CAR_Public/130304.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 4, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 44

                             Headlines



AMERICAN EXPRESS: Supreme Court Revisits Arbitration Scope
APPLE INC: To Settle Suit Over "Bait Apps" With iTunes Credit
ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Ontario Appeal Court Upholds Cert. Denial
CNO FINANCIAL: Awaits Deal Order to Resolve "Nicholas" Suit
CNO FINANCIAL: Awaits Prelim. Approval of "Yue" Suits Settlement

CNO FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Burnett" Suit
CNO FINANCIAL: Fla. Court Takes "Ruderman" Suit Under Advisement
CNO FINANCIAL: Still Awaits Order on Judgment Bid in "Rowe" Suit
CNO FINANCIAL: Trial in "Glick" Suit to Commence December 2
CNO FINANCIAL: Trial in Lifetrend MDL to Begin March 25

CSX CORP: Appeal From Class Cert. Order in Antitrust Suit Pending
ELI LILLY: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Over Cymbalta
EXPEDIA INC: Certification Ruling in Magill Suit Examined
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: "Alameda" Suit Remains Stayed in California
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Awaits Cal. High Court Ruling in "Beeman" Suit

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: No Ruling on Summary Judgment Bids in ERISA MDL
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Continues to Defend PBM Antitrust MDL vs. Unit
FAIRFIELD GREENWICH: Judge Certifies Madoff Feed Fund Class Suit
FIFTH THIRD: Trial in Ohio Employment Labor Law Case Set for Nov.
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Overdraft Fees Suit vs. Unit Still Pending

KENTUCKY FUEL: Faces Suit Over Failure to Notify COBRA Coverage
LA FITNESS: Judge Refuses to Reconsider Dismissal of Class Suit
LORILLARD INC: Appeal in Indirect Purchaser Suit Remains Pending
LORILLARD INC: Loews Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits
LORILLARD INC: Settlement in "Scott" Suit Approved in December

LORILLARD INC: Suits by Flight Attendant vs. Unit Remain Pending
LORILLARD INC: Unit Continues to Defend Tobacco Antitrust Suit
LORILLARD INC: Unit Defends Class Action Suits in West Virginia
MARYS LAKE LODGE: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Brimmer" Class Suit
MERCK & CO: Agrees to Settle Two Securities Suits for $688-Mil.

OMNICARE INC: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
OMNICARE INC: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Kentucky Suit
PHILADELPHIA PARKING: Seeks to Remove Class Suit to Federal Court
POSEIDON CONCEPTS: Faces Securities Class Suit in New York
TOLL BROS: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Home Buyers' Suit Upheld

TRANSVAGINAL MESH: Law Firm Expands Canadian Class Suit
VODAFONE AUSTRALIA: Law Firm to File Class Action Within 3 Months
VODAFONE AUSTRALIA: ACCAN Says Class Suit "Bad Idea"
WAL-MART STORES: Wisconsin Is Next Battleground for Class Suits
WELLS FARGO: Accused of Assessing Undue Fees to Bankrupt Clients

WHITEWAVE FOODS: Defends Mislabeling Class Suits in California
YUM! BRANDS: Class Suit by Security Holders Pending in California

* Rise in Class Actions Drives Up Insurance Costs
* India's New Companies Bill Has Provisions for Class Suits


                           *********


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Supreme Court Revisits Arbitration Scope
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Longstreth, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court [heard] arguments on Wednesday in a case that could
determine the extent to which companies might rely on arbitration
clauses to fend off class action lawsuits.

Through contracts with consumers and other parties, companies
often require disputes to be settled through arbitration. Those
arbitration clauses also frequently prohibit plaintiffs from
banding together to bring one action on behalf of a larger class.

Consumer advocates claim the clauses give unfair advantages to
companies. But in recent years, the Supreme Court has upheld their
enforcement under the Federal Arbitration Act, which was intended
to encourage their use.

In the class action before the Supreme Court, a group of merchants
accuse American Express of violating antitrust law. The group,
small businesses including Italian Colors Restaurant from
California, claimed that American Express required them to accept
its consumer credit cards that come with high transaction fees as
a condition for accepting its personal charge cards and corporate
cards, where it has a dominant market position.

Several class actions were filed against American Express, and
they were consolidated in the Southern District of New York in
2003. Although the merchants had agreed to arbitrate their
disputes, they claimed that individual arbitrations would be
prohibitively expensive in light of their potential recoveries.

At the district court, they showed that conducting a required
antitrust study in arbitration would cost at least several
hundreds of thousands of dollars. Meanwhile, the largest-volume
merchant could hope to recover only $38,549.

The merchants argued that as a result, the arbitration agreement
denied their ability to effectively vindicate their rights under
U.S. antitrust law.

OVERTURNED

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York agreed in an
opinion last year and overturned the district court judge's
decision granting American Express's motion to compel bilateral
arbitration.

In its appeal American Express argued that the 2nd Circuit's
decision conflicts with the Supreme Court's recent rulings that
have vindicated the use of arbitration agreements.

The credit card company cited a 2011 decision, AT&T Mobility LLC
v. Concepcion, in which the Supreme Court upheld contracts that
required customers to submit to individual arbitrations to resolve
disputes, and to waive their right to pursue class action
litigation. In that case, the Supreme Court found that a
California state law rule declaring arbitration agreements with
certain features unenforceable was pre-empted by the Federal
Arbitration Act.

In a brief filed with the Supreme Court, lawyers for American
Express pointed to Concepcion's holding that an arbitration
barring class action claims is enforceable even "if class
proceedings are necessary to prosecute small-dollar claims that
might otherwise slip through the legal system."

Consumer advocates warn that a Supreme Court decision in favor of
American Express could effectively immunize companies from certain
claims. They argue that if the Supreme Court blesses arbitration
agreements that bar class actions - in some cases the only
effective way to bring a legal claim - it would ensure that no
action would be taken at all.

In an amicus brief filed on behalf of the merchants, lawyers for
Public Justice, a public interest law firm, wrote that the Federal
Arbitration Act would become the "Federal Corporate Immunity Act."

The merchants have also received support from the U.S. government.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued in a brief that a
decision in favor of American Express could allow companies to use
one-sided arbitration agreements that "would deprive a range of
federal statutes of their intended deterrent and compensatory
effect."

CHAMBER SUPPORT

American Express has the backing of the business community,
including the Chamber of Commerce. In an amicus brief, the chamber
argued that the 2nd Circuit's decision was the result of an
intense effort to undermine the Supreme Court's ruling in
Concepcion by plaintiffs' lawyers, who can make huge fees in class
action settlements.

The 2nd Circuit's decision provides a road map for plaintiffs'
lawyers to avoid rulings enforcing arbitration agreements, the
chamber said.

Any plaintiffs' attorney, the chamber warned in its brief, will be
able to "retain an expert to assert the costs of proving a
plaintiff's claim would outweigh the potential recovery -thereby
providing the factual predicate needed to avoid arbitration on an
individual basis under the Second Circuit's approach."

Theodore Frank, founder of the Center for Class Action Fairness
and a frequent critic of plaintiffs' lawyers, said American
Express should have contested more vigorously the findings of the
district court that the merchants could not effectively vindicate
their rights through individual arbitration.

American Express said in a statement that it noted in the district
court that the "clause at issue in this case does not prevent
plaintiffs from sharing costs, specifically experts."

Frank said that if American Expresses loses, companies will still
have options to avoid class action lawsuits. For example,
companies could add provisions in their agreements to make it more
cost-effective for plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims.

"You'll see memos go out to say 'rework your arbitration
agreements,'" Frank said.

The case is American Express Co v. Italian Colors Restaurant, U.S.
Supreme Court, No. 12-133

For Italian Colors: Paul Clement of Bancroft.

For American Express: Michael Kellogg of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen,
Todd, Evans & Figel.


APPLE INC: To Settle Suit Over "Bait Apps" With iTunes Credit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff John Roberts, writing for GigaOM, reports that Apple Inc.
will pay to settle a lawsuit over so-called "bait apps," which are
games that can be downloaded for free but then charge for "game
currency" like virtual goods or play money.

Under the terms of the settlement, Apple will offer a $5 iTunes
credit to those who claim that a minor bought in-game items
without their knowledge or permission. If the amount in question
is more than $5, Apple will offer a credit for that amount. If the
amount in question is over $30, an Apple user can claim a cash
refund.

The proposed settlement comes after parents sued Apple in 2011
upon discovering that their minor children had racked up credit
card charges in supposedly free games. The issue was the subject
of a Daily Show feature about a father whose kids racked up
hundreds of dollars to keep virtual fish alive in a game called
"Tap Fish." The same problem also befell GigaOM's Kevin Tofel
whose kids spent $375 -- also on virtual fish.

In order to collect under the settlement, Apple users will have to
attest that a minor bought "game currency" and that the user did
not provide the minor with the Apple password.

The proposed settlement, first reported by Law360 (subscription
required), does not state how much Apple will pay in total or how
many users are affected. It does state that Apple will send an
email notice to "over 23 million iTunes account holders who made a
Game Currency purchase in one or more Qualified Apps."

The settlement still must receive preliminary approval from a
federal judge. If that occurs, which it typically does in class
action cases, the notification period will begin and Apple will
begin accepting claims. After the claims are in, a judge will
approve the final settlement and Apple will begin making payments
-- this would likely occur late this year or in early 2014.

Apple did not immediately reply to an email request for comment.


ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Ontario Appeal Court Upholds Cert. Denial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Randy C. Sutton and Alex Dimson, writing for Mondaq, report that
an Ontario appellate court on February 21 upheld a landmark
decision denying certification of a product liability class
action.

In the short oral decision in Martin v. AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals, the Divisional Court of Ontario endorsed the
reasons and analysis of Madam Justice Horkins, a lower court judge
who had denied certification of a proposed class action involving
an anti-psychotic drug. A copy of our previous bulletin on this
case can be found here.

In reaching this conclusion, the Divisional Court disagreed with
the plaintiff's argument that the lower court judge had
inappropriately engaged in a detailed weighing of facts that was
not permissible at the certification stage. Instead, the
Divisional Court found that Justice Horkins had applied the
correct legal test when she concluded that the plaintiff had
failed to plead sufficient facts to support the allegations that
the defendants had failed to warn class members of risks
associated with the drug and had been negligent in the manufacture
of it.

The Divisional Court's decision is an important endorsement of the
underlying case, which is one of the few cases in which Canadian
courts have refused to certify product liability class actions.
The Martin v AstraZeneca decision contains a variety of important
rulings on product labels, off-label use and the treatment of
causation at the certification stage, and the decision not to
interfere with the underlying decision is an important development
in relation to class actions in Canada.


CNO FINANCIAL: Awaits Deal Order to Resolve "Nicholas" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc. is awaiting court approval of a
settlement that would resolve the class action lawsuit initiated
by Daniel B. Nicholas, according to the Company's February 19,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On February 6, 2012, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Daniel B.
Nicholas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Cause No. 12cv845.  Plaintiff
in this putative class action owns a Valulife universal life
policy insuring Plaintiff's life originally issued by
Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company (now Conseco Life
Insurance Company) in 1991.  Plaintiff is claiming breach of
contract on behalf of the proposed national class and seeks
declaratory, injunctive, and supplemental relief.  The putative
class consists of all persons who own or have owned one or more
universal life policies issued by Conseco Life which provide that
the cost of insurance rates will be determined based upon
expectations as to future mortality experience and who have
experienced an increase in the cost of insurance rates.

On April 20, 2012, the Company announced that Conseco Life had
reached a tentative settlement in the Nicholas case.  Venue of
this case was subsequently transferred to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
settlement in the Yue litigation would, if approved, resolve the
Nicholas case.

In connection with the tentative settlement in the Nicholas
litigation, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of approximately
$20 million in its Other CNO Business segment for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012.  The Company recorded an additional pre-tax
charge of $21 million in its Other CNO Business segment for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012, relating to the settlement
agreement in the Yue litigation.

The liability the Company has established related to these cases
includes its best estimates of the costs of implementing the
settlement, if finalized and approved by the court.  While the
Company believes its estimates are adequate to cover these costs,
the estimates are subject to significant judgment and it is
possible that the estimates will prove insufficient to cover the
actual costs.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company for a group of insurance companies operating
throughout the United States that develop, market and administer
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  CNO became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in
connection with the entity's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries include Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington
National Insurance Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Company.


CNO FINANCIAL: Awaits Prelim. Approval of "Yue" Suits Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc. is awaiting preliminary approval of its
settlement of the class action lawsuits commenced by Celedonia X.
Yue, according to the Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

On March 4, 2008, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Celedonia
X. Yue, M. D. on behalf of the class of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the General Public v. Conseco Life
Insurance Company, successor to Philadelphia Life Insurance
Company and formerly known as Massachusetts General Life Insurance
Company, Cause No. CV08-01506 CAS.  Plaintiff in this putative
class action owns a Valulife universal life policy insuring the
life of Ruth S. Yue originally issued by Massachusetts General
Life Insurance Company in 1995.  Plaintiff is claiming breach of
contract on behalf of the proposed national class and seeks
injunctive and restitutionary relief pursuant to California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 and declaratory relief.
The putative class consists of all owners of Valulife and Valuterm
universal life insurance policies issued by either Massachusetts
General or Philadelphia Life and that were later acquired and
serviced by Conseco Life.  Plaintiff alleges that members of the
class will be damaged by increases in the cost of insurance (a
non-guaranteed element ("NGE")) that are set to take place in the
twenty first policy year of Valulife and Valuterm policies.  At
the time plaintiff filed her complaint, no such increases had yet
been applied to the subject policies.  During 2010, Conseco Life
voluntarily agreed not to implement the cost of insurance rate
increase at issue in this litigation and is following a process
with respect to any future cost of insurance rate increases as set
forth in the regulatory settlement agreement described under the
caption entitled "Regulatory Examinations and Fines."  Plaintiff
filed a motion for certification of a nationwide class and a
California state class.

On December 7, 2009, the court granted that motion.  On October 8,
2010, the court dismissed the causes of actions alleged in the
California state class.  On January 19, 2011, the court granted
the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to the declaratory
relief claim and on February 2, 2011, the court issued an advisory
opinion, in the form of a declaratory judgment, as to what, in its
view, Conseco Life could consider in implementing future cost of
insurance rate increases related to its Valulife and Valuterm
block of policies.  Conseco Life is appealing the court's January
19, 2011 decision and the plaintiff is appealing the court's
decision to dismiss the California causes of action.  These
appeals are pending.  The Company believes this case is without
merit and intends to defend it vigorously.

On November 15, 2011, a second complaint was filed by Dr. Yue in
the United States District Court for the Central District on
California, Celedonia X. Yue, M. D. on behalf of the class of all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the General Public v.
Conseco Life Insurance Company, Cause No. CV11-9506 AHM (SHx),
involving the same Valulife universal life policy.  Plaintiff, for
herself and on behalf of proposed members of a national class and
a California class is claiming breach of contract, injunctive and
restitutionary relief pursuant to California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200, breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, declaratory relief, and temporary,
preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief.  The putative class
consists of all owners and former owners of Valulife and Valuterm
universal life insurance policies issued by either Massachusetts
General or Philadelphia Life and that were later acquired and
serviced by Conseco Life.  Plaintiff alleges that members of the
classes will be damaged by increases in the cost of insurance (a
NGE) that took place on or about November 1, 2011.  Plaintiff
filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion for
certification of a California class.  On April 2, 2012, the court
granted the plaintiff's motions, which Conseco Life is appealing.
Pending the outcome of that appeal, Conseco Life is preliminarily
enjoined from imposing the 2011 increase in the cost of insurance
on the members of the California class.  Plaintiff also filed a
motion on March 20, 2012, for certification of a nationwide class.

Conseco Life has agreed to a settlement with the plaintiff in the
litigation, which would, upon court approval, resolve those cases
as well as the Nicholas litigation.  On January 25, 2013, the
parties filed a stipulation of settlement and joint motion for
preliminary approval of proposed nationwide class settlement and
certification of settlement classes.  The court set the hearing
for preliminary approval of the settlement on February 25, 2013.
The settlement includes a reduction in the cost of insurance
increase implemented by Conseco Life in November 2011 and certain
policy benefit enhancements.  Final approval of the settlement is
subject to a court fairness hearing after notice to the
policyholders covered by the settlement, as well as other
conditions.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company for a group of insurance companies operating
throughout the United States that develop, market and administer
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  CNO became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in
connection with the entity's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries include Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington
National Insurance Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Company.


CNO FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Burnett" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on a motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit against its subsidiary,
according to the Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

On October 25, 2012, a purported nationwide class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, William Jeffrey Burnett and Joe H. Camp v. Conseco
Life Insurance Company, CNO Financial Group, Inc., CDOC, Inc. and
CNO Services, LLC, Case No. EDCV12-01715VAPSPX.  The plaintiffs
bring this action under Rule 23(B)(3) on behalf of various
Lifetrend policyholders who since October 2008 have surrendered
their policies or had them lapse.  Such policyholders are no
longer members of the class covered by the "Lifetrend" MDL
litigation after the court in the MDL litigation granted Conseco
Life's motion to decertify as to former policyholders.
Additionally, plaintiffs seek certification of a subclass of
various Lifetrend policyholders who accepted optional benefits and
signed a release pursuant to the regulatory settlement agreement
under the caption entitled "Regulatory Examinations and Fines."
The plaintiffs allege breach of contract and seek declaratory
relief, compensatory damages, attorney fees and costs.  On
November 30, 2012, Conseco Life and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.

The Company believes this case is without merit and intends to
defend it vigorously.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company for a group of insurance companies operating
throughout the United States that develop, market and administer
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  CNO became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in
connection with the entity's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries include Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington
National Insurance Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Company.


CNO FINANCIAL: Fla. Court Takes "Ruderman" Suit Under Advisement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida Supreme Court took under advisement the matter in the
lawsuit brought by Sydelle Ruderman, according to CNO Financial
Group, Inc.'s February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On December 8, 2008, a purported Florida state class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Sydelle Ruderman individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Washington National Insurance Company, Case
No. 08-23401-CIV-Cohn/Selzer.  The plaintiff alleges that the
inflation escalation rider on her policy of long-term care
insurance operates to increase the policy's lifetime maximum
benefit, and that Washington National Insurance Company breached
the contract by stopping her benefits when they reached the
lifetime maximum.  The Company takes the position that the
inflation escalator only affects the per day maximum benefit.
Additional parties have asked the court to allow them to intervene
in the action, and on January 5, 2010, the court granted the
motion to intervene and granted the plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  The court certified a (B) (3) Florida state class
alleging damages and a (B) (2) Florida state class alleging
injunctive relief.  The parties reached a settlement of the (B)
(3) class in 2010, which has been implemented.  The amount
recognized in 2010 related to the settlement was not significant
to the Company's consolidated financial condition, cash flows or
results of operations.  The plaintiff filed a motion for summary
judgment as to the (B) (2) class which was granted by the court on
September 8, 2010.  The Company has appealed the court's decision
and the appeal is pending.  On February 17, 2012, the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals referred the case to the Florida Supreme
Court, which accepted jurisdiction of the case.  On December 5,
2012, the Florida Supreme Court held oral argument and took the
matter under advisement.

The Company believes this case is without merit and intends to
defend it vigorously.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company for a group of insurance companies operating
throughout the United States that develop, market and administer
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  CNO became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in
connection with the entity's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries include Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington
National Insurance Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Company.


CNO FINANCIAL: Still Awaits Order on Judgment Bid in "Rowe" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on
its subsidiary's motion for summary judgment in the class action
lawsuit initiated by Samuel Rowe and Estella Rowe in Illinois,
according to the Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

On January 26, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Samuel Rowe and Estella Rowe, individually and on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bankers Life &
Casualty Company and Bankers Life Insurance Company of Illinois,
Case No. 09CV491.  The plaintiffs are alleging violation of
California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq.
and 17500 et seq., breach of common law fiduciary duty, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violation of
California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15600 on behalf
of the proposed national class and seek injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney fees.  The
plaintiffs allege that the defendants used an improper and
misleading sales and marketing approach to seniors that fails to
disclose all facts, misuses consumers' confidential financial
information, uses misleading sales and marketing materials,
promotes deferred annuities that are fundamentally inferior and
less valuable than readily available alternative investment
products and fails to adequately disclose other principal risks
including maturity dates, surrender penalties and other
restrictions which limit access to annuity proceeds to a date
beyond the applicant's actuarial life expectancy.  Plaintiffs have
amended their complaint attempting to convert this from a
California only class action to a national class action.  In
addition, the amended complaint adds causes of action under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"); aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and for unjust enrichment.
On September 13, 2010, the court dismissed the plaintiff's RICO
claims.  On October 25, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint re-alleging their RICO claims.

On March 29, 2012, the court denied plaintiff's motion for
certification of a nationwide class and denied plaintiff's motion
for certification of a California class.  The court allowed the
plaintiff the opportunity to file a renewed motion for a
California class, which the plaintiff did on May 21, 2012.  On
July 24, 2012, Bankers Life filed a motion for summary judgment.

The Company believes this case is without merit and intends to
defend it vigorously.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company for a group of insurance companies operating
throughout the United States that develop, market and administer
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  CNO became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in
connection with the entity's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries include Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington
National Insurance Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Company.


CNO FINANCIAL: Trial in "Glick" Suit to Commence December 2
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trial of the purported class action lawsuit filed by Fay Glick has
been set for December 2, 2013, according to CNO Financial Group,
Inc.'s February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On August 23, 2012, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Boston), Fay Glick, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. Bankers Life & Casualty Company, Case No. 1:12-cv-
11579.  The plaintiff is seeking injunctive and declaratory relief
and damages arising from Bankers' alleged systematic business
practices of delaying and/or denying the payment of claims for
benefits provided for under its healthcare insurance policies and
recovery of undisclosed interest that Bankers has charged on any
policyholders who paid premiums on a monthly or "modal" basis (as
opposed to paying premiums on an annual basis).  On January 30,
2013, the court dismissed the modal premium related claims.  Trial
of the purported class claims has been set for December 2, 2013.

The Company believes this case is without merit and intends to
defend it vigorously.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company for a group of insurance companies operating
throughout the United States that develop, market and administer
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  CNO became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in
connection with the entity's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries include Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington
National Insurance Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Company.


CNO FINANCIAL: Trial in Lifetrend MDL to Begin March 25
-------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the Lifetrend multidistrict litigation has been set for
March 25, 2013, according to CNO Financial Group, Inc.'s
February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

                           Brady Case

On December 24, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Cedric Brady, et. al. individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Conseco, Inc. and Conseco Life Insurance
Company Case No. 3:08-cv-05746.  The plaintiffs allege that
Conseco Life and Conseco, Inc. committed breach of contract and
insurance bad faith and violated various consumer protection
statutes in the administration of various interest sensitive whole
life products sold primarily under the name "Lifetrend" by
requiring the payment of additional cash amounts to maintain the
policies in force and by making changes to certain non-guaranteed
elements ("NGEs") in their policies.  On April 23, 2009, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding the additional counts
of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
conversion and declaratory relief.  On May 29, 2009, Conseco, Inc.
and Conseco Life filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On July 29, 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part the
motion to dismiss.  The court dismissed the allegations that
Conseco Life violated various consumer protection statutes, the
breach of fiduciary duty count, and dismissed Conseco, Inc. for
lack of personal jurisdiction.

                         McFarland Case

On July 2, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Bill W.
McFarland, and all those similarly situated v. Conseco Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 3:09-cv-598-J-32MCR.  The plaintiff
alleges that Conseco Life committed breach of contract and has
been unjustly enriched in the administration, including changes to
certain NGEs, of various interest sensitive whole life products
sold primarily under the name "Lifetrend."  The plaintiff seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive
damages and attorney fees.

Conseco Life filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL"), seeking the establishment of an
MDL proceeding consolidating the Brady case and the McFarland case
into a single action.  On February 3, 2010, the Judicial Panel on
MDL ordered these cases be consolidated for pretrial proceedings
in the Northern District of California Federal Court.  On July 7,
2010, plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification
of a nationwide class and a California state class.  On October 6,
2010, the court granted the motion for certification of a
nationwide class and denied the motion for certification of a
California state class.  Conseco Life filed a motion to decertify
the nationwide class on July 1, 2011.  On December 20, 2011, the
court issued an order denying Conseco Life's motion to decertify
the class as to current policyholders, but granted the motion to
decertify as to former policyholders.  On March 5, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requesting
that the court enjoin Conseco Life from imposing increased cost of
insurance charges until trial with regard to 157 members of the
class, and on July 17, 2012, the court granted a preliminary
injunction as to 100 members of the class and denied the
plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction as to the other 57
members.  Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
summary judgment on their breach of contract claim, Conseco Life
filed a motion to decertify the nationwide class, and Conseco Life
filed a motion for summary judgment.  On January 29, 2013, the
court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for
partial summary judgment and denied Conseco Life's motions.

Trial in the MDL proceeding has been set for March 25, 2013.  The
Company believes these cases are without merit and intends to
defend them vigorously.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company for a group of insurance companies operating
throughout the United States that develop, market and administer
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  CNO became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in
connection with the entity's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries include Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington
National Insurance Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Company.


CSX CORP: Appeal From Class Cert. Order in Antitrust Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant railroads' petition for permission to appeal a class
certification decision remains pending, according to CSX
Corporation's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 28, 2012.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSX
Transportation, Inc. ("CSXT") and three other U.S.-based Class I
railroads alleging that the defendants' fuel surcharge practices
relating to contract and unregulated traffic resulted from an
illegal conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws.  In November
2007, the class action lawsuits were consolidated and are now
pending in federal court in the District of Columbia.  The lawsuit
seeks treble damages allegedly sustained by purported class
members as well as attorneys' fees and other relief.  Plaintiffs
are expected to allege damages at least equal to the fuel
surcharges at issue.

On June 21, 2012, the court certified the case as a class action.
The decision was not a ruling on the merits of plaintiffs' claims,
rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to seek to prove the
case as a class.  The defendant railroads petitioned the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for permission to appeal the
District Court's class certification decision.  On August 28,
2012, the Court of Appeals referred the petition to a merits
panel, and directed that the parties to the case submit briefs
addressing both the petition and the merits of the appeal.  The
District Court stayed dissemination of notice to members of the
class certified pending the outcome of the appeal.

CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at
and applied lawfully and that the case is without merit.
Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously.
However, penalties for violating antitrust laws can be severe, and
an unexpected adverse decision on the merits could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity in that particular period or for the full
year.

CSX Corporation, based in Jacksonville, Florida, is a leading
transportation company providing rail, intermodal and rail-to-
truck transload services.  The Company's transportation network
spans approximately 21,000 miles with service to 23 eastern states
and the District of Columbia, and connects to more than 70 ocean,
river and lake ports.


ELI LILLY: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Over Cymbalta
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Heller, writing for Law360.com, reports that a California
judge last week Monday denied a bid by Eli Lilly & Co. to escape a
proposed class action alleging inadequate labeling of the
antidepressant Cymbalta, saying he could not decide at this stage
of the litigation whether the company properly warned doctors of
the drug's risks.


EXPEDIA INC: Certification Ruling in Magill Suit Examined
---------------------------------------------------------
Kirk M. Baert, a partner at Koskie Minsky LLP in Toronto, wrote in
his column at Canadian Lawyer Magazine about numerousity and
social utility in class actions:

This month, Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Perell certified a
class proceeding on behalf of customers of the expedia.ca web site
alleging that Expedia Inc. wrongfully charged service fees for
which it was not entitled. Perell's reasons emphasized the
procedural nature of the certification motion which is designed to
ensure an action conforms to the requirements set out in the Class
Proceedings Act. This motion is not a forum to debate the merits
or the utility of the action, and the certification judge's role
as gatekeeper is limited to a juridical exercise in screening
claims that are not appropriate for class action treatment.

In Magill v. Expedia, the representative plaintiff Tim Magill
brought an action against Expedia Inc. and Expedia Canada Corp. on
behalf of 1.5 million Canadian customers who annually book hotel
rooms on the expedia.ca website. Magill alleged the defendants
collected hidden profits subsumed under the title of service fees
in addition to excessive taxes.

In resisting certification of the proposed class proceeding,
Expedia argued Magill failed to satisfy the identifiable class
criterion of the Class Proceedings Act. In order to certify a
class proceeding, s. 5(1)(b) of the act requires the existence of
an identifiable class of two or more persons that would be
represented by the representative plaintiff.

The defendants argued the identifiable class requirement should be
used as a gatekeeper mechanism to filter out class actions that
provide no social utility.

Since Magill did not file evidence from anyone other than himself
seeking to assert a claim, argued the defendants, there appeared
to be too few putative class members interested in achieving
access to justice or the behaviour modification of the defendants.
As the gatekeeper, the defendants urged the judge to deny
certification because the class proceeding lacked social utility.

Perell rejected the notion that numerousity could be used as a
proxy for social utility. For example, where class members have
very small claims, class members may be indifferent, which might
be reflected by a dearth of evidence from other class members.
Nevertheless, behaviour modification will remain a strong
rationale for a class action.

Perell also rejected the defendants' submission that social
utility should play a role at the certification stage. It is
improper for a certification judge to engage in an exercise of
weighing utility in order to filter out class actions that fall
below a certain utility threshold. As Perell stated, social
utility is not a juristic element and is more a matter of policy
or political debate.

In addition, measuring social utility would be difficult and would
be inconsistent with the design of the certification criteria,
which are not for probing the social utility of any particular
class proceeding any more than they are to probe the merits of the
proposed class action. Although the certification motion is an
important screening mechanism to protect defendants from being
unjustifiably embroiled in complex and costly litigation, it may
do so only by weeding out claims that are not appropriate for
class actions. This careful screening process highlights the
gatekeeping role of the court to ensure a claim meets the
technical and procedural elements of certification.

It was never intended that judges take a "holistic approach" that
would measure whether a "good" class action should be certified or
whether a "bad" class action would not service the purposes of the
class proceedings legislation and should not be certified. Nor was
it ever intended that judges look at the proposed case to see if
enough people have complained about the issue to make a class
action worthwhile.

The certification test contains the tools judges need to weed out
cases that are not suitable for class action treatment. They do
not need to resort to or invent other tools, especially at the
request of defense counsel.

This characterization of the certification test is in the best
interests of both the plaintiff and the defendant, as it will
result in lower costs to the parties as well as the expeditious
resolution of this stage of the proceedings, which is what the
drafters intended.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: "Alameda" Suit Remains Stayed in California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed by Alameda Drug Company, Inc., et
al., remains stayed, according to Express Scripts Holding
Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit, captioned Alameda Drug Company,
Inc., et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. (Case No.
CGC-04-428109, Superior Court of San Francisco, California) (filed
January 20, 2004), against Medco and Merck & Co., Inc. seeking
certification of a class of all California pharmacies that
contracted with Medco and that indirectly purchased prescription
drugs from Merck.  Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
since at least the expiration of a 1995 consent injunction entered
by the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Medco failed to maintain an Open Formulary (as defined
in the consent injunction), and that Medco and Merck failed to
prevent nonpublic information received from competitors of Medco
and Merck from being disclosed to each other.  Plaintiffs further
claim that, as a result of these alleged practices, Medco
increased its market share and artificially reduced the level of
reimbursement to the retail pharmacy class members and that the
prices of prescription drugs from Merck and other pharmaceutical
manufacturers that do business with Medco were fixed above
competitive levels.  Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of
California antitrust law and California law prohibiting unfair
business practices and assert that Medco acted as a purchasing
agent for its plan sponsor customers in order to suppress
competition.  Plaintiffs demand, among other things, compensatory
damages, restitution, disgorgement of unlawfully obtained profits
and injunctive relief.  This case has been stayed pending a ruling
on the class certification issues pending before the court in the
consolidated action, In re: PBM Antitrust Litigation.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Awaits Cal. High Court Ruling in "Beeman" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company said in its February 19, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012, that it awaits a ruling from
the California Supreme Court in the lawsuit titled Jerry Beeman,
et al. v. Caremark, et al.

On December 12, 2002, a complaint, captioned Jerry Beeman, et al.
v. Caremark, et al. (Case No.021327, United States District Court
for the Central District of California), was filed against Express
Scripts, Inc. ("ESI") and NextRX LLC f/k/a Anthem Prescription
Management LLC and several other pharmacy benefit management
companies.  The complaint, filed by several California pharmacies
as a putative class action, alleges rights to sue as a private
attorney general under California law.  The complaint alleges that
ESI and the other defendants failed to comply with statutory
obligations under California Civil Code Section 2527 to provide
California clients with the results of a bi-annual survey of
retail drug prices.  On July 12, 2004, the case was dismissed with
prejudice on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to
bring the action.  On June 2, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's opinion on
standing and remanded the case to the district court.  The
district court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss on first
amendment constitutionality grounds is currently on appeal to the
Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification, but that
motion has not been briefed pending the outcome of the appeal.  On
July 19, 2011, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
denial of defendants' motion to dismiss.  On August 16, 2011, ESI
filed a petition for rehearing en banc requesting the Ninth
Circuit reconsider its ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss,
which was granted on October 31, 2011.  On June 6, 2012, an en
banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision
certifying the question of constitutionality of California Civil
Code Section 2527 to the California Supreme Court, requesting the
Supreme Court of California to consider the issue and make a
ruling.  On July 18, 2012, the California Supreme Court granted
the certification request.  The Company awaits a ruling by the
state's highest court.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: No Ruling on Summary Judgment Bids in ERISA MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company is awaiting court decisions on
motions for summary judgment in the multidistrict litigation
alleging violations of the Federal Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, according to the Company's February 19, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

On April 29, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
transferred a number of previously disclosed cases to the Eastern
District of Missouri for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings, including the following remaining cases: Lynch v.
National Prescription Administrators, et al. (Case No. 03 CV 1303,
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York) (filed February 26, 2003); Wagner et al. v. Express Scripts
(Case No.04cv01018 (WHP), United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York) (filed December 31, 2003);
Scheuerman, et al v. Express Scripts (Case No.04-CV-0626 (FIS)
(RFT), United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York) (filed April 27, 2004); Correction Officers' Benevolent
Association of the City of New York, et al. v. Express Scripts,
Inc. (Case No.04-Civ-7098 (WHP), United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York) (filed August 5, 2004); 1978
Retired Construction Workers Benefit Plan (Nagle) v. Express
Scripts, Inc. (Civil Action No. 4:06-CV01156 for the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri) (filed August
1, 2006); Fulton Fish Market Welfare Fund (Circillo) v. Express
Scripts, Inc. (Civil Action No. 4:06-cv-01458 for United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri) (filed
October 3, 2006); Philadelphia Corporation for the Aging v.
Benecard Services, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 06CV2331 for the
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
(filed June 2, 2006); Local 153 Health Fund, et al. v. Express
Scripts Inc. and ESI Mail Pharmacy Service, Inc. (Case No.B05-
1004036, United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri) (filed May 27, 2005); and Brynien, et al. v. Express
Scripts, Inc. and ESI Mail Services, Inc. (Case No. 1:08-cv-323
(GLS/DRH), United States District Court for the Northern District
of New York) (filed February 18, 2008).

Under these cases, the plaintiffs assert that certain of the
business practices of Express Scripts, Inc. and its subsidiaries
("ESI"), including those relating to ESI's contracts with
pharmaceutical manufacturers for retrospective discounts on
pharmaceuticals and those related to ESI's retail pharmacy network
contracts, constitute violations of various legal obligations
including fiduciary duties under the Federal Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA), common law fiduciary duties, state
common law, state consumer protection statutes, breach of
contract, and deceptive trade practices. The putative classes
consist of both ERISA and non-ERISA health benefit plans as well
as beneficiaries.  The various complaints seek money damages and
injunctive relief.  On July 30, 2008, the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification of certain of the ERISA plans for which the
Company was the Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) was denied by the
Court in its entirety.  Additionally, ESI's motion for partial
summary judgment on the issue of the Company's ERISA fiduciary
status was granted in part in Minshew v. Express Scripts, Inc., et
al. (No. 4:02-cv-1503-HEA, United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri) (filed December 12, 2001), which was
subsequently dismissed on July 21, 2011.  The Court found that ESI
was not an ERISA fiduciary with respect to MAC (generic drug)
pricing, selecting the source for AWP (Average Wholesale Price)
pricing, establishing formularies and negotiating rebates, or
interest earned on rebates before the payment of the contracted
client share.  The Court, in partially granting plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment, found that ESI was an ERISA fiduciary only
with respect to the calculation of certain amounts due to clients
under a therapeutic substitution program that is no longer in
effect.  On December 18, 2009, ESI filed a motion for partial
summary judgment on the remaining ERISA claims and breach of
contract claims on the cases brought against ESI on behalf of
ERISA plans.

On February 16, 2010, in accordance with the schedule under the
case management order, plaintiffs in the Correction Officers and
Lynch matters filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that
National Prescription Administrators (NPA) was a fiduciary to the
plaintiffs and breached its fiduciary duty.  Plaintiffs also filed
a class certification motion on behalf of self-funded non-ERISA
plans residing in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania for which
NPA was the PBM and which used the NPASelect Formulary from
January 1, 1996, through April 13, 2002.  On July 2, 2010, ESI
filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to certain non-
ERISA claims being made in various cases.  On January 28, 2011,
NPA filed a cross motion for summary judgment seeking a ruling
that it was not a fiduciary under common law.  The Company is
awaiting the court's ruling on these pending motions.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Continues to Defend PBM Antitrust MDL vs. Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company continues to defend its subsidiary
against a lawsuit styled In re: PBM Antitrust Litigation (Civ. No.
2:06-MD-1782-JF, United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania), according to the Company's February 19,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In August 2003, Brady Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Medco Health
Solutions, Inc. (Civ. No. 2:03-4730, United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) was filed against Merck
& Co., Inc. ("Merck") and Medco.  Plaintiffs moved for class
certification to represent a national class of retail pharmacies
and allege that Medco conspired with, acted as the common agent
for, and used the combined bargaining power of plan sponsors to
restrain competition in the market for the dispensing and sale of
prescription drugs.  Plaintiffs allege that, through conspiracy,
Medco has engaged in various forms of anticompetitive conduct
including, among other things, setting artificially low pharmacy
reimbursement rates.  Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of
the Sherman Act and seek treble damages and injunctive relief.

North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Medco Health Solutions,
Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 2:06-MD-1782-JF, United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama), consolidated
with North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Express Scripts,
Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. CV-03-B-2696-NE, United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama) (filed
October 1, 2003).  This case purports to be a class action against
Express Scripts, Inc. ("ESI") and Medco on behalf of independent
pharmacies within the United States.  The complaint alleges that
certain of ESI's and Medco's business practices violate the
Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C Section1, et. seq.  Plaintiffs
seek unspecified monetary damages (including treble damages) and
injunctive relief.  Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
against ESI and Medco was granted on March 3, 2006.  ESI filed a
motion to decertify the class on January 16, 2007, which has been
fully briefed and argued.

The case remained dormant until April 19, 2011, when it was
reassigned to a new judge and the parties were ordered to submit
supplemental briefing on the issue of class certification.
Supplemental briefing was completed on August 26, 2011.  Oral
argument of all the class certification motions was heard on
January 26, 2012, and the court took ESI's motion under
submission.

Mike's Medical Center Pharmacy, et al. v. Medco Health Solutions,
Inc., et al. (Civ. No. 3:05-5108, United States District Court for
the Northern District of California) (filed December 9, 2005) was
filed against Medco and Merck.  Plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of all pharmacies and pharmacists that contracted with Medco
and California pharmacies that indirectly purchased prescription
drugs from Merck and make factual allegations similar to those in
the Alameda Drug Company action.  Plaintiffs assert claims for
violation of the Sherman Act, California antitrust law and
California law prohibiting unfair business practices.  Relief
demanded includes, among other things, treble damages,
restitution, disgorgement of unlawfully obtained profits and
injunctive relief.  The Brady Enterprises, North Jackson Pharmacy,
and Mike's Medical Center Pharmacy cases were transferred to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania before the Judicial Panel on
Multi-District Litigation on August 24, 2006.


FAIRFIELD GREENWICH: Judge Certifies Madoff Feed Fund Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Fairfield Greenwich Group investors who saw
their money funneled to now imprisoned Ponzi schemer Bernard
Madoff can proceed as a class, assuming they're not in 25
countries.

According to The Litigation Daily, the judge excluded investors in
25 countries, singling out nations ranging from France,
Switzerland, Israel, and China to the tiny islands of Picairn and
Tokelau.


FIFTH THIRD: Trial in Ohio Employment Labor Law Case Set for Nov.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports: What
appears to be a complicated Ohio Employment lawsuit is moving
forward with the granting of class certification status for
litigation initiated on behalf of Mortgage Loan Officers (MLOs)
employed in the state of Ohio and, specifically, by Fifth Third
Bank. The issue is overtime and exemption status.

According to various sources, MLOs were considered exempt from
overtime stemming from a ruling handed down in 2006 by the US
Department of Labor (DOL). Under those guidelines, banks and
financial institutions paid their MLOs on the basis of draw plus
commission, but no overtime would be paid.

In March 2010, the DOL reconsidered the issue and reversed its
2006 position, suddenly making MOLs eligible for overtime pay.
That reversal led the Mortgage Banker's Association (MBA) to sue
the Department of Labor, on January 12, 2011, over the DOL's
revised position, in view of the expected increase in labor costs
and an assumption of litigation by MLOs to pursue lost wages and
unpaid overtime.

To that end, a lawsuit seeking class-action status wasn't long in
coming, filed a month later on February 11, 2011. The complaint,
naming Fifth Third Bank as the defendant, was filed in the
Southern District of Ohio, making it a lawsuit involving Ohio
labor laws (Swigart v. Fifth Third Bank, No. 11-0088).

According to Class Action Law Monitor (1/31/13), Fifth Third Bank
recently moved to change its policy on MLO overtime to reflect its
MLOs as non-exempt in accordance with the revised position of the
DOL. According to the source, two former employees of Fifth Third
Bank who formerly worked as MLOs serve as the lead plaintiffs,
with the proposed class consisting of about 350 MLOs employed by
Fifth Third Bank in Ohio. Class participants are eligible if they
worked at Fifth Third as an MLO from
February 11, 2008 to January 3, 2011, according to the legal
firm representing the plaintiffs.

The original motion for class certification in the Ohio State
Employment lawsuit was granted December 28 of last year, with the
notice of the Court's order granting class certification formally
issued on January 24 of this year.

It has been reported that trial for the Ohio employment labor law
case is scheduled for November 2013.

Pundits have speculated that Fifth Third Bank is only the tip of
the iceberg, with an expectation for additional lawsuits as
plaintiffs seek back wages and unpaid overtime resulting from the
revised DOL position on Ohio employee rights and other employees
throughout the country.

Fifth Third Bank has branches in 12 states and employs upwards of
20,000 people across the country. However, the bank maintains
headquarters in Cincinnati. Ohio Employment attorneys are
observing the progress of this case.


HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Overdraft Fees Suit vs. Unit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
First Circuit Court of the state of Hawaii by a customer who
claimed that American Savings Bank, F.S.B., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of American Savings Holdings, Inc., had improperly
charged overdraft fees on debit card transactions.  ASHI is a
subsidiary of Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc.  The lawsuit is
still in its preliminary stage, thus, the probable outcome and
range of reasonably possible loss are not determinable at this
time.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 19,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. is the direct parent company of
Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.; American Savings Holdings, Inc.;
HEI Properties, Inc.; Hawaiian Electric Industries Capital Trust
II; Hawaiian Electric Industries Capital Trust III and The Old
Oahu Tug Service, Inc.


KENTUCKY FUEL: Faces Suit Over Failure to Notify COBRA Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that a
class action suit has been brought against Kentucky Fuel
Corporation after former employees claim it failed to timely
notify them of their eligibility for COBRA coverage.

Southern Coal Company and Anthem Blue Cross were also named as
defendants in the suit.

Lowell Dean, Juan Echegaray, Jimmy Goble, James Hall, Kenneth
Laws, Adam McClung, Marshall Martin, Jimmy Maynard Jr., Joshua
Meade, Wallace Meade Jr., Johnny Paige, Jimmy Payne, Jerry
Sheppard Jr. and Jeffrey Wolford were all employed by Kentucky
Fuel Corporation, according to a complaint filed Feb. 12 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

The plaintiffs claim prior to Jan. 14, 2012, Kentucky Fuel
employed between 50 and 60 people and the defendants provided a
group health benefit plan for its employees.

On Jan. 14, 2012, Kentucky Fuel involuntarily terminated more than
50 employees, many of whom participated in the group health
benefit plan, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim the defendants failed to notify the qualified
beneficiaries of their eligibility for COBRA coverage within the
statutorily required time periods.

The defendants were required to notify all qualified beneficiates
of the availability of COBRA insurance coverage within 45 days
after the date of termination, but failed to give timely notice,
according to the suit.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages, a statutory
penalty of $100 per day for each member of the class for the
maximum period of time allowed by law and pre- and post-judgment
interest. They are being represented by Rodney A. Smith and
Jonathan R. Marshall of Bailey & Glasser; Gregory B. Chiartas of
Freeman & Chiartas; and Todd S. Bailess and Joy B. Mega of Bailess
Law.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
case number: 2:13-cv-02485


LA FITNESS: Judge Refuses to Reconsider Dismissal of Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that a
federal judge has refused to reconsider the dismissal of a
putative class action complaint against LA Fitness that was filed
by gym members who claimed the healthcare club refused to honor
lifetime memberships that were issued by the defendant's
predecessor, Bally Total Fitness.

In a Feb. 21 memorandum and order, U.S. District Judge John R.
Padova, sitting in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, denied
the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of a Nov. 20 ruling by
the court that dismissed the class action litigation.

In their motion for reconsideration, the plaintiffs didn't argue
that the court misapprehended the facts or misapplied the law in
granting the defendants' motion to dismiss on procedural grounds,
Padova's ruling states, but rather the plaintiffs argued only that
permitting the dismissal order to stand would result in "manifest
justice because the Complaint asserts viable causes of action."

Padova, however, wrote that Rule 59 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure couldn't be used to raise arguments that could have been
raised prior to the entry of judgment.

Background information on the case shows that the plaintiffs
sought relief from the court's Nov. 20, 2012 dismissal order
because their attorney's failure to respond to the defendants'
motions was due to "inadvertence and excusable neglect."

The plaintiffs' counsel had stated that extenuating circumstances
was to blame for not timely responding to the defendants' motions
to dismiss, including the fact that he was out of the area
attending an attorneys' conference at the time, the judicial
memorandum shows.

Padova, however, determined that the plaintiffs' actions were
"inexcusably neglectful and not inadvertent."

The defendant's counsel, however, reached out to the plaintiffs'
counsel regarding the anticipated filing of motions to dismiss,
Padova wrote.

The plaintiffs' lawyer blamed the problems in part on his
"recently-hired and inadequately trained paralegal, in whom he had
vested sole responsibility for reviewing his emails during his two
week absence, during which the two Motions to Dismiss were filed,"
the memorandum states.

"Counsel exhibited seriously questionable judgment in giving such
important responsibility in connection with the recently re-
activated putative class action to an untested paralegal," Padova
wrote. "Even more egregious, however, was his subsequent failure
to review the docket at any point in the five week period after he
returned from Nevada, before we granted Defendants' Motions as
unopposed. We therefore find that the 'reason for the delay'
factor weighs strongly against any finding of excusable neglect or
inadvertence."

Padova went on to write that the plaintiffs' responses to Bally's
and LA Fitness's motions to dismiss were due on Oct. 18 and 22,
2012 respectively, and that the plaintiffs' attorney didn't file
his motion for reconsideration until Dec. 3 of that year.

The judge also found no significant prejudice to Bally's and LA
Fitness.

"We are, however, cognizant of the fact that Bally and LA Fitness
have diligently defended this action, in spite of Plaintiffs'
comparable inaction, and have now had to file extensive opposition
briefs to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration, a burden that
would have been unnecessary but for Plaintiffs' counsel's
neglect," Padova wrote. "Under these circumstances, the 'danger of
prejudice' factor does not appreciably favor or disfavor a finding
of excusable neglect."

Lastly, the judge found that the record evidence does not support
a finding of bad faith.

"We are nevertheless very disturbed by Plaintiffs' counsel's
deliberate inattention to the putative class action that he
initiated and over which he had stewardship," Padova wrote. "There
can be no question that counsel acted with a 'manifest lack of
diligence.'"

Furthermore, Padova wrote that even if plaintiffs' counsel was not
at fault, the court finds that the plaintiffs have identified no
"extraordinary circumstances" that would cause "extreme and
unexpected" hardship and would thus warrant relief from the
court's dismissal of the suit.

New Jersey attorney Mark S. Guralnick had filed suit on behalf of
the plaintiffs against LA Fitness early last year at the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

The litigation, which was initially reported on by the
Pennsylvania Record, was subsequently removed to federal court.

The complaint alleged that LA Fitness has refused to honor
lifetime memberships held by former Bally's members, and that the
membership transfer from Bally's to LA Fitness following the
purchase was in violation of the contracts Bally had signed with
many of its members.

The suit also alleged that Bally's refused to refund membership
fees to compensate members for the unusable portions of their
contracts.

The lead plaintiff in the case was West Philadelphia resident
Blaise Tobia. Forty-one co-plaintiffs were also named in the
litigation.

The suit sought class certification because it claimed that more
than 1,000 Bally's members from across the country were affected
by the gym's actions.


LORILLARD INC: Appeal in Indirect Purchaser Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of an indirect purchaser class action
lawsuit in Kansas remains pending, according to Lorillard, Inc.'s
February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

Approximately 30 antitrust lawsuits were filed in 2000 and 2001 on
behalf of putative classes of consumers in various state courts
against cigarette manufacturers.  The lawsuits all alleged that
the defendants entered into agreements to fix the wholesale prices
of cigarettes in violation of state antitrust laws which permit
indirect purchasers, such as retailers and consumers, to sue under
price fixing or consumer fraud statutes.  More than 20 states
permit such lawsuits.  The Company's principal operating
subsidiary, Lorillard Tobacco Company, was a defendant in all but
one of these indirect purchaser cases.  Lorillard, Inc. was not
named as a defendant in any of these cases.  Four indirect
purchaser lawsuits, in New York, Florida, New Mexico and Michigan,
thereafter were dismissed by courts in those states.  The actions
in all other states, except for Kansas, were either voluntarily
dismissed or dismissed by the courts.

In the Kansas case, the District Court of Seward County certified
a class of Kansas indirect purchasers in 2002.  In July 2006, the
Court issued an order confirming that fact discovery was closed,
with the exception of privilege issues that the Court determined,
based on a Special Master's report, justified further fact
discovery.  In October 2007, the Court denied all of the
defendants' privilege claims, and the Kansas Supreme Court
thereafter denied a petition seeking to overturn that ruling.  On
March 23, 2012, The District Court of Seward County granted the
defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the Kansas
lawsuit.  Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied.  On
July 18, 2012, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Court of
Appeals for the State of Kansas.

Lorillard, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of cigarettes.  Its principal products are
marketed under the brand names of Newport, Kent, True, Maverick
and Old Gold with substantially all of its sales in the United
States of America.  Lorillard recently acquired blu ecigs, the
leading electronic cigarette company in the U.S.  The Company is
based in Greensboro, North Carolina.


LORILLARD INC: Loews Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc.'s former parent is defending itself against three
class action lawsuits alleging product liability claims, according
to the Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

In connection with the separation of the Company from Loews
Corporation, Lorillard entered into a separation agreement with
Loews (the "Separation Agreement") and agreed to indemnify Loews
and its officers, directors, employees and agents against all
costs and expenses arising out of third party claims (including,
without limitation, attorneys' fees, interest, penalties and costs
of investigation or preparation for defense), judgments, fines,
losses, claims, damages, liabilities, taxes, demands, assessments
and amounts paid in settlement based on, arising out of or
resulting from, among other things, Loews's ownership of or the
operation of Lorillard and its assets and properties, and its
operation or conduct of its businesses at any time prior to or
following the Separation (including with respect to any product
liability claims).

Loews is a defendant in three pending product liability cases,
each of which are purported Class Action Cases.  Pursuant to the
Separation Agreement, Lorillard is required to indemnify Loews for
the amount of any losses and any legal or other fees with respect
to such cases.

Lorillard, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of cigarettes.  Its principal products are
marketed under the brand names of Newport, Kent, True, Maverick
and Old Gold with substantially all of its sales in the United
States of America.  Lorillard recently acquired blu ecigs, the
leading electronic cigarette company in the U.S.  The Company is
based in Greensboro, North Carolina.


LORILLARD INC: Settlement in "Scott" Suit Approved in December
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in the class action lawsuit styled Scott v. The
American Tobacco Company, et al., involving a subsidiary of
Lorillard, Inc., was approved in December 2012, according to the
Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In one Class Action Case against the Company's principal operating
subsidiary, Lorillard Tobacco Company, Scott v. The American
Tobacco Company, et al. (District Court, Orleans Parish,
Louisiana, filed May 24, 1996), a Louisiana jury awarded damages
to the certified class in 2004.  The jury's award was reduced on
two separate occasions in response to defendants' appeals, but
defendants exhausted their appeals and have paid the final
judgment.  In August 2011, Lorillard Tobacco paid approximately
$69.7 million, or one-fourth of the award, to satisfy its portion
of the final judgment and the interest that accrued while appeals
were pending.

In 1997, Scott was certified a class action on behalf of certain
cigarette smokers resident in the State of Louisiana who desire to
participate in medical monitoring or smoking cessation programs
and who began smoking prior to September 1, 1988, or who began
smoking prior to May 24, 1996, and allege that defendants
undermined compliance with the warnings on cigarette packages.

Counsel for the certified class had filed a motion for attorneys'
fees, for costs and expenses, and for an award to the class
representatives.  In May 2012, an agreement was reached among all
parties that released all claims against the defendants for
attorneys' fees and costs, and provided that class counsel would
seek a fee only from the fund awarded to the class.

In December 2012, the Court ratified and approved the agreement.

Lorillard, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of cigarettes.  Its principal products are
marketed under the brand names of Newport, Kent, True, Maverick
and Old Gold with substantially all of its sales in the United
States of America.  Lorillard recently acquired blu ecigs, the
leading electronic cigarette company in the U.S.  The Company is
based in Greensboro, North Carolina.


LORILLARD INC: Suits by Flight Attendant vs. Unit Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits brought by flight attendants against Lorillard,
Inc.'s subsidiary remain pending, according to the Company's
February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company's principal operating subsidiary, Lorillard Tobacco
Company, and three other cigarette manufacturers are the
defendants in each of the pending Flight Attendant Cases.
Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any of these cases.  These
lawsuits were filed as a result of a settlement agreement by the
parties, including Lorillard Tobacco, in Broin v. Philip Morris
Companies, Inc., et al. (Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County,
Florida, filed October 31, 1991), a class action brought on behalf
of flight attendants claiming injury as a result of exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke.  The settlement agreement, among
other things, permitted the plaintiff class members to file these
individual lawsuits.  These individuals may not seek punitive
damages for injuries that arose prior to January 15, 1997.  The
period for filing Flight Attendant Cases expired in 2000 and no
additional cases in this category may be filed.

The judges who have presided over the cases that have been tried
have relied upon an order entered in October 2000 by the Circuit
Court of Miami-Dade County, Florida.  The October 2000 order has
been construed by these judges as holding that the flight
attendants are not required to prove the substantive liability
elements of their claims for negligence, strict liability and
breach of implied warranty in order to recover damages.  The court
further ruled that the trials of these lawsuits are to address
whether the plaintiffs' alleged injuries were caused by their
exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and, if so, the amount of
damages to be awarded.

Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in each of the eight Flight
Attendant Cases in which verdicts have been returned.  Defendants
have prevailed in seven of the eight trials.  In one of the seven
cases in which a defense verdict was returned, the court granted
plaintiff's motion for a new trial and, following appeal, the case
has been returned to the trial court for a second trial.  The six
remaining cases in which defense verdicts were returned are
concluded.  In the single trial decided for the plaintiff, French
v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., the jury awarded $5.5
million in damages.  The court, however, reduced this award to
$500,000.  This verdict, as reduced by the trial court, was
affirmed on appeal and the defendants have paid the award.
Lorillard Tobacco's share of the judgment in this matter,
including interest, was approximately $60,000.

As of February 11, 2013, none of the Flight Attendant Cases were
scheduled for trial.  Trial dates are subject to change.

Lorillard, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of cigarettes.  Its principal products are
marketed under the brand names of Newport, Kent, True, Maverick
and Old Gold with substantially all of its sales in the United
States of America.  Lorillard recently acquired blu ecigs, the
leading electronic cigarette company in the U.S.  The Company is
based in Greensboro, North Carolina.


LORILLARD INC: Unit Continues to Defend Tobacco Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. continues to defend its subsidiary against a
tobacco-related antitrust case, according to the Company's
February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company's subsidiary, Lorillard Tobacco Company, is a
defendant in a tobacco-related antitrust case.  Lorillard, Inc. is
not a defendant in this case.  In 2000 and 2001, a number of cases
were brought against cigarette manufacturers, including Lorillard
Tobacco, alleging that defendants conspired to set the price of
cigarettes in violation of federal and state antitrust and unfair
business practices statutes.  Plaintiffs sought class
certification on behalf of persons who purchased cigarettes
directly or indirectly from one or more of the defendant cigarette
manufacturers.  All of the other cases have been either
successfully defended or voluntarily dismissed.

Lorillard, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of cigarettes.  Its principal products are
marketed under the brand names of Newport, Kent, True, Maverick
and Old Gold with substantially all of its sales in the United
States of America.  Lorillard recently acquired blu ecigs, the
leading electronic cigarette company in the U.S.  The Company is
based in Greensboro, North Carolina.


LORILLARD INC: Unit Defends Class Action Suits in West Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc.'s principal operating subsidiary is defending
class action lawsuits in West Virginia, according to the Company's
February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company's principal operating subsidiary, Lorillard Tobacco
Company, but not Lorillard Inc. is a defendant in the one pending
Class Action Case, in which plaintiffs seek class certification on
behalf of groups of cigarette smokers, or the estates of deceased
cigarette smokers, who reside in West Virginia.

Cigarette manufacturers, including Lorillard Tobacco, have
defeated motions for class certification in a number of cases.
Motions for class certification have also been ruled upon in some
of the "lights" cases or in other class actions to which neither
Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a party.  In some of
these cases, courts have denied class certification to the
plaintiffs, while classes have been certified in other matters.

Lorillard, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of cigarettes.  Its principal products are
marketed under the brand names of Newport, Kent, True, Maverick
and Old Gold with substantially all of its sales in the United
States of America.  Lorillard recently acquired blu ecigs, the
leading electronic cigarette company in the U.S.  The Company is
based in Greensboro, North Carolina.


MARYS LAKE LODGE: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Brimmer" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Philip A. Brimmer denied a motion to dismiss a
first amended class action complaint in GIUFFRE v. MARYS LAKE
LODGE, LLC.

Darren Giuffre was employed as a server in a restaurant operated
by Marys Lake Lodge, LLC and Ram's Horn Development Company, LLC
in Estes Park, Colorado, from August 18, 2008 to October 8, 2008
and from May 22, 2009 to February 14, 2010.  Mr. Giuffre filed the
action for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Colorado Wage Claim Act for failure to pay him sufficient
overtime pay.

The Defendants argue that Mr. Giuffre's claim is barred by the
FLSA's two-year statute of limitations; the economic loss doctrine
bars the FLSA claim; the breach of contract claim against Ram's
Horn is barred by the statute of limitations; and the claim under
the Colorado Wage Claim Act should be dismissed because the
Plaintiff failed to make a written demand for payment.

Judge Brimmer held that the Plaintiff's claim for violation of the
FLSA, as well as his breach of contract claim against Ram's Horn
are not time-barred.

The court said "the wording of plaintiff's request for relief does
not transform his FLSA claim into a tort claim subject to the
economic loss doctrine," so the Defendants' motion to dismiss on
this basis is denied.

Judge Brimmer further noted that the Plaintiff is not seeking
statutory penalties so his CWCA claim is not barred by his failure
to make a demand.

The case before Judge Brimmer is styled DARREN GIUFFRE, on behalf
of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. MARYS
LAKE LODGE, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company, and RAMS
HORN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, doing business as Marys Lake Lodge,
a Colorado Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Civil Action No.
11-cv-00028-PAB-KLM, Consolidated with Civil Action No. 12-cv-
00377-PAB, (D. Colo.).

A copy of the District Court's February 25, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/LvJlYHfrom Leagle.com.


MERCK & CO: Agrees to Settle Two Securities Suits for $688-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. has reached an agreement in principle with
plaintiffs to resolve for $688 million two federal securities
class action lawsuits related to the ENHANCE trial, according to
the Company's February 19, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

                        Company Statement

Merck, known as MSD outside the United States and Canada,
announced that it has reached an agreement in principle with
plaintiffs to resolve two federal securities class-action
lawsuits.  The lawsuits are pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey against Merck, Schering-Plough
Corporation and certain of their current and former officers and
directors.

Under the proposed agreement, which will have no impact on Merck's
2013 results of operations, the Company will pay $215 million to
resolve the securities class action against all of the Merck
defendants and $473 million to resolve the securities class action
against all of the Schering-Plough defendants.  In connection with
the settlement, Merck recorded a pre-tax and after-tax charge of
$493 million, which reflects anticipated insurance recoveries.
This charge reduced the company's previously reported fourth-
quarter 2012 GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) EPS
(earnings per share) results from $0.46 to $0.30 per share and
full-year 2012 GAAP results from $2.16 to $2.00 per share, but did
not change its previously reported non-GAAP results.

The plaintiffs are investors who purchased certain securities
issued by Merck and Schering-Plough between December 2006 and
March 2008 and claim that they lost money when the results of the
ENHANCE trial were published in early 2008.  Merck continues to
believe that both companies acted responsibly in connection with
the ENHANCE study, and this agreement contains no admission of
liability or wrongdoing.  The agreement is subject to court
approval.

"This agreement avoids the uncertainties of a jury trial and will
resolve all of the remaining litigation in connection with the
ENHANCE study," said Bruce N. Kuhlik, executive vice president and
general counsel of Merck.  "We believe it is in the best interests
of the company and its shareholders to put this matter behind us,
and to continue our focus on scientific innovations that improve
health worldwide."

Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh is presiding over the cases.  Merck is
represented by Theodore V. Wells, Jr. and Daniel J. Kramer of
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

                           About Merck

Today's Merck is a global healthcare leader working to help the
world be well.  Merck is known as MSD outside the United States
and Canada.  Through the Company's prescription medicines,
vaccines, biologic therapies, and consumer care and animal health
products, the Company works with customers and operates in more
than 140 countries to deliver innovative health solutions.  The
Company also demonstrates its commitment to increasing access to
healthcare through far-reaching policies, programs and
partnerships.  For more information, visit http://www.merck.com/
and connect with the Company on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.


OMNICARE INC: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky, and were consolidated and entitled
Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension &
Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv26.  The amended
consolidated complaint was filed against Omnicare, Inc., three of
its officers and two of its directors and purported to be brought
on behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock
from August 3, 2005, through July 27, 2006, as well as all
purchasers who bought their shares in the Company's public
offering in December 2005.  The complaint contained claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(and Rule 10b-5) and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
sought, among other things, compensatory damages and injunctive
relief. Plaintiffs alleged that Omnicare (i) artificially inflated
its earnings (and failed to file GAAP-compliant financial
statements) by engaging in improper generic drug substitution,
improper revenue recognition and overvaluation of receivables and
inventories; (ii) failed to timely disclose its contractual
dispute with UnitedHealth Group Inc.; (iii) failed to timely
record certain special litigation reserves; and (iv) made other
allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company's
business, prospects and compliance with applicable laws and
regulations.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 12, 2007, and on October 12, 2007, the court dismissed the
case.  On November 9, 2007, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  On
October 21, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals generally
affirmed the district court's dismissal, dismissing plaintiff's
claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  However, the appellate court
reversed the dismissal for the claim brought for violation of
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and returned the case to
the district court for further proceedings.  On July 14, 2011, the
court granted plaintiffs' motion to file a third amended
complaint.  This complaint asserts a claim under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all purchasers of Omnicare
common stock in the December 2005 public offering.  The new
complaint alleges that the 2005 registration statement contained
false and misleading statements regarding Omnicare's policy of
compliance with all applicable laws and regulations with
particular emphasis on allegations of violation of the federal
anti-kickback law in connection with three of Omnicare's
acquisitions, Omnicare's contracts with two of its suppliers and
its provision of pharmacist consultant services.  On August 19,
2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' most
recent complaint and on February 13, 2012, the court dismissed the
case and struck the case from the docket.

On March 12, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 19,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.


OMNICARE INC: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Kentucky Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Omnicare, Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a consolidated securities lawsuit pending in Kentucky,
according to the Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

On August 24, 2011, a class action complaint entitled Ansfield v.
Omnicare, Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of
all purchasers of the Company's common stock from January 10,
2007, through August 5, 2010, against the Company and certain of
its current and former officers in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, alleging violations of
federal securities law in connection with alleged false and
misleading statements with respect to the Company's compliance
with federal and state Medicare and Medicaid laws and regulations.
On October 21, 2011, a class action complaint entitled
Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund v. Omnicare, Inc. et al.
was filed on behalf of the same putative class of purchasers as is
referenced in the Ansfield complaint, against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.  Plaintiffs allege
substantially the same violations of federal securities law as are
alleged in the Ansfield complaint.  Both complaints seek
unspecified money damages.  The Court has appointed lead counsel
and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on May 11, 2012.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on July 16, 2012.

The Company believes that the claims asserted are without merit
and intends to defend against them vigorously.


PHILADELPHIA PARKING: Seeks to Remove Class Suit to Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that
nearly a month after a Philadelphia woman filed a class action
lawsuit against the Philadelphia Parking Authority in state court,
lawyers representing the enforcement agency have petitioned the
U.S. District Court to transfer the case to the federal venue.

Attorneys Dennis G. Weldon, Jr. and Bryan L. Heulitt, Jr., who
represent the PPA, filed a Notice of Removal on Feb. 21 in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, saying that the litigation
initiated back on Jan. 29 by city resident Angela Parsons should
play out in federal court.

In her complaint, which seeks class certification, Parsons claims
that the PPA charged motorists for street parking in Philadelphia
on days when the meters were supposed to be free.

The lawsuit, which was filed by Philadelphia lawyer Edward S.
Mazurek, alleges that on days when parking was supposed to have
been free, the PPA "nevertheless collected and retained parking
fees from the Class Members through parking meters and meter
kiosks for such street parking by failing and refusing to
deactivate the meters and meter kiosks, or otherwise program them
so that they did not accept payments, and by failing and refusing
to post adequate notices on meters and meter kiosks that parking
was free."

The PPA's actions, the suit claims, violated the class members'
equal protection and due process of law guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The agency's policies have also resulted in unjust enrichment of
the PPA by the class members under Pennsylvania common law, the
complaint alleges.

In the removal notice, the PPA's attorneys wrote that the U.S.
District Court has jurisdiction over the case because it contains
allegations of federal civil rights violations in addition to the
state law claims.

As for lead plaintiff Parsons, she claims in her civil action that
she paid for metered parking in Philadelphia on Saturdays between
Nov. 24 and Dec. 29 of last year when parking was supposed to have
been free of charge.

There were no signs indicating that parking was free at the time,
the suit alleges, and meter kiosks were turned on and able to
accept payment for parking when no payment was required because of
the city's offering of free parking during certain times
throughout the week.

"The PPA, in adopting and implementing the policies and practices
alleged in this Complaint, have caused the constitutional
violations to the Named Plaintiff and Class Members and has been
unjustly enriched by the Named Plaintiff and Class Members," the
complaint reads.

In addition to seeking class certification, the lawsuit seeks
restitution of any and all payments made by the class members to
the PPA for metered parking in the city when and where parking was
free of charge, as well as unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, declaratory relief that the PPA violated the plaintiffs'
rights, and a permanent injunction prohibiting the PPA from
accepting payments made for metered parking when parking is
supposed to be free.

The complaint also seeks attorney's fees and costs.

The state court case ID number is 130103419.

The federal case number is 2:13-cv-00955-TON.


POSEIDON CONCEPTS: Faces Securities Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, disclosed that a class action
suit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Poseidon Concepts Corp. ("Poseidon Concepts" or the
"Company") (OTC: POOSF) during the period from May 9, 2012 to
February 14, 2013, inclusive (the "Class Period")

The lawsuit alleges that, among other things, Poseidon Concepts
made statements that were materially false and misleading
regarding Poseidon Concepts' financial position, financial
performance and cash flows, overstated the company's incomes and
reported inflated assets.  On February 14, 2013, Poseidon
announced that it would restate results for the first three
quarters of 2012. Poseidon stated that up to $106-million of its
$148.1 million of revenue for the nine months ended Sept. 30
should not have been recorded.  Approximately $94 million to
$102 million of its $125.5 million accounts receivable as of
September 30, 2012 should not have been recorded in its financial
statements as accounts receivable. Poseidon also stated that its
forecast for 2012 should no longer be relied on. This adverse news
caused the price of Poseidon stock to drop, causing investors
losses.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wish
to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have
any questions, please contact either Peretz Bronstein or Eitan
Kimelman of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484.
Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number. April 24, 2013 is the
deadline for investors to seek a lead plaintiff appointment.


TOLL BROS: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Home Buyers' Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed on
February 26, 2013, a district court ruling denying a motion to
dismiss or stay a class action lawsuit filed by prospective luxury
home buyers against real estate development company Toll Bros.,
Inc., and several of its subsidiaries.

In this putative class action, Plaintiffs-Appellees Mehdi Noohi
and Soheyla Bolouri allege that Toll Bros. unlawfully refused to
return deposits when they could not obtain mortgage financing.

The Plaintiffs contracted with a subsidiary of Toll Bros., Inc.,
for the construction of a luxury home in Maryland. The Agreement
of Sale required that the Plaintiffs seek approval of a mortgage,
and included an arbitration provision. Though the Plaintiffs
received a "Mortgage Loan Commitment" letter from at least one
lender that was later rescinded, and though several other of their
mortgage applications were all denied, Toll Brothers sought to
keep $77,008 in the Plaintiffs' deposits.

The Plaintiffs sued Toll Brothers individually and on behalf of a
class of other prospective buyers who allegedly lost deposits to
Toll Brothers in a similar manner.  The district court denied Toll
Brothers' motion to dismiss or stay the suit pending arbitration,
finding that the Agreement's arbitration provision lacked
mutuality of consideration under Maryland law because it required
only the buyer -- but not the seller -- to submit disputes to
arbitration.  Toll Brothers appealed.

The Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court correctly
held that the arbitration provision was unenforceable for lack of
mutual consideration under Maryland law.  Therefore, the judgment
of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Counsel for the Appellants:

          Quincy Montgomery Crawford, III, Esq.
          James D. Mathias, Esq.
          DLA PIPER US LLP
          Baltimore, MD

Counsel for Appellees:

          Tillman Finley, Esq.
          Daniel Marino, Esq.
          MARINO LAW PLLC
          Washington, D.C.
          E-mail: tfinley@marinolawpllc.com
                  dmarino@marinolawpllc.com

The case before the Fourth Circuit is MEHDI NOOHI, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated; SOHEYLA BOLOURI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TOLL BROS., INC., for itself and all
others similarly situated; TOLL LAND CORP. NO. 43, for itself and
all others similarly situated; TOLL MD V LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, for
itself and all others similarly situated, Defendants-Appellants,
No. 12-1261 (4th Cir.).  A copy of the Appeals Court's February
21, 2013 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/B1s8b1from
Leagle.com.


TRANSVAGINAL MESH: Law Firm Expands Canadian Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Merchant Law Group LLP is expanding Canadian class action
litigation regarding Transvaginal Mesh Products.

"[On February 25, 2013], a USA victim was awarded US$3.35 million
for the individual pain and suffering she endured due to a
Transvaginal Mesh implant.  This very significant Court Judgment
awarded to Ms. Gross is a clear demonstration that compensation is
due to women throughout Canada and the United States who have been
victimized by defective Transvaginal Mesh implants." said Tony
Merchant, Q.C., a leading Canadian class action lawyer.

Thousands of Canadian women have suffered due to defective
Transvaginal Mesh implants. Health Canada first licensed these
products for sale and use in Canada on August 19, 1998.
Complications arising from the mesh implants include but are not
limited to: erosion in the vagina and urethra, pain, infection,
perforations, including perforations in the bowel and bladder,
pain during sexual intercourse, injuries to adjacent organs and
blood vessels.  In some cases, multiple surgical procedures to
remove the mesh are necessary.

Merchant Law Group has launched class action lawsuits in various
provinces on behalf of all Canadian women who have been injured by
defective Transvaginal Mesh implants.

A copy of the Ontario class action can be viewed at
http://www.merchantlaw.com/johnson.pdfas an example of the
lawsuits being prosecuted regarding defective Transvaginal Mesh
implants.  Other class action lawsuits launched before the
Canadian courts by Merchant Law Group have included the following
Vaginal Mesh Defendants: American Medical Systems Inc., AMS Canada
Inc., Boston Scientific Corporation, Coloplast A/S, Coloplast
Canada, C.R. Bard, Inc., Bard Canada Inc., Johnson & Johnson,
Ethicon Inc., Ethicon Women's Health and Urology, Gynecare Inc.,
Ethicon SARL, Johnson & Johnson Inc., and Mentor Corporation.

Anyone seeking more information or who believes they may be
eligible to participate in the Vaginal Mesh class actions should
provide their contact information online at
http://www.merchantlaw.com/classactions/vaginalmesh.phpor call
the law firm at 1-888-567-7777 for further information.

Merchant Law Group LLP, a Canadian class action firm, has offices
in 12 cities across Canada, from Montreal to Victoria.


VODAFONE AUSTRALIA: Law Firm to File Class Action Within 3 Months
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Boxsell and James Hutchinson, writing for The Australian
Financial Review, report that a long-mooted class action against
Vodafone Australia by disgruntled customers is finally about to
start.

Law firm Piper Alderman is going ahead with the class action.

It intends to file the suit within the next three months, based on
expressions of interest from more than 23,000 customers over the
past two years.

The suit follows significant network issues at the mobile carrier
during late 2010 and early 2011. Customers claimed ongoing network
disruptions, call drop-outs and inconsistent or over-billing
associated with some services.

The company has reported losing almost 830,000 subscribers and
more than $600 million in revenue since late 2010.

Piper Alderman had encouraged Vodafone or 3 Mobile customers to
fill in an online survey if they had experienced calls that had
dropped out, or had experienced poor reception or data
performance.

A spokeswoman for Vodafone said it was "aware that a law firm
which is known for promoting class actions" planned to make an
announcement.

"That firm has not contacted Vodafone directly about this nor has
it sought to discuss the claims of any customers it represents in
the class action with Vodafone," she said.

"Vodafone has not been provided with any details of the class
action at this stage and is therefore not able to comment on the
claims which might be made."

Piper Alderman spent most of 2011 trying to get the claim off the
ground but things stalled when it could not obtain funding, which
is typically provided by a third-party company to help finance
expensive class-action litigation. Tuesday's announcement will be
supported by LCM Litigation Fund.

The carrier has pledged to invest billions in its network but the
Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman recorded almost 40,000
complaints against Vodafone during the 2012 financial year.

The online survey said Vodafone had "continued to charge customers
on its mobile plans without providing the service it promised".

"Customers who signed up with Vodafone over the last three years
may be entitled to compensation if they were misled into signing
contracts or if Vodafone did not live up to its end of the
bargain," it said.

Adam Brimo, a self-proclaimed "consumer activist" who started the
Vodafail website in late 2010 that sparked a consumer move against
the mobile carrier, said a lot of customers who had registered
their interest at the time would have likely had their issues
solved.

"If people weren't getting reception or calls were dropping out,
or they were being overcharged, a lot of those things should have
been solved pretty quickly; you wouldn't expect to need to go to
court to get basic phone coverage," he said.

Mr. Brimo initially started the website as a way of getting out of
his contract with Vodafone, but the site became a focal point for
much of the consumer reaction to network and billing issues at the
time.

"I guess a lot of those issues probably affected their businesses
and work," Mr. Brimo said. "When that happens people are always
looking to be compensated one way or another. But I think the
majority of people, at least from what we've seen with Vodafone
losing a lot of customers, have just spoken with their feet and
gone somewhere else."


VODAFONE AUSTRALIA: ACCAN Says Class Suit "Bad Idea"
----------------------------------------------------
Josh Taylor, writing for ZDNet, reports that the 23,000 Vodafone
customers who registered interest in a class-action suit against
the company over its 3G network issues back in 2011 will need to
sign up and give more information to law firm Piper Alderman in
the next three months before the firm determines whether the suit
will proceed.

The suit, launched off the back of the "Vodafail" complaints in
2010 about the 3G network's poor data performance and call
handling, had picked up 23,000 customers who were interested in
seeking compensation from the ailing telecommunications company.

Sasha Ivantsoff, Piper Alderman's lead partner on the suit, said
that over the last two years, the firm has been conducting
"extensive investigations" into the network issues, and following
backing by LCM Litigation Fund, the firm has funding and the risk
of the case covered.

Piper Alderman estimates the worth of the case to be tens of
millions of dollars, with money being paid back for services not
rendered, as well as compensation for businesses who have suffered
from a lack of connectivity on Vodafone's network.

But those 23,000 who registered in 2011 will need to re-sign up to
the suit in order to participate. People wanting to register will
need to have been Vodafone customers in 2010 or 2011, and will
need to go to the firm's website and provide contact details and
monthly Vodafone spend.

Since 2010, the company has lost over a million customers, and
most who were on the longest two-year contracts with Vodafone
would have either ended their contract or stayed with the company
in that time. Nevertheless, Ivantsoff was confident that more ex-
Vodafone customers would be keen to sign up.

"There were about 7 million SIM cards on issue in 2010. Since
then, we know that about 700,000 SIM cards are no longer active,
so we assume 700,000 people have left Vodafone. We'd like to
capture all of them and some more," he said. "We are confident
that there are enough disaffected people who have suffered a
loss."

Vodafone told ZDNet that Piper Alderman is "known for promoting
class actions", and has not been in contact with the telco. Piper
Alderman managing partner Gordon Grieve said that the firm has
three to four class-action suits in play at the moment.

"We're not a firm that runs around trying to get class actions up
all the time, but when we see that there's an opportunity to
assist people in this sort of environment, then we're quite happy
to look at it," he said.

The firm plans to file the suit against Vodafone by the end of
May, if it is not resolved with Vodafone beforehand. Piper
Alderman has not yet been in contact with the telecommunications
giant.

"There was a little bit of press last night that was a bit
unhelpful, I think. We haven't contacted Vodafone; we will do that
in due course. We are . . . under professional obligations to try
to resolve issues before going to court."

He said the reason why Piper Alderman has not been in contact with
Vodafone is that he needs a case to put to them.

"We need to have something meaningful to put to them. We need to
know how many people are in the class. We need to know how much
each person spent and what their losses are."

Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN)
spokesperson Elise Davidson said in a statement that those hit by
Vodafone's network problems in 2010 would be better to take their
complaint to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO).

"Vodafone has already compensated some customers by providing
discounts on monthly plans or waiving them altogether until the
network was improved," she said. "We suggest those unsatisfied
with Vodafone's response to their complaint contact the TIO, which
is a free, independent service set up specifically to resolve
complaints between providers and their customers."

Davidson said that the class action would take a long time to play
out, and there is no guarantee that it would succeed.

"Our fears are that this will turn into a lawyer's picnic," she
said. "It would be a better outcome for consumers if Vodafone was
able to invest the money it will spend defending this class action
into further improving its network, which would result in a better
service for its customers."

Vodafone Hutchison Australia (VHA) last night reported an AU$817.6
million loss for 2012, and Davidson said consumers would be worse
off if Vodafone exited the market entirely.

"If VHA decides to exit the Australian market, we will be left
with a network duopoly -- Telstra and Optus. We don't think this
will be a good outcome for Australian consumers," she said.

       Vodafone: No Contact From Law Firm On Class Action

Julia Talevski, writing for ARN, reports that Vodafone Australia
hasn't had any contact from Australian law firm, Piper Alderman,
which is planning to proceed with a class action lawsuit against
the telco.  A spokesperson from the telco said it was aware of the
law firm's plans to proceed with the class action, but the firm
hasn't directly contacted the telco about it since it first
threatened action in 2010.

"Nor has it sought to discuss the claims of any customers it
represents in the class action with Vodafone," the Vodafone
spokesperson stated. "Vodafone has not been provided with any
details of the class action at this stage and is therefore not
able to comment on the claims which might be made.

"Vodafone would like to hear from any customer who has encountered
difficulties with the network and we encourage customers, past and
current, to contact us directly so that we can discuss ways to
resolve any concerns they have."


WAL-MART STORES: Wisconsin Is Next Battleground for Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlyn Kolker, writing for Reuters, reports that in mid-February,
a group of plaintiffs suing Wal-Mart for alleged discrimination of
women across its stores were dealt a blow: A federal judge in
Nashville, Tennessee, threw out the plaintiffs' proposed class
action.

U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger ruled that any class action
claims cases stemming from the Dukes v. Wal-Mart litigation, which
was dismantled by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011, were barred by
the statute of limitations.

The same day as that ruling, plaintiffs' lawyers filed a similar
case against Wal-Mart alleging discrimination against women, also
seeking class action status, this time in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Wisconsin.

That filing is a signal that plaintiffs' lawyers are not giving up
their fight against Wal-Mart as district and circuit court judges
grapple with how to interpret the Dukes decision.
After the Supreme Court ruled that the nationwide class of women
in the Dukes case could not sue as a group, plaintiffs tried to
tailor cases to smaller, regional classes of women. They filed
sex-discrimination cases in California, Tennessee, Texas and
Florida.

Judges in Tennessee and Texas rejected the plaintiffs' claims on
the statute of limitations grounds. In California, U.S. District
Judge Charles Breyer allowed the plaintiffs' case to proceed but
said he would rule later about whether the case could be certified
as a class action. In Florida, a judge has yet to rule on Wal-
Mart's motion to dismiss.

According to Gerald Maatman of Seyfarth Shaw, it's no surprise
that plaintiffs' lawyers selected Wisconsin as their next
battleground in the post-Dukes war.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which encompasses Wisconsin,
Illinois and Indiana, has developed some of the most plaintiff-
friendly law post-Dukes, according to Maatman, who represents
employers in litigation and writes an annual report chronicling
employment class action cases.

In the 2012 decision in McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, which
reversed a district court's decision to deny class certification,
the 7th Circuit paved the way for class actions alleging that a
small group of centralized managers perpetrated policies that
discriminated against certain groups of employees, according to
Maatman.

"McReynolds is the key case - the reason why they filed in
Wisconsin," he said. For plaintiffs' lawyers, "it's about where do
we have a chance to certify our class and make our theory stick."

Joseph Sellers, the Washington lawyer who represents the
plaintiffs in the Wisconsin case, said the timing of the filing,
coming on the same day as the negative ruling from Tennessee, was
pure coincidence.

His clients and the evidence they had about treatment at Wal-Mart
stores in the region were the "primary driving force" for filing
in Wisconsin, according to Sellers. But he noted that post-Dukes
case law in the 7th Circuit is "the most developed." While the
McReynolds case was more plaintiff-friendly, another case from the
circuit is less favorable to plaintiffs, he said. Sellers also
said the 7th circuit has developed case law that's more favorable
to the plaintiffs on whether they can continue their claims under
the statute of limitations issue.

Ted Boutrous, an attorney at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher who
represents Wal-Mart, said plaintiffs' lawyers are misinterpreting
7th Circuit holdings on the statute of limitations, and are better
served pursuing each individual plaintiff's case separately,
rather than "re-litigating" the issues in the original Dukes case.

The Wisconsin case is Ladik v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, No. 13cv00123.


WELLS FARGO: Accused of Assessing Undue Fees to Bankrupt Clients
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Alston, writing for Law360.com, reports that Wells Fargo &
Co. has been hit with a putative class action accusing the bank of
assessing undue penalties and fees to mortgage customers who have
filed for bankruptcy, even if they later withdrew their bankruptcy
petitions or had them dismissed.

Mark and Suzanne Guralnick filed the suit in New Jersey state
court Feb. 19 on behalf of themselves and all New Jersey
homeowners with mortgages through Wells Fargo who filed petitions
for bankruptcy and then terminated their bankruptcy proceedings.


WHITEWAVE FOODS: Defends Mislabeling Class Suits in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The WhiteWave Foods Company is defending itself against class
action lawsuits alleging mislabeling of products, according to the
Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company and Dean Foods Company were named in a putative class
action mislabeling complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California in September 2011, which was
followed by similar actions filed in five additional
jurisdictions.  All of these lawsuits allege generally that the
Company lack scientific substantiation for certain product claims
related to the Company's Horizon Organic products supplemented
with DHA Omega-3.

A significant product liability, consumer fraud, or other legal
judgment against the Company or a widespread product recall would
negatively impact the Company's profitability.  Moreover, claims
or liabilities of this sort might not be covered by insurance or
by any rights of indemnity or contribution that the Company may
have against others.  Even if a product liability, consumer fraud,
or other claim is found to be without merit or is otherwise
unsuccessful, the negative publicity surrounding such assertions
regarding the Company's products or processes could materially and
adversely affect the Company's reputation and brand image,
particularly in categories that are promoted as having strong
health and wellness credentials.  Any loss of consumer confidence
in the Company's product ingredients or in the safety and quality
of its products would be difficult and costly to overcome.


YUM! BRANDS: Class Suit by Security Holders Pending in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Todd M. Garber Sunday said a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Yum! Brands, Inc. (YUM: Quote) in
the California District Court, on behalf of a class of security
holders of the company.

The complaint alleges that defendants concealed the fact that the
company's own food safety inspections had already discovered high
levels of antibiotics, illegal drugs and chemicals in chickens
purchased from a Chinese supplier.

Reports in the Chinese media had earlier disclosed that certain of
the Company's chicken suppliers had been feeding toxic chemicals
to chickens sold to KFC China.

The company is also being accused for failing to disclose that
slowing economic trends in China were stronger than reported and
could not support forecasted sales results for Yum's China
Division.


* Rise in Class Actions Drives Up Insurance Costs
-------------------------------------------------
Lucy Battersby, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that increasing payouts in shareholder class actions are pushing
up premiums for directors' and officers' insurance.

The total value of class action settlements reached $506 million
in 2012, up from about $200 million in 2007, according to a report
by law firm King & Wood Mallesons.

With class actions becoming more common and with increasing
responsibilities for directors under new regulations, insurers say
directors' and officers' insurance is becoming less profitable for
them.  This forces them to either reduce limits or increase
premiums.  Some directors have already started increasing their
indemnity, says Julie Hamilton, a national directors' and
officers' insurance specialist at Aon Risk Solutions.  While the
cost of insurance has not increased substantially -- because there
are still many willing insurers in the market -- she warns this
may not last.

"As a result of the increasing body of class action settlements
there is an increased focus by many insurers on both capacity and
retention management . . .  While insurer competition is
continuing to suppress rates, some insurers are 'testing the
waters' by seeking opportunities for modest rate increases where
circumstances allow," Ms Hamilton said. Some directors of ASX-
listed companies have recently increased their indemnities after
benchmarking their policies against peers and claims data.

And directors who specifically chose not to take coverage against
class actions could get a discount, Ms Hamilton said.
A spokesman for insurer CGU confirmed the market remained
competitive but said the company was "keeping a watching brief on
the issue and is closely monitoring claims costs". "There has been
a trend of increasing litigation against company directors in
recent years," he said.  "Claims payouts for directors' and
officers' insurance have also risen."

The Australian head of financial lines at Zurich General
Insurance, Stephen Bonnington, said rates for directors' and
officers' insurance had "remained relatively stable" over the past
two years.  However, Zurich has seen insurers reducing policy
limits, particularly where clients elect to purchase coverage
protecting them against securities litigation, he says.  "The
litigation environment, and the increased powers of regulators, do
have an impact on both the frequency and severity of claims and I
am sure many insurers are carefully watching developments in these
arenas," he said.

Directors' and officers' insurance is usually paid by the company
on behalf of the board and senior management. It protects their
personal assets if claims are made against the company, including
claims by regulators, shareholders or individuals for breaches of
duty or misleading and deceptive conduct.

Directors have also had to double-check what coverage they have
under the new Australian Consumer Law, which can see directors
disqualified if their company breaches the act. Companies are not
allowed to indemnify directors against liability for these
breaches, or against their legal costs.

However, companies can offer loans to directors to cover legal
fees.


* India's New Companies Bill Has Provisions for Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Samar Srivastava, writing for Forbes India, reports that in
January 2009, in what is widely referred to as 'India's Enron',
300,000 shareholders of Satyam Computer Services (now Mahindra
Satyam) came together and sued the company. Satyam's founder
Ramalinga Raju had confessed to misstating accounts, and the
company stock plummeted. The shareholders claimed damages worth Rs
5,000 crore.

For people so obviously wronged, it should have been easy to get
compensation. But India has no law enabling class action lawsuits
(where a large group collectively brings a claim to court and/or
in which a class of defendants is sued).

The shareholders went from the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission to the Supreme Court, and had their claims
rejected. But the US shareholders of Satyam were able to claim
$125 million (about Rs 675 crore) from the company.

Class action suits in India have so far been filed under the guise
of public interest litigations. Courts are free to dismiss these.
There is some relief for investors now, as the new Companies Bill
aims to expressly prescribe the norms for class action suits. The
Bill is expected to be tabled in the Rajya Sabha during the Budget
Session.

Legal experts and activists hail this as a milestone. Sucheta
Dalal, trustee of Moneylife Foundation (and editor of Moneylife
magazine) says, "We will certainly be looking at class actions
suits."

At 100, the Bill sets a low limit for the number of people
required for a class action suit. It says companies can be sued if
they deviate from the articles of association, or the purpose for
which they were founded, or breach of duty by directors. But
experts caution that the devil lies in implementation. As of now,
there are three main difficulties.

First is the absence of plaintiff law firms, which thrive in the
West. They organize litigants together and file the suit. They
also advertise heavily, something law firms can't in India.

Second, in the US, these firms work on a contingency model, where
they take no fees upfront and usually collect a third of the
settlement amount. "In India, the Bar Council prohibits a
contingency model. It's unlikely that law firms would have any
incentives to fight cases," says V Umakanth, a company law
specialist and professor at the National University of Singapore.

Finally, there is the prohibitive cost of filing suits in India
and delays within the legal system.

Still, Dalal says the Bill is a step in the right direction and
shareholder bodies can play a leading role. A group that may be
hit fairly soon is public sector firms, which often forego
profits, resulting in low stock prices. In 2012, Coal India was
sued by its second largest shareholder for not linking coal prices
to the market.

More such cases could follow once the Bill is passed.


                           *********

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  * * *