CAR_Public/130314.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, March 14, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 52

                             Headlines



ALLEGHANY CORP: Still Defending Class Suits Over TransRe Merger
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Physician Class Action
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Judges Divided on Validity of Vindication Rights
AMERICAN INT'L: Appeal From Class Certification Pending in Ala.
AMERICAN INT'L: 7th Circuit Reviewing Stipulation of Dismissal

AMERICAN INT'L: Motion to Distribute Settlement Funds Pending
AMERICAN INT'L: Canadian Securities Class Suit Still Stayed
AMERICAN INT'L: Discovery Still Ongoing in ERISA Litigation II
AMERICAN INT'L: Continues to Defend 2008 Securities Class Suit
AMERICAN REALTY: Awaits Court Approval of Quaal Action Settlement

AMGEN INC: Ruling Favorable for Class Action Plaintiffs
AMTRAK: Judge Dismisses Ex-Worker's Wage Class Action
ARBITRON INC: Defends Merger-Related Class Suit in Delaware
AVIS BUDGET: Plans to Respond to Appeals From Calif. Settlement
AVIS BUDGET: Continues to Defend Wage & Hour and Employee Suits

AVIS BUDGET: Continues to Defend Zipcar-Related Class Suits
CARBO CERAMICS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
CMS ENERGY: Units Still Defending Gas Index Price Reporting Suit
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Continues to Defend ERISA Litigation in N.Y.
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Launches Defense in Storm Class Action

CROCS INC: Inks Stipulation to Settle Consolidated Class Suit
DENDREON CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Remains Pending
DIGGIN' YOUR DOG: Recalls Strippin' Chicks(TM) Pet Treats
DIRECTV: Appeal From Arbitration Denial Pending in California
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Bradley" Suit in Calif.

DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Steinfeld" Suit
ELI LILLY: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits Over Actos
ELI LILLY: Still Defending Class Suit Over Cymbalta in Calif.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Seeks Dismissal of Consumer Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Pay-Per-Click Marketers Seek to Revive Class Action

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Continues to Defend Bruce Mansfield Plant Suits
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Ohio High Court Sends Fraud Claims to PUCO
FRS COMPANY: To Defend False Advertising Class Action
H.J. HEINZ: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Class Suits
HEWLETT PACKARD: PGGM Appointed as Class Action Lead Plaintiff

IMAX CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in U.S. & Canada
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Stay of Gainesville Plant-Related Suit Lifted
LEAD IMPACTED: Judge Reviews Picher Residents' Class Action
LINKEDIN CORP: Privacy Breach Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
MEAD JOHNSON: Distribution in Class Suit Settlement Almost Done

NSP-MINNESOTA: Appeal From "Comer II" Suit Dismissal Pending
PEABODY ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of "UMWA" Suit in West Virginia
PG&E CORP: Still Defending Class Suits Over San Bruno Incident
PG&E CORP: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Set for April 26
PLAINS EXPLORATION: Hearing in Consolidated Suits Set for April 5

PREFERRED CREDIT: "Gilmor" Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Awaits Final Okay of "Larsen" Suit Settlement
REALOGY HOLDINGS: "Barasani" Suit Status Conference Set for May
SANDERSON FARMS: Appeal From Dismissal of RICO Class Suit Pending
SHIPPING COS: Sued Over Misclassification of Port Truck Drivers

SM ENERGY: Continues to Defend Chieftain Royalty Class Suit
STARWOOD HOTELS: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over Contracts
STEVE'S REAL: Recalls Bags of Turducken Canine Recipe Patties
TOWN SPORTS: Class Allegations in "Cruz" Suits Dismissed in Jan.
TOWN SPORTS: Motions in "Labbe" Class Suit vs. Unit Moot

TRI-UNION SEAFOODS: Recalls Chunk Light Tuna in Oil Products
YRC WORLDWIDE: March 11 Mediation Held in Bryant Holdings Suit

* Class Actions on the Rise in Healthcare Industry
* SEC's Inaction on Mandatory Arbitration May Impact Investors


                           *********


ALLEGHANY CORP: Still Defending Class Suits Over TransRe Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Corporation continues to defend itself against class
action litigation related to the acquisition of Transatlantic
Holdings, Inc., (TransRe), according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On March 6, 2012, pursuant to an Agreement
and Plan of Merger among Alleghany, our wholly-owned subsidiary,
Shoreline Merger Sub, LLC or "Merger Sub," and Transatlantic
Holdings, Inc., or "Old TransRe," Old TransRe was merged with and
into Merger Sub.  As a result of the merger, Merger Sub was
renamed "Transatlantic Holdings, Inc.," and Old TransRe became our
wholly-owned subsidiary.

"In connection with the merger, Alleghany, Merger Sub and Old
TransRe, among others, were named as defendants in three putative
stockholder class action lawsuits filed by TransRe stockholders.
Such lawsuits challenged the merger and alleged that Alleghany,
Merger Sub and Old TransRe aided and abetted an alleged breach of
fiduciary duty by Old TransRe's board of directors in connection
with the merger, among other allegations.

"On January 30, 2012, Alleghany and the other defendants entered
into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs regarding
the settlement of these putative stockholder class actions against
Alleghany, Merger Sub, Old TransRe, Old TransRe's directors, and
Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, among others. Pursuant to
the terms of the proposed settlement, certain supplemental
disclosures were made related to the merger. The memorandum of
understanding contemplated that the parties would enter into a
stipulation of settlement. On October 12, 2012, the parties
entered into a stipulation of settlement that includes customary
conditions, including court approval following notice to Old
TransRe's stockholders. On January 10, 2013, a hearing was held
before the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware to consider
the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement, as
well as plaintiffs' counsel's petition for an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses not to exceed $0.5 million, to be paid, or cause
to be paid, by TransRe. At the hearing, the Chancellor declined to
approve the settlement, but granted plaintiffs' counsel an
opportunity to make a supplemental submission addressing the
materiality of the supplemental disclosures made in connection
with the settlement. Another settlement hearing has not yet been
scheduled. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it
will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or
could have been brought challenging any aspect of the merger, the
Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith
(but excluding claims for appraisal under Section 262 of the
Delaware General Corporation Law), among other claims. There can
be no assurance that the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware will approve the settlement. In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the stipulation of settlement may be
terminated."

Alleghany Corporation is engaged, through Alleghany Insurance
Holdings LLC (AIHL) and its subsidiaries RSUI Group, Inc. (RSUI),
Capitol Transamerica Corporation (CATA) and Pacific Compensation
Corporation (PCC), in the property and casualty and surety
insurance business.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Physician Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bandell, writing for South Florida Business Journal, reports
that Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Judge John W. Thornton denied
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions' motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit filed against it by physicians who use its MyWay
electronic health records (EHR) system.

Chicago-based Allscripts was hit with the lawsuit on Dec. 20 by
Panama City-based Pain Clinic of Northwest FL, on behalf of about
5,000 small group physicians who used MyWay until the company
announced late last year that it would stop supporting the system.
The clinic, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz of Coral Gables-based
Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton, claims that the EHR did not work as
intended, and that the forced switch to another records system
carries substantial costs for medical practices.

Allscripts announced in October that it would discontinue MyWay
and transition its users to the EHR Pro software program for free.
This program was previously offered only to large medical groups.
The complaint alleges that making the switch required significant
staff training and costs and the program wasn't designed for
smaller practices, but Allscripts charged thousands of dollars to
practices who wanted to leave them and take their medical records
with them.

Instead of responding directly to the allegations in the
complaint, Allscripts filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit and
compel arbitration between it and the doctors.  However, the judge
ruled that Allscripts wasn't a party to the contract that called
for arbitration to settle a dispute, so the lawsuit should
continue.  The Feb. 27 ruling gave Allscripts 20 days to answer
the complaint.

Mr. Moskowitz said more than 180 physicians have called his law
firm, seeking to join the lawsuit.

"We are very happy with Judge Thornton's well-reasoned opinion,
and are looking forward to finally reviewing Allscripts' internal
e-mails, which will hopefully explain what really happened with
the MyWay product," Mr. Moskowitz said.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Judges Divided on Validity of Vindication Rights
------------------------------------------------------------------
John B. Lewis, Esq. and Ruth E. Hartman, Esq., at Baker &
Hostetler LLP, report that the U.S. Supreme Court heard the much
anticipated oral argument in American Express Co. v. Italian
Colors Restaurant on February 27, 2013.  The issue before the
Court was whether an arbitration clause which prohibits class
actions should be enforced if the claimant could establish that
enforcement of the clause would effectively preclude vindication
of federal statutory rights.  Many of the Justices appeared
skeptical of the "effective vindication of statutory rights"
doctrine.

The plaintiffs in the American Express Co. ("AMEX") litigation
were merchants who brought antitrust claims maintaining that a
provision in AMEX's Card Acceptance Agreement created an illegal
tying arrangement.  But, the potential impact of the case goes far
beyond antitrust law.

                     The Long History of AMEX

The Second Circuit thrice refused to compel the parties to
arbitrate, despite their express agreement.  Largely based upon
the affidavit of an economist, Gary L. French, Ph.D, the Second
Circuit concluded the costs of plaintiffs' individually
arbitrating their dispute with AMEX would be prohibitive, and the
"only economically feasible means for Plaintiffs enforcing their
statutory rights is via class action.".

This case has a long and tortured history.  The Second Circuit
first heard the matter on December 10, 2007.  In In re American
Express Merchants' Litigation, 554 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2009) ("AMEX
I") the court held the class action waiver unenforceable.  The
U.S. Supreme Court then vacated that decision and remanded it for
reconsideration in light of its opinion in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v.
AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010).  Stolt-Nielsen
held that imposing class arbitration on parties that had not
agreed to it conflicts with the FAA.  The Second Circuit, however,
found that Stolt-Nielsen did not affect its original analysis and
again reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the
case.  In Re American Express Merchants' Litigation, 634 F.3d 187,
199-200 (2d Cir. 2011) ("AMEX II").  On April 11, 2011, the
appellate court placed a hold on the mandate in AMEX II so that
AMEX could seek a writ of certiorari.

During that time, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in AT&T
Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011).  The
Concepcion decision, also extensively covered in this blog, held
that the FAA preempted California law barring the enforcement of
class action waivers in the consumer context.  Id.  The Second
Circuit then received supplemental briefing on Concepcion's
potential impact on the case.  On February 1, 2012, the Second
Circuit issued an opinion in favor of the plaintiffs.  It held
"that each waiver must be considered on its own merits based on
its own record and governed with a healthy regard for the fact
that the [Federal Arbitration Act] is a congressional declaration
of a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements."  In
Re American Express Merchants' Litigation, 667 F.3d 204 at 219 (2d
Cir. 2012).  On May 20, 2012 the Second Circuit denied rehearing
en banc with three dissenters -- some presaging concerns raised in
the Supreme Court.  These included Chief Judge Jacobs' concern
that AMEX III required district judges rather than arbitrators, to
consider the merits of the case for a variety of reasons.

                            Skepticism

While the effective vindication of rights doctrine had its
apparent supporters -- namely Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader
Ginsburg -- others expressed profound skepticism both from
substantive and procedural perspectives.

Counsel for AMEX, Michael Kellogg, made the point early on that
the law did not guarantee "every claim has a procedural path to
its effective vindication."  And, Justice Antonin Scalia
commented: "I don't see how a federal statute is frustrated or is
unable to be vindicated if it's too expensive to bring a Federal
suit.  That happened years before there was such a thing as class
action in federal courts."  The Sherman Act, enacted in 1980,
predated Rule 23 by four decades, a fact that was significant for
Justice Scalia.  "Nobody thought the Sherman Act was a dead
letter, that it couldn't be vindicated," he said.

                    Unworkable Threshold Inquiry

Another key point raised by Kellogg was that the merchants
proposed an essentially unworkable threshold requirement for
determining whether parties should arbitrate or litigate: "[i]t
would create a completely unworkable inquiry at the outset of
litigation in order to determine whether to refer a case to
arbitration in the first place."  Justice Steven Breyer appeared
to agree with AMEX's assessment: "It's an odd doctrine that just
says, plaintiff by plaintiff, you can ignore an arbitration clause
if you can get a case that is expensive enough."  Following up,
Justice Breyer asked:  "And do we go case by case . . . [if] you
have a weird theory . . . [with] 17 experts and endless studies
. . . you don't have to [arbitrate]."  Or, is it done by
categories.  Paul Clement, counsel for the merchants suggested it
could be done by categories, treating antitrust claims differently
or put "the burden on the plaintiff to make a non-speculative
showing."

Justice Ginsburg appeared to be a proponent of the doctrine,
commenting "the expense to win one of these cases is enormous",
more than a single person would bear.  But, the initial merits
inquiry required by the vindication of rights doctrine would seem
to be at odds philosophically with Justice Ginsburg's recent
opinion in Amgen v. Connecticut Retirement Plan & Trust Funds.  In
Amgen Justice Ginsburg declared that that Rule 23 grants the court
"no license to engage in free-ranging merit inquiries at the
certification stage," 568 U.S.___(2013), which is exactly what a
trial court would need to do in order to determine the economic
feasibility of proceeding with an arbitration claim.

                      Cost Sharing Proposal

In addressing the merchants' arguments about the prohibitive
costs, AMEX suggested that multiple plaintiffs or a trade
association could share the costs of an expert report for
arbitration purposes.  Justices Roberts and Scalia both seemed to
endorse that idea.  Justice John Roberts commented that a trade
association might finance the cost of producing an antitrust
expert report which could be shared by all the plaintiffs.

AMEX's counsel Kellogg argued that a goal of arbitration is
expansion of the universe of claims, so that small value claims
could be brought effectively.

               Class Waiver As An Exculpatory Clause

There was, however, some initial support for the merchants'
position from Justices Kagan and Ginsburg, who both appeared to
view the class waiver as tantamount to an exculpatory clause,
preventing an effective vindication of rights to bring an
antitrust suit.  Justice Kagan further questioned AMEX about
whether it would be permissible to have a clause in an arbitration
agreement that said:  "I hereby agree not to bring any Sherman Act
claims," implying that this class action waiver had the same
effect.

Justice Kagan asked Kellogg to distinguish AMEX from Mitsubishi
Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., a 1985 Supreme
Court decision, cited by the Second Circuit in AMEX III, which
held that arbitration can be an effective vehicle for vindicating
statutory rights but only "so long as the prospective litigant may
effectively vindicate its statutory cause of action . . . ."
Mitsubishi, 473 U.S. 614, 637 (1985).

To prove an antitrust claim, Justice Kagan stated, one needs
economic evidence of monopoly power, antitrust injury and damages.
Justice Ginsburg agreed.  Yet AMEX counsel Kellogg argued that it
was unclear whether the cost of the expert reports and testimony
would be the same in arbitration as litigation.  And, he confirmed
that multiple plaintiffs could share experts' costs.

Justice Sonya Sotomayor recused herself because the case was
decided during her tenure at the Second Circuit.

                          The Bottom Line:

The AMEX case provides the Supreme Court with yet another
opportunity to support the liberal federal policy favoring
arbitration agreements.  The Second Circuit decision in AMEX below
is one of the few remaining federal obstacles to enforcing class
action waivers.  If the Second Circuit decision in AMEX is
overturned, it will have a significant impact on the continuing
development of federal arbitration law.


AMERICAN INT'L: Appeal From Class Certification Pending in Ala.
---------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc.'s appeal from an order granting
class certification in a lawsuit filed in Alabama remains pending,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

AIG and certain of its subsidiaries have been named defendants in
two putative class actions in state court in Alabama that arise
out of the 1999 settlement of class and derivative litigation
involving Caremark Rx, Inc. (Caremark). The plaintiffs in the
second-filed action intervened in the first-filed action, and the
second-filed action was dismissed. An excess policy issued by a
subsidiary of AIG with respect to the 1999 litigation was
expressly stated to be without limit of liability. In the current
actions, plaintiffs allege that the judge approving the 1999
settlement was misled as to the extent of available insurance
coverage and would not have approved the settlement had he known
of the existence and/or unlimited nature of the excess policy.
They further allege that AIG, its subsidiaries, and Caremark are
liable for fraud and suppression for misrepresenting and/or
concealing the nature and extent of coverage.

The complaints filed by the plaintiffs and the intervenors request
compensatory damages for the 1999 class in the amount of $3.2
billion, plus punitive damages. AIG and its subsidiaries deny the
allegations of fraud and suppression, assert that information
concerning the excess policy was publicly disclosed months prior
to the approval of the settlement, that the claims are barred by
the statute of limitations, and that the statute cannot be tolled
in light of the public disclosure of the excess coverage. The
plaintiffs and intervenors, in turn, have asserted that the
disclosure was insufficient to inform them of the nature of the
coverage and did not start the running of the statute of
limitations.

On August 15, 2012, the trial court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. AIG and the other
defendants have appealed that order to the Alabama Supreme Court,
and the case in the trial court will be stayed until that appeal
is resolved. General discovery has not commenced and AIG is unable
to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if
any, arising from the litigation.

American International Group, Inc., is an international insurance
company, serving customers in more than 130 countries. AIG
companies serve commercial, institutional and individual customers
through property-casualty networks of any insurer. In addition,
AIG companies are providers of life insurance and retirement
services.


AMERICAN INT'L: 7th Circuit Reviewing Stipulation of Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
An agreed stipulation of dismissal by American International
Group, Inc., Liberty Mutual and plaintiffs of a class action
lawsuit is currently under review by the Seventh Circuit,
according to AIG's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On May 24, 2007, the National Council on
Compensation Insurance (NCCI), on behalf of the participating
members of the National Workers' Compensation Reinsurance Pool
(the NWCRP), filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (the Northern District of
Illinois) against us with respect to the underpayment by AIG of
its residual market assessments for workers' compensation
insurance. The complaint alleged claims for violations of RICO,
breach of contract, fraud and related state law claims arising out
of our alleged underpayment of these assessments between
1970 and the present and sought damages purportedly in excess of
$1 billion.

"On April 1, 2009, Safeco Insurance Company of America (Safeco)
and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company (Ohio Casualty) filed a
complaint in the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of a
purported class of all NWCRP participant members, against AIG and
certain of its subsidiaries with respect to the underpayment by
AIG of its residual market assessments for workers' compensation
insurance. The complaint was styled as an "alternative complaint,"
should the Northern District of Illinois grant our motion to
dismiss the NCCI lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,
which motion to dismiss was ultimately granted on August 23, 2009.
The allegations in the class action complaint are substantially
similar to those filed by the NWCRP.

"On February 28, 2012, the Northern District of Illinois entered a
final order and judgment approving a class action settlement
between us and a group of intervening plaintiffs, made up of seven
participating members of the NWCRP, which would require AIG to pay
$450 million to satisfy all liabilities to the class members
arising out of the workers' compensation premium reporting issues,
a portion of which would be funded out of the remaining amount
held in the Workers' Compensation Fund. Liberty Mutual filed
papers in opposition to approval of the proposed settlement and in
opposition to certification of a settlement class, in which it
alleged our actual exposure, should the class action continue
through judgment, to be in excess of $3 billion. We dispute this
allegation. Liberty Mutual and its subsidiaries Safeco and Ohio
Casualty subsequently appealed the Northern District of Illinois'
final order and judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit (the Seventh Circuit). On January 10, 2013,
AIG and Liberty Mutual entered into a settlement under which
Liberty Mutual, Safeco and Ohio Casualty agreed voluntarily to
withdraw their appeals. In furtherance of such settlement, AIG,
the Liberty Mutual parties and the settlement class plaintiffs
submitted an agreed stipulation of dismissal that is currently
under review by the Seventh Circuit.

"The $450 million settlement amount, which is currently held in
escrow pending final resolution of the class-action settlement,
was funded in part from the approximately $191 million remaining
in the Workers' Compensation Fund. In the event that the
settlement between AIG and Liberty Mutual is not approved, the
appeal of the order and judgment approving the class action
settlement may resume. As of December 31, 2012, we had an accrued
liability equal to the amounts payable under the settlement."

American International Group, Inc., is an international insurance
company, serving customers in more than 130 countries. AIG
companies serve commercial, institutional and individual customers
through property-casualty networks of any insurer. In addition,
AIG companies are providers of life insurance and retirement
services.


AMERICAN INT'L: Motion to Distribute Settlement Funds Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion seeking an order authorizing distribution of the
settlement fund in a class action lawsuit involving American
International Group, Inc., remains pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

Commencing in 2004, policyholders brought multiple federal
antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO) class actions in jurisdictions across the nation against
insurers and brokers, including AIG and a number of its
subsidiaries, alleging that the insurers and brokers engaged in
one or more broad conspiracies to allocate customers, steer
business, and rig bids. These actions, including 24 complaints
filed in different federal courts naming AIG or an AIG subsidiary
as a defendant, were consolidated by the judicial panel on multi-
district litigation and transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey (District of New Jersey) for
coordinated pretrial proceedings. The consolidated actions have
proceeded in that Court in two parallel actions, In re Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation (the Commercial Complaint) and In
re Employee Benefits Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation (the
Employee Benefits Complaint, and, together with the Commercial
Complaint, the Multi-District Litigation).

The plaintiffs in the Commercial Complaint are a group of
corporations, individuals and public entities that contracted with
the broker defendants for the provision of insurance brokerage
services for a variety of insurance needs. The broker defendants
are alleged to have placed insurance coverage on the plaintiffs'
behalf with a number of insurance companies named as defendants,
including AIG subsidiaries. The Commercial Complaint also named
various brokers and other insurers as defendants (three of which
have since settled). The Commercial Complaint alleges that
defendants engaged in a number of overlapping "broker-centered"
conspiracies to allocate customers through the payment of
contingent commissions to brokers and through purported "bid-
rigging" practices. It also alleges that the insurer and broker
defendants participated in a "global" conspiracy not to disclose
to policyholders the payment of contingent commissions. Plaintiffs
assert that the defendants violated the Sherman Antitrust Act,
RICO, and the antitrust laws of 48 states and the District of
Columbia, and are liable under common law breach of fiduciary duty
and unjust enrichment theories. Plaintiffs seek treble damages
plus interest and attorneys' fees as a result of the alleged RICO
and Sherman Antitrust Act violations.

The plaintiffs in the Employee Benefits Complaint are a group of
individual employees and corporate and municipal employers
alleging claims on behalf of two separate nationwide purported
classes: an employee class and an employer class that acquired
insurance products from the defendants from January 1, 1998 to
December 31, 2004. The Employee Benefits Complaint names AIG as
well as various other brokers and insurers, as defendants. The
activities alleged in the Employee Benefits Complaint, with
certain exceptions, track the allegations of customer allocation
through steering and bid-rigging made in the Commercial Complaint.

On August 16, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit (the Third Circuit) affirmed the dismissal of the
Employee Benefits Complaint in its entirety, affirmed in part and
vacated in part the District Court's dismissal of the Commercial
Complaint, and remanded the case for further proceedings
consistent with the opinion.

On March 30, 2012, the District Court granted final approval of a
settlement between AIG and certain other defendants on the one
hand, and class plaintiffs on the other, which settled the claims
asserted against those defendants in the Commercial Complaint.

Pursuant to the settlement, AIG will pay approximately $7 million
of a total aggregate settlement amount of approximately $37
million. On April 27, 2012, notices of appeal of the District
Court order granting final approval were filed in the Third
Circuit. As of December 5, 2012, the Third Circuit had dismissed
all appeals from the District Court order granting final approval
of the settlement. On January 16, 2013, class plaintiffs filed a
motion in the District Court seeking an order authorizing
distribution of the settlement fund.

Finally, the AIG defendants have settled the four state court
actions filed in Florida, New Jersey, Texas, and Kansas state
courts, where plaintiffs had made similar allegations as those
asserted in the Multi-District Litigation.

American International Group, Inc., is an international insurance
company, serving customers in more than 130 countries. AIG
companies serve commercial, institutional and individual customers
through property-casualty networks of any insurer. In addition,
AIG companies are providers of life insurance and retirement
services.


AMERICAN INT'L: Canadian Securities Class Suit Still Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action against American International Group,
Inc., pending in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice remains
stayed, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On November 12, 2008, an application was
filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for leave to bring
a purported class action against AIG, AIG Financial Products Corp.
and AIG Trading Group Inc. and their respective subsidiaries
(collectively AIGFP), certain directors and officers of AIG and
Joseph Cassano, the former Chief Executive Officer of AIGFP,
pursuant to the Ontario Securities Act. If the Court grants the
application, a class plaintiff will be permitted to file a
statement of claim against defendants. The proposed statement of
claim would assert a class period of March 16, 2006f through
September 16, 2008, and would allege that during this period
defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions in
quarterly and annual reports and during oral presentations in
violation of the Ontario Securities Act.

"On April 17, 2009, defendants filed a motion record in support of
their motion to stay or dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and forum
non conveniens. On July 12, 2010, the Court adjourned a hearing on
the motion pending a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in a
pair of actions captioned Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda 2012 SCC
17 (Van Breda). On April 18, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada
clarified the standard for determining jurisdiction over foreign
and out-of-province defendants, such as AIG, by holding that a
defendant must have some form of "actual," as opposed to a merely
"virtual," presence in order to be deemed to be "doing business"
in the jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Canada also suggested
that in future cases, defendants may contest jurisdiction even
when they are found to be doing business in a Canadian
jurisdiction if their business activities in the jurisdiction are
unrelated to the subject matter of the litigation. The matter has
been stayed pending further developments in the Consolidated 2008
Securities Litigation.

"In plaintiff's proposed statement of claim, plaintiff alleged
general and special damages of $500 million and punitive damages
of $50 million plus prejudgment interest or such other sums as the
Court finds appropriate. As of February 21, 2013, the Court has
not determined whether it has jurisdiction or granted plaintiff's
application to file a statement of claim, no merits discovery has
occurred and the action has been stayed. As a result, we are
unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
losses, if any, arising from the litigation."

American International Group, Inc., is an international insurance
company, serving customers in more than 130 countries. AIG
companies serve commercial, institutional and individual customers
through property-casualty networks of any insurer. In addition,
AIG companies are providers of life insurance and retirement
services.


AMERICAN INT'L: Discovery Still Ongoing in ERISA Litigation II
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery remains ongoing in In re American International Group,
Inc. ERISA Litigation II pending in the Southern District of New
York, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "Between June 25, 2008, and November 25, 2008,
AIG, certain directors and officers of AIG, and members of AIG's
Retirement Board and Investment Committee were named as defendants
in eight purported class action complaints asserting claims on
behalf of participants in certain pension plans sponsored by AIG
or its subsidiaries. The Court subsequently consolidated these
eight actions as In re American International Group, Inc. ERISA
Litigation II. On September 4, 2012, lead plaintiffs' counsel
filed a second consolidated amended complaint. The action purports
to be brought as a class action under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), on behalf of all
participants in or beneficiaries of certain benefit plans of AIG
and its subsidiaries that offered shares of AIG Common Stock. In
the consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary
responsibilities to plan participants and their beneficiaries
under ERISA, by continuing to offer the AIG Stock Fund as an
investment option in the plans after it allegedly became imprudent
to do so. The alleged ERISA violations relate to, among other
things, the defendants' purported failure to monitor and/or
disclose certain matters, including the Subprime Exposure Issues.

"On November 20, 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

"As of February 21, 2013, plaintiffs have not formally specified
an amount of alleged damages, discovery is ongoing, and the Court
has not determined if a class action is appropriate or the size or
scope of any class. As a result, we are unable to reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising
from the litigation."

American International Group, Inc., is an international insurance
company, serving customers in more than 130 countries. AIG
companies serve commercial, institutional and individual customers
through property-casualty networks of any insurer. In addition,
AIG companies are providers of life insurance and retirement
services.


AMERICAN INT'L: Continues to Defend 2008 Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., continues to defend itself
against a Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "Between May 21, 2008 and January 15, 2009,
eight purported securities class action complaints were filed
against AIG and certain directors and officers of AIG and AIGFP,
AIG's outside auditors, and the underwriters of various securities
offerings in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the Southern District of New York), alleging
claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act), or claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the Securities Act). On March 20, 2009, the Court
consolidated all eight of the purported securities class actions
as In re American International Group, Inc. 2008 Securities
Litigation (the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation).

"On May 19, 2009, lead plaintiff in the Consolidated 2008
Securities Litigation filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of
purchasers of AIG Common Stock during the alleged class period of
March 16, 2006 through September 16, 2008, and on behalf of
purchasers of various AIG securities offered pursuant to AIG's
shelf registration statements. The consolidated complaint alleges
that defendants made statements during the class period in press
releases, AIG's quarterly and year-end filings, during conference
calls, and in various registration statements and prospectuses in
connection with the various offerings that were materially false
and misleading and that artificially inflated the price of AIG
Common Stock. The alleged false and misleading statements relate
to, among other things, the Subprime Exposure Issues. The
consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act. On August 5, 2009, defendants filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint, and on September 27, 2010, the
Court denied the motions to dismiss.

"On April 1, 2011, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated 2008
Securities Litigation filed a motion to certify a class of
plaintiffs. On November 2, 2011, the Court terminated the motion
without prejudice to an application for restoration. On March 30,
2012, the lead plaintiff filed a renewed motion to certify a class
of plaintiffs.

"We have accrued our estimate of probable loss with respect to
this litigation.

"On November 18, 2011, January 20, 2012, June 11, 2012, and August
8, 2012, four separate, though similar, securities actions were
brought against AIG and certain directors and officers of AIG and
AIGFP by the Kuwait Investment Authority, various Oppenheimer
Funds, eight foreign funds and investment entities led by the
British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme, and Pacific Life Funds
and Pacific Select Fund. As of February 21, 2013, no discussions
concerning potential damages have occurred and the plaintiffs have
not formally specified an amount of alleged damages in their
respective actions. As a result, we are unable to reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising
from these litigations."

American International Group, Inc., is an international insurance
company, serving customers in more than 130 countries. AIG
companies serve commercial, institutional and individual customers
through property-casualty networks of any insurer. In addition,
AIG companies are providers of life insurance and retirement
services.


AMERICAN REALTY: Awaits Court Approval of Quaal Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On January 30, 2013, Randell Quaal filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the Supreme Court for the State of New York against
American Realty Capital Trust III, Inc. ("ARCT III"), American
Realty Capital Operating Partnership III, L.P. ("ARCT III OP"),
the members of the ARCT III board of directors (the "ARCT III
Board"), American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. ("ARCP"), ARC
Properties Operating Partnership, L.P. ("ARCP OP"), and Tiger
Acquisition LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of ARCP ("Merger Sub"),
(the "Quaal Action").

Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the ARCT III Board
breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the transactions
contemplated under the Merger Agreement (the "Proposed
Transaction") by agreeing to an inadequate price and employing a
flawed process. Plaintiff further alleges that the joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed with the Securities Exchange Commission
(the "SEC") on January 22, 2013 (the "Definitive Proxy Statement")
was inadequate and failed to provide ARCT III's stockholders with
certain material information in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin the
Proposed Transaction.

On February 20, 2013, the parties agreed to a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on
behalf of the alleged class of ARCT III stockholders. In
connection with the settlement contemplated by that memorandum of
understanding, the Quaal Action and all claims asserted therein
will be dismissed, subject to court approval. The proposed
settlement terms require ARCT III to make certain additional
disclosures related to the merger. The memorandum of understanding
further contemplates that the parties will enter into a
stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to customary
conditions, including confirmatory discovery and court approval
following notice to ARCT III's stockholders. If the parties enter
into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at
which the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and
adequacy of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement,
that the court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any
eventual settlement will be under the same terms as those
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding.

A copy of the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission is available at: http://is.gd/FLKz36

American Realty Capital Trust, Inc. is a real estate investment
trust formed to acquire a diversified portfolio of commercial real
estate, primarily freestanding single tenant properties net leased
to tenants on a long-term basis. It acquires and operates
commercial properties.


AMGEN INC: Ruling Favorable for Class Action Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------
Daniel P. Shapiro, Esq. and Patrick C. Harrigan, Esq., at Katten
Muchin Rosenman, report that in a watershed moment for class
action securities litigation, the Supreme Court issued its opinion
in Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds,
making it easier for plaintiffs to obtain class certification and,
in turn, pressure defendants into exorbitant settlements to avoid
the costs of class action -- and, in many cases, bet-the-company
-- litigation.  The high court ruled that securities-fraud
plaintiffs need not prove the materiality of alleged misstatements
or omissions at the class-certification stage in order to satisfy
Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirement that common questions of law or fact
predominate over individual ones.

Reliance by investors on the alleged misrepresentation is an
essential element of a securities fraud claim under Sec. 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.  In an earlier landmark case,
Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, the Supreme Court recognized the
unrealistic burden of proving direct reliance when plaintiff-
investors trade on impersonal capital markets.  Accordingly, the
Supreme Court endorsed the fraud-on-the-market theory of indirect
reliance on the integrity of the market, which embraces the notion
that our capital markets efficiently digest and incorporate all
public information into a stock's market price.  The fraud-on-the-
market theory enables plaintiffs to invoke a presumption of
reliance on material misrepresentations aired to the public.
(Immaterial information, by definition, does not affect market
price and thus cannot be relied upon by investors who rely on the
market price's integrity.)  Armed with this presumption of
reliance, potential class action plaintiffs are able show that
common questions of reliance predominate for purposes of Rule
23(b)(3) certification.

In Basic, the Supreme Court also established certain predicates to
a plaintiff's invocation of the presumption of reliance --
including materiality.  Under Basic, defendants may rebut the
presumption of reliance by disproving any of the presumption's
predicate elements (materiality and publicity of the alleged
misrepresentation, and efficiency of the market on which the
subject security is traded).  The Amgen case arrived at the
Supreme Court by way of a circuit split over when plaintiffs are
required to prove, and when defendants are permitted to rebut, the
presumption of reliance.

In Amgen, the plaintiff alleged that Amgen violated Sec. 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 through material misrepresentations and omissions
regarding the safety, efficacy, and marketing of two of its
flagship drugs.  The trial court granted plaintiff's motion to
certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3), and, on interlocutory appeal,
the Ninth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Amgen's arguments that the
trial court erred by not requiring proof of materiality and by not
considering Amgen's evidence that the alleged misrepresentations
were immaterial.

In a divisive 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg, the
Supreme Court held that because materiality is also an element of
a Sec. 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim on the merits, proof of
materiality is not a prerequisite to class certification.  The
court reasoned that "the plaintiff's inability to prove
materiality would not result in individual questions
predominating.  Instead, a failure of proof on the issue of
materiality would end the case, given that materiality is an
essential element of the class members' securities-fraud claims."
According to the majority, requiring such proof would have courts
"put the cart before the horse" and "necessitate a mini-trial on
the issue of materiality at the class-certification stage."  For
the same reasons, the court held that the defendants were not
entitled to submit evidence rebutting the presumption of reliance
at the class-certification stage.

Courts (and Congress) have long recognized the "in terrorem"
effect of class certification, as it often pressures defendants
into what some view as extortionate settlements of frivolous
claims.  The Supreme Court overcame Amgen's policy arguments in
this regard by noting that Congress chose not to do away with
Basic's presumption of reliance when it enacted the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which simply created
heightened pleading standards for securities-fraud claims, a
mandatory stay of discovery pending motions to dismiss, and more
exacting lead plaintiff requirements.

From the defense perspective, the court's decision misses the
mark, for several reasons.  First, as the Supreme Court had
recently confirmed in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, the class-
certification analysis is "rigorous" and "entail[s] some overlap
with the merits of the plaintiff's underlying claim."  Thus, the
fact that materiality is not only a predicate to the presumption
of reliance that is necessary for Rule 23(b)(3) certification, but
also an element of a securities-fraud claim, should not bar an
inquiry into proof of materiality (or immateriality) at class
certification.  Moreover, the Basic court established the
rebuttable presumption of reliance -- including the predicates to
invoking that presumption -- in connection with a class-
certification ruling.  The Amgen opinion is, therefore, arguably a
departure from Basic that limits defendants' ability to dispose of
meritless securities-fraud claims in the early stages of
litigation.


AMTRAK: Judge Dismisses Ex-Worker's Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that a California U.S.
District Judge tossed a proposed class action against Amtrak on
March 1, ruling that former station agent Donna Brandon missed
filing deadlines and was sufficiently compensated after claiming
the company didn't reimburse employees for business expenses or
pay them for missed rest periods and meal breaks.  Ms. Brandon was
fired by Amtrak in February 2008.


ARBITRON INC: Defends Merger-Related Class Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Arbitron Inc. is defending a merger-related class action lawsuit
commenced in Delaware, according to the Company's February 25,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On December 17, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger, as amended by Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of January 25, 2013 (the "Merger
Agreement") with Nielsen Holdings N.V., and TNC Sub I Corporation,
a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
Nielsen ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, subject to satisfaction
or waiver of the conditions therein, Merger Sub will merge with
and into the Company (the "Merger") with Arbitron Inc. surviving
as an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Nielsen.

On January 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware regarding the
proposed Merger of Merger Sub, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Nielsen with and into the Company.  The complaint was purportedly
filed on behalf of the public shareholders of the Company, and
names as defendants, the Company, each of the Company's directors,
Merger Sub, and Nielsen.  The Complaint alleges, among other
things, that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to maximize shareholder value in a proposed sale
of the Company.  The Complaint further alleges that the Company's
preliminary proxy statement fails to provide material information
and provides materially misleading information relating to the
Merger and that the Company and Nielsen aided and abetted the
alleged breaches by the Company's directors.  The plaintiff seeks,
among other things, class action status, an injunction preventing
the completion of the Merger (or, if the Merger is completed,
rescinding the Merger or awarding rescissory damages), and the
payment of attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Company says it intends to defend itself and its interests
vigorously against these allegations.  The Company is involved
from time to time in a number of judicial and administrative
proceedings considered ordinary with respect to the nature of the
Company's current and past operations, including employment-
related disputes, contract disputes, government proceedings,
customer disputes, and tort claims.  In some proceedings, the
claimant seeks damages as well as other relief, which, if granted,
would require substantial expenditures on the Company's part.
Some of these matters raise difficult and complex factual and
legal issues, and are subject to many uncertainties, including,
but not limited to, the facts and circumstances of each particular
action, and the jurisdiction, forum and law under which each
action is pending.  Because of this complexity, final disposition
of some of these proceedings may not occur for several years.  As
such, the Company is not always able to estimate the amount of its
possible future liabilities.  There can be no certainty that the
Company will not ultimately incur charges in excess of present or
future established accruals or insurance coverage.  Although
occasional adverse decisions (or settlements) may occur, the
Company believes that the likelihood that final disposition of
these proceedings will, considering the merits of the claims, have
a material adverse impact on the Company's financial position or
results of operations is remote.

Arbitron Inc., a Delaware corporation, was formerly known as
Ceridian Corporation.  Arbitron is a media and marketing
information services firm primarily serving radio, advertisers,
advertising agencies, cable and broadcast television, retailers,
out-of-home media, online media, mobile media, telecommunications
providers, and print media.  The Company is based in Columbia,
Maryland.


AVIS BUDGET: Plans to Respond to Appeals From Calif. Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
On November 14, 2007, two California residents filed a putative
class action lawsuit, captioned Michael Shames et al. v. The Hertz
Corp. et al., No. 07 CV 2174H (S.D. Cal.), against Avis Budget
Group, Inc., six other rental car companies, the California Travel
and Tourism Commission (the "CTTC") and the CTTC's Executive
Director, alleging that the defendants violated federal antitrust
law and California's Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising
Law by allegedly agreeing to pass on airport concession fees and a
state tourism commission assessment to passenger car renters in
California. Through mediation of this matter, the Company reached
a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in May 2012. The
settlement was subsequently reviewed and approved by the district
court on November 5, 2012. Certain members of the class have filed
notices of intent to appeal the settlement agreement. The Company
plans to respond to these appeals in accordance with the briefing
schedule established by the court.

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

Avis Budget Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
car and truck rentals, and ancillary services to businesses and
consumers worldwide.


AVIS BUDGET: Continues to Defend Wage & Hour and Employee Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avis Budget Group, Inc., continues to defend various legal
proceedings related to wage and hour and employee classification
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "The Company is involved in various legal
proceedings related to wage and hour and employee classification
claims. In one such case, in May 2008, a civil collective action
complaint captioned Matt Ravenell v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., Avis
Budget Car Rental, LLC and Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, No. 08 CV
02113 (E.D.N.Y.), was filed against us alleging that the Company
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the State of New York's
labor laws by misclassifying shift managers as employees exempt
from overtime. The plaintiffs, former Avis shift managers, seek to
recover, on behalf of themselves and all other individuals who are
similarly situated, alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well
as attorneys' fees and costs. In addition, two of the named
plaintiffs assert individual claims of retaliation against the
Company. Conditional class certification with respect to
Plaintiff's Fair Labor Standards Act claims was granted to
plaintiffs in July 2010. The parties have begun discovery and the
court has extended the discovery deadline until February 2013. In
another case, a civil collective action complaint, similar to the
Ravenell matter, was filed against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida in September
2010, alleging misclassification of shift managers as exempt from
overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, for which
conditional class certification was granted in 2011. Discovery is
currently underway in this matter. A putative class action is
pending against us in California alleging violations of state law
regarding meal breaks taken by our employees. A second similar
suit pending against us in California is no longer being pursued
as a class action. We intend to continue to vigorously defend
against these suits."

Avis Budget Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
car and truck rentals, and ancillary services to businesses and
consumers worldwide.


AVIS BUDGET: Continues to Defend Zipcar-Related Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Avis Budget Group, Inc., continues to defend class action lawsuits
arising out of the proposed acquisition of Zipcar by the Company,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "In January 2013, six putative class actions
were filed in the Delaware Chancery Court and two putative class
actions were filed in Massachusetts state court arising out of the
proposed acquisition of Zipcar by the Company. The complaints all
generally allege that Zipcar's board of directors breached its
fiduciary duties of care and loyalty by failing to take steps to
maximize the value of Zipcar for its public shareholders and the
complaints further allege that the Company aided and abetted the
breaches of fiduciary duties by Zipcar's board of directors. The
complaints seek injunctive relief or rescission of the transaction
(in the event the proposed transaction has already been
consummated) and other compensatory damages, as well as costs and
disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.
The Delaware cases have been consolidated into a single case, and
plaintiffs in the Massachusetts cases have agreed to seek any pre-
closing relief in the Delaware Chancery Court. No discovery has
yet taken place with respect to this litigation."

Avis Budget Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
car and truck rentals, and ancillary services to businesses and
consumers worldwide.


CARBO CERAMICS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARBO Ceramics Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit, according
to the Company's February 25, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

On February 9, 2012, the Company and two of its officers, Gary A.
Kolstad and Ernesto Bautista III, were named as defendants in a
purported class-action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (the "February SDNY
Lawsuit"), brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
Company's Common Stock between October 27, 2011, and January 26,
2012 (the "Relevant Time Period").  On April 10, 2012, a second
purported class-action lawsuit was filed against the same
defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or sold CARBO Ceramics Inc. option contracts during the
Relevant Time Period (the "April SDNY Lawsuit", and collectively
with the February SDNY Lawsuit, the "Federal Securities Lawsuit").
In June 2012, the February SNDY Lawsuit and the April SDNY Lawsuit
were consolidated, and will now proceed as one lawsuit.  The
Federal Securities Lawsuit alleges violations of the federal
securities laws arising from statements concerning the Company's
business operations and business prospects that were made during
the Relevant Time Period and requests unspecified damages and
costs.  In September 2012, the Company and Messrs. Kolstad and
Bautista filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit.  Response and
reply briefs on this motion were filed during the fourth quarter
of 2012, and a decision from the Court is pending.

While each of the Federal Securities Lawsuit and the June Harris
County Lawsuit are in their preliminary stages, the Company does
not believe they have merit, and plans to vigorously contest and
defend against them.

CARBO Ceramics Inc. is the world's largest supplier of ceramic
proppant and, during 2010, commenced the sale of resin-coated sand
in order to broaden its proppant suite of products. The Company is
the provider of the industry's most popular fracture simulation
software, and a provider of fracture design and consulting
services, and a broad range of technologies for spill prevention,
containment and countermeasures.  The Company was incorporated in
1987 in Delaware and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


CMS ENERGY: Units Still Defending Gas Index Price Reporting Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corporation's subsidiaries continue to defend
themselves in the Gas Index Price Reporting Litigation, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

CMS Energy, along with CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Company
(CMS MST), CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and
Cantera Gas Company, are named as defendants in various lawsuits
arising as a result of alleged inaccurate natural gas price
reporting to publications that report trade information.
Allegations include manipulation of NYMEX natural gas futures and
options prices, price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade, and
artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in Colorado,
Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin.

   * In 2005, CMS Energy, CMS MST, and CMS Field Services were
named as defendants in a putative class action filed in Kansas
state court, Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et al.
The complaint alleges that during the putative class period,
January 1, 2000 through October 31, 2002, the defendants engaged
in a scheme to violate the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act. The
plaintiffs are seeking statutory full consideration damages
consisting of the full consideration paid by plaintiffs for
natural gas allegedly purchased from defendants.

   * In 2007, a class action complaint, Heartland Regional Medical
Center, et al. v. Oneok, Inc. et al., was filed in Missouri state
court alleging violations of Missouri antitrust laws. Defendants,
including CMS Energy, CMS Field Services, and CMS MST, are alleged
to have violated the Missouri antitrust law in connection with
their natural gas reporting activities.

   * Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC and BBD Acquisition Co.
v. Oneok, Inc., et al., a class action complaint brought on behalf
of retail direct purchasers of natural gas in Colorado, was filed
in Colorado state court in 2006. Defendants, including CMS Energy,
CMS Field Services, and CMS MST, are alleged to have violated the
Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992 in connection with their natural
gas reporting activities. Plaintiffs are seeking full refund
damages.

   * A class action complaint, Arandell Corp., et al. v. XCEL
Energy Inc., et al., was filed in 2006 in Wisconsin state court on
behalf of Wisconsin commercial entities that purchased natural gas
between January 1, 2000 and October 31, 2002. The defendants,
including CMS Energy, CMS ERM, and Cantera Gas Company, are
alleged to have violated Wisconsin's antitrust statute. The
plaintiffs are seeking full consideration damages, plus exemplary
damages and attorneys' fees. After dismissal on jurisdictional
grounds in 2009, plaintiffs filed a new complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. In 2010, the
MDL judge issued an opinion and order granting the CMS Energy
defendants' motion to dismiss the Michigan complaint on statute-
of-limitations grounds and all CMS Energy defendants have been
dismissed from the Arandell (Michigan) action.

   * Another class action complaint, Newpage Wisconsin System v.
CMS ERM, et al., was filed in 2009 in circuit court in Wood
County, Wisconsin, against CMS Energy, CMS ERM, Cantera Gas
Company, and others. The plaintiff is seeking full consideration
damages, treble damages, costs, interest, and attorneys' fees.

   * In 2005, J.P. Morgan Trust Company, in its capacity as
Trustee of the FLI Liquidating Trust, filed an action in Kansas
state court against CMS Energy, CMS MST, CMS Field Services, and
others. The complaint alleges various claims under the Kansas
Restraint of Trade Act. The plaintiff is seeking statutory full
consideration damages for its purchases of natural gas in 2000 and
2001.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred
to the MDL. CMS Energy was dismissed from the Learjet, Heartland,
and J.P. Morgan cases in 2009, but other CMS Energy defendants
remained parties. All CMS Energy defendants were dismissed from
the Breckenridge case in 2009. In 2010, CMS Energy and Cantera Gas
Company were dismissed from the Newpage case and the Arandell
(Wisconsin) case was reinstated against CMS ERM. In July 2011, all
claims against remaining CMS Energy defendants in the MDL cases
were dismissed based on FERC preemption. Plaintiffs have filed
appeals in all of the cases. The issues on appeal are whether the
district court erred in dismissing the cases based on FERC
preemption and denying the plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend
their complaints to add a federal Sherman Act antitrust claim. The
plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal of CMS Energy as a
defendant in these cases, but other CMS Energy entities remain as
defendants. Oral argument on the appeal was held before the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in October 2012.

These cases involve complex facts, a large number of similarly
situated defendants with different factual positions, and multiple
jurisdictions. Presently, any estimate of liability would be
highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's possible loss would
be based on widely varying models previously untested in this
context. If the outcome after appeals is unfavorable, these cases
could have a material adverse impact on CMS Energy's liquidity,
financial condition, and results of operations.

CMS Energy Corporation is an energy company operating primarily in
Michigan. CMS Energy is the parent holding company of several
subsidiaries, including Consumers Energy Company (Consumers) and
CMS Enterprises Company (CMS Enterprises). Consumers is an
electric and gas utility, and CMS Enterprises, primarily a
domestic independent power producer.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Continues to Defend ERISA Litigation in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company continues to defend itself in the
proceeding captioned, In re Colgate-Palmolive ERISA Litigation,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

In October 2007, a putative class action claiming that certain
aspects of the cash balance portion of the Colgate-Palmolive
Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan (the Plan) do not comply
with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed against
the Plan and the Company in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. Specifically, Proesel, et al.
v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan, et
al. alleges improper calculation of lump sum distributions, age
discrimination and failure to satisfy minimum accrual
requirements, thereby resulting in the underpayment of benefits to
Plan participants. Two other putative class actions filed earlier
in 2007, Abelman, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees'
Retirement Income Plan, et al., in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, and Caufield v. Colgate-
Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, both
alleging improper calculation of lump sum distributions and, in
the case of Abelman, alleging failure to satisfy minimum accrual
requirements, were transferred to the Southern District of New
York and consolidated with Proesel into one action, In re Colgate-
Palmolive ERISA Litigation. The complaint in the consolidated
action alleges improper calculation of lump sum distributions and
failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, but does not
include a claim for age discrimination. The relief sought includes
recalculation of benefits in unspecified amounts, pre- and post-
judgment interest, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. This
action has not been certified as a class action as yet. The
parties are in discussions via non-binding mediation to determine
whether the action can be settled. The Company and the Plan intend
to contest this action vigorously should the parties be unable to
reach a settlement.

Colgate-Palmolive Company is a consumer products company.
Colgate's products are marketed in over 200 countries and
territories worldwide. It operates in two product segments: Oral,
Personal and Home Care; and Pet Nutrition.


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Launches Defense in Storm Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Marx, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that The
Commonwealth Bank launched its defense in a class action on
March 6 by undermining key planks in the case of alleged corporate
wrongdoing put forward by Storm Financial victims.

Barrister Steven Finch told a Federal Court in Brisbane, in
Australia, that there were fundamental errors in claims that the
bank had participated in an unregistered managed investment scheme
with Storm.  A key feature of such schemes involves the transfer
of property and that did not happen with bank clients, who
borrowed heavily to invest in Storm's index funds, he said.  Mr.
Finch attacked the litigants' pleadings as "deficient" and said
they "do not survive" analysis.  The fact that not all Storm
clients put money in to the same funds exposed a "central
conceptual flaw" of the class action, he said.

"At the very first hurdle, the applicants fail," he told the
court.

Mr. Finch also ridiculed the plaintiffs' heavy reliance on a May
2007 agreement, which had been cited as evidence that the bank and
Storm became joint operators of an unregistered scheme.  The
letter centered on a bank agreement to lift loan-to-value ratios
from 70 per cent to 80 per cent for Storm investors.  But the bank
had been loaning money to Storm clients since 1997 so why was
there a sudden need to register a scheme, Mr. Finch asked.  In
fact, the court heard, the letter was not a contract, not binding
and much of it was later abandoned.

Mr. Finch described it as a "inchoate, amorphous, fluid" document.
Mr. Finch said that Storm boss Emmanuel Cassimatis only signed the
memorandum in July 2007 and it did not take effect until October
that year.

Robert Dubler, the barrister representing nearly 300 Storm victims
seeking up to $600 million in damages, told the court earlier that
the May 2007 agreement "just crosses the line".

He said there was "little doubt the bank was knowingly concerned"
with the scheme.  "The bank ought not to have provided these
loans," Mr. Dubler said.

The class action alleges the bank acted unconscionably, breached
its contract with clients and violated the banking code.

The bank has already agreed to pay almost $270 million after
reaching a negotiated settlement with more than 2000 Storm clients
and the corporate regulator.

About 3000 Storm clients lost about $830 million in the market
crash of late 2008.  Their portfolios were worth $3 billion at the
top of the market.


CROCS INC: Inks Stipulation to Settle Consolidated Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crocs, Inc. said in its February 25, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012, that it entered into a stipulation of
settlement with the plaintiffs of a consolidated securities
lawsuit that would resolve all claims asserted against it.

Starting in November 2007, certain stockholders filed several
purported shareholder class actions in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act based on alleged statements made by the
Company between July 27, 2007, and October 31, 2007.  The Company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors have
been named as defendants in complaints filed by investors in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado.  The
first complaint was filed in November 2007; several other
complaints were filed shortly thereafter. These actions were
consolidated and, in September 2008, the Court appointed a lead
plaintiff and counsel.

An amended consolidated complaint was filed in December 2008.  The
amended complaint purports to state claims under Section 10(b),
20(a), and 20A of the Exchange Act on behalf of a class of all
persons who purchased the Company's stock between April 2, 2007,
and April 14, 2008 (the "Class Period") . The amended complaint
alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made false and
misleading public statements about the Company and its business
and prospects and that, as a result, the market price of the
Company's stock was artificially inflated.  The amended complaint
also claims that certain current and former officers and directors
traded the Company's stock on the basis of material non-public
information.  The amended complaint seeks compensatory damages on
behalf of the alleged class in an unspecified amount, interest and
an award of attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.  On February
28, 2011, the District Court granted motions to dismiss filed by
the defendants and dismissed all claims.  A final judgment was
thereafter entered.  Plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

The Company and those current and former officers and directors
named as defendants have entered into a Stipulation of Settlement
with the plaintiffs that would, if approved by the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado, resolve all claims
asserted against the Company by the plaintiffs on behalf of the
putative class, and plaintiffs' appeal would be dismissed.  The
Company's independent auditor is not a party to the Stipulation of
Settlement.  The Stipulation of Settlement is subject to customary
conditions, including preliminary court approval, and final court
approval following notice to stockholders.  If the settlement
becomes final, all amounts required by the settlement will be paid
by the Company's insurers.  There can be no assurance that the
settlement will be finally approved by the District Court, or that
approval by the District Court will, if challenged, be upheld by
the Tenth Circuit.

Crocs, Inc. http://www.crocs.com/-- is a designer, manufacturer
and distributor of footwear and accessories for men, women and
children.  The Company is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Niwot, Colorado.


DENDREON CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dendreon Corporation's motion to dismiss a consolidated class
action lawsuit remains pending, according to the Company's
February 25, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company and three current and former officers are named
defendants in a consolidated putative securities class action
proceeding filed in August 2011 with the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington (the "District
Court") under the caption In re Dendreon Corporation Class Action
Litigation, Master Docket No. C11-1291 JLR.  Lead Plaintiff, San
Mateo County Employees Retirement Association purports to state
claims for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a
class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between
April 29, 2010, and August 3, 2011.  A consolidated amended
complaint was filed on February 24, 2012.  In general, the
complaints allege that the defendants issued materially false or
misleading statements concerning the Company, its finances,
business operations and prospects with a focus on the market
launch of PROVENGE and related forecasts concerning physician
adoption, and revenue from sales of PROVENGE as reflected in the
Company's August 3, 2011 release of its financial results for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.  The Company and other defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on
April 27, 2012, and that motion is fully briefed.  The Court has
indicated that it wishes to hear argument on the motion, but no
hearing has yet been scheduled.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of that motion or of these
lawsuits; however, the Company believes the claims lack merit and
intends to defend the claims vigorously.  The ultimate financial
impact of these proceedings if any is not yet determinable and
therefore, no provision for loss, if any, has been recorded in the
financial statements.  The Company has insurance that it believes
affords coverage for much of the anticipated costs of these
proceedings, subject to the policies' terms and conditions

Dendreon Corporation -- http://www.dendreon.com/-- is a
biotechnology company that engages in the discovery, development,
and commercialization of novel therapeutics to enhance cancer
treatment options for patients.  The Company was founded in 1992
and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington.


DIGGIN' YOUR DOG: Recalls Strippin' Chicks(TM) Pet Treats
---------------------------------------------------------
Diggin' Your Dog(TM) are voluntarily withdrawing one lot of its
Strippin' Chicks(TM) Pet Treats produced on 8-30-12 because they
have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.  The sample
was obtained in Colorado and the company has accounted for its
distribution in Colorado of this lot.

No other Diggin' Your Dog(TM) products, lots, or production dates
are affected.

The lot being voluntarily withdrawn is: Strippin' Chicks(TM) Pet
Treats 5 oz Bag. Lot Code 250322 Use By Date: 2-23-14.  Picture of
the recalled products' label is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm342972.htm

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever.
Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including
arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye
irritation, and urinary tract symptoms.  Consumers exhibiting
these signs after having contact with this product should contact
their healthcare providers.

Animals with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting.  Some animals
will have only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain.
Infected but otherwise healthy animals can be carriers and infect
other animals or humans.  If the customers' animals have consumed
the recalled product and have these symptoms, customers are
advised to contact their veterinarian.

Diggin' Your Dog(TM) takes the matter of consumer protection and
safety very seriously and strives to deliver only the safest
products available.

Diggin' Your Dog(TM) is committed to providing the highest-quality
pet treats possible to their customers.  As a precautionary
measure, Diggin' Your Dog(TM) will continue to produce all
products in very small, handmade lot batches.

No Other Diggin' Your Dog(TM) products are affected by this
voluntary withdrawal.  Customers who have purchased this lot code
are urged to stop feeding the product to their pet, remove the lot
code from the packaging, and discard the contents.

A full refund, plus $1.00 to cover postage will be received by
mailing the UPC and lot code to: Diggin Your Dog, LLC, PO Box
17306 Reno, NV 89511.

All refunds will be processed within ten business days (plus
postage time).

Diggin' Your Dog(TM) values the efforts of all agencies dedicated
to the safety of the industry and is committed to consumer safety
at all levels.

For questions or more information, contact Diggin' Your Dog(TM):

   * By phone at 775-742-7295 Mon-Fri 8:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
     Pacific Standard Time.

   * E-mail the Company at info@dydusa.com


DIRECTV: Appeal From Arbitration Denial Pending in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTV's appeal from an order denying their request to compel
arbitration of claims seeking injunctive relief remains pending in
certain class action lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "In 2008, a number of plaintiffs filed
putative class action lawsuits in state and federal courts
challenging the early cancellation fees we assess our customers
when they do not fulfill their programming commitments. Several of
these lawsuits are pending, some in California state court
purporting to represent statewide classes, and some in federal
courts purporting to represent nationwide classes. The lawsuits
seek both monetary and injunctive relief. While the theories of
liability vary, the lawsuits generally challenge these fees under
state consumer protection laws as both unfair and inadequately
disclosed to customers. Our motions to compel arbitration have
been granted in all of the federal cases, except as to claims
seeking injunctive relief under California statutes. The denial of
our motion as to those claims is currently on appeal. We believe
that our early cancellation fees are adequately disclosed, and
represent reasonable estimates of the costs we incur when
customers cancel service before fulfilling their programming
commitments."

DIRECTV is a provider of digital television entertainment in the
United States and Latin America.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Bradley" Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit initiated by Walter Bradley, et al.,
according to a Form 10-K filed by Discover Card Execution Note
Trust, Discover Card Master Trust I, and Discover Bank with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
November 30, 2012.

On November 30, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Discover Financial Services by a Discover Bank cardmember in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(Walter Bradley et al. v. Discover Financial Services). The
plaintiff alleges that Discover contacted him, and members of the
class he seeks to represent, on their cellular telephones without
their express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"). Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for
alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys'
fees, costs and injunctive relief. The TCPA provides for statutory
damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500 for willful
violations).

Discover Financial Services is a direct banking and payment
services company. The Company is a bank holding company and a
financial holding company. The Company offer credit cards, student
loans, personal loans and deposit products through its Discover
Bank subsidiary and home loans through its Discover Home Loans,
Inc. subsidiary (Discover Home Loans).


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Steinfeld" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit initiated by Andrew Steinfeld, according to a
Form 10-K filed by Discover Card Execution Note Trust, Discover
Card Master Trust I, and Discover Bank with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended November 30,
2012.

On March 6, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Discover Financial Services by a Discover Bank cardmember in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(Andrew Steinfeld v. Discover Financial Services, DFS Services LLC
and Discover Bank). The plaintiff alleges that Discover contacted
him, and members of the class he seeks to represent, on their
cellular telephones without their express consent in violation of
the TCPA. Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for alleged negligent
and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs and
injunctive relief. The TCPA provides for statutory damages of $500
for each violation ($1,500 for willful violations).

Discover Financial Services is a direct banking and payment
services company. The Company is a bank holding company and a
financial holding company. The Company offer credit cards, student
loans, personal loans and deposit products through its Discover
Bank subsidiary and home loans through its Discover Home Loans,
Inc. subsidiary (Discover Home Loans).


ELI LILLY: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits Over Actos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company continues to defend class action lawsuits
related to the diabetes medication Actos, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "We have been named along with Takeda Chemical
Industries, Ltd., and Takeda affiliates as a defendant in product
liability cases in the U.S. related to the diabetes medication
Actos, which we co-promoted with Takeda in the U.S. from 1999
until September 2006. In addition, we have been named along with
Takeda as a defendant in four purported product liability class
actions in Canada related to Actos, including two in Ontario
(Casseres et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et
al. and Brewer et al. v. Takeda Canada et al.), one in Quebec
(Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly et al.), and one in Alberta (Epp v.
Takeda Canada et al.). We have also been named along with Takeda
in an individual action for damages in Ontario, Canada (Antonacci
v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd, et al.). We promoted Actos
in Canada until 2009. In general, plaintiffs in these actions
allege that Actos caused or contributed to their bladder cancer.
Under our agreement with Takeda, we will be indemnified by Takeda
for our losses and expenses with respect to the U.S. litigation
and we will indemnify Takeda for their losses and expenses with
respect to the Canadian litigation. We believe these claims are
without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously."

Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
products, in one business segment, pharmaceutical products. The
Company also has an animal health business segment. It
manufactures and distributes its products through facilities in
the United States, Puerto Rico, and 15 other countries.


ELI LILLY: Still Defending Class Suit Over Cymbalta in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company continues to defend a class action lawsuit
involving Cymbalta, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "In October 2012, we were named as a defendant
in a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Saavedra et al v. Eli Lilly
and Company) involving Cymbalta. The plaintiffs assert claims
under the consumer protection statutes of four states and seek
declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief for various alleged
injuries arising from discontinuing treatment with Cymbalta. The
plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all persons within the
U.S. who purchased and/or paid for Cymbalta. We believe these
claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them
vigorously."

Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
products, in one business segment, pharmaceutical products. The
Company also has an animal health business segment. It
manufactures and distributes its products through facilities in
the United States, Puerto Rico, and 15 other countries.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Seeks Dismissal of Consumer Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Overley, writing for Law360,reports that pharmacy benefit
manager Express Scripts Inc. on March 4 asked a New Jersey federal
judge to dispense with a proposed consumer class action seeking a
wider recall of glass-tainted pills made by Ranbaxy Laboratories
Ltd., saying the court has no authority to intrude on regulators'
turf.  In its motion to dismiss, Express Scripts attacked the
lawsuit as an affront to the expertise of the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration.


FACEBOOK INC: Pay-Per-Click Marketers Seek to Revive Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that two pay-per-click
marketers have asked a federal appellate court to allow them to
proceed with a class-action lawsuit against the social networking
service.

The companies -- Fox Test Prep and Steven Price, who operates the
car site DriveDownPrices.com -- say that Facebook violated its
contract with pay-per-click marketers by charging them for invalid
clicks.  Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton in
the Northern District of California ruled that the marketers
couldn't bring the lawsuit as a class-action.  Her ruling still
allows companies to proceed individually, but doing so is often
prohibitively expensive.

The marketers are now asking the 9th Circuit to reverse Judge
Hamilton's ruling.  Fox Test and Price say the lawsuit raises
questions that are common to all of Facebook's pay-per-click
marketers, and therefore should be certified as a class-action.

"Whether Facebook breached the uniform contract here is the
common, indeed the predominant, issue that will be determined by
the same proof for plaintiffs and all proposed class members,"
they argue in papers made available late last week.

The case dates to 2009, when Price, Fox Test and other pay-per-
click marketers sued the social networking service for allegedly
charging them for invalid clicks.  Three years ago, U.S. District
Court Judge Jeremy Fogel in San Jose, Calif., ruled that
Facebook's contract with marketers disclaimed liability for clicks
that were "fraudulent" in the sense that the clicker had dubious
intentions.  But Judge Fogel ruled that the disclaimer didn't
apply to clicks that were "invalid" -- such as when technical
problems prevented users from reaching a landing page.

In denying the motion for class certification, Judge Hamilton
ruled that the marketers hadn't shown there was a uniform method
for determining which clicks were invalid.

The marketers now argue that conclusion was wrong.  "Because
Facebook's rules for distinguishing between valid and invalid
clicks are based on uniform, automated computer algorithms,
plaintiffs' claims do not require resolution of Facebook's
culpability on a plaintiff-by-plaintiff basis," the marketers say
in their brief.  "Whether plaintiffs win or lose, their claims
will rise and fall together."

Federal appellate courts don't appear to have previously ruled on
whether pay-per-click marketers can bring class-actions stemming
from alleged overcharging.  Trial judges have confronted that
question, but have reached different conclusions.

In 2012, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila in the Northern
District of California ruled that search marketers that sued
Google about ads on parked domains and error pages -- which people
tend to visit after mistyping a URL -- were not entitled to class-
action status.  But in 2009, U.S. District Court Judge Christina
Snyder in the Central District of California allowed pay-per-click
marketers to proceed in a click fraud lawsuit against IAC's
Citysearch.  That case ultimately was settled, according to court
records.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Continues to Defend Bruce Mansfield Plant Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In July 2008, three complaints representing multiple plaintiffs
were filed against FirstEnergy Generation, LLC (FG), a subsidiary
of FirstEnergy Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on air emissions
from the coal-fired Bruce Mansfield Plant.  Two of these
complaints also seek to enjoin the Bruce Mansfield Plant from
operating except in a "safe, responsible, prudent and proper
manner."  One complaint was filed on behalf of twenty-one
individuals and the other is a class action complaint seeking
certification as a class with the eight named plaintiffs as the
class representatives.  FG believes the claims are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations
made in these complaints, but, at this time, is unable to predict
the outcome of this matter or estimate the possible loss or range
of loss.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 25,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

FirstEnergy Corp. -- http://www.firstenergycorp.com/-- is a
holding company organized in Ohio in 1996, and is based in Akron,
Ohio.  FirstEnergy's revenues are primarily derived from electric
service provided by its utility operating subsidiaries and the
sale of energy and related products and services by its
unregulated competitive subsidiaries.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Ohio High Court Sends Fraud Claims to PUCO
------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that jurisdiction on the issue
relating to an allegation of fraud resides with the Public
Utilities Commission of Ohio, not civil court, according to
FirstEnergy Corp.'s February 25, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In February 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in Geauga
County Court of Common Pleas against FirstEnergy, The Cleveland
Electric Illuminating Company, an Ohio electric utility operating
subsidiary, and Ohio Edison Company, an Ohio electric utility
operating subsidiary seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive
relief, and compensatory, incidental and consequential damages,
related to the reduction of a discount that had previously been in
place for residential customers with electric heating, electric
water heating, or load management systems.  The reduction in the
discount had been approved by the Public Utilities Commission of
Ohio (PUCO).  The court granted the defendant companies' motion to
dismiss which was affirmed on appeal on all counts except for one
relating to an allegation of fraud which was remanded to the trial
court.  The defendant companies appealed to the Supreme Court of
Ohio on December 5, 2011, challenging this one aspect of the case.
The Supreme Court of Ohio found in favor of the defendant
companies on November 28, 2012, ruling that jurisdiction on the
issue raised resides with the PUCO, not civil court.

FirstEnergy Corp. -- http://www.firstenergycorp.com/-- is a
holding company organized in Ohio in 1996, and is based in Akron,
Ohio.  FirstEnergy's revenues are primarily derived from electric
service provided by its utility operating subsidiaries and the
sale of energy and related products and services by its
unregulated competitive subsidiaries.


FRS COMPANY: To Defend False Advertising Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Ray Latif, writing for BevNet, reports that faced with a class-
action lawsuit alleging that the company's ties to disgraced
cyclist Lance Armstrong resulted in false advertising, FRS issued
a statement furiously denying the claims and vowing to fight the
case.

The recently filed lawsuit centers on Armstrong's admission that
he used illegal performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) during his time
as an endorser of FRS products.  The suit alleges that consumers
were misled to believe that Armstrong's athletic accomplishments
were a result of his use of FRS nutritional products.  The
plaintiffs claim that consumers would not have purchased the
company's drinks and energy chews had they known that it was
actually PEDs that gave him a significant edge.

FRS, which last October severed ties with Armstrong, called the
lawsuit "completely ludicrous," and said that the case "could
serve as the poster child for the need for legal reform of abusive
class action litigation."

"Unfortunately, the food industry has become the target of class
action lawyers hoping to extract settlements from companies and
their investors," FRS said.

This is the second class-action to hit FRS this year.  In January,
the company was sued by a plaintiff who claims that its Healthy
Slim product line does not actually work as advertised in
contributing to weight loss and appetite suppression.

                          Company Statement

The FRS Company on March 5 issued the following statement:

"On March 1, we were informed of a potential class action suit
against The FRS Company, alleging that we engaged in false
advertising as a result of our affiliation with Lance Armstrong.
We find the lawsuit to be frivolous and we plan to defend
ourselves vigorously."

Here are the facts:

    Consumers use FRS products because they work.  FRS has been
shown to deliver sustained energy, increased endurance, and immune
system support along with many other health benefits.

    The patented FRS formula features quercetin, a powerful, all-
natural antioxidant that is found in foods such as blueberries,
red apples and grapes, as well as green tea extracts and essential
vitamins.

    Our claims are backed by solid scientific evidence, including
multiple clinical trials and published academic literature.

"Lance's admission surprised us, along with millions of his fans.
To accuse FRS of false advertising due to its affiliation with
Mr. Armstrong while we had no knowledge of his actions is
completely ludicrous.  Lance believed in FRS products, and used
them as part of his daily training regimen, as do many other elite
athletes.  Unfortunately, the food industry has become the target
of class action lawyers hoping to extract settlements from
companies and their investors.  This case could serve as a "poster
child" for the need for legal reform of abusive class action
litigation."


H.J. HEINZ: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
H. J. Heinz Company continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits related to a merger agreement with Berkshire
Hathaway and 3G Capital, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended January 27, 2013.

The Company is aware that, shortly following the announcement of
the merger, several putative class action and/or shareholder
derivative complaints challenging the merger were filed in the
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, against various combinations of the Company, 3G
Capital, Berkshire Hathaway, Hawk Acquisition Holding Corp., Hawk
Acquisition Sub, Inc., and the individual members of the Company's
Board of Directors.

The complaints generally allege that the members of the Company's
Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's shareholders by entering into the merger agreement,
approving the proposed merger and failing to take steps to
maximize the Company's value to its shareholders, and that the
corporate defendants aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary
duties. In addition, the complaints allege that the proposed
merger improperly favors 3G Capital and Berkshire Hathaway and
that certain provisions of the merger agreement unduly restrict
the Company's ability to negotiate with other potential bidders.
The complaints generally seek, among other things, declaratory and
injunctive relief, preliminary injunctive relief prohibiting or
delaying the defendants from consummating the merger, other forms
of equitable relief, and unspecified amounts of damages. The
defendants believe that these lawsuits are without merit and plan
to defend them vigorously. Additional lawsuits arising out of or
relating to the merger agreement or the merger may be filed in the
future. There is no assurance that the Company or any of the other
defendants will be successful in the outcome of the pending or any
potential future lawsuits.

H. J. Heinz Company together with its subsidiaries is engaged in
manufacturing and marketing a range of food products throughout
the world. The Company's principal products include ketchup,
condiments and sauces, frozen food, soups, beans and pasta meals,
infant nutrition and other food products.


HEWLETT PACKARD: PGGM Appointed as Class Action Lead Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Investment & Pension Europe reports that a US district judge in
San Francisco has appointed PGGM as lead plaintiff in a lawsuit
brought by a group of investors against Hewlett Packard (HP).

The computer company last November disclosed an $8.8 billion
(EUR6.7 billion) writedown related to UK software company
Autonomy, which was bought out by HP in 2011.  The software maker
allegedly misrepresented its revenue and was consequently worth
far less than the $10.3 billion HP paid for it at the time.  The
disclosure caused HP stock to plummet to the lowest value since
October 2002.  The investors now seek to recoup the losses they
incurred from the company.

According to the judge, PGGM should serve as lead plaintiff in the
class action lawsuit, as it suffered the greatest financial loss,
estimated at more than $35 million.

PGGM's US attorney told Bloomberg that a new consolidated
complaint would be filed within 60 days.

PGGM is not the only Dutch plaintiff involved in the class action
against HP.

A spokesperson at MN, the pensions manager for Dutch metalworkers,
told IPE sister publication IPNederland: "We are part of the class
action as well, although our financial interest in the suit is
relatively small.

"If a settlement should be reached, we will file a claim
commensurate with the losses we incurred."


IMAX CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in U.S. & Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
IMAX Corporation continues to defend itself against securities
class action lawsuits pending in the United States and Canada,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named
as defendants in eight purported class action lawsuits filed
between August 11, 2006 and September 18, 2006, alleging
violations of U.S. federal securities laws. These eight actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. On January 18, 2007, the Court consolidated all eight
class action lawsuits and appointed Westchester Capital
Management, Inc. as the lead plaintiff and Abbey Spanier Rodd &
Abrams, LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel.

On October 2, 2007, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint. The amended complaint, brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock on the
NASDAQ between February 27, 2003 and July 20, 2007 (the "U.S.
Class"), alleges primarily that the defendants engaged in
securities fraud by disseminating materially false and misleading
statements during the class period regarding the Company's revenue
recognition of theater system installations, and failing to
disclose material information concerning the Company's revenue
recognition practices. The amended complaint also added
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Company's auditors, as a
defendant.

On April 14, 2011, the Court issued an order appointing The Merger
Fund as the lead plantiff and Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP as
lead plantiff's counsel. On November 2, 2011, the parties entered
into a memorandum of understanding containing the terms and
conditions of a settlement of this action.

On January 26, 2012, the parties executed and filed with the Court
a formal stipulation of settlement and proposed form of notice to
the class, which the Court preliminarily approved on February 1,
2012. Under the terms of the settlement, members of the U.S. Class
who did not opt out of the settlement will release defendants from
liability for all claims that were alleged in this action or could
have been alleged in this action or any other proceeding
(including the action in Canada) relating to the purchase of IMAX
securities on the NASDAQ from February 27, 2003 and July 20, 2007
or the subject matter and facts relating to this action.

As part of the settlement and in exchange for the release,
defendants will pay $12.0 million to a settlement fund which
amount will be funded by the carriers of the Company's directors
and officers insurance policy and by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.
On March 26, 2012, the parties executed and filed with the Court
an amended formal stipulation of settlement and proposed form of
notice to the class, which the court preliminarily approved on
March 28, 2012.

On June 20, 2012, the court issued an order granting final
approval of the settlement. The settlement is conditioned on the
Company's receipt of an order from the court in the Canadian
Action excluding from the class in the Canadian Action every
member of the class in both actions who has not opted out of the
U.S. settlement. The hearing on the motion for the order from the
court in the Canadian Action occurred on July 30, 2012 and a
decision from the court is pending.

                         Canadian Action

A class action lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2006 in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors, alleging violations of Canadian
securities laws. This lawsuit was brought on behalf of
shareholders who acquired the Company's securities between
February 17, 2006 and August 9, 2006. The lawsuit seeks $210.0
million in compensatory and punitive damages, as well as costs.
For reasons released December 14, 2009, the Court granted leave to
the Plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to plead certain
claims pursuant to the Securities Act (Ontario) against the
Company and certain individuals and granted certification of the
action as a class proceeding. These are procedural decisions, and
do not contain any conclusions binding on a judge at trial as to
the factual or legal merits of the claim. Leave to appeal those
decisions was denied.

The Company believes the allegations made against it in the
statement of claim are meritless and will vigorously defend the
matter, although no assurance can be given with respect to the
ultimate outcome of such proceedings. The Company's directors and
officers insurance policy provides for reimbursement of costs and
expenses incurred in connection with this lawsuit as well as
potential damages awarded, if any, subject to certain policy
limits, exclusions and deductibles.

IMAX Corporation, together with its wholly owned subsidiaries, is
an entertainment technology companies, specializing in motion
picture technologies and presentations. The Company's principal
business is the design and manufacture of premium theater systems
(IMAX theater systems) and the sale, lease or contribution to
customers under revenue-sharing arrangements of IMAX theater
systems.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Stay of Gainesville Plant-Related Suit Lifted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings Inc. disclosed in its February 25, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012, that the stay of proceedings in
the class action lawsuit arising from the operations of Koppers
Holdings Inc.'s former plant in Gainesville was recently lifted.

Koppers Inc. operated a utility pole treatment plant in
Gainesville, Florida, from December 29, 1988, until its closure in
2009.  The property upon which the utility pole treatment plant
was located was sold by Koppers Inc. to Beazer East, Inc. in 2010.

In November 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit located in Alachua
County, Florida, by residential real property owners located in a
neighborhood west of and immediately adjacent to the former
utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville.  The complaint named
Koppers Holdings Inc., Koppers Inc., Beazer East and several other
parties as defendants.  The complaint alleges that chemicals and
dust from the plant have contaminated and impacted plaintiffs'
properties by reducing the fair market value.  The complaint seeks
injunctive relief and compensatory damages for diminution in
property values and for plaintiffs' loss of use and enjoyment of
the properties.

The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Florida in December 2010.  Koppers Holdings
Inc. filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over it.  The Court has not yet ruled on
Koppers Holdings Inc.'s motion to dismiss.  Discovery and all
prior deadlines were stayed for nine months until January 2013
while the parties explored settlement possibilities.  The stay was
recently lifted and plaintiffs have indicated that they will file
another amended complaint which further expands the boundaries of
the "class affected area," introduces arsenic and hexavalent
chromium as additional "contaminants" of concern, adds multiple
new defendants and injects additional causes of action into the
case.  The Court has not yet scheduled a class certification
hearing or trial.

The Company has not provided a reserve for this matter because, at
this time, it cannot reasonably determine the probability of a
loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated.  The timing of resolution of this case cannot be
reasonably determined.  Although the Company is vigorously
defending this case, an unfavorable resolution of this matter may
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

Based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Koppers Holdings Inc. was
incorporated in November 2004 as a holding company for Koppers
Inc.  The Company is an integrated global provider of carbon
compounds and commercial wood treatment products and services.


LEAD IMPACTED: Judge Reviews Picher Residents' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Melinda Stotts, writing for Miami News Record, reports that Tulsa
County Associate District Judge Dana Kuehn is reviewing lawsuits
filed in 2009 by more than 200 former Picher residents against the
Lead Impacted Communities Relocation Assistance Trust (LICRAT) to
determine if the suits should be combined into a class-action
lawsuit.

The Picher property owners, who allege they received unfair,
undervalued appraisals from LICRAT, are seeking recovery of money
they believe they were underpaid.  Trust officers and appraisal
companies, meanwhile, defend the buyout offers saying they were
fair and equitable.

Judge Kuehn is holding the lawsuits in abeyance until her decision
is rendered on the class-action status.  The judge predicted she
should have a decision soon in the matter.

The former residents of the mining towns of Picher, Cardin and
Hockerville were offered buyouts from LICRAT, which was formed in
2006 to conduct the buyout process.  Hundreds of properties were
involved in the $45-million buyout after studies conducted by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers found residents to be at a high risk
of cave-ins, and the EPA declared the area lead contaminated.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs, John Wiggins and Jeff Marrs, and the
defendant's attorneys, Robert Bartz and Joe Fears for Cinnebar
Service Company, one of the appraisal companies used, argued for
and against the issue of combining the cases at a hearing held in
Tulsa on March 1.

On Feb. 22 the plaintiffs dismissed J.D. Strong, the former
Oklahoma Secretary of Environment who served as an advisor for
Governor Brad Henry, and Larry Roberts, the operations manager of
the trust, as defendants in the cases with prejudice.

LICRAT trustees listed in 2010 are Virgil Jurgensmeyer, John
Lomax, Kim Pace, Mike Sexton, Tamara Smiley, Jim Thompson, Janelle
Trimble, Bob Walker and Mark Osborn.

The town of Picher is in EPA Region 6.  The destruction of 150
homes caused by a EF-4 tornado in 2008 also impacted the need for
families to move faster into the federal-buyout program.  Most
families moved out of town, relocating into nearby towns, because
of the undermining, groundwater contamination and potential health
hazards.  Six families and one business refused to leave.

The town was dissolved officially on Sep. 1, 2009, and went from a
2000 census figure of 1,640 residents in 621 households to 20
residents in 2010.  Most of the town's buildings have now been
demolished, only a few remain.


LINKEDIN CORP: Privacy Breach Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila granted, without prejudice,
LinkedIn Corporation's motion to dismiss a first amended
consolidated complaint in IN RE LINKEDIN USER PRIVACY LITIGATION,
Case No. 5:12-CV-03088 EJD, (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Katie Szpyrka and Khalilah Wright brought the putative
class action against LinkedIn as a result of a data breach that
occurred on June 6, 2012.

The Court found that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet the
requirements of Article III of the U.S. Constitution.  To satisfy
Article III standing, the Plaintiff must allege: (1) an injury in
fact that is concrete and particularized, as well as actual and
imminent; (2) that the injury is fairly traceable to the
challenged action of the Defendant; and (3) that it is likely (not
merely speculative) that injury will be redressed by a favorable
decision.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Complaint is dismissed
with leave to amend.  Any amended complaint must be file within 30
days of the filing of the Order.

A copy of the District Court's March 6, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/szlMMpfrom Leagle.com.


MEAD JOHNSON: Distribution in Class Suit Settlement Almost Done
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit filed by
consumers against a subsidiary of Mead Johnson Nutrition Company
became final in October 2012 and distribution to class members is
substantially complete, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

On November 14, 2011, the Company's subsidiary Mead Johnson &
Company, LLC ("MJC") obtained final trial court approval of a
nationwide class settlement with plaintiffs in eight putative
consumer class actions that had been consolidated and transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The suits all involved allegations of false and misleading
advertising with respect to certain Enfamil LIPIL infant formula
advertising.  The settlement allows consumers who purchased
Enfamil LIPIL infant formula between October 13, 2005, and
March 31, 2010, to receive infant formula or cash.  The period for
submitting claims now has expired, and the total amount claimed by
class members was less than $8.0 million.  As a result and
consistent with the Company's previously reported obligations
under the settlement agreement, MJC has distributed the difference
between $8.0 million and the total amount claimed in the form of
infant formula to Feeding America, the nation's largest domestic
hunger relief charity.  MJC also agreed not to oppose, and the
court approved, attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs'
counsel of $3.5 million and $140,000, respectively.

MJC agreed to pay costs of notice and settlement administration.
The trial court's approval of the settlement was affirmed on
appeal, and the settlement became final in October 2012. The
distribution to class members is substantially complete.

Mead Johnson Nutrition Company is a global pediatric nutrition
company. The Company manufactures, distributes and sells infant
formulas, children's nutrition and other nutritional products.


NSP-MINNESOTA: Appeal From "Comer II" Suit Dismissal Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the class action lawsuit captioned
Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc., et al., remains pending, according to
the February 25, 2013 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012, of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota
corporation.

In May 2011, less than a year after their initial lawsuit was
dismissed, plaintiffs in this purported class action lawsuit filed
a second lawsuit against more than 85 utility, oil, chemical and
coal companies in the U.S. District Court in Mississippi.  The
complaint alleges defendants' CO2 emissions intensified the
strength of Hurricane Katrina and increased the damage plaintiffs
purportedly sustained to their property.  Plaintiffs base their
claims on public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence.
Among the defendants named in the complaint are Xcel Energy Inc.
and NSP-Minnesota.  The amount of damages claimed by plaintiffs is
unknown.  The defendants believe this lawsuit is without merit and
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  In March 2012, the U.S.
District Court granted this motion for dismissal.  In April 2012,
plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.  Although Xcel Energy Inc. believes the
likelihood of loss is remote based primarily on existing case law,
it is not possible to estimate the amount or range of reasonably
possible loss in the event of an adverse outcome of this matter.
No accrual has been recorded for this matter.

Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, was
incorporated in 2000 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel
Energy Inc.  NSP-Minnesota is an operating utility primarily
engaged in the generation, purchase, transmission, distribution
and sale of electricity in Minnesota, North Dakota and South
Dakota.  The Company is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota.


PEABODY ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of "UMWA" Suit in West Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peabody Energy Corporation is seeking dismissal of a class action
lawsuit filed by the United Mine Workers of America, et al.,
according to the Company's February 25, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

On October 23, 2012, eight individual plaintiffs and the United
Mine Workers of America filed a putative class action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
against Peabody Holding Company, LLC, Peabody Energy Corporation
and an unrelated coal company.  The lawsuit seeks to have the
court obligate the defendants to maintain certain Patriot Coal
Corporation benefit plans at their current levels and to find the
defendants' actions in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.  On January 7, 2013, the Company defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.  The plaintiffs thereafter
amended their complaint to include new allegations and name two
more individuals as plaintiffs.  The Company defendants updated
their motion to dismiss to respond to the new allegations and
filed it on February 20, 2013.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and will
vigorously defend against it.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, Peabody Energy Corporation
is a private-sector coal producer that operates some 28 mines and
processing facilities in the Unites States and Australia.


PG&E CORP: Still Defending Class Suits Over San Bruno Incident
--------------------------------------------------------------
At December 31, 2012, approximately 140 lawsuits involving
third-party claims for personal injury and property damage,
including two class action lawsuits, had been filed against PG&E
Corporation and Pacific Gas And Electric Company (the Utility) in
connection with the San Bruno accident on behalf of approximately
450 plaintiffs.  [On September 9, 2010, a 30-inch diameter natural
gas transmission pipeline, owned and operated by Pacific Gas and
Electric Company ruptured in San Bruno, California.  Gas escaping
from the rupture ignited resulting in the loss of eight lives,
injuries to 58 people, destruction of 38 homes, and damage to 70
other homes.]  The lawsuits seek compensation for personal injury
and property damage, and other relief, including punitive damages.
These cases have been coordinated and assigned to one judge in the
San Mateo County Superior Court.  The trial of the first group of
remaining cases began on January 2, 2013 with pretrial motions and
hearings.  On January 14, 2013, the court vacated the trial and
all pending hearings due to the significant number of cases that
have been settled outside of court.  The court has urged the
parties to settle the remaining cases.  As of February 8, 2013,
the Utility has entered into settlement agreements to resolve the
claims of approximately 140 plaintiffs.  It is uncertain whether
or when the Utility will be able to resolve the remaining claims
through settlement.

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

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


PG&E CORP: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Set for April 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing to consider a motion to dismiss a complaint filed by
individuals who seek certification of a class consisting of all
California residents who were customers of Pacific Gas And
Electric Company between 1997 and 2010 has been set for April 26,
2013, according to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

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

In January 2013, PG&E Corporation and the Utility requested that
the court dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the CPUC has
exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues raised by the
plaintiffs' allegations.  In the alternative, PG&E Corporation and
the Utility requested that the court stay the proceeding until the
CPUC investigations are concluded.  The court has set a hearing on
the motion for April 26, 2013.

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


PLAINS EXPLORATION: Hearing in Consolidated Suits Set for April 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing has been scheduled in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware for April 5, 2013, at which time the court will hear
oral argument in three consolidated class actions against Plains
Exploration & Production Company, et al., according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012

The Company states: "On December 5, 2012, the Company entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger, or the Freeport-McMoRan Merger
Agreement, with Freeport-McMoRan and IMONC LLC, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Freeport-McMoRan, or the Merger Sub, pursuant to
which we will merge with and into the Merger Sub with the Merger
Sub continuing as the surviving company and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Freeport-McMoRan.

"Between December 11, 2012 and December 20, 2012, three putative
class actions challenging the merger were filed on behalf of PXP
stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware:
Rice v. Plains Exploration & Production Co. et al., No. 8090-VCN,
filed on December 11, 2012; MARTA/ATU Local 732 Employees
Retirement Plan v. Plains Exploration & Production Co. et al., No.
8135-VCN, filed on December 20, 2012; and Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System v. Arnold et al.,
No. 8141-VCN, also filed on December 20, 2012. The actions name as
defendants PXP, the directors of PXP, Freeport-McMoRan, and a
Freeport-McMoRan subsidiary. The actions allege that PXP's
directors breached their fiduciary duties because they, among
other things, pursued their own interests at the expense of
stockholders and failed to maximize stockholder value with respect
to the merger, and that Freeport-McMoRan and a
Freeport-McMoRan subsidiary aided and abetted the breach of
fiduciary duties by PXP's directors. The actions seek as relief an
injunction barring or rescinding the merger, damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs. On January 7, 2013, the MARTA/ATU Local
732 Employees Retirement Plan action was voluntarily dismissed by
the plaintiff. On January 15, 2013, the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware entered an order consolidating the two remaining
actions under the caption In re Plains Exploration & Production
Company Stockholder Litigation, No. 8090-VCN, and appointing co-
lead counsel for the plaintiffs.

"In addition, ten putative class actions challenging the MMR
Merger have been filed on behalf of McMoRan stockholders. Nine of
these actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware: Krieger v. McMoRan Exploration Co. et al., No. 8091-VCN,
filed December 11, 2012; Steven Kosoff IRA v. McMoRan Exploration
Co. et al., No. 8100-VCN, filed December 12, 2012; Barasch v.
McMoRan Exploration Co. et al., No. 8106-VCN, filed December 13,
2012; Berstein v. Moffett et al., No. 8107-VCN, filed December 13,
2012; Curalov v. McMoRan Exploration Co. et al., No. 8115-VCN,
filed December 17, 2012; Purnell et al. v. Adkerson et al., No.
8117-VCN, filed December 17, 2012; Yagoobian v. McMoRan
Exploration Co. et al., No. 8128-VCN, filed December 19, 2012;
Davis v. McMoRan Exploration Co. et al., No. 8132-VCN, filed
December 20, 2012; and Seidlitz v. Adkerson et al., No. 8151-VCN,
filed December 26, 2012. One was filed in the Civil District Court
for the Parish of Orleans of the State of Louisiana: Langley v.
Moffett et al., No. 2012-11904, filed December 19, 2012. Each of
the actions names the McMoRan directors as defendants, as well as
some or all of the following: Freeport-McMoran, subsidiaries of
Freeport-McMoran, and PXP. The actions allege that McMoRan's
directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving the MMR
Merger, and further allege that some or all of the other
defendants aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.
One of the lawsuits also asserts derivative claims on behalf of
McMoRan. The actions seek, among other things, injunctive relief
barring or rescinding the MMR Merger, damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs. On January 9, 2013, the Krieger action was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff. On January 25, 2013, the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware entered an order consolidating
the remaining eight actions pending in that court under the
caption In re McMoRan Exploration Co. Stockholder Litigation, No.
8132-VCN, and appointing co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs.

"A hearing has been scheduled in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware for April 5, 2013, at which time the court will
hear oral argument on the injunctive relief requested in each of
the three consolidated actions.

"The PXP defendants believe the lawsuits are without merit and
intend to defend vigorously against them."

Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) is an independent
energy company engaged in the upstream oil and gas business. The
upstream business acquires, develops, explores for and produces
oil and gas. Its upstream activities are located in the United
States.


PREFERRED CREDIT: "Gilmor" Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Ortrie D. Smith entered a final judgment
approving a class action settlement and certifying a class for
settlement purposes in the lawsuit MICHAEL P. AND SHELLIE GILMOR,
ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. PREFERRED CREDIT CORPORATION, ET AL.,
Defendants, Case No. 10-0189-CV-W-ODS, (W.D. Mo.).

The Court held that the terms and provisions of the Settlement and
Release Agreement dated October 30, 2012, between Plaintiffs
Michael P. Gilmor, Shellie Gilmor, James Woodward, Kathleen
Woodward, and William Hudson, and Defendant Bank of America, N.A.,
as successor by merger to LaSalle National Bank in its capacity as
former trustee for Impac CMB Trust Series 1999-1, have been
entered into in good faith, and as a result of arm's-length
negotiations.

According to the Court, the Agreement is fully and finally
approved as fair, reasonable and adequate as to, and in the best
interests of, each of the Parties and the LaSalle Settlement Class
Members, and in full compliance with all applicable requirements
of the laws of the state of Missouri, the United States
Constitution (including the Due Process Clause), and any other
applicable law.

The Court also certified, for settlement purposes pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, the LaSalle Settlement Class, defined as:

   All persons who, on or after June 27, 1994, obtained a "Second
   Mortgage Loan," as defined in Mo.Rev.Stat. Section 408.231.1,
   that was secured in whole or in part by a mortgage or a deed of
   trust on residential real property located in the state of
   Missouri, that was originated by Preferred Credit Corporation
   (f/k/a T.A.R. Preferred Mortgage Corporation), and that was
   purchased by, assigned or conveyed to, or otherwise owned
   and/or held by or serviced by Bank of America, N.A., as
   successor by merger to LaSalle National Bank in its capacity as
   former trustee for Impac CMB Trust Series 1999-1, and who did
   not timely exercise their right and option to opt out and
   exclude themselves from the litigation class that the Circuit
   Court of Clay County, Missouri certified on January 2, 2003, in

Gilmor v. Preferred Credit Corporation, Case No. CV100-4263-CC.

No members of the LaSalle Settlement Class timely requested to be
excluded from or "opted out" of the LaSalle Settlement Class.

The Named Plaintiffs and R. Frederick Walters, Kip D. Richards,
David M. Skeens, J. Michael Vaughan, and Garrett M. Hodes of the
firm Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, P.C., are appointed and
approved as representatives of the LaSalle Settlement Class and
Counsel for the LaSalle Settlement Class, respectively.

The Court awards amounts totaling $4,000 to be paid from the
Settlement Fund to the Named Plaintiffs as incentive awards for
their services as representatives of the LaSalle Settlement Class
in the Litigation.

Plaintiffs' Counsel are awarded $4,579.85, representing an
allocated share of the litigation expenses and court costs that
Plaintiffs' Counsel has incurred and advanced as of October 15,
2012, in connection with the Litigation and the Settlement, which
will be deducted from the Settlement Fund as defined in the
Agreement.

In addition, the Court awards Plaintiffs' Counsel Attorney's fees
of $119,889.07, representing approximately 45% of the "Net
Settlement Fund" as defined in the Agreement.

The Court ruled that the "PCC Loans" of the "Non-LaSalle Plaintiff
Borrowers" as defined in Paragraph 2.22 of the Agreement were not
purchased by, assigned or conveyed to, or otherwise owned and/or
held by or serviced by the Settling Defendant and that, given this
fact, as stipulated by the Parties, the Non-LaSalle Plaintiff
Borrowers cannot recover any damages, penalties or other relief
from LaSalle with respect to the PCC Loans.

The Court directed the Parties to implement and consummate the
Agreement according to its terms and provisions.

A copy of the District Court's March 6, 2013 Final Judgment is
available at http://is.gd/SudSDifrom Leagle.com.


REALOGY HOLDINGS: Awaits Final Okay of "Larsen" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Holdings Corp. is awaiting final approval of its
settlement of the class action lawsuit titled Larsen, et al. v.
Coldwell Banker Real Estate Corporation, et al., according to the
Company's February 25, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

The case captioned Larsen, et al. v. Coldwell Banker Real Estate
Corporation, et al. (case formerly known as Joint Equity Committee
of Investors of Real Estate Partners, Inc. v. Coldwell Banker Real
Estate Corp., et al), pending in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, arises from the
relationship of two of the Company's subsidiaries with a former
Coldwell Banker Commercial franchisee, whose 40.5% shareholder
allegedly utilized the Coldwell Banker Commercial name in the
offer and sale of securities that were improperly sold.  On March
26, 2012, the Court granted plaintiffs motion to certify a class
as to all claims except for false advertising.  On April 13, 2012,
the court entered into an order stipulated by the parties to stay
the case for 60 days while the parties pursue mediation.  The
Company's primary insurance carrier disclaimed coverage of either
liability or defense costs.  Two mediation sessions were held and
at the end of the mediation session held on June 5, 2012, as a
matter of litigation avoidance, the Company entered into a
memorandum of understanding memorializing the principal terms of a
settlement of this action.

On July 19, 2012, the Company entered into a definitive settlement
agreement and on September 17, 2012, the settlement was
preliminarily approved by the court, subject to final court
approval.  Substantially all of the settlement will be funded
directly by the Company with only a modest contribution by its
insurance carrier.  The settlement is subject to final court
approval and other conditions and there can be no assurance that
the court will grant such final approval.  The Company accrued for
the settlement in June 2012.

Realogy Holdings Corp., a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Parsippany, New Jersey.  The Company is an integrated provider of
residential real estate services in the United States of America.


REALOGY HOLDINGS: "Barasani" Suit Status Conference Set for May
---------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference in the class action lawsuit commenced by Ali
Barasani in California will be held in May 2013, according to
Realogy Holdings Corp.'s February 25, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On November 15, 2012, plaintiff Ali Barasani filed a putative
class action complaint, captioned Barasani v. Coldwell Banker
Residential Brokerage Company, in Los Angeles Superior Court,
California, against Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company
alleging that the company had misclassified all of its sales
associates as independent contractors when they were actually
employees.  The complaint further alleges that, because of the
misclassification, the company has violated several sections of
the Labor Code including Section 2802 for failing to reimburse
plaintiff and the class for business related expenses and Section
226 for failing to keep proper records.  The complaint also
asserts a Section 17200 Unfair Business Practices claim for
misclassifying the sales agents.  The court issued an order
staying most of the proceedings until the next status conference
in May 2013.  Accordingly, the Company has yet to file an answer
or other responsive pleading to the complaint.

Realogy Holdings Corp., a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Parsippany, New Jersey.  The Company is an integrated provider of
residential real estate services in the United States of America.



SANDERSON FARMS: Appeal From Dismissal of RICO Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit against
Sanderson Farms, Inc., remains pending with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2013.

The Company states: "Two of our former employees filed a complaint
on February 16, 2012, alleging violations of the federal and State
of Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
("RICO") Acts against us and seven of our current and former
employees in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia. The plaintiffs contend in their complaint
that the Company conspired to knowingly hire undocumented
immigrants at the Moultrie plant to "save Sanderson millions of
dollars in labor costs because illegal aliens will work for
extremely low wages." The action is brought as a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all legally authorized hourly employees that
worked at the Moultrie plant in the four years before the filing
of the case. The plaintiffs are suing for money damages,
injunctive relief and revocation of our license to conduct
business in the State of Georgia.

"On September 13, 2012, the court entered an order granting a
motion to dismiss the complaint, but provided the plaintiffs an
opportunity to file an amended complaint on one of the alleged
violations. After an amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs
on October 5, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on October 29, 2012. On February 5, 2013, the
court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and entered an order
dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice. A notice of
appeal was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit by the plaintiffs on February 8, 2013, and is
currently pending."

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
engages in the production, processing, marketing, and distribution
of fresh, frozen, and prepared chicken products in the United
States.


SHIPPING COS: Sued Over Misclassification of Port Truck Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Addison, writing for Long Beach Post, reports that following
the recent misclassification of port truck drivers working for
Seacon Logix, a class action suit was filed against multiple
shipping companies with the same allegations.

Filing on behalf of current and past employees as more workers
step forward to partake in the suit, claims are being made that
multiple labor violations, including most importantly the willful
misclassification of truckers as independent contractors.

"The vast majority of port truck drivers work for one company,"
said Coral Itzcalli, Senior Communications Officer for the Change
to Win Port Campaign.  "Most lease or rent their truck from the
company that essentially makes them pay to work.  For all
intensive purposes, they're employees -- just not treated as
such."

The crux of Ms. Itzcalli and the truckers' arguments is that,
according to the internal logic of the legalities of independent
contractors, they are their own boss.  However, given the
structure with which the shipping companies operate within,
truckers are unable to negotiate any form of autonomous power,
thereby providing the shipping company the luxury of saving
immense amounts of money while driving up the loss of pay for the
worker.

"The workers are working 14 to 20 hours a day, behind the wheels
of trucks," Ms. Itzcalli went on.  "It's a huge problem at the
port . . . If they were treated as real independent contractors,
they would be compensated for their expenses.  They would be able
to work for more than one company as a contractor or where there
was better pay.  They would be able to operate their trucks
freely."

Beforehand, such allegations were difficult to bring forth
legally.  However, in October of 2011, Governor Brown signed into
law AB 459, the bill that prohibits the willful
mischaracterization of workers as independent contractors, or
commonly called 1099s after their tax form header.  Essentially,
the law provides a complaint procedure which permits the Labor and
Workplace Development Agency to assess penalties against anyone
who mischaracterizes someone as a 1099.

According to the suit filed, multiple workers are seeking
compensation for willful misclassification; the failure to pay
minimum wages; unlawful deductions from pay; failure to reimburse
business expenses of employees; failure to provide meal and rest
periods; failure to provide accurate wage statements; waiting time
penalties; and unfair competition.


SM ENERGY: Continues to Defend Chieftain Royalty Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
SM Energy Company continues to defend itself against a class
action petition filed by Chieftain Royalty Company, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On January 27, 2011, Chieftain Royalty
Company ("Chieftain") filed a Class Action Petition against us in
the District Court of Beaver County, Oklahoma, claiming damages
related to royalty valuation on all of our Oklahoma wells. These
claims include breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
fraud, unjust enrichment, tortious breach of contract, conspiracy,
and conversion, based generally on asserted improper deduction of
post-production costs. We removed this lawsuit to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on
February 22, 2011. We have responded to the petition and denied
the allegations. The court has not yet ruled on Chieftain's motion
to certify the putative class, and has stayed any such ruling
until the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
issues its ruling on class certification in two similar royalty
class action lawsuits, where the defendants have appealed such
certification. The opinion from the Tenth Circuit is expected
during the summer of 2013. We believe we properly valued and paid
royalty under Oklahoma law and have and will continue to
vigorously defend this case."

SM Energy Company is an independent energy company. The Company is
engaged in the acquisition, exploration, development, and
production of crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids
(referred to as oil, gas, and NGLs) in onshore North America. The
Company's operations are focused on five operating areas in the
onshore United States.


STARWOOD HOTELS: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over Contracts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., continues to defend
itself against certain class action litigation related to
contracts with third party intermediaries, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "Recent class action litigation against
several online travel intermediaries and lodging companies,
including Starwood, challenges the legality under antitrust law of
certain provisions in contracts with third party intermediaries.
While the company is vigorously defending the litigation and
believes the contract provisions are lawful, the courts will
ultimately determine this issue and an adverse outcome could force
us to alter our business arrangements with these third parties and
could have a negative impact on our financial condition and
results of operations."

Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., is a hotel and leisure
company. The Company conducts its hotel and leisure business both
directly and through its subsidiaries.


STEVE'S REAL: Recalls Bags of Turducken Canine Recipe Patties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve's Real Food of Murray, Utah, is recalling its 5 lb. bags of
Turducken Canine Diet -- 8 oz. patties due to potential
contamination of Salmonella.  Salmonella can affect animals eating
the products and there is risk to humans from handling
contaminated pet products, especially if they have not thoroughly
washed their hands after having contact with the products or any
surfaces exposed to these products.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever.
Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including
arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye
irritation, and urinary tract symptoms.  Consumers exhibiting
these signs after having contact with this product should contact
their healthcare providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting.  Some pets will have only
decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain.  Infected but
otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or
humans.  If your pet has consumed the recalled product and have
these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

The recalled Turducken Canine Diet -- 8 oz Patties in a 5 lb. bag
were distributed from October 2012 to January 2013 in retail
stores in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New
York , California, Minnesota and Tennessee.

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

The potential for contamination was noted after a routine sampling
of one 5 lb. bag by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.

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

The product comes in 5 lb. green and cream colored biodegradable
film bags with lot number 209-10-27-13 with an expiration date of
October 27, 2013.  Pictures of the recalled products' labels are
available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm342918.htm

Consumers who have purchased 5 lb. bags of Steve's Real Food
Turducken Canine Recipe are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions should
contact the Company at 801-540-8481 or gary@stevesrealfood.com
Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Mountain Standard
Time.


TOWN SPORTS: Class Allegations in "Cruz" Suits Dismissed in Jan.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action allegations in two lawsuits initiated by Sarah
Cruz, et al., against a subsidiary of Town Sports International
Holdings, Inc., were dismissed in January 2013, according to the
Company's February 25, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On March 1, 2005, in an action styled Sarah Cruz, et al v. Town
Sports International, d/b/a New York Sports Club, plaintiffs
commenced a purported class action against Town Sports
International, LLC (TSI, LLC), the Company's wholly-owned
operating subsidiary, in the Supreme Court, New York County,
seeking unpaid wages and alleging that TSI, LLC violated various
overtime provisions of the New York State Labor Law with respect
to the payment of wages to certain trainers and assistant fitness
managers.  On June 18, 2007, the same plaintiffs commenced a
second purported class action against TSI, LLC in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, New York County, seeking unpaid
wages and alleging that TSI, LLC violated various wage payment and
overtime provisions of the New York State Labor Law with respect
to the payment of wages to all New York purported hourly
employees.  On September 17, 2010, TSI, LLC made motions to
dismiss the class action allegations of both lawsuits for
plaintiffs' failure to timely file motions to certify the class
actions.  The court granted the motions on January 29, 2013,
dismissing the class action allegations in both lawsuits.

New York-based Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.mysportsclubs.com/-- owns and operates fitness clubs
in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States of
America.


TOWN SPORTS: Motions in "Labbe" Class Suit vs. Unit Moot
--------------------------------------------------------
Motions in the class action lawsuit brought by James Labbe, et al.
against a subsidiary of Town Sports International Holdings, Inc.,
were mooted, according to the Company's February 25, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

On October 4, 2012, in an action styled James Labbe, et al. v.
Town Sports International, LLC, plaintiff commenced a purported
class action in New York State court on behalf of personal
trainers employed in New York State.  Labbe is seeking unpaid
wages and damages from Town Sports International, LLC (TSI, LLC),
the Company's wholly-owned operating subsidiary, and alleges
violations of various provisions of the New York State labor law
with respect to payment of wages and TSI, LLC's notification and
record-keeping obligations.  On December 18, 2012, TSI, LLC filed
a motion to stay the class action pending a decision on class
certification in the Cruz case and to dismiss the Labbe action if
the Cruz case is certified.  On January 29, 2013, Labbe responded
to the motion to stay and filed a cross-motion to consolidate the
Labbe case with the Cruz case.  These motions have been
effectively mooted by the dismissal of the class claims in Cruz.
While it is not possible to estimate the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome or a range of loss in the case of an
unfavorable outcome to TSI, LLC at this time, TSI, LLC intends to
contest this case vigorously.

New York-based Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.mysportsclubs.com/-- owns and operates fitness clubs
in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States of
America.


TRI-UNION SEAFOODS: Recalls Chunk Light Tuna in Oil Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, which previously announced a voluntary
recall, is now expanding it to include a limited amount of Chicken
of the Sea brand 5-ounce chunk light tuna in oil.  This is in
addition to the limited amount of Chicken of the Sea brand 5-ounce
chunk white albacore tuna in water announced March 6, 2013.

The seams on the lids of the cans do not meet the standard for
seam quality.  Cans that do not meet seam standards could result
in product contamination by spoilage organisms or by pathogens,
which could lead to illness if consumed.  There have been no
reported illnesses to date, and Tri-Union Seafoods is issuing this
voluntary recall to ensure the highest margin of safety and
quality.

The UPC code (also known as the bar code) is found on the label of
the product.  The Best By date is printed on the bottom of the
can.  The product lot codes that are part of this voluntary recall
can also be found on the bottom of the can.

The specific products being recalled are as follows:

   * Chicken of the Sea 5-Ounce Chunk Light Tuna in Oil
     Chicken of the Sea Brand 5-ounce chunk light tuna in oil
     sold at retail nationwide in single cans between January 23,
     2013, and March 6, 2013.

     The UPC code is 0 48000 00195 5 and the Best By date is
     01/15/17.  The product lot codes that are part of this
     voluntary recall include:

            CODE           BEST BY DATE
         ----------        ------------
         3015CB1CLH          01/15/17
         3015CB2CLH          01/15/17
         3015CB3CLH          01/15/17
         3015CB4CLH          01/15/17
         3015CBACLH          01/15/17
         3015CBBCLH          01/15/17
         3015CBCCLH          01/15/17
         3015CBDCLH          01/15/17
         3015CBECLH          01/15/17

   * Chicken of the Sea 5-Ounce Chunk White Albacore Tuna
     Chicken of the Sea Brand 5-ounce chunk white albacore tuna
     in water sold at retail nationwide in single cans between
     February 4, 2013, and February 27, 2013.

     The UPC code is 0 48000 03355 0.  The Best By date is
     01/18/17.  The product lot codes that are part of this
     voluntary recall include:

            CODE           BEST BY DATE
         ----------        ------------
         3018CA2CKP          01/18/17
         3018CA3CKP          01/18/17
         3018CA4CKP          01/18/17
         3018CAACKP          01/18/17
         3018CABCKP          01/18/17
         3018CACCKP          01/18/17
         3018CAECKP          01/18/17
         3018CB3CKP          01/18/17
         3018CADCKP          01/18/17

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm342914.htm

"The health and safety of our consumers is paramount.  As soon as
we discovered the issue, we took immediate steps to issue this
voluntary recall by alerting our customers who received the
product and by asking them to remove it from store shelves," said
Shue Wing Chan, President of Tri-Union Seafoods.

No other codes of this product or other Chicken of the Sea
products are affected by this voluntary recall.

Consumers looking for additional information can call the
Company's 24-hour Recall Information line at 1-800-597-5898.


YRC WORLDWIDE: March 11 Mediation Held in Bryant Holdings Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
YRC Worldwide Inc. continues to defend itself in the Bryant
Holdings Securities Litigation, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On February 7, 2011, a putative class action
was filed by Bryant Holdings LLC ("Bryant") in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas on behalf of purchasers of our
common stock between April 24, 2008 and November 2, 2009,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking damages under the federal
securities laws for statements and/or omissions allegedly made by
us and the individual defendants during the Class Period which
plaintiffs claimed to be false and misleading.

"On April 8, 2011, an individual (Stan Better) and YRC Investors
Group, a group of investors (including Bryant) filed competing
motions seeking to be named lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The
Court appointed them as co-lead plaintiffs on August 22, 2011.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 20, 2011 making
claims similar to Bryant's original complaint. We filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint on December 20, 2011. On
September 25, 2012, the Court denied our motion to dismiss. In
overruling our motion, the Court ruled that the allegations filed
by plaintiffs were sufficient enough to state a claim. The Court's
order did not constitute a ruling on the truth of plaintiffs'
factual allegations or the ultimate merits of their claims.

"The individual defendants are former officers of our Company. No
current officers or directors have been named in the lawsuit.
Limited discovery has commenced and a mediation is set for
March 11, 2013. Although we believe we have meritorious defenses
to the claims in this case, we believe the ultimate outcome of the
case is not determinable at this time. Therefore, we have not
recorded any liability for this matter."

YRC Worldwide Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various
transportation services primarily in North America.


* Class Actions on the Rise in Healthcare Industry
--------------------------------------------------
Daniel P. Shapiro, Esq. and Patrick C. Harrigan, Esq., at Katten
Muchin Rosenman, relate that in the realm of civil litigation, the
most menacing threat for a defendant is a class action law suit.
A class action allows a single plaintiff to sue on behalf of many
other people who are similarly situated and who have allegedly
suffered the same injury at the hands of the same defendant.  It
is an individual lawsuit on steroids.

Class actions are on the rise in the healthcare space.  According
to Messrs. Shapiro and Harrigan, "there are at least three reasons
that we can reasonably expect that trend to continue.  First,
there is a large segment of the bar in the United States
(interestingly, not in other developed countries) that specializes
in filing class actions.  Plaintiff class action litigation is a
practice area and a business model.  Class claims are almost
always sponsored by plaintiffs' lawyers who advance their time and
cover costs in exchange for the possibility of a contingent
recovery.  These lawyers have an interest in pursuing these cases,
and in continuing to develop new opportunities where class action
procedures can be used."

"Second, and related to the first point, many subject areas where
plaintiff class action lawyers have spent their time in the past
have become more difficult and challenging for them today.  Recent
United States Supreme Court decisions have, for example, made
class litigation for employees against employers more difficult
for plaintiffs.  Other recent Supreme Court decisions have pushed
potential consumer plaintiffs who would have sued large consumer
sales and services companies toward arbitration and away from
class actions.  The plaintiff bar might shrink as a result of
these changes in the law, but it is more likely that the
successful lawyers who bring class actions will look for new
opportunities and adapt rather than disappear.

"Third, the healthcare industry is in the midst of profound
change.  The legal and regulatory framework is being fundamentally
redrawn.  These new laws and regulations create opportunities for
plaintiffs' lawyers to file new suits with regard to both the
meaning of these new laws and, as a corollary, with regard to the
adequacy of compliance efforts.  The healthcare industry often
delivers identical or similar services on a repeated basis to vast
numbers of people.  Patients, of course, fit this description, but
think too about the business relationships among and between
doctors, managed care organization, hospitals and insurers where
transactions are repeated again and again, in very large numbers.
A mistake in the interpretation of a regulation or in compliance
practices is amplified exponentially.  An error, or alleged error,
occurs many times, not once.  In other words, the healthcare
industry is an ideal target market for the plaintiff class action
bar."

It is no surprise, then, that over the past year or so there seems
to have been a meaningful uptick in class action activity in the
healthcare space, including:

    * Recent allegations of unnecessary cardiac catheterization
procedures have resulted in class action complaints against
hospitals;

    * The determination of "usual, customary and reasonable"
charges for purposes of calculating payments to out-of-network
physicians has been the subject of class litigation;

    * A class of 900,000 physicians brought an action challenging
the timeliness of insurance payments;

    * An academic medical center was sued in a class action for
patient privacy violations as the result of a computer error that
exposed patient information to the internet;

    * An antitrust class action was brought to challenge the
alleged anticompetitive impact of a hospital acquisition;

    * A class of consumers sued a hospital for pursuing its
statutory lien rights to collect the full value of services
provided.

There are steps to take to mitigate the risk of being tagged with
a class action.  Class litigation is expensive to defend, and,
because it aggregates many smaller claims in a single action,
almost always presents a very significant risk of loss for the
defendant and the potential for a significant reward to
plaintiffs' counsel.  Because the stakes are high, class actions
are often expensive to settle.  Investing in risk minimization at
the front end is, therefore, well considered.

              Circumstances Surrounding Class Action

To understand where the mitigation opportunities for class action
risk can be found, it is essential to understand not only the
circumstances where class actions arise, but when and why they are
rejected by the courts.  That is, it is important to understand
when and why plaintiffs' lawyers may be reluctant to commit to the
significant front-end investment that they must make to initiate
and then move class litigation forward.

Class actions can be an efficient way to resolve many claims all
at once, but they also present threshold issues of fairness.
Because the premise of a class action is that a single person can
bring a lawsuit on behalf of many others who will not actually be
present in the court room, but whose rights will be determined
there nonetheless, the courts pay particular attention to these
fairness issues that accompany class litigation.  For example, is
it fair to a class member for his or her rights to be finally and
forever determined if he or she is not in the courtroom and has
never had -- on an individual basis -- his or her day in court?
In fact, as a practical matter, class members may not even know
that an action deciding their rights is being conducted, settled
or tried.  On the other side of things, is it fair to a defendant
for a court to make a finding of liability where only one of many
hundreds or even thousands of the plaintiff class is available for
cross examination? And when is the management of a class action so
cumbersome and fragmented that it is no longer fair, or workable,
to impose that administrative burden on a court? To address these
questions and safeguard against these problems, the rules for
class actions require that the court hearing the case assure that
a class action approach will be reasonably fair to all parties.
So, the claim by the named plaintiff -- the one present in court
-- must be fundamentally and in all important ways the same as the
claims of the absent class members.  While some differences are
tolerated, for a class action to be permitted, "commonality" must
predominate over any material differences.  In the absence of
commonality, it would not be fair or appropriate to use the
results in one proceeding to decide the rights of all class
members and defendants.  A group approach to litigation only makes
sense if it is a group with a truly predominant, common
experience.

Further, a class action has to be a "superior" way of deciding the
dispute.  If, for example, the administrative burden on the court
of managing a particular class action is too great, individual
claims will be insisted upon, and a class action will not be
allowed to proceed.

Additionally, the class representative who is the named plaintiff
has to be "typical" of the class members generally.  Conflicts of
interest may exist between the interests of the class
representative and the interests of the absent class members.  Or,
there may be a common question to litigate for the class, but the
named plaintiff may not quite represent that typical claim because
of the named plaintiff's unique circumstances.  In those
instances, there may be a "common" question for the class, but the
named plaintiff who has stepped forward, if not "typical," is
found to be not the right person to advance the case.  If the
named plaintiff is not typical, he or she will not be allowed to
represent the interests of the class.  Often, if the named
plaintiff drops out, the case ends.  There is not always a
substitute named plaintiff waiting in the wings.

                       How to Mitigate Risk

Knowing all of this about class actions, are there ways to use
that information to mitigate the risk of exposure to class
litigation? There are.  Keeping in mind that plaintiffs' lawyers
are making an investment in each piece of litigation that they
bring, one key to risk mitigation is to take steps that make a
potential defendant a less attractive target when a plaintiffs'
lawyer is surveying the industry.  For example, while the
relationships between hospital, physician and patient are complex,
the courts have been willing to enforce class action waivers -- an
agreement at the beginning of a relationship that states that the
parties will not use class action litigation in the event of a
later dispute.  This lessens class action risk because a named
plaintiff who has signed a class action waiver will likely not be
a "typical" class representative, even if a plaintiff's lawyer
argues later that the waiver should not be enforced.  If a large
number of people in a proposed class have signed waivers, there
may be contract enforcement issues that preclude a finding that a
"common" issue predominates.

Another mitigation strategy is to engage in a careful "class
action audit" of practices where plaintiffs' lawyers are already
well versed -- such as billing and collection practices -- to
identify and remediate likely trouble spots and lower a potential
target's risk profile.  There may also be opportunities to reflect
in transaction documents the unique and individualized nature of a
relationship.  Those facts -- which might defeat commonality --
would come out in litigation as the debate over commonality and
typicality proceeds, but only after a suit has been filed.  If
those facts are reflected in the documents that define the
transaction between the parties at the front end of a
relationship, a plaintiff's lawyer may choose to move on to review
another potential case rather than step in to an expensive and
troubling fight that the plaintiffs' lawyer knows is coming.  So,
a review of the documents that define the relationships between
physicians and hospitals; care givers and patients; insureds and
insurers, can identify both trouble spots and opportunities to
build in favorable language (arbitration clauses, for example) in
appropriate circumstances that will discourage class actions.

The prerequisites for a class action -- commonality, superiority,
typicality -- are also defenses.  Understood, anticipated and
planned for, these concepts can be used in a sophisticated
litigation risk mitigation strategy.

Messrs. Shapior and Harrigan said "We are in the midst of a sea
change in the healthcare regulatory landscape at both the state
and federal level.  With any shift in laws and regulations which
impacts such a large population, class action litigation
inevitably follows.  Businesses in the healthcare space would be
wise to examine their own practices now, before ending up on the
wrong side of an expensive and disruptive class action."


* SEC's Inaction on Mandatory Arbitration May Impact Investors
--------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Barlyn and Sarah N. Lynch, writing for Reuters, report
that the top U.S. securities regulator has the power to fix what
many say is a long-standing problem for investors.  There is just
no sign that it actually will, at least any time soon.

Currently, a little-noticed line in most agreements investors sign
when opening their brokerage accounts bars them from going to
court with their complaints.  Instead, clients are forced to use
arbitration.  The Securities and Exchange Commission has authority
to restrict this practice, but numerous other responsibilities
mean it could be a while before it even considers the question.

Even a recent ruling, which could allow brokerages to impose even
more restrictions on customers' access to courts, is unlikely to
spur the SEC to action, say lawyers and investor advocates.

The SEC's delay to address the issue could eliminate a key tool
for making sure brokerages treat them fairly, they say.

"I don't think the SEC can afford to wait too long," said
Massachusetts' top securities regulator, William Galvin.

                 Battle Over Class-Action Suits

When investors open brokerage accounts, language typically buried
in lengthy agreements leads them to agree to resolve potential
legal disputes with brokerages through arbitration.

Now, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), Wall
Street's industry regulator, is in a standoff with Charles Schwab
Corp about how far those agreements should be allowed to go.

Charles Schwab, in late 2011, required 8.8 million customers to
waive class action rights in customer agreements.  The right of
investors to participate in class action suits is a long-standing
exception to mandatory securities arbitration.

FINRA, which runs the forum that hears arbitration cases against
brokerages, filed a disciplinary case against Schwab in 2012 about
those agreements.  But a hearing panel upheld Schwab's measure on
Feb 21.  FINRA rules, it said, conflict with a federal arbitration
law allowing such waivers.

Now FINRA may need a hand in its battle to halt Charles Schwab --
and possibly other brokerages -- from banning investors from
taking part in class action suits.  While it appeals the decision
-- which could take more than a year -- Schwab's maneuver could
lead to an industrywide practice of class action waiver
agreements, say lawyers.

Calls are growing louder for the SEC -- one of the few entities
with power to tackle the issue -- to step in.  A string of U.S.
Supreme Court decisions, since 2010, allows more arbitration pact
restrictions, including through class action waivers, said
Christine Hines, consumer and civil justice counsel at watchdog
group Public Citizen.  Other types of financial advisers are now
also requiring arbitration, say state securities regulators.

An SEC spokesman declined to comment on whether or when it would
tackle the issue.

A Schwab spokesman has said the arbitration process offers low
filing fees for small claims, among other benefits.  It is better
for investors than class actions where the plaintiff's lawyers
reap the lion's share of the settlement, he said.  FINRA has long
said that its arbitration forum provides investors with a fair,
efficient and cost-effective process.

                            Headwinds

The battle over class action suits could have been avoided if the
SEC exercised a power granted to it in the 2010 Dodd-Frank
financial reform law, say lawyers and consumer advocates.  That
law was designed to bar or limit the use of mandatory arbitration
clauses if the move serves investors' best interests.

To be sure, the SEC, which is undergoing a leadership change after
Mary Schapiro stepped down and former federal prosecutor Mary Jo
White was nominated to succeed her, is already behind on
developing many rules the Dodd-Frank Act requires.

Doing more with less could be another obstacle.  The SEC's $1.32
billion annual budget could face a $108 million cut, according to
a White House Office of Management and Budget estimate.  That is
due to automatic government spending cuts of $85 billion recently
set in motion.  Only Congress can stop the process through an
agreement.

A sweeping, 72-page request from the SEC to the financial services
industry on March 1 about possibly aligning ethical standards for
two key types of advisers included some questions about investor
claims filed through both arbitration and court proceedings.  But
the direction of that inquiry is unclear.  Analysis and change
could take years.

                          Kicking the Can

SEC inaction comes after years of disagreements about the issue in
Congress.  U.S. lawmakers have grappled with changing a federal
arbitration law, known as the Federal Arbitration Act, which would
make it illegal for companies to make their customers comply with
mandatory arbitration agreements.

The most recent effort, the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2011, died
in a committee, along with versions in 2007 and 2009.  Its key
sponsor, Democratic Representative Hank Johnson, will introduce it
again this year, a spokesman said.

In the meantime, other regulators and investor advocates are
calling upon brokerage customers to protect themselves.  Mr.
Galvin, Massachusetts secretary of commonwealth, urged investors
to call their brokerages to "vehemently object" to class action
bans.


                           *********

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  * * *