---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, March 7, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 47

                             Headlines



AFFYMAX INC: Faces Class Action After 85% Share Price Drop
AMERICAN LAND: Wins Dismissal of "Klein" Class Action
AMN HEALTHCARE: Defends Suit Alleging Wage and Hour Law Violation
AUTOLIV INC: Still Facing Lawsuits Over Antitrust Law Violations
BAXTER INT'L: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over Plasma Biz

BAXTER INT'L: Continues to Defend Suits Over Therapy Price
BLOOMBERG LP: Faces Class Action for Unpaid Overtime
BMW DEALERS: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Class Action
CARDTRONICS INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Voice-Guided ATMs
COMCAST CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Cluster Class Suits

COMCAST CORP: Plaintiffs' Petition for Certiorari Denied in Nov.
COMCAST CORP: Continues to Defend MDL Over Set-Top Box Rental
CONVERGYS CORP: Continues to Monitor Wheelock Suit in California
DORCHESTER MINERALS: Class Suit Against Unit Dismissed in Dec.
EXELON CORP: Continues to Defend Constellation Securities Suit

EXELON CORP: Motion to Dismiss Zion Station Suit Still Pending
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Cadillac's Defective Headlight
INTERNAP NETWORK: Continues to Defend 2 Claims in Securities Suit
LANCE ARMSTRONG: Faces Class Action Over Endorsed Energy Products
LINN ENERGY: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over Royalty Payments

LITHIA MOTORS: Discovery in "Neese" Class Suit Still Ongoing
MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM: Awaits Ruling on Class Certification Bid
NASDAQ OMX: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over Facebook IPO
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Continues to Defend Facebook Beacon Class Suit
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Continues to Defend Customers' Class Suit

PG&E CORP: Has Settlement Pacts With 140 San Bruno Plaintiffs
PG&E CORP: Hearing on Bid to Stay Class Suit Set for April 26
PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Higgins" Class Suit
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Phillips" Suit Remains Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid in Wage & Hour Suit Denied

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Won't Certify Class in "Clark" Suit
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Sterling" Securities Suit in N.J.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Dismissal of "Garcia" Suit Affirmed
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Huffman" Suit Remains Stayed in E.D. Pa.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Parties in SGLI/VGLI MDL Await Rulings

QEP RESOURCES: Has Preliminary OK of "Chieftain" Suit Settlement
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Investors' Class Suit
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Class Suit in Alabama Remains Stayed
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Defends New Class Suit in Georgia
TIM HORTONS: Continues to Defend Class Cert. Claim in Canada

WELLS FARGO: Gets Partial Dismissal of "Cannon" Class Suit
XEROX CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Connecticut


                           *********


AFFYMAX INC: Faces Class Action After 85% Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------
Angela Watkins at Courthouse News Service reports that Affymax
inflated its stock price by failing to disclose that 2% of
patients who used its now-recalled Omontys drug suffered life-
threatening anaphylaxis -- and that 1 in 100 of those 2% died of
it, shareholders claim in a class action.

Lead plaintiff Scott E. Stevens claims Affymax's share price
dropped by 85% after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
recalled the drug.

Omontys was injected to treat anemia-related kidney disease in
adult patients undergoing dialysis.

Stevens claims that Affymax "failed to disclose that 2% of
patients who were administered Omontys experienced
hypersensitivity reactions resulting in anaphylaxis, a serious and
life-threatening allergic reaction, a third of which needed
medical intervention -- and that 0.02% of those administered the
drug experienced fatal anaphylaxis reactions."

Affymax stock reached a high of $27.74 per share, on Oct. 17,
2012, the complaint states.  But on Feb. 23 this year, Affymax
announced that the FDA demanded "a total recall of the drug due to
reports of anaphylaxis, with the FDA calling it a 'serious and
life-threatening' allergic reaction," according to the complaint.

"'Serious and fatal' hypersensitivity reactions have been reported
in some patients within 30 minutes of receiving their first does
of the drug," the complaint states.

Affymax price sank from $16.52 per share to $2.42 per share on the
news, the complaint states.

Stevens seeks class certification and compensatory damages for
securities fraud.  He is represented by Shawn Williams, Esq., at
Robbins, Geller, Rudman, & Dowd.


AMERICAN LAND: Wins Dismissal of "Klein" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Reggie B. Walton dismissed the lawsuit captioned
HENRY L. KLEIN, PRO SE, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 12-1061 (RBW), (D.D.C.).

Mr. Klein brought the putative class action against American Land
Title Association, Fidelity National Financial Group, First
American Title Insurance Company, Stewart Title Guaranty Company,
and Old Republic Title Insurance Company, challenging a title
insurance policy drafted by ALTA and widely-utilized by title
insurers.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

Judge Walton granted the Defendants' request saying Mr.  Klein
lacks antitrust standing.  "[Mr.] Klein has asserted only
consequential harm attributable to anticompetitive conduct, he has
not alleged an antitrust injury."

A copy of the District Court's March 1, 2013 Memorandum Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/Cdnv1Ffrom Leagle.com.


AMN HEALTHCARE: Defends Suit Alleging Wage and Hour Law Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. is defending a class action lawsuit
alleging violations of wage and hour laws, according to the
Company's February 22, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company is subject to various claims and legal actions in the
ordinary course of its business.  Some of these matters relate to
professional liability, tax, payroll, contract and employee-
related matters and include individual and collective lawsuits, as
well as inquiries and investigations by governmental agencies
regarding the Company's employment practices.  The most
significant matter of which the Company is currently the defendant
is a class action related to wage and hour claims, in which the
Company has accrued an immaterial amount for potential losses at
December 31, 2012.  The ability to predict the ultimate outcome of
such matters involves judgments, estimates and inherent
uncertainties.  The range of possible losses for such matters
cannot be reasonably estimated at this stage and could differ
materially from amounts already accrued by the Company.
Management is currently not aware of any other pending or
threatened litigation that it believes is reasonably possible to
have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of
operations, financial position or liquidity.


AUTOLIV INC: Still Facing Lawsuits Over Antitrust Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. continues to face class action lawsuits alleging
violations of antitrust laws, according to the Company's
February 22, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On February 8, 2011, a Company subsidiary received a grand jury
subpoena from the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of
Justice related to its investigation of anti-competitive behavior
among suppliers of occupant safety systems.  On June 6, 2012, the
Company entered into a plea agreement with the DOJ and
subsequently pled guilty to two counts of antitrust law violations
involving a Japanese subsidiary and paid a fine of $14.5 million.
Under the terms of the agreement the Company will continue to
cooperate with the DOJ in its investigation of other suppliers,
but the DOJ will not otherwise prosecute Autoliv or any of its
subsidiaries, present or former directors, officers or employees
for the matters investigated (the DOJ did reserve the option to
prosecute three specific employees, none of whom is a member of
the senior management of the Company).

On June 7-9, 2011, representatives of the European Commission, the
European antitrust authority, visited two facilities of a Company
subsidiary in Germany to gather information for a similar
investigation.  The investigation is still pending and the Company
remains unable to estimate the financial impact such investigation
will have or predict the reporting periods in which such financial
impact may be recorded and has consequently not recorded a
provision for loss as of December 31, 2012.  However, management
has concluded that it is probable that the Company's operating
results and cash flows will be materially adversely impacted for
the reporting periods in which the EC investigation is resolved or
becomes estimable.

On October 3, 2012, the Company received a letter from the
Competition Bureau of Canada related to the subjects investigated
by the DOJ and EC, seeking the voluntary production of certain
corporate records and information related to sales subject to
Canadian jurisdiction.  On November 6, 2012, the Korean Fair Trade
Commission visited one of the Company's South Korean subsidiaries
to gather information for a similar investigation.  The Company
cannot predict the duration, scope or ultimate outcome of either
of these investigations and is unable to estimate the financial
impact they may have, or predict the reporting periods in which
any such financial impacts may be recorded.  Consequently, the
Company has not recorded a provision for loss as of December 31,
2012 with respect to either of these investigations.  Also, since
the Company's plea agreement with the DOJ, involved the actions of
employees of a Japanese subsidiary, the Japan Fair Trade
Commission is evaluating whether to initiate an investigation.

The Company is also subject to civil litigation alleging anti-
competitive conduct.  Notably, the Company, several of its
subsidiaries and its competitors are defendants in a total of
twelve purported antitrust class action lawsuits, eleven of which
are pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan (Brad Zirulnik v. Autoliv, Inc. et al. filed
on June 6, 2012; A1A Airport & Limousine Service, Inc. v. Autoliv,
Inc. et al. and Frank Cosenza v. Autoliv, Inc. et al. each filed
on June 8, 2012; Meetesh Shah v. Autoliv, Inc., et al. filed on
June 12, 2012; Martens Cars of Washington, Inc., et al. v.
Autoliv, Inc., et al. and Richard W. Keifer, Jr. v. Autoliv, Inc.
et al. each filed on June 26, 2012; Findlay Industries, Inc. v.
Autoliv, Inc. filed on July 12, 2012; Beam's Industries, Inc. v.
Autoliv, Inc., et al. filed on July 21, 2012; Melissa Barron et
al. v. Autoliv, Inc. et al. filed on July 24, 2012; Stephanie
Kaleuha Petras v. Autoliv, Inc. et al. filed on August 14, 2012;
and Superstore Automotive, Inc. et al. v. Autoliv, Inc. et al.
filed on November 1, 2012) the twelfth lawsuit, is pending under
Canadian law in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada
(Sheridan Chevrolet Cadillac Ltd. et al. v. Autoliv Inc. et al.,
filed on January 18, 2013).

Plaintiffs in these cases generally allege that the defendants
have engaged in long-running global conspiracies to fix the prices
of occupant safety systems or components thereof in violation of
various antitrust laws and unfair or deceptive trade practice
statutes.  Plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and
various purported classes of direct and indirect purchasers of
occupant safety systems and purchasers or lessees of vehicles in
which such systems have been installed, injunctive relief, treble
damages and attorneys' fees.  The plaintiffs in these cases make
allegations that extend significantly beyond the specific
admissions of the Company's plea.

The Company denies these overly broad allegations and intends to
actively defend itself against the same.  While it is probable
that the Company will incur losses as a result of these cases, the
duration or ultimate outcome of these cases currently cannot be
predicted or estimated and no provision for a loss has been
recorded as of December 31, 2012.

Autoliv, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business in Stockholm, Sweden.  The Company was created from
the merger of Autoliv AB ("AAB") and the automotive safety
products business of Morton International, Inc., in 1997.  The
Company functions as a holding corporation and owns two principal
subsidiaries, AAB and Autoliv ASP, Inc. ("ASP").  AAB and ASP are
leading developers, manufacturers and suppliers to the automotive
industry of automotive safety systems with a broad range of
product offerings, including modules and components for passenger
and driver-side airbags, side-impact airbag protection systems,
seatbelts, steering wheels, safety electronics, whiplash
protection systems and child seats, including components for such
systems, as well as vision and night vision systems, radar and
other active safety systems.


BAXTER INT'L: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over Plasma Biz
-------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. continues to defend class action
lawsuits related to the company's plasma-based therapies business,
among others, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

Baxter is a defendant in a number of suits alleging that certain
of the company's current and former executive officers and its
board of directors failed to adequately oversee the operations of
the company and issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the company's plasma-based therapies business, the
company's remediation of its COLLEAGUE infusion pumps, its heparin
product, and other quality issues. Plaintiffs allege these actions
damaged the company and its shareholders by resulting in a decline
in stock price in the second quarter of 2010, payment of excess
compensation to the board of directors and certain of the
company's current and former executive officers, and other damage
to the company. In September 2012, a federal court dismissed a
consolidated derivative suit pending in the U.S.D.C. for the
Northern District of Illinois, and in October 2012, the plaintiffs
appealed this dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit. An action pending in the Circuit Court of Lake
County, Illinois has been stayed pending the outcome of the
federal action. In addition, a consolidated alleged class action
is pending in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois
against the company and certain of its current executive officers
seeking to recover the lost value of investors' stock. In January
2012, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss certain of
the claims related to the class action suits. In April 2012, the
court granted the company's motion to certify an appeal of that
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,
however that motion was denied by the appellate court in June
2012.

Baxter International Inc. is a global, diversified healthcare
company. Baxter, through its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures
and markets products that save and sustain the lives of people
with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious diseases, kidney
disease, trauma, and other chronic and acute medical conditions.


BAXTER INT'L: Continues to Defend Suits Over Therapy Price
----------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. is a defendant, along with others, in a
number of lawsuits consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the
U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that
Baxter and certain of its competitors conspired to restrict output
and artificially increase the price of plasma-derived therapies
since 2003. The complaints attempt to state a claim for class
action relief and in some cases demand treble damages. In February
2011, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss certain of
the claims and the parties are proceeding with discovery. In
January 2012, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
certain federal claims brought by indirect purchasers. The trial
court returned the remaining indirect purchaser claims to the
court of original jurisdiction (U.S.D.C. for the Northern District
of California) in August 2012.

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

Baxter International Inc. is a global, diversified healthcare
company. Baxter, through its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures
and markets products that save and sustain the lives of people
with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious diseases, kidney
disease, trauma, and other chronic and acute medical conditions.


BLOOMBERG LP: Faces Class Action for Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Bloomberg L.P. stiffs its PC
support desk workers for overtime, a class action claims in
Federal Court.


BMW DEALERS: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge refused to
dismiss a class action alleging that BMW of North America
dealerships refuse to replace batteries that will not hold a
charge.


CARDTRONICS INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Voice-Guided ATMs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cardtronics, Inc., continues to defend itself from a lawsuit filed
by National Federation of the Blind related to voice-guided ATMs,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

Through its acquisition of the E*Trade ATM portfolio, the Company
became the sole defendant in the 2003 lawsuit filed by the
National Federation of the Blind, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, et. al. and certain individuals representing a
class of similarly situated persons (the "Plaintiffs") against
E*Trade Access, Inc., et al. in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts: Civil Action No. 03-11206-NMG
(the "Lawsuit").  The Plaintiffs sought to require, among other
things, that ATMs deployed by E*Trade be voice-guided. In December
2007, the Company and Plaintiffs entered into a settlement
agreement (as modified in November 2010, the "Settlement
Agreement").  In 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a motion of contempt
with the District Court alleging that the Company had failed to
fully comply with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement.
On December 15, 2011, the District Court issued an order that
required the Company to bring all of its ATMs in compliance with
the terms of the Settlement Agreement by March 15, 2012.  In
August 2012, the Plaintiffs filed their second motion of contempt,
which alleged, among other things, that the Company had failed to
meet the District Court's deadline and sought a fine of $50 per
ATM for each month that the District Court determined the Company
was not in compliance.  The Company filed its response on
September 28, 2012, in which it asserted that while the Company's
ATMs are in substantial compliance with the accessibility rules
issued under the American with Disabilities Act, as amended (the
"ADA"), compliance with certain terms of the Settlement Agreement
would conflict with the requirements of the ADA.  The Company also
asked the District Court to appoint a special master to assist the
Company and the Plaintiffs in resolving these conflicting
requirements.  The Company is unable to estimate any range of
possible fines that could be assessed as a result of the
Plaintiff's filing of the Second Motion.

Cardtronics, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
automated consumer financial services through its network of
automated teller machines (ATMs) and multi-function financial
services kiosks.


COMCAST CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Cluster Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation continues to defend itself from class action
lawsuits filed by customers in Boston, Chicago and Philadelphia,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "We are defendants in two purported class
actions originally filed in December 2003 in the United States
District Courts for the District of Massachusetts and the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The potential class in the Massachusetts
case, which has been transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, is our customer base in the "Boston Cluster" area,
and the potential class in the Pennsylvania case is our customer
base in the "Philadelphia and Chicago Clusters," as those terms
are defined in the complaints. In each case, the plaintiffs allege
that certain customer exchange transactions with other cable
providers resulted in unlawful horizontal market restraints in
those areas and seek damages under antitrust statutes, including
treble damages.

"Classes of Chicago Cluster and Philadelphia Cluster customers
were certified in October 2007 and January 2010, respectively. We
appealed the class certification in the Philadelphia Cluster case
to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the class
certification in August 2011 and denied our petition for a
rehearing en banc in September 2011. In March 2010, we moved for
summary judgment dismissing all of the plaintiffs' claims in the
Philadelphia Cluster. In April 2012, the District Court issued a
decision dismissing some of the plaintiffs' claims, but allowing
two claims to proceed to trial. The plaintiffs' claims concerning
the other two clusters are stayed pending determination of the
Philadelphia Cluster claims. In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court
granted our petition to review the Third Circuit Court of Appeals'
ruling, and oral arguments were held in November 2012. In
September 2012, the trial court stayed all trial and pretrial
proceedings pending resolution of the Supreme Court appeal."

Comcast Corporation is a provider of entertainment, information
and communications products and services.


COMCAST CORP: Plaintiffs' Petition for Certiorari Denied in Nov.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A petition for writ of certiorari filed by plaintiffs of a class
action lawsuit against Comcast Corporation was denied in November
2012, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "We are among the defendants in a purported
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in September 2007. The potential
class is comprised of all persons residing in the United States
who have subscribed to an expanded basic level of video service
provided by one of the defendants. The plaintiffs allege that the
defendants who produce video programming have entered into
agreements with the defendants who distribute video programming
via cable and satellite (including us), which preclude the
distributor defendants from reselling channels to customers on an
"unbundled" basis in violation of federal antitrust laws. The
plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive relief requiring
each distributor defendant to resell certain channels to its
customers on an "unbundled" basis. In October 2009, the Central
District of California issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs'
complaint with prejudice. In March 2012, a panel of the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's order. In
April 2012, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a rehearing, which
the Ninth Circuit denied in May 2012. In August 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court, which was denied in November 2012."

Comcast Corporation is a provider of entertainment, information
and communications products and services.


COMCAST CORP: Continues to Defend MDL Over Set-Top Box Rental
-------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation continues to defend a multidistrict litigation
alleging it improperly "ties" the rental of set-top boxes to the
provision of premium cable services in violation of antitrust
laws, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "We are the defendant in 22 purported class
actions filed in federal district courts throughout the country.
All of these actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial
proceedings. In a consolidated complaint filed in November 2009 on
behalf of all plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation, the
plaintiffs allege that we improperly "tie" the rental of set-top
boxes to the provision of premium cable services in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust
laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in California,
Illinois and Alabama. The plaintiffs also allege a claim for
unjust enrichment and seek relief on behalf of a nationwide class
of our premium cable customers and on behalf of subclasses
consisting of premium cable customers from California, Alabama,
Illinois, Pennsylvania and Washington. In January 2010, we moved
to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims for unjust
enrichment and violations of the unfair/deceptive trade practices
acts of Illinois and Alabama. In September 2010, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint alleging violations of additional state
antitrust laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts on behalf
of new subclasses in Connecticut, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri,
New Jersey, New Mexico and West Virginia. In the amended
complaint, plaintiffs omitted their unjust enrichment claim, as
well as their state law claims on behalf of the Alabama, Illinois
and Pennsylvania subclasses. In June 2011, the plaintiffs filed
another amended complaint alleging only violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act, antitrust law in Washington and
unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in California and
Washington. The plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of a nationwide
class of our premium cable customers and on behalf of subclasses
consisting of premium cable customers from California and
Washington. In July 2011, we moved to compel arbitration of most
of the plaintiffs' claims and to stay the remaining claims pending
arbitration.

"The West Virginia Attorney General also filed a complaint in West
Virginia state court in July 2009 alleging that we improperly
"tie" the rental of set-top boxes to the provision of digital
cable services in violation of the West Virginia Antitrust Act and
the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. The Attorney
General also alleges a claim for unjust enrichment/restitution. We
removed the case to the United States District Court for West
Virginia, and it was subsequently transferred to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and
consolidated with the multidistrict litigation. In March 2010, the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the Attorney General's
motion to remand the case back to West Virginia state court. In
June 2010, the Attorney General moved to sever and remand the
portion of the claims seeking civil penalties and injunctive
relief back to West Virginia state court. We filed a brief in
opposition to the motion in July 2010.

"We believe the claims in each of the pending actions are without
merit and intend to defend the actions vigorously. We cannot
predict the outcome of any of the actions, including a range of
possible loss, or how the final resolution of any such actions
would impact our results of operations or cash flows for any one
period or our consolidated financial position. In addition, as any
action nears a trial, there is an increased possibility that the
action may be settled by the parties. Nevertheless, the final
disposition of any of the actions is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position,
but could possibly be material to our consolidated results of
operations or cash flows for any one period."

Comcast Corporation is a provider of entertainment, information
and communications products and services.


CONVERGYS CORP: Continues to Monitor Wheelock Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Convergys Corporation continues to monitor the case captioned,
Brandon Wheelock, individually and on behalf of a class and
subclass of similarly situated individuals, v. Hyundai Motor
America, pending at the Orange County Superior Court in
California, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "In November 2011, one of the Company's call
center clients tendered a contractual indemnity claim to Convergys
Customer Management Group, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company,
relating to a putative class action captioned Brandon Wheelock,
individually and on behalf of a class and subclass of similarly
situated individuals, v. Hyundai Motor America, Orange County
Superior Court, California, Case No. 30-2011-00522293-CU-BT-CJC.
The lawsuit alleges that Hyundai Motor America violated
California's telephone recording laws by recording telephone calls
with customer service representatives without providing a
disclosure that the calls might be recorded. Plaintiff is seeking,
among other things, an order certifying the suit as a California
class action, statutory damages, payment of attorneys' fees and
pre- and post judgment interest. Convergys Customer Management
Group, Inc. is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit and has not
agreed to indemnify Hyundai. On March 5, 2012, the court sustained
a demurrer filed by Hyundai to one of Plaintiff's causes of
action, but overruled the demurrer as to the Plaintiff's other
cause of action. On March 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. Hyundai answered the amended complaint on April 16,
2012, by generally denying the allegations and asserting certain
affirmative defenses. On May 7, 2012, Hyundai filed a motion for
summary judgment based on Hyundai's claim that an exemption under
the California recording laws were intended to exempt the type of
recording done by Hyundai's call centers. On January 10, 2013, the
court heard arguments on Hyundai's motion for summary judgment. On
February 5, 2013, the court denied the motion. We anticipate the
parties will discuss, among other things, a schedule for discovery
at a status hearing scheduled for February 27, 2013.

"Given the early stage of this matter, the fact that Convergys
Customer Management Group, Inc. is not named as a defendant in the
lawsuit, and the fact that there has been no determination as to
whether Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc. will be required
to indemnify Hyundai, the likelihood of losses that may become
payable under such claims, the amount of reasonably possible
losses associated with such claims, and whether such losses may be
material cannot be determined or estimated at this time. The
Company has, therefore, not established as reserve with respect to
this matter. The Company believes Convergys Customer Management
Group, Inc., has meritorious defenses to Hyundai's demand for
indemnification and also believes there are meritorious defenses
to Plaintiff's claims in the lawsuit."

Convergys Corporation provides relationship management solutions
in North America and internationally.


DORCHESTER MINERALS: Class Suit Against Unit Dismissed in Dec.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2002, some individuals and an association called Rural
Residents for Natural Gas Rights sued Dorchester Hugoton, Ltd.,
along with several other operators in Texas County, Oklahoma
regarding the use of natural gas from the wells in residences. The
operating partnership now owns and operates the properties
formerly owned by Dorchester Hugoton. These properties contribute
a significant portion of the NPI amounts paid to us. On April 9,
2007, plaintiffs, for immaterial costs, dismissed with prejudice
all claims against the operating partnership regarding such
residential gas use. On October 4, 2004, the plaintiffs filed
severed claims against the operating partnership regarding royalty
underpayments, which the Texas County District Court subsequently
dismissed with a grant of time to replead. On January 27, 2006,
one of the original plaintiffs again sued the operating
partnership for underpayment of royalty, seeking class action
certification. On October 1, 2007, the Texas County District Court
granted the operating partnership's motion for summary judgment
finding no royalty underpayments. Subsequently, the District Court
denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, and the
plaintiff filed an appeal. On March 31, 2010, the appeal decision
reversed and remanded to the Texas County District Court to
resolve material issues of fact.  On June 30, 2011, the District
Court issued a revised partial summary judgment in favor of the
operating partnership.  On
April 27, 2012, the parties successfully mediated terms for a
settlement in the amount of $500,000 plus immaterial future
royalty amounts on fuel gas.  The settlement was approved by the
District Court on October 18, 2012.  A $500,000 reserve was
recorded in Net Profits Revenues on the financial statements in
the first quarter of 2012.  During December 2012 the operating
partnership paid the settlement amount and the litigation was
dismissed.

No further updates were reported in Dorchester Minerals, L.P.'s
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

Dorchester Minerals, L.P., is engaged in the acquisition,
ownership and administration of Royalty Properties and Net Profits
Interests (NPIs). Partnership is a limited partnership formed on
the combination of Dorchester Hugoton, Ltd., Republic Royalty
Company, L.P. and Spinnaker Royalty Company, L.P.


EXELON CORP: Continues to Defend Constellation Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation continues to defend a consolidated securities
lawsuit brought by debenture holders of a subsidiary, according to
the Company's February 22, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

On March 12, 2012, Exelon completed the merger contemplated by the
Merger Agreement among Exelon, Bolt Acquisition Corporation, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Exelon (Merger Sub), and Constellation
Energy Group, Inc.  As a result of that merger, Merger Sub was
merged into Constellation (the Initial Merger) and Constellation
became a wholly owned subsidiary of Exelon.  Following the
completion of the Initial Merger, Exelon and Constellation
completed a series of internal corporate organizational
restructuring transactions.  Constellation merged with and into
Exelon, with Exelon continuing as the surviving corporation (the
Upstream Merger).  Simultaneously with the Upstream Merger,
Constellation's interest in RF HoldCo LLC, which holds
Constellation's interest in Baltimore Gas and Electric Company
(BGE, a Company subsidiary), was transferred to Exelon Energy
Delivery Company, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Exelon that
also owns Exelon's interests in Commonwealth Edison Company
(ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO).  Following the Upstream
Merger and the transfer of RF HoldCo LLC, Exelon contributed to
Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Generation) certain subsidiaries,
including those with generation and customer supply operations
that were acquired from Constellation as a result of the Initial
Merger and the Upstream Merger.

Three federal securities class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Courts for the Southern District of New
York and the District of Maryland between September 2008 and
November 2008 against Constellation.  The cases were filed on
behalf of a proposed class of persons who acquired publicly traded
securities, including the Series A Junior Subordinated Debentures
(Debentures), of Constellation between January 30, 2008, and
September 16, 2008, and who acquired Debentures in an offering
completed in June 2008.  The securities class actions generally
allege that Constellation, a number of its former officers or
directors, and the underwriters violated the securities laws by
issuing a false and misleading registration statement and
prospectus in connection with Constellation's
June 27, 2008 offering of the Debentures.  The securities class
actions also allege that Constellation issued false or misleading
statements or was aware of material undisclosed information which
contradicted public statements, including in connection with its
announcements of financial results for 2007, the fourth quarter of
2007, the first quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2008 and
the filing of its first quarter 2008 Form 10-Q.  The securities
class actions seek, among other things, certification of the cases
as class actions, compensatory damages, reasonable costs and
expenses, including counsel fees, and rescission damages.

The Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion
to transfer the two securities class actions filed in Maryland to
the District of Maryland, and the actions have since been
transferred for coordination with the securities class action
filed there.  On June 18, 2009, the court appointed a lead
plaintiff, who filed a consolidated amended complaint on September
17, 2009.  On November 17, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety.  On August 13,
2010, the District Court of Maryland issued a ruling on the motion
to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim
with respect to the claims of the common shareholders under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and limiting the lawsuit to those
persons who purchased Debentures in the June 2008 offering.  In
August 2011, plaintiffs requested permission from the court to
file a third amended complaint in an effort to attempt to revive
the claims of the common shareholders.  Constellation filed an
objection to the plaintiffs' request for permission to file a
third amended complaint and, on March 28, 2012, the District Court
of Maryland denied the plaintiffs' request for permission to
revive the claims of the common shareholders.

Given that limited discovery has occurred, that the court has not
certified any class and the plaintiffs have not quantified their
potential damage claims, Exelon says it is unable at this time to
provide an estimate of the range of reasonably possible loss
relating to these proceedings or to determine the ultimate outcome
of the securities class actions or their possible effect on its
financial results.

Exelon Corporation, incorporated in Pennsylvania in February 1999,
is a utility services holding company engaged, through its
principal subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company LLC, in the energy
generation business, and through its principal subsidiaries
Commonwealth Edison Company, PECO Energy Company and Baltimore Gas
and Electric Company, in the energy delivery businesses.  Exelon's
principal executive offices are located in Chicago, Illinois.


EXELON CORP: Motion to Dismiss Zion Station Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
On December 11, 2007, Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, entered into an Asset Sale Agreement
(ASA) with EnergySolutions, Inc. and its wholly owned
subsidiaries, EnergySolutions, LLC (EnergySolutions) and
ZionSolutions, LLC (ZionSolutions) under which ZionSolutions has
assumed responsibility for decommissioning Zion Station, which is
located in Zion, Illinois, and ceased operation in 1998.  On
September 1, 2010, Generation and EnergySolutions completed the
transactions contemplated by the ASA.

On July 14, 2011, three people filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois naming ZionSolutions and Bank of New York
Mellon as defendants and seeking, among other things, an
accounting for use of Nuclear Decommissioning Trust (NDT) funds,
an injunction against the use of NDT funds, the appointment of a
trustee for the NDT funds, and the return of NDT funds to
customers of Commonwealth Edison Company to the extent legally
entitled thereto.  If the plaintiffs prevail on the merits of
their claims, some or all of the NDT funds may no longer be
available to ZionSolutions for decommissioning Zion Station, in
which case, the contractual arrangement would require
ZionSolutions to utilize a line of credit to complete the
decommissioning.  In addition, the appointment of a NDT fund
trustee in this matter could impact Generation's future
decommissioning activities at other stations by setting a
precedent for the appointment of trustees for NDT funds.

On July 20, 2012, ZionSolutions and Bank of New York Mellon filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failing to state a
claim.  The matter is currently under review by the court.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 22,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Exelon Corporation, incorporated in Pennsylvania in February 1999,
is a utility services holding company engaged, through its
principal subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company LLC, in the energy
generation business, and through its principal subsidiaries
Commonwealth Edison Company, PECO Energy Company and Baltimore Gas
and Electric Company, in the energy delivery businesses.  Exelon's
principal executive offices are located in Chicago, Illinois.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Cadillac's Defective Headlight
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
General Motors sold Cadillac DTSs with defective headlight
assemblies that make the lights flicker and fail, and failed to
alert customers.


INTERNAP NETWORK: Continues to Defend 2 Claims in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Internap Network Services Corporation continues to defend two
remaining claims in a securities class action litigation in
Georgia, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On November 12, 2008, a putative securities
fraud class action lawsuit was filed against us and our former
chief executive officer in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia, captioned Catherine Anastasio
and Stephen Anastasio v. Internap Network Services Corp. and James
P. DeBlasio, Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-3462-JOF. The complaint
alleges that we and the individual defendant violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and that the individual defendant also violated Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act as a "control person" of Internap. Plaintiffs
purport to bring these claims on behalf of a class of our
investors who purchased our common stock between March 28, 2007
and March 18, 2008.

"Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class
period, we made misleading statements and omitted material
information regarding (a) integration of VitalStream, which we
acquired in 2007, (b) customer issues and related credits due to
services outages and (c) our previously reported 2007 revenue that
we subsequently reduced in 2008 as announced on March 18, 2008.
Plaintiffs assert that we and the individual defendant made these
misstatements and omissions to maintain our share price.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief.

"On August 12, 2009, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file an
Amended Class Action Complaint ("Amended Complaint"). The Amended
Complaint added a claim for violation of Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act based on alleged misrepresentations in our proxy
statement in connection with our acquisition of VitalStream. The
Amended Complaint also added our former chief financial officer as
a defendant and lengthened the putative class period.

"On September 11, 2009, we and the individual defendants filed
motions to dismiss. On November 6, 2009, plaintiffs filed a
Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint. On December 7, 2009,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint to add allegations regarding, inter alia, an
alleged failure to conduct due diligence in connection with the
VitalStream acquisition and additional statements from purported
confidential witnesses.

"On September 15, 2010, the Court granted our motion to dismiss
and denied the individual defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court
dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act. With respect to plaintiffs' claims under Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, the Court held that the Amended Complaint failed to
satisfy the pleading requirements of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act, but allowed plaintiffs' one final
opportunity to amend the complaint. On October 26, 2010,
plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Class Action Complaint. On
December 10, 2010, we filed a motion to dismiss this complaint. On
September 30, 2011, the Court granted in large part the motion to
dismiss. The two remaining claims involve certain alleged
misstatements concerning the progress of the integration of
VitalStream and the stability of our CDN platform."

Internap Network Services Corporation provides information
technology (IT) infrastructure services.


LANCE ARMSTRONG: Faces Class Action Over Endorsed Energy Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action seeks
damages from FRS Company, Oak Investment Partners and Lance
Armstrong for "sports-related energy products" Armstrong endorsed
before he confessed to doping.


LINN ENERGY: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over Royalty Payments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Linn Energy, LLC, has been named as a defendant in a number of
lawsuits, including claims from royalty owners related to disputed
royalty payments and royalty valuations. The Company has
established reserves that management currently believes are
adequate to provide for potential liabilities based upon its
evaluation of these matters. For a certain statewide class action
royalty payment dispute where a reserve has not yet been
established, the Company has denied that it has any liability on
the claims and has raised arguments and defenses that, if accepted
by the court, will result in no loss to the Company. Discovery
related to class certification has concluded. Briefing and the
hearing on class certification have been deferred by court order
pending the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals' resolution of
interlocutory appeals of two unrelated class certification orders.
As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or
range of possible loss, if any. In addition, the Company is
involved in various other disputes arising in the ordinary course
of business. The Company is not currently a party to any
litigation or pending claims that it believes would have a
material adverse effect on its overall business, financial
position, results of operations or liquidity; however, cash flow
could be significantly impacted in the reporting periods in which
such matters are resolved.

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

Linn Energy, LLC, is an independent oil and natural gas company.
The Company's properties are located in the United States,
primarily in the Mid-Continent, the Permian Basin, Michigan,
California and the Williston Basin.


LITHIA MOTORS: Discovery in "Neese" Class Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in the consolidated class action
lawsuit pending in Alaska, according to Lithia Motors, Inc.'s
February 22, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In December 2006, a lawsuit was filed against the Company (Jackie
Neese, et al vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc, et al,
Case No. 3AN-06-13341 CI, and in April, 2007, a second case
(Jackie Neese, et al vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc,
et al, Case No. 3AN-06-4815 CI) (now consolidated)), in the
Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District at
Anchorage.  In the lawsuits, plaintiffs alleged that the Company,
through its Alaska dealerships, engaged in three practices that
purportedly violate Alaska consumer protection laws: (i) charging
customers dealer fees and costs (including document preparation
fees) not disclosed in the advertised price, (ii) failing to
disclose the acquisition, mechanical and accident history of used
vehicles or whether the vehicles were originally manufactured for
sale in a foreign country, and (iii) engaging in deception,
misrepresentation and fraud by providing to customers financing
from third parties without disclosing that the Company receives a
fee or discount for placing that loan (a "dealer reserve").  The
lawsuit seeks statutory damages of $500 for each violation (or
three times plaintiff's actual damages, whichever is greater), and
attorney fees and costs and the plaintiffs sought class action
certification.  Before and during the pendency of these lawsuits,
the Company engaged in settlement discussions with the State of
Alaska through its Office of Attorney General with respect to the
first two enumerated practices.  As a result of those discussions,
the Company entered into a Consent Judgment subject to court
approval and permitted potential class members to "opt-out" of the
proposed settlement.  Counsel for the plaintiffs attempted to
intervene and, after various motions, hearings and an appeal to
the state Court of Appeals, the Consent Judgment became final.

Plaintiffs then filed a motion in November 2010 seeking
certification of a class (i) for the 339 customers who "opted-out"
of the state settlement, (ii) for those customers who did not
qualify for recovery under the Consent Judgment but were allegedly
eligible for recovery under the plaintiffs' broader interpretation
of the applicable statutes, and (iii) arguing that since the
State's lawsuit against the Company's dealerships did not address
the loan fee/discount (dealer reserve) claim, for those customers
who arranged their vehicle financing through the Company.  On June
14, 2011, the Trial Court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a
class without addressing either the merits of the claims or the
size of the classes.  Discovery in this case is ongoing.  The
Company says it intends to defend the claims vigorously and does
not believe the novel "dealer reserve" claim has merit.

The ultimate resolution of these matters cannot be predicted with
certainty, and an unfavorable resolution of any of the matters
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows.


MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM: Awaits Ruling on Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. is awaiting a court decision on
a motion for class certification, according to the Company's
February 22, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In February 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, ARCO Midcon L.L.C. and WilTel Communications, L.L.C.  The
complaint alleges that the property owned by plaintiffs and those
similarly situated has been damaged by the existence of hazardous
chemicals migrating from a pipeline easement onto the plaintiffs'
property.  The Company acquired the pipeline from ARCO Pipeline
("APL") in 1994 as part of a larger transaction and subsequently
transferred the property to WilTel.  The Company is required to
indemnify and defend WilTel pursuant to the transfer agreement.
Prior to the acquisition of the pipeline from APL, the pipeline
was purged of product.  Neither the Company nor WilTel ever
transported hazardous materials through the pipeline.  A hearing
on the plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was held in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in
December 2012.  The court has not yet rendered a decision on the
issue of class certification.

The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of this
matter will have a material impact on its results of operations,
financial position or cash flows.


NASDAQ OMX: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over Facebook IPO
-------------------------------------------------------------
The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits related to the Facebook IPO, according to
NASDAQ OMX Group's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "In 2012, we became a party to several legal
and regulatory proceedings relating to the Facebook IPO that
occurred on May 18, 2012. In our most recent Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2012, we identified
several putative class actions in which we were named as a
defendant. All but one of those actions are putative national
class actions and have been consolidated into a matter pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under the caption In re Facebook, Inc., IPO Securities and
Derivative Litigation, MDL No. 2389. Of the 10 prior actions
consolidated under this caption, nine were brought by retail
investors seeking damages for alleged negligence, while one was
brought by professional proprietary trading firms for alleged
violations of Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.

"An additional putative class action lawsuit, Zack v. The NASDAQ
OMX Group, Inc. and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (filed June 26,
2012; re-filed August 7, 2012), alleges negligence and seeks to
represent only citizens of the state of New York. Four other
lawsuits have been brought by individual investors (filed between
June 18, 2012 and October 12, 2012). Those actions also assert
claims for negligence, gross negligence, and/or fraud. The Zack
action and the individual actions are not consolidated with the
putative nationwide class actions, but are being coordinated with
them in the Facebook action.

"We also received a demand letter from a member organization,
seeking indemnification for alleged losses associated with the
Facebook IPO. No complaint has been filed in this matter.

"We believe that these lawsuits and the demand are without merit
and intend to defend them vigorously."

The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., is a holding company. NASDAQ OMX is a
global exchange group that delivers trading, clearing, exchange
technology, regulatory, securities listing, and public company
services across six continents.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Continues to Defend Facebook Beacon Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc., continues to defend itself from a class
action lawsuit related to its use of a product known as Facebook
Beacon, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On August 12, 2008, we along with seven other
defendants, were sued in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, by Sean Lane, and seventeen other
individuals, on their own behalf and for others similarly in a
class action suit, alleging violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Video
Privacy Protection Act, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act and Computer Crime Law. The complaint relates to our use of a
product known as Facebook Beacon, created and provided to us by
Facebook, Inc.

Facebook Beacon provided the means for Facebook users to share
purchasing data among their Facebook friends. The parties extended
by agreement the time for defendants' answer, including our
answer, and thereafter, the Plaintiff and Facebook proposed a
stipulated settlement to the Court for approval, which would
resolve the case without requirement of financial contribution
from us. On March 17, 2010, over objections lodged by some
parties, the Court entered an order accepting settlement. Various
parties appealed and on September 20, 2012 the Federal Appeals
Court for the 9th Circuit upheld the settlement. Appealing parties
have petitioned for a rehearing. The Court has not yet ruled on
the petition."

Overstock.com, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as
an online retailer offering discount brand name, non-brand name,
and closeout merchandise in the United States and internationally.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Continues to Defend Customers' Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc., continues to defend itself from a class
action lawsuit alleging breach of Utah's consumer protection
statute and various other state consumer protection statutes,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On March 10, 2009, we were sued in a class
action filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District
of New York. Cynthia Hines, the nominative plaintiff on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, seeks damages under claims
for breach of contract, common law fraud and New York consumer
fraud laws. The Plaintiff alleges we failed to properly disclose
our returns policy to her and that we improperly imposed a
"restocking" charge on her return of a vacuum cleaner. We filed a
motion to dismiss based upon assertions that our agreement with
our customers requires all such actions to be arbitrated in Salt
Lake City, Utah. Alternatively, we asked that the case be
transferred to the United States District Court for the District
of Utah, so that arbitration may be compelled in that district. On
September 8, 2009 the motion to dismiss or transfer was denied,
the court stating that our browsewrap agreement was insufficient
under New York law to establish an agreement with the customer to
arbitrate disputes in Utah. On October 8, 2009, we filed a Notice
of Appeal of the court's ruling. The appeal was denied. On
December 31, 2010 Hines filed an amended complaint. The amended
complaint eliminated common law fraud claims and breach of
contract claims and added claims for breach of Utah's consumer
protection statute and various other state consumer protection
statutes. The amended complaint also asks for an injunction. We
filed motions to dismiss and to decertify the class. The court has
not ruled on these motions. However, no estimate of the loss or
range of loss can be made. We intend to vigorously defend this
action."

Overstock.com, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as
an online retailer offering discount brand name, non-brand name,
and closeout merchandise in the United States and internationally.


PG&E CORP: Has Settlement Pacts With 140 San Bruno Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------------
At December 31, 2012, approximately 140 lawsuits involving third-
party claims for personal injury and property damage, including
two class action lawsuits, had been filed against PG&E Corporation
and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Utility) in connection with
the San Bruno accident on behalf of approximately 450 plaintiffs.
The lawsuits seek compensation for personal injury and property
damage, and other relief, including punitive damages.  These cases
have been coordinated and assigned to one judge in the San Mateo
County Superior Court.  The trial of the first group of remaining
cases began on January 2, 2013 with pretrial motions and hearings.
On January 14, 2013, the court vacated the trial and all pending
hearings due to the significant number of cases that have been
settled outside of court.  The court has urged the parties to
settle the remaining cases.   As of February 8, 2013, the Utility
has entered into settlement agreements to resolve the claims of
approximately 140 plaintiffs.  It is uncertain whether or when the
Utility will be able to resolve the remaining claims through
settlement.

No further updates were reported in PG&E Corporation and Pacific
Gas and Electric Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

PG&E Corporation is a holding company that conducts its business
through Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Utility). The Utility's
revenues are generated mainly through the sale and delivery of
electricity and natural gas to customers.


PG&E CORP: Hearing on Bid to Stay Class Suit Set for April 26
-------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco Superior Court has set a hearing on April 26,
2013, to consider the motion filed by PG&E Corporation and Pacific
Gas and Electric Company to stay a class action lawsuit, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

On August 23, 2012, a complaint was filed in the San Francisco
Superior Court against PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and
Electric Company (Utility) (and other unnamed defendants) by
individuals who seek certification of a class consisting of all
California residents who were customers of the Utility between
1997 and 2010, with certain exceptions.  The plaintiffs allege
that the Utility collected more than $100 million in customer
rates from 1997 through 2010 for the purpose of various safety
measures and operations projects but instead used the funds for
general corporate purposes such as executive compensation and
bonuses.  To state their claims, the plaintiffs cited the January
2012 investigative report from the CPUC's Safety and Enforcement
Division ("SED") that alleged, from 1996 to 2010, the Utility
spent less on capital expenditures and operations and maintenance
expense for its natural gas transmission operations than it
recovered in rates, by $95 million and $39 million, respectively.
The SED recommended that the Utility should use such amounts to
fund future gas transmission expenditures and operations.
Plaintiffs allege that PG&E Corporation and the Utility engaged in
unfair business practices in violation of Section 17200 of the
California Business and Professions Code ("Section 17200") and
claim that this violation also constitutes a violation of
California Public Utilities Code Section 2106 ("Section 2106"),
which provides a private right of action for violations of the
California constitution or state laws by public utilities.
Plaintiffs seek restitution and disgorgement under Section 17200
and compensatory and punitive damages under Section 2106.  PG&E
Corporation and the Utility contest the allegations.  In January
2013, PG&E Corporation and the Utility requested that the court
dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the CPUC has exclusive
jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues raised by the plaintiffs'
allegations.  In the alternative, PG&E Corporation and the Utility
requested that the court stay the proceeding until the CPUC
investigations are concluded.  The court has set a hearing on the
motion for April 26, 2013.

PG&E Corporation is a holding company that conducts its business
through Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Utility). The Utility's
revenues are generated mainly through the sale and delivery of
electricity and natural gas to customers.


PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Higgins" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc., continues to defend its
subsidiary against a class action lawsuit commenced by John
Higgins, et al., according to the Company's February 22, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

During the fourth quarter of 2011, a customer of Pinnacle Bank
filed a putative class action lawsuit (styled John Higgins, et al,
v. Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc., d/b/a Pinnacle National
Bank) in Davidson County, Tennessee Circuit Court, against
Pinnacle Bank and Pinnacle Financial, on his own behalf, as well
as on behalf of a purported class of Pinnacle Bank's customers
within the State of Tennessee alleging that Pinnacle Bank's method
of ordering debit card transactions had caused customers of
Pinnacle Bank to incur higher overdraft charges than had a
different method been used.  In support of his claims, the
plaintiff asserts theories of breach of contract, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment
of unconscionability.  The plaintiff is seeking, among other
remedies, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, pre-
judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees.  Pinnacle Financial
and Pinnacle Bank are vigorously contesting this matter.  On
January 17, 2012, Pinnacle Financial and Pinnacle Bank filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.  The motion to dismiss was
granted without prejudice to Pinnacle Financial and denied as to
Pinnacle Bank on April 13, 2012, and Pinnacle Bank filed an answer
on May 30, 2012.  Based on the Company's current knowledge,
Pinnacle Financial does not believe that any liability arising
from this legal matter will have a material adverse effect on
Pinnacle Financial's consolidated financial condition, operating
results or cash flows.

Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. -- http://www.mypinnacle.com/--
operates as the bank holding company for Pinnacle National Bank
that provides various commercial banking services to individuals,
small-to medium-sized businesses, and professional entities
primarily in Tennessee.  The Company was founded in 2000 and is
headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Phillips" Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit titled
Phillips v. Prudential Insurance and Pruco Life Insurance Company
remains pending, according to Prudential Financial, Inc.'s
February 22, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In December 2010, a purported state-wide class action complaint,
Phillips v. Prudential Financial, Inc., was filed in state court
and removed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.  The complaint makes allegations under
Illinois law, substantially similar to the Garcia cases, on behalf
of a class of Illinois residents whose death benefit claims were
settled by retained assets accounts.  In March 2011, the complaint
was amended to drop the Company as a defendant and add Pruco Life
Insurance Company as a defendant and is now captioned Phillips v.
Prudential Insurance and Pruco Life Insurance Company.  In
November 2011, the complaint was dismissed.  In December 2011,
plaintiff appealed the dismissal.

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid in Wage & Hour Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the consolidated
wage and hour lawsuit in New Jersey was denied in its entirety in
January 2012, according to Prudential Financial, Inc.'s February
22, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In October 2006, a purported class action lawsuit, Bouder v.
Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of
America, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, claiming that Prudential failed to pay
overtime to insurance agents in violation of federal and
Pennsylvania law, and that improper deductions were made from
these agents' wages in violation of state law.  The complaint
seeks back overtime pay and statutory damages, recovery of
improper deductions, interest, and attorneys' fees.  In March
2008, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class on the
federal overtime claim.  Separately, in March 2008, a purported
nationwide class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, Wang v.
Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance, claiming that
the Company failed to pay its agents overtime and provide other
benefits in violation of California and federal law and seeking
compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts.  In
September 2008, Wang was transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with the
Bouder matter.  Subsequent amendments to the complaint have
resulted in additional allegations involving purported violations
of an additional nine states' overtime and wage payment laws.  In
February 2010, Prudential moved to decertify the federal overtime
class that had been conditionally certified in March 2008 and
moved for summary judgment on the federal overtime claims of the
named plaintiffs.  In July 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification of the state law claims.  In August 2010, the
district court granted Prudential's motion for summary judgment,
dismissing the federal overtime claims.

In January 2013, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in its entirety.

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Won't Certify Class in "Clark" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied in
February 2013 the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
the class captioned Clark v. Prudential Insurance Company,
according to Prudential Financial, Inc.'s February 22, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

In February 2011, a fifth amended complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in
Clark v. Prudential Insurance Company.  The complaint brought on
behalf of a purported class of California, Indiana, Ohio and Texas
residents who purchased individual health insurance policies
alleges that Prudential Insurance failed to disclose that it had
ceased selling this type of policy in 1981 and that, as a result,
premiums would increase significantly.  The complaint alleges
claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and omission, breach of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing, and California's Unfair
Competition Law and seeks compensatory and punitive damages.  The
matter was originally filed in 2008 and certain of the claims in
the first four complaints were dismissed.  In February 2012,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  In July 2012,
Prudential Insurance moved for summary judgment on certain of
plaintiffs' claims.

In February 2013, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and granted the motion by Prudential Insurance for
summary judgment against two of the named plaintiffs and denied
summary judgment against two other plaintiffs.

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Sterling" Securities Suit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. is facing a securities class action
lawsuit in New Jersey initiated by the City of Sterling Heights
General Employees' Retirement System, according to the Company's
February 22, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In August 2012, a purported class action lawsuit, City of Sterling
Heights General Employees' Retirement System v. Prudential
Financial, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging violations of
federal securities law.  The complaint names as defendants the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer,
the Principal Accounting Officer and certain Company Board of
Directors.  The complaint alleges that knowingly false and
misleading statements were made regarding the Company's current
and future financial condition based on, among other things, the
alleged failure to disclose: (i) potential liability for benefits
that should either have been paid to policyholders or their
beneficiaries, or escheated to applicable states; and (ii) the
extent of the Company's exposure for alleged state and federal law
violations concerning the settlement of claims and the escheatment
of unclaimed property.  The complaint seeks an undetermined amount
of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Dismissal of "Garcia" Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. disclosed in its February 22, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012, that the dismissal of the
class action lawsuit styled Garcia v. The Prudential Insurance
Company of America was affirmed in January 2013.

In January 2011, a purported state-wide class action, Garcia v.
The Prudential Insurance Company of America was dismissed by the
Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, Nevada.  The
complaint was brought on behalf of Nevada beneficiaries of
individual life insurance policies for which, unless the
beneficiaries elected another settlement method, death benefits
were placed in retained asset accounts.  The complaint alleges
that by failing to disclose material information about the
accounts, the Company wrongfully delayed payment and improperly
retained undisclosed profits, and seeks damages, injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and pre and post-judgment interest.  In
February 2011, plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Nevada
Supreme Court.  As previously reported, in December 2009, an
earlier purported nationwide class action raising substantially
similar allegations brought by the same plaintiff in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Garcia v.
Prudential Insurance Company of America, was dismissed.  In
December 2011, plaintiff appealed the dismissal.  In January 2013,
the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Huffman" Suit Remains Stayed in E.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2010, Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company, a
purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of
beneficiaries of group life insurance contracts owned by Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA")-governed employee
welfare benefit plans was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, challenging the
use of retained asset accounts in employee welfare benefit plans
to settle death benefit claims as a violation of ERISA and seeking
injunctive relief and disgorgement of profits.  In July 2011,
Prudential Financial, Inc.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings
was denied.  In February 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify the class.  In April 2012, the Court stayed the case
pending the outcome of a case involving another insurer that is on
appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 22,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Parties in SGLI/VGLI MDL Await Rulings
------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated lawsuit titled In re Prudential
Insurance Company of America SGLI/VGLI Contract Litigation are
awaiting court decisions on their summary judgment motions,
according to Prudential Financial, Inc.'s February 22, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

From July 2010 to December 2010, four purported nationwide class
actions were filed challenging the use of retained asset accounts
to settle death benefit claims of beneficiaries of a group life
insurance contract owned by the United States Department of
Veterans Affairs that covers the lives of members and veterans of
the U.S. armed forces.  In 2011, the cases were consolidated in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
by the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation as In re
Prudential Insurance Company of America SGLI/VGLI Contract
Litigation.  The consolidated complaint alleges that the use of
the retained assets accounts that earn interest and are available
to be withdrawn by the beneficiary, in whole or in part, at any
time, to settle death benefit claims is in violation of federal
law, and asserts claims of breach of contract, breaches of
fiduciary duty and the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud
and unjust enrichment and seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
disgorgement of profits, equitable relief and pre and post-
judgment interest.  In March 2011, the motion to dismiss was
denied.  In January 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the
class.  In August 2012, the court denied plaintiffs' class
certification motion without prejudice pending the filing of
summary judgment motions on the issue of whether plaintiffs
sustained an actual injury.  In October 2012, the parties filed
their summary judgment motions.

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.


QEP RESOURCES: Has Preliminary OK of "Chieftain" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
QEP Resources, Inc. has received preliminary approval of its
$115.0 million settlement of a class action lawsuit commenced by
Chieftain Royalty Company, according to the Company's
February 22, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The statewide class action captioned Chieftain Royalty Company v.
QEP Energy Company, Case No CJ2011-1, U. S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma, was filed on January 20, 2011, on
behalf of QEP's Oklahoma royalty owners asserting various claims
for damages related to royalty valuation on all of QEP's Oklahoma
wells operated by QEP or from which QEP marketed gas.  Claims
included breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud,
unjust enrichment, tortious breach of contract, conspiracy, and
conversion, based generally on asserted improper deduction of
post-production costs.  The Court certified the class as to the
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment
claims.  The parties successfully mediated the case in January
2013.  On February 13, 2013, the parties executed a Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement (the Chieftain Settlement Agreement)
providing for a cash payment from QEP to the class in the amount
of $115.0 million, payable into an escrow account within five
business days following the Court's preliminary approval of the
settlement.  In consideration for the settlement payment, QEP will
receive a full release of all claims regarding the calculation,
reporting and payment of royalties from the sale of natural gas
and its constituents for all periods prior to February 28, 2013,
and all class members are enjoined from asserting claims related
to such royalties.  As part of the Chieftain Settlement Agreement,
the parties also agreed on the methodology for the calculation and
payment of future royalties payable by QEP, or its successors and
assigns, under all class leases for the life of such leases.  The
Court has entered a Preliminary Order Approving Class Action
Settlement.

During the year ended December 31, 2012, QEP recorded a loss
contingency accrual of $115.0 million, which is included in
"General and administrative" expense on the Consolidated Statement
of Operations.  The accrual is included in "Accounts payable and
accrued expenses" on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.

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


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Investors' Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Regions Financial Corporation continues to defend itself from
class action lawsuits filed by investors and shareholders,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

Beginning in December 2007, Regions and certain of its affiliates
have been named in class-action lawsuits filed in federal and
state courts on behalf of investors who purchased shares of
certain Regions Morgan Keegan Select Funds (the "Funds") and
shareholders of Regions. These cases have been consolidated into
class-actions and shareholder derivative actions for the open-end
and closed-end Funds. The Funds were formerly managed by Regions
Investment Management, Inc. ("Regions Investment Management").
Regions Investment Management no longer manages these Funds, which
were transferred to Hyperion Brookfield Asset Management
("Hyperion") in 2008. Certain of the Funds have since been
terminated by Hyperion. The complaints contain various
allegations, including claims that the Funds and the defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts relating to
the activities of the Funds. Plaintiffs have requested equitable
relief and unspecified monetary damages. These cases are in
various stages and no classes have been certified. Settlement
discussions are ongoing in certain cases, and the Court has
granted preliminary approval of a settlement in the closed-end
Funds class-action and shareholder derivative case. Certain of the
shareholders in these Funds and other interested parties have
entered into arbitration proceedings and individual civil claims,
in lieu of participating in the class actions. These lawsuits and
proceedings are subject to the indemnification agreement with
Raymond James.

Regions Financial Corporation is a financial holding company.
Regions operate throughout the South, Midwest and Texas. The
Company provides traditional commercial, retail and mortgage
banking services, as well as other financial services in the
fields of investment banking, asset management, trust, mutual
funds, securities brokerage, insurance and other specialty
financing. Regions conduct its banking operations through Regions
Bank, a commercial bank.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Class Suit in Alabama Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Regions Financial Corporation in
Alabama remains stayed pending a review by the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2012.

In October 2010, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed by
Regions' stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama against Regions and certain former officers of
Regions. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities
laws, including allegations that statements that were materially
false and misleading were included in filings made with the SEC.
The plaintiffs have requested equitable relief and unspecified
monetary damages. On June 7, 2011, the trial court denied Regions'
motion to dismiss this lawsuit. On June 14, 2012, the trial court
granted class certification. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
is reviewing the trial court's grant of class-action
certification. The case is now stayed pending that review.

Regions Financial Corporation is a financial holding company.
Regions operate throughout the South, Midwest and Texas. The
Company provides traditional commercial, retail and mortgage
banking services, as well as other financial services in the
fields of investment banking, asset management, trust, mutual
funds, securities brokerage, insurance and other specialty
financing. Regions conduct its banking operations through Regions
Bank, a commercial bank.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Defends New Class Suit in Georgia
----------------------------------------------------
Regions Financial Corporation is defending itself against a new
class action lawsuit filed in Georgia that alleges the same claims
in a previously dismissed case, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

In September 2009, Regions was named as a defendant in a purported
class-action lawsuit filed by customers of Regions Bank in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
challenging the manner in which non-sufficient funds and overdraft
fees were charged and the policies related to posting order. The
case was transferred to multidistrict litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and in May
2010 an order to compel arbitration was denied. Regions appealed
the denial and on April 29, 2011, the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals vacated the denial and remanded the case to the district
court for reconsideration of Regions' motion to compel
arbitration. On September 1, 2011, the trial court again denied
Regions' motion to compel arbitration. Regions again appealed the
denial to the Eleventh Circuit, which on March 5, 2012 granted the
motion and ordered that the case be dismissed. Plaintiffs filed a
motion for rehearing by the full court of appeals, which was
denied on April 30, 2012. Plaintiffs petitioned for certiorari
with the U.S. Supreme Court, but their petition was denied on
October 9, 2012. The case was dismissed with prejudice on December
21, 2012. Another purported class-action alleging these claims was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia in January 2012. The case is still early in its
development and no class has been certified. Plaintiffs in these
cases have requested equitable relief and unspecified monetary
damages.

Regions Financial Corporation is a financial holding company.
Regions operate throughout the South, Midwest and Texas. The
Company provides traditional commercial, retail and mortgage
banking services, as well as other financial services in the
fields of investment banking, asset management, trust, mutual
funds, securities brokerage, insurance and other specialty
financing. Regions conduct its banking operations through Regions
Bank, a commercial bank.


TIM HORTONS: Continues to Defend Class Cert. Claim in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hortons Inc. continues to defend itself from a claim seeking
class action certification in Canada, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2012.

On June 12, 2008, a claim was filed against the Company and
certain of its affiliates in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, by two of its franchisees, Fairview Donut Inc. and Brule
Foods Ltd., alleging, generally, that the Company's Always Fresh
baking system and expansion of lunch offerings have led to lower
franchisee profitability. The claim, which sought class action
certification on behalf of Canadian restaurant owners, asserted
damages of approximately $1.95 billion. Those damages were claimed
based on breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and
fair dealing, negligent misrepresentations, unjust enrichment and
price maintenance. The plaintiffs filed a motion for certification
of the putative class in May 2009, and the Company filed its
responding materials as well as a motion for summary judgment in
November 2009. The 2 motions were heard in August and October
2011. On February 24, 2012, the Court granted the Company's motion
for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims in their
entirety. The Court also found that certain aspects of the test
for certification of the action as a class proceeding had been
met, but all of the underlying claims were nonetheless dismissed
as part of the summary judgment decision.

While the Court found in favor of the Company on all claims, the
plaintiffs appealed from the summary judgment decision with
respect to some of the claims for breach of contract and with
respect to the claim for breach of the duty of good faith. The
appeal was heard in December 2012 at which time the Court of
Appeal for Ontario dismissed all claims in their entirety. The
plaintiffs have filed an application to seek leave to appeal to
the Supreme Court of Canada. If leave is granted and the appeal
determined adversely to the Company, the matter could ultimately
proceed to trial. The Company continues to believe that it would
have good and tenable defenses if leave to appeal were granted,
the plaintiffs were successful in the appeal, and the matters were
to proceed to trial. However, if the matters were determined
adversely to the Company at trial and that determination was
upheld after all avenues of appeal were exhausted, it is possible
that the claims could have a material adverse impact on the
Company's financial position or liquidity.

Tim Hortons Inc. is a quick service restaurant chain in North
America. The Company's menu includes coffee, espresso-based hot
and cold specialty drinks, including lattes, cappuccinos and
espresso shots, specialty teas, fruit smoothies, home-style soups,
fresh sandwiches, wraps, hot breakfast sandwiches and fresh baked
goods, including its trademark donuts.


WELLS FARGO: Gets Partial Dismissal of "Cannon" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Cannon filed a proposed class action suit against Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Insurance, Inc., as well as QBE
Specialty Insurance Co. and Sterling National Insurance Agency,
Inc., now known as QBE First Insurance Agency, Inc., in the
Superior Court for the District of Columbia.  The Defendants
removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, and the Court subsequently denied the Plaintiff's motion
to remand.  All four of the named Defendants moved to dismiss the
entirety of the Complaint.

In a ruling Friday, District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said the
Court lacks personal jurisdiction over QBE Specialty.  Therefore,
all claims against the Defendant will be dismissed, the judge
said.  The Plaintiff also fails to state a claim with respect to
either QBE Defendant, Judge Kollar-Kotelly added.

The Court held that the Plaintiff has adequately pled a breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, but otherwise fails
to state a claim against the Wells Fargo Defendants.

Accordingly, the QBE Defendants' Amended Motion to Dismiss is
granted and the Wells Fargo Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is
granted, in part, and denied, in part, Judge Kollar-Kotelly ruled.

The case is ANDREA CANNON, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 12-465 (CKK), (D.D.C.).  A copy of
the District Court's March 1, 2013 Memorandum Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/Pd12uFfrom Leagle.com.


XEROX CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation continues to defend a consolidated securities
litigation pending in Connecticut, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "A consolidated securities law action
(consisting of 17 cases) is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut. Defendants are the Company,
Barry Romeril, Paul Allaire and G. Richard Thoman. The
consolidated action is a class action on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased Xerox Corporation common stock during the
period October 22, 1998 through October 7, 1999 inclusive ("Class
Period") and who suffered a loss as a result of misrepresentations
or omissions by Defendants as alleged by Plaintiffs (the "Class").
The Class alleges that in violation of Section 10(b) and/or 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("1934 Act"),
and SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder, each of the defendants is liable as
a participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the Class Period by disseminating materially
false and misleading statements and/or concealing material facts
relating to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose the
material negative impact that the April 1998 restructuring had on
the Company's operations and revenues. The complaint further
alleges that the alleged scheme: (i) deceived the investing public
regarding the economic capabilities, sales proficiencies, growth,
operations and the intrinsic value of the Company's common stock;
(ii) allowed several corporate insiders, such as the named
individual defendants, to sell shares of privately held common
stock of the Company while in possession of materially adverse,
non-public information; and (iii) caused the individual plaintiffs
and the other members of the purported class to purchase common
stock of the Company at inflated prices. The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and
the other members of the purported class against all defendants,
jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
defendants' alleged wrongdoing, including interest thereon,
together with reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the
action, including counsel fees and expert fees. In 2001, the Court
denied the defendants' motion for dismissal of the complaint. The
plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied by the Court
in 2006, without prejudice to refiling. In February 2007, the
Court granted the motion of the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers Welfare Fund of Local Union No. 164, Robert W.
Roten, Robert Agius ("Agius") and Georgia Stanley to appoint them
as additional lead plaintiffs.

"In July 2007, the Court denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for
class certification, without prejudice to renewal after the Court
holds a pre-filing conference to identify factual disputes the
Court will be required to resolve in ruling on the motion. After
that conference and Agius's withdrawal as lead plaintiff and
proposed class representative, in February 2008 plaintiffs filed a
second renewed motion for class certification. In April 2008,
defendants filed their response and motion to disqualify Milberg
LLP as a lead counsel. On September 30, 2008, the Court entered an
order certifying the class and denying the appointment of Milberg
LLP as class counsel. Subsequently, on April 9, 2009, the Court
denied defendants' motion to disqualify Milberg LLP. On November
6, 2008, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
Briefing with respect to the motion is complete. The Court has not
yet rendered a decision. The parties also filed motions to exclude
the testimony of certain expert witnesses. On April 22, 2009, the
Court denied plaintiffs' motions to exclude the testimony of two
of defendants' expert witnesses. On September 30, 2010, the Court
denied plaintiffs' motion to exclude the testimony of another of
defendants' expert witnesses. The Court also granted defendants'
motion to exclude the testimony of one of plaintiffs' expert
witnesses, and granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiffs' two remaining
expert witnesses. The individual defendants and we deny any
wrongdoing and are vigorously defending the action. At this time,
we do not believe it is reasonably possible that we will incur
additional material losses in excess of the amount we have already
accrued for this matter. In the course of litigation, we
periodically engage in discussions with plaintiffs' counsel for
possible resolution of this matter. Should developments cause a
change in our determination as to an unfavorable outcome, or
result in a final adverse judgment or a settlement for a
significant amount, there could be a material adverse effect on
our results of operations, cash flows and financial position in
the period in which such change in determination, judgment or
settlement occurs."

Xerox Corporation provides a portfolio of business process and
information technology (IT) outsourcing support, document
technology and solutions. Through the Company's business process
and IT outsourcing it offers global services from claims
reimbursement and electronic toll transactions to the management
of human resource (HR) benefits and customer care centers to the
operation of a company's technology infrastructure.


                           *********

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  * * *