CAR_Public/130305.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, March 5, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 45

                             Headlines



AMGEN: Court Rejects Proof of Merits for Class Certification
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Still Defends Deepwater Horizon-Related Suits
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Tronox-Related Suit Settlement OK'd in Nov.
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Faces Class Actions Over Deceptive Labeling
ANTHEM INC: Objectors to "Heekin" Suit Deal Ordered to Post Bond

APPLE INC: To Pay $100MM to Settle Class Suit Over Kids' Purchases
AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Ex-Players' Chance to Win Class Action Slim
BMW AG: Judge Grants Request to Move Class Action to California
CHARLES SCHWAB: May Seek Dismissal of Pending Class Actions
CISCO SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit

CONTINENTAL LABOR: Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations
DOMEGA NY: Recalls Green Day White Melon Seeds Over Sulfites
DYNACRAFT BSC: Recalls 5,200 Hello Kitty City Motor Scooters
DYNACRAFT BSC: Recalls 5,500 Monster High City Motor Scooters
FIRST HORIZON: Dist. Court Rules on RESPA Suit Dismissal Bids

FMC CORP: Cross-Border Class Suit vs. Foret Pending in Germany
FMC CORP: Still Awaits Order Related to Indirect Purchase Claims
FOCUS MEDIA: Being Sold to Giovanna For Too Little, Suit Claims
FORD MOTOR: Appeal in South African Apartheid MDL Remains Pending
FORD MOTOR: Appeal in Suit vs. Sudesh Agrawal Remains Pending

FORD MOTOR: Continues to Defend Ohio Suit by Truck Dealers
FORD MOTOR: Faces Suit Over Vinyl Delaminates of 2008 Fusion
HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Wants "Nichols" Suit Remanded to Ala. State Ct.
HERTZ CORP: Faces $1.3BB Class Action for Overcharging Customers
IBM CORP: Employees File Overtime Class Action

IKEA: Recalls Meatballs Amidst Horse Meat Scandal in Europe
INTEL CORP: Hearing in Sherman Act Violation Suits Set for July
INTEL CORP: Summary Judgment Bid Granted in McAfee Purchase Suit
JERDON STYLE: Recalls 6,000 Coffeemakers Due to Burn & Fire Risks
JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Dismisses Overtime Class Action

KINDER MORGAN: Faces Suits Over Proposed Copano Acquisition
KRAFT FOODS: Judge Tosses Multiple False Advertising Claims
LIBERTY MOUNTAIN: Recalls Easy Go XP Lock Via Ferrata Lanyards
LION PAVILION: Recalls Grassplot Ginger Slices Due to Sulfites
MIDLAND FUNDING: Appeals Court Overturns $5.2MM Encore Settlement

NVR INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Salesmen's Overtime Wages
ONE WORLD: Recalls 56,400 Ryobi Cordless Tool Battery Packs
SCHMALZ'S EUROPEAN: Recalls 8,424 Lbs. of Chicken Sausage Product
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Settles Shareholder Class Action Over Bad Loan
TATA CONSULTANCY: Settles Employee Class Action for $30 Million

TRAVELERS COS: Awaits Approval of Deal to Dismiss "Safeco" Suit
TRAVELERS COS: Awaits Ruling in Asbestos-Related Suits Appeal
TRAVELERS COS: Involvement in Antitrust Suits Has Concluded
US BANK: State Court to Hear Wyoming's Class Action v. Banks
VODAFONE GROUP: "Double-Dipping" May Prompt Class Action Failure

WELCH FOODS: Violates Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Suit Claims

* Shareholder Suits Prompt Hike in D&O Insurance Costs in Aussie


                           *********


AMGEN: Court Rejects Proof of Merits for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that to proceed
as a class, investors need not prove that alleged lies about
Amgen's anemia drugs inflated stock prices, the Supreme Court
ruled Wednesday.

In a federal complaint, Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust
Funds accused Amgen of continuing to promote anemia drugs in the
face of concerns from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  It
said Amgen hid the true nature of these concerns and shuttered a
clinical trial that would have showed exacerbated tumor growth in
some patients using the product.

Amgen also allegedly misrepresented the on-label safety of the
drugs and improperly promoted off-label usage, according to the
complaint.

Connecticut Retirement claimed that it met the requirement for
class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 by
invoking the presumption of Amgen's "fraud on the market."

This argument ultimately persuaded U.S. District Judge Philip
Gutierrez to certify the class in Los Angeles, and the 9th Circuit
to affirm in November 2011.

But Amgen insisted that the investors must prove materiality at
this stage since immaterial misrepresentations or omissions would
not affect stock prices in an efficient market.

A six-justice majority of the Supreme Court concluded otherwise on
Wednesday.

"While Connecticut Retirement certainly must prove materiality to
prevail on the merits, we hold that such proof is not a
prerequisite to class certification," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
wrote for the court.

Amgen's argument "would have us put the cart before the horse,"
Ginsburg added.

Ginsburg noted that "the office of a Rule 23(b)(3) certification
ruling is not to adjudicate the case; rather, it is to select the
'metho[d]' best suited to adjudication of the controversy 'fairly
and efficiently.'"

In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito emphasized the need
to revisit the fraud-on-the-market presumption, which was
established in the 1988 decision Basic Inc. v. Levinson.

"As the dissent observes, more recent evidence suggests that the
presumption may rest on a faulty economic premise," Alito wrote.
"In light of this development, reconsideration of the Basic
presumption may be appropriate."

Justice Clarence Thomas insisted in the dissent that the investors
need to demonstrate materiality at certification to "establish
Basic's fraud-on-the-market presumption."

"Without proof of fraud on the market, plaintiffs cannot show that
otherwise individualized questions of reliance will predominate,
as required by Rule 23(b)(3)," according to the dissent joined in
full by Justice Anthony Kennedy and in part by Justice Antonin
Scalia.  "And without satisfying Rule 23(b)(3), class
certification is improper.  Fraud on the market is thus a
condition precedent to class certification, without which
individualized questions of reliance will defeat certification."

"The failure to establish materiality retrospectively confirms
that fraud on the market was never established, that questions
regarding the element of reliance were not common under Rule
23(b)(3), and, by extension, that certification was never proper,"
Thomas added.  "Plaintiffs cannot be excused of their Rule 23
burden to show at certification that questions of reliance are
common merely because they might lose later on the merits element
of materiality."

In the section of the dissent from which Scalia abstained, Thomas
prodded the idea that investors should be left to prove
materiality at the merits stage.

"This assertion is an express admission that parties will not know
at certification whether reliance is an individual or common
question," Thomas wrote.

Quoting the majority opinion, Thomas said that "it is the court,
not Amgen, that 'would have us put the cart before the horse,' by
jumping chronologically to the S10(b) merits element of
materiality."

"But Rule 23, as well as common sense, requires class
certification issues to be addressed first," he added.  "A
plaintiff who cannot prove materiality does not simply have a
claim that is 'dead on arrival' at the merits; he has a class that
should never have arrived at the merits at all because it failed
Rule 23(b)(3) certification from the outset.  Without materiality,
there is no fraud-on-the-market presumption, questions of reliance
remain individualized, and Rule 23(b)(3) certification is
impossible."

Scalia noted in a separate dissent that Connecticut Retirement's
superficial grant of class certification may help it secure a
"substantial settlement" if Amgen wishes to avoid the high costs
and risks of further litigation.

"It does an injustice to the Basic court to presume without clear
evidence -- and indeed in the face of language to the contrary --
that it was establishing a regime in which not only those market
class action suits that have earned the presumption of reliance
pass beyond the crucial certification stage, but all market-
purchase and market-sale class-action suits do so, no matter what
the alleged misrepresentation," Scalia wrote.  "The opinion need
not be read this way, and it should not.

"The fraud-on-the-market theory approved by Basic envisions a
demonstration of materiality not just for substantive recovery but
for certification.  The holding does not merely accept what some
consider the regrettable consequences of the four-justice opinion
in Basic; it expands those consequences from the arguably
regrettable to the unquestionably disastrous."


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Still Defends Deepwater Horizon-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation continues to defend itself from
lawsuits arising from the Deepwater Horizon incident, 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 April 2010, the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico blew out and
an explosion occurred on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.  The
well was operated by BP Exploration and Production Inc. (BP) and
Anadarko held a 25% non-operated interest.  In October 2011, the
Company and BP entered into a settlement agreement, mutual
releases, and agreement to indemnify relating to the Deepwater
Horizon events (Settlement Agreement), under which the Company
paid $4.0 billion in cash and transferred its interest in the
Macondo well and the Mississippi Canyon Block 252 (Lease) to BP.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company is fully
indemnified by BP against all claims, causes of action, losses,
costs, expenses, liabilities, damages, or judgments of any kind
arising out of the Deepwater Horizon events, related damage claims
arising under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), claims for
natural resource damages (NRD) and assessment costs, and any
claims arising under the Operating Agreement with BP (OA).  This
indemnification is guaranteed by BP Corporation North America Inc.
(BPCNA) and, in the event that the net worth of BPCNA declines
below an agreed-on amount, BP p.l.c. has agreed to become the sole
guarantor.  Under the Settlement Agreement, BP does not indemnify
the Company against fines and penalties, punitive damages,
shareholder derivative or securities laws claims, or certain other
claims.

Numerous Deepwater Horizon event-related civil lawsuits have been
filed against BP and other parties, including the Company by,
among others, fishing, boating, and shrimping enterprises and
industry groups; restaurants; commercial and residential property
owners; certain rig workers or their families; the State of
Alabama and several of its political subdivisions; the U.S.
Department of Justice ("DOJ"); environmental non-governmental
organizations; the State of Louisiana and certain of its political
subdivisions; and certain Mexican states. Many of the lawsuits
filed assert various claims of negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of several federal and state laws and regulations,
including, among others, OPA; the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; the Clean Air Act; the
Clean Water Act (CWA); and the Endangered Species Act; or
challenge existing permits for operations in the Gulf of Mexico.
Generally, the plaintiffs are seeking actual damages, punitive
damages, declaratory judgment, and/or injunctive relief.

This litigation has been consolidated into a federal Multidistrict
Litigation (MDL) action pending before Judge Carl Barbier in the
Louisiana District Court.  In March 2012, BP and the Plaintiffs'
Steering Committee (PSC) entered into a tentative settlement
agreement to resolve the substantial majority of economic loss and
medical claims stemming from the Deepwater Horizon events, which
the Louisiana District Court approved in orders issued in December
2012 and January 2013.  Only OPA claims seeking economic loss
damages against the Company remain.  In addition, certain state
and local governments have appealed, or have provided indication
of a likely appeal of, the MDL court's decision that only federal
law, and not state law, applies to Deepwater Horizon event-related
claims.  The Company, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, is
fully indemnified by BP against losses arising as a result of
claims for damages, irrespective of whether such claims are based
on federal (including OPA) or state law.

The Louisiana District Court plans to hold a trial in Transocean's
Limitation of Liability case in the MDL commencing in 2013.  In
May 2012, the Louisiana District Court issued its revised case
management order (CMO) ruling that the first phase of the trial
will commence in February 2013 (Phase I).  Phase I is expected to
last for six to twelve weeks. BP, BP p.l.c., the United States,
state and local governments, Halliburton, and Transocean will
participate in Phase I of the trial.  The CMO provides that the
Stipulated Order excusing Anadarko from participation in Phase I
of the trial remains in effect.  The issues to be tried in Phase I
include the cause of the blow-out and all related events leading
up to April 22, 2010, the date the Deepwater Horizon sank, as well
as allocation of fault.  The allocation of fault remains in the
Phase I trial because Halliburton and Transocean have not settled
with any of the parties and wish to prove to the court that their
respective company was not at fault.  The second phase of trial is
estimated to start in July 2013 (Phase II) and may take six to
eight weeks to complete.  The issues to be tried in Phase II will
include spill-source control and quantification of the spill for
the period from April 22, 2010, until the well was capped.  The
Company, BP, BP p.l.c., the United States, state and local
governments, Halliburton, and Transocean will participate in Phase
II of the trial.

Two separate class action complaints were filed in June and August
2010, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York (New York District Court) on behalf of purported purchasers
of the Company's stock between June 9, 2009, and June 12, 2010,
against Anadarko and certain of its officers. The complaints
allege causes of action arising pursuant to the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) for purported misstatements
and omissions regarding, among other things, the Company's
liability related to the Deepwater Horizon events. In March 2012,
the New York District Court granted the Lead Plaintiff's motion to
transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas - Houston Division (Texas District Court). In
May 2012, the Texas District Court granted the defendants' motion
to transfer the consolidated action within the district to Judge
Keith P. Ellis. In July 2012, the plaintiffs filed their First
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The defendants filed
a renewed motion to dismiss in the Southern District Court of
Texas in September 2012. The motion is fully briefed and is
pending before the court.

In November 2011, the Company's Board of Directors (Board)
received a letter from a purported shareholder demanding that the
Board investigate, address, remedy, and commence derivative
proceedings against certain officers and directors for their
alleged breach of fiduciary duty related to the Deepwater Horizon
events.  The Board has considered this demand and in February 2012
determined that it would not be in the best interest of the
Company to pursue the issues alleged in the demand letter.  In
March 2012, the Company's Board received a similar demand letter
from a purported shareholder supplementing an original demand that
had been made by the shareholder in September 2010 related to the
Deepwater Horizon events.  The Board has considered this demand
and in April 2012 determined that it would not be in the best
interest of the Company to pursue the issues alleged in the demand
letter.

Given the various stages of these matters, the Company currently
cannot assess the probability of losses, or reasonably estimate a
range of any potential losses, related to ongoing proceedings.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself, its officers, and
its directors in each of these matters, and will avail itself of
any and all indemnities provided by BP against civil damages.

The Woodlands, Texas-based Anadarko Petroleum Corporation explores
for, develops, produces, and markets natural gas, crude oil,
condensate, and natural gas liquids (NGLs).  The Company also
engages in the gathering, processing, and treating of natural gas,
and the transporting of natural gas, crude oil, and NGLs.


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Tronox-Related Suit Settlement OK'd in Nov.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation's settlement of a class action
lawsuit brought by purchasers of equity and debt securities of
Tronox Incorporated was approved in November 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 July 2009, a consolidated class action complaint was filed in
the New York District Court on behalf of purported purchasers of
equity and debt securities of Tronox Incorporated (Tronox), a
former subsidiary of Kerr-McGee Corporation (Kerr-McGee), which is
a current subsidiary of Anadarko, between November 21, 2005, and
January 12, 2009, against Anadarko, Kerr-McGee, several former
Kerr-McGee officers and directors, several former Tronox officers
and directors, and Ernst & Young LLP (Securities Case).  The
complaint alleges causes of action arising under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for purported misstatements and
omissions regarding, among other things, Tronox's environmental-
remediation and tort-claim liabilities.  The plaintiffs allege,
among other things, that these purported misstatements and
omissions are contained in certain of Tronox's public filings,
including filings made in connection with Tronox's initial public
offering.  The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages, including interest thereon, as well as
litigation fees and costs.  In April 2012, certain parties,
including Anadarko, Kerr-McGee, and the former Kerr-McGee officers
and directors, reached a settlement, which was approved by the
court in November 2012.  The settlement was directly funded by the
insurers for Tronox, Anadarko, and Kerr-McGee.

The Woodlands, Texas-based Anadarko Petroleum Corporation explores
for, develops, produces, and markets natural gas, crude oil,
condensate, and natural gas liquids (NGLs).  The Company also
engages in the gathering, processing, and treating of natural gas,
and the transporting of natural gas, crude oil, and NGLs.


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Faces Class Actions Over Deceptive Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that beer lovers across the U.S. have
accused Anheuser-Busch of watering down its Budweiser, Michelob
and other brands, in class-action suits seeking millions in
damages.

The suits, filed in Pennsylvania, California and other states,
claim consumers have been cheated out of the alcohol content
stated on labels.  Budweiser and Michelob each boast of being 5%
alcohol, while some "light" versions are said to be just over 4%.

The lawsuits are based on information from former employees at the
company's 13 U.S. breweries, some in high-level plant positions,
according to lead lawyer Josh Boxer of San Rafael, Calif.

"Our information comes from former employees at Anheuser-Busch,
who have informed us that as a matter of corporate practice, all
of their products mentioned (in the lawsuit) are watered down,"
Mr. Boxer said.  "It's a simple cost-saving measure, and it's very
significant."

The excess water is added just before bottling and cuts the stated
alcohol content by 3% to 8%, he said.

Anheuser-Busch InBev called the claims "groundless" and said its
beers fully comply with labeling laws.

"Our beers are in full compliance with all alcohol labeling laws.
We proudly adhere to the highest standards in brewing our beers,
which have made them the best-selling in the U.S. and the world,"
Peter Kraemer, vice president of brewing and supply, said in a
statement.

The suit involves 10 Anheuser-Busch products: Budweiser, Bud Ice,
Bud Light Platinum, Michelob, Michelob Ultra, Hurricane High
Gravity Lager, King Cobra, Busch Ice, Natural Ice and Bud Light
Lime.

Anheuser-Busch, based in St. Louis, Mo., merged with InBev in 2008
to form the world's largest alcohol producer, headquartered in
Belgium.  In 2011, the company produced 10 billion gallons of malt
beverages, 3 billion of them in the U.S., and reported $22 billion
in profits from that category, the lawsuit said.

According to the lawsuit, the company has sophisticated equipment
that measures the alcohol content throughout the brewing process
and is accurate to within one-hundredth of a percent.  But after
the merger, the company increasingly chose to dilute its popular
brands of beer, the lawsuit alleged.

"Following the merger, AB vigorously accelerated the deceptive
practices described below, sacrificing the quality products once
produced by Anheuser-Busch in order to reduce costs," said the
lead lawsuit, filed on Feb. 22 in federal court in San Francisco
on behalf of consumers in the lower 48 states.

Companion suits are being filed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and
elsewhere.  Each seeks at least $5 million in damages.

One of the California plaintiffs, Nina Giampaoli of Sonoma County,
said she bought a six-pack of Budweiser every week for the past
four years.

"I think it's wrong for huge corporations to lie to their loyal
customers -- I really feel cheated.  No matter what the product
is, people should be able to rely on the information companies put
on their labels," Ms. Giampaoli said in a news release issued by
Boxer's law firm.

In a telephone interview with the Associated Press, Mr. Boxer said
he has evidence to corroborate the former employees' allegations,
but stopped short of saying the beers had been independently
tested.

"AB (Anheuser-Busch) never intends for the malt beverage to
possess the amount of alcohol that is stated on the label.  As a
result, AB's customers are overcharged for watered-down beer and
AB is unjustly enriched by the additional volume it can sell," the
lawsuit said.

                           *     *     *

Angela Marie Watkins at Courthouse News Service reports that lead
plaintiff Nina Giampaoli is represented by Robert W. Mills, and by
Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser.

Anheuser-Busch, a subsidiary of Anheuser-Busch InBev, is the
world's largest beer brewer, with annual global production of more
than 10 billion gallons.

Anheuser-Busch is fighting with the U.S. Justice Department over
its proposed acquisition of Grupo Modelo, the Mexican brewery that
sells the United States' best-selling import, Corona, and other
brands.

The Justice Department challenged the merger on antitrust grounds.


ANTHEM INC: Objectors to "Heekin" Suit Deal Ordered to Post Bond
----------------------------------------------------------------
On November 16, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana approved the class settlement in HEEKIN v.
ANTHEM, INC., which included a $90 million common fund settlement
to be paid out pro rata to the over 707,000 Class Members.  On
November 20, 2012, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
attorney's fees and costs.

On December 10 and 19, 2012, respectively, Franklin DeJulius and
Edwin Paul filed separate Notices of Appeal to the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals. Mr. DeJulius is appealing the Court's Entry for
attorneys' fees, costs and contribution awards and Mr. Paul
appeals the final approval of the settlement, the allocation plan,
and the attorney fee and representative incentive awards.

The Plaintiffs request an appeal bond in the amount of $550,000
for each objector, or jointly and severally.

District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt agrees with the Plaintiffs that
an appeal bond is appropriate but finds $550,000 a bit excessive.

Accordingly, Judge Pratt ordered that Mr. DeJulius, by and through
his attorney John W. Pentz and Mr. Paul, c/o attorney Darrell
Palmer, each must post a bond, jointly and severally in the amount
of $250,000, which is comprised of: (1) $15,000 for the direct
taxable costs of the appeal, and (2) $235,000 for the
administrative costs of the delay caused by the appeal.  Mr.
DeJulius and Mr. Paul are ordered to file within 10 days proof
that they have secured the bonds.

The case before Judge Pratt is styled KEVIN T. HEEKIN, MARY E.
ORMOND, ESTATE OF MARY A. MOORE On behalf of Themselves and all
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ANTHEM, INC., ANTHEM
INSURANCE COMPANIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:05-cv-01908-TWP-
TAB, (S.D. Ind.).

A copy of the District Court's February 27, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/IZkgYPfrom Leagle.com.


APPLE INC: To Pay $100MM to Settle Class Suit Over Kids' Purchases
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Boudreau and Pat May, writing for San Jose Mercury News,
report that highlighting the challenges of parenting in the
digital age, Apple  has agreed to pay out more than $100 million
to moms and dads whose children made purchases from apps
downloaded from its online iTunes store without permission.

The proposed settlement to a class-action suit, which was filed in
2011 and was set to be reviewed by U.S. District Court Judge
Edward J. Davila in San Jose, California, on March 1, represents
the latest example of tech issue vexing parents, who now must
worry about everything from how their children behave on Facebook
to what mobile apps they are buying.

In the proposed settlement, Apple will provide iTunes credit to as
many as 23 million customers whose children made "in-app"
transactions for virtual goods without their parents' knowledge.
In some cases, parents were shocked to learn their children racked
up hundreds of dollars in purchases with their credit card and
PayPal accounts within a few minutes.  Under the proposed
settlement, parents who claim $30 or more can receive cash instead
of store credit, a filing with the court said.

The settlement is aimed to reimburse parents like Naren Prabhu, a
Silicon Valley networking engineer.  "I've had my 7-year-old
charge up a storm of over $600 via the in-app purchases,"
Mr. Prabhu said in an e-mail.  "I was not able to get any refunds
from customer service for the iTunes Store, who said they could do
nothing to help me."

The problem for some parents goes well beyond in-app purchases,
said Caroline Knorr, parenting editor at San Francisco-based
Common Sense Media, a nonprofit that helps adults manage the media
and technology in their kids' lives.

"A lot of parents feel, 'I don't know anything about technology,'"
she said.  "That's how they got sucker-punched with the in-app
purchases."

In 2011, Apple addressed the problem by requiring a password for
each in-app purchase.  Before that, children could go on a
spending spree for 15 minutes before a password was required
again.

Virtual goods such as "Smurfs' Village" Smurfberries and
"Farmville" livestock are the new collectibles for children, said
Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital
Democracy, a Washington, D.C. nonprofit that focuses on consumer
protection in digital media.

"This is the new toy room," he said.

The lawsuit alleged that Apple offered gaming apps that were
"highly addictive, designed deliberately so and tend to compel
children playing them to purchase large quantities of game
currency, amounting to as much as $100 per purchase or more."

Apple did not respond to a request for comment on the proposed
settlement.

Ms. Knorr credits the Cupertino company for settling the case and
changing its software to give parents more protection.

"I think that companies like Apple have a responsibility to make
sure parents have the tools they need to ensure their kids have a
safe and responsible online experience," she said.

Mr. Chester said developers of apps for children -- and adults --
should be required to disclose up front their aim to generate
significant revenue from in-app sales and also should disclose
data they are using to target consumers.

"The consumer needs to know what the rules of the app game are,"
he said.  The proposed Apple settlement comes at a time of growing
concern among parents that the same technologies that can benefit
their children also can threaten them.  Internet and mobile
technologies have created new ways for young people to get into
trouble -- from online bullying to sending sexually revealing
photos through mobile devices to overspending on virtual goods,
experts say.

"Parents are digitally inept," said tech writer and Internet
safety advocate Larry Magid, who writes a column for this
newspaper.  "Sometimes parents turn over their passwords to their
kids because they don't have a clue on how to use these things."

In December, the Federal Trade Commission unveiled a major update
of rules that limit what information can be collected when kids
under 13 visit Web sites or use mobile apps.  And Facebook has
reportedly explored ways to provide extra safeguards for users
younger than 13 rather than continue its current policy that bans
them from the site -- a ban that millions of youngsters have
easily circumvented by lying about their age.

Experts say adults need to pay close attention to what apps their
children are playing with and how they are behaving on social
networking sites -- just as they would keep an eye on them horsing
around in the backyard.

"I don't think technology is out of control," said Gilroy resident
Dia Camarillo.  "It's the parents' responsibility to not let their
kids get out of control. You can't stop the technology from
advancing, but you can control your kids' behavior and monitor
their use of the Internet."

Heather Parker, a San Jose teacher of special education students,
went so far as to call the Apple in-app lawsuit "overkill."

"Ultimately, parents should be more responsible for their kids'
actions," she said.  "If their kids get their passwords, it's the
parents fault."


AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Ex-Players' Chance to Win Class Action Slim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gleeson, writing for The Age, reports that former
Australian Football League players would have virtually no chance
of success with a class action against the league for the long
term effects of concussions sustained in the game, according to
Western Bulldogs president and leading class action lawyer Peter
Gordon.

AFL players like other sportsmen voluntarily accept a level of
clear risk in choosing to participate in the sport and so an
action for damages for injuries sustained in that sport would be
unlikely to succeed, Mr. Gordon says.

Peter Gordon is a founding partner of the Slater and Gordon law
firm, and has returned to the Western Bulldogs for another term as
president this year.

"I think it would have next to no chance of success as a class
action," Mr. Gordon says.

"Australian Rules football like other sports accepts there is an
assumption by participants of the risks involved and it's a
voluntary assumption of risk particularly when it is a clear and
obvious risk.

"If one were to bring a generic action that helmets should have
been worn . . . it would in my view be bound to fail."

Mr. Gordon says that while a class action against the league for
the after-effects of concussions would not succeed, individuals
could have cases.

Speaking hypothetically, he said that sort of case might involve
an individual coach for instance instructing a player to do
something such as return to the field in the knowledge the player
was still incapacitated.

"There is no class action in it at all and that would not be a
point of real contention to any class action lawyer."

The issue arose on Feb. 24 after Greg Williams spoke out about the
damaging long-term effects of concussions he had suffered in the
game and how it had effected his memory and moods.  Other former
players subsequently also spoke out about the damage they had
suffered from the game and warned current players and clubs about
the dangers, saying more should be done to protect players from
multiple concussions.


BMW AG: Judge Grants Request to Move Class Action to California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that class-
action claims that BMW AG failed to tell consumers that defective
alloy tires are not covered by warranty will be transferred from
New Jersey to California, a federal judge ruled.

"Around August 2008," lead plaintiff Ki-Teh Kim bought a used 2007
BMW 5 Series covered by a 4-year/50,000-mile limited warranty,
according to the judge's summary.  When a low tire pressure
warning appeared on the dashboard in November, Kim took the car to
an authorized BMW dealer.

The dealer said one of the car's alloy wheels was "structurally
unsound" -- but not covered by the warranty.

Kim paid for a new wheel.

Then he filed a class action against BMW of North America,
claiming that 17-inch and larger alloy wheels in 2007 or later BMW
5 Series cars are subject to premature cracking under ordinary
driving conditions, putting California drivers at risk.

He accused BMW of unfair and deceptive business practices, in
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.

In July 2012, BMW sought change of venue from New Jersey to the
Central District of California.

Kim opposed it, claiming that BMW concealed the defect in its
marketing and warranty policies, which flowed from the company's
New Jersey-based headquarters.

But U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Dickson granted change of venue.

"Contrary to plaintiff's suggestion that the location of physical
evidence such as 'plaintiff's vehicle and the remaining original
equipment alloy wheels' in California is insignificant, this
physical evidence is a necessary source of proof to plaintiff's
claims and supports transfer," Dickson wrote.  "The inspection and
examination of the relevant alloy wheels, both plaintiff's and
those belonging to members of the putative class, would be far
more convenient to the parties if conducted in California."

The witnesses' convenience factor also weighed in BMW's favor.

"The majority of witnesses and proofs that will ultimately
substantiate or refute plaintiff's claims are located in
California," Dickson wrote.  "As defendant correctly pointed out,
most, if not all, witnesses who have direct knowledge of
plaintiff's individual claims are located in California.  The BMW
representatives who determined plaintiff's wheel to be
'structurally unsound' and informed plaintiff that alloy wheels
were not covered under the warranty are located in California.
The putative class members are limited to 'California consumers.'
Any third-party witnesses -- for example, those who serviced and
repaired plaintiff's vehicle or replaced his damaged alloy wheel-
are located in California.  Plaintiff conceded that these
witnesses would not be subject to compulsory process in New Jersey
courts, but argued that they 'may appear voluntarily at trial, or
can provide testimony through depositions.'  Dissimilarly, as
pointed out by defendants, BMW's witnesses can be compelled to
testify in a California trial.  The court finds this factor weighs
in favor of transfer."

Public interest weighs in favor of transfer, as well.

"California courts have a greater interest in deciding questions
relating to the protection of California citizens and have a
greater familiarity with California law," Dickson wrote.
"Although there can be no doubt that New Jersey judges can
adequately apply California law, there also can be no meaningful
disagreement that California judges are more familiar with
applying their own state law in a diversity case such as this."


CHARLES SCHWAB: May Seek Dismissal of Pending Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jed Horowitz, writing for Reuters, reports that Charles Schwab
Corp. will likely seek dismissal of pending class actions after a
regulator on Feb. 21 upheld its right to bar clients from bringing
such lawsuits, the company said.

"It is possible we can now move to dismiss those cases that are
class actions based on this FINRA ruling," Greg Gable, a Schwab
spokesman, wrote in an e-mail, referring to the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority.  He said he did not know if Schwab will also
try applying the decision retroactively to cases that have already
been settled or decided.

Any attempt to leverage its victory, however, could further
inflame criticism from consumer advocates, state regulators and
class-action lawyers about Schwab's move to limit clients'
complaint alternatives.

Rival broker-dealers would not comment for the record, but the
securities industry appears split on the issue of restricting
clients' dispute options.

Many firms are likely to follow Schwab, industry lawyers said. But
some may urge their brokers to woo clients away from the San
Francisco-based firm by highlighting a policy some view as hurting
the individual investor Schwab has long championed, said two
sources at large brokerages who were not authorized to speak
publicly.

A FINRA hearing panel recently upheld Schwab's late 2011 move to
require clients to waive their class-action rights.  Schwab's
requirement violates FINRA's rules, but the rules themselves
violate the National Arbitration Act, the panel found.

FINRA, the security industry's self-regulator, told Reuters on
Feb. 26 that it will appeal the ruling.

Schwab is litigating two class actions filed after the ban was
imposed in late 2011 in its client account agreements.  The cases,
consolidated in San Francisco County Superior Court, allege that
Schwab recorded confidential phone conversations without client
consent, in violation of California law.  They seek $5,000 for
each alleged violation against the firm's approximately 9 million
client accounts.

Massachusetts Commonwealth Secretary William Galvin on Feb. 26
called on Schwab to repudiate the class-action ban.  It is likely
to be adopted industry-wide, he said in statement, giving "every
rogue broker-dealer the green light to steal from their customers
in small-dollar amounts."

Clients who prevail in class actions usually receive bits of large
settlements for small claims that do not justify the costs of
hiring lawyers to represent them in a FINRA arbitration.

"If the broker-dealer has harmed a large group of people, they
cannot combine their resources to go against the larger corporate
entity," said Christine Hines, consumer and civil justice counsel
at Public Citizen, a Washington-based consumer advocacy group.
"It's just another way for the corporate entity to escape
accountability for any wrongdoing or harm that they cause."

Some lawyers at brokerage firms who insisted on anonymity said
direct Schwab rivals such as TD Ameritrade Holdings and E*Trade
Financial are likely to follow its move to ban customer class
actions while some very large rivals may keep the status quo.
Almost all broker-dealers require clients to bring individual
disputes to FINRA arbitration but do not ban class suits.
Spokespersons at the brokerage firms declined to comment.

Public relations experts said the Schwab decision may provide an
opening for rivals who do not impose class-action waivers.

"If I were the competition I'd seize on this as a great
opportunity to articulate a willingness to entertain complaints of
small investors," said Mark Arena, founder of The PR Verdict, a
Web site that grades firms on their public relations responses.

"Given where we are in the economic cycle and the perception that
small investors continue to be bullied around by the interests of
Wall Street, this might not be the best time" to follow Schwab.
Arena was formerly a public relations executive with UBS AG's U.S.
operations.

Schwab maintains that class actions take longer to adjudicate and
are more expensive than an arbitration proceeding for both
parties, a claim Massachusetts' Mr. Galvin on Feb. 21 called
"disingenuous."

"We believe the evidence is overwhelming that investors -- large
and small -- are better served through arbitration than class
actions, where the plaintiff's lawyers reap the lion's share of
settlements," Mr. Gable said in response to Mr. Galvin.

             Schwab Ruling to Impact Small Investors

Jake Zamansky, writing for Forbes, reports that the dispute
between FINRA and Schwab could further trample the rights of small
investors.  The potential outcome of the dispute, the inability
for investors to band together to participate in class action
lawsuits, could be a disaster for small investors across the
country.

Under the FINRA ruling, which was issued on Feb. 21, Schwab is now
permitted to require investors opening accounts to waive their
right to bring these class actions.  That means Schwab and other
Wall Street firms may escape meaningful financial responsibility
for their actions.

The rest of Wall Street is licking its chops and patting Schwab on
the back for steamrolling over investor rights.  The decision
helps Wall Street at the expense of Main Street.

This fiasco got its start last year, when Schwab inserted in its
standard customer arbitration agreement a provision that any
investor who opens an account with Schwab is giving up his right
to bring a class action against Schwab.  He or she must arbitrate
any individual dispute, rather than go to court as a part of a
class action.

The significance of this case is that there are some instances
when arbitration is not appropriate for investors.  One example
involves Schwab and its infamous Yield Plus Fund, in which Schwab
sold risky funds under the guise of a "conservative" investment to
thousands of investors.  However, the losses for some investors
were relatively small, with some losing as little as several
hundred dollars.

No individual investor would ever have the financial incentive or
wherewithal to bring a complicated case showing that Schwab had
loaded its Yield Plus Fund with high-risk bonds.  That would
require an enormous effort and cost to prove the wrongdoing.

Investors under these circumstances could have joined a class
action where they would band together with thousands of other
investors to pool their resources to bring one big case to bring
Schwab to justice.  This has been the best approach with consumer
cases where the individual harm is small, but egregious, so a
class action was necessary to right this wrong.

Let's hope that FINRA and the SEC stand up to Schwab and their
partners and restore the investors' right to bring a class action.
If not, the decision by the FINRA hearing panel could be doomsday
for investors, the very group that FINRA claims it protects and
defends.

In a report in Sunday's InvestmentNews, reporter Dan Jamieson
shows how Wall Street will pounce on this new found ability to cut
investors' ability to participate in a class action.

"More brokerage firms are expected to follow the lead of The
Charles Schwab Corp. and demand that customers give up their right
to file class actions against them," Mr. Jamieson wrote.  "A legal
door for the industry to kill class actions was cracked open last
Thursday, Feb. 22, when a hearing panel of the (FINRA) upheld
Schwab's use of arbitration agreements that force customers to
bring all disputes into Finra-run arbitration forums."

Mr. Jamieson noted: "FINRA brought charges against Schwab a year
ago, claiming that Schwab's arbitration agreement violated its
rules. The hearing panel agreed, but said the Federal Arbitration
Act prevented FINRA from enforcing those rules.  FINRA does not
allow class-action claims in its arbitration system, and so
precluding customers from pursuing class claims in court
effectively kills them."

Mr. Zamansky said "We see this case heading up to the Supreme
Court.  Will it spur Congressional hearings on new legislation to
prevent Schwab and the rest of Wall Street from trampling on
investor rights? We certainly hope so, particularly with the likes
of Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren on the hill.  If not,
this is another blow to investor protection in our country."

          FINRA to Appeal Hearing Panel's Waiver Decision

Caitlin Nish, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that FINRA
said on Feb. 26 it is appealing a hearing panel decision that
allowed Schwab to force its customers to waive their rights to
participate in class-action lawsuits.

"We are in the process of filing an appeal" to Finra's appeals
board, spokeswoman Michelle Ong told Dow Jones Newswires on
Feb. 26.

Attorneys for investors said the ruling raises serious investor-
protection issues, particularly if other brokerages follow suit
and add the same clause to their account agreements.  Doing so
would prevent investors from being able to pursue any sort of
class action, considering that arbitrators in Finra's dispute-
resolution forum aren't able to hear those types of cases.

Massachusetts' securities regulator rebuked Schwab on Feb. 26,
calling the ruling "akin to giving every rogue broker- dealer the
green light to steal from their customers in small dollar
amounts."  Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin urged
investors to watch for changes in their brokerage accounts and to
call their brokers to object to any change in their rights to
participate in class actions.

But Schwab contends that customers are better served through
Finra's existing arbitration process as class-action lawsuits are
a less effective means of resolving disputes.

Finra did prevail on one of its charges in the case.  The hearing
panel determined that Schwab attempted to limit the powers of
Finra arbitrators to consolidate individuals' claims in
arbitration, in violation of its rules, and that federal
arbitration law doesn't prohibit the grouping of such cases.  As a
result, Schwab was ordered to remove the language in question and
Finra imposed a fine of $500,000.

Ms. Ong said on Feb. 26 that the sanctions are stayed pending the
result of the appeal.  A spokesman for Schwab didn't immediately
respond to a request for comment.

        Galvin Balks at New Customer Arbitration Agreement

Matthew L. Brown, writing for Boston Business Journal, reports
that Secretary of the Commonwealth William F. Galvin is urging
Charles Schwab to reconsider the decision, and on Feb. 26 sent a
"rebuke" to Schwab, and a plea to investors to "vehemently object
to any change in their rights to participate in class actions."

Schwab's new customer arbitration agreement requires customers to
waive the right to bring or join civil class action lawsuits
against the firm.  The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
recently (FINRA) ruled Schwab had violated rules prohibiting firms
from preventing customers from civil class actions.  However,
FINRA also said it was powerless to enforce its longstanding rule
because it conflicts with the Federal Arbitration Act.

Schwab argues its customers are better served by the FINRA
arbitration process than by filing class action suits in civil
court.

In his letter, Mr. Galvin calls that argument "disingenuous," and
says the decision "is akin to giving every rogue broker-dealer the
green light to steal from their customers in small dollar
amounts."

A Schwab spokesman issued the following statement: "We believe the
evidence is overwhelming that investors -- large and small -- are
better served through arbitration than class actions, where the
plaintiff's lawyers reap the lion's share of settlements to the
detriment of the investor."

Mr. Galvin has also written to the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission asking it to use its rulemaking powers under the Dodd-
Frank act to stop firms from forcing customers to waive their
right to file class action suits.

Mr. Galvin is asking Schwab, "as a good corporate citizen," to
reconsider the arbitration clause.


CISCO SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On March 31, 2011, and April 12, 2011, purported shareholder class
action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against Cisco Systems, Inc.
and certain of its officers and directors.  The lawsuits have been
consolidated, and an amended consolidated complaint was filed on
December 2, 2011.  The consolidated action is purportedly brought
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's publicly traded
securities between February 3, 2010, and May 11, 2011.  Plaintiffs
allege that defendants made false and misleading statements,
purport to assert claims for violations of the federal securities
laws, and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.
The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
defend the actions vigorously.  While the Company believes there
is no legal basis for liability, due to the uncertainty
surrounding the litigation process, the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any, at this time.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 19,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended January 26, 2013.


CONTINENTAL LABOR: Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Continental Labor & Staffing
Resources, and Advanced Industrial Services stiffed workers for
overtime, minimum wages and expenses, a class action claims in
Kern County Court.


DOMEGA NY: Recalls Green Day White Melon Seeds Over Sulfites
------------------------------------------------------------
Domega NY International Co., Ltd. at 47-57 Bridgewater Street, in
Brooklyn, New York 11222, is recalling GREEN DAY BRAND WHITE MELON
SEEDS because they contain undeclared sulfites.  People who have
severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled GREEN DAY BRAND WHITE MELON SEEDS come in a 9.8 oz
(280 gram) clear, plastic bag on a plastic tray insert with the
following code: Exp 09/29/2014.  The UPC code is 6868978724120.
The product was sold in New York City.  It is a product of China.

Picture of the recalled products is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm341349.htm

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of sulfites in packages of GREEN DAY BRAND
WHITE MELON SEEDS which did not declare sulfites on the label.
The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been
reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.

Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.  Consumers who have purchased GREEN DAY BRAND WHITE MELON
SEEDS should return it to the place of purchase.  Consumers with
questions may contact the Company at 646-388-3032.


DYNACRAFT BSC: Recalls 5,200 Hello Kitty City Motor Scooters
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
distributor, Dynacraft BSC Inc., of American Canyon, California,
and manufacturer, Zhejiang Qunying Vehicle Co. Ltd., of China,
announced a voluntary recall of about 5,200 Motor Scooters with
Hello Kitty graphics.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The scooters can accelerate suddenly while in use, causing the
rider to lose control and fall.

The firm has received nine reports of incidents of City Scooters
accelerating unintentionally, including three with minor injuries
that include a bloody nose and bruises.

This recall involves electric, battery-operated City Scooters that
are pink and black with Hello Kitty graphics on the front panel,
footboard and rear fenders.  The scooters were manufactured
between September 10, 2012, and December 3, 2012.  Model number
"8801-03" and the date of manufacture, formatted as "YYYY/MM/DD,"
are printed on a data label on the underside of the scooter's
center platform.  Serial numbers for the recalled scooters have
the letters "QYCEI" followed by a six-digit number in the
following range: 000001 through 014456.  The serial number can be
found etched on the underside of the scooter's center platform
near the data label.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at: http://is.gd/OhVUfR

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Toys R Us stores and Toysrus.com nationwide from
October 2012 to January 2013 for about $279.

Consumers should immediately stop using the City Scooter,
disconnect the battery and return it to the nearest Toys R Us
store to receive a full refund or store credit.  Dynacraft may be
reached at (800) 551-0032, from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Pacific
Time Monday through Friday; or online at
http://www.dynacraftbike.com/and click on Owners, then select
Warnings/Recalls.


DYNACRAFT BSC: Recalls 5,500 Monster High City Motor Scooters
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
distributor, Dynacraft BSC Inc., of American Canyon, California,
and manufacturer, Zhejiang Qunying Vehicle Co. Ltd., of China,
announced a voluntary recall of about 5,500 Motor Scooters with
Monster High graphics.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The scooters can accelerate suddenly while in use, causing the
rider to lose control and fall.

The firm has received nine reports of incidents of City Scooters
accelerating unintentionally, including three with minor injuries
that include a bloody nose and bruises.

This recall involves electric, battery-operated City Scooters that
are purple and black with Monster High graphics on the front
panels, seat and rear fenders.  The scooters were manufactured
between October 5, 2012, and November 7, 2012.  Model number
"8801-14" and the date of manufacture, formatted as "YYYY/MM/DD,"
are printed on a data label on the underside of the scooter's
center platform.  Serial numbers for the recalled scooters have
the letters "QYCEI" followed by a six-digit number in the
following range: 003125 through 014456.  The serial number can be
found etched on the underside of the scooter's center platform
near the data label.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at: http://is.gd/rowjeF

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Walmart stores and Walmart.com nationwide from
November 2012 to January 2013 for about $249.

Consumers should immediately stop using the City Scooter,
disconnect the battery and return it to the nearest Walmart store
to receive a full refund or store credit.  Dynacraft may be
reached at (800) 551-0032, from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Pacific
Time Monday through Friday; or online at
http://www.dynacraftbike.com/


FIRST HORIZON: Dist. Court Rules on RESPA Suit Dismissal Bids
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
held a hearing to consider three motions to dismiss filed in the
first amended class action complaint captioned SAYDEI G. BARLEE,
et al. v. FIRST HORIZON NATIONAL CORPORATION, et al., Civil Action
No. 12-3045.

The putative class-action filed by Saydei G. Barlee and Barry D.
Broome asserts violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act of 1974 and common law unjust enrichment claims against First
Horizon National Corporation, First Tennessee Bank, N.A., First
Horizon Home Loan Corporation, FT Reinsurance Company,
United Guaranty Residential Insurance Company, Genworth Mortgage
Insurance Corporation, Republic Mortgage Insurance Company, and
Radian Guaranty Inc.

The Defendants maintain that the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring
claims against them, that there can be no secondary liability
under RESPA, that the plaintiffs' RESPA claims are time-barred,
and that the unjust enrichment claim provides no basis for
recovery.

On February 27, 2013, District Judge Harvey Bartle, III, granted
the motion of Genworth, Republic, and Radian to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of
standing.

The motion of FHNC, First Tennessee Bank, First Horizon Home Loan,
and FT Reinsurance to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure is denied.

The motion to dismiss filed by United Guaranty is denied as to
Mr. Broome, but granted as to Ms. Barlee.  "United Guaranty was
the private mortgage insurer of plaintiff Broome but had no
relationship to plaintiff Barlee," Judge Bartle said.

A copy of the District Court's February 27, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/kkPUymfrom Leagle.com.


FMC CORP: Cross-Border Class Suit vs. Foret Pending in Germany
--------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple European purchasers of hydrogen peroxide, who claim to
have been harmed as a result of alleged violations of European
competition law by hydrogen peroxide producers assigned their
legal claims to a single entity formed by a law firm.  The single
entity then filed a lawsuit in Germany in March 2009 against
European producers, including FMC Corporation's wholly-owned
Spanish subsidiary, Foret, S.A.  Initial defense briefs were filed
in April 2010, and an initial hearing was held during the first
quarter of 2011, at which time case management issues were
discussed.  At a subsequent hearing in October 2011, the Court
indicated that it was considering seeking guidance from the
European Court of Justice ("ECJ") as to whether the German courts
have jurisdiction over these claims.  After submission of written
comments on this issue by the parties, on March 1, 2012, the judge
announced that she would refer the jurisdictional issues to the
ECJ.  Such a reference to the ECJ normally takes 12-18 months for
completion.  Since the case is in the preliminary stages and is
based on a novel procedure -- namely the attempt to create a
cross-border "class action" which is not a recognized proceeding
under EU or German law -- the Company is unable to develop a
reasonable estimate of its potential exposure of loss at this
time.  The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this
matter.

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.


FMC CORP: Still Awaits Order Related to Indirect Purchase Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation is still awaiting a court decision with respect to
the issue of viability of claims of indirect purchasers of
hydrogen peroxide in class action lawsuits brought against major
producers of hydrogen peroxide, 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 2005, after public disclosures of the U.S. federal grand jury
investigation into the hydrogen peroxide industry (which resulted
in no charges brought against the Company) and the filing of
various class actions in U.S. federal and state courts, which have
all been settled, putative class actions against the Company and
five other major hydrogen peroxide producers were filed in
provincial courts in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia under
the laws of Canada.  The other five defendants have settled these
claims for a total of approximately $20.6 million.  On
September 28, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
certified a class of direct and indirect purchasers of hydrogen
peroxide from 1994 to 2005.  The Company's motion for leave to
appeal the class certification decision was denied in June 2010.
Since then, the case has been largely dormant.

In early 2012, the parties began a more detailed dialogue on
discovery and at a hearing on April 5, 2012, they requested the
judge to issue more specific guidance on document production.  The
court instead stayed the litigation pending resolution by the
Canadian Supreme Court of the viability of indirect purchaser
claims.  The Canadian Supreme Court heard argument on that issue
in October 2012.

Since the proceedings are in the preliminary stages with respect
to the merits, the Company says it is unable to develop a
reasonable estimate of its potential exposure of loss at this
time.  The Company intends to vigorously defend these matters.


FOCUS MEDIA: Being Sold to Giovanna For Too Little, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Focus Media Holding, of
China, is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to
Giovanna Parent Limited, for $5.50 a share or $27.50 per American
depository share, shareholders claim in Federal Court.


FORD MOTOR: Appeal in South African Apartheid MDL Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company and other defendants' appeal in the lawsuit
titled In re South African Apartheid Litigation remains 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.

Along with two other prominent multinational companies, the
Company is a defendant in purported class action lawsuits seeking
unspecified damages on behalf of South African citizens who
suffered violence and oppression under South Africa's apartheid
regime.  The lawsuits allege that the defendant companies aided
and abetted the apartheid regime and its human rights violations.
These cases, collectively referred to as In re South African
Apartheid Litigation, were initially filed in 2002 and 2003, and
are being handled together as coordinated "multidistrict
litigation" in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.  The District Court dismissed these cases in 2004,
but in 2007 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
reversed and remanded the cases to the District Court for further
proceedings.  Amended complaints were filed during 2008; motions
to dismiss have been granted in part and denied in part, and
defendants' appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals is pending.


FORD MOTOR: Appeal in Suit vs. Sudesh Agrawal Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the class action lawsuit titled Ford Motor Credit
Company LLC v. Sudesh Agrawal remains 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.

On January 18, 2011, a state trial court judge in Cuyahoga County,
Ohio, certified a nationwide class action with an Ohio subclass in
a counterclaim arising out of a collection action.  Class
claimants allege breach of contract, fraud, and statutory
violations for Ford Credit's lease-end excess wear and use
charges.  Class claimants allege that the standard applied by Ford
Credit in determining the condition of vehicles at lease-end is
different than the standard set forth in claimants' leases.  A
three-member panel of the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth
Appellate District, affirmed nationwide class certification and
certification of an Ohio subclass.  Ford Credit is appealing the
matter.


FORD MOTOR: Continues to Defend Ohio Suit by Truck Dealers
----------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit filed in Ohio by Ford truck dealers, 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 Medium/Heavy Truck Sales Procedure Class Action pending in the
Ohio state court system alleges that Ford breached its Sales and
Service Agreement with Ford truck dealers by failing to publish to
all Ford dealers all price concessions that were approved for any
dealer.  The trial court certified a nationwide class consisting
of all Ford dealers who purchased from Ford any 600-series or
higher truck from 1987 to 1997, and granted plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment on liability.  During 2011, a jury awarded $4.5
million in damages to the named plaintiff dealer and the trial
court applied the jury's findings with regard to the named
plaintiff to all dealers in the class, entering a judgment of
approximately $2 billion in damages.  The Company appealed, and on
May 3, 2012, the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs, vacated the damages
award, and remanded the matter for a new trial.


FORD MOTOR: Faces Suit Over Vinyl Delaminates of 2008 Fusion
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that vinyl delaminates from the
dashboard of the 2008 Ford Fusion and interferes with the
operation of the passenger-side airbag, a class action claims in
Superior Court.


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Wants "Nichols" Suit Remanded to Ala. State Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HealthSouth Corporation has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit
filed March 28, 2003, by several individual stockholders in the
Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v.
HealthSouth Corp.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company, some of
its former officers, and the Company's former investment bank
engaged in a scheme to overstate and misrepresent its earnings and
financial position.  The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and
punitive damages.  This case was consolidated with the action
captioned Tucker v. Scrushy for discovery and other pretrial
purposes and was stayed in the Circuit Court on August 8, 2005.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 9, 2010, to
which the Company responded with a motion to dismiss filed on
December 22, 2010.

During a hearing on February 24, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel
indicated his intent to dismiss certain claims against the
Company.  Instead, on March 9, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their
complaint to include additional securities fraud claims against
HealthSouth and add several former officers to the lawsuit.  On
September 12, 2012, the plaintiffs further amended their complaint
to request certification as a class action.  One of those named
officers has repeatedly attempted to remove the case to federal
district court, most recently on December 11, 2012.

The Company filed its latest motion to remand the case back to
state court on January 10, 2013, 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.

At this time, the Company says it does not know when the court
will rule on the motion to remand.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend itself in this case.  Based on the stage of
litigation, review of the current facts and circumstances as the
Company understands them, the nature of the underlying claim, the
results of the proceedings to date, and the nature and scope of
the defense the Company continues to mount, the Company does not
believe an adverse judgment or settlement is probable in this
matter, and it is also not possible to estimate the amount of
loss, if any, or range of possible loss that might result from an
adverse judgment or settlement of the case.


HERTZ CORP: Faces $1.3BB Class Action for Overcharging Customers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that in a
$1.3 billion class action demand, a customer claims Hertz uses a
"deceptive, predatory and fraudulent scheme to purposefully
inflate and manipulate charges to customers."

Lead plaintiff Frederick Cohen sued The Hertz Corporation, Hertz
Global Holdings, and Hertz Investors, in Federal Court.

Cohen claims that Hertz "routinely and methodically utilized, at
minimum, three different schemes to unlawfully inflate customer
invoices," and overcharged hundreds of thousands, possibly
millions, of customers.

When customers use discount coupons, Cohen claims, Hertz charges
sales tax on the full price, not the discounted price, in
violation of New York tax laws.

He also claims that Hertz gives only partial discounts, not the
full discount it promised.

Cohen, a member of the American Bar Association, claims Hertz
promised him a 10% discount for his ABA membership, but gave him
only 5% discount.

He claims that Hertz also charged sales taxes on full tanks of
fuel even when customers received a "refueling credit" for
returning a car with more gas in the tank than they had received
from Hertz.

Though Hertz failed to deduct the refueling credit before
calculating the sales tax, its invoices showed the discount figure
before the tax figure to trick customers, according to the
complaint.

Cohen seeks to represent everyone who rented cars from Hertz from
2008 through 2013 and was overcharged.

He seeks class certification and more than $1.3 billion in
compensatory and punitive damages for fraud, false advertising,
intentional and negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary
duty, conspiracy and negligence.

He is represented by Alan Ripka with Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik.

Hertz Investors, the parent company of Hertz, is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Hertz Holdings.

With a rental fleet of more than 355,000 vehicles in the United
States and more than 174,000 overseas, Hertz is the second-largest
U.S. car rental company by sales, according to the complaint,
which cites the company's filings and a November 2012 Wall Street
Journal article.

                      Napoli Firm's Statement

Nationally known plaintiffs' law firm Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik,
LLP, filed a class action complaint on February 22, 2013 against
The Hertz Corporation, Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. and Hertz
Investors, Inc. for unlawfully overcharging its customers.  The
complaint, captioned Frederick Cohen et al v. The Hertz
Corporation, et al., was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York by NBRS Senior Partner
Alan S. Ripka.  The plaintiffs allege that Hertz violated New York
and other states' laws by issuing customer coupons and discounts,
while knowingly imposing sales tax on the pre-discount total.
This unlawful practice has resulted in the overcharging of Hertz
customers.  Mr. Ripka said: "this overcharge scheme by a
multinational multibillion dollar corporate giant may have cheated
Hertz's customers out of many millions of dollars."

New York and other states have passed legislation and regulations
disallowing this predatory behavior and to protect the public from
this unscrupulous business practice that attempts to overcharge
customers under the veil of the tax code.  The class complaint
seeks Hertz's compliance with these laws and regulations and the
return of all improperly charged costs and fees to class members.

Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP, with offices in New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Florida, Illinois and
California, advocates commercial, environmental, professional
liability, products liability and consumer litigation claims for
injured plaintiffs and municipalities.

Contact: Alan S. Ripka, Esq.
         Senior Partner
         Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP
         Telephone: (212)267-3700
         E-mail: ARipka@napolibern.com


IBM CORP: Employees File Overtime Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that IBM stiffs its California-
based information-technology employees for overtime, a class
action claims in Superior Court.


IKEA: Recalls Meatballs Amidst Horse Meat Scandal in Europe
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anna Molin of The Wall Street Journal reports that Swedish
furniture giant IKEA has suspended the sale of its meatballs in
parts of Asia and the Caribbean a day after their withdrawal from
Europe, amid fears the products could contain traces of horse
meat.

The world's biggest furniture retailer is the latest company to be
drawn into Europe's food safety scandal after food inspectors in
the Czech Republic found traces of horse meat in a batch of IKEA's
signature food item.

On February 25, 2013, the Company halted sales of meatballs in 21
European countries, later adding Hong Kong, Thailand and the
Dominican Republic to the list.

"As a cautionary measure, we have temporarily halted sales in all
countries that have received deliveries from our Swedish supplier
so that none of our customers have to feel worried," IKEA
spokeswoman Ylva Magnusson said in a phone interview.

Countries that received deliveries from Familjen Dafgard, the
Swedish supplier that processes most of IKEA's meatballs, have
withdrawn the frozen meatballs sold in IKEA's Food Market and
those available for consumption in its cafeterias, Ms. Magnusson
said.

It remains unclear how horse meat ended up in the meatballs, and
Familjen Dafgard said on February 26, 2013, that despite extensive
testing of its products, it had found no traces of horse meat.
"Out of 320 tests taken in the last three weeks, none contain
horse meat," Chief Executive Ulf Dafgard said in a statement.

Czech food regulator SVS said on February 25, 2013, it had found
undisclosed amounts of the animal in one specific batch of
meatballs during a routine check late last week.  Familjen Dafgard
said it had been unable to reach the Czech laboratory to get more
information on the test.

IKEA stores receiving meatballs made by other suppliers remain
unaffected.  This includes those in the U.S., Canada, Australia,
China and Japan, Ms. Magnusson said.

Although the horse-meat scandal has been raging in Europe for
weeks, many of the tainted products have been relatively obscure.
However, the IKEA meatball is a well-known element of the
Company's food brand, with an estimated 150 million a year
consumed around the world, according to the company.  IKEA relies
on food sales for 5% of its EUR27 billion ($35.3 billion) revenue.

Ms. Magnusson said IKEA has a long-running collaboration with
Familjen Dafgard and is working with the supplier to determine
what happened.

Mr. Dafgard told Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet late Monday (Feb. 25)
evening, February 25, 2013, that he suspected the Company had been
tricked by a slaughterhouse that was trying to reduce costs by
diluting the product with cheaper meat.  Horse meat often costs
less than a quarter of the price of beef.

"We have been tricked; it's a criminal act that's behind this,"
Mr. Dafgard was quoted as saying by Aftonbladet.  The Company
declined to confirm the comments.

The scandal first erupted last month after Irish authorities
tested suspiciously cheap frozen beef patties and discovered they
contained horse DNA.  It has since swept across Europe, prompting
supermarkets in numerous countries to pull processed meat products
from their shelves.

The furor has raised concerns about the complex network of
slaughterhouses and suppliers that handle food on its way to the
table, and the controls governing cross-border transportation of
food.

The matter has already involved some of Europe's biggest food
companies and meat producers, including Switzerland-based Nestle
SA, the world's largest food company by revenue, and Irish company
ABP Food Group's Silvercrest Foods.


INTEL CORP: Hearing in Sherman Act Violation Suits Set for July
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing is scheduled to occur in July 2013 in the Delaware
proceedings of lawsuits alleging violation of the Sherman Act,
according to Intel Corporation's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 29, 2012.

At least 82 separate class-action lawsuits have been filed in the
U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California,
Southern District of California, District of Idaho, District of
Nebraska, District of New Mexico, District of Maine, and District
of Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and
Tennessee state courts.  These actions generally repeat the
allegations made in a now-settled lawsuit filed against Intel by
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. in June 2005 in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware (AMD litigation).  Like the AMD
litigation, the class-action lawsuits allege that the Company
engaged in various actions in violation of the Sherman Act and
other laws by, among other things: providing discounts and rebates
to the Company's manufacturer and distributor customers
conditioned on exclusive or near-exclusive dealing that allegedly
unfairly interfered with AMD's ability to sell its
microprocessors; interfering with certain AMD product launches;
and interfering with AMD's participation in certain industry
standards-setting groups.  The class actions allege various
consumer injuries, including that consumers in various states have
been injured by paying higher prices for computers containing the
Company's microprocessors.  The Company disputes these class-
action claims and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

All of the federal class actions and the Kansas and Tennessee
state court class actions have been transferred by the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel to the U.S. District Court in
Delaware for all pre-trial proceedings and discovery (MDL
proceedings).  The Delaware district court has appointed a Special
Master to address issues in the MDL proceedings, as assigned by
the court.  In January 2010, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action
filed a motion for sanctions for the Company's alleged failure to
preserve evidence.  This motion largely copies a motion previously
filed by AMD in the AMD litigation, which has settled.  The
plaintiffs in the MDL proceedings also moved for certification of
a class of members who purchased certain PCs containing products
sold by the Company.  In July 2010, the Special Master issued a
Report and Recommendation (Class Report) denying the motion to
certify a class.  The MDL plaintiffs filed objections to the
Special Master's Class Report, and a hearing on those objections
was held in March 2011.  In September 2012, the court ruled that
an evidentiary hearing will be necessary to enable the court to
rule on the objections to the Special Master's Class Report, to
resolve the motion to certify the class, and to resolve a separate
motion to exclude certain testimony and evidence from the MDL
plaintiffs' expert.  The hearing is scheduled to occur in July
2013.

All California class actions have been consolidated in the
Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County.  The
plaintiffs in the California actions have moved for class
certification, which the Company is in the process of opposing.
At the Company's request, the court in the California actions has
agreed to delay ruling on this motion until after the Delaware
district court rules on the similar motion in the MDL proceedings.

Based on the procedural posture and the nature of these cases,
including, but not limited to, the fact that the Delaware district
court has requested an evidentiary hearing and has not yet ruled
on class certification issues, the Company cannot make a
reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if
any, arising from these matters.

Intel Corporation -- http://www.intel.com/-- designs,
manufactures, and sells integrated digital technology platforms
primarily in the Asia-Pacific, the Americas, Europe, and Japan.
The Company offers microprocessors that process system data and
controls other devices in the system; and chipsets, which sends
data between the microprocessor and input, display, and storage
devices, such as keyboard, mouse, monitor, hard drive or solid-
state drive, and CD, DVD, or Blu-ray drives; system-on-chip
products that integrate its processing functions with other system
components, including graphics, audio, and video onto a single
chip; wired network connectivity products; and wireless
connectivity products.  It also provides mobile phone components
comprising baseband processors, radio frequency transceivers, and
power management integrated circuits; and mobile phone platforms,
such as Bluetooth wireless technology and GPS receivers, software
solutions, customization, and interoperability tests.  Intel
Corporation was founded in 1968 and is based in Santa Clara,
California.


INTEL CORP: Summary Judgment Bid Granted in McAfee Purchase Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara
granted Intel Corporation and other defendants' motion for summary
judgment in the consolidated lawsuit arising from the acquisition
of McAfee Inc., 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 29, 2012.

On August 19, 2010, the Company announced that it had agreed to
acquire all of McAfee Inc.'s common stock for $48.00 per share.
Four McAfee shareholders filed putative class-action lawsuits in
Santa Clara County, California Superior Court challenging the
proposed transaction.  The cases were ordered consolidated in
September 2010.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that named
former McAfee board members, McAfee and Intel as defendants, and
alleged that the McAfee board members breached their fiduciary
duties and that McAfee and Intel aided and abetted those breaches
of duty.  The complaint requested rescission of the merger
agreement, such other equitable relief as the court may deem
proper, and an award of damages in an unspecified amount.  In June
2012, the plaintiffs' damages expert asserted that the value of a
McAfee share for the purposes of assessing damages should be
$62.08.

In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class action,
appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the class
representative, and scheduled trial to begin in January 2013.  In
March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the California Court
of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the class certification
order; the petition was denied in June 2012.  In March 2012, at
defendants' request, the court held that plaintiffs were not
entitled to a jury trial, and ordered a bench trial.  In April
2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the California Court of
Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that order, which the
court of appeal denied in July 2012.

In August 2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment,
which was scheduled for hearing on November 2, 2012.  On
November 1, 2012, the court issued a tentative ruling granting
defendants' motion.  Plaintiffs chose not to contest the tentative
ruling, and the court adopted it as its final ruling on November
6, 2012.  The trial court entered final judgment in the case on
February 13, 2013, and plaintiffs have 60 days from the date of
the judgment to file any appeal.

Because the resolution of any appeal of this matter may materially
impact the scope and nature of the proceeding, the Company says it
cannot make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range
of losses, if any, arising from this matter.  The Company disputes
the class-action claims and intends to continue to defend the
lawsuit vigorously.

Intel Corporation -- http://www.intel.com/-- designs,
manufactures, and sells integrated digital technology platforms
primarily in the Asia-Pacific, the Americas, Europe, and Japan.
The Company offers microprocessors that process system data and
controls other devices in the system; and chipsets, which sends
data between the microprocessor and input, display, and storage
devices, such as keyboard, mouse, monitor, hard drive or solid-
state drive, and CD, DVD, or Blu-ray drives; system-on-chip
products that integrate its processing functions with other system
components, including graphics, audio, and video onto a single
chip; wired network connectivity products; and wireless
connectivity products.  It also provides mobile phone components
comprising baseband processors, radio frequency transceivers, and
power management integrated circuits; and mobile phone platforms,
such as Bluetooth wireless technology and GPS receivers, software
solutions, customization, and interoperability tests.  Intel
Corporation was founded in 1968 and is based in Santa Clara,
California.


JERDON STYLE: Recalls 6,000 Coffeemakers Due to Burn & Fire Risks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Jerdon Style, LLC, of Richardson, Texas, announced a voluntary
recall of about 6,000 One-cup Coffeemakers.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The coffeemaker can overheat, posing fire and burn hazards to
consumers.

Jerdon Style has received four reports of coffee makers
overheating.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Jerdon Style model CM12B one-cup coffee
makers, with date code 1217.  The coffee makers are black and have
an oval, red indicator light above the on/off switch.  The coffee
maker brews a single, eight to 12-ounce cup of coffee.  The
phrases "FIRST CLASS" and "JERDON" are printed in white letters on
the front of the product.  The model and date code are imprinted
on a nameplate located on the bottom of the coffeemaker.  Pictures
of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/ToU9mX

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
hotel/motel product suppliers and major online retailers from July
2012 to January 2013 for between $15 and $26.

Consumers should immediately stop using and unplug the recalled
coffee makers and contact Jerdon Style for instructions on how to
receive a full refund.  Jerdon Style may be reached at (800) 223-
3571, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Central Time Monday through
Friday, or online at http://www.jerdonstyle.com/


JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Dismisses Overtime Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Victor Li, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that Judge
Vincent Briccetti of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York has dismissed a purported overtime class
action against JPMorgan Chase, citing a mandatory arbitration and
class-action waiver clause in a former employee's contract and
rejecting the NLRB's holding that binding such agreements violate
the National Labor Relations Act.


KINDER MORGAN: Faces Suits Over Proposed Copano Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. is facing class action
lawsuits arising from its proposed acquisition of Copano Energy,
L.L.C., 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 29, 2013, the Company and Copano Energy, L.L.C.,
announced a definitive agreement whereby the Company will acquire
all of Copano's outstanding units, including convertible preferred
units, for a total purchase price of approximately
$5 billion, including the assumption of debt.  The transaction,
which has been approved by the board of directors of both the
Company's general partner and Copano, will be a 100% unit for unit
transaction with an exchange ratio of 0.4563 of the Company's
common units for each Copano unit.  The transaction is subject to
customary closing conditions, regulatory approvals, and a vote of
the Copano unitholders; however, TPG Advisors VI, Inc., Copano's
largest unitholder, has agreed to support the transaction and the
Company expects the transaction to close in the third quarter of
2013.

Four putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the Company's proposed merger with Copano.  Two lawsuits have
been filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas: (i)
Schultes v. Copano Energy, L.L.C., et al. (Case No. 06966), filed
on February 5, 2013; and (ii) Bruen v. Copano Energy, L.L.C., et
al. (Case No. 07076), filed on February 5, 2013.  Two lawsuits
have also been filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware: Berlin v. Copano Energy L.L.C., et al. (Case No. 8284-
VCN), filed February 6, 2013; and Welzenbach v. William L.
Thacker, et al. (Case No. 8317-VCN), filed on February 14, 2013.

Each of the actions names Copano, its board of directors, Kinder
Morgan G.P., Inc., Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. and Merger
Sub as defendants.  All three lawsuits are purportedly brought on
behalf of a putative class seeking to enjoin the merger and
alleging, among other things, that the members of Copano's board
of directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell
Copano for inadequate and unfair consideration and pursuant to an
inadequate and unfair process, and that Copano, Kinder Morgan,
Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. and Merger Sub aided and abetted such
alleged breaches.

Kinder Morgan and Copano have not yet responded to any of the
complaints, but intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits.


KRAFT FOODS: Judge Tosses Multiple False Advertising Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that a California judge
on Feb. 25 stripped claims from a putative class action accusing
Kraft Foods Global Inc. and Cadbury Adams USA LLC of misleading
consumers as to the healthfulness of multiple products, including
breath mints, Jell-O and Easy Mac.

Judge Ronald M. Whyte tossed multiple claims brought against the
companies under state false advertising and unfair competition
statutes as well as the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
over the labeling of myriad Kraft and Cadbury products, citing
federal preemption issues.


LIBERTY MOUNTAIN: Recalls Easy Go XP Lock Via Ferrata Lanyards
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Liberty Mountain, of Salt Lake City, Utah, and
manufacturer, Singing Rock, of Ponikla, Czech Republic, announced
a voluntary recall of Easy Go XP Lock Via Ferrata Lanyards.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The elastic webbing on the lanyards can deteriorate over time and
break while in use, posing a risk of serious injury or death to
the climber.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Easy Go XP Lock Via Ferrata Lanyards used for
shock absorption on Via Ferrata mountain climbing routes.  The
lanyard has two elasticized webbing branches with self-locking
carabiners at each end.  Recalled units can be identified by the
elasticized webbing.  "EASY GO XP LOCK" is printed on a white tag
sewn into the zipper pouch.  Picture of the recalled products is
available at: http://is.gd/S0F2Tw

The recalled products were manufactured in the Czech Republic and
sold at specialty climbing shops nationwide and online at
Amazon.com and other internet retailers between April 2011 to
August 2012 for about $120.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lanyards and
contact Liberty Mountain for a refund or replacement.  Liberty
Mountain may be reached toll-free at (800) 366-2666, from 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time Monday through Friday, or online
at http://www.libertymountain.com/


LION PAVILION: Recalls Grassplot Ginger Slices Due to Sulfites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lion Pavilion Ltd. at 56-15 58th Street, in Maspeth, New York
11378, is recalling Grassplot Ginger Slices because it contains
undeclared sulfites.  Consumers who have severe sensitivity to
sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reactions if they consume this product.

Grassplot Ginger Slices is sold in a 100 gram (3.5 oz), clear
plastic bottle and is uncoded.  Product was distributed
nationwide.  It is a product of China.  Picture of the recalled
products' label is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm341339.htm

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the
presence of sulfites in Grassplot Ginger Slices which were not
declared on the label.  The consumption of 10 milligrams of
sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe reactions
in some asthmatics.  Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain
sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more
of sulfites.

No illnesses or allergic reactions involving this product have
been reported to date.  Consumers who have purchased Grassplot
Ginger Slices are urged to return it to the place of purchase for
a full refund.  Consumers with questions may contact the Company
at 718-326-7718.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Appeals Court Overturns $5.2MM Encore Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Lunsford, writing for insideARM, reports that the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals on Feb. 26 overturned a controversial
$5.2 million settlement resolving a class action lawsuit alleging
that Midland Funding -- a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, Inc.
-- "robo-signed" debt collection affidavits used against consumer
in court.  The case was remanded to a lower district court for
further proceedings.

The appellate panel noted in its ruling that "The disparity of the
relief afforded under the settlement to the named plaintiffs, on
the one hand, and the unnamed class members on the other hand,
made the settlement unfair."

Under a 2011 settlement agreement, four named class members were
to receive $8,000 and have their debts expunged while the rest of
the class, estimated at more than 1 million potential members,
would get much smaller amounts.  When announced, the proposed
settlement was highly contentious as many third parties --
including 38 state attorneys general and the Federal Trade
Commission -- filed briefs with the court to block final approval
of the deal.

In a statement on Feb. 26, Encore noted that the Sixth Circuit
left in place the repeated holdings of the U.S. District Court
that Midland's affidavits accurately stated the class members'
obligations and that no class members incurred actual damages as a
result.

Greg Call, senior vice president and general counsel of Encore
Capital, said, "We are confident in the work that has been done to
date to resolve this case fairly, and will continue to work with
the trial court to address the issues raised by the Sixth Circuit.
It's important to note that throughout this process, the validity
of the underlying debt and the consumer's financial obligation to
repay it have never been called into question."


NVR INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Salesmen's Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 18, 2007, former and current employees filed lawsuits
against NVR, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania and Hamilton County, Ohio, in Superior Court
in Durham County, North Carolina, and in the Circuit Court in
Montgomery County, Maryland, and on July 19, 2007, in the Superior
Court in New Jersey, alleging that the Company incorrectly
classified its sales and marketing representatives as being exempt
from overtime wages.  These lawsuits are similar in nature to
another lawsuit filed on October 29, 2004, by another former
employee in the United States District Court for the Western
District of New York.  The complaints seek injunctive relief, an
award of unpaid wages, including fringe benefits, liquidated
damages equal to the overtime wages allegedly due and not paid,
attorney and other fees and interest, and where available,
multiple damages.  The lawsuits were filed as purported class
actions.  However, while a number of individuals have filed
consents to join and assert federal claims in the New York action,
none of the groups of employees that the lawsuits purport to
represent have been certified as a class, and the Company has
filed a motion to decertify the federal collective action claim
and dismiss the individuals who filed consents from the case.  The
lawsuits filed in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and
North Carolina have been stayed pending further developments in
the New York action.

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.

The Company believes that its compensation practices in regard to
sales and marketing representatives are entirely lawful and in
compliance with two letter rulings from the United States
Department of Labor ("DOL") issued in January 2007.  Courts that
have considered similar claims against other homebuilders have
acknowledged the DOL's position that sales and marketing
representatives were properly classified as exempt from overtime
wages and the only court to have directly addressed the exempt
status of such employees concluded that the DOL's position was
valid.  Accordingly, the Company has vigorously defended and
intends to continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits.  Because
the Company is unable to determine the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome of these cases, or the amount of damages, if
any, the Company has not recorded any associated liabilities on
the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

NVR, Inc.'s primary business is the construction and sale of
single-family detached homes, townhomes and condominium buildings.
The Company is headquartered in Reston, Virginia.


ONE WORLD: Recalls 56,400 Ryobi Cordless Tool Battery Packs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with importer, One World Technologies, Inc., of
Anderson, South Carolina, and manufacturer, Techtronic Industries
(Dongguan) Co. Ltd. of China, announced a voluntary recall of
about 54,200 Ryobi Lithium 18 V 4Ah Battery Packs in the United
States of America and 2,200 in Canada.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The battery pack can overheat and burst while on a charger, posing
fire and burn hazards to consumers.

One World Technologies has received four reports of battery packs
overheating, resulting in minor property damage.  No injuries have
been reported.

This recall involves Ryobi brand, Lithium 18 V 4Ah battery packs,
with model P108 and part number 130429028.  The battery pack is
green, silver and black.  "Ryobi" and "Lithium+18V" are printed in
white lettering on both sides of the battery pack.  The model and
part number can be found on the data plate located on the bottom
of the battery pack.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at http://is.gd/DcoP2o

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at The
Home Depot stores nationwide and in Canada, online at
Homedepot.com, and at other retailers from September 2012 to
December 2012 for about $99.

Consumers should immediately remove the battery from the charger,
stop using the recalled battery pack and contact One World
Technologies for instructions on the free shipping and repair of
the recalled product.  One World Technologies may be reached at
(800) 597-9624 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday, Eastern Time or online at
http://www.ryobitools.com/


SCHMALZ'S EUROPEAN: Recalls 8,424 Lbs. of Chicken Sausage Product
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Schmalz's European Provisions, a Springfield, New Jersey
establishment, is recalling approximately 8,424 pounds of chicken
and apple sausage that may contain small pieces of plastic, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.

The following product is subject to recall: [View Label]
12 oz. vacuum packages of "Applegate Organics Chicken and Apple
Sausage" with "Use or Freeze By 03/17/13" on each package.

The recalled product bears the establishment number "P-5411"
inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The products were produced on
January 24, 2013, and were sold in retail stores nationwide and
through limited internet sales in New Jersey.  Picture of the
recalled products' label is available at: http://is.gd/Yf2qYY

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

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Gina Asoudegan, Public Affairs Specialist or Gerry Clarkson,
Consumer Affairs Specialist at (800) 587-5858.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-
MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and
can be reached from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day.  For information on how to report a problem with a
meat, poultry or processed egg product to FSIS at any time, visit
http://is.gd/vlfH9I


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Settles Shareholder Class Action Over Bad Loan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WLTZ 38 reports that it took just 19 minutes in a North Georgia
Federal Courtroom on Feb. 26 to end four years of litigation
against Synovus Financial, the parent company of Columbus Bank and
Trust.

A group of shareholders with Pompano Beach Employees Retirement
filed the civil suit over financial losses as a result of a bad
loan to Sea Island.  The shareholders maintained Synovus stock was
inflated for several months even after the company became aware of
the pending default on the multi-million dollar loan to Sea
Island.

The approved settlement includes nearly a million dollars paid in
attorneys' fees to litigate the class action lawsuit.

Synovus still owes the federal government more than $900 million
in TARP funds after a bailout in 2007 sparked by the housing
crash.


TATA CONSULTANCY: Settles Employee Class Action for $30 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Economic Times reports that Tata Consultancy Services (TCS)
will pay $30 million (Rs 163 crore) to settle a seven-year-old
case in the US filed by two former employees, making it the
largest employee class action suit settlement by any Indian
company.  Besides TCS, the case "originally filed in 2006 in
California by Gopi Vedachalam and Kangana Beri" named Tata
International and group holding company Tata Sons as defendants,
challenging their practice requiring employees to sign over their
tax refund checks to their employer.

Analysts said the development is a sharp pinprick for India's
largest software company, but not something that affects business
operations at a company with revenue of over $10 billion in fiscal
2012.  Shares of TCS stock touched a new 52-week high at Rs 1,494,
gaining 1.56% on the Bombay Stock Exchange on Feb. 26.

"TCS believes that it always acted appropriately notwithstanding
the allegations in this case.  It agreed to settle this matter to
eliminate any on-going distraction to its associates and
management," the Mumbai-based company, which employs about 2.5
lakh employees, said in a statement.

The lawsuit alleged that TCS has required its non-US-citizen
employees to sign power of attorney agreements delegating an
outside agency to calculate and submit each employee's tax return
to state and federal authorities.

Further, it alleged that the company then required these employees
to send the tax refund checks back to Tata.  The complainants also
contended that TCS did not pay them the salary they were promised
before they came to the US.

The Tata Group has not admitted to any wrongdoing and it insisted
that none has been found by the court either.  According to the
lawyers representing the employees, there are 12,800 current and
former Tata employees "called class members" who are potential
beneficiaries of the settlement.  If all the class members claim
their share, each of them will get about $1,600 while 30% of the
settlement amount will be set aside for paying attorneys' fees and
another and another $270,000 for footing litigation expenses.

"We commend Tata for its decision to invest money in its own
workers rather than on continued litigation," said Kelly M Dermody
-- kdermody@lchb.com -- a partner at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein which represented the employees.  Lawyers representing
the employees have moved a motion "unopposed by the Tatas" in the
US District Court for the Northern District of California seeking
approval of the settlement.

"Looking at the incidents in the recent past, any company that
operates in US has to keep these risks in sharp focus," Rikesh
Parikh, vice-president, markets strategy and equities at Motilal
Oswal Securities.  He added that as the legal challenge has been a
long hounding issue for the company, the settlement of it will
represents a short-term positive sentiment for the stock.

Other Indian IT companies have also been at the receiving end of
employee litigation in the US, which is the largest market for
software services exporters.  Over the past couple of years,
Infosys, India's second-largest technology outsourcer, has faced a
spate of investigations and lawsuits, some of which are still
ongoing.  These relate to practices for seeking work visas to send
engineers on short-term projects to the US.  L&T Infotech has also
been sued by former employees for unfair dismissal.


TRAVELERS COS: Awaits Approval of Deal to Dismiss "Safeco" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc. and other parties are awaiting an
order approving their stipulation for the dismissal of the class
action lawsuit initiated by Safeco Insurance Company of America,
et al., 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 Travelers Indemnity Company, a subsidiary of The Travelers
Companies, Inc., is one of the Settlement Class plaintiffs and a
class member in a class action lawsuit captioned Safeco Insurance
Company of America, et al. v. American International Group, Inc.
et al. (U.S. District Court, N.D. Ill.) in which the defendants
are alleged to have engaged in the under-reporting of workers'
compensation premium in connection with a workers' compensation
reinsurance pool in which several subsidiaries of the Company
participate.  On July 26, 2011, the court granted preliminary
approval of a class settlement pursuant to which the defendants
agreed to pay $450 million to the class.  The settlement includes
a plan of allocation of the settlement proceeds among the class
members.  On December 21, 2011, the court entered an order
granting final approval of the settlement, and on February 28,
2012, the district court issued a written opinion regarding its
approval of the settlement.  On March 27, 2012, three parties who
objected to the settlement appealed the court's orders approving
the settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.

On January 11, 2013, all parties, including the three parties who
had objected to the settlement, filed a Stipulation of Dismissal
indicating that there were no longer any objections to the
settlement.  All parties are awaiting an order from the Seventh
Circuit in response to the Stipulation of Dismissal.  The Company
anticipates that its allocation from the settlement fund, in the
event the settlement becomes final, will be approximately
$90 million.  This amount is treated for accounting purposes as a
gain contingency in accordance with FASB Topic 450, Contingencies,
and accordingly will be recognized in the Company's consolidated
financial statements during the period in which it is received by
the Company.


TRAVELERS COS: Awaits Ruling in Asbestos-Related Suits Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc. is awaiting an appellate court
decision in asbestos-related lawsuits, 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 October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action
lawsuits (Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed
against Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC) and other insurers
(not including The St. Paul Companies, Inc. (SPC)) in state court
in West Virginia.  These and other cases subsequently filed in
West Virginia were consolidated into a single proceeding in the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia.  The plaintiffs
allege that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade
practices in violation of state statutes by inappropriately
handling and settling asbestos claims.  The plaintiffs seek to
reopen large numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose
liability for damages, including punitive damages, directly on
insurers. Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and
settling of asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii
state courts.  These lawsuits are collectively referred to as the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state
court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant,
alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to
certain users of asbestos products.  The plaintiffs seek damages,
including punitive damages.  Lawsuits seeking similar relief and
raising similar allegations, primarily violations of purported
common law duties to third parties, have also been asserted in
various state courts against TPC and SPC.  The claims asserted in
these lawsuits are collectively referred to as the Common Law
Claims.

In response to these claims, TPC moved to enjoin the Statutory
Actions and the Common Law Claims in the federal bankruptcy court
that had presided over the bankruptcy of TPC's former policyholder
Johns-Manville Corporation on the ground that the lawsuits
violated injunctions entered in connection with confirmation of
the Johns-Manville bankruptcy (the "1986 Orders").  The bankruptcy
court issued a temporary restraining order and referred the
parties to mediation.  In November 2003, the parties reached a
settlement of the Statutory and Hawaii Actions, which included a
lump-sum payment of up to $412 million by TPC, subject to a number
of significant contingencies.  In May 2004, the parties reached a
settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future
Common Law Claims against TPC, which included a payment of up to
$90 million by TPC, subject to similar contingencies.  Among the
contingencies for each of these settlements was that the
bankruptcy court issue an order, which must become a final order,
clarifying that all of these claims, and similar future asbestos-
related claims against TPC, as well as related contribution
claims, are barred by the 1986 Orders.

On August 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order
approving the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders
barred the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially
all Common Law Claims pending against TPC (the "Clarifying
Order").  The Clarifying Order also applies to similar direct
action claims that may be filed in the future.  Although the
District Court substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order, on
February 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating
on jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the
Clarifying Order.

On December 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court granted
TPC's Petition for Writ of Certiorari and, on June 18, 2009, the
Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit's February 15, 2008
decision, finding, among other things, that the 1986 Orders are
final and therefore may not be collaterally challenged on
jurisdictional grounds.  The Supreme Court further ruled that the
bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue the Clarifying Order.
However, since the Second Circuit had not ruled on certain
additional issues, principally related to procedural matters and
the adequacy of notice provided to certain parties, the Supreme
Court remanded the case to the Second Circuit for further
proceedings on those specific issues.

On March 22, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in which
it found that the notice of the 1986 Orders provided to one
remaining objector was insufficient to bar contribution claims by
that objector against TPC.  TPC's Petition for Rehearing and
Rehearing En Banc were denied May 25, 2010, and, its Petition for
Writ of Certiorari and Petition for a Writ of Mandamus were denied
by the United States Supreme Court on November 29, 2010.

The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii actions and the Common
Law Claims actions thereafter filed motions in the bankruptcy
court to compel TPC to make payment under the settlement
agreements, arguing that all conditions precedent to the
settlements had been met.  On December 16, 2010, the bankruptcy
court granted the plaintiffs' motions and ruled that TPC was
required to fund the settlements.  The court entered judgment
against TPC on January 20, 2011, in accordance with this ruling
and ordered TPC to pay the settlement amounts plus prejudgment
interest.  The bankruptcy court's judgment was reversed by the
district court on March 1, 2012, the district court having found
that the conditions to the settlements had not been met in view of
the Second Circuit's March 22, 2010 ruling permitting the filing
of contribution claims against TPC.  The plaintiffs appealed the
district court's March 1, 2012 decision to the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals.  Oral argument before the Second Circuit took
place on January 10, 2013, and the parties await the court's
decision.

SPC, which is not covered by the Manville bankruptcy court rulings
or the settlements, from time to time has been named as a
defendant in direct action cases in Texas state court asserting
common law claims.  All such cases that are still pending and in
which SPC has been served are currently on the inactive docket in
Texas state court.  If any of those cases becomes active, SPC
intends to litigate those cases vigorously.  SPC was previously a
defendant in similar direct actions in Ohio state court, which
have been dismissed following favorable rulings by Ohio trial and
appellate courts.  From time to time, SPC and/or its subsidiaries
have been named in similar individual direct actions in other
jurisdictions.

Currently, it is not possible to predict legal outcomes and their
impact on the future development of claims and litigation relating
to asbestos and environmental claims.  Any such development will
be affected by future court decisions and interpretations, as well
as changes in applicable legislation.  Because of these
uncertainties, additional liabilities may arise for amounts in
excess of the Company's current reserves.  In addition, the
Company's estimate of ultimate claims and claim adjustment
expenses may change.  These additional liabilities or increases in
estimates, or a range of either, cannot now be reasonably
estimated and could result in income statement charges that could
be material to the Company's results of operations in future
periods.


TRAVELERS COS: Involvement in Antitrust Suits Has Concluded
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s involvement in the antitrust class
action lawsuits commenced against insurance brokers and insurers
has concluded, 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 2005, four putative class action lawsuits were brought against
a number of insurance brokers and insurers, including the Company,
by plaintiffs who allegedly purchased insurance products through
one or more of the defendant brokers.  The plaintiffs alleged that
various insurance brokers conspired with each other and with
various insurers, including the Company, to artificially inflate
premiums, allocate brokerage customers and rig bids for insurance
products offered to those customers.  To the extent they were not
originally filed there, the federal class actions were transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and were
consolidated for pre-trial proceedings with other class actions
under the caption In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.
On August 1, 2005, various plaintiffs, including the four named
plaintiffs in the class actions, filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint naming various brokers and insurers,
including the Company, on behalf of a putative nationwide class of
policyholders.  The complaint included causes of action under the
Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO), state common law and the laws of the various states
prohibiting antitrust violations.  The complaint sought monetary
damages, including punitive damages and trebled damages, permanent
injunctive relief, restitution, including disgorgement of profits,
interest and costs, including attorneys' fees.  All defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
After giving plaintiffs multiple opportunities to replead, the
court dismissed the Sherman Act claims on August 31, 2007, and the
RICO claims on September 28, 2007, both with prejudice, and
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law
claims.  The plaintiffs appealed the district court's decisions to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  On August 16,
2010, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of
all Sherman Act and RICO claims against certain defendants,
including the Company, except for Sherman Act and RICO claims
involving the sale of excess casualty insurance through a single
defendant broker, as well as all state law claims, which they
remanded to the district court for further proceedings.  On
October 1, 2010, defendants, including the Company, filed renewed
motions to dismiss the remanded claims.

On March 18, 2011, the Company and certain other defendants
entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the
lawsuit, under which the Company agreed to pay $6.75 million.
Preliminary approval of the settlement was granted on June 27,
2011.  On September 14, 2011, the court conducted a final fairness
hearing, and on March 30, 2012, the court granted final approval
of the settlement.  On April 27, 2012, three members of the
settlement class appealed the court's order granting final
approval of the settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.  Each of those appeals has been dismissed.
Accordingly, the settlement will proceed in accordance with the
district court's final approval order and the Company's
involvement in these class actions is concluded.


US BANK: State Court to Hear Wyoming's Class Action v. Banks
------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that
the County of Wyoming's class action lawsuit, which was filed by a
Houston law firm against several banks, will be heard in a state
court.

U.S. District Judge Irene Berger on Feb. 19 remanded the lawsuit,
which alleges a group of corporations and national banking
associations participated in a scheme to deprive West Virginia
counties from recordation fees that would be derived from mortgage
assignments.

Those fees occur when a lender transfers ownership of a loan.  The
defendants utilized the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems
computer database to "circumvent county recording fees," it is
alleged.

U.S. Bank removed the lawsuit to federal court.

"(T)o view the object of the litigation from the perspective of
the plaintiff, that is to obtain the recordation fees for each
real estate ownership transfer, the court would need to know the
number of mortgage loans held within U.S. Bank's (residential
mortgage backed securities) trust for properties in Wyoming County
which name MERS as a nominee, as well as the number of assignments
that occurred throughout the securitization process between the
originating loan and acquisition of the loan in the U.S. Bank's
RMBS trust," Judge Berger wrote.

"U.S. Bank has not offered any evidence of these factors and the
same is not contained on the face of the complaint, notice of
removal or the record of this case.

"Given that U.S. Bank's argument establishing this court's
jurisdiction based on the value of two identified residential
mortgage loans has been rejected, the balance of its arguments
fails."

The recordation fee for the transfer of an ownership interest in
real estate throughout the securitization process is $15, no
matter the size of the loan.

The defendants in the case are U.S. Bank, Bank of New York Mellon,
Bank of America, Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan Chase & Co.

In January, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri dismissed an $8 billion class action filed by Jackson
County in Missouri.  Judge Ortrie D. Smith ruled there was no duty
to record assignments under Missouri law.

That lawsuit was filed against MERS, which is not a defendant in
Wyoming County's suit.

Representing Wyoming County is the Bell Law Firm of Charleston and
Reich & Binstock of Houston.

Bell firm founder Harry Bell and Reich firm founder Robert
Binstock -- bbinstock@rbfirm.net -- served together on the
plaintiffs steering committee for the multidistrict litigation
proceeding over the heart medicine Digitek that is held in
Charleston's federal court.

Judge Berger's ruling moved Wyoming County's suit back to Wyoming
County Circuit Court, where it was filed in March 2012.


VODAFONE GROUP: "Double-Dipping" May Prompt Class Action Failure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bailey, writing for Business Review Weekly, reports that
law firm Piper Alderman says it needs at least 23,000 claimants
for its class action against Vodafone to be viable, while sources
close to the telco say it has already compensated most aggrieved
customers and the action will attract nothing like that number.

Piper Alderman partner leading the class action, Sasha Ivantsoff
-- sivantsoff@piperalderman.com.au -- says 23,000 people have
registered interest in joining the class action, which will be
funded by the LCM Litigation Fund on a no-win, no-fee basis, and
be filed in three months if enough people join.  Most of those
registered had done so by the end of April 2011, by which time
Vodafone had apologized to customers three times for network
problems and complaints handling bungles that had been building
throughout 2010.

However, those 23,000, and anyone else who feels they paid for a
service Vodafone failed to deliver, now have to fill in new forms
to establish that they were a Vodafone customer in the period
covered by the proposed action -- 2010 to 2011 -- and that they
had not already received compensation from Vodafone at least equal
to the value of the service shortfall they believe they suffered.

                           Double-Dipping

Sources close to Vodafone believe it is on this point that the
proposed class action will fall down, as people who have already
taken compensation cannot "double-dip".

"The company has heavily compensated, directly and through the
Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, the people who had issues.
The longest contract is two years, so those who are customers
today have either been compensated and chosen to stay, or they've
walked," one source says.

But the managing director of LCM Litigation Fund, Patrick Coope,
says in the two-year process of deciding whether to fund the
action, he gleaned that "vast slabs" of people had received no
compensation.  Mr. Coope says LCM expects a settlement in the
"tens of millions".

Piper Alderman partner Ivantsoff says even those who had received
some gesture from Vodafone may still be eligible to make a claim.

"If someone was offered a free month and they stayed on the
inducement that the service was going to get better, and it
didn't, then they should be entitled to something," he says.

"It will be up to the court to determine what Vodafone's service
was worth versus how much they charged for it."

Those signing up for the class action will have to agree to Piper
Alderman's retainer terms, and LCM's funding terms.  LCM will take
15 per cent of any out-of-court settlement before May, and 33 per
cent of any settlement if the issue proceeds to court (it is most
likely to be the Federal Court, Mr. Ivantsoff says).

There were 7 million SIM cards on issue with Vodafone in 2010, and
there are now about 700,000 less, with many of those freed from
contracts early.  Since its 2011 crisis, Vodafone has introduced a
network guarantee which releases customers at no extra cost if
they are unhappy.

The source close to Vodafone says the proposed class action is an
attempt to profit from a problem where there no longer is one.

"It's a license for them to damage Vodafone's brand for three
months, alerting people to an issue from two years ago that half
the population aren't even aware of. What will the consumers get
out of this?"

Mr. Ivantsoff says consumers will get the return of some of what
they paid Vodafone, although the class action will also include
claims for "consequential losses" from people who say their
livelihood was affected by dropped calls, slow internet and -- in
at least one case study released by the litigants on Feb. 26 --
overzealous reporting to credit agencies when a customer disputed
her bill.

If the court decides Vodafone is liable for consequential losses,
Mr. Ivantsoff says claimants will then need to go through a
separate process to prove those losses, although that would be
handled within the framework of the class action.


WELCH FOODS: Violates Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Welch's violates the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act in making unlawful "heart health"
claims on the label of its 100% Grape Juice, a class asserts in
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.


* Shareholder Suits Prompt Hike in D&O Insurance Costs in Aussie
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Williams, writing for Live Insurance News, reports that the
business insurance industry is facing considerably higher costs
due to the rising number of payouts being made in shareholder
class action lawsuits, and this trend is causing the premiums for
directors' and officers' coverage to rise.

In 2012, there was an estimated total of AU$506 million in class
action settlements made.  This was an increase of approximately
AU$200 million over the total payouts that were made in 2007.
This, according to a report by an Australian law firm, King & Wood
Mallesons.  As class action suits are rapidly becoming more
common, and as the new regulations in the country are boosting the
responsibilities for directors, business insurance companies are
saying that directors' and officers' coverage is shrinking in its
profitability.  This forces business insurance companies to either
increase their premiums or reduce their coverage limits.

According to an Aon Risk Solutions national specialist in this
sector of business insurance, Julie Hamilton, some directors have
already begun to up their indemnity.  Though there has not been a
considerable increase in the cost of business insurance -- as
there is still a large amount of competition within this
marketplace -- Ms. Hamilton has cautioned that this trend likely
will not continue.

She stated that "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."  Some of the directors of
companies listed on the ASX have been boosting their indemnities
following a benchmarking of their own policies against claims data
and peers.

Ms. Hamilton also pointed out that directors who choose to
purchase their business insurance without taking coverage for
class action lawsuits may be able to receive a discount on their
premiums.  However, this would mean that if they should ever face
this type of suit, they would have little to no coverage available
to protect them against the associated costs.


                           *********

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  * * *