CAR_Public/130311.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 11, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 49

                             Headlines



ASSISTED LIVING: Being Sold to TPG for Too Little, Suit Claims
BUMBLE BEE: Recalls Chunk White Albacore & Light Tuna Products
BURGER KING: $19-Mil. "Vallabhapurapu" Suit Deal Funded in Dec.
CALIFORNIA: Race-Based Arrest Can't Proceed as Class, Judge Rules
CALIX INC: Continues to Defend Occam Acquisition-Related Suit

CARGILL INC: Recalls Select Mineral Product Used in Ruminant Feed
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Faces Class Action Over Bogus "Free Cruises"
CHINESE DAILY: 9th Circuit Reverses Class Certification
ELBIT IMAGING: Faces NIS240-Mil. Class Action in Israel
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Objectors Want to Overturn $45MM Settlement

GNC HOLDINGS: Cal. Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Brewer" Suit
GNC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Naranjo" Suit in California
GNC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Andro Actions in New York
GNC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Hydroxycut-Related Suits
GNC HOLDINGS: "Vargas" Suit Remains Pending in Pennsylvania

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeal in Blood Reagent Antitrust Suit Pending
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Monk" Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend "Field" Suit in Canada
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend Suits Over Inflated AWP
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Still Defends Suits Over Pelvic Mesh Device

JPMORGAN CHASE: Arbitration Pact May Preclude FLSA Class Action
KKR & CO: Bid to Dismiss Merger Suit in Delaware Remains Pending
KKR & CO: Still Awaits Ruling on Judgment Bid in Antitrust Suit
KRAFT FOODS: Court Trims Suit Over Inaccurate Labeling
NETSPEND HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims

NETSPEND HOLDINGS: Still Awaits OK of "Baker" Suit Settlement
OFFICEMAX: Being Sold to Office Depot for Too Little, Suit Claims
PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal in Sao Paulo Prosecutor Suit Still Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Appeals in "ADESF" Suit Still Pending in Brazil
PHILIP MORRIS: "Bourassa" Suit in British Columbia Still Dormant

PHILIP MORRIS: "Dorion" Suit in Alberta, Canada Still Dormant
PHILIP MORRIS: Hearing in "El-Roy" Suit Appeal Set for March 2014
PHILIP MORRIS: "Jacklin" Class Suit Remains Pending in Ontario
PHILIP MORRIS: "Kunta" Suit in Winnipeg, Canada, Still Dormant
PHILIP MORRIS: "McDermid" Suit in British Columbia Still Dormant

PHILIP MORRIS: "Navon" Suit Facing Dismissal
PHILIP MORRIS: Initial Motions Still Pending in "Adams" Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: "Semple" Suit in Nova Scotia Remains Dormant
PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Blais" Suit vs. Canadian Unit Ongoing
PRESTIGE DELIVERY: Truckers' Suit to Proceed in Pennsylvania Court

PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Letourneau" Suit vs. Unit Ongoing
RECKITT BENSICKER: Monopolizes Market for Suboxone, Suit Claims
SPI ELECTRICITY: Black Saturday Bushfire Preventable, Lawyer Says
SUMMER GARDEN: Recalls 25,000 Lbs. of Bolognese Sauce Products
UNITED STATES: Judge Certifies Class Action of Black Agents

VODAFONE: Law Firm Won't Provide Details on Class Action Sign-Ups

* 2nd Cir. Dismisses $300BB Auction-Rate Antitrust Case


                           *********


ASSISTED LIVING: Being Sold to TPG for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Assisted Living Concepts is
selling itself too cheaply to TPG Capital, for $454 million or
$12 per Class A share and $12.90 per Class B share, shareholders
claim in Clark County Court.


BUMBLE BEE: Recalls Chunk White Albacore & Light Tuna Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, has issued a voluntary recall on specific
codes of 5-ounce Chunk White Albacore and Chunk Light Tuna
products.  The recall has been issued because the products do not
meet the Company's standards for seal tightness.

Loose seals or seams could result in product contamination by
spoilage organisms or pathogens and lead to illness if consumed.
There have been no reports to date of any illness associated with
these products.

Products subject to recall follow:

   Brunswick Brand 5 oz Chunk Light Tuna in Water - 48 Count Case
   (Case UPC 6661332803)

   Can Label UPC   Can Lot Code   Can Best Buy Code
   -------------   ------------   -----------------
   6661332803      3018SB1CLP     Best By Jan 18 2016
   6661332803      3018SB2CLP     Best By Jan 18 2016

   Bumble Bee Brand 5oz Chunk Light Tuna in Water - 48 Count Case
   (Case UPC 8660000020)

   Can Label UPC   Can Lot Code   Can Best Buy Code
   -------------   ------------   -----------------
   866203          3016SBCCLP     Best By Jan 16 2016
   866203          3016SBDCLP     Best By Jan 16 2016
   866203          3016SBECLP     Best By Jan 16 2016
   866203          3017SB1CLP     Best By Jan 17 2016
   866203          3017SB3CLP     Best By Jan 17 2016
   866203          3017SB4CLP     Best By Jan 17 2016
   866203          3017SB5CLP     Best By Jan 17 2016
   866203          3017SB6CLP     Best By Jan 17 2016
   866203          3018SB2CLP     Best By Jan 18 2016
   866203          3018SB4CLP     Best By Jan 18 2016
   866203          3018SB5CLP     Best By Jan 18 2016
   866203          3018SBACLP     Best By Jan 18 2016
   866203          3018SBBCLP     Best By Jan 18 2016
   866203          3018SBCCLP     Best By Jan 18 2016
   866203          3018SBDCLP     Best By Jan 18 2016
   866203          3018SBECLP     Best By Jan 18 2016

   Bumble Bee Brand 5oz Chunk Light Tuna in Vegetable Oil - 48
   Count Case (Case UPC 8660000021)

   Can Label UPC   Can Lot Code   Can Best Buy Code
   -------------   ------------   -----------------
   866213          3016SACCLH     Best By Jan 16 2016
   866213          3016SADCLH     Best By Jan 16 2016
   866213          3016SAECLH     Best By Jan 16 2016
   866213          3016SAFCLH     Best By Jan 16 2016
   866213          3018SAFCLH     Best By Jan 18 2016

   Bumble Bee Brand 5oz Chunk White Albacore in Water - 24 Count
   Case (Case UPC 8660000025)

   Can Label UPC   Can Lot Code   Can Best Buy Code
   -------------   ------------   -----------------
   866253          3017SA1CKP     Best By Jan 17 2016
   866253          3017SA2CKP     Best By Jan 17 2016
   866253          3017SA3CKP     Best By Jan 17 2016
   866253          3017SADCKP     Best By Jan 17 2016
   866253          3017SAECKP     Best By Jan 17 2016
   866253          3017SAFCKP     Best By Jan 17 2016

   Bumble Bee Brand 5oz Chunk Light Tuna in Water - 6 Count Case
   of 4-Pack Cluster (Case UPC 8660000736)

   Cluster      Can Label
   Pack UPC        UPC      Can Lot Code   Can Best Buy Code
   --------     ---------   ------------   -----------------
   8660000736   866203      3017SBACLP     Best By Jan 17 2016
   8660000736   866203      3017SBBCLP     Best By Jan 17 2016
   8660000736   866203      3017SBCCLP     Best By Jan 17 2016
   8660000736   866203      3017SBDCLP     Best By Jan 17 2016
   8660000736   866203      3017SBECLP     Best By Jan 17 2016

   Bumble Bee Brand 5oz Chunk White Albacore in Water - 6 Count
   Case of 8-Pack Cluster (Case UPC 8660000775)

   Cluster      Can Label
   Pack UPC        UPC      Can Lot Code   Can Best Buy Code
   --------     ---------   ------------   -----------------
   8660000776   866253      3017SABCKP     Best By Jan 17 2016
   8660000776   866253      3017SADCKP     Best By Jan 17 2016

   Bumble Bee Brand 5 oz Chunk White Albacore in Water - 6 Count
   Case of 8-Pack Cluster (Case UPCS 8660000776)

   Cluster      Can Label
   Pack UPC        UPC      Can Lot Code   Can Best Buy Code
   --------     ---------   ------------   -----------------
   8660000776   866253      3017SA3CKP     Best By Jan 17 2016
   8660000776   866253      3017SA4CKP     Best By Jan 17 2016
   8660000776   866253      3017SA5CKP     Best By Jan 17 2016
   8660000776   866253      3017SAACKP     Best By Jan 17 2016
   8660000776   866253      3017SACCKP     Best By Jan 17 2016
   8660000776   866253      3017SB2CKP     Best By Jan 17 2016

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm342597.htm

These products were distributed for retail sale nationwide between
January 17, 2013, and February 28, 2013.

Bumble Bee Foods SVP of Technical Services and Corporate Quality
Assurance Steve Mavity said: "Due to can integrity concerns, our
top priority at this time is to remove these recalled products
from distribution as soon as possible.  We are working closely
with our sales team and with retailers to help expedite the
recall.  We must assure our consumers and retailers of a safe and
quality product so we very much appreciate everyone's part in
disposing of the products with the specific codes indicated."

Mavity added, "There have been no consumer reports of illnesses
attributed to these products, but because we've identified an
issue with seal tightness, we're voluntarily recalling products to
ensure the highest margin of safety and quality."

Consumers who have purchased the recalled products should discard
the product by disposing in the garbage.

For any questions concerning this voluntary recall or
reimbursement, consumers can contact Bumble Bee Consumer Affairs
24 hours a day at (800) 800-8572.


BURGER KING: $19-Mil. "Vallabhapurapu" Suit Deal Funded in Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burger King Worldwide, 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 its $19.0 million
settlement of a class action lawsuit styled Vallabhapurapu v.
Burger King Corporation was funded in December 2012.

On September 10, 2008, a class action lawsuit, captioned Castenada
v. Burger King Corp. and Burger King Corporation., No. CV08-4262
(U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California), was
filed against the Company in California.  The complaint alleged
that all 96 Burger King restaurants in California leased by the
Company and operated by franchisees violate accessibility
requirements under federal and state law.  In September 2009, the
court issued a decision on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  In its decision, the court limited the class
action to the 10 restaurants visited by the named plaintiffs, with
a separate class of plaintiffs for each of the 10 restaurants and
10 separate trials.  In March 2010, the Company agreed to settle
the lawsuit with respect to the 10 restaurants and, in July 2010,
the court gave final approval to the settlement.

In February 2011, a class action lawsuit styled Vallabhapurapu v.
Burger King Corporation, No. C11-00667 (U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California) was filed with respect to the
other 86 restaurants.  In January 2012, the Company agreed to
settle the lawsuit.  Under the settlement, $19.0 million was paid
for the benefit of the class members, with $5.0 million funded by
the Company's franchisees, $3.9 million by Burger King
Corporation, and the balance by BKC's insurance carrier.  These
amounts were funded in December 2012.

Burger King Worldwide, Inc. is a Delaware corporation formed on
April 2, 2012, and the indirect parent of Burger King Corporation
("BKC"), a Florida corporation that franchises and operates fast
food hamburger restaurants, principally under the Burger King(R)
brand.  The restaurants of the Miami, Florida-based Company are
limited service restaurants that feature flame-grilled hamburgers,
chicken and other specialty sandwiches, french fries, soft drinks
and other affordably-priced food items.


CALIFORNIA: Race-Based Arrest Can't Proceed as Class, Judge Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service reports that police
officers must face claims that they made race-based arrests for
public drunkenness, but the plaintiffs cannot proceed as a class,
a federal judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken found that disputed issues of
material fact precluded her from dismissing most claims from a
2009 lawsuit over the arrests of revelers in San Jose, Calif.,
three of whom are Latino and one of whom is black.

Francisco Valdez, Ricardo Vasquez, Daniel Martinez and Jamil
Stubbs say they were not intoxicated and that the officers
arrested them as part of a practice of wrongfully arresting
minorities for public intoxication.

The officers maintain, however, that each plaintiff smelled of
alcohol and exhibited at least one other sign of drunkenness.
They claim, for example, that one was combative and another
urinated on a public garage wall.

Valdez alleges that he and Vasquez were apprehended in the street
and that Officer R. Amagau told him, "We don't want your kind
here."

Amagau allegedly told Vasquez, "We don't want you guys to come
back.  We don't like you people."

Wilken refused to find that the allegations of such isolated
comments are "insufficient to establish discriminatory intent for
the purposes of Fourteenth Amendment liability."

Amagau's isolated comment "is potentially quite probative of his
underlying motives, especially since it remains disputed whether
Amagau had probable cause to make the arrest," according to the
ruling.

"Because the parties dispute whether Amagau actually made this
comment to Valdez, Amagau is not entitled to summary judgment on
Plaintiffs' equal protection claim," Wilken added.

The judge upheld similar claims against two other officers
identified only as Wallace and Orlando.  She granted San Jose; its
police chief, Robert Davis; and two other officers, identified
only as Rickert and Martin, summary judgment on all claims.

There is no evidence that the arresting officers were supervised
in their conduct or that the supervisors could have prevented the
arrests.

Though the plaintiffs' expert, Jesica Giron, told the court that
probable cause was lacking in over 71 percent of the 350 police
reports she had gathered, Wilken questioned how these 350 reports
could represent a fair cross-section when Giron had access to over
a thousand reports.  Giron also failed to identify her
qualifications or explain her methodology, according to the
ruling.

Wilken further concluded that, "most importantly, her analysis
rests on the faulty assumption that symptoms of intoxication alone
can never justify an officer's decision to arrest someone under
647 (f)," that is, for public intoxication.

"This assumption ignores the possibility that certain symptoms of
intoxication can also provide an officer with reason to believe
that someone is unable to care for him or herself," Wilken added.

The plaintiffs had relied on multiple studies to suggest that
Latinos were arrested for public intoxication at higher rates than
census data would predict, but Wilken said grounds other than race
could explain the pattern.

She also found no evidence of insufficient officer training,
placing little weight on the results from a Public Intoxication
Task Force that "convened after all four plaintiffs in this case
were arrested."

"Plaintiffs have not identified any evidence that SJPD made any
unconstitutional arrests after the task force issued its report,"
according to the ruling.  "Moreover, the report itself could not
have provided the city with notice that SJPD officers were
routinely committing constitutional violations, as plaintiffs
suggest.  The report focused principally on proposing procedural
reforms and did not address the constitutional implications of
past SJPD practices."

"Accordingly, neither the creation of the task force nor its final
report gave city officials notice that a particular omission in
their training program causes city employees to violate citizens'
constitutional rights," Wilken added.

Similar logic led Wilken to deny class certification.

"Plaintiffs here have failed to produce sufficient evidence to
establish that SJPD followed any unconstitutional policy or
practice regarding public intoxication arrests," she wrote.
"Specifically, they have not shown that SJPD's training procedures
resulted in widespread constitutional violations nor have they
provided reliable evidence showing a widespread practice of
unreasonable seizures or racially discriminatory enforcement of
section 647(f)."

After criticizing the supplied data as outdated, Wilken referred
the parties to U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal to schedule a
settlement conference, a final pretrial conference and the jury
trial.


CALIX INC: Continues to Defend Occam Acquisition-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Calix, Inc. continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit arising from its acquisition of Occam Networks, Inc.,
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 September 16, 2010, the Company, two direct, wholly owned
subsidiaries of the Company, and Occam Networks, Inc. entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger
Agreement").  In response to the announcement of the Merger
Agreement, on October 6, 2010, a purported class action complaint
was filed by stockholders of Occam in the Delaware Court of
Chancery: Steinhardt v. Howard-Anderson, et al. (Case No. 5878-
VCL).  On November 24, 2010, these stockholders filed an amended
complaint, or the amended Steinhardt complaint.  The amended
Steinhardt complaint names Occam and the members of the Occam
board of directors as defendants.  The amended Steinhardt
complaint does not name Calix as a defendant.

The amended Steinhardt complaint generally alleges that the
members of the Occam board breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the acquisition of Occam by Calix, by, among other
things, engaging in an allegedly unfair process and agreeing to an
allegedly unfair price for the merger transaction.  The amended
Steinhardt complaint also alleges that Occam and the former
members of the Occam board breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to disclose certain allegedly material facts about the
merger transaction in the preliminary proxy statement and
prospectus included in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 that
Calix filed with the SEC on November 2, 2010.  The amended
Steinhardt complaint sought injunctive relief rescinding the
merger transaction and award of damages in an unspecified amount,
as well as plaintiffs' costs, attorney's fees, and other relief.

The merger transaction was completed on February 22, 2011.  On
January 6, 2012, the Delaware court ruled on a motion for
sanctions brought by the defendants in the Delaware case against
certain of the lead plaintiffs.  The Delaware court found that
lead plaintiffs Michael Steinhardt, Steinhardt Overseas
Management, L.P., and Ilex Partners, L.L.C., collectively the
"Steinhardt Plaintiffs," had engaged in improper trading of Calix
shares, and dismissed the Steinhardt Plaintiffs from the case with
prejudice.  The court further held that the Steinhardt Plaintiffs
are: (i) barred from receiving any recovery from the litigation,
(ii) required to self-report to the SEC, (iii) directed to
disclose their improper trading in any future application to serve
as lead plaintiff, and (iv) ordered to disgorge trading profits of
$0.5 million, to be distributed to the remaining members of the
class of former Occam stockholders.  The Delaware court also
granted the motion of the remaining lead plaintiffs, Herbert Chen
and Derek Sheeler, for class certification, and certified Messrs.
Chen and Sheeler as class representatives.  The certified class is
a non-opt-out class consisting of all owners of Occam common stock
whose shares were converted to shares of Calix on the date of the
merger transaction, with the exception of the defendants in the
Delaware action and their affiliates.  Chen and Sheeler, on behalf
of the class of similarly situated former Occam stockholders,
continue to seek an award of damages in an unspecified amount.

The Company believes that the allegations in the Delaware action
are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously contest
the action.  However, there can be no assurance that the Company
will be successful in defending this ongoing action.  In addition,
the Company has obligations, under certain circumstances, to hold
harmless and indemnify each of the former Occam directors against
judgments, fines, settlements and expenses related to claims
against such directors and otherwise to the fullest extent
permitted under Delaware law and Occam's bylaws and certificate of
incorporation. Such obligations may apply to this lawsuit.

The Company is not currently a party to any other legal
proceedings that, if determined adversely to the Company, would
individually or in the aggregate have a material adverse effect on
the Company's business, operating results or financial condition.

Calix, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a provider in North
America of broadband communications access systems and software
for fiber- and copper-based network architectures that enable
communications service providers, to transform their networks and
connect to their residential and business subscribers. The Company
is headquartered in Petaluma, California.


CARGILL INC: Recalls Select Mineral Product Used in Ruminant Feed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cargill's animal nutrition business announced a voluntary recall
of certain brands of its ruminant mineral products because they
were deficient in vitamins A, D and E.  The affected products were
manufactured at Cargill's facilities in McPherson, Kansas, and
Montgomery City, Missouri, between December 7, 2012, and February
27, 2013.  The absence of added vitamins in these products was due
to an oversight in Cargill's manufacturing process that has been
remedied.

No adverse health effects related to these products have been
reported to date.

This recall is limited to only those products and lot code ranges
listed below.  The affected product was sold in 50 pounds bags and
the lot code can be found printed on the product tag that is
attached to the bag.  No other Cargill Animal Nutrition products
are affected by this recall.  Affected products are:

Product Code
Beginning with  Product Name                   Lot Code Range
--------------  ------------                   --------------
7144            Cattle Grazers All Purpose     522349 to 523058
                 Mineral

55103           Right Now Emerald              523024 to 523058
                                                613030 to 613058
                                                2MK3024-2MK3058

55104           Right Now Onyx                 522342 to 523058
                                                612356 to 613058

92111           Nutrena(R) NutreBeef Stocker   522342 to 523058
                 Summer Mineral

92113           Nutrena(R) NutreBeef Stocker   522342 to 523058
                 Wheat Mineral

92428           Nutrena(R) NutreBeef Breeding  522342 to 523058
                 Herd Mineral

80678           Nutrena (R) NutreBeef Cattle - 522349 to 523058
                 Winter Mineral

Customers should return remaining products to their local
distributor for a full refund.  For more information, including
complete product codes, sub-codes, and photos of products
involved, go to:

    http://www.cargill.com/feed/news/mineral-recall/index.htm

or call toll free 1-866-420-5425, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Central
Time, Monday - Friday.


CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Faces Class Action Over Bogus "Free Cruises"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Caribbean Cruise Line sends
illegal, deceptive text messages pushing bogus "free cruises," a
class action claims in Federal Court.


CHINESE DAILY: 9th Circuit Reverses Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the 9th Circuit
reversed class certification for a group of former Chinese Daily
News employees in their decade-old challenge to denied overtime
and lunch breaks.

A three-judge panel in San Francisco sent the case back to a Los
Angeles federal judge in light the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011
landmark ruling Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, which, among other
things, requires courts to use a more rigorous standard when
determining class commonality.

The appellate panel also noted a recent California Supreme Court
finding that employers do not have to make sure employees actually
take the 30-minute lunch breaks that they are required to give.

Former Chinese Daily News (CDN) employees Lynne Wang, Yu Fang Ines
Kai and Hui Jung Pa had filed the proposed class action against
the company back in 2004, alleging violations of federal and state
labor laws.  They sought damages, restitution and an injunction,
claiming they were forced to work more than eight hours per day
without overtime pay or meal breaks.

U.S. District Judge Consuelo Marshal certified the plaintiffs'
claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as a
collective action, and certified the state-law claims as a class
action under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The District Court again ruled in the plaintiffs' favor in
deciding that the CDN's reporters were eligible for overtime, and
a jury subsequently awarded them $2.5 million in damages.  Judge
Marshal later denied the group's request for an injunction.

After the 9th Circuit affirmed in 2010, the 9th Circuit vacated
that decision for reconsideration in light of Wal-Mart.

The latest round of oral argument led the unanimous panel to
reverse certification and remand for further District Court
proceedings.

Contrary to its previous ruling, the panel found that the lower
court improperly certified the class under Rule 23(b)(2).

In reversing the 9th Circuit, the high court "made clear that
'individualized monetary claims belong in Rule 23(b)(3)' rather
than Rule 23(b)(2)," Judge William Fletcher wrote for the panel.

"The court left open the possibility that 'incidental' monetary
claims could be brought in a Rule 23(b)(2) class action, but it
declined to decide that question," Fletcher added.  "Plaintiffs
concede that class certification for their monetary claims under
Rule 23(b)(2) cannot stand in light of Wal-Mart.  Further, it
appears that none of the named plaintiffs has standing to pursue
injunctive relief on behalf of the class, as none of them is a
current CDN employee."


ELBIT IMAGING: Faces NIS240-Mil. Class Action in Israel
-------------------------------------------------------
Elbit Imaging Ltd. disclosed that, on March 3, 2013, it was
informed that a purported class action lawsuit was filed on
February 25, 2013, by Yuki Shemesh Ltd., one of the Company's note
holders, in the Israeli Tel-Aviv Jaffa District Court, against the
Company, its controlling shareholders, officers and others.  The
complaint requests that the court recognize the lawsuit as a valid
class action and alleges, among other things, that the Company's
announcements on February 5, 2013 and February 19, 2013 that it
would suspend its principal and interest payments to its note
holders constitutes a breach of the trust agreements relating to
the Company's Series A and Series B notes.  The lawsuit seeks
damages in the amount of NIS240 million (approximately $64.5
million).  The Company plans to defend against it vigorously.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Objectors Want to Overturn $45MM Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that an attorney
on Monday asked the 9th Circuit to toss out a $45 million
settlement against three major credit reporting agencies, claiming
settling attorneys had "dangled" illegal incentives in front of
class members.

Lead plaintiff Terri White in 2005 sued Experian Information
Solutions, Equifax Information Services, and Trans Union, in Los
Angeles Federal Court, alleging willful and negligent violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The class claimed the agencies misreported debts discharged in
bankruptcy, and refused to investigate disputes over the status of
discharged accounts.

In September 2011, U.S. District Judge David Carter approved a
$45 million settlement, despite objections that the award should
be in the billions.  Carter found that a larger settlement would
have been "unrealistic and counterproductive," and called the
proposed settlement "fair, adequate and reasonable."

"Given the FCRA [Fair Credit Reporting Act]'s goal of deterring
offenders from improperly reporting credit, the detriment that the
settlement imposes on defendants ought to be considered alongside
the benefit that the settlement confers on class members.  The
court finds that a $45 million judgment suffices to deter similar
conduct similar to that which precipitated the lawsuit," Carter
wrote.

Attorney for objectors, George Carpinello with Boies, Schiller &
Flexner of Albany, N.Y., have now asked a three-judge panel of the
9th Circuit to overturn Carter's ruling, claiming that a $5,000
incentive award for settling plaintiffs created a conflict of
interest.  He claimed that class counsel had "dangled" the
incentive before the settling plaintiffs in return for supporting
the settlement. If they disagreed with the agreement, plaintiffs
were told they would walk away with nothing, Carpinello said.

In Rodriguez v. Disner the 9th Circuit ruled that incentive
agreements created an illegal conflict of interest between a class
and its counsel.

Carpinello asked the panel to replace counsel and set the
settlement aside under a similar conflict-of-interest
determination.  Most plaintiffs "did not like" the settlement, and
Judge Carter did not "even address the issue" of a conflict of
interest in his order, Carpinello said.

Carpinello became so animated that Judge Kim Wardlaw asked him to
lower his voice.  After apologizing, Carpinello said the case
should be remanded, or the settlement renegotiated for more than a
"penny on the dollar."

The plaintiffs had standing to show that they had been harmed,
Carpinello said. He said the defendant agencies' "own records"
showed that 15 million people had been on the receiving end of
misstated credit reports.

"It's a statutory damage case.  All the claimant has to prove is
that a credit report was issued with a credit line that wrongfully
stated that my debt was still owing or charged wrong," Carpinello
said.

But Michael Caddell, with Caddell & Chapman of Houston, accused
Carpinello of fudging the facts.

Caddell said that Judge Carter had "bent over backwards" to
examine the fairness of the $5,000 incentive award, and that
Carpinello had previously deemed it reasonable.

"This is so far from Rodriguez," Caddell told the panel.

U.S. District Judge Sam Haddon, appearing via a video link-up from
Montana, asked if language in the agreement permitted an incentive
award only if plaintiffs supported the settlement.

"It's funny, judge," Caddell said. "I don't think that when we
drafted the agreement we had any notion at all that this would
become controversial.  What we were simply saying is that these
class representatives are entitled to an incentive award for
having served in support of the settlement."

Plaintiffs were compensated not because they agreed or disagreed
with the settlement, but because they had "stepped forward," given
depositions and helped with discovery during the litigation,
Caddell said.  He said there was no evidence of "undue influence
or coercion" by settling attorneys.

"This is a good settlement. In the context of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, this is the second largest settlement in history,"
Caddell said.

Experian attorney Daniel McLoon, with Jones Day of Los Angeles,
agreed. He said the incentive award did not "deter opposition to
the settlement," or "affect the negotiation process."

It would be "virtually impossible to manage the resolution" of up
to 15 million potential claims because Experian did not keep
records of all the credit reports it issued, McLoon said.

During rebuttal, Carpinello called McLoon "disingenuous."  He said
Experian had records of when it issued the reports.

"That's exactly how they came up with 15 million people," he said.

Judge Ronald Gould sat with Judges Wardlaw and Haddon on the
panel.


GNC HOLDINGS: Cal. Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Brewer" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
conditionally certified in January 2013 a Fair Labor Standards Act
class with respect to one of Charles Brewer's claims, GNC
Holdings, 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.

On July 21, 2011, Charles Brewer, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in
federal court, alleging state and federal wage and hour claims
(U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No.
11CV3587).  On October 7, 2011, plaintiff filed an eight-count
amended complaint alleging, inter alia, meal, rest break and
overtime violations.  On October 21, 2011, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint and on December 14, 2011, the
court dismissed count six (the federal overtime claim) giving
plaintiffs an opportunity to amend the complaint within thirty
days.  On January 13, 2012, plaintiff filed a Second Amended
complaint.  On September 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Conditional Certification and on January 7, 2013, the Court
conditionally certified a Fair Labor Standards Act class with
respect to one of Plaintiff's claims.  As any liabilities that may
arise from these matters are not probable or reasonably estimable
at this time, the Company says no liability has been accrued in
the accompanying financial statements.

GNC Holdings, Inc. is global specialty retailer of health and
wellness products, including vitamins, minerals and herbal
supplement products, sports nutrition products and diet products.
The Company is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


GNC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Naranjo" Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit brought by Elizabeth Naranjo in California,
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 29, 2012, former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth
Naranjo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated sued General Nutrition Corporation in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Alameda (Case No. RG
12619626).  The complaint contains eight causes of action,
alleging, inter alia, meal, rest break, and overtime violations.

As any liabilities that may arise from these matters are not
probable or reasonably estimable at this time, the Company says no
liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial
statements.

GNC Holdings, Inc. is global specialty retailer of health and
wellness products, including vitamins, minerals and herbal
supplement products, sports nutrition products and diet products.
The Company is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


GNC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Andro Actions in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. continues to defend itself from remaining class
action lawsuits, known as Andro Actions, pending in New York,
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 has been defending lawsuits in New Jersey, New York
and Pennsylvania relating to the sale by the Company of certain
nutritional products, between 1999 and 2004, alleged to contain
the ingredients commonly known as Androstenedione, Androstenediol,
Norandrostenedione, and Norandrostenediol.  In each of the Andro
Actions, plaintiffs sought to certify a class and obtain damages
on behalf of the class representatives and all those similarly-
situated who purchased from the Company certain nutritional
supplements alleged to contain one or more Andro Products.  The
Andro Actions pending in New Jersey and Pennsylvania were
dismissed during the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011.
Opposing counsel in the Andro Actions in New Jersey agreed to
dismiss that action during the fiscal year ending December 31,
2012.  The Company no longer believes the Andro Actions are a
material contingency.

GNC Holdings, Inc. is global specialty retailer of health and
wellness products, including vitamins, minerals and herbal
supplement products, sports nutrition products and diet products.
The Company is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


GNC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Hydroxycut-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. continues to defend itself from lawsuits
related to Hydroxycut-branded products, 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 May 1, 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
issued a warning on several Hydroxycut-branded products
manufactured by Iovate Health Sciences, Inc.  The FDA warning was
based on 23 reports of liver injuries from consumers who claimed
to have used the products between 2002 and 2009.  As a result,
Iovate voluntarily recalled 14 Hydroxycut-branded products.
Following the recall, GNC was named, among other defendants, in
approximately 94 lawsuits related to Hydroxycut-branded products
in 13 states.  Iovate previously accepted GNC's tender request for
defense and indemnification under its purchasing agreement with
GNC and, as such, Iovate has accepted GNC's request for defense
and indemnification in the Hydroxycut matters.  GNC's ability to
obtain full recovery in respect of any claims against GNC in
connection with products manufactured by Iovate under the
indemnity is dependent on Iovate's insurance coverage, the
creditworthiness of its insurer, and the absence of significant
defenses by such insurer.  To the extent GNC is not fully
compensated by Iovate's insurer, it can seek recovery directly
from Iovate.  GNC's ability to fully recover such amounts may be
limited by the creditworthiness of Iovate.

As of December 31, 2012, there were 73 pending lawsuits related to
Hydroxycut in which GNC had been named: 67 individual, largely
personal injury claims and six putative class action cases,
generally inclusive of claims of consumer fraud,
misrepresentation, strict liability and breach of warranty.  All
of the individual plaintiffs in these lawsuits have either not
asserted or amended their complaints to remove any specific
damages claims.

These six putative class actions generally include claims of
consumer fraud, misrepresentation, strict liability and breach of
warranty:

   * Andrew Dremak, et al. v. Iovate Health Sciences Group, Inc.,
     et al., U.S. District Court, Southern District of
     California, 09CV1088 (filed May 19, 2009);

   * Enjoli Pennier, et al. v. Iovate Health Sciences, et al.,
     U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 09CV3533
     (filed May 13, 2009);

   * Alejandro M. Jimenez, et al. v. Iovate Health Sciences,
     Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
     California, 09CV1473 (filed May 28, 2009);

   * Amy Baker, et al. v. Iovate Health Sciences USA, Inc., et
     al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama,
     09CV872 (filed May 4, 2009);

   * Kyle Davis and Sara Carreon, et al. v. Iovate Health
     Sciences USA, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Northern
     District of Alabama, 09CV896 (filed May 7, 2009); and

   * Lenny Charles Gunn, Tonya Rhoden, and Nicholas Atelevich, et
     al., v. Iovate Health Sciences Group, Inc., et al., U.S.
     District Court, Southern District of California, 09CV2337
     (filed October 24, 2009).

By court order dated October 6, 2009, the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated pretrial
proceedings of many of the pending actions (including the GNC
class actions) in the Southern District of California (In re:
Hydroxycut Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No.
2087).  As any liabilities that may arise from these matters are
not probable or reasonably estimable at this time, no liability
has been accrued in the Company's financial statements.

Ten personal injury matters related to the use and consumption of
Hydroxycut-branded products were settled during 2012 and these
settlements did not result in any payments by the Company.

GNC Holdings, Inc. is global specialty retailer of health and
wellness products, including vitamins, minerals and herbal
supplement products, sports nutrition products and diet products.
The Company is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


GNC HOLDINGS: "Vargas" Suit Remains Pending in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced by Dominic Vargas and Anne
Hickok in Pennsylvania remains pending, according to GNC Holdings,
Inc.'s February 22, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

On June 29, 2010, Dominic Vargas and Anne Hickok, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, sued General
Nutrition Corporation and the Company in federal court (U.S.
District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:05-
mc-02025).  The two-count complaint alleges, generally, that
plaintiffs were required to perform work on an uncompensated basis
and that the Company failed to pay overtime for such work.  The
second count of the complaint alleges the Company retaliated
against plaintiffs when they complained about the overtime policy.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss count II of the Complaint
and on January 6, 2011, the court granted the motion.  In fall,
2011, plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification.  On
August 16, 2012, the Court ruled on the motion, granting in part
and denying in part, the motion.  Class notice was mailed to
putative class members in November 2012 and following the
conclusion of the opt-in period, discovery will take place
regarding opt-in plaintiffs.

As any liabilities that may arise from this case are not probable
or reasonably estimable at this time, the Company says no
liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial
statements.

GNC Holdings, Inc. is global specialty retailer of health and
wellness products, including vitamins, minerals and herbal
supplement products, sports nutrition products and diet products.
The Company is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeal in Blood Reagent Antitrust Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a class certification decision filed by a
subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson in the case styled In re Blood
Reagent Antitrust Litigation remains pending, 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 30, 2012.

In April 2009, Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) received a
grand jury subpoena from the United States Department of Justice,
Antitrust Division, requesting documents and information for the
period beginning September 1, 2000, through the present,
pertaining to an investigation of alleged violations of the
antitrust laws in the blood reagents industry.  OCD complied with
the subpoena.  In February 2011, OCD received a letter from the
Antitrust Division indicating that it had closed its investigation
in November 2010.  In June 2009, following the public announcement
that OCD had received a grand jury subpoena, multiple class action
complaints were filed against OCD by direct purchasers seeking
damages for alleged price fixing.  The various cases were
consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as In re Blood
Reagent Antitrust Litigation.  In August 2012, the District Court
granted a motion filed by Plaintiffs for class certification.  OCD
requested interlocutory review of the class certification
decision, and in October 2012, the Appellate Court granted OCD's
petition for interlocutory review.

Johnson & Johnson was incorporated in the State of New Jersey in
1887, and is headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey.  The
Company and its subsidiaries have approximately 127,600 employees
worldwide engaged in the research and development, manufacture and
sale of a broad range of products in the health care field.
Johnson & Johnson is a holding company, which has more than 275
operating companies conducting business in virtually all countries
of the world.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Monk" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint in the lawsuit initiated by
Ronald Monk, 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 30, 2012.

In September 2010, a shareholder, Ronald Monk, filed a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
seeking class certification and alleging that Johnson & Johnson
and certain individuals, including executive officers and
employees of Johnson & Johnson, failed to disclose that a number
of manufacturing facilities failed to maintain current good
manufacturing practices, and that as a result, the price of the
Company's stock declined significantly.  Plaintiff seeks to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to recover his
alleged economic losses.  In December 2011, a motion by Johnson &
Johnson to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff moved the Court to reconsider part of the December 2011
ruling.  Defendants filed answers to the remaining claims of the
Amended Complaint in February 2012 and the case is proceeding to
discovery.  In May 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration.  In September 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second
Amended Complaint and Johnson & Johnson has moved to dismiss
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint in part.

Johnson & Johnson was incorporated in the State of New Jersey in
1887, and is headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey.  The
Company and its subsidiaries have approximately 127,600 employees
worldwide engaged in the research and development, manufacture and
sale of a broad range of products in the health care field.
Johnson & Johnson is a holding company, which has more than 275
operating companies conducting business in virtually all countries
of the world.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend "Field" Suit in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson continues to defend itself and its subsidiaries
against a class action lawsuit filed by Nick Field in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia, Canada, 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 30, 2012.

In September 2011, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and
McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division of Johnson & Johnson Inc.
received a Notice of Civil Claim filed by Nick Field in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada (the BC Civil Claim).
The BC Civil Claim is a putative class action brought on behalf of
persons who reside in British Columbia and who purchased during
the period between September 20, 2001, and the present one or more
various McNeil infants' or children's over-the-counter medicines
that were manufactured at the Fort Washington facility.  The BC
Civil Claim alleges that the defendants violated the BC Business
Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and other Canadian statutes
and common laws, by selling medicines that were allegedly not safe
and/or effective or did not comply with Canadian Good
Manufacturing Practices.  The BC plaintiff served their affidavits
in support of class certification in April 2012.  The defendants
responding affidavits were served in June 2012.  The date for
hearing of the certification application has not yet been
scheduled.

Johnson & Johnson was incorporated in the State of New Jersey in
1887, and is headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey.  The
Company and its subsidiaries have approximately 127,600 employees
worldwide engaged in the research and development, manufacture and
sale of a broad range of products in the health care field.
Johnson & Johnson is a holding company, which has more than 275
operating companies conducting business in virtually all countries
of the world.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend Suits Over Inflated AWP
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson continues to defend itself and its subsidiaries
from lawsuits relating to inflated average wholesale price for
certain pharmaceutical products, 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 30, 2012.

Johnson & Johnson and several of its pharmaceutical subsidiaries
(the J&J AWP Defendants), along with numerous other pharmaceutical
companies, are defendants in a series of lawsuits in state and
federal courts involving allegations that the pricing and
marketing of certain pharmaceutical products amounted to
fraudulent and otherwise actionable conduct because, among other
things, the companies allegedly reported an inflated Average
Wholesale Price (AWP) for the drugs at issue.  Payors alleged that
they used those AWPs in calculating provider reimbursement levels.
Many of these cases, both federal actions and state actions
removed to federal court, were consolidated for pre-trial purposes
in a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs included three classes of private persons or
entities that paid for any portion of the purchase of the drugs at
issue based on AWP, and state government entities that made
Medicaid payments for the drugs at issue based on AWP.  In June
2007, after a trial on the merits, the MDL Court dismissed the
claims of two of the plaintiff classes against the J&J AWP
Defendants.  In March 2011, the Court dismissed the claims of the
third class against the J&J AWP Defendants without prejudice.

AWP cases brought by various Attorneys General have proceeded to
trial against other manufacturers.  Several state cases against
certain subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson have been settled,
including Kentucky, which had been set for trial in January 2012
and Kansas which had been set for trial in March 2013. Louisiana
and Mississippi are set for trial in October 2013, Illinois is set
for trial in May 2014, and Alaska is set for trial in July 2014.
Other state cases are likely to be set for trial in due course.
In addition, an AWP case against the J&J AWP Defendants brought by
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was tried in Commonwealth Court
in October and November 2010.  The Court found in the
Commonwealth's favor with regard to certain of its claims under
the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law ("UTPL"), entered an injunction, and awarded $45 million in
restitution and $6.5 million in civil penalties.  The Court found
in the J&J AWP Defendants' favor on the Commonwealth's claims of
unjust enrichment, misrepresentation/
fraud, civil conspiracy, and on certain of the Commonwealth's
claims under the UTPL.  The J&J AWP Defendants have appealed the
Commonwealth Court's UTPL ruling to the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court.

The Company believes that the J&J AWP Defendants have strong
arguments supporting their appeal.  Because the Company believes
that the potential for an unfavorable outcome is not probable, it
has not established an accrual with respect to the verdict.

Johnson & Johnson was incorporated in the State of New Jersey in
1887, and is headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey.  The
Company and its subsidiaries have approximately 127,600 employees
worldwide engaged in the research and development, manufacture and
sale of a broad range of products in the health care field.
Johnson & Johnson is a holding company, which has more than 275
operating companies conducting business in virtually all countries
of the world.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Still Defends Suits Over Pelvic Mesh Device
--------------------------------------------------------------
Claims for personal injury have been made against Ethicon, Inc.
(Ethicon) and Johnson & Johnson arising out of Ethicon's pelvic
mesh devices used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic
organ prolapse.  The number of pending product liability lawsuits
continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive
information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated
number of cases.  Cases filed in Federal courts in the United
States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia.  In addition, a class action and several individual
personal injury cases have been commenced in Canada and Australia
seeking damages for alleged injury resulting from Ethicon's pelvic
mesh devices.  The Company has established a product liability
accrual in anticipation of product liability litigation associated
with Ethicon's pelvic mesh products.  Changes to this accrual may
be required in the future as additional information becomes
available.

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 30, 2012.

Johnson & Johnson was incorporated in the State of New Jersey in
1887, and is headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey.  The
Company and its subsidiaries have approximately 127,600 employees
worldwide engaged in the research and development, manufacture and
sale of a broad range of products in the health care field.
Johnson & Johnson is a holding company, which has more than 275
operating companies conducting business in virtually all countries
of the world.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Arbitration Pact May Preclude FLSA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony J. Rao, Esq. -- ARao@duanemorris.com -- at Duane Morris,
writes that in Tiffany Ryan v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al. (Case
No. 12 CV 4844 (VB)), Southern District Judge Vincent Briccetti
held, like many judges before him, that arbitration agreements may
preclude a FLSA collective action.

When Ms. Ryan was hired, she signed an arbitration agreement
containing the following language:

CLASS ACTION/COLLECTIVE ACTION WAIVER: All Covered Claims under
this Agreement must be submitted on an individual basis.  No
claims may be arbitrated on a class or collective basis.  Covered
Parties expressly waive any right with respect to any Covered
Claims to submit, initiate, or participate in a representative
capacity or as a plaintiff, claimant or member in a class action,
collective action, or other representative or joint action,
regardless of whether the action is filed in arbitration or in
court.  Furthermore, if a court orders that a class, collective,
or other representative or joint action should proceed, in no
event will such action proceed in the arbitration forum.  Claims
may not be joined or consolidated in arbitration with disputes
brought by other individual(s), unless agreed to in writing by all
parties.

Ms. Ryan filed a FLSA collective action and JPMorgan Chase moved
to dismiss the action, or in the alternative stay it, and to
compel arbitration of Ms. Ryan's claim on an individual basis.
After mentioning in a footnote that the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit recently vacated D.R. Horton, 357
N.L.R.B. No. 184, 2012 WL 36274 (holding that arbitration
agreements cannot prevent employees from filing class/collective
actions) because it was decided by an unconstitutionally
constituted panel of the NLRB, the court made the following
findings:

One, "collective action waivers are not per se unenforceable due
to the "FAA's 'overarching purpose' of 'ensur[ing] the enforcement
of arbitration agreements according to their terms so as to
facilitate streamlined proceedings.'"

Two, although Ryan asserted the arbitration agreement prevented
her from vindicating her FLSA rights, the class action waiver "is
fair, permits plaintiff to vindicate her statutory rights under
the FLSA, does not hinder her ability to recover attorney's fees
or costs, and comports with public policy favoring arbitration and
honoring private contracts" (also, Ryan could not prove that
arbitration would be prohibitively expensive).

And three, "this Court joins numerous other courts in finding the
NLRA (in D.R. Horton) does not determine whether a plaintiff has a
right to bring a collective action under the FLSA.

Bottom line, a well-written arbitration agreement may preclude
class or collective actions (employers, however, most likely will
be responsible for paying the hourly rate of the chosen
arbitrator), and the D.R. Horton board decision is not receiving
much support from judges around the country.

Duane Morris LLP is a full-service law firm with more than 700
attorneys in 24 offices in the United States and internationally.


KKR & CO: Bid to Dismiss Merger Suit in Delaware Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 23, 2011, KKR & Co. L.P., certain KKR affiliates and the
board of directors of Primedia Inc. (a former KKR portfolio
company whose directors at that time included certain KKR
personnel) were named as defendants, along with others, in two
shareholder class action complaints filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware challenging the sale of Primedia in a
merger transaction that was completed on July 13, 2011.  These
actions allege, among other things, that Primedia board members,
KKR, and certain KKR affiliates, breached their fiduciary duties
by entering into the merger agreement at an unfair price and
failing to disclose all material information about the merger.
Plaintiffs also allege that the merger price was unfair in light
of the value of certain shareholder derivative claims, which were
dismissed on August 8, 2011, based on a stipulation by the parties
that the derivative plaintiffs and any other former Primedia
shareholders lost standing to prosecute the derivative claims on
behalf of Primedia when the Primedia merger was completed.  The
dismissed shareholder derivative claims included allegations
concerning open market purchases of certain shares of Primedia's
preferred stock by KKR affiliates in 2002 and allegations
concerning Primedia's redemption of certain shares of Primedia's
preferred stock in 2004 and 2005, some of which were owned by KKR
affiliates.

With respect to the pending shareholder class actions challenging
the Primedia merger, on June 7, 2011, the Court of Chancery denied
a motion to preliminarily enjoin the merger.  On July 18, 2011,
the Court of Chancery consolidated the two pending shareholder
class actions and appointed lead counsel for plaintiffs.  On
October 7, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the operative
complaint in the consolidated shareholder class action.  The
operative complaint seeks, in relevant part, unspecified monetary
damages and rescission of the merger.  On December 2, 2011,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which similarly
alleges that the Primedia board members, KKR, and certain KKR
affiliates breached their respective fiduciary duties by entering
into the merger agreement at an unfair price in light of the value
of the dismissed shareholder derivative claims.  That amended
complaint seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages.

On January 31, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  The motion to dismiss the amended complaint is pending
before the Court of Chancery.

Additionally, in May 2011, two shareholder class actions
challenging the Primedia merger were filed in Georgia state
courts, asserting similar allegations and seeking similar relief
as initially sought by the Delaware shareholder class actions.
Both Georgia actions have been stayed in favor of the Delaware
action.

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.

Led by Henry Kravis and George Roberts, KKR & Co. L.P. --
http://kkr.com/-- is global investment firm with $59 billion in
AUM as of December 31, 2011.  The Company offers a broad range of
investment management services to its investors and provides
capital markets services to its firm, its portfolio companies and
its clients.


KKR & CO: Still Awaits Ruling on Judgment Bid in Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
KKR & Co. L.P. is still awaiting a court decision on its and other
defendants' motions for summary judgment in a consolidated
antitrust class action lawsuit, 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 December 2007, KKR, along with 15 other private equity firms
and investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported
class action complaint filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts by shareholders in certain
public companies acquired by private equity firms since 2003.  In
August 2008, KKR, along with 16 other private equity firms and
investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported
consolidated amended class action complaint.  The lawsuit alleges
that from mid-2003 defendants have violated antitrust laws by
allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private
equity financing, fix the prices for target companies at
artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged market for
private equity services for leveraged buyouts.  The amended
complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all persons who
sold securities to any of the defendants in leveraged buyout
transactions and specifically challenges nine transactions.  The
first stage of discovery concluded on or about April 15, 2010.  On
August 18, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to proceed
to a second stage of discovery in part and denied it in part.
Specifically, the court granted a second stage of discovery as to
eight additional transactions but denied a second stage of
discovery as to any transactions beyond the additional eight
specified transactions.  On October 7, 2010, the plaintiffs filed
under seal a fourth amended complaint that includes new factual
allegations concerning the additional eight transactions and the
original nine transactions.  The fourth amended complaint also
includes eight purported sub-classes of plaintiffs seeking
unspecified monetary damages and/or restitution with respect to
eight of the original nine challenged transactions and new
separate claims against two of the original nine challenged
transactions.

On January 13, 2011, the court granted a motion filed by KKR and
certain other defendants to dismiss all claims alleged by a
putative damages sub-class in connection with the acquisition of
PanAmSat Corp. and separate claims for relief related to the
PanAmSat transaction.  The second phase of discovery permitted by
the court is completed.  On July 11, 2011, plaintiffs filed a
motion seeking leave to file a proposed fifth amended complaint
that seeks to challenge ten additional transactions in addition to
the transactions identified in the previous complaints.
Defendants opposed plaintiffs' motion.  On September 7, 2011, the
court granted plaintiffs' motion in part and denied it in part.
Specifically, the court granted a third stage of limited discovery
as to the ten additional transactions identified in plaintiffs'
proposed fifth amended complaint but denied plaintiffs' motion
seeking leave to file a proposed fifth amended complaint.  On June
14, 2012, following the completion of the third phase of
discovery, plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint which, like
their proposed fifth amended complaint, seeks to challenge ten
additional transactions in addition to the transactions identified
in the previous complaints.  On June 22, 2012, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss certain claims asserted in the fifth amended
complaint.  On July 18, 2012, the court granted in part and denied
in part defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing certain
previously released claims against certain defendants.

On July 23, 2012, defendants, including KKR, filed motions for
summary judgment, which is pending decision before the United
States District Court.

Led by Henry Kravis and George Roberts, KKR & Co. L.P. --
http://kkr.com/-- is global investment firm with $59 billion in
AUM as of December 31, 2011.  The Company offers a broad range of
investment management services to its investors and provides
capital markets services to its firm, its portfolio companies and
its clients.


KRAFT FOODS: Court Trims Suit Over Inaccurate Labeling
------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that some
claims remain, but Kraft Foods, Cadbury Adams and a smaller
company won partial dismissal of a class action alleging
inaccurate labeling.

Lead plaintiff Susan Ivie claimed Kraft Foods Global, Cadbury
Adams USA and Back to Nature Food Co. put misleading information
on federally mandated labels, violating state and federal laws,
including California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL); its Fair
Advertising Law (FAL); the Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Laws;
the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act.

Ivie claimed the defendants also violated the federal Magnuson-
Moss Warranty Act; the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; and the
Nutrition Labeling and Education Act.

U.S. District Judge Ronald M. Whyte granted dismissal with
prejudice on three claims, dismissal with leave to amend on
several more, and refused to dismiss some state law unfair
competition, fair advertising and consumer law claims.

"The plaintiffs claims are based on allegedly unlawful and
misleading labels or packaging on a variety of defendants'
consumer food products including gum, crackers, granola, fruit
punch, cheese, nut mix, lemonade, stuffing mix, Jell-O and Easy
Mac," Whyte wrote in his 25-page order.

Ivie's complaint centered around specific alleged violations of
the Sherman law, in regard to the products' "(1) 'natural' or 'all
natural' claims; (2) 'no artificial' colors/ sweeteners / flavors/
preservatives/ingredients claims; (3) nutrient content claims; (4)
health claims; (5) 'sugar free' or 'sugarless' claims; (6) stated
serving sizes; and (7) 'evaporated cane juice' claims," Whyte
summarized.

Ivie said she would not have bought the products had she known the
nutritional information was inaccurate.

"Plaintiff alleges she 'read the labels,' and was 'misled ... with
respect to the nature, nutritional content and healthiness of the
products she was purchasing.  ' Plaintiff further alleges that she
'based and justified the decision to purchase defendants' products
in substantial part on defendants' package labeling, packaging and
website claims,' and 'would have foregone purchasing defendants'
products and bought other products readily available at a lower
price,'" Whyte wrote.

Ivie claimed that other products bore similarly misleading labels.
She said she did not buy them, but that Back to Nature Classic
Cream Cookies, Fudge Mint Cookies and Fudge Striped Cookies
falsely claim "no artificial flavors or preservatives," and that
Halls Refresh Sugar Free Drops and Trident White Spearmint Sugar
Free Gum make false "sugar free" claims on packaging.

Whyte granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice the
Song-Beverly and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims.

He granted defendants' motion to dismiss, with leave to amend, the
UCL, FAL and CLRA claims based on the products that Ivie did not
buy, the "one mint" serving size, the "natural lemon flavor" label
on Crystal Light products, the "good source" and "wholesome"
labels on Planter's Nut-rition Wholesome Nut Mix and the "with
added . . . vitamin D" and "reduced fat" labels on Kraft Deli
Deluxe Cheese.

Specifically, Ivie claimed the labels on Kraft's Mexican Style
Four Cheese and Deli Delux Cheese products are "unlawful for
failure to include the required disclosure statement of: 'See
nutrition information for fat content' (required when the fat
content per reference amount exceeds 13.0 grams of fat or 4.0
grams of saturated fat)," Whyte wrote.  But Whyte found: "The
Kraft Mexican Style Four Cheese Blend does, in fact, contain the
required referral statement."

Whyte said the plaintiffs "do not sufficiently plead any claim for
a violation of the FDA's prominence and placement requirements for
referral statements," pre-empting those claims.

Whyte set a case management conference for April 19.


NETSPEND HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that NetSpend Holdings is selling
itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Total System
Services, for $16 a share or $1.4 billion, shareholders claim in
Chancery Court.


NETSPEND HOLDINGS: Still Awaits OK of "Baker" Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
NetSpend Holdings, Inc. is still awaiting court approval of its
settlement of a class action lawsuit filed by Frederick J. Baker
in New Jersey, 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.

Frederick J. Baker filed a purported consumer class action case
against NetSpend, as well as one of its Issuing Banks and card
associations (collectively, the "Defendants"), in the U.S District
Court (the "Court") for the District of New Jersey in November
2008 seeking damages and unspecified equitable relief. In May 2009
Baker filed an amended complaint alleging that the Defendants
violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), the New Jersey
Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act (TCCWNA) and
claiming unjust enrichment in connection with the Defendants'
alleged marketing, advertising, sale and post-sale handling of
NetSpend's gift card product in the State of New Jersey. In March
2011, the court heard oral arguments on Defendants' motion to
dismiss Baker's amended complaint. In January 2012, the court
granted Defendants' motion in part and dismissed all claims except
for the cause of action based on the alleged violation of the CFA.
NetSpend filed its answer and affirmative defenses in February
2012. NetSpend has reached an agreement in principle with the
attorneys representing the purported plaintiffs in this case to
contribute approximately $0.1 million to a fund that would be used
to reimburse the consumers who may have been inadvertently
overcharged and to reimburse the attorneys representing the
plaintiffs for up to $0.3 million in fees. This settlement is
subject to approval by the Court.

Austin, Texas-based NetSpend Holdings, Inc. was formed as a
Delaware corporation on February 18, 2004 in connection with the
recapitalization of one its current subsidiaries, NetSpend
Corporation, which was founded in 1999.  The Company is a program
manager for the FDIC-insured depository institutions that issue
the card products that the Company develops, promotes and
distributes.


OFFICEMAX: Being Sold to Office Depot for Too Little, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that OfficeMax is selling itself
too cheaply to Office Depot, converting 2.69 OfficeMax shares into
one Office Depot share, shareholders claim in a class action in Du
Page County Court.


PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal in Sao Paulo Prosecutor Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the class action lawsuit initiated
by the Public Prosecutor of Sao Paulo against a subsidiary of
Philip Morris International Inc. remains pending, 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.

Public Prosecutor of Sao Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e
Comercio Ltda., Civil Court of the City of Sao Paulo, Brazil,
filed August 6, 2007, the Company's subsidiary is a defendant.
The plaintiff, the Public Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo, is
seeking (i) unspecified damages on behalf of all smokers
nationwide, former smokers, and their relatives; (ii) unspecified
damages on behalf of people exposed to environmental tobacco smoke
("ETS") nationwide, and their relatives; and (iii) reimbursement
of the health care costs allegedly incurred for the treatment of
tobacco-related diseases by all Brazilian States and
Municipalities, and the Federal District.  In an interim ruling
issued in December 2007, the trial court limited the scope of this
claim to the State of Sao Paulo only.

In December 2008, the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo issued a
decision declaring that it lacked jurisdiction because the case
involved issues similar to The Smoker Health Defense Association
(ADESF) case and should be transferred to the Nineteenth Lower
Civil Court in Sao Paulo where the ADESF case is pending.  The
court further stated that these cases should be consolidated for
the purposes of judgment.  In April 2010, the Sao Paulo Court of
Appeals reversed the Seventh Civil Court's decision that
consolidated the cases, finding that they are based on different
legal claims and are progressing at different stages of
proceedings.  This case was returned to the Seventh Civil Court of
Sao Paulo, and the Company's subsidiary filed its closing
arguments in December 2010.

In March 2012, the trial court dismissed the case on the merits.
This decision has been appealed.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.

New York-based Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia
holding company incorporated in 1987.  The Company's subsidiaries
and affiliates and their licensees are engaged in the manufacture
and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets
outside of the United States of America.


PHILIP MORRIS: Appeals in "ADESF" Suit Still Pending in Brazil
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the first class action pending in Brazil, The Smoker Health
Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris
Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central
Courts of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed July
25, 1995, Philip Morris International Inc.'s subsidiary and
another member of the industry are defendants.  The plaintiff, a
consumer organization, is seeking damages for smokers and former
smokers and injunctive relief.

The Civil Court of Sao Paulo found defendants liable without
hearing evidence.  The court did not assess moral or actual
damages, which were to be assessed in a second phase of the case.
The size of the class was not defined in the ruling.

In April 2004, the court clarified its ruling, awarding "moral
damages" of R$1,000 (approximately $540) per smoker per full year
of smoking plus interest at the rate of 1% per month, as of the
date of the ruling.  The court did not award actual damages, which
were to be assessed in the second phase of the case.  The size of
the class was not estimated.  Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo
Court of Appeals, which annulled the ruling in November 2008,
finding that the trial court had inappropriately ruled without
hearing evidence and returned the case to the trial court for
further proceedings.  In May 2011, the trial court dismissed the
claim.  Plaintiff has appealed.  In addition, the defendants filed
a constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Tribunal on the
basis that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the
lawsuit.  This appeal is still pending.

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.

New York-based Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia
holding company incorporated in 1987.  The Company's subsidiaries
and affiliates and their licensees are engaged in the manufacture
and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets
outside of the United States of America.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Bourassa" Suit in British Columbia Still Dormant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc., its subsidiaries, and its
indemnitees (Philip Morris USA Inc. and Altria Group, Inc.), and
other members of the industry are defendants in Bourassa v.
Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British
Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010.  The plaintiff, the heir to
a deceased smoker, alleges that the decedent was addicted to
tobacco products and suffered from emphysema resulting from the
use of tobacco products.  She is seeking compensatory and
unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who
suffered from chronic respiratory diseases allegedly caused by
smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus
disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1,
1954, to the date the claim was filed.  Defendants have filed
jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this action should
not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan class action,
the Adams case.

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.

New York-based Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia
holding company incorporated in 1987.  The Company's subsidiaries
and affiliates and their licensees are engaged in the manufacture
and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets
outside of the United States of America.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Dorion" Suit in Alberta, Canada Still Dormant
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc., its subsidiaries, and its
indemnitees (Philip Morris USA Inc. and Altria Group, Inc.), and
other members of the industry remain as defendants in Dorion v.
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's
Bench, Alberta, Canada, filed June 15, 2009.  The plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products
and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections resulting from
the use of tobacco products.  She is seeking compensatory and
unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family
members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government
health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.  To date,
the Company, its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees have not been
properly served with the complaint.  No activity in this case is
anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues the class action
filed in Saskatchewan, the Adams case.

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.

New York-based Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia
holding company incorporated in 1987.  The Company's subsidiaries
and affiliates and their licensees are engaged in the manufacture
and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets
outside of the United States of America.


PHILIP MORRIS: Hearing in "El-Roy" Suit Appeal Set for March 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral hearing has been scheduled for March 2014 in an appeal in the
class action lawsuit titled El-Roy, et al. v. Philip Morris
Incorporated, et al., according to Philip Morris International
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 the first class action pending in Israel, El-Roy, et al. v.
Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., District Court of Tel-
Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed January 18, 2004, the Company's
subsidiary and its indemnitees (Philip Morris USA Inc. and its
former importer) are defendants.  The plaintiffs filed a purported
class action claiming that the class members were misled by the
descriptor "lights" into believing that lights cigarettes are
safer than full flavor cigarettes.  The claim seeks recovery of
the purchase price of lights cigarettes and compensation for
distress for each class member.  Hearings took place in November
and December 2008 regarding whether the case meets the legal
requirements necessary to allow it to proceed as a class action.
The parties' briefing on class certification was completed in
March 2011.  In November 2012, the court denied class
certification and dismissed the individual claims.  Plaintiffs
have appealed and an oral hearing has been scheduled for March
2014.

New York-based Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia
holding company incorporated in 1987.  The Company's subsidiaries
and affiliates and their licensees are engaged in the manufacture
and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets
outside of the United States of America.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Jacklin" Class Suit Remains Pending in Ontario
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced by Suzanne Jacklin against
Philip Morris International Inc. remains pending, 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.

Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et
al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, filed June 20, 2012, the
Company, its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (Philip Morris USA
Inc. and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry
are defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her
own addiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease ("COPD") resulting from the use of tobacco
products.  She is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who
have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly
suffered, or suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well
as restitution of profits.  Plaintiff's counsel have indicated
that they do not intend to take any action in this case in the
near future.

New York-based Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia
holding company incorporated in 1987.  The Company's subsidiaries
and affiliates and their licensees are engaged in the manufacture
and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets
outside of the United States of America.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Kunta" Suit in Winnipeg, Canada, Still Dormant
--------------------------------------------------------------
In Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The
Queen's Bench, Winnipeg, Canada, filed June 12, 2009, Philip
Morris International Inc., its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees
(Philip Morris USA Inc. and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members
of the industry remain as defendants.  The plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products
and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"), severe asthma
and mild reversible lung disease resulting from the use of tobacco
products.  She is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers,
their estates, dependents and family members, as well as
restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health
care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.  In September
2009, plaintiff's counsel informed defendants that he did not
anticipate taking any action in this case while he pursues the
class action filed in Saskatchewan, the Adams case.

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.

New York-based Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia
holding company incorporated in 1987.  The Company's subsidiaries
and affiliates and their licensees are engaged in the manufacture
and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets
outside of the United States of America.


PHILIP MORRIS: "McDermid" Suit in British Columbia Still Dormant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc., its subsidiaries, and the
Company's indemnitees (Philip Morris USA Inc. and Altria Group,
Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants in
McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme
Court, British Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010.  The
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of
tobacco products.  He is seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from
heart disease allegedly caused by smoking, their estates,
dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues
earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the
claim was filed.  Defendants have filed jurisdictional challenges
on the grounds that this action should not proceed during the
pendency of the Saskatchewan class action, the Adams case.

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.

New York-based Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia
holding company incorporated in 1987.  The Company's subsidiaries
and affiliates and their licensees are engaged in the manufacture
and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets
outside of the United States of America.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Navon" Suit Facing Dismissal
--------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Navon, et al. v. Philip Morris
Products USA, et al., will be dismissed if plaintiffs fail to take
action by March 10, 2013, according to Philip Morris International
Inc.'s February 22, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

The claims in the class action pending in Israel, Navon, et al. v.
Philip Morris Products USA, et al., District Court of Tel-
Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed December 5, 2004, against the Company's
indemnitee (the Company's distributor) and other members of the
industry are similar to those in El-Roy, and the case is currently
stayed pending a ruling on class certification in El-Roy case.  In
February 2013, the district court issued an order to dismiss the
case if plaintiffs fail to take action by March 10, 2013.

New York-based Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia
holding company incorporated in 1987.  The Company's subsidiaries
and affiliates and their licensees are engaged in the manufacture
and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets
outside of the United States of America.


PHILIP MORRIS: Initial Motions Still Pending in "Adams" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary motions are pending in the class action lawsuit styled
Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.,
according to Philip Morris International 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 the class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan,
Canada, filed July 10, 2009, the Company, its subsidiaries, and
its indemnitees (Philip Morris USA Inc. and Altria Group, Inc.),
and other members of the industry are defendants.  The plaintiff,
an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco
products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD")
resulting from the use of tobacco products.  She is seeking
compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum
of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from
COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution
of profits.  Preliminary motions are pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.

New York-based Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia
holding company incorporated in 1987.  The Company's subsidiaries
and affiliates and their licensees are engaged in the manufacture
and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets
outside of the United States of America.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Semple" Suit in Nova Scotia Remains Dormant
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial court),
Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, Philip Morris
International Inc., its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (Philip
Morris USA Inc. and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the
industry are defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker,
alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD") resulting from the use of
tobacco products.  He is seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as
restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health
care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.  No activity in
this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues the
class action filed in Saskatchewan, the Adams case.

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.

New York-based Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia
holding company incorporated in 1987.  The Company's subsidiaries
and affiliates and their licensees are engaged in the manufacture
and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets
outside of the United States of America.


PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Blais" Suit vs. Canadian Unit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le
Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd.,
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec
Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, Philip Morris
International Inc.'s subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers
are defendants.  The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and
an individual smoker, are seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages for each member of the class who allegedly
suffers from certain smoking-related diseases.  The class was
certified in 2005.  In February 2011, the trial court ruled that
the federal government will remain as a third party in the case.
In November 2012, the Court of Appeals dismissed defendants'
third-party claims against the federal government.  Trial began on
March 12, 2012.

At the present pace, the Company says trial is expected to last
well into 2013 and possibly 2014, with a judgment to follow at an
indeterminate point after the conclusion of the trial proceedings.

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.

New York-based Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia
holding company incorporated in 1987.  The Company's subsidiaries
and affiliates and their licensees are engaged in the manufacture
and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets
outside of the United States of America.


PRESTIGE DELIVERY: Truckers' Suit to Proceed in Pennsylvania Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Zack Needles, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a
class-action case brought by two truck drivers who claim they were
misclassified as independent contractors and deprived of
employees' rights, privileges and benefits won't be heard in Ohio,
according to an Allegheny County Common Pleas Court judge.

Last month, Judge R. Stanton Wettick Jr. denied the preliminary
objections of the three defendants in the case.

In Watson v. Prestige Delivery Systems, according to Judge
Wettick, plaintiffs Richard Watson and David Clary were truck
drivers who delivered packages to customers of defendant Prestige
Delivery Systems Inc. pursuant to an agreement with Prestige that
refers to the drivers as an "independent contractor."  Judge
Wettick said the agreement requires each driver to be an affiliate
of defendant National Independent Contractor Association, which
provides third-party administrative services to independent
contractors.

Under the agreement, NICA is responsible for paying each driver.
But the plaintiffs allege the defendants have misclassified them
as independent contractors as part of a scheme to make illegal
deductions from their pay.

The defense filed preliminary objections arguing that, pursuant to
the independent contractor agreement, the plaintiffs' claims must
be brought in Ohio.

But Judge Wettick said that forum selection clause cannot be
enforced because it was not freely agreed to by the plaintiffs.
He wrote that, because the clause was buried deep in the agreement
under the heading "Entire Agreement," it's unlikely the plaintiffs
were aware of the clause.

He further reasoned: "In this case, the legislative goal of
securing prompt payment of wages is thwarted if a worker must sue
in Ohio rather than commencing an action before the local
magisterial district court."

The judge also overruled the defendants' objections to the
plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment.


PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Letourneau" Suit vs. Unit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v.
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI
Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September
1998, Philip Morris International Inc.'s subsidiary and other
Canadian manufacturers are defendants.  The plaintiff, an
individual smoker, is seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages for each member of the class who is deemed
addicted to smoking.  The class was certified in 2005.  In
February 2011, the trial court ruled that the federal government
would remain as a third party in the case.  In November 2012, the
Court of Appeals dismissed defendants' third-party claims against
the federal government.  Trial began on March 12, 2012.

At the present pace, the Company says trial is expected to last
well into 2013 and possibly 2014, with a judgment to follow at an
indeterminate point after the conclusion of the trial proceedings.

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.

New York-based Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia
holding company incorporated in 1987.  The Company's subsidiaries
and affiliates and their licensees are engaged in the manufacture
and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets
outside of the United States of America.


RECKITT BENSICKER: Monopolizes Market for Suboxone, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Reckitt Bensicker monopolized
the market for Suboxone, (buprenorphine hydrochloride and naloxone
hydrochloride dehydrate), a union claims in a federal antitrust
class action.


SPI ELECTRICITY: Black Saturday Bushfire Preventable, Lawyer Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Portelli, writing for Herald Sun, reports that weeping
people fled the courtroom on March 4 as emotional amateur footage
was played depicting the moment a deadly Black Saturday "fire
tornado", which killed more than 100 people, approached St Andrews
homes.

The lead plaintiff in the class action for compensation, Carol
Matthews, cried through the four-and-a-half-minute video, shot
only kilometers from the St Andrews home in which her 22-year-old
son, Sam, died on February 7, 2009.

Robert Richter, QC, for Mrs. Matthews, told the court the
"entirely preventable" Kilmore East-King Lake fire was sparked due
to the negligence of energy provider SPI Electricity.

"They did none of the things they should have done to prevent this
old line from collapsing on Black Saturday and sparking the
inferno that it did," Mr. Richter told a packed courtroom.

The fire killed 119 people, destroyed 1200 homes and caused an
estimated $1 billion damage.

The court heard Sam Matthews, trained to fight fires by the CFA,
told his mother on the phone as the inferno approached that a tree
near the family home had just exploded.

Mr. Richter said she directed him to go to the bathroom and heard
the windows explode.  He said phone records show she
unsuccessfully tried to call her son 15 more times, but he had
died when the house burned down.

Mrs. Matthews claims she has suffered significant psychological
injuries as a result.  She represents more than 10,000 group
members -- including Darrin Gibson, who lost his partner, their
two young daughters, three-year-old son, and parts of both his
feet, which melted as he tried to save him family.  Mrs. Matthews
is also suing maintenance contractor Utility Services Corporation
Limited, alleging it was negligent in its inspection and
maintenance of the powerline, and the Department of Sustainability
and Environment for allegedly failing to reduce fuel loads.

The DSE, CFA and Victoria Police are also facing allegations they
failed to give appropriate warnings about the bushfire.

Mrs. Matthews had alleged the CFA was negligent in failing to
suppress the fire, but the claim was settled.  All the defendants
deny the allegations and are fighting the claims.

In two separate recovery proceedings, the state government
entities are claiming compensation for damage to government
property from SPI and USC.  The Transport Accident Commission and
the Victorian Workcover Authority are also claiming indemnity from
payments made as a result of the bushfire from the power
companies.

Justice Jack Forrest said he complied with the parties' requests
to not read any report or documentation from the 2009 Victorian
Bushfires Royal Commission, so "the trial starts on a blank
canvas".

The total number of group members in the proceeding is estimated
to be 10,450, of whom at least 1,100 bring personal injury claims,
5,950 bring property damage claims and 3,400 bring property damage
and personal injury claims.

Affected people have until March 22 to register to join the group.

The Victorian government funded a purpose-built courtroom to
accommodate the teams of barristers, dozens of expert witnesses
and large numbers of people interested in attending the trial.

The thousands involved directly in the class action can watch the
proceedings streamed live on the internet.

The trial is expected to run for nine months, but if liability is
established, there could be years of further hearings on sub-
issues of liability and damages.

Opening submissions began on March 4 and will last for one week.

The Black Saturday bushfires in February 2009 killed 173 people.
Four cases brought in relation to the other fires have settled.

Jane Lee, writing for The Age, reports that electricity company SP
Ausnet's failure to prevent a damaged power line from collapsing
negligently caused Black Saturday's deadliest blaze, a court has
heard.

The first day of Victoria's largest civil class action began in
the Supreme Court on March with an opening address from
Mr. Richter, on behalf of 10,500 people who were affected by the
fire in Kilmore East that claimed 119 lives.

Mr. Richter said that the fire could have been prevented if SP
Ausnet had performed a number of simple tests which would have
shown it was unsafe.

SPI knew that the 43-year-old power line which sparked the fire
had failed previously, was rusting and had been struck by
lightning at least twice before, he said.  It also knew that this
would have produced cracks in the line over a number of years in a
CFA-designated high-risk bushfire area.

"SPI might be right to say they did nothing to cause it . . . but
they did none of the things they should have done to prevent this
damaged line from collapsing and because they did nothing, they
are liable for what they could have done before Black Saturday,"
Mr. Richter said.

"When you're dealing with the unknown it's your duty to find out
and if you're not satisfied its safe it's your duty to replace
conductor," he said.

SPI was expected to plead in its opening address on March 5 that
it could not have known about the lightning strike, which
Mr. Richter called "laughable."

"Lightning striking electrical poles is something an electricity
company lives.

"They knew what damage it could cause . . . unless (the line was)
replaced or mitigated.  They knew because electricity is their
business."

                     Royal Commission's Opinion

According to 3AW Radio, concerns over the class action were raised
after an expert who gave evidence at the Royal Commission into
Black Saturday changed this opinion on the cause of the fires.

Harry Better told the Royal Commission into the fires that a
misaligned power line connection could be at fault, but he has now
said a lightning strike may have initiated cracks in the power
lines.

Andrew Watson from Maurice Blackburn said the revised opinion is
irrelevant and maintains Singapore-owned energy company SP Ausnet
had an "inadequate asset management system".


SUMMER GARDEN: Recalls 25,000 Lbs. of Bolognese Sauce Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Summer Garden Food Manufacturing, a Boardman, Ohio establishment,
is recalling approximately 25,000 lbs. of Bolognese sauce products
because of undeclared allergens and misbranding.  The products
contain soy, wheat and MSG that are not declared on the label.
Soy and wheat are known allergens.

The following products are subject to recall:

   * 24-oz. jars of "Giant Eagle Market District Bolognese Pasta
     Sauce" bearing the establishment number "EST. 34795" inside
     the USDA mark of inspection and bearing "Best By 12/05/2014
     or 02/06/2015" on the lid.

The products were produced on December 5, 2012, and February 6,
2013, and shipped to distributors in Ohio and Pennsylvania for
further retail sales.  Pictures of the recalled products' labels
are available at: http://is.gd/jbFZXV

The problem was discovered by the Company during a quality control
label review.  The Company then notified FSIS that the
subcomponents of the cooked seasoned shredded beef were not
included on the pasta sauce label.  The subcomponents of the beef
in the Bolognese sauce include soy, wheat and MSG.  FSIS and the
Company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a reaction
should contact a health care provider.

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

Consumers and members of the media with questions about the recall
should contact Yvonne St. Pierre, the Company's Receptionist/
Administrative Clerk, at (330) 743-6050 extension 1100.

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


UNITED STATES: Judge Certifies Class Action of Black Agents
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that black special
agents with the Secret Service can advance race bias claims as a
class, with the help of an expert statistician, a federal judge
ruled.

Eight current and former agents led by Reginald Moore have been
fighting the Secret Service and the Department of Homeland
Security in their discrimination suit since 2000.

U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts has certified a class of black
current and former SAs who say they have been denied promotions
because of their race.  The Secret Service evaluates agents for
promotions through its Special Agent Merit Promotion Program
(MPP).  The MPP evaluates and grades the agents across several
levels and combines with recommendations made by an advisory board
to fill vacant positions.  The plaintiffs say the process is
unfair to black agents applying for GS-13 and 14 positions.

Moore, for example, has been a Secret Service agent for more than
20 years, serving as a GS-13 agent in the Operations Section and
the White House Joint Operations Center.  He claims to have bid
unsuccessfully for more than 180 GS-14 positions from 1999 to
2002.  At one point, he had even been assigned to train a white
agent for the position he had wanted.

"Moore eventually was promoted to a GS-14 and a GS-15 position,
but he alleges that his promotions came only after being
transferred to a Chicago field office, serving as an agent for 18
years, and, filing an EEO complaint and a lawsuit," according to
the ruling, which abbreviates Equal Employment Office.

The statistician that the class retained as an expert witness, Dr.
Charles Mann, filed a report with the court concluding that the
government's promotions process has an adverse impact on black
agents.

Judge Roberts refused to exclude such testimony in the same
ruling.  "The plaintiffs have shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that Dr. Charles Mann is qualified to offer expert
statistical testimony and that his testimony is relevant and
reliable," he wrote.

The ruling notes that Mann plans to testify that "the use of MPP
scores to create a cut-off for inclusion on the best qualified
list disproportionately disqualifies African-American Special
Agents for promotion."  Mann also claims to have found a
"statistically significant racial disparity in GS-14 and GS-15
promotions for the background period and the class period,"
according to the ruling.

The class period covers all black special agents who applied for
and were denied GS-14 and GS-15 promotions between 1994 and 2005,
on their first bid list.  These parameters exclude special agents
who served as an assistant director, deputy director or director
of the Secret Service.

Vindication for the black agents comes on the heels of adverse
ruling for an unrelated group of 45 agents claiming age
discrimination.  In February, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon
threw out claims from all but four agents challenging new bureau
term limits for squad supervisor positions.

The FBI has failed thus far to prove that the four remaining
agents failed to timely file their complaints with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission.

In the racial discrimination case, Judge Roberts appointed John
Relman, Jennifer Klar and Megan Cacace, of Relman, Dane & Colfax,
to serve as class counsel along with Desmond Hogan of Hogan
Lovells.

By March 18, the plaintiffs must propose a notice that would
recruit eligible class members.


VODAFONE: Law Firm Won't Provide Details on Class Action Sign-Ups
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allie Coyne, writing for iTnews.com.au, reports that the law firm
behind a class action lawsuit leveled at Vodafone has refused to
provide any details on the number of people who signed up to the
suit in the first week of registrations going live.

Law firm Piper Alderman recently announced it would end two years
of investigation and launch a class action lawsuit against
Vodafone by the end of May.  A potential suit was first floated in
December 2010 in reaction to alleged poor service and reception
issues on Vodafone's mobile network.  The law firm said around
20,000 people had indicated interest, and it expected a damages
award in the tens of millions of dollars.

The firm created a new Web site for unhappy Vodafone customers to
formally register for the lawsuit, aiming for 23,000 sign-ups in
the next three months.  On March 4, it declined to reveal how many
Vodafone users had formally signed up to the suit in the first
week of open registrations.

Piper Alderman partner Sasha Ivantsoff told iTnews the firm would
not reveal any figures for at least another month.  He said the
law firm had received "thousands" of responses over telephone and
e-mail.  He would not provide a base figure of participants needed
for the lawsuit, but said it needed to be commercially viable for
the funding partner behind the lawsuit, LCM.

LCM prefers to undertake projects in which the legal claim exceeds
AUD2.5 million, according to its Web site.  The litigation company
charges between 35 and 50 percent of the amount recovered from the
claim.

Mr. Ivantsoff said that for a class action to go ahead, it
required a minimum of seven participants.  He said Piper Alderman
would not proceed with the class action with that small a number.

"We're always said there needs to be a critical mass of numbers
for the case to proceed," he said.  "If we get that it'll go
ahead, if we don't, it won't."

Piper Alderman currently has around five class actions on its
books.  It previously spearheaded the 2010 AUD16 million class
action against Standard & Poor's, instigated by local councils
over lost millions related to credit ratings, as well as the joint
councils class action against investment firm Lehman Brothers in
2011.

Vodafone said the firm was known for promoting class actions
suits, a claim Mr. Ivantsoff rebuffed.

"We only take on the cases that we think have significant merit -
Lehman Brothers being a case in point, Standard & Poor's being a
case in point," he said.  "We only do something if it's got
merit."

Telecommunications consumer advocate group ACCAN (Australian
Communications Consumer Advocate Network) called the class action
a "lawyer's picnic" and said disaffected Vodafone users should
avoid the lawsuit and take their complaints to the
Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO).

Mr. Ivantsoff said the TIO had inadequate powers to properly deal
with complaints.

"The TIO does a good job of helping people out but there are some
things they can't do -- one of those is bind Vodafone to a
resolution, they can only mediate," he said.  "So if people have a
significant damages claim, there's nothing they can do to force
Vodafone to pay it.

"The TIO also can't impose any consequence on Vodafone for poor
service.  We've also found out in the last couple of days that the
wait time is currently 13 weeks minimum before they can even look
at an application."

Mr. Ivantsoff conceded the law firm may experience drop off in
interest following the lengthy two-year campaign, but said the
company expected significant numbers to join up to the lawsuit.

                        Vodafone's Response

Patrick Stafford, writing for SmartCompany, reports that Vodafone
has attempted to brush off fears of a mounting class action
against the company, but at least one expert warns it will take a
few more years for the embattled telco to restore its reputation
in the eyes of customers.

New comments from chief executive Bill Morrow indicate the company
isn't concerned about the impact of the class-action, while also
claiming it will roll out the fastest 4G network in the country
later this year.

New reports also suggest the business is attempting to boost its
local workforce by hiring more customer service workers in
Tasmania.

"I think it'll take them four to five years to come back from the
issues they had back in 2010 and 2011," independent telco analyst
Chris Coughlan told SmartCompany on March 4.

"When Vodafone first launched it had a bad reputation, and it
didn't take off because of that.  It's just going to take the
company a while."

Mr. Morrow says the business has received no negative impact from
the class-action, which he argued hasn't even gotten off the
ground.

"There is not a class action suit actually filed but an ongoing
attempt to actually gather one, first launched in 2010.  The firm
is claiming to have 23,000 signatures, the same number they
reported two years ago," told The Australian.

"If there is any customer who is unhappy with their service, for
any reason, we want to hear from them."

The comment comes after law firm Piper Alderman said it would
proceed with the class action within three months.

The action began in 2010 after complaints over poor signal
coverage, and was exacerbated in 2011 when the company suffered
downtime over the Easter break.  The slow rollout of the company's
4G network has also been used as evidence the company is falling
behind, although Mr. Morrow says the company's will be the
"fastest" in the country by the end of the year.

Mr. Morrow told The Australian, "We are going to be able to offer
the fastest data speeds available" because of the network's ample
spectrum.

"So we are the only ones today, and at least until 2015, that can
offer the fastest 4G speeds but we haven't exploited that enough
yet."

The company confirmed on March 4 it has no timetable for rolling
out 4G services, although a spokesperson confirmed "mid-year" this
morning.  The damage control also has continued as the company
confirmed it would increase the number of staff at its Tasmania
call center, with Mr. Morrow saying the business has received the
message customers want to speak to someone in Australia rather
than overseas.

Despite all these moves, which Mr. Coughlan says are all good
things, it's simply going to take time for the company to improve
its image.

"I think they're doing most of the right things, including
spending more on the network and trying to fix all the problems
they had in the past."

"But it's just a matter of time, and it's a matter of just making
sure their performance continues to lift."

Vodafone is spending over $1 billion this year in network
upgrades.


* 2nd Cir. Dismisses $300BB Auction-Rate Antitrust Case
-------------------------------------------------------
The Litigation Daily reports that the collapse of the $300 billion
auction-rate securities market in 2008 spawned a massive antitrust
case, after a trio of plaintiffs firms cooked up a theory that the
market's demise was triggered by an illegal boycott on the part of
major banks.  The Second Circuit on March 5 affirmed a prior
decision dismissing the case, ruling that the putative class of
ARS purchasers and issuers failed to piece together a viable
antitrust case.


                           *********

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  * * *