CAR_Public/130228.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, February 28, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 42

                             Headlines



21ST CENTURY: Faces Class Action for Charging Extra Payment
AFFYMAX INC: Recalls Omontys Anemia Drug Due to Allergy Risk
ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: March Hearing on Overdraft Fee Suit Accord
ASUS COMPUTER: Consumer Class Action Deal Gets Initial Approval
BANCO SANTANDER: US Auto Financing Arm Sued Over Phone Recording

BIGDEAL.COM: Faces Class Action for Being Unlicensed Gambling Site
BRUCE FOODS: Recalls Mislabeled Food Club Red Enchilada Sauce
BRUCE FOODS: Expands Recall of Food Club Red Enchilada Sauce
CBS CORP: Still Defends Simon From Suits Over E-Book Sales
CHARLES SCHWAB: Obtains Approval to Ban Clients' Class Actions

COLORADO: Douglas County Faces Class Action Over Teacher Layoffs
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Awaits Rulings on Judgment Bids in R.I. Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Class Action Over Crab Spread Recall
CVS CAREMARK: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending
CVS CAREMARK: Appeals in "Lauriello" Class Suit Remain Pending

CVS CAREMARK: Continues to Defend PBM Antitrust Violations Suits
CYMER INC: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit in Nevada
DIRECTV: Faces Class Action for Unpaid Overtime
DOLE FOOD: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Product Labels
ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Defends Class Suits Over Crude Oil Releases

FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Suit Over Selling Shares at Inflated Price
FOCUS MEDIA: Being Sold to Giovanna for Too Little, Suit Claims
GOLDCOAST SALADS: Recalls Additional Seafood Spread Products
HEARTLAND BRANDS: Recalls Two Varieties of Granola Cereals
HERBALIFE INT'L: Recalls Healthy Meal Shake Mix for Milk Allergen

HONEST KITCHEN: Recalls Verve(R), Zeal(R) and Thrive(R) Products
HONEYWELL INT'L: Continues to Defend "UAW" Suit in Michigan
HONEYWELL INT'L: Has Final Approval of Quick Lube MDL Settlement
HY-VEE INC: Recalls Dog Food Products Due to Chemical Contaminant
ILLINOIS: Ex-Madison County Treasurer Faces Suit Over Tax Auctions

KING ARTHUR: Recalls Flour Over Presence of Polyurethane Balls
KUMQUAT PROPERTIES: Failed to Secure 66 Pearl Premises, Suit Says
LENOVO GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Slow Notebook Computers
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Workers File Class Action Over Labor Violations
MANDY STAR: Recalls "Good Taste" Preserved Fruits Over Sulfites

MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Recalls 2 Varieties of belVita Breakfast Biscuit
NEW YORK: Gun Owners Mull Class Action Over State's SAFE Act
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Awaits Ruling in Fuel Surcharges MDL Appeal
OHIO: Cuyahoga County Exec Faces Class Action Over Pay Cuts
PANERA BREAD: Cal. Court OK'd Attorneys' Fees in "Sotoudeh" Suit

PILGRIMS PRIDE: Hearing on Class Certification Bid on Feb. 28
SARPES BEVERAGES: Faces Class Action Over "Dream Water"
SB NEW YORK: Faces Wage Suit Filed by Newspaper Distributors
SPI ELECTRICITY: Class Action Participants Can Watch Trial Live
UNITED STATES: Filipino Veterans' Class Suit Dismissed

USG CORP: Accrues $8-MM to Resolve Knauf Tianjin Wallboard Suit
USG CORP: Faces Class Suits Over Pricing of Gypsum Wallboards

* Class Actions Put Manufacturers at Risk of Financial Losses


                           *********


21ST CENTURY: Faces Class Action for Charging Extra Payment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that 21st Century Advantage
Insurance, AIG, et al. bamboozled customers by charging them extra
for stacked coverage though they could not benefit from it, a
class action claims in Santa Fe County Court.


AFFYMAX INC: Recalls Omontys Anemia Drug Due to Allergy Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Affymax, Inc. (Nasdaq: AFFY) and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company
Limited (Takeda) have decided to voluntarily recall all lots of
OMONTYS(R) (peginesatide) Injection to the user level as a result
of new postmarketing reports regarding serious hypersensitivity
reactions, including anaphylaxis, which can be life-threatening or
fatal.  The Companies have been working actively with the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which has indicated its
agreement with this decision.  The Companies have also issued a
letter to health care professionals indicating that no new or
existing patients should receive OMONTYS.

To date, fatal reactions have been reported in roughly 0.02% of
patients following the first dose of intravenous administration.
The reported serious hypersensitivity reactions have occurred
within 30 minutes after such administration of OMONTYS.  There
have been no reports of such reactions following subsequent
dosing, or in patients who have completed their dialysis session.
Since launch, more than 25,000 patients have received OMONTYS in
the postmarketing setting.  The rate of overall hypersensitivity
reactions reported is approximately 0.2% with approximately a
third of these being serious in nature including anaphylaxis
requiring prompt medical intervention and in some cases
hospitalization.  The Companies are actively investigating these
cases.  In the meantime, dialysis organizations are instructed to
discontinue use.  Customers will be provided instructions on how
to return the product to the manufacturer for a refund.  For
customers with questions, please call 1-855-466-6689 [9:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday].

OMONTYS (peginesatide) Injection is indicated for the treatment of
anemia due to chronic kidney disease in adult patients on dialysis
and is packaged in 10 mg and 20 mg Multi-dose vials:

   * 10 mg Multi-dose Vials - NDC 64764-610-10
   * 20 mg Multi-dose vials - NDC 64764-620-20

All lots of OMONTYS are affected by this recall:

   * 10 mg Multi-dose vials, Lots C18685, C18881, C19258
   * 20 mg Multi-dose vials, Lots C18686, C18696

The product can be identified by its product labeling featuring
the name OMONTYS.  OMONTYS was distributed Nationwide, including
Puerto Rico and Guam, to dialysis centers via specialty
distributors.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

   * Online: http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm/

   * Regular Mail: use postage-paid, pre-addressed Form FDA 3500
     available at: http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm./
     Mail to address on the pre-addressed form.

   * Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

                  IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION

WARNING: ESAs INCREASE THE RISK OF DEATH, MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION,
STROKE, VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM, THROMBOSIS OF VASCULAR ACCESS AND
TUMOR PROGRESSION OR RECURRENCE.

Chronic Kidney Disease:

   * In controlled trials, patients experienced greater risks for
     death, serious adverse cardiovascular reactions, and stroke
     when administered erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs)
     to target a hemoglobin level of greater than 11 g/dL.

   * No trial has identified a hemoglobin target level, ESA dose,
     or dosing strategy that does not increase these risks.

   * Use the lowest OMONTYS dose sufficient to reduce the need
     for RBC transfusions.

                        Contraindications

OMONTYS is contraindicated in patients with uncontrolled
hypertension and in patients who have had serious allergic
reactions, which may include anaphylaxis, to OMONTYS.

                    Warnings and Precautions

Increased mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and
thromboembolism:

   * Using ESAs to target a hemoglobin level of greater than
     11 g/dL increases the risk of serious adverse cardiovascular
     reactions and has not been shown to provide additional
     benefit.  Use caution in patients with coexistent
     cardiovascular disease and stroke.  Patients with CKD and an
     insufficient hemoglobin response to ESA therapy may be at
     even greater risk for cardiovascular reactions and
     mortality.  A rate of hemoglobin rise of > 1 g/dL over 2
     weeks may contribute to these risks.

   * In controlled clinical trials of ESAs in patients with
     cancer, increased risk for death and serious adverse
     cardiovascular reactions including myocardial infarction and
     stroke was observed.

   * There is increased mortality and/or increased risk of tumor
     progression or recurrence in patients with cancer receiving
     ESAs.

   * In controlled clinical trials of ESAs, ESAs increased the
     risk of death in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass
     graft surgery (CABG) and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in
     patients undergoing orthopedic procedures.

   * In 2 trials of OMONTYS, patients with CKD not on dialysis
     experienced increased specific cardiovascular events.

Hypertension (see Contraindications): Appropriately control
hypertension prior to initiation of and during treatment with
OMONTYS. Reduce or withhold OMONTYS if blood pressure becomes
difficult to control.

Serious allergic reactions (see Contraindications): Serious
allergic reactions, including anaphylactic reactions, hypotension,
bronchospasm, angioedema and generalized pruritus, may occur in
patients treated with OMONTYS.  Immediately and permanently
discontinue OMONTYS and administer appropriate therapy if a
serious allergic reaction occurs.

Lack or loss of response to OMONTYS: Initiate a search for
causative factors.  If typical causes of lack or loss of
hemoglobin response are excluded, evaluate for antibodies to
peginesatide.

Dialysis management: Patients receiving OMONTYS may require
adjustments to dialysis prescriptions and/or increased
anticoagulation with heparin to prevent clotting of the
extracorporeal circuit during hemodialysis.

Laboratory monitoring: Evaluate transferrin saturation and serum
ferritin prior to and during OMONTYS treatment.  Administer
supplemental iron therapy when serum ferritin is less than
100mcg/L or when serum transferrin saturation is less than 20%.
Monitor hemoglobin every 2 weeks until stable and the need for RBC
transfusions is minimized.  Then, monitor monthly.

                        Adverse Reactions

Most common adverse reactions in clinical studies in patients with
CKD on dialysis treated with OMONTYS were dyspnea, diarrhea,
nausea, cough, and arteriovenous fistula site complication.

Please click: http://is.gd/vKSBRyfor Full Prescribing
Information, including Boxed WARNINGS, also available at
http://www.omontys.com/

            OMONTYS Indication and Limitations of Use

OMONTYS(R) (peginesatide) Injection is indicated for the treatment
of anemia due to chronic kidney disease (CKD) in adult patients on
dialysis.

OMONTYS is not indicated and is not recommended for use in
patients with CKD not on dialysis, in patients receiving treatment
for cancer and whose anemia is not due to CKD, or as a substitute
for red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in patients who require
immediate correction of anemia.  OMONTYS has not been shown to
improve symptoms, physical functioning, or health-related quality
of life.

                       About Affymax, Inc.

Affymax, Inc. -- http://www.affymax.com/-- is a biopharmaceutical
company based in Palo Alto, California.  Affymax's mission is to
discover, develop and deliver innovative therapies that improve
the lives of patients with kidney disease and other serious and
often life-threatening illnesses.

                   About Takeda Pharmaceutical

Located in Osaka, Japan, Takeda -- http://www.takeda.com/-- is a
research-based global company with its main focus on
pharmaceuticals.  As the largest pharmaceutical company in Japan
and one of the global leaders of the industry, Takeda is committed
to strive towards better health for patients worldwide through
leading innovation in medicine.


ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: March Hearing on Overdraft Fee Suit Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing on Associated Banc-Corporation's
settlement of a class action lawsuit against its subsidiary is
scheduled for March 2013, 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.

A putative class action lawsuit, Harris v. Associated Bank, N.A.
(the "Bank"), was filed in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Wisconsin in April 2010, alleging that the
Bank unfairly assessed and collected overdraft fees and seeking
restitution of the overdraft fees, compensatory, consequential and
punitive damages, and costs.  The case was subsequently
consolidated into the Multi District Litigation ("MDL"), In re:
Checking Account Overdraft Litigation MDL No. 2036 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  A
settlement agreement which requires payment by the Bank of $13
million for a full and complete release of all claims brought
against the Bank received preliminary approval from the court on
July 26, 2012.

A final approval hearing on the settlement is scheduled for March
2013.  In the second quarter of 2012, the Bank settled with an
insurer for $2.5 million as contribution to the settlement amount
and received approximately $1.5 million as partial reimbursement
for defense costs.  By entering into such an agreement, the
Company has not admitted any liability with respect to the
lawsuit.  The settlement amount was previously accrued for in the
financial statements.

Founded in 1964 and headquartered in Green Bay, Wisconsin,
Associated Banc-Corp -- http://www.associatedbank.com/-- a bank
holding company, offers various banking and financial services to
individuals and businesses primarily in Wisconsin, Illinois, and
Minnesota.


ASUS COMPUTER: Consumer Class Action Deal Gets Initial Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup granted preliminary approval of a
revised settlement agreement in the lawsuit captioned COLIN
FRASER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, a California
Corporation, and ASUSTEK COMPUTER, INC., a Taiwanese Corporation,
Defendants, No. C 12-00652 WHA, (N.D. Cal.).

This putative consumer class action is brought on behalf of
consumers who purchased tablet computers from Asus Computer
International and Asustek Computer, Inc.  Following denial of
their first motion for preliminary approval of a settlement and
certification of a settlement class, the parties continued
settlement discussions under the supervision of Magistrate Judge
Jacqueline Corley.  The Plaintiff filed a new motion for
certification of a class for settlement purposes and preliminary
approval of a revised class action settlement.  The Defendant has
filed a statement of non-opposition in support of the proposed
settlement.  The Defendant further contends that because the
proposed settlement is on a claims-made basis, and the Plaintiff's
counsel has agreed not to seek attorney's fees beyond its actual
and reasonable fees and costs, there is no need for a final
fairness hearing.

Judge Alsup granted the Plaintiff's request.  However, the
Defendant's request to waive a final fairness hearing or
opportunity to object is DENIED.

The Court ORDERS that notice of the settlement be revised to
reflect that:

   -- motion for final approval should be filed by May 9, 2013.

   -- Any objections must be in writing and postmarked by May 20,
      2013.

   -- A final fairness hearing is set for June 13, 2013, at 2:00
      p.m.

The Notice will be published and sent out to class members by
March 11, 2013.

The court vacated the hearing scheduled for February 21.

A copy of the District Court's February 19, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/2m3lHgfrom Leagle.com.


BANCO SANTANDER: US Auto Financing Arm Sued Over Phone Recording
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sokolove Law on Feb. 21 disclosed that recording telephone
conversations with consumers without their consent has landed
Banco Santander's U.S. auto-financing arm in a proposed class
action suit in California federal court.

Law360 reports that lead plaintiff Jose C. Zendejas claims that he
received a call from a Santander employee who did not inform him
that their conversation was being recorded.  When questioned
directly by the plaintiff at the end of the call, the employee
admitted to recording the conversation.  The employee allegedly
sought information about a friend of Mr. Zendejas and claimed he
was listed as reference by the friend.

Under California state law it is illegal to record a telephone
conversation without consent. The lawsuit also alleges that
Zendejas had no way of knowing that the conversation was being
recorded as there was no intermittent beeping during the call,
states Law360.

The suit seeks to represent a class of thousands of California
residents whose phone conversations may have been recorded by
Santander illegally during the past 12 months.  The lawsuit seeks
$5,000 in damages for every illegal phone recording violation,
reports Law360.


BIGDEAL.COM: Faces Class Action for Being Unlicensed Gambling Site
------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that Project
Fair Bid's penny auction website, Bigdeal.com, was a $100 million
RICO gambling racket, a John Doe claims in a federal class action.

Doe claims Project Fair Bid ran BigDeal.com, an unlicensed
gambling site that operated in violation of state and federal
laws.

He claims the site misled customers into thinking they could win
prizes such as Apple iPods and laptop computers for a fraction of
their retail cost.

The website claimed: "Winners save around 75 percent on average,
and many save 98 percent or even more," and, "We guarantee you a
fair chance to win a great deal," and, "Everyone's a winner on
BigDeal.com," according to the complaint.

The website, which operated from 2009 to 2011, charged bidding
fees on top of an entry fee for a chance to win prizes.

"In order to participate in BigDeal.com's 'auctions,' players were
charged entry fees that ranged in price from $22.50 to more than
$500," the complaint states.  "These entry fees were similar to
purchasing poker chips and were used to place 'bids.'"

After paying to register, participants were charged to bid.

"Each auction contained a designated box that, when clicked,
charged a nonrefundable $.75 fee to the player's account," the
complaint states.  "Clicking the box afforded players a chance to
win the designated auction prize."

Each bid increased the price of the item by 1 penny.  The auction
was won by the last player to timely place a bid before time
expired.

"All failed bids were revenue to BigDeal.com," the complaint
states.  "If a player 'bid' 200 times, he or she lost $120 (200 x
$.75) to BigDeal.com." (Sic: recte $150.)

The only exception to the rules was BigDeal.com's "Bid Buddy," a
computerized bidding program that automatically placed bids for
participants, according to the complaint.

"According to BigDeal.com's website, Bid Buddy would enter bids
when the auction fell under the 30-second reset time and it bid at
a random time within that period," the complaint states.  "Bid
Buddy was programmed to beat all other bidders.  Thus, if a Bid
Buddy was in play, manual participants would have no chance of
winning.  BigDeal.com did not disclose this fact to the players,
nor did it disclose to the player when a Bid Buddy was in play."

The game design created a hectic bidding atmosphere, Doe said.

"At any time, any number of players could activate and utilize Bid
Buddy, as long as they activated it when there was time remaining
on the clock," the complaint states.  "In a BigDeal.com auction,
there were tens to hundreds of bidders, and bidding could be rapid
and frenzied as each player and Bid Buddy were chancing the future
unknown result of being the last to bet in order to win the
merchandise."

Doe claims that BidDeal.com, which did not have a gambling
license, conducted hundreds of auctions every day, misled
participants about what they were actually spending their money
on, and broke state and federal gambling laws.

Worse, Doe claims, BigDeal.com kept computer records of each
player, logging personal information such as their names,
addresses, phone numbers, user names, passwords and credit card
numbers.

"The records included the players' bidding records by date and
time, the date and time of each losing bid and each winning bid,
the prizes won be each player and the cost of those prizes to
BigDeal.com," the complaint states.  "The total losses of each
player and the winnings acquired by BigDeal.com can be readily
computed from the company's detailed computer records, which can
be obtained through discovery."

Doe claims that BigDeal.com scooped in about $100 million.

Also named as defendants are Mayfield XIII, Foundation Capital VI
L.P. and First Round Capital II L.P., venture capital companies
based in San Francisco, which collectively provided $4.5 million
to start the site, according to the complaint.

Also sued are Rajil Kapoor, a venture partner at Mayfield who
became a director for BigDeal.com in July 2009; Charles Maldow, a
general partner at Foundation Capital; and Josh Kopelman, a
partner at First Round, according to the complaint.

Also sued are Nicolas Darveau-Garneau and Brandon Ramsey,
described as founding partners of BigDeal.com, who helped manage,
operate and finance, and obtain financing from other defendants.

Doe seeks statutory and treble damages for RICO violations, bank
fraud and violations of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement
Act of 2006.

His lead counsel is Robert S. Green, with Green & Noblin, of
Larkspur.  The firm may be reached at:

          Green & Noblin, P.C.
          700 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 275
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Tel: 415-477-6700
          Fax: 415-477-6710
          E-mail: gn@classcounsel.com


BRUCE FOODS: Recalls Mislabeled Food Club Red Enchilada Sauce
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Foods Corporation of New Iberia, Louisiana, is recalling
mislabeled cans of 10 oz. Food Club Red Enchilada Sauce with code
GES 462449, Best Before Date: 12/3/2016 that could contain Green
Enchilada Sauce instead of Red Enchilada Sauce.  Only the Food
Club Green Enchilada contains wheat and soy.  People who have an
allergy or sensitivity to wheat and soy run the risk of allergic
reaction if they consume this Green Enchilada Sauce product.

The recalled product was distributed between 1/15/2013 and
1/16/2013 in Virginia and Minnesota.  The product reached the
consumer through retail stores.

The product recall is for canned 10 oz size Food Club Red
Enchilada Sauce with code GES 462449 with a Best Before Date:
12/03/2016 printed on the can end.  Picture of the recalled
products' label is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm340724.htm

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that a can
labeled as Red Enchilada contained Green Enchilada Sauce.  The
Green Enchilada Sauce contains wheat and soy.

Consumers who have purchased the Food Club Red Enchilada Sauce
with code GES 462449 with a Best Before Date: 12/03/2016 are urged
to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact Larry Thibodeaux at Bruce
Foods at 1-337-365-8101, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time.


BRUCE FOODS: Expands Recall of Food Club Red Enchilada Sauce
------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Foods Corporation of New Iberia, Louisiana, is recalling
mislabeled cans of 10 oz Food Club Red Enchilada Sauce with code
GES 462449, Best Before Date: 12/3/2016 that could contain Green
Enchilada Sauce instead of Red Enchilada Sauce.  Only the Food
Club Green Enchilada contains wheat and soy.  People who have an
allergy or sensitivity to wheat and soy run the risk of allergic
reaction if they consume this Green Enchilada Sauce product.

The recalled product was distributed between 1/15/2013 and
1/28/2013 in Virginia, Minnesota and Indiana.  The product reached
the consumer through retail stores.

The product recall is for canned 10 oz size Food Club Red
Enchilada Sauce with code GES 462449 with a Best Before Date:
12/03/2016 printed on the can end.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that a can
labeled as Red Enchilada contained Green Enchilada Sauce.  The
Green Enchilada Sauce contains wheat and soy.

Consumers who have purchased the Food Club Red Enchilada Sauce
with code GES 462449 with a Best Before Date: 12/03/2016 are urged
to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact Larry Thibodeaux at Bruce
Foods at 1-337-365-8101, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time.


CBS CORP: Still Defends Simon From Suits Over E-Book Sales
----------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation continues to defend its subsidiary against
lawsuits related to sales of e-books, 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.

A number of lawsuits have been pending against the following
parties relating to the sale of e-books: Apple Inc., Hachette Book
Group, Inc., HarperCollins Publishers, LLC, Holtzbrinck Publishers
LLC d/b/a Macmillan, Penguin Group (USA) Inc. and the Company's
subsidiary, Simon & Schuster, Inc.

On April 10, 2012, for purposes of settlement and without any
admission of wrongdoing or liability, Simon & Schuster and two of
the other Publishing parties entered into a settlement stipulation
and proposed final judgment (the "Stipulation") with the United
States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") in connection with the
DOJ's investigations of agency distribution of e-books.  In
furtherance of this settlement, on April 11, 2012, the DOJ filed
an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Publishing parties and
concurrently filed the Stipulation with the court.  On September
7, 2012, the Stipulation was approved by the court and final
judgment was entered.  The Stipulation does not involve any
monetary payments by Simon & Schuster, but will require the
adoption of certain business practices for a 24 month period and
certain compliance practices for a five year period.

On June 11, 2012, for purposes of settlement and without any
admission of wrongdoing or liability, Simon & Schuster entered
into a proposed settlement agreement to resolve the antitrust
action filed by a number of states and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico against several of the Publishing parties in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas, which was
transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York ("States") on April 30, 2012.  The proposed
settlement provides that, certain Publishing parties, including
Simon & Schuster, will pay agreed upon amounts for consumer
restitution, among other things, and also requires the adoption of
certain business and compliance practices, which are substantially
similar to those described in the Stipulation with the DOJ.  On
September 14, 2012, the court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement, which all states (except Minnesota), the
District of Columbia and the United States territories joined.  On
October 15, 2012, Simon & Schuster paid the agreed upon amounts
into an escrow account pending final court approval.  On February
8, 2013, the court approved the proposed settlement following a
final settlement approval hearing that day.  The Company believes
that this settlement with the States and the Stipulation with the
DOJ will not have a material adverse effect on its results of
operations, financial position or cash flows.

On December 9, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL") issued an order consolidating
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York various purported class action lawsuits that private
litigants had filed in federal courts in California and New York.
On January 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint with the court against the Publishing
parties.  These private litigant plaintiffs, who are e-book
purchasers, allege that, among other things, the defendants are in
violation of federal and/or state antitrust laws in connection
with the sale of e-books pursuant to agency distribution
arrangements between each of the publishers and e-book retailers.
The consolidated amended class action complaint generally seeks
multiple forms of damages for the purchase of e-books and
injunctive and other relief.  On March 2, 2012, the Publishing
parties filed a motion to dismiss this action.  On May 15, 2012,
the court denied the motion to dismiss.  The Company believes that
the States' settlement will likely resolve the class claims of
those private litigant plaintiffs in the MDL litigation who reside
in the areas covered by the States' settlement and who do not opt
out of such settlement.

Commencing on February 24, 2012, similar antitrust lawsuits have
been filed under Canadian law against the Publishing parties by
private litigants in Canada, purportedly as class actions.  Simon
& Schuster intends to vigorously defend itself in the MDL and
Canadian matters.

In addition, the European Commission (the "EC") and Canadian
Competition Bureau are conducting separate competition
investigations of agency distribution arrangements of e-books in
this industry and Simon & Schuster is cooperating with these
investigations.  On September 19, 2012, the EC began accepting
public comment on the terms of a proposed settlement.  On December
12, 2012, following the close of that comment period, the EC
accepted the proposed settlement.  The settlement between the EC
and certain Publishing parties, including Simon & Schuster,
requires the adoption of certain business and compliance practices
similar to those described in the Stipulation with the DOJ.

Founded in 1986 and headquartered in New York, CBS Corporation --
http://cbscorporation.com/-- together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a mass media company in the United States and
internationally.  The Company is composed of an Entertainment
segment, a Cable Networks segment, a Publishing segment, a Local
Broadcasting segment, and an Outdoor segment.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Obtains Approval to Ban Clients' Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tess Stynes and Caitlin Nish, writing for Dow Jones Newswires,
report that Charles Schwab Corp. can ban its clients from bringing
class-action lawsuits, a securities industry regulatory panel
ruled on Feb. 21 in a sweeping decision that may be adopted
broadly by U.S. brokerage firms.

Schwab last year told customers it was modifying their 8.8 million
account agreements to prohibit class-action suits and to modify
their ability to have arbitration cases consolidated.  The
decision followed settlements of class-action litigation by Schwab
in which it agreed to pay $235 million for misleading marketing of
its high-interest YieldPlus money-market fund between May 2006 and
March 2008.

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority hearing panel said in a
48-page ruling that the class-action ban is consistent with
federal law and recent Supreme Court interpretations of the
Federal Arbitration Act.

The ruling is a blow to FINRA, a private group that regulates
broker-dealers and administers arbitration panels.  It was also a
blow to class-action lawyers.

In February, FINRA's enforcement department charged Schwab with
violating its rules by limiting clients' class-action and
arbitration rights.  The hearing panel on Feb. 21 agreed that the
class-action ban violates the self-regulator's rules but found
that the rules are not enforceable because they conflict with the
Federal Arbitration Act.

"Schwab is pleased with the panel's decision," the San Francisco-
based firm said in a statement.  "The company believes customers
are better served through the existing FINRA arbitration process
and that class-action lawsuits are a cumbersome and less effective
means of resolving disputes -- for both parties."

A FINRA spokeswoman said the group was reviewing the decision, and
could not yet comment on whether it would appeal the ruling to its
appellate body, the National Adjudicatory Council.

Securities industry officials said it is likely that many firms
will now attempt to revise their customer account agreements.

"FINRA could appeal, but you have a fairly well-developed decision
here," said Kevin Carroll, associate general counsel of the
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Associations, broker-
dealers' main trade group.  "It's up to our individual members to
determine if they will adopt a class-action ban."

Plaintiffs' lawyers said an appeal is almost certain and will be
in the best interests of brokerage firm clients.

"It's a significant step backwards for consumers," said Ryan K.
Bakhtiari, a partner at Aidikoff, Uhl & Bakhtiari in Beverly
Hills, California, and past president of the Public Investors
Arbitration Bar Association.  "I would expect FINRA to move to
protect its turf."

Some lawyers said it is far from certain that a single panel
ruling can determine far-reaching law.  "This ruling threatens
most securities class-actions, but the panel does not usually make
the law," said John Coffee, a securities law professor at Columbia
Law School.

In spite of the ruling, FINRA can tell broker-dealers that if they
want to remain members they still have to abide by its "fair-play"
rules, he said.  The Securities and Exchange Commission, which
delegates regulatory authority over brokers to FINRA, requires all
broker-dealers to be members and all brokers who sell securities
to be licensed by FINRA.

FINRA prevailed in one of its three actions against Schwab.  The
panel said Schwab violated FINRA rules by limiting the powers of
its arbitrators to consolidate individual client claims in
hearings.

The panel said the federal arbitration rule does not dictate how
arbitration forums should be run and fined Schwab $500,000.  It
also ordered the broker to take corrective action and remove the
violative language from its customer agreements.

Schwab removed the language in January, a Schwab spokesman said.

He added that Schwab was pleased that it prevailed "on the central
class-action waiver issue."
  
According to AdvisorOne's Melanie Waddell, the FINRA panel stated
that it had dismissed two of three causes in a February 2012
complaint against Charles Schwab & Co. regarding Schwab asking its
customers to waive their rights to bring class actions against the
firm.

The panel concluded that "the amended language used in Schwab's
customer agreements to prohibit participation in judicial class
actions does violate FINRA rules, but that FINRA may not enforce
those rules because they are in conflict with the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA)."

But in the third cause of action, the FINRA panel found that
Schwab violated FINRA rules "by attempting to limit the powers of
FINRA arbitrators to consolidate individual claims in arbitration.
The panel further concluded that the FAA does not bar enforcement
of FINRA's rules regarding the powers of arbitrators, because the
FAA does not dictate how an arbitration forum should be governed
and operated, or prohibit the consolidation of individual claims."

In its complaint, FINRA explains that its Enforcement Department
had charged Schwab with "violating FINRA rules concerning language
or conditions that firms may place in customer agreements when
Schwab amended its customer account agreement to include a
provision requiring customers to waive their rights to bring or
participate in class actions against the firm."  The agreement
also included a provision requiring customers to agree that
arbitrators in arbitration proceedings would not have the
authority to consolidate more than one party's claims.

FINRA's complaint charged that in October 2011, Schwab "amended
its customer account agreement to include a provision requiring
customers to waive their rights to bring or participate in class
actions against the firm." Schwab sent the amended agreements to
nearly 7 million customers, FINRA said in its original complaint.

The Schwab waiver was also sent to clients of registered
investment advisors that custody assets with Schwab.

Unless the hearing panel's decision is appealed to FINRA's
National Adjudicatory Council (NAC) or is called for review by the
NAC, FINRA says the hearing panel's decision becomes final after
45 days.


COLORADO: Douglas County Faces Class Action Over Teacher Layoffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Poppen, writing for EdNewsColorado, reports that the latest
squabble to erupt in Douglas County schools is over teacher sick
days and whether teachers who have been laid off due to budget
cuts are getting a shot at other district teaching jobs.

The Douglas County Federation of Teachers (DCFT) and the
district's classified employees filed a lawsuit Feb. 15 in Douglas
County District Court claiming that the school district illegally
refused to consider teachers for job openings after their
positions had been eliminated.  A second complaint over the
district's decision in July to scrap a bank of 10,000 teacher sick
days was lumped with it, resulting in one lawsuit.

Dougco school board President John Carson called the lawsuit
"frivolous."

"This is a union that has tried to flood the community with
misinformation and political spin in an effort to tear down the
excellent reputation of our schools and our teachers," Mr. Carson
said in a statement.  "We'll deal with this frivolous lawsuit
directly.  But we will not allow it to distract us from what
public schools are actually about-educating kids for the 21st
century."

Mr. Carson accused the union of "trying to gain rights under a
collective bargaining agreement that expired last summer due to
its unwillingness to work collaboratively with the school
district."

DCFT President Brenda Smith disputed the district's comment about
teachers not wanting to work collaboratively during contract
talks.

"That is absolutely false," Ms. Smith said.  "The union -- time
and time again -- tried to come to a resolution on the contract."

Ms. Smith accused the district of violating Senate Bill 10-191,
the state teacher effectiveness law, by not putting teachers who
have been laid off due to downsizing in a priority hiring pool.
Tenured teachers in that situation go through two hiring cycles
before they are let go if they are not offered another district
teaching job.

During last year's hiring cycle, 10 veteran teachers who were laid
off never even got interviews or return phone calls, Ms. Smith
said. The district is in the second hiring cycle now.  Six
teachers attached their names to the class action lawsuit, she
said.

"They basically broke state law," Ms. Smith said.  "Under state
law, you have to have a priority hiring pool when you downsize . .
. That means teachers displaced inside the system have priority
for interviews when jobs come open."

However, the system also requires "mutual consent," meaning both
the teacher and the school principal must agree on the placement.

"These are teachers who were downsized who didn't have any sort of
evaluative issues," Ms. Smith said, noting that the 10 non-
probationary teachers are now substitute teaching regularly.  "If
they don't get a job, then they're out of a position starting
July 1."

But the district contends it is following policy.

"We followed the letter of the law and the process previously
agreed to by DCFT," district spokeswoman Cinamon Watson said.
"All displaced teachers were eligible to apply for any district
opening and they were all interviewed or screened for the position
by the hiring manager.  Those displaced teachers that were not
hired for an open position were reassigned as substitutes at no
cut to their salary or benefits."

Ms. Smith said the sick day issue is especially disturbing.
Previously, teachers donated one sick day per year to a sick day
bank.  Those days could be shared with members facing severe
illness.  The bank was worth more than $850,000 when the district
switched to a short-term disability system arguing it was a more
financially prudent approach.  The suit calls for the district to
reimburse teachers for those sick days.

"We'd had that for as long as we had a contract, for 40-plus
years," Ms. Smith said.  "(Short-term disability) does not cover
the salary of a teacher while they're off.  These do belong to
teachers. (The district) did take them away without any sort of
conversations."


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Awaits Rulings on Judgment Bids in R.I. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. is awaiting court decisions on
motions for summary judgment in the lawsuit pending 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 31, 2012.

The Company was for some time a defendant in a class action (the
"Stanwich Case") brought in the California Superior Court, Los
Angeles County.  The original plaintiffs in that case were persons
entitled to receive regular payments (the "Settlement Payments")
pursuant to earlier settlements of claims, generally personal
injury claims, against unrelated defendants.  Stanwich Financial
Services Corp. ("Stanwich"), which was an affiliate of the
Company's former chairman of the board of directors, is the entity
that was obligated to pay the Settlement Payments.  Stanwich
defaulted on its payment obligations to the plaintiffs and in June
2001 filed for reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code, in the
federal bankruptcy court in Connecticut.  By February 2005, the
Company had settled all claims brought against it in the Stanwich
Case.

In November 2001, one of the defendants in the Stanwich Case,
Jonathan Pardee, asserted claims for indemnity against the Company
in a separate action, which remains pending in federal district
court in Rhode Island.  The Company has filed counterclaims in the
Rhode Island federal court against Mr. Pardee, and have filed a
separate action against Mr. Pardee's Rhode Island attorneys, in
the same court.  The litigation between Mr. Pardee and the Company
was stayed for several years through September 2011, awaiting
resolution of an adversary action brought against Mr. Pardee in
the bankruptcy court, which is hearing the bankruptcy of Stanwich.

Pursuant to an agreement with the representative of creditors in
the Stanwich bankruptcy, that adversary action has been dismissed.
Under that agreement, the Company paid the bankruptcy estate
$800,000 and abandoned the Company's claims against the estate,
and the estate has abandoned its adversary action against Mr.
Pardee.  With the dismissal of the adversary action, all known
claims asserted against Mr. Pardee have been resolved without his
incurring any liability.  Accordingly, the Company believes that
this resolution of the adversary action will result in limitation
of the Company's exposure to Mr. Pardee to no more than some
portion of his attorneys fees incurred.  The stay in the action
against the Company in Rhode Island has been lifted, and both the
Company and Mr. Pardee have filed motions for summary judgment.
Those motions were heard on October 25, 2012, and were taken under
submission.

The Company says it is not possible to predict when the court will
rule, nor what its rulings on the motions may be.  There is no
trial date set.

The reader should consider that an adverse judgment against the
Company in the Rhode Island case for indemnification, if in an
amount materially in excess of any liability already recorded in
respect thereof, could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Class Action Over Crab Spread Recall
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that Costco
Wholesale Corp. and GoldCoast Salads Inc. were hit on Feb. 20 with
a proposed class action alleging that consumers were exposed to
listeria-tainted crab spread that was eventually recalled.

Plaintiff Lisa Grim claims she purchased GoldCoast Blue Crab
Spread at a Rego Park, N.Y., Costco in January and soon afterward
became seriously ill.  The spread was recalled Feb. 1 by the
company over concerns of listeria contamination.  On Feb. 18,
GoldCoast expanded the recall to include its Maine Lobster Spread,
Lobster and Shrimp Spread, and Smoked Salmon.


CVS CAREMARK: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of CVS Caremark Corporation
stock between May 5, 2009, and November 4, 2009.  The lawsuit
names the Company and certain officers as defendants and includes
allegations of securities fraud relating to public disclosures
made by the Company concerning the pharmacy benefit management
("PBM") business and allegations of insider trading.  In addition,
a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in December 2009 in the
same court against the directors and certain officers of the
Company.  A derivative lawsuit is a lawsuit filed by a shareholder
purporting to assert claims on behalf of a corporation against
directors and officers of the corporation.  This lawsuit, which
was stayed pending developments in the related securities class
action, includes allegations of, among other things, securities
fraud, insider trading and breach of fiduciary duties and further
alleges that the Company was damaged by the purchase of stock at
allegedly inflated prices under its share repurchase program.  In
January 2011, both lawsuits were transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of New Hampshire.  In June 2012,
the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the securities
class action.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed a notice of
appeal of the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss, and the
appeal is pending.  The derivative lawsuit will remain stayed
pending the outcome of the appeal of the securities class action.

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.


CVS CAREMARK: Appeals in "Lauriello" Class Suit Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals in the class action lawsuit commenced by John Lauriello
remain pending, according to CVS Caremark Corporation's
February 15, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Caremark was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in
October 2003 in Alabama state court by John Lauriello, purportedly
on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of various
securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark
and others.  Other defendants include insurance companies that
provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled
lawsuits.  The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion
in compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on
allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for
the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed.  A similar
lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur, also in
Alabama state court, naming as defendants Caremark, several
insurance companies, attorneys and law firms involved in the 1999
settlement.  This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class
action, but McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in the
Lauriello action.  Following the close of class discovery, the
trial court entered an Order on August 15, 2012, that granted the
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class pursuant to Alabama Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) but denied their request that the class
also be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1).  In addition, the
August 15, 2012 Order appointed class representatives and class
counsel.  The defendants have filed a notice of appeal with the
Alabama Supreme Court and the plaintiffs have filed a notice of
cross-appeal.  The proceedings in the trial court are stayed by
statute pending a decision on the appeal and cross-appeal by the
Alabama Supreme Court.


CVS CAREMARK: Continues to Defend PBM Antitrust Violations Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark Corporation continues to defend itself against
lawsuits related to pharmacy benefit management, 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.

Various lawsuits have been filed alleging that Caremark has
violated applicable antitrust laws in establishing and maintaining
retail pharmacy networks for client health plans.  In August 2003,
Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a Burns Pharmacy and
Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs #4, together with
Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National Community Pharmacists
Association filed a putative class action against Caremark in
Pennsylvania federal court, seeking treble damages and injunctive
relief.  This case was initially sent to arbitration based on the
contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark.  In October
2003, two independent pharmacies, North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and
C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc., filed a putative class
action complaint in Alabama federal court against Caremark and two
pharmacy benefit management ("PBM") competitors, seeking treble
damages and injunctive relief.  The North Jackson Pharmacy case
against two of the Caremark entities named as defendants was
transferred to Illinois federal court, and the case against a
separate Caremark entity was sent to arbitration based on contract
terms between the pharmacies and Caremark.  The Bellevue
arbitration was then stayed by the parties pending developments in
the North Jackson Pharmacy court case.

In August 2006, the Bellevue case and the North Jackson Pharmacy
case were both transferred to Pennsylvania federal court by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated and
consolidated proceedings with other cases before the panel,
including cases against other PBMs.  Caremark appealed the
decision which vacated an order compelling arbitration and staying
the proceedings in the Bellevue case and, following the appeal,
the Court of Appeals reinstated the order compelling arbitration
of the Bellevue case.  Following remand, plaintiffs in the
Bellevue case sought dismissal of their complaint to permit an
immediate appeal of the reinstated order compelling arbitration
and pursued an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals.  In
November 2012, the Circuit Court reversed the district court
ruling and directed the parties to proceed in federal court.
Motions for class certification in the coordinated cases within
the multidistrict litigation, including the North Jackson Pharmacy
case, remain pending.  The consolidated action is now known as the
In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation.


CYMER INC: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit in Nevada
------------------------------------------------------------
Cymer, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding in December
2012 to settle a merger-related class action lawsuit, 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 October 16, 2012, the Company entered into the Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") by and among (i) ASML
Holding N.V. ("ASML"), (ii) solely for purposes of Article II,
Article IV, Article VI and Article X, ASML US Inc., a Delaware
corporation and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of ASML
("Holdco"), and Kona Technologies, LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Holdco ("Merger Sub 2"),
(iii) Kona Acquisition Company, Inc., a Nevada corporation and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Holdco ("Merger Sub"), and (iv) the
Company.  The Merger Agreement provides that, upon the terms and
subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement,
Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company, and
immediately thereafter, the Company will be merged with and into
Merger Sub 2.

On October 29, 2012, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed against Cymer, the Cymer Board, ASML, Holdco, Merger Sub
and Merger Sub 2 in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada,
captioned Jerome v. Cymer, Inc. et al., Case No. A-12-671009-C
(Eighth Judicial Dist. Clark County, Nevada), challenging the
Merger and seeking, among other things, compensatory damages,
attorneys' and experts' fees and injunctive relief concerning the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and to prohibit the defendants
from consummating the Merger.  The plaintiff subsequently amended
the complaint on November 28, 2012.

The lawsuit generally alleges, among other things, that the Merger
Agreement was reached through an unfair process, that the merger
consideration is inadequate, that the Merger Agreement unfairly
caps the price of the Company's common stock, that the Merger
Agreement's "no solicitation" provision and other deal protection
devices have precluded other bidders from making successful
competing offers for the Company, and that the preliminary proxy
statement/prospectus filed in connection with the Merger contains
material misstatements and/or omissions.  The lawsuit alleges that
ASML aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

On December 31, 2012, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the lawsuit.  While the defendants believe
that the lawsuit is without merit, in order to eliminate the
burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in further litigation,
the defendants have agreed, as part of the memorandum of
understanding and without admitting to the validity of any
allegations made in the lawsuit, to make certain additional
disclosure requested by the plaintiff in the proxy
statement/prospectus filed in connection with the Merger.  The
memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
certain confirmatory discovery and court approval following notice
to the Company's stockholders.  If the settlement is finally
approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims in
all actions that were or could have been brought challenging any
aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure
made in connection therewith (other than claims to enforce the
settlement).

In addition, the memorandum of understanding contemplates that, if
the Merger is consummated and if the settlement is approved, Cymer
or its successor shall be responsible for any attorneys' fees of
the plaintiff that may be awarded by the District Court of Clark
County, Nevada.  There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
District Court of Clark County, Nevada will approve the settlement
even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation.  In such
event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum
of understanding may be terminated.

The Company does not expect the outcome of this lawsuit to have a
material effect on operating results, financial condition and cash
flow.


DIRECTV: Faces Class Action for Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that DirecTV stiffs workers for
overtime, a class action claims in Superior Court.


DOLE FOOD: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Product Labels
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Dole Food Company deceptively
labels its Salad Kit as "all natural," when in fact the product
contains unnaturally processed and synthetic ingredients, a class
claims


ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Defends Class Suits Over Crude Oil Releases
------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. is defending itself against class
action lawsuits arising from investigations into Line 6A and Line
6B crude oil releases, 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.

A number of governmental agencies and regulators have initiated
investigations into the Line 6A and Line 6B crude oil releases.
Approximately 30 actions or claims have been filed against the
Company and its affiliates, in state and federal courts in
connection with the Line 6B crude oil release, including direct
actions and actions seeking class status.  Based on the current
status of these cases, the Company does not expect the outcome of
these actions to be material.  On July 2, 2012, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) announced a
Notice of Probable Violation (NOPV) related to the Line 6B crude
oil release, including a civil penalty of $3.7 million that the
Company paid during the third quarter of 2012.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Suit Over Selling Shares at Inflated Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Family Dollar Stores' CEO
sold $15.6 million worth of shares at inflated prices before the
company's declining sales became public and the share price
dropped, shareholders claim in a federal class action.


FOCUS MEDIA: Being Sold to Giovanna for Too Little, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund, on Behalf of Itself and All
Others Similarly Situated v. Focus Media Holding Limited, Jason
Nanchun Jiang, Kit Leong Low, Neil Nanpeng Shen, Fumin Zhuo,
Charles Guo Wei Cao, Daqing Qi, David Ying Zhang, Ying Wu,
Giovanna Parent Limited and Giovanna Acquisition Limited, Case No.
3:13-cv-00827 (N.D. Cal., February 22, 2013) is a shareholder
lawsuit arising from the Defendants' attempts to sell Focus Media
to Giovanna for an alleged inadequate price following an unfair
process.

In agreeing to the Proposed Transaction, the Company's Board of
Directors acted in an unfairly prejudicial and oppressive manner
by failing to conduct a full and fair sales process designed to
secure the best value available for the Company's shareholders,
the Plaintiff contends.  Indeed, the Plaintiff adds, the Board
negotiated exclusively with Giovanna, an entity which is
affiliated with Focus Media insider, Mr. Jiang, specifically
deciding not to engage in an active shopping process.

Iron Workers is a shareholder of Focus Media.

Focus Media is a Cayman Islands corporation with principal
executive offices in Central, Hong Kong.  Focus Media is China's
leading multi-platform digital media company, operating the
largest LCD display network in China using audiovisual digital
displays in commercial and residential locations.  Focus Media
operates in five networks including the LCD display network,
poster frame network, in-store network, movie theater advertising
network, and traditional outdoor billboards.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.  Giovanna is
a Cayman Islands exempted company and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Giovanna Intermediate Limited, which is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Giovanna Group Holdings Limited, a company formed for the
purpose of consummating certain transactions in connection with
the Proposed Transaction.  Merger Sub is a Cayman Islands exempted
company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Giovanna.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Arshan Amiri, Esq.
          Edward B. Gerard, Esq.
          Justin D. Rieger, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
                  soddo@robbinsarroyo.com
                  aamiri@robbinsarroyo.com
                  egerard@robbinsarroyo.com
                  jrieger@robbinsarroyo.com

               - and -

          Maria Cangemi, Esq.
          Christina Carroll, Esq.
          ROBEIN, URANN, SPENCER, PICARD & CANGEMI APLC
          2540 Severn Avenue, Suite 400
          Metairie, LA 70002
          Telephone: (504) 885-9994
          Facsimile: (504) 885-9969
          E-mail: mcangemi@ruspclaw.com
                  ccarroll@ruspclaw.com

               - and -

          Paul T. Warner, Esq.
          THE WARNER LAW FIRM
          11123 McCracken Lane, Suite A
          Cypress, TX 77429
          Telephone: (281) 664-7777
          Facsimile: (281) 664-7774
          E-mail: pwarner@warner-law.net


GOLDCOAST SALADS: Recalls Additional Seafood Spread Products
------------------------------------------------------------
GoldCoast Salads, a Naples, Florida firm, is voluntarily recalling
Blue Crab Spread, Maine Lobster Spread, Lobster and Shrimp Spread,
and Smoked Salmon Spread that may be contaminated with Listeria.

   * The Blue Crab Spread being recalled is coded EXP 2/14/13 B.

   * The Maine Lobster Spread being recalled is coded EXP 2/16/13
     LA.

   * The Lobster and Shrimp Spread being recalled is coded
     EXP 2/23/13 L&S1 and EXP 3/30/13 L&S1.

   * The Smoked Salmon Spread being recalled is coded 3/10/13 S2.

The following products are being recalled: Blue Crab Spread in
containers with a weight of 1 pound and containers with a weight
of 8 ounces, Maine Lobster Spread in containers with a weight of 1
pound and containers with a weight of 8 ounces, Lobster and Shrimp
Spread in containers with a weight of 1 pound and containers with
a weight of 8 ounces, and Smoked Salmon Spread in containers with
a weight of 1 pound and containers with a weight of 8 ounces.

The products in question were produced 12/17/12, 12/19/12,
12/26/12, 1/31/13, and 1/25/13 respectively and distributed to
stores in the North East and South East United States.  Pictures
of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm340645.htm

Because of the potential for food borne illness, the Company urges
consumers who have purchased the suspect products not to eat them,
but to return them to the point of purchase.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact GoldCoast
Salads by calling (239) 513-0430.

For additional information, please contact:

          Peter Radno
          GoldCoast Salads
          Naples, FL 34117
          Telephone: (239) 513-0430


HEARTLAND BRANDS: Recalls Two Varieties of Granola Cereals
----------------------------------------------------------
Heartland(R) Brands is voluntarily recalling two varieties of its
granola cereals in the United States, Bahamas, Bermuda, Costa
Rica, El Salvador, Israel and Trinidad, as a precaution due to the
possible presence of fragments of flexible metal mesh in an
ingredient.  The ingredient is a grain blend, and the problem was
discovered and reported by the ingredient supplier, Dakota
Specialty Milling.

The two Heartland(R) cereal varieties are:

   * Heartland(R) Harvest Spice Granola Cereal -- 14 oz.;
     UPC 024300 090394; Best If Used By dates from 20130326
     (March 26, 2013) through 20130910 (Sept. 10, 2013).

   * Heartland(R) Fruit & Nut Harvest Granola Cereal -- 14 oz.;
     UPC 024300 090387; Best If Used By dates from 20130325
     (March 25, 2013) through 20130910 (Sept. 10, 2013).

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm340721.htm

No other Heartland(R) brand products are involved in this recall.

Heartland(R) Brands has not received any reports of consumer
complaints or injuries and is issuing this voluntary recall as a
precaution.

Consumers who have purchased the recalled products are urged to
discard the cereal but retain the Best If Used By code and contact
the Company's Consumer Affairs Department toll-free at 888-881-
6769, Monday - Thursday, 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time and
Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, for a full refund of
the purchase price.


HERBALIFE INT'L: Recalls Healthy Meal Shake Mix for Milk Allergen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife International of America announced the voluntary recall
of certain lots of its niche Instant Healthy Meal Nutritional
Shake Mix packets because the label identifies the product as
dairy-free, when it may in fact contain trace amounts of milk
proteins.  Individuals with severe allergies to milk run the risk
of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
products containing milk proteins.  Lactose intolerance is not a
milk allergy and should not be confused with a milk protein
allergy.

The product was distributed in the U.S. from January 16, 2013,
through February 16, 2013, exclusively to individual independent
distributors as cartons of 12 packets or as single-serving packets
in the company's introductory business pack (lot numbers
133405G10, 133408G10, & 133409G10).  The lot code is printed on
the pressed seal to the right side of the front panel of the
Instant Healthy Meal Nutritional Shake Mix packet and at the
bottom of the carton.  Independent distributors are being
contacted by telephone and US mail to alert them to this
situation.  Pictures of the recalled products' labels are
available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm340887.htm

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that certain lots
contained unanticipated trace quantities of milk proteins.  There
have been no reports to date of any illnesses or adverse health
effects associated with the affected products.  The U.S. Food and
Drug Administration has been notified of this voluntary recall.

Independent distributors and their customers that have purchased
this product are urged to return the product for exchange or
refund.  Consumers with questions about this issue may contact
Herbalife's customer service department from 9:00 a.m. - 6:00
p.m., Pacific Standard Time, Monday - Friday, at 1-866-866-4744

Herbalife is dedicated to the health and safety of its consumers.
Therefore, the Company initiated this voluntary recall.  The
Company apologizes to its distributors and their customers and
sincerely regret any inconvenience created by this incident.

                      About Herbalife Ltd.

Herbalife Ltd. (NYSE:HLF) is a global nutrition company that sells
weight-management, nutrition, and personal care products intended
to support a healthy lifestyle.  Herbalife products are sold in
more than 80 countries to and through a network of independent
distributors.  The Company supports the Herbalife Family
Foundation and its Casa Herbalife program to help bring good
nutrition to children.  Herbalife's Web site contains information
about Herbalife, including financial and other information for
investors at http://ir.Herbalife.com. The Company encourages
investors to visit its Web site from time to time, as information
is updated and new information is posted.


HONEST KITCHEN: Recalls Verve(R), Zeal(R) and Thrive(R) Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honest Kitchen announced that it is voluntarily recalling five
lots of its Verve, Zeal and Thrive pet food products produced
between August and November 2012 and sold nationwide in the US and
Canada via retail stores, mail order and online after August 2012
because they have the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella.  No other Honest Kitchen batches, production dates or
products are affected.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever.
Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including
arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye
irritation, and urinary tract symptoms.  Consumers exhibiting
these signs after having contact with this product should contact
their healthcare providers.

Animals with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting.  Some animals
will have only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain.
Infected but otherwise healthy animals can be carriers and infect
other animals or humans.  If your animals have consumed the
recalled product and have these symptoms, please contact your
veterinarian.

The Company is taking this action after learning that one of its
raw ingredients suppliers has recalled a batch of human-grade
parsley that may contain Salmonella.  The batch of parsley was
shipped to the Company in 2012 and used in the production of five
lots of finished Honest Kitchen products.

The Honest Kitchen regularly tests for Salmonella and other
pathogens as part of its quality control process and has not
received to date any reports of illness associated with these lots
of products.  Nonetheless, the Company is proceeding with this
action in order to ensure the full safety and quality of its
products.

"We are committed to providing the highest-quality human-grade
food available to our customers' pets," said Lucy Postins,
founder, CEO and CMO of The Honest Kitchen.  "While our quality
control tests did not find evidence of Salmonella in any of our
finished products, we are accountable for everything we make, and
are taking precautionary action to ensure the safety and integrity
of our products."

The lots being recalled are:

              Product    Production    Expiration
  Item Code   Name       Date          Date         Size
  ---------   -------    ----------    ----------   ----
  V4 + VR     VERVE      08/20/12      08/20/13     4 lb. box,
  Lot Number: 2332A (batches 1-3)                  10 lb. box

  VR          VERVE      11/01/12      11/01/13     10 lb. box
  Lot Number: 3062A (batches 8 & 9)

  TM          THRIVE     09/18/12      09/18/13     1 oz. sample
  Lot Number: 2622A (batch 3)

  Z4 + ZR     ZEAL       08/14/12      08/14/13     4 lb. box,
  Lot Number: 2272A (batches 1?5)                  10 lb. box

  ZR          ZEAL       09/21/12      09/21/13     10 lb. box
  Lot Number: 2652A (batches 1?4)

Consumers who purchased the above lots of Honest Kitchen Verve,
Zeal or Thrive products should stop feeding the products to their
pets, remove the UPC (bar code) and lot code from the packaging,
and discard the contents in a covered trash receptacle.  Lot codes
are located on the top of product boxes either adjacent to or
opposite the UPC.

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm340673.htm

Consumers can receive a replacement or full refund of the MSRP of
the affected products plus $1 to cover postage, by mailing the UPC
and lot code along with a completed Reimbursement Form to The
Honest Kitchen, 145 14th Street, San Diego, California 92101,
Attn: Reimbursements.  All refunds will be processed within five
business days (plus postage time).

The Honest Kitchen products use human-food grade ingredients.  The
Company's products are made in a human food facility and held to
the same high quality control standards as human food products.
Employees taste products as part of the quality control and
research & development processes.

To supplement its quality control processes while maintaining its
commitment to gentle processing that protects natural nutrients,
The Honest Kitchen is enacting additional procedures:

   * All dehydrated leafy greens will be steamed, to further
     protect against the possibility of Salmonella and other
     pathogens;

   * All leafy greens will receive a second test for pathogens
     after arrival at the Company's manufacturing facility, in
     addition to the testing conducted internally by suppliers;

   * The Company has discontinued its relationship with the
     supplier who provided the parsley used in the production of
     the lots being recalled.

For questions or more information, contact The Honest Kitchen by
phone at 1-866-437-9729 or e-mail at info@thehonestkitchen.com.
Customer service representatives will be available Monday through
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time to respond to
inquiries.


HONEYWELL INT'L: Continues to Defend "UAW" Suit in Michigan
-----------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit filed by the United Auto Workers, 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 July 2011, Honeywell filed an action, Honeywell v. United Auto
Workers ("UAW") et al., in federal court (District of New Jersey)
against the UAW and all former employees who retired under a
series of Master Collective Bargaining Agreements ("MCBAs")
between Honeywell and the UAW.  The Company is seeking a
declaratory judgment that certain express limitations on its
obligation to contribute toward the healthcare coverage of such
retirees (the "CAPS") set forth in the MCBAs may be implemented,
effective January 1, 2012.  In September 2011, the UAW and certain
retiree defendants filed a motion to dismiss the New Jersey action
and filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Michigan alleging
that the MCBAs do not provide for CAPS on the Company's liability
for healthcare coverage.  The UAW and retiree plaintiffs
subsequently filed a motion for class certification and a motion
for partial summary judgment in the Michigan action, seeking a
ruling that retirees who retired prior to the initial inclusion of
the CAPS in the 2003 MCBA are not covered by the CAPS as a matter
of law.  In December 2011, the New Jersey action was dismissed on
forum grounds.  Honeywell appealed the New Jersey court's
dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.  The Third Circuit denied the appeal.  Honeywell has now
answered the UAW's complaint in Michigan and has asserted a
counterclaim for fraudulent inducement.  Honeywell is confident
that the CAPS will be upheld and that its liability for healthcare
coverage premiums with respect to the putative class will be
limited as negotiated and expressly set forth in the applicable
MCBAs.  In the event of an adverse ruling, however, Honeywell's
other postretirement benefits for pre-2003 retirees would increase
by approximately $175 million, reflecting the estimated value of
these CAPS.

Given the uncertainty inherent in litigation and investigations,
the Company does not believe it is possible to develop estimates
of reasonably possible loss in excess of current accruals for
these matters (other than as specifically set forth).  Considering
the Company's past experience and existing accruals, it does not
expect the outcome of these matters, either individually or in the
aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position.  Because most contingencies are
resolved over long periods of time, potential liabilities are
subject to change due to new developments, changes in settlement
strategy or the impact of evidentiary requirements, which could
cause the Company to pay damage awards or settlements (or become
subject to equitable remedies) that could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's results of operations or operating cash
flows in the periods recognized or paid.


HONEYWELL INT'L: Has Final Approval of Quick Lube MDL Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. received in November 2012 final
approval of its settlement of the multidistrict litigation brought
by S&E Quick Lube, 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 March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed a
lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that 12 filter manufacturers, including Honeywell,
engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S.
customers for aftermarket automotive filters.  This lawsuit is a
purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters
from the defendants.  Parallel purported class actions, including
on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by
other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the United
States and Canada.  The U.S. cases have been consolidated into a
single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of
Illinois.  In June 2011, plaintiff's principal witness pled guilty
to a felony count of having made false statements to federal
investigators.  On March 8, 2012, Honeywell entered into a
settlement agreement to resolve the multi-district litigation
class action as to all plaintiffs.  On October 10, 2012, and
November 28, 2012, the District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois issued orders granting final approval of the U.S. multi-
district litigation settlement as to all plaintiffs.

The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice notified
Honeywell in January 2010 that it had officially closed its
investigation into possible collusion in the replacement auto
filters industry.  The class action in Canada is still pending but
the Company does not expect the resolution to have a material
impact on its results of operations or operating cash flows in the
periods recognized or paid.


HY-VEE INC: Recalls Dog Food Products Due to Chemical Contaminant
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hy-Vee, Inc. issued a voluntary recall of certain bags of Hy-Vee
dog food due to elevated levels of a chemical contaminant commonly
found in corn.

Routine random tests conducted by the Iowa Department of
Agriculture indicated higher-than-normal levels of aflatoxin in
some samples of Hy-Vee dog food produced at a Kansas City plant
operated by Pro-Pet, LLC.

Hy-Vee officials emphasized the recall is voluntary and only
conducted as a precautionary measure.  No illnesses have been
reported in dogs consuming the product, and the product does not
pose a health risk to humans handling it.  Hy-Vee officials have
also removed all potentially affected products from Hy-Vee stores.

The recalled products carry three different "Best By" dates and
were distributed to Hy-Vee stores in Iowa, Illinois, Missouri,
Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin between
October 26, 2012, and January 11, 2013.

The following products are subject to the recall:

   * Hy-Vee Complete Dog - Complete Nutrition (Green Bag) ?
     34-lb.

     UPC: 07545005647
     Lot # ending with: 29812KC
     "Best By" Date: 11/24/13

   * Hy-Vee Complete Dog ? Complete Nutrition (Green Bag) ? 8-lb

     UPC: 07545005667
     Lot # ending with: 29812KC
     "Best By" Date: 11/24/13

   * Hy-Vee Complete Dog ? Complete Nutrition (Green Bag) ?
     4.4-lb.

     UPC: 07545005665
     Lot # ending with: 29812KC
     "Best By" Date: 11/24/13

   * Hy-Vee Complete Dog ? Complete Nutrition (Green Bag) ?
     4.4-lb.

     UPC: 07545005665
     Lot # ending with: 29912KC
     "Best By" Date: 11/25/13

   * Hy-Vee Complete Dog ? Bites, Bones & Squares (Yellow Bag) ?
     20-lb.

     UPC: 07545005680
     Lot # ending with: 29312KC
     "Best By" Date: 11/19/13

   * Hy-Vee Complete Dog ? Bites, Bones & Squares (Yellow Bag) ?
     4.4-lb.

     UPC: 07545005560
     Lot # ending with: 29312KC
     "Best By" Date: 11/19/13

The recall is limited to the products, sizes and code dates listed
above.  No other Hy-Vee dog food products or code dates are
affected by the recall.

Customers are urged to check the "Best By" dates on any product
they have at home and refrain from feeding any of the recalled
products to their pets.  Any bags of Hy-Vee dog food subject to
the recall, whether opened or unopened, may be returned to Hy-Vee
stores for a full refund.

Aflatoxin is a naturally occurring chemical produced by the mold
fungus Aspergillus, which is often found in corn, particularly
during drought conditions.  Pets that ingest higher-than-normal
levels of aflatoxin, especially over a period of time, may become
ill.  Consumers who are concerned about illness in their pets as a
result of consuming aflatoxin should contact their veterinarians.

Hy-Vee, Inc. -- http://www.hy-vee.com/-- is an employee-owned
corporation operating 233 retail stores in eight Midwestern
states.  For 2012 the Company recorded sales of $7.7 billion,
ranking it among the top 25 supermarket chains and the top 50
private companies in the United States.


ILLINOIS: Ex-Madison County Treasurer Faces Suit Over Tax Auctions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Brueggemann, writing for BND.com, reports that a lawsuit
seeking class-action status has been filed against Madison County
over former treasurer Fred Bathon's handling of the annual
delinquent tax sales.

Mr. Bathon has pleaded guilty in federal court to a criminal
charge of rigging the tax sale so that his political donors
profited from inflated penalties paid by property owners.

The class-action suit was filed on Feb. 21 in Madison County by
St. Jacob attorney John Barberis and Collinsville attorney Steve
Giacoletto.  For now, the only named plaintiffs are Scott and Dawn
Bueker, of St. Jacob, Jason and Christine Moss, of Collinsville,
and Guideon Richeson, of Troy.

But the plaintiffs are asking the court to certify the suit as a
class action on behalf of any Madison County property owners whose
tax bills were included in the county's tax sales from 2005 to
2009.  Prosecutors have said there were roughly 10,000 tax bills
affected.

The suit does not yet seek specific amounts in damages, but rather
an awarding of money for "all losses and injuries suffered" as a
result of the scheme.  The suit says property owners have lost, or
stand to lose, "millions of dollars in interest which has been
artificially inflated due to the defendants' illegal conduct."

Named as defendants, along with the county, are Mr. Bathon and
certain buyers of the delinquent tax bills: John Vassen, Dennis
Ballinger, Robert Luken, John Scott, Scott McClean and Edward
Beasley.

Madison County Board Chairman Alan Dunstan was not immediately
available for comment on Feb. 21.  The tax buyers have previously
declined comment.

Mr. Bathon pleaded guilty earlier this month to rigging the tax
sale from 2005 to 2009, so that investors who gave him political
contributions would be able to charge high penalties.  He faces up
to 41 months in prison when he is sentenced in May.

At the county's annual tax sale, investors buy the right to pay
the delinquent taxes of property owners.  Property owners who
don't repay the taxes as well as a penalty to the investors can
lose their property.  The penalty rate is supposed to be
determined through competitive bidding, to see which investor is
willing to accept the lowest rate.

In most counties, the tax bills are sold in a reverse auction,
where the investor offering to take the lowest penalty rate is the
winning bidder.  The process is supposed to ensure that property
owners aren't charged excessive penalties for paying their taxes
late.

However, witnesses say Mr. Bathon conducted his tax sales like a
bid opening, where investors were not allowed to undercut each
other or "bid down" the penalty percentage.

Under Mr. Bathon's procedure, all the bidders would shout an
opening bid.  The one who shouted the lowest bid first was
declared the winner.

Federal prosecutors say Mr. Bathon's procedure resulted "in a
chaotic scene where every participant at the tax sale shouted
their bids simultaneously, leaving the auctioneer, a treasurer's
office employee, to select the 'winner.'"

The average penalty rate in three of the years was either 17
percent or 18 percent, the maximum allowable under state law. In
two of the years, the bid-rigging was so pervasive that the 18
percent penalty rate was awarded for almost all of the roughly
5,000 properties affected in those years.

Prosecutors say some of the tax buyers "colluded" with Mr. Bathon,
and the investigation into the scheme is ongoing.

Current Treasurer Kurt Prenzler conducted the county's annual tax
sale earlier this week, and the average penalty rate was 3.7
percent.  All three of the tax sales conducted under Mr.
Prenzler's tenure have produced average penalty rates below 4
percent.

Mr. Prenzler said a penalty rate of 18 percent packs a wallop,
especially if the property owner doesn't immediately pay his debt,
because the penalties compound over time.

"Interest rates of 18 percent were bad, but it got worse. If a
person's taxes were sold at 18 percent, and they didn't redeem
their taxes within the first two and a half years, the interest
rate could get up to 108 percent. If their taxes are sold at 3
percent, and they don't pay during the first two and a half years,
it can go no higher than 18 percent. You can see the difference,"
Mr. Prenzler said.

Mr. Prenzler has said the scheme cost property owners millions of
dollars in inflated penalties and lost equity.


KING ARTHUR: Recalls Flour Over Presence of Polyurethane Balls
--------------------------------------------------------------
King Arthur Flour has initiated a voluntary recall of a limited
number of its bags of flour due to the possible presence of small
(7-9 mm) blue polyurethane balls that are used in the sifting
process.  The balls have a smooth surface and no sharp edges and
are made from food grade material.  Because of their bright blue
color and size (about half the diameter of a dime), they are
easily seen in the flour.

Only 5-lb. bags of King Arthur Unbleached All-Purpose Flour and
King Arthur Unbleached Bread Flour that have a Best Used By Date
and Lot Codes noted below are affected.  This information is
printed on the side of the bag beneath the nutrition panel.  If
the Best Used By Date and Lot Code number are printed on the TOP
of the bag, then the product is NOT affected.

The following two (2) King Arthur Flour products are included in
the voluntary recall:

   * King Arthur Unbleached All-Purpose Flour, 5-lb. bag,
     UPC 0-71012-01050-9 With the combination of both the Best
     Used By Date plus Lot Code beneath nutrition facts panel

     Best Used By         Lot Code
     ------------         --------
     12/26/2013           L12A26B
     12/26/2013           L12A26C
     12/27/2013           L12A27A
     01/18/2014           A13A18A
     01/18/2014           A13A18B
     01/21/2014           A13A21A
     01/22/2014           A13A22B
     01/30/2014           A13A30A
     01/31/2014           A13A31A

   * King Arthur Unbleached Bread Flour, 5-lb. bag,
     UPC 0-71012-04105-3 With the combination of both the Best
     Used By Date plus Lot Code beneath nutrition facts panel

     Best Used By         Lot Code
     ------------         --------
     12/26/2013           L12A26A
     12/26/2013           L12A26B
     01/03/2014           A13A03A
     01/03/2014           A13A03B
     01/16/2014           A13A16B
     01/17/2014           A13A17A
     01/23/2014           A13A23A
     01/28/2014           A13A28A
     01/31/2014           A13A31A

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm340873.htm

No other lot codes of this product or any other King Arthur Flour
products are affected in any way.  There have been no reports of
injury, ingestion or presence of any of these balls from the
Company's customers to date.  This voluntary recall is based on
the possibility that a ball could be found.

Any products with a combination of the Best Used By and Lot Code
noted above may be returned to the store for a full refund.

For more information call the King Arthur Flour Consumer Hotline
at 866.797.9178, open Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time.  For convenience, a Lot Code check form and
copy of this press release is available at
http://www.kingarthurflour.com/voluntaryrecall.

King Arthur Flour CEO Steve Voigt assures customers that this is
an isolated occurrence.  "King Arthur Flour is adamant about
quality and safety.  A very limited number of our flour bags are
affected by this incident; but we wanted to be sure our customers
are aware of the recall, and know how to check their flour to see
if it's involved."


KUMQUAT PROPERTIES: Failed to Secure 66 Pearl Premises, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Astill, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated Plaintiffs v. Kumquat Properties, LLC, Partners 66, LLC
and Lawrence Properties, Inc., Case No. 151650/2013 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., February 22, 2013) is brought on behalf of similarly situated
residential tenants of the premises at 66 Pearl Street, in New
York.

The Plaintiff seeks damages for his claims arising out of the
Defendants' alleged (i) failure to exercise due care to adequately
secure, protect or otherwise care for the real property located at
66 Pearl Street subsequent to multiple warnings issued by the
National Hurricane Center and by New York City government
officials for residents of lower Manhattan prior to "Superstorm
Sandy," and (ii) negligence relating to their failure to mitigate
damages before, during and subsequent to the Storm.

Mr. Astill is a resident of New York County.  The proposed class
consists of all residential tenants of 66 Pearl Street as of
October 29, 2012.

Kumquat is a domestic limited liability company.  Partners 66 is a
domestic limited liability company.  Lawrence is a New York
corporation.  The Defendants are based in New York City.  At all
relevant times, Lawrence was retained by Kumquat and Partners 66
to act as the managing agent for the property located at 66 Pearl
Street.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hunter Shkolnik, Esq.
          Adam J. Gana, Esq.
          NAPOLI, BERN, RIPKA & SHKOLNIK, LLP
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7413
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 267-3700
          Facsimile: (212) 587-0031
          E-mail: Hunter@NapoliBern.com
                  Agana@NapoliBern.com

               - and -

          Jeanne Christensen, Esq.
          Vincent Imbesi, Esq.
          IMBESI CHRISTENSEN
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 3002
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 736-0007
          Facsimile: (212) 658-9177
          E-mail: jchristensen@lawicm.com
                  vimbesi@lawicm.com


LENOVO GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Slow Notebook Computers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Lenovo IdeaPad U Series,
Ultrabook and Ultraportable notebook computers are too slow for
wi-fi Internet browsing, a class action claims in Federal Court.


LOCKHEED MARTIN: Workers File Class Action Over Labor Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Lockheed Martin stiffs
workers for overtime, a class action claims in Superior Court.


MANDY STAR: Recalls "Good Taste" Preserved Fruits Over Sulfites
---------------------------------------------------------------
New York State Agriculture Commissioner Darrel J. Aubertine
alerted consumers that Mandy Star Trading Inc. located at 351
Maujer Street in Brooklyn, NY, is recalling "Good Taste" brand
preserved fruits due to the presence of undeclared sulfites.  No
illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
product.  People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites may run
the risk of serious or life-threatening reactions if they consume
this product.

The recalled "Good Taste" brand preserved fruits are packaged in a
14 oz. (400 gram), plastic bag.  There is no apparent production
code on the package, but a UPC code of 3 867320 507698 can be
found on the back of the package.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm340638.htm

Routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and
Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by
Food Laboratory personnel revealed the product contained high
levels of sulfites which were not declared on the label.  The
consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been
reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.

Consumers who have purchased "Good Taste" brand preserved fruits
should contact Mandy Chen at Mandy Star Trading Inc. at (646) 204-
5888.


MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Recalls 2 Varieties of belVita Breakfast Biscuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mondelez Global LLC announced a nationwide voluntary recall in the
United States, including Puerto Rico, of the belVita Breakfast
Biscuit product, Apple Cinnamon and Chocolate varieties, following
notification from a third-party supplier, due to the possible
presence of fragments of flexible metal mesh caused by a faulty
screen at their facility.  The following product is being
recalled:

                                                Best When
Description                  Retail UPC        Used By Dates
-----------                  ----------        -------------
belVita Breakfast Biscuit,   0 44000 03192 3   21 Jan 13 ?
Chocolate Variety, 1.76 oz                     29 Sep 13 (bottom
                                                of package)

belVita Breakfast Biscuit,   0 44000 03194 7   21 Jan 13 ?
Chocolate Variety, 8.8 oz                      29 Sep 13
                                                (top of package)

belVita Breakfast Biscuit,   0 44000 03163 3   16 May 13 ?
Chocolate Variety, 14.08 oz                    13 Sep 13
                                                (side of package)

belVita Breakfast Biscuit,   0 44000 02824 4   8 Oct 12 ?
Apple Cinnamon Variety, 1.76 oz                2 Sep 13 (bottom
                                                of package)

belVita Breakfast Biscuit,   0 44000 02825 1   8 Oct 12 ?
Apple Cinnamon Variety, 8.8 oz                 2 Sep 13 (top of
                                                package)

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm340677.htm

This recall is limited exclusively to the belVita Breakfast
Biscuit, Apple Cinnamon and Chocolate varieties, manufactured and
sold in the United States, including Puerto Rico.  No other
belVita product is included in this recall.

Consumers who have this product should not eat it and should
discard any products they may have.  Consumers can contact the
Company at 1-877-799-5633, 24 hours a day to get more information
about the recall, and Consumer Relations specialists are available
Monday - Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
The Company has received a limited number of consumer contacts
related to this product, and is issuing the recall as a
precaution.


NEW YORK: Gun Owners Mull Class Action Over State's SAFE Act
------------------------------------------------------------
WIVB reports that as county lawmakers take a stand against
Governor Andrew Cuomo's NY SAFE Act, gun owners are planning a
strategy they hope will restore their right to bear arms.

Dozens turned out to a meeting on Feb. 21 in West Seneca.  Gun
owners there lauded one lawyer who's fighting to get the law
overturned.

"It was done unfairly.  I feel it's unconstitutional.  We weren't
given the proper amount of time and there's a lot of things in
there that are penalizing legal gun owners as myself," said one
gun owner.

Ian Calder is a gun owner who signed a petition for representation
in a class action lawsuit against the state and state leaders.
Jim Tresmond filed the lawsuit.  He is demanding a jury determine
the constitutionality of the SAFE Act and calls it the closest
thing to a public referendum on the law.

"The big deal is whether or not they can maintain their guns that
they bought prior to this law," Mr. Tresmond said.

Mr. Tresmond says he plans on calling Governor Cuomo as a witness
in this case, but the governor says he's not trying to take guns
away from anyone.  In fact, he says he anticipates tweaking the
bill.

And on Feb. 21, Erie County legislators voted to send a message to
Governor Cuomo.  They don't want the act tweaked, they want the
law overturned.

Democratic Legislator Thomas Loughran.  "My hope is that it does
send a message to have a more open process."

Mr. Loughran joined Democrat Terrence McCracken and the GOP
minority to pass the resolution.

"It's like a truck rolling down hill.  Somebody is putting the
brakes on so it stops and that's what will happen with this
onerous law," Mr. Tresmond said.

So far, this is the only lawsuit filed in NYS.  But Mr. Tresmond
says it will be a long and arduous process for he and his legal
team.  They expect to fight this battle in courts over the next
two years.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Awaits Ruling in Fuel Surcharges MDL Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its
appeal in the antitrust multidistrict litigation pending in the
District of Columbia, 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 November 6, 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against
the Company and other Class I railroads in various Federal
district courts regarding fuel surcharges were consolidated in the
District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.  On June 21, 2012, the court certified the case as a
class action.  The defendant railroads have appealed such
certification, and a decision by the court to either reject the
appeal outright or proceed with ruling on its merits is pending.

The Company believes the allegations in the complaints are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend the cases.  The Company
does not believe the outcome of these proceedings will have a
material effect on its financial position, results of operations,
or liquidity.  A lawsuit containing similar allegations against
the Company and four other major railroads that was filed on March
25, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff subject to a tolling
agreement entered into in August 2008.

Norfolk Southern Corporation -- http://www.nwpipe.com/-- is a
transportation company.  Its Norfolk Southern Railway subsidiary
operates approximately 20,000 route miles in 22 states and the
District of Columbia, serves every major container port in the
eastern United States, and provides efficient connections to other
rail carriers.  Norfolk Southern operates the most extensive
intermodal network in the East and is a major transporter of coal
and industrial products.  The Company is based in Norfolk,
Virginia.


OHIO: Cuyahoga County Exec Faces Class Action Over Pay Cuts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Sandy, writing for Scene and Heard, reports that on behalf of
all classified civil service employees of Cuyahoga County, Warren
Dolezal, Jack Gallagher and Jeffrey Dobransky filed a class action
lawsuit against County Executive Ed FitzGerald this month.

The three men allege that, since Jan. 1, 2010, they've seen
compensation reduced either without cause or based on age or
political inclinations.  Via the lawsuit, they are seeking the
restoration of pay, relief from any forms of discrimination (age
and/or political, in most cases) and a declaration that bullshit
tactics like that will not continue.

When Mr. FitzGerald and the new charter form of county government
showed up to work in January 2011, the incoming executive promised
a world of transparency and a general departure from the
questionable dealings of his predecessors.  (Meanwhile, Fitz's
alternate moniker "Public Official 14" ensures that the past
remains firmly entrenched in the present.)

As far as the plaintiffs in this case go, Mr. Dolezal is a 22-year
veteran of the Public Works Department.  With no disciplinary
history under his belt, he was reclassified downward in 2012 and
his pay was slashed by 13 percent.  In the end, his duties and
workload remained the same, he alleges.  Mr. Gallagher is a 28-
year veteran of the Department of Weights and Measures.
Similarly, in mid-2012, his classification was lowered and his pay
was dropped by 13.5 percent.  Lastly, Mr. Dobransky is a 27-year
veteran of the Public Works Department, working as a bridge
inspector.  His pay was cut by 10 percent during a
reclassification move last year.

According to the text of the lawsuit, Mr. FitzGerald did not set
forth any of the relevant criteria in declassifying the
plaintiffs' employment.  Those criteria include, per Ohio Revised
Code, incompetency, inefficiency, dishonesty, drunkenness, immoral
conduct, insubordination, discourteous treatment of the public,
neglect of duty, violation of any policy or work rule of the
officer's or employee's appointing authority, or violation of ORC
Section 124.34, which goes on to greater detail and so forth.

And interestingly enough, the Ohio Administrative Code has this to
say about reclassification and pay rates:

"An employee that is assigned into a lower classification shall be
placed in the step within the new pay range that provides the
employee with compensation that is equal to his or her current
rate or that provides the least amount of increase, but no
decrease, in pay.  Appointing authorities shall consider all
applicable pay supplements to ensure that an employee reassigned
pursuant to this rule does not receive a decrease in pay.

The road through the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas seems
overly rocky, however.  The county's Human Resources Department
holds a mighty hand, through tinkering with classification
descriptions and ensuring that employees' claims of disparity
encounter a formidable burden of proof.  And since no employee was
reclassified due to disciplinary action, that cannot form the
basis of an appeal to the civil service commission.

The Plain Dealer, for its part, posted the story on cleveland.com
at 6:00 a.m. on Feb. 16.  It's what we in the biz like to call a
weekend news dump . . . Although, typically it's the public
relations department of an organization leaking controversial news
to the media during off-hours in those cases, not a major metro
daily.


PANERA BREAD: Cal. Court OK'd Attorneys' Fees in "Sotoudeh" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court, County of Contra Costa, approved
earlier this month the attorneys' fees and costs in the
consolidated class action lawsuit brought by Nick Sotoudeh and
David Carter, according to Panera Bread Company's February 15,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 25, 2012.

On December 9, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and one of its subsidiaries by Nick Sotoudeh,
a former employee of a subsidiary of Panera Bread Company.  The
lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court, County of
Contra Costa.  On April 22, 2011, the complaint was amended to add
another former employee, Gabriela Brizuela, as a plaintiff.  The
complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the
California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide
meal and rest periods and termination compensation and violations
of California's Business and Professions Code.  The complaint
sought, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit,
unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as the Court determines to be
appropriate.  On November 17, 2011, the parties entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement regarding settlement of this purported
class action lawsuit and the purported class action lawsuit filed
by David Carter.  Under the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement,
the parties agreed to settle this matter for a maximum aggregate
amount of $5.0 million for settlement payments to purported class
members, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and costs of administering
the settlement.  The Memorandum of Agreement contains no admission
of wrongdoing.  The terms and conditions of the settlement were
preliminarily approved by the Court on
June 8, 2012.

At a hearing on December 21, 2012, the Court approved the terms
and conditions of the settlement and the actual settlement payment
amounts, except for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs, which
were approved by the Court at a separate hearing on February 5,
2013.  Based upon the Court approved settlement amounts and the
amount of attorneys' fees and costs sought by plaintiffs' counsel,
the Company maintained a reserve of $3.7 million in accrued
expenses in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets as of
December 25, 2012.

                         Carter Lawsuit

On July 22, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and one of its subsidiaries by David Carter, a
former employee of a subsidiary of Panera Bread Company, and
Nikole Benavides, a purported former employee of one of the
Company's franchisees.  The lawsuit was filed in the California
Superior Court, County of San Bernardino.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, violations of the California Labor Code,
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods
and termination compensation and violations of California's
Business and Professions Code.  The complaint sought, among other
relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit,
unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as the Court determines to be
appropriate.  This matter against the Company's subsidiary was
consolidated with the Sotoudeh lawsuit and is the subject of the
Memorandum of Agreement.


PILGRIMS PRIDE: Hearing on Class Certification Bid on Feb. 28
-------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on a motion for class certification in the consolidated
class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 is scheduled for
February 28, 2013, 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 17, 2008, Kenneth Patterson filed a lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall
Division, against Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim,
Clifford E. Butler, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A. Cogdill, Renee
N. DeBar, the Company's Compensation Committee and other unnamed
defendants (the "Patterson action").  On January 2, 2009, a nearly
identical lawsuit was filed by Denise M. Smalls in the same court
against the same defendants (the "Smalls action").  The complaints
in both actions, brought pursuant to section 502 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 US C. Section
1132, alleged that the individual defendants breached fiduciary
duties to participants and beneficiaries of the Pilgrim's Pride
Stock Investment Plan (the "Stock Plan"), as administered through
the Pilgrim's Pride Retirement Savings Plan (the "RSP"), and the
To-Ricos, Inc. Employee Savings and Retirement Plan (the "To-Ricos
Plan") (collectively, the "Plans") by failing to sell the common
stock held by the Plans before it declined in value in late 2008,
based on factual allegations similar to the allegation made in the
Acaldo securities case.  Patterson and Smalls further alleged that
they purported to represent a class of all persons or entities who
were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plans at any time
between May 5, 2008, through the present and whose accounts held
the Company's common stock or units in its common stock.  Both
complaints sought actual damages in the amount of any losses the
Plans suffered, to be allocated among the participants' individual
accounts as benefits due in proportion to the accounts' diminution
in value, attorneys' fees, an order for equitable restitution and
the imposition of constructive trust, and a declaration that each
of the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the
Plans' participants.

On July 20, 2009, the Court entered an order consolidating the
Smalls and Patterson actions.  On August 12, 2009, the Court
ordered that the consolidated case will proceed under the caption
"In re Pilgrim's Pride Stock Investment Plan ERISA Litigation, No.
2:08-cv-472-TJW."

Patterson and Smalls filed a consolidated amended complaint
("Amended Complaint") on March 2, 2010.  The Amended Complaint
names as defendants the Pilgrim's Pride Board of Directors, Lonnie
"Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim, Charles L. Black, Linda Chavez,
S. Key Coker, Keith W. Hughes, Blake D. Lovette, Vance C. Miller,
James G. Vetter, Jr., Donald L. Wass, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard
A. Cogdill, the Pilgrim's Pride Pension Committee, Robert A.
Wright, Jane Brookshire, Renee N. DeBar, the Pilgrim's Pride
Administrative Committee, Gerry Evenwel, Stacey Evans, Evelyn
Boyden, and "John Does 1-10."  The Amended Complaint purports to
assert claims on behalf of persons who were participants in or
beneficiaries of the RSP or the To-Ricos Plan at any time between
January 29, 2008, through December 1, 2008 ("the alleged class
period"), and whose accounts included investments in the Company's
common stock.

Like the original Patterson and Smalls complaints, the Amended
Complaint alleges that the defendants breached ERISA fiduciary
duties to participants and beneficiaries of the RSP and To-Ricos
Plan by permitting both Plans to continue investing in the
Company's common stock during the alleged class period.  The
Amended Complaint also alleges that certain defendants were
"appointing" fiduciaries who failed to monitor the performance of
the defendant-fiduciaries they appointed.  Further, the Amended
Complaint alleges that all defendants are liable as co-fiduciaries
for one another's alleged breaches.  Plaintiffs seek actual
damages in the amount of any losses the RSP and To-Ricos Plan
attributable to the decline in the value of the common stock held
by the Plans, to be allocated among the participants' individual
accounts as benefits due in proportion to the accounts' alleged
diminution in value, costs and attorneys' fees, an order for
equitable restitution and the imposition of constructive trust,
and a declaration that each of the defendants have breached their
ERISA fiduciary duties to the RSP and To-Ricos Plan's
participants.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
May 3, 2010.  The plaintiffs responded to that motion on July 2,
2010, dropping plaintiff Smalls from the case and adding an
additional plaintiff, Stanley Sylvestros.  On December 20, 2011,
the case was reassigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, and on
January 25, 2012, Judge Gilstrap referred the proceedings to
Magistrate Roy S. Payne.  The court has not yet ruled on the
motion to dismiss.  The case was subsequently reassigned to
District Judge Folsom, but remained assigned to Magistrate Payne
for pretrial proceedings.  On August 9, 2012, the Magistrate
issued a Report and Recommendation denying the motion to dismiss
without ruling on the merits.  The Report and Recommendation was
subsequently adopted by the District Court.  The Magistrate
scheduled briefing on class certification, which has been
completed, and a hearing is scheduled for February 28, 2013.
Defendants oppose class certification.

                      About Pilgrim's Pride

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation -- http://www.pilgrimspride.com/-- is
one of the largest chicken companies in the United States, Mexico
and Puerto Rico.  The Company's fresh chicken retail line is sold
throughout the U.S., throughout Puerto Rico, and in the northern
and central regions of Mexico.  The Company exports commodity
chicken products to 90 countries.  The Company operates feed
mills, hatcheries, processing plants and distribution centers in
15 U.S. states, Puerto Rico and Mexico.


SARPES BEVERAGES: Faces Class Action Over "Dream Water"
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sarpes Beverages dba Dream
Products' "Dream Water" is not "all natural" as advertised, a
class action claims in Federal Court.


SB NEW YORK: Faces Wage Suit Filed by Newspaper Distributors
------------------------------------------------------------
Willie Johnson, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. SB New York Inc., Marcus Quintanilla, Mary
Ann Licata, Joseph Lauletta, and John Does #1-10, Case No.
151654/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., February 22, 2013) alleges that the
Defendants violated the New York Labor law by failing to reimburse
newspaper distributor employees for their work related vehicle
expenses.

He and similar employees, who worked as newspaper distributor
employees for the Defendants, contracted with the Defendants to be
paid an hourly pay rate, and to be reimbursed for the use of their
vehicles at the maximum per mile rate allowed by the Internal
Revenue Service, but the Defendants never reimbursed these
employees for the use of their vehicles and, therefore, they were
not paid their full wages, Mr. Johnson contends.

Mr. Johnson is a resident of Queens County, New York.

SB New York Inc. is a New York corporation and operates a
newspaper distribution center.  The Individual Defendants are
owners, officers, directors or managing agents of the Company, who
participated in the day-to-day operations of the Company.  The Doe
Defendants represent the officers, directors and managing agents
of the Company, whose identities are unknown at this time.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William C. Rand, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
          488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 286-1425
          E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


SPI ELECTRICITY: Class Action Participants Can Watch Trial Live
---------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Bailey, writing for Diamond Valley Leader, reports that
people involved with the Black Saturday class action will be able
to stream live vision of the trial.

Access will be granted via a password and will allow 10,000 people
access to the trial if they are unable to attend.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers senior associate Rory Walsh said Justice
Jack Forrest granted video access to the bushfire survivors
despite the defendants opposing the broadcast of evidence.

"Open justice is a fundamental principle of common law," he said.

"This is a practical means of achieving that whilst still
retaining the integrity of the trial and its evidence.

"While it is a novel approach to allow the entirety of a trial to
be broadcasted to group members directly, where the fire affected
community is located a considerable distance from the court room
we think this is a sensible and practical solution to the needs of
our clients."


UNITED STATES: Filipino Veterans' Class Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong on February 19, 2013,
entered judgment in favor of the defendants in DE FERNANDEZ v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

Filipino World War II veterans Romeo R. de Fernandez, Ciriaco C.
Dela Cruz and Valeriano C. Marcelino, and the Veterans Equity
Center, a non-profit entity which services the Filipino WWII
veteran community, filed the putative class action against the
United States Department of Veteran Affairs and various VA
officials in their official capacity to challenge the denial of
benefits under the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund. The
parties are presently before the Court on the Defendants' Second
Revised Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint.

Judge Armstrong dismissed the class action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, and directed the clerk of court to close the
file and terminate any pending matters.

The case before Judge Armstrong is styled ROMEO R. DE FERNANDEZ,
CIRIACO C. DELA CRUZ, VALERIANO C. MARCELINO, VETERANS EQUITY
CENTER, a non-profit organization on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ERIK K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans
Affairs; MICHAEL WALCOFF, Acting Under Secretary, Veterans
Benefits Administration; BRADLEY G. MAYES, Director, Compensation
and Pension Service; DAVID WEST, Veteran Service Center Manager,
Oakland Regional Office of Veterans Benefits Administration;
Defendants, Case No. C 10-02468 SBA, (N.D. Cal.)

A copy of the District Court's February 19, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/kj2hhNfrom Leagle.com.


USG CORP: Accrues $8-MM to Resolve Knauf Tianjin Wallboard Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation 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 it has an accrual of $8 million
for its estimated cost of resolving all the Chinese wallboard
property damage claims pending against its subsidiary.

The Company's subsidiary, L&W Supply Corporation, is one of many
defendants in lawsuits relating to Chinese-made wallboard
installed in homes primarily in the southeastern United States
during 2006 and 2007.  The wallboard was made in China by a number
of manufacturers, including Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co., or
Knauf Tianjin, and was sold or used by hundreds of distributors,
contractors, and homebuilders.  Knauf Tianjin is an affiliate or
indirect subsidiary of Knauf Gips KG, a multinational manufacturer
of building materials headquartered in Germany.  Affiliates of
Knauf are the beneficial owners of approximately 14% of USG's
outstanding shares of common stock.  The plaintiffs in these
lawsuits, most of whom are homeowners, claim that the Chinese-made
wallboard emits elevated levels of sulfur gases causing a bad
smell and corrosion of copper or other metal surfaces.  Plaintiffs
also allege that the Chinese-made wallboard causes health problems
such as respiratory problems and allergic reactions.  The
plaintiffs seek damages for repair of their property and for
alleged bodily injury.  Most of the lawsuits against L&W Supply
are part of the consolidated multi-district litigation titled In
re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation, MDL
No. 2047, pending in New Orleans, Louisiana.  The focus of the
litigation has been on plaintiffs' property damage claims and not
their alleged bodily injury claims.

Of the claims made to date, the Company has identified
approximately 290 homes where the Company has confirmed that L&W
Supply delivered, or could have delivered, Knauf Tianjin wallboard
to the home.  The Company has resolved the claims relating to
approximately 270 of those homes.

The Company has an agreement with Knauf that effectively caps the
Company's responsibility for property damage claims relating to
Knauf Tianjin wallboard at a fixed amount per square foot for the
property at issue.  The Company also entered into a homeowner
class settlement resolving claims of all homeowners who filed
lawsuits alleging damages from Knauf Tianjin wallboard.  The class
settlement, which has been approved by the court and is now
effective, resolves both property damage and bodily injury claims,
for the same fixed amount per square foot set forth in the
Company's agreement with Knauf.  For all claims against the
Company relating to Knauf Tianjin wallboard that are not resolved
by the class settlement, including claims of homeowners who do not
participate in the class settlement, the Company's settlement with
Knauf caps its responsibility for Knauf Tianjin property damage
claims.

Although the vast majority of Chinese drywall claims against the
Company relates to Knauf Tianjin board, a small percentage of
claims made against L&W Supply Corporation relates to Chinese-made
wallboard that was not manufactured by Knauf, but which is alleged
to have odor and corrosion problems.  Those claims are not
encompassed within the Company's settlement with Knauf or the
recent homeowner class settlement.

As of December 31, 2012, the Company has an accrual of $8 million
for its estimated cost of resolving all the Chinese wallboard
property damage claims pending against L&W Supply and estimated to
be asserted in the future, and, based on the terms of the
Company's settlement with Knauf, the Company has recorded a
related receivable of $3 million.  The Company's accrual does not
take into account litigation costs, which are expensed as
incurred, or any set-off for potential insurance recoveries.  The
Company's estimated liability is based on the information
available to the Company regarding the number and type of pending
claims, estimates of likely future claims, and the estimated costs
of resolving those claims.  The Company's estimated liability
could be higher if the number or the cost of resolving Chinese
wallboard claims other than Knauf Tianjin claims significantly
exceeds the Company's estimates.  Considering all factors known to
date, the Company believes that these claims and other similar
claims that might be asserted will not have a material effect on
its results of operations, financial position or cash flows.


USG CORP: Faces Class Suits Over Pricing of Gypsum Wallboards
-------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation is facing class action lawsuits related to pricing
of gypsum wallboards, 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.

Beginning December 2012, USG Corporation and United States Gypsum
Company were named as defendants in putative class action lawsuits
alleging that since at least September 2011, U.S. wallboard
manufacturers conspired to fix and raise the price of gypsum
wallboard sold in the United States.  The lawsuits also name as
defendants all seven of the other U.S. wallboard manufacturers.
The lawsuits, which are identical except for the named plaintiff,
were filed in federal district court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  The lawsuits claim that the alleged conspiracy
began with some manufacturers informing their customers in the
fall 2011 that wallboard prices would be increased effective
January 2012 and that job quotes would be eliminated.  Each
plaintiff purports to bring its claims on behalf of a class of
entities that purchased gypsum wallboard in the United States
directly from any of the defendants or their affiliates from
January 1, 2012, to the present.  On behalf of the alleged class,
the plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, tripled under
the antitrust laws, as well as pre-judgment interest, post-
judgment interest and attorneys' fees.

Additional similar lawsuits were filed in federal district court
for the Northern District of Illinois and in federal district
court for the Western District of North Carolina.  In addition to
these lawsuits, other similar lawsuits were filed claiming that
the alleged conspiracy began in 2008 and seeking to certify a
class of direct purchasers who bought gypsum wallboard from
January 1, 2008, to the present.  These lawsuits were filed in the
federal district court for the Western District of North Carolina.
Some of these wallboard pricing lawsuits also name L&W Supply
Corporation as a defendant.  In addition, similar lawsuits were
filed on behalf of indirect purchasers of gypsum wallboard, i.e.,
those who purchased the wallboard for end use and not for resale,
at any time from January 1, 2012, to the present.  These lawsuits
were filed in the federal district court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

All of these wallboard pricing class action lawsuits were only
recently filed and are not specific in the amount of damages
claimed.  However, based on the information known to it, the
Company believes these lawsuits will not have a material effect on
its results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.


* Class Actions Put Manufacturers at Risk of Financial Losses
-------------------------------------------------------------
IndustryWeek reports that under federal and state law, it is
possible to address multiple complaints about the safety and
efficacy of a product in a single class action lawsuit.  When
courts determine that plaintiffs' claims are sufficiently similar
to move ahead in a single class action proceeding, the result can
expose manufacturers to enormous financial risk.

However, a recent Supreme Court case exposes new ways to prevent
plaintiffs from rolling their cases into a single, high-cost suit,
and gives manufacturers new tools to fight these motions at the
earliest stage of trial.

            Requirements for a Class Action Lawsuit

For a court to certify a class action lawsuit, federal rules
require the plaintiff to show that questions of law or fact common
to the claims of all class members predominate over questions
affecting individual claims.  Identifying key similarities among
all plaintiffs is often critical to whether a court permits a case
to proceed as a class action.

Historically, manufacturers of building products have been exposed
to class actions.  Courts have often glossed over individual
differences in the application of building manufacturers'
products, deeming them similar simply because they were
incorporated into structures and not used on their own.

Broad class actions alleging universal product failure, or
alleging actual or potential adverse health effects stemming from
building products are frequently filed, and some have been
permitted to proceed, often overlooking material differences from
application to application.

The Supreme Court's recent ruling in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
Dukes clarifies the law in a way that will make it harder for
plaintiffs to engineer broad class action lawsuits.  While the
details of the ruling are complex, as a practical matter,
defendants are now better equipped to prevent class certification
if they can show that non-common issues affect the claims of
individual plaintiffs.

In practice, to prevent a class action manufactures must find new
ways to harvest evidence differentiating one claim from another,
and identify narrow patterns among reported defects.  An improved
customer service function that is focused on mining for this
critical data should serve as the front line in combating class
action lawsuits.

          Building a Trail of Differentiating Evidence

Building products manufacturers have a unique opportunity to
develop a trail of differentiating evidence through the prolonged
and back-and-forth relationship between manufacturers and the end
users of their products.

Consumers of building products -- ranging from "do-it-yourselfers"
to those relying on contractors or installers -- make use of the
products in widely different settings and over long periods of
time.

When problems arise, there are multiple opportunities for contact
and communication between the customer, the installer, and the
manufacturer.

Improving and encouraging consumers to connect with customer
support around reported issues provides a fertile opportunity for
feedback on the performance of their products under different
conditions.

Tracking and analyzing patterns in this feedback can also suggest
new information about a product -- for example, that a product's
function is affected by certain environmental or other factors in
a specific way, including the installation process or specific
facts about the individual's dwelling.  Likewise, developing a
robust process for responding to consumer complaints (including
investigation of individual homeowners' circumstances and
remedying legitimate complaints) can generate an individualized
body of evidence.

To the extent that this process generates an increasingly-
differentiated data set of product-use outcomes based on differing
circumstances, and communications between and among manufacturers,
installers, and homeowners, it has great potential to generate the
kind of evidence that should prevent class certification under the
Dukes ruling.

                      Five Take-Away Points

    * Develop a robust customer support network and ensure staff
diligently document different circumstances (such as weather,
installation techniques, location, etc.) that may affect a
product's behavior.

    * Search for patterns.  Is temperature affecting product
behavior? Location? Installation technique?

    * Leverage relationships with customers to gather additional
support for patterns of differential product behavior.

    * Always explore the potential individualized reasons for a
claimed defect or damage. Even evidence developed in a small,
individual lawsuit may be useful in preventing a future class
action.
    * Include legal counsel when developing a customer support
protocol to insure sufficient data is being mined; loop in counsel
as early as possible if patterns emerge around reported defects or
damage.


                           *********

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  * * *