CAR_Public/130319.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, March 19, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 55

                             Headlines


ALLIANT ENERGY: Court Awarded $6.4MM in Fees & Costs to Attorneys
ALLIED WORLD: Awaits Court OK of Transatlantic-Related Settlement
AMERICAN INSURANCE: Shareholders Obtain Class Certification
AMPC SYSTEM: Settles Parking Employees' Class Action for $4.7MM
APPLE REIT: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in New York

ATLANTIC POWER: Bernard M. Gross Law Firm Files Class Action
BECK ENERGY: Ohio Court Grants Motion for Class Certification
BLUWORLD/NU-FLAME: Recalls Vivo & Vivido Wall Mounted Fireplaces
CIMAREX ENERGY: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for March 22
DAIRY FARMERS: April 3 Final Class Action Settlement Hearing Set

DIGITALGLOBE INC: Finalizing Settlement in Shareholder Litigation
EPOCRATES INC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action in Calif.
EQUINIX INC: Continues to Defend 3rd Amended Complaint in Calif.
ILLINOIS: Madison County Faces 2nd Class Action Over Tax Auctions
EURONET WORLDWIDE: Defends Wage and Hour Class Action Suit

HEIN & ASSOCIATES: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action in Colorado
INNOVATION VENTURES: Sued Over 5-Hour Energy's Deceptive Marketing
MOODY'S CORP: Oral Arguments in Securities Suit Set for April
MOODY'S CORP: Trial on Abu Dhabi Fraud Claims Set for May
MOODY'S CORP: Awaits Trial Date for Fraud Claim in New York Suit

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Junior Seau's Family May Join Class Action
NRG ENERGY: Appeal From Cheswick-Related Suit Dismissal Pending
NRG ENERGY: Continues to Defend GenOn Merger-Related Suits
NRG ENERGY: Plaintiffs Seek Review of Claims Dismissal vs. GenOn
NRG ENERGY: Unit Defends Suits Alleging Deceptive Marketing

OILSANDS QUEST: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Court Okay
PIEDMONT OFFICE: Hearing on Georgia Suit Settlement on April 18
PIEDMONT OFFICE: Hearing on Maryland Suit Settlement on April 18
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Dismiss Sales Rep.'s Suit Still Pending
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Celera Acquisition Suit in Delaware Pending

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Has Answered "Mt. Lookout" Complaint in N.J.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Reconsideration Bid in Suit vs. Celera Pending
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Summary Judgment Bids in Seibert Suit Pending
SPRINT NEXTEL: Railroad Rights Class Actions Near Settlement

STEEL DYNAMICS: Briefing in Illinois Antitrust Suit Ongoing
TOYS R US: Recalls 9,000 Imaginarium Activity Walkers
UNS ENERGY: Appeals in "Navajo Nation" Suit vs. TEP Pending
W.R. GRACE: Awaits Settlement Payments in Suits Over PI Claims
W.R. GRACE: Still Awaits Effective Date of Plan & ZAI Claims Deal

ZIPCAR INC: Awaits Court OK of Stockholder Litigation Settlement

* FINRA Can't Prevent Bans on Stockbroker Class Actions


                             *********


ALLIANT ENERGY: Court Awarded $6.4MM in Fees & Costs to Attorneys
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
awarded in February 2013, $6.4 million in plaintiffs' attorney's
fees and costs related to the class action lawsuit against the
Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan, according to Alliant
Energy Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

In February 2008, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the
Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan (Plan) in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Court). The
complaint alleged that certain Plan participants who received
distributions prior to their normal retirement age did not receive
the full benefit to which they were entitled in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) because
the Plan applied an improper interest crediting rate to project
the cash balance account to their normal retirement age. These
Plan participants were limited to individuals who, prior to normal
retirement age, received a lump-sum distribution or an annuity
payment. The Court originally certified two subclasses of
plaintiffs that in aggregate include all persons vested or
partially vested in the Plan who received these distributions from
January 1, 1998 to August 17, 2006 including: (1) persons who
received distributions from January 1, 1998 through
February 28, 2002; and (2) persons who received distributions from
March 1, 2002 to August 17, 2006.

In June 2010, the Court issued an opinion and order that granted
the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability. In
December 2010, the Court issued an opinion and order that decided
the interest crediting rate that the Plan used to project the cash
balance accounts of the plaintiffs during the class period should
have been 8.2% and that a pre-retirement mortality discount would
not be applied to the damages calculation. In May 2011, the Plan
was amended and the Plan subsequently made approximately $10
million in additional payments in 2011 to certain former
participants in the Plan. This amendment was required based on an
agreement Alliant Energy reached with the IRS, which resulted in a
favorable determination letter for the Plan in 2011. In November
2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental
complaint to assert that the 2011 amendment to the Plan was itself
an ERISA violation. In March 2012, the Plan and the plaintiffs
each filed motions for summary judgment related to the
supplemental complaint, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification, seeking to amend the class definition and for
appointment of class representatives and class counsel.

In July 2012, the Court issued an opinion and order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, but only as to the
interest crediting rate and the pre-retirement mortality discount
claims of lump-sum recipients. As a result of the opinion and
order, two new subclasses were certified in lieu of the prior
subclass certification. Subclass A involves persons who received a
lump-sum distribution between January 1, 1998 and August 17, 2006
and who received an interest crediting rate of less than 8.2%
under the Plan as amended in May 2011. Subclass B involves persons
who received a lump-sum distribution between January 1, 1998 and
August 17, 2006 and who would have received a larger benefit under
the Plan as amended in May 2011 if a pre-retirement mortality
discount had not been applied. In the opinion and order the Court
then granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to the two
subclasses, and denied as moot the parties' motions for summary
judgment with respect to issues beyond the two subclasses.

In August 2012, as amended in September 2012, the Court entered a
final judgment for the two subclasses in the total amount of $18.7
million. The judgment amount includes pre-judgment interest
through July 2012 and takes into account the approximate $10
million of additional benefits paid by the Plan following the Plan
amendment in 2011. In September 2012, the Plan appealed the
judgment, and the interlocutory orders that led to the judgment,
to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 2012, the
Plan filed its opening brief in which it seeks to reverse all or
part of the judgment. The judgment did not address any award for
plaintiffs' attorney's fees or costs. In September 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court for payment of
plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $9.6
million, of which $4.3 million was requested to be paid out of the
common fund awarded to the two subclasses in the September 2012
judgment.

In February 2013, the Court awarded plaintiffs' attorney's fees
and costs in the amount of $6.4 million. The Court ordered that
all of the fees and costs be paid from the $18.7 million judgment
previously awarded and not be in addition to that judgment.
Alliant Energy Corporation, Interstate Power And Light Company and
Wisconsin Power And Light Company have not recognized any material
loss contingency amounts for the final judgment of damages as of
December 31, 2012. A material loss contingency for the judgment
will not be recognized unless a final unappealable ruling is
received, or a settlement is reached, which results in an
amendment to the Plan and payment of additional benefits to Plan
participants. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are currently unable to
predict the final outcome of the class-action lawsuit or the
ultimate impact on their financial condition or results of
operations but believe an adverse outcome could have a material
effect on their retirement plan funding and expense.


ALLIED WORLD: Awaits Court OK of Transatlantic-Related Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, AG, is awaiting court
approval of a stipulation and agreement of compromise and
settlement of class action lawsuits related to the proposed merger
with Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., 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 connection with our proposed merger with
Transatlantic Holdings, Inc. ("Transatlantic"), which was mutually
terminated by the parties on September 15, 2011, two putative
stockholder class action lawsuits filed against Holdings, and the
members of the Transatlantic board of directors challenging the
merger, remained outstanding as of December 31, 2012: Ivers v.
Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed
June 17, 2011 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware)
and Kramer v. Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed
June 30, 2011 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware)
(collectively, the "Lawsuits"). Each of the Lawsuits was filed
against Transatlantic, the members of the Transatlantic board of
directors, and Holdings and/or its subsidiaries. Alleghany
Corporation and Shoreline Merger Sub, LLC were later added as
defendants. Plaintiffs in each Lawsuit asserted that the members
of the Transatlantic board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties and that Holdings and/or its subsidiaries, or Alleghany
Corporation and/or its subsidiaries, aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties. On October 12, 2012, the parties
entered into a stipulation and agreement of compromise and
settlement, which is currently pending approval by the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware. There can be no assurance that
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will approve the
settlement."


AMERICAN INSURANCE: Shareholders Obtain Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Litigation Daily reports that a U.S. Court of Federal Claims
judge has certified two classes of American Insurance Group
shareholders who were impacted by an $85 billion loan the New York
Federal Reserve Bank offered to AIG in 2008, appointing David
Boies to serve as counsel for both classes.  Meanwhile, former AIG
Chairman Maurice "Hank" Greenberg's company, Starr International,
filed an amended complaint that more than doubles the damages at
stake.


AMPC SYSTEM: Settles Parking Employees' Class Action for $4.7MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Pimentel, writing for Asian Journal, reports that thousands
of parking lot attendants, cashiers and other employees received a
whooping $4.7 million settlement after their class action lawsuit
was settled.

About 10,000 employees, some of whom were Filipino, filed a class
action lawsuit against their employer AMPC System Parking Company
(AMPCO) and its parent corporation, ABM Industries, one of the
biggest facility service contractors in the United States.

Filed in 2006, the group of employees claimed that AMPCO, failed
to pay compensation for missed meal breaks and rest periods;
overtime; minimum wage, and others allegations, according to court
documents.

"The settlement was the result of prolonged arms-length
negotiations between the parties, made after years of hard-fought
litigation, including extensive discovery, multiple motions, a
certification battle that went favorably for the employees, and
drawn-out mediation and settlement process," said Jose Sayas, an
attorney based in Glendale, who served as co-counsel to the case.

"I'm just happy and the clients are happy," Mr. Sayas told the
Asian Journal.  "They received some money but also they made a
difference in their colleagues' lives."

For five years, Mr. Sayas served as co-lead counsel to the case.

The class action suit against the parking giant came about more
than five years ago, after an employee had an "off-the-cuff"
conversation with Mr. Sayas.  The employee (described only as a
Hispanic American) had asked Mr. Sayas about his knowledge of
workers compensation law and rights of the employees.  Then, a
Filipino-American parking lot attendant consulted Mr. Sayas about
his rights as an employee.

The employees allege that AMPCO, which operates about 750 parking
facilities in California, did not allow them their mandatory 30-
minute break for lunch.

"What we found during the discovery was that this was a widespread
problem across the state, parking lots in Century City, San Jose,
San Diego, everywhere up and down California," said Mr. Sayas.

He points out one example of an Ethiopian-American cashier at the
Grove parking lot. She suffers from kidney problems.  But because
of the busyness of the Grove lot, there were times she had to skip
going to the restroom, fearing that she could get in trouble if
she left her post.

"During discovery, we found cases we're we've seen only one person
manning a parking lot.  There's no relief for that guy.  He's
working straight the whole day," said Mr. Sayas.

He adds that the most disheartening part of the discovery was that
most of the clients (employees) he spoke to, do not even know
their rights as an employee nor overtime wages.

In their defense, AMPCO lawyers conceded there were issues in
"some parking lots" but minimized the scope of the overall
problems.

"They basically said, the problems were only in LA and it's not
true in Bakersfield, San Francisco, San Jose, or San Diego," said
Mr. Sayas.

"They also said nobody is prohibiting them from taking a break."

After years of hard fought, back-and-forth litigation, the suit
(which consolidated four related cases against AMPCO and ABM) was
finally settled after the judge certified the case as a class
action.  Rather than risking the unpredictability of a jury trial,
the plaintiff and defense agreed on a $4.7 million settlement
decision.

"The most important thing, when dealing with a class action, is
that it addresses the present and the future," he said.  "This
sends a message to their boardroom to make sure that they are in
compliance with the law."


APPLE REIT: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
On December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York ordered that three putative class
actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et
al., Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., and Leff v. Apple
REIT Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and amended the caption of
the consolidated matter to be In re Apple REITs Litigation. The
District Court also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
the consolidated action and ordered lead plaintiffs to file and
serve a consolidated complaint by February 17, 2012. The Company
was previously named as a party in the Kronberg, et al. v. David
Lerner Associates, Inc., et al. putative class action lawsuit,
which was filed on June 20, 2011.

On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In
re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO,
filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors,
Inc., Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., Apple
Fund Management, LLC, Apple REIT Seven, Inc., Apple REIT Eight,
Inc., Apple REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten, Inc., their
directors and certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc.
and David Lerner. The consolidated complaint, purportedly brought
on behalf of all purchasers of Units in the Company and the other
Apple REIT Companies, or those who otherwise acquired these Units
that were offered and sold to them by David Lerner Associates,
Inc., or its affiliates and on behalf of subclasses of
shareholders in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Florida,
asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933. The consolidated complaint also asserts claims for breach
of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty,
negligence, and unjust enrichment, and claims for violation of the
securities laws of Connecticut and Florida. The complaint seeks,
among other things, certification of a putative nationwide class
and the state subclasses, damages, rescission of share purchases
and other costs and expenses.

On February 16, 2012, one shareholder of the Company and Apple
REIT Seven, Inc., filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Laurie Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:12-cv-782-ERK-RER, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against the Company, Apple REIT
Seven, Inc., Glade M. Knight, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc.,
David Lerner Associates, Inc., and certain executives of David
Lerner Associates, Inc.  The complaint, purportedly brought on
behalf of all purchasers of Units of the Company and Apple REIT
Seven, Inc., or those who otherwise acquired these Units, asserts
claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach
of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, negligence, breach of
written or implied contract (against the David Lerner Associates,
Inc. defendants only), and for violation of New Jersey's state
securities laws.  On March 13, 2012, by order of the court, Laurie
Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al. was consolidated
into the In re Apple REITs Litigation.

On April 18, 2012, the Company, and the other Apple REIT
Companies, served a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
in the In re Apple REITs Litigation. The Company and the other
Apple REIT Companies accompanied their motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint with a memorandum of law in support of
their motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The briefing
period for any motion to dismiss was completed on July 13, 2012.

The Company believes that any claims against it, its officers and
directors and other Apple entities are without merit, and intends
to defend against them vigorously. At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.

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


ATLANTIC POWER: Bernard M. Gross Law Firm Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts,
13cv10537, on behalf purchasers of common stock of Atlantic Power
Corporation between August 8, 2012 and February 28, 2013,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 8, 2013. If you wish to discuss this action or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, Deborah R. Gross, Esq. or
Susan R. Gross, Esq. at 866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600 or via e-mail
at debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com

Any person who purchased AT common stock during the Class Period
may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
his choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

The complaint charges that Atlantic Power and its President and
Chief Executive Officer, Barry Welch, violated federal securities
laws by making false and misleading statements regarding AT's
common stock dividend in 2012 and 2013.  Specifically, the
sustainability of AT's stock dividend was regarded by the Company
as one of its corporate objectives.  On numerous occasions during
the Class Period, defendants stated they were studying cash flows
and the sustainability of a dividend.  Then, without any warning,
on February 28, 2013 in a press release the company stated that in
order to "target a lower, more sustainable payout ratio that
balances yield and growth," the Board, with management's
recommendation was cutting AT's common stock dividend by more than
50% commencing with the March 2013 dividend, thus paying an annual
dividend of only C$0.40 per share, down from C$0.90 per share. The
market reacted immediately and the price of AT common stock fell
from an opening price of $10.25 on February 28, 2012 to a closing
price of $7.12 on March 1, 2013, and a further drop on March 4 to
a $5.91 closing price, on trading volume of over 9 million shares.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of ATLANTIC POWER CORPORATION (NYSE:AT)
between August 8, 2012 and February 28, 2013, inclusive.   The
plaintiff is represented by Law Offices Bernard M. Gross P.C. The
firm has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and
extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.


BECK ENERGY: Ohio Court Grants Motion for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Bruni -- jwbruni@jacksonkelly.com -- at Jackson Kelly,
PLLC reports that in a case that could signal a wave of similar
type lawsuits for the oil and gas industry, an Ohio trial court
recently granted a motion for class certification in an action
filed against a Utica Shale driller seeking to invalidate hundreds
of oil and gas leases in Monroe and Belmont counties.

In Hupp v. Beck Energy Corp., three landowners filed suit claiming
that their leases with Beck Energy Corp. were void and should be
terminated because Beck never drilled wells on their property and
that a provision allowing Beck to pay a nominal delay rental was
against public policy.  The Court agreed and granted summary
judgment.

Two weeks later, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  XTO Energy, a subsidiary of ExxonMobil Corp., then
sought leave to intervene in the action since Beck had sold the
Plaintiffs' deep drilling rights to XTO as part of a larger
transaction in December of 2011.

The Court noted that there were potentially six to seven hundred
plaintiffs and that the leases in question were all identical
except for a few blanks which would be filled in for the date of
the lease, the names and addresses of the lessors and the property
descriptions.

As a result, the Court found that the individual joinder of all
the parties in the original suit was impractical and that, because
there existed questions of law and fact that were common to the
class, a class action was the appropriate vehicle.

In addition to issuing its order on the issue of class
certification, the Court denied XTO's request to intervene in the
litigation, ruling that when Beck entered into the purchase
agreement with XTO for the sale of the leases, XTO was put on
notice of the litigation and its potential consequences before
finalizing the deal.  As such, they could not try to intervene
almost a year after the case was filed and more than nine months
after acquiring the leases from Beck.

Both Beck and XTO have not indicated whether they will appeal the
trial court's decisions.  Either way, one should expect more
challenges by land owners to try to terminate existing leases in
an effort to take advantage of the recent leasing boom in Ohio.


BLUWORLD/NU-FLAME: Recalls Vivo & Vivido Wall Mounted Fireplaces
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bluworld/Nu-Flame, of Orlando, Florida, announced a voluntary
recall of Nu-Flame Vivo and Vivido wall mounted fireplaces.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Overfilling or spilling fuel while attempting to refill fireplace
fuel cups while in place can lead to the fuel cup being ejected
from the fireplace, posing a fire or burn hazard to the user,
bystanders or items nearby.

The firm has received two reports of property damage to clothing,
bedding and a pet bed.  No injuries have been reported.

The wall mounted fireplaces have a 2 or 3.4 liter capacity burner
fuel cup with an ethanol open flame behind a tempered glass shield
with a metal curved base and a black metal backboard.  Both wall
mounted fireplaces measure about 20-inches in height.  The Vivo
NF-W4VIO model measures about 39-inches in width and the Vivido
NF-W3VIO model fireplace measures 26-inches in width.  The model
number is printed on the product packaging.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/AydglR

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at on-
line retailers including Amazon.com, Overstock.com and
DirectBuy.com from November 2011 through December 2012 for between
$300 and $400 for the Vivo model and between $200 and $300 for the
Vivido model.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled wall mounted
fireplace and contact Blueworld/Nu-Flame to receive a free repair.
All known purchasers have been notified of the recall.
Bluworld/Nu-Flame toll-free may be reached at (888) 499-5433 from
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or
online at http://www.nu-flame.com/and click on the scrolling text
for more information.


CIMAREX ENERGY: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for March 22
------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement fairness hearing in a class action lawsuit against
Cimarex Energy Co. has been set for March 22, 2013, 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 11, 2012, Cimarex Energy Co.
entered into a preliminary resolution of the Hitch Enterprises,
Inc., et al. v. Cimarex Energy Co., et al. (Hitch) litigation
matter for $16.4 million. Hitch was filed as a statewide royalty
putative class action in the Federal District Court in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma. The settlement was reached at a mediation, which
occurred after the parties began to exchange information,
including damage analyses, on November 16, 2012. The Court has
entered an order preliminarily approving the parties' settlement.
The deadline for putative class members to opt out of the
settlement class was February 15, 2013, and less than 1/2% of the
class members opted out. The Court will hold the settlement
fairness hearing on March 22, 2013. In the fourth quarter of 2012,
we accrued $16.4 million for this matter."


DAIRY FARMERS: April 3 Final Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Patton, writing for OzarksFirst.com, reports that the
Ozarks has learned 86 employees will lose their jobs in the
shuttering of the Dairy Farmers of America's Monett plant.

"The decision came as a result of continued financial losses due
to a defect milk market," Monica Massey with the DFA told KOLR10
News.

However, there may be more to the story than DFA told the media: a
multi-state, multi-million dollar anti-trust lawsuit.  The lawsuit
was brought by dairy farmers and claims the Dairy Farmers of
America and other defendants violated federal anti-trust laws and
paid the dairy farmers less than their milk was worth.

The DFA agreed to a multi-million dollar settlement instead of
going to trial.  As part of the deal, farmers will be paid more
than $158 million.  In the settlement agreement the defendants,
which include DFA, spell out a way to raise millions for their
settlement fund by changing the distribution of milk.  The plan is
to reduce or eliminate milk shipped to facilities like Monett
where milk is only used as an ingredient in cheese in favor of
shipping to other facilities like Highland Dairy in Springfield,
which is a class 1 facility.

KOLR10 News has spoken to multiple farmers in southwest Missouri
who are taking part in the class-action lawsuit.  They didn't want
to go on camera, however, because they are still in the position
of having to sell their milk to the Dairy Farmers of America.

Court documents say defendants admit no wrongdoing and say they
settled to eliminate ongoing court costs and going to trial.

The final settlement hearing is April 3 in federal court in
Tennessee.

DFA is just one of the named defendants in this case.  There are
also brands and retailers listed as co-conspirators who are being
accused of federal anti-trust law violations.

Ms. Massey, with DFA, called after KOLR10's early evening
newscasts and maintains they are not closing the Monett facility
because of the class action suit, but because of the milk deficit
situation causing financial issues with the Monett plant.

Ms. Massey said, "We're a member-owned organization, so we have an
obligation to the member to not lose their money and we've been
losing money in Monett for several years now.  In the Southeast we
call that a milk deficit market and we've been bringing milk in
from other areas like Kansas and Texas."


DIGITALGLOBE INC: Finalizing Settlement in Shareholder Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DigitalGlobe, Inc.'s subsidiary, GeoEye Inc., is finalizing a
settlement in the consolidated class action lawsuit captioned, In
re GeoEye, Inc., Shareholder Litigation, Consol. No. 1:12-cv-
00826-CMH-TCB, 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 July 2012, GeoEye Inc. and the GeoEye board of directors,
DigitalGlobe, 20/20 Acquisition Sub, Inc. and WorldView, LLC were
named as defendants in three purported class action lawsuits filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia. The lawsuits were brought on behalf of proposed classes
consisting of all public holders of GeoEye common stock, excluding
the defendants and, among others, their affiliates. The actions
were captioned: Behnke v. GeoEye, Inc., et al., No. 1:12-CV-826-
CMH-TCB, filed on July 26, 2012;
Braendli v. GeoEye, Inc., et al., No. 1:12-CV-841-CMH-TRJ, filed
on July 30, 2012; and Crow v. Abrahamson, et al., No. 1:12-CV-842-
CMH-TCB, filed on July 30, 2012. On September 7, 2012, the Court
ordered the consolidation of the three actions. The consolidated
action is captioned: In re GeoEye, Inc., Shareholder Litigation,
Consol. No. 1:12-cv-00826-CMH-TCB. The Court's consolidation order
provided for, among other things, the appointment of the law firms
of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Levi & Korsinsky LLP and
Finkelstein Thompson LLP as members of the Plaintiffs' Executive
Committee of Lead Counsel ("Lead Counsel") and the setting of the
defendants' response date to the amended complaint as 30 days
after its filing.

A corrected amended complaint was filed in the consolidated action
on September 24, 2012. The amended complaint contains allegations
that the GeoEye board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
by allegedly, among other things, failing to maximize stockholder
value, agreeing to preclusive deal protection measures and failing
to disclose certain information necessary to make an informed vote
on whether to approve the proposed merger. DigitalGlobe is alleged
to have aided' and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty. In
addition, the amended complaint contains allegations that the
GeoEye board of directors and DigitalGlobe violated Section 20(a)
and Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by the filing of a Registration
Statement allegedly omitting material facts and setting forth
materially misleading information. The consolidated action seeks,
among other things, a declaration that a class action is
maintainable, an injunction preventing the consummation of the
merger and an award of damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

On September 28, 2012, Lead Counsel filed a motion for expedited
discovery. On September 30, 2012, Lead Counsel made a confidential
settlement demand requesting additional disclosures to address the
alleged omissions raised in the amended complaint. On October 9,
2012, following arm's-length negotiations, the parties to the
consolidated action entered into a MOU to settle all claims
asserted therein on a class-wide basis. GeoEye and the GeoEye
board of directors, DigitalGlobe, 20/20 Acquisition Sub, Inc. and
WorldView, LLC entered into the MOU solely to avoid the costs,
risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without
admitting any liability or wrongdoing. In connection with the MOU,
DigitalGlobe agreed to make additional disclosures in Amendment
No. 1 to the Registration Statement. The settlement set forth in
the MOU includes a release of all claims against defendants
alleged in the corrected amended complaint, and is subject to,
among other items, the completion of confirmatory discovery,
execution of a stipulation of settlement and court approval, as
well as the Merger becoming effective under applicable law. Any
payments made in connection with the settlement, which are subject
to court approval, are not expected to be material to the combined
company. The foregoing description of the MOU does not purport to
be complete, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the
MOU.

In January 2013, the parties completed confirmatory discovery and
are in the process of finalizing the settlement which will then be
submitted to the Court for approval.


EPOCRATES INC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP filed a class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of those persons and entities: (1) who
purchased or otherwise acquired Epocrates, Inc. securities between
February 2, 2011 and August 9, 2011, inclusive; and (2) who
purchased or otherwise acquired Epocrates securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's February 2,
2011 initial public offering.  The action seeks remedies under the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased Epocrates securities during the Class Period or
in the Company's IPO and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the
action, you must move the Court no later than May 7, 2013.  Any
member of the investor class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have questions concerning this notice or your
rights, please contact Scott+Scott -- scottlaw@scott-scott.com --
(800) 404-7770, (860) 537-5537) or visit the Scott+Scott Web site
for more information: http://www.scott-scott.com/

There is no cost or fee to you.

Based in San Mateo, California, Epocrates offers various mobile
health software applications that provide reference information
for the healthcare industry.  The securities class action charges
that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations
and prospects. Specifically, the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the
Company's pharmaceutical clients were awaiting guidance relating
to use of advertising on the Internet and through social media
from the United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"); (2)
that, as a result, these clients were increasingly delaying their
marketing activities on the Internet and through social media; (3)
the FDA's delay in issuing guidance relating to the Internet and
social media was causing expanding regulatory queues for
Epocrates; (4) that the expanding regulatory queues were
negatively impacting the Company's sales and revenue growth; and
(5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects
lacked a reasonable basis and/or were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On August 9, 2011, the Company reported its 2011 fiscal second
quarter financial results and lowered its net sales guidance for
the 2011 fiscal year from the range of $122 million to $125
million to the range of $115 million to $120 million.  According
to the Company, the reason for this revised guidance was that its
revenue growth was being negatively impacted by expanding
regulatory queues, causing delays in the launch of DocAlert(R)
messages and the lengthening of the time between contract signing
and revenue recognition.

On this news, shares of Epocrates declined $6.80 per share, nearly
40%, to close on August 10, 2011, at $9.89 per share, on heavy
trading volume.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide.

Contact: Michael Burnett, Esq.
         Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP
         Telephone: (800) 404-7770
                    (860) 537-5537
         E-mail: mburnett@scott-scott.com


EQUINIX INC: Continues to Defend 3rd Amended Complaint in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Equinix, Inc., continues to defend a Third Amended Complaint in an
alleged class action lawsuit in California, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On March 4, 2011, an alleged class action
entitled Cement Masons & Plasterers Joint Pension Trust v.
Equinix, Inc., et al., No. CV-11-1016-SC, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
against Equinix and two of our officers. The suit asserts
purported claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 for allegedly misleading statements regarding
our business and financial results. The suit is purportedly
brought on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between July
29, 2010 and October 5, 2010, and seeks compensatory damages, fees
and costs. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 7,
2011. On March 2, 2012, the Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss without prejudice and gave plaintiffs thirty days in which
to amend their complaint. Pursuant to stipulation and order of the
court entered on March 16, 2012, the parties agreed that
plaintiffs would have up to and through May 2, 2012 to file a
Second Amended Complaint. On May 2, 2012 plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Complaint asserting the same basic allegations as in the
prior complaint. On June 15, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint. On September 19, 2012, the Court took
the hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint off calendar and notified the parties that it would make
its decision on the pleadings. Subsequently, on September 24, 2012
the Court requested the parties submit supplemental briefing on or
before October 9, 2012. The supplemental briefing was submitted on
October 9, 2012. On December 5, 2012, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint without
prejudice and on January 15, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their Third
Amended Complaint. Defendants' response is due by February 26,
2013."


ILLINOIS: Madison County Faces 2nd Class Action Over Tax Auctions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Fitzgerald, writing for News-Democrat, reports that for the
second time in two weeks, a Madison County property owner filed a
lawsuit seeking class action status against the county for ex-
treasurer Fred Bathon's bid-rigging scheme involving annual
auctions of delinquent property taxes.

Named as defendants are Madison County Board Chairman Alan Dunstan
and Circuit Clerk Mark Von Nida.  Other co-defendants include
Bathon; Jim Foley, a former investment officer in the treasurer's
office; and 13 individuals and firms that specialize in buying up
delinquent taxes and making money off the penalty interest.  The
lawsuit names Mr. Von Nida as one of Mr. Bathon's co-conspirators,
and accuses Mr. Von Nida, who served as county clerk from 1997 to
2012, of agreeing "to participate in an unlawful act, the
violation of the Illinois Antitrust Act and the federal Sherman
Act."  The lawsuit also accuses Mr. Von Nida, as county clerk, of
playing "an integral goal in the tax sale process" because it was
his job to attend all tax auction sales, and to document all sales
as they occurred."

Messrs. Dunstan and Mr. Von Nida could not be reached for comment
on March 8.

According to the lawsuit: "Any reasonable person in Von Nida's
position who was attending to such duties with reasonable
diligence could not help but be aware of or at least high
suspicious there was on going illegal conspiracy under the
circumstances . . . At worst, Von Nida participated in and/or was
complicit in the ongoing scheme to make illegal profits off of the
tax sales."

Messrs. Dunstan and Von Nida could not be reached for comment on
March 8.

County insurer Western Surety Company, a lawsuit co-defendant that
had issued public officials bonds on behalf of Mr. Von Nida, also
could not be reached for comment.

Tax buyers named as co-defendants in the lawsuit include some of
the most prominent names in the state, including Dennis Ballinger
of Decatur, John Vassen of Belleville, and Scott McLean of East
St. Louis.  The taxbuyers had previously declined to comment.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages on behalf people in the
proposed plaintiff class "in a sum that will justly compensate
them for their loss, for their costs and attorneys' fees and for
an award of treble actual damages."

Mr. Bathon pleaded guilty a month ago in U.S. district court in
East St. Louis to a criminal charge of rigging the tax sale so
that his political donors profited from inflated penalties paid by
property owners.

Mr. Bathon, according to his plea agreement, could receive a
prison sentence of between 31 and 40 months, though his sentence
could be reduced based on his cooperation with federal law
enforcement.

Mr. Bathon's guilty plea, as well as the two class action
lawsuits, occurred more than two years after a September 2010
series by the News-Democrat that exposed Mr. Bathon's bid-rigging
scheme.

The class-action suit was filed on March 7 in Madison County by
St. Louis attorneys Aaron G. Weishaar and Christopher A. Michener.
For now, the only named plaintiff is Virgil Straeter, of Highland.

Mr. Straeter is asking the court to certify the suit as a class
action on behalf of any Madison County property owners whose tax
bills were included in the county's tax sales from 2003 to 2008.
Prosecutors have said there were about 10,000 tax bills affected.

A class-action suit was filed Feb. 20 by St. Jacob attorney John
Barberis and Collinsville attorney Steve Giacoletto.  For now, the
only named plaintiffs are Scott and Dawn Bueker, of St. Jacob,
Jason and Christine Moss, of Collinsville, and Guideon Richeson,
of Troy.  Named as defendants in the first lawsuit, along with the
county, are Mr. Bathon and taxbuyers Messrs. Vassen, Ballinger,
McClean and others.

At the county's annual tax sale, investors buy the right to pay
the delinquent taxes of property owners.  Property owners who
don't repay the taxes, as well as a penalty to the investors, can
lose their property.  The penalty rate is supposed to be
determined through competitive bidding, to see which investor is
willing to accept the lowest rate.

In most counties, the tax bills are sold in a reverse auction,
where the investor offering to take the lowest penalty rate is the
winning bidder.  The process is supposed to ensure that property
owners aren't charged excessive penalties for paying their taxes
late.

However, witnesses say Mr. Bathon conducted his tax sales like a
bid opening, where investors were not allowed to undercut each
other or "bid down" the penalty percentage.

Under Mr. Bathon's procedure, all the bidders would shout an
opening bid.  The one who shouted the lowest bid first was
declared the winner.  Federal prosecutors say Mr. Bathon's
procedure resulted "in a chaotic scene where every participant at
the tax sale shouted their bids simultaneously, leaving the
auctioneer, a treasurer's office employee, to select the
'winner.'"

From 2006 to 2009, the last three years of Mr. Bathon's tenure,
the average penalty rate awarded to tax buyers was either 18
percent -- the highest rate allowed by state law -- or 17%,
according to the 2010 News-Democrat probe of the tax sales.  The
average fell to 9% after Mr. Bathon retired and Frank Miles, a
fellow Democrat, was named treasurer.

Current Treasurer Kurt Prenzler conducted the county's annual tax
sale last month, and the average penalty rate was 3.7 percent.
All three sales conducted during Mr. Prenzler's tenure have
produced average penalty rates below 4 percent.


EURONET WORLDWIDE: Defends Wage and Hour Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Euronet Worldwide, Inc. is defending a wage and hour class action
lawsuit, according to the Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

During 2012, the Company was served with a class action lawsuit
filed by another former employee alleging wage and hour violations
relating to meal and rest period requirements.  The Company says
it is vigorously defending this lawsuit.  Due to the preliminary
nature of the litigation, the Company is not able to estimate or
predict any possible loss or range of loss associated with the
litigation.

Euronet Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.euronetworldwide.com/and
http://www.eeft.com/-- is an electronic payments provider.  The
Company offers payment and transaction processing and distribution
solutions to financial institutions, retailers, service providers
and individual consumers.  The Company is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Leawood, Kansas.


HEIN & ASSOCIATES: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on March 8 disclosed that a class action
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of Raser Technologies, Inc. between March 17, 2010 and April 29,
2011, inclusive, against the auditor of the Company, Hein &
Associates LLP, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 7, 2013.  If you wish to discuss this action or
have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Thomas J. McKenna,
Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail
at tjmckenna@gme-law.com

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The Complaint alleges that the Company's audited financial
statements, which were contained within the 2009 Form 10-K and
2010 Form 10-K and which were distributed to the investing public
during the Class Period, were not presented fairly in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles because: (i) the
accounting principles selected and applied in the preparation of
the Company's 2009 and 2010 year-end financial statements did not
have general acceptance; (ii) the accounting principles which
pervasively impacted the Company's 2009 and 2010 year-end
financial statements were not appropriate in the circumstances;
(iii) the Company's 2009 and 2010 year-end financial statements,
including the related notes, were not informative of matters that
affected their use, understanding, and interpretation; and (iv)
the Company's 2009 and 2010 year-end financial statements did not
reflect the underlying events and transactions in a manner that
presented the financial position and the results of operations
within a range of acceptable limits that were reasonable and
practicable to attain in financial statements.  Accordingly, the
Complaint alleges Hein was required by GAAS (AU Section 508) to
express qualified opinions thereon, but that it failed to do so.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Raser common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Gainey McKenna & Egleston --
http://www.gme-law.com-- whose attorneys have decades of
experience in prosecuting securities class actions and investor
class actions throughout the United States.


INNOVATION VENTURES: Sued Over 5-Hour Energy's Deceptive Marketing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Stride, writing for Law360, reports that the maker of 5-Hour
Energy was hit on March 7 with a putative class action in
Pennsylvania alleging it deceptively markets the drink as causing
no so-called crash or subsequent drop in energy when it actually
does cause a crash attributable to caffeine.  Plaintiffs Donna A.
Thompson and Michael R. Casey sued Innovation Ventures LLC, which
does business as Living Essentials, claiming the product it
markets as a healthy vitamin-filled energy drink is actually
"nothing more than a shot of caffeine."


MOODY'S CORP: Oral Arguments in Securities Suit Set for April
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments on a motion for summary judgment in In re Moody's
Corporation Securities Litigation is scheduled for April 2013,
according to Moody's Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

Two purported class action complaints have been filed by purported
purchasers of the Company's securities against the Company and
certain of its senior officers, asserting claims under the federal
securities laws. The first was filed by Raphael Nach in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 19,
2007. The second was filed by Teamsters Local 282 Pension Trust
Fund in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on September 26, 2007. Both actions have been
consolidated into a single proceeding entitled In re Moody's
Corporation Securities Litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

On June 27, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed,
purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
securities during the period February 3, 2006 through October 24,
2007. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants issued false and/or
misleading statements concerning the Company's business conduct,
business prospects, business conditions and financial results
relating primarily to MIS's ratings of structured finance products
including RMBS, CDO and constant-proportion debt obligations. The
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and
their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in connection with
the case. The Company moved for dismissal of the consolidated
amended complaint in September 2008. On February 23, 2009, the
court issued an opinion dismissing certain claims and sustaining
others.

On January 22, 2010, plaintiffs moved to certify a class of
individuals who purchased Moody's Corporation common stock between
February 3, 2006 and October 24, 2007, which the Company opposed.
On March 31, 2011, the court issued an opinion denying plaintiffs'
motion to certify the proposed class. On April 14, 2011,
plaintiffs filed a petition in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit seeking discretionary permission to appeal
the decision. The Company filed its response to the petition on
April 25, 2011. On July 20, 2011, the Second Circuit issued an
order denying plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal. On
September 14, 2012, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment, which was fully briefed on December 21, 2012. Oral
arguments on the motion for summary judgment is scheduled for
April 2013.


MOODY'S CORP: Trial on Abu Dhabi Fraud Claims Set for May
---------------------------------------------------------
Trial on the remaining fraud claims filed by Abu Dhabi Commercial
Bank against Moody's Corporation and other rating agencies is
scheduled for May 2013, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

On August 25, 2008, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank filed a purported
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York asserting numerous common-law causes of
action against two subsidiaries of the Company, another rating
agency, and Morgan Stanley & Co. The action relates to securities
issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance
(the "Cheyne SIV") and seeks, among other things, compensatory and
punitive damages. The central allegation against the rating agency
defendants is that the credit ratings assigned to the securities
issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and misleading. In early
proceedings, the court dismissed all claims against the rating
agency defendants except those for fraud and aiding and abetting
fraud. In June 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification, and additional plaintiffs were subsequently added
to the complaint. In January 2012, the rating agency defendants
moved for summary judgment with respect to the fraud and aiding
and abetting fraud claims.

Also in January 2012, in light of new New York state case law, the
court permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that
reasserted previously dismissed claims against all defendants for
breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation,
and related aiding and abetting claims. In May 2012, the court,
ruling on the rating agency defendants' motion to dismiss,
dismissed all of the reasserted claims except for the negligent
misrepresentation claim, and on September 19, 2012, after further
proceedings, the court also dismissed the negligent
misrepresentation claim.

On August 17, 2012, the court ruled on the rating agencies' motion
for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining claims for fraud
and aiding and abetting fraud. The court dismissed, in whole or in
part, the fraud claims of four plaintiffs as against Moody's but
allowed the fraud claims to proceed with respect to certain claims
of one of those plaintiffs and the claims of the remaining 11
plaintiffs. The court also dismissed all claims against Moody's
for aiding and abetting fraud. Three of the plaintiffs whose
claims were dismissed filed motions for reconsideration, and on
November 7, 2012, the court granted two of these motions,
reinstating the claims of two plaintiffs that were previously
dismissed. On February 1, 2013, the court dismissed the claims of
one additional plaintiff on jurisdictional grounds. Trial on the
remaining fraud claims against the rating agencies, and on claims
against Morgan Stanley for aiding and abetting fraud and for
negligent misrepresentation, is scheduled for May 2013.

Based on plaintiffs' most recent litigation disclosures, the
August 2012 dismissal of certain claims, the reinstatement of
certain of those claims in November 2012, and the dismissal of an
additional plaintiff's claims in February 2013, the total alleged
compensatory damages against all defendants are approximately $638
million, consisting of alleged lost principal and lost interest,
plus statutory interest, except that approximately $14.5 million
of those claimed damages are not being sought from Moody's.


MOODY'S CORP: Awaits Trial Date for Fraud Claim in New York Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Corporation is awaiting a trial date with respect to the
fraud claim against it in a consolidated class action lawsuit
arising out of investments in securities issued by a structured
investment vehicle called Rhinebridge plc, according to Moody's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

In October 2009, plaintiffs King County, Washington and Iowa
Student Loan Liquidity Corporation each filed substantially
identical putative class actions in the Southern District of New
York against two subsidiaries of the Company and several other
defendants, including two other rating agencies and IKB Deutsche
Industriebank AG. These actions arise out of investments in
securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called
Rhinebridge plc (the "Rhinebridge SIV") and seek, among other
things, compensatory and punitive damages. Each complaint asserted
a claim for common law fraud against the rating agency defendants,
alleging, among other things, that the credit ratings assigned to
the securities issued by the Rhinebridge SIV were false and
misleading. The case is pending before the same judge presiding
over the litigation concerning the Cheyne SIV.

In April 2010, the court denied the rating agency defendants'
motion to dismiss. In June 2010, the court consolidated the two
cases and the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that, among
other things, added Morgan Stanley & Co. as a defendant. In
January 2012, in light of new New York state case law, the court
permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that
asserted claims against the rating agency defendants for breach of
fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and
aiding and abetting claims. In May 2012, the court, ruling on the
rating agency defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the
new claims except for the negligent misrepresentation claim and a
claim for aiding and abetting fraud; on September 28, 2012, after
further proceedings, the court also dismissed the negligent
misrepresentation claim. Plaintiffs have not sought class
certification.

On September 7, 2012 the rating agencies filed a motion for
summary judgment dismissing the remaining claims against them. On
January 3, 2013, the Court issued an order dismissing the claim
for aiding and abetting fraud against the rating agencies but
allowing the claim for fraud to proceed to trial. It is expected
that a trial date will be set with respect to the fraud claim
against the rating agencies and a claim for aiding and abetting
fraud against Morgan Stanley. In the course of the proceedings,
the two plaintiffs have asserted that their total compensatory
damages against all defendants, consisting of alleged lost
principal and lost interest, plus statutory interest, equal
approximately $70 million. In June 2012, defendants IKB Deutsche
Industriebank AG and IKB Credit Asset Management GmbH informed the
court that they had executed a confidential settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Junior Seau's Family May Join Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Patch San Diego reports that the lawsuit filed by Junior Seau's
family could join a class-action case against the National
Football League, according to a U-T San Diego report.

Many concussion suits against the football league "have been
brought together before US District Court Judge Anita B. Brody in
Philadelphia" and a Conditional Transfer Order on the Seau lawsuit
could mean the same for the linebacker's family, according to the
newspaper.  The lawsuit, which was filed on Jan. 23, contends that
Mr. Seau took his own life because of brain injuries suffered over
the course of his 20-year NFL career.  The NFL hid the dangers of
repetitive blows to the head and deliberately ignored and
concealed evidence of the risks associated with traumatic brain
injuries, the lawsuit alleges.

The listed plaintiffs are Gina Seau, Mr. Seau's ex-wife; their
children Tyler, Sydney, Jake and Hunter, and Bette Hoffman,
trustee of his estate.

Mr. Seau, who died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in his
Oceanside home on May 2, played with the Chargers for 13 years
before finishing his career with the Miami Dolphins and New
England Patriots.  Mr. Seau was the Bolts all-time leader in
tackles with 1,288.  He also had 47 career sacks and 15 career
interceptions for San Diego.  In November 2011, he was inducted
into the Chargers Hall of Fame.


NRG ENERGY: Appeal From Cheswick-Related Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit relating to
emissions from NRG Energy, Inc.'s Cheswick generating facility in
Springdale, Pennsylvania, remains pending, according to the
Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In April 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, alleging
that emissions from the Cheswick generating facility have damaged
the property of neighboring residents.  The Company disputes these
allegations.  Plaintiffs have brought nuisance, negligence,
trespass and strict liability claims seeking both damages and
injunctive relief.  Plaintiffs seek to certify a class that
consists of people who own property or live within one mile of the
Company's plant.  In July 2012, the Company removed the lawsuit to
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.  In October 2012, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss, which Plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

NRG Energy, Inc. -- http://www.nrgenergy.com/-- is an integrated
wholesale power generation and retail electricity company.  It is
a retail electricity company engaged in the supply of electricity,
energy services, and cleaner energy products to retail electricity
customers in deregulated markets through its Retail businesses,
which include Reliant Energy, Green Mountain Energy Company and
Energy Plus Holdings LLC.  The Company is headquartered in
Princeton, New Jersey.


NRG ENERGY: Continues to Defend GenOn Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. continues to defend itself against class action
lawsuits arising from its acquisition of GenOn Energy, Inc.,
according to the Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

On December 14, 2012, NRG completed the previously announced
merger with GenOn Energy, Inc. in accordance with a merger
agreement, with GenOn continuing as a wholly-owned subsidiary of
NRG.

NRG Energy, Inc. has been named as a defendant in eight purported
class actions pending in Texas and Delaware, related to its
announcement of its agreement to acquire all outstanding shares of
GenOn.  These cases have been consolidated into one state court
case in each of Delaware and Texas and a federal court case in
Texas.  The plaintiffs generally allege breach of fiduciary
duties, as well as conspiracy, aiding and abetting breaches of
fiduciary duties.  Plaintiffs are generally seeking to: be
certified as a class; enjoin the merger; direct the defendant to
exercise their fiduciary duties; rescind the acquisition and be
awarded attorneys' fees costs and other relief that the court
deems appropriate.  Plaintiffs have demanded that there be
additional disclosures regarding the merger terms.

On October 24, 2012, the parties to the Delaware state court case
executed a Memorandum of Understanding to resolve the Delaware
purported class action lawsuit.

NRG Energy, Inc. -- http://www.nrgenergy.com/-- is an integrated
wholesale power generation and retail electricity company.  It is
a retail electricity company engaged in the supply of electricity,
energy services, and cleaner energy products to retail electricity
customers in deregulated markets through its Retail businesses,
which include Reliant Energy, Green Mountain Energy Company and
Energy Plus Holdings LLC.  The Company is headquartered in
Princeton, New Jersey.


NRG ENERGY: Plaintiffs Seek Review of Claims Dismissal vs. GenOn
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari to the United States
Supreme Court in connection with the dismissal of their claims
against a subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc., according to the
Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On December 14, 2012, NRG completed the previously announced
merger with GenOn Energy, Inc. in accordance with a merger
agreement, with GenOn continuing as a wholly-owned subsidiary of
NRG.

GenOn is party to five lawsuits, several of which are class action
lawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas, Missouri, Nevada
and Wisconsin.  These lawsuits were filed in the aftermath of the
California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 and the resulting
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") investigations and
relate to alleged conduct to increase natural gas prices in
violation of antitrust and similar laws.  The lawsuits seek treble
or punitive damages, restitution and/or expenses.  The lawsuits
also name a number of unaffiliated energy companies as parties.
In July 2011, the judge in the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada handling four of the five cases granted the
defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims
against GenOn in those cases.  The plaintiffs have appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  In
September 2012, the State of Nevada Supreme Court handling one of
the five cases affirmed dismissal by the Eighth Judicial District
Court for Clark County, Nevada, of all plaintiffs' claims against
GenOn.

In February 2013, the plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari
to the United States Supreme Court.  GenOn has agreed to indemnify
CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC against certain losses
relating to these lawsuits.

NRG Energy, Inc. -- http://www.nrgenergy.com/-- is an integrated
wholesale power generation and retail electricity company.  It is
a retail electricity company engaged in the supply of electricity,
energy services, and cleaner energy products to retail electricity
customers in deregulated markets through its Retail businesses,
which include Reliant Energy, Green Mountain Energy Company and
Energy Plus Holdings LLC.  The Company is headquartered in
Princeton, New Jersey.


NRG ENERGY: Unit Defends Suits Alleging Deceptive Marketing
-----------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits and investigations alleging deceptive
practices in its marketing of energy services, according to the
Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

Energy Plus Holdings, LLC, is a defendant in six purported class
action lawsuits, two in New York, two in New Jersey, and two in
Pennsylvania.  The plaintiffs in those lawsuits generally allege
that Energy Plus misrepresents that its rates are competitive in
the market; fails to disclose that its rates are substantially
higher than those in the market and that Energy Plus has engaged
in deceptive practices in its marketing of energy services.
Plaintiffs generally seek that these matters be certified as class
actions, with treble damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees,
and any other relief that the court deems just and proper.  In
addition, on July 26, 2012, the Connecticut Attorney General and
Office of Consumer Counsel filed a petition with the Connecticut
Public Utilities Regulatory Authority seeking to investigate
Energy Plus' marketing practices.  On August 7, 2012, Energy Plus
Holdings LLC and Energy Plus Natural Gas LLC received a subpoena
from the State of New York Office of Attorney General which
generally seeks information and business records related to Energy
Plus' sales, marketing and business practices.  While the Company
believes that these allegations are without merit, it is
cooperating with the attorneys general and is exploring an
amicable resolution of all matters.  The Company does not
currently anticipate any potential resolution to be material in
nature and believes it is adequately reserved for any estimated
losses.

NRG Energy, Inc. -- http://www.nrgenergy.com/-- is an integrated
wholesale power generation and retail electricity company.  It is
a retail electricity company engaged in the supply of electricity,
energy services, and cleaner energy products to retail electricity
customers in deregulated markets through its Retail businesses,
which include Reliant Energy, Green Mountain Energy Company and
Energy Plus Holdings LLC.  The Company is headquartered in
Princeton, New Jersey.


OILSANDS QUEST: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Court Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge on March 7 preliminarily approved a settlement for more than
$10 million in an investor class action against Oilsands Quest
Inc. and its former top brass, in which the investors accused the
company of overstating asset valuations by more than $136 million.
The proposed settlement comes more than four months after U.S.
District Judge Jed S. Rakoff lifted a stay of the U.S. case,
allowing investors to pursue a lawsuit.


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Hearing on Georgia Suit Settlement on April 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing for the final approval of Piedmont Office Realty Trust,
Inc.'s settlement of the lawsuit styled In Re Piedmont Office
Realty Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:07-cv-02660-CAP, will be held on April 18, 2013, according to
the Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On October 25, 2007, the same stockholder that filed a lawsuit in
Maryland filed a second purported class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against
Piedmont and its board of directors.  The complaint attempts to
assert class action claims on behalf of (i) those persons who were
entitled to tender their shares pursuant to the tender offer filed
with the SEC by Lex-Win Acquisition LLC, a former stockholder, on
May 25, 2007, and (ii) all persons who are entitled to vote on the
proxy statement filed with the SEC on October 16, 2007.

As subsequently amended and dismissed in part, the complaint
alleges, among other things, violations of the federal securities
laws, including Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act and
Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) promulgated thereunder based upon
allegations regarding (i) the failure to disclose certain
information in the Company's amended response to the Lex-Win
tender offer and (ii) purported misstatements or omissions in the
Company's proxy statement concerning then-existing market
conditions, the alternatives to a listing or extension that were
explored by the defendants, the results of conversations with
potential buyers as to the Company's valuation, and certain
details of its share redemption program.

On June 10, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on March 10, 2010.  Defendants sought and received
permission from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal
the class certification order on an interlocutory basis.  On April
11, 2011, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the
district court's order certifying a class and remanded the case to
the district court for further proceedings.

Following remand, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint
pursuant to leave granted on September 27, 2011.  On October 21,
2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint.  On August 27, 2012, the court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the third amended complaint and entered judgment
in favor of the defendants.  On September 26, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal with the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals.

         Agreement in Principle to Resolve Legal Action

On October 11, 2012, Piedmont reached agreement in principle to
settle the lawsuit.  Under the terms of the proposed settlement of
the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs will dismiss the appeal and release
all defendants from liability in exchange for total payment of
$2.6 million in cash by Piedmont and its insurer.  On December 31,
2012, the Plaintiffs filed unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement, which was granted by the Court on
January 2, 2013.  The settlement is subject to court approval
following notice to the class.  The Court has set a hearing for
April 18, 2013, to determine whether to grant final approval of
the settlement.

The Company believes that plaintiffs' allegations in the lawsuit
are without merit, and the Company will continue to vigorously
defend the action if for any reason the settlement is not
approved.  While there are uncertainties inherent in any
litigation process, the Company's assessment of the merits of the
claim notwithstanding, the risk of material financial loss does
exist.

Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. -- http://www.piedmontreit.com/
-- is a Maryland corporation that operates in a manner so as to
qualify as a real estate investment trust for federal income tax
purposes and engages in the acquisition and ownership of
commercial real estate properties throughout the United States,
including properties that are under construction, are newly
constructed, or have operating histories.  Piedmont was
incorporated in 1997 in Maryland and is based in Johns Creek,
Georgia.


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Hearing on Maryland Suit Settlement on April 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing for the final approval of Piedmont Office Realty Trust,
Inc.'s settlement of the lawsuit titled In Re Wells Real Estate
Investment Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:07-cv-00862-CAP, will be held on April 18, 2013, according to
the Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder filed a class action and
derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland against, among others, Piedmont, Piedmont's
previous advisors, and certain officers and directors of Piedmont.
Upon motion by the defendants, the case was transferred to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
on April 17, 2007.

As subsequently amended and dismissed in part, the complaint
alleges violations of Section 14(a), including Rule 14a-9
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), based upon allegations that
the proxy statement for Piedmont's 2007 internalization
transaction (the "Internalization") contains false and misleading
statements or omits to state material facts.  On February 9, 2011,
the plaintiff dismissed its claim for violation of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.

As subsequently amended and dismissed in part, the complaint
seeks, among other things, (i) certification of the class action;
(ii) a judgment declaring the proxy statement false and
misleading; (iii) unspecified monetary damages; (iv) to nullify
any stockholder approvals obtained during the proxy process; (v)
to nullify the Internalization; (vi) cancellation and rescission
of any stock issued as consideration in the Internalization, or,
in the alternative, rescissory damages; and (vii) the payment of
reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees.  On September 16,
2009, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

On December 4, 2009, the parties filed motions for summary
judgment.  On August 2, 2010, the court entered an order denying
the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting, in part,
the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.

On November 17, 2011, the court issued rulings granting several of
the plaintiff's pre-trial motions to prohibit the defendants from
introducing certain evidence, including evidence of the
defendants' reliance on advice from their outside legal and
financial advisors, and limiting the defendants' ability to relate
their subjective views, considerations, and observations during
the trial of the case.

On February 23, 2012, the court granted several of defendants'
motions, including a motion for reconsideration regarding a motion
plaintiff had filed seeking exclusion of certain evidence
impacting damages, and motions seeking exclusion of certain
evidence proposed to be submitted by plaintiff.

On March 20, 2012, the court granted the defendants leave to file
a motion for summary judgment.  On April 5, 2012, the defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment.  On September 26, 2012, the
court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and
entered judgment in favor of the defendants.  Plaintiff appealed
to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on October 12, 2012.

         Agreement in Principle to Resolve Legal Action

On October 11, 2012, Piedmont reached agreement in principle to
settle the lawsuit.  Under the terms of the proposed settlement of
the lawsuit, the Plaintiff will dismiss the appeal and release all
defendants from liability in exchange for total payment of $4.9
million in cash by Piedmont and its insurer. On December 31, 2012,
the Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement, which was granted by the Court on January 2,
2013.  The settlement is subject to court approval following
notice to the class.  The Court has set a hearing for April 18,
2013, to determine whether to grant final approval of the
settlement.

The Company believes that the Plaintiff's allegations in the
lawsuit are without merit, and the Company will continue to
vigorously defend the action if for any reason the settlement is
not approved.  While there are uncertainties inherent in any
litigation process, the Company's assessment of the merits of the
claim notwithstanding, the risk of material financial loss does
exist.

Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. -- http://www.piedmontreit.com/
-- is a Maryland corporation that operates in a manner so as to
qualify as a real estate investment trust for federal income tax
purposes and engages in the acquisition and ownership of
commercial real estate properties throughout the United States,
including properties that are under construction, are newly
constructed, or have operating histories.  Piedmont was
incorporated in 1997 in Maryland and is based in Johns Creek,
Georgia.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Dismiss Sales Rep.'s Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2012, a putative class action entitled Beery v. Quest
Diagnostics Incorporated was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and a
subsidiary, on behalf of all female sales representatives employed
by the defendants from February 17, 2010, to the present.  The
amended complaint alleges that the defendants discriminate against
these female sales representatives on account of their gender, in
violation of the federal civil rights and equal pay acts, and
seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and monetary damages.
The Company has filed motions to dismiss the complaint, to strike
the class allegations and to compel arbitration with the named
plaintiffs.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 27,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated -- http://www.QuestDiagnostics.com/
-- is a provider of diagnostic testing information services.
Quest Diagnostics was incorporated in Delaware in 1990 and is
headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Celera Acquisition Suit in Delaware Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit in Delaware arising from the acquisition of
Celera Corporation by Quest Diagnostics Incorporated remains
pending, according to the Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

In March 2011, prior to the Company's acquisition of Celera
Corporation, several putative class action lawsuits were filed by
shareholders of Celera against the Company, Celera, and the
directors of Celera in the Court of Chancery of Delaware and in
California.  The lawsuits allege that Celera's directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the Company's proposed
acquisition of Celera, and that the Company aided and abetted
those alleged breaches.  The parties reached a settlement, and the
Court of Chancery of Delaware certified a settlement class and
approved the settlement over the objection of a Celera
shareholder, BVF Partners L.P. ("BVF").  Plaintiffs in two
substantively similar lawsuits filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California were not party to
the settlement agreement but the claims of those plaintiffs were
released pursuant to Court of Chancery's order.  On appeal of the
Court of Chancery's decision, the Supreme Court of the State of
Delaware affirmed the certification of the settlement class and
approval of the settlement, but determined that BVF should have
been afforded the right to "opt out" of the settlement and pursue
its claims.  The case has been remanded to the Court of Chancery
for further proceedings.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated -- http://www.QuestDiagnostics.com/
-- is a provider of diagnostic testing information services.
Quest Diagnostics was incorporated in Delaware in 1990 and is
headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Has Answered "Mt. Lookout" Complaint in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated disclosed in its February 27, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012, that it has filed an answer
to the complaint filed by Mt. Lookout Chiropractic Center Inc. in
New Jersey.

In July 2012, a putative class action entitled Mt. Lookout
Chiropractic Center Inc. v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al.
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey against the Company, two of its subsidiaries and
others.  The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending fax
advertisements without permission and without the required opt-out
notice, and seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.  The
Company has filed an answer to the complaint.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated -- http://www.QuestDiagnostics.com/
-- is a provider of diagnostic testing information services.
Quest Diagnostics was incorporated in Delaware in 1990 and is
headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Reconsideration Bid in Suit vs. Celera Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated's motion for reconsideration of the
denial of its motion to dismiss a securities litigation against a
subsidiary remains pending, according to the Company's February
27, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In 2010, a purported class action entitled In re Celera Corp.
Securities Litigation was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against Celera
Corporation and certain of its directors and current and former
officers.  An amended complaint filed in October 2010 alleges that
from April 2008 through July 22, 2009, the defendants made false
and misleading statements regarding Celera's business and
financial results with an intent to defraud investors.  The
complaint was further amended in 2011 to add allegations regarding
a financial restatement.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages
on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of Celera's stock
during the period in which the alleged misrepresentations were
made.  The Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied.
The Company has filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's
denial of the Company's motion to dismiss.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated -- http://www.QuestDiagnostics.com/
-- is a provider of diagnostic testing information services.
Quest Diagnostics was incorporated in Delaware in 1990 and is
headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Summary Judgment Bids in Seibert Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Summary judgment motions filed in the class action lawsuit titled
Seibert v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al., remain pending,
according to the Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

In November 2010, a putative class action entitled Seibert v.
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al., was filed against the
Company and certain former officers of the Company in New Jersey
state court, on behalf of the Company's sales people nationwide
who were over forty years old and who either resigned or were
terminated after being placed on a performance improvement plan.
The complaint alleges that the defendants' conduct violates the
New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD"), and seeks, among
other things, unspecified damages.  The defendants removed the
complaint to the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey.  The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds
claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA").  The Company filed a motion seeking to limit the
application of the NJLAD to only those members of the purported
class who worked in New Jersey and to dismiss the individual
defendants.  The motion was granted.  The only remaining NJLAD
claim is that of the named plaintiff; the ERISA claim remains in
the case.  Both parties have filed summary judgment motions, which
are pending.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated -- http://www.QuestDiagnostics.com/
-- is a provider of diagnostic testing information services.
Quest Diagnostics was incorporated in Delaware in 1990 and is
headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Railroad Rights Class Actions Near Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Lightwave reports that a series of class action suits against such
well-known current and past fiber-optic network operators as
Sprint, Qwest, Level 3, and WilTel Communications over whether
they had buried fiber cable along railroad lines without the
proper permission appears to be nearing conclusion.  Settlements
are being announced by Court-approved notice-program designer
Kinsella Media LLC.

Finding rights of way for fiber-optic cable deployments is an
ongoing challenge for carriers looking to expand their footprints.
Beginning in the 1980s, the lawsuits allege, operators found
willing partners in railroads, who leased rights within the
easements landowners had granted them to lay track and other
infrastructure.

However, the plaintiffs have asserted that the easement rights
they granted the railroads didn't give the railroads sole
authority to lease those rights of way for fiber deployments.
Carriers should have asked permission of the landowners who
continued to own the land under the rights of way, according to
the suits, which have been filed in courtrooms around the United
States.

The carriers, naturally, argue this isn't the case and deny
wrongdoing.  Nevertheless, Kinsella Media says that several courts
have granted preliminary approval for multiple class-action
settlements of the cases that will provide monetary compensation
to current and former owners of land next to or under the rights
of way.

Class members who may be eligible for payouts include current or
previous owners of land next to or under a railroad right of way,
at any time since the cable was installed, in 12 states:
California, Connecticut, Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,
and Washington.  Settlements have previously been reached in an
additional 29 states, Kinsella notes.  Meanwhile, suits in
Arizona, the District of Columbia, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Mexico, and Texas are still pending.

In exchange for the cash payments, the carrier defendants will
receive a permanent easement giving them rights to have their
fiber cables occupy space in the rights of way, if they haven't
acquired such rights already.

More information on the suits and settlements can be found at
http://www.FiberOpticSettlements.com


STEEL DYNAMICS: Briefing in Illinois Antitrust Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
The parties in an antitrust class action lawsuit pending in
Illinois are currently in the process of briefing relating to a
motion for class certification, according to Steel Dynamics,
Inc.'s February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company, along with eight other steel manufacturing companies,
is involved in a class action antitrust complaint filed in federal
court in Chicago, Illinois, in September 2008, which alleges a
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at
which steel products were sold in the United States starting in
2005, by artificially restricting the supply of such steel
products.  All but one of the Complaints were brought on behalf of
a purported class consisting of all direct purchasers of steel
products between January 1, 2005, and the present.  The other
Complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of
all indirect purchasers of steel products within the same time
period.  In addition, in December 2010, the Company and the other
co-defendants were served with a substantially similar complaint
in the Circuit Court of Cocke County, Tennessee, purporting to be
on behalf of indirect purchasers of steel products in Tennessee.
That case has been removed to the federal court in Chicago that is
hearing the main complaint.  All Complaints seek treble damages
and costs, including reasonable attorney fees, pre- and post-
judgment interest and injunctive relief.  In January 2009, Steel
Dynamics and the other defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss
all of the direct purchaser lawsuits, but this motion was denied
in June 2009.  Ongoing discovery has been primarily focused on
class certification issues, and the parties are currently in the
process of briefing relating to Plaintiffs' May 2012 Motion for
Class Certification.

Due to the uncertain nature of litigation, the Company says it
cannot presently determine the ultimate outcome of this
litigation.  However, the Company has determined, based on the
information available at this time, that there is not presently a
"reasonable possibility", that the outcome of these legal
proceedings would have a material impact on the Company's
financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

Although not presently necessary or appropriate to make a dollar
estimate of exposure to loss, if any, in connection with the
matter, the Company may in the future determine that a loss
accrual is necessary.  Although the Company may make loss
accruals, if and as warranted, any amounts that the Company may
accrue from time to time could vary significantly from the amounts
the Company actually pays, due to inherent uncertainties and the
inherent shortcomings of the estimation process, the uncertainties
involved in litigation and other factors.  Additionally, an
adverse result could have a material effect on the Company's
financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

Steel Dynamics, Inc. -- http://www.steeldynamics.com/-- is a
steel producer and metals recycler.  The Company was incorporated
in Indiana in August 1993 and is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.


TOYS R US: Recalls 9,000 Imaginarium Activity Walkers
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Health Canada and Toys R Us Inc., of Wayne, New Jersey, announced
a voluntary recall of about 9,000 Imaginarium Activity Walkers.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The small bolt and spacer that attaches each front wheel to the
walker can detach, posing a choking hazard to young children.

Toys R Us has received five reports of the front wheels detaching.
No injuries have been reported.

The recalled Imaginarium Activity Walkers have a round wooden push
handle on the top of a curved triangle-shaped wooden walker base
with four wheels.  There is a multi-colored metal xylophone with 2
triangle mallets, 1 multi-colored abacus and 1 scratch noise maker
on the front of the walker.  The walkers have multi-colored
wooden, disc-shaped wheels.  The walkers measure about 19 inches
tall and about 13 inches wide.  The recalled walkers have model
number "Toys 'R' Us 5F5E972" printed on the bottom of the activity
walkers.  Barcode number "3700217300319" is printed on the bottom
of the activity walker box.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at: http://is.gd/7ohmd1

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Toys
R Us stores nationwide and online at www.toysrus.com from August
2011 through January 2013 for about $30.

Consumers should stop using the recalled walker immediately, put
it out of reach of young children and return it to a Toys R Us
store for a full refund or store credit.  Toys R Us may be reached
at (800) 869-7787 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Saturday and from 11:00 a.m. to 7:00. p.m. Sunday, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.toysrus.comand/click on
Safety Information and Recalls for more information.


UNS ENERGY: Appeals in "Navajo Nation" Suit vs. TEP Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Appeals in the class action lawsuit brought by members of the
Navajo Nation against a subsidiary of UNS Energy Corporation
remain pending, according to the Company's February 27, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP), the principal subsidiary of
UNS Energy Corporation, was a defendant in a class action filed in
February 2009 in the United States District Court in Albuquerque,
New Mexico, by members of the Navajo Nation.  The plaintiffs
alleged, among other things, that the rights of way for
defendants' transmission lines on Navajo lands were improperly
granted and that the compensation paid for such rights of way was
inadequate.  The plaintiffs were requesting, among other things,
that the transmission lines on these lands be removed.  In June
2009, TEP and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the
lawsuit on procedural grounds.  In March 2010, the court granted
several of the defendants' motions to dismiss and entered a final
judgment dismissing the case in April 2010.  The plaintiffs filed
a Notice of Appeal with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in May
2010, appealing the BIA's decision to grant the rights of way that
were the subject of the now-dismissed complaint.  In June 2010,
the BIA found that the Notice of Appeal failed to meet the minimum
filing requirements.  In September 2010, the plaintiffs filed new
Notices of Appeal concerning the same rights of way.  The appeals
are currently pending.  TEP cannot predict the outcome of these
appeals.

UNS Energy Corporation -- http://www.uns.com/-- formerly known as
UniSource Energy Corporation, is a utility services holding
company engaged, through its subsidiaries, in the electric
generation and energy delivery business.  The Company is
headquartered in Tucson, Arizona.


W.R. GRACE: Awaits Settlement Payments in Suits Over PI Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. is still awaiting the effective date of its plan
of reorganization, when settlement payments will be made in class
action lawsuits brought on behalf of individuals that had lawsuits
on file asserting personal injury or wrongful death claims,
according to the Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

In September 2000, Grace was named in a purported class action
lawsuit filed in California Superior Court for the County of San
Francisco alleging that the 1996 reorganization involving a
predecessor of Grace and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. and
the 1998 reorganization involving a predecessor of Grace and
Sealed Air Corporation were fraudulent transfers (Abner, et al.,
v. W. R. Grace & Co., et al.).  The lawsuit is alleged to have
been brought on behalf of all individuals who then had lawsuits on
file asserting personal injury or wrongful death claims against
any of the defendants.  After Abner, and prior to the Chapter 11
filing, two other similar class actions were filed.  These
lawsuits have been stayed as a result of Grace's Chapter 11
filing.  The Bankruptcy Court authorized the Official Committee of
Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants and the Official Committee of
Asbestos Property Damage Claimants to proceed with claims against
Sealed Air and Fresenius on behalf of Grace's bankruptcy estate.
In November 2002, Sealed Air and Fresenius each announced that
they had reached agreements in principle with these committees to
settle asbestos, successor liability and fraudulent transfer
claims related to such transactions.  Under the terms of the
Company's joint plan of reorganization and the Fresenius
Settlement and the Sealed Air Settlement, each settlement, as
subsequently revised and subject to certain conditions, Fresenius
and Cryovac, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sealed Air, would
make certain payments upon the effectiveness of the Joint Plan.
These settlements are an integral part of the Joint Plan.

Based in Columbia, Maryland, W. R. Grace & Co. --
http://www.grace.com/-- is engaged in the production and sale of
specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global basis
through three operating segments: Grace Catalysts Technologies,
Grace Materials Technologies and Grace Construction Products.
Grace is the successor to a company that originated in 1854 and
originally became a public company in 1953.


W.R. GRACE: Still Awaits Effective Date of Plan & ZAI Claims Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. is awaiting the effective date of its joint plan
of reorganization, which plan incorporates a settlement of
lawsuits asserting asbestos-related personal and property damage
claims relating to Zonolite(R) Attic Insulation ("ZAI"), according
to the Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

Grace is a defendant in property damage and personal injury
lawsuits relating to previously sold asbestos-containing products.
As of April 2, 2001 (the bankruptcy filing date), Grace was a
defendant in 65,656 asbestos-related lawsuits, 17 involving claims
for property damage (one of which has since been dismissed), and
the remainder involving 129,191 claims for personal injury.  Due
to the Filing, holders of asbestos-related claims are stayed from
continuing to prosecute pending litigation and from commencing new
lawsuits against the Debtors.  Grace's obligations with respect to
present and future asbestos claims will be determined through the
Chapter 11 process.

The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits generally seek
to have the defendants pay for the cost of removing, containing or
repairing the asbestos-containing materials in the affected
buildings.  Various factors can affect the merit and value of PD
Claims, including legal defenses, product identification, the
amount and type of product involved, the age, type, size and use
of the building, the legal status of the claimant, the
jurisdictional history of prior cases, the court in which the case
is pending, and the difficulty of asbestos abatement, if
necessary.

Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases (which involved
thousands of buildings) filed prior to the Filing Date, 16 remain
unresolved.  Eight cases relate to ZONOLITE(R) Attic Insulation
("ZAI"), a former Grace attic insulation product, and eight relate
to a number of former asbestos-containing products (two of which
also are alleged to involve ZAI).

Approximately 4,300 additional PD claims were filed prior to the
March 31, 2003, claims bar date established by the Bankruptcy
Court.  (The March 31, 2003, claims bar date did not apply to ZAI
claims.)  Grace objected to virtually all PD claims on a number of
legal and factual bases.  As of December 31, 2012, approximately
430 PD Claims subject to the March 31, 2003, claims bar date
remain outstanding.  The Bankruptcy Court has approved settlement
agreements covering approximately 410 of such claims for an
aggregate allowed amount of $150.8 million.

Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class action
lawsuits in 2000 and 2001.  In addition, 10 lawsuits were filed as
purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to persons
and homes in Canada.  These cases seek damages and equitable
relief, including the removal, replacement and/or disposal of all
such insulation.  The plaintiffs assert that this product is in
millions of homes and that the cost of removal could be several
thousand dollars per home.  As a result of the Filing, all of
these cases have been stayed.

Based on Grace's investigation of the claims described in these
lawsuits, and testing and analysis of this product by Grace and
others, Grace believes that ZAI was and continues to be safe for
its intended purpose and poses little or no threat to human
health.  The plaintiffs in the ZAI lawsuits dispute Grace's
position on the safety of ZAI.  In December 2006 the Bankruptcy
Court issued an opinion and order holding that, although ZAI is
contaminated with asbestos and can release asbestos fibers when
disturbed, there is no unreasonable risk of harm from ZAI.  In the
event the Company's joint plan of reorganization ("Joint Plan")
does not become effective, the ZAI claimants have reserved their
right to appeal such opinion and order if and when it becomes a
final order.

At the Debtors' request, in July 2008, the Bankruptcy Court
established a claims bar date for U.S. ZAI PD Claims and approved
a related notice program that required any person with a U.S. ZAI
PD Claim to submit an individual proof of claim no later than
October 31, 2008.  Approximately 17,960 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were
filed prior to the October 31, 2008, claims bar date and, as of
December 31, 2012, an additional 1,310 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were
filed.  Under the Canadian ZAI Settlement, all Canadian ZAI PD
Claims filed before December 31, 2009, would be eligible to seek
compensation from the Canadian ZAI property damage claims fund.
Approximately 13,100 Canadian ZAI PD Claims were filed by December
31, 2009.

In November 2008, the Debtors, the Putative Class Counsel to the
U.S. ZAI property damage claimants, the legal representative of
future asbestos property damage claimants (the "PD FCR"), and the
Equity Committee reached an agreement designed to resolve all
present and future U.S. ZAI PD Claims.  The terms of the U.S. and
Canadian ZAI agreements in principle have been incorporated into
the terms of the Joint Plan and related documents.

Upon the occurrence of the effective date under the Joint Plan,
all pending and future PD Claims would be channeled for resolution
to the PD Trust.  PD Claims other than U.S. and Canadian ZAI PD
Claims would be litigated in the Bankruptcy Court or a U.S.
District Court, including all claims and defenses that would have
been available to the parties prior to the filing of the Chapter
11 Cases as well as any defenses based on the
March 31, 2003 bar date.  Any claims determined to be allowed
claims would be paid in cash by the PD Trust.  Grace would be
obligated to fund the PD Trust every six months in an amount
sufficient to enable the PD Trust to pay all such allowed claims
and Trust-related expenses.

All allowed U.S. ZAI PD Claims would be paid by the PD Trust from
the ZAI PD account and all allowed Canadian ZAI PD Claims would be
paid by the Canadian ZAI property damage claims fund.  Grace would
have no liability or obligation for asbestos-related ZAI PD
claims, except for its obligations to fund the PD Trust's ZAI PD
account.

Based in Columbia, Maryland, W. R. Grace & Co. --
http://www.grace.com/-- is engaged in the production and sale of
specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global basis
through three operating segments: Grace Catalysts Technologies,
Grace Materials Technologies and Grace Construction Products.
Grace is the successor to a company that originated in 1854 and
originally became a public company in 1953.


ZIPCAR INC: Awaits Court OK of Stockholder Litigation Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
On February 26, 2013, Zipcar, Inc. ("Zipcar") signed a memorandum
of understanding to settle the previously disclosed class action
lawsuit captioned In re Zipcar, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A.
No. 8185-VCP pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery and the
lawsuits in the Suffolk County Superior Court entitled Karrasch v.
Zipcar, Inc., et al., No. 13-0038-BLS2 and in the Middlesex County
Superior Court entitled Holbrook v. Zipcar, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 13-0060 (collectively, the "Merger Litigation"). The
Merger Litigation relates to the Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of December 31, 2012, by and among Avis Budget Group,
Inc. ("Avis Budget"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Avis Budget and
Zipcar.

Zipcar agreed to the settlement solely to avoid the costs, risks
and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting
any liability or wrongdoing. The settlement provides, among other
things, that the parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of
settlement which provides for the conditional certification of the
Merger Litigation as a non opt-out class action pursuant to Court
of Chancery Rule 23 on behalf of a class consisting of all record
and beneficial owners of Zipcar common stock during the period
beginning on January 2, 2013 through the date of the consummation
of the proposed merger, including any and all of their respective
successors in interest, predecessors and representatives, and the
release of all asserted claims. The asserted claims will not be
released until such stipulation of settlement is approved by the
court. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately
enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will
approve such settlement even if the parties were to enter into
such stipulation. The settlement will not affect the merger
consideration to be received by Zipcar stockholders or the timing
of the special meeting of Zipcar stockholders scheduled for March
7, 2013.

Additionally, as part of the settlement, Zipcar has agreed to make
certain additional disclosures related to the proposed merger, and
to waive a provision of the confidentiality agreement between
Zipcar and one of the other potential acquirers that would
prohibit that party from requesting a waiver of its standstill
obligations under the confidentiality agreement. The additional
disclosures supplement the disclosure contained in the definitive
proxy statement filed by Zipcar with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") on February 4, 2013 (the "Proxy Statement") and
should be read in conjunction with the disclosures contained in
the Proxy Statement, which in turn should be read in its entirety.

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.


* FINRA Can't Prevent Bans on Stockbroker Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
Russell Hubbard, writing for Omaha.com, reports that Wall Street's
self-regulating group has said it cannot prevent bans on class-
action lawsuits against stockbrokers, whose ranks include Omaha-
based TD Ameritrade.

A hearing panel of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or
FINRA, said in late February that class-action bans in the client
agreements of discount broker Charles Schwab and Co. violate the
group's rules designed to protect investors.  But the hearing
panel also said that FINRA cannot overturn the ban on class-action
lawsuits because the group's own enforcement rules conflict with
federal arbitration law.  FINRA said it is appealing the hearing
panel decision within the agency.  For now, the class-action ban
stands for Schwab customers.

"Schwab is pleased with the panel's decision," Schwab said in a
statement.  "The company believes customers are better served
through the existing FINRA arbitration process and that class-
action lawsuits are a cumbersome and less effective means of
resolving disputes -- for both parties."

TD Ameritrade's client agreements contain no clauses that require
customers to waive the right to class-action lawsuits, spokeswoman
Kim Hillyer said.  She declined to comment on other aspects the
FINRA-Schwab decision.  TD Ameritrade, the employer of 2,000
people in the Omaha area, is the nation's second-largest discount
broker, with $500 billion of client assets. No. 1 Schwab has $1.9
trillion.

Class-actions lawsuits combine the purported damages of many
aggrieved parties into one proceeding.  Such lawsuits make it more
economical, class-action lawyers say, for companies to be held
accountable for small wrongs repeated many times, such as
overcharging thousands of customers by a few cents or dollars over
a long period.

FINRA is the Washington-based group set up by brokerages and
wealth managers, and it is authorized by the Securities and
Exchange Commission to police the industry.  The most common
dispute resolution method between brokers and clients is
arbitration before an independent panel.  The group's enforcement
division filed a complaint against member Schwab last year over
provisions in the brokerage's client agreements that require
customers to waive their rights to file class-action lawsuits in
favor of settling all disputes via arbitration.

"Any decision by any tribunal that has the effect of restricting
the rights of any citizen to seek justice via a jury of peers is
unfortunate," said Peter Wegman -- pwegman@remboltlawfirm.com -- a
partner with the Lincoln-based law firm Rembolt Ludtke and
president of the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys.  "People
with small claims will give up. Left out in the cold pretty much
describes it."

David Domina, an Omaha-based lawyer, said restricting class-
actions makes it less likely lawyers will take on a case for no
upfront or ongoing payment in the hopes of winning and being paid
from the case's proceeds.  Mr. Domina won a $1.26 billion class-
action verdict from a 1996 lawsuit against Tyson Fresh Meats, an
award that was later vacated.

Contingency work, he said, is expensive. Suits, such as his on
behalf of cattle ranchers who said they were being underpaid
because of the "captive feedlot" systems employed by meatpackers,
cost millions of dollars in cash expenses and unpaid billable
hours.  Outlays in such cases are typically for travel, copying
expenses and expert witness fees.  Those costs are absorbed by law
firms long before the outcome of a case is known.

"Law firms can easily spend a multiple of the firm's annual
revenues on a big class action," Mr. Domina said.

They will be unlikely to do so for a single person whose damage
award, in the event of victory, would be insufficient to cover the
litigation costs, Mr. Domina said.

Differences in class-action eligibility are unlikely to spur a
tussle for customers between brokers with class-action bans and
those without, said Rich Repetto, an analyst for New York-based
Sandler O'Neill, who follows the industry.

"We are talking about fine details regarding a negative legal
event that may or may not ever come to pass," said Mr. Repetto,
who has a "buy" rating on TD Ameritrade shares.  "I don't see
anyone trying to make a competitive advantage over either
position."


                             *********

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  * * *