CAR_Public/130219.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, February 19, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 35

                             Headlines



1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Plaintiffs Seek Consolidation of New Suit
A123 SYSTEMS: Bankruptcy Plan Classifies Securities Claims
AMERIGAS PARTNERS: "Swigers" Suit Remains Stayed in West Virginia
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Posts $12.3MM Gain From Class Suit Accord
ARLINGTON ASSET: Strikes Agreement to Settle "Hildene" Suit

CELANESE CORP: Awaits Appellate Ruling in Remaining Plumbing Suit
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Defends Two Securities Class Suits in Colorado
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Reconsideration Bid in ADA Suit Denied in Jan.
COINSTAR INC: Awaits Ruling on Class Cert. Bid in "Piechur" Suit
COINSTAR INC: Continues to Defend Privacy Class Suit vs. Redbox

COINSTAR INC: "DiSimone/Sinibaldi" Appeal Stayed Until March 7
COINSTAR INC: Shareholder Derivative Suits Resolved and Dismissed
CORVEL CORP: Final Accounting of "Roche" Suit Deal Completed
CORVEL CORP: Still Completing Dismissal of "Williams" Suit Claims
CRAMER LLC: Recalls 6,500 Folding Step Stools Due to Fall Hazard

CST BRANDS: Awaits Final OK of Fuel Temperature Suit Settlement
CST BRANDS: Price Fixing Class Suits Remain Pending in Canada
DFC GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Canadian Class Suits vs. Units
EAGLE MATERIALS: American Gypsum Faces Antitrust Class Suits
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Awaits Ruling in "Bushansky" Class Suit

EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk "OLERS" Suit
ERIE INDEMNITY: Faces Insurance Exchange Suit in Pennsylvania
JOHN DEERE: Recalls 4,700 Gator Utility Vehicles Due to Fire Risk
NATROL INC: Faces Marketing Fraud Suit Over Lycopene Product
PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Texas

PERFECT PASTA: Recalls 315 Lbs. of RTE Roast Beef Products
RAYMOND JAMES: Settlement of Closed End Funds Suits Approved
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Amended Consolidated Suit Filed
UGI CORP: "Swigers" Class Suit Remains Stayed in West Virginia
UNION PACIFIC: Awaits Ruling on Petition Related to Class Cert.


                           *********


1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Plaintiffs Seek Consolidation of New Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit seek the inclusion of a newly
filed case to their consolidated suit pending in Connecticut,
according to 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc.'s February 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 30, 2012.

On November 10, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York naming Flowers (along with Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.,
Affinion, Inc. and Chase Bank USA, N.A.) as defendants in an
action purporting to assert claims against the Company alleging
violations arising under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act among other statutes, and for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment in connection with certain post-transaction marketing
practices in which certain of the Company's subsidiaries
previously engaged in with certain third-party vendors.  On
December 23, 2011, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal seeking to dismiss the entire action without prejudice.
The court entered an Order on November 28, 2012, dismissing the
case in its entirety.

On March 6, 2012, and March 15, 2012, two additional purported
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut naming the Company and
numerous other parties as defendants in actions purporting to
assert claims substantially similar to those asserted in the
lawsuit filed on November 10, 2010.  In each case, plaintiffs seek
to have the respective case certified as a class action and seek
restitution and other damages, each in an amount in excess of $5.0
million.  On April 26, 2012, the two Connecticut cases were
consolidated with a third case previously pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut in which the
Company is not a party.  A consolidated amended complaint was
filed by plaintiffs on September 7, 2012, purporting to assert
claims substantially similar to those originally asserted.
Flowers moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on
December 7, 2012.

On December 5, 2012, the same plaintiff from the action
voluntarily dismissed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut naming Flowers and numerous other parties as
defendants, purporting to assert claims substantially similar to
those asserted in the consolidated amended complaint.

On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a
motion to transfer and consolidate the action filed on
December 5, 2012, with the consolidated action.

The Company says it intends to defend each of these actions
vigorously.


A123 SYSTEMS: Bankruptcy Plan Classifies Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Any claims resulting from judgment in favor of plaintiffs in a
consolidated securities lawsuit pending in Massachusetts will be
classified as Subordinated Stock Claims in Class 8 under the
liquidation plan of A123 Systems, Inc., according to the Company's
February 8, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On October 16, 2012, A123 Systems and all of its domestic
subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11
of Title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.  The Chapter
11 cases are jointly administered under the caption "In re A123
Systems, Inc., et. al." Case No. 12-12859.

As of the Petition Date, three lawsuits, including a class action
lawsuit, were pending in Massachusetts against A123 and certain
current and former directors and officers of the Debtors.

The case captioned In re A123 Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation,
No. 1:12-CV-10591-RGS, arises out of two securities class action
cases brought against A123 (the "Securities Class Action").  The
cases were filed in the District of Massachusetts in 2012 and
consolidated under the caption.  The plaintiffs in these cases
assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and allege that certain of A123's disclosures
relating to potentially defective prismatic cells were inaccurate.
Under the Joint Plan of Liquidation of A123 Systems, Inc., et al.,
any claims resulting from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in
the Securities Class Action will be classified as Subordinated
Stock Claims in Class 8.


AMERIGAS PARTNERS: "Swigers" Suit Remains Stayed in West Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AmeriGas Partners, L.P.'s general partner, AmeriGas Propane, Inc.
(the "General Partner"), is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
UGI Corporation ("UGI").  AmeriGas Propane, L.P. ("AmeriGas OLP")
is the Company's principal operating subsidiary.

In 2005, Samuel and Brenda Swiger (the "Swigers") filed what
purports to be a class action in the Circuit Court of Harrison
County, West Virginia, against UGI, an insurance subsidiary of
UGI, certain officers of UGI and the General Partner, and their
insurance carriers and insurance adjusters.  In this lawsuit, the
Swigers are seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of
the putative class for alleged violations of the West Virginia
Insurance Unfair Trade Practice Act, negligence, intentional
misconduct, and civil conspiracy.  The Court has not certified the
class and, in October 2008, stayed the lawsuit pending resolution
of a separate, but related class action lawsuit filed against
AmeriGas OLP in Monongalia County, which was settled in Fiscal
2011.  The Company believes it has good defenses to the claims in
this action.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 8,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

AmeriGas Partners, L.P., is a publicly traded limited partnership
that conducts a national propane distribution business through its
principal operating subsidiary AmeriGas Propane, L.P. and prior to
its merger with AmeriGas OLP on October 1, 2010, AmeriGas OLP's
subsidiary, AmeriGas Eagle Propane, L.P.


AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Posts $12.3MM Gain From Class Suit Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AmerisourceBergen Corporation disclosed in its February 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended December 31, 2012, that during the three
months ended December 31, 2012, it recognized a gain of $12.3
million relating class action lawsuits, in which it is a class
member.

Numerous class action lawsuits have been filed against certain
brand pharmaceutical manufacturers alleging that the manufacturer,
by itself or in concert with others, took improper actions to
delay or prevent generic drugs from entering the market.  The
Company has not been named a plaintiff in any of these class
actions, but has been a member of the direct purchasers' class
(i.e., those purchasers who purchase directly from these
pharmaceutical manufacturers).  None of the class actions have
gone to trial, but some have settled in the past with the Company
receiving proceeds from the settlement funds.  During the three
months ended December 31, 2012, the Company recognized a gain of
$12.3 million relating the class action lawsuits.  These gains,
which are net of attorney fees and estimated payments due to other
parties, were recorded as reductions to cost of goods sold in the
Company's consolidated statements of operations.


ARLINGTON ASSET: Strikes Agreement to Settle "Hildene" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Arlington Asset Investment Corp. reached an agreement in principle
to resolve a class action lawsuit brought by Hildene Capital
Management, LLC, according to the Company's February 8, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

On August 19, 2011, Hildene Capital Management, LLC filed a
purported class action complaint captioned Hildene Capital
Management, LLC v. Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group, Inc. (d/b/a
Arlington Asset Investment Corp.), FBR Capital Trust VI, FBR
Capital Trust X, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee, and John and
Jane Does 1 through 100, No. 11 Civ. 5832, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
Complaint alleges unlawful acts by the Company in connection with
its purchase of preferred securities issued by FBR Capital Trust
VI and FBR Capital Trust X from two CDOs, Tropic IV CDO Ltd. and
Soloso CDO 2005-1 Ltd., in September 2009.

On November 9, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint on behalf of itself and the FBR Trusts.  On
December 14, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.  In
the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff added Hildene Opportunities
Master Fund, Ltd. as plaintiff.  The Plaintiffs no longer assert
class action claims, but have asserted direct and derivative
claims against the Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee
for Tropic III CDO Ltd., Tropic IV CDO Ltd., and Soloso CDO
2005-1 Ltd.  On January 20, 2012, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint on behalf of itself and the FBR
Trusts.  On April 25, 2012, the Court held a hearing on that
motion.  On August 15, 2012, the Court issued an order granting in
part and denying in part the motion to dismiss.  The Company filed
its Answer to the Amended Complaint on September 17, 2012.

As of January 31, 2013, there is an agreement in principle to
resolve the case on terms that would not have a material impact to
the financial position of the Company.


CELANESE CORP: Awaits Appellate Ruling in Remaining Plumbing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Celanese Corporation is awaiting a court decision in an appeal
from the dismissal of the remaining plumbing lawsuit in the U.S.,
according to the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

CNA Holdings LLC ("CNA Holdings"), a US subsidiary of Celanese
Corporation, which included the US business now in the Advanced
Engineered Materials segment, along with Shell Oil Company
("Shell"), E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont") and
others, has been a defendant in a series of lawsuits, including a
number of class actions, alleging that plastic resins manufactured
by these companies that were utilized by others in the production
of plumbing systems for residential property were defective for
this use and/or contributed to the failure of such plumbing.
Based on, among other things, the findings of outside experts and
the successful use of the Company's acetal copolymer in similar
applications, CNA Holdings does not believe the Company's acetal
copolymer was defective for this use or contributed to the failure
of the plumbing.  In addition, in many cases CNA Holdings'
potential future exposure may be limited by, among other things,
statutes of limitations and repose.

In November 1995, CNA Holdings, DuPont and Shell entered into
national class action settlements in the Cox, et al. v. Hoechst
Celanese Corporation, et al., No. 94-0047 (Chancery Ct., Obion
County, Tennessee) matter.  The time to file claims against the
class has expired and the entity established by the court to
administer the claims was dissolved in September 2010.  In
addition between 1995 and 2001, CNA Holdings was named as a
defendant in various putative class actions.  The majority of
these actions have now been dismissed.  As a result the Company
recorded $59 million in reserve reductions and recoveries from
associated insurance indemnifications during 2010.  The reserve
was further reduced by $4 million during the year ended
December 31, 2011, following the dismissal of the remaining US
case (St. Croix, Ltd., et al. v. Shell Oil Company d/b/a Shell
Chemical Company, Case No. XC-97-CR-467, Virgin Islands Superior
Court) which was appealed in 2011.  Oral argument for the appeal
took place on December 13, 2012, and a decision on the appeal is
expected in 2013.

As of December 31, 2012, the class actions in Canada are subject
to a pending class settlement that would result in a dismissal of
those cases.  The Company does not believe the Possible Loss
associated with the remaining matters is material. Accordingly,
the Company has determined to reduce the reserves based on the
expiration of the time to file and the resolution of certain
claims under the Canada class and no significant active claims
outside of Canada.

Celanese Corporation and its subsidiaries is a global technology
and specialty materials company.  The Company's business involves
processing chemical raw materials, such as methanol, carbon
monoxide and ethylene, and natural products, including wood pulp,
into value-added chemicals, thermoplastic polymers and other
chemical-based products.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Defends Two Securities Class Suits in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is defending two securities class
action lawsuits in Colorado, according to the Company's
February 8, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On August 16, 2012, City of Dania Beach Police & Firefighters
Retirement System filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of shares of the Company's common stock between
February 1, 2012, and July 19, 2012.  On August 17, 2012, Sonia
Kim filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado that was otherwise identical to the City of Dania
Beach Police & Firefighters complaint.  The complaints purport to
state claims against the Company, each of its co-Chief Executive
Officers and its Chief Financial Officer under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and related rules and regulations, based
on the Company's alleged failure during the claimed class period
to disclose material information about the Company's business
results and prospects.  The complaints assert that those failures
and related public statements were false and misleading and that,
as a result, the market price of the Company's stock was
artificially inflated during the claimed class period.  The
complaints seek damages on behalf of the purported class in an
unspecified amount, interest, an award of reasonable costs and
attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief.  The Company says it
intends to defend these cases vigorously, but it is not possible
at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any
potential liability from the cases.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Reconsideration Bid in ADA Suit Denied in Jan.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal district court last month denied a motion filed by
plaintiffs for reconsideration of a court decision denying them
class certification in their lawsuits against Chipotle Mexican
Grill, Inc., last month, according to the Company's February 8,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In 2006, Maurizio Antoninetti filed a lawsuit against the Company
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, primarily claiming that the height of the serving line
wall in the Company's restaurants violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act, or ADA, as well as California disability laws.
On December 6, 2006, Mr. Antoninetti filed an additional lawsuit
in the same court making the same allegations on a class action
basis, on behalf of himself and a purported class of disabled
individuals, and a similar class action was filed by James Perkins
in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
May 7, 2008.

In the individual Antoninetti action, the district court entered a
ruling in which it found that although the Company's counter
height violated the ADA, the Company provided the plaintiff with
an equivalent facilitation, and awarded attorney's fees and
minimal damages to the plaintiff.  The Company and the plaintiff
appealed the district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, and on July 26, 2010, the appeals court
entered a ruling finding that the Company violated the ADA and did
not provide the plaintiff with an equivalent facilitation, and
remanded the case to the district court.  On March 21, 2012, the
district court reaffirmed its original award of minimal damages to
the plaintiff and denied further injunctive relief.  On July 18,
2012, the district court ordered a final judgment awarding the
plaintiff a portion of the attorney's fees and costs originally
sought, and on December 26, 2012, the court of appeals awarded the
plaintiff additional attorney's fees and costs for the appellate
portion of the case.

In the purported class action cases, on August 28, 2012, the
district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  As a result, each plaintiff may only pursue claims
against the Company in those cases on an individual basis.  The
plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision on
class certification, which was denied by the court on
January 14, 2013.

The Company lowered the height of its serving line walls
throughout California some time ago, which makes injunctive relief
in these cases moot, and has the lower serving line walls in a
significant majority of the Company's restaurants outside of
California as well.  The Company will continue to vigorously
defend the ongoing class action cases.  Due to the possibility of
further appeals and the uncertainties of litigation, it is not
possible at this time to reasonably estimate any additional
potential liability from those cases.


COINSTAR INC: Awaits Ruling on Class Cert. Bid in "Piechur" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coinstar, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on Laurie Piechur's
motion for class certification, according to the Company's
February 8, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a putative class action complaint against the Company's Redbox
subsidiary in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.  The plaintiff alleges that,
among other things, Redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive
late fees in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, and that Redbox's rental terms
violate the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act or the Illinois
Automatic Contract Renewal Act and the plaintiff is seeking
monetary damages and other relief.  In November 2009, Redbox
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.  In February 2010, the District Court
remanded the case to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.  In May 2010, the court
denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, and also
denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.  In
November 2011, the plaintiff moved for class certification, and
Redbox moved for summary judgment.  The court denied Redbox's
motion for summary judgment in February 2012.  The plaintiff filed
an amended complaint on April 19, 2012, and an amended motion for
class certification on June 5, 2012.  The court denied Redbox's
motion to dismiss the complaint.  The class certification motion
has been briefed and argued, and the court has not yet ruled on
the motion for class certification.  The plaintiff has dismissed
its claims regarding Redbox's fees and is only pursuing its claims
under the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act and the Illinois
Automatic Contract Renewal Act.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit
and intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.
Currently, no accrual has been established as it was not possible
to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter
had not advanced to a stage where the Company could make any such
estimate.

Coinstar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including
Redbox and Coin segments.  The Company is based in Bellevue,
Washington.


COINSTAR INC: Continues to Defend Privacy Class Suit vs. Redbox
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blake Boesky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, in March 2011 filed a putative class action complaint
against Coinstar, Inc.'s Redbox subsidiary in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The plaintiff, a
California resident, alleges that Redbox retains personally
identifiable information of consumers for a time period in excess
of that allowed under the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C.
Section 2710, et seq.  A substantially similar complaint was filed
in the same court in March 2011 by an Illinois resident, Kevin
Sterk.  Since the filing of the complaint, Blake Boesky has been
replaced by a different named plaintiff, Jiah Chung, and an
amended complaint has been filed alleging disclosures of
personally identifiable information, in addition to the
plaintiffs' claims of retention of such information.  The
plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, costs of lawsuit, and interest.  The court has
consolidated the cases.  The court denied Redbox's motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' claims upon interlocutory appeal.  The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the
district court's denial of Redbox's motion to dismiss plaintiff's
claims involving retention of information, holding that the
plaintiffs could not maintain a lawsuit for damages under this
theory.

On April 25, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add
claims under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
2707, and for breach of contract.  On May 9, 2012, Redbox moved to
dismiss the amended complaint.  On July 23, 2012, the court
dismissed the added retention claims, except to the extent that
plaintiffs seek injunctive, non-monetary relief.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 8,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit
and intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.
Currently, no accrual has been established as it is not possible
to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter
had not advanced to a stage where the Company could make any such
estimate.

Coinstar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including
Redbox and Coin segments.  The Company is based in Bellevue,
Washington.


COINSTAR INC: "DiSimone/Sinibaldi" Appeal Stayed Until March 7
--------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal in "DiSimone/Sinibaldi" class action lawsuit is
currently stayed until March 7, 2013, according to Coinstar,
Inc.'s February 8, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In February 2011, a California resident, Michael Mehrens,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a putative class action complaint against Coinstar, Inc.'s Redbox
subsidiary in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles.  The plaintiff alleges that, among other
things, Redbox violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act
of 1971 ("Song-Beverly") with respect to the collection and
recording of consumer personal identification information, and
violated the California Business and Professions Code Section
17200 based on the alleged violation of Song-Beverly.  A similar
complaint alleging violations of Song-Beverly and the right to
privacy generally was filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Alameda, by a California
resident, John Sinibaldi.  A third similar complaint alleging only
a violation of Song-Beverly, was filed in March 2011 in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, by
a California resident, Richard Schiff.  Plaintiffs are seeking
compensatory damages and civil penalties, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, costs of lawsuit, and interest.  Redbox removed
the Mehrens case to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, the Sinibaldi case to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, and the Schiff case
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.  The Sinibaldi case was subsequently transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
where the Mehrens case is pending, and these two cases have been
consolidated.  At the same time, the plaintiffs substituted
Nicolle DiSimone as the named plaintiff in the Mehrens case.
After Redbox filed a motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer, the
Schiff case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

On January 4, 2013, the Court dismissed with prejudice the Schiff
case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court
rules and orders.  Redbox moved to dismiss the DiSimone/Sinibaldi
case, and DiSimone/Sinibaldi moved for class certification.  In
January 2012, the Court granted Redbox's motion to dismiss with
prejudice and denied DiSimone/Sinibaldi's motion for class
certification as moot.  On February 2, 2012, Plaintiff's filed
their notice of appeal.  The appeal is currently stayed until
March 7, 2013, pending the California Supreme Court's decision in
a case presenting similar issues involving Song-Beverly in a case
to which Redbox is not a party.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit
and intend to defend itself vigorously in this matter.  Currently,
no accrual has been established as it is not possible to estimate
the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not
advanced to a stage where the Company could make any such
estimate.

Coinstar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including
Redbox and Coin segments.  The Company is based in Bellevue,
Washington.


COINSTAR INC: Shareholder Derivative Suits Resolved and Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder derivative actions against Coinstar, Inc. are now
resolved and dismissed with prejudice, according to the Company's
February 8, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Related to a putative class action complaint previously disclosed,
on March 2 and 10, 2011, shareholder derivative actions were filed
in the Superior Court of the State of Washington (King County),
allegedly on behalf of and for the benefit of Coinstar, against
certain of its current and former directors and officers.
Coinstar was named as a nominal defendant.  On April 12, 2011, the
court consolidated these actions as a single action entitled In re
Coinstar, Inc. Derivative Litigation.  A third substantially
similar complaint was later filed in the same court.  On April 18,
2011, two purported shareholder derivative actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
On
May 26, 2011, the court consolidated the federal derivative
actions and joined them with the securities class actions,
captioned In re Coinstar Securities Litigation, for pre-trial
proceedings.  The derivative plaintiffs' consolidated complaint
was filed on July 15, 2011.  The Company moved to dismiss this
complaint on August 12, 2011, on the ground that the plaintiffs
had not made a pre-litigation demand on the Company's Board of
Directors and had not demonstrated that such a demand would have
been futile.  On November 14, 2011, the court granted the
Company's motion and issued an order dismissing the complaint with
leave to amend the compliant.  On November 23, 2011, plaintiffs
moved to stay the action or defer filing of an amended complaint
in order to allow them time to inspect Coinstar's books and
records prior to any such amendment.  On December 22, 2011, the
court entered an order granting in part and denying in part
plaintiffs' motion.  The order grants plaintiffs' request to defer
filing of an amended complaint, but provided that if plaintiffs
choose to file an amended complaint, they must pay attorneys' fees
incurred by defendants on the motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.

On April 9, 2012, before expiration of plaintiffs' deadline to
file an amended complaint, the parties filed a joint status report
with the court indicating they had agreed upon a proposed
settlement of the federal and state derivative actions.  On
April 27, 2012, a stipulation and agreement of settlement, was
filed with the court, along with Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement.  On May 25, 2012, the
court conducted a hearing on the motion.  On August 6, 2012, after
some supplemental briefing by the parties, the court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement.  On November 9, 2012, the
court granted final approval of the settlement, including $750,000
in plaintiffs' attorneys' fees paid by the Company's insurer.
These shareholders derivative actions are now resolved and the
lawsuits have been dismissed with prejudice as part of the
settlement.

Coinstar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including
Redbox and Coin segments.  The Company is based in Bellevue,
Washington.


CORVEL CORP: Final Accounting of "Roche" Suit Deal Completed
------------------------------------------------------------
Final report and accounting relating to CorVel Corporation's
settlement of a class action lawsuit initiated by Kathleen Roche,
D.C., was completed in November 2012, according to the Company's
February 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

In February 2005, Kathleen Roche, D.C., as plaintiff, filed a
putative class action in Circuit Court for the 20th Judicial
District, St. Clair County, Illinois, against the Company.  The
case sought unspecified damages based on the Company's alleged
failure to direct patients to medical providers who were members
of the CorVel CorCare PPO network and also alleged that the
Company used biased and arbitrary computer software to review
medical providers' bills.  The Company denies that its conduct was
improper in any way and denied all liability.  On October 29,
2010, the Company entered into a settlement agreement providing
for the payment of $2.1 million to class members and up to an
additional $700,000 for attorneys' fees and expenses, and as a
result the Company accrued $2.8 million of estimated liability for
this settlement agreement during the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.  In exchange for the settlement payment by the
Company, class members consisting of Illinois medical providers
(excluding hospitals) have released the Company and all of its
affiliates for claims relating to any PPO or usual and customary
reductions recommended by the Company on class members' medical
bills.  On January 21, 2011, the Circuit Court gave final approval
to the settlement and awarded class counsel $700,000 in attorneys'
fees and expenses.  A modified final judgment approving the
settlement and addressing certain class notice issues was approved
on January 20, 2012; the modified judgment did not change the
financial terms of the settlement or the release.  Final payments
were sent to class members on July 16, 2012, and the final report
and accounting to the Court was completed in November 2012.


CORVEL CORP: Still Completing Dismissal of "Williams" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 25, 2011, George Raymond Williams, MD, as plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, filed a
First Amended and Restated Petition for Damages and Class
Certification in the 27th Judicial District Court, Parish of St.
Landry, Louisiana, against CorVel Corporation and its insurance
carriers, Homeland Insurance Company of New York and Executive
Risk Specialty Insurance Company and several other unrelated
parties.  Williams alleges that CorVel violated Louisiana's Any
Willing Provider Act (the "AWPA"), which requires a payor
accessing a preferred provider contract to give 30 days' advance
written notice or point of service notice in the form of a benefit
card before the payor accesses the discounted rates in the
contract to pay the provider for services rendered to an insured
under that payor's health benefit plan.

On March 31, 2011, CorVel entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with attorneys representing the plaintiffs and the
class setting forth the terms of settlement of this class action
lawsuit.  The Memorandum of Understanding provides that subject to
the execution of a mutually acceptable settlement agreement and
final non-appealable approval of such settlement by the Louisiana
state court, CorVel will pay $9 million to resolve claims for
which CorVel recorded a $9 million pre-tax charge to earnings
during the March 2011 quarter.  In addition, CorVel will assign to
the class certain rights it has to the proceeds of CorVel's
insurance policies relating to the claims asserted by the class.
The class action arbitration filed with the American Arbitration
Association against CorVel in December 2006 by Southwest Louisiana
Hospital Association dba Lake Charles Memorial Hospital as
previously disclosed by CorVel is encompassed within the
settlement terms of the Memorandum of Understanding.  Pursuant to
the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties have also agreed to
request that the appropriate courts stay all related proceedings
in State and Federal Court, as well as the Louisiana Office of
Workers Compensation and the arbitration proceeding before the
American Arbitration Association in which the parties are named,
until the settlement agreement is prepared, executed and receives
final court approval.  The settlement does not constitute an
admission of liability.

On June 23, 2011, CorVel and class counsel executed a definitive
settlement agreement.  The settlement agreement contains the same
terms and conditions as were set forth in the Memorandum of
Understanding.  Accordingly, CorVel made a $9 million cash payment
into escrow on July 6, 2011.  As set forth in the settlement
agreement, certain contingencies such as preliminary court
approval, resolutions of objections filed by class members
challenging the fairness of the settlement, class members excluded
from the settlement not exceeding a materiality threshold, and
final court approval, must be satisfied before the settlement can
become final.

On June 23, 2011, the 27th Judicial District Court for the Parish
of St. Landry, Louisiana granted preliminary approval of
settlement and set a deadline of October 16, 2011, for parties to
opt out of or object to the proposed settlement.  Notice of the
settlement was given to Class Members.  The Court gave final
approval of the settlement on November 4, 2011.  No appeal was
filed, so the judgment became final on January 17, 2012.  CorVel
is in the process of completing the dismissal of all claims
covered by the settlement in state and federal court.

In exchange for the settlement payment by CorVel, class members
released CorVel and all of its affiliates and clients for any
claims relating in any way to re-pricing, payment for, or
reimbursement of a workers' compensation bill, including but not
limited to claims under the AWPA.  Plaintiffs have also agreed to
a notice procedure that CorVel may follow in the future to comply
with the AWPA.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 8,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.


CRAMER LLC: Recalls 6,500 Folding Step Stools Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cramer LLC, of Kansas City, Missouri, announced a voluntary recall
of about 6,500 Task*It 1-UP folding step stools.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The folding step stool can crack or break and collapse, posing a
fall hazard to the user.

Cramer has received 14 reports of the step stools breaking or
cracking.  Of the 14 reports, two reported injuries including
head, neck and back pain.

This recall includes grey Task*It 1-UP folding step stools.  The
stools are plastic and have a 9.5 x 14.5 top step and feature two
11.5 inch legs that fold inward for storage.  The top of the
folding step stool is covered with black rubber treading imprinted
with an asterisk symbol.  "1-UP step" is printed on the product
packaging.  The Task*It name is imprinted on the legs.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at
http://is.gd/C44TiW

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
office supply stores, such as SP Richards, United Stationers and
Staples, nationwide and online at Amazon.com from January 2012
through December 2012 for between $30 and $40.

Consumers should immediately stop using the folding step stool and
contact Cramer LLC for a free replacement step stool.  Cramer LLC
may be reached at (800) 366-6700 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Central Time Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.cramerinc.com/and click on the recall link.


CST BRANDS: Awaits Final OK of Fuel Temperature Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
CST Brands, Inc. awaits final approval of a settlement in a
litigation over fuel temperature involving its former parent,
according to the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-12B/A filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On December 13, 2006, a class action complaint was filed against
Valero Energy Corporation, Shell Oil Products Company LLC,
ConocoPhillips, Chevron USA, Inc., Tesoro Refining and Marketing
Company, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Costco Wholesale Corporation, The
Kroger Company and a few other retailers in San Francisco federal
court.  The complaint accused the defendants of violating state
consumer protection laws by failing to adjust the volume or price
of fuel when the fuel temperature exceeded 60 degrees Fahrenheit.
Following this filing, numerous other federal complaints were
filed and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas (Multi-District Litigation Docket No. 1840, In re: Motor
Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation).  In mid-April 2012,
Valero and certain of the other defendants reached a preliminary
class settlement with the plaintiffs.

On September 28, 2012, the court initially denied approval of this
settlement concluding that the settling parties had failed to show
how the settlement sufficiently benefited the class members.  The
settling parties, including Valero, agreed with the court and
supplemented the record to demonstrate how the settlement will
benefit the class, and the Company expects that the settlement
will ultimately be approved.

Because a portion of Valero's alleged liability in the class
action allegedly arises out of the Company's retail operations,
the Company has agreed to indemnify Valero for 50% of the monetary
portion of the settlement (or otherwise 50% of any monetary
payment that Valero ultimately may be obligated to pay in final
resolution of the class action).  The Company has also agreed to
certain actions required under the proposed settlement agreement
on a prospective basis, including the posting of fuel temperatures
at the Company's U.S. retail sites.  The proposed settlement
agreement includes a full release from liability for Valero and
its affiliates, including the Company.

The Company has recorded a loss contingency liability with respect
to this matter.  However, if the settlement is not approved, the
Company may suffer a loss with respect to one or more of the
lawsuits in excess of the amount accrued due to the inherent
uncertainty of litigation.  The Company believes that such an
outcome in any one of these lawsuits could have a material adverse
effect on its results of operations or financial position.  An
estimate of the possible loss or range of loss from an adverse
result in all or substantially all of these cases cannot
reasonably be made.


CST BRANDS: Price Fixing Class Suits Remain Pending in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits arising from CST Brands, Inc.'s retail
operations in Canada remain pending, according to the Company's
February 8, 2013, Form 10-12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Ultramar Ltd., Valero Energy Corporation's principal Canadian
subsidiary, was named as a defendant in four class actions
alleging that Ultramar and other competitors engaged in illegal
price fixing in four distinct markets in the province of Quebec.
The cases were filed in June 2008 following a guilty plea by
Ultramar and an employee and charges laid against several alleged
co-conspirators.  As a result, four class actions were filed on
the same day in the matters of (i) Simon Jacques vs Ultramar et al
in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Quebec City, (ii)
Daniel Thouin/ Marcel Lafontaine vs Ultramar et al, Superior Court
of Quebec, District of Montreal, (iii) Michael Jeanson et al vs
Ultramar et al, Superior Court of Quebec, District of Hull and
(iv) Thibeau vs Ultramar et al, Superior Court of Quebec, District
of Montreal.  As required pursuant to the civil procedure rules in
effect, the first filed claim is given priority, and the others
are suspended pending final judgment on the first filed claim.
The guilty plea followed an extensive government investigation and
was confined to a limited time period and limited geographic area
around Thetford Mines and Victoriaville in Quebec.  The plaintiffs
attempted to widen the scope, alleging the existence of a
conspiracy extending between 2002 and 2008 throughout Quebec.  The
court allowed a time range of 2002 to 2006 but did not expand the
geographic area beyond the four limited markets identified by the
investigation.  A hearing on class suitability took place in
September 2009, and in November 2009, the court authorized the
action to proceed on a class basis for the limited geographic
area.  A statement of claim was filed but the proceedings were
suspended until May 5, 2011.  The suspension was a result, in
part, of damage proof issues for plaintiffs that developed pre-
discovery.  The court required the plaintiffs to file a report on
damages on May 5, 2011.  Ultramar intends to vigorously contest
the scope of alleged liability and damages.

On June 10, 2011, Ultramar was served with a "new" amended motion
to institute a class action in the matter of Daniel Thouin/Marcel
Lafontaine v. Ultramar Ltd., et al., Superior Court of Quebec,
District of Quebec.  This matter had previously been put in
abeyance to allow the first filed claim to proceed.  The plaintiff
changed the venue and the geographical scope of its recourse
alleging that defendants colluded in other regions of Quebec.  By
issuing this motion, the attorney for the plaintiff (the same as
for the other price fixing matter) is trying to extend its claim
outside the limited territory authorized by the court in the
Jacques matter.  On September 6, 2012, the Superior Court of
Quebec granted the plaintiff's motion to extend the scope of the
territory to be covered by the action.

Ultramar's alleged liability in these claims arises entirely out
of the Company's retail operations in Canada.  As a result, the
Company expects that it will agree to indemnify and hold harmless
Valero fully from any liability associated with these claims
pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement.  The
Company does not believe that this case has merit, and it intends
to vigorously contest the matter.

The Company has not recorded a loss contingency liability with
respect to this matter, but due to the inherent uncertainty of
litigation, the Company believes that it is reasonably possible
that the Company may suffer a loss with respect to one or more of
the lawsuits.  An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss
from an adverse result in all or substantially all of these cases
cannot be reasonably made due to a number of factors, the most
significant of which is that no amount of damages has been
specified by the plaintiffs.


DFC GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Canadian Class Suits vs. Units
--------------------------------------------------------------
DFC Global Corp. continues to defend its subsidiaries against
class action lawsuits pending in Canada, according to the
Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2012.

In 2003 and 2006, purported class actions were brought against the
Company's wholly owned indirect Canadian subsidiary, National
Money Mart Company ("NMM"), and Dollar Financial Group, Inc. in
the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Canada on behalf of a class
of consumers who obtained short-term loans from NMM in Alberta,
alleging, among other things, that the charge to borrowers in
connection with such loans was usurious under Canadian federal law
(the "Alberta Litigation").  The actions seek restitution and
damages, including punitive damages.  In April 2010, the
plaintiffs in both actions indicated that they would proceed with
their claims.  Demands for arbitration were served on the
plaintiff in each of the actions, and NMM filed motions to enforce
the arbitration clause and to stay the actions, which were denied
in October 2012.  In January 2013, NMM filed appeals of those
rulings.  To date, neither case has been certified as a class
action.  The Company is defending these actions vigorously.

In 2004, an action was filed against NMM in Manitoba on behalf of
a purported class of consumers who obtained short-term loans from
NMM.  In early February 2012, a separate action was filed against
NMM and DFG in Manitoba on behalf of a purported class of
consumers which substantially overlaps with the purported class in
the 2004 action.  The allegations in each of these actions are
substantially similar to those in the Alberta Litigation and, to
date, neither action has been certified as a class action.  If
either or both of these actions proceed, the Company intends to
seek a stay on the grounds that the plaintiffs entered into
arbitration and mediation agreements with NMM with respect to the
matters which are the subject of the actions.  The Company intends
to defend these actions vigorously.

As of December 31, 2012, an aggregate of approximately CAD32.5
million is included in the Company's accrued expenses and other
liabilities relating to the purported Canadian class action
proceedings pending in Alberta and Manitoba and for the settled
class actions in Ontario, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia and Newfoundland that were settled by the Company in 2010.
The settlements in those class action proceedings consisted of a
cash component and vouchers to the class members for future
services.  The component of the accrual that relates to vouchers
is approximately CAD18.9 million, the majority of which is
expected to be non-cash.  Although the Company believes that it
has meritorious defenses to the claims in the purported class
proceedings in Alberta and Manitoba and intends vigorously to
defend against such remaining pending claims, the ultimate cost of
resolution of such claims may exceed the amount accrued at
December 31, 2012, and additional accruals may be required in the
future.


EAGLE MATERIALS: American Gypsum Faces Antitrust Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Materials Inc.'s subsidiary is facing class action lawsuits
alleging violations of antitrust laws, according to the Company's
February 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits
have been filed against the Company's subsidiary, American Gypsum
Company LLC, alleging that American Gypsum conspired with other
wallboard manufacturers to fix the price for drywall sold in the
United States in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in some
cases related provisions of state law.  The complaints allege that
the defendant wallboard manufacturers conspired to increase prices
through the announcement and implementation of coordinated price
increases, output restrictions, and other restraints of trade,
including the elimination of individual "job quote" pricing.  In
addition to American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits
include CertainTeed Corp., USG Corporation, New NGC, Inc., Lafarge
North America Inc., Georgia-Pacific LLC, Temple Inland Inc. and
PABCO Building Products LLC.  The plaintiffs in these class action
lawsuits bring claims on behalf of direct or indirect purchasers
of wallboard during various periods from 2008 to present for
unspecified monetary damage (including treble damages) and in some
cases injunctive relief in various United States district courts,
including the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Western District
of North Carolina, North Carolina and the Northern District of
Illinois.  The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has been
asked to consider whether their action should be transferred to a
single jurisdiction for consolidated pretrial proceedings.

No discovery in any of the actions has taken place.  Due to the
recent nature of these claims, the Company says it is unable to
assess the likelihood or amount of potential loss relating to the
claims, or whether such losses, if any, would have a material
impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations
or cash flows.  American Gypsum denies the allegations in these
lawsuits and will vigorously defend itself against these claims.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Awaits Ruling in "Bushansky" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Education Management Corporation is awaiting a court decision on
its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by Stephen
Bushansky, according to the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 31, 2012.

On August 3, 2012, a shareholder derivative class action captioned
Stephen Bushansky v. Todd S. Nelson, et al. was filed against
certain of the directors of the Company in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania.  The Company is named as
a nominal defendant in the case.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated their fiduciary obligations to the Company's
shareholders due to the Company's use of improper recruiting,
enrollment admission and financial aid practices and violation of
the U.S. Department of Education's prohibition on the payment of
incentive compensation to admissions representatives.  The Company
previously received a demand letter from the plaintiff which was
investigated by a Special Litigation Committee of the Board of
Directors and found to be without merit.  The Company and the
named director defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case on
October 19, 2012.

The Company believes that the claims set forth in the complaint
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.

Based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Education Management
Corporation -- http://www.edmc.com/-- provides post-secondary
education in North America. The Company provides education through
four education systems comprising The Art Institutes, Argosy
University, Brown Mackie Colleges, and South University.  It
operates 105 schools in 32 states of the United States and Canada.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk "OLERS" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Education Management Corporation is awaiting a court decision on
its motion to dismiss a shareholder class action lawsuit commenced
by the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, according to
the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December
31, 2012.

On May 21, 2012, a shareholder derivative class action captioned
Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System v. Todd S. Nelson, et
al. was filed against the directors of the Company in state court
located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  The Company is named as a
nominal defendant in the case.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated their fiduciary obligations to the Company's
shareholders due to the Company's violation of the U.S. Department
of Education's prohibition on paying incentive compensation to
admissions representatives, engaging in improper recruiting
tactics in violation of Title IV of the Higher Education Act
("HEA") and accrediting agency standards, falsification of job
placement data for graduates of its schools and failure to satisfy
the U.S. Department of Education's financial responsibility
standards.  The Company previously received two demand letters
from the plaintiff which were investigated by a Special Litigation
Committee of the Board of Directors and found to be without merit.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice on
August 13, 2012.  In response, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint making substantially the same allegations as the initial
complaint on September 27, 2012.  The Company and the director
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
October 17, 2012.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend itself.

Based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Education Management
Corporation -- http://www.edmc.com/-- provides post-secondary
education in North America. The Company provides education through
four education systems comprising The Art Institutes, Argosy
University, Brown Mackie Colleges, and South University.  It
operates 105 schools in 32 states of the United States and Canada.


ERIE INDEMNITY: Faces Insurance Exchange Suit in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erie Indemnity Company is facing a class action lawsuit brought by
members of Erie Insurance Exchange in Pennsylvania, according to
the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Erie Indemnity Company received a Complaint on February 6, 2013,
that is captioned "Erie Insurance Exchange, an unincorporated
association, by members Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan and
Anita Sullivan, and Patricia R. Beltz, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situate, Plaintiffs, vs. Richard L. Stover; J.
Ralph Borneman, Jr.; Terrence W. Cavanaugh; Jonathan Hirt Hagen;
Susan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen; C. Scott Hartz; Claude C.
Lilly, III; Lucian L. Morrison; Thomas W. Palmer; Martin P.
Sheffield; Elizabeth H. Vorsheck; and Robert C. Wilburn,
Defendants."  The Complaint was filed on February 6, 2013, in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.  The individuals named as Plaintiffs are alleged to
be policyholders (subscribers) of the Erie Insurance Exchange (the
"Exchange").  The individuals named as Defendants comprise the
Board of Directors of the Registrant.

The Complaint asserts many of the same allegations made in an
action brought against the Registrant by, among others, Plaintiffs
Joseph S. Sullivan, Anita Sullivan and Patricia R. Beltz that was
previously described by the Registrant in its Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q which was filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 1, 2012.

The Complaint asserts two causes of action: (1) a class action
claim brought by Plaintiff Patricia R. Beltz on behalf of all
policyholders of the Exchange and (2) a non-class action claim
brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of the Exchange, or, in the
alternative, a derivative claim brought by the Plaintiffs on
behalf of the Exchange.  Both causes of action are based on
allegations that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
the Exchange by causing the Registrant to retain Services Charges
(installment fees) and Added Services Charges (late fees and
policy reinstatement fees) that should have been paid to the
Exchange.  The first cause of action seeks damages plus pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest and costs of lawsuit on behalf
of the class consisting of all policyholders of the Exchange.  The
second cause of action seeks compensatory and punitive damages
plus post-judgment interest and costs on behalf of the Exchange.
The Complaint alleges that the total of the Services Charges and
Additional Services Charges retained during the period from 1998
through 2011 amounted to approximately $308 million.


JOHN DEERE: Recalls 4,700 Gator Utility Vehicles Due to Fire Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Deere & Company of Moline, Illinois, announced a voluntary recall
of about 4,700 Utility Vehicles.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The oil filter can leak, posing a fire hazard.  Pinholes or cracks
have been identified in oil filters installed by the engine
supplier which were not manufactured to specification.

John Deere has received four reports of incidents resulting in
fires.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves John Deere Gator(TM) RSX850i Base, Sport and
Trail model recreational utility vehicles manufactured between May
2012 and October 2012.  They have side-by-side seating for two
people and were available in Realtree(R) Hardwoods(TM) HD Camo,
olive and black, or traditional green and yellow.  RSX850i is
located on the hood.  The serial number is on the rear frame above
the receiver hitch.  Utility vehicles with the following serial
numbers are included in this recall:

   Model           Serial Number Range
   -----           -------------------
   RSX850i Base    1M0850TB++M010009 thru 1M0850TB++M010778
   RSX850i Sport   1M0850TS++M010001 thru 1M0850TS++M012077
   RSX850i Trail   1M0850TT++M010001 thru 1M0850TT++M012867

Pictures of the recalled products are available at
http://is.gd/bBaeE1

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at John Deere dealers nationwide from August 2012
through January 2013 for between $12,900 and $15,500.

Consumers should stop using the recalled utility vehicles and
contact a John Deere dealer to schedule a free inspection and free
repair.  John Deere is contacting all registered owners of the
recalled utility vehicles directly.  Deere and Company may be
reached at (800) 537-8233, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern
Time Monday through Friday, and Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00
p.m. Eastern Time or http://www.johndeere.com/and click on
Services & Support for more information.


NATROL INC: Faces Marketing Fraud Suit Over Lycopene Product
------------------------------------------------------------
Harold M. Hoffman, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Natrol, Inc., Case No. L-001100-13 (N.J. Super. Ct.,
Bergen Cty., February 12, 2013), seeks redress of an alleged
marketing fraud perpetrated by Natrol on the United States
consumer public.

Natrol's promises and representations, both in product advertising
and labeling, concerning the constituent ingredient in its product
-- lycopene -- were false, Mr. Hoffman alleges.  In truth and in
fact, he contends, the product contained only 42% of the claimed
15 mg of lycopene per tablet.  He adds that the Defendant took
consumers' money in exchange for a specific, promised product,
with specific ingredients, in specific concentrations, and
delivered to them, in return, something less than and different
from the product promised.

Mr. Hoffman is a resident of the County of Bergen, in New Jersey.
He alleges that he was exposed to and read, saw and heard the
Defendant's advertising and marketing claims and promises, and
thereafter purchased Natrol Lycopene, in October 2012.

Natrol is a Delaware corporation based in Chatsworth, California.
Natrol advertised, marketed, distributed and sold Natrol Lycopene
in commerce throughout the United States, including to multiple
retail locations throughout the state of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff represented himself in the lawsuit:

          Harold M. Hoffman, Esq.
          240 Grand Avenue
          Englewood, NJ 07631
          Telephone: (201) 569-0086
          E-mail: hoffman.esq@verizon.net


PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pain Therapeutics, Inc. continues to defend itself against a
securities class action lawsuit pending in Texas, according to the
Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On December 2, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and its executive officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas.  This complaint
alleges, among other things, violations of Section 10(b), Rule
10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising out of
allegedly untrue or misleading statements of material facts made
by the Company regarding REMOXY's development and regulatory
status during the purported class period, February 3, 2011,
through June 23, 2011.  The complaint states that monetary damages
are being sought, but no amounts are specified.

As with any litigation proceeding, the Company says it cannot
predict with certainty the eventual outcome of any outstanding
legal actions.  The Company has incurred expenses in connection
with the defense of this lawsuit, and it may have to pay damages
or settlement costs in connection with any resolution thereof.
Any such expenses, damages or settlement costs may be substantial.

In addition, because of the number of shareholders involved,
plaintiffs in class action lawsuits may claim enormous monetary
damages even if the alleged claim is small on a per-shareholder
basis.  Any such expenses, damages or settlement costs may be
substantial.  Although the Company has insurance coverage against
which it may claim recovery against some of these expenses and
costs, the amount of coverage may not be adequate to cover the
full amount or certain expenses and costs may be outside the scope
the policies the Company maintains.  In the event of an adverse
outcome or outcomes, the Company's business could be materially
harmed from depletion of cash resources, negative impact on its
reputation, or restrictions or changes to its governance or other
processes that may result from any final disposition of the
lawsuit.  Moreover, responding to and defending pending litigation
significantly diverts management's attention from the Company's
operations.


PERFECT PASTA: Recalls 315 Lbs. of RTE Roast Beef Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Perfect Pasta Inc., an Addison, Illinois establishment, is
recalling approximately 315 pounds of ready-to-eat roast beef
products due to possible contamination with Listeria
monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The following product is subject to recall:

   * 5-lb. packages of "GINA FULLY COOKED ROAST BEEF WITH
     SEASONED JUICE" with a lot code number of "040615RB" and a
     pack date of "02-06-13."

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.
19829" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The products were
produced on February 6, 2013, and distributed to institutions in
Chicago.

The problem was discovered by FSIS through microbiological testing
by the Agency.  After the company received a positive sample for
Listeria monocytogenes, most of its products were held but a
portion may have been cross-contaminated as a result of equipment
not being cleaned between production shifts and shipped into
commerce.  FSIS and the Company have not received reports of
illnesses due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned
about an illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks (including at
restaurants) to ensure that steps are taken to make certain that
the product is no longer available to consumers.

Consumers and members of the media with questions regarding the
recall should contact the company's Quality Assurance Manager,
Connie DeMarco, at (630) 543-8300.

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


RAYMOND JAMES: Settlement of Closed End Funds Suits Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement to resolve two lawsuits over certain closed end funds
received preliminary approval last month, according to Raymond
James Financial, Inc.'s February 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2012.

Certain of the Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. entities, along with
Regions Financial Corporation, have been named in class-action
lawsuits filed in federal and state courts on behalf of
shareholders of Regions and investors who purchased shares of
certain mutual funds in the Regions Morgan Keegan Fund complex
(the "Regions Funds").  The Regions Funds were formerly managed by
Morgan Asset Management ("MAM"), an entity which was at one time a
subsidiary of one of the Morgan Keegan affiliates, but an entity
which was not part of the Company's Morgan Keegan acquisition.
The complaints contain various allegations, including claims that
the Regions Funds and the defendants misrepresented or failed to
disclose material facts relating to the activities of the Funds.

In January 2013, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee preliminarily approved the settlement of the
class action and the derivative action regarding the closed end
funds for $62 million and $6 million, respectively.  No other
class has been certified.  Certain of the shareholders in the
Funds and other interested parties have entered into arbitration
proceedings and individual civil claims, in lieu of participating
in the class action lawsuits.


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Amended Consolidated Suit Filed
--------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated securities complaint in
January, according to Ubiquiti Networks, Inc.'s February 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

Beginning on September 7, 2012, two shareholder class action
complaints were filed against the Company, certain of its officers
and directors and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  On January 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed
an Amended Consolidated Complaint, which alleges claims under the
Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of a purported class of those who
purchased the Company's common stock between
October 14, 2011, and August 9, 2012, and/or acquired the
Company's stock pursuant to or traceable to the registration
statement for the initial public offering.  The Amended
Consolidated Complaint alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading statements
regarding the sale of counterfeit Company products.  The
consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, damages and
interest, rescission, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes that the allegations in the consolidated
complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously contest the
litigation.  However, there can be no assurance that the Company
will be successful in its defense.  Because the case is at a very
early stage, the Company cannot currently estimate the loss or the
range of possible losses it may experience in connection with this
litigation.


UGI CORP: "Swigers" Class Suit Remains Stayed in West Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005, Samuel and Brenda Swiger filed what purports to be a
class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, West
Virginia, against UGI Corporation, an insurance subsidiary of UGI,
certain officers of UGI and the General Partner, and their
insurance carriers and insurance adjusters.  In this lawsuit, the
Swigers are seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of
the putative class for alleged violations of the West Virginia
Insurance Unfair Trade Practice Act, negligence, intentional
misconduct, and civil conspiracy.  The Court has not certified the
class and, in October 2008, stayed the lawsuit pending resolution
of a separate, but related, class action lawsuit filed against
AmeriGas OLP in Monongalia County, which was settled in Fiscal
2011.  The Company believes it has good defenses to the claims in
this action.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 8,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.


UNION PACIFIC: Awaits Ruling on Petition Related to Class Cert.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation is awaiting a court decision on
defendant railroads' petition for review of a class certification
ruling, according to the Company's February 8, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

Twenty small rail shippers (many of whom are represented by the
same law firms) filed virtually identical antitrust lawsuits in
various federal district courts against the Company and four other
Class I railroads in the U.S. (one railroad was eventually dropped
from the lawsuit).  The original plaintiff filed the first of
these claims in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on May 14,
2007, and the additional plaintiffs filed claims in district
courts in various states, including Florida, Illinois, Alabama,
Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.  These lawsuits allege
that the named railroads engaged in price-fixing by establishing
common fuel surcharges for certain rail traffic.

The Company received additional complaints following the initial
claim, increasing the total number of complaints to 30.  In
addition to lawsuits filed by direct purchasers of rail
transportation, a few of the lawsuits involved plaintiffs alleging
that they are or were indirect purchasers of rail transportation
and seeking to represent a purported class of indirect purchasers
of rail transportation that paid fuel surcharges.  These
complaints added allegations under state antitrust and consumer
protection laws.  On November 6, 2007, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the rail fuel
surcharge cases be transferred to Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S.
District Court in the District of Columbia for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.  Subsequently, the direct
purchaser plaintiffs and the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaints against Union Pacific
Railroad Company (UPRR) and three other Class I railroads.

One additional shipper filed a separate antitrust lawsuit during
2008.  Subsequently, the shipper voluntarily dismissed the action
without prejudice.

On October 10, 2008, Judge Friedman heard oral arguments with
respect to the defendant railroads' motions to dismiss.  In a
ruling on November 7, 2008, Judge Friedman denied the motion with
respect to the direct purchasers' complaint, and pretrial
proceedings are underway in that case.  On December 31, 2008,
Judge Friedman dismissed the complaints of the indirect purchasers
based upon state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust
enrichment laws.  He also ruled, however, that these plaintiffs
could proceed with their claim for injunctive relief under the
federal antitrust laws, which is identical to a claim by the
direct purchaser plaintiffs.  The indirect purchasers appealed
Judge Friedman's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia.  On April 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed Judge Friedman's
ruling dismissing the indirect purchasers' claims based on various
state laws.

With respect to the direct purchasers' complaint, Judge Friedman
conducted a two-day hearing on October 6 and 7, 2010, on the class
certification issue and the railroad defendants' motion to exclude
evidence of interline communications.  On April 7, 2011, Judge
Friedman issued an order deferring any decision on class
certification until the Supreme Court issued its decision in the
Wal-Mart employment discrimination case.

On June 21, 2012, Judge Friedman issued his decision certifying a
class of plaintiffs to be represented by the eight named
plaintiffs.  The class includes all shippers that paid a rate-
based fuel surcharge to any one of the defendant railroads for
rate-unregulated rail transportation from July 1, 2003, through
December 1, 2008.  This is a procedural ruling, which does not
affirm any of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs and does not
affect the ability of the railroad defendants to disprove the
allegations made by the plaintiffs.  On July 5, 2012, the
defendant railroads filed a petition with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia requesting that the court
review the class certification ruling.  On August 28, 2012, a
panel of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia referred
the petition to a merits panel of the court to address the issues
in the petition and to address whether the district court properly
granted class certification.

The Company denies the allegations that its fuel surcharge
programs violate the antitrust laws or any other laws.  The
Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit, and it
will vigorously defend its actions.  Therefore, the Company
currently believes that these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on any of its results of operations, financial
condition and liquidity.


                           *********

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  * * *