four putative class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, entitled City of Roseville
Employee's Retirement System v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et
al. (No. 1:11-cv-00610-TSE-IDD), Murphy v. Computer Sciences
Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-00636-TSE-IDD), Kramer v.
Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-00751-TSE-IDD)
and Goldman v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-
777-TSE-IDD).  On August 29, 2011, the four actions were
consolidated as In re Computer Sciences Corporation Securities
Litigation (No. 1:11-cv-610-TSE-IDD) and Ontario Teachers' Pension
Plan Board was appointed lead plaintiff.  A consolidated class
action complaint was filed by plaintiff on September 26, 2011, and
names as defendants CSC, Michael W. Laphen, Michael J. Mancuso and
Donald G. DeBuck.  A corrected complaint was filed on October 19,
2011.  The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities
laws in connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions
regarding the business and operations of the Company.
Specifically, the allegations arise from the Company's disclosure
of the Company's investigation into certain accounting
irregularities in the Nordic region and its disclosure regarding
the status of the Company's agreement with the U.K. National
Health Service (NHS).  Among other things, the plaintiff seeks
unspecified monetary damages.  The plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification with the court on September 22, 2011, and the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 18, 2011.  A
hearing was held on November 4, 2011.  On August 29, 2012, the
court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and
denying in part the motion to dismiss.  The court granted the
motion to dismiss with respect to the plaintiff's claims in
connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions
concerning the Company's operations in the Nordic Region.  The
court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss
with respect to the plaintiff's claims in connection with alleged
misrepresentations and omissions concerning the Company's internal
controls and the Company's contract with the NHS.  The court also
granted the plaintiff leave to amend its complaint by September
12, 2012, and maintained the stay of discovery until the
sufficiency of the amended complaint had been decided.  The court
further denied plaintiff's motion for class certification without
prejudice.  On September 12, 2012, the plaintiff filed a notice
advising the Court that it had determined not to amend its
complaint and renewed its motion for class certification.  On
September 21, 2012, the court issued an Order setting the hearing
on the motion for class certification for October 12, 2012,
directing the parties to complete discovery by January 11, 2013,
and scheduling the final pretrial conference for January 17, 2013.

On October 9, 2012, the defendants filed their answer to the
plaintiff's complaint.  On October 12, 2012, the hearing on the
motion for class certification was rescheduled to November 1,
2012.  On October 31, 2012, the parties filed a joint motion with
the court requesting that the hearing on the motion for class
certification be rescheduled to a later date.  On November 1,
2012, the court issued an order setting the hearing for class
certification for November 15, 2012.  On November 30, 2012, the
court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification.  On
December 14, 2012, defendants filed with the Fourth Circuit a
petition for permission to appeal the class certification order
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f).  Plaintiff's
response to the petition was filed on January 30, 2013.  On
December 14, 2012, the court issued an order extending the expert
discovery deadline to February 25, 2013.  On December 20, 2012,
the court issued an order extending the fact discovery deadline to
February 11, 2013, and the expert discovery deadline to
March 25, 2013.  Motions for summary judgment are due on
March 18, 2013.  Trial is scheduled for May 21, 2013.

The defendants deny the allegations and intend to defend their
position vigorously.  The Company is unable to estimate any
possible loss or range of loss associated with this matter at this
time.


CYBEX INT'L: Plaintiff's Bid to Enjoin Shareholder Vote Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cybex International, Inc. disclosed in its February 6, 2013, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that
the request of a stockholder plaintiff to enjoin the vote of the
Company's shareholders of a merger transaction at a special
meeting was denied.

Cybex International, Inc. ("Cybex" or the "Company") provides an
update with respect to In Re: Cybex International, Inc.
Stockholders Litigation, the class action lawsuit pending in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.  This
action alleges, among other things, that the defendants, which
include Cybex and its directors, breached their fiduciary
obligations to the Company's shareholders by entering into the
Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") pursuant to
which all of the Company's outstanding common stock held by its
public shareholders would be converted into $2.55 per share cash
in a "going private" merger transaction.  At a hearing held by the
Court on February 5, 2013, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion
to enjoin the vote of the Company's shareholders at the Special
Meeting of Shareholders called to approve the Merger Agreement
("Special Meeting").  Accordingly, the Special Meeting proceeded
as scheduled on February 6, 2013, at the Company's chief executive
offices at 10 Trotter Drive, in Medway, Massachusetts.


DAIICHI SANKYO: Faces Gender Discrimination Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Wellens, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Bernice Giovanni,
Lara Hollinger and Jennifer Bennie, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., Case No.
3:13-cv-00581 (N.D. Calif., February 11, 2013) is brought against
Daiichi Sankyo to seek redress for alleged gender discrimination
in employment.

Daiichi Sankyo has systemically paid female sales employees less
than similarly situated male sales employees, the Plaintiffs
allege.  They contend that the Company has also denied female
sales employees access to leadership positions across the Company,
among other discriminatory acts.  The Plaintiffs note that women
are actively discouraged from having children while working at
Daiichi Sankyo.

Ms. Wellens lived and worked in Northern California.  She began
working for the Company in September 2009 until the present.  Ms.
Jensen lived and worked in Southern California.  She began working
for the Company in August 2008 until the present.

Ms. Pena lived and worked in Southern California.  She worked for
Daiichi Sankyo from May 2006 through November 2012, when the
Company terminated her employment because of her
pregnancy/caregiver status, and in retaliation for her engaging in
protected conduct, including taking family and disability leave,
as well as complaining about gender/pregnancy discrimination to
Daiichi Sankyo's Human Resources department, the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, and the California Department
of Fair Employment and Housing.

Ms. Giovanni lived and worked in Northern California.  She worked
for Daiichi Sankyo from August 2009 through March 2012, when she
was forced to resign due to the discrimination she experienced.
Ms. Hollinger lived and worked in Northern California.  She worked
for Daiichi Sankyo from August 2008 to August 2012, when she was
forced to resign due to the discrimination she experienced.  Ms.
Bennie lived and worked in Southern California.  She worked for
Daiichi Sankyo from October 2006 to March 2012, when she was
forced to resign due to the discrimination she experienced.

Daiichi Sankyo is a pharmaceutical company that conducts
substantial business in California and employs personnel in
California.  The Company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey, and
is incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware.  Daiichi
Sankyo manufactures and sells cardiovascular, diabetes, and
metastatic melanoma therapies and pharmaceuticals.  Daiichi
Sankyo's parent company -- Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd. -- is a
Japan-based pharmaceutical drug giant that serves over fifty-five
countries and employs over 30,000 workers worldwide.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Janette Wipper, Esq.
          Felicia Medina, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER, LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1206
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 795-2020
          Facsimile: (415) 795-2021
          E-mail: jwipper@sanfordheisler.com
                  fmedina@sanfordheisler.com


EMCORE CORP: Consolidated Securities Class Litigation Has Ended
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities litigation against EMCORE Corporation
has ended, according to the Company's February 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 31, 2012.

On December 23, 2008, Plaintiffs Maurice Prissert and Claude
Prissert filed a purported stockholder class action (the "Prissert
Class Action") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
allegedly on behalf of a class of Company shareholders against the
Company and certain of its present and former directors and
officers (the "Individual Defendants") in the United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico captioned, Maurice
Prissert and Claude Prissert v. EMCORE Corporation, Adam Gushard,
Hong Q. Hou, Reuben F. Richards, Jr., David Danzilio and Thomas
Werthan, Case No. 1:08cv1190 (D.N.M.).  The Complaint alleges that
the Company and the Individual Defendants violated certain
provisions of the federal securities laws, including Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the
Company's disclosure regarding its customer Green and Gold Energy
("GGE") and the associated backlog of GGE orders with the
Company's Photovoltaics business segment.  The Complaint in the
Prissert Class Action seeks, among other things, an unspecified
amount of compensatory damages and other costs and expenses
associated with the maintenance of the action.  On or about
February 12, 2009, a second purported stockholder class action
(Mueller v. EMCORE Corporation et al., Case No. 1:09cv 133
(D.N.M.)) (the "Mueller Class Action"), together with the Prissert
Class Action, the "Class Actions") was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico against the same
defendants named in the Prissert Class Action, based on
substantially the same facts and circumstances, containing
substantially the same allegations and seeking substantially the
same relief.

On September 25, 2009, the court issued an order consolidating
both the Prissert and Mueller class actions into one consolidated
proceeding, but denied plaintiffs motions for appointment of a
lead plaintiff or lead plaintiff's counsel.  On July 15, 2010, the
court appointed IBEW Local Union No. 58 Annuity Fund to serve as
lead plaintiff ("IBEW"), but denied, without prejudice, IBEW's
motion to appoint lead counsel.  On August 24, 2010, IBEW filed a
renewed motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval
of its selection of counsel.  IBEW filed a renewed motion for
appointment of counsel on May 13, 2011, which the Company did not
oppose.  By Order dated September 30, 2011, the court appointed
counsel to act on behalf of the purported class.  On November 14,
2011, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, again
alleging violations of the federal securities laws arising out of
the Company's disclosure regarding its customer GGE and the
associated backlog of GGE orders with the Company's Photovoltaics
business segment (the "Amended Complaint").  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on January 9, 2012, and on
September 28, 2012, the court ruled in the Company's favor.

On November 9, 2012, the Company entered into a stipulation and
agreement with the lead class representative, pursuant to which
the parties agreed to release each other from all claims related
to the matter and not to appeal the dismissal of the Amended
Complaint, effectively ending this litigation.


ENER1 INC: $4M Accord in Suit Over Failed Car Investment Gets OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Mahoney of BankruptcyLaw360 reported that a New York federal
judge signed off on a $4.2 million settlement between Ener1 Inc.
and a consolidated class of shareholders suing the lithium-ion
battery manufacturer over its failed investments in Norwegian
electric carmaker Think Global AS.

The settlement order, signed by U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty,
certifies a class of shareholders who had alleged Ener1 misled
investors about the deleterious financial effects of its
investment in Think Global, the report related.

                            About Ener1

Ener1 Inc. (OTC: HEVV) -- http://www.ener1.com/-- is a New York-
based developer of compact, lithium-ion-powered energy storage
solutions for applications in the electric utility, transportation
and industrial electronics markets.  It has three business lines:
EnerDel, an 80.5% owned subsidiary, which is 19.5% owned by
Delphi, develops Li-ion batteries, battery packs and components
such as Li-ion battery electrodes and lithium electronic
controllers for lithium battery packs; EnerFuel develops fuel cell
products and services; and NanoEner develops technologies,
materials and equipment for nano-manufacturing.

Ener1, which received a $118 million U.S. Energy Department grant
to make electric-car batteries, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 12-10299) on Jan. 26, 2012, to implement
a prepackaged plan of reorganization.  The Plan has been
unanimously accepted by all of Ener1's impaired creditors.

Judge Martin Glenn oversees the case.  Reed Smith LLP is Ener1's
legal adviser and its financial adviser is Houlihan Lokey Capital
Inc.  The Garden City Group serves as its claims and noticing
agent.  In its petition, Ener1 estimated $73,900,000 in assets and
$90,538,529 in liabilities.  The petition was signed by Alex
Sorokin, interim chief executive officer.

Bzinfin, S.A., is represented in the case by Andrew E. Balog,
Esq., and John H. Bae, Esq., at Greenberg Traurig, LLP.  Counsel
to Goldman Sachs Palmetto State Credit Fund, L.P., and Liberty
Harbor Special Investments, LLC, are Gary Holtzer, Esq., and Ronit
Berkovich, Esq., at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York
confirmed the Company's Plan of Reorganization on Feb. 28, 2012,
and the Plan became effective on March 30, 2012.

The Plan provides for a restructuring of the Company's long-term
debt and the infusion of up to $86 million of new capital pursuant
to the terms and subject to the conditions of the equity
commitment agreement that will provide both exit financing and
working capital to conduct the continued operation of the
Company's consolidated subsidiaries.  The first $55 million under
the Exit Financing will be provided by Bzinfin, and will be
comprised of cash plus the principal amount outstanding under the
DIP Facility, which amount will be converted into New Preferred
Stock.  The balance of $31 million will be provided by Bzinfin
together with the other Participating Lenders.

Pursuant to the Plan, the Company's $57.3 million in outstanding
principal amount of Tranche A and Tranche B 8.25% senior unsecured
notes, $10.0 million in outstanding principal amount of 6% senior
convertible notes and the Company's Line of Credit Facility, under
which $11.2 million principal is outstanding will be terminated in
exchange for (i) a combination of shares of new common stock, par
value $0.01 per share, issued by the reorganized Company.

Aside from the restructured long-term debt, the claims of general
unsecured creditors are unimpaired and will be paid by the Company
in full in the ordinary course of business pursuant to the Plan.

Pursuant to the Plan, all of the Company's currently outstanding
Common Stock will be canceled on the Effective Date without
receiving any distribution.  The U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the
Southern District of New York confirmed the Company's Plan of
Reorganization on Feb. 28, 2012, and the Plan became effective on
March 30, 2012.


EXPEDIA INC: Awaits Ruling on Cert. Bid in "Pine Bluff" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in the class action lawsuit filed by Pine
Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission and Jefferson County,
according to the Company's February 6, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On September 25, 2009, Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion
Commission and Jefferson County filed a class action against a
number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Inc.,
Hotels.com, and Hotwire.  The lawsuit is captioned Pine Bluff
Advertising and Promotion Commission, Jefferson County, Arkansas,
and others similarly situated v. Hotels.com LP, et. al. CV-2009-
946-5 (In the Circuit Court of Jefferson, Arkansas).  The
complaint alleges that defendants have failed to collect and/or
pay taxes under hotel tax occupancy ordinances.  The court denied
defendants' motion to dismiss.  Plaintiffs have filed a motion for
class certification.  On January 12, 2012, the court entered an
order staying the case for thirty days while it considers again
whether the plaintiff should be required to exhaust administrative
remedies.  The court lifted the stay.  The plaintiffs then filed a
motion for class certification.  A hearing on plaintiffs' motion
for class certification was held on November 19, 2012.


EXPEDIA INC: Awaits Ruling on Cert. Bid in "Breckenridge" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on a motion for class
certification in the lawsuit initiated by the Town of
Breckenridge, according to the Company's February 6, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

On July 25, 2011, the Town of Breckenridge, Colorado, brought a
lawsuit on behalf of itself and other home rule municipalities
against a number of online travel companies, including Hotels.com,
Expedia and Hotwire.  The lawsuit is captioned Town of
Breckenridge, Colorado v. Colorado Travel Company, LLC, Case No.
2011CV420 (District Court, Summit County, Colorado).  The
complaint includes claims for declaratory judgment, violations of
municipal ordinances, conversion, civil conspiracy and unjust
enrichment.  The online travel companies have filed a motion to
dismiss.  On June 8, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in
part the online travel companies' motion to dismiss.  On December
12, 2012, plaintiff moved for class certification.


EXPEDIA INC: Bid for Summary Judgment in "Gallup" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the class action
lawsuit filed by the city of Gallup, New Mexico, remains pending,
according to Expedia, Inc.'s February 6, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

On May 17, 2006, the city of Gallup, New Mexico, filed a putative
statewide class action in state court against a number of internet
travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia.  The
lawsuit is captioned City of Gallup, New Mexico, et al. v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et al., CIV-06-0549 JC/RLP (United States
District Court, District of New Mexico).  The case was removed to
federal court on June 23, 2006.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants have failed to pay to the city hotel accommodations
taxes as required by municipal ordinances.  The complaint asserts
claims for violation of those ordinances, conversion, and
declaratory judgment.  The complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount, restitution and disgorgement.  On April 18,
2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to dismiss its own
lawsuit.

On July 6, 2007, the city of Gallup refiled its lawsuit.
Plaintiff filed its first amended complaint on January 16, 2009.
The court certified the class on July 7, 2009.  On March 1, 2010,
the court denied the city's motion for summary judgment and held
that the online travel companies do not have tax obligations under
the city's ordinance and that defendants have not collected taxes
that have not been remitted.  On February 18, 2011, defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment.


EXPEDIA INC: Canadian Consumer Plaintiffs Obtain Class Standing
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Canadian court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's
motion for class certification in the consumer lawsuit pending in
Ontario, Canada, according to Expedia, Inc.'s February 6, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On June 26, 2009, a class action lawsuit against Expedia Canada
Corporation was filed in Ontario, Canada, alleging that
disclosures related to "taxes and service fees" were deceptive.
The case is captioned Magill v. Expedia Canada Corporation and
Expedia.ca, CV-09-381919-00LP (Ontario Superior Court of Justice).
The complaint asserts claims under the Competition Act and
Consumer Protection Act as well as claims of unjust enrichment,
restitution, constructive trust, accounting and disgorgement and
breach of contract.  It seeks damages in the amount of C$50
million for the class as well as interest, fees and alternate
damages measures.  On September 24, 2010, the court added Expedia,
Inc. as a defendant and dismissed many of the plaintiff's claims
with leave to amend.  The class period was also limited.  The
plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim on January 7, 2011.

A class certification hearing took place from January 15 to 17,
2013, and the court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's
motion for class certification.


EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Hotel Booking Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. continues to face antitrust class action lawsuits
brought against online travel companies over hotel booking
practices, according to the Company's February 6, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

In July 2012, the United Kingdom Office of Fair Trading ("OFT"),
the competition authority in the United Kingdom, issued a
Statement of Objections alleging that Expedia and Booking.com
entered into separate agreements with InterContinental Hotels
Group PLC ("IHG") that restricted each online travel company's
ability to discount the price of IHG hotel rooms.  The OFT limited
its investigation to a small number of companies, but has stated
that the investigation is likely to have wider implications for
the industry within the United Kingdom.

Since August 20, 2012, thirty-two putative class action lawsuits,
which refer to the United Kingdom Office of Fair Trading ("OFT")'s
Statement of Objections, have been initiated in the United States
by consumer plaintiffs alleging claims against the online travel
companies, including Expedia, and several major hotel chains for
alleged resale price maintenance for online hotel room
reservations, including but not limited to violation of the
Sherman Act, state antitrust laws, state consumer protection
statutes and common law tort claims, such as unjust enrichment.
The parties moved before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation for consolidation of the cases.  On December 11, 2012,
the Panel issued an order consolidating and transferring the cases
to Judge Boyle in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.

On January 23, 2013, another purported class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The lawsuit is captioned Gillespie v. Travelscape LLC, et al.(
Case No. 1:13-cv-00531) alleging claims for violation of Sherman
Act Section 1 and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection
Act.  This latter claim is based upon the allegation that
Travelscape, an Expedia, Inc. subsidiary, engages in deceptive
practices by bundling taxes and fees in hotel booking transactions
with consumers and not adequately disclosing the nature of the
service fees and taxes it collects.  The plaintiff has filed a
motion for class certification with the complaint.  A conditional
transfer of the antitrust claims to the Northern District of Texas
has been granted.  Plaintiff will separately proceed on her
Washington Consumer Protection Act claim against Expedia.


EXPEDIA INC: Judgment in "San Antonio" Suit Expected This Year
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its February 6, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012, that it anticipates a final judgment and final
damages award early this year in the class action lawsuit brought
by the city of San Antonio, Texas.

On May 8, 2006, the city of San Antonio filed a putative statewide
class action in federal court against a number of internet travel
companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire, and Expedia. The suit is
captioned City of San Antonio, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.,
SA06CA0381 (United States District Court, Western District of
Texas, San Antonio Division).  The complaint alleges that the
defendants have failed to pay to the city hotel accommodations
taxes as required by municipal ordinance.  The complaint asserts
claims for violation of that ordinance, common-law conversion, and
declaratory judgment.  The complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount, restitution and disgorgement.  On October 30,
2009, a jury verdict was entered finding that defendant online
travel companies "control hotels," and awarding approximately $15
million for historical damages against the Expedia companies.  The
jury also found that defendants were not liable for conversion or
punitive damages.  The final amount of the judgment against the
Expedia companies has not been determined.  On July 1, 2011, the
court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law holding
defendant online travel companies liable for hotel occupancy
taxes.  The parties filed cross motions to amend the court's
findings of fact and conclusions of law.

On January 16, 2013, the court denied the defendants' motion to
amend.  On January 17, 2013, the court denied the cities' motion
to add and amend findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding
the calculation of penalties.  On January 29, 2013, the court
issued amended findings of fact and conclusions of law.  The
Company anticipates a final judgment and final damages award in
early 2013.


EXPEDIA INC: Goodlettsville & Brentwood Did Not Appeal Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its February 6, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012, that the cities of Goodlettsville and
Brentwood, Tennessee, did not appeal the denial of their motion
for summary judgment.

On June 2, 2008, the cities of Goodlettsville and Brentwood,
Tennessee, filed a putative class action in federal court against
a number of internet travel companies, including Expedia,
Hotels.com, and Hotwire.  The lawsuit is captioned City of
Goodlettsville and City of Brentwood v. Priceline.com, Inc., et
al., 3-08-0561 (United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee).  The complaint alleges that the defendants
have failed to pay to the cities hotel accommodations taxes as
required by municipal ordinance.  The complaint asserts claims for
violation of the local ordinance, as well as claims for unjust
enrichment and conversion, and seeks damages in an unspecified
amount. Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed the City of
Brentwood's claims.  Class certification has been granted.  The
parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.  On February 21,
2012, the court granted the online travel companies' motion and
denied the cities' motion and held that online travel companies
are not liable to remit hotel occupancy taxes.  The cities did not
appeal.


EXPEDIA INC: Hearing in "Los Angeles" Suit Set for April 18
-----------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on cross-motions for judgment granting or denying a writ
of mandate in the class action lawsuit commenced by the city of
Los Angeles is scheduled for April 18, 2013, according to Expedia,
Inc.'s February 6, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On December 30, 2004, the city of Los Angeles filed a purported
class action in California state court against a number of
Internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Expedia and
Hotwire.  The lawsuit is captioned City of Los Angeles,
California, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated
v. Hotels.com, L.P. et al., No. BC326693 (Superior Court, Los
Angeles County).  The complaint alleges that the defendants are
improperly charging and/or failing to pay hotel occupancy taxes.
The complaint seeks certification of a statewide class of all
California cities and counties that have enacted uniform transient
occupancy-tax ordinances effective on or after
December 30, 1990.  The complaint alleges violation of those
ordinances, violation of Section 17200 of the California Business
and Professions Code, and common-law conversion.  The complaint
also seeks a declaratory judgment that the defendants are subject
to hotel occupancy taxes on the hotel rate charged to consumers
and imposition of a constructive trust on all monies owed by the
defendants to the government, as well as disgorgement,
restitution, interest and penalties.  On July 26, 2007, the court
signed an order staying the lawsuit until the cities have
exhausted their administrative remedies.  The case is coordinated
with the cases in San Diego, Anaheim, Santa Monica and San
Francisco.  On September 9, 2009, the City of Los Angeles issued
assessments totaling $29.5 million against Expedia companies
(Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire).  An administrative hearing
challenging the assessments was held on December 3, 2009.  On
September 16, 2010, the assessment review officer approved the
assessments.  A second level administrative review hearing was
held in December 2010.  On August 16, 2011, the Board of Review
entered a decision holding Hotels.com, Expedia and Hotwire liable
for hotel occupancy taxes.  The city of Los Angeles' claims will
now be heard by the trial court in the consolidated action
involving claims brought by other cities in California, including
Anaheim, Santa Monica, San Diego and San Francisco.

On January 17, 2013, the parties filed motions for judgment
granting or denying a writ of mandate.  A hearing on those cross-
motions is scheduled for April 18, 2013.


EXPEDIA INC: Class Cert. Hearing in "Nassau" Suit on April 9
-------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on plaintiff's motion for class certification in the
lawsuit initiated by Nassau County, New York, is scheduled for
April 9, 2013, according to Expedia, Inc.'s February 6, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

On October 24, 2006, the county of Nassau, New York, filed a
putative statewide class action in federal court against a number
of internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire, and
Expedia.  The lawsuit is captioned Nassau County, New York, et al.
v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., (United States District Court,
Eastern District of New York).  The complaint alleges that the
defendants have failed to pay hotel accommodation taxes as
required by local ordinances to certain New York cities, counties
and local governments in New York.  The complaint asserts claims
for violations of those ordinances, as well as claims for
conversion, unjust enrichment, and imposition of a constructive
trust, and seeks unspecified damages.  On August 17, 2007, the
court granted defendants' motion dismissing the lawsuit due to the
plaintiff's failure to exhaust its administrative remedies.
Subsequently, on August 11, 2009, the Second Circuit remanded the
case for the district court to determine whether class
certification is appropriate.  The district court has ordered the
parties to proceed with class certification.  The county
subsequently dismissed its case on May 13, 2011 for lack of
jurisdiction and refiled in state court, County of Nassau v.
Expedia, Inc., et al., (In the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of Nassau).  The defendants filed a motion to
dismiss.  On June 13, 2012, the court denied the online travel
companies' motion to dismiss.

On November 27, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  A hearing on that motion is scheduled for
April 9, 2013.


EXPEDIA INC: Hotwire Faces Two Consumer Suits in Connecticut
------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc.'s subsidiary is facing two class action lawsuits in
Connecticut, according to the Company's February 6, 2013, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

On September 12, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
in federal district court in Connecticut against a number of
credit card companies and e-commerce companies, including Hotwire.
The lawsuit is captioned Miller, et al. v. 1-800-Flowers.com,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:12-CV-00396-VLB (U.S. District Court,
District of Connecticut).  The complaint generally alleges that
the defendants failed to adequately apprise consumers that they
were providing their credit card information to Trilegiant
Corporation, which offered membership in discount or other
services programs through promotions appearing on the e-commerce
defendants' Web sites.  The complaint asserts claims against
Hotwire for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, state consumer protection statutes and for unjust enrichment.
On December 7, 2012, Hotwire filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  On December 5, 2012, a similar putative class action
lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Connecticut against
a number of credit card companies and e-commerce companies,
including Hotwire, Frank, et al. v. Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:12-CV-01721-SRU (U.S. District Court, District
of Connecticut).


EXPEDIA INC: Miami-Dade Litigation Over Occupancy Taxes Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc.'s lawsuits against Miami-Dade for refund of hotel
occupancy taxes is stayed, according to the Company's February 6,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On December 18, 2009, Expedia, Inc., Hotwire and Hotels.com
brought lawsuits against Miami-Dade for refund of hotel occupancy
taxes assessed against the companies.  The lawsuit is captioned
Expedia, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County, Florida and Florida Department
of Revenue, Cause No. 09CA4978 (In the Circuit Court of the Second
Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County); Hotwire, Inc. v. Miami-
Dade County, Cause No. 09CA4977 (In the Circuit Court of the
Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County); Hotels.com, L.P.
v. Miami-Dade County, Florida and Florida Department of Revenue,
Cause No. 09CA4979 (In the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial
Circuit in and for Leon County).  The companies moved to dismiss
Miami-Dade's counterclaims.  These cases have been consolidated
with the cases brought by other online travel companies for refund
of hotel occupancy taxes.  Miami-Dade County's claims were settled
as a part of the Monroe class action settlement.  The claims
relating to tourist development tax have been dismissed.  The
claims relating to convention development tax remain.  On
September 25, 2012, the court issued an order staying all further
proceedings in the case pending a final appellate determination in
the Leon County litigation.


EXPEDIA INC: Rome and Cartersville Appeal Class Action Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
The cities of Rome and Cartersville have appealed a judgment in
their class action lawsuit against Expedia, Inc., et al.,
according to the Company's February 6, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On November 18, 2005, the city of Rome, Georgia, Hart County,
Georgia, and the city of Cartersville, Georgia, filed a purported
statewide class action in federal court against a number of
internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and
Expedia.  The lawsuit is captioned City of Rome, Georgia, et al.
v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., No. 4:05-CV-249 (U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division).  The complaint
alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the counties and
cities the hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinances.  The complaint asserts claims for violation of excise
and sales and use tax ordinances, conversion, unjust enrichment,
imposition of a constructive trust, declaratory relief and
injunctive relief.  The complaint seeks damages and other relief
in an unspecified amount.  On May 9, 2006, the court granted in
part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss.  On June 8,
2006, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding sixteen more
municipalities and political subdivisions as named plaintiffs.  On
May 10, 2007, the court stayed the litigation, concluding that the
plaintiffs must exhaust their administrative remedies before
continuing to litigate their tax claims.  On July 10, 2009, the
court lifted the stay of the litigation.  The court granted in
part plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  Based on prior
Georgia Supreme Court precedent, on September 23, 2011, defendants
filed a motion to deposit funds into the court for the payment of
future hotel occupancy taxes.  The parties subsequently filed a
motion for approval of partial settlement for the deposit of
future hotel occupancy taxes.  The court approved the settlement
on August 16, 2012.  The parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment.  On July 9, 2012, the court ruled on the parties' cross-
motions for summary judgment.  The court held that the online
travel companies were not previously subject to hotel occupancy
taxes; therefore, past taxes are not due to counties and cities in
the State of Georgia.  Nevertheless, going forward, the court held
that online travel companies are obligated to collect hotel
occupancy taxes under the parties' settlement agreement.
Plaintiffs have appealed.


EXPEDIA INC: Trial in "McAllister" Suit Set for Sept. 2013
----------------------------------------------------------
Trial is currently set for September 2013 in the class action
lawsuit commenced by two citizens of Arkansas, according to
Expedia, Inc.'s February 6, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On February 22, 2011, two citizens representing a proposed class
of all citizen-taxpayers in the State of Arkansas brought lawsuit
against a number of online travel companies, including Hotels.com,
Expedia and Hotwire.  The lawsuit is captioned McAllister v.
Hotels.com, et al., Case No. CV 2011-125-2 (Circuit Court of
Saline County Arkansas).  The complaint includes claims for
declaratory and injunctive relief.  The defendant online travel
companies filed a motion to dismiss.  On February 2, 2012, the
court denied the defendant online travel companies' motion to
dismiss.  Trial is currently set for September 2013.


FEDEX OFFICE: "Minor Suit" Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thelton E. Henderson issued an order on February 8,
2013, granting preliminary approval of the settlement in the class
action captioned GARY MINOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FEDEX OFFICE
AND PRINT SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, No. C09-1375 THE,
(N.D. Calif.).

The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement falls within the
range of possible approval, and preliminarily approves it as fair,
adequate, and reasonable, subject to further consideration at the
final approval and fairness hearing.

The Court certified the settlement class as: "All persons employed
by Defendant in California in a non-exempt position at any time
between February 25, 2005 through August 1, 2012."

Gary Minor, Banipal Shabaz, Narek Eloyan, Shehan Bederian, and
Michael Macias will serve as Class Representatives.

The Court appoints as counsel for the Class:

     Peter M. Hart, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
     12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 205
     Los Angeles, CA 90025

          - and -

     Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH H. YOON
     One Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2200
     Los Angeles, CA 90017

          - and -

     Eric Honig, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF ERIC HONIG
     P.O. Box 10327
     Marina del Rey, CA 90294
     E-mail: erichonig@aol.com

          - and -

     Levik Yarian, Esq.
     Allen Patatanyan, Esq.
     YARIAN & PATATANYAN, LLP
     1511 W. Glenoaks Blvd.
     Glendale, CA 91202

          - and -

     Michael Gould, Esq.
     GOULD & ASSOCIATES
     18722 East 17th St., Suite 106
     Tustin, CA 92780
     E-mail: michael@wageandhourlaw.com

The Court appoints CPT Group, Inc. as Settlement Administrator.

FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc. will provide the Settlement
Administrator and Class Counsel information about Class Members,
as specified in the Settlement Agreement.

The Final Approval and Fairness Hearing will be held June 17,
2013, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 2.

Class Counsel will file their papers in support of final approval
of the settlement on or before May 13, 2013.

Any opposition by Class Members to the settlement itself,
counsel's motion for attorney fees and costs, or Class
Representatives' applications for Enhancement Payment awards will
be filed on or before May 27, 2013.

Any Class Member who wishes to be excluded from the Class must
make a written request for exclusion in compliance with the
instructions contained in the Settlement Agreement and the Notice
Packet.  Requests for exclusion from the Class must be returned
postmarked no later than 45 calendar days after the initial
mailing of the Notice Packet.  Any Class Member who does not
request exclusion will be bound by the Settlement Agreement.

All proceedings in this matter except those contemplated and as
part of the Settlement Agreement are stayed.

A copy of the District Court's February 8, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/xmDyjLfrom Leagle.com.


FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Certification in Celexa Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge refused to certify a nationwide class of children and teens
who took the antidepressants Celexa or Lexapro, which are approved
only for adults.

Beginning in 2009, Forest Pharmaceuticals faced a rash of class
actions that accused it of improperly marketing Celexa and Lexapro
to children and adolescents.

In Celexa's case, the Food and Drug Administration specifically
denied approval for pediatric use, after a study found more
pediatric patients who took Celexa attempted suicide or reported
suicidal thoughts than those taking the placebo.

Forest allegedly still promoted the drug for children, and paid
kickbacks to physicians for prescribing the drugs, including cash
payments disguised as consulting fees and expensive meals.

The cases were consolidated for multidistrict litigation in
Massachusetts, but four cases were voluntarily dismissed in 2010
and a fifth case was dismissed without prejudice at the end of
that year.  With just two cases remaining, U.S. District Judge
Nathaniel Gorton refused to grant class certification last week.

"At oral argument all parties acknowledged that the sales calls
were made in plaintiffs' home states by sales representatives
located in those states," he wrote.  "Moreover, the actions in
reliance on those false statements, including the purchase of the
medications by plaintiffs, were also made in plaintiffs' home
states."

The plaintiffs had urged the court to apply Missouri law since the
first case was filed there, but the court agreed with Forest that
the law of each plaintiff's home state must apply, "rendering a
class action infeasible."

"Although plaintiffs correctly advise that Missouri has an
interest in policing the behavior of corporations within its
borders, that interest does not outweigh the justified
expectations of consumers that the laws of their home states will
apply," Judge Gorton found.

The ruling acknowledges that "individual claim of each class
member is likely to be relatively small and limited to
reimbursement for prescription costs and/or co-pays."

Though it may be "prohibitively expensive to litigate
individually," Forest said "a class action applying the law of
many (presumably all 50) states would simply be unmanageable."
(Parentheses in original.)


GOLDEN CORRAL: Faces Class Action Over Food Safety Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Pollreisz, writing for K2 News, reports that with the help
of a major Seattle-based firm, a Casper law firm has filed a class
action lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the North Carolina-
based Golden Corral Corporation just days after the Wyoming
Department of Health published an official report linking a
Casper-based Golden Corral franchise to a Norovirus outbreak that
left several hundred people ill.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages equivalent to total meal cost,
medical expenses and "all other ordinary, incidental and
consequential" expenses.

The plaintiffs allege employees at the Golden Corral restaurant in
Casper sold food unfit for human consumption.  The plaintiffs also
allege Golden Corral employees displayed general negligence toward
proper food handling techniques and were not properly trained by
management.

The plaintiffs will be represented by Ochs Law Firm of Casper and
Marler Clark of Seattle.

Marler Clark, which bills itself as "the food safety law firm,"
claims it was lead council during a five-year trial against Jack
in the Box, Inc. following an E. coli outbreak at a Jack in the
Box restaurant in Washington state that left 20 children
hospitalized.  Marler Clark says it also represented plaintiffs in
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Illinois-based food safety and
food poisoning cases.

In a report released by the Wyoming Department of Health, at least
305 customers became ill after eating at the Casper Golden Corral
restaurant between Nov. 17 and Dec. 19 of 2012.

According to the report, health investigators were able to
identify several environmental health concerns at the restaurant
through customer and employee interviews.  Concerns were raised
about employees restocking unwashed dishes in the buffet line,
employees working while sick, employees not handling food with
gloved hands, employees serving raw or undercooked food and
employees cross-contaminating between raw and uncooked foods.

Health investigators also received reports of customers vomiting
in the main dining room and restroom areas.

As outlined in the state report, officials with the Casper-Natrona
County Health Department found several health violations during an
inspection on Dec. 12.  Management voluntarily closed the
restaurant on Dec. 13 for extensive cleaning.  The restaurant
reopened the next day.

In court documents, Marler Clark and Ochs Law Firm say there could
be as many as 7,000 plaintiffs, as officials say that is the
number of customers served during the outbreak.


GOOGLE INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Vulnerable Android Apps
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ciaran McEvoy, writing for Law360, reports that a California judge
on Feb. 8 dismissed a putative class action brought by Android
cellphone users who said Google Inc. reaped commissions on faulty
applications that were vulnerable to malicious software, ruling
that the state's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is limited to
tangible items that can be physically repaired.

At a hearing in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Feb. 8, Judge
Jane L. Johnson granted Google's request to dismiss the lawsuit,
but gave the plaintiffs 30 days to amend their complaint.


INTERCONTINENTALEXCHANGE INC: Merger Suits Pending in Del. & N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Merger-related class action lawsuits are pending in Delaware and
New York, according to IntercontinentalExchange, Inc.'s
February 6, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On December 20, 2012, the Company announced an agreement to
acquire NYSE Euronext in a stock and cash transaction.  The
transaction, which was unanimously approved by the board of
directors of both companies, is currently valued at approximately
$8.6 billion, based on the closing price of the Company's stock on
January 31, 2013.  The final purchase price will be based on the
actual market price per share of IntercontinentalExchange, Inc.
("ICE") common stock on the closing date of the acquisition, which
is anticipated in the second half of 2013, subject to regulatory
approvals.  NYSE Euronext is a holding company that, through its
subsidiaries, operates the following securities exchanges: the New
York Stock Exchange, NYSE Arca, Inc. and NYSE MKT LLC in the
United States and the European-based exchanges that comprise
Euronext N.V. -- the Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels and Lisbon stock
exchanges, as well as the NYSE Liffe derivatives markets in
London, Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels and Lisbon.  Upon the closing
of the acquisition, NYSE Euronext will merge with and into a
wholly-owned subsidiary of ICE.

Following the announcement of the execution of the acquisition
agreement to acquire NYSE Euronext on December 20, 2012, the first
of eight putative stockholder class action complaints was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware
Actions") by purported stockholders challenging the proposed
acquisition.  Additionally, on December 21, 2012, the first of
four similar putative stockholder class action complaints was
filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the "New York
Actions") by purported stockholders of NYSE Euronext.  The
Delaware Actions are captioned Cohen v. NYSE Euronext, et al.,
C.A. No. 8136-CS, Mayer v. NYSE Euronext, et al., C.A. No. 8167-
CS, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Hessels,
et al., No. 8172-CS, Louisiana Municipal Police Employees'
Retirement System v. NYSE Euronext, et al., No. 8183-CS, Sheet
Metal Workers' Pension Fund of Local Union 19 v. Hessels, et al.,
No 8202-CS, Winkler v. NYSE Euronext, et al., No. 8209-CS, Nardone
v. Hessels, at al., C.A. No. 8211-CS, and LBBW Asset Management
Investmentgesellschaft MBH, C.A. No. 8224-CS.  The New York
actions are captioned Graff v. Hessels, et al., No. 654519,
Himmerl v. NYSE Euronext, et al., No. 654576/2012, N.J. Carpenters
Pension Fund v. NYSE Euronext, et al., No. 654496 and KT Invs. II,
LLC v. Niederauer, et al., No. 654515.

The Delaware and New York Actions are very similar.  All twelve
actions name the Company as a defendant and also name NYSE
Euronext and the members of its board of directors as defendants.
Certain of the actions also name Baseball Merger Sub, LLC, which
is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company's that was created for
purposes of this acquisition.  All twelve complaints allege that
the members of the NYSE Euronext board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties by agreeing to an acquisition agreement that
undervalues NYSE Euronext.  Among other things, plaintiffs allege
that the members of the NYSE Euronext board of directors failed to
maximize the value of NYSE Euronext to its public stockholders,
negotiated a transaction in their best interests to the detriment
of the NYSE Euronext public stockholders, and agreed to supposedly
preclusive deal protection measures that unfairly deter
competitive offers.  The Company (and, in some of the actions,
NYSE Euronext and/or Baseball Merger Sub) are alleged to have
aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of
the NYSE Euronext board of directors.  The lawsuits seek, among
other things, (i) an injunction enjoining the consummation of the
acquisition; and/or (ii) rescission of the acquisition, to the
extent already implemented, or alternatively rescissory damages.
Certain of the actions seek an injunction prohibiting the Company
and NYSE Euronext from initiating any defensive measures.

On January 16, 2013, three of the plaintiffs in the Delaware
Actions, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority,
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System and Sheet
Metal Workers' Pension Fund of Local Union 19, jointly moved for
expedited proceedings.  The motion to expedite requests an
expedited schedule and the setting of a hearing on a motion for a
preliminary injunction in advance of the stockholder vote on the
merger.  On January 17, 2013, Plaintiffs Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority, Louisiana Municipal Police Employees'
Retirement System, Sheet Metal Workers' Pension Fund and Welfare
Fund of Local Union 19, and LBBW Asset Management
Investmentgesellschaft MBH moved for consolidation and appointment
of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the Delaware Actions.  On
January 25, 2013, Plaintiff John and Patricia Mayer cross moved
for appointment as lead or co-lead plaintiffs and approval of
their selection of lead counsel.  By Order dated January 29, 2013,
the Court of Chancery consolidated the Delaware Actions and
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.  On January 31, 2013,
lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint which,
among other things, adds allegations contending that the
preliminary proxy statement filed by NYSE Euronext contains
misstatements or omissions regarding the transaction and the
firm's business prospects.

On January 3, 2013, the plaintiffs in the New York Actions moved
for consolidation and appointment of lead counsel in the New York
Actions.  On January 28, 2013, the court entered an Order
consolidating the New York Actions and appointing lead counsel.
On January 30, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss or stay the
New York Actions based upon, among other things, the substantially
identical, earlier filed Delaware proceedings.  That motion
remains pending.

The Company believes the allegations in the complaints in the
Delaware Actions and the New York Actions are without merit, and
intends to defend them vigorously.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Class Cert. Bid Pending in "Babstock" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Game Technology is awaiting a court decision on a
motion for class certification in the lawsuit initiated by
Babstock and Small, according to the Company's February 6, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended December 29, 2012.

In an action brought in the Supreme Court of New Foundland and
Labrador by Babstock and Small as representatives of a purported
class of persons allegedly harmed by video lottery terminal (VLT)
gaming in the Province of New Foundland and Labrador; Atlantic
Lottery Corporation has impleaded VLC, Inc. IGT-Canada, Inc.,
International Game Technology and other third party defendants
seeking indemnification for any judgment recovered against
Atlantic Lottery Corporation in the main action.  Plaintiffs filed
a motion for class action certification on September 17, 2012.  No
hearing date for the motion on class certification has been set.

Las Vegas, Nevada-based International Game Technology is a global
company specializing in the design, manufacture, and marketing of
electronic gaming equipment and systems products.  The Company is
a supplier of gaming products in substantially all legal
jurisdictions worldwide and provides a diverse offering of quality
products and services at competitive prices, designed to increase
the potential for gaming operator profits by enhancing the
player's experience.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: ERISA Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Game Technology received preliminary approval of its
settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit brought under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to the
Company's February 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 29, 2012.

On October 2, 2009, two putative class action lawsuits were filed
on behalf of participants in the Company's employee pension plans,
naming as defendants the Company, the IGT Profit Sharing Plan
Committee, and several current and former officers and directors.
The actions, filed in the US District Court for the District of
Nevada, are captioned Carr et al. v. International Game Technology
et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00584, and Jordan et al. v. International
Game Technology et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00585.  The actions were
consolidated.  The consolidated complaint (which seeks unspecified
damages) asserts claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 1109 and 1132.

The consolidated complaint is based on allegations similar to
those in the securities and derivative lawsuits, and further
alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to plan
participants by failing to disclose material facts to plan
participants, failing to exercise their fiduciary duties solely in
the interest of the participants, failing to properly manage plan
assets, and permitting participants to elect to invest in Company
stock.  In March 2011, the defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint was granted in part and denied in part.  On
March 16, 2012, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  On December 21, 2012, the parties submitted a
stipulation to settle the litigation for a payment of $500,000 and
up to $25,000 towards settlement administrative expenses, which
was accrued for in the Company's 2013 first quarter.

On January 22, 2013, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.

Las Vegas, Nevada-based International Game Technology is a global
company specializing in the design, manufacture, and marketing of
electronic gaming equipment and systems products.  The Company is
a supplier of gaming products in substantially all legal
jurisdictions worldwide and provides a diverse offering of quality
products and services at competitive prices, designed to increase
the potential for gaming operator profits by enhancing the
player's experience.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Settlement in "IBEW" Suit Approved in Oct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Game Technology's settlement of the class action
lawsuit filed by the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers Local 697 was approved in October 2012, according to the
Company's February 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 29, 2012.

On July 30, 2009, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Local 697 filed a putative securities fraud class action in the US
District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging causes of
action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against
International Game Technology (IGT) and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.  The complaint alleges that between
November 1, 2007, and October 30, 2008, the defendants inflated
IGT's stock price through a series of materially false and
misleading statements or omissions regarding IGT's business,
operations, and prospects.  In April 2010, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.  In March 2011, defendants' motion to dismiss
that complaint was granted in part and denied in part.  The Court
found that the allegations concerning statements about the
seasonality of game play levels and announcements of projects with
Harrah's and City Center were sufficient to state a claim.
Plaintiffs did not state a claim based on the remaining statements
about earnings, operating expense, or forward-looking statements
about play levels and server-based technology.

The parties have settled this action.  On February 1, 2012, at the
direction of the Court, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Pending
Settlement.  On March 28, 2012, the parties submitted to the Court
a stipulation to settle the litigation for a payment of $12.5
million.  On March 30, 2012, the Court issued an order of
preliminary approval and the settlement was paid into escrow by
insurance in April 2012.  The Court approved the stipulated
settlement on October 19, 2012.

Las Vegas, Nevada-based International Game Technology is a global
company specializing in the design, manufacture, and marketing of
electronic gaming equipment and systems products.  The Company is
a supplier of gaming products in substantially all legal
jurisdictions worldwide and provides a diverse offering of quality
products and services at competitive prices, designed to increase
the potential for gaming operator profits by enhancing the
player's experience.


KEYSTONE MANAGEMENT: Fire Victims Get Okay to File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Ransom, writing for Philly.com, reports that two years after a
monstrous blaze tore through a West Philadelphia apartment
building, leaving hundreds homeless, the tenants have been given
approval by Common Pleas Court to file a class-action lawsuit
against the building's owners.

It took 140 firefighters to extinguish the five-alarm blaze that
engulfed the four-story Windermere Court apartments, on 48th
street near Walnut, in January 2011.

The tenants are seeking monetary compensation for damages,
claiming that the building's owners, brothers David, Sam and Aron
Ginsberg, of Keystone Management Group, were negligent by failing
to install a functioning fire-alarm and sprinkler system.

The suit, filed in May 2011, names former tenants Theodore Schall
and John Brendan Farley as plaintiffs.  They are claiming more
than $50,000 and $17,000 in property damage, respectively.  The
suit now will include all tenants.  A judge on Feb. 6 approved the
class action.

"These people lost everything," said Thomas More Marrone, the
tenants' attorney.  "These are really good people who are from
other countries, students . . . they shouldn't have to go through
this to get some compensation."

Keystone Management didn't respond to requests for comment.


KPMG LLP: Gender Discrimination Class Action May Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Ax, writing for Reuters, reports that a proposed gender
discrimination class action against accounting firm KPMG LLP
brought by five female former employees who claim they were denied
pay raises and promotions can move ahead largely intact, a
Manhattan federal judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman rejected most of KPMG's motion to
dismiss the majority of the women's claims, finding that their
"allegations suffice to survive at this stage of the proceedings."

In the case, the women argue that the accounting firm created a
hostile work environment that left female employees lagging behind
in pay and promotions, particularly those with children.  The
lawsuit is seeking $350 million in lost salary and benefits as
well as other damages.

In a statement, KPMG said the lawsuit is "entirely without merit."

"Diversity and inclusion have long been priorities for the firm,
and they are woven into our culture and everything we do," the
company said.

KPMG argued in court papers that the women, as former employees,
could not assert class status under a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court
ruling that derailed a nationwide discrimination class action
against Wal-Mart.  That ruling, in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes,
denied certification on the grounds that 1.5 million current and
former Wal-Mart female workers could not show they shared common
injuries.

But Judge Furman found that KPMG's argument was premature, since
the lawsuit had not yet progressed to the class certification
stage.  It is "plausible" that the women in the KPMG case will
provide enough evidence to allow certification, based on their
allegations about a number of specific companywide discriminatory
policies, he wrote.

Judge Furman limited or struck a handful of claims but allowed the
majority of the complaint to move forward.

Katherine Kimpel -- kkimpel@sanfordheisler.com -- lead counsel for
the plaintiffs, said the decision, together with other rulings on
the Dukes issue, served as a rebuke to the "overbroad" application
of the Supreme Court case.

The case was brought by law firm Sanford Wittels & Heisler, which
has filed a series of gender discrimination suits in recent years
against major corporations and settled a similar case against
Novartis AG in 2010 for $175 million. The corporations include
French advertising company Publicis Group SA, Japanese electronics
maker Toshiba Corp, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals and health
insurer Cigna Corp.

The case is Kassman v. KPMG LLP, U.S. District Court, Southern
District of New York, No. 11-cv-3743.

For the plaintiffs: Katherine Kimpel, Kate Mueting --
kmueting@sanfordheisler.com -- Katherine Lamm --
klamm@sanfordheisler.com -- and David Sanford --
dsanford@sanfordheisler.com -- of Sanford Wittels & Heisler.

For KPMG: Cheryl Stanton --
cheryl.stanton@ogletreedeakins.com -- Diane Saunders --
diane.saunders@ogletreedeakins.com -- Peter Hughes --
peter.hughes@ogletreedeakins.com -- and Steven Moore --
steven.moore@ogletreedeakins.com -- of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart.


MACMILLAN: Settles E-book Consumer Class Action for $20 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Albanese, writing for Publishers Weekly, reports that in a
proposed settlement disclosed on February 8, Macmillan has agreed
to pay up to $20 million to settle price-fixing suits filed by a
group of states' attorneys general, and a consolidated consumer
class action, led by Seattle-based firm Hagens Berman.

While the Macmillan settlement must still be approved by the
court, the announcement suggests that the two-year-old legal drama
over e-book pricing may finally be drawing down for the accused
publishers: all five have now settled with the U.S. Department of
Justice, and as PW reported, on February 8, Judge Denise Cote gave
final approval to the previously agreed to $70-plus million state
settlement (with Hachette, HarperCollins, and Simon & Schuster)
after a swift, 15-minute public "fairness" hearing, signing the
order from the bench.  The consumer class action is the third, and
final, hurdle.

The states' case, and the consumer class action case continues
against Penguin and Apple, with a June trial still on track.

Meanwhile, Judge Cote's approval on Feb. 8 clears the way for the
first credits and refunds to begin flowing to consumers, with the
fund to be left open to distribute additional funds as they are
collected.  If Judge Cote's final approval order is not appealed,
(and we should know within 30 days if that is the case) payments
and credits could be issued by Spring.  An appeal, meanwhile,
seems unlikley, as Judge Cote noted from the bench that there were
only four objections to the state settlement, none of which
pertained to the settlement terms, just 100 people opted out of
the settlement, and no one showed up to speak against the
settlement at the fairness hearing.

At press time, it remained unclear how the consolidated consumer
class action suit, first filed in 2011, was playing out alongside
the state claims, which had already set up a mechanism to
reimburse consumers for alleged price-fixing.  Although no
specific consumer class action settlements were announced with
Hachette, HarperCollins, and S&S, it is likely those firms'
initial settlements with states' attorneys mooted the class action
case.

In a Hagens Berman release, Steve Berman, managing partner of
Hagens Berman and lead counsel for the proposed class of
consumers, said the firm worked "alongside" 33 states attorneys
general and the DoJ to "present a unified front in dealing with
Macmillan."

The deal with Macmillan adds an additional $20 million to the pot
of money that will be used to reimburse e-book purchasers
allegedly wronged by price-fixing.  In the state settlement,
Hachette has agreed to pay $31,711,425; HarperCollins,
$19,575,246; and Simon & Schuster, $17,752,480.

In agreeing to settle, none of the publishers has admitted any
wrongdoing, and each has denied engaging in an illegal conspiracy
with Apple to inflate e-book prices.

At press time, it was unclear if Penguin was also moving toward a
settlement with the States, and with Hagens Berman.  In his
statement, Berman would only say that the firm was "moving the
consumer class-action litigation forward against the remaining
defendants, Penguin and Apple."


MADISON SQUARE: New York Suit Currently in Discovery Phase
----------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit in New York is now in the
discovery phase, according to The Madison Square Garden Company's
February 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

In March 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in two
purported class action antitrust lawsuits brought in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the National Hockey League (the "NHL") and certain NHL
member clubs, regional sports networks and cable and satellite
distributors.  The complaints, which are substantially identical,
primarily assert that certain of the NHL's current rules and
agreements entered into by defendants, which are alleged by the
plaintiffs to provide certain territorial and other exclusivities
with respect to the television and online distribution of live
hockey games, violate Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act.  The complaints seek injunctive relief against the
defendants' continued violation of the antitrust laws, treble
damages, attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest.  On
July 27, 2012, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the complaints (which have been consolidated for
procedural purposes).  On December 5, 2012, the Court issued an
Opinion and Order largely denying the motion to dismiss and the
case is now in the discovery phase.  The Company says it intends
to vigorously defend the claims against the Company.  Management
does not believe this matter will have a material adverse effect
on the Company.


MCDONALD'S: Bid For More People to Join Class Action Rebuffed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Slezak, writing for Press & Guide, reports that a Dearborn
attorney's bid to allow those who unknowingly ate non-halal
chicken at a McDonald's restaurant join a class-action lawsuit was
rebuffed on Feb. 7.

Majed Moughni, who runs the Facebook site Dearborn Area Community
Members, thought it was unfair that $700,000 is to be divided
among four parties, only one of whom ate the food.

Wayne County Circuit Judge Kathleen MacDonald ruled Jan. 18 that
Ahmed Ahmed of Dearborn Heights, who filed the suit, would get
$20,000; the Health Unit on Davison Avenue Inc. in Detroit, also
known as HUDA, would get $274,000; the Arab American National
Museum in Dearborn would get about $150,000; and attorneys would
get $230,000.

The final details are to be determined at a hearing March 1.

Mr. Ahmed filed the suit in September 2011 alleging that the
McDonald's at 13158 Ford Road, Dearborn, sold chicken that wasn't
halal, which means it didn't meet Islamic requirements for food
preparation.

McDonald's and Finley's Management Co., the franchise owner, were
the defendants.

Soon after the ruling, Mr. Moughni posted on Dearborn Area
Community Members' Facebook page that the settlement should go to
those who ate "haram" chicken, and asked page members to leave
contact information for themselves and others who ate the meat.

As of Jan. 24, the campaign had nearly 700 "likes," nearly 600
comments and 60 "shares."

Judge Macdonald ruled on Feb. 7 that Mr. Moughni must remove all
information regarding his efforts in the case, and post the court
order and class-action notice from Jan. 18 and her Feb. 7 ruling.

He had complied as of Feb. 8.

She ordered Mr. Moughni to turn over a list of those who posted
statements about the case, those who "liked" his post and all
information in each response, including names and contact
information.

Judge MacDonald also said she reserves the right to refer Mr.
Moughni to the Attorney Grievance Commission of Michigan and
require him to pay fees to attorneys on both sides.

She ruled that statements about the preliminary settlement were
"materially false, deceptive and misleading" and he engaged in
"deliberate and abusive conduct which has created a likelihood of
confusion of class members, adversely has effected (sic) the
administration of justice and had undermined this court's
responsibility and authority to protect class members from such
abuses."

Mr. Moughni was prohibited from communicating with class-action
lawsuit members and the media about the case without advance
approval in writing by Judge MacDonald and the plantiffs'
attorneys, Jaafer & Mahdi Law Group P.C. of Dearborn.


NCR CORP: "De Leon" Suit Remanded to Alameda County Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong remanded to the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, the lawsuit
captioned RON DE LEON and ERNESTO FAJARDO, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general
public, Plaintiffs, v. NCR CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. C 12-01637 SBA, (N.D. Cal.).

The Court concludes that NCR has failed to sustain its burden to
establish by a legal certainty that the amount in controversy
exceeds $5,000,000.  Accordingly, Judge Brown said the Class
Action Fairness Act provides no basis for exercising jurisdiction
in this case.

The putative wage and hour class action was filed in the Alameda
County Superior Court but was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California Court pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act.  The Plaintiffs seek compensatory
damages for unpaid wages and other compensation owed, liquidated
damages, restitution, penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, and
costs.

NCR is a Maryland corporation that installs, services, and repairs
cash dispensing machines and point of sale machines for clients
throughout California. The Plaintiffs were employed by the
Defendant as non-exempt hourly customer engineers.

A copy of the District Court's February 8, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/hlF5Axfrom Leagle.com.


NEW LEAF: Suit Over Lead Content in Product Pending in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
On January 29, 2009, New Leaf Brands, Inc. was notified that it
was named as a defendant, along with 54 other defendants, in a
class action lawsuit under California Proposition 65 for allegedly
failing to disclose the amount of lead in one of its products.
The Company has responded to discovery requests from the Attorney
General of California.  To date, no trial date has been set.  The
Company is currently investigating the merits of the allegation
and is unable to determine the likelihood of an unfavorable
outcome or a range of possible loss.  This matter remains pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 6,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.


SIRIUS XM: Faces Class Action Over Administrative Fee
-----------------------------------------------------
Matt O'Donnell, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a
federal class action lawsuit filed last week accuses SiriusXM
Radio Inc. of illegally charging "hundreds of thousands" of
subscribers a $2 invoice administrative fee in violation of their
subscription agreements.

Plaintiffs Alvin Kaufman and Richard Laluna allege in the SiriusXM
class action lawsuit that the subscription agreement states that
customers will be charged a $2 invoice administration fee if they
pay with a check or money order.  However, Sirius has been
improperly charging this fee to annual renewals paid by credit
card, debit card or prepaid Sirius or XM subscription charge, the
class action lawsuit says.

"Sirius was well aware of this improper charge and yet it neither
informed its subscribers of the nature of the charge nor offered a
refund of the administration fees or adequate compensation once it
became apparent to Sirius that the invoice was paid by a means
other than check or money order or simply not paid by check or
money order," the class action lawsuit states.

This is the second time Mr. Kaufman, a Nevada resident, and Mr.
Laluna, a New York resident, have sued Sirius over the fees and
attempted to hold the company liable for breach of contract and
violations of New York's deceptive practices law.

Their first case, filed in November 2009, was tossed out a year
later when U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero ruled the law only
applied to New York subscribers.  Accepting Messrs. Kaufman's and
Laluna's argument that subscribers living outside of New York
should be covered by the law because the invoice fee transactions
occurred in New York "would permit global coverage of [the
deceptive practices law] any time a New York corporation charged
and retained an improper fee from non-New York consumers through
use of deception," an appeals court said.

The plaintiffs' revised class action lawsuit states the terms and
conditions of the subscription agreement provides that "all
disputes would be resolved in state and federal courts in New
York" under the laws of the state and the FCC.

The revised SiriusXM invoice fee class action lawsuit, filed on
February 6, 2013, is brought on behalf of two classes: all current
and former New York SiriusXM subscribers and all current and
former subscribers in other states who were improperly charged an
invoice administration fee.

It is seeking a permanent injunction, money damages, and more.

The SiriusXM Invoice Fee Class Action Lawsuit case is Kaufman v.
Sirius XM Radio Inc., Index No. 650420/2013, in the Supreme Court
of New York, County of New York.

Kaufman and Laluna are represented by D. Michael Campbell, Esq. ;
David B. Misheal, Esq. -- dbmishael@aol.com ; Valentina M. Tejera,
Esq. -- vtejera@mletrial.com -- Curtis J. Mase, Esq. --
cmase@mletrial.com -- and Richard D. Lara, Esq. --
rlara@mletrial.com -- of Mase Lara Eversole; and Daniel A. Osborn,
Esq. -- dosborn@osbornlawpc.com -- of Osborn Law PC.


SONAR CAPITAL: Judge Dismisses Insider Trading Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Hornbeck, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge dismissed a class action on Feb. 8 that accused hedge fund
manager Sonar Capital Management LLC, along with a former employee
who pled guilty to insider trading, of making $23 million trading
Sigma Designs Inc. stock by using nonpublic information.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff dismissed the allegations against
Sonar, former Sonar managing director Noah Freeman and Sonar
principal Neil Druker in a brief order.  A full opinion with his
reasoning will be released "in due course," the judge said.


TD AMERITRADE: Yield Plus Fund Suit Dismissal Bids Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade, Inc.'s clients continue to hold shares in the Yield
Plus Fund (now known as "Yield Plus Fund - In Liquidation"), which
is being liquidated.  TD Ameritrade, Inc. is TD Ameritrade Holding
Corporation's introducing broker-dealer subsidiary.

In November 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed with
respect to the Yield Plus Fund.  The lawsuit is captioned Ross v.
Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al. and is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The Ross
lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares of Reserve
Yield Plus Fund.  On November 20, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
first amended complaint naming as defendants the fund's advisor,
certain of its affiliates and the Company and certain of its
directors, officers and shareholders as alleged control persons.
The complaint alleges claims of violations of the federal
securities laws and other claims based on allegations that false
and misleading statements and omissions were made in the Reserve
Yield Plus Fund prospectuses and in other statements regarding the
fund.  The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages including interest, attorneys' fees, rescission, exemplary
damages and equitable relief.

On January 19, 2010, the defendants submitted motions to dismiss
the complaint.  The motions are pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 6,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

The Company estimates that its clients' current aggregate
shortfall, based on the original par value of their holdings in
the Yield Plus Fund, less the value of fund distributions to date
and the value of payments under the SEC settlement, is
approximately $36 million.  This amount does not take into account
any assets remaining in the fund that may become available for
future distributions.

The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome or the timing
of the ultimate resolution of the Ross lawsuit, or the potential
loss, if any, that may result.  However, management believes the
outcome is not likely to have a material adverse effect on the
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of the
Company.

Based in Omaha, Nebraska, TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation --
http://www.ameritrade.com/-- through its subsidiaries, provides
securities brokerage services and technology-based financial
services to retail investors, traders, and independent registered
investment advisors (RIAs) in the United States.


TELLABS INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit against Tellabs, Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action filed in United States District Court, Northern
District of Illinois, and docketed under 13-cv-1066, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Tellabs between October 26, 2010
and April 26, 2011, both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks
to recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Tellabs securities during
the Class Period, you have until March 25, 2013 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address and telephone number.

Tellabs designs, develops and supports telecommunications
networking products for communication service providers in the
United States and internationally.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations and prospects.  Specifically, defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that
the Company's Q4 2010 revenue guidance factored in a change to the
distribution arrangement with a certain customer which would
accelerate revenue recognition on substantial sales to Q4 2010
that otherwise would not have been recognized until Q1 2011; (2)
that, as such, this out of the ordinary shift in revenue
recognition from Q1 2011 masked that the Company's business and
revenues were declining substantially faster in Q4 2010 than the
Company had represented to the public; (3) that the Company's
North American business was slowing at a greater rate than the
Company had represented to the public; and (4) that, as a result
of the above, the defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations and prospects lacked a reasonable
basis and/or were materially false and/or misleading when made.

On January 25, 2011, the Company issued a press release announcing
its Q4 2010 financial results wherein the Company admitted that
when it "set the guidance and provided it to [the public] in
October [of 2010] . . . [Tellabs had] anticipate[d] the change in
this distribution arrangement with the customer."  On this news,
shares of Tellabs declined $1.35 per share, or almost 20%, to
close on January 25, 2011, at $5.69 per share, on unusually heavy
volume.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates
its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  It has offices in New York, Chicago, and San
Diego.


TOKYO ELECTRIC: Sued Over 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Meltdown
---------------------------------------------------------
RT reports that at least 350 people affected by the 2011 Fukushima
nuclear meltdown will file a class action lawsuit against the
Japanese government and the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power
Co (TEPCO) on the second anniversary of the disaster.

Lawyers representing residents whose homes and farms were hit by
radiation in the wake of the disaster said it was the largest suit
on the issue filed against the government.

The plaintiffs will further seek some US$535 each in compensation
from TEPCO for every month they have been displaced as a result of
the accident.

They also plan to seek a court injunction that will require both
the government and TEPCO to reduce radiation levels in the
affected area to pre-disaster levels.

The suit will be filed on March 11, the two-year anniversary of
the world's worst nuclear accident since the 1986 Chernobyl
disaster.  Several other similar class-action suits against both
the government and TEPCO will be filed with the Tokyo District
Court on the same day.

"The government promoted nuclear power as a national policy and
has been closely involved with it," lawyer Izutaro Managi told AAP
news agency.

"Being fully aware of the danger of losing power due to a tsunami,
the government neglected its duty to prevent such an event," he
said.  "This is a suit to recover a Fukushima with neither
radiation nor nuclear power," he continued.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster occurred after a 9.0-
magnitude earthquake and a subsequent tsunami crashed into the
power station and knocked out its cooling system leading to the
meltdown of three reactor cores.  Tens of thousands were forced to
flee the area and many are still unable to return.

With residents preparing to sue the government and TEPCO for their
role in the worst nuclear disaster in a generation, on Feb. 7 the
power company found itself in hot water for allegedly misleading a
government panel over possible quake damage to its reactor
building.

TEPCO said that radiation levels were "dreadfully high" in order
to prevent an onsite inspection of its crippled nuclear plant,
according to Mitsuhiko Tanaka, a former member of the now-
disbanded Diet commission, which had been tasked with uncovering
the cause of the nuclear crisis.

The commission had hoped to determine to see if the isolation
condensers -- key safety components at nuclear plants -- had been
damaged in the earthquake.

TEPCO had denied they were damaged in the quake and falsified
actual conditions within the plant to keep inspectors out,
Mr. Tanaka said in a statement submitted to the chiefs of the two
Diet chambers on Feb. 7.

Toshimitsu Tamai, then chief of TEPCO's corporate planning
department, urged Mr. Tanaka not to carry out the probe in light
of major safety concerns, saying "If you got lost, you would run
into areas with dreadfully high levels of radiation," The Asahi
Shimbun newspaper reports.

It was later found out that the cover allowed for the transmission
of 10-16 percent of sunlight to come through, and it was further
equipped with high-powered mercury lamps.

If it were determined that the emergency cooling system was
damaged by the earthquake, more stringent quake-resistance
standards would be required for nuclear power plants, further
delaying reactors from going online around the country.

"[TEPCO's explanation] was absolutely false and seriously
obstructed the investigation," Mr. Tanaka said.

A TEPCO spokesman admitted that the utility gave inaccurate
information to the parliamentary commission but claims it did not
intentionally lie about conditions within the structure.

In July, a parliamentary report said Fukushima was a man-made
disaster stemming from Japan's culture of "reflexive obedience."

TEPCO had previously admitted to downplaying the risks of a
tsunami due to political, financial and reputational concerns.  In
October the energy utility reversed their previously held position
that disaster was unavoidable, saying "When looking back on the
accident, the problem was that preparations were not made in
advance . . ."

In August, the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent
Investigation Commission blamed both TEPCO and the Japanese
authorities for the disaster, saying "the accident was the result
of collusion between the government, the regulators, and TEPCO,"
whom they said "effectively betrayed the nation's right to be safe
from nuclear accidents."


VISA INC: "Attridge" Class Suit Stayed Until April 19, 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Attridge v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., et
al., remains stayed until April 19, 2013, pending resolution of
the "Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases," according to Visa Inc.'s
February 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

On December 8, 2004, a complaint was filed in California state
court on behalf of an alleged class of consumers asserting claims
against Visa U.S.A. Inc. ("Visa U.S.A."), Visa International
Service Association ("Visa International"), and MasterCard under
California's Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law.  The
claims in this action, Attridge v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., et al., seek
to piggyback on the portion of the U.S. Department of Justice
("DOJ") litigation in which the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York found that Visa's bylaw 2.10(e) and
MasterCard's Competitive Programs Policy, or CPP, constitute
unlawful restraints of trade under the federal antitrust laws.  On
May 19, 2006, the court entered an order dismissing plaintiff's
Cartwright Act claims with prejudice but allowing the plaintiff to
proceed with his Unfair Competition Law claims, which seek
restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.  On
December 14, 2007, the plaintiff amended his complaint to add Visa
Inc. as a defendant.  No new claims were added to the complaint.

On July 1, 2009, the court denied in part the Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication, but ordered the
parties to submit affidavits as to whether further discovery
should be conducted prior to the court rendering judgment on the
Motion for Summary Adjudication.  On August 3, 2009, the court
ruled the Motion submitted without any such further discovery.

In the separate "Indirect Purchaser" Credit/Debit Card Tying
Cases, also pending in California state court, Visa entered into a
settlement agreement on September 14, 2009, which potentially
could have had the effect of releasing the claims asserted in the
Attridge case, subject to the ruling of the Attridge court.  On
September 24, 2009, the Attridge court deferred its decision on
the Motion for Summary Adjudication pending court approval of the
settlement in the Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases.  On August 23,
2010, final approval of the Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases
settlement was granted.  The plaintiff in Attridge and others
appealed the final approval order.  On February 15, 2011, the
court ordered that the Attridge case be stayed until 30 days
following the final resolution of the appeals in the Credit/Debit
Card Tying Cases.  On January 9, 2012, the appeals court reversed
the approval of the Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases settlement, and
the case was remanded to the trial court for consideration of the
fairness and adequacy of the settlement in light of the inclusion
of the Attridge claims in the release.  Attridge filed a motion to
disqualify the trial judge in the Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases,
which was granted.  On June 4, 2012, the Credit/Debit Card Tying
Cases were reassigned to the Honorable John E. Munter, the same
judge in the Attridge case.  On July 17, 2012, the Attridge case
was stayed until January 16, 2013.

The parties in the Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases subsequently
agreed upon a revised written settlement agreement, which was
submitted to the court for preliminary approval on August 20,
2012, and executed as of September 6, 2012.  The court entered an
order preliminarily approving the settlement on November 20, 2012.
On January 9, 2013, in light of the proceedings in the
Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases, the Attridge case was stayed until
April 19, 2013.


VISA INC: Awaits Final Approval of Interchange Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. is still awaiting final approval of its settlement of
the Interchange Litigation, according to the Company's February 6,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

Beginning in May 2005, approximately 55 complaints, all but 13 of
which were styled as class actions, have been filed in U.S.
federal district courts on behalf of merchants against Visa U.S.A.
Inc. ("Visa U.S.A.") and/or MasterCard, and in some cases, certain
Visa member financial institutions.  Visa International Service
Association ("Visa International") was also named as a defendant
in more than 30 of these complaints.  The cases allege, among
other things, that Visa's and MasterCard's purported setting of
interchange reimbursement fees, their "no surcharge" rules, and
alleged tying and bundling of transaction fees violate federal
antitrust laws.  On October 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring these cases
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
for coordination of pre-trial proceedings (MDL 1720).  On April
24, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a First
Amended Class Action Complaint.  Taken together, the claims in the
First Amended Class Action Complaint and in the 13 complaints
brought on behalf of individual merchants are generally brought
under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.  In addition, some of
these complaints contain certain state unfair competition law
claims.  These interchange-related cases seek money damages
(alleged in the consolidated class action complaint to range in
the tens of billions of dollars), subject to trebling, as well as
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

As part of the retrospective responsibility plan, Visa U.S.A. and
Visa International entered into an interchange judgment sharing
agreement with certain member financial institutions of Visa
U.S.A. on July 1, 2007.

On January 8, 2008, the district court adopted the recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge and granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the class plaintiffs' claims for damages incurred prior to January
1, 2004.

On January 29, 2009, class plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint. Among other things, this
complaint: (i) added new claims for damages and injunctive relief
against Visa and the bank defendants regarding interchange
reimbursement fees for Visa PIN-debit cards; (ii) added new claims
for damages and injunctive relief against Visa and the bank
defendants since the time of Visa's initial public offering
regarding interchange reimbursement fees for Visa's credit,
offline debit, and PIN-debit cards; (iii) eliminated claims for
damages relating to the so-called "no-surcharge" rule and "anti-
steering" rules; (iv) eliminated claims for damages based on the
alleged tie of network processing services and payment guarantee
services to the payment card system services; and (v) added Visa
Inc. as a defendant.

In addition, class plaintiffs filed a Second Supplemental Class
Action Complaint (the "Supplemental Complaint") against Visa Inc.
and several financial institutions challenging Visa's
reorganization and IPO under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and
Section 7 of the Clayton Act.  In the Supplemental Complaint,
class plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and declaratory
and injunctive relief, including an order that the IPO be unwound.

On February 7, 2011, Visa entered into an omnibus agreement that
confirmed and memorialized the signatories' intentions with
respect to the loss sharing agreement, the judgment sharing
agreement and other agreements relating to certain interchange
litigation. Under the omnibus agreement, the monetary portion of
any settlement of the interchange litigation covered by the
omnibus agreement would be divided into a MasterCard portion at
33.3333% and a Visa portion at 66.6667%.  In addition, the
monetary portion of any judgment assigned to Visa-related claims
in accordance with the omnibus agreement would be treated as a
Visa portion.  Visa would have no liability for the monetary
portion of any judgment assigned to MasterCard-related claims in
accordance with the omnibus agreement, and if a judgment is not
assigned to Visa-related claims or MasterCard-related claims in
accordance with the omnibus agreement, then any monetary liability
would be divided into a MasterCard portion at 33.3333% and a Visa
portion at 66.6667%.  The Visa portion of a settlement or judgment
covered by the omnibus agreement would be allocated in accordance
with specified provisions of the Company's retrospective
responsibility plan.  The litigation provision on the consolidated
statements of operations is not impacted by the execution of the
omnibus agreement.

On July 13, 2012, Visa Inc., its wholly-owned subsidiaries Visa
U.S.A. and Visa International, MasterCard Incorporated, MasterCard
International Incorporated, various U.S. financial institution
defendants, and the class plaintiffs signed a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") which obligated the parties to enter
into a settlement agreement in the form attached to the MOU to
resolve the class plaintiffs' claims.  On
October 19, 2012, those same parties signed a settlement agreement
(the "Settlement Agreement") to resolve the class plaintiffs'
claims.

The terms of the Settlement Agreement include, among other terms:

   * A comprehensive release from participating class members for
     liability arising out of claims asserted in the litigation,
     and a further release to protect against future litigation
     regarding default interchange and the other U.S. rules at
     issue in the MDL;

   * Settlement payments from the Company of approximately $4.0
     billion, to be paid from the Company's previously funded
     litigation escrow account established under the
     retrospective responsibility plan;

   * Distribution to class merchants of an amount equal to 10
     basis points of default interchange across all credit rate
     categories for a period of eight consecutive months, which
     otherwise would have been paid to issuers and which
     effectively reduces credit interchange for that period of
     time.  The eight month period for the reduction would begin
     within 60 days after completion of the court-ordered period
     during which individual class members may opt out of this
     settlement;

   * Certain modifications to the Company's rules, including
     modifications to permit surcharging on credit transactions
     under certain circumstances, subject to a cap and a level
     playing field with other general purpose card competitors;
     and

   * Agreement that the Company will meet with merchant buying
     groups that seek to negotiate interchange rates
     collectively.

On October 19, 2012, the class plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement.  Objections to
preliminary approval were filed before the preliminary approval
hearing, which was held on November 9, 2012.  The court granted
preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement on November 9,
2012.  Until the Settlement Agreement is finally approved by the
court and any appeals are finally adjudicated, no assurance can be
provided that the Company will be able to resolve the class
plaintiffs' claims as contemplated by the Settlement Agreement.

In addition, on October 19, 2012, the Company and the individual
plaintiffs whose claims were consolidated with the MDL for
coordination of pre-trial proceedings (the "Individual
Plaintiffs") signed a settlement agreement to resolve the
Individual Plaintiffs' claims against the Company for
approximately $350 million.  This payment was made from the
litigation escrow account under the retrospective responsibility
plan on October 29, 2012.  On November 6, 2012, the court entered
an order dismissing the Individual Plaintiffs' claims with
prejudice.

The district court entered the preliminary approval order on
November 27, 2012.  On November 27, 2012, certain objectors filed
a notice of appeal from the preliminary approval order in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  Objectors also moved to
stay the preliminary approval order in the district court and
moved for expedited briefing in the court of appeals.  On December
10, 2012, the court of appeals entered an order deferring briefing
for the appeal until after the district court enters an order of
final approval and final judgment with respect to the settlement,
or otherwise concludes the matters by entry of a final judgment.
On December 17, 2012, certain objectors filed a motion asking the
court of appeals to reconsider its decision, which was denied on
January 31, 2013.  On January 15, 2013, the district court denied
as moot objectors' request to stay the preliminary approval order.

On December 10, 2012, Visa paid approximately $4.0 billion from
the litigation escrow account into a settlement fund established
pursuant to the definitive class settlement agreement.


VISA INC: Awaits Final OK of Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. is awaiting final approval of its settlement of the
Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases, according to the Company's February
6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

Complaints were filed in 19 different states and the District of
Columbia alleging state antitrust, consumer protection and common
law claims against Visa U.S.A. Inc. ("Visa U.S.A.") and MasterCard
(and, in California, Visa International Service Association ("Visa
International")) on behalf of consumers.  The claims in these
class actions included allegations mirroring those made in the
U.S. merchant lawsuit and asserting that merchants, faced with
excessive merchant discount fees, passed on some portion of those
fees to consumers in the form of higher prices on goods and
services sold.  Plaintiffs seek money damages and injunctive
relief.  Visa U.S.A. has been successful in the majority of these
cases, as courts in 17 jurisdictions have granted Visa U.S.A.'s
motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim or plaintiffs have
voluntarily dismissed their complaints.  In New Mexico, the court
granted Visa U.S.A.'s motion to dismiss at a hearing on May 14,
2010, and entered an order and judgment dismissing the case on
June 9, 2010.  The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from that
order and judgment on June 14, 2010.  On April 18, 2012, the state
appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the case.
In California, in the consolidated Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases,
the court dismissed claims brought under the Cartwright Act, but
denied a similar motion with respect to Unfair Competition Law
claims for unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent business practices.

On October 31, 2007, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
give collateral estoppel effect to certain elements of their
"tying" claim based on statements in the ruling on cross-motions
for summary judgment in In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust
Litigation.  On October 3, 2008, the parties agreed to
confidential settlement terms to resolve the dispute.  A written
settlement agreement executed on September 14, 2009, was submitted
to the court for approval.  After the parties amended the
settlement agreement in certain respects, the court entered an
order preliminarily approving the settlement on January 5, 2010,
and entered an order granting final approval on August 23, 2010.
The plaintiff in Attridge, who had filed objections to the
settlement, filed a notice of appeal from the final approval
order, as have other objectors to the settlement.  The amount of
the settlement is not considered material to the consolidated
financial statements.

On January 9, 2012, the Court of Appeal of the State of California
reversed the judgment approving the settlement agreement, and the
case was remanded to the trial court for consideration of the
fairness and adequacy of the settlement in light of the inclusion
of the Attridge claims in the release.  Attridge filed a motion to
disqualify the trial judge in the Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases,
which was granted.  On June 4, 2012, the court issued an order
reassigning the case to the Honorable John E. Munter, the same
judge in the Attridge case.

The parties subsequently agreed upon a revised written settlement
agreement, which was submitted to the court for preliminary
approval on August 20, 2012, and executed as of September 6, 2012.

In the Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases, the court entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement on November 20, 2012.


VISA INC: Canadian Unit Continues to Face Merchant Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc.'s Canadian unit continues to face class action lawsuits
relating to its merchant acceptance practices, according to the
Company's February 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2012.

On April 21, 2009, Visa Canada Corporation ("Visa Canada")
received an oral notification from the Canadian Competition Bureau
that it had initiated a civil inquiry regarding interchange and
certain of Visa policies relating to merchant acceptance
practices.  The Bureau issued a voluntary draft information
request to Visa on August 4, 2010, seeking information about
certain merchant acceptance practices, interchange (including the
setting of default interchange), and fees paid by issuers and
acquirers to Visa.

On December 15, 2010, the Commissioner of Competition filed a
Notice of Application against Visa Canada and MasterCard.  The
proceeding challenges certain Visa policies regarding merchant
acceptance practices, including Visa's "no-surcharge" and "honour
all cards" policies under the Competition Act.  Visa Canada filed
a Response to the Notice of Application on January 31, 2011.  On
February 10, 2011, Toronto Dominion Bank and the Canadian Bankers
Association sought leave to intervene in the proceeding; Visa
supported such requests.  Following a hearing on March 7, 2011,
the Competition Tribunal granted the intervention requests.

The hearing before the Competition Tribunal on the merits of the
case was held from May 8, 2012, through June 21, 2012.

On December 17, 2010, a purported civil follow-on case to the
Competition Bureau's proceeding was filed against Visa Canada and
MasterCard in the Superior Court of Quebec, Canada, on behalf of a
class of merchants and a class of consumers.  The action, 9085-
4886 Quebec Inc. et al. v. Visa Canada et al., asserts claims
under Section 76 of the Competition Act, which does not provide
for a civil cause of action.  Plaintiff seeks unspecified money
damages and injunctive relief.

On March 28, 2011, Mary Watson filed a class action lawsuit in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, on behalf of merchants
and others in Canada that accept payment by Visa and MasterCard
(Watson).  The lawsuit, filed against Visa Canada, MasterCard, and
ten financial institutions, alleges conduct contrary to section 45
of the Competition Act and also asserts claims of civil
conspiracy, interference with economic interests, and unjust
enrichment, among others.  Plaintiff alleges that Visa and
MasterCard each conspired with their member financial institutions
to set supra-competitive default interchange rates and merchant
discount fees, and that Visa and MasterCard's respective "no-
surcharge" and "honour all cards" rules had the anticompetitive
effect of increasing merchant discount fees.  The lawsuit seeks
unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief.  On January 9,
2012, plaintiff filed a notice of application for certification of
a class action.  Defendants' responding certification material was
delivered on October 15, 2012.

On May 16, 2011, a merchant class action which effectively mirrors
the Watson case was initiated in Ontario (Bancroft-Snell).  As in
Watson, the Bancroft-Snell complaint alleges conduct in
contravention of Section 45 of the Competition Act, civil
conspiracy, interference with economic interests, and unjust
enrichment, among other claims, and seeks similar relief.  As a
result of plaintiff's unopposed request on January 10, 2012, the
Bancroft-Snell case is being held in abeyance pending further
proceedings in the Watson case.

On April 10, 2012, the court in the 9085-4886 Quebec Inc. case
permitted the plaintiff to revise its complaint to effectively
mirror the Watson case, and to add the same ten financial
institutions as co-defendants.  On June 13, 2012, at plaintiff's
request and in light of the proceedings in the Watson case, the
court entered an order staying the case until June 21, 2013.

On July 12 and 13, 2012, merchant class actions which effectively
mirror the Watson case were initiated in Saskatchewan (Canada Rent
A Heater (2000) Ltd.) and Alberta (1023926 Alberta Ltd.).  In
light of the proceedings in the Watson case, plaintiffs' counsel
in both actions advised that no further proceedings will be taken
and no Statement of Defense will be required without prior
reasonable notice to the parties.

In the Watson case, the plaintiff's reply materials in support of
class certification were received on November 30, 2012.

On December 14, 2012, the Watson plaintiff's counsel filed another
merchant class action in Alberta (Marconies Hair Club and Laser
Center Inc.) which effectively mirrors the Watson case.


                           *********

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  * * *