CAR_Public/130227.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, February 27, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 41

                             Headlines



ALCOA INC: Awaits Ruling in Hurricane Georges-Related Class Suit
ALCOA INC: "Lavoie" Class Suit Continues in Discovery Phase
ALCOA INC: Oral Argument in ERISA-Violation Suit Appeal on Mar. 6
AMAZON.COM INC: Bookstores Sue Over Alleged E-Book Monopoly
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Feb. 27 Hearing Set for Arbitration Case

ARCELORMITTAL: Defends Minas Gerais Suit vs. Brazilian Unit
ARCELORMITTAL: Discovery in "Standard Iron" Suit Still Ongoing
BABY PRODUCTS: 3rd Cir. Reverses Antitrust Settlement Ruling
BP PLC: Oil Spill Civil Class Action Trial Begins
BRISTOL-MYERS: Appeals Ruling in AWP Suit in Pennsylvania

BRISTOL-MYERS: Bid to Junk Abilify* Co-Pay Program Suit Pending
CALIFORNIA: Dept of Corrections Faces Suit on Over-Detention
CARNIVAL CORP: Faces Class Action Following Engine Room Fire
DIEBOLD INC: Continues to Defend "LMPERS" Shareholder Suit
DOW CHEMICAL: Still Liable for $50-MM Under Pension Plan Deal

DOW CHEMICAL: Jury Awards Urethane Class Action Plaintiffs $400MM
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Mileage Claims
GENERAL MOTORS: "Scott" Suit Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint
GENERAL MOTORS: Unit's Appeal in Canadian Dealers Suit Pending
H&R BLOCK: Customers File Class Action Over Tax Penalty Payment

HOMELITE CONSUMER: Recalls 254,600 Electric Blower Vacuums
HONDA MOTOR: Faces Suit Over Defective Stability Assist System
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Continues to Defend MERS-Related Suit
ILLINOIS: Faces Class Action Over SMART Legislation
KROLL FACTUAL: Faces Class Action Over Misidentifying People

LOCKHEED MARTIN: Settles Securities Class Action for $19.5-Mil.
MONSANTO CO: Some Class Members to Appeal $93-Mil. Settlement
MRP REALTY: Judge Tosses Washington Harbour Class Action
NATIONAL BANK: Faces Two Class Actions Over Poseidon's Securities
NTS REALTY: Faces Class Suit in Delaware Over Proposed Merger

NW FLORIDA STATE COLLEGE: Faces Suit Over Hacked Computer System
OWT INDUSTRIES: Recalls 131,500 Electric Blower Vacuums
PFIZER INC: Faces Over 250 Lawsuits Over Zoloft Birth Defects
PHILADELPHIA: Autistic Kids Get Favorable Class Action Ruling
QEP RESOURCES: Settles "Chieftain" Suit for $115 Million

SMITHFIELD PACKING: Recalls Pork Sausage Due to Foreign Materials
STARKIST CO: Faces Class Action Over 5-oz. Cans of Tuna
TEXTRON INC: Signed Deal in December to Settle Consolidated Suit
TIME WARNER: Appeal From "Fink" Suit Dismissal Still Pending
TIME WARNER: Appeal in Set-Top Cable Antitrust MDL Still Pending

TIME WARNER: Continues to Defend "Downs" Class Suit vs. Insight
TIME WARNER: High Court Won't Review "Brantley" Suit Dismissal
TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Continues to Face Class Suits Action in Michigan
U.S. STEEL: Continues to Defend Suit vs. Steel Manufacturers
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Hawthorne" Suit vs. Bank
US AIRWAYS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims

VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Suits Related to DDi Acquisition Dismissed
WAL-MART: Faces Class Action Over Discrimination of Women
WAL-MART: Judge Dismisses Sex Discrimination Claims

* Ted Frank Tackles Pro-Arbitration Rulings in Legal Policy Report


                           *********


ALCOA INC: Awaits Ruling in Hurricane Georges-Related Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc. is awaiting a court decision on the plaintiffs' motion
to file a brief of excess length in the class action lawsuit
related to incidents brought by Hurricane Georges, according to
the Company's February 15, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In September 1998, Hurricane Georges struck the U.S. Virgin
Islands, including the St. Croix Alumina, L.L.C. (SCA) facility on
the island of St. Croix.  The wind and rain associated with the
hurricane caused material at the location to be blown into
neighboring residential areas.  SCA undertook or arranged various
cleanup and remediation efforts.  The Division of Environmental
Protection (DEP) of the Department of Planning and Natural
Resources (DPNR) of the Virgin Islands Government issued a Notice
of Violation that Alcoa has contested.  In February 1999, certain
residents of St. Croix commenced a civil lawsuit in the
Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands seeking compensatory and
punitive damages and injunctive relief for alleged personal
injuries and property damages associated with "bauxite or red
dust" from the SCA facility.  The lawsuit, which has been removed
to the District Court of the Virgin Islands (the Court), names
SCA, Alcoa and Glencore Ltd. as defendants, and, in August 2000,
was accorded class action treatment.  The class was defined to
include persons in various defined neighborhoods who "suffered
damages and/or injuries as a result of exposure during and after
Hurricane Georges to red dust and red mud blown during Hurricane
Georges."  All of the defendants have denied liability, and
discovery and other pretrial proceedings have been underway since
1999.  Plaintiffs' expert reports claim that the material blown
during Hurricane Georges consisted of bauxite and red mud, and
contained crystalline silica, chromium, and other substances.  The
reports further claim, among other things, that the population of
the six subject neighborhoods as of the 2000 census (a total of
3,730 people) has been exposed to toxic substances through the
fault of the defendants, and hence will be able to show
entitlement to lifetime medical monitoring as well as other
compensatory and punitive relief.  These opinions have been
contested by the defendants' expert reports, that state, among
other things, that plaintiffs were not exposed to the substances
alleged and that in any event the level of alleged exposure does
not justify lifetime medical monitoring.  Alcoa and SCA turned
over this matter to their insurance carriers who have been
providing a defense.  Glencore Ltd. is jointly defending the case
with Alcoa and SCA and has a pending motion to dismiss.

In June 2008, the Court granted defendants' joint motion to
decertify the original class of plaintiffs, and certified a new
class as to the claim of ongoing nuisance, insofar as plaintiffs
seek cleanup, abatement, or removal of the red mud currently
present at the facility.  (The named plaintiffs had previously
dropped their claims for medical monitoring as a consequence of
the court's rejection of plaintiffs' proffered expert opinion
testimony).  The Court expressly denied certification of a class
as to any claims for remediation or cleanup of any area outside
the facility (including plaintiffs' property).  The new class
could seek only injunctive relief rather than monetary damages.
Named plaintiffs, however, could continue to prosecute their
claims for personal injury, property damage, and punitive damages.
In August 2009, in response to defendants' motions, the Court
dismissed the named plaintiffs' claims for personal injury and
punitive damages, and denied the motion with respect to their
property damage claims.  In September 2009, the Court granted
defendants' motion for summary judgment on the class plaintiffs'
claim for injunctive relief.  In October 2009, plaintiffs appealed
the Court's summary judgment order dismissing the claim for
injunctive relief and in March 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 3rd Circuit dismissed plaintiffs' appeal of that order.

In September 2011, the parties reached an oral agreement to settle
the remaining claims in the case which would resolve the personal
property damage claims of the 12 remaining individual plaintiffs.
On March 12, 2012, final judgment was entered in the District
Court for the District of the Virgin Islands.  Alcoa's share of
the settlement is fully insured.  On March 23, 2012, plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal of numerous non-settled matters,
including but not limited to discovery orders, Daubert rulings,
summary judgment rulings, as more clearly set out in the
settlement agreement/release between the parties.  Plaintiffs'
appellate brief was filed in the 3rd Circuit Court on January 4,
2013, together with a motion seeking leave to file a brief of
excess length.  The court has suspended the remainder of the
briefing schedule, including the date for Alcoa's reply brief,
until it rules on plaintiffs' motion to file its brief of excess
length.


ALCOA INC: "Lavoie" Class Suit Continues in Discovery Phase
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit initiated by Dany Lavoie continues in the
discovery phase, Alcoa Inc. said in its February 15, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

In August 2005, Dany Lavoie, a resident of Baie Comeau in the
Canadian Province of Quebec, filed a Motion for Authorization to
Institute a Class Action and for Designation of a Class
Representative against Alcoa Canada Ltd., Alcoa Limitee, Societe
Canadienne de Metaux Reynolds Limitee and Canadian British
Aluminum in the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Baie
Comeau.  Plaintiff seeks to institute the class action on behalf
of a putative class consisting of all past, present and future
owners, tenants and residents of Baie Comeau's St. Georges
neighborhood.  He alleges that defendants, as the present and past
owners and operators of an aluminum smelter in Baie Comeau, have
negligently allowed the emission of certain contaminants from the
smelter, specifically Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or "PAHs,"
that have been deposited on the lands and houses of the St.
Georges neighborhood and its environs causing damage to the
property of the putative class and causing health concerns for
those who inhabit that neighborhood.  Plaintiff originally moved
to certify a class action, sought to compel additional remediation
to be conducted by the defendants beyond that already undertaken
by them voluntarily, sought an injunction against further
emissions in excess of a limit to be determined by the court in
consultation with an independent expert, and sought money damages
on behalf of all class members.  In May 2007, the court authorized
a class action lawsuit to include only people who suffered
property damage or personal injury damages caused by the emission
of PAHs from the smelter.  In September 2007, the plaintiff filed
his claim against the original defendants, which the court had
authorized in May.  Alcoa has filed its Statement of Defense and
plaintiff has filed an Answer to that Statement.  Alcoa also filed
a Motion for Particulars with respect to certain paragraphs of
plaintiff's Answer and a Motion to Strike with respect to certain
paragraphs of plaintiff's Answer.

In late 2010, the Court denied these motions.  While no further
formal proceedings have occurred, Alcoa has reviewed technical
data provided by the plaintiffs and is preparing to provide its
own analysis to the plaintiffs.  The action continues in the
discovery phase.  The plaintiffs have not quantified the damages
sought.  Without such amount and given the various damages
alleged, at this stage of the proceeding the Company is unable to
reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably
possible loss.


ALCOA INC: Oral Argument in ERISA-Violation Suit Appeal on Mar. 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument in an appeal in the class action lawsuit alleging
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act is
scheduled for March 6, 2013, according to Alcoa Inc.'s
February 15, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In November 2006, in Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No.
3:06cv448 (E.D. Tenn.), a class action was filed by plaintiffs
representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of
Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependents of
such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor-Management Relations Act by
requiring plaintiffs, beginning January 1, 2007, to pay health
insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for
certain medical procedures and prescription drugs.  Plaintiffs
alleged these changes to their retiree health care plans violated
their rights to vested health care benefits.  Plaintiffs
additionally alleged that Alcoa had breached its fiduciary duty to
plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their
health benefits would never change.  Plaintiffs sought injunctive
and declaratory relief, back payment of benefits, and attorneys'
fees.  Alcoa had consented to treatment of plaintiffs' claims as a
class action.  During the fourth quarter of 2007, following
briefing and argument, the court ordered consolidation of the
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction with trial,
certified a plaintiff class, bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs'
breach of fiduciary duty claims, struck the plaintiffs' jury
demand, but indicated it would use an advisory jury, and set a
trial date of September 17, 2008.  In August 2008, the court set a
new trial date of March 24, 2009 and, subsequently, the trial date
was moved to September 22, 2009.  In June 2009, the court
indicated that it would not use an advisory jury at trial.  Trial
in the matter was held over eight days commencing September 22,
2009, and ending on October 1, 2009, in federal court in
Knoxville, TN, before the Honorable Thomas Phillips, U.S. District
Court Judge.  At the conclusion of evidence, the court set a post-
hearing briefing schedule for submission of proposed findings of
fact and conclusions of law by the parties and for replies to the
same.  Post trial briefing was submitted on December 4, 2009.

On March 9, 2011, the court issued a judgment order dismissing
plaintiffs' lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice for the reasons
stated in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.  On March
23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for clarification and/or
amendment of the judgment order, which seeks, among other things,
a declaration that plaintiffs' retiree benefits are vested subject
to an annual cap and an injunction preventing Alcoa, prior to
2017, from modifying the plan design to which plaintiffs are
subject or changing the premiums and deductibles that plaintiffs
must pay.  Also on March 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for
award of attorneys' fees and expenses.  Alcoa filed its opposition
to both motions on April 11, 2011.

On June 11, 2012, the court issued its memorandum and order
denying plaintiffs' motion for clarification and/or amendment to
the original judgment order.  On July 6, 2012, plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal of the court's March 9, 2011 judgment.  On
July 12, 2012, the trial court stayed Alcoa's motion for
assessment of costs pending resolution of plaintiffs' appeal.  The
appeal is docketed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit as case number 12-5801.  On August 29, 2012, the
trial court dismissed plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees
without prejudice to refiling the motion following the resolution
of the appeal at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Briefing on
the appeal is complete and oral argument is scheduled for
March 6, 2013.


AMAZON.COM INC: Bookstores Sue Over Alleged E-Book Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------
Damon Poeter, writing for PCMag.com, reports that a trio of
independent bookstores filed a class-action lawsuit against Amazon
and its largest publishing partners over their use of digital
rights management (DRM) technology to create what the plaintiffs
claim is a monopoly on the sale of e-books in the United States.

Along with Amazon, the "Big Six" publishing houses -- Random
House, Penguin, Hachette, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, and
Macmillan -- are named in the suit, according the Huffington Post,
which published a copy of the class-action complaint on Feb. 20.

On Feb. 15, Albany, N.Y.-based Book House of Stuyvesant Plaza,
Greenville, S.C.-based Fiction Addiction, and New York City-based
Posman Books filed the suit in New York on behalf of "all
independent brick-and-mortar bookstores who sell e-books," the
Huffington Post reported.

At issue are the DRM locks Amazon places on e-books purchased for
its Kindle e-readers which prevent users from transferring their
purchase to another e-reading device like the Barnes & Noble Nook
or another computing platform entirely.  The major publishers
named in the suit all utilize Amazon's AZW DRM on e-books they
sell through Amazon, though two of Macmillian's imprints, Tor and
Forge, do not, according to the news site.

The independent book sellers who brought the complaint claim that
none of the Big Six publishers have entered into an agreement with
any U.S.-based independent bookstore to sell e-book versions of
titles they publish, essentially giving Amazon, and to a lesser
extent Barnes & Noble and Apple, a monopoly position in the e-book
market relative to the independents.

The stakes are high for the independents, the suit claims, because
the Big Six publishing houses bring in 60% of all revenue
generated from sales of print books in the U.S. and 85% of all
revenue generated from the sale of books listed on the New York
Times Bestseller list, while Amazon controls a 60% share of the
U.S. e-book market and enjoys exclusive distribution deals with
the largest publishers.

Barnes & Noble has an additional 27% share of the e-book market
while Apple's iBookstore accounts for less than 10% of digital
book sales, the suit stated.

Meanwhile, independent booksellers have essentially been squeezed
out of the growing market for e-books due to their lack of e-book
distribution deals with the largest publishers and their inability
to transfer DRM-protected titles to other e-readers and computing
devices for resale.

The plaintiffs are seeking the elimination of DRM restrictions on
Amazon-distributed e-books and possibly the establishment of an
open-source DRM standard for digital books, their lead acting
counsel told the Huffington Post.

"We are seeking relief for independent brick-and-mortar bookstores
so that they would be able to sell open-source and DRM-free books
that could be used on the Kindle or other electronic e-readers,"
Alyson Decker of Blecher & Collins PC told the news site.

Several of Amazon's publishing partners did not immediately
respond to PCMag's requests for comment, while Random House and
Amazon itself both declined to comment and a Simon & Schuster
spokesperson offered the following:

"We believe the case is without merit or any basis in the law and
intend to vigorously contest it.  Furthermore, we believe the
plaintiff retailers will be better served by working with us to
grow their business rather than litigating."

The suit also references Apple's litigation issues with DRM locks
it formerly placed on music sold through its iTunes store,
implying that Apple's abandonment of DRM in 2009 should be seen as
a precedent for how e-book sales and distribution should be
handled.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Feb. 27 Hearing Set for Arbitration Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Theodore H. Frank, writing for Investors.com, reports that on
Feb. 27, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in American Express
v. Italian Colors Restaurant.  AmEx is hoping the court will
enforce a contract requiring its retail customers to arbitrate
disputes.

And, as has been the recent practice when the Supreme Court hears
an arbitration case, an array of Chicken Littles are suggesting
that a Supreme Court decision enforcing the contract will result
in the end of the class action.

Such dire warnings confuse class actions as an end in and of
themselves rather than as a means for consumers to vindicate their
rights.  In reality, consumers would be better off if they had the
right to promise that they would avoid bringing the class action
in the first place.

Mr. Frank said "The reason we're seeing so much hue and cry over
the arbitration vs. class action dispute -- including legislative
and regulatory proposals to eliminate the ability of employers and
vendors to offer arbitration clauses -- is because class actions,
as now practiced, are tremendously profitable to attorneys."

If AmEx loses, it will face an expensive antitrust class action of
dubious merit.  But when the size of the class is large enough,
and the defendant has deep enough pockets, merit matters very
little to whether a class action gets brought.

As sensible judges have recognized for the half century since
federal procedure was changed to make class actions easier to
bring, the huge gambles of mass liability to every customer in a
class action has an in terrorem effect that forces settlement.

If the case is big enough, attorneys can make small fortunes even
when a case settles for pennies on the dollar, so defendants are
often sued because they are big targets rather than because they
have done something wrong.

This is bad enough, but the problem is exacerbated because many of
the same consumer advocates demanding that consumers be forced
into class actions disappear when it turns out that even the
"successful" class actions don't do anything for the consumers
they're supposedly advocating for.

Mr. Frank said "My non-profit Center for Class Action Fairness
regularly finds itself representing class members objecting to
settlements where lawyers receive the lion's share of the
benefits."

"A federal judge in Philadelphia approved a settlement of an
antitrust class action where the attorneys received $14 million,
and their clients less than $3 million. (Our appeal is pending.)

"I'm objecting to a settlement against Bayer in federal court in
Brooklyn where the attorneys are asking for $5.1 million for
themselves, but their clients won't even receive a 10th of that."

The problem is immeasurably worse than this: Many times judges
rubber-stamp settlements without even trying to determine whether
or how many class members will receive any benefit.

In other cases, class attorneys try to benefit at the expense of
their clients with bills that would get an attorney fired or sued
if they were presented anywhere other than a class action.

Mr. Frank said "In a pending case I'm litigating involving
Citigroup, the plaintiffs' attorneys have inflated their fee
request by tens of millions of dollars by asserting that they
should be compensated as much as $1,000 an hour or more for
temporary document-review attorneys."

"As Dan Fisher has documented at Forbes.com, those same attorneys
were paid only $32 an hour for work that could have been done by
nonlawyers, and will not receive any of the proposed several-
thousand-percent markup.

"Such windfalls are good for attorneys, but not so much for
consumers, who face higher prices to pay the anticipated expense
of attorneys.  Moreover, as I document in a recent white paper I
wrote for the Manhattan Institute, consumers and employees achieve
superior results in arbitration compared to conventional
litigation.  The consumer benefits accrue even further in a
competitive market where vendors have the incentive to pass
savings from attorneys' fees not paid on to consumers."

AmEx might lose on a technicality: The plaintiffs are arguing that
a confidentiality clause made it infeasible to bring an antitrust
suit in arbitration, and that no meritorious suit could be brought
without the class action procedure.

AmEx didn't take full advantage of the opportunity in the lower
court to demonstrate that this wasn't true, and the Supreme Court
may rest its decision on that narrow fiction.

But if instead the Supreme Court enforces the arbitration
agreement because it recognizes that class actions are not
necessary when opt-in aggregate litigation in arbitration can
vindicate meritorious cases, don't buy the hype from those
claiming the decision is a consumer disaster that requires
legislative correction.

Such proponents may call themselves consumer advocates, but
they're really arguing for a wealth transfer from middle-class
consumers to millionaire lawyers in the 1%.

And if consumers are allowed to sign on to enforceable arbitration
clauses, it might provide the competitive nudge for the legal
community to do more to ensure that the primary beneficiaries of
class actions are consumers, rather than attorneys.


ARCELORMITTAL: Defends Minas Gerais Suit vs. Brazilian Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------
ArcelorMittal is defending its Brazilian subsidiary from a class
action lawsuit commenced by the Federal Public Prosecutor of the
state of Minas Gerais, according to the Company's February 15,
2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In September 2000, two construction companies filed a complaint
with the Brazilian Economic Law Department against three long
steel producers, including ArcelorMittal Brasil S.A.  The
complaint alleged that these producers colluded to raise prices in
the Brazilian rebar market, thereby, violating applicable
antitrust laws.  In September 2005, the Brazilian Antitrust
Council ("CADE") issued a decision against ArcelorMittal Brasil,
requiring it to pay a penalty of $64 million.  ArcelorMittal
Brasil appealed the decision to the Brazilian Federal Court.  In
September 2006, ArcelorMittal Brasil offered a letter guarantee
and obtained an injunction to suspend enforcement of this decision
pending the court's judgment.

There is also a related class action commenced by the Federal
Public Prosecutor of the state of Minas Gerais against
ArcelorMittal Brasil for damages based on the alleged violations
investigated by CADE.

A further related action was commenced by Sinduscons, a
construction industry union, in federal court in Brasilia
against, inter alia, ArcelorMittal Brasil, in February 2011,
claiming damages based on an alleged cartel in the rebar market as
investigated by CADE.


ARCELORMITTAL: Discovery in "Standard Iron" Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit brought by Standard Iron Works is now in
the discovery and class certification briefing stage, according to
ArcelorMittal's February 15, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

On September 12, 2008, Standard Iron Works filed a purported class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court in the Northern
District of Illinois against ArcelorMittal, ArcelorMittal USA LLC,
and other steel manufacturers, alleging that the defendants had
conspired to restrict the output of steel products in order to
fix, raise, stabilize and maintain prices at artificially high
levels in violation of U.S. antitrust law.  Since the filing of
the Standard Iron Works lawsuit, other similar direct purchaser
lawsuits have been filed in the same court and have been
consolidated with the Standard Iron Works lawsuit.  In January
2009, ArcelorMittal and the other defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the direct purchaser claims.  On June 12, 2009, the court
denied the motion to dismiss and the litigation is now in the
discovery and class certification briefing stage.  In addition,
two putative class actions on behalf of indirect purchasers have
been filed.  Both of these have been transferred to the judge
hearing the Standard Iron Works cases.  The Company says it is too
early in the proceedings for ArcelorMittal to determine the amount
of its potential liability, if any.


BABY PRODUCTS: 3rd Cir. Reverses Antitrust Settlement Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP disclosed that on February 19, 2013, the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district judge's
approval of a $35 million antitrust settlement because the
district judge did not ask, and the parties did not volunteer, how
little of the common fund class members had managed to claim and
how much therefore would be distributed to charitable cy pres
recipients.  In re Baby Products Antitrust Litigation, 2013 WL
599662.

The plaintiffs in Baby Products alleged in 2006 that manufacturers
and large retailers of car seats and other expensive baby products
had conspired to set a price floor for those products, inflating
prices by an asserted 18%.  In late 2010, the defendants agreed to
settle with a putative nationwide class for $35.5 million.  Class
members who provided suitable proof of purchase could obtain
refunds of up to 60% of their purchase price, but class members
who lacked proof of purchase could receive only $5.00.  Although
the parties represented to the district judge that the proof of
purchase requirements were not onerous, most class members who
filed claims lacked proof and thus only were able to claim the
$5.00 benefit.

At the fairness hearing, the parties knew that only about $3
million of the common fund would be distributed to the class.  The
district judge awarded the plaintiffs' counsel a $14 million fee,
representing one third of the common fund plus $2.2 million in
litigation expenses.  The remaining funds, roughly $18 million,
would have been distributed to cy pres recipients that had not
been specifically identified in the class notice.

In rejecting the settlement, the Third Circuit held that district
judges must consider "the degree of direct benefit provided to the
class," and that "[b]arring sufficient justification, cy pres
awards should generally represent a small percentage of total
settlement funds."  If the parties have not volunteered this
information, "the court should affirmatively seek [it] out" and
"withhold final approval . . . until the actual distribution of
settlement funds can be estimated with reasonable accuracy."

If the district judge had learned that the proof of purchase
requirements had proved too onerous, the Third Circuit believed,
the judge would and should have ordered those requirements
relaxed, rather than allowing nearly half the settlement fund to
be diverted away from direct compensation to class members.

The Third Circuit also said that district judges may, but are not
required to, award a smaller fee to plaintiffs' counsel for monies
paid out cy pres, rather than to class members, in order to
incentivize plaintiffs' counsel to cause more money to make it
directly into class members' hands.

Although Baby Products concerned distribution of a non-
reversionary common fund, objectors in future settlements could
seek to apply the decision to claims-made settlements or common
fund settlements where unclaimed funds revert to the defendants.
The logic of Baby Products also could require judges to consider
in other types of cases how much is actually being paid out to
class members when considering the appropriate fee award.  The
decision therefore may impact how future plaintiffs' counsel
negotiate class action settlements.


BP PLC: Oil Spill Civil Class Action Trial Begins
-------------------------------------------------
Rob Masson, writing for Fox8, reports that with billions of
dollars in claims on the line, the class action civil trial in the
BP oil disaster was set to start in New Orleans February 25.

Attorneys such as Stuart Smith, who represents hundreds of clients
allegedly harmed by BP, would watch closely as all sides square
off at federal court in New Orleans.

"BP is playing chicken in my opinion . . . they don't want this
trial and all their dirty laundry aired out," said Mr. Smith.

Attorneys had hoped to settle the remaining civil claims in the BP
oil disaster, out of court, but talks broke down Feb. 19, setting
the stage for the trial.  A total of 225,000 claims have already
been settled by BP, which has already paid out seven billion
dollars under a process run by former BP fund administrator Ken
Feinberg, but there are many other outstanding claims not part of
the class action suit.

Earlier last week BP said it was ready for trial and ready to put
up a tough defense, but BP attorney Rupert Bondi said the
settlement demands so far were "not based on reality or the merits
of the case."

BP has set aside billions of dollars to settle the remaining
claims, but even after this trial this week, no money will
immediately be paid out.  The trial will determine percentages of
liability between BP, Transocean, and Halliburton, which furnished
the drilling mud for the doomed Deepwater Horizon rig.  Many
observers believe BP will still settle before a damaging trial.

Federal investigations blamed the 2010 spill on cost-cutting and
time-saving decisions made by BP and its partners.  Some 200
million gallons of oil spilled, much of it ending up on
Louisiana's fragile coast and on the beaches of other Gulf states.

During a recent conference call connected to the release of
company earnings, BP chief executive officer Bob Dudley declined
to answer questions from analysts as to whether a settlement was
possible ahead of the civil claims trial.  Instead he simply said
that the oil and gas giant was "in the chute to get ready for
trial."


BRISTOL-MYERS: Appeals Ruling in AWP Suit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company appealed a decision in the litigation
over average wholesale prices of its products, according to the
Company's February 15, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

The Company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of private class
actions as well as lawsuits brought by the attorneys general of
various states.  In these actions, plaintiffs allege that
defendants caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of their
products to be inflated, thereby injuring government programs,
entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs based on
AWPs.  The Company remains a defendant in two state attorneys
general lawsuits pending in state courts around the country having
settled the lawsuits brought by the Mississippi and Louisiana
Attorneys General.  Beginning in August 2010, the Company was the
defendant in a trial in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
(Commonwealth Court), brought by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
In September 2010, the jury issued a verdict for the Company,
finding that the Company was not liable for fraudulent or
negligent misrepresentation; however, the Commonwealth Court judge
issued a decision on a Pennsylvania consumer protection claim that
did not go to the jury, finding the Company liable for $28 million
and enjoining the Company from contributing to the provision of
inflated AWPs.  The Company has moved to vacate the decision and
the Commonwealth has moved for a judgment notwithstanding the
verdict, which the Commonwealth Court denied.  The Company has
appealed the decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Bid to Junk Abilify* Co-Pay Program Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2012, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and its partner,
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., were named as co-defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit filed by union health and welfare
funds in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York (SDNY).  Plaintiffs are challenging the legality of the
Abilify* co-pay assistance program under the Federal Antitrust and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations laws, and
seeking damages.  The Company and Otsuka have filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint.  The Company says it is not possible at
this time to reasonably assess the outcome of this litigation or
its potential impact on the Company.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 15,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company has a worldwide commercialization agreement with
Otsuka to codevelop and copromote ABILIFY* for the treatment of
schizophrenia, bipolar mania disorder and major depressive
disorder.


CALIFORNIA: Dept of Corrections Faces Suit on Over-Detention
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that California
exacerbates its prison overcrowding by keeping prisoners locked up
for weeks, months and even years beyond their release dates, a
class action claims in Superior Court.

Lead plaintiff David Michael Posey, a former inmate, sued
California and two top officials of its Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation.  He claims the state uses a "non-uniform,
arbitrary and capricious system of release date calculation," in
violation of prisoners' civil rights.

He seeks a court order releasing inmates who should have been
freed by now, and a uniform state system to calculate correct
release dates.

Posey claims California has been on notice of the problem since
2008, when evidence from the state's own records showed that 594
inmates had been "over-detained."  California did nothing to
address the issue, Posey claims.

Department of Corrections records for 2008 through 2012 show that
5,200 prisoners served longer sentences that they should have -
sometimes more than 1,000 days longer, Posey says.

"Clearly, this is a continuing and serious problem, as over 5,200
individuals have been over-detained since 2008 and there is no
indication that the problem has been rectified," according to the
35-page complaint.

There are 165,817 inmates serving time in California prisons
today, at a cost of $120 per inmate per day, roughly $43,287 per
inmate per year, Posey says. ($7.2 billion.)

"The over-detention of inmates results in a substantial
expenditure to the taxpayers of this state as well as a
constitutional violation of the rights of those over-detained.
There are sound reasons to remedy the problem of the over-
detention of prisoners which, in addition to the monetary cost,
also adds to the overcrowding of the prison system which is
currently at acute levels," the complaint states.

Simple mathematics shows that over-detention of prisoners costs
taxpayers millions of dollars each year - which could be avoided
if the state fulfilled its duty to properly calculate a "minimum
and maximum release date with the application of all appropriate
credits pursuant to law."

Posey cites California case law from the past seven years to
support his claim that the state miscalculates sentences, noting
that "terms of imprisonment are fixed by law," and that credits
earned by prisoners "may reduce the length of sentences."

"Currently, in violation of the duties imposed by state court
decisions interpreting the laws, rules and/or policies setting
forth the parameters of a correct calculation, such early
projected release dates may have initially been calculated
improperly by defendants or have not been recalculated by
defendants after issuance of applicable court decisions which
mandate such recalculations or given earned credits during the
period of incarceration," the complaint states.

Posey claims that miscalculations have "altered the release date
of potentially thousands of inmates."

"(B)y failing to carry out this recalculation of release dates to
be unilaterally implemented in violation of state laws, rules and
policies, inmates are routinely and systematically over-detained
and deprived of their rightful freedom when they should have been
released, to their suffering, to the unnecessary waste of taxpayer
funds required for the continued maintenance of prisoners in penal
institutions and to the compensable loss of individuals who are
over-detained by the defendants failure to notify them of the
over-detention or compensate them for same," the complaint states.

Posey says the system places "the onus on inmates (who are often
unaware that they are being over-detained since they rely on the
state for this calculation), to bring the error of miscalculation
of their sentence to the attention of the defendants."

"Furthermore, many inmates are without current or continuing
counsel or suffer from numerous developmental disabilities as well
as lack of education, which makes their calculation of their own
appropriate release date impracticable and/or impossible.  By
waiting for individual inmates to appeal their respective release
dates or otherwise legally challenge their unlawful imprisonment,
defendants recalculate the sentences of inmates on an individual,
ad hoc and piecemeal basis."

Posey says the state has no system to notify or compensate the
over-detained.

He seeks an injunction, writ of mandate, and class damages for due
process violations, wrongful detention, false imprisonment,
negligence, and constitutional violations.

He is represented by Paul Kiesel with Kiesel + Larson of Beverly
Hills.

Posey was convicted of possession of a controlled substance,
released on probation, then rearrested and sent back to prison for
being a felon in possession of a firearm, he says in the
complaint.

After seven paragraphs of rather complex calculations involving
good time, pretrial detention and sentencing ranges, he estimates
that he was "over-detained" for 11 to 13 months.


CARNIVAL CORP: Faces Class Action Following Engine Room Fire
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that for five days, "urine and
feces leaked onto floors, walls, and ceilings" of the Carnival
Triumph, more than 3,000 passengers had to "sleep on deck, relieve
themselves into buckets, bags [and] sinks," and "were given
spoiled or rotting food that was unfit for human consumption," a
couple claims in a class action.

Passengers "were generally forced to live in squalid conditions
that created a severe risk of injury, illness and/or disease," the
15-page federal complaint continues.  "Due to the lack of working
plumbing and sanitation systems on the vessel, sewage and/or
putrid water filled with urine and feces leaked onto floors,
walls, and ceilings.  This sewage and/or human waste sloshed
around the vessel as the vessel listed while drifting and/or while
under tow.  Conditions became increasingly unbearable each day due
to the lack of a working ventilation system on the vessel, leading
to noxious odors and gasses that caused numerous passengers to
vomit and/or become nauseous.  At all times material, Plaintiffs
and all similarly situated persons were fearful for their lives
while they were trapped aboard defendant's vessel."

In a footnote, the complaint adds: "Buckets and bags of human
waste were left out in the open in public passenger spaces."

Lead plaintiffs Matt and Melissa Crusan seek punitive damages from
Carnival Corp., for negligence and negligent infliction of
emotional distress.

The 14-story cruise ship was carrying 4,200 passengers and crews
on a projected four-day trip from Galveston to Cozumel and back.
But it became disabled in the Caribbean after an engine fire on
Feb. 10, lost power, propulsion, and its toilet system and drifted
until it was towed into Mobile five days later.

The lawsuit estimates the class as more than 3,000.  And, the
Crusans say, Carnival exacerbated the fiasco to save itself money:
having the ship towed 500 miles to Mobile, where its repair
station is, rather than 150 miles to the nearest port.

What's more, the Crusans say in the complaint, "Carnival knew or
should have known that the vessel Triumph was likely to experience
mechanical and/or engine issues because of prior similar issues.
A cruise in mid-January 2013 on the Triumph was affected by
propulsions issues and on January 28, 2013, there was an incident
which resulted in damage to the Triumph's ship's propulsion system
and generators.  Notwithstanding said issues, Carnival knowingly
decided to embark on the subject voyage.

"On or about February 10, 2013, plaintiffs and all other similarly
situated passengers were at sea aboard the Carnival Triumph when
the vessel's engine room caught fire.  This engine room fire
disabled the Triumph's propulsion system along with the vessel's
generators and other necessary machinery.  As a result, the vessel
was left without power and other necessities to make the vessel
reasonably safe for passengers, including climate control,
plumbing, waste water disposal, and refrigeration for food
storage.  Further, the vessel was left adrift at the mercy of the
sea with no way to maneuver."

Carnival compounded the injuries by dithering, the Crusans say:
"Carnival caused and/or worsened all of the above by acting
grossly negligent, intentionally, wantonly, and/or recklessly, by
failing to arrange for the reasonable disembarkation of passengers
in the nearest port of call after the Triumph lost power and/or by
choosing to tow the passengers to a dramatically further port of
call for several days.  More specifically, at the time of the
fire, the vessel was roughly 150 miles from port in Progreso,
Mexico and roughly 500 miles from a port in Mobile, Alabama.
Carnival initially decided to return to Mexico, but later decided
to travel all the way to Mobile, Alabama.  This decision was
motivated solely by financial gain and Carnival's convenience.
Were Carnival to have been towed back to Mexico, Carnival would
have needed a second tow back to the United States, at significant
additional expense.  Furthermore, instead of taking the more than
3,000 passengers back to Galveston, Texas (where the cruise
began), Carnival decided to go to Mobile, Alabama, because that is
where the repair facility is.  In so doing, Carnival forced the
passengers to further harm and inconvenience by putting them on a
seven (7) hour bus ride back to Galveston.  These callous,
intentional decisions subjected the plaintiffs and all passengers
similarly situated aboard the Triumph to five (5) days of
deplorable, nightmarish conditions at sea.  Such wanton, willful
and outrageous conduct on the part of the defendant exposes them
to punitive damages, which the plaintiffs seek herein."

They add: "Put simply, Carnival recklessly and intentionally put
more than 3,000 passengers through a five (5) day living nightmare
so it could protect its bottom line."

Their lead attorney is Michael Winkleman with Lipcon, Margulies,
Alsina & Winkelman.

                           *     *     *

Tom Hals, writing for Reuters, reports the lawsuit was filed on
Feb. 18 in U.S. federal court in Miami.

Carnival does not comment on pending litigation, said company
spokesman Vance Gulliksen.

The complaint said that the Triumph ticket limits passengers'
rights to bring a class action, but that provision should be
voided by Carnival's negligence in using an unseaworthy vessel and
not towing the ship to the nearest port.

Carnival has offered Triumph passengers $500, reimbursement for
their transportation and many onboard costs, and given them a
credit toward a future cruise equal to the amount they paid for
the Triumph vacation.

Attorney Charles Lipcon, of Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman
in Miami, which filed the lawsuit, said in an e-mail that if the
compensation was offered with no strings attached, passengers
should accept it and still consider suing.

Jim Walker, who specializes in representing cruise ship
passengers, told Reuters that the compensation offer was probably
more than Triumph passengers would likely win in court.  Mr.
Walker is not involved in this suit and said he is unlikely to
bring a case.

"We have a different opinion and think that passengers can do much
better than the Carnival offer," said Mr. Lipcon.

The class action lawsuit is at least the second by a Triumph
passenger.  On Feb. 15, Cassie Terry of Brazoria County, Texas,
sued Carnival.

Like the Crusans, Terry sued for the conditions aboard the ship,
which lacked working toilets and proper ventilation.

The case is Matt Crusan and Melissa Crusan v Carnival Corp, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of Florida, No. 13-20592.

The lawsuit also charges that Carnival's decision to tow the
Triumph to Mobile, instead of to the closer port of Progreso,
Mexico, caused passengers to endure more time aboard the disabled
vessel than necessary, prolonging their ordeal, According to The
Houston Chronicle's Robert Stanton.

"The primary motivation for that (decision) was money," attorney
Mike Winkleman said.  "It was much cheaper for Carnival to tow the
ship to Mobile where it would be repaired, rather than (have it
towed) to Mexico and have another tow (from there) back to
Alabama.

"It's cheaper to put 3,000 people on buses to Galveston than to
have to fly them from Mexico."

According to The Huffington Post's Hunter Stuart, Aly Bello-
Cabreriza, a spokeswoman for Carnival, declined to comment on
pending litigation but did address the allegations over the
Triumph's history: "Carnival Triumph previously experienced an
electrical issue with one of the ship's alternators.  Repairs were
conducted by the alternator supplier and were fully completed on
February 2.  Comprehensive testing of the repaired alternator was
conducted and certified successful by both the alternator supplier
as well as a third party verification organization.  There is no
evidence at this time of any relationship between this previous
issue and the fire that occurred on Feb. 10."

According to The Associated Press, maritime law experts said on
Feb. 15 that passengers could win despite the limitations if they
can show that the cruise line was negligent in letting the ship
sail despite past engine problems and that their mental suffering
was so severe they had to seek medical or psychological care.

"I think there is a good case of liability against Carnival.  The
issue really comes down to the damages," said Robert Peltz, a
maritime lawyer not involved in any Triumph-related cases.

Still, other attorneys cautioned it won't be easy because of the
way Carnival and others craft their cruise tickets -- which are
considered legally binding contracts often running several pages
of fine print.

"If the ship breaks down, consumers are dependent on the goodwill
of the cruise lines, which drafted iron-tight terms and conditions
which protect them from virtually all bad experiences," said Mr.
Walker, a Miami maritime attorney and author of a blog called
www.cruiselaw.com

Carnival spokeswoman Joyce Oliva said on Feb. 14 in an e-mail that
the company does not comment on pending litigation.  But she
confirmed that Carnival did not require Triumph passengers to sign
lawsuit waivers once in Mobile in exchange for refunds, a future
cruise credit, reimbursement for some shipboard expenses and $500
per person.

Those benefits would likely be deducted from any damages an
individual passenger wins in a lawsuit.

According to The Associated Press, maritime lawyers said there are
three main legal hurdles passengers in a class-action case would
have to clear:

   -- A judge must decide the validity of Carnival's class action
waiver on its tickets.  Courts typically uphold the terms of
cruise line tickets, but not always.

   -- Whether a class action is proper at all, given that injuries
or illnesses are not the same for each person.

   -- Whether, under maritime law, the passengers were
legitimately concerned about being physically harmed and whether
they had some physical signs of emotional distress.  An extreme
example would be a stress-related heart attack, but also could
include psychological counseling.

Ultimately, Carnival could simply choose to settle the Triumph
lawsuits.  If the cruise line fails to get the lawsuits dismissed
on based on its ticket restrictions or other grounds, most
attorneys say that's the likely outcome.

"It's been my experience that the cruise lines are more concerned
about the issues that affect the brand, as they call it," Mr.
Peltz said.  "It could really affect their bottom line and ability
to attract customers."

CNN relates that the Triumph experienced propulsion issues on
prior voyages in mid-January, and on January 28, "there was an
incident which resulted in damage to the Triumph's . . .
propulsion system and generators," the suit said.

"Notwithstanding said issues, Carnival knowingly decided to embark
on the subject voyage."

On February 7, the Triumph departed from Galveston, Texas, for
planned four-day cruise to Mexico, but on the third day, a fire
broke out, bringing the trip to a halt.

The vessel was carrying more than 4,200 people, including 3,100
passengers, and conditions became unsanitary as human waste
overflowed into public spaces on the ship.

On February 19, the U.S. Coast Guard said the fire started with a
leak in a fuel-oil return line running from one of the ship's
engines.  When the leaking oil hit a hot surface, the fire
ignited.  The Coast Guard is continuing its investigation into why
the ship was disabled for so long.

The fire started about dawn February 10.  Tug boats pulled the
disabled ship to safe harbor in Mobile, Alabama, late February 14.
The debarkation process lasted until February 15.

"From February 10, 2013, until February 15, 2013, Plaintiffs and
all other similarly situated passengers were harmed and/or injured
as a result of the engine room fire by way of being stranded at
sea without necessary services and supplies," the lawsuit said.


DIEBOLD INC: Continues to Defend "LMPERS" Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
On June 30, 2010, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio alleging violations of the federal securities
laws against Diebold, Incorporated, certain current and former
officers, and the Company's independent auditors (Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v. KPMG et al., No.
10-CV-1461).  The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages
on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company's stock
between June 30, 2005, and January 15, 2008, and fees and expenses
related to the lawsuit.  The complaint generally relates to the
matters set forth in the court documents filed by the SEC in June
2010 finalizing the settlement of civil charges stemming from the
investigation of the Company conducted by the Division of
Enforcement of the SEC.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 15,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company says it is reasonably possible that the resolution of
this putative federal securities class action could be material to
the Company's consolidated financial statements; however,
management believes that any possible loss or range of loss cannot
be estimated.


DOW CHEMICAL: Still Liable for $50-MM Under Pension Plan Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company disclosed in its February 15, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012, that its remaining liability for
the Rohm and Haas Pension Plan Matters was $50 million at December
31, 2012.

In December 2005, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana issued a decision granting a
class of participants in the Rohm and Haas Pension Plan who had
retired from Rohm and Haas Company, now a wholly owned subsidiary
of the Company, and who elected to receive a lump sum benefit from
the Rohm and Haas Plan, the right to a cost-of-living adjustment
("COLA") as part of their retirement benefit.  In August 2007, the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's
decision, and in March 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the
Rohm and Haas Plan's petition to review the Seventh Circuit's
decision.  The case was returned to the District Court for further
proceedings.  In October 2008 and February 2009, the District
Court issued rulings that have the effect of including in the
class all Rohm and Haas retirees who received a lump sum
distribution without a COLA from the Rohm and Haas Plan since
January 1976.  These rulings are subject to appeal, and the
District Court has not yet determined the amount of the COLA
benefits that may be due to the class participants.  The Rohm and
Haas Plan and the plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement
that, in addition to settling the litigation with respect to the
Rohm and Haas retirees, provides for the amendment of the
complaint and amendment of the Rohm and Haas Plan to include
active employees in the settlement benefits.  The District Court
preliminarily approved the settlement on November 24, 2009, and,
following a hearing on March 12, 2010, issued a final order
approving the settlement on April 12, 2010.

A group of objectors to the settlement filed an appeal from the
final order.  In November 2010, the District Court issued an order
approving class counsel's fee award petition in an amount
consistent with the terms of the settlement.  The same objectors
also appealed this order.  On September 2, 2011, the Seventh
Circuit affirmed the approval of the settlement and award of
attorneys' fees.  A lone objector filed a petition for rehearing,
which was denied on October 17, 2011.  The objector continued the
appeal process by timely filing a petition for a writ of
certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on
April 16, 2012, rendering the settlement and award of attorneys'
fees final.

A pension liability associated with this matter of $185 million
was recognized as part of the acquisition of Rohm and Haas on
April 1, 2009.  The liability, which was determined in accordance
with the accounting guidance for contingencies, recognized the
estimated impact of the judicial decisions on the long-term Rohm
and Haas Plan obligations owed to the applicable Rohm and Haas
retirees and active employees.  The Company had a liability
associated with this matter of $189 million at December 31, 2011.
The Rohm and Haas Plan made settlement payments totaling $139
million as of December 31, 2012.  The Company's remaining
liability for this matter was $50 million at December 31, 2012.
The remaining liability will be resolved over time through the
administration of the Rohm and Haas Plan.

Based in Midland, Michigan, The Dow Chemical Company in the
business of specialty chemicals delivering products and solutions
to sectors such as electronics, water, energy, and coatings.


DOW CHEMICAL: Jury Awards Urethane Class Action Plaintiffs $400MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC disclosed that a U.S. District
Court jury in Kansas City, Kan., on Feb. 20 awarded plaintiffs in
the urethane price-fixing class action against The Dow Chemical
Company $400,049,039, according to Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC.  Under antitrust laws, the jury's verdict in In Re Urethane
Antitrust Litigation is subject to trebling, to more than $1.2
billion.

"We are extremely pleased with the verdict.  This is an excellent
outcome for the plaintiffs who were overcharged by Dow and other
chemical manufacturers," said Kit Pierson --
kpierson@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC.

Cohen Milstein, along with Fine, Kaplan and Black, R.P.C.;
Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Urias & Ward P.A.; and Kellogg,
Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C, represent a class of
direct purchasers of chemicals used to manufacture polyurethanes.
The plaintiffs complained that they were overcharged by Dow and
four other chemical companies as a result of a nationwide price-
fixing conspiracy that occurred from 1999 through 2003.

Three other chemical companies -- Bayer, BASF, Huntsman
International, LLC -- previously agreed to settle claims against
them for approximately $139 million.  A fourth company, Lyondell
Chemical Co., was under bankruptcy protection and settled without
paying damages.

Cohen Milstein and co-lead counsel Fine, Kaplan and Black had been
litigating the case in the U.S. District Court, District of Kansas
since 2004.  Lead trial counsel during the trial, which began on
Jan. 23, were Joe Goldberg of Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg
Urias & Ward, and Mike Guzman -- mguzman@khhte.com -- of Kellogg,
Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, assisted by Kit Pierson of
Cohen Milstein and Donald Perelman -- dperelman@finekaplan.com --
and Roberta Liebenberg -- rliebenberg@finekaplan.com -- of Fine,
Kaplan and Black. Richard Koffman, Christopher Cormier --
ccormier@cohenmilstein.com -- Sharon Robertson --
srobertson@cohenmilstein.com -- and Laura Alexander --
lalexander@cohenmilstein.com -- also served on the trial team from
Cohen Milstein. Gerard Dever -- gdever@finekaplan.com -- Matt
Duncan -- mduncan@finekaplan.com -- and Paul Costa --
pcosta@finekaplan.com -- also served on the trial team for Fine,
Kaplan, and Black.


FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Mileage Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Ford exaggerates the mileage
per gallon in its 2013 Fusion and C-Max Hybrids, a class action
claims in Federal Court.


GENERAL MOTORS: "Scott" Suit Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in the securities class action lawsuit styled
George G. Scott v. General Motors Company, et al., filed an
amended complaint, according to the Company's February 15, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On June 29, 2012, a putative securities class action was filed
against the Company and a number of its past and current officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (George G. Scott v. General Motors Company et
al).  Purporting to sue on behalf of owners of common stock
deriving from the Company's 2010 initial public offering,
plaintiff asserts non-fraud prospectus based liability claims
under various Federal securities statutes alleging that the
Company has made false statements about its vehicle inventory
controls and production decisions, particularly with respect to
fullsize trucks.  The plaintiff's complaint requests compensatory
damages, rescission and litigation costs, fees and disbursements.
On November 21, 2012, the Court appointed the Teamster's Local 710
Pension Fund as lead plaintiff in the matter.  On February 1,
2013, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.


GENERAL MOTORS: Unit's Appeal in Canadian Dealers Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal by General Motors Company's Canadian subsidiary from an
order certifying a class remains pending, according to the
Company's February 15, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On February 12, 2010, a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL)
on behalf of a purported class of over 200 former GMCL dealers
(the Plaintiff Dealers) which had entered into wind-down
agreements with GMCL.  In May 2009 in the context of the global
restructuring of the business and the possibility that GMCL might
be required to initiate insolvency proceedings, GMCL offered the
Plaintiff Dealers the wind-down agreements to assist with their
exit from the GMCL dealer network and to facilitate winding down
their operations in an orderly fashion by December 31, 2009, or
such other date as GMCL approved but no later than on October 31,
2010.  The Plaintiff Dealers allege that the Dealer Sales and
Service Agreements were wrongly terminated by GMCL and that GMCL
failed to comply with certain disclosure obligations, breached its
statutory duty of fair dealing and unlawfully interfered with the
Plaintiff Dealers' statutory right to associate in an attempt to
coerce the Plaintiff Dealers into accepting the wind-down
agreements.  The Plaintiff Dealers seek damages and assert that
the wind-down agreements are rescindable.  The Plaintiff Dealers'
initial pleading makes reference to a claim "not exceeding" CAD750
million without explanation of any specific measure of damages.

On March 1, 2011, the court approved certification of a class for
the purpose of deciding a number of specifically defined issues
including: (1) whether GMCL breached its obligation of "good
faith" in offering the wind-down agreements; (2) whether GMCL
interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' rights of free association;
(3) whether GMCL was obligated to provide a disclosure statement
and/or disclose more specific information regarding its
restructuring plans in connection with proffering the wind-down
agreements; and (4) assuming liability, whether the Plaintiff
Dealers can recover damages in the aggregate (as opposed to
proving individual damages).  On June 22, 2011, the court granted
GMCL permission to appeal the class certification decision.  On
March 26, 2012, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed GMCL's appeal
of the class certification order.  Accordingly the case will
proceed as a class action.  Twenty-six dealers within the
certified class definition have indicated that they will not
participate.

The Company says the current prospects for liability are
uncertain, but because liability is not deemed probable the
Company has no accrual relating to this litigation.  The Company
cannot estimate the range of reasonably possible loss in the event
of liability as the case presents a variety of different legal
theories, none of which GMCL believes are valid.


H&R BLOCK: Customers File Class Action Over Tax Penalty Payment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
that H&R Block's "At Home" software makes customers overpay an
estimated tax penalty, and Block won't back up its claim that the
software is 100% accurate.


HOMELITE CONSUMER: Recalls 254,600 Electric Blower Vacuums
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Homelite Consumer Products Inc., of Anderson, South
Carolina, and manufacturer, Changzhou Globe Tools Co. Ltd., of
China, announced a voluntary recall of about 241,000 Homelite
Electric Blower Vacuums in the United States of America and 13,600
in Canada.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Objects that are drawn into the unit during vacuum mode can break
through the plastic housing, posing a laceration hazard.

Homelite received one report of an incident with the recalled
blower vacuums.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Homelite electric blower vacuums with two
different model and serial number ranges, including model UT42120
with serial numbers BMP3540001 through BMR2103100, and model
UT42120A with serial numbers BMR2120001 through BMR3421250.  Model
and serial numbers are located on a label on the left side of the
red motor housing.  The blower vacuums are red and black.
"Homelite BlowerVac 2 Speed Powerful 220 MPH" is printed on the
side of the motor housing and on the black plastic blower tube.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/zMdcI3

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Home Depot stores nationwide and online at
www.homedepot.com from February 2012 through December 2012 for
about $40.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled blower
vacuums and contact Homelite for a free replacement blower vacuum.
Homelite Consumer Products may be reached at (800) 597-9624 from
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or
online at http://www.homelite.com/and click on Safety Notices for
more information.


HONDA MOTOR: Faces Suit Over Defective Stability Assist System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Honda's defective stability
assist system in the 2005 Pilot causes brakes to engage without
warning, a class action claims in Superior Court.


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Continues to Defend MERS-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
On January 17, 2012, Huntington Bancshares Incorporated was named
a defendant in a putative class action filed on behalf of all 88
counties in Ohio against MERSCORP, Inc. and numerous other
financial institutions that participate in the mortgage electronic
registration system (MERS).  The complaint alleges that recording
of mortgages and assignments thereof is mandatory under Ohio law
and seeks a declaratory judgment that the defendants are required
to record every mortgage and assignment on real property located
in Ohio and pay the attendant statutory recording fees.  The
complaint also seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  Although
Huntington has not been named as a defendant in the other cases,
similar litigation has been initiated against MERSCORP, Inc. and
other financial institutions in other jurisdictions throughout the
country.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 15,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.


ILLINOIS: Faces Class Action Over SMART Legislation
---------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that Illinois
budget cuts will kick mentally and physically disabled adults out
of state homes without assurance they can find care elsewhere,
their guardians say in a class action.

The Illinois League of Advocates for the Developmentally Disabled,
Murray Parents Association, and 11 legal guardians of
developmentally disabled adults sued the Illinois Department of
Human Services, its Director Kevin Casey, and the Community
Resource Alliance, in Federal Court.

The individual plaintiffs have severe disabilities and live in
state-run developmental centers, which the 39-page complaint
refers to as SODCs.

Like other class actions that have been filed against states
around the country, this one accuses the state of trying to dump
its budget burden onto those least able to carry it.  And, as
often happens, the state chose a cruelly ironic name for its
legislation: the Save Medicaid Access and Resources Together act -
SMART.

"In February 2012, as a means to contend with the State's
$13 billion deficit,

Governor [Patrick] Quinn announced his intention to close two
SODCs by October 31, 2012 (the Jacksonville Developmental Center),
and by October 31, 2013 (Murray in Centralia, Illinois), and on
information and belief, to close all remaining SODCs soon
thereafter," the complaint states. [Parentheses in complaint.]

"On June 14, 2012, Governor Quinn signed a package of legislation
which included $1.6 billion worth of Medicaid cuts endangering the
poorest and neediest of the state's residents, and in particular,
individuals with severe and profound developmental disabilities.

"The signing of the 'Save Medicaid Access and Resources Together'
Act, Public Act 097-0689, slashed an annual $240 million that
provided critical funding to State nursing homes and hospitals and
results in the planned closure of SODCs in Illinois," plaintiffs
claim.

They say that "the budget cuts implemented as of July 1, 2012,
have caused and will cause the eventual elimination of services
for the individual plaintiffs and plaintiffs' class members, as
well as the imminent closure of all Illinois SODCs.  Indeed, on
information and belief, it is the State's intention to close all
of Illinois' SODCs despite the fact that Illinois residents now
living in SODCs, inclusive of the individual plaintiffs' and
plaintiffs' class members, will have no appropriate placement.

"In the absence of an injunction, the individual plaintiffs and
plaintiffs' class members will be irreparably harmed by the
closure of SODCs.  Many residents of SODCs, including the
individual plaintiffs and plaintiffs' class members, are incapable
of living independently in community-based settings."

When the Jacksonville Developmental Center closed, nearly 30
percent of the patients were admitted to the hospital or emergency
room and 8.5 percent had to deal with police, according to the
complaint.

"Services offered by the SODCs are necessary and critical to the
residents' physical well-being," the complaint states.  "An
interruption in care, even if temporary, is more likely than not
to have serious consequences on the health and well-being of the
profoundly disabled.  While alternative services may be available
to replace the SODC services at issue, defendants have admitted
that if their community-based placement fails, residents may have
to seek services in other states and they (the defendants), can
only speculate about whether that State will be able to provide
equivalent services as mandated by federal laws.

"Defendants have not met their legal burden under applicable
federal and state laws to ensure that more than a theoretical
availability of replacement services will exist if they eliminate
all SODC services."

The guardians seek an injunction prohibiting the closure of the
SODC's or reduction of services to the developmentally disabled
until replacement services are secured.

They are represented by Judy Sherwin with Shefsky & Froelich.


KROLL FACTUAL: Faces Class Action Over Misidentifying People
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kroll Factual Data "routinely
misidentifies innocent Americans as terrorists, narcotics
traffickers, money launderers and other enemies of the United
States," a class action claims in Federal Court.


LOCKHEED MARTIN: Settles Securities Class Action for $19.5-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Lockheed Martin Corp. will pay
$19.5 million to settle a lawsuit claiming that the defense
contractor misled investors.

The company disclosed the settlement in a filing on Feb. 19 with
the U.S. District Court in New York.

Lockheed denied violating any securities laws or misleading
investors but said it settled because of the cost and uncertainty
of going to trial.

The city of Pontiac, Mich., employee retirement system sued
Lockheed and top executives including CEO Robert Stevens in July
2011, claiming that the company misled investors beginning with
upbeat statements about its financial results for the first
quarter of 2009.  The executives commented about rising sales in
Lockheed's information-systems business.

The retirement system said the comments were false; that there
were problems with some projects in the information-systems unit
and that its growth was slowing as contracts were lost.

The company issued disappointing results for the unit when it
reported results for the second quarter of 2009 in July of that
year.  The stock fell 8.5 percent, to $75.13, the day that the
second-quarter results were reported.

The Pontiac retirement system won class-action status for its
lawsuit, representing investors who bought Lockheed stock between
April and July 2009.

Lockheed asked the court to dismiss the case, but the request was
rejected.  In December, the two sides began negotiations mediated
by a retired judge, and those talks led to the settlement.


MONSANTO CO: Some Class Members to Appeal $93-Mil. Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kate White, writing for The Charleston Gazette, reports that some
class members plan to appeal a $93 million settlement in a class-
action lawsuit against Monsanto.

Attorneys Tom Urban, of Arlington, Va., and Ruth McQuade, of
Shepherdstown, filed separate notices to appeal with the West
Virginia Supreme Court on Feb. 20.

On Jan. 25, circuit Judge Derek Swope approved the settlement in a
385-page order, which grants medical monitoring and property
cleanup to Nitro residents in regard to dioxin pollution of their
community.

The notice of appeal is the first step under the new rules of
appellate procedure adopted by the state Supreme Court in December
2010.  The high court will decide whether to hear the case.

For more than 50 years, the former Monsanto plant in Nitro made
herbicides, rubber products and other chemicals.  The plant's
production of Agent Orange, a defoliant deployed widely in the
Vietnam War, created dioxin as a toxic chemical byproduct.

The company agreed to a 30-year medical monitoring program with a
primary fund of $21 million for initial testing and up to $63
million in additional money dependant on what levels of dioxin are
found in residents.

The medical monitoring and cleanup provisions of the case cover
residents within a smaller area than was included in the original
class-action area, with the settlement focused on an area where
experts for the plaintiffs' lawyers believed dioxin emissions from
Monsanto were most likely to have put residents at risk of future
pollution-related diseases.

Ms. McQuade writes that the court abused its discretion by
approving the settlement "that provides no consideration to 95
percent of the settlement class."  The notice also alleges
"serious intra-class conflicts of the kind that have led to
rejection of settlements by the United States Supreme Court and
federal courts of appeals."

Also, "an overbroad class definition that has the effect of
releasing the claims of persons not properly before the court and
who had no standing to bring a claim in this case," according to
Ms. McQuade's filing.

She believes the court erred allocating benefits, as it treats
class members differently.

The notice alleges lead plaintiff's attorney Stuart Calwell
"suffered from a conflict of interest in negotiating monetary
settlements on behalf of his personal injury clients at the same
time as he was negotiating the settlement on behalf of absent
class members, when the absent class members will not have similar
access to monetary payments should they subsequently develop one
of the diseases which were alleged by class counsel's personal
injury plaintiffs."

She also takes issue with attorney's fees the settlement granted.

The judge approved up to $29.5 million in fees and costs for
Mr. Calwell's firm, but made $9.5 million of that contingent upon
the number of people who eventually qualify for the settlement and
how many residents show certain levels of dioxin in their blood.

". . . federal law clearly limits an award of attorneys' fees to a
reasonable percentage of settlement benefits actually claimed by
and paid to class members, and not based upon potential maximum
benefits, unless funds are actually paid into escrow and each
class member may claim his or her share upon proof of identity,"
McQuade writes.

Mr. Calwell said on Feb. 20 that Ms. McQuade's notice of appeal
was a "rehash of what was covered before thoroughly and covered in
Swope's order."

Urban has taken issue with the settlement since details about it
emerged.  He argues that the settlement was the result of
collusion between Mr. Calwell and Monsanto attorneys, as he stated
at a fairness hearing last year.

The settlement, Mr. Urban writes in his notice of appeal, "denies
more than 75,000 people their ability to ever sue Defendants again
to obtain medical monitoring for exposure to known hazardous
substances (dioxins) even though these persons received absolutely
no benefit or compensation whatsoever, in violation of the
Constitutions of the United States and West Virginia."

Mr. Urban contends, like Ms. McQuade, that Mr. Calwell had a
conflict of interest dealing with class members and personal
injury clients. He also takes issue with the way the judge handled
attorney's fees in the case.

He argues class members should have been allowed to "opt out" of
the property remediation portion of the settlement as, "owners of
7,500 residences who would receive no benefit under the
settlement, but would forever lose their right to sue Defendants."

The property cleanup portion of the settlement was unforeseen
after Judges O.C. Spaulding and Judge Swope issued rulings last
year that threw out that part of the case.  Even though the
decertification of the property class had been appealed, a Supreme
Court decision probably wouldn't have happened anytime soon.

"Did the Circuit Court have jurisdiction to vacate the
decertification of or 'recertify' the Property Remediation Class
when an appeal was pending before this Court related to that
decertification?" Mr. Urban wrote.


MRP REALTY: Judge Tosses Washington Harbour Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Daniel J. Sernovitz, writing for Washington Business Journal,
reports that a D.C. Superior Court judge has dismissed a class-
action suit against the owner of Washington Harbour in Georgetown,
rejecting claims by several employees who lost wages when the
office and retail center flooded in April 2011.

Judge Erik Christin, in a Feb. 19 order, ruled that Washington
Harbour's owner was not directly responsible for the wages because
the restaurants and retailers that closed because of the flooding
employed those workers and paid their wages, not the owner.

The dismissal clears a potential stumbling block as the owner, a
joint venture of MRP Realty and Rockpoint Group LLC, tries to sell
the waterfront site at 3000 and 3050 K St. NW. Some real estate
experts say the property could sell for as much as $400 million.

The 43 plaintiffs, who included a bartender at the former Farmers
& Fishers Restaurant, argued that the center's owner was
responsible for their lost wages because it did not raise flood
walls that would have kept the site from flooding.

Mason LLP attorney Nick Migliaccio, who represents the employees,
previously told the Washington Business Journal he hoped to
convince the court that the owner was negligent in its duties as a
landlord to protect the businesses and employees there.

MRP spokeswoman Julie Chase told me previously the company was
prepared to go to trial in the case but did not believe there was
any merit to the plaintiffs' charges.

Since the flood, MRP has installed new equipment and technology
that will enable the flood walls to raise automatically during an
approaching flood.

Neither Mr. Migliaccio nor MRP representatives could be reached
for comment.


NATIONAL BANK: Faces Two Class Actions Over Poseidon's Securities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that National Bank of Canada is facing
two potential class-action lawsuits in connection to Poseidon
Concepts Corp., which has said up to $106 million in revenue
should not have been recorded as such in 2012.

The applications for leave, filed on Feb. 20 with the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice by Siskinds LLP, name National Bank and
the underwriters of Poseidon's securities as defendants and allege
that they misrepresented the value of the oilfield services
company's securities.

National Bank Financial Inc., a subsidiary of National Bank of
Canada, was the lead underwriter of a January 2012 share offering.

The allegations have not been tested in court.

A spokesman for National Bank said they "intend to vigorously
defend against these allegations."

Poseidon previously announced it will restate its financial
results for the first, second, and third quarters of 2012.

Poseidon said approximately $95 million to $106 million of the
$148.1 million in revenue for the nine months ended Sept. 30
should not have been recorded as revenue.  It also said that
approximately $94 million to $102 million of its $125.5 million in
accounts receivable as of Sept. 30 should not have been recorded
as such.

The announcement saw shares in Poseidon became the most heavily
traded issue on the Toronto Stock Exchange that day, with a volume
of 15.58 million shares.  The stock closed down 62 cents, or 69.66
per cent to 27 cents.

Its 52-week high had been $16.87.

The Alberta Securities Commission issued a cease trade order
against the Calgary company the next day.

On Feb. 20, Poseidon confirmed it is in default of its loan
agreement dated June 29, 2012 and that it's in discussions with
its lenders.

The company rents large tanks used by the oil and gas industry to
hold fracturing fluids and other liquids.


NTS REALTY: Faces Class Suit in Delaware Over Proposed Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership is facing a merger-related
class action lawsuit in Delaware, according to the Company's
February 15, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

                        Company Statement

NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership announced that on February
15, 2013, the Company received notice that a putative class action
lawsuit was filed on February 15, 2013, in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware against the Company, each of the members
of the board of directors of NTS Realty Capital, Inc., the
Company's managing general partner ("Realty Capital"), NTS Merger
Parent, LLC, NTS Merger Sub, LLC ("Merger Sub") and Realty Capital
alleging, among other things, that the board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the unitholders of the Company in
connection with the board's approval of the merger between Merger
Sub and the Company (the "Merger").  The complaint seeks, among
other things, to enjoin the defendants from completing the Merger
as currently contemplated.

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

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

                    About NTS Realty Holdings

The Company currently owns, wholly, as a tenant in common with
unaffiliated co-owners, or through joint venture investments with
affiliated and unaffiliated third parties, 24 properties comprised
of fifteen multifamily properties, seven office buildings and
business centers and two retail properties.  The properties are
located in and around Louisville and Lexington, Kentucky,
Nashville and Cordova, Tennessee, Richmond, Virginia, Fort
Lauderdale and Orlando, Florida, Indianapolis, Indiana and
Atlanta, Georgia.  The Company's limited partnership units are
listed on the NYSE MKT platform under the trading symbol of "NLP."


NW FLORIDA STATE COLLEGE: Faces Suit Over Hacked Computer System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Northwest Florida State
College's computer system was hacked, exposing 279,000 people to
ID theft, a class action claims in Okaloosa County Court.


OWT INDUSTRIES: Recalls 131,500 Electric Blower Vacuums
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, OWT Industries Inc., of Pickens, South Carolina, and
manufacturers, Changzhou Globe Tools Co. Ltd. and Techtronic
Industries (Dongguan) Co. Ltd., of China, announced a voluntary
recall of about 131,500 Expert Gardener Electric Blower Vacuums.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Objects that are drawn into the unit during vacuum mode can break
through the plastic housing, posing a laceration hazard.

There has been one report of an incident with the recalled blower
vacuums.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Expert Gardener electric blower vacuums with
two different model and serial number ranges, including model
20254EG with serial numbers BMP3010001 through BMR3311972, and
model 20254EGC with serial numbers EUP3120001 through EUP3630730.
Model and serial numbers are located on a label on the left side
of the motor housing.  The blower vacuums are green and black.
"Expert Gardener" and "BlowerVac 2 Speed Quiet 150 MPH Powerful
220 MPH" are printed on the side of the green motor housing and on
the black plastic blower tube.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at: http://is.gd/yDEEJ9

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Walmart stores nationwide and online at
www.walmart.com from January 2012 through December 2012 for about
$40.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled blower
vacuums and contact OWT Industries Inc. for a free replacement
blower vacuum.  OWT Industries Inc. may be reached at (800) 597-
9624 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday, or online at http://www.expertgardenertools.com/and click
on Safety Notices for more information.


PFIZER INC: Faces Over 250 Lawsuits Over Zoloft Birth Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Larkin, writing for Injury Lawyer News, reports that a
Zoloft lawyer filed a new lawsuit on behalf of a California woman
on January 30, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The case alleges that the manufacturer of
the medication, Pfizer, Inc., was aware that it was not an
effective treatment for depression, but continued to promote, sell
and distribute Zoloft for that purpose.

Relying on Pfizer's marketing of the drug as a safe and effective
treatment for depression, the woman began taking Zoloft in March
of 2005.  She used it for three years and her dosage increased
from 50 mg daily to 250 mg daily.  According to her, the
medication didn't work.

Others have claimed the company did not provide sufficient
warnings as to the link between the drug and birth defects.  As a
result, an increasing number of people are choosing to file a
Zoloft birth defects lawsuit.

Pfizer is accused of having known of the potential for side
effects in children when the mother takes the medication while
pregnant, but failed to update the marketing packages and warnings
with the drug to notify patients of these dangers.  Plaintiffs in
these cases state that if they had known of the potential risks,
they would have taken a different drug.

The New England Journal of Medicine conducted a study that found
pregnant women who used Zoloft were more likely to have children
suffering from PPHN (persistent pulmonary hypertension of the
newborn).  The British Journal of Medicine conducted a study in
2009 that discovered women who used Zoloft in their first
trimester faced double the chances of having a child suffering
from atrial septal defects.  In addition, the use of Zoloft while
pregnant could lead to such other birth defects as spina bifida,
delayed development, cleft lip or palate, skull defects, and
clubfoot.

Over 250 lawsuits against Pfizer because of Zoloft have been filed
in federal court due to children suffering from birth defects.
These were consolidated into multidistrict litigation (MDL) to
speed and streamline the legal process.  The pretrial proceedings
for these lawsuits are being heard in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania with the initial trial scheduled to begin by
September 12, 2014.

The California woman who claims that Zoloft doesn't work states
that Pfizer is guilty of misleading the consuming public as to the
effectiveness of Zoloft in treating depression.  It is noted in
the filing that in order to receive approval from the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) to market Zoloft, at least two clinical
trials had to show that the drug treated depression effectively.
In six clinical trials, four showed that the drug was not any more
effective than a sugar pill; two of the trials indicated that
Zoloft was marginally beneficial.  Those clinical trials are said
to have had design flaws as well as a sampling bias.

In addition, she claims that the company partook in deceptive
marketing practices that prevented consumers from making an
informed decision as to the effectiveness of Zoloft in treating
depression.  On its label, the drug is promoted as a highly
effective treatment for depression while failing to accurately
list clinical trial results in medical journals and leaving out
information that could be negatively viewed.

According to the plaintiff, Pfizer paid medical ghostwriters to
produce promotional materials about Zoloft that wound up being
published in medical journals.


PHILADELPHIA: Autistic Kids Get Favorable Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cherri Gregg, writing for CBS, reports that Philadelphia
schoolchildren with autism got a big win last week in federal
court.

Two years ago, the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia
filed a class-action lawsuit against the School District of
Philadelphia on behalf of the 1,600 children with autism in grades
K through 8.   The lawsuit demanded a change to the district's
"upper leveling" process, in which the school district moves
students with autism in grades K through 8 from school to school
based on grade level.

Public Interest Law Center attorney Sonja Kerr says the process
excluded both parents and teachers from decision-making, and gave
little notice to families.

"One parent got a strip of paper saying, 'You're going to be moved
to another school,'" says Ms. Kerr.  "People call this, in jest,
the 'autism shuffle' because kids just go all over."

She says the problem occurs because students with autism in grades
K through 8 are grouped based on grade level into three sections
for autism support services, i.e., K-2, 3-5, and 6-8.   Because
not all schools offer services for all grade levels, Kerr says,
the school district moves the students from school to school with
no input from families.

"We had things like parents being told, 'Your child should be
moved here for kindergarten,' and then we learn in second grade
that there was a school a block and a half from their home that
they could have gone to," says Ms. Kerr.

A federal judge ruled on Feb. 19 that the current process violates
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA").

"The law requires that parents have a meaningful opportunity to
participate in decisions about their child's education when they
have a child with disabilities," says Ms. Kerr.

She says the court ruling is a huge win for families of children
with autism, since a characteristic of the disorder is having
difficultly with change.  She says the ruling means students may
still be moved based on availability of autism support services,
but now parents and teachers will get detailed notice and can
provide input.

The Philadelphia School District did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.


QEP RESOURCES: Settles "Chieftain" Suit for $115 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
QEP Resources, Inc. entered into a stipulation to settle a class
action lawsuit styled Chieftain Royalty Company, et al. v. QEP
Energy Company, according to the Company's February 15, 2013, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On February 13, 2013, QEP Energy Company and the Class
Representatives of the statewide class action styled Chieftain
Royalty Company, et al. v. QEP Energy Company, Case No CJ-2011-1,
in the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma,
executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the Settlement
Agreement).  This statewide class action was filed on behalf of
QEP's Oklahoma royalty owners asserting various claims for damages
related to royalty valuation on all Oklahoma wells operated by QEP
or from which QEP separately marketed its share of gas.  The
Settlement Agreement provides for a cash payment from QEP to the
class in the amount of $115 million in exchange for a full release
of all claims regarding the calculation, reporting and payment of
royalties from the sale of natural gas and its constituents for
all periods prior to February 28, 2013.  The Settlement Agreement
also includes a stipulated methodology for the calculation and
payment of future royalties payable under all class leases for the
life of those leases.  On the same day, the parties filed with the
Court a Joint Motion to Preliminarily Approve Class Action
Settlement, Approve Form and Manner of Notice and Set Date for
Fairness Hearing.

QEP Resources, Inc. is a holding company with three major lines of
business: natural gas and crude oil exploration and production;
midstream field services; and energy marketing.  These businesses
are conducted through the Company's three principal subsidiaries:
(1) QEP Energy Company acquires, explores for, develops and
produces natural gas, crude oil, and natural gas liquids (NGL);
(2) QEP Field Services Company provides midstream field services,
including natural gas gathering and processing, compression and
treating services, for affiliates and third parties; and (3) QEP
Marketing Company markets affiliate and third-party natural gas
and oil, and owns and operates an underground gas storage
reservoir.


SMITHFIELD PACKING: Recalls Pork Sausage Due to Foreign Materials
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Smithfield Packing Company, a Smithfield, Virginia establishment,
is recalling approximately 38,000 pounds of pork sausage that may
contain small pieces of plastic, likely from gloves, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.

The following products are subject to recall:

   * 1-lb. chubs of "Gwaltney mild pork sausage roll" with a
     use-by date of March 12, 2013

   * Cases containing chubs of "Gwaltney mild pork sausage roll"
     with a case code of 78533109741

The recalled product bears the establishment number "Est. 221-A"
inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The products were produced on
January 11, 2013, and were distributed in Alabama, District of
Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, North
Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas.  Picture
of the recalled products' label is available at:
http://is.gd/1GSCs4

The problem was discovered after the company received two consumer
complaints.  FSIS and the company have received no reports of
injury at this time.  Anyone concerned about an injury from
consumption of these products should contact a healthcare
provider.

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

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Wendy
Johnson, Manager of Consumer Affairs, at (877) 933-4625.  Media
with questions about the recall should contact Dennis Pittman,
Director of Corporate Communications and Public Affairs, at (910)
876-4776.

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


STARKIST CO: Faces Class Action Over 5-oz. Cans of Tuna
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Starkist gives short weight
of fish in its 5-oz. cans of tuna, a class action claims in
Federal Court.


TEXTRON INC: Signed Deal in December to Settle Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Textron Inc. reached an agreement in principle in December 2012 to
settle a consolidated class action lawsuit filed in Rhode Island,
according to the Company's February 15, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 29, 2012.

On August 21, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court in Rhode Island by Dianne Leach,
an alleged participant in the Textron Savings Plan.  Six
additional substantially similar class action lawsuits were
subsequently filed by other individuals.  The complaints varyingly
name Textron and certain present and former employees, officers
and directors as defendants.  These lawsuits alleged that the
defendants violated the United States Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) by imprudently permitting participants in the
Textron Savings Plan to invest in Textron common stock.  The
complaints sought equitable relief and unspecified compensatory
damages.  On February 2, 2010, an amended class action complaint
was filed consolidating the seven previous lawsuits into a single
complaint.  On March 19, 2010, all defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, and on September 6, 2011, the
Court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied the motion
in part.  Specifically, the Court ruled that plaintiffs failed to
plead sufficient allegations to support any claim that defendants
made material misrepresentations that would be actionable under
ERISA, but permitted the remainder of the Amended Complaint to
survive the pleadings stage.  On September 20, 2011, all
defendants moved for partial reconsideration of the Court's
decision not to dismiss the Amended Complaint.  On December 5,
2011, the Court denied the motion for partial reconsideration
without rendering a decision on the merits of the issues raised
therein.

On December 13, 2012, as a result of a mediation process overseen
by an independent mediator, the parties reached an agreement in
principle, subject to settlement documentation and court approval,
to settle the plaintiffs' claims for an immaterial amount.
Because this is a class action, settlements of this type are
subject to preliminary and final review by the Court with an
opportunity for class members to respond to the proposed
settlement and object if they so desire.  Neither Textron nor any
of the other defendants in the settlement admitted any wrongdoing
with respect to the allegations in the case.


TIME WARNER: Appeal From "Fink" Suit Dismissal Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
On August 7, 2009, the plaintiffs in Jessica Fink, et al. v. Time
Warner Cable Inc., filed an amended complaint in a purported class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York alleging that the Company uses a throttling technique which
intentionally delays and/or blocks a user's high-speed data
service.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  On December 23, 2011, the
district court granted with prejudice the Company's motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' second amended complaint.  On January 23,
2012, the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The Company says it intends to
defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict
the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of
possible loss.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 15,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.


TIME WARNER: Appeal in Set-Top Cable Antitrust MDL Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. is the defendant in In re: Set-Top Cable
Television Box Antitrust Litigation, ten purported class actions
filed in federal district courts throughout the U.S. These actions
are subject to a Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") Order
transferring the cases for pretrial proceedings to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  On
July 26, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a third amended consolidated
class action complaint (the "Third Amended Complaint"), alleging
that the Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
various state antitrust laws and state unfair/deceptive trade
practices statutes by tying the sales of premium cable television
services to the leasing of set-top converter boxes.  The
plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, unspecified treble
monetary damages and an injunction to cease such alleged
practices.  On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, which the court granted on
April 8, 2011.  On June 17, 2011, the plaintiffs appealed this
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 15,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company says it intends to defend against this lawsuit
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


TIME WARNER: Continues to Defend "Downs" Class Suit vs. Insight
---------------------------------------------------------------
On August 9, 2010, the plaintiffs in Michelle Downs and Laurie
Jarrett, et al. v. Insight Communications Company, L.P. filed a
second amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky, as a purported class action,
alleging that Insight Communications Company, L.P., a Time Warner
Cable Inc. subsidiary, violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act by tying the sales of premium cable television services to the
leasing of set-top converter boxes, which is similar to the
federal claim against the Company in In re: Set-Top Cable
Television Box Antitrust Litigation.  The plaintiffs are seeking,
among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages and an
injunction to cease such alleged practices.  The Company says it
intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable
to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a
range of possible loss.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 15,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.


TIME WARNER: High Court Won't Review "Brantley" Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court denied in November 2012 the plaintiffs'
petition for writ of certiorari to review the dismissal of their
class action lawsuit titled Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal,
Inc., et al., according to Time Warner Cable Inc.'s February 15,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On September 20, 2007, Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et
al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California against the Company.  The complaint, which also
named as defendants several other cable and satellite providers
(collectively, the "distributor defendants") as well as
programming content providers (collectively, the "programmer
defendants"), alleged violations of federal antitrust laws.  Among
other things, the complaint alleged coordination between and among
the programmer defendants to sell and/or license programming on a
"bundled" basis to the distributor defendants, who in turn
purportedly offer that programming to subscribers in packaged
tiers, rather than on a per channel (or "a la carte") basis.  In
an order dated October 15, 2009, the district court dismissed the
plaintiffs' third amended complaint with prejudice.  On October
30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On March 30, 2012, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' lawsuit.

On August 2, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of
certiorari to review with the U.S. Supreme Court and, on
November 5, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs'
petition.


TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Continues to Face Class Suits Action in Michigan
----------------------------------------------------------------
TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. continues to face antitrust class
action lawsuits in Michigan, according to the Company's
February 15, 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 purported class
action lawsuits filed on various dates from June 2012 through
January 2013 in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan and the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario,
Canada, on behalf of vehicle purchasers, lessors and dealers
alleging that the Company and certain of its competitors conspired
to fix and raise prices for Occupant Safety Systems products in
the U.S.  The Company says it intends to defend these cases
vigorously.  Management believes that the ultimate resolution of
these cases will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial statements as a whole.

TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. is a large and diversified supplier
of automotive systems, modules and components to global automotive
original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, and related
aftermarkets.  Its operations primarily encompass the design,
manufacture and sale of active and passive safety related
products, which often includes the integration of electronics
components and systems.  It operates its business along four
segments: Chassis Systems, Occupant Safety Systems, Electronics
and Automotive Components.  The Company is primarily a "Tier 1"
supplier, with over 84% of its end-customer sales in 2011 made to
major OEMs.  Of its 2011 sales, approximately 49% were in Europe,
32% were in North America, 14% were in Asia Pacific, and 5% were
in the rest of the world.


U.S. STEEL: Continues to Defend Suit vs. Steel Manufacturers
------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation is defending itself against class
action lawsuits asserted against steel manufacturers, according to
the Company's February 15, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

In a series of lawsuits filed in federal court in the Northern
District of Illinois beginning September 12, 2008, individual
direct or indirect buyers of steel products have asserted that
eight steel manufacturers, including U. S. Steel, conspired in
violation of antitrust laws to restrict the domestic production of
raw steel and thereby to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the
price of steel products in the United States.  The cases are filed
as class actions and claim treble damages for the period 2005 to
present, but do not allege any damage amounts.  U. S. Steel is
vigorously defending these lawsuits and does not believe that it
is probable a liability regarding these matters has been incurred.
The Company is unable to estimate a range of possible loss at this
time.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Hawthorne" Suit vs. Bank
--------------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings Corporation continues to defend itself against its
subsidiary initiated by Amber Hawthorne, according to the
Company's February 15, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On December 29, 2011, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California-San Francisco Division (case no.
11-6700), Amber Hawthorne filed a class action lawsuit against
Umpqua Bank on behalf of herself and a national class, including a
sub-class of California residents seeking in excess of $5 million,
plus punitive damages, alleging that Umpqua Bank engaged in unfair
and deceptive practices by posting debit items in a high to low
order to maximize overdraft fees, automatically enrolling
customers in debit Overdraft Protection ("ODP") programs before
the Regulation E revisions, failing to adequately disclose posting
order, manipulating posting to maximize ODP fees and failing to
advise customers how to minimize fees.  Plaintiff alleges claims
for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment,
and a violation of California Business & Professions Code 17200
(for the California subclass).  The claims are in the initial
stage of investigation but Umpqua believes that the claims are not
supportable and are overstated and the Company intends to
vigorously defend the case.


US AIRWAYS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that U.S. Airways is selling
itself too cheaply through an unfair process to AMR Corp., in a
stock swap that prices US Airways at $18.97 per share,
shareholders say in a class action in Maricopa County Court.


VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Suits Related to DDi Acquisition Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Viasystems Group, Inc. disclosed in its February 15, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012, that all class action lawsuits
arising from its acquisition of DDi Corp. were dismissed.

On May 31, 2012, the Company acquired DDi Corp. ("DDi") in an all
cash purchase transaction pursuant to which DDi became the
Company's wholly owned subsidiary (the "DDi Acquisition").  DDi
was a leading manufacturer of technologically advanced, multi-
layer printed circuit boards with operations in the United States
and Canada.

Subsequent to the announcement of the DDi Acquisition, a number of
purported class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of DDi's
stockholders in various jurisdictions which named DDi Corp.
("DDi"), Viasystems Group, Inc. and others as primary defendants,
and generally alleged, among other things, (i) that the members of
DDi's board of directors violated the fiduciary duties owed to
stockholders by approving the merger agreement, (ii) that the
members of DDi's board of directors engaged in an unfair process
and agreed to a price that allegedly failed to maximize value for
stockholders and (iii) that DDi and Viasystems Group, Inc. aided
and abetted the DDi board members' alleged breach of fiduciary
duties.  These complaints sought, among other things, to enjoin
the DDi Acquisition until corrective actions were taken, as well
as to award to plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of the
action, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

On May 15, 2012, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the various actions.  The parties subsequently entered into
a definitive stipulation of settlement in July 2012 which was
subject to approval by the Superior Court of California, Orange
County (the "Court").  On January 8, 2013, the Court granted final
approval of the settlement, entered an Order and Final Judgment
and dismissed the consolidated California actions.  On January 25,
2013, the remaining action was dismissed by the Delaware Court of
Chancery as a result of the effect of the California Court's
ruling.  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, DDi made
additional information available to its stockholders in advance of
the special meeting of DDi's stockholders to approve the DDi
Acquisition.  In addition, as part of the agreed settlement, the
Court awarded plaintiff's counsel $0.6 million in attorneys' fees
and expenses.  The settlement was fully paid by DDi's insurer and
did not affect the merger consideration paid to DDi's stockholders
in connection with the DDi Acquisition or change any of the terms
of the merger or the merger agreement.


WAL-MART: Faces Class Action Over Discrimination of Women
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Wal-Mart discriminates
against women in its Region 14, which includes parts of Wisconsin,
Illinois, Indiana and Michigan, a class action claims in Federal
Court.


WAL-MART: Judge Dismisses Sex Discrimination Claims
---------------------------------------------------
Margaret Cronin Fisk, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. women workers in Tennessee and four other
southern states can't pursue sex-discrimination claims against the
company through a class action, or group lawsuit, a federal judge
said.

The class action is barred because it was filed too late, U.S.
District Judge Aleta Trauger in Nashville said on Feb. 20.  A 1988
decision by the federal appeals court in Cincinnati in a separate
case, known as Andrews v. Orr, blocks the women from joining a new
class action, she said.

"The class claims are time-barred," she said in her 54- page
decision.  "Unless this court finds that Andrews is no longer good
law, the court is constrained to apply the holding in Andrews to
this case."  Judge Trauger didn't rule on the merits of the
women's claims.

The lawsuit was filed in Nashville last year by three women who
claimed Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, paid women less
than men in comparable jobs and blocked promotions for female
workers in five southern states.  The women sought to proceed on
behalf of Wal-Mart's female employees in the company's Region 43,
which comprises Tennessee and parts of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia
and Mississippi.

"We are disappointed by the U.S. District Court ruling, but will
seek review in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals," Joseph Sellers,
an attorney for the women, said on Feb. 20.

David Tovar, a spokesman for Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart,
didn't immediately return a call seeking comment on the ruling.

The suit is the one of four regional gender-discrimination claims
filed against Wal-Mart following a U.S. Supreme Court decision in
2011 rejecting a nationwide class action.  Women in California,
Texas and Florida have filed lawsuits as well.  The Texas class
claim was dismissed in October.

The lawsuit is Phipps v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 12-cv-01009, U.S.
District Court, Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville).


* Ted Frank Tackles Pro-Arbitration Rulings in Legal Policy Report
------------------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Gorodetski, writing for Point of Law.com, reports that in a
newly released legal policy report, "Class Actions, Arbitration,
and Consumer Rights: Why Concepcion is a Pro-Consumer Decision,"
Ted Frank, adjunct fellow with the Manhattan Institute's Center
for Legal Policy and editor of Point of Law, outlines why fears of
the effects of pro-arbitration rulings are overstated.
Arbitration agreements and the Supreme Court's endorsement of
freedom of contract is a benefit to consumers.  Recent decisions
will not end the class action, and consumer advocates would be
better off working to end the abuse of class actions that benefit
attorneys at the expense of consumers, rather than fighting
arbitration agreements that consumers would prefer ex ante.

On February 27, 2013, the Supreme Court will hold oral arguments
in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant.  Like the
Court's 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, Italian
Colors involves the intersection of two mechanisms for resolving
legal disputes not easily handled by high-cost individually filed
lawsuits: arbitration and class action litigation.

In class action litigation, similarly situated legal claims are
aggregated under a single lawsuit.  Given the cost of litigation,
class action suits can be efficient mechanisms for resolving large
numbers of relatively low-dollar claims, but they also can enrich
lawyers at legitimate claimants' expense because such lawsuits'
low value to individual plaintiffs reduces the incentive for any
plaintiff to monitor the lawyers handling the claim.

Arbitration, a form of dispute resolution outside the courts,
involves imposing as legally binding and enforceable the decision
of a third party, typically specified in advance in contracts.
Arbitration is generally favored and enforceable under federal
law, through the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).  Potential
corporate defendants have sought to use mandatory arbitration
clauses to avoid the expense of class actions.  The trial bar and
allies in the legal academy criticized such clauses as
"anticonsumer" and, for years, had success, particularly in
California state court, in obtaining judicial rulings finding the
clauses unenforceable, notwithstanding the language of the FAA.

A copy of the Full Report is available at:

  http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/lpr_16.htm#.USieSTeh3YV


                           *********

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  * * *