CAR_Public/130221.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, February 21, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 37

                             Headlines


99 CENTS: Awaits Final Approval of "Reed" Suit Class Settlement
99 CENTS: Has Made Required Payments Under Consolidated Suit Deal
99 CENTS: Has Yet to File Settlement Documents in "Allen" Suit
99 CENTS: Judgment on "Palencia" Suit Settlement Entered in Oct.
ACME PACKET: Being Sold for Too Little to Oracle, Suit Claims

APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iPhone 4 Defective Power Button
BIOMIMETIC THERAPEUTICS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
ELAN CORP: Appeal in Bapineuzumab-Related Class Suit Dismissed
HUNTSMAN CORP: Trial in Antitrust Class Suit to Begin Sept. 9
LEAR CORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suits Over Harnesses

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Awaits Ruling in Appeal to "Silverman" Suit
OHIO: Claims Administrator Calls Out Unpaid Class Members
POLYONE CORP: Defends Suits Related to Spartech Acquisition
RADIOSHACK CORP: 9th Cir. Affirms Stay Ruling in "Bitter" Suit
SUPERVALU INC: 9th Cir. Keeps Class Cert. Denial in "Flores" Suit

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Cephalon Defends Off-Label Promotion Suits
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Cipro Suits vs. Barr
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Defends Suit Over Patent Infringement
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Effexor(R)-Related Suits Remain Stayed
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Nexium(R)-Related Suits in Mass.

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Lamictal Suit Dismissal
US FOREST: Faces Class Action Over "Southern Sierra Pass"
VIRGIN MEDIA: Being Sold for Too Little to Liberty, Suit Claims
XEROX EDUCATION: Faces Class Action for Overcharging Student Loans

* Baron & Budd Reviews Potential Suit v. Luxury Beauty Brands


                           *********


99 CENTS: Awaits Final Approval of "Reed" Suit Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
99 Cents Only Stores is awaiting final approval of its settlement
of a class action lawsuit brought by Sheridan Reed, according to
the Company's February 12, 2013, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
29, 2012.

Plaintiff, a former store manager for the Company, filed an action
captioned Sheridan Reed v. 99 Cents Only Stores, Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles, in April 2010.  He
originally asserted claims on behalf of himself and all others
allegedly similarly situated under the California Labor Code for
alleged failure to pay overtime at the proper rate, failure to pay
vested vacation wages, failure to pay wages timely upon
termination of employment and failure to provide accurate wage
statements.  Mr. Reed also asserted a derivative claim for unfair
competition under the California Business and Professions Code.

In September 2010, Mr. Reed amended his complaint to seek civil
penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.  Mr.
Reed sought to represent four sub-classes: (i) all non-exempt or
hourly current or former employees who worked for the Company in
California within four years prior to the filing of the complaint
until the date of certification who were paid bonuses, commissions
or incentive wages, who worked overtime, and for whom the bonuses,
commissions or incentive wages were not included as part of the
regular rate of pay for overtime purposes, (ii) all non-exempt or
hourly current or former employees who worked for the Company in
California within four years prior to the filing of the complaint
until the date of certification who earned vacation wages and were
not paid their vested vacation wages at the time of termination;
(iii) all non-exempt or hourly current or former employees who
worked for the Company in California within four years prior to
the filing of the complaint until the date of certification who
were not furnished a proper itemized wage statement; and (iv) all
non-exempt or hourly current or former employees who worked for
the Company in California within four years prior to the filing of
the complaint until the date of certification who were not paid
all wages due upon termination.  Plaintiff sought to recover
alleged unpaid wages, statutory penalties, interest, attorney's
fees and costs, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and
restitution.  He also sought to recover civil penalties as an
"aggrieved employee" under the Private Attorneys General Act of
2004.

The parties executed a formal settlement agreement on April 5,
2012, which, if approved by the Court, will resolve the remainder
of the lawsuit by settling the class-wide claims for failure to
pay overtime at the proper rate, failure to pay wages timely upon
termination of employment and failure to provide accurate wage
statements.  In addition, the settlement will resolve Plaintiff's
individual claim for failure to pay vested vacation wages and
includes a general release by Plaintiff in the Company's favor.
The Company has accrued approximately $0.6 million for expected
payments in connection with this settlement.  The Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement on July 16, 2012, and a
final fairness hearing was held on October 25, 2012.  If the
settlement agreement is not finally approved by the court, the
Company cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit.


99 CENTS: Has Made Required Payments Under Consolidated Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
99 Cents Only Stores disclosed in its February 12, 2013, Form 10-
Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 29, 2012, that it has made the
required payments and implemented the required measures in
connection with its settlement of a consolidated class action
lawsuit commenced in Los Angeles, California.

In July 2010, two actions captioned Phillip Kavis v. 99 Cents Only
Stores, et al. and Leonard Morales v. 99 Cents Only Stores were
filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County.  In
these now consolidated actions, Plaintiffs filed putative class
action complaints against the Company claiming violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law (California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200), False Advertising Law (California
Business & Professions Code Section 17500), and Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (California Civil Code Section 1770), as well as
alleged intentional misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, arising out of the
Company's September 2008 change in pricing policy.  Plaintiffs
sought actual damages, restitution, including disgorgement of all
profits and unjust enrichment allegedly obtained by the Company,
statutory damages and civil penalties, equitable and injunctive
relief, exemplary damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
and their attorney's fees and costs.

On May 11, 2012, the Court granted final approval of a settlement
between the plaintiffs in these actions and the Company and
entered judgment in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
The settlement requires the Company to make certain postings in
its stores and pay a total of $100,000 in attorneys' fees, costs
and plaintiff enhancements in exchange for a judgment
extinguishing the claims relating to the revised pricing structure
by all its customers in all states of operation from September 8,
2008, through the date of judgment.  The settlement has become
effective with no appeal, and the Company has made the required
payments and implemented the required measures.


99 CENTS: Has Yet to File Settlement Documents in "Allen" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action lawsuit styled Thomas Allen v. 99
Cents Only Stores have not yet filed their formal settlement
documents for approval, according to the Company's February 12,
2013, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 29, 2012.

Plaintiff, a former store manager for the Company, filed an action
captioned Thomas Allen v. 99 Cents Only Stores, Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on
March 18, 2011.  He asserted claims on behalf of himself and all
others allegedly similarly situated under the California Labor
Code for alleged failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal
and rest periods, failure to pay wages timely upon termination,
and failure to provide accurate wage statements.  Mr. Allen also
asserted a derivative claim for unfair competition under the
California Business and Professions Code.  Mr. Allen seeks to
represent a class of all employees who were employed by the
Company as salaried managers in 99 Cents Only retail stores from
March 18, 2007, through the date of trial or settlement.
Plaintiff seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, statutory
penalties, interest, attorney's fees and costs, declaratory
relief, injunctive relief and restitution.  On October 17, 2011,
the Court heard the Company's motion to compel Plaintiff Allen to
arbitrate his claims on an individual basis, and following the
hearing, the Court ordered the parties to submit further briefing
and argument.  Following this supplemental briefing and while the
motion was under advisement, Mr. Allen sought leave to amend his
complaint to add a cause of action pursuant to the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA").  The Company did not
oppose this motion and on January 5, 2012, the Court granted Mr.
Allen's motion and his First Amended Complaint was filed.  On
February 27, 2012, the Court denied the Company's motion to compel
arbitration.  The Company filed a notice of its intention to
appeal that ruling on April 12, 2012.

Following a mediation of this matter on August 30, 2012, the
parties entered into a "term sheet" settlement agreement for a
minimal amount, which is subject to court approval.  If the
settlement agreement is not approved by the court, the Company
cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit.


99 CENTS: Judgment on "Palencia" Suit Settlement Entered in Oct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judgment on the final approval of 99 Cents Only Stores' settlement
of a class action lawsuit initiated by Luis Palencia was entered
in October 2012, according to the Company's
February 12, 2013, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 29, 2012.

Plaintiff, a former assistant manager, who the Company employed
from June 12, 2009, through September 9, 2009, filed an action
captioned Luis Palencia v. 99 Cents Only Stores, Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Sacramento, in June 2010,
asserting claims on behalf of himself and all others allegedly
similarly situated under the California Labor Code for alleged
unpaid overtime due to "off the clock" work, failure to pay
minimum wage, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to
provide proper wage statements, failure to pay wages timely during
employment and upon termination and failure to reimburse business
expenses.  Mr. Palencia also asserted a derivative claim for
unfair competition under the California Business and Professions
Code.  Mr. Palencia sought to represent three sub-classes: (i) an
"unpaid wages subclass" of all non-exempt or hourly paid employees
who worked for the Company in California within four years prior
to the filing of the complaint until the date of certification,
(ii) a "non-compliant wage statement subclass" of all non-exempt
or hourly paid employees of the Company who worked in California
and received a wage statement within one year prior to the filing
of the complaint until the date of certification, and (iii) an
"unreimbursed business expenses subclass" of all employees of the
Company who paid for business-related expenses, including expenses
for travel, mileage or cell phones in California within four years
prior to the filing of the complaint until the date of
certification.  Plaintiff sought to recover alleged unpaid wages,
interest, attorney's fees and costs, declaratory relief,
restitution, statutory penalties and liquidated damages.  He also
sought to recover civil penalties as an "aggrieved employee" under
the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

Following a mediation of this matter, the parties entered into a
settlement agreement on November 2, 2011.  The Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement on April 20, 2012, and a
final fairness hearing was set for September 14, 2012.  The
Company accrued $2.2 million in the period from April 3, 2011, to
January 14, 2012, for expected payments in connection with the
settlement.  The settlement agreement was granted final approval
by the court on September 14, 2012, and judgment was entered on
October 11, 2012.


ACME PACKET: Being Sold for Too Little to Oracle, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the directors of Acme Packet
are selling the company too cheaply through an unfair process to
Oracle, for $2.1 billion or $29.25 per share, shareholders argues
in Chancery Court.


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iPhone 4 Defective Power Button
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Apple's iPhone 4s has a
defective power button that sticks, forcing the user to power off
or reboot, a class action claims in Superior Court.


BIOMIMETIC THERAPEUTICS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc. entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle merger-related class action lawsuits,
according to the Company's February 12, 2013, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Between November 20, 2012, and December 12, 2012, five purported
class action complaints were filed in Delaware and Tennessee
against all or some of the following: BioMimetic Therapeutics,
Inc. ("BioMimetic"), certain of BioMimetic's current executive
officers and directors, Wright Medical Group, Inc. ("Wright"),
Achilles Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub") and Achilles Acquisition
Subsidiary, LLC ("Sister Subsidiary") and such complaints were
subsequently consolidated in their respective courts (the "Merger
Litigation").  The Merger Litigation relates to the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of November 19, 2012, by and among
BioMimetic, Wright, Merger Sub and Sister Subsidiary.

On February 12, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, BioMimetic and the other named defendants
in the Merger Litigation executed a memorandum of understanding
with the plaintiffs to settle the Merger Litigation.  This
memorandum of understanding provides, among other things, that the
parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement which
provides for the release of all asserted claims and dismissal with
prejudice of the Merger Litigation.  The asserted claims will not
be released, and the Merger Litigation dismissed, until such
stipulation of settlement is approved by the court.  There can be
no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve such
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.  Additionally, as part of the memorandum of
understanding, BioMimetic has agreed to make certain additional
disclosures related to the proposed transactions described in the
Merger Agreement.


ELAN CORP: Appeal in Bapineuzumab-Related Class Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a securities class action lawsuit
was dismissed earlier this month, according to Elan Corporation,
plc's February 12, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company and some of its officers and directors were named as
defendants in five putative class action lawsuits filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 2008.
The cases were consolidated as In Re: Elan Corporation Securities
Litigation.  The plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint was
filed on August 17, 2009, and alleged claims under the U.S.
federal securities laws and sought damages on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company's stock during periods ranging between
May 21, 2007, and October 21, 2008.  The complaints alleged that
the Company issued false and misleading public statements
concerning the safety and efficacy of bapineuzumab.  On July 23,
2010, a securities case was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  This case was accepted by the
court as a "related case" to the existing 2008 matter.  The 2010
case purported to be filed on behalf of all purchasers of Elan
call options during the period from
June 17, 2008, to July 29, 2008.  On August 10, 2011, the court
dismissed the class action lawsuits with prejudice.  The "related
case" plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit which dismissed the appeal on
February 1, 2013.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Trial in Antitrust Class Suit to Begin Sept. 9
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated antitrust lawsuit against Huntsman
Corporation is set to begin on September 9, 2013, according to the
Company's February 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company has been named as a defendant in two class action
civil antitrust lawsuits filed on February 9 and 12, 2010, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging that the
Company and its co-defendants and other co-conspirators conspired
to fix prices of titanium dioxide sold in the U.S. between at
least March 1, 2002, and the present.  The lawsuits were
subsequently consolidated.  The other defendants named in this
matter are DuPont, Kronos and Millennium.  On August 28, 2012, the
court certified a class consisting of all U.S. customers who
purchased titanium dioxide directly from defendants since February
1, 2003, and notice was given to putative class members the week
of January 14, 2013, after the Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit denied the Company's petition to appeal the order
certifying the class.

Trial is set to begin September 9, 2013.

The plaintiffs seek to recover on behalf of the class injunctive
relief, treble damages, costs of lawsuit and attorneys fees.  The
Company is not aware of any illegal conduct by the Company or any
of its employees.  Nevertheless, the Company has incurred costs
relating to these claims and could incur additional costs in
amounts material to it.  Because of the overall complexity of
these cases, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate any
possible loss or range of loss with respect to these claims.


LEAR CORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suits Over Harnesses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lear Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss class action lawsuits brought against suppliers of
automotive wire harnesses, according to the Company's
February 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On October 5, 2011, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan against the Company and several other global
suppliers of automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust and related laws.  Since that time, a
number of other plaintiffs have filed substantially similar class
action complaints against the Company and these and other
suppliers and individuals in a number of different federal
district courts, and it is possible that additional similar
lawsuits may be filed in the future.  Plaintiffs purport to be
direct and indirect purchasers of automotive wire harnesses
supplied by the Company and/or the other defendants during the
relevant period.  The complaints allege that the defendants
conspired to fix prices at which automotive wire harnesses were
sold and that this had an anticompetitive effect upon interstate
commerce in the United States.  The complaints further allege that
defendants fraudulently concealed their alleged conspiracy.  The
plaintiffs in these proceedings seek injunctive relief and
recovery of an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs and
expenses relating to the proceedings, including attorneys' fees.

On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation entered an order transferring and coordinating the
various civil actions, for pretrial purposes, into one proceeding
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.  On May 14, 2012, three purported classes of plaintiffs
-- direct purchasers of automotive wire harnesses; automotive
dealers that indirectly purchased automotive wire harnesses or
vehicles containing such harnesses; and indirect purchasers that
purchased or leased vehicles containing automotive wire harnesses
(or purchased replacement automotive wire harnesses for their
vehicles) -- filed consolidated amended complaints in the
consolidated proceeding.  With respect to the Company, the
consolidated amended complaints are substantially similar to the
individual complaints that had been filed in the various
jurisdictions.

On July 13, 2012, the Company filed a motion to have these actions
dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief, because
plaintiffs failed to plead a plausible claim against the Company
and because, even if it existed, such a claim would be barred
following the Company's emergence from bankruptcy.  The Company
expects the court to rule on its motion to dismiss in 2013.

Beginning in early 2012, single putative class action complaints
were filed in the Superior Courts of Justice in Ontario and Quebec
against the Company and several other global suppliers of
automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of Canadian laws
related to competition.  The allegations in the complaints are
substantially similar to those complaints that have been filed in
the United States.

On November 17, 2011, the Company filed a motion with the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
seeking entry of an order enforcing the Company's 2009 Plan of
Reorganization and directing dismissal of the pending class action
complaints.  The bankruptcy court heard oral argument on the
motion and, on February 10, 2012, ruled that claims against the
Company alleging violation of antitrust law are enjoined to the
extent that they arose prior to the Company's emergence from
Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings on November 9, 2009.  The
bankruptcy court further held that the District Court was the
appropriate forum to address antitrust claims arising after the
Company's emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.  The
Company appealed the bankruptcy court's decision on this issue,
and in November 2012, the appellate court ruled in favor of the
Company and remanded for consideration by the bankruptcy court the
possible effects of certain alleged antitrust claims arising after
November 9, 2009.  This issue, however, has been stayed by the
bankruptcy court until a decision has been entered with respect to
the motion to dismiss pending in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The Company says the ultimate outcome of this litigation, and
consequently, an estimate of the possible loss, if any, related to
this litigation, cannot reasonably be determined at this time.
However, the Company believes the plaintiffs' allegations against
it are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in
this proceeding.


MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Awaits Ruling in Appeal to "Silverman" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola Solutions, Inc. is awaiting court decisions in connection
with two appeals from approval of settlement in a securities class
action lawsuit, according to the Company's February 12, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

A purported class action lawsuit on behalf of the purchasers of
Motorola securities between July 19, 2006, and January 5, 2007,
Silverman v. Motorola, Inc., et al., was filed against the Company
and certain current and former officers and directors of the
Company on August 9, 2007, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.  The complaint alleges
violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as well as, in the case of the individual
defendants, the control person provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act.  The operative amended complaint primarily alleges
that the defendants knowingly made incorrect statements concerning
Motorola's projected revenues for the third and fourth quarter of
2006.  The complaint also challenges Motorola's accounting and
disclosures for certain transactions entered into in the third
quarter of 2006.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages and
other relief relating to the purported inflation in the price of
Motorola shares during the class period.  On August 25, 2009, the
district court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification.
On February 1, 2012, the parties in the Silverman litigation
signed a settlement agreement to resolve all claims in that case
for $200 million, $150 million of which was paid by the Company's
insurance carriers.  The district court approved the settlement
agreement on May 9, 2012.  Two appeals have been filed from the
judgment entered pursuant to the settlement -- one challenging the
court's approval of certain terms of the settlement, and the other
challenging the fee award to the attorneys for the class.  The
appeals court has heard the appeals but has not issued a decision.


OHIO: Claims Administrator Calls Out Unpaid Class Members
---------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Claims Services -- info@strategicclaims.net -- is
administering the settlement in the Sogg v. Goodman class action.
It has been unable to find current addresses for many Class
Members.  As a result, those Class Members have not received their
settlement payments.

If you, a family member or someone you know received unclaimed
funds from the State of Ohio between August 3, 2000 and October 9,
2012, but have not yet received a settlement check, please visit
the Web site at http://is.gd/pbjG4Gto view the list of persons
for whom SCS needs current addresses.  To update your contact
information with SCS, please go to
http://www.strategicclaims.net/node/145and ask to speak to
someone about the "Sogg case".

All questions regarding the list of those class members with
unknown addresses, the lawsuit or interest payments for Sogg class
members must be directed to Strategic Claims Services.  They can
be reached toll free at 866-936-1101, or
http://www.strategicclaims.net/sogg

The case is, WILTON S. SOGG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. DAVID GOODMAN,
DIRECTOR OF OHIO DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Defendant, Case No.
04CVG-8028 (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas) in Franklin County.  Judge
Richard A. Frye oversees the case.

The Action is a class action involving the Ohio Department of
Commerce's Unclaimed Funds Division.  The plaintiff alleges that
when the Division returned unclaimed funds to owners after they
made a claim, it failed to pay interest on the funds returned, and
that this violated the Ohio and United States Constitutions.

The plaintiff, Wilton Sogg, Mr. Sogg filed his initial Complaint
on Aug. 3, 2004, in Columbus, Ohio.  By Order dated Feb. 24, 2006,
the Court certified the Action as a class action.  The Plaintiff
alleged, among other things, that the Division failed to pay the
interest earned on unclaimed funds for the period when the
Division held it to persons who claimed and received their
unclaimed funds, that the Ohio statute pursuant to which the
Division failed to pay the accrued interest was unconstitutional,
and that as a result, the Defendant was required to pay interest
to unclaimed funds claimants.  The Action has been pending and
vigorously litigated for nearly eight years.

In 2012, the Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of the Class,
and the Defendant, reached a settlement of the remaining issues in
the Action.  The Settlement generally calls for the Defendant to
pay $15,000,000 to the Class, and thereafter to pay interest to
persons who receive their unclaimed funds from the Division after
the date the Final Judgment becomes Final and unappealable in the
amount of the Division's earnings on such property while in state
custody plus 40% of the earnings realized by state agencies and
departments other than the Division, unless and until superseded
by a subsequent change in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 169 related to
payment of interest.  In exchange, the Plaintiff will dismiss the
Action with prejudice, and the Plaintiff and all Class Members
will release and discharge the Defendant and other state agencies
from any and all claims based on the facts alleged in the
Complaint.

The funds paid in Settlement, after deductions for Court-approved
attorney's fees not to exceed 33-1/3%, attorney costs and expenses
in the approximate amount of $100,000, notice and administration
costs in the approximate amount of $600,000, and any Plaintiff
Compensation, were to be paid to Class Members employing the
procedures and methods of computation described in the Court-
approved Plan of Allocation.


POLYONE CORP: Defends Suits Related to Spartech Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------
PolyOne Corporation is defending five class action lawsuits
arising from its pending acquisition of Spartech Corporation,
according to the Company's February 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

On October 23, 2012, PolyOne entered into a merger agreement
pursuant to which PolyOne will acquire Spartech Corporation, a
supplier of sustainable plastic sheet, compounding, and packaging
solutions, based in Clayton, Missouri.  Spartech will expand
PolyOne's specialty portfolio with adjacent technologies in
attractive end markets the Company already serves as well as new
ones such as aerospace and security.  The proposed acquisition is
expected to close during the first quarter of 2013, subject to the
satisfaction of customary closing conditions, including the
receipt of regulatory approvals and the approval of Spartech's
stockholders.

Five purported class action lawsuits have been filed by alleged
Spartech stockholders.  Two purported class actions have been
filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, against
Spartech, its directors, PolyOne, Merger Sub, and Merger LLC
concerning the proposed acquisition of Spartech by PolyOne through
its wholly-owned subsidiaries Merger Sub and Merger LLC, which are
referred to collectively as the Missouri Stockholder Actions.  The
Missouri Stockholder Actions have been consolidated and allege,
among other things, that the directors of Spartech have breached
their fiduciary duties owed to stockholders by approving the
proposed acquisition of Spartech by PolyOne.  The Missouri
Stockholder Actions further allege that PolyOne, Merger Sub, and
Merger LLC have aided and abetted the directors of Spartech in
breaching their fiduciary duties.  Among other things, the
Missouri Stockholder Actions seek to enjoin the acquisition.
PolyOne, Spartech and their directors believe that these lawsuits
and the underlying claims are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend them.  At this point, the Company cannot
reasonably estimate a possible range of loss, if any.

Two purported class action lawsuits have also been filed in
Delaware Chancery Court, which are referred to as the Delaware
Stockholder Actions.  One of the Delaware Stockholder Actions,
Gross v. Spartech et. al., has been filed against Spartech, its
directors, PolyOne, Merger Sub and Merger LLC. The other Delaware
Stockholder Action, Pill v. Spartech et. al., has been filed
against Spartech and its directors.  The Delaware Stockholder
Actions allege, among other things, that the directors of Spartech
have breached their fiduciary duties owed to stockholders by
approving the proposed acquisition of Spartech by PolyOne.  Gross
v. Spartech et. al. also alleges that PolyOne, Merger Sub, and
Merger LLC have aided and abetted the directors of Spartech in
breaching their fiduciary duties.  Among other things, the
Delaware Stockholder Actions seek to enjoin the acquisition.
PolyOne, Spartech and their directors believe these lawsuits and
the underlying claims are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend them.  At this point, the Company cannot reasonably
estimate a possible range of loss, if any.

One purported class action lawsuit has been filed in the Federal
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, which is
referred to as the Missouri Federal Action.  The action is styled
Faulkner v. Holt et al., and filed against Spartech, the Spartech
Directors individually, PolyOne Corporation, Merger Sub and Merger
LLC.  This lawsuit alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, breach of
fiduciary duties by the Spartech Directors, and aiding and
abetting claims against PolyOne Corporation, Merger Sub and Merger
LLC.  This lawsuit seeks, inter alia to enjoin the acquisition, a
declaration that the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by
PolyOne does not comply with Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 14a-9 thereunder, and an accounting for profits from the
individuals allegedly profiting from any fiduciary duty breach.
PolyOne, Spartech and their directors believe that these lawsuits
and the underlying claims are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend them.  At this point, the Company cannot
reasonably estimate a possible range of loss, if any.


RADIOSHACK CORP: 9th Cir. Affirms Stay Ruling in "Bitter" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judges Consuelo M. Callahan, Sandra S. Ikuta, and Andrew
D. Hurwitz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the district court order staying a putative class action,
BITTER v. RADIOSHACK CORP., pursuant to the Colorado River
abstention doctrine.  Plaintiff Steve Bitter appealed the district
court order.

The Colorado River abstention doctrine is invoked to avoid
duplicative proceedings, either in two different federal courts or
in parallel state and federal court proceedings.

"The district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that
the state court plaintiff's pursuit of mediation did not reflect a
lack of diligence or suggest that the state proceeding was
inadequate. Nor did the district court err in concluding that the
threat of piecemeal litigation weighed in favor of granting a stay
because, contrary to Bitter's argument, certification of a federal
class would not have terminated the parallel state court action,"
the 9th Circuit judges held.  "We also reject Bitter's contention
that the district court erred in failing to consider Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23 in applying the Colorado River doctrine.
Rule 23 governs the procedure for maintaining a federal action on
behalf of a class, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. It does not apply to the
antecedent question of whether a district court should stay the
federal action in deference to a parallel state court action. In
any event, the Colorado River doctrine already takes into account
Rule 23's concerns about fairness, adequacy, and efficiency."

Mr. Bitter's request, filed February 13, 2012, that the 9th
Circuit take judicial notice of the Los Angeles Superior Court's
case summary of the parallel state court action is granted.

The case is STEVEN BITTER, individual and on behalf of a class of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RADIOSHACK
CORP., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee, No. 11-56057.
A copy of the Appeals Court's February 15, 2013 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/veXTcDfrom Leagle.com.


SUPERVALU INC: 9th Cir. Keeps Class Cert. Denial in "Flores" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on
Feb. 15, 2013, affirmed a district court ruling denying class
certification in FLORES v. SUPERVALU, INC.

Cynthia Flores appealed the district court's denial of class
certification for three subclasses of employees whom she claims
suffered because of her employer's alleged violations of
California law.

Circuit Judges Consuelo M. Callahan, Sandra S. Ikuta, and Andrew
D. Hurwitz held that the district court appropriately concluded
that Ms. Flores failed to establish that "questions of law or fact
common to class members predominate over any questions affecting
only individual members," Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), as to the
proposed meal break and rest break subclasses.

The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying
the motion for class certification of the overtime compensation
("regular rate") subclass because Ms. Flores, having never been
denied appropriate overtime compensation, was not a member of that
class and therefore did not have standing.

The 9th Circuit declined Ms. Flores's invitation to remand in
light of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 273 P.3d 513
(Cal. 2012).  According to the 9th Circuit, the denial of class
certification did not turn on the substantive California
employment law issues addressed in Brinker.  Even if substantive
law were implicated, Brinker's holding, that an employer must
provide meal breaks but "need not ensure that no work is done,"
does not weigh in favor of concluding that the meal and rest break
subclasses should be certified.  Therefore, remand is unnecessary.

The case before the 9th Circuit is CYNTHIA FLORES, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUPERVALU, INC., et al.
Defendants-Appellees, No. 11-56075.

A copy of the Appeals Court's February 15, 2013 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/0sfoPZfrom Leagle.com.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Cephalon Defends Off-Label Promotion Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited is
defending itself against class action lawsuits related to off-
label promotion of Actiq(R), Provigil(R) and Gabitril(R),
according to the Company's February 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

In 2008, Cephalon, Inc., entered into settlement agreements with
the U.S. government and various parties and states relating to
allegations of off-label promotion of Actiq(R), Provigil(R) and
Gabitril(R).  In connection with the settlements, Cephalon agreed
to plead guilty to one misdemeanor violation of the U.S. Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, pay a fine and settlement, and enter into
a five-year corporate integrity agreement with the Office of the
Inspector General of the Department of Justice.  Cephalon
continues to defend against putative class action and other
complaints regarding its sales and marketing practices with
respect to such products.  For example, Cephalon is a defendant in
a putative class action filed in United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania claiming that the plaintiffs
suffered monetary losses because Actiq(R) was promoted and
prescribed for uses not approved by the FDA when there were
allegedly less expensive pain management drugs that were more
appropriate for patients' conditions.  A separate set of
plaintiffs allege similar claims against Cephalon involving the
drugs Provigil(R) and Gabitril(R).  Cephalon is also a defendant
in a lawsuit filed by the State of South Carolina alleging
violations of the state's unfair trade practices law in connection
with the alleged off-label promotion of Actiq(R), Provigil(R) and
Gabitril(R).  Additionally, Cephalon has received and has
responded to subpoenas related to Treanda(R), Nuvigil(R)and
Fentora(R).


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Cipro Suits vs. Barr
-------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited continues to defend its
subsidiary against three remaining class action lawsuits brought
by purchasers of ciprofloxacin, according to the Company's
February 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Barr Laboratories, Inc. has been named as co-defendant with Bayer
Corporation, The Rugby Group, Inc. and others in roughly 38 class
action complaints filed in state and federal courts by direct and
indirect purchasers of ciprofloxacin (Cipro(R)) from 1997 to the
present.  The complaints allege that a 1997 Bayer-Barr patent
litigation settlement agreement was anti-competitive and violated
federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust and consumer
protection laws.  In March 2005, the court in the federal multi-
district litigation granted summary judgment in Barr's favor and
dismissed all of the federal actions before it.  Following
unsuccessful appeals and petitions for certiorari that were denied
by the United States Supreme Court, the federal actions have
effectively ended.  In addition, all but three state cases
(California, Kansas and Florida) have been dismissed.  In the
California case, the trial court granted defendants' summary
judgment motions, and the California Court of Appeal affirmed in
October 2011.  Plaintiffs petitioned for review by the California
Supreme Court, which has decided to hear the appeal; however, the
California Supreme Court has suspended the briefing pending the
Supreme Court's disposition of the petition for certiorari in In
re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, which will be resolved after a
decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., (the "AndroGel case").  The Kansas action is stayed, and the
Florida action is in the very early stages, with no hearings or
schedule set to date.

Teva believes that the agreements at issue in the matters are
valid settlements to patent lawsuits, which do not form the basis
of an antitrust claim.  However, if the Supreme Court were to
decide the AndroGel case by rejecting or restricting the "scope of
the patent" test, it could potentially lead to increased scrutiny
of Teva's patent settlements, additional administrative action by
the FTC and increased risk of liability in Teva's currently
pending antitrust litigations.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Defends Suit Over Patent Infringement
----------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited continues to defend its
subsidiaries against a class action lawsuit relating to patent
infringement, according to the Company's February 12, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

In April 2006, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. ("Teva USA"), Barr
Laboratories, Inc. and Cephalon, Inc. (all subsidiaries of Teva)
were named, along with Mylan Laboratories, Inc., Ranbaxy
Laboratories Ltd. and Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in a class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The case alleges generally that
the settlement agreements entered into between the different
generic pharmaceutical companies and Cephalon, in their respective
patent infringement cases involving finished modafinil products
(the generic version of Provigil(R)), were unlawful because the
settlement agreements resulted in the exclusion of generic
competition.  The case was brought by King Drug Company of
Florence, Inc. on behalf of itself and as a proposed class action
on behalf of any other person or entity that purchased Provigil(R)
directly from Cephalon from January 2006 until the alleged
unlawful conduct ceases.  Similar allegations have been made in a
number of additional complaints, including those filed on behalf
of proposed classes of direct and indirect purchasers, by an
individual indirect purchaser, by certain retail chain pharmacies
and by Apotex, Inc.  These cases seek various forms of injunctive
and monetary relief, including damages based on the difference
between the brand price and what the generic price would have
been, as well as disgorgement of profits, trebled under the
relevant statutes, plus attorneys' fees and costs.  In February
2008, following an investigation of these matters, the Federal
Trade Commission ("FTC") sued Cephalon, alleging that Cephalon
violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which
prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the
marketplace, by unlawfully maintaining a monopoly in the sale of
Provigil(R) and improperly excluding generic competition.  In
March 2010, the District Court denied defendants' motions to
dismiss the federal antitrust claims and some of the related state
law claims.  Another class action lawsuit with essentially the
same allegations was initiated by an independent pharmacy in
Tennessee in November 2009 and dismissed in December 2010.  In May
2010, another independent pharmacy also filed a lawsuit in Ohio
with the same allegations.  This case has been transferred to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On October 31, 2011, the District Court hearing the antitrust
cases, as well as patent claims brought by plaintiff Apotex,
issued its decision regarding Apotex's invalidity claims as to
Cephalon's Patent No. RE 37,516, finding the patent to be invalid
based on obviousness, among other things, and unenforceable based
on inequitable conduct.  On March 29, 2012, the District Court
ruled that Apotex's product does not infringe Cephalon's patent.
Cephalon appealed the invalidity and inequitable conduct decisions
on May 7, 2012.  Plaintiffs in the antitrust case have asked the
District Court to apply the inequitable conduct and invalidity
findings to the antitrust cases in an effort to establish
antitrust liability, but the District Court has not yet ruled on
those requests.

On July 16, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit issued its decision in the In re K-Dur Antitrust
Litigation, finding that patent settlement agreements between
generic and branded pharmaceutical manufacturers should be
analyzed not under a "scope of the patent" test that other federal
Courts of Appeals have applied, but under a "quick look rule of
reason" analysis.  In doing so, it found that if a brand
pharmaceutical company makes a payment to a generic pharmaceutical
company under a settlement agreement in order to resolve patent
litigation, the payment creates a rebuttable presumption that the
agreement is an unreasonable restraint on trade.  Because of the
split in the Courts of Appeal, it is unclear what effect, if any,
this ruling will have on the modafinil antitrust litigation or on
other litigations listed herein.  The defendants in the K-Dur case
have filed petitions for a writ of certiorari to the United States
Supreme Court On December 7, 2012, the United States Supreme Court
granted certiorari in Federal Trade Commission v. Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (the "AndroGel case"), in which the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that
settlement agreements between generic and branded pharmaceutical
manufacturers should be analyzed under the "scope of the patent"
test.  The District Court in the modafinil antitrust cases has
stayed further proceedings pending resolution of the K-Dur
certiorari petition, which will be resolved after a decision in
the AndroGel case.  The District Court has not yet set a schedule
for pretrial or trial proceedings in the antitrust litigation.

Teva believes that the agreements at issue in the matters are
valid settlements to patent lawsuits, which do not form the basis
of an antitrust claim.  However, if the Supreme Court were to
decide the AndroGel case by rejecting or restricting the "scope of
the patent" test, it could potentially lead to increased scrutiny
of Teva's patent settlements, additional administrative action by
the FTC and increased risk of liability in Teva's currently
pending antitrust litigations.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Effexor(R)-Related Suits Remain Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits related to venlafaxine ER (generic
Effexor(R) ER) remains stayed, according to Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries Limited's February 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In December 2011, three groups of plaintiffs sued Altana Pharma
and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals (collectively, "Wyeth") and Teva for
alleged violations of the antitrust laws in connection with their
settlement of patent litigation involving venlafaxine ER (generic
Effexor(R) ER).  The cases were filed by a purported class of
direct purchasers, by a purported class of indirect purchasers and
by certain chain pharmacies.  Plaintiffs claim that the settlement
agreement between Wyeth and Teva unlawfully delayed generic entry.
Plaintiffs also have asserted claims against Wyeth alone for fraud
on the United States Patent Office.  The cases seek unspecified
damages.  Teva filed motions to dismiss on April 6, 2012.  The
Court has stayed the cases in their entirety pending the Supreme
Court's disposition of the petition for certiorari in In re K-Dur
Antitrust Litigation, which will be resolved after a decision in
Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (the
"AndroGel case").

Teva believes that the agreements at issue in the matters are
valid settlements to patent lawsuits, which do not form the basis
of an antitrust claim.  However, if the Supreme Court were to
decide the AndroGel case by rejecting or restricting the "scope of
the patent" test, it could potentially lead to increased scrutiny
of Teva's patent settlements, additional administrative action by
the FTC and increased risk of liability in Teva's currently
pending antitrust litigations.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Nexium(R)-Related Suits in Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited is facing class action
lawsuits related to esomeprazole (generic Nexium(R)), according to
the Company's February 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

Starting in September 2012, plaintiffs in eleven cases, including
overlapping purported class actions, sued AstraZeneca and Teva, as
well as Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. and Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., and Dr. Reddy's, for violating the antitrust laws by
entering into settlement agreements to resolve the esomeprazole
(generic Nexium(R)) patent litigation.  These cases have all been
consolidated and transferred to the District of Massachusetts.
The cases are on the running trial list for February 2014.

Teva believes that the agreements at issue in the matters are
valid settlements to patent lawsuits, which do not form the basis
of an antitrust claim.  However, if the Supreme Court were to
decide the AndroGel case (Federal Trade Commission v. Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,) by rejecting or restricting the "scope of
the patent" test, it could potentially lead to increased scrutiny
of Teva's patent settlements, additional administrative action by
the FTC and increased risk of liability in Teva's currently
pending antitrust litigations.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Lamictal Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in class action lawsuits related to lamotrigine
(generic Lamictal(R)) have appealed the dismissal of their cases,
according to Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited's
February 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In February 2012, two purported classes of direct-purchaser
plaintiffs sued GlaxoSmithKline and Teva for alleged violations of
the antitrust laws in connection with their settlement of patent
litigation involving lamotrigine (generic Lamictal(R)).  In August
2012, a purported class of indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a
nearly identical complaint against GSK and Teva.  Plaintiffs claim
that the settlement agreement unlawfully delayed generic entry.
The cases seek unspecified damages.  GSK and Teva filed motions to
dismiss on August 15, 2012, and on December 6, 2012, the court
dismissed the cases.  Plaintiffs have appealed that decision.

Teva believes that the agreements at issue in the matters are
valid settlements to patent lawsuits, which do not form the basis
of an antitrust claim.  However, if the Supreme Court were to
decide the AndroGel case (Federal Trade Commission v. Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,) by rejecting or restricting the "scope of
the patent" test, it could potentially lead to increased scrutiny
of Teva's patent settlements, additional administrative action by
the FTC and increased risk of liability in Teva's currently
pending antitrust litigations.


US FOREST: Faces Class Action Over "Southern Sierra Pass"
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the U.S. Forest Service
charges for a "Southern Sierra Pass" in Sequoia National Forest
for sites that don't have all six amenities that justify the fee,
a class action claims in Federal Court.


VIRGIN MEDIA: Being Sold for Too Little to Liberty, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Virgin Media is selling
itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Liberty Global,
for $47.87 a share or $23.3 billion, shareholders claim in a class
action in New York County Supreme Court.

Liberty, owned by Colorado billionaire John Malone, is buying
Virgin to take on Rupert Murdoch in Europe's subscription TV
market.

Virgin is Great Britain's second-largest pay-TV provider.

Lead plaintiff Jeff Grimsley claims the buyout offer is "an unfair
offer and for an unfair price."

The complaint states: "Upon the consummation of the Proposed
Transaction, each share of Virgin Media common stock will be
converted into the right to receive (i) $17.50 in cash, (ii)
0.2582 Liberty Global Series A shares, and (iii) 0.1928 Liberty
Global Series C shares.  Based on the price of Liberty Global's
shares on February 4, 2013, the day prior to the announcement of
the Proposed Transaction, the implied value that Virgin Media
shareholders will receive is $47.87 per Virgin Media share.
Additionally, Virgin Media shareholders will own approximately 36%
of the pro forma shares outstanding of Liberty Global and have
approximately 26% of the voting rights.  The Proposed Transaction
is valued at approximately $23.3 billion.  The Board has breached
their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Proposed Transaction for
grossly inadequate consideration.  As described in more detail
below, given Virgin Media's recent strong performance as well as
its future growth prospects, the consideration shareholders will
receive is inadequate and undervalues the Company.

"Defendants have exacerbated their breaches of fiduciary duty by
agreeing to lock up the Proposed Transaction with deal protection
devices that preclude other bidders from making a successful
competing offer for the Company.  Specifically, pursuant to the
merger agreement dated February 5, 2013 (the 'Merger Agreement'),
defendants agreed to: (i) a strict no-solicitation provision that
prevents the Company from soliciting other potential acquirers or
even in continuing discussions and negotiations with potential
acquirers; (ii) a provision that provides Liberty Global with five
(5) business days to match any competing proposal in the event one
is made; and (iii) a provision that requires the Company to pay
Liberty Global a termination fee of $235 million in order to enter
into a transaction with a superior bidder.  These provisions
substantially and improperly limit the Board's ability to act with
respect to investigating and pursuing superior proposals and
alternatives, including a sale of all or part of Virgin Media."

Grimsley seeks class certification, an injunction and damages for
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting.  He is
represented by Shannon Hopkins with Levi & Korsinsky.


XEROX EDUCATION: Faces Class Action for Overcharging Student Loans
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Xerox Education Services fka ACS Education Services, and Wells
Fargo Bank overcharged borrowers millions of dollars for student
loans.


* Baron & Budd Reviews Potential Suit v. Luxury Beauty Brands
-------------------------------------------------------------
CareFair.com reports that luxury beauty brands could be dealing
with major lawsuits if one law firm has its way.  According to
published reports, Baron and Budd is examining advertising claims
made by beauty companies about their products.  Those listed are
Lancome, Clarins, Dr. Gross, ReVive, Naturabisse, Shiseido,
Clinique, La Prairie and Estee Lauder.

This is not new legal ground for Baron and Budd.  The firm has
brought litigation against L'Oreal and AVON in the past.  The firm
believes that the companies routinely profit from misleading
consumers with their advertisements.  Attorney Mark Pifko was
quoted as saying, "Our lawsuits assert that the advertisements for
skincare brands prey on consumers' desire to find a safer and more
cost-effective alternative to surgery to combat the effects of
aging."

The law firm is urging consumers who have used the products to
come forward.  Mr. Pifko and Rolan Tellis are co-counsels in the
case against AVON, and are overseeing the current pending
litigation.


                           *********

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  * * *