CAR_Public/130306.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, March 6, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 46

                             Headlines



ACXIOM CORP: Defends "Henderson" Class Action Suit in Virginia
ALLSTATE CORP: Appeal on Class Cert. Order Remains Pending
ALLSTATE CORP: Defends Suits Over Agency Program Reorganization
ALLSTATE CORP: Still Defends Hurricane Katrina-Related Suit
ALLSTATE CORP: Wage and Hour Class Suit Has Been Concluded

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Justices Skeptical About Antitrust Lawsuit
AMGEN INC: Supreme Court Affirms Class Certification Ruling
BABIES R US: 3rd Circuit Vacates $35MM Price-Fixing Settlement
BALSAM HILL: Recalls 700 Christmas Trees Due to Burn/Shock Risks
BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Defends Unit in Suits Over Mercaptan Release

BYRON CENTER: Recalls 6,586 Lbs. of Ham Products w/o HACCP Plan
C.R. BARD: Awaits Ruling in Hernia Product Claims-Related Dispute
COMSCORE INC: Expects Ruling on Cert. Bid in 2013 First Half
CRUNCH LLC: Hunt Ortmann Law Firm Files Class Action
DELL INC: Faces Overtime Class Action in Santa Clara County

DENSO CORP: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing
DENTSPLY INT'L: Cavitron(R) Suit Remains Pending in California
DENTSPLY INT'L: Defends Cavitron(R)-Related Suit in Pennsylvania
EXCEL BEDDING: Recalls 810 SlumberWorld Mattresses
FACEBOOK INC: 9th Cir. Won't Hold En Banc Review on Beacon Accord

FIVE GUYS: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action
FOOD FOR LIFE: Recalls Ezekiel Cereal Containing Almond
HYUNDAI: To Settle Suit Over Inflated Fuel Economy Estimates
ISLE OF CAPRI: Defends TCPA-Violations Class Suit in Florida
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Continues to Defend "Prusak" Suit in Ill.

MARRIOTT INT'L: Anticipates Hearing in Spring in Stock Plan Suit
MARRIOTT INT'L: Defends Antitrust Class Action Litigation
NCL CORP: Appeal in Wage and Hour Class Suit Remains Pending
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Appeal in Class Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
PFIZER INC: Bid to Transfer Zolof Class Action Faces Setback

RED BULL: Faces Class Action Over "Scientific Studies" Claim
RETAIL PROPERTIES: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suits
SEE'S CANDIES: Recalls Divinity Easter Egg With Walnuts
SITEL WORLDWIDE: Class Suit in Michigan Settled for $180,000
SWISHER HYGIENE: Defends Shareholder MDL in North Carolina

UNITED PET: Withdraws Ultra Blend and eCotrition Bird Products
UNITED STATES: Secret Service Race Discrimination Suit Can Proceed
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: 9th Cir. Affirms Proctor Suit Dismissal
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Gender Bias Class Action in Midwest States
WINDSTREAM CORP: Appeal From Certification Order Denied in Nov.

YUM! BRANDS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Castillo" Suit
YUM! BRANDS: Continues to Defend "Whittington" Suit vs. Units
YUM! BRANDS: Discovery Begins in Ex-Taco Bell Crew Member's Suit
YUM! BRANDS: Faces Four Securities Class Suits in California
YUM! BRANDS: List of Opt-ins in "Smith" Suit Being Finalized

YUM! BRANDS: Parties in "Moeller" Class Suit Await Hearing Date
YUM! BRANDS: 3 Proposed Classes in Wage & Hour Suit Rejected
ZACHARY CONFECTIONS: Recalls Chocolate Covered Marshmallow Eggs

* Non-U.S. Securities Class Action Settlements to Rise to $8.3BB


                           *********


ACXIOM CORP: Defends "Henderson" Class Action Suit in Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
Acxiom Corporation is defending a class action lawsuit styled
Henderson, et al. v. Acxiom Risk Mitigation, Inc., et al., in
Virginia, according to the Company's February 20, 2013, Form
10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

On August 16, 2012, a putative class action styled Henderson, et
al. v. Acxiom Risk Mitigation, Inc., et al., was filed against the
Company, Acxiom Information Security Systems (AISS) (which was
sold to another company in fiscal 2012), and Acxiom Risk
Mitigation, Inc., a Colorado corporation and wholly-owned
subsidiary of Acxiom, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia seeking to certify nationwide classes
of persons who requested a consumer file from any Acxiom entity
from 2007 forward; who were the subject of an Acxiom report sold
to a third party that contained information not obtained directly
from a governmental entity and who did not receive a timely copy
of the report; who were subject of an Acxiom report and about whom
Acxiom adjudicated the hire/no hire decision on behalf of the
employer; who, from 2010 forward,  disputed an Acxiom report and
Acxiom did not complete the investigation within 30 days; or who,
from 2007 forward,  were subject to an Acxiom report for which no
permissible purpose existed.  The complaint alleges various
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  The Company has not
recorded an accrual for this matter as it believes no loss is
probable.  The Company cannot estimate the range of reasonably
possible loss.


ALLSTATE CORP: Appeal on Class Cert. Order Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation is vigorously defending a class action
lawsuit in Montana state court challenging aspects of its claim
handling practices in Montana.  The plaintiff alleges that the
Company adjusts claims made by individuals who do not have
attorneys in a manner that unfairly resulted in lower payments
compared to claimants who were represented by attorneys.  In
January 2012, the court certified a class of Montana claimants who
were not represented by attorneys with respect to the resolution
of auto accident claims.  The court certified the class to cover
an indefinite period that commences in the mid-1990s.  The
certified claims include claims for declaratory judgment,
injunctive relief and punitive damages in an unspecified amount.
Injunctive relief may include a claim process by which
unrepresented claimants could request that their claims be
readjusted.  No compensatory damages are sought on behalf of the
class.  To date no discovery has occurred related to the potential
value of the class members' claims.  The Company has asserted
various defenses with respect to the plaintiff's claims which have
not been finally resolved, and has appealed the order certifying
the class.  The proposed injunctive relief claim process would be
subject to defenses and offsets ordinarily associated with the
adjustment of claims.  Any differences in amounts paid to class
members compared to what class members might be paid under a
different process would be speculative and subject to individual
variation and determination dependent upon the individual
circumstances presented by each class claimant.  In the Company's
judgment a loss is not probable.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 20,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Based in Northbrook, Illinois, The Allstate Corporation --
http://www.allstate.com/-- is a personal lines insurer.  Its
Allstate Protection segment sells auto, homeowners,
property/casualty, and life insurance products in Canada and the
U.S.


ALLSTATE CORP: Defends Suits Over Agency Program Reorganization
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits relating to its agency program reorganization
announced in 1999, according to the Company's February 20, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company is defending certain matters relating to the Company's
agency program reorganization announced in 1999.  Although these
cases have been pending for many years, they currently are in the
early stages of litigation because of appellate court proceedings
and threshold procedural issues.

These matters include a lawsuit filed in 2001 by the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging retaliation
under federal civil rights laws ("EEOC I") and a class action
filed in 2001 by former employee agents alleging retaliation and
age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
("ADEA"), breach of contract and the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") violations ("Romero I").  In 2004,
in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I litigation, the trial
court issued a memorandum and order that, among other things,
certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class of agents
who had signed a release, for purposes of effecting the court's
declaratory judgment that the release was voidable at the option
of the release signer.  The court also ordered that an agent who
voided the release must return to Allstate "any and all benefits
received by the [agent] in exchange for signing the release."  The
court also stated that, "on the undisputed facts of record, there
is no basis for claims of age discrimination." The EEOC and
plaintiffs asked the court to clarify and/or reconsider its
memorandum and order and in January 2007, the judge denied their
request.  In June 2007, the court reversed its prior ruling that
the release was voidable and granted the Company's motions for
summary judgment, ruling that the asserted claims were barred by
the release signed by most plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit ("Third Circuit").  In July 2009, the Third
Circuit vacated the trial court's entry of summary judgment in the
Company's favor and remanded the cases to the trial court for
additional discovery, including additional discovery related to
the validity of the release and waiver.  In its opinion, the Third
Circuit held that if the release and waiver is held to be valid,
then all of the claims in Romero I and EEOC I are barred.  Thus,
if the waiver and release is upheld, then only the claims in
Romero I asserted by the small group of employee agents who did
not sign the release and waiver would remain for adjudication.  In
January 2010, following the remand, the cases were assigned to a
new judge for further proceedings in the trial court.  Plaintiffs
filed their Second Amended Complaint on July 28, 2010.  Plaintiffs
seek broad but unspecified "make whole relief," including back
pay, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated damages, lost
investment capital, attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable
relief, including reinstatement to employee agent status with all
attendant benefits for up to approximately 6,500 former employee
agents.  Despite the length of time that these matters have been
pending, to date only limited discovery has occurred related to
the damages claimed by individual plaintiffs, and no damages
discovery has occurred related to the claims of the putative
class.  Nor have plaintiffs provided any calculations of the
putative class's alleged back pay or the alleged liquidated,
compensatory or punitive damages, instead asserting that such
calculations will be provided at a later stage during expert
discovery.  Damage claims are subject to reduction by amounts and
benefits received by plaintiffs and putative class members
subsequent to their employment termination.  Little to no
discovery has occurred with respect to amounts earned or received
by plaintiffs and putative class members in mitigation of their
alleged losses.  Alleged damage amounts and lost benefits of the
approximately 6,500 putative class members also are subject to
individual variation and determination dependent upon retirement
dates, participation in employee benefit programs, and years of
service.  Discovery limited to the validity of the waiver and
release is in process.  At present, no class is certified.
Summary judgment proceedings on the validity of the waiver and
release are expected to occur in the first half of 2013.

A putative nationwide class action has also been filed by former
employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA, including a
worker classification issue ("Romero II").  These plaintiffs are
challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and are
seeking to have exclusive agent independent contractors treated as
employees for benefit purposes.  Romero II was dismissed with
prejudice by the trial court, was the subject of further
proceedings on appeal, and was reversed and remanded to the trial
court in 2005.  In June 2007, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the case.  Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
with the Third Circuit.  In July 2009, the Third Circuit vacated
the district court's dismissal of the case and remanded the case
to the trial court for additional discovery, and directed that the
case be reassigned to another trial court judge.  In its opinion,
the Third Circuit held that if the release and waiver is held to
be valid, then one of plaintiffs' three claims asserted in Romero
II is barred.  The Third Circuit directed the district court to
consider on remand whether the other two claims asserted in Romero
II are barred by the release and waiver.  In January 2010,
following the remand, the case was assigned to a new judge (the
same judge for the Romero I and EEOC I cases) for further
proceedings in the trial court.  On April 23, 2010, plaintiffs
filed their First Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs seek broad but
unspecified "make whole" or other equitable relief, including
losses of income and benefits as a result of their decision to
retire from the Company between November 1, 1999 and December 31,
2000.  They also seek repeal of the challenged amendments to the
Agents Pension Plan with all attendant benefits revised and
recalculated for thousands of former employee agents, and
attorney's fees and costs.  Despite the length of time that this
matter has been pending, to date only limited discovery has
occurred related to the damages claimed by individual plaintiffs,
and no damages discovery has occurred related to the claims of the
putative class.  Nor have plaintiffs provided any calculations of
the putative class's alleged losses, instead asserting that such
calculations will be provided at a later stage during expert
discovery.  Damage claims are subject to reduction by amounts and
benefits received by plaintiffs and putative class members
subsequent to their employment termination.  Little to no
discovery has occurred with respect to amounts earned or received
by plaintiffs and putative class members in mitigation of their
alleged losses.  Alleged damage amounts and lost benefits of the
putative class members also are subject to individual variation
and determination dependent upon retirement dates, participation
in employee benefit programs, and years of service.  As in Romero
I and EEOC I, discovery at this time is limited to issues relating
to the validity of the waiver and release.  Class certification
has not been decided.  Summary judgment proceedings on the
validity of the waiver and release are expected to occur in the
first half of 2013.

In these agency program reorganization matters, the threshold
issue of the validity and scope of the waiver and release is yet
to be decided and, if decided in favor of the Company, would
preclude any damages being awarded in Romero I and EEOC I and may
also preclude damages from being awarded in Romero II.  In the
Company's judgment a loss is not probable.  Allstate has been
vigorously defending these lawsuits and other matters related to
its agency program reorganization.

Based in Northbrook, Illinois, The Allstate Corporation --
http://www.allstate.com/-- is a personal lines insurer.  Its
Allstate Protection segment sells auto, homeowners,
property/casualty, and life insurance products in Canada and the
U.S.


ALLSTATE CORP: Still Defends Hurricane Katrina-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation continues to defend itself against a
lawsuit brought by the Louisiana Attorney General in the aftermath
of Hurricane Katrina, according to the Company's February 20,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Allstate is vigorously defending a lawsuit filed in the aftermath
of Hurricane Katrina and currently pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("District
Court").  This matter was filed by the Louisiana Attorney General
against Allstate and every other homeowner insurer doing business
in the State of Louisiana, on behalf of the State of Louisiana, as
assignee, and on behalf of certain Road Home fund recipients.
Although this lawsuit was originally filed as a class action, the
Louisiana Attorney General moved to dismiss the class in 2011 and
that motion was granted.  In this matter the State alleged that
the insurers failed to pay all damages owed under their policies.
The claims currently pending in this matter are for breach of
contract and for declaratory relief on the alleged underpayment of
claims by the insurers.  All other claims, including extra-
contractual claims, have been dismissed.  The Company had moved to
dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the State had no
standing to bring the lawsuit as an assignee of insureds because
of anti-assignment language in the underlying insurance policies.
The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the motion.

The District Court has issued a case management order requiring
the State to produce specific detail by property supporting its
allegations of breach of contract.  Additionally, the case
management order requires the State to deliver a settlement
proposal to Allstate and the other defendant insurance companies.
There are many potential individual claims at issue in this
matter, each of which will require individual analysis and a
number of which may be subject to individual defenses, including
release, accord and satisfaction, prescription, waiver, and
estoppel.  The Company has filed a motion seeking to force the
State to provide more specificity as to its claims in this matter.
The Company believes that its adjusting practices in connection
with Katrina homeowners claims were sound and in accordance with
industry standards and state law.  There remain significant
questions of Louisiana law that have yet to be decided.  In the
Company's judgment, given the issues, a loss is not probable.

Based in Northbrook, Illinois, The Allstate Corporation --
http://www.allstate.com/-- is a personal lines insurer.  Its
Allstate Protection segment sells auto, homeowners,
property/casualty, and life insurance products in Canada and the
U.S.


ALLSTATE CORP: Wage and Hour Class Suit Has Been Concluded
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit challenging a state wage and hour law has
been concluded, according to The Allstate Corporation's February
20, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Allstate had been vigorously defending a lawsuit in regards to
certain claims employees involving worker classification issues.
This lawsuit was a certified class action challenging a state wage
and hour law.  In the case, plaintiffs sought actual damages in an
amount to be proven at trial, liquidated damages in an amount
equal to an unspecified percentage of the aggregate underpayment
of wages to be proven at trial, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs. Plaintiffs did not make a settlement demand nor did they
allege the amount of damages with any specificity.  In December
2009, the liability phase of the case was tried, and, in July
2010, the trial court issued its decision finding in favor of
Allstate on all claims.  The plaintiffs appealed the decision in
favor of Allstate to the first level appellate court.  In May
2012, the court heard oral argument on the plaintiffs' appeal and
affirmed the trial court's decision.  The plaintiffs subsequently
filed a petition for review with the Illinois Supreme Court,
asking it to review the lower courts' decisions.  In December
2012, the Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for review,
thereby affirming the trial court's decision and ending this case.

Based in Northbrook, Illinois, The Allstate Corporation --
http://www.allstate.com/-- is a personal lines insurer.  Its
Allstate Protection segment sells auto, homeowners,
property/casualty, and life insurance products in Canada and the
U.S.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Justices Skeptical About Antitrust Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reports that the questioning
didn't go well for the plaintiffs in American Express vs. Italian
Colors on Feb. 27, and that could mean the U.S. Supreme Court is
about to give companies another powerful tool for reducing class-
action litigation against them.

The justices expressed strong skepticism about the central premise
of the case, which is that antitrust lawsuits are so expensive to
bring that Amex effectively precluded them by requiring merchants
to sign an agreement requiring them to settle all disputes in
arbitration.  If the court rules against Italian Colors, it could
open the door to more widespread use of arbitration clauses that
ban class actions, possibly even including changes in corporate
bylaws to preclude securities class actions.  The Supreme Court
held that class waivers are enforceable in the 2011 decision AT&T
Mobility v. Concepcion.

"Since the federal securities laws don't preclude arbitration, I
don't think that the SEC would have any basis for continuing to
object to the use of arbitration in a company's articles of
incorporation or by laws," said Alan Kaplinsky --
kaplinsky@ballardspahr.com -- a partner with Ballard Spahr in
Philadelphia who represents banks and financial-services companies
and was a pioneer in the development of arbitration clauses.

The plaintiffs in Italian Colors were merchants who accused Amex
of using its market power to force them to accept debit and credit
cards at the same fee level.  They said it wouldn't make economic
sense to pursue their claims individually under the terms of the
arbitration agreement, since they'd have to pay hundreds of
thousands of dollars for economic experts in order to win far less
in damages.  They were backed by class-action attorneys, who
dislike arbitration clauses generally because they cut down on
fee-rich class settlements, and the Obama administration, which
wants the court to adopt a rule prohibiting class waivers when
they'd serve to squelch otherwise valid lawsuits.

Those arguments didn't seem to make much headway with the
justices, however.  Even liberal Justice Steven Breyer questioned
why the merchants had to hire expensive experts in arbitration,
where the arbitrators themselves would presumably have expertise
in antitrust law and could streamline the whole process.  "I can
think of a way of getting it done pretty cheap," Justice Breyer
told former Solicitor General Paul Clement of Bancoft PLLC, who
represented the plaintiffs.

Justice Antonin Scalia was more critical, repeatedly asking why
the court should intervene to save cases that weren't worth
bringing.  If judges had to decide whether an arbitration clause
prohibiting class actions was valid in every case, he said, it
would be "a very complicated procedure."

Justice Breyer expressed a similar lack of sympathy for the
plaintiffs.

"It's just that you brought a very expensive claim," Justice
Breyer said.  "And the real problem here is the reason they can't
go into court is they can get a class action in court.  And then
this Court has said, you can't get the class action in
arbitration.  There we have it."

Mr. Kaplinsky said there are two possible outcomes, either an
outright reversal, which he thinks likely, or a remand for further
fact-finding on whether the plaintiff could find less costly ways
to pursue the case.  Regardless, he said, there will probably be
five votes to make it clear there is no carve-out in the Federal
Arbitration Act for class actions.

"The remaining issue will be whether, as a matter of state law,
shareholders can be bound by an arbitration provision contained in
articles and/or by laws," he added.  "Bear in mind, however, that
the SEC has the right under Dodd-Frank to issue a regulation
banning the use of arbitration in broker-dealer contracts."

Congress also gave the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau the
authority to decide whether class waivers should be banned in
consumer finance contracts.


AMGEN INC: Supreme Court Affirms Class Certification Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brent Kendall, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that the
Supreme Court on Feb. 27 cleared the way for a securities-fraud
lawsuit alleging Amgen Inc. played down safety concerns about two
drugs used to treat anemia.

The court's 6-3 decision, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
affirmed a lower-court ruling that had certified the lawsuit to
proceed as a class action.

The suit, brought by Connecticut pension funds on behalf of
purchasers of Amgen stock, alleged the Thousand Oaks, Calif.,
company repeatedly reassured investors about the safety of anemia
drugs Aranesp and Epogen even as clinical trial data raised
concerns that the drugs could harm cancer patients.  Amgen's
statements led to inflated share prices, the suit alleged.

The lawsuit alleged the misrepresentations took place between
April 2004 and May 10, 2007, a day when Amgen's shares dropped
more than 9% after a Food and Drug Administration panel expressed
concerns about the drugs and recommended new limits on patient
use.

Amgen has denied the allegations and said the plaintiffs couldn't
show that the alleged misrepresentations had a material effect on
its share price.  Investors had easy access to the safety
information that Amgen allegedly played down, the company has
said.

An Amgen spokeswoman on Feb. 27 said the ruling was solely
procedural and said the company "will vigorously defend itself" on
the merits when the case returns to a trial court.

Justice Ginsburg, writing for the court's majority, said the
pension funds would ultimately have to prove that the alleged
misrepresentations were material, but she said such proof wasn't
necessary at the outset.

"Essentially, Amgen . . . would have us put the cart before the
horse," she wrote in the court's 26-page opinion.

Three conservative justices -- Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and
Anthony Kennedy -- dissented.

Washington lawyer David C. Frederick, who represented the pension
funds at the high court, said the ruling was "a terrific result
for investors."

Mr. Frederick said some U.S. appeals courts that have considered
the issue reached the same conclusion as the Supreme Court.  He
said the ruling may have its biggest impact in the New York-based
Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a venue where securities
cases are common.  The Second Circuit had imposed additional
requirements in securities-fraud cases similar to what Amgen was
seeking, he said.

Amgen, backed by business groups, had argued that companies needed
to be able to defeat weak lawsuits before a judge certifies a
class action.  Once that happens, companies face pressure to
settle rather than risk large liability.

According to Pensions & Investments' Hazel Bradford, the Supreme
Court on Feb. 27 rebuffed efforts to make stock-loss class-action
lawsuits more difficult to start, siding with an investor group
led by the $24.3 billion Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust
Funds against Amgen Inc.

"It's a great win for investors," said Christopher J. McDonald --
cmcdonald@labaton.com -- an attorney with Labaton Sucharow in New
York representing the class. "It affirms what the law is and what
it ought to have been all along."  Mr. McDonald said in an
interview that the lawsuit will now continue at the District Court
level.

In an opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and supported
by five other justices, the court held that proof of material harm
"is not a prerequisite" to certifying a class seeking monetary
damages.

The retirement system, based in Hartford, had the largest losses
among a group of investors alleging that Amgen withheld
information about the safety of two anemia drugs.

The Supreme Court also rebuffed a bid by the Securities and
Exchange Commission to have extended time to seek civil penalties
in a case brought against GAMCO Investors (GBL) Chief Operating
Officer Bruce Alpert and former portfolio manager Marc Gabelli.
The court held that the five-year statute of limitations clock
begins when the fraud occurs, not when it is discovered.

"We are gratified that the court has . . . affirmed a bright-line
standard for the time the government has to bring a civil penalty
action," said Gabelli attorney Lewis Liman -- lliman@cgsh.com --
of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in New York, in a statement.

The SEC filed a complaint in 2008 over alleged market timing
between 1999 and 2002 in which Messrs. Gabelli and Alpert denied
wrongdoing.

                             Big Win

According to Reuters' Jonathan Stempel and Lawrence Hurley and
David Ingram, the Feb. 27 decision upheld a November 2011 ruling
by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California,
that allowed the class action to proceed. Lower courts had been
divided on the central issue.

"This is a big win for shareholder plaintiffs," said Jill Fisch, a
securities law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. "It
doesn't just say you don't have to prove materiality, but the
majority slaps down the policy argument that there is too much
securities fraud litigation. It says Congress already took care of
that."

Some business groups supported Amgen's appeal.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the 9th Circuit decision
encouraged premature class certifications that could pressure
corporate defendants to settle even "frivolous" cases.

Several former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
commissioners agreed, saying that securities fraud cases almost
always are settled after classes are certified, and that an Amgen
loss would "compel settlement of even questionable claims."

Shareholders had sought class certification against the "fraud on
the market" theory endorsed by the Supreme Court in a 1988 case,
Basic Inc v. Levinson.

This assumes that the price of a stock in an efficient market
reflects all public information, and that a purchaser is presumed
to have relied on the verity of that information.

Ms. Fisch said securities fraud cases could be costly to litigate
virtually at the outset because of the need to show a strong
inference of fraudulent intent and losses.

"This opinion doesn't change that, but also doesn't require an
extra complication - effectively a mini-trial - on materiality,"
she said.

The decision included an unusual voting lineup.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, along with
the more liberal justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and
Elena Kagan, signed on to Ginsburg's opinion.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas
dissented.  Mustice Scalia accused the majority of making it too
easy to pursue class actions, expanding the consequences of Basic
"from the arguably regrettable to the unquestionably disastrous."

                          "Perfect Tool"

According to Reuters, the Feb. 27 decision also breaks a recent
trend by the court to narrow class-action litigation.

The April 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion upheld
contracts that required customers to arbitrate disputes
individually, and waived their right to pursue class actions.

Two months later, the court decertified a class action of as many
as 1.5 million Wal-Mart Stores Inc. female workers who accused the
world's largest retailer of bias in pay and promotions, saying
they raised too many different claims.

But the Feb. 27 decision "suggests that the court is not going to
simply be a lackey of well-capitalized defendants, and make it
more difficult than as explicitly required by law for shareholders
to recover for economic loss," said Heidi Li Feldman, a professor
at Georgetown Law School.

"The class action," she said, "is a perfect tool to prevent
someone whose securities trade in a large, impersonal market from
committing fraud on everyone else."

On March 25, the Supreme Court will take up class actions again
when it hears arguments on whether doctors may arbitrate a dispute
over payments with Oxford Health Plans LLC collectively, though
the governing agreement did not mention class actions.

Meanwhile, on the same day the Amgen case was argued, the court
heard arguments involving cable TV company Comcast Corp over what
evidence must be presented before companies can be sued in class
actions.  A decision has not been issued.

The case is Amgen Inc et al v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and
Trust Funds, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 11-1085.


BABIES R US: 3rd Circuit Vacates $35MM Price-Fixing Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Mcauley at Courthouse News Service reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated a $35 million
price-fixing settlement against Babies R Us because the lower
court "was apparently unaware of the amount of the fund that would
be distributed to cy pres beneficiaries rather than being
distributed directly to the class."

The settlement, reached after five years of antitrust litigation,
was intended to be distributed to consumers who bought Britax car
seats, Medela breast pumps or kids lines products at fixed prices
from Babies R Us.

Kevin Young, who was not a named plaintiff of the underlying class
action but is a member of the class, submitted an appeal in
September 2012, objecting to the District Court settlement of
three issues related to the cy pres provision.

Young claimed the District Court was wrong to approve a settlement
that "would result in funds being distributed to one or more cy
pres recipients [instead] of fully compensating class members for
their losses."

He contended the court should have discounted the cy pres
distribution value for purposes of calculating attorneys' fees
that were awarded on a percentage-of-recovery basis, and that the
class notice improperly failed to identify cy pres distribution
recipients.

Based on the Norman French cy pres comme, "as near as possible,"
the cy pres doctrine originated in trust-and-estates law as a rule
of construction used to preserve testamentary charitable gifts
that would otherwise fail.  "When it becomes impossible to carry
out the charitable gift as the testator intended, the doctrine
allows the 'next best' use of funds to satisfy the testator's
intent 'as near as possible,'" the 3rd Circuit ruled.

A three-judge panel reviewed Young's settlement appeal.

"Young's overarching concern, and ours as well, is that the
settlement has resulted in a troubling and, according to the
counsel for the parties, surprising allocation of the settlement
fund. Cy Pres distributions, while in our view permissible, are
inferior to direct distributions to the class because they only
imperfectly serve the purpose of the underlying causes of action -
to compensate class members.  Though the parties contemplated that
excess funds would be distributed to charity after the bulk of the
settlement fund was distributed to class members through an
exhaustive claims process, it appears the actual allocation will
be just the opposite.  Defendants paid $35,500,000 into a
settlement fund.  About $14,000,000 will go to class counsel in
attorneys' fees and expense. Of the remainder, it is expected that
roughly $3,000,000 will be distributed to class members, while the
rest -- approximately $18,500,000 less administrative expenses --
will be distributed to one or more cy pres recipients," the ruling
states.

Judge Thomas L. Ambro wrote for the panel, "We join other courts
of appeals in holding that a district court does not abuse its
discretion by approving a class action settlement agreement that
includes a cy pres component directing the distribution of excess
settlement funds to a third party to be used for a purpose related
to the class injury" and that the "[i]nclusion of a cy pres
provision by itself does not render a settlement unfair,
unreasonable, or inadequate."

However, the panel wrote: "Cy pres distributions also present a
potential conflict of interest between class counsel and their
clients because the inclusion of a cy pres distribution may
increase a settlement fund, and with it attorneys' fees, without
increasing benefit to the class."

The 3rd Circuit estimated that at most, $8,100,000 would be
distributed for 45,000 claims, giving each claimant three times 20
percent of a $300 baby product.

"It appears, however," Ambro wrote, "that far less will actually
be distributed to them.  At oral argument, class and defense
counsel informed us that, largely because the vast majority of the
claims fell into the third category of compensation entitling
claimants to $5 payouts, class members will receive only about
$3,000,000 through the claims process."

Young found that "the cy press award is inappropriate because the
third category of claimants -- those receiving a $5 payout
regardless of price of the product they purchased -- will not be
fully compensated for their losses."

"Mindful that we are dealing with a settlement, we are hesitant to
undo an agreement that has resolved a hard-fought, multi-year
litigation," the ruling states.

But the panel vacated the settlement and the fund allocation plan
"because it did not have the factual basis necessary to determine
whether the settlement was fair to the entire class."

"Most importantly, it did not know the amount of compensation that
will be distributed directly to the class. Removing attorneys'
fees and expenses, approximately $21,500,000 (less costs of
administration) of the settlement were designated for the class,
but only around $3,000,000 of that amount actually will be
distributed to class members, with the remainder going to cy pres
recipients after expenses relating to the administration of the
funds are paid."

Reviewing American Law Institute guidelines to limit cy press
instances where further individual distributions are infeasible,
the panel concluded: "Although we agree with the ALI that cy pres
distributions are most appropriate where further individual
distributions are economically infeasible, we decline to hold that
cy pres distributions are only appropriate in this context."

The ruling states that "[b]arring sufficient justification, cy
pres awards should generally represent a small percentage of total
settlement funds."

The panel remanded for the court to "consider whether this or any
alternative settlement provides direct benefit to the class before
giving its approval."

"The Court must determine whether the compromises reflected in the
settlement funds -- including those terms relating to the
allocation of settlement funds -- are fair, reasonable, and
adequate when considered from the perspective of the class as a
whole," Ambro wrote.

The 3rd Circuit also vacated the attorneys' fees award, as the
settlement which the fees were based on is no longer in effect and
may be altered on remand.

"Addressing Young's argument that attorneys' fees should be
reduced, we confirm that courts need to consider the level of
direct benefit provided to the class in calculating attorneys'
fees," the ruling states.  The panel left it to the District Court
to assess the effect on any future award.

Young's claim regarding erroneous notice to the class was
dismissed. A "supplemental notice, however, should be provided to
the class if the settlement is materially altered on remand."


BALSAM HILL: Recalls 700 Christmas Trees Due to Burn/Shock Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Balsam Hill LLC, of Redwood City, California, and
manufacturer, Redwood Pacific Ltd., of Hong Kong, announced a
voluntary recall of about 700 Pre-lit artificial Christmas trees.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The remote control receiver box attached to the Christmas tree can
overheat and melt, posing burn and shock hazards to consumers.

Balsam Hill has received 10 reports of the Christmas tree's remote
control receiver box overheating and melting.  No injuries were
reported.

The artificial Christmas trees are pre-lit with both multi-color
and clear lights that are operated by a remote control.  Some
larger trees have two remote control receiver boxes attached to
the tree.  The Christmas trees are green and stand between 7-1/2
and 15 feet tall.  Trees with the following model numbers are
included in this recall.  The model number is located on the
tree's packaging.  Date code H1203 is printed on a white label on
the back of the remote control box attached to the tree.

                                                      Lighting
Model Number          Tree Name                        Type
------------          ---------                      --------
6528502 103913 0112  12' Vermont White Spruce(TM)   Color+Clear
6528502 130645 0112  15' California Baby Redwood    Color+Clear
6528502 134152 0112  9' Colorado Mountain Spruce    Color+Clear
6528502 134394 0112  12' Colorado Mountain Spruce   Color+Clear
6528502 216632 0112  7.5' Aspen Estate Fir          Color+Clear
6528502 248622 0112  9' BH Fraser Fir(TM)           Color+Clear
6528502 296214 0112  12' California Baby Redwood    Color+Clear
6528502 307403 0112  12' BH Fraser Fir(TM)          Color+Clear
6528502 364143 0112  10' Vermont White Spruce(TM)   Color+Clear
6528502 364453 0112  11' Vermont White Spruce(TM)   Color+Clear
6528502 364762 0112  10' BH Fraser Fir(TM)          Color+Clear
6528502 363842 0112  9' Vermont White Spruce(TM)    Color+Clear
                      Narrow

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/S4YjmW

The recalled products were manufactured in China and Taiwan, and
sold online at www.balsamhill.com from July 2012 through December
2012 for between $1,250 and $3,550.

Consumers should immediately stop using the Christmas tree's
remote control units and contact Balsam Hill for free replacement
remote control devices.  Balsam Hill is contacting its customers
directly.  Balsam Hill may be reached toll free at (877) 694-2752
from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday,
or visit http://www.balsamhill.com/


BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Defends Unit in Suits Over Mercaptan Release
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners LP continues to defend its subsidiary
against lawsuits related to an alleged release of mercaptan at the
Whistler Junction facilities in Eight Mile, Alabama, according to
the Company's February 20, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

The Company's subsidiary, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf
South), and several other defendants, including Mobile Gas Service
Corporation (MGSC), have been named as defendants in six lawsuits,
including one purported class action lawsuit, commenced by
multiple plaintiffs in the Circuit Court of Mobile County,
Alabama.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for personal
injury and property damage related to an alleged release of
mercaptan at the Whistler Junction facilities in Eight Mile,
Alabama.  Gulf South delivers natural gas to MGSC, the local
distribution company for that region, at Whistler Junction where
MGSC odorizes the gas prior to delivery to end user customers by
injecting mercaptan into the gas stream, as required by law.  The
cases are: Parker, et al. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp, et al. (Case
No. CV-12-900711), Crum, et al. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp, et al.
(Case No. CV-12-901057), Austin, et al. v. Mobile Gas Service
Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901133), Moore, et al. v. Mobile Gas
Service Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901471), Davis, et al. v.
Mobile Gas Service Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901490) and Joel
G. Reed, et al. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-
2013-922265).  Gulf South has denied liability.  Gulf South has
demanded that MGSC indemnify Gulf South against all liability
related to these matters pursuant to a right-of-way agreement
between Gulf South and MGSC, and has filed cross-claims against
MGSC for any such liability.  MGSC has also filed cross-claims
against Gulf South seeking indemnity from Gulf South.

The Company says the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted at
this time; however, based on the facts and circumstances presently
known, in the opinion of management, these cases will not be
material to Gulf South's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.


BYRON CENTER: Recalls 6,586 Lbs. of Ham Products w/o HACCP Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Byron Center Wholesale Meats, a Byron Center, Michigan
establishment, is recalling approximately 6,586 pounds of ham
products that were produced without a Hazard Analysis & Critical
Control Points (HACCP) plan, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The following products are subject to recall:

   * Various weight packages of "Seven Sons Family Farms & Co."
     Diced Ham (fully cooked), Smoked Ham Sliced (ready to
     cook/fully cooked) and Smoked Ham Roast (ready to cook/fully
     cooked).

   * Various weight packages of "Heffron Farms" Diced Ham (ready
     to cook), Smoked Ham Sliced (ready to cook), Smoked Ham
     Roast(ready to cook), Ground Ham Smoked Pork, Smoked Ham
     Hocks (ready to cook) and Picnic Hams (ready to cook).

   * Various weight packages of "Byron Center Meats" Semi
     Boneless Ham (ready to cook), Canadian Bacon (not fully
     cooked), Smoked Ham Hocks, Smoked Pork Chops (ready to cook)
     and Smoked Picnic Hams.

The recalled products bear the establishment number "Est. 2592"
inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The products were produced
prior to March 1, 2013, and were distributed in Michigan and
Indiana.  Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available
at: http://is.gd/RxJ50G

The problem was discovered when an FSIS inspector observed
establishment personnel making diced and sliced ham products from
whole hams.  These hams were labeled as fully cooked, but the
company does not have a HACCP plan for fully cooked product or a
Listeria control program.  Further investigation revealed other
Ready-To-Eat and heat-treated products produced without HACCP
plans.  HACCP plans, in which establishments identify potential
hazards associated with a given product, and identify a means of
addressing those hazards in the production process, are required
for all products.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of illness at this
time.  Anyone concerned about an illness 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.  When available, the retail distribution list(s) will
be posted on the FSIS Web site at:

    http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Open_Federal_Cases

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Steve Sytsma, the Company's President, at (616) 878-1578.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at
http://www.AskKaren.gov/or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.
"Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday
from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA
Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is
available in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday.  Recorded
food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.  The online
Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24
hours a day at: http://is.gd/vlfH9I


C.R. BARD: Awaits Ruling in Hernia Product Claims-Related Dispute
-----------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. is awaiting a court decision in connection with a
binding arbitration of a dispute in Hernia Product Claims matter,
according to the Company's February 20, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

As of February 14, 2013, approximately 890 federal and 730 state
lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 1,750
plaintiffs, as well as two putative class actions in the United
States and four putative class actions in various Canadian
provinces, are currently pending against the company with respect
to its Composix(R) Kugel(R) and certain other hernia repair
implant products (collectively, the "Hernia Product Claims").  One
of the U.S. class action lawsuits consolidated ten previously-
filed U.S. class action lawsuits.  The putative class actions,
none of which has been certified, seek (i) medical monitoring,
(ii) compensatory damages, (iii) punitive damages, (iv) a judicial
finding of defect and causation and/or (v) attorneys' fees.  A
class certification hearing in one of the Canadian class actions
is scheduled to take place in May 2013.  Approximately 705 of the
state lawsuits, involving individual claims by approximately 800
plaintiffs, are pending in the Superior Court of the State of
Rhode Island, with the remainder in various other jurisdictions.
The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek damages for personal
injury resulting from use of the products.  The company
voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the Composix(R)
Kugel(R) products beginning in December 2005.

In June 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") transferred Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits pending in
federal courts nationwide into one Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island.  The MDL court
subsequently determined to include other hernia repair products of
the company in the MDL proceeding.  On June 30, 2011, the company
announced that it had reached agreements in principle with various
plaintiffs' law firms to settle the majority of its existing
Hernia Product Claims.  Each agreement is subject to certain
conditions, including requirements for participation in the
proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs.
In addition, the company continues to engage in discussions with
other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of
unsettled Hernia Product Claims, and intends to vigorously defend
Hernia Product Claims that do not settle, including through
litigation.  Additional trials are scheduled in the second quarter
of 2013 and throughout the remainder of 2013.  Based on these
events, the company incurred a charge of $184.3 million ($180.6
million after tax) in the second quarter of 2011, which recognized
the estimated costs of settling all Hernia Product Claims,
including asserted and unasserted claims, and costs to administer
the settlements.  The charge excludes any costs associated with
pending putative class action lawsuits.  The company cannot give
any assurances that the actual costs incurred with respect to the
Hernia Product Claims will not exceed the amount of the charge
together with amounts previously accrued.  The company cannot give
any assurances that the resolution of the Hernia Product Claims
that have not settled, including asserted and unasserted claims
and the putative class action lawsuits, will not have a material
adverse effect on the company's business, results of operations,
financial condition and/or liquidity.

As of February 14, 2013, product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 2,320 plaintiffs have been
filed or asserted against the company in various federal and state
jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use
of certain of the company's surgical continence products for
women, including its Avaulta(R) line of products.  In addition,
five putative class actions in the United States and one putative
class action in Canada have been filed against the company (all
lawsuits, collectively, the "Women's Health Product Claims").  The
Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for personal
injury resulting from use of the products.  The putative class
actions, none of which has been certified, seek: (i) medical
monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages;
(iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v)
attorneys' fees.  With respect to certain of these claims, the
company believes that one of its suppliers has an obligation to
defend and indemnify the company.  In October 2010, the JPML
transferred the Women's Health Product Claims involving solely
Avaulta(R) products pending in federal courts nationwide into an
MDL for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.  In
February 2012, the JPML expanded the scope of and renamed the MDL
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia to include lawsuits involving all
women's surgical continence products that are manufactured or
distributed by the company.  In total, approximately 1,835 of the
Women's Health Product Claims are pending in federal courts and
have been or will be transferred to the MDL in West Virginia, with
the remainder of the Women's Health Product Claims in other
jurisdictions.  Trial dates have been scheduled in the MDL
beginning in June 2013 and are scheduled to continue throughout
2013.  Additional trials are also scheduled in state courts in the
second half of 2013.  The first trial in one of these other
jurisdictions was completed in July 2012 and resulted in a
judgment against the company of approximately $3.6 million.  The
Company has appealed this decision.  The Company does not believe
that this verdict is representative of the potential outcomes of
other Women's Health Product Claims.  While the Company intends to
vigorously defend the Women's Health Product Claims, it cannot
give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

As of February 14, 2013, product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 55 plaintiffs have been filed
or asserted against the company in various federal and state
jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use
of the Company's vena cava filter products.  In addition, three
putative class actions have been filed against the company in
various state courts on behalf of plaintiffs who are alleged to
have no present injury (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Filter
Product Claims").  The putative class actions, none of which has
been certified, seek: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) punitive
damages; (iii) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or
(iv) attorneys' fees.  A class certification hearing in one of the
class actions is scheduled to take place in May 2013.  The first
Filter Product Claim trial was completed in June 2012 and resulted
in a judgment for the company based on the finding that the
company was not liable for the plaintiff's damages.  The company
expects additional trials of Filter Product Claims to take place
over the next 12 months.  While the Company intends to vigorously
defend the Filter Product Claims, it cannot give any assurances
that the resolution of these claims will not have a material
adverse effect on the company's business, results of operations,
financial condition and/or liquidity.

In most product liability litigations of this nature, including
the unsettled Hernia Product Claims, the Women's Health Product
Claims and the Filter Product Claims, plaintiffs allege a wide
variety of claims, ranging from allegations of serious injury
caused by the products to efforts to obtain compensation
notwithstanding the absence of any injury.  In many of these
cases, the Company has not yet received and reviewed complete
information regarding the plaintiffs and their medical conditions,
and consequently, is unable to fully evaluate the claims.  The
Company expects that it will receive and review additional
information regarding the unsettled Hernia Product Claims, the
Women's Health Product Claims, the Filter Product Claims and
related matters as these cases progress.

The Company believes that many settlements and judgments, as well
as legal defense costs, relating to product liability matters are
or may be covered in whole or in part under its product liability
insurance policies with a limited number of insurance carriers.
In certain circumstances, insurance carriers reserve their rights
with respect to coverage, or contest or deny coverage, as has
occurred with respect to certain claims.  When this occurs, the
company intends to vigorously contest disputes with respect to its
insurance coverage and to enforce its rights under the terms of
its insurance policies, and accordingly, will record receivables
with respect to amounts due under these policies, when recovery is
probable.  Amounts recovered under the Company's product liability
insurance policies may be less than the stated coverage limits and
may not be adequate to cover damages and/or costs relating to
claims.  In addition, there is no guarantee that insurers will pay
claims or that coverage will otherwise be available.

The Company's insurance coverage with respect to the Hernia
Product Claims has been depleted.  In connection with the Hernia
Product Claims, the Company is in dispute with one of its excess
insurance carriers relating to an aggregate of $25 million of
insurance receivables.  Binding arbitration of this dispute
concluded in February 2013 in Bermuda, and the Company is awaiting
a decision.

In connection with the Women's Health Product Claims, the Company
is in dispute with one of its excess insurance carriers relating
to an aggregate of $50 million of insurance coverage.

Founded in 1907 and headquartered in Murray Hill, New Jersey, C.
R. Bard, Inc. -- http://www.crbard.com/-- and its subsidiaries
design, manufacture, package, distribute, and sell medical,
surgical, diagnostic, and patient care devices worldwide.  The
Company markets its products to hospitals, individual healthcare
professionals, extended care facilities, and alternate site
facilities.


COMSCORE INC: Expects Ruling on Cert. Bid in 2013 First Half
------------------------------------------------------------
comScore, Inc., expects that the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois will rule on a motion for class
certification in the first half of 2013, according to the
Company's February 20, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On August 23, 2011, the Company received notice that Mike Harris
and Jeff Dunstan, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, filed a lawsuit against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging, among other
things, violations by the Company of the Stored Communications
Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices
Act as well as unjust enrichment.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, including statutory damages per violation and punitive
damages, injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys' fees of the
plaintiffs.  Based on an initial review of these claims, the
Company believes that they are without merit, and the Company
intends to vigorously protect and defend itself.  In October 2012,
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which, among other
things, removed the claim relating to alleged violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act.  The court is
expected to rule on certification of the class in the first half
of 2013.


CRUNCH LLC: Hunt Ortmann Law Firm Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Hunt Ortmann Palffy Nieves Darling & Mah, Inc.
recently filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiff
Osabemi-Ye Adedapoidle-Tyehimba, a former Crunch gym hourly-paid
employee, and other similarly situated employees against Crunch
LLC, and related defendants.  The complaint alleges that Crunch
failed to pay its employees for all hours worked, failed to pay
overtime at the proper rate, failed to reimburse for work-related
expenses, failed to provide required meal and rest breaks, and
other associated claims.  The class action lawsuit, Tyehimba, et
al. v. Crunch LLC et al. (Case No. CV 13-00225 SI), was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division.

The complaint seeks to represent both a California state law class
and Federal law class of employees.  The California class consists
of all hourly-paid employees who work or worked at any Crunch gym
in California going back to January 16, 2009.  The Federal class
consists of all hourly-paid employees who work or worked at any
Crunch gym throughout the United States, including California
employees, going back to January 16, 2010.  The complaint seeks
recovery for current and former California employees under both
California and Federal wage laws.

Under Federal law, employees must opt-in to the lawsuit, meaning
that they must affirmatively sign a document called a consent to
join stating that they wish to be a part of the lawsuit.  The
amount of time for employees to recover for unpaid wages under
Federal law is 2-3 years from the date the consent to join form is
filed with the Court.  Employees who wait to proceed with their
Federal wage claim are at risk of losing their right to reclaim a
substantial portion, if not, all of their alleged earned and
unpaid Federal wages.

Anyone desiring to obtain further information about this lawsuit
is encouraged to contact Alison Gibbs toll free at 1 (855) 222-
2988 or by email at gibbs@huntortmann.com

Additional information about the Crunch class action can also be
found at http://www.crunchfitnessclassaction.com/

                 About The Hunt Ortmann Law Firm

The plaintiff is represented by Omel A. Nieves, Katherine J.
Odenbreit and Alison C. Gibbs of the California based law firm of
Hunt Ortmann Palffy Nieves Darling & Mah, Inc.  Hunt Ortmann's
class action department specializes in wage and hour and consumer
litigation.


DELL INC: Faces Overtime Class Action in Santa Clara County
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Dell failed to provide
employees with overtime, a minimum wage and adequate pay
statements, a class claims in Santa Clara County Superior Court.


DENSO CORP: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------
David Ingram, writing for Reuters, reports that U.S. plaintiffs'
lawyers brought a new proposed class action against auto parts
suppliers, adding to a mass of litigation that is piggybacking off
government antitrust investigations into price-fixing.

The suit, filed on Feb. 27 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, targets parts makers and suppliers
for their engine starters, the device that starts a car when a
driver turns the ignition switch.

As in other suits filed in connection with auto parts, the
proposed class alleges that consumers paid artificially inflated
prices when they bought or leased vehicles.

The suits coincide with sweeping investigations by multiple
governments.  The U.S. Justice Department says its investigation
into price-fixing in auto parts has ballooned into the
department's biggest-ever criminal antitrust investigation.

The companies named as defendants in the latest suit are Denso
Corp., Hitachi Ltd., Hitachi Automotive Systems Ltd., Mitsuba
Corp. and Mitsubishi Electric Corp.

They conspired to "suppress and eliminate competition in the
automotive parts industry by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix,
stabilize, and maintain the prices of, starters sold to automobile
manufacturers," the suit alleges.

A Mitsubishi Electric spokeswoman declined to comment.  The other
companies did not respond to requests for comment.

All the companies have been targets of a price-fixing crackdown by
authorities in Japan.

In November, the Japanese Fair Trade Commission fined Mitsuba and
Mitsubishi Electric for conspiring to fix the prices of starters
and other auto parts.  The commission scrutinized but did not fine
Denso, Hitachi and Hitachi Automotive.

Last month, Denso agreed to plead guilty and pay a $78 million
fine as part of the U.S. government's investigation.

The law firms that brought the latest private suit are the same
ones already suing makers and suppliers in connection with other
parts, such as wire harness systems and fuel senders.  Those suits
were consolidated in June 2012 into multidistrict litigation in
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Lawyers at the Miller Law Firm, who signed the complaint, did not
respond to requests for comment.

The case is Adams v. Denso Corp., U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, No. 2:13-cv-10804.

Powell Miller -- epm@millerlawpc.com -- and Adam Schnatz --
ats@millerlawpc.com -- of the Miller Law Firm represent the
Plaintiffs.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Cavitron(R) Suit Remains Pending in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS, and Richard Nathan, DDS,
filed a class action lawsuit in San Francisco County, California,
alleging that DENTSPLY International Inc. misrepresented that its
Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral
surgical procedures.   The Complaint seeks a recall of the product
and refund of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it
for use in oral surgery.  The Court certified the case as a class
action in June 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and
unfair business practices claims.  The class that was certified is
defined as California dental professionals who, at any time during
the period beginning June 18, 2000, through September 14, 2012,
purchased and used one or more Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers for
the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients,
which Cavitrons(R) were accompanied at sale by Directions for Use
that "Indicated" Cavitron(R) use for "periodontal debridement for
all types of periodontal disease."  The case is pending in the San
Francisco County Court.  A Class Notice was mailed beginning
September 14, 2012.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 20,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company does not believe a loss is probable related to the
litigation.  Further a reasonable estimate of a possible range of
loss cannot be made.  In the event that one or more of these
matters is unfavorably resolved, it is possible the Company's
results from operations could be materially impacted.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Defends Cavitron(R)-Related Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENTSPLY International Inc. continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit related to Cavitron(R) filed by Center City
Periodontists in Pennsylvania, according to the Company's February
20, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On December 12, 2006, a Complaint was filed by Carole Hildebrand,
DDS, and Robert Jaffin, DDS, in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell
Goldman as a named class representative).  The case was filed by
the same law firm that filed the Weinstat case in California.  The
Complaint asserts putative class action claims on behalf of
dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.  The Complaint
asserts putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located
in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.  The Complaint seeks damages and
asserts that the Company's Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scaler was
negligently designed and sold in breach of contract and warranty
arising from misrepresentations about the potential uses of the
product because it cannot assure the delivery of potable or
sterile water.  Following dismissal of the case for lack of
jurisdiction, the plaintiffs filed a second complaint under the
name of Dr. Hildebrand's corporate practice.  The Company's motion
to dismiss this new complaint was denied and the case will now
proceed under the name "Center City Periodontists."

The Company does not believe a loss is probable related to the
litigation.  Further a reasonable estimate of a possible range of
loss cannot be made.  In the event that one or more of these
matters is unfavorably resolved, it is possible the Company's
results from operations could be materially impacted.


EXCEL BEDDING: Recalls 810 SlumberWorld Mattresses
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Excel Bedding, of Liberty Corner, New Jersey, announced a
voluntary recall of about 810 SlumberWorld Mattresses.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The mattresses fail to meet the mandatory federal open flame
standard for mattresses, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves SlumberWorld First Edition, New Edition,
Limited Edition and Limited Edition Deluxe mattresses.  The
mattresses are white and "SlumberWorld First Edition,"
"SlumberWorld New Edition," "SlumberWorld Limited Edition" or
"SlumberWorld Limited Edition Deluxe" are sewn onto the front
border of the mattress.  Mattresses with dates of manufacture
between January 2011 and March 2012 are included in this recall.
The model number and the date of manufacture are printed on the
mattress' white federal label.  The following model numbers and
mattress sizes are included in this recall.

   Model Number and Mattress Name    Mattress Sizes
   ------------------------------    --------------
   829 First Edition                 Twin and full

   1213 Limited Edition              Twin, full, queen, king and
                                     California king
   1214 Limited Edition Deluxe       Twin, full, queen, king and
   or New Edition                    California king

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/qwbdNb

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at SlumberWorld stores on Oahu, Maui and Hawaii
Islands in Hawaii from January 2011 through March 2012 for between
$170 and $640.

Consumers should contact SlumberWorld to receive a free repair, a
two-inch mattress support to be placed under the recalled
mattress.  The additional mattress support brings the recalled
mattress into compliance.  SlumberWorld is contacting its
customers directly.  SlumberWorld may be called collect at (808)
421-3159, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Hawaiian Time Tuesday
through Friday, e-mail the firm at info@slumberworldhawaii.com or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.slumberworldhawaii.com/
and click on "Recall Information."


FACEBOOK INC: 9th Cir. Won't Hold En Banc Review on Beacon Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine, writing for Reuters, reports that a $9.5 million
settlement over Facebook's defunct "Beacon" advertising service
which gives no money to class members will stand, despite
objections from six judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals.

A group of Facebook users sued the social networking service in
2008, complaining that the site broadcast their private purchases
without their consent.  The company eventually settled, agreeing
to pay a total of $9.5 million, with $2.3 million of that for
attorneys' fees.

The remaining money was intended to fund a new charity focusing on
digital privacy, in accordance with cy pres legal doctrine.  A
Northern California federal judge approved the deal, and last year
a three-judge 9th Circuit panel affirmed 2-1, with senior 9th
Circuit Judge Andrew Kleinfeld dissenting.

In an order published on Feb. 26, the 9th Circuit said it would
not reconsider the ruling before a larger 11-judge panel.
However, six judges signed a dissent to the denial of en banc
review.

The Digital Trust Foundation created by the settlement has no
record of service, and cannot remedy the issues identified by the
lawsuit, 9th Circuit Judge Milan Smith wrote.

"The DTF can teach Facebook users how to create strong passwords,
tinker with their privacy settings, and generally be more cautious
online, but it can't teach users how to protect themselves from
Facebook's deliberate misconduct," Smith wrote.  Judge "Unless of
course the DTF teaches Facebook users not to use Facebook. That
seems unlikely."

Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said the company is pleased with
the court's decision to let the settlement stand, adding that the
DTF "will fund worthy projects that will help protect and improve
Internet users' privacy, safety and security."

Plaintiff attorney Scott Kamber -- skamber@kamberlaw.com -- said
he viewed the dissent as a criticism of cy pres law in the 9th
Circuit, and that he was pleased the money would soon be available
to advance Internet privacy.

The 9th Circuit has 28 active judges and a majority is necessary
to rehear a case en banc.

The case is Lane v. Facebook Inc., 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, No. 10-16380.

Scott Kamber of Kamber Law represents the Plaintiff.

Michael Rhodes -- rhodesmg@cooley.com -- of Cooley argues for
Facebook.


FIVE GUYS: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on Feb. 27 disclosed that on
January 14, 2013, the San Diego employment lawyers at Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action on behalf of assistant
managers working for Five Guys Burgers alleging that these
employees were paid a fixed salary regardless of how many hours
they worked and were never paid any overtime compensation.  The
case, entitled St. Clair v. Five Guys Operations, LLC, Case No.
37-2013-00030069-CU-OE-CTL is currently pending in the San Diego
County Superior Court for the State of California.

Founding partner of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Norman
Blumenthal stated, "In recent years, an influx of California
restaurant and retail class action lawsuits have been filed
against restaurant chains and retail stores.  If Managers and
Assistant managers are misclassified as exempt, they may be owed
overtime back pay."

According to the class action Complaint filed against Five Guys,
the Five Guys Assistant Managers claim that salaried Assistant
Managers employed at Five Guys' restaurants were improperly
classified as exempt from California's overtime wage laws.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Assistant Managers
spent the majority of their time taking orders, conducting prep
work, including cutting lettuce, onions, and potatoes, as well as
taking inventory and receiving product shipments.  Thus, the
Complaint states, these employees "were 'managers' in name only
because they did not have managerial duties or authority and
should therefore have been properly classified as non-exempt
employees."

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is San Diego, San Francisco, and
Los Angeles employment law firm that focuses on salaried employee
claims involving overtime pay laws under the California Labor Code
and Fair Labor Standards Act.


FOOD FOR LIFE: Recalls Ezekiel Cereal Containing Almond
-------------------------------------------------------
Food For Life Baking Company of Corona, California, is recalling
15,369 cases of Ezekiel 4:9 Sprouted Grain Cereal shipped between
November 20, 2012, to February 11, 2013, because the product may
be mislabeled and may contain an undeclared allergen -- almond:

  PRODUCT NAME              UPC           LOT #
  ------------         ------------   --------------
  Ezekiel 4:9 Cereal   073472002550   M3232, M3313, M3512, M3565
  - Original

  Ezekiel 4:9 Cereal   073472002568   M3253, M3309, M3414, M3439
  - Golden Flax                       M3523, N0068, N0165

  Ezekiel 4:9 Cereal   073472002574   M3232, M3313, M3328, M3425
  - Cinnamon Raisin                   M3512, M3527, M3537, N0045
                                      N0132

Individuals sensitive to almond protein can suffer a moderate to
acute life-threatening allergic reaction, if consumed.

This recall has been initiated as a precautionary measure
following a random allergen test performed at the facility
concluding that the product may contain an undeclared allergen.

The recalled products were sold nationwide through health food
distributors and natural food retailers.  Food For Life Ezekiel
4:9 Sprouted Grain Cereals are sold dry in 16 oz. (454 g) Cereal
Cartons and bear the following descriptions:

   * Food For Life, Ezekiel 4:9 Boxed Cereal - Original,
     (Orange Carton)

   * Food For Life, Ezekiel 4:9 Boxed Cereal - Golden Flax,
     (Blue Carton)

   * Food For Life, Ezekiel 4:9 Boxed Cereal - Cinnamon Raisin,
     (Purple Carton)

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm342028.htm

This recall is being made with the knowledge and in cooperation
with the Food and Drug Administration.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
issue.

Consumers who have purchased any of these products are urged to
return them unopened to the place of purchase for a refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the Company toll free at:
(800) 797-5090.


HYUNDAI: To Settle Suit Over Inflated Fuel Economy Estimates
------------------------------------------------------------
Clifford Atiyeh, writing for Automotive News, reports that Hyundai
will settle a class-action lawsuit after advertising incorrect
fuel-economy estimates on about 600,000 cars sold in the U.S.,
according to court documents filed earlier last week.

In November, when the Environmental Protection Agency discovered
fraudulent estimates on 75 Hyundai and Kia models from 2011 to
2013, several car owners sued both companies (Kia is a subsidiary
of Hyundai).  The latest case filed in the Central District court
of California has combined all 38 suits into one, according to
Automotive News.

The actual amount of the proposed settlement was not disclosed,
although one individual suit wanted $775 million in damages to be
paid.  Kia is not part of the settlement but may join it, the
report said.

Before this settlement, Hyundai and Kia quickly responded with a
lifetime cash reimbursement program to pay all affected owners the
difference in gas money for as long as they own the cars.  Owners
have already signed up to receive preloaded debit cards each year
depending on their annual mileage.  Hyundai and Kia plan to pay
out about $225 million and $187 million respectively.

In total, about 900,000 owners are affected and stand to benefit
from either payout.

Owners who choose to be part of the settlement can no longer
receive annual payments from the automaker.  Instead, Hyundai
owners can take a lump-sum payment, a service credit at a Hyundai
dealer worth 150 percent of the lump-sum payment or a cash rebate
valid on a new Hyundai equal to 200 percent of the lump-sum
payment.

Annual debit-card payments vary by state gas prices and model --
some saw their EPA ratings drop more than others -- but for a
Californian owner of a 2012 Elantra driving 20,000 miles per year,
the payout would be about $89, according to Automotive News.

Ford is under an EPA investigation for similar claims that it
inflated fuel-economy estimates on its C-Max and Fusion Hybrid
models.  Lawsuits are also pending.


ISLE OF CAPRI: Defends TCPA-Violations Class Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. is defending a class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991, according to the Company's February 20, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended January 27, 2013.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a complaint filed in
the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida.  The complaint
alleges the Company sent unsolicited fax advertisements in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as
amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "TCPA"), and
seeks to certify a class action.  The complaint seeks statutory
damages for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA,
attorneys' fees, costs and injunction relief.  The TCPA provides
for statutory damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500 for
willful violations).  The Company says it intends to vigorously
defend itself.  This matter is subject to additional discovery and
other legal proceedings and while the ultimate outcome is unknown,
the Company has accrued $1 million as its current estimate of the
most probable outcome of this matter.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Continues to Defend "Prusak" Suit in Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. continues to defend itself
against a class action lawsuit commenced by Jaroslaw Prusak,
according to the Company's February 20, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

On August 30, 2012, Jaroslaw Prusak, a purported customer
("Prusak"), filed a putative class action lawsuit against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  Prusak alleges that the Company willfully
violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA")
amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act in connection with
printed credit card receipts provided to its customers.  Prusak,
for himself and the putative class, seeks statutory damages of no
less than $100 and no more than $1,000 per violation, punitive
damages, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief.  The Company
intends to defend this matter vigorously.  Given the uncertainty
of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case and the legal
standards that must be met for, among other things, class
certification and success on the merits, no outcome can be
predicted at this time.  Based upon the current status of the
matter and information available, the Company does not, at this
time, expect the outcome of this proceeding to have a material
adverse effect on its results of operations, financial position or
cash flows.


MARRIOTT INT'L: Anticipates Hearing in Spring in Stock Plan Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott International, Inc., said in its February 20, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 28, 2012, that a hearing on the issues in
the class action lawsuit filed against it and its Stock and Cash
Incentive Plan is anticipated in the spring of 2013.

On January 19, 2010, several former Marriott employees (the
"plaintiffs") filed a putative class action complaint against the
Company and the Stock and Cash Incentive Plan (the "defendants"),
alleging that certain equity awards of deferred bonus stock
granted to the plaintiffs and other current and former employees
for fiscal years 1963 through 1989 are subject to vesting
requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended ("ERISA"), that are in certain circumstances more
rapid than those set forth in the awards, various other purported
ERISA violations, and various breaches of contract in connection
with the awards.  The plaintiffs seek damages, class attorneys'
fees and interest, with no amounts specified.  The action is
proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland (Greenbelt Division) and Dennis Walter Bond Sr. and
Michael P. Steigman are the current named plaintiffs.  The parties
completed limited discovery concerning the issues of statute of
limitations and class certification.  The Company filed a motion
for summary judgment on the issue of statute of limitations in
December 2012, and a hearing on the issues is anticipated in the
spring of 2013.

The Company and the Stock Plan have denied all liability, and
while the Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims
being made by the plaintiffs, it can give no assurance about the
outcome of this lawsuit.  The Company currently cannot estimate
the range of any possible loss to it because an amount of damages
is not claimed, there is uncertainty as to whether a class will be
certified and if so as to the size of the class, and the
possibility of the Company's prevailing on its statute of
limitations defense may significantly limit any claims for
damages.


MARRIOTT INT'L: Defends Antitrust Class Action Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
Marriott International, Inc., is defending itself against
antitrust class action litigation, according to the Company's
February 20, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 28, 2012.

An increase in the use of third-party Internet services to book
online hotel reservations could adversely impact the Company's
business.  Some of the Company's hotel rooms are booked through
Internet travel intermediaries such as Expedia.com(R),
Travelocity.com(R), and Orbitz.com(R), as well as lesser-known
online travel service providers.  These intermediaries initially
focused on leisure travel, but now also provide offerings for
corporate travel and group meetings.  Although Marriott's Look No
Further(R) Best Rate Guarantee has helped prevent customer
preference shift to the intermediaries and greatly reduced the
ability of intermediaries to undercut the published rates at the
Company's hotels, intermediaries continue to use a variety of
aggressive online marketing methods to attract customers,
including the purchase, by certain companies, of trademarked
online keywords such as "Marriott" from Internet search engines
such as Google(R), Bing(R), Yahoo(R), and Baidu(R) to steer
customers toward their websites (a practice that has been
challenged by various trademark owners in federal court).
Although Marriott has successfully limited these practices through
contracts with key online intermediaries, the number of
intermediaries and related companies that drive traffic to
intermediaries' Web sites is too large to permit the Company to
eliminate this risk entirely.

In addition, recent class action litigation against several online
travel intermediaries and lodging companies, including Marriott,
challenges the legality under antitrust law of contract provisions
that support programs such as Marriott's Look No Further(R) Best
Rate Guarantee, and the Company cannot assure that the courts will
ultimately uphold such provisions.  The Company's business and
profitability could be harmed if online intermediaries succeed in
significantly shifting loyalties from the Company's lodging brands
to their travel services, diverting bookings away from
Marriott.com, or through their fees increasing the overall cost of
Internet bookings for the Company's hotels.


NCL CORP: Appeal in Wage and Hour Class Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a decision in certain individual actions and the
denial of class certification in the wage and hour lawsuit against
a subsidiary of NCL Corporation Ltd. remains pending, according to
the Company's February 20, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

In July 2009, a class action complaint was filed against NCL
(Bahamas) Ltd. in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, on behalf of a purported class of crew
members alleging inappropriate deductions of their wages pursuant
to the Seaman's Wage Act and wrongful termination resulting in a
loss of retirement benefits.  In December 2010, the Court denied
the plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.  In February 2011,
the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration as to the
Court's Order on Class Certification which was denied.  The Court
tried six individual plaintiffs' claims, and in September 2012
awarded wages aggregating approximately $100,000 to such
plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs have filed an appeal of the Court's
decision in the individual actions as well as the denial of the
Class Certification.  The Company says it intends to vigorously
defend this appeal and is not able at this time to estimate the
impact of these proceedings.

In May 2011, a class action complaint was filed against NCL
(Bahamas) Ltd. in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, on behalf of a purported class of crew
members alleging inappropriate deductions of their wages pursuant
to the Seaman's Wage Act and breach of contract.  In July 2012
this action was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of the
litigation commenced with the class action complaint filed in July
2009.  The Company is vigorously defending this action and is not
able at this time to estimate the impact of these proceedings.


NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Appeal in Class Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the class action lawsuit involving a subsidiary of
Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. remains pending, according to
the Company's February 20, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In July 2009, a class action complaint was filed against NCL
(Bahamas) Ltd. in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, on behalf of a purported class of crew
members alleging inappropriate deductions of their wages pursuant
to the Seaman's Wage Act and wrongful termination resulting in a
loss of retirement benefits.  In December 2010, the Court denied
the plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.  In February 2011,
the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration as to the
Court's Order on Class Certification which was denied.  The Court
tried six individual plaintiffs' claims, and in September 2012
awarded wages aggregating approximately $100,000 to such
plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs have filed an appeal of the Court's
decision in the individual actions as well as the denial of the
Class Certification.  The Company says it intends to vigorously
defend this appeal and is not able at this time to estimate the
impact of these proceedings.

In May 2011, a class action complaint was filed against NCL
(Bahamas) Ltd. in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, on behalf of a purported class of crew
members alleging inappropriate deductions of their wages pursuant
to the Seaman's Wage Act and breach of contract.  In July 2012,
this action was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of the
litigation commenced with the class action complaint filed in July
2009.  The Company is vigorously defending this action and is not
able at this time to estimate the impact of these proceedings.


PFIZER INC: Bid to Transfer Zolof Class Action Faces Setback
------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Baynes, writing for Reuters, reports that Pfizer Inc. has
suffered a setback in its effort to transfer a consumer class
action that claims the antidepressant Zoloft is no better than a
placebo into the multidistrict litigation over birth defects
allegedly caused by the drug.

The clerk of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,
Jeffery Luthi, determined on Feb. 26 that the consumer class
action filed in California federal court was "not appropriate" for
inclusion in the consolidated birth defect litigation under way in
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to an entry on the
panel's docket.

The novel class action filed in California in January claims that
Pfizer knew that the blockbuster antidepressant was no more
effective than a sugar pill but nevertheless promoted the drug to
doctors and patients.  The named plaintiff, Laura Plumlee, says
the drug failed to help her depression over three years of
treatment.  The suit is seeking refunds of the money California
consumers spent on the popular drug.

Ms. Plumlee's lawsuit draws from the controversial research of
Harvard Medical School psychologist Irving Kirsch, the director of
the Program in Placebo Studies, who contends that the benefits
from antidepressants stem largely from the placebo effect, the
perception of improvement driven by a patient's expectations.

Pfizer, one of the world's largest drugmakers, says that such
research has been widely criticized by experts in the mental
health field.  The Food and Drug Administration approved the drug
for the treatment of depression, and the fact that doctors and
their patients have chosen the drug for over 20 years confirms its
safety and efficacy, the company argues.

On Feb. 22 Pfizer filed a notice with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, which manages large consolidated
litigation, saying it planned to file a "tag-along" action to
transfer the California case into the consolidated birth defect
litigation in Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

                       Births Defect Case

In around 250 cases consolidated in Pennsylvania, mothers who took
Zoloft during pregnancy claim that the drug caused their babies to
be born with congenital birth defects such as holes in the heart,
neural tube defects and other deformities.

By seeking to transfer the class action equating Zoloft with a
placebo to the multidistrict litigation, Pfizer could be
attempting to undercut allegations that Zoloft causes birth
defects.  Claims that Zoloft is a sugar pill could be seen to
conflict with claims that the drug caused injuries.

But even before Pfizer argued its case to the multidistrict
litigation panel, the clerk for the panel decided that the
California class action was not suited for transfer.

Chris Coffin, a lawyer at Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, who is on the
plaintiffs' steering committee in the birth defects litigation,
agrees with the clerk's decision and says that the cases do not
belong together.

"There are no allegations of personal injury at all in the Plumlee
case. There are certainly no allegations involving birth defects,"
said Coffin, who is also one of the plaintiff's lawyers in the
suit that equates Zoloft with a sugar pill.  The fact that the
clerk on his own concluded that the Plumlee case was not suited
for transfer was telling, he said.

Pfizer responded in a statement that the company had requested the
transfer to avoid the possibility of inconsistent rulings from
different courts and to promote efficiency.  The company may still
press on with its efforts to transfer the Plumlee case.

"While the Clerk of the Panel made a determination that the case
is not appropriate for inclusion in the (multidistrict
litigation), the rules provide that a motion for transfer can be
made to the Panel and Pfizer is evaluating its options," the
company said.

The cases are Plumlee v. Pfizer, U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, No. 13-414; and In Re: Zoloft
(Sertraline Hydrochloride) Products Liability Litigation, U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 12-
2342.

Plumlee is represented by Michael Baum -- MBaum@BaumHedlundLaw.com
-- of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman; Christopher Coffin of
Pendley, Baudin & Coffin.

Pfizer is represented by Allen Ruby -- allen.ruby@skadden.com --
and Raoul Kennedy -- raoul.kennedy@skadden.com -- of Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.


RED BULL: Faces Class Action Over "Scientific Studies" Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Red Bull pushes its energy
drinks by touting bogus "scientific studies," a class action
claims in Federal Court.


RETAIL PROPERTIES: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Retail Properties of America, Inc. continues to defend itself
against class action lawsuits brought by shareholders, according
to the Company's February 20, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

In 2012, certain shareholders of the Company filed putative class
action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors, which are currently pending in the U.S. District
Court in the Northern District of Illinois.  The lawsuits allege,
among other things, that the Company's directors and officers
breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders and, as a
result, unjustly enriched the Company and the individual
defendants.  The lawsuits further allege that the breaches of
fiduciary duty led certain shareholders to acquire additional
stock and caused the shareholders to suffer a loss in share value,
all measured in some manner by reference to the Company's 2012
offering price when it listed its shares on the New York Stock
Exchange.  The lawsuits seek unspecified damages and other relief.
Based on its initial review of the complaints, the Company
believes the lawsuits to be without merit and intends to defend
the actions vigorously.  While the resolution of these matters
cannot be predicted with certainty, management believes, based on
currently available information, that the final outcomes of these
matters will not have a material effect on the financial
statements of the Company.


SEE'S CANDIES: Recalls Divinity Easter Egg With Walnuts
-------------------------------------------------------
See's Candies, Inc. of San Francisco, California, is recalling one
code of 1.7 ounce Divinity Easter Egg with Walnuts, because some
boxes labeled Divinity with Walnuts may actually contain Peanut
Butter Eggs.  People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume this product.  The total number of boxes
produced that may contain peanut butter is 64 of a run of 2,048
Divinity with Walnuts Eggs.

The product was distributed to See's shops in Arizona, California,
Nevada, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah.

The product is sold individually in boxes labeled See's Candies
Divinity With Walnuts, 1.7 oz.  The only code affected by this
recall is L.A.D. 102/13, and is visible on the inside back of the
box, through the cellophane window.  Picture of the recalled
products is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm342036.htm

There is no reported allergen reaction or illness attributed to
this product.

Concerned consumers should return the product or the receipt to
any See's Candies Shop or the location where it was purchased for
a full refund or exchange.  Any consumers with questions about
this recall should also contact See's Consumer Affairs at 1-800-
789-7337.


SITEL WORLDWIDE: Class Suit in Michigan Settled for $180,000
------------------------------------------------------------
SITEL Worldwide Corporation disclosed in its February 20, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012, that the class action
lawsuit against a subsidiary was settled for $180,000.

In April 2011, the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, National
Action Financial Services, Inc., now known as NA Liquidating
Company, Inc. ("NA"), was served with a purported class action
filed in United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.  The complaint alleged violations of the federal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") for calls to plaintiff's cell phone in an
attempt to collect a debt not owed by the plaintiff.  The
complaint also alleged pre-recorded message calls to debtors on
their cell phones by means of an automated dialing device, without
having received permission from the recipients of the calls in
violation of the TCPA.  As of December 31, 2012, the parties were
engaged in settlement discussions, and a reserve of $160,000 was
recorded related to this matter.  Subsequent to year-end the case
was settled for $180,000, of which $27,000 was paid by the
Company's insurer.  No reserve was recorded as of December 31,
2011.


SWISHER HYGIENE: Defends Shareholder MDL in North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------
Swisher Hygiene Inc. is defending a shareholder multidistrict
litigation in North Carolina, according to the Company's
February 20, 2013, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

There have been six shareholder lawsuits filed in federal courts
in North Carolina and New York asserting claims relating to the
Company's March 28, 2012 announcement regarding the Company's
Board of Directors' conclusion that the Company's previously
issued interim financial statements for the quarterly periods
ended March 31, 2011, June 30, 2011, and September 30, 2011, and
the other financial information in the Company's quarterly reports
on Form 10-Q for the periods then ended, should no longer be
relied upon and that an internal review by the Company's Audit
Committee primarily relating to possible adjustments to the
Company's financial statements was ongoing.

On March 30, 2012, a purported Company shareholder commenced a
putative securities class action on behalf of purchasers and
sellers of the Company's common stock in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the Company, the
former President and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), and the
former Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ("CFO").  The
plaintiff asserted claims alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged
false and misleading disclosures in the Company's public filings.
In April and May 2012, four more putative securities class actions
were filed by purported Company shareholders in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina against the same
set of defendants.  The plaintiffs have asserted claims alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") based on alleged
false and misleading disclosures in the Company's public filings.
In each of the putative securities class actions, the plaintiffs
seek damages for losses suffered by the putative class of
investors who purchased Swisher common stock.

On May 21, 2012, a shareholder derivative action was brought
against the Company's former CEO and CFO and the Company's
directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by another
purported Company shareholder in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  In this derivative action, the
plaintiff seeks to recover for the Company damages arising out of
a possible restatement of the Company's financial statements.

On May 30, 2012, the Company, and its former CEO and former CFO
filed a motion with the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL Panel") to centralize all of the
cases in the Western District of North Carolina by requesting that
the actions filed in the Southern District of New York be
transferred to the Western District of North Carolina.

In light of the motion to centralize the cases in the Western
District of North Carolina, the Company, and its former CEO and
former CFO requested from both courts a stay of all proceedings
pending the MDL Panel's ruling.  On June 4, 2012, the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York adjourned all
pending dates in the cases in light of the motion to transfer
filed before the MDL Panel.  On June 13, 2012, the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina issued a stay of
proceedings pending a ruling by the MDL Panel.

On August 13, 2012, the MDL Panel granted the motion to
centralize, transferring the actions filed in the Southern
District of New York to the Western District of North Carolina.
In response, on August 21, 2012, the Western District of North
Carolina issued an order governing the practice and procedure in
the actions transferred to the Western District of North Carolina
as well as the actions originally filed there.

On October 18, 2012, the Western District of North Carolina held
an Initial Pretrial Conference at which it appointed lead counsel
and lead plaintiffs for the securities class actions, and set a
schedule for the filing of a consolidated class action complaint
and defendant's time to answer or otherwise respond to the
consolidated class action complaint.  The Western District of
North Carolina stayed the derivative action pending the outcome of
the securities class actions.


UNITED PET: Withdraws Ultra Blend and eCotrition Bird Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Pet Group, Inc., announces that it has voluntarily
withdrawn a limited quantity of the products "Ultra Blend Gourmet
Food for Parakeets," "eCotrition Grains & Greens Nutritional
Supplement for Parakeets," "eCotrition Grains & Greens Nutritional
Supplement for Canaries and Finches," and "eCotrition Grains &
Greens Nutritional Supplement for Cockatiels."  These products
contain small quantities of dried parsley flakes supplied to
United Pet Group by Specialty Commodities, Inc.  On February 11,
2013, Specialty Commodities, Inc. initiated a voluntary product
recall of parsley flakes distributed to United Pet Group and other
pet food suppliers because the products may have the potential to
be contaminated with Salmonella.  Specialty Commodities, Inc.
distributed the products to United Pet Group on May 30, 2012, and
August 29, 2012.   The products were distributed throughout the
USA and Canada between October 2012 and February 2013.

Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

United Pet Group, Inc., is voluntarily withdrawing the following
specific lot numbers of its "Ultra Blend Gourmet Food for
Parakeets," "eCotrition Grains & Greens Nutritional Supplement for
Parakeets," "eCotrition Grains & Greens Nutritional Supplement for
Canaries and Finches," and "eCotrition Grains & Greens Nutritional
Supplement for Cockatiels" because of the recall initiated by for
parsley by Specialty Commodities, Inc.  The specific lot
numbers/production codes subject to this notice are as follows:

   * Ultra Blend Gourmet, Food for Parakeets (80 oz bag)
     UPC 26851 00904 Item # A904 / 056-0904-01
     USE BY dates: 07/20/15 and 10/20/15

   * eCotrition Grains & Greens, Nutritional Supplement for
     Parakeets (8 oz bag)
     UPC 26851 00505 Item # A505 / 11-20700
     USE BY dates: 10/23/15 and 11/14/1

   * eCotrition Grains & Greens, Nutritional Supplement for
     Canaries and Finches (8 oz bag)
     UPC 26851 00546 Item # C546 / 11-20712
     USE BY date: 10/16/15

   * eCotrition Grains & Greens, Nutritional Supplement for
     Cockatiels (6.5 oz bag)
     UPC 26851 00512 Item # B512 / 11-20711
     USE BY date: 12/05/15

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm341533.htm

No other United Pet Group, Inc., products are affected by this
voluntary withdrawal.  Customers who have purchased any of the
products noted above are urged to dispose of them or return them
for a full refund.  Salmonella can affect animals eating the
products and there may be risk to humans from handling
contaminated pet products, especially if they have not thoroughly
washed their hands after having contact with the products or any
surfaces exposed to these products.

There have been no known illnesses to date associated with the
consumption of these products.  If you have these products, please
contact United Pet Group's Consumer Affairs team at 1-800-645-
5145, Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30 a.m. - 5:00
p.m. Eastern Standard Time for a refund.

For press inquiries, please contact David Prichard at 608-278-
6141, Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Central Standard
Time.


UNITED STATES: Secret Service Race Discrimination Suit Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Mike Scarcella at The Blog of
Legal Times, more than a decade ago, a group of U.S. Secret
Service agents sued over allegations that agency officials denied
promotions on the basis of race.  On Feb. 26, a judge in
Washington approved a class of 120 current and former agents,
setting up the potential for a trial that would explore claims
that discrimination has persisted at the agency.

The agents, who filed suit in 2000 in Washington federal district
court, had asked three times before for class certification.  In
the latest round, lawyers for the plaintiffs narrowed claims to
certain groups of African American agents whose promotion bids,
for specific government service levels, were denied in the late
1990s and early 2000s.

Judge Richard Roberts of U.S. District for the District of
Columbia concluded that the plaintiffs, through anecdotal evidence
and an expert's statistical analysis, established sufficient
commonality to allow the case to proceed as a class action.

The "interests of efficiency and uniformity support a finding that
a class action is a superior method of adjudicating the
plaintiffs' claims," Judge Roberts said in the ruling, published
Tuesday.

Washington-based Hogan Lovells partner E. Desmond Hogan --
desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com -- whom Roberts named co-counsel
for the class, said centralized decision-making in the promotion
process at the Secret Service supported class certification.

Hogan Lovells, which is providing legal services pro bono,
represents the class with a team from the civil rights firm
Relman, Dane & Colfax.

"This case implicates a significant glass ceiling problem the
Secret Service has," said Mr. Hogan, who practices in class action
and commercial litigation.  "A good-old-boy culture has
unfortunately permeated the leadership of the Secret Service.
It's time for the Secret Service to deal with the history of
discrimination."

The plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Charles Mann, determined the promotion
process had an adverse impact on African Americans.  DOJ lawyers
urged Roberts to exclude the testimony as unreliable and
irrelevant.

In court papers, the government's legal team, including assistant
U.S. attorney Marina Braswell, said the plaintiffs have no
evidence of a policy of discrimination.  "[T]o the contrary, the
Secret Service's stated policy forbids discrimination,"
Ms. Braswell wrote.

The government argued that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2011
in Wal-Mart v. Dukes foreclosed class certification.  In that
case, the largest private discrimination case in history, the high
court ruled against class certification based on disharmony among
would-be class members.

DOJ lawyers said the plaintiffs "are complaining about thousands
of separate promotion-related determinations made by hundreds of
different participants, from 44 states, 18 foreign countries, and
the District of Columbia, in a promotion process that allowed for
considerable discretion, with absolutely no 'glue' holding all of
these decisions together, as required by Wal-Mart."

The government also said in papers that "unrebutted evidence" in
the case shows African American agents' promotion scores were
similar to non-black agents and that blacks received promotions
faster -- earlier in their careers -- than their counterparts in
the agency.

"This evidence conclusively refutes plaintiffs' overarching claim
that the Secret Service has refused to eliminate racism from the
fabric of its promotion process," DOJ lawyers said.

One plaintiff unsuccessfully bid on more than 180 positions from
1999 to 2002, the judge's ruling noted.  The agent said he was
eventually promoted only after a transfer to the Chicago office,
filing an employment complaint and a lawsuit.  Another plaintiff
alleges an agency official told him he must bid outside of
Washington, D.C. for a promotion.

Federal law caps compensatory damages at $300,000 per plaintiff,
not including potential back-pay, Mr. Hogan said.  "Our clients
are most interested in getting in place a fair and equitable
promotion system," he said.  "The number one thing the class wants
is a system that solves the problem the Secret Service has so
future agents don't face the same glass ceiling."

Representative Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), ranking member of the
House Committee on Homeland Security, said in a letter this month
to Mark Sullivan, the outgoing Secret Service director, that his
successor should "make every effort to bring about an amicable
resolution" to the discrimination case.

"[T]his case was filed over a decade ago and continues to linger
in federal court," Ms. Thompson wrote.


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: 9th Cir. Affirms Proctor Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in
February 2013 the dismissal of the remaining claims in the
"Proctor Litigation," according to Vishay Intertechnology, Inc.'s
February 20, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In 1998, Vishay acquired the Semiconductor Business Group of
TEMIC, which included Telefunken and an 80.4% interest in
Siliconix, producers of MOSFETs, RF transistors, diodes,
optoelectronics, and power and analog switching integrated
circuits.  In 2005, Vishay made a successful tender offer for the
minority interest in Siliconix.

In January 2005, an amended class action complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of California on behalf of all non-Vishay
stockholders of Siliconix against Vishay, Ernst & Young LLP (the
independent registered public accounting firm that audits the
Company's financial statements), Dr. Felix Zandman, former
Executive Chairman and Chief Technical and Business Development
Officer of Vishay, and as a nominal defendant, Siliconix.  The
lawsuit made various claims against Vishay and the other
defendants for actions allegedly taken in respect of Siliconix
during the period when Vishay owned an 80.4% interest in
Siliconix.  The action, referred to as the Proctor litigation on
account of the lead plaintiff, sought injunctive relief and
unspecified damages.

In May 2005, Vishay successfully completed a tender offer to
acquire all shares of Siliconix that were not already owned by
Vishay.  Following the announcement of Vishay's intent to make
this tender offer, several purported class-action complaints were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  These actions were
consolidated into a single class action and a settlement agreement
was reached with the plaintiffs, who effectively represented all
non-Vishay stockholders of Siliconix.  The settlement agreement
was approved by the Delaware Court of Chancery in October 2005.

The plaintiffs in the Proctor litigation filed an amended
complaint in the Superior Court of California in November 2005.
In June 2006, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a permanent
injunction restraining the Proctor plaintiffs from prosecuting the
Proctor action.  An appeal of the injunction order brought by a
former stockholder of Siliconix was dismissed by the Delaware
Supreme Court in January 2007.

In June 2006, the Proctor litigation was removed from the Superior
Court of California to federal District Court.  The District Court
granted a motion by Ernst & Young to dismiss the complaint and a
motion by Vishay for summary judgment, effective October 15, 2007.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and
on October 9, 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of
Proctor's class action claim and remanded the remaining two claims
to state court.  On July 26, 2011, the Superior Court dismissed
the remaining claims against Vishay with prejudice.  On September
20, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.  On December
11, 2012, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Sixth
Appellate District, heard oral arguments from the parties on the
matter.

On February 19, 2013, the Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior
Court's dismissal of the remaining claims.

Headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania, Vishay Intertechnology,
Inc., is a large manufacturer and supplier of discrete passive and
active electronic components.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Gender Bias Class Action in Midwest States
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a
putative gender discrimination class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of past and present Wal-Mart Stores Inc. employees in
parts of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Meanwhile, gender discrimination filed in Tennessee against
Bentonville, Ark-based Wal-Mart has been dismissed.

Sandra Ladik et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which was recently
filed in U.S. District Court in Madison, Wis., joins other
litigation filed elsewhere in the country against the Bentonville,
Ark.-based retailer.  In June 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
against a proposed class of some 1.5 million members nationwide in
the case.

The Wisconsin lawsuit charges that Wal-Mart "maintained a pattern
or practice of gender discrimination in compensation and promotion
practices, and that its compensation and promotion policies and
practices had a disparate impact, not justified by business
necessity, on its female employees whose claims arose, and
continue to arise, in what was formally known as Region 14."

The lawsuit does not say how many women are in the proposed class.

Lead plaintiff Sandra Ladik worked in a Portage, Wis., Wal-Mart
store from about June 1992 until November, 2006.

Plaintiff attorney Jim Kaster -- kaster@nka.com -- of Nichols
Kaster P.L.L.P in Minneapolis, said in a statement, "Wal-Mart has
been successful in making technical legal arguments preventing
courts from reaching the merits of women's' claims, and we expect
more of these arguments here.   Nevertheless, we hope that the
court in Wisconsin will, after this long period of waiting,
finally allow their claims to be heard by a jury."


WINDSTREAM CORP: Appeal From Certification Order Denied in Nov.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Windstream Corporation's interlocutory appeal from a class
certification order was denied in November 2012, according to the
Company's February 20, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On June 22, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
Kentucky federal district court on behalf of current and former
customers in Kentucky.  The complaint alleged that the Company
overcharged customers because the Company collected a gross
receipts surcharge ("GRS") in violation of state and federal
statutes and tariffs and common law.  The court referred state
tariff issues to the Kentucky Public Service Commission ("Kentucky
PSC").  In 2011, the federal court ruled that the GRS was a rate
that should have been listed in the Company's federal tariffs
prior to its collection and that class certification was proper.
Based on that ruling, in third quarter 2011, the Company accrued
an amount that was not material and that represented the amount of
loss estimable and probable at the time.  On May 4, 2012, the
Kentucky PSC issued an order also finding the GRS was a rate that
should have been in the Company's local retail tariff before being
assessed on certain types of services.  The Company appealed the
order to state court in Franklin County, Kentucky, primarily
asserting that the Kentucky PSC erred in classifying the GRS as a
rate.  Additionally, on July 22, 2012, the federal court formally
certified a class of all retail and wholesale Windstream customers
assessed the GRS on services subject to the Company's federal
tariff.  The Company filed an interlocutory appeal of the class
certification with the Sixth Circuit.  On November 1, 2012, the
Sixth Circuit denied the appeal, holding that the matter was not
ripe for a decision.

Based on a comprehensive analysis of the recent activity regarding
this case, the Company believes its current accrual remains
adequate.  The ultimate resolution of the case, the timing of
which is unknown, could result in a loss in a range of $0 to $8.0
million in excess of the amount accrued.  The Company plans to
continue to vigorously defend the proceedings.


YUM! BRANDS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Castillo" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
YUM! Brands, Inc.'s subsidiary is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit brought by Agustine
Castillo, according to the Company's February 20, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 29, 2012.

On July 27, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit, styled Agustine
Castillo v. Taco Bell of America, LLC and Taco Bell Corp., was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class
of salaried assistant general managers who were allegedly
misclassified and did not receive compensation for all hours
worked and did not receive overtime pay after 40 hours worked in a
week.  The plaintiff also seeks to represent a statewide class of
salaried assistant general managers who allegedly did not receive
compensation for all hours worked.  The plaintiff's counsel in
this action is the same as plaintiffs' counsel in the Whittington
lawsuit.  On January 4, 2013, Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss
or stay the action.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit. However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case
cannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest
quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system
units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and
territories.  Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza
Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and
licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package
and sell a menu of competitively priced food items.  Units are
operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees
under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  The Company
was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered
in Louisville, Kentucky.


YUM! BRANDS: Continues to Defend "Whittington" Suit vs. Units
-------------------------------------------------------------
YUM! Brands, Inc. continues to defend its subsidiaries from a
class action lawsuit commenced by Jacquelyn Whittington in
Colorado, according to the Company's February 20, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 29, 2012.

On August 6, 2010, a putative class action styled Jacquelyn
Whittington v. Yum Brands, Inc., Taco Bell of America, Inc. and
Taco Bell Corp. was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a
nationwide class, with the exception of California, of salaried
assistant managers who were allegedly misclassified and did not
receive compensation for all hours worked and did not receive
overtime pay after 40 hours worked in a week.  The plaintiff also
purports to represent a separate class of Colorado assistant
managers under Colorado state law, which provides for daily
overtime after 12 hours worked in a day.  The Company has been
dismissed from the case without prejudice.  Taco Bell filed its
answer on September 20, 2010, and the parties commenced class
discovery, which is currently on-going.  On September 16, 2011,
plaintiffs filed their motion for conditional certification under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  The court heard
plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification under the FLSA on
January 10, 2012, granted conditional certification and ordered
the notice of the opt-in class be sent to the putative class
members.  Approximately 488 individuals submitted opt-in forms.
The court granted Taco Bell's request for written and deposition
discovery of the class.  After further discovery, Taco Bell plans
to seek decertification of the class.  The plaintiffs are no
longer pursuing their alleged Colorado state law claims.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  The Company has provided for
a reasonable estimate of the cost of this lawsuit.  However, in
view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, there can be no
assurance that this lawsuit will not result in losses in excess of
those currently provided for in the Company's Consolidated
Financial Statements.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest
quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system
units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and
territories.  Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza
Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and
licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package
and sell a menu of competitively priced food items.  Units are
operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees
under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  The Company
was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered
in Louisville, Kentucky.


YUM! BRANDS: Discovery Begins in Ex-Taco Bell Crew Member's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On September 28, 2009, a putative class action styled Marisela
Rosales v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in Orange County Superior
Court.  Taco Bell is a subsidiary of YUM! Brands, Inc.  The
plaintiff, a former Taco Bell crew member, alleges that Taco Bell
failed to timely pay her final wages upon termination and seeks
restitution and late payment penalties on behalf of herself and
similarly situated employees.  This case appears to be duplicative
of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions.  Taco Bell filed a
motion to dismiss, stay or transfer the case to the same district
court as the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case.  The
state court granted Taco Bell's motion to stay the Rosales case on
May 28, 2010.  After the September 2011 denial of class
certification in the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions, the
court granted plaintiff leave to amend her lawsuit, which
plaintiff filed and served on January 4, 2012.  Taco Bell filed
its responsive pleading on February 8, 2012, and plaintiff has
since filed two additional amended complaints.  Taco Bell has
answered the Third Amended Complaint and commenced discovery.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 20,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 29, 2012.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest
quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system
units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and
territories.  Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza
Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and
licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package
and sell a menu of competitively priced food items.  Units are
operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees
under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  The Company
was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered
in Louisville, Kentucky.


YUM! BRANDS: Faces Four Securities Class Suits in California
------------------------------------------------------------
YUM! Brands, Inc. is facing four securities class action lawsuits
in California, according to the Company's February 20, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 29, 2012.

Beginning on January 24, 2013, four purported class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California against the Company and certain of its executive
officers.  The complaints allege claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against defendants on
behalf of a purported class of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities
between October 9, 2012, and January 7, 2013, inclusive (the
"class period").  Plaintiffs allege that during the class period,
defendants purportedly made materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's current and future business
and financial condition, thereby inflating the prices at which the
Company's securities traded.  The complaints seek damages in an
undefined amount.  The Company denies liability and intends to
vigorously defend against all claims in these complaints.
However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the
outcome of this case cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise,
the amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest
quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system
units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and
territories.  Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza
Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and
licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package
and sell a menu of competitively priced food items.  Units are
operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees
under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  The Company
was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered
in Louisville, Kentucky.


YUM! BRANDS: List of Opt-ins in "Smith" Suit Being Finalized
------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action lawsuit initiated by Mark Smith
against a subsidiary of YUM! Brands, Inc. are still working to
finalize the list of class opt-ins, according to the Company's
February 20, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 29, 2012.

On July 9, 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v.
Pizza Hut, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The complaint alleged that Pizza Hut
did not properly reimburse its delivery drivers for various
automobile costs, uniforms costs, and other job-related expenses
and seeks to represent a class of delivery drivers nationwide
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado state law.
On January 4, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional
certification of a nationwide class of current and former Pizza
Hut, Inc. delivery drivers.  However, on March 11, 2010, the court
granted Pizza Hut's pending motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim, with leave to amend.  On March 31, 2010, plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint, which dropped the uniform claims but, in
addition to the federal FLSA claims, asserted state-law class
action claims under the laws of sixteen different states.  Pizza
Hut filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and
plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint a second time.
On August 9, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend.
Pizza Hut filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.  On July 15, 2011, the Court granted Pizza Hut's motion
with respect to plaintiffs' state law claims but allowed the FLSA
claims to go forward.  Plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Conditional Certification on August 31, 2011, and the Court
granted plaintiffs' motion April 21, 2012.  The opt-in period
closed on August 23, 2012, and the parties are working to finalize
the list of opt-ins.  The final number has yet to be determined
but is expected to be approximately 6,000.

Pizza Hut denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest
quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system
units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and
territories.  Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza
Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and
licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package
and sell a menu of competitively priced food items.  Units are
operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees
under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  The Company
was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered
in Louisville, Kentucky.


YUM! BRANDS: Parties in "Moeller" Class Suit Await Hearing Date
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action lawsuit titled Moeller, et al. v. Taco
Bell Corp. await a hearing date, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s
February 20, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 29, 2012.

On December 17, 2002, Taco Bell Corp. was named as the defendant
in a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California styled Moeller, et
al. v. Taco Bell Corp.  On August 4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint alleging, among other things, that Taco Bell has
discriminated against the class of people who use wheelchairs or
scooters for mobility by failing to make its approximately 200
Company-owned restaurants in California accessible to the class.
Plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and
structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the
path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with mobility-
related disabilities do not comply with the U.S. Americans with
Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the
"Unruh Act"), and the California Disabled Persons Act (the
"CDPA").  Plaintiffs have requested: (a) an injunction from the
District Court ordering Taco Bell to comply with the ADA and its
implementing regulations; (b) that the District Court declare Taco
Bell in violation of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and (c)
monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA.  Plaintiffs, on
behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum statutory damages per
offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh Act or $1,000 under the
CDPA for each aggrieved member of the class.  Plaintiffs contend
that there may be in excess of 100,000 individuals in the class.
In February 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  The class included claims for injunctive
relief and minimum statutory damages.

In May 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco Bell was
in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific issues:
indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force.  In August
2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to
dining room seating.  In addition, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion in part with regard to door opening force at some
restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard to
queue lines.

On December 16, 2009, the court denied Taco Bell's motion for
summary judgment on the ADA claims and ordered plaintiffs to
select one restaurant to be the subject of a trial.  The trial for
the exemplar restaurant began on June 6, 2011, and on
October 5, 2011, the court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law ruling that plaintiffs established that classwide
injunctive relief was warranted with regard to maintaining
compliance as to corporate Taco Bell restaurants in California.
The court declined to order injunctive relief at the time,
however, citing the pendency of Taco Bell's motions to decertify
both the injunctive and damages class.  The court also found that
twelve specific items at the exemplar store were once out of
compliance with applicable state and/or federal accessibility
standards.

Taco Bell filed a motion to decertify the class in August 2011,
and in July 2012, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to
decertify the previously certified state law damages class but
denied Taco Bell's motion to decertify the ADA injunctive relief
class.  On September 13, 2012, the court set a discovery and
briefing schedule concerning the trials of the four individual
plaintiffs' state law damages claims, which the court stated will
be tried before holding further proceedings regarding the possible
issuance of an injunction.  On September 17, 2012, the court
issued an order modifying its October 2011 Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law deleting the statement that an injunction was
warranted.  Plaintiffs appealed that order.  Briefing is complete,
and the parties await a hearing date.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  Further, Taco Bell intends to
vigorously oppose plaintiffs' appeal.  Taco Bell has taken steps
to address potential architectural and structural compliance
issues at the restaurants in accordance with applicable state and
federal disability access laws.  The costs associated with
addressing these issues have not significantly impacted the
Company's results of operations.  It is not possible at this time
to reasonably estimate the probability or amount of liability for
monetary damages on a class wide basis to Taco Bell.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest
quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system
units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and
territories.  Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza
Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and
licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package
and sell a menu of competitively priced food items.  Units are
operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees
under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  The Company
was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered
in Louisville, Kentucky.


YUM! BRANDS: 3 Proposed Classes in Wage & Hour Suit Rejected
------------------------------------------------------------
A California district court rejected in January 2013 three of the
proposed classes in the consolidated wage and hour litigation
against a subsidiary of YUM! Brands, Inc., according to the
Company's February 20, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 29, 2012.

Taco Bell Corp. was named as a defendant in a number of putative
class action lawsuits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging
violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime,
failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued
vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and
rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses,
wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or
unlawful business practices in violation of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200.  Some plaintiffs also seek
penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under
California's Private Attorneys General Act as well as statutory
"waiting time" penalties and allege violations of California's
Unfair Business Practices Act.  Plaintiffs seek to represent a
California state-wide class of hourly employees.

On May 19, 2009, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to
consolidate these matters, and the consolidated case is styled In
Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions.  The In Re Taco Bell Wage and
Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in June
2009, and in March 2010 the court approved the parties'
stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action.  Plaintiffs
filed their motion for class certification on the vacation and
final pay claims in December 2010, and on September 26, 2011, the
court issued its order denying the certification of the vacation
and final pay claims. Plaintiffs then sought to certify four
separate meal and rest break classes.  On January 2, 2013, the
District Court rejected three of the proposed classes but granted
certification with respect to the late meal break class.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest
quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system
units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and
territories.  Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza
Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and
licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package
and sell a menu of competitively priced food items.  Units are
operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees
under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  The Company
was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered
in Louisville, Kentucky.


ZACHARY CONFECTIONS: Recalls Chocolate Covered Marshmallow Eggs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Confections, Inc., announced a voluntary recall of certain
production lots of its Zachary Chocolate Covered Marshmallow Eggs
because they have the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

Zachary Confections has initiated this voluntary recall in
response to a test result indicating the potential for Salmonella
contamination in a sample taken during routine post-production
testing from one of the production lots of product that is the
subject of this recall.  Out of an abundance of caution, Zachary
Confections is recalling all lots of product that may have been
affected.

The product is packaged in white egg crates with purple, green and
yellow lettering.  The specific Case UPC numbers, Unit UPC
numbers, Code Dates and Best Buy Date for the recalled products
are listed below.

   Product/Brand: Zachary Chocolate Covered Marshmallow Egg
                  Crates 5 oz [Product # 31-797] (white colored
                  egg crate with colored lettering)
   Case UPC: 1 00 75186 31797 3
   Unit UPC: 0 75186 15797 8
   Code Dates: D3245D; D3145E; F3145E; D3245E
   Best Buy Date: 02/14/14

The Best Buy Date and Code Dates are located on the side panel of
the product packaging next to the Unit UPC bar code label.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm341577.htm

The recalled product was manufactured on February 20 and
February 21, 2013, and was shipped from the Zachary Confections'
facility on February 21 and February 22, 2013.  The recalled
products have been distributed to some retail stores located in
sections of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and
Wisconsin.

No other Zachary Confections products are involved in this recall.

To date Zachary Confections has not received any consumer illness
complaints associated with its products.  As part of its priority
to ensure the safety and quality of all of its products, Zachary
Confections is issuing the voluntary recall.

Production of the product has been suspended while FDA and the
company continue their investigation as to the source of the
potential problem.

"We are dedicated to manufacturing wholesome products for our
customers," said George Anichini, Vice President - Operations of
Zachary Confections.  "Consistent with that dedication, we are
taking this voluntary action."

Consumers who have purchased the recalled products should destroy
or return them to the store where they were purchased.  Anyone
requiring more information should contact Zachary Confections
Customer Service at (765) 654-8356 between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.


* Non-U.S. Securities Class Action Settlements to Rise to $8.3BB
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to GOAL Group's Greg Jacobs, a new forecast study from
GOAL Group, the leading global class action services specialist,
predicts that settlements in securities class actions outside the
U.S. will rise to US$8.3 billion per year by 2020.  GOAL Group's
study also identifies that if non-participation rates seen in U.S.
class actions are experienced in non-U.S. activity, by the end of
the decade US$2.02 billion of investors' rightful returns will be
left unreclaimed each year.

Furthermore, the report also warns that because non-U.S.
legislatures require participants to register at the beginning of
a case, investors need to participate now to receive their
rightful returns.  Any level of non-participation presents
fiduciaries, such as fund managers and custodians, with a
potential legal risk.  Experience in the U.S., along with emerging
contractual obligations, suggests that fiduciaries may be sued if
they do not ensure investors participate in class actions to
recoup a proportion of their investment losses.

This is a wake-up call to fiduciaries, as growth in non-U.S.
collective actions and evidence that some custodians are
restricting the geography of their class action service level,
indicate that non-participation rates are likely to be at least at
current U.S. case levels, and probably considerably higher.
Moreover, evidence is emerging that funds are now including the
responsibility for class action identification and participation
in contractual agreements with their custodians.

Stephen Everard, CEO, GOAL Group, comments, "Until recently, the
main focus of securities class actions was on the U.S. as the most
developed legislature in this respect.  However, class action
growth outside the U.S. is now increasing rapidly, and is
predicted to mirror the growth of the U.S. class action scene in
the early part of the 21st century.  The root of this
international diversification seems to have been a combination of
restrictions on jurisdiction definitions in the U.S. Federal
courts, along with a growing desire to develop domestic class
action procedures in many countries around the globe.  Moreover,
certain legislatures -- currently The Netherlands and Canada --
have defined and admitted the idea of a global 'class' where non-
U.S. investors in shares listed on a non-U.S. exchange can pursue
their securities class actions in those countries' courts.  There
is no viable excuse for non-participation as a number of
specialist service providers can now perform this function at
relatively low cost."

                           Methodology

Predicted annual settlement volumes for non-U.S. legislatures have
been modelled through to a forward date of 2020, the end of the
decade.  Using GOAL's proprietary data and insights, combined with
corroborative third party sources, the model utilizes the U.S.
class actions experience to estimate the size of annual
settlements in other world markets after a further eight years of
class actions development in these countries and in legislatures
that accept international plaintiff representation and reparation.
GOAL's predictive model adopts a conservative positioning,
factoring out the major peaks of settlement values seen in the
U.S. experience to date.

Established in 1989, GOAL Group Limited --
http://www.goalgroup.com-- is a class action and tax reclamation
services specialist.


                           *********

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  * * *