CAR_Public/130320.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 20, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 56

                             Headlines



AMERICAN INT'L: Shareholders' Suit Obtain Class-Action Status
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Judge Dismisses $5-Bil. "Campbell" Suit
APPLE INC: Federal Judge Denies Motion for Summary Judgment
AUSTRALIA: Families of Hospital Patients Mull Suit v. State Gov't
BAYER HEALTHCARE: NAD Decision Does Not Support Class Action

BRAVO!: Recalls Chicken Blend-Raw Frozen Food Diet for Dogs, Cats
BMW AG: Faces Class Action Over Mini Coopers Defective Tensioners
CASHCALL: Faces Overtime Class Action in Orange County
COVENTRY HEALTH: Consolidated ERISA Class Suit Remains Pending
COVENTRY HEALTH: Merger Suits in Maryland Dismissed in February

COVENTRY HEALTH: Parties in Securities Suit to Submit Settlement
COVENTRY HEALTH: Yet to File Settlement Docs in Del. Merger Suit
DEER CONSUMER: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS: Recalls 5,200 BrightLight Blankets
FREDERICK BATHON: Faces Class Action Over Rigged Auctions

HUGH BROMMA: Faces Class Action Over Running Ponzi Scheme
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
LINKEDIN CORP: Class Action Not Akin to Food Labeling Cases
MCDONALD'S CORP: Files Motion to Lift Injunction Against Attorney
NEW YORK: Trial in Disabled People's Class Action Begins

NORTH CAROLINA: Set to Decide on Landowners' Beltway Class Action
O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Court Certifies Class in "Schmaltz" Wage Suit
PENNSYLVANIA: Sued Over Isolation of Mentally Ill Inmates
PETRO-CANADA: Court of Appeals Refuses to Authorize Class Action
PRICELINE.COM INC: Appeal in "Rome" Class Suit Remains Pending

PRICELINE.COM INC: Awaits Ruling in "Breckenridge" Class Suit
PRICELINE.COM INC: Consolidated "Peluso" Remains Pending in Ill.
PRICELINE.COM INC: Continues to Defend Suits in Various States
PRICELINE.COM INC: Defends Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes
PRICELINE.COM INC: "Goodlettsville" Class Suit Remains Pending

PRICELINE.COM INC: One of Antitrust Suits Dismissed in January
QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit Over Misleading Statements
SYNCLAIRE BRANDS: Recalls Stuart Weitzman Girls' Cha Cha Boots
SUBWAY: Sued Over "Footlong" Fraudulent Marketing Practices
THELADDERS.COM: Faces Class Action Over Deceiving Consumers

TOKYO ELECTRIC: Fukushima Nuke Crisis Survivors File Class Action
UNIQLO USA: Recalls 700 Pajamas Over Flammability Violations
WADDELL & REED: Remaining Claims in "Taylor" Suit Dismissed
WELLS FARGO: ED Mo. FLSA Suit Has Conditional Class Certification
WILLIAMS COS: April Trial in Suit vs. WAPI Has Been Stricken

WILLIAMS COS: Expects Ruling in One of Gas Price Indices Suits
WILSON SPORTING: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising

* Three Legal Firms to Sue Australian, NZ Banks Over Default Fees


                             *********


AMERICAN INT'L: Shareholders' Suit Obtain Class-Action Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that two groups of American International Group
shareholders won class-action status from a federal judge on
March 11 in a $25 billion lawsuit by former Chief Executive
Maurice "Hank" Greenberg over alleged losses caused by the U.S.
government's bailout of the insurer.  U.S. Court of Federal Claims
Judge Thomas Wheeler also appointed Greenberg's lawyer, David
Boies, of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, as lead counsel for the
classes.

Greenberg's Starr International Co., once AIG's largest
shareholder with a 12% stake, sued the United States in 2011 over
what eventually became a $182.3 billion bailout for the New York-
based insurer.  It said that by taking a 79.9% AIG stake and then
conducting a reverse stock split without letting existing
shareholders vote, the government conducted an illegal taking that
violated the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Citing Mr. Boies' estimate that "tens of thousands" of
shareholders might be affected, Wheeler said "class certification
is by far the most efficient method of adjudicating these claims."

He distinguished the case from the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011
rejection of class status for more than 1 million Wal-Mart Stores
(WMT) workers alleging gender bias, saying the AIG claims are
"based on the same exact government action" rather than "literally
millions" of separate actions.

One class includes AIG shareholders as of September 22, 2008, when
a credit agreement awarding the 79.9% stake took effect.  The
other class includes shareholders as of June 30, 2009 who were
denied a chance to vote on the reverse split.

U.S. Department of Justice spokesman Charles Miller declined to
comment.

AIG decided on January 9 not to join Mr. Greenberg's lawsuit, amid
anger from Congress and voters at the prospect that it might sue
the same entity that rescued it from collapse.

Mr. Greenberg is separately appealing the November 19, 2012
dismissal of a related lawsuit in Manhattan federal court against
the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

On March 1, AIG bought back warrants from the Treasury Department,
eliminating the government's last financial interest in the
insurer.

The case is Starr International Co. v. U.S., U.S. Court of Federal
Claims, No. 11-00779.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Judge Dismisses $5-Bil. "Campbell" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that AIG investors
lack jurisdiction to pursue a $5 billion class action over
allegedly bogus equity units they bought, a federal judge ruled.

In a 2012 federal class action against American International
Group, lead plaintiff Kathryn Campbell said AIG hoped to pump its
stock prices by selling equity units at a value deflated 95%
during the height of the financial crisis, in violation of
Delaware and New York law.  The complaint alleged that AIG had
designed the "equity units" to fail so that its regular stock
would rise.

"In January 1987, defendant established its infamous AIG Financial
Products unit," it stated.  "Permeated by 'recklessness and
greed,' the Financial Products Division manufactured 'immensely
profitable' and 'deceptive' financial products that eventually
poisoned the entire global financial system resulting in a
taxpayer funded 'massive bailout' of AIG in 2008 to the tune of
182 billion dollars!  'AIG's Financial Products Unit finally died
the week of August 6, 2011.  It was 24."

In a footnote, apparently to explain the source of the apparent
quotations, the complaint states: "Defendant has a long history of
unrelenting dishonest business practices.  See, inter alia, In re
American International Group, Inc., 965A.2d763 (Del. Ch., 2009).")

Campbell added in the complaint: "Aware of the impending financial
crisis its reckless and deceptive activities are about to unleash,
AIG embarked upon a 20 billion dollars capital raising effort in
May 2008.  Among the devices it concocted to raise new capital was
the issuance of what it called AIG Equity Units.

"The Equity Units were offered in what defendant called
'Prospectus Supplement' dated May 12, 2008.  It asserted that the
subject prospectus was a supplement to the 'Prospectus dated July
13, 2007.'  But the Equity Units are original issues securities
and had nothing alike to supplement.

"The Prospectus for the Equity Units was in accord with the
infamous tradition of AIG's Financial Products Division for
devising complex and dishonest financial instruments devoid of
good faith and fair dealing, permeated by deliberately confusing
formulas set forth in the context of its specialized knowledge and
expertise, and further imbued in bad faith.  Thus, the Prospectus
consisted of two-hundred-and-five (205) pages - all in fine print;
all in 10 point pitch!"

Campbell claimed that AIG sold the poisoned equity units to
investors at $75 a share, while "the 'Who's Who' of Wall Street
Titans" -- including Citigroup, JP Morgan and Bank of America --
could get the same units at the bargain price of $1.31 a unit -- a
98.25% discount.

U.S. District Judge Contreras dismissed the complaint March 1 for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  "She does not allege a
federal cause of action, nor does she argue that this court has
diversity jurisdiction over her state law claims," Contreras said
of Campbell.

"Ms. Campbell has identified no statute that grants the district
court jurisdiction over this suit, if indeed the Constitution
would allow it," the judge concluded.  "Her case will therefore be
dismissed."


APPLE INC: Federal Judge Denies Motion for Summary Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that,
disturbed by Apple's unwillingness to cooperate, a federal judge
denied its motion for summary judgment in a class action accusing
it of collecting, storing and distributing personal information
without users' consent.

Consumers sought class certification on Dec. 17, 2012, and Apple
"sought repeatedly and unsuccessfully to have its summary judgment
heard before plaintiffs' motion for class certification," U.S.
District Judge Lucy H. Koh wrote in her order.  Since then, Apple
has failed to comply with several court orders to produce
documents and misrepresented at a Feb. 28 hearing this year that
it had complied, Koh found.

"Unfortunately, the representations made by Apple's counsel are
not correct," Koh wrote.  "For example, despite the fact that this
court ordered substantial completion of document production in
this case by Sept. 15, 2012, and the fact that Magistrate Judge
Grewal's Nov. 21, 2012 order compelled Apple to produce documents
responsive to plaintiffs' discovery requests, Apple has not fully
complied with its discovery obligations.  Judge Grewal at the
March 5, 2013 motion to compel hearing asked Apple's counsel point
blank: 'Is your production complete today or not in response to
that [Nov. 21, 2012] order?' Apple's counsel responded, 'Your
honor, it is not complete today.'" (Brackets in judge's order.)

Koh continued: "Despite Apple's counsel's February 28, 2013
representations to this Court that all responsive documents had
been produced, Apple's counsel did not review e-mails in the files
of the senior executives, namely Steve Jobs, Phil Schiller, Greg
Joswiak, and Scott Forstall, until the weekend of March 1-3, 2013.
Apple's counsel claims 'these individuals did not have active
involvement in these issues.'  This claim is surprising in light
of the email showing that Steve Jobs, then Apple CEO, personally
demanded that Apple software engineers immediately design and
release a software update to fix the so-called 'bug' which
overrode users' setting of Location Services to 'off.'" (Citations
to transcripts omitted.)

Koh also was concerned about Apple's claim that it could redact
information from the documents it did supply.  Of the more than
100,000 documents collected and reviewed, Apple claims only 3,000
are relevant to discovery.  Koh said she has heard enough.

"This court concurs with Judge Grewal's conclusion that Apple's
failure to comply with its discovery obligations is unacceptable,"
she wrote.  "Moreover, at this point, this court cannot rely on
Apple's representations about its compliance with its discovery
obligations.

"Apple has stated its willingness to allow supplemental briefing
because of its untimely document production.  At the March 5, 2013
hearing, Apple's counsel stated, 'We certainly will work with
Plaintiffs if they think they need an opportunity to address any
of the class cert issues with respect to those documents.'  In its
March 6, 2013 Statement Regarding Outstanding Discovery, Apple
states that, 'While Apple and its counsel do not believe that any
of the documents produced this week impact the outcome of the
pending class certification and summary judgment motions, they
recognize that they should have discovered and produced these
documents sooner, and have advised Plaintiffs that they do not
oppose the filing of any supplemental briefing that Plaintiffs
believe is necessary to address the recent production.  Apple will
work cooperatively with Plaintiffs to determine how best to
present any supplemental briefing to the Court.'

"Rather than permitting supplemental briefing on class
certification issues, the Court instructs Plaintiffs to withdraw
their class certification motion by March 8, 2013.  A case
management conference will be held on April 10, 2013 at 2:00 p.m.
In the parties' April 3, 2013 joint case management statement, the
parties shall propose a briefing schedule for a new motion for
class certification and any necessary changes to the case
schedule." (Citations to transcripts omitted.)

Koh added: "Apple may not file another summary judgment motion
until the court is satisfied that Apple has complied with its
discovery obligations."


AUSTRALIA: Families of Hospital Patients Mull Suit v. State Gov't
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Olivia Conroy at TopNews, after
the report that revealed loopholes in the clinical practices at
Northam Hospital's emergency department, families of all those
patients who died have thought of filing a suit against the State
Government.

Professor Gary Geelhoed, WA chief medical officer, who came up
with the report, said the inspection team has found behavior of
three doctors below accepted standards of care.  According to him,
the team believes that they should justify themselves in front of
the Medical Board of Australia.

The report includes all those patients who suffered because of
ignorance or professional misconduct from the part of doctors.
One of the residents of Northam unfortunately died after coming
across renal complications.  She had received treatment for the
hospital twice but still failed to survive.  Her husband plans to
participate in the class-action suit for compensation.

Prof. Geelhoed mentioned after the inquest that the three doctors
have questions to reply to in front of the Medical Association.
He also suggested that the team believes that the doctors must not
receive any clinical privileges from the Northam Hospital ED till
the trial.

Responding to the report, WA Health Director General Kim Snowball
said, "Actions have already been taken to lift the standards of
emergency services at Northam that will result in practical
changes for the community in their emergency department".


BAYER HEALTHCARE: NAD Decision Does Not Support Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
According to Terri J. Seligman, Esq., Jessie F. Beeber, Esq. and
Hannah E. Taylor, Esq., of Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, one of
the disturbing trends for advertisers over the last few years has
been the class action bar's interest in NAD decisions and its
review of such decisions to provide fodder for consumer fraud
cases.  As a result, advertisers and challengers have had to
consider the risk of a class action pile-on when engaging in cases
at NAD.  A recent court decision, however, may help to dampen the
class action bar's interest in using the self-regulatory forum's
decisions as a weapon.

On February 11, 2013, Judge Stanley R. Chesler, United States
District Judge for the District of New Jersey, held in an
unpublished decision that a report from the National Advertising
Division of the Better Business Bureau ("NAD") provided
insufficient support for class action plaintiffs' claims of false
advertising and misrepresentation under the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act ("NJCFA").

In early 2012, the NAD issued a report finding unreliable the sole
study Bayer Healthcare, LLC offered to support labeling claims for
its calcium supplement product, Citrical SR.  The NAD recommended
Bayer discontinue any and all labeling claims based on the
evidence provided by this study.

Class action plaintiffs filed suit soon after, claiming that
Bayer's Citrical SR advertising was false in violation of the
NJCFA. Plaintiffs argued that the NAD''s findings provided
sufficient factual basis to support claims that Bayer's
advertising was false and misleading.

Bayer moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, and the court
granted Bayer's motion.  See Gaul et al v. Bayer Healthcare, LLC,
No. 12-5110, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22637 (D.N.J. February 11,
2013).  In his decision, Judge Chesler explicitly stated that
"unreliability" for purposes of claim substantiation was a "very
big leap" from a finding of "falsity" in the consumer class action
context, and thus plaintiffs had not met their burden of pleading
a violation of the NJCFA.

For advertisers who rely on NAD to adjudicate their disputes with
competitors, the court's decision, albeit unpublished and
therefore of limited precedential value, may help parties feel
more confident about participating in this useful alternative to
litigation.  This is good news too for regulators who tout the
self-regulatory forum as an important tool for keeping advertisers
in line.


BRAVO!: Recalls Chicken Blend-Raw Frozen Food Diet for Dogs, Cats
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bravo! is voluntarily recalling its 2-lb. tubes of Bravo! Raw Food
Diet Chicken Blend for Dogs and Cats, product code: 21-102, batch
ID code 6 14 12, because it has the potential to be contaminated
with Salmonella.

The recall involves 2-lb. Bravo! Chicken Blend frozen raw diet
tubes (chubs) made on June 14, 2012, only; no other products or
sizes are involved.  The recalled product should not be sold or
fed to pets.  This batch tested negative by a third party
independent laboratory prior to release for distribution to
consumers, however routine testing by the Minnesota Department of
Agriculture of product collected from a single retail location
tested positive for presence of salmonella.  While the testing
discrepancy is unclear, in an abundance of caution Bravo is
issuing this recall.

The Company has received no reports of illness in either people or
animals associated with this product.

The recalled product is distributed nationwide to distributors,
retail stores, internet retailers and directly to consumers, and
can be identified by the batch ID code 6 14 12 located on the
white hang tag attached to the bottom of the plastic film tube.
Picture of the recalled products is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm343724.htm

Pet owners should return unopened frozen tubes of food to the
store where purchased for a full refund.  Pet owners should
dispose of opened tubes of product in a safe manner (example, a
securely covered trash receptacle) and return the washed plastic
batch ID tag to the store where purchased for a full refund.

Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and there is
risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially
if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having
contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these
products.

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

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

In an effort to prevent the transmission of Salmonella from pets
to family members and care givers, the FDA recommends that
everyone follow appropriate pet food handling guidelines when
feeding their pets. A list of safe pet food handling tips can be
found at:

  http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm048182.htm

For more information on the Bravo recall, please visit
http://www.bravorawdiet.com/or call toll free (866) 922-9222
Monday through Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).


BMW AG: Faces Class Action Over Mini Coopers Defective Tensioners
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that BMW's sold Mini Coopers
(2007-09 models) with defective timing chain tensioners that cause
sudden engine failure, a class action claims in Federal Court.


CASHCALL: Faces Overtime Class Action in Orange County
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that CashCall stiffed employees
for overtime for years, a class action claims in Orange County
Court.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Consolidated ERISA Class Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
On October 13, 2009, two former employees and participants in the
Coventry Health Care Retirement Savings Plan filed a putative
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") class
action lawsuit against Coventry Health Care, Inc. and several of
its current and former officers, directors and employees in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  Plaintiffs
allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA
by offering and maintaining Company stock in the Plan after it
allegedly became imprudent to do so and by allegedly failing to
provide complete and accurate information about the Company's
financial condition to plan participants in SEC filings and public
statements.

Three similar actions by different plaintiffs were later filed in
the same court and were consolidated on December 9, 2009.  An
amended consolidated complaint has been filed.  The Company filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint.  By Order, dated March 31,
2011, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  The Company filed a motion for reconsideration of the
court's March 31, 2011 Order and filed an Alternative Motion to
Certify the Court's March 31, 2011 Order For Interlocutory Appeal
to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Both of those motions
were denied.

The Company says it will vigorously defend against the allegations
in the consolidated lawsuit.  The Company believes this lawsuit
will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position
or results of operations.

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.

Coventry Health Care, Inc. -- http://www.coventryhealthcare.com/-
- is a diversified national managed healthcare company based in
Bethesda, Maryland.  Coventry provides a full portfolio of risk
and fee-based products including Medicare and Medicaid programs,
group and individual health insurance, workers' compensation
solutions, and network rental services.  Coventry was incorporated
in Delaware in 1997 and is the successor to Coventry Corporation,
which was incorporated in 1986.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Merger Suits in Maryland Dismissed in February
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in each of three merger-related lawsuits filed in
Maryland voluntarily dismissed their claims in February 2013,
according to Coventry Health Care, Inc.'s February 27, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

On August 19, 2012, the Company, Aetna Inc. and Jaguar Merger
Subsidiary, Inc. ("Merger Sub") entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger, pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction or
waiver of certain conditions, Merger Sub will be merged with and
into the Company, with the Company surviving the merger as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Aetna.  Under the terms of the Merger
Agreement, the Company's shareholders will receive $27.30 in cash,
without interest, and 0.3885 of an Aetna common share for each
share of the Company's common stock.  The total transaction was
estimated at $7.3 billion, including the assumption of the
Company's debt, based on the closing price of Aetna common shares
on August 17, 2012.

On August 23, 2012, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
captioned Coyne v. Wise et al., C.A. No. 367380, was filed in the
Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, against the
Coventry Board of Directors, Coventry, Aetna and Merger Sub.  On
August 27, 2012, a second putative stockholder class action
lawsuit captioned O'Brien v. Coventry Health Care, Inc. et al.,
C.A. 367577, was filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County,
Maryland, against the Coventry Board of Directors, Coventry, Aetna
and Merger Sub.  On September 5, 2012, a third putative
stockholder class action lawsuit captioned Preze v. Coventry
Health Care, Inc. et al., C.A. 367942, was filed in the Circuit
Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, against the Coventry Board
of Directors, Coventry, Aetna and Merger Sub.  These three actions
have been consolidated.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to Coventry's
public stockholders in connection with the Merger because the
merger consideration and certain other terms in the Merger
Agreement are unfair.  The complaints further allege that Aetna
and Merger Sub aided and abetted these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.  In addition, the complaints allege that the
proposed Merger improperly favors Aetna and that certain
provisions of the Merger Agreement unduly restrict Coventry's
ability to negotiate with other potential bidders.  Among other
remedies, the complaints seek injunctive relief prohibiting the
defendants from completing the proposed Merger or, in the event
that an injunction is not awarded, unspecified money damages,
costs and attorneys' fees.

In November 2012, the court, in response to a motion filed by the
Company, entered an order which stayed all three actions for 90
days.  On February 13, 2013, the plaintiffs in each of the three
lawsuits filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of their lawsuits
based on the settlement of the shareholder lawsuits filed in
Delaware.  The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit
and will vigorously contest and defend against the allegations in
these complaints.

Coventry Health Care, Inc. -- http://www.coventryhealthcare.com/-
- is a diversified national managed healthcare company based in
Bethesda, Maryland.  Coventry provides a full portfolio of risk
and fee-based products including Medicare and Medicaid programs,
group and individual health insurance, workers' compensation
solutions, and network rental services.  Coventry was incorporated
in Delaware in 1997 and is the successor to Coventry Corporation,
which was incorporated in 1986.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Parties in Securities Suit to Submit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coventry Health Care, Inc. 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 parties to a securities
class action lawsuit will be submitting a formal written
settlement agreement for preliminary approval.

On September 3, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative securities
class action against the Company and three of its current and
former officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland.  Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, three other
shareholders and/or investor groups filed motions with the court
for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of
lead and liaison counsel.  By agreement, the four shareholders
submitted a stipulation to the court regarding appointment of lead
plaintiff and approval of selection of lead and liaison counsel.

In December 2009, the court approved the stipulation and ordered
the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated and amended complaint.
The purported class period was February 9, 2007, to October 22,
2008.  The consolidated and amended complaint alleges that the
Company's public statements contained false, misleading and
incomplete information regarding the Company's profitability,
particularly with respect to the profit margins for its Medicare
Advantage Private-Fee-For-Service products.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  By Order,
dated March 31, 2011, the court granted in part, and denied in
part, the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint.

The Company filed a motion for reconsideration with respect to
that part of the court's March 31, 2011 Order which denied the
Company's motion to dismiss the complaint.  The motion for
reconsideration was denied but the court did rule that the class
period was further restricted to April 25, 2008, to June 18, 2008.

As a result of a court ordered mediation, the Company has entered
into a settlement agreement with counsel for the plaintiffs and
the class.  The parties will be submitting a formal written
settlement agreement to the court for preliminary approval.  These
lawsuits are a covered claim under the Company's Directors and
Officers Liability Policy ("D&O Policy"), and therefore, after
exhaustion of the Company's self-insured retention of $2.5
million, the settlement amount will be fully funded and paid under
the D&O Policy.  The Company has accrued an immaterial settlement
amount in "accounts payable and other accrued liabilities" and an
associated recovery amount from the D&O Policy in "other
receivables, net" in the accompanying balance sheet.

Coventry Health Care, Inc. -- http://www.coventryhealthcare.com/-
- is a diversified national managed healthcare company based in
Bethesda, Maryland.  Coventry provides a full portfolio of risk
and fee-based products including Medicare and Medicaid programs,
group and individual health insurance, workers' compensation
solutions, and network rental services.  Coventry was incorporated
in Delaware in 1997 and is the successor to Coventry Corporation,
which was incorporated in 1986.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Yet to File Settlement Docs in Del. Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coventry Health Care, Inc. is yet to file final documents with
respect to its settlement of a consolidated merger-related lawsuit
in Delaware, 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 August 31, 2012, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
captioned Brennan v. Coventry Health Care, Inc. et al., C.A. No.
7826-CS, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the Coventry Board of Directors, Coventry, Aetna
and Merger Sub.  On September 14, 2012, a second putative
stockholder class action lawsuit captioned Nashelsky v. Coventry
Health Care, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 7868-CS, was filed in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Coventry Board of
Directors, Coventry, Aetna and Merger Sub.  On
September 27, 2012, and September 28, 2012, putative stockholder
class action lawsuits captioned Employees' Retirement System of
the Government of the Virgin Islands v. Coventry Health Care, Inc.
et al., C.A. No. 7905-CS and Farina v. Coventry Health Care, Inc.
et al., C.A. No. 7909-CS, were filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware against the Coventry Board of Directors,
Coventry, Aetna and Merger Sub.

On October 1, 2012, an amended complaint was filed in the Brennan
v. Coventry Health Care, Inc. action.  The complaints generally
allege that, among other things, the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the public stockholders of
Coventry in connection with the Merger because the merger
consideration and certain other terms in the merger agreement are
unfair. The complaints further allege that Aetna and Merger Sub
aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  In
addition, the complaints generally allege that certain provisions
of the Merger Agreement unduly restrict Coventry's ability to
negotiate with other potential bidders and that the Merger
Agreement lacks adequate safeguards on behalf of Coventry's
stockholders against the decline in the value of the stock
component of the merger consideration.

The complaints in the Employees' Retirement System of the
Government of the Virgin Islands, and Farina actions and the
amended complaint in the Brennan action also generally allege that
Aetna's Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on September 21,
2012, contained various deficiencies.  Among other remedies, the
complaints generally seek injunctive relief prohibiting the
defendants from completing the proposed Merger, rescissionary and
other types of damages and costs and attorneys' fees.

On October 4, 2012, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
entered an order consolidating the four Delaware actions under the
caption In re Coventry Health Care, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 7905-CS, appointing the Employees'
Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands, the
General Retirement System of the City of Detroit, and the Police
and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit as Co-Lead
Plaintiffs.  On October 5, 2012, plaintiffs in the consolidated
Delaware action filed a motion for expedited proceedings, and on
October 10, 2012, plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware action
filed a motion to preliminarily enjoin the defendants from taking
any action to consummate the Merger.

The parties have since reached agreement on the schedule for those
proceedings, which was entered by order of the Court on October
12, 2012.  Pursuant to that scheduling order, a hearing on
plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion was scheduled for
November 20, 2012.  On November 12, 2012, the Company and all
named defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
("MOU") with the plaintiffs and their respective counsel which set
forth an agreement in principle providing for the settlement of
the In re Coventry Health Care, Inc. Shareholder Litigation.  In
consideration for the full settlement and dismissal with prejudice
of the Shareholder Litigation and releases, the defendants agreed
to (1) include additional disclosures in the definitive
prospectus/proxy statement; (2) amend the Merger Agreement to
reduce the Termination Fee payable by the Company upon termination
of the Merger Agreement from $167,500,000 to $100,000,000; (3)
amend the Merger Agreement to reduce the period during which the
Company is required to discuss and negotiate with Aetna before
making an Adverse Recommendation Change relating to a Superior
Proposal from five calendar days to two calendar days; and (4) pay
any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the court.  The MOU
requires the parties to negotiate and execute a Stipulation of
Settlement for submission to the court to obtain final court
approval of the settlement and dismissal of the Shareholder
Litigation.

Where available information indicates that it is probable that a
loss has been incurred as of the date of the consolidated
financial statements and the Company can reasonably estimate the
amount of that loss, the Company accrues a liability of an
estimated amount. In many proceedings, however, it is difficult to
determine whether any loss is probable or reasonably possible. In
addition, even where a loss is reasonably possible or an exposure
to a loss exists in excess of the liability already accrued with
respect to a previously identified loss contingency, it is not
always possible to reasonably estimate the amount of the possible
loss or range of loss.

There is significant judgment required in both the probability
determination and as to whether an exposure to a loss can be
reasonably estimated. No estimate of the possible loss, or range
of loss, in excess of amounts accrued, if any, can be made at this
time regarding the matters due to the inherently unpredictable
nature of legal proceedings. These matters can be affected by
various factors; including, but not limited to, the procedural
status of the dispute, the novel legal issues presented (including
the legal basis for the majority of the alleged violations), the
inherent difficulty in predicting regulatory judgments, fines and
penalties, and the various remedies and levels of judicial review
available to the Company in the event a judgment, fine or penalty
is assessed. If one or more of these legal matters were resolved
against the Company for amounts in excess of the Company's
expectations, the Company's financial position or results of
operations and comprehensive income could be materially adversely
affected.

Coventry Health Care, Inc. -- http://www.coventryhealthcare.com/-
- is a diversified national managed healthcare company based in
Bethesda, Maryland.  Coventry provides a full portfolio of risk
and fee-based products including Medicare and Medicaid programs,
group and individual health insurance, workers' compensation
solutions, and network rental services.  Coventry was incorporated
in Delaware in 1997 and is the successor to Coventry Corporation,
which was incorporated in 1986.


DEER CONSUMER: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on March 9 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased common
stock of Deer Consumer Products, Inc. from March 2, 2010 to March
21, 2011, seeking remedies under the federal securities laws.

To join the Deer class action, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.comor call Jonathan Horne, Esq., toll-free,
at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail jhorne@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.  The case is pending the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE.  YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN
AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The Complaint alleges that Goldman Kurland and Mohidin, LLP,
Deer's auditor, falsely stated that Deer's financial statements in
its 2009 and 2010 10-Ks comported with U.S. Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles.  In reality, Deer's revenues were
overstated.  On March 9, 14, and 21, 2011, analyst Alfred Little
issued a series of reports disclosing defendants' alleged fraud,
which caused the stock price to drop, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 8, 2013.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Jonathan Horne, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at
866-767-3653, or via e-mail at jhorne@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS: Recalls 5,200 BrightLight Blankets
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
IdeaVillage Products Corp. of Wayne, New Jersey, announced a
voluntary recall of about 5,200 Battery-powered BrightLight(TM)
blankets.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The batteries in the blanket can overheat, posing a burn hazard.

The firm has received four reports of batteries overheating,
including one report of a minor burn to a finger.

The recalled BrightLight blankets are 40-inch by 60-inch white,
polyester blankets with LED lights that change color.  The blanket
has a battery compartment in a zippered pouch on the edge of the
blanket.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/xGXI4L

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively online at http://www.brightlightpillow.com/and by
phone from July 2012 through August 2012 for about $40.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled blankets and
contact IdeaVillage for a free replacement blanket.  IdeaVillage
is contacting its customers directly.  IdeaVillage may be reached
toll-free at (866) 655-4342, from 5:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Pacific
Time Monday and Tuesday, 6:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Pacific Time
Wednesday, 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Pacific Time Thursday and Friday
or http://www.brightlightblanketrecall.com/for more information.


FREDERICK BATHON: Faces Class Action Over Rigged Auctions
---------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a longtime
Madison County treasurer rigged tax lien real estate auctions for
his political allies, a class action claims in Madison County
Court.

Plaintiff Virgil Straeter claims Frederick Bathon, Madison County
treasurer from November 1998 through 2009, conspired with several
companies and auctioneer James Foley to carry out the scheme.
Bathon has pleaded guilty to federal antitrust charges and
promised to reveal his co-conspirators as part of the plea deal,
according to the complaint.

"During his tenure as treasurer, and particularly in connection
with the tax sales over which he presided from 2003 through 2008,
Bathon colluded and conspired with Jim Foley and others, who
called the sales as auctioneer, and with the buyers, who were also
contributors to his re-election campaign, to rig the bidding at
the sales so that the winning bid would always or nearly always by
made by one of the members of the conspiracy at or near the
statutory maximum 18 percent interest rate," the complaint states.

Bids in the tax-lien auctions start at the state's maximum 18
percent annual rate, and are bid down toward zero, with the low
bidder awarded the lien certificate.

Straeter says the scheme forced distressed property owners to pay
inflated prices to redeem their properties and avoid foreclosure.
In some cases, Straeter says, the owners were unable to reclaim
their property because of the conspiracy.  Straeter says the
scheme caused him to pay higher prices to reclaim 11 of his
properties.  All of those properties were bid at the 18 percent
maximum, according to Straeter.

"Since Bathon stepped down as treasurer and competitive bidding
was reintroduced to the process, the average interest rate has
been below 4 percent for each sale," the complaint states.

Straeter claims approximately 10,000 properties were subject to
the tax lien conspiracy.  The class consists of all property
owners whose property was auctioned off to the co-defendants, or
who had to reclaim their property at inflated rates from 2003 to
2008.  They seek actual and punitive damages for violations of the
Illinois Antitrust Act, civil conspiracy, spoliation, breach of
fiduciary duty and negligence.

They are represented by Aaron G. Weishaar, Esq. --
aweishaar@rwalawfirm.com -- at with Reinert, Weishaar & Associates
of St. Louis.

Named as defendants are Bathon, Foley, Madison County, RLI
Insurance Company, Western Surety Company, Land of Lincoln
Securities, Prairie State Securities, VI Inc., SI Securities,
Sabre Group, Empire Tax Corp., Vista Securities, former Madison
County Clerk Mark Von Nida and seven individual buyers.


HUGH BROMMA: Faces Class Action Over Running Ponzi Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Hugh Bromma and Jay Pearson
ran a multimillion-dollar Ponzi scheme, The Entrust Group aka Mid-
South Retirement Services, a class action claims in Federal Court.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that ITT Educational Systems
propped up its stock price with false and misleading statements,
and it crashed by 86% when the truth came out, a class action
claims in Federal Court.


LINKEDIN CORP: Class Action Not Akin to Food Labeling Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg reports that the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on March 5 dismissed without prejudice a
putative class action against LinkedIn Corp. over its alleged
failure to use industry standard protocols to safeguard sensitive
user information, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing (In
re LinkedIn User Privacy Litigation , N.D. Cal., No. 5:12-cv-
03088-EJD, dismissed 3/5/13).

The court said lawsuits over "insufficient performance or how a
product functions" require plaintiffs to allege "something more"
than that they overpaid for the product.  He said that in this
case, such a harm might be the "theft of their personally
identifiable information."

The court also said the plaintiffs did not show the putative class
of premium LinkedIn members purchased an additional level of
security as compared to free users.  Nor, it added, did the
plaintiffs even allege that they had read the social media
Web site's privacy policy.

               Millions of Passwords Posted Online

LinkedIn confirmed in June 2012 that "approximately 6.5 million
LinkedIn passwords" were posted on a hacker Web site (11 PVLR 925,
6/11/12).  Later that month, Katie Szpyrka filed a putative class
action against the online professional networking Web site (11
PVLR 1006, 6/25/12).  Ms. Szpyrka alleged in her complaint that
LinkedIn failed to live up to a statement in its privacy policy
that it would protect user information "with industry standard
protocols and technology."

The Northern District of California consolidated in August four
putative class action lawsuits regarding the alleged data breach
(11 PVLR 1388, 9/10/12).

A first amended complaint was filed in November 2012 in the
consolidated lawsuit with Ms. Szpyrka and Khalilah Wright as named
plaintiffs.  Ms. Szpyrka said she paid $26.95 monthly for a
premium LinkedIn account, and Ms. Wright reported paying a monthly
$99.95 fee.  The putative class would have included any premium
LinkedIn users who paid for a premium account prior to June 7,
2012.

The plaintiffs argued they had standing in the case under a theory
of economic harm because they never would have purchased the
premium memberships had they known LinkedIn would fail to protect
their information in the manner promised in its privacy policy.

The plaintiffs' complaint argued LinkedIn did not use industry
standard protocols when storing passwords. The complaint said the
company should have repeatedly "hashed" and "salted" the
passwords.

"Hashing," the complaint said, inputs a password into a
"cryptographic hash function" that converts the data "into an
unreadable, encrypted format."  It added that "salting" refers to
assigning random values to a password "before the text undergoes
the hashing process."

The court noted that LinkedIn's privacy policy told users that
"since the internet is not a 100% secure environment, we cannot
ensure or warrant the security of any information you transmit to
LinkedIn.  There is no guarantee that information may not be
accessed, disclosed, altered, or destroyed by breach of any of our
physical, technical, or managerial safeguards."

                 Not Akin to Food Labeling Cases

The court noted that the plaintiffs' theory of economic harm in
the case had provided standing in food mislabeling cases.  For
example, the court said in Chavez v. Blue Sky Natural Beverage
Co., 340 F. App'x 359 (9th Cir. 2009), the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit ruled a plaintiff had standing when he
alleged he would not have purchased a product if he had known its
actual geographic origins.

The court said that this LinkedIn case was distinguishable from
those lawsuits for four reasons.  It explained that the plaintiffs
failed to show they actually were promised an additional level of
security for a premium membership, noting the same user agreement
and privacy policy applies to premium and free members alike.

"[W]hen a member purchases a premium account upgrade, the bargain
is not for a particular level of security, but actually for the
advanced networking tools and capabilities to facilitate enhanced
usage of LinkedIn's services," the court said.

It added that a second problem with the plaintiffs' lawsuit was
they did not allege they had read LinkedIn's privacy policy,
"which would be necessary to support a claim of
misrepresentation."

A third issue, the court said, was that the case primarily brought
breach-of-contract claims against LinkedIn.  The plaintiffs'
allegations that they did not receive the full security
protections they had bargained for could not be the "resulting
damages" required for a breach-of-contract claim, the court held.

A final manner in which the lawsuit was distinguishable was that
courts usually require "something more" in cases where plaintiffs
allege a wrong was suffered because of a product's insufficient
performance or how it functioned.  The court said in this case, it
might be the theft of plaintiffs' personally identifiable
information.

It therefore dismissed the complaint but provided the plaintiffs
with leave to amend.

Jay Edelson, Ari J. Scharg, Christopher L. Dore, and Rafey S.
Balabanian, of Edelson McGuire LLC's Chicago office; Sean P. Reis,
of Edelson's Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif., office; Laurence D.
King and Linda M. Fong, of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP's San
Francisco office; Joseph J. Siprut, of Siprut PC's Chicago office;
Todd C. Atkins, of Siprut's San Diego office; and David C. Parisi
and Suzanne L. Havens Beckman, of Parisi & Havens LLP, in Sherman
Oaks, Calif., represented the class plaintiffs.  Michael G.
Rhodes, Matthew D. Brown, and Whitty Somvichian, of Cooley LLP, in
San Francisco, represented LinkedIn.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Files Motion to Lift Injunction Against Attorney
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Karoub, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
McDonald's and members of Michigan's Muslim community are seeking
to settle a $700,000 lawsuit, but first will aim to end a legal
tussle with an attorney who's critical of the proposed agreement.

The Illinois-based fast food chain filed a motion March 7 for a
judge to lift an injunction on Dearborn lawyer Majed Moughni, who
criticized the class-action settlement on Facebook.  Documents
supporting McDonald's also were filed by a restaurant franchise
owner and a group suing both McDonald's and the franchise owner.

Wayne County Circuit Judge Kathleen Macdonald was expected on
March 11 to consider the motions, which includes a request to
extend the public comment period an additional 28 days.  The
settlement originally was scheduled to be finalized March 1.

The lawsuit alleges the McDonald's on Ford Road in Dearborn
falsely advertised its food was halal, or prepared according to
Islamic law.  Islam forbids consumption of pork, and God's name
must be invoked before an animal providing meat for consumption is
slaughtered.  The restaurant and corporation deny any liability.

Ahmed Ahmed, the Dearborn Heights man who represents plaintiffs in
the class-action suit, claimed he bought a chicken sandwich in
September 2011 at the restaurant but found it wasn't halal.

The McDonald's restaurant chain and one of its franchise owners
agreed in January to the tentative settlement that would be shared
by Ahmed, as well as a Detroit health clinic, the Arab American
National Museum in Dearborn and lawyers.  Mr. Ahmed's portion is
considered an "incentive award" and represents his work on the
case, his attorneys say.

McDonald's issued an injunction against Mr. Moughni last month to
halt communications with members and potential members of the suit
regarding the case, including on a Facebook page he administered,
Dearborn Area Community Members.  McDonald's said in its motion
that his page "contains numerous legal errors" and offered the
impression that Mr. Moughni was acting as a legal representative
of the plaintiffs and the court or soliciting for individual
clients.

Consumer advocacy group Public Citizen filed its own motion to
have the injunction removed, claiming it violated Mr. Moughni's
First Amendment rights.

"I think it's the right decision," Moughni told The Associated
Press on March 8.  "This injunction should have never been placed
in the first place. . . .  The settlement should have gone to the
people who were harmed and it didn't."

The lawsuit technically covers anyone who bought the halal-
advertised products between September 2005 and January from the
restaurant and another McDonald's in the city with a different
owner.  The other location wasn't a defendant or a focus of the
investigation.

Michael Jaafar, whose firm represents Ahmed and oversees the
class-action suit, said the proposed financial settlement
represents "the closest possible resolution" and would go to
groups "who are likely to benefit those who may have been harmed."

Mr. Jaafar added removing the injunction ensures that he won't
have to be talking about the still unresolved case "five years
from now."

"This is a move that our side is taking even though we don't
legally need to take this approach," he said.  "This is an action
our firm is taking on behalf of the class (to) put an end to any
other objection."

Mr. Ahmed's attorneys say there are only two McDonald's in the
United States that sell halal products and both are in east
Dearborn, which has one of the nation's largest Arab and Muslim
communities.  Overall, the Detroit area is home to about 150,000
Muslims of many different ethnicities.


NEW YORK: Trial in Disabled People's Class Action Begins
--------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Rodriguez, writing for WNYC, reports that opening arguments
was set to begin on March 11 in a federal trial that is expected
to shine a spotlight on how disabled New Yorkers fared during
recent disasters such as Hurricane Irene and Sandy.  The trial
stems from a class action lawsuit filed in September of 2011 by
the group, Disability Rights Advocates.  The group alleges the
city's 900,000 disabled people are largely left out of disaster
preparedness plans.

Lawyers for the disabled say in the trial they will highlight
problems that occurred during both Tropical Storm Irene and Sandy,
including the city's alleged failure to properly locate and then
rescue disabled people who found themselves trapped in freezing
public housing high rises and other tall buildings after the power
went out and elevators stopped working.

Advocates also say the city was too quick to shut down its access-
a-ride service, a transportation system that picks up disabled
people, leaving many stranded and unable to evacuate prior to the
storm.  The evacuation shelters were also criticized for not being
wheelchair accessible.

Lawyers for the city said they strongly object to the allegations
being made and would vigorously defend the city's emergency
response.

"The city's emergency preparedness plans were carefully developed
to serve all New Yorkers -- including people with disabilities,
whose needs were integrated into every stage of emergency
planning," said Senior Counsel Martha Calhoun in a written
statement.

Disabled people who suffered hardships are expected to testify and
so are high ranking officials from the city's Office of Emergency
Management, the NYPD and the Fire Department.  The trial is
scheduled to last two weeks.  Lawyers for the disabled say they
are not seeking monetary compensation but rather an improved
disaster plan that meets the special needs of the city's disabled.


NORTH CAROLINA: Set to Decide on Landowners' Beltway Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wesley Young, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that the
N.C. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a landowner
lawsuit relating to Winston-Salem's planned Northern Beltway
should become a class-action suit.

Attorney Matthew Bryant, who represents Beroth Oil Co. and eight
other landowners who filed suit against the N.C. Department of
Transportation in 2010, said the Supreme Court ordered the review
on March 7 of the class-action status.

"The impact of this is that perhaps the issue of taking property
in the beltway can be resolved for all owners in one action,"
Mr. Bryant said.

In 2011, the landowners' effort to have their lawsuit declared a
class-action suit -- with potentially 800 members of the class
-- was turned down in Forsyth County Superior Court.  The court
said that whether the state had acted improperly toward the
landowners would have to be resolved on a case-by-case basis.

On appeal to the state Court of Appeals, the court acknowledged in
a ruling that "all members of the proposed class appear connected
by their common plight" -- ownership of land in the path of the
beltway.  But the court also said that because the individual
properties are different from each other -- some being developed,
some not, and some used for business, others for homes -- a class-
action suit was not the best way to hear the claims.

Mr. Bryant also represents a number of other landowners who have
filed lawsuits demanding that the state move forward and buy their
properties -- some of which have been in the path of the beltway
for up to 15 years.

Mr. Bryant said the Supreme Court's decision to review the matter
should be good news for the plaintiffs.

"Right now, there are about 53 . . . owners," Mr. Bryant said.
"All the complaints are the same, all the discovery is the same,
and all NCDOT's actions are the same.  This appeal . . . is
potentially a huge event for all the owners and more particularly
those that are too old, too apprehensive, too poor or too
skeptical to file suits on their own."

After years of delays, the first segment of the beltway -- running
from Reidsville Road to Business 40 -- is scheduled to start
construction in 2014.


O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Court Certifies Class in "Schmaltz" Wage Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Ross signed a memorandum and order on
March 11, 2013, granting a motion for conditional class
certification in the case styled ERIC M. SCHMALTZ, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated, as Plaintiff/Class
representative, Plaintiffs, v. O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:12-CV-1056-JAR, (E.D. Mo.).

The action asserts claims for unpaid wages and overtime pay under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219, and the
Missouri Minimum Wage Law, Mo. Rev. Stat. Sections 290.500-530.

The Court conditionally certified the class defined as:

   Any current or former individual who was employed by Defendant
   as an hourly team member in the United States, including but
   not limited to assistant store managers, installer service
   specialists, retail service specialists, parts specialists, and
   delivery specialists, during the time period from August 28,
   2009 to the present date, and whose time records were modified,
   changed, or altered by the Defendant.

Mr. Schmaltz is conditionally authorized to act as class
representative.

Engelmeyer & Pezzani, LLC is authorized to act as class counsel.

O'Reilly Automotive is granted until April 1, 2013, within which
to make any written objections to Mr. Schmaltz's proposed Notice
and Consent Form.

O'Reilly Automotive is directed to provide the Plaintiff's
attorneys with the names and current or last known mailing
addresses of all employees who may be potential plaintiffs in the
suit on or before April 15, 2013.

Mr. Schmaltz' motion to supplement his motion for conditional
class certification was granted but his motion to expedite a
ruling on his request was denied as moot.

A copy of the District Court's March 11, 2013 Memorandum and Order
is available at http://is.gd/DYceGWfrom Leagle.com.


PENNSYLVANIA: Sued Over Isolation of Mentally Ill Inmates
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that hundreds of mentally ill inmates
in Pennsylvania languish for months and even years in isolated
cells, according to a class-action lawsuit filed on March 11 that
says the "Dickensian" practice only exacerbates their condition.

The federal lawsuit accuses state prison officials of punishing
the mentally ill for head-banging, hallucinations and other
psychotic behaviors instead of getting them needed medical care.

About one-third of the 2,400 inmates kept in restricted custody
across the state suffer from serious mental-health problems,
according to the suit.  They spend 23 hours a day in small,
windowless cells, and have little contact with other human beings.

A few have been held in solitary for more than a decade as
punishment for various infractions, leading some to attempt
suicide, advocates said.

"They don't know what time it is, or what day it is.  They have no
feedback loop with reality," said Robert W. Meek, a lead attorney
with the Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania, which filed
the suit in Harrisburg against the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections.

The agency had not yet seen the lawsuit and had no immediate
comment, spokeswoman Sue McNaughton said.

Similar lawsuits have been filed across the country in recent
years, in states including Virginia, Colorado and New Mexico, some
through the American Civil Liberties Union's National Prison
Project.

"Prolonged isolation under these extremely harsh conditions
exacerbates the symptoms of the prisoners' mental illness, which
can include refusing to leave their cells, declining medical
treatment, sleeplessness, hallucinations, paranoia, covering
themselves with feces, head banging, injuring themselves and
prison staff, and suicide," the Pennsylvania lawsuit said.

The ensuing behavior becomes the subject of further rule
violations that warrant more time in solitary, Mr. Meek said.
These inmates also spend more time in prison because they do not
have access to education, counseling and other services that help
inmates win parole.

"The result is a Dickensian nightmare, in which many prisoners,
because of their mental illness, are trapped in an endless cycle
of isolation and punishment," the lawsuit said.

Prison officials in several states are moving mentally-ill inmates
from segregated housing into regular units and rehabilitation
programs. Although the programs and mental health care costs
money, officials estimate that solitary confinement can cost three
times as much as standard housing.

"Now that we've got it up and running, to look at it through the
rearview mirror, we wonder why didn't we do this 10 years ago,"
Assistant Secretary Dan Pacholke of the state's Department of
Corrections told The Seattle Times last year.


PETRO-CANADA: Court of Appeals Refuses to Authorize Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Dominic Dupoy, Esq., of Norton Rose, on February 21,
the Quebec Court of Appeal refused to authorize a class action
against several oil companies distributing gasoline in Quebec
(Lorrain c Petro-Canada, 2013 QCCA 332).

The action was based on the allegation that certain gas pumps were
incorrectly calibrated, to the benefit of oil companies.  Between
1999 and 2007, Measurement Canada, a federal agency responsible
for applying the Weights and Measures Act, inspected more than
200,000 gasoline pumps in Canada.  According to the results of
that inspection, approximately 8% of the gas pumps were not
correctly calibrated -- i.e. 6% to the detriment of the consumer
and 2% to the detriment of the merchant.  Based on these findings,
a motion was filed for authorization to institute a class action
claiming damages equal to the amounts overpaid by consumers as
well as punitive damages.

The Court of Appeal refused to authorize the class action.  The
Court insisted that the rule of proportionality codified in
Article 4.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) applies in class
action cases and that a judge seized of a motion for authorization
must consider this rule in analyzing the four criteria set out in
Article 1003 CCP.

The Court then analyzed the four criteria in Article 1003 CCP and
refused to authorize the proposed class action on the grounds that
the applicants had failed to demonstrate the existence of direct
injury.  In fact, according to the invoices submitted by the
applicants in support of their motion, the applicants had never
purchased gasoline from a retailer where, according to the
Measurement Canada inspection report, a pump was incorrectly
calibrated.

The applicants had also admitted that they could not remember the
other gas stations they had purchased gasoline from and even less
so the gasoline pumps they had used when they made those
purchases.  Briefly, the applicants did not have any direct
evidence of injury against the five oil companies targeted by the
proposed class action.

The Court of Appeal therefore confirmed, in explicit terms, that a
class action essentially based on purely statistical data cannot
be authorized.  The Court of Appeal also stated that the injury
suffered by consumers could vary infinitely as some consumers
would have purchased gasoline only once at an allegedly inaccurate
gas pump, while others would have done so at that same pump
hundreds or even thousands of times. According to the Court of
Appeal, a class action should not be authorized in such
circumstances.

The Court of Appeal decision reconfirms the importance for an
applicant to demonstrate the existence of direct and personal
injury. The absence of such evidence cannot be remedied by
statistical evidence.

Norton Rose represented the interests of Petro-Canada, now Suncor,
in this litigation.

Norton Rose Group -- http://nortonrose.com-- is an international
legal practice.  It offers a full business law service to many of
the world's pre-eminent financial institutions and corporations
from offices in Europe, Asia, Australia, Canada, Africa, the
Middle East, Latin America and Central Asia.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Appeal in "Rome" Class Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the class action lawsuit commenced by the City of
Rome, Georgia, et al., remains pending, according to priceline.com
Incorporated's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

On June 5, 2012, in City of Rome, Georgia, et al. v. Hotels.com,
L.P., et al. (N.D. Ga., November 2005), a certified class action
on behalf of Georgia cities and counties, the court granted the
parties' motion for approval of the partial class settlement
agreement providing that the online travel companies ("OTCs")
defendants would pay hotel occupancy taxes from May 16, 2011,
going forward.  May 16, 2011, is the date of the Georgia Supreme
Court's decision in the City of Atlanta appeal requiring payment
of hotel occupancy taxes on a prospective basis in that case.

On July 8, 2012, the court entered summary judgment against all of
plaintiffs' claims for past damages.  The court found that the
defendants were not operators and thus, that no back taxes were
owed.  On September 4, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit appealing
the trial court's order.

Founded in 1997 and headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut,
Priceline.com Incorporated -- http://www.priceline.com/--
together with its subsidiaries, operates as an online travel
company.  The Company provides price-disclosed hotel reservation
services on a worldwide basis primarily under the Booking.com,
priceline.com, and Agoda brand names; and price-disclosed rental
car reservation services in approximately 4,000 locations
worldwide through rentalcars.com name.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Awaits Ruling in "Breckenridge" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
priceline.com Incorporated is awaiting a court decision on a
motion for class certification in the lawsuit initiated by the
Town of Breckenridge, according to the Company's February 27,
2013, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On June 8, 2012, in Town of Breckenridge v. Colorado Travel
Company, LLC, et al. (District Court for Summit County, Colorado;
filed in July 2011), the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the class action complaint.
Specifically, the court dismissed without prejudice the claims
relating to the sales tax but allowed all remaining claims under
the accommodations tax and common law to proceed.  Also in that
case, on December 12, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  The defendants, including the Company, are
opposing that motion.

Founded in 1997 and headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut,
Priceline.com Incorporated -- http://www.priceline.com/--
together with its subsidiaries, operates as an online travel
company.  The Company provides price-disclosed hotel reservation
services on a worldwide basis primarily under the Booking.com,
priceline.com, and Agoda brand names; and price-disclosed rental
car reservation services in approximately 4,000 locations
worldwide through rentalcars.com name.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Consolidated "Peluso" Remains Pending in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated lawsuit styled Peluso v. Orbitz.com, et al.,
remains pending in Illinois, according to priceline.com
Incorporated's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

In Chiste, et al. v. priceline.com Inc., et al. (United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York; filed in
December 2008) the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
all claims against it except the breach of fiduciary claim, which
the court ordered transferred to Illinois.  On July 11, 2011, the
case was transferred to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois for resolution of the remaining
claim, which was consolidated under Peluso v. Orbitz.com, et al.,
11 Civ. 4407 on July 14, 2011.

On July 13, 2011, plaintiffs filed notices of appeal of the
court's orders in the Southern District of New York.  On July 26,
2011, the court granted plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss
the claim against the Company in the Northern District of
Illinois.  The consolidated action, however, remains pending.

Founded in 1997 and headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut,
Priceline.com Incorporated -- http://www.priceline.com/--
together with its subsidiaries, operates as an online travel
company.  The Company provides price-disclosed hotel reservation
services on a worldwide basis primarily under the Booking.com,
priceline.com, and Agoda brand names; and price-disclosed rental
car reservation services in approximately 4,000 locations
worldwide through rentalcars.com name.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Continues to Defend Suits in Various States
--------------------------------------------------------------
priceline.com Incorporated said in its February 27, 2013, Form 10-
K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012, that it intends to vigorously
defend against the claims in all of these statewide class and
putative class proceedings:

   * City of Los Angeles, California v. Hotels.com, Inc., et al.
     (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County; filed in
     December 2004)

   * City of Rome, Georgia, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.
     (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia;
     filed in November 2005); (U.S. Court of Appeals for the
     Eleventh Circuit appeal filed in September 2012)

   * City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. (U.S.
     District Court for the Western District of Texas; filed in
     May 2006)

   * City of Gallup, New Mexico v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. (U.S.
     District Court for the District of New Mexico; filed in July
     2007)

   * Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission, Jefferson
     County, Arkansas, et al. v. Hotels.com, LP, et al. (Circuit
     Court of Jefferson County, Arkansas; filed in September
     2009)

   * County of Lawrence, Pennsylvania v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.
     (Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania;
     filed Nov. 2009); (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania;
     appeal filed in November 2010)

   * Elizabeth McAllister, et al. v. Hotels.com L.P., et al.,
     (Circuit Court of Saline County, Arkansas; filed February in
     2011)

   * Town of Breckenridge, Colorado v. Colorado Travel Company,
     LLC, et al. (District Court for Summit County, Colorado;
     filed in July 2011)

   * County of Nassau v. Expedia, Inc., et al. (Supreme Court of
     Nassau County, New York; filed in September 2011)

Founded in 1997 and headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut,
Priceline.com Incorporated -- http://www.priceline.com/--
together with its subsidiaries, operates as an online travel
company.  The Company provides price-disclosed hotel reservation
services on a worldwide basis primarily under the Booking.com,
priceline.com, and Agoda brand names; and price-disclosed rental
car reservation services in approximately 4,000 locations
worldwide through rentalcars.com name.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Defends Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes
-----------------------------------------------------------
priceline.com Incorporated continues to defend itself against
lawsuits relating to the payment of hotel occupancy and other
taxes, according to the Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company and certain third-party defendant online travel
companies ("OTCs") are currently involved in approximately 40
lawsuits, including certified and putative class actions, brought
by or against states, cities and counties over issues involving
the payment of hotel occupancy and other related taxes (e.g.,
state and local sales tax and general excise tax) and the
Company's merchant hotel business.  The Company's subsidiaries
Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC are named in some but not all
of these cases.  Generally, each complaint alleges, among other
things, that the defendants violated each jurisdiction's
respective hotel occupancy tax ordinance with respect to the
charges and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under each law.
Each complaint typically seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement,
penalties available by law, attorneys' fees and other relief.  The
Company is also involved in one consumer lawsuit relating to,
among other things, the payment of hotel occupancy taxes and
service fees.  In addition, approximately seventy municipalities
or counties, and at least 12 states, have initiated audit
proceedings (including proceedings initiated by more than forty
municipalities in California), issued proposed tax assessments or
started inquiries relating to the payment of hotel occupancy and
other related taxes.  Additional state and local jurisdictions are
likely to assert that the Company is subject to, among other
things, hotel occupancy and other related taxes and could seek to
collect such taxes, retroactively and/or prospectively.

With respect to the principal claims in these matters, the Company
believes that the laws at issue do not apply to the service it
provides, namely the facilitation of reservations, and, therefore,
that it does not owe the taxes that are claimed to be owed.
Rather, the Company believes that the laws at issue generally
impose hotel occupancy and other related taxes on entities that
own, operate or control hotels (or similar businesses) or furnish
or provide hotel rooms or similar accommodations.  In addition, in
many of these matters, the taxing jurisdictions have asserted
claims for "conversion" -- essentially, that the Company has
collected a tax and wrongfully "pocketed" those tax dollars -- a
claim that the Company believes is without basis and has
vigorously contested.  The taxing jurisdictions that are currently
involved in litigation and other proceedings with the Company, and
that may be involved in future proceedings, have asserted contrary
positions and will likely continue to do so.

From time to time, the Company has found it expedient to settle,
and may in the future agree to settle, claims pending in these
matters without conceding that the claims at issue are meritorious
or that the claimed taxes are in fact due to be paid.

In connection with some of these tax audits and assessments, the
Company may be required to pay any assessed taxes, which amounts
may be substantial, prior to being allowed to contest the
assessments and the applicability of the laws in judicial
proceedings.  This requirement is commonly referred to as "pay to
play" or "pay first."  The Company has successfully argued against
a "pay first" requirement asserted in one California proceeding,
but had to pay first in two California cities.  For example, the
City of San Francisco assessed the Company approximately $3.4
million (an amount that includes interest and penalties) relating
to hotel occupancy taxes, which the Company paid in July 2009, and
issued a second assessment totaling approximately $2.7 million,
which the Company paid in January 2013.  Payment of these amounts,
if any, is not an admission that the Company believes it is
subject to such taxes and, even if such payments are made, the
Company intends to continue to assert its position vigorously that
it should not be subject to such taxes.

In the San Francisco action, for example, the court ruled on
February 6, 2013, that the Company and OTCs do not owe transient
accommodations tax to the City and ordered the City to refund the
pay first amounts paid in July 2009; the Company will also seek a
refund of the amounts paid first in January 2013.  It is possible
the City may take the position that it need not refund the pay
first amount until after it has exhausted all appeals.

In January 2013, the Tax Appeal Court for the State of Hawaii held
that the Company and other OTCs are not liable for the State's
transient accommodations tax, but held that the OTCs, including
the Company, are liable for the State's general excise tax on the
full amount the OTC collects from the customer for a hotel room
reservation, without any offset for amounts passed through to the
hotel.  As a result, the Company increased its accrual for hotel
occupancy and other related taxes, with a corresponding charge to
cost of revenues, by approximately $16.5 million (including
estimated interest and penalties) in December 2012.  Further, the
Company may be required to pay that amount prior to appealing the
Tax Appeal Court's decision.  The Company intends to appeal this
decision.

Litigation is subject to uncertainty and there could be adverse
developments in these pending or future cases and proceedings.
For example, in September 2012, the Superior Court in the District
of Columbia granted a summary judgment in favor of the city and
against OTCs ruling that tax is due on the OTC's margin and
service fee.  As a result, the Company increased its accrual for
hotel occupancy and other related taxes, with a corresponding
charge to cost of revenues, by approximately $4.8 million
(including interest).  In addition, in October 2009, a jury in a
San Antonio class action found that the Company and the other OTCs
that are defendants in the lawsuit "control" hotels for purposes
of the local hotel occupancy tax ordinances at issue and are,
therefore, subject to the requirements of those ordinances.  On
July 1, 2011, the San Antonio court issued findings of fact and
conclusions of law in connection with the case.  In addition to
ruling that hotel tax was due from defendants on the markup and
service fee, the court held defendants liable for penalties and
interest per the terms of each city's applicable ordinance, but
capped penalties at 15% of the total amount of unpaid taxes at the
time of entry of judgment; ordinances without a penalty provision
are assessed a 15% penalty under the Texas Tax Code.  The Company
expects a judgment to be entered by the court.  The Company
intends to vigorously pursue an appeal of the judgment on legal
and factual grounds.

An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending litigation may
encourage the commencement of additional litigation, audit
proceedings or other regulatory inquiries.  In addition, an
unfavorable outcome or settlement of these actions or proceedings
could result in substantial liabilities for past and/or future
bookings, including, among other things, interest, penalties,
punitive damages and/or attorney fees and costs.  There have been,
and will continue to be, substantial ongoing costs, which may
include "pay first" payments, associated with defending the
Company's position in pending and any future cases or proceedings.
An adverse outcome in one or more of these unresolved proceedings
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and
could be material to the Company's results of operations or cash
flow in any given operating period.

To the extent that any tax authority succeeds in asserting that
the Company has a tax collection responsibility, or the Company
determines that it has such a responsibility, with respect to
future transactions, the Company may collect any such additional
tax obligation from its customers, which would have the effect of
increasing the cost of hotel reservations to its customers and,
consequently, could make the Company's hotel reservation service
less competitive (i.e., versus the websites of other OTCs or hotel
company websites) and reduce hotel reservation transactions;
alternatively, the Company could choose to reduce the compensation
for its services on merchant hotel transactions.  Either action
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and
results of operations.

The Company estimates that, since its inception through
December 31, 2012, it has earned aggregate gross profit, including
fees, from its entire U.S. merchant hotel business (which
includes, among other things, the differential between the price
paid by a customer for the Company's service and the cost of the
underlying room) of approximately $1.6 billion.  This gross profit
was earned in over a thousand taxing jurisdictions that the
Company believes have aggregate tax rates (which may include hotel
occupancy taxes and state and local taxes, among other taxes)
associated with a typical transaction between a consumer and a
hotel that generally range from approximately 6% to approximately
18%, depending on the jurisdiction.  In many of the judicial and
other proceedings initiated to date, the taxing jurisdictions seek
not only historical taxes that are claimed to be owed on the
Company's gross profit, but also, among other things, interest,
penalties, punitive damages and/or attorney fees and costs.
Therefore, any liability associated with hotel occupancy tax
matters is not constrained to the Company's liability for tax owed
on its historical gross profit, but may also include, among other
things, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees.  To date, the
majority of the taxing jurisdictions in which the Company
facilitates hotel reservations have not asserted that taxes are
due and payable on the Company's U.S. merchant hotel business.
With respect to taxing jurisdictions that have not initiated
proceedings to date, it is possible that they will do so in the
future or that they will seek to amend their tax statutes and seek
to collect taxes from the Company only on a prospective basis.

Founded in 1997 and headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut,
Priceline.com Incorporated -- http://www.priceline.com/--
together with its subsidiaries, operates as an online travel
company.  The Company provides price-disclosed hotel reservation
services on a worldwide basis primarily under the Booking.com,
priceline.com, and Agoda brand names; and price-disclosed rental
car reservation services in approximately 4,000 locations
worldwide through rentalcars.com name.


PRICELINE.COM INC: "Goodlettsville" Class Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed by the City of Goodlettsville,
Tennessee, et al., remains pending, according to priceline.com
Incorporated's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

In City of Goodlettsville, Tennessee, et al. v. priceline.com
Incorporated, et al. (U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee; filed in June 2008), a certified class action on
behalf of Tennessee cities and counties, the court granted summary
judgment in favor of defendants on February 21, 2012.  On April
13, 2012, in City of Birmingham, Alabama, et al. v. Orbitz, Inc.,
et al. (Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama; filed in
December 2009), the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed summary
judgment in favor of the defendants on claims by several Alabama
cities.  On February 17, 2012, in City of Bowling Green, Kentucky
v. Hotels.com LP et al. (Warren Cir. Ct., Kentucky, Div. 1; filed
in March 2009); (Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals; appeal
filed in April 2010), the Kentucky Supreme Court declined to hear
Bowling Green's appeal.  Therefore, the Court of Appeal's ruling
affirming the lower court's dismissal of the case stands as the
final determination of the matter.  In City of Branson, Missouri
v. Hotels.com, LP., et al. (Circuit Court of Greene County,
Missouri; filed in December 2006), the trial court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss on January 31, 2012.  The Missouri
Court of Appeals, Northern Division, affirmed the judgment of the
trial court on January 23, 2013.  On February 7, 2013, the city
moved for rehearing and transfer.

Founded in 1997 and headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut,
Priceline.com Incorporated -- http://www.priceline.com/--
together with its subsidiaries, operates as an online travel
company.  The Company provides price-disclosed hotel reservation
services on a worldwide basis primarily under the Booking.com,
priceline.com, and Agoda brand names; and price-disclosed rental
car reservation services in approximately 4,000 locations
worldwide through rentalcars.com name.


PRICELINE.COM INC: One of Antitrust Suits Dismissed in January
--------------------------------------------------------------
One of the numerous antitrust lawsuits against online travel
companies, including priceline.com Incorporated, was voluntarily
dismissed in January 2013, according to the Company's
February 27, 2013, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On August 20, 2012, one complaint was filed on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased hotel room reservations
from certain hotels (the "Hotel Defendants") through certain
online travel companies ("OTCs"), including the Company.  The
initial complaint, Turik v. Expedia, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-4365,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleges that the Hotel Defendants and the OTC
defendants violated federal and state laws by entering into a
conspiracy to enforce a minimum resale price maintenance scheme
pursuant to which putative class members paid inflated prices for
hotel room reservations that they purchased through the OTC
defendants.  Thirty-one other complaints containing similar
allegations have been filed in a number of federal jurisdictions
across the country and one of them in Minnesota state court (which
was then removed to federal court, the "Mooney Action").
Plaintiffs in these actions seek treble damages and injunctive
relief.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") heard
arguments on a motion for consolidation and transfer of pretrial
proceedings under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 on November 29, 2012.
Pursuant to JPML orders, thirty of the cases have now been
consolidated before Judge Boyle in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.  On January 29, 2013, plaintiff in the
Mooney Action filed a voluntary notice of dismissal with
prejudice.  The case was dismissed with prejudice on January 31,
2013.

The Company says it intends to defend vigorously against the
claims in the proceeding.  The Company has accrued for certain
legal contingencies where it is probable that a loss has been
incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated.  Except as
disclosed, such amounts accrued are not material to the Company's
consolidated balance sheets and provisions recorded have not been
material to the Company's consolidated results of operations or
cash flows.  The Company is unable to estimate a reasonably
possible range of loss.

Founded in 1997 and headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut,
Priceline.com Incorporated -- http://www.priceline.com/--
together with its subsidiaries, operates as an online travel
company.  The Company provides price-disclosed hotel reservation
services on a worldwide basis primarily under the Booking.com,
priceline.com, and Agoda brand names; and price-disclosed rental
car reservation services in approximately 4,000 locations
worldwide through rentalcars.com name.


QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit Over Misleading Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Questcor Pharmaceuticals
propped up its stock price with false and misleading statements
and the price fell from $310.13 to $19.08 in a day when the truth
came out, shareholders claim in Federal Court.


SYNCLAIRE BRANDS: Recalls Stuart Weitzman Girls' Cha Cha Boots
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Synclaire Brands U.S.A., Inc., of Hicksville, New York, announced
a voluntary recall of about 5,000 Cha Cha and Cha Cha 2 girls'
boots.  Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The zipper pulls on the boots can become entangled posing a fall
hazard.

Synclaire Brands has received 3 reports of the zipper pulls
becoming entangled to each other, including one injury that
occurred when a child wearing the boots attempted to untangle the
zipper pulls.  The child lost her balance and hit her head on the
sidewalk, causing a laceration to her forehead that required
stitches.

The Stuart Weitzman brand Cha Cha and Cha Cha 2 boots come in
black or white vinyl with quilted nylon shafts and were sold in
girls' size 13 through size 5.  The boots have zippers with gold-
tone SW logo zipper pulls on the inside side of the boots.  The
model name and size is printed on a white tag inside the top of
the boots.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/td3ViG

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Bloomingdale's, Belk Stores, TJ Maxx nationwide and online at
Zappos from September 2011 through February 2013 for about $65.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled boots away from
children and return the boots for a full refund.  Synclaire Brands
U.S.A. may be reached at (888) 998-0702 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or go to the firm's Web
site at http://www.synclaire.com/and click on recall information.


SUBWAY: Sued Over "Footlong" Fraudulent Marketing Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard B. Levine, writing for The Foundry, reports that in what
most would consider a foolish class action lawsuit and a glaring
example of what is broken in our tort system, Subway was recently
accused of fraudulent marketing practices related to its well-
known "footlong" sandwiches.

The plaintiff, Barry Gross, filed suit against the Doctor's
Associates-owned chain of Subway in his home state of Illinois.
In his complaint, Gross claims that after seeing repeated
advertising for their "footlong" subs, he purchased one on
January 23, 2013, but discovered that the sandwich was shorter
than 12 inches in length.  Mr. Gross decided to air his grievance
over this dough shortage by filing a federal lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for Northern Illinois.  Similar class action
lawsuits against Subway are also pending in New Jersey and
California.

In the wake of this sandwich controversy, Subway issued a press
release saying, "We freshly bake our bread throughout the day in
our more than 38,000 restaurants in 100 countries worldwide, and
we have redoubled our efforts to ensure consistency and correct
length in every sandwich we serve."

But as the company also said, and anyone with any common sense
would realize, "The length of the bread baked in the restaurant
cannot be assured each and every time as the proofing process may
vary slightly each time in the restaurant."

It is yet to be seen if these cases will gain any traction in our
courts, but the "scandal" did garner the attention of one popular
comedic television host.  In a recent segment on Stephen Colbert's
show, he cleverly relays the details as a "corporate scamwich" and
charges that we, the American public, have been "five-dollar foot-
wronged."  This farcical satire does much to highlight the
absolute absurdity of this lawsuit.

But these types of frivolous lawsuits are not isolated or unusual
incidents.  Our civil justice system is plagued with similar
lawsuits that usually result in exorbitant settlements, which
subsequently end up lining the pockets of trial lawyers with
little money going to any actual "victims."

This past summer, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals actually
ruled against a similar class action lawsuit filed against the
Kellogg Company that claimed Kellogg's falsely advertised that a
breakfast of Frosted Mini-Wheats helped improve children's
attentiveness.  But there are clinical studies that show that kids
who eat breakfast (like Frosted Mini-Wheats) have better
attentiveness in school than kids who skip breakfast.  That is
just commonsense to any responsible parent and another example of
an abusive lawsuit that was fortunately stopped by a federal
court.

While Kellogg's legal battle had a victorious ending, many don't.
American businesses constantly face the potential threat from
these types of petty complaints that can last for years and cost
companies dearly.  The tort industry costs America over $800
billion every year, only a small fraction of which goes to
compensating actual victims.  To reduce costly and unnecessary
lawsuits and ensure the integrity of our civil court system, real
tort reform is needed that will deter frivolous lawsuits over the
amount of dough in a sandwich.


THELADDERS.COM: Faces Class Action Over Deceiving Consumers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports TheLadders.com deceived consumers
by charging for access to a job board it falsely claimed showed
"$100k+" jobs, which did not exist, did not pay that much, or were
not authorized for posting there, a class action claims in Federal
Court.


TOKYO ELECTRIC: Fukushima Nuke Crisis Survivors File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC and Agence France-Presse report that hundreds of Fukushima
nuclear crisis survivors in Japan have filed a class action
seeking restitution of the region contaminated by radioactive
materials.  Lawyers for about 800 plaintiffs say the case has been
filed with the Fukushima District Court.  The plaintiffs are
demanding $520 a month from the government and Tokyo Electric
Power Co (TEPCO) until the area is restored.

"Through this case, we seek restitution of the region to the
condition before radioactive materials contaminated the area, and
demand compensation for psychological pains until the restitution
is finished," the plaintiff lawyers' statement said.

Most of the plaintiffs are from Fukushima but they also include
some residents of neighboring prefectures.  The case has been
filed as Japan marks two years since the devastating earthquake
and tsunami, which killed nearly 19,000 people and left almost
3,000 unaccounted for.

The magnitude-9 earthquake sent waves up to 40 meters high
crashing into Japan's Tohoku coast, destroying or damaging one
million homes.  The tsunami helped to trigger the worst nuclear
crisis in a quarter of a century at the Fukushima nuclear plant.

The Fukushima accident forced tens of thousands of residents near
the area to abandon their homes and jobs in heavily contaminated
areas.  It has been estimated it will take at least 40 years to
decommission the plant, with the compensation bill at least $33
billion.


UNIQLO USA: Recalls 700 Pajamas Over Flammability Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Fast Retailing USA, Inc., and UNIQLO USA LLC, both of New York,
announced a voluntary recall of about 700 children's pajamas.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The pajamas fail to meet federal flammability standards for
children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injuries to children.
No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled products are one-piece micro fleece garment made of
100 percent polyester knit fabric.  They were sold in infant sizes
9M to 12M.  The pajamas are footed and have a front zipper and
long sleeves.  The brand name "UNIQLO BABY" appears on the neck
label.  There are a variety of colors and designs, including red
and black plaid print; navy, green and yellow plaid print; off-
white with pink, yellow and gray dots print; pink with off-white,
dark pink and gray dots print; brown and pink with white
snowflakes print; navy with white snowflakes print; gray with
deer; beige with deer.  The serial numbers of the recalled
product, located at the bottom of the neck label, include: 187-
074142(24-04), 187-074143(24-04), 187-074144(24-04) and 187-
074145(24-04).  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at: http://is.gd/1PdPxf

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
UNIQLO New York stores, except the SoHo store; UNIQLO Garden State
Plaza store in Paramus, N.J.; and online at www.uniqlo.com from
September 2012 through November 2012 for about $15.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled pajamas away from
children and return them to any UNIQLO store for a full refund.
UNIQLO may be reached toll-free at (877) 486-4756, from 10:00 a.m.
to midnight Eastern Time Monday through Saturday and 11:00 a.m. to
11:00 p.m. Eastern Time Sunday, or at http://www.uniqlo.com/then
click on ABOUT UNIQLO at the bottom left side of the page and then
on UNIQLO NEWS for more information.


WADDELL & REED: Remaining Claims in "Taylor" Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
All remaining claims in the class action lawsuit commenced by
Michael E. Taylor, et al., were dismissed in February 2013,
according to Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc.'s February 27, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In the action -- captioned Michael E. Taylor, Kenneth B. Young,
individuals, on behalf of themselves individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive; Case No. 09-CV-2909
DMS WVG; in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California -- filed December 28, 2009, the Company was
sued in an individual action, class action and Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") nationwide collective action by two former
advisors asserting misclassification of financial advisors as
independent contractors instead of employees.  Plaintiffs, on
behalf of themselves and a purported class of Waddell & Reed, Inc.
financial advisors, assert claims under the FLSA for minimum wages
and overtime wages, and under California Labor Code Statutes for
timely payment of wages, minimum wages, overtime compensation,
meal periods, reimbursement of losses and business expenses and
itemized wage statements and a claim for Unfair Business Practices
under Section 17200 of the California Business & Professions Code.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary
damages.

Plaintiffs moved for conditional collective action certification
under the FLSA.  The Company opposed this motion and additionally
moved for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' individual FLSA claims.
The Court issued an order on January 3, 2012, granting the
Company's summary judgment motions, holding that Plaintiffs'
individual FLSA claims fail as a matter of law, and denying
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective action certification
under the FLSA as moot.  This ruling effectively removes all
nationwide FLSA claims from the case.

Subsequently, the Company moved for summary judgment on
Plaintiffs' individual California claims.  The Court issued an
order on August 20, 2012, granting the Company's summary judgment
motions, holding that Plaintiffs' individual California claims
fail as a matter of law.  This order effectively dismissed
Plaintiffs from the case, both individually and as putative class
representatives.

However, in its August 20, 2012 order, the Court also granted
Plaintiffs' motion to add a new individual and putative class
representative to the action, effectively replacing the originally
named Plaintiffs.  The newly named Plaintiff continued to pursue
the California claims on behalf of the putative class, as well as
newly added representative derivative claims under the California
Private Attorney General Act.

The Company moved for summary judgment, asking the Court to
dismiss the newly named Plaintiff's individual claims.  The
arguments made in support of this request were the same as those
that prevailed in the Taylor and Young motions for summary
judgment.  On February 1, 2013, the Court issued an order granting
the Company's summary judgment motion.  This ruling effectively
dismisses all remaining claims in the case in their entirety,
pending appeal.  No appeal has yet been filed.  The Company says
it intends to continue to vigorously defend the matter at appeal,
if any.

Headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas, Waddell & Reed Financial,
Inc. -- http://www.waddell.com/-- is a Delaware corporation that
conducts business through its subsidiaries.  Founded in 1937, the
Company is one of the oldest mutual fund complexes in the United
States, having introduced the Waddell & Reed Advisors Group of
Mutual Funds in 1940.  Over time the Company added additional
mutual fund families: Ivy Funds, Ivy Funds Variable Insurance
Portfolios and InvestEd Portfolios, the Company's 529 college
savings plan.


WELLS FARGO: ED Mo. FLSA Suit Has Conditional Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Ross issued a memorandum and order granting
a motion for conditional certification of a class in the lawsuit
captioned MICHELLE R. LINDSAY, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO ADVISORS,
LLC, et al., Defendants, No. 4:12CV0577 JAR, (E.D. Mo.).

The Court conditionally certified a class of all current and
former, unlicensed client associates of Wells Fargo who have
worked at any time for the period of three years from March 11,
2013.  The Court also ordered the disclosure of putative class
members' names and contact information, and for the parties to
facilitate class notice.

Ms. Lindsay filed her complaint on March 29, 2012, alleging claims
for Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.  She
purports to bring the putative collective action on behalf of a
class of client associates who worked for Wells Fargo. She alleges
that client advisors, who are non-exempt employees, are required
to report an 8 hour day on their time cards, even though they
regularly work beyond 8 hours a day.  She claims that it is Wells
Fargo's "practice and policy to willfully fail and refuse to
properly pay all straight time and overtime compensation due and
owing to its Client Associates, in direct violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ('FLSA'), 29 U.S.C. [Section]201, et seq."

The Court conditionally authorized Ms. Lindsay to act as class
representative.

Blitz, Bardgett & Deutsch, L.C., Emge & Associates, and Stanley
Iola, LLP are authorized to act as class counsel.

Wells Fargo is granted until March 21, 2013, within which to make
any written objections to Ms. Lindsay's amended proposed Notice of
Lawsuit.  The Court directed Wells Fargo to provide the
Plaintiff's attorneys with the names and current or last known
mailing addresses of all employees who may be potential plaintiffs
in the suit on or before March 28, 2013.

The Court denied Wells Fargo's objections to Ms. Lindsay's
declarations in support of her motion to conditionally certify a
class; and Wells Fargo's request for the court to strike the
declarations.

A copy of the District Court's March 11, 2013 Memorandum and Order
is available at http://is.gd/oi8fAVfrom Leagle.com.


WILLIAMS COS: April Trial in Suit vs. WAPI Has Been Stricken
------------------------------------------------------------
An April 2013 trial date in the lawsuit alleging sulfolane
contamination against a subsidiary of The Williams Companies, Inc.
has been stricken and has not been reset, 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 January 2010, James West filed a class action lawsuit in state
court in Fairbanks, Alaska, on behalf of individual property
owners whose water contained sulfolane contamination allegedly
emanating from the Flint Hills Oil Refinery in North Pole, Alaska.
The lawsuit named the Company's subsidiary, Williams Alaska
Petroleum Inc. (WAPI), and Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC
(FHRA), a subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., as defendants.  The
Company owned and operated the refinery until 2004 when it sold it
to FHRA.  The Company and FHRA have made claims under the
pollution liability insurance policy issued in connection with the
sale of the North Pole refinery to FHRA.  The Company and FHRA
also filed claims against each other seeking, among other things,
contractual indemnification alleging that the other party caused
the sulfolane contamination.

In August 2010, the court denied West's request for class
certification.  On May 5, 2011, the Company and FHRA settled the
James West claim, leaving FHRA and Williams' claims.  The Company
filed motions for summary judgment on FHRA's claims against it,
but the motions are unlikely to resolve all the outstanding
claims.  Similarly, FHRA has filed motions for summary judgment
that would resolve some, but not all, of the Company's claims
against it.  An April 2013 trial date had been scheduled, but has
been stricken and has not been reset.

The Company currently estimates that its reasonably possible loss
exposure in this matter could range from an insignificant amount
up to $32 million, although uncertainties inherent in the
litigation process, expert evaluations, and jury dynamics might
cause the Company's exposure to exceed that amount.  The Company
might have the ability to recover any such losses under the
pollution liability policy if FHRA has not exhausted the policy
limits.

Headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma, The Williams Companies, Inc., is
primarily engaged in gas marketing and the gathering, storing, and
processing of natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs).


WILLIAMS COS: Expects Ruling in One of Gas Price Indices Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
A decision is expected this year in an appeal from the denial of a
class certification motion in one of the lawsuits alleging
manipulation of published gas price indices, according to The
Williams Companies, Inc.'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 1, 2011, the Company announced that its Board of
Directors approved a tax-free spinoff of 100 percent of its
exploration and production business, WPX Energy, Inc. (WPX), to
the Company's shareholders.  On December 31, 2011, the Company
distributed one share of WPX common stock for every three shares
of Williams common stock.  As a result, with the exception of the
December 31, 2011 balance sheet which no longer includes WPX, the
Company's consolidated financial statements reflect the results of
operations and financial position of WPX as discontinued
operations.

Civil lawsuits based on allegations of manipulating published gas
price indices have been brought against WPX and others, in each
case seeking an unspecified amount of damages.  WPX is currently a
defendant in class action litigation and other litigation
originally filed in state court in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and
Wisconsin brought on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of
natural gas in those states.  These cases were transferred to the
federal court in Nevada.  In 2008, the court granted summary
judgment in the Colorado case in favor of WPX and most of the
other defendants based on plaintiffs' lack of standing.  In 2009,
the court denied the plaintiffs' request for reconsideration of
the Colorado dismissal and entered judgment in WPX's favor.  The
court's order became final on July 18, 2011, and the Colorado
plaintiffs might appeal the order.

In the other cases, on July 18, 2011, the Nevada district court
granted WPX's joint motions for summary judgment to preclude the
plaintiffs' state law claims because the federal Natural Gas Act
gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") exclusive
jurisdiction to resolve those issues.  The court also denied the
plaintiffs' class certification motion as moot.  In 2011, the
plaintiffs' appealed the court's ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals, and in early 2012, the parties completed briefing the
issues.  A decision is expected in 2013.

Because of the uncertainty around these current pending unresolved
issues, including an insufficient description of the purported
classes and other related matters, the Company says it cannot
reasonably estimate a range of potential exposures at this time.
However, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of
these items and the Company's related indemnification obligation
could result in future charges that may be material to the
Company's results of operations.

Headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma, The Williams Companies, Inc., is
primarily engaged in gas marketing and the gathering, storing, and
processing of natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs).


WILSON SPORTING: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action accuses Wilson Sporting Goods of defrauding consumers by
selling expensive tennis racket models it falsely claims that
Roger Federer used in competition.  Lead plaintiff Sari Andelson
sued Wilson Sporting Goods in Federal Court, alleging fraud, false
advertising, unfair competition, deceptive trade and four other
charges.

Federer, 31, is not a party to the complaint.

"This action is brought on behalf of plaintiff and a class of
consumers who purchased certain models of Wilson tennis rackets
that have been purportedly used in competition by one of the top-
ranked players in the world and 17-time Grand Slam Champion Roger
Federer," the complaint states.

"Plaintiff and the class members purchased Federer Tennis Rackets
because they were tricked by defendants Wilson Sporting Goods
Company . . . into believing that Roger Federer actually used a
Federer Tennis Racket during competition."

In truth, Andelson claims, Federer used a discontinued older model
which can be bought at a discount.

Federer is under a lifetime contract with Wilson, and the Chicago-
based company has "earned handsome profits" through his
endorsements, the complaint states.

But "(w)hile Federer has been willing to cash defendant's
endorsement checks, he has not been willing to part with his most
prized piece of equipment on the court -- his tennis racket,"
according to the complaint.

Andelson claims that Wilson bamboozled consumers with a simple
paint job.

"To trick consumers into purchasing the new, more expensive
Federer tennis racket, Wilson has entered into an endorsement deal
with Roger Federer, through which Wilson provides Federer with his
preferred older-model racket -- which has been painted to look
like Wilson's latest Federer tennis racket," according to the
complaint.  "This occurs year after year.  Accordingly, when
people see Federer play -- in person, on television, or in
photographs -- they see him using an old-model racket that is
disguised to look like the latest Federer tennis racket."

Andelson claims Wilson lied to consumers to sell its rackets.

"(A)s part of its deceptive scheme, Wilson expressly represents to
consumers in its press releases and other marketing materials that
Federer uses the later Federer Tennis Racket," the complaint
states.

Wilson falsely claimed Federer won the 2010 Stockholm Open with
its Six.One Tour BLX racket, and a Grand Slam event with a Pro
Staff Six.One 90 racket, Andelson says, citing Wilson press
releases.

Andelson claims that consumers pay Wilson for a falsely advertised
racket that is "considerably more expensive than the racket
Federer actually uses."

"The belief that Federer is playing with the latest model racket
also creates demand for Wilson's latest rackets because it makes
consumers believe that they need to replace their current rackets
if they want to play at their best," the complaint states.
"Wilson thus preys upon consumers who are anxious to play with the
actual tennis rackets used by top professional tennis players such
as Roger Federer and who believe that their game will improve by
using the racket that top professionals use during competition."

Andelson says she would not have bought her Wilson Factor Six
racket had she known that Federer does not use it on court.

She seeks an injunction, restitution, disgorgement and
compensatory and punitive damages, and costs.  In addition to the
charges mentioned above, she alleges negligent misrepresentation,
consumer law violations and breach of warranty.

She is represented by Daniel Alberstone, Esq., at Baron & Budd, of
Encino, who may be reached at:

          Dan Alberstone, Esq.
          BARON AND BUDD P.C.
          15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Encino, CA 91436
          E-mail: dalberstone@baronbudd.com

Wilson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


* Three Legal Firms to Sue Australian, NZ Banks Over Default Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Meadows, writing for Fairfax NZ News, reports that three
legal firms claiming banks have charged customers about $1 billion
in fees, over the past six years, are seeking a class action,
which could be the largest in New Zealand.

New Zealanders are being urged to climb aboard a giant class
action suit to claw back more than $1 billion of unfair default
fees from the major banks.  The legal action -- claimed to be the
largest the country has seen -- is being led by New Zealand lawyer
Andrew Hooker, Australian class action experts Slater & Gordon and
litigation funder Litigation Lending Services (NZ).

While overdrawn accounts, bouncing checks, and late credit card
payments usually incur fees of $10-$20, Mr. Hooker said the real
cost to banks was just a few cents.  He said the $1b headline
figure was a "very conservative" estimate of the scale of gouging
that had gone on over the past six years.  The case will be based
on a principle of contract law which says customers can only be
charged a default fee that reflects the reasonable cost to the
lender.

Banks had simply ignored the principle for years and customers had
been helpless to fight them, Hooker said.  "Why would you sue a
bank for $15 or even $20? That's why we have a class action."

Anyone who has had to pay these "exception fees" over that time
period can register on the newly launched Web site
www.fairplayonfees.co.nz  The lawsuit will operate on a no-win,
no-fee basis, so consumers have nothing to lose by joining the
action.

The litigation funders, who Mr. Hooker stressed were taking all
the risk, will take a 25% cut of the proceeds if it is successful.
Mr. Hooker was confident of getting the minimum 10,000 or so
registrants required to go ahead, and said as many as 1 million
New Zealanders could be eligible.

The papers will not be filed with the High Court until the
threshold is met, and so the defendants have not been formally
named.  However, Mr. Hooker said the big four Aussie banks -- ASB,
ANZ, Westpac and BNZ -- were all being targeted, as was Kiwibank.

"No-one's off the hook."

Litigation Lending Services managing director Michelle Silver said
she was looking forward to a "heavy fight" which was likely to
take two to three years.  The lawsuit parallels a legal battle
being waged in Australia, where 12 Australian banks are being sued
over the same issue.

Some 170,000 Australian customers have jumped on board the action
and are seeking to claw back more than A$223 million (NZ$278m).
Eleven of the 12 cases are on hold until the outcome of a test
case against ANZ Bank.  The lender lost a battle in the Australian
High Court in September, and will now have to convince the Federal
Court that its fees were a genuine reflection of costs.

According to Fair Play on Fees, the legal principles involved are
close to identical to the New Zealand situation.

In mid-2009, many local lenders drastically slashed their
exception and dishonor fees in response to a Commerce Commission
investigation.  Westpac, for example, cut exception fees on all
credit card and accounts from $25-$30 down to $9, a move that cost
it about $50m each year. Its fees have since crept back up to $15-
$19, similar to most of the other lenders.

Mr. Hooker said local banks would be unsurprised by the
announcement, given that their parent companies were already being
sued across the Tasman.

                  Green Party Backs Class Action

Gareth Vaughan, writing for Interest.co.nz, reports that co-leader
Russel Norman says the Green Party supports class action against
"unfair" bank fees and he has prepared a Member's Bill that would
ensure banks offer a basic fee-free banking service.

Mr. Norman threw the Greens backing behind the legal action
launched by New Zealand lawyer Andrew Hooker, Australian class
action experts Slater & Gordon, and Aussie litigation funder
Litigation Lending Services over up to NZ$1 billion worth of bank
fees they maintain were unlawful.  And on top of this Norman said
the Greens had "ready legislation" to ensure future bank fees were
fair and transparent.

"The legislation, in the form of a Member's Bill, will ensure that
banks offer a basic fee-free banking service, that bank fees are
fair and reflect the actual costs involved, and make the Reserve
Bank responsible for the oversight of bank fee charges," said
Mr. Norman.

"I strongly support the class action announced [Mon]day to recoup
excessive bank default fees," said Mr. Norman.  "The fact that
bank fees remain so high is another indication of the lack of
competition in our banking sector."

He maintains that, on average, New Zealanders are paying at least
NZ$200 a year on bank fees.

"The exact amount is unknown, however.  Unlike Australia, our
Reserve Bank does not have oversight of this aspect of banking
activity or report regularly on bank fees," said Mr. Norman.

"I have drafted legislation that will ensure banks offer a basic
fee-free banking service, require real time warnings of impending
bank fees, and require the Reserve Bank to ensure all bank fees
are fair and reflect the actual costs of services provided."

A basic fee-free service must include basic transaction services,
internet access to the account, and an EFTPOS/debit card,
Mr. Norman said.  The account must be free of ongoing service fees
such as monthly account service fees and penalty fees for actions
and transgressions of third parties.

"The legislation also requires banks to disclose all relevant cost
information to the Reserve Bank to allow it to determine the
fairness of any bank fee charged.  Banks would have to offer real-
time warnings of fees before a proposed internet, electronic, or
face-to-face transaction is finalized.  This will give customers
the opportunity to discontinue," said Mr. Norman.


                             *********

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  * * *