CAR_Public/130218.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, February 18, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 34

                             Headlines


AFRICA-ISRAEL INVESTMENTS: Series 9 Bondholders' Suit May Proceed
ALLIANCE ONE: Hearings in Suit vs. Brazilian Unit Ended in Jan.
AVX CORP: Myrtle Beach Factory-Related Suits Pending in S.C.
BAYER: Injury Claims May be Added to Yaz Class Action in Canada
BURLEY STABILIZATION: Faces Tobacco Farmers' Class Action Suit

CAMBREX CORP: Remaining Lorazepam Class Suit Pending in D.C.
CANADA: Ont. Appeal Court Reverses Conditional Class Cert. Ruling
CEDAR GROVE: Faces Class Actions Over Composting Site Stench
CHINA GREEN: Remaining Claims Pending in Securities Class Suit
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Piper Files SCDO Suit Within Limitation Period

DIRECTSAT USA: 7th Circuit Affirms Class Action Decertification
E.I. DU PONT: Defends Suits Alleging Drinking Water Contamination
EPOCH HOLDING: Merger-Related Class Action Suits Pending
FAMILY DOLLAR: Fed. Ct. Dismisses Store Manager's Wage Class Suit
FIFTH THIRD: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Interest

FREDDIE MAC: Barrow County Joins Unpaid Transfer Tax Class Action
GENEX SERVICES: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action
HOBART SERV: Class Cert. Unnecessary in PAGA Actions in Fed. Court
HOLOGIC INC: Has Yet to File Delaware Suit Settlement Documents
IMPRELIS: Accord in Product Liability Suit Gets Initial Approval

INTL FCSTONE: To Seek OK of Securities Suit Accord Before July
INTL FCSTONE: To Seek Okay of Shareholder Suit Deal Before July
NEW YORK: "Ligon" Stop-and-Frisk Suit Gets Class Certification
NTS REALTY: Faces Class Action in Delaware Over Merger
PANTRY INC: Dispositive Motions in Fuel Temperature Suits Pending

PANTRY INC: Hearing on Bid to Junk Suit Over Card Info on Feb. 19
PHILIP MORRIS: Appeals in "ADESF" Suit Remain Pending in Brazil
PHILIP MORRIS: Sao Paulo Prosecutor's Appeal Still Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: "El-Roy" Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Class Status
PHILIP MORRIS: Israeli Ct. Has Yet to Take Action in "Navon" Suit

PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Letourneau" Suit vs. Unit Still Ongoing
PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Blais" Suit Still Ongoing in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: "Kunta" Suit in Winnipeg Still Dormant
PHILIP MORRIS: Prelim. Motions Remain Pending in "Adams" Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: "Semple" Class Suit in Nova Scotia Still Dormant

PHILIP MORRIS: "Dorion" Suit in Alberta, Canada Remains Dormant
PHILIP MORRIS: "McDermid" Suit Still Pending in British Columbia
PHILIP MORRIS: "Bourassa" Suit Still Pending in British Columbia
PHILIP MORRIS: Counsel in "Jacklin" Suit To Cease Case Activity
PURR-FECTION: Recalls 7,200 Beamerzzz Stuffed Toys w/ Flashlight

RETAIL ADVENTURES: Jan Cameron May Face Class Action Over Rescue
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Defends Suits Over Wild Bird Food Products
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: E-Data Examination Ongoing in Antitrust Suit
SPORT CHALET: Defends "Bennett" Class Action Suit in California
STANDARD FIRE: Monetary Limits on Class Action at Issue

STATE COMPENSATION: Faces Auditors' Overtime Class Action
SUNPOWER CORP: $19MM Deal Excluded in Non-GAAP Financial Measures
TOWERS WATSON: Awaits Appellate Ct. Directive Regarding Mediation
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Continues to Defend Ingenix-Related Suits
VIRGIN MEDIA: Being Sold to Liberty for Too Little, Suit Claims

WAL-MART STORES: Faces Suit Over Online Credit Card Transactions
WAL-MART STORES: Class Cert. Bid in "Evans" Suit Denied as Moot
WMS INDUSTRIES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Conlee" Suit

* Robins Geller at Center of Confidential Witness Conundrum
* Vague Scienter Standards Result to Judicial Bias


                           *********



AFRICA-ISRAEL INVESTMENTS: Series 9 Bondholders' Suit May Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Globes reports that the Tel Aviv District Court Judge Amiram
Benyamini on Feb. 13 approved a class-action lawsuit against
Africa-Israel Investments Ltd., controlled by chairman Lev Leviev,
over the company's 2009 debt settlement.  The lawsuit was filed by
Benjamin Asulin, who sold Africa-Israel Series 9 bonds at loss,
after the debt settlement, when it became clear that the company
would not redeem them.  He claims to have lost NIS52,599.

The class-action suit was approved on behalf of all Africa-Israel
Series 9 bondholders who held bonds from the issue date on June 1,
2009, through August 28, 2009, and who sold the bonds between
August 30, when the company published the financial report which
indicated the bad shape that it was in, and October 29, 2009, when
trading in the bonds was stopped as part of the debt settlement.

Mr. Asulin manages a private investment portfolio worth NIS2.5
million.  Africa-Israel's Series 9 bond was only issued to
institutions in 2005 and was due to mature on November 10, 2009.
On May 7, 2009, the institutions decided to list the bond for
trading on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE).

According to the court minutes, Mr. Asulin says, "This was
basically a conspiracy by the company and the investment
institutions, because of the company's financial condition, and
was intended to enable the institutions to sell the bonds they
held to the public."

Africa-Israel says that the bonds were listed for trading because
it wanted to make a bond buy-back. However, according to the court
minutes, "The company never made the bond buy-back, citing the
company's financial shape.  The claimant views the announcement of
the company's intention to buy back the bonds as a false
presentation on its part, and that the contention that the company
did not disclose to investors that the listing of the bonds for
trading was actually at the request of the investment
institutions."

On May 31, 2009, Africa-Israel published its financial report for
the first quarter, in which it stated.  "The company has
sufficient financial sources to meet its commitments in the
foreseeable future", and that it posted a quarterly net profit of
NIS1 billion.

According to the court minutes, Mr. Asulin bought the bonds solely
on the strength of a "Globes" article from the same day, which
quoted then Africa-Israel CEO Izzy Cohen as saying, "The profit is
a demonstration of Africa-Israel's strength . . . The valuations
reflect the current situation, and are expected to continue rising
with the opening of commercial centers . . . Africa-Israel has a
policy of meeting its commitments, and I see no problem at this
time in meeting the commitments."

Subsequently, however, Africa-Israel suffered heavy losses, and
its auditor attached a going concern warning to the company's
financial report for the second quarter of 2009.  The company then
announced that it would seek a debt settlement.  The price of the
Series 9 bond fell almost 50% in the week following the
publication of the financials.  Mr. Asulin, who bought bonds for
NIS422,000, sold them for NIS366,000.  He alleges that the company
concealed information from the public before the publication of
the financials about its ability to meet its commitments,
resulting in buyers of the Series 9 bond losing money on the
investment.  He says that the company should have shared the
warning signs known to its executives with the public.

Judge Benyamini set a prehearing on the case for May 22. The
respondents will file a statement of defense within 45 days, and
the statement of response will be filed within 30 days afterwards.
Africa-Israel will also pay Mr. Asulin NIS70,000 in court costs.


ALLIANCE ONE: Hearings in Suit vs. Brazilian Unit Ended in Jan.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hearings with respect to the remaining claims in the class action
lawsuit filed against Alliance One International, Inc.'s Brazilian
subsidiary concluded on January 23, 2013, according to the
Company's February 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 27, 2012.

On June 6, 2008, the Company's Brazilian subsidiary and a number
of other tobacco processors were notified of a class action
initiated by the ALPAG -- Associacao Lourenciana de Pequenos
Agricultrores ("Association of Small Farmers of Sao Lourenco").
The case is currently before the 2nd civil court of Sao Lourenco
do Sul.  On April 20, 2012, the Company's motion to dismiss the
class action was granted in part and denied in part.

Hearings with respect to the remaining claims, which relate to
practices regarding the weighing and grading of tobacco, concluded
on January 23, 2013.  The outcome with respect to these remaining
claims is uncertain as to both timing and result.  Due to the
broad scope of the pleading, the ultimate exposure if an
unfavorable outcome is received is not estimable.

Headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina, Alliance One
International Inc. -- http://aointl.com/-- is an independent leaf
tobacco merchant.  It provides worldwide service to the large
cigarette manufacturers.  It purchases tobacco in more than 45
countries and serves manufacturers of cigarettes and other
consumer tobacco products in over 90 countries.  The Company's
revenues are primarily comprised of sales of processed tobacco and
fees charged for related services to manufacturers of consumer
tobacco products around the world.


AVX CORP: Myrtle Beach Factory-Related Suits Pending in S.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
There are two lawsuits pending with respect to property adjacent
to AVX Corporation's Myrtle Beach, South Carolina factory claiming
property values have been negatively impacted by alleged migration
of certain pollutants from the Company's property.  On November
27, 2007, a lawsuit was filed in the South Carolina State Court by
certain individuals as a class action.  Another lawsuit is a
commercial lawsuit filed on January 16, 2008, in South Carolina
State Court.  The Company says it intends to defend vigorously the
claims that have been asserted in these two lawsuits.  At this
stage of the litigation, there has not been a determination as to
responsible parties or the amount, if any, of damages.  Based on
its estimate of potential outcomes, the Company has accrued
approximately $0.4 million with respect to these cases as of
December 31, 2012.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 7,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.


BAYER: Injury Claims May be Added to Yaz Class Action in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
The prescription drug resource center DrugRisk.com is alerting
women taking the birth control drugs Yaz or Yasmin of new
information added to the site which shows patients in Canada have
proposed the joining of injury claims into a Yaz class action.
Meanwhile, Bayer continues to settle claims over blood clots filed
in the United States.

"The goal of DrugRisk is to improve patient safety through
education.  This includes the latest warnings, recalls and legal
action related to popular prescription drugs and medical devices.
Patients who are informed can better discuss their options with
their doctor and decide if they need the advice of a lawyer,"
explains DrugRisk representative Ryan Mayer.

The resource center had previously added warnings about birth
control drugs like Yaz and Yasmin from experts such as the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who stated
that birth control pills containing drospirenone may present a
higher risk of blood clots.

DrugRisk.com also contains information about the thousands of Yaz
lawsuits which have been filed by patients in the U.S. over blood
clots, which have been consolidated in a special federal Multi-
District Litigation court in Illinois.

In new information added to the site, Bayer spokesperson Marija
Mandic admits that the company also faces as many as 13 proposed
Yaz class action claims in Canada.

According to Bayer's most recent financial statements uncovered by
DrugRisk, the company has set aside as much as $750 million for
Yaz settlements in the United States, resolving as many as 3,500
cases so far at an average of nearly $214,000 per case.
Anyone who suffered a blood clot, DVT, stroke or Pulmonary
Embolism after taking Yaz or Yasmin is urged to contact the Drug
Risk Resource Center or speak with a lawyer about their legal
options.

However, the Drug Risk Resource Center cautions that victims
should seek a lawyer with experience in defective drug litigation,
and only recommends lawyers and law firms who have already settled
Yaz lawsuits.


BURLEY STABILIZATION: Faces Tobacco Farmers' Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that tobacco farmers sued the
Burley Stabilization Corp. in a federal class action, claiming it
owes millions of dollars from the record 1982 tobacco crop, and
income and interest it made by not paying the (discontinued)
federal tobacco support money.


CAMBREX CORP: Remaining Lorazepam Class Suit Pending in D.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
The remaining lawsuit related to Lorazepam and Clorazepate remains
pending in the District of Columbia, according to Cambrex
Corporation's February 7, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In 1998, Cambrex Corporation and a subsidiary were named as
defendants along with Mylan Laboratories, Inc. ("Mylan") and Gyma
Laboratories, Inc. ("Gyma") in a proceeding instituted by the
Federal Trade Commission in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia (the "District Court").  Lawsuits were
also commenced by several State Attorneys General and class action
complaints by private plaintiffs in various state courts.  The
lawsuits alleged violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act
arising from exclusive license agreements between the Company and
Mylan covering two active pharmaceutical ingredients ("APIs")
(Lorazepam and Clorazepate).

All cases have been resolved except for one brought by four health
care insurers.  In the remaining case, the District Court entered
judgment after trial in 2008 against Mylan, Gyma and Cambrex in
the total amount of $19,200,000, payable jointly and severally,
and also a punitive damage award against each defendant in the
amount of $16,709,000.  In addition, at the time, the District
Court ruled that the defendants were subject to a total of
approximately $7,500,000 in prejudgment interest.  The case is
currently pending before the District Court following a January
2011 remand by the Court of Appeals where briefing related to
whether the court has jurisdiction over certain self-funded
customer plaintiffs is ongoing.

In 2003, Cambrex paid $12,415,000 to Mylan in exchange for a
release and full indemnity against future costs or liabilities in
related litigation brought by the purchasers of Lorazepam and
Clorazepate, as well as potential future claims related to the
ongoing matter.  Mylan has submitted a surety bond underwritten by
a third-party insurance company in the amount of $66,632,000.  In
the event of a final settlement or final judgment, Cambrex expects
any payment required by the Company to be made by Mylan under the
indemnity.

Cambrex Corporation -- http://www.cambrex.com/-- is an innovative
life sciences company providing products, services and
technologies to accelerate the development and commercialization
of small molecule therapeutics.  The Company is headquartered East
Rutherford, New Jersey.


CANADA: Ont. Appeal Court Reverses Conditional Class Cert. Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Brandon Kain, Esq. -- bkain@mccarthy.ca -- of
McCarthy Tetrault LLP, the Ontario Court of Appeal has released a
new ruling which holds that motion judges do not have jurisdiction
to "conditionally" certify class actions that fail to disclose a
cause of action under s. 5(1)(a) of the Ontario Class Proceedings
Act ("CPA").

The decision in Brown v. Canada (A.G.), 2013 ONCA 18 concerns a
proposed class action against the federal government, which
alleges that it wrongfully delegated its duties in respect of
Aboriginal persons by entering into an agreement (the "1965
Agreement") that enabled the province of Ontario to place
thousands of Aboriginal children in non-aboriginal foster care or
adoptive homes.  The plaintiffs alleged that these children were
deprived of their Aboriginal identity, and alleged liability based
on honour of the Crown, "identity genocide", breach of Aboriginal
rights, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.

At the certification motion, the motion judge found the pleadings
failed to disclose a cause of action as required under s. 5(1)(a)
of the CPA.  However, despite holding that the fiduciary duty and
negligence claims did not support a cause of action based on the
federal Crown's entry into the 1965 Agreement -- which was the
claim pleaded by the plaintiffs -- the motion judge went on to
find that these claims could potentially support a cause of action
based on the Crown's failure to prevent the Aboriginal children
from losing their Aboriginal identity.  Accordingly, upon finding
that the proposed class action satisfied the remaining criteria
under s. 5(1) of the CPA, the motion judge granted certification
on the condition that the plaintiffs deliver an amended statement
of claim.

The motion judge's decision was set aside by the Ontario
Divisional Court.  In a brief endorsement, it found that he
predetermined that a cause of action would be disclosed if the
pleadings were amended in accordance with his reasons, and erred
by not adjourning the certification motion to await an amended
statement of claim which could be challenged anew by the Crown.
Remarkably, the Court also ordered that the adjourned
certification motion be heard by a different motion judge once an
amended pleading was delivered, despite the fact that s. 34 of the
CPA requires that "[t]he same judge shall hear all motions before
the trial of the common issues" unless that judge "becomes
unavailable for any reason".

In Brown, the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the Divisional
Court's order.  However, rather than doing so through an
endorsement, the Court chose to deliver comprehensive reasons that
emphasize the centrality of the s. 5(1)(a) requirement to the
certification analysis.  According to Rosenberg J.A.:

. . . [I]dentification of a cause of action is fundamental.  It is
impossible for the defendant to meaningfully respond to an
application for certification without knowing the cause of action.
The definition of the class and the identification of the common
issues depend upon the nature of the cause of action.  . . . It is
not possible to know whether an action can be appropriately
prosecuted as a class action without identifying the fundamental
issue of whether or not there is a cause of action.  It is no
answer that the defendant can bring a motion to decertify the
action under s. 10 if the action should never have been certified
in the first place.

. . . [C]ertifying a class action in the absence of a statement of
claim that discloses viable causes of action is not case
management. Even the power to amend other aspects of the claim,
such as the proposed common issues, should be exercised with
caution and restraint: McCracken v. Canadian National Railway Co.,
2012 ONCA 445, 111 O.R. (3d) 745, at para. 144.  . . . The
defendant cannot respond to the evidence-based criteria in the
abstract without knowing the cause of action. [emphasis added]
(paras. 44-45)

These comments reflect a growing trend towards a more rigorous
review of certification motions by Ontario appellate courts.  The
notion that it is appropriate to certify a class action that fails
to satisfy one or more of the statutory criteria, on the basis
that it may simply be "decertified" should problems arise down the
road, no longer represents the prevailing approach, as is evident
from other recent certification dismissals such as McCracken v.
Canadian National Railway Company, 2012 ONCA 445 and Williams v.
Canon Canada Inc., 2012 ONSC 3692 (Div. Ct.).  In the wake of
lengthy common issues trials such as Andersen v. St. Jude Medical,
Inc., 2012 ONSC 3660, Ontario courts have become sensitive to the
impact that poorly conceived class actions can have upon
defendants and the judicial system.  The result is a renewed
emphasis upon the plaintiff's statutory burden at certification.

Brown is also notable for the Court of Appeal's decision to
prevent the motion judge from presiding over the adjourned
certification motion.  Rosenberg J.A. found the motion judge's
predetermination that an amended statement of claim would satisfy
s. 5(1)(a) created a reasonable apprehension of bias, which
rendered him "unavailable" to hear the motion pursuant to s. 34(2)
of the CPA:

Mr. Kain said "While it was not always the case, I think it can
now safely be said that judges cannot sit in appeal of their own
decisions: see e.g., Law Society of Upper Canada v. French, [1975]
2 S.C.R. 767, at pp. 782-83, per Spence J., at p. 775, per Dickson
C.J.C., dissenting.  In my view, a reasonable interpretation of
the reasons of the case management judge is that he had determined
that viable causes of action existed as he framed them. . . .[T]he
causes of action as framed by the case management judge are so
radically different from the way they were pleaded in the
statement of claim that I do not think it can be safely said that
the respondent had an adequate opportunity to respond. To now give
the respondent that opportunity before the same judge would, as
the Divisional Court found, result in the case management judge
sitting in review of his own decision. (para. 53)"

In light of Brown, motion judges should be wary of taking an
overly interventionist approach on certification.


CEDAR GROVE: Faces Class Actions Over Composting Site Stench
------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Hefley, writing for HeraldNet.com, reports that a stinky
dispute between neighbors and an Everett composting facility is
headed toward court.

Seattle attorneys have filed two class action lawsuits against
Cedar Grove Composting alleging that the company's Everett and
Maple Valley composting sites create odors that disturb the
neighbors' quality of life.

The lawsuits were filed in superior courts in Snohomish and King
counties on behalf of all neighbors within a four-mile radius of
the facilities.  The lawsuits are seeking compensation for the
neighbors and also demanding that Cedar Grove change how it
operates and eliminates odors.

Last month, two other lawsuits were filed in district courts in
Snohomish and King counties representing 350 people who live
around Cedar Grove's facilities also seeking compensation for what
was described as the rotting garbage stench.

The company is paid to take yard and food waste from hauling
companies around Snohomish County and parts of King County.  It
turns the waste into compost for use in gardens.  It also collects
food waste from restaurants.  The Everett plant opened in 2004.

Neighbors have complained for several years of a rotting-garbage
stench they believe comes from the sites, especially during warmer
months.

The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency is conducting a study of odors in
the Snohomish River delta, where the composting plant is located.


CHINA GREEN: Remaining Claims Pending in Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 remains pending in the securities class
action lawsuit against China Green Agriculture, Inc., according to
the Company's February 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December
31, 2012.

On October 15, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the
"Nevada Federal Court") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between November 12, 2009, and September 1, 2010.
The current version of the complaint alleges that the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, by making material misstatements and omissions in the
Company's financial statements, securities offering documents, and
related disclosures during the class period.  On October 7, 2011,
the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint and to
strike portions of it.

On November 2, 2012, the Nevada Federal Court issued an order
dismissing the claims for violation of sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 as to all defendants and
dismissing certain individual defendants from the complaint and
allowing the claims for violations of section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to continue with respect to
the Company and certain of the individual defendants.  The Nevada
Federal Court also denied the defendants' motion to strike.

China Green Agriculture, Inc. is engaged in the research,
development, production and sale of various types of fertilizers
and agricultural products in the People's Republic of China though
its wholly-owned Chinese subsidiaries, Jinong, Jintai, Yuxing,
Gufeng.  Its primary business is fertilizer products, specifically
humic acid-based compound fertilizer produced through Jinong and
compound fertilizer, blended fertilizer, organic compound
fertilizer, slow-release fertilizers, highly-concentrated water-
soluble fertilizers and mixed organic-inorganic compound
fertilizer produced through Gufeng.  In addition, through Jintai
and Yuxing, the Company develops and produces agricultural
products, such as top-grade fruits, vegetables, flowers and
colored seedlings.


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Piper Files SCDO Suit Within Limitation Period
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers Weekly reports that time is running out for firms to make
the big banks pay for their role in investor losses during the
global financial crisis (GFC), with Piper Alderman launching a
class action against the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) just
inside the limitation period.

Pipers filed an action in the Federal Court on February 7 that
aims to recoup a portion of AUD140 million in investments wiped
out by the GFC, which were purchased from CBA between 2006 and
2007.  The firm is alleging that CBA breached its obligations as a
financial services licensee to act honestly and fairly by not
fully disclosing the risks associated with the volatile financial
products known as synthetic collateralized debt obligations
(SCDOs).

The limitation period for damages under Section 82 of the
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 is six years "after the day on
which the cause of action that relates to the conduct accrued".
In the CBA case, this could be interpreted as either the date
investors purchased the SCDOs or when losses were incurred,
according to Amanda Banton, the Piper Alderman partner leading the
class action.

This ambiguity prompted Pipers to run an open class action to
preserve the claim for investors who may come forward at a later
date.

"We're running the class action conservatively as these sorts of
actions are starting to get time barred," she said.  "In some
cases, potential claimants may have already lost their rights."

The lead applicants in this action are Clurname Pty Ltd and
Gloucester Shire Council, which are looking to recover losses on
three SCDO investments plus damages, including lost interest.

"All the people we've had contact with wouldn't have bought the
product if they knew that a certain number of defaults would mean
their capital would be wiped out," Ms. Banton said.

A litigation funder is providing financial backing but Pipers
would not disclose the funder's name.

In September last year, Pipers won a landmark class action against
Lehman Brothers Australia, which was found to have breached its
fiduciary duties by selling risky, complex financial derivatives
that went sour during the GFC.  The firm also successfully
recouped millions in losses for 12 NSW local councils in November
after the Federal Court found ratings agency Standard & Poor
failed in its duty of care to investors by assigning a AAA rating
to "grotesquely complicated" and risky synthetic derivatives.


DIRECTSAT USA: 7th Circuit Affirms Class Action Decertification
---------------------------------------------------------------
On February 4, 2013 in Espenscheid v. DirectSat USA, LLC a Seventh
Circuit panel unanimously affirmed a Wisconsin District Court
judge's decision to decertify a large off-the-clock overtime class
action.  Judge Richard Posner wrote the opinion affirming the
decertification and, in his inimitable style, he provides an easy-
to-read dissertation on the limits of the class action device,
proper standards for class certification, and the requirement for
the plaintiff to propose a manageable trial plan if he wants to
avoid having his class decertified.  This case is chock full of
notable points.

              The Underlying Facts of the Proceedings

The facts are fairly simple.  The plaintiffs obtained conditional
class certification under the FLSA and class certification under
Rule 23 for a class of 2341 satellite techs ("cable guys" for
satellite) who were paid a fixed amount per each satellite service
call they performed.   The suit alleged that management required
the satellite techs to perform work that was not compensated in
the piece rate, and required them to work more than 40 hours per
week without payment of overtime.  The plaintiffs contended that
DirectSat pressured them to report less than all their actual work
time in order for DirectSat to avoid paying overtime. It is
unclear from the opinion, but it does not appear that plaintiffs
argued that when they reported more than 40 hours in a week, they
still received no overtime.  Rather, it appears they claim that
workers were systematically pressured to report less than all of
their time.

It is odd that this case ever got certified in the first place,
but it eventually dawned on the district court that there would
likely be significant individualized issues to resolve at trial,
so the court asked the plaintiffs to propose a trial plan.  The
plaintiffs repeatedly resisted, but then finally proposed to prove
the case by using 42 "representative witnesses" but they failed to
explain how these witnesses would be selected, what would make
them representative, and how would they address individualized
issues.  As such, the district court decertified the action and
the plaintiffs ultimately appealed the decision.
The Seventh Circuit's Decision to Affirm the Decertification

In affirming the decertification, Judge Posner made all of the
following trenchant observations:

(1) Despite the differences between the FLSA and Rule 23
procedures for collective and class actions, Judge Posner holds
that, at bottom, "there isn't a good reason to have different
standards for the certification of the two different types of
action, and the case law has largely merged the standards. . . .
And so we can, with no distortion of our analysis, treat the
entire set of suits before us as if it were a single class
action."  This supports the notion that the requirement of
predominance of common issues applies the same under the FLSA and
Rule 23.

(2) To determine damages would have required 2341 separate
evidentiary hearings, "which might swamp the Western District of
Wisconsin with its two district judges."  The reason was that the
satellite tech job was not one with 8-5 hours where the employees
were alleged to have worked without a lunch break, thus working 45
hours per week but being paid for 40.  Rather, the employees were
paid on a piece rate which raised big individualized issues as to
the time they spent working.  To wit:

"[S]ince workers differ in their effort and efficiency--that some,
maybe many, of the technicians may not work more than 40 hours a
week and may even work fewer hours; others may work more than 40
hours a week.  Variance would also result from different
technicians' doing different tasks, since it's contended that the
employer told them not to report time spent on some of those
tasks, though -- further complicating the problem of proof -- some
of them reported that time anyway."

As such, there were significant individualized issues whether
employees really worked more than 40 hours and whether the pay the
received covered all the time they actually worked, among other
issues.

(3) The plaintiffs purported solution to this was to select a
sample of 42 class members, but Plaintiffs were unable to explain
how the 42 were selected, "whether for example they were
volunteers, or perhaps selected by class counsel after extensive
interviews and hand-picked to magnify the damages sought by the
class."  There was no showing at all made that they used sampling
methods used in statistical analysis, such as random sampling.

(4) Judge Posner went further, however, and said that even by
happenstance if the average OT worked by the 42 matched precisely
the average of the class, there still would be issues precluding
class certification because the distribution among class members
would not be at all uniform:

"No one thinks there was such uniformity.  And if for example the
average number of overtime hours per class member per week was 5,
then awarding 5 x 1.5 x hourly wage to a class member who had only
1 hour of overtime would confer a windfall on him, while awarding
the same amount of damages to a class member who had 10 hours of
overtime would (assuming the same hourly wage) undercompensate him
by half.  The differences would not be trivial, because the
technicians' average hourly rate was about $15."

Judge Posner then goes on to provide all the different variations
that arise among piece rate workers that could lead to wide
variations in both liability and damages for both minimum wage and
overtime liability.

(5) Judge Posner also notes that the class members have no records
whatsoever of the actual time they worked: "they are not like
lawyers, who record every bit of work they do for a client, in
6-minute segments."  Although individuals would be free to prove
their time worked from memory or estimations that would allow a
trier of fact to draw a just and reasonable inference of the time
they worked, an inference of a "small, unrepresentative sample"
cannot show the "work time of thousands of workers."

(6) Plaintiffs were unable to explain how liability could be
established collectively and provided no method to determine
individual damages.  Judge Posner sagely noted that Plaintiffs
must have thought the case would just settle so they did not need
to worry about trial procedure (the classic Underpants Gnomes
problem), but that was no excuse for lacking a workable trial
plan:

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

       Broader Implications of the Decision Concerning
                    Class Certification

What Judge Posner does not say, but which seems evident from the
points he makes, is that these same issues should exist at the
initial class certification determination.  What led this district
court to certify the class in the first place given the plaintiffs
complete lack of scientific basis for their purported
"representative evidence"?  Wouldn't the points about substantial
individualized differences among workers under a piece rate system
have been evident at class certification?  Judge Posner does not
expressly comment.  Despite his silence, this case should
definitely be worth citing in any sort of off-the-clock case to
explain to a court why a class trial will prove unworkable.


E.I. DU PONT: Defends Suits Alleging Drinking Water Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company continues to defend itself
against lawsuits alleging contamination of drinking water,
according to the Company's February 7, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA (collectively,
perfluorooctanoic acid and its salts, including the ammonium salt)
in drinking water.

DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004
that binds about 80,000 residents.  In 2005, DuPont paid the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a
payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a
community health project.  The Company funded a series of health
studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent
science panel of experts (the "C8 Science Panel").  The studies
were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate
available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists,
as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA
and human disease.

The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the
settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-
induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer;
testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and
diagnosed higher cholesterol (hypocholesterolemia).

A panel of three medical experts will determine an appropriate
medical monitoring protocol, if any, as a result of these
findings.  If a medical monitoring protocol for any of these
diseases is defined, DuPont is required to fund a medical
monitoring program to pay for such medical testing.  Plaintiffs
may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont only for those
human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determined a
probable link exists.  In January 2012, the Company put $1 million
in an escrow account as required by the settlement agreement.
Under the settlement agreement, the Company's total obligation to
pay for medical monitoring cannot exceed $235 million.  In
addition, the Company must continue to provide water treatment
designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water
districts, including the Little Hocking Water Association (LHWA),
and private well users.

An Ohio action brought by the LHWA is ongoing.  In addition to
general claims of PFOA contamination of drinking water, the action
claims "imminent and substantial endangerment to health and or the
environment" under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA).  DuPont denies these claims and is defending itself
vigorously.

At December 31, 2012, twenty-five lawsuits alleging personal
injury and one lawsuit alleging wrongful death from exposure to
PFOA in drinking water are pending in federal court in Ohio and
West Virginia.  DuPont denies the allegations in these lawsuits
and is defending itself vigorously.

While DuPont believes that it is reasonably possible that it could
incur losses related to PFOA matters in addition to those pending
matters for which it has established accruals, a range of such
losses, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (NYSE: DD), commonly referred
to as DuPont, is an American chemical company founded in July
1802.  In the 20th century, DuPont developed many polymers such as
Vespel, neoprene, nylon, Corian, Teflon, Mylar, Kevlar, Zemdrain,
M5 fiber, Nomex, Tyvek, Sorona and Lycra. DuPont developed Freon
(chlorofluorocarbons) for the refrigerant industry, and later more
environmentally friendly refrigerants. It developed synthetic
pigments and paints including ChromaFlair.


EPOCH HOLDING: Merger-Related Class Action Suits Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Epoch Holding Corporation continues to face merger-related class
action lawsuits, according to the Company's February 7, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

On December 6, 2012, Epoch, The Toronto-Dominion Bank ("TD") and
Empire Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary
of TD, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement"), pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction or
waiver of certain conditions, Merger Sub will be merged with and
into Epoch, with Epoch surviving the merger as a wholly owned
subsidiary of TD (the "Merger").  The Merger Agreement was
unanimously approved by Epoch's Board of Directors and is expected
to be completed during the first half of calendar year 2013.

Shortly after the announcement of the proposed transaction, five
purported class action complaints were filed by purported
shareholders of Epoch against Epoch, the individual directors of
Epoch, and TD.  One action was filed in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of New York, two were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, a fourth was filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, and a fifth was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Specifically, on December 11, 2012, a purported shareholder of
Epoch filed an action in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of New York, captioned Cindy Goldman TTEE GSS 508
Trust Dated May 16, 2008 v. Epoch Holding Corporation, et al. (the
"Goldman Action").  The complaint names as defendants all
directors of Epoch, Epoch, and TD.  The plaintiff alleges that the
directors of Epoch breached their fiduciary duties by approving
the proposed transaction with TD, and that TD aided and abetted
those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  Specifically, the
lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Merger Agreement was
reached through an unfair process that benefitted the personal and
financial positions of the directors of Epoch at the expense of
the shareholders of Epoch, that the Merger Consideration is
inadequate, and that the deal protection devices in the Merger
Agreement have precluded other bidders from making competing
offers for Epoch.  The plaintiff seeks, among other things,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees concerning the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty and to prohibit the defendants from
consummating the merger.  On January 8, 2013, Epoch and its
directors (the "Epoch Defendants") filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint or in the alternative to stay the action pending
resolution of parallel proceedings in Delaware.  The parties
thereafter stipulated and the Court ordered that the action be
stayed pending the resolution of the related Delaware Action and
the Katcher Action described herein.

On December 21, 2012, another purported shareholder of Epoch filed
an action in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Reich v.
Epoch Holding Corporation, et al (the "Reich Action").  Like the
Goldman Action, this action alleges that the directors of Epoch
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
transaction with TD, and that both TD and Merger Sub aided and
abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The Reich
Action seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and attorneys'
fees concerning the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and to
prohibit the defendants from consummating the merger.  The lawsuit
names as defendants all directors of Epoch, Epoch, TD, and Merger
Sub.  On December 26, 2012, another purported shareholder action
was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Hodgson v.
Epoch Holding Corporation, et al (the "Hodgson Action").  The
Hodgson Action also brings breach of fiduciary duty claims against
the directors of Epoch, and aiding and abetting claims against
Epoch, TD, and Merger Sub, seeking similar relief.

The Epoch Defendants answered the complaint in the Reich Action on
December 28, 2012.  On January 3, 2013, the Court of Chancery
entered an order consolidating the Reich and Hodgson Actions as In
re Epoch Holding Corporation Stockholder Litigation (the "Delaware
Action") and appointed lead counsel for the consolidated action.
On January 18, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed
order to govern the confidential treatment of discovery materials,
which the court granted on January 29, 2013.  On January 18, 2013,
the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for leave to amend their
complaint, which the Court granted on January 25, 2013.  On
January 21, 2013, the parties filed a proposed stipulated
scheduling order to govern discovery and any motions for
preliminary injunction that the plaintiffs may file, which the
Court granted on January 28, 2013.  The plaintiffs filed their
amended class action complaint on January 25, 2013, which added
claims that the director defendants breached their duty of
disclosure by omitting or misstating material information in
Epoch's preliminary proxy statement.  On February 6, 2013, the
Epoch Defendants answered the plaintiffs' amended complaint.

The third-filed action was brought in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of Nassau, on December 24, 2012,
captioned Katcher v. Epoch Holding Corporation, et al. (the
"Katcher Action").  The plaintiffs brought claims similar to those
raised in the Goldman Action and Delaware Action against Epoch,
the members of Epoch's board, and TD, and seek declaratory and
injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs claim that Epoch's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with entering into
the proposed transaction with TD, and that TD and Epoch aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

On January 16, 2013, the Epoch Defendants filed a notice of motion
to dismiss the complaint or stay the action pending the resolution
of the parallel Delaware Action (the "Motion to Dismiss/Stay").
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 21, 2013,
adding allegations that Epoch's directors breached their duty of
disclosure by omitting or misstating material information in
Epoch's preliminary proxy statement.  The plaintiffs also filed a
motion on order to show cause providing for expedited discovery
(the "Motion for Expedited Discovery") on January 23, 2013.  The
plaintiffs filed their brief in opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss/Stay on January 25, 2013.

On January 29, 2013, the Epoch Defendants filed a cross-motion to
stay discovery, and a brief in support of that cross-motion and in
opposition to the plaintiffs' Motion for Expedited Discovery.  On
January 30, 2013, the Epoch Defendants filed a reply brief in
further support of their Motion to Dismiss/Stay.  On February 3,
2013, the plaintiffs moved by order to show cause to preliminarily
enjoin defendants from refusing to respond to their discovery
demands absent a stay of the action or an order of the court (the
"February 3rd Motion").  On February 4, 2013, the court set a
hearing date of February 13, 2013, to hear the plaintiffs'
February 3rd Motion, and ordered that pending the hearing and
determination of the February 3rd Motion, and further order of the
court, the defendants must comply with the plaintiffs' discovery
requests.  Both the Epoch Defendants' Motion to Dismiss/Stay and
the plaintiffs' Motion for Expedited Discovery remain pending
before the court.

On January 24, 2013, another purported shareholder of Epoch filed
a similar action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Wilks v. Priest, et al.
The defendants include Epoch, the members of its board, TD, and
Merger Sub.  The plaintiff brought a claim under Section 14(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder regarding
the disclosures in Epoch's preliminary proxy.  The plaintiff also
brought a breach of fiduciary duty claim and a breach of duty of
disclosure claim against the Epoch directors, and an aiding and
abetting claim against TD and Merger Sub.  The plaintiff seeks,
among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief and, if the
proposed transaction is consummated, rescission of the transaction
or rescissory damages.

Epoch and its board of directors believe these claims are entirely
without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against these
actions.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Fed. Ct. Dismisses Store Manager's Wage Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge R. Brooke Jackson dismissed the class action
lawsuit captioned JULIE FARLEY, on behalf of herself and all
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES,
INC., and FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF COLORADO, INC., Defendants,
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00325-RBJ-MJW, (D. Col.).

Julie Farley, a manager at a Family Dollar Store in Fruita,
Colorado from October 2009 until March 2011, filed the class
action on behalf of all store managers employed at the defendants'
Colorado stores since February 7, 2007.  Ms. Farley complained she
did not receive overtime pay when she worked more than 12 hours
per day or 40 hours per week, in violation of the Colorado Wage
Claim Act, and in breach of an implied unilateral contract between
her and the defendants that required the defendants to pay her in
accordance with state wage and hour laws.

Family Dollar filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims for the
period prior to February 7, 2009, because the plaintiff's claims
are subject to a three-year statute of limitations period.

The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Watanabe
who issued a Recommendation on October 3, 2012.  In his opinion,
Magistrate Judge Watanabe explained that actions brought under
implied contracts -- meaning contracts based on conduct rather
than express terms -- were not subject to the longer statute of
limitations period.  Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Watanabe
granted Family Dollar's motion to dismiss.

Ms. Farley filed a timely objection.

On February 11, 2013, Judge Jackson affirmed and adopted
Magistrate Judge Watanabe's recommendation and granted Family
Dollar's Motion to Dismiss.  A copy of Judge Jackson's Order is
available at http://is.gd/JnhQSQfrom Leagle.com.


FIFTH THIRD: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Interest
-------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360, reports that Fifth Third Bank
NA on Feb. 12 was hit with a proposed class action in Florida
federal court accusing it of charging unlawfully excessive
interest rates on short-term lines of credit given to its checking
account customers.

According to plaintiffs Lori and Daniel Laskaris, Fifth Third had
unfairly preyed upon desperate customers with its Early Access
program credit lines, charging "usurious" interest rates -- in
some cases, in excess of 1,000 percent per year once annualized --
and misleading customers about the true rate.


FREDDIE MAC: Barrow County Joins Unpaid Transfer Tax Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Dunlap, writing for Barrow County News, reports that the
Barrow county will also join a 15 state class action lawsuit as
they attempt to recover unpaid transfer taxes from lenders such as
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  The firms that would handle the
lawsuit would only be paid if money is recovered.  If a settlement
is made in the initial stages then the law firms would receive 25
percent of the fees and if the case takes longer then it would be
33 percent.

The lawsuit was described as a "win-win for the county" by County
Attorney Angie Davis.

"This national team has retained a national consultant that is
working to create calculations for our county as well as others
that are a (part) of this lawsuit," she said.


GENEX SERVICES: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco employment law attorneys at Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik allege in a recently filed lawsuit that Genex
Services wrongfully classified their Field Nurse Case Managers,
also called Medical Case Managers, as exempt from overtime pay.

The class action lawsuit was filed by the San Francisco labor
lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.  The case, filed on
February 6, 2013, alleges that Genex Holdings Inc d/b/a Genex
Services, Inc. ("Genex") misclassified the Field Nurse Case
Managers as exempt from overtime pay and as a result, failed to
provide overtime compensation, meal and rest breaks, and precise
wage statements as required by California law.  The lawsuit
entitled, Davis v. Genex Holdings Inc d/b/a Genex Services, Inc.,
Case No. 113CV240830 is currently pending in the Santa Clara
County Superior Court for the State of California.

The class action complaint, which can be read here, alleges that
the Plaintiff, who worked as a Field Nurse Case Manager, mostly
engaged in non-exempt tasks throughout her workday, including
reviewing her client's pre-injury position, making appointments
with the client's doctors, communicating in-person and by
telephone with her clients, employers, medical providers,
attorneys, insurance carriers and claims adjustors.  The Complaint
further alleges that the reason the Plaintiff and other Field
Nurse Case Managers should be receiving overtime pay is because
these employees use their RN training to coordinate care, act as
intermediaries between patients, adjustors, and doctors and
operate in a framework in "which these employees do not exercise
ultimate decision making power."

Managing partner, Norman B. Blumenthal, stated "Large corporations
often implement company wide policies to classify a certain job
title as exempt from overtime pay in order to get the benefit of
all their employees' work while only paying them for some of their
work."

This argument is not new to the attorneys at Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.  The California labor law attorneys
originally filed another class action in April of 2011 on behalf
of Field Nurse Case Managers working for a different company,
Coventry Healthcare, alleging that these employees were also
shorted overtime pay as a result of being classified as salaried
employees.  The Judge in that case has tentatively certified the
following class: All those men and women employed by [Coventry
Health] in California who worked as a Field Case Manager at any
time from April 7, 2007 to May 1, 2012.  The Coventry class action
entitled Rieve v. Coventry Health Care, Inc., Case No. SA CV 11-
1032 DOC9MLGx) is currently pending before the Honorable Judge
David O. Carter in United States District Court for the Central
District of California.

The unpaid wage attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
dedicate their practice to helping people who have been wrongfully
classified as salaried employees exempt from receiving overtime
pay and other claims including violation of California labor laws.


HOBART SERV: Class Cert. Unnecessary in PAGA Actions in Fed. Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
According to John P. Zaimes of Mayer Brown, the California Supreme
Court held in Arias v. Superior Court that a plaintiff may bring a
representative action on behalf of himself and other employees to
recover civil penalties under California's Private Attorney
General Act ("PAGA") without meeting California's class-
certification requirements.  The court reasoned that, unlike a
class action, where the plaintiff is suing on behalf of individual
employees, a PAGA plaintiff steps into the shoes of state labor-
law enforcement agencies.  While that holding governs California
state courts, the federal district courts have been split as to
whether plaintiffs bringing PAGA claims in federal court must seek
class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

On January 14, 2013, Judge Gutierrez of the Central District of
California held that PAGA plaintiffs need not bother with class
certification in federal court.  In Alcantar v. Hobart Serv. (No.
5:11-cv-1600-PSG-SP), the plaintiff had filed a class action and a
PAGA action alleging overtime, meal-period, and other wage-and-
hour violations.  The court denied class certification and granted
in part defendants' motion for summary judgment.  The defendants
later filed a motion in limine, asserting that the plaintiff could
no longer proceed with his PAGA claim because plaintiffs who
cannot meet Rule 23's class-certification requirements lack
standing to represent the rights and interests of third parties.
The district court denied the motion, holding that although a
class action allows individuals to seek financial remuneration to
redress personal injuries, a PAGA action is an enforcement action
brought on behalf of the state labor agencies to penalize
noncompliant employers, making class certification unnecessary.

The Alcantar court also rejected defendants' argument that the
PAGA claims could not be tried on a representative basis without
violating defendants' due process rights.  Among other things, the
defendants argued that they should have the right to call each
employee to the stand as they would in defending a claim under
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL).  The Alcantar court
disagreed, holding that, "unlike claims under the UCL, which
require an individualized determination of the particular
restitution due to each plaintiff, PAGA claims require only a
showing that a Labor Code violation has occurred."

Finally, the Alcantar court rejected the defendants' remaining
argument that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes forbids the plaintiff
from calculating the amount of PAGA penalties owed solely by using
estimates derived from representative testimony and statistics.
The district court disagreed, noting that the Dukes Court had
analyzed the permissibility of "Trial by Formula" in the specific
context of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, while both the Ninth
Circuit and California courts have permitted awards for California
Labor Code violations based on a representative sampling of class
members. (Note: The issue of use of representative testimony and
statistical evidence at trial in wage and hour class action
lawsuits is pending before the California Supreme Court in Duran
v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n., No. S200823.)

Alcantar may give new encouragement to the plaintiffs' bar in
their pursuit of PAGA claims.  Under its approach, defendants in
PAGA cases are deprived not only of the protections of Rule 23,
but also the due process right to present individualized defenses
to each employee's claim.  Whether other district courts will
follow Alcantar's lead, or instead follow the decisions of other
courts that (in our view) are more consistent with Rule 23 and due
process -- and how the federal appellate courts will eventually
settle this issue -- remains to be seen.  In the meantime,
defendants may be able to distinguish the Alcantar court's
reasoning by showing that their cases involve fact patterns where
proof of a statutory violation will require highly individualized,
fact-sensitive mini trials.


HOLOGIC INC: Has Yet to File Delaware Suit Settlement Documents
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hologic, Inc. has yet to file settlement documents and obtain
court approval of the settlement resolving a consolidated merger-
related lawsuit in Delaware, according to the Company's February
7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 29, 2012.

In connection with Hologic, Inc.'s acquisition of Gen-Probe
Incorporated on August 1, 2012, Hologic completed a private
placement of $1.0 billion aggregate principal amount of 6.25%
senior notes due 2020 (the "Senior Notes").  The Senior Notes are
fully and unconditionally and jointly and severally guaranteed by
Hologic, Inc. ("Issuer") and certain of its domestic subsidiaries,
including those acquired in its acquisition of Gen-Probe.

A number of lawsuits have been filed against the Company, Gen-
Probe, and Gen-Probe's board of directors.  These include: (1)
Teamsters Local Union No. 727 Pension Fund v. Gen-Probe
Incorporated, et al. (Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of San Diego); (2) Timothy Coyne v. Gen-Probe
Incorporated, et al. (Delaware Court of Chancery); and (3) Douglas
R. Klein v. John W. Brown, et al. (Delaware Chancery Court).  The
two Delaware actions have been consolidated into a single action
titled: In re: Gen-Probe Shareholders Litigation.  The lawsuits
were filed after the announcement of the Company's acquisition of
Gen-Probe on April 30, 2012, as putative stockholder class
actions.  Each of the actions assert similar claims alleging that
Gen-Probe's board of directors failed to adequately discharge its
fiduciary duties to shareholders by failing to adequately value
Gen-Probe's shares and ensure that Gen-Probe's shareholders
received adequate consideration in the Company's acquisition of
Gen-Probe, that the acquisition was the product of a flawed sales
process, and that the Company aided and abetted the alleged breach
of fiduciary duty.  The plaintiffs demand, among other things, a
preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the Company's
acquisition of Gen-Probe and rescinding the transaction or any
part thereof that has been implemented.  On May 24, 2012, the
plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed an amended complaint,
adding allegations that the disclosures in Gen-Probe's preliminary
proxy statement were inadequate.  The defendants in the Delaware
action answered the complaint on June 4, 2012.

On July 18, 2012, the parties in the Delaware action entered into
a memorandum of understanding regarding a proposed settlement of
the litigation.  The proposed settlement is conditioned upon,
among other things, the execution of an appropriate stipulation of
settlement, consummation of the merger, and final approval of the
proposed settlement by the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On July 9, 2012, the plaintiffs in the California action filed a
motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice.  On July 12,
2012, the California Superior Court entered an order dismissing
the California complaint without prejudice.


IMPRELIS: Accord in Product Liability Suit Gets Initial Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement in IN RE:
IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, No. 11-md-02284.

The settlement is preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and within the range of reasonableness.

The Court conditionally certified these nationwide classes:

  Property Owner Class (Class 1): All persons or entities who (a)
  own or owned property in the United States to which Imprelis was
  applied from August 31, 2010 through August 21, 2011, or (b) own
  or owned property in the United States adjacent to property to
  which Imprelis was applied from August 31, 2010 through August
  21, 2011 and whose trees show damage from Imprelis on or before
  the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order ("Adjacent
  Property Owner"). Excluded from Class 1 are (1) any Judges to
  whom this Action is assigned and any members of their immediate
  families and (2) any property owners whose properties were used
  for the testing of Imprelis or developmental formulations
  containing the same active ingredient.

  Applicator Class (Class 2): All persons or entities that, from
  August 31, 2010 through August 21, 2011, purchased Imprelis
  (and/or received Imprelis directly or indirectly from a
  purchaser) and applied it to property in the United States as
  part of their normal business, other than property that they own
  or owned ("Applicators"). Excluded from Class 2 are any Judges
  to whom this Action is assigned and any members of their
  immediate family.

  Golf Courses and Other Self Applicators Class (Class 3): All
  persons or entities that, from August 31, 2010 through August
  21, 2011, purchased Imprelis (and/or received Imprelis directly
  or indirectly from a purchaser) and applied it to properties in
  the United States that they own or owned ("Self Applicators").
  Excluded from Class 3 are any Judges to whom this Action is
  assigned and any members of their immediate family.

The Court appointed the Class Representatives named in the
Plaintiffs' Corrected Amended Master Class Action Complaint as
Class Representatives.

The Court appointed Adam J. Levitt of Grant & Eisenhofer; Richard
J. Arsenault of Neblett, Beard & Arsenault; Gregory Asciolla of
Labaton Sucharow; Jonathan D. Selbin of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein; and Richard Kitchenoff of Weinstein, Kitchenoff & Asher
as Settlement Counsel.

A Final Fairness Hearing will be held on September 27, 2013, at
2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 10B to determine whether the Settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate, and should be approved.

Not later than March 25, 2013, the Claims Administrator will:

  (a) publish both the Publication and Long Form Notices on a
      settlement Web site, which will be made available through a
      link on the Plaintiffs' Counsel's Web sites, and will
      contain copies of the Settlement Notices, the fully executed
      Settlement Agreement, and relevant Court Orders and filings
      (including the Fee Application). The Settlement Notices will
      direct recipients to the location of the settlement Web
      site, which will remain active through December 1, 2013.

  (b) publish the Publication Notice, attached to the Settlement
      Agreement as Exhibit 9, in certain publications.

  (c) place local advertisements on television in the 46
      Designated Market Areas most seriously impacted by Imprelis.

  (d) mail the Long Form Notices via First Class Mail to all
      Settlement Class Members who have submitted their
      information to the Imprelis Claims Resolution Process.

Any Class Member who wishes to opt out of the Class must do so in
writing by mailing a request for exclusion to the Claims
Administrator. Any such request must be postmarked no later than
June 28, 2013.

The parties must file a Motion for Final Approval of the
Settlement and any Fee and Expense Application no later than
August 7, 2013.

Any Class Member who objects to the fairness, reasonableness, or
adequacy of the proposed Settlement, including the proposed Fee
and Expense Award must file its objection with the Clerk of Court
and be received by the Parties' counsel no later than August 21,
2013.

Any reply papers or other responses the parties wish to file in
response to Class Member objections must be filed with the Court
no later than September 4, 2013.

A copy of District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter's February 12, 2013
Order is available at http://is.gd/aRMav1from Leagle.com.


INTL FCSTONE: To Seek OK of Securities Suit Accord Before July
---------------------------------------------------------------
INTL FCStone Inc. disclosed in its February 7, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 31, 2012, that the terms of a settlement
resolving a securities lawsuit filed against a subsidiary are
expected to be presented to the court for approval before July
2013.

FCStone Group, Inc. ("FCStone") and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in an action filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri in July 2008.
A consolidated amended complaint ("CAC") was subsequently filed in
September 2009.  As alleged in the CAC, the action purports to be
brought as a class action on behalf of purchasers of FCStone
common stock between November 15, 2007, and February 24, 2009.
The CAC seeks to hold defendants liable under Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and concerns
disclosures included in FCStone's fiscal year 2008 public filings.
Specifically, the CAC relates to FCStone's public disclosures
regarding an interest rate hedge, a bad debt expense arising from
unprecedented events in the cotton trading market, and certain
disclosures beginning on November 3, 2008, related to losses it
expected to incur arising primarily from a customer energy trading
account.  FCStone and the named officers moved to dismiss the
action.

The parties to the litigation reached an agreement in principle to
settle this matter during May 2012.  The proposed settlement would
be at no cost to the Company after consideration of insurance, and
is subject to approval by the court.  The terms of the settlement
are expected to be presented to the court for approval before July
2013.

INTL FCStone Inc. -- http://www.intlfcstone.com/-- together with
its consolidated subsidiaries, form a financial services group
focused on domestic and select international markets.  The
Company's services include comprehensive risk management advisory
services for commercial customers; execution of listed futures and
options on futures contracts on all major commodity exchanges;
structured over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a wide range of
commodities; physical trading and hedging of precious and base
metals and select other commodities; trading of more than 130
foreign currencies; market-making in international equities;
Debtors origination and asset management.  During the quarter
ended March 31, 2011, the Company changed its name from
International Assets Holding Corporation to INTL FCStone Inc.,
following approval of the name change by the Company's
stockholders.  INTL's businesses, which include the commodities
advisory and transaction execution firm FCStone Group, Inc., serve
more than 10,000 commercial customers in more than 100 countries
through a network of offices in 12 countries around the world.


INTL FCSTONE: To Seek Okay of Shareholder Suit Deal Before July
---------------------------------------------------------------
INTL FCStone Inc. said in its February 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended December 31, 2012, that the terms of its subsidiary's
settlement of a consolidated shareholder lawsuit are expected to
be presented to the court for approval before July 2013.

In August 2008, a shareholder derivative action was filed against
FCStone Group, Inc. ("FCStone") and certain directors of FCStone
in the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri, alleging breaches
of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and unjust
enrichment.  An amended complaint was subsequently filed in May
2009 to add claims based upon the losses sustained by FCStone
arising out of a customer energy trading account.  In July 2009,
the same plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the existing
case to add a purported class action claim on behalf of the
holders of FCStone common stock.

In July 2009, a purported shareholder class action complaint was
filed against FCStone and its directors, as well as the Company in
the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri.  The complaint alleged
that FCStone and its directors breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to maximize stockholder value in connection with the
contemplated acquisition of FCStone by the Company.  This
complaint was subsequently consolidated with the complaint filed
in the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri.  The plaintiffs
subsequently filed an amended consolidated complaint which does
not assert any claims against the Company.  This complaint
purports to be filed derivatively on FCStone and the Company's
behalf and against certain of FCStone's current and former
directors and officers and directly against the same individuals.
The Company, FCStone and the defendants filed motions to dismiss
on multiple grounds.

The parties to the litigation reached an agreement in principle to
settle this matter during October 2012.  The proposed settlement
would result in the Company incurring a legal cost of $250,000
after consideration of insurance, and is subject to approval by
the court.  The terms of the settlement are expected to be
presented to the court for approval before July 2013.

INTL FCStone Inc. -- http://www.intlfcstone.com/-- together with
its consolidated subsidiaries, form a financial services group
focused on domestic and select international markets.  The
Company's services include comprehensive risk management advisory
services for commercial customers; execution of listed futures and
options on futures contracts on all major commodity exchanges;
structured over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a wide range of
commodities; physical trading and hedging of precious and base
metals and select other commodities; trading of more than 130
foreign currencies; market-making in international equities;
Debtors origination and asset management.  During the quarter
ended March 31, 2011, the Company changed its name from
International Assets Holding Corporation to INTL FCStone Inc.,
following approval of the name change by the Company's
stockholders.  INTL's businesses, which include the commodities
advisory and transaction execution firm FCStone Group, Inc., serve
more than 10,000 commercial customers in more than 100 countries
through a network of offices in 12 countries around the world.


NEW YORK: "Ligon" Stop-and-Frisk Suit Gets Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that the
second of three major cases alleging the New York City Police
Department engages in an unconstitutional pattern of stopping and
frisking people without a reasonable suspicion that they are
engaged in criminal activity has been deemed a class action.

Southern District Judge Shira Scheindlin on Feb. 11 certified a
class in Ligon v. City of New York, 12-2274, a case where black
and Latino citizens in the Bronx allege police have been illegally
stopping and frisking them as they enter and exit buildings that
take part in a police crime-fighting program.

Following a hearing in which she heard from individual plaintiffs,
Judge Scheindlin found on Jan. 8 the plaintiffs were likely to
prevail at trial on their claim that police were violating the
Fourth Amendment by stopping and frisking people who were
entering, leaving, or, in some cases, just passing by buildings in
the Bronx that participated in the Trespass Affidavit Program
(TAP).

Formerly known as Operation Clean Halls, the TAP program allows
police patrols of private buildings with the consent of the owner
or landlord.  Some 5,000 buildings participate in the program and
the police maintain it is an effective crime-fighting tool.

In January, Judge Scheindlin in Ligon enjoined the practice of
stopping people on suspicion of trespassing without any
independent indication they were, in fact trespassing.  The judge
later stayed her ruling until the remedy issue is sorted out.  The
stay, she said, appeared to moot the city's appeal, and the city
then decided to withdraw the appeal, at least for the moment.

Judge Scheindlin also consolidated consideration of remedies in
Ligon with the remedies in the broader class action, Floyd v. City
of New York, 08 Civ. 1034, which alleges the police department has
a "top-down," city-wide policy of stopping and frisking people
without suspicion -- a practice that plaintiffs allege
disproportionately targets young black and Latino men.

In her decision certifying the class on Feb. 11, Judge Scheindlin
rejected the city's claim that the plaintiffs had not established
that their claims were typical of or common to the claims of the
proposed class.

"In sum, plaintiffs and the putative class members were allegedly
subjected to the same unlawful conduct by NYPD officers under the
auspices of a single NYPD program: unjustified [Terry v. Ohio]
stops, not supported by reasonable suspicion, occurring outdoors
in the vicinity of TAP buildings in the Bronx on suspicion of
trespass," she said.

In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court held
that the Fourth Amendment is not violated when a police officer
stops and frisks a person without probable cause to make an arrest
-- as long as the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the
person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

Floyd is scheduled for a bench trial on March 11, but could be
pushed back one week.

In both cases, the city has argued that improved training is
ensuring that the stop-and-frisk practices comply with the Fourth
Amendment and the plaintiffs counter that training is inadequate
and unconstitutional practices are still engrained in training
materials and the mindset of patrolling officers.

The parties in both Ligon and Floyd are scheduled to submit on
March 4 briefings on proposed remedies.

Among the remedies being considered by the judge are increased
training, new training materials that accurately state the law on
Fourth Amendment Terry stops, greater supervision and top-down
accountability to make sure that police are in compliance.
Judge Scheindlin also raised the prospect of a court monitor to
help ensure compliance.

Christopher Dunn of the New York Civil Liberties Union said on
Feb. 13, "Certifying the class was correct and necessary given
that the unconstitutional stopping and frisking we challenge is
endemic to the Clean Halls program.  We now look forward to Judge
Scheindlin ordering the systemic relief needed to fix the
program."

On Feb. 11, Judge Scheindlin held that consideration of any
remedies in Ligon and Floyd will be independent of any remedy in
Davis v. City of New York, 10-cv-699. Class certification is
pending in Davis, a case where plaintiffs allege persistent Fourth
Amendment violations by police in the buildings and on the
property of the New York City Housing Authority.

The parties in Davis are awaiting a decision on their motions for
summary judgment, with briefing on the issue of class
certification on hold until Judge Scheindlin makes her decision.

Mark Zuckerman, senior counsel in the federal division of the Law
Department, said in a statement, "We respectfully disagree with
the decision.  We don't believe that class certification is
warranted, but it's only one step in the broader litigation."


NTS REALTY: Faces Class Action in Delaware Over Merger
------------------------------------------------------
NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership disclosed that on
February 12, 2013, the Company received notice that a putative
class action lawsuit was filed on February 12, 2013 in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, each of
the members of the board of directors of NTS Realty Capital, Inc.,
the Company's managing general partner, NTS Merger Parent, LLC and
Realty Capital alleging, among other things, that the board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the unitholders of
the Company in connection with the board's approval of the merger
between NTS Merger Sub, LLC and the Company.  The complaint seeks,
among other things, money damages.

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

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

          About NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership

NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership currently owns, wholly, as
a tenant in common with unaffiliated co-owners, or through joint
venture investments with affiliated and unaffiliated third
parties, twenty-four properties comprised of fifteen multifamily
properties, seven office buildings and business centers and two
retail properties.  The properties are located in and around
Louisville and Lexington, Kentucky, Nashville and Cordova,
Tennessee, Richmond, Virginia, Fort Lauderdale and Orlando,
Florida, Indianapolis, Indiana and Atlanta, Georgia.  The
Company's limited partnership units are listed on the NYSE MKT
platform under the trading symbol of "NLP."


PANTRY INC: Dispositive Motions in Fuel Temperature Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Pantry, Inc.'s dispositive motions in each of the lawsuits
over fuel temperature in which it has been named a defendant
remain pending, according to the Company's February 5, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended December 27, 2012.

Since the beginning of fiscal 2007, over 45 class action lawsuits
have been filed in federal courts across the country against
numerous companies in the petroleum industry.  Major petroleum
companies and significant retailers in the industry have been
named as defendants in these lawsuits.  Initially, the Company was
named as a defendant in eight of these cases, three of which have
recently been dismissed without prejudice.  The Company remains as
a defendant in five cases: one in North Carolina (Neese, et al. v.
Abercrombie Oil Company, Inc., et al., E.D.N.C., No. 5:07-cv-
00091-FL, filed 3/7/07); one in Alabama (Cook,et al. v. Chevron
USA, Inc., et al., N.D. Ala., No. 2:07-cv-750-WKW-CSC, filed
8/22/07); one in Georgia (Rutherford, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA,
Inc., et al., No. 4:07-cv-00113-HLM, filed 6/5/07); one in
Tennessee (Shields, et al. v. RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc., et al.,
No. 1:07-cv-00169, filed 7/13/07); and one in South Carolina
(Korleski v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al., D.S.C.,
No 6:07-cv-03218-MDL, filed 9/24/07).  Pursuant to an Order
entered by the Joint Panel on Multi-District Litigation, all of
the cases, including those in which the Company is named, have
been transferred to the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas and consolidated for all pre-trial proceedings.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that they are
retail purchasers who received less motor fuel than the defendants
agreed to deliver because the defendants measured the amount of
motor fuel they delivered in non-temperature adjusted gallons
which, at higher temperatures, contain less energy.  These cases
seek, among other relief, an order requiring the defendants to
install temperature adjusting equipment on their retail motor fuel
dispensing devices.  In certain of the cases, including some of
the cases in which the Company is named, plaintiffs also have
alleged that because defendants pay fuel taxes based on
temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons, but allegedly collect
taxes from consumers on non-temperature adjusted gallons,
defendants receive a greater amount of tax from consumers than
they paid on the same gallon of fuel.  The plaintiffs in these
cases seek, among other relief, recovery of excess taxes paid and
punitive damages.  Both types of cases seek compensatory damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs and prejudgment
interest.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss all cases for failure to
state a claim, which were denied by the court on February 21,
2008.  A number of the defendants, including the Company,
subsequently moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on the
grounds that plaintiffs' claims constitute non-justiciable
"political questions."  The Court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss on political question grounds on December 3, 2009, and
defendants request to appeal that decision to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit was denied on August 31,
2010.

In May 2010, in a lawsuit in which the Company is not a party, the
Court granted class certification to Kansas fuel purchasers
seeking implementation of automated temperature controls and/or
certain disclosures, but deferred ruling on any class for damages.
Defendants sought permission to appeal that decision to the Tenth
Circuit in June 2010, and that request was denied on August 31,
2010.  On November 12, 2011, Defendants in the Kansas case filed a
motion to decertify the Kansas classes in light of a new favorable
United States Supreme Court decision.  On
January 19, 2012, the Judge denied the Defendants' motion to
decertify and granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class as
to liability and injunctive relief aspects of Plaintiffs' claims.
The court has continued to deny certification of a damages class.
On September 24, 2012, the jury in the Kansas case returned a
verdict in favor of defendants finding that defendants did not
violate Kansas law by willfully failing to disclose temperature
and its effect on the energy content of motor fuel.  On October 3,
2012, the judge in the Kansas case also ruled that defendants'
practice of selling motor fuel without disclosing temperature or
disclosing the effect of temperature was not unconscionable under
Kansas law.

The Company filed a motion on December 3, 2012, requesting that
cases filed in Arkansas and Virginia, to neither of which the
Company is a party, be remanded for further adjudication and the
remaining cases be stayed until these two cases are concluded.
Plaintiffs requested that cases filed in California, in which the
Company is not a party, be remanded for further adjudication and
the remaining cases be stayed until the California cases are
concluded.

On January 23, 2013, the judge ordered that the three California
cases will be remanded for trial in the summer of 2013.  It
appears that all remaining cases will be stayed while those cases
are tried.  The Company has opposed class certification and filed
dispositive motions in each of the cases in which the Company has
been sued.

At this stage of proceedings, the Company says losses are
reasonably possible, however, it cannot estimate its loss, range
of loss or liability, if any, related to these lawsuits because
there are a number of unknown facts and unresolved legal issues
that will impact the amount of any potential liability, including,
without limitation: (i) whether defendants are required, or even
permitted under state law, to sell temperature adjusted gallons of
motor fuel; (ii) the amounts and actual temperature of fuel
purchased by plaintiffs; and (iii) whether or not class
certification is proper in cases to which the Company is a party.
An adverse outcome in this litigation could have a material effect
on the Company's business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows.

The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.pantry.com/-- operates a chain of
convenience stores in the southeastern United States.  The
Company's stores offer a selection of merchandise, fuel, and
ancillary products and services.  Its merchandise products include
cigarettes, grocery and other tobacco products, packaged
beverages, beer, and wine.  The Company operates stores under
various selected banners, which primarily include Kangaroo
Express.  The Company was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in
Cary, North Carolina.


PANTRY INC: Hearing on Bid to Junk Suit Over Card Info on Feb. 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on The Pantry, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit over the use of information on debit and credit card
receipts has been scheduled for February 19, 2013, according to
the Company's February 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 27, 2012.

On October 19, 2009, Patrick Amason, on behalf of himself and a
putative class of similarly situated individuals, filed a lawsuit
against The Pantry in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, Western Division (Patrick Amason v.
Kangaroo Express and The Pantry, Inc. No. CV-09-P-2117-W).  On
September 9, 2010, a first amended complaint was filed adding
Enger McConnell on behalf of herself and a putative class of
similarly situated individuals.  The plaintiffs seek class action
status and allege that The Pantry included more information than
is permitted on electronically printed credit and debit card
receipts in willful violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. Section 1681c(g).  The
amended complaint alleges that: (i) plaintiff Patrick Amason seeks
to represent a subclass of those class members as to whom the
Company printed receipts containing the first four and last four
digits of their credit and/or debit card numbers; and (ii)
Plaintiff Enger McConnell seeks to represent a subclass of those
class members as to whom the Company printed receipts containing
all digits of their credit and/or debit card numbers.  The
plaintiffs seek an award of statutory damages of $100 to $1,000
for each alleged willful violation of the statute, as well as
attorneys' fees, costs, punitive damages and a permanent
injunction against the alleged unlawful practice.

On July 25, 2011, the court denied plaintiffs' initial motion for
class certification but granted the plaintiffs the right to file
an amended motion.  On October 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed an amended
motion for class certification seeking to certify two classes.
The first purported class, represented by Mr. Amason, consists of
(A) all natural persons whose credit and/or debit card was used at
an in-store point of sale owned or operated by the Company from
June 4, 2009, through the date of the final judgment in the
action; (B) where the transaction was in a Company store located
in the State of Alabama; and (C) in connection with the
transaction, a receipt was printed by Retalix software containing
the first four and last four digits of the credit/debit card
number on the receipt provided to the customer.  The second
purported class, represented by Ms. McConnell, consists of (A) all
natural persons whose credit and/or debit card was used at an in-
store point of sale owned or operated by the Company from June 1,
2009, through the date of the final judgment in the action; and
(B) in connection with the transaction, a receipt was printed
containing all of the digits of the credit/debit card numbers on
the receipt provided to the customer.  The Company is opposing the
motion for class certification, and also has made a motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' claims on the basis that the plaintiffs
lack standing or alternatively to stay the case until the Supreme
Court of the United States rules in First American Financial Corp.
v. Edwards, another case involving a standing issue.  On January
19, 2012, the Court issued an order staying the case until a
decision is issued in the Edwards case, and subsequently
administratively terminated plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, subject to plaintiffs' right to refile the motion
after the stay is removed.  On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court of
the United States dismissed the writ of certiorari in the Edwards
case as having been improvidently granted, an action that has no
precedential effect on the Company's case.

The parties filed a Joint Report to the Court on July 10, 2012,
requesting that plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification
and the Company's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing be deemed
refiled.  A hearing on the Company's Motion to Dismiss has been
scheduled for February 19, 2013.

At this stage of the proceedings, the Company says losses are
reasonably possible, however; it cannot reasonably estimate its
loss, range of loss or liability, if any, related to this lawsuit
because there are a number of unknown facts and unresolved legal
issues that will impact the amount of the Company's potential
liability, including, without limitation: (i) whether the
plaintiffs have standing to assert their claims; (ii) whether a
class or classes will be certified; (iii) if a class or classes
are certified, the identity and number of the putative class
members; and (iv) if a class or classes are certified, the
resolution of certain unresolved statutory interpretation issues
that may impact the size of the putative class(es) and whether or
not the plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages.  An adverse
outcome in this litigation could have a material effect on the
Company's business, financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows.

The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.pantry.com/-- operates a chain of
convenience stores in the southeastern United States.  The
Company's stores offer a selection of merchandise, fuel, and
ancillary products and services.  Its merchandise products include
cigarettes, grocery and other tobacco products, packaged
beverages, beer, and wine.  The Company operates stores under
various selected banners, which primarily include Kangaroo
Express.  The Company was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in
Cary, North Carolina.


PHILIP MORRIS: Appeals in "ADESF" Suit Remain Pending in Brazil
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the first class action pending in Brazil, The Smoker Health
Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris
Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central
Courts of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed
July 25, 1995, Philip Morris International Inc.'s subsidiary and
another member of the industry are defendants.  The plaintiff, a
consumer organization, is seeking damages for smokers and former
smokers and injunctive relief.

The Civil Court of Sao Paulo found defendants liable without
hearing evidence.  The court did not assess moral or actual
damages, which were to be assessed in a second phase of the case.
The size of the class was not defined in the ruling.

In April 2004, the court clarified its ruling, awarding "moral
damages" of R$1,000 (approximately $540) per smoker per full year
of smoking plus interest at the rate of 1% per month, as of the
date of the ruling.  The court did not award actual damages, which
were to be assessed in the second phase of the case.  The size of
the class was not estimated.  Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo
Court of Appeals, which annulled the ruling in November 2008,
finding that the trial court had inappropriately ruled without
hearing evidence and returned the case to the trial court for
further proceedings.  In May 2011, the trial court dismissed the
claim.  Plaintiff has appealed.  In addition, the defendants filed
a constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Tribunal on the
basis that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the
lawsuit.  This appeal is still pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 7,
2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.


PHILIP MORRIS: Sao Paulo Prosecutor's Appeal Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
In the second class action pending in Brazil, Public Prosecutor of
Sao Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda.,
Civil Court of the City of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed August 6,
2007, Philip Morris International Inc.'s subsidiary is a
defendant.  The plaintiff, the Public Prosecutor of the State of
Sao Paulo, is seeking (i) unspecified damages on behalf of all
smokers nationwide, former smokers, and their relatives; (ii)
unspecified damages on behalf of people exposed to environmental
tobacco smoke ("ETS") nationwide, and their relatives; and (iii)
reimbursement of the health care costs allegedly incurred for the
treatment of tobacco-related diseases by all Brazilian States and
Municipalities, and the Federal District.  In an interim ruling
issued in December 2007, the trial court limited the scope of this
claim to the State of Sao Paulo only.  In December 2008, the
Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo issued a decision declaring that
it lacked jurisdiction because the case involved issues similar to
the ADESF case and should be transferred to the Nineteenth Lower
Civil Court in Sao Paulo where the ADESF case is pending.  The
court further stated that these cases should be consolidated for
the purposes of judgment.  In April 2010, the Sao Paulo Court of
Appeals reversed the Seventh Civil Court's decision that
consolidated the cases, finding that they are based on different
legal claims and are progressing at different stages of
proceedings.  This case was returned to the Seventh Civil Court of
Sao Paulo, and the Company's subsidiary filed its closing
arguments in December 2010.

In March 2012, the trial court dismissed the case on the merits.
This decision has been appealed.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 7,
2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.


PHILIP MORRIS: "El-Roy" Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in El-Roy, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et
al., appealed the denial of their class certification motion and
the dismissal of their individual claims, according to Philip
Morris International Inc.'s February 7, 2013, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In the first class action pending in Israel, El-Roy, et al. v.
Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., District Court of Tel-
Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed January 18, 2004, the Company's
subsidiary and its indemnitees (Philip Morris USA Inc. and its
former importer) are defendants.  The plaintiffs filed a purported
class action claiming that the class members were misled by the
descriptor "lights" into believing that lights cigarettes are
safer than full flavor cigarettes.  The claim seeks recovery of
the purchase price of lights cigarettes and compensation for
distress for each class member.  Hearings took place in November
and December 2008 regarding whether the case meets the legal
requirements necessary to allow it to proceed as a class action.
The parties' briefing on class certification was completed in
March 2011.  In November 2012, the court denied class
certification and dismissed the individual claims.  Plaintiffs
have appealed.


PHILIP MORRIS: Israeli Ct. Has Yet to Take Action in "Navon" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its February 7, 2013,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
that the District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, has not yet
taken any action in the class action lawsuit filed by Navon, et
al.

The claims in the second class action pending in Israel, Navon, et
al. v. Philip Morris Products USA, et al., District Court of Tel-
Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed December 5, 2004, against the Company's
indemnitee (the Company's distributor) and other members of the
industry are similar to those in El-Roy case, and the case is
currently stayed pending a ruling on class certification in El-
Roy.  The El-Roy trial court recently denied class certification,
but the Navon trial court has not yet taken any action.


PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Letourneau" Suit vs. Unit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action lawsuit brought by Cecilia Letourneau
against a subsidiary of Philip Morris International Inc. is
ongoing, according to the Company's February 7, 2013, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In the first class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v.
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI
Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September
1998, the Company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers
are defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker, is seeking
compensatory and unspecified punitive damages for each member of
the class who is deemed addicted to smoking.  The class was
certified in 2005.  In February 2011, the trial court ruled that
the federal government would remain as a third party in the case.
In November 2012, the Court of Appeals dismissed defendants'
third-party claims against the federal government.  Trial began on
March 12, 2012.

At the present pace, trial is expected to last well into 2013 and
possibly 2014, with a judgment to follow at an indeterminate point
after the conclusion of the trial proceedings.


PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Blais" Suit Still Ongoing in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action lawsuit commenced by Conseil Quebecois
Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais against a subsidiary
of Philip Morris International Inc. is ongoing, according to the
Company's February 7, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In the second class action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois
Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco
Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp.,
Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, the
Company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers are
defendants.  The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an
individual smoker, are seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages for each member of the class who allegedly
suffers from certain smoking-related diseases.  The class was
certified in 2005.  In February 2011, the trial court ruled that
the federal government will remain as a third party in the case.
In November 2012, the Court of Appeals dismissed defendants'
third-party claims against the federal government.  Trial began on
March 12, 2012.

At the present pace, trial is expected to last well into 2013 and
possibly 2014, with a judgment to follow at an indeterminate point
after the conclusion of the trial proceedings.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Kunta" Suit in Winnipeg Still Dormant
-----------------------------------------------------
In the third class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Winnipeg, Canada, filed June 12, 2009, Philip Morris International
Inc., its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (Philip Morris USA
Inc. and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry
are defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her
own addiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease ("COPD"), severe asthma and mild reversible lung
disease resulting from the use of tobacco products.  She is
seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of
a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates,
dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits,
and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused
by tobacco products.  In September 2009, plaintiff's counsel
informed defendants that he did not anticipate taking any action
in this case while he pursues the class action filed in
Saskatchewan, the Adams case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 7,
2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.


PHILIP MORRIS: Prelim. Motions Remain Pending in "Adams" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the fourth class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Saskatchewan, Canada, filed July 10, 2009, Philip Morris
International Inc., its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (Philip
Morris USA Inc. and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the
industry are defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker,
alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD") resulting from the use of
tobacco products.  She is seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have
allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart
disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits.
Preliminary motions are pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 7,
2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Semple" Class Suit in Nova Scotia Still Dormant
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the fifth class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial
court), Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, Philip Morris
International Inc., its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (Philip
Morris USA Inc. and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the
industry are defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker,
alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD") resulting from the use of
tobacco products.  He is seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as
restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health
care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.  No activity in
this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues the
class action filed in Saskatchewan, the Adams case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 7,
2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Dorion" Suit in Alberta, Canada Remains Dormant
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the sixth class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Alberta, Canada, filed June 15, 2009, Philip Morris International
Inc., its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (Philip Morris USA
Inc. and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry
are defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her
own addiction to tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and
severe sinus infections resulting from the use of tobacco
products.  She is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers,
their estates, dependents and family members, restitution of
profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs
allegedly caused by tobacco products.  To date, the Company, its
subsidiaries, and its indemnitees have not been properly served
with the complaint.  No activity in this case is anticipated while
plaintiff's counsel pursues the class action filed in
Saskatchewan, the Adams case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 7,
2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.


PHILIP MORRIS: "McDermid" Suit Still Pending in British Columbia
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the seventh class action pending in Canada, McDermid v.
Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British
Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, Philip Morris International
Inc., its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (Philip Morris USA
Inc. and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry
are defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his
own addiction to tobacco products and heart disease resulting from
the use of tobacco products.  He is seeking compensatory and
unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all smokers who were alive on
June 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease allegedly
caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members,
plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from
January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.  Defendants have
filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this action
should not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan class
action, the Adams case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 7,
2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Bourassa" Suit Still Pending in British Columbia
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the eighth class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial
Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia,
Canada, filed June 25, 2010, Philip Morris International Inc., its
subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (Philip Morris USA Inc. and
Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are
defendants.  The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges
that the decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered
from emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products.  She is
seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of
a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June
12, 2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases
allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family
members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants
from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.  Defendants
have filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this
action should not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan,
the Adams case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 7,
2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.


PHILIP MORRIS: Counsel in "Jacklin" Suit To Cease Case Activity
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff's counsel in the class action lawsuit initiated by
Suzanne Jacklin in Ontario, Canada have indicated that they do not
intend to take any action in this case in the near future,
Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed in its February 7,
2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

In the ninth class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v.
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, filed June 20, 2012, the Company, its
subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (Philip Morris USA Inc. and
Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are
defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own
addiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease ("COPD") resulting from the use of tobacco products.  She
is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf
of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a
minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or
suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well as
restitution of profits.  Plaintiff's counsel have indicated that
they do not intend to take any action in this case in the near
future.


PURR-FECTION: Recalls 7,200 Beamerzzz Stuffed Toys w/ Flashlight
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Purr-Fection by MJC, Inc., of Tualatin, Oregon, announced a
voluntary recall of about 7,200 Beamerzzz(TM) Stuffed Animals with
LED Flashlight.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

LED flashlight wires can protrude through the stuffed toy, posing
a laceration hazard.

One incident was reported involving a consumer who noticed an
exposed wire.  No injuries were reported.

The recalled Beamerzzz stuffed toys come with LED flashlights sewn
into the left paw.  The toys are 12 inches high and come in five
animal types.  The model number can be found on the hang tag on
the left ear.  Affected toys are marked with manufacturing code
111208-02 on the sewn in label located in the left rear portion of
the toy.  The recalled styles are:

     Style                   Model No.
     -----                   ---------
     Baby Moose               3127FS
     Baby Butter Cream Bear   1229FS
     Baby Smoky Black Bear    1231FS
     Baby Deer                3136FS
     Baby Derby Elephant      1927FS

A picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://is.gd/0cG9ju

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Cabela's stores and online at Cabelas.com from September 2012
through November 2012 for about $15.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toys away from
children and contact Purr-Fection by MJC for a replacement toy.
Purr-Fection by MJC may be reached at (800) 359-0254 from 9:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday, or online at
http://www.purr-fection.com/and click on the orange product
recall tab at the top of the page for more information.


RETAIL ADVENTURES: Jan Cameron May Face Class Action Over Rescue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Waters, writing for Crikey, reports that bargain-hunting
businesswoman Jan Cameron has bought back into the retail chain
she attempted to rescue in 2009 -- but she could face a class
action.

Ms. Cameron has bought back Retail Adventures for AUD58.9 million
after the business was put into administration in October last
year.  Retail Adventures is Australia's largest discount variety
store operator and operates Crazy Clark's, Sam's Warehouse, Go-Lo
and Chickenfeed, with around 236 stores and 5000 employees.

Ms. Cameron is not just a retail investor; she made headlines in
2011 when she bought Tasmania's controversial Triabunna woodchip
mill, with media figure and wotif founder Graeme Wood.  Ms.
Cameron initially bought Retail Adventures out of administration
in 2009 for AUD85 million and invested another AUD80 million over
the past three years to keep the business afloat.

Administrator Vaughan Strawbridge of Deloitte Restructuring
Service said in a statement on Feb. 12 the offer received from Ms.
Cameron's company, DSG Holdings Australia Pty Ltd., was the
highest received following a public sale process.

"This is a positive outcome.  The sale will ensure jobs are
retained for approximately 4700 employees, with many stores
located in regional areas.  Trade with key suppliers will also
continue, landlords will retain tenants, and the network of more
than 210 stores will continue to serve local communities and
customers."

Mr. Strawbridge says the sale process was complex and time is
needed to fully transition supplier contracts, leases and
employees to DSG.

Landlords are still to agree on 131 store leases.  Mr. Strawbridge
says DSG will continue to cover entitlements for employees who
have been made redundant to date. "This will continue, and the
purchase price has been adjusted for employee entitlements assumed
and monies paid to the administrators to cover redundancies paid,"
he said.

Mr. Strawbridge says he expects a deed of company arrangement
would be put forward which would need to result in a better return
to creditors than had Retail Adventures been placed into
liquidation.  "The ultimate likely recovery for creditors is
unknown at this time and forms part of the administrator's ongoing
investigations," he said.

But unsecured creditors who are owed AUD96 million are unlikely to
be happy with the deal, and Ms. Cameron could face a class action
run by litigation funder IMF.  IMF managing director Hugh McLernon
told Crikey sister publication SmartCompany the litigation funder
has been supporting creditors to push the administrator to carry
out a public examination of the offices of Retail Adventures.

"This examination will be primarily to determine whether the
company was allowed to trade while it was insolvent and whether
there were any serious preferences paid before it went into
administration," he said.

Mr. McLernon says the unsecured creditors are also very interested
in the question of whether the security that is held by another
Cameron company called Retail Adventures Holdings Pty Ltd. is
enforceable.

"What we have suggested is that the administrator should have
already carried out those investigations, but seeing as he hasn't,
he should call a meeting as soon as possible to give the creditors
an opportunity to put the company into liquidation and enable them
to take their own action against the officers of the company," he
said.  "The reason for that is it seems absolutely clear that the
AUD100 million worth of unsecured creditors will not get a cent
from the sale proceeds of the business."

Mr. McLernon says IMF is in the process of formalizing the
litigation.  A spokesperson for Deloitte told SmartCompany the
administrators were not aware of any legal actions which had been
proposed or commenced.  "The administrators have not received any
information from any creditor on any specific issues of concern,"
he said.


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Defends Suits Over Wild Bird Food Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company is defending itself against a
consolidated class action lawsuit related to its wild bird food
products, according to the Company's February 7, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 29, 2012.

In connection with the sale of wild bird food products that were
the subject of a voluntary recall in 2008, the Company has been
named as a defendant in four putative class actions filed on and
after June 27, 2012, which have now been consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California as In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case
No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-RBB.  The plaintiffs allege various
statutory and common law claims associated with the Company's sale
of wild bird food products and a plea agreement entered into in
previously pending government proceedings associated with such
sales.  The plaintiffs seek on behalf of themselves and various
purported class members monetary damages, restitution, injunctive
relief, declaratory relief, attorney's fees, interest and costs.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend the consolidated
action.  Given the early stages of the action, the Company cannot
make a determination as to whether it could have a material effect
on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows and has not recorded any accruals with respect thereto.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: E-Data Examination Ongoing in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An expert is currently examining electronic data produced by a
subsidiary of Southwest Airlines Co. in the antitrust class action
lawsuit pending in Georgia, according to the Company's February 7,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta
Air Lines, Inc. ("Delta") and AirTran Airways in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta on
May 22, 2009.  The complaint alleged, among other things, that
AirTran attempted to monopolize air travel in violation of Section
2 of the Sherman Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-
per-bag fees for the first item of checked luggage in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The initial complaint sought treble
damages on behalf of a putative class of persons or entities in
the United States who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees
on domestic flights beginning December 5, 2008.  After the filing
of the May 2009 complaint, various other nearly identical
complaints also seeking certification as class actions were filed
in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia; Orlando, Florida;
and Las Vegas, Nevada.  All of the cases were consolidated before
a single federal district court judge in Atlanta.  A Consolidated
Amended Complaint was filed in the consolidated action on February
1, 2010, which broadened the allegations to add claims that Delta
and AirTran conspired to reduce capacity on competitive routes and
to raise prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  In
addition to treble damages for the amount of first baggage fees
paid to AirTran and to Delta, the Consolidated Amended Complaint
seeks injunctive relief against a broad range of alleged
anticompetitive activities, as well as attorneys' fees.

On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that
AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the
Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the
imposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and
pricing decisions.  On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to certify a class, which AirTran and Delta have opposed.
The Court has not yet ruled on the class certification motion.
The original period for fact and expert discovery was scheduled to
end on February 25, 2011, but on February 3, 2012, the Court
granted plaintiffs' motion for supplemental discovery because
Delta discovered that it had not produced certain electronic
documents.  The period for supplemental discovery against AirTran
ended on May 3, 2012, but discovery disputes between plaintiffs
and Delta have continued.  On June 18, 2012, the parties filed a
Stipulation and Order that plaintiffs have abandoned their claim
that AirTran and Delta conspired to reduce capacity.  AirTran and
Delta moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' remaining
claims on August 31, 2012.  The plaintiffs filed motions to compel
Delta to produce additional documents and for sanctions based on
alleged failures to produce electronic data.  On November 19,
2012, the Court ordered plaintiffs to appoint an expert to examine
Delta's production of electronic data and suspended the briefing
schedule for the summary judgment motion until the expert has
completed his work.

It is AirTran's understanding that the expert's work is ongoing.
While AirTran has denied all allegations of wrongdoing, including
those in the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and intends to defend
vigorously any and all such allegations, results of legal
proceedings such as this one cannot be predicted with certainty.
Regardless of its merit, this litigation and any potential future
claims against the Company or AirTran may be both time consuming
and disruptive to the Company's operations and cause significant
expense and diversion of management attention.  Should AirTran and
the Company fail to prevail in this or other matters, the Company
may be faced with significant monetary damages or injunctive
relief that could materially adversely affect its business and
might materially affect its financial condition and operating
results.


SPORT CHALET: Defends "Bennett" Class Action Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sport Chalet, Inc. is defending a class action lawsuit initiated
by Brian Bennett in California, according to the Company's
February 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 30, 2012.

On April 12, 2012, the Company was served with a complaint filed
in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles,
entitled Brian Bennett v. Sport Chalet, Inc. and Sport Chalet Team
Sales, Inc. (Case No. BC482472), alleging violations of the
California Civil Code.  The complaint was brought as a purported
class action on behalf of wheelchair-bound persons located in
California.  The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the
Company violated California state law by failing to make certain
store locations accessible to individuals with disabilities.  The
plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, unspecified
amounts of damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  Plaintiffs'
demands for injunctive relief claim that the features of some of
the Company's California stores are not in compliance with state
or federal regulations and therefore are not accessible to
individuals who use wheelchairs.  The Company intends to defend
this litigation vigorously.


STANDARD FIRE: Monetary Limits on Class Action at Issue
-------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Keahey, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Supreme
Court Justice Courtney Hudson Goodson reported late last month
that she received a trip worth $50,000 to Italy in 2012 from
plaintiff attorney W.H. Taylor, a friend of her class action
attorney husband John C. Goodson.

Justice Goodson and her husband both reported the gift from Mr.
Taylor in their recent statements of financial interest filed with
the Arkansas Secretary of State.

In a statement to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, a spokesman for
the jurist said that Justice Goodson would recuse herself from any
cases involving Mr. Taylor.

The European trip is not the first extravagance Mr. Taylor has
bestowed upon the justice.  According to state financial
disclosure statements, Justice Goodson accepted a $12,000
Caribbean cruise from Mr. Taylor in 2011.

Justice Goodson recently attracted media attention after visiting
briefly with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in what was
described as a "courtesy" meeting on the same day the high court
heard oral arguments in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, a
case arising from Miller County, Arkansas and one being litigated
by her husband.

According to Arkansas Business, Arkansas Supreme Court spokeswoman
Stephanie Harris said the meeting took place shortly after oral
arguments, held on Jan. 7.

"Justice Scalia and Justice Goodson exchanged pleasantries," said
Ms. Harris, according to Arkansas Business.  "Justice Scalia was
made aware of Justice Goodson's husband's involvement in the case
before he extended the courtesy to her.  They never spoke about
the case."

The Arkansas Business also reported that Kathy Arberg, a public
information officer for the U.S. Supreme Court, said, "Justice
Scalia briefly greeted Justice Goodson, whom he did not know, at
the request of one of her colleagues on the Arkansas Supreme
Court.  The extending of such a courtesy is not at all uncommon."

The central argument in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles
concerns efforts by lawyers, including Mr. Goodson, to place
monetary limits on class actions in an effort to keep the lawsuits
in so-called plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions such as Miller
County.

The underlying "Knowles" class action -- which claims that
Standard Fire breached its contract by systematically underpaying
loss claims -- was initiated by attorney Goodson, who has made
millions in attorney's fees from similar cases in Miller County
Circuit Court.

Mr. Goodson's firm, Keil & Goodson of Texarkana, Ark., Nix
Patterson & Roach of Austin, Texas and Mr. Taylor's firm of Taylor
Law Partners in Fayetteville, Ark. have repeatedly filed
stipulations in class action cases that prevent plaintiffs and
class members from receiving more than $5 million to keep the
lawsuits in Arkansas state court.  Damages exceeding $5 million
would automatically move claims to federal court under the Class
Action Fairness Act.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the issue before the end
of its current term.

In December, Justice Goodson was also in the news for being named
as the Arkansas Supreme Court's liaison to its Committee on
Professional Conduct, which oversees the ethical performance of
lawyers.

Justice Goodson was first sworn in as a judge of the Arkansas
Court of Appeals in May 2008 and stayed in that office until she
left for the Arkansas Supreme Court in 2011.

She is currently serving an eight-year term, which will end in
2018.  During her most recent campaign for the high court, she ran
on a family-interest platform.

Shortly after her election, her husband of 14 years, Mark Henry,
sued for divorce.  She married John Goodson about a year later.


STATE COMPENSATION: Faces Auditors' Overtime Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the State Compensation
Insurance Fund forces auditors to work off the clock, cheating
them of overtime, a class action claims in Federal Court.


SUNPOWER CORP: $19MM Deal Excluded in Non-GAAP Financial Measures
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SunPower Corporation disclosed in its February 7, 2013, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the
agreement in principle it reached in December 2012 to settle a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit for $19.7 million was
excluded from its non-GAAP financial measures as it is non-
recurring and not reflective of ongoing operating results.

In December 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle a consolidated securities class action lawsuit for $19.7
million and recorded a charge of the same amount in the fourth
quarter of 2012.  The lawsuits arose from the Audit Committee's
investigation announcement on November 16, 2009, regarding certain
unsubstantiated accounting entries.  The Company excludes this
charge from its non-GAAP financial measures as it is non-recurring
and not reflective of ongoing operating results.  Excluding this
data provides investors with a basis to compare the company's
performance against the performance of other companies without
such charges.

Based in San Jose, California, SunPower Corporation --
http://www.sunpowercorp.com/-- an integrated solar products and
services company, designs, manufactures, and delivers solar
electric systems for residential, commercial, and utility-scale
power plant customers worldwide.  It operates in two segments,
Utility and Power Plants, and Residential and Commercial.
SunPower Corporation is a subsidiary of Total Gas & Power USA,
SAS.


TOWERS WATSON: Awaits Appellate Ct. Directive Regarding Mediation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Towers Watson & Co. said in its February 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended December 31, 2012, that it is awaiting appellate court
confirmation as to whether briefing on an appeal from a summary
judgment in favor of defendants of a consolidated shareholder
lawsuit will be stayed or the parties are required participate in
its mediation program.

Towers Watson was formed on January 1, 2010, from the merger of
Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby, Inc. ("Towers Perrin") and
Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Inc. ("Watson Wyatt"), two leading
professional services firms that traced their roots back more than
100 years.

A putative class action lawsuit filed by certain former
shareholders of Towers Perrin (the "Dugan Action") previously was
reported in Amendment No. 3 to the Registration Statement on Form
S-4/A (File No. 333-161705) filed on November 9, 2009, by the
Jupiter Saturn Holding Company (the "Registration Statement").  As
reported in the Registration Statement, the complaint was filed on
November 5, 2009, against Towers Perrin, members of its board of
directors, and certain members of senior management in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs in this action are former members of Towers Perrin's
senior management, who left Towers Perrin at various times between
1995 and 2000.  The Dugan plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
former Towers Perrin shareholders who separated from service on or
after January 1, 1971, and who also meet certain other specified
criteria.  The complaint does not contain a quantification of the
damages sought.

On December 9, 2009, Watson Wyatt was informed by Towers Perrin of
a settlement demand from the plaintiffs in the Dugan Action.
Although the complaint in the Dugan Action does not contain a
quantification of the damages sought, plaintiffs' settlement
demand, which was orally communicated to Towers Perrin on December
8, 2009, and in writing on December 9, 2009, sought a payment of
$800 million to settle the action on behalf of the proposed class.
Plaintiffs requested that Towers Perrin communicate the settlement
demand to Watson Wyatt.

On December 17, 2009, four other former Towers Perrin
shareholders, all of whom voluntarily left Towers Perrin in May or
June 2005 and all of whom are excluded from the proposed class in
the Dugan Action, commenced a separate legal proceeding (the
"Allen Action") in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging the same claims in
substantially the same form as those alleged in the Dugan Action.
A fifth plaintiff joined this action on August 29, 2011.  These
plaintiffs are proceeding in their individual capacities and do
not seek to represent a proposed class.

On January 15, 2010, another former Towers Perrin shareholder who
separated from service with Towers Perrin in March 2005 when
Towers Perrin and EDS launched a joint venture that led to the
creation of a corporate entity known as ExcellerateHRO ("eHRO"),
commenced a separate legal proceeding (the "Pao Action") in the
United States District Court of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania alleging the same claims in substantially the same
form as those alleged in the Dugan Action.  Towers Perrin
contributed its Towers Perrin Administrative Solutions ("TPAS")
business to eHRO and formerly was a minority shareholder (15%) of
eHRO.  Pao seeks to represent a class of former Towers Perrin
shareholders who separated from service in connection with Towers
Perrin's contribution to eHRO of its TPAS business and who are
excluded from the proposed class in the Dugan Action.  Towers
Watson is also named as a defendant in the Pao Action.

Pursuant to the Towers Perrin Bylaws in effect at the time of
their separations, the Towers Perrin shares held by all plaintiffs
were redeemed by Towers Perrin at book value when these
individuals separated from employment.  The complaints allege
variously that there either was a promise that Towers Perrin would
remain privately owned in perpetuity (Dugan Action) or that in the
event of a change to public ownership plaintiffs would receive
compensation (Allen and Pao Actions).  Plaintiffs allege that by
agreeing to sell their shares back to Towers Perrin at book value
upon separation, they and other members of the putative classes
relied upon these alleged promises, which they claim were breached
as a result of the consummation of the Merger between Watson Wyatt
and Towers Perrin.  The complaints assert claims for breach of
contract, breach of express trust, breach of fiduciary duty,
promissory estoppel, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, and
constructive trust, and seek equitable relief including an
accounting, disgorgement, rescission and/or restitution, and the
imposition of a constructive trust.  On January 20, 2010, the
court consolidated the three actions for all purposes.

On February 22, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaints in their entireties.  By order dated September 30,
2010, the court granted the motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claim
for a constructive trust and denied the motion with respect to all
other claims alleged.  Pursuant to the court's September 30, 2010
order, defendants also filed answers to plaintiffs' complaints on
October 22, 2010.  The parties have completed fact discovery.
Neither the plaintiffs in Dugan or Pao has moved for class
certification.  Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on
all claims in all actions on December 23, 2011.  The court heard
argument on June 19, 2012, and on December 11, 2012, granted
defendants' motion, and entered judgment in favor of defendants on
all claims.

On January 10, 2013, plaintiffs filed a joint notice of their
intent to appeal the court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.  Towers Watson awaits confirmation as to
whether the appellate court will stay briefing of the appeal and
require the parties to participate in its mediation program.  In
that event, Towers Watson would expect the appellate court to
issue a briefing schedule only after an unsuccessful conclusion of
the mediation.

Towers Watson continues to believe the claims in these lawsuits
are without merit and that the court's decision to grant summary
judgment in favor of defendants should be upheld on appeal.
However, the outcome of any appeal is uncertain and may be
unfavorable to Towers Watson.  Given the stage of the proceedings,
the Company has concluded that a loss is neither probable nor
estimable, and that the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably
possible loss or range of loss.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Continues to Defend Ingenix-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits arising from its use of a database
previously maintained by Ingenix, Inc., according to the Company's
February 7, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company is involved in a number of lawsuits challenging
reimbursement amounts for non-network health care services based
on the Company's use of a database previously maintained by
Ingenix, Inc. (now known as OptumInsight), including putative
class actions and multidistrict litigation brought on behalf of
members of Aetna and WellPoint. These lawsuits allege, among other
things, that the database licensed to these companies by Ingenix
was flawed and that Ingenix conspired with these companies to
underpay their members' claims and seek unspecified damages and
treble damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, interest, costs
and attorneys' fees. The Company is vigorously defending these
lawsuits. In 2012, the Company was dismissed as a party from a
similar lawsuit involving Cigna and its members. The Company
cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may
result from these matters due to the procedural status of the
cases, dispositive motions that remain pending, the absence of
class certification in any of the cases, the lack of a formal
demand on the Company by the plaintiffs, and the involvement of
other insurance companies as defendants.

UnitedHealth Group Incorporated operates as a diversified health
and well-being company in the United States.  The Company is
headquartered in Minnetonka, Minnesota.


VIRGIN MEDIA: Being Sold to Liberty for Too Little, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Grimsley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Neil Berkett, James Mooney, Eamonn O'Hare, Charles
Allen, James Chiddix, Andrew Cole, William Huff, Gordon McCallum,
John Rigsby, Steven Simmons, Doreen Toben, George Zoffinger,
Virgin Media, Inc., Liberty Global, Inc., Lynx Europe Limited,
Lynx US Merger Co 1 LLC, Lynx US Merger Co 2 LLC, Viper US
MergerCO 1 LLC, and Viper US MergerCO 2 LLC, Case No. 650469/2013
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., February 12, 2013) is brought on behalf of the
public stockholders of Virgin Media against members of its Board
of Directors for their breaches of fiduciary duties arising out of
their attempt to sell the Company to Liberty Global by means of an
alleged unfair process and for an unfair price.

The Directors have breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to
the Proposed Transaction for grossly inadequate consideration, Mr.
Grimsley contends.  He argues that given Virgin Media's recent
strong performance as well as its future growth prospects, the
consideration shareholders will receive under the Proposed
Transaction is inadequate and undervalues the Company.

Mr. Grimsley is a shareholder of Virgin Media.

Virgin Media is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.  Liberty Global is a Delaware corporation based in
Englewood, Colorado.  Liberty Global is an international cable
company with operations in 13 countries.  The Defendant Merger
Subs were created for the purposes of effectuating the Proposed
Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Suit Over Online Credit Card Transactions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Wal-Mart illegally demands a consumer's phone number during an
online credit-card transaction.


WAL-MART STORES: Class Cert. Bid in "Evans" Suit Denied as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to certify EVANS v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. as a class
action has been denied.

District Judge James C. Mahan said, "in order for the parties to
fully brief their issues and arguments, as well as participate in
any further mediation the parties wish, the court finds it
appropriate to deny as moot the current motion to certify class
action."

However, Judge Mahan denied the motion without prejudice and the
"Plaintiff may re-file its motion to certify class action and
defendant may file its proposed motion to dismiss, or, in the
alternative, summary judgment depending on the outcome of the
mediation."

The case before Judge Mahan is styled CHARDE EVANS, Plaintiff, v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 2:10-CV-1224 JCM
(VCF), (D. Nev.).

A copy of the District Court's February 12, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/2s66Otfrom Leagle.com.


WMS INDUSTRIES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Conlee" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
WMS Industries Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss an amended complaint submitted by Wayne C. Conlee,
according to the Company's February 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2012.

On May 25, 2011, a putative class action was filed against the
Company and certain of its executive officers in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Wayne C. Conlee
(the "Conlee lawsuit").  On October 13, 2011, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint in the Conlee lawsuit.  As amended, the
lawsuit alleged that, during the period from September 21, 2010,
to August 4, 2011, (the date the Company announced its fiscal 2011
financial results), the Company made material misstatements and
omitted material information related to the Company's fiscal year
2011 guidance.  Plaintiff sought to certify a class of
stockholders who purchased stock between these dates.  The lawsuit
specifically alleged violations of (i) Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "34 Act"), and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) Section 20(a) of the 34
Act.  The amended complaint sought unspecified damages.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
December 8, 2011, and, on July 25, 2012, the Court granted the
Company's motion without prejudice.

On September 12, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a further amended
complaint, which re-asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the 34 Act and under SEC Rule 10b-5.  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the further amended complaint on October 26,
2012.  On November 30, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed their opposition
to the Company's motion.  The Company filed its reply memorandum
on December 21, 2012.  The court has not yet ruled on the
Company's motion.

WMS Industries Inc. is engaged in the design, manufacture and sale
of coin-operated and home video games, pinball and novelty games
and video lottery terminals and gaming devices.  The Company is
headquartered in Waukegan, Illinois.


* Robins Geller at Center of Confidential Witness Conundrum
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomson Reuters' Alison Frankel said "Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
has been at the center of what I've previously called the
confidential witness conundrum: the pervasive phenomenon in which
former employees cited in securities class action complaints
refute their statements to plaintiffs' lawyers when they're
contacted by defense lawyers.  Securities class action lawyers, as
you know, aren't permitted to serve discovery demands on
defendants until they've gotten past dismissal motions, so their
complaints rely heavily on allegations by confidential informants.
But former employees are often subject to confidentiality
provisions in severance agreements.  Depending on which side you
believe, plaintiffs' lawyers routinely misrepresent the
information their investigators have received from confidential
witnesses -- or former employees get scared and recant when their
identity is revealed and their severance is endangered."

Defense lawyers have claimed that just about every significant
plaintiffs' firm has lied about information obtained from former
employees, but Robbins Geller (which, after all, files more cases
than anyone else in the securities class action bar) has been on
the receiving end of more defense accusations than anyone else.
That was a dangerous dynamic for the firm, since every new
accusation refers back to the old ones.

But Robbins Geller just got good news in a hard-fought fight over
confidential witnesses in a case in Georgia, continuing the firm's
run of success in fending off allegations of misrepresentation.
U.S. District Judge William Duffey of Atlanta decided to forgo any
action against the plaintiffs' firm, even though Robbins Geller's
own investigator in the case he was overseeing, a class action
against SunTrust Banks, had contacted the court to contradict what
the firm told the judge about its lawyers' contacts with a
recanting informant.  Judge Duffey said Robbins Geller's behavior
was not "in keeping with the conduct expected of attorneys
practicing before this court," but concluded that the firm hadn't
committed misconduct amounting to "an actionable violation of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

Judge Duffey's order ended a five-month headache for Robbins
Geller that started last September, when Desiree Torres, an
independent investigator working on the SunTrust case for the
firm, contacted the judge's clerk to say that she was troubled by
information Robbins Geller had presented to the court. (Duffey
explained the backstory in an order in October.) Plaintiffs'
lawyers had supposedly told the judge that they didn't know one of
their witnesses had left the bank before events alleged in their
pleadings.  But Ms. Torres said that wasn't true.  She told the
court that Robbins Geller lawyers were present when she
interviewed the former SunTrust employee.  Not only did Robbins
Geller know when he left the bank, she said, but also knew that he
had disavowed knowledge of the bank's conduct after his departure.

Judge Duffey ordered a hearing on the apparent discrepancy between
the firm's assurances and Ms. Torres's account. (That order, in
turn, prompted problems for defense counsel in another Robbins
Geller case, an ongoing class action against Regions Financial in
federal court in Birmingham, Alabama.  A lawyer for individual
defendants in the Regions case sent a letter to Judge Duffey,
claiming that there were similar allegations against Robbins
Geller in the Alabama case and asking the judge to keep the
SunTrust hearing open to the public.  The letter sparked an angry
response from the federal judge overseeing the Regions case, who
had already certified a class despite defense arguments that five
confidential informants had recanted their purported statements to
the plaintiffs' firm.) At the Dec. 18 hearing before Judge Duffey
in the SunTrust case, Ms. Torres testified about "her concerns
about the manner in which the information she collected from fact
witnesses in this action was presented to the court," according to
last week's order.  Robbins Geller then offered its version of its
litigation and case-management strategy, the judge said.

Judge Duffey wasn't happy about what he heard.  "The court remains
troubled by the conduct of plaintiffs' counsel in failing to
correct representations made in their pleadings," he wrote.  "The
decision not to correct the record after counsel became aware of
the court's reliance on plaintiffs' representations is perplexing
and disappointing."  Nevertheless, he said, Robbins Geller hadn't
committed an actionable violation, and since he had already
dismissed the class action, he decided not to take further action.
Ms. Torres has resigned as an investigator, Judge Duffey noted in
a footnote.

Judge Duffey is the second federal judge to hold a hearing on
confidential witnesses in a Robbins Geller securities class
action.  As previously reported, U.S. Senior District Judge Jed
Rakoff ordered testimony last fall from recanting witnesses in a
case against Lockheed.  After a seven-hour session, Judge Rakoff
told both sides that he found the plaintiffs' investigator (not
Ms. Torres, in this case) to be credible but was concerned about
relying on double-hearsay evidence from the informants.  The
Lockheed case subsequently settled in December, though terms have
not yet been disclosed.

Robbins Geller hasn't heard the last of the confidential witness
issue.  The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is considering the firm's
appeal of the dismissal of a class action against Boeing, which
was tossed after a confidential witness recanted statements
attributed to him.  Both Robbins Geller and Boeing have already
sent Judge Duffey's order to the appeals court.

Robbins partner Patrick Coughlin told me the firm is "satisfied"
with Judge Duffey's order.  "We believe we reacted as quickly as
we could under the circumstances to make the record clear," he
said.  SunTrust counsel Timothy Mast of Troutman Sanders declined
to comment.


* Vague Scienter Standards Result to Judicial Bias
--------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Thomson Reuters, reports that at the
recent Professional Liability Underwriting Society's D&O
Symposium, U.S. Senior District Judge Jed Rakoff took great care
to say almost nothing newsworthy as a panelist discussing trends
in securities class action litigation.  Almost nothing.  Judge
Rakoff did make one controversial point.  The Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1996, he said, gave judges tremendous
discretion to decide if a class action complaint should be
dismissed.  As a result, Judge Rakoff said, trial judges are too
likely to apply their own ideology in deciding whether securities
cases should go forward.

A recently published article in the Case Western Reserve Law
Review backs Judge Rakoff's theory with quantitative evidence.
Authors Dain Donelson and Robert Prentice, of the University of
Texas's McCombs School of Business, looked at 144 securities fraud
class actions against major accounting firms to determine whether
they could discern a pattern in rulings on the defendants'
fraudulent intent.  They could not.  After a lot of calculations
involving squiggly symbols and underlying "dependent variables"
such as regulatory investigations and accounting restatements,
Messrs. Donelson and Prentice concluded that "few factors are
consistently viewed by the courts as indicative (or not) of
auditor scienter."

"The law of pleading scienter against external auditors in
(securities fraud) cases is so vague and inconsistent that, as a
practical matter, judges have virtually unfettered discretion to
reach any conclusion they deem appropriate," the paper said.

The Case Western study, as the authors acknowledge, builds on
previous examinations of securities class action case law since
1996, which more or less agree that uncertainty has permitted
trial judges considerable latitude in scienter rulings.  Auditor
cases are a special class, Messrs. Donelson and Prentice wrote,
because of the "special treatment" they have traditionally enjoyed
under laws that generally discourage liability against them and
because of particular red flags that crop up in cases against
them.

The authors discount auditors' grousing that uncertainty works
against them, calling the fear that auditors will be held liable
in frivolous cases "overblown." But they say that both auditor
defendants and securities class action lawyers suffer when
uncertainty about the law prevents them from assessing the
settlement value of cases. That leads to prolonged and inefficient
litigation, which benefits neither side.

Moreover, the third part of the paper discusses the unseen biases
that judges bring to discretionary decisions.  "While few question
federal judges' subjective honesty, there are substantial grounds
upon which to challenge their rationality and objectivity," the
authors wrote.  They proceed to discuss such factors as
overconfidence; self-serving bias, which leads people to reach
conclusions supporting their pre-existing views; and hindsight
bias, which overemphasizes the ability to have predicted events.
The paper presumes that most judges go into cases with a bias in
favor of accountants and against class action lawyers.  When that
bias dovetails with their broad discretion to determine dismissal
motions, the authors write, "it seems more likely that plaintiffs
will be disadvantaged, but whatever the direction of bias,
unfettered discretion is likely to lead to more judicial errors of
judgment than would occur under a regime of clearer and more
settled law."


                           *********

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  * * *