CAR_Public/130321.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, March 21, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 57

                             Headlines



A123 SYSTEMS: Wins Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit
ALTOONA, PA: Housing Authority Clients Can Sue as "Class"
AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Red Light Camera Class Action Settlement Nears
BEN-LEE PROCESSING: Recalls Pork Products Over Lack of HACCP Plan
BIG 5: Parties in Suits Over Credit Card Purchases in Mediation

CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss From Suit
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues to Defend Suits Over Gas Markets
CINNABAR SERVICE: Judge Certifies Picher Residents' Class Action
COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Wage and Hour Suit in California
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit

CRANE CO: Has Provisional Pact to Settle Merrimac-Related Suit
DEWEY & LEBOEUF: Ex-Employees' WARN Class Action Can Proceed
ECOLAB INC: Reached Preliminary Settlement in "Ladore" Suit
ECOLAB INC: Nalco Units Continue to Defend COREXIT-Related Suits
EL PASO PIPELINE: Unitholder Continues to Defend "Allen" Suit

FPL FOOD: Recalls 5,820 Pounds of All Natural Ground Beef Chuck
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Summary Judgment Bid Pending in Dividend Suit
GENON ENERGY: Defends Consolidated Suits Over Acquisition by NRG
GENON ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Cheswick-Related Suit Dismissal
GENON ENERGY: Supreme Court Review Sought in Gas Prices Suit

GRIPPO FOODS: Recalls All Sizes of Potato Chips Products
ILLINOIS: 3rd Suit Filed v. Madison County Over Bid-Rigging Scheme
HOTELS.COM: Class Action Damages to Exceed $55 Million
INT'L PAPER: Still Defends Class Suits Over Containerboard Prices
INT'L PAPER: Unit Still Defending Suit Over Guaranty Financial

INT'L PAPER: Suit Settlement Related to Bogalusa Incident Okayed
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Class Action
LIVE NATION: Ticketmaster Still in Talks to Modify Settlement
MCDONALD'S CORP: Judge Extends Class Action Settlement Period
METLIFE INC: Appeal From "Haviland" Class Suit Dismissal Pending

METLIFE INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Remand "Birmingham" Suit
METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend "Westland" Suit in New York
METLIFE INC: "Dolan" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed in February
METLIFE INC: Hearing on "Roberts" Suit Settlement Set for April 9
METLIFE INC: Still Awaits Judgment Bid Ruling in Keife Suit

METLIFE INC: Still Defends Class Suits Over Sales Practices
METLIFE INC: Sun Life Seeks Indemnification for Suits in Canada
MICHAELS STORES: Personal ID Info Class Action Can Proceed
NISHIMOTO TRADING: Recalls Packages of Rice Cracker "Kotsubukko"
NYSE EURONEXT: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suits in Del. & NY

OUTDOOR CHANNEL: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in Delaware
PIPER JAFFRAY: Still Defends Consolidated Antitrust Suit in N.Y.
STATE FARM: Windshield Repair Class Action Certification Upheld
SWIFT TRANSPO: Continues to Pursue Appellate Relief in 2004 Suit
SWIFT TRANSPO: Still Defending Misclassification Class Suit

SWIFT TRANSPO: Continues to Defend Wage & Employment Class Suits
SWIFT TRANSPO: Continues to Defend Minimum Wage Class Suits
SWIFT TRANSPO: Still Defending Washington Overtime Class Suit
SWIFT TRANSPO: Court Dismissed Arizona FCRA Class Action in Feb.
VERISK ANALYTICS: Unit Dismissed From Claims in Insurance Suit

VERISK ANALYTICS: Unit Continues to Defend "Roe" Suit in Ohio
VERISK ANALYTICS: Unit Continues to Defend "Thomas" Suit in Ohio
VERISK ANALYTICS: Unit Still Defending "Johnson" Suit in Ohio
VOLKSWAGEN AG: China Unit to Recall Cars With Substandard Gearbox
WELLS FARGO: Excessive Insurance Claims in McKenzie Suit Dismissed

WELLS FARGO: Challenges MedCap Ponzi Scheme Class Action
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: "Dewald" ERISA Violation Suit Now Closed

* More Than 11,000 New Zealanders Join Bank Fee Class Action


                             *********


A123 SYSTEMS: Wins Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard G. Stearns granted a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in IN RE A123 SYSTEMS, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 12-10591-RGS, (D. Mass.).

The putative class action was brought by Suk Cheung, Scott
Heiss, and Michael Zoitas on behalf of all persons and entities
who purchased the common stock of A123 Systems, Inc., between
February 28, 2011, and March 26, 2012.  The proposed class was
allegedly duped by misrepresentations disseminated by defendants
in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5. The Defendants are former
high ranking officers of A123: David P. Vieau, Chief Executive
Officer; David J. Prystash, Chief Financial Officer; and John R.
Granara III, Interim Chief Financial Officer.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint
on the grounds that it fails to allege (1) any actionable omission
or misstatement; (2) scienter; or (3) loss-related causation.

Judge Stearns ruled that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet their
burden of pleading fraud against the individual defendants with
the particularity demanded by the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Consequently, the
Section 10(b) claim will be dismissed, he said.

Moreover, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint is allowed but the Plaintiffs may file a second
amended complaint on or before April 4, 2013.

A copy of the District Court's March 14, 2013 Memorandum and Order
is available at http://is.gd/DIMC8ofrom Leagle.com.


ALTOONA, PA: Housing Authority Clients Can Sue as "Class"
---------------------------------------------------------
Phil Ray, writing for The Altoona Mirror, reports that a federal
judge ruled on March 11 that clients of the Altoona Housing
Authority who have had their benefits terminated can sue as a
"class," a decision that could change the way the agency enforces
its rules governing the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program.

According to U.S. District Judge Kim R. Gibson in Johnstown, 33
families are included in the class that he certified for trial,
but, as he emphasized, whatever decision is made in the case will
affect hundreds of present and future authority clients.  Judge
Gibson's 14-page opinion reinforced a decision he made in August
allowing a class-action lawsuit.  The authority had asked the
judge to reconsider that ruling.

The authority's attorney, John C. Hansberry of Pittsburgh, claimed
that the "class" really only includes 15 families that meet all
the criteria raised in a lawsuit filed more than two years ago by
Ashley Thompson, a young mother, and Deborah and David Sills, an
older couple.

Both families had their benefits terminated because they allegedly
allowed unauthorized individuals to stay at their Section 8 homes.
Both families deny doing anything wrong.  The two families contend
the hearing process used by the authority to strip them of their
housing vouchers violated their civil rights.  They are being
represented by Pittsburgh attorney Kevin Quisenberry of the
Community Justice Project, which seeks to protect the rights of
low income people.

Judge Gibson concluded on March 11 that while the authority
contends the number of families potentially harmed by the hearing
process is small and thus should not be considered as a class, he
stated the argument "fails to account for the hundreds of current
and future program participants potentially subject to the
challenged practices."

The judge also noted those suing "lack the resources to afford
even suitable housing (hence the enrollment in the Program) in the
first place, and, therefore, it would be impracticable if not
financially impossible for them to bring individual actions to
enforce their rights."  He said, "Moreover, judicial economy
favors a single adjudication as to the legality of the defendants'
practices or policies over a multiplicity of suits seeking answers
to the same legal questions."

Mr. Hansberry said the decision means, "It's time for the
plaintiffs to prove their case."

A date for the trial is up to the judge.

Mr. Quisenberry was not available for comment on March 12.

The dispute between the two families and the authority came to a
head just before Christmas two years ago when the authority
attempted to evict Thompson, then 19 and the mother of two young
children, and the Sills family from their residences.

Thompson allegedly allowed the father of one of her children to
stay at her residence while the Sills supposedly permitted Mrs.
Sills' ill mother to stay at the family home.

The two families were granted hearings, but they charged in their
lawsuit that the authority hearing officer researched the case and
used facts which they never had an opportunity to answer in
deciding to strip them of their vouchers.  The evictions of the
two families have been put on hold until the court disposes of the
lawsuit.

The authority has denied anything improper occurred.

Judge Gibson stated last summer that the class-action claims
include the following issues:

    * Only written evidence could be considered at a hearing.

    * The authority notified clients it was their burden to prove
why they should not be terminated and thus shifting the burden of
proof during the hearings to the clients.

    * Terminating benefits based on hearsay evidence.

    * Using a non-neutral decision-maker to rule on the issues.

    * Basing decisions at least in part on evidence collected
after the hearings.

   * Failing to comply with the authority's own rules when
terminating benefits.


AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Red Light Camera Class Action Settlement Nears
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Porter, writing for Associated Press, reports that a
representative of the company that installs and operates New
Jersey's controversial red light cameras had some good news for
motorists on March 11, not that any were around to hear it during
a proceeding attended only by a gaggle of attorneys in the sterile
environment of a federal courtroom.

If you see a flash go off as you drive through an intersection and
you're sure you beat the red light, you're probably right,
Charles Callari said.  It's more than likely a diagnostic test
being performed by Scottsdale, Arizona-based American Traffic
Solutions to reset the cameras.

Anyway, Mr. Callari, an ATS vice president said, about 50 percent
of the pictures snapped at intersections don't result in summonses
after going through a required review by local police.

The cameras installed in nearly two dozen towns in New Jersey have
raked in millions of dollars but have generated an equal amount of
controversy.  The March 11 hearing was an outgrowth of a lawsuit
filed last year by a Jackson Township resident who sued ATS and
the town of East Windsor after getting an $85 ticket.

John Telliho claimed the town operated the red light cameras
illegally because it failed to follow requirements for the timing
of yellow lights that would give motorists enough time to put on
the brakes.

A settlement has been proposed between ATS and Mr. Telliho and
other plaintiffs as a class, but U.S. District Judge Peter
Sheridan requested that the parties convene on March 11 to give
him more information before he moves forward.  The attorneys,
including those representing several towns named as defendants,
met in Sheridan's chambers briefly after Mr. Callari's
presentation.

The pilot program for the red light cameras came under fire from
the moment it was approved in 2008 by some legislators who
criticized it as too intrusive and as a transparent ploy to raise
revenue for cash-strapped towns.

The criticism ratcheted up last June when the state Department of
Transportation temporarily suspended the red light cameras at 63
of 85 intersections over concerns about the timing of the yellow
lights.  All were ultimately reactivated.

The plaintiffs claim East Windsor and other towns including
Woodbridge, Glassboro, Pohatcong, Brick, Cherry Hill and others
didn't do the required testing for traffic speed to properly time
the yellow lights and should refund fines imposed up until they
retested the lights last June at the behest of the department of
transportation.

According to a court filing in late December, ATS agreed to pay
$4.2 million to plaintiffs with valid claims but would not admit
wrongdoing or liability.  The towns would be removed as
defendants. An attorney for ATS didn't immediately return a
message seeking comment on March 11.

Republican Assemblyman Declan O'Scanlon was critical of the
proposed settlement.

New Jersey motorists "continue to be screwed by the camera
companies and the local governments which collude to steal from
them."  Mr. O'Scanlon e-mailed on March 11.  "This settlement
sells them down the river one more time -- and amounts to nothing
more than a get-rich-quick scheme for the attorneys involved."


BEN-LEE PROCESSING: Recalls Pork Products Over Lack of HACCP Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben-Lee Processing, Inc., an Atwood, Kansas establishment, is
recalling an undetermined amount of ready-to-eat and heat-treated
bacon and ham products that were produced without a Hazard
Analysis & Critical Control Points (HACCP) plan, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.

The following products are subject to recall:

   * Various weight packages of cured pork products, including
     country style bacon, sliced bacon, ham, sliced ham, and
     summer sausages

The recalled products are in consumer-sized packages in various
weights, and are wrapped in white butcher paper with the name and
address of Ben-Lee as well as the mark of inspection and the name
of the product in a contrasting ink color.

The recalled products bear the establishment number "Est. 2366"
inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The products were produced
prior to March 14, 2013, and were distributed in northwest Kansas
for further distribution.

The problem was discovered by the Kansas State Department of
Agriculture in conjunction with FSIS.  Some fully cooked products
were given the mark of inspection, but the company does not have a
HACCP plan for fully cooked product.  Further investigation
revealed that other Ready-To-Eat or heat-treated products were
produced without HACCP plans.  HACCP plans, in which
establishments identify potential hazards associated with a given
product, and identify a means of addressing those hazards in the
production process, are required for all products bearing the mark
of inspection.

FSIS and the Company have received no reports of illness at this
time.  Anyone concerned about an illness from consumption of these
products should contact a healthcare provider.  FSIS routinely
conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that recalling
firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are
taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to
consumers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Tom Carroll, the Company's owner, at (785) 626-3732.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at
http://www.AskKaren.gov/or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.
"Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday
from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA
Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is
available in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday.  Recorded
food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.  The online
Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24
hours a day at: http://is.gd/vlfH9I


BIG 5: Parties in Suits Over Credit Card Purchases in Mediation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation and other parties of a
consolidated class action lawsuit over credit card purchases
engaged in mandatory settlement conferences in February 2013,
according to the Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 30, 2012.

The Company was served on the following dates with the following
nine complaints, each of which was brought as a purported class
action on behalf of persons who made purchases at the Company's
stores in California using credit cards and were requested or
required to provide personal identification information at the
time of the transaction:

   (1) on February 22, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
       Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled
       Maria Eugenia Saenz Valiente v. Big 5 Sporting Goods
       Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455049;

   (2) on February 22, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
       Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled
       Scott Mossler v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al.,
       Case No. BC455477;

   (3) on February 28, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
       Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled
       Yelena Matatova v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et
       al., Case No. BC455459;

   (4) on March 8, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
       Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Neal
       T. Wiener v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al.,
       Case No. BC456300;

   (5) on March 22, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
       Superior Court in the County of San Francisco, entitled
       Donna Motta v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al.,
       Case No. CGC-11-509228;

   (6) on March 30, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
       Superior Court in the County of Alameda, entitled Steve
       Holmes v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case
       No. RG11563123;

   (7) on March 30, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
       Superior Court in the County of San Francisco, entitled
       Robin Nelson v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al.,
       Case No. CGC-11-508829;

   (8) on April 8, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
       Superior Court in the County of San Joaquin, entitled
       Pamela B. Smith v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et
       al., Case No. 39-2011-00261014-CU-BT-STK; and

   (9) on May 31, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
       Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled
       Deena Gabriel v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al.,
       Case No. BC462213.

On June 16, 2011, the Judicial Council of California issued an
Order Assigning Coordination Trial Judge designating the
California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles as having
jurisdiction to coordinate and to hear all nine of the cases as
Case No. JCCP4667.  On October 21, 2011, the plaintiffs
collectively filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, alleging
violations of the California Civil Code, negligence, invasion of
privacy and unlawful intrusion.  The plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that customers making purchases with credit cards at
the Company's stores in California were improperly requested to
provide their zip code at the time of such purchases.  The
plaintiffs seek, on behalf of the class members, the following:
statutory penalties; attorneys' fees; costs; restitution of
property; disgorgement of profits; and injunctive relief.

On February 6, 2013, and February 19, 2013, the Company and
plaintiffs engaged in Mandatory Settlement Conferences conducted
by the court in an effort to negotiate a settlement of this
litigation.  In connection therewith, the Company received from
the plaintiffs an offer to settle this litigation, which the
Company is currently considering.  Based on the terms of the
settlement offer, the Company currently believes that a settlement
of this litigation will not have a material negative impact on the
Company's results of operations or financial condition.  However,
if the plaintiffs and the Company are unable to negotiate a
settlement, the Company says it intends to defend this litigation
vigorously.  If this litigation were to be resolved unfavorably to
the Company, such litigation and the costs of defending it could
have a material negative impact on the Company's results of
operations or financial condition.

El Segundo, California-based Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation --
http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/-- is a sporting goods retailer
in the western United States, operating stores in various states
under the "Big 5 Sporting Goods" name.  The Company provides a
full-line product offering in a traditional sporting goods store
format.  The Company's product mix includes athletic shoes,
apparel and accessories, as well as a broad selection of outdoor
and athletic equipment for team sports, fitness, camping, hunting,
fishing, tennis, golf, snowboarding and roller sports.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss From Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on
plaintiffs' motion to dismiss certain defendants, including
CenterPoint Energy defendants, from their lawsuits pending in
Kansas court, 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.

CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp.) and certain of its
subsidiaries are defendants in two mismeasurement lawsuits brought
against approximately 245 pipeline companies and their affiliates
pending in state court in Stevens County, Kansas.  In one case
(originally filed in May 1999 and amended four times), the
plaintiffs purport to represent a class of royalty owners who
allege that the defendants have engaged in systematic
mismeasurement of the volume of natural gas for more than 25
years.  The plaintiffs amended their petition in this lawsuit in
July 2003 in response to an order from the judge denying
certification of the plaintiffs' alleged class.  In the amendment,
the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against certain defendants
(including two CERC Corp. subsidiaries), limited the scope of the
class of plaintiffs they purport to represent and eliminated
previously asserted claims based on mismeasurement of the Btu
content of the gas.  The same plaintiffs then filed a second
lawsuit, again as representatives of a putative class of royalty
owners in which they assert their claims that the defendants have
engaged in systematic mismeasurement of the Btu content of natural
gas for more than 25 years.  In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, along with statutory penalties, treble
damages, interest, costs and fees.  In September 2009, the
district court in Stevens County, Kansas, denied plaintiffs'
request for class certification of their case and, in March 2010,
denied the plaintiffs' request for reconsideration of that order.
In July 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss certain
defendants from both lawsuits, including the remaining CenterPoint
Energy defendants.

CERC believes that there has been no systematic mismeasurement of
gas and that these lawsuits are without merit. CERC and
CenterPoint Energy do not expect the ultimate outcome of the
lawsuits to have a material impact on the financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows of either CenterPoint Energy
or CERC.

Houston, Texas-based CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. -- --
http://www.centerpointenergy.com/-- and its subsidiaries own and
operate natural gas distribution systems in six states.
Subsidiaries of CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp.)
own interstate natural gas pipelines and gas gathering systems and
provide various ancillary services.  A wholly owned subsidiary of
CERC Corp. offers variable and fixed-price physical natural gas
supplies primarily to commercial and industrial customers and
electric and gas utilities.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues to Defend Suits Over Gas Markets
--------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. continues to defend itself against
lawsuits in connection with the operation of the natural gas
markets in 2000 to 2002, 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.

CenterPoint Energy, CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC
(CenterPoint Houston) or their predecessor, Reliant Energy,
Incorporated (Reliant Energy), and certain of their former
subsidiaries have been named as defendants in certain lawsuits.
Under a master separation agreement between CenterPoint Energy and
a former subsidiary, RRI (RRI Energy, Inc., Reliant Energy, Inc.
and Reliant Resources, Inc.), CenterPoint Energy and its
subsidiaries are entitled to be indemnified by RRI and its
successors for any losses, including attorneys' fees and other
costs, arising out of these lawsuits.  In May 2009, RRI sold its
Texas retail business to a subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG)
and RRI changed its name to RRI Energy, Inc.  In December 2010,
Mirant Corporation merged with and became a wholly owned
subsidiary of RRI, and RRI changed its name to GenOn Energy, Inc.
(GenOn).  In December 2012, NRG acquired GenOn through a merger in
which GenOn became a wholly owned subsidiary of NRG.  None of the
sale of the retail business, the merger with Mirant Corporation,
or the acquisition of GenOn by NRG alters RRI's (now GenOn's)
contractual obligations to indemnify CenterPoint Energy and its
subsidiaries, including CenterPoint Houston, for certain
liabilities, including their indemnification obligations regarding
the gas market manipulation litigation, nor does it affect the
terms of existing guaranty arrangements for certain GenOn gas
transportation contracts.

A large number of lawsuits were filed against numerous gas market
participants in a number of federal and western state courts in
connection with the operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-
2002.  CenterPoint Energy's former affiliate, RRI, was a
participant in gas trading in the California and Western markets.
These lawsuits, many of which were filed as class actions, allege
violations of state and federal antitrust laws.  Plaintiffs in
these lawsuits are seeking a variety of forms of relief,
including, among others, recovery of compensatory damages (in some
cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of compensatory
damages, full consideration damages and attorneys' fees.
CenterPoint Energy and/or Reliant Energy were named in
approximately 30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted between
2003 and 2009.  CenterPoint Energy and its affiliates have since
been released or dismissed from all but two of such cases.
CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. (CES), a subsidiary of
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp.), is a defendant in
a case now pending in federal court in Nevada alleging a
conspiracy to inflate Wisconsin natural gas prices in 2000-2002.
In July 2011, the court issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs'
claims against the other defendants in the case, each of whom had
demonstrated Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
jurisdictional sales for resale during the relevant period, based
on federal preemption.  The plaintiffs have appealed this ruling
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Additionally, CenterPoint Energy was a defendant in a lawsuit
filed in state court in Nevada that was dismissed in 2007, but in
March 2010 the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Nevada
Supreme Court.  In September 2012, the Nevada Supreme Court
affirmed the dismissal.  In October 2012, the Nevada Supreme Court
granted the plaintiffs' motion to stay the dismissal of this case
pending the filing and final disposition of their petition for a
writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States.  In
December 2012, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States.  On
January 4, 2013, the Supreme Court removed the case from its
docket since the plaintiffs' petition exceeded the applicable word
limit.  In February 2013, the plaintiffs filed a corrected
petition with the Supreme Court.

CenterPoint Energy believes that neither it nor CES is a proper
defendant in these remaining cases and will continue to pursue
dismissal from those cases.  CenterPoint Energy does not expect
the ultimate outcome of these remaining matters to have a material
impact on its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.

Houston, Texas-based CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. --
http://www.centerpointenergy.com/-- and its subsidiaries own and
operate natural gas distribution systems in six states.
Subsidiaries of CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp.)
own interstate natural gas pipelines and gas gathering systems and
provide various ancillary services.  A wholly owned subsidiary of
CERC Corp. offers variable and fixed-price physical natural gas
supplies primarily to commercial and industrial customers and
electric and gas utilities.


CINNABAR SERVICE: Judge Certifies Picher Residents' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Hylton, writing for Tulsa World, reports that a Tulsa judge
certified class-action status on March 12 to 265 former Picher
residents who claim that appraisers undervalued their properties
during the federal relocation process.  Associate District Judge
Dana Kuehn said in her ruling that the actual loss in value for
each property does not have to be proven to a jury, only the
question of whether there was a conspiracy among the appraisers
and the insurance companies to defraud the plaintiffs by low-
balling the appraisals and forcing the property owners to accept
the low rate.

Defendant Cinnabar Service Co. Inc., the lead appraiser, has
argued that the appraisal process was conducted properly and that
there was no conspiracy to defraud the property owners by
pressuring them to accept lower values, records show.

The court denied Cinnabar's request to dismiss the case in March
2012.

Attorneys with the Barber & Bartz law firm representing Cinnabar
had no comment.

The case was filed in 2009 and is now consolidated with an Ottawa
County case in which plaintiffs initially sued the Lead-Impacted
Communities Relocation Assistance Trust, the public trust that was
formed in June 2006 to administer the funds for relocation.

Plaintiffs attorney Jeff Marr of Oklahoma City said the trust and
those named individually -- Larry Roberts, who was the operations
manager for the trust, and J.D. Strong, the former state Secretary
of the Environment -- will no longer be defendants in the case.

"The trust made it clear that they relied on Cinnabar to do the
appraisals and that they expected Cinnabar to adhere to USPAP (the
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice)," Mr. Marr
said.  "The trust didn't object to the certification (for class-
action status)."

The 265 plaintiffs include Johnny LaFalier, Patty Lafalier, Missy
Beets and many others.  Besides Cinnabar, other defendants are Van
Tuyl & Associates, a Tulsa appraisal firm, and numerous insurance
agencies including Allstate and State Farm.

The plaintiffs lived within the Tar Creek Superfund site and were
part of a $60 million federal buyout of homes and businesses in
2006.  The heavily undermined town became unsafe due to the number
of cave-ins and lead exposure, especially in children.  Picher was
once the center of the largest lead and zinc mining operation in
the world.  There were 878 buyout offers with a 96% acceptance
rate, trust chairman Mark Osborn said in 2011.

"These people felt really helpless when they went in and were
given offers individually, one at a time," Mr. Marr said.  "It was
presented as a take-it-or-leave-it offer.  They said the buyout
was voluntary, but it's hard to consider it voluntary when the
town is being disassembled."

The plaintiffs allege that Cinnabar hastily conducted the
appraisals and treated them unfairly.  They also allege the
company practiced favoritism towards those linked to the trust and
worked secretly with the insurance companies to pressure residents
to accept low-rate offers.  Some of the plaintiffs believe their
buyouts were wrongly reduced because they received money from
their insurance agencies and the Federal Emergency Management
Agency when their homes were damaged or destroyed by a tornado
that ripped through the town on May 10, 2008.

Mr. Marr said that the class-action suit will save clients money
and time, and will prevent inconsistent rulings had each case been
tried individually.

"I'm glad to finally now be able to move forward in litigation of
the matter," Mr. Marr said.

Wally Kennedy, writing for The Joplin Globe, reports that the
judge scheduled Monday, April 1, as the date of a scheduling
conference.  No trial date has been set.  The ruling created a
chain reaction of telephone calls as word spread on March 12 among
the property owners who are part of the class.

"I just got a call and heard that they had ruled in our favor,"
said Mr. LaFalier.  "It's good news coming."

Mr. LaFalier said it has taken a long time to get to this point,
but that the attorneys representing the property owners made that
clear from the start.

"When they took my deposition a while back, I was told by John
Wiggins (one of the lawyers) to put it on the shelf because it was
going to take a while," Mr. LaFalier said.  "He said he'd let me
know when I should wipe the dust off of it."

Mr. LaFalier said the property owners are hopeful that their
attorneys will make such a compelling argument for their position
that the defendants will move to settle out of court to avoid a
costly and time-consuming trial.

"I hope they can reach a settlement for actual and punitive
damages," he said.  "We're all getting old now, and a trial would
be hard on us.  But, for the first time in a long time, we have a
sense of hope.  Whatever we get is a plus we didn't have before."

John Frazier, another Picher resident who was relocated in the $45
million buyout, said: "I just heard about it.  I think it's great.
Anyone with any common sense will be able to see that a lot of
houses were too high and that even more houses were too low.

"When people see the pictures of the houses and their appraisals,
they can't believe there was that much difference in the
appraisals."

Mr. Frazier said that if the case goes to trial, he thinks the
property owners would have a good chance of winning.  "With all of
the documentation we've got, well, the pictures speak for
themselves," he said.

The officers of the trust have countered the allegations with
statements that everyone was treated equally, that fair prices
were paid, and that friends of trust officials were not given
preferential treatment.  More than 700 pieces of property were
involved in the buyout.

Trust officials also say that the majority of Picher's relocated
residents received fair deals or they would not have accepted the
buyout offers.  Some residents have said they accepted what they
characterized as "take-it-or-leave-it" offers because they thought
it might be their only chance to get something for their
properties.

Patsy Huffman, another participant in the buyout, said: "I'm
thankful for the class action.  How would all of these people been
able to go to court if they had to go one at a time?"

Mr. Marr, an Oklahoma City attorney who is representing the
property owners, said the judge did "an excellent job of cutting
through the issues to get to the heart of it."  He said the
property owners now have the "opportunity to go forward in a
single, unified action. They are now stronger going forward to
right this wrong."

Missy Beets, a former Picher resident, was selected to be the
representative for the class because her appraisal was deemed a
typical example of the alleged mishandling of appraisals.  If the
lawyers fail to convince a jury that the alleged mishandling was
deliberate, then all of the other cases will fail as well.

Joe Fears, Esq. -- JFears@BarberBartz.com -- an attorney with
Barber & Bartz, of Tulsa, who is representing Cinnabar Service
Co., one of the appraisal companies named in the lawsuit, could
not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Mr. Marr said he hopes a trial will be held this year.  "We intend
to push for it.  It's doable," he said.  "The people have waited
long enough."

                        Trust Formation

The Lead-Impacted Communities Relocation Assistance Trust was
formed in 2006 after a study by the Army Corps of Engineers found
that the abandoned mines under Picher, Cardin and Hockerville had
a high risk of caving in.


COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Wage and Hour Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cogent Communications Group, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
in California alleging violations of wage and hour laws, 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.

Certain former sales employees of the Company filed a collective
action against the Company in December 2011 in the United States
District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division,
alleging misclassification of the Company's sales employees
throughout the U.S. in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The lawsuit seeks to recover pay for allegedly unpaid overtime and
other damages, including attorney's fees.  In January 2013, a
former sales employee filed in the Superior Court of Santa Clara
County, California, a lawsuit alleging misclassification of sales
employees under California wage and hour laws.  The lawsuit seeks
certification as a class action and seeks to recover pay for
allegedly unpaid overtime and other damages, including attorney's
fees.  The Company denies both claims and believes that the claims
for unpaid overtime in each case are without merit.  The Company
believes its classification of sales employees is in compliance
with applicable law.

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., Cogent Communications Group,
Inc. -- http://www.cogentco.com/-- is a facilities-based provider
of low-cost, high-speed Internet access and Internet Protocol
communications services.  The Company delivers its services
primarily to small and medium-sized businesses, communications
service providers and other bandwidth-intensive organizations in
North America and Europe.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated securities lawsuit pending in
Tennessee, 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.

Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee;
namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 5, 2011; De Zheng v. Community
Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis
Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed June 2, 2011.  All three seek class certification on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
27, 2006, and April 11, 2011, and allege that misleading
statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for the
Company's common stock.  In December 2011, the cases were
consolidated for pretrial purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel
were selected as lead plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel.  The
Company's motion to dismiss this case has been fully briefed and
is pending before the court.  The Company believes this
consolidated matter is without merit and will vigorously defend
this case.

Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net/-- is a
publicly-traded operator of hospitals in the United States.  It
provides healthcare services through the hospitals that it owns
and operates in non-urban and selected urban markets.  It
generates revenues by providing a broad range of general and
specialized hospital and other outpatient healthcare services to
patients in the communities in which it is located.  The Company
is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


CRANE CO: Has Provisional Pact to Settle Merrimac-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. reached a provisional agreement to resolve , according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

On January 8, 2010, a lawsuit related to the acquisition of
Merrimac was filed in the Superior Court of the State of New
Jersey. The action, brought by a purported stockholder of
Merrimac, names Merrimac, each of Merrimac's directors, and Crane
Co. as defendants, and alleges, among other things, breaches of
fiduciary duties by the Merrimac directors, aided and abetted by
Crane Co., that resulted in the payment to Merrimac stockholders
of an allegedly unfair price of $16.00 per share in the
acquisition and unjust enrichment of Merrimac's directors. The
complaint seeks certification as a class of all Merrimac
stockholders, except the defendants and their affiliates, and
unspecified damages. Simultaneously with the filing of the
complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion that sought to enjoin the
transaction from proceeding. After a hearing on January 14, 2010,
the court denied the plaintiff's motion. All defendants thereafter
filed motions seeking dismissal of the complaint on various
grounds.

After a hearing on March 19, 2010, the court denied the
defendants' motions to dismiss and ordered the case to proceed to
pretrial discovery. All defendants have filed their answers and
deny any liability. The Court certified the class, and the parties
engaged in pre-trial discovery. Fact discovery closed in July
2012, and expert discovery, including the exchange of expert
reports and depositions of expert witnesses, closed on November
30, 2012. Summary judgment motions were due to be submitted on or
before January 15, 2013. However, on December 26, 2012,
plaintiff's counsel proposed a settlement figure that was
substantially less than had previously been proposed. This led to
negotiations which culminated, on January 11, 2013, in an
agreement, in principle, to resolve the case on the following
terms, which are subject to Court approval.

In consideration of the establishment of a settlement fund in the
amount of $2 million, to be funded almost entirely from the
insurance policy covering the former officers and directors of
Merrimac, and with a single contribution of $150,000 by Crane Co.,
the plaintiffs agreed (1) to withdraw the single claim asserted in
the Complaint against Crane Co., (2) that all plaintiff's
attorney's fees and expenses associated with the case will come
from the settlement amount, and (3) that all costs of notification
of the settlement to the members of the class, costs related to
the distribution of pro rata amounts to class members, and any
other administrative costs, will also come from the settlement
amount. In addition, all defendants, including Crane Co., will
receive full class-wide releases. On January 15, 2013, with the
consent of counsel for Crane Co. and the other defendants,
plaintiff's counsel notified the Court that the parties had
reached a provisional agreement to resolve the case, subject to
court approval, and asked that the case be stayed for all purposes
except for settlement-related proceedings.


DEWEY & LEBOEUF: Ex-Employees' WARN Class Action Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Chutchian, writing for Law360, reports that former Dewey &
LeBoeuf LLP employees who claim they were not given proper notice
of their May 2012 layoffs will officially move forward as a class
action, according to a New York bankruptcy court filing on
March 8.  The lawsuit was filed last May claiming Dewey, which
obtained court approval of its liquidation plan late last month,
violated the New York state and federal Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Acts when it laid off about 550 employees
shortly before it entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy.


ECOLAB INC: Reached Preliminary Settlement in "Ladore" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ecolab Inc. in February 2013 reached a preliminary settlement with
the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit captioned Doug Ladore
v. Ecolab Inc., et al., in California, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in seven wage hour
lawsuits claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") or a similar state law.  One of the cases, Doug Ladore v.
Ecolab Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Central
District of California, case no. CV 11-9386 GAF (FMOx), is a
putative wage hour class action brought on behalf of California
Pest Elimination employees.  The case has been certified for class
treatment, and on January 22, 2013, the plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment was granted and the court found that the class of
employees was entitled to overtime pay.  On February 22, 2013, we
reached a preliminary settlement with the plaintiffs, which
remains subject to court approval.

"There can be no assurance that other pending or future wage hour
lawsuits can be successfully defended or settled."


ECOLAB INC: Nalco Units Continue to Defend COREXIT-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ecolab Inc.'s subsidiaries continue defend themselves against
class action lawsuits related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "Our subsidiaries are defendants in pending
lawsuits alleging negligence and injury resulting from the use of
our COREXIT dispersant in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill, which could expose us to monetary damages or settlement
costs.  On April 22, 2010, the deepwater drilling platform, the
Deepwater Horizon, operated by a subsidiary of BP plc, sank in the
Gulf of Mexico after a catastrophic explosion and fire that began
on April 20, 2010. A massive oil spill resulted. Approximately one
week following the incident, subsidiaries of BP plc, under the
authorization of the responding federal agencies, formally
requested our indirect subsidiary, Nalco Company, to supply large
quantities of COREXIT 9500, a Nalco oil dispersant product listed
on the U.S. EPA National Contingency Plan Product Schedule. Nalco
Company responded immediately by providing available COREXIT and
increasing production to supply the product to BP's subsidiaries
for use, as authorized and directed by agencies of the federal
government.

"Nalco Company and certain affiliates (collectively "Nalco") was
named as a defendant in a series of class action and individual
plaintiff lawsuits arising from this event.  The plaintiffs in
these matters claimed damages under products liability, tort and
other theories. Nalco was also named as a third party defendant in
certain matters.  Nalco was indemnified in these matters by
another of the defendants.

"All but one of these cases have been administratively transferred
to a judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana with other related cases under In Re: Oil
Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on
April 20, 2010, Case No. 10-md-02179 (E.D. La.) (the "MDL"). The
remaining case is Franks v. Sea Tow of South Miss, Inc., et al,
Cause No. A2402-10-228 (Circuit Court of Harrison County
Mississippi) (the "Remaining Case").

"Nalco Company, the incident defendants and the other responder
defendants have been named as third party defendants by Transocean
Deepwater Drilling, Inc. and its affiliates (the "Transocean
Entities") (In re the Complaint and Petition of Triton Asset
Leasing GmbH, et al, MDL No. 2179, Civil Action 10-2771). In April
and May 2011, the Transocean Entities, Cameron International
Corporation, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., M-I L.L.C.,
Weatherford U.S., L.P. and Weatherford International, Inc.
(collectively, the "Cross Claimants") filed cross claims in MDL
2179 against Nalco Company and other unaffiliated cross
defendants. The Cross Claimants generally allege, among other
things, that if they are found liable for damages resulting from
the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill and/or spill response,
they are entitled to indemnity or contribution from the cross
defendants.

"On November 28, 2012, the Federal Court in the MDL entered an
order dismissing all claims against Nalco.  Because claims remain
pending against other defendants, the Court's decision is not a
"final judgment" for purposes of appeal.  Plaintiffs will have 30
days after entry of final judgment to appeal the Court's decision.
Nalco will request that the Remaining Case be similarly dismissed
for the reasons accepted in the MDL.  We cannot predict whether
there will be an appeal of the dismissal, the involvement we might
have in these matters in the future or the potential for future
litigation.  However, if an appeal by plaintiffs in these lawsuits
is brought and won, or if the remaining state court case is not
dismissed, these suits could have a material adverse affect on our
consolidated result of operations, financial position and cash
flows."


EL PASO PIPELINE: Unitholder Continues to Defend "Allen" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P.'s unitholder continues to defend
itself in the lawsuit captioned, Allen v. El Paso Pipeline GP
Company, L.L.C., et al., according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

In May 2012, a unitholder of El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P.
(EPB) filed a purported class action in Delaware Chancery Court,
alleging both derivative and non derivative claims, against EPB,
and EPB's general partner and its board. EPB was named in the
lawsuit as both a "Class Defendant" and a "Derivative Nominal
Defendant." The complaint alleges a breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing in connection with the March 2011 sale to
EPB of a 25% ownership interest in SNG. Defendants' motion to
dismiss was denied. Defendants continue to believe this action is
without merit and intend to defend against it vigorously.


FPL FOOD: Recalls 5,820 Pounds of All Natural Ground Beef Chuck
---------------------------------------------------------------
FPL Food, LLC, a West Columbia, S.C. establishment, is recalling
approximately 5,820 pounds of ground beef chuck that may contain
small pieces of plastic, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The following product is subject to recall:

   * 80 oz. (5 lb.) chubs of "80% Lean 20% Fat All Natural Ground
     Beef Chuck"

The establishment number "EST 332B" and the sell by date
"03/27/2013" are inkjetted on each package.  The products were
packaged on March 7, 2013, and were sold in retail stores in
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia.

Picture of the recalled products' label is available at:

  http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/RNR_023_2013/index.asp

The problem was discovered after the Company received three
consumer complaints.  The pieces of plastic are believed to be
pieces of a blue plastic liner that covers source material used to
produce the final ground product.  FSIS and the Company have
received no reports of injury at this time.  Anyone concerned
about an injury from consumption of these products should contact
a healthcare provider.

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
FPL Food Customer Service at (706) 922-3920.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at
http://www.AskKaren.gov/or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.
"Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday
from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA
Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is
available in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday.  Recorded
food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.  For
information on how to report a problem with a meat, poultry or
processed egg product to FSIS at any time, visit
http://is.gd/vlfH9I


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Summary Judgment Bid Pending in Dividend Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company has a pending motion for judgment in a
consolidated class action lawsuit related to statements regarding
the GE dividend and projected losses and earnings for General
Electric Capital Corporation in 2009, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "In March and April 2009, shareholders filed
purported class actions under the federal securities laws in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
naming as defendants GE, a number of GE officers (including our
chief executive officer and chief financial officer) and our
directors. The complaints, which have now been consolidated, seek
unspecified damages based on allegations related to statements
regarding the GE dividend and projected losses and earnings for
GECC in 2009. In January 2012, the District Court granted in part,
and denied in part, our motion to dismiss.  In April 2012, the
District Court granted a portion of our motion for
reconsideration, resulting in the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims
under the Securities Act of 1933.  In July 2012, the District
Court denied plaintiffs' motion seeking to amend their complaint
to include the alleged claims under the Securities Act of 1933. In
January 2013, plaintiffs attempted unsuccessfully to file a new
amended complaint.  We have filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings."


GENON ENERGY: Defends Consolidated Suits Over Acquisition by NRG
----------------------------------------------------------------
GenOn Energy, Inc. continues to defend itself against consolidated
class action lawsuits arising from its acquisition by NRG Energy,
Inc., according to the Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

On December 14, 2012, NRG Energy, Inc., completed the acquisition
of GenOn.  NRG issued, as consideration for the acquisition,
0.1216 shares of NRG common stock for each outstanding share of
GenOn, including restricted stock units outstanding, on the
acquisition date, except for fractional shares which were paid in
cash.

GenOn has been named as a defendant in eight purported class
actions pending in Texas and Delaware, related to its announcement
of its agreement for NRG to acquire all outstanding shares of
GenOn.  These cases have been consolidated into one state court
case in each of Delaware and Texas and a federal court case in
Texas.  The plaintiffs generally allege breach of fiduciary
duties, as well as conspiracy, aiding and abetting breaches of
fiduciary duties.  Plaintiffs are generally seeking to: be
certified as a class; enjoin the merger; direct the defendant to
exercise their fiduciary duties; rescind the acquisition and be
awarded attorneys' fees and costs and other relief that the court
deems appropriate.  Plaintiffs have demanded that there be
additional disclosures regarding the merger terms.  On October 24,
2012, the parties to the Delaware state court case executed a
Memorandum of Understanding to resolve the Delaware purported
class action lawsuit.

Founded in 1982 and based in Houston, Texas, GenOn Energy, Inc.
-- http://www.genon.com/-- provides energy, capacity, ancillary,
and other energy services to wholesale customers in the energy
market in the United States.  It also operates as a wholesale
generator of electricity; and involves in asset management and
proprietary trading, fuel oil management, and natural gas
transportation and storage activities.  The Company generates
electricity using coal, natural gas, and oil resources.


GENON ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Cheswick-Related Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of their class action
lawsuit relating to emissions from GenOn Energy, Inc.'s Cheswick
generating facility, according to the Company's February 27, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

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

Founded in 1982 and based in Houston, Texas, GenOn Energy, Inc.
-- http://www.genon.com/-- provides energy, capacity, ancillary,
and other energy services to wholesale customers in the energy
market in the United States.  It also operates as a wholesale
generator of electricity; and involves in asset management and
proprietary trading, fuel oil management, and natural gas
transportation and storage activities.  The Company generates
electricity using coal, natural gas, and oil resources.


GENON ENERGY: Supreme Court Review Sought in Gas Prices Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in one of the antitrust lawsuits over natural gas
prices against GenOn Energy, Inc., filed in February 2013 a
petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, 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.

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

In February 2013, the plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari
to the U.S. Supreme Court.  GenOn has agreed to indemnify
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. against certain losses relating to these
lawsuits.

Founded in 1982 and based in Houston, Texas, GenOn Energy, Inc.
-- http://www.genon.com/-- provides energy, capacity, ancillary,
and other energy services to wholesale customers in the energy
market in the United States.  It also operates as a wholesale
generator of electricity; and involves in asset management and
proprietary trading, fuel oil management, and natural gas
transportation and storage activities.  The Company generates
electricity using coal, natural gas, and oil resources.


GRIPPO FOODS: Recalls All Sizes of Potato Chips Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Grippo Foods, Inc., in Cincinnati, Ohio, is initiating a
nationwide recall of all bags and boxes of their Plain Potato
Chips, Bar-B-Q Potato Chips, Cheddar Cheese with a touch of
Jalapeno Potato Chips, Hot Dill Pickle Potato Chips, Sweet Bermuda
Onion Potato chips and Salt & Vinegar Potato Chips.  These
products may have the potential to contain metal fragments.
Consumption of foodborne foreign objects that are hard and sharp
may result in moderate or serious injury.  Minor injuries such as
transient choking, or small lacerations in the oral cavity or
gastrointestinal system, as well as Dental injury, such as a
fractured tooth, may occur.  While, serious injury is remotely
possible, it could involve severe choking with airway obstruction,
perforation in the oral cavity or gastrointestinal system, or
secondary infection due to any of these events.

The recall includes the following: The bagged chips have an
expiration date of May 20 and before.  The 1.5 pound boxes of
chips have an expiration date of April 29 and before.  The date
code is located in the upper right corner of the package.

These products were distributed to retail markets in Ohio,
Kentucky, Indiana and Illinois beginning September 15, 2012, until
March 14, 2013.

   NAME                   UPC CODE
   ----                   --------
   Plain                  0 76847 12124 6
   Bar-B-Q                0 76847 14123 7
   Hot Dill Pickle        0 76847 14126 8
   Sweet Bermuda Onion    0 76847 14124 4
   Salt & Vinegar         0 76847 14125 1
   Cheddar Cheese with    0 76847 14127 5
   a touch of Jalapeno

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm344010.htm

The firm voluntarily recalled the products after being notified by
the Ohio Department of Agriculture that there were metal shavings
found in the salt applicator.  FDA has been apprised of this
action.

No injuries have been reported to date.

Grippo Foods, Inc. is notifying its distributors and customers.
Consumers who have purchased these products should stop using and
return to place of purchase for a refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the Company at 1-800-626-1824
9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time Monday through
Friday.


ILLINOIS: 3rd Suit Filed v. Madison County Over Bid-Rigging Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Fitzgerald, writing for News-Democrat, reports that a third
lawsuit has been filed against Madison County seeking class-action
status in the wake of ex-Treasurer Fred Bathon's federal guilty
plea to rigging the county's annual delinquent tax auction.

Named as defendants are Mr. Bathon; Jim Foley, a former investment
officer under Mr. Bathon; and Kurt Prenzler in his official
capacity as county treasurer.  Also named as defendants are the
taxbuyers Barrett Rochman, of Carbondale; Dennis Ballinger, of
Decatur; and Scott Sieron, Scott McLean and John Vassen, all of
Belleville, as well as the businesses they run.

Plaintiff Geralyn Lindow, of Alton, alleges that Mr. Bathon,
during his last six years as treasurer, from 2004-09, conspired
with his co-defendants to change the bidding process to require "a
one time, simultaneous bidding -- a so-called 'no trailing bid'
policy."

In addition, Mr. Bathon used a seating chart to ensure that the
tax purchaser defendants were recognized by the auctioneer as
winning bidders.  Mr. Bathon also directed Foley, the auctioneer,
"to disperse the winning bids from the various auctions between
such tax purchaser defendants," according to the lawsuit.

Mr. Prenzler declined comment.

Mr. Bathon pleaded guilty in early February in U.S. district court
in East St. Louis to a criminal charge of rigging the tax sale so
that his political donors profited from inflated penalties paid by
property owners.  Mr. Bathon, according to his plea agreement,
could receive a prison sentence of between 31 and 40 months,
though his sentence could be reduced based on his cooperation with
federal law enforcement.  Mr. Bathon's guilty plea, as well as the
two other class action lawsuits, occurred more than two years
after a September 2010 series by the News-Democrat that exposed
Mr. Bathon's bid-rigging scheme.

The class action lawsuit was filed March 15 by St. Louis attorney
Nelson L. Mitten on Lindow's behalf.  Two other suits were filed
earlier this month.


HOTELS.COM: Class Action Damages to Exceed $55 Million
------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Brownstone, writing for Odessa American, reports that
papers filed on March 12 in connection with a federal class-action
lawsuit brought on behalf of 172 Texas cities, including Odessa,
in 2006 against six large online travel companies indicate that
the damages will exceed $55 million.

About $145,000 of that $55 million would go toward Odessa,
Steve Wolens, a Dallas-based attorney representing the cities and
former Texas state representative, said on March 12.  The papers
were filed on March 12 in the U.S. District Court of the Western
District in San Antonio.

The lawsuit originally alleges six hotel booking Web sites --
Hotels.com, Priceline.com, Expedia.com, Hotwire.com, Orbitz.com
and Travelocity.com -- were not remitting all required hotel
occupancy taxes to the cities.

"The customers paid the tax the online companies just didn't remit
it," Mr. Wolens said.  "It comes out of the pockets of the
customer.  The online travel companies are not admitting they owe
the money, but we are agreeing that if they owe the money, this is
the amount of money that would be due to each city under the
courts order."

When a person books a hotel room, online or in-person, they are
charged 13% in hotel occupancy taxes, and 7% of each transaction
goes toward the city, Odessa City Attorney Larry Long said.

"It goes to our Hotel/Motel fund and it's reallocated by the
council yearly to entice tourism," Mr. Long said.

That tax brought in about $4.8 million last year and about $2.9
million in 2011, Mr. Long said.

"The tax is very important," Director of the Odessa Convention and
Visitors Bureau Linda Sweatt said.  "We use the tax to bring in
groups to Odessa."

Ms. Sweatt said the money goes toward everything from the Odessa
Council for the Arts and Humanities to the Odessa Jackalopes
hockey team.

"They break that money out and give it to different events
bringing people into the community," she said.  "That's the only
way you can use that money."

Midland, Big Spring, Fort Stockton, Lubbock and San Angelo are
among the West Texas cities listed in the class-action lawsuit.

Mr. Wolens said the online hotel booking sites were remitting a
hotel occupancy tax but only based on the retail price of a hotel
room, not the full price the online sites were charging.

"For example, if Expedia buys a room from the Marriott for $150
then marks it up to $200 to the customer, the online company is
making a $50 mark up," Mr. Wolens said.  "So they're collecting
$200 from customers, remitting $150 to Marriott and putting $50
dollars in their pocket.  The lawsuit is that they're collecting
taxes from the customer on the $200 but only remitting it on the
$150 and putting the difference in their pocket."

Mr. Wolens said this lawsuit is only dealing with city hotel
occupancy taxes, not the 6 percent state tax.

"A really strong fact of the case is in 2002, the Texas
Comptroller ruled online hotel sites must pay taxes on the full
amount the customer pays on the room," Mr. Wolens said.  "They
(hotel sites) ignored that, only remitting taxes on the lower,
host amount."

Mr. Wolens said next there probably will be post-judgment motions
filed after the judgment is entered in April.

"We think there will be a request asking the court to make
amendments perhaps to the judgment then those will at some point
be resolved," Mr. Wolens said.  "It's a significant ruling and
it's a lot of money to Texas cities, not only for past taxes owed,
but the judge ruled these cities need to start complying."


INT'L PAPER: Still Defends Class Suits Over Containerboard Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits over prices of containerboard products in
Illinois and Tennessee, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "In September 2010, eight containerboard
producers, including International Paper and Temple-Inland, were
named as defendants in a purported class action complaint that
alleged a civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The
suit is captioned Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America
(N.D. Ill.). The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning
in August 2005 through November 2010, conspired to limit the
supply and thereby increase prices of containerboard products. The
alleged class is all persons who purchased containerboard products
directly from any defendant for use or delivery in the United
States during the period August 2005 to the present. The complaint
seeks to recover an unspecified amount of treble actual damages
and attorney's fees on behalf of the purported class. Four similar
complaints were filed and have been consolidated in the Northern
District of Illinois. Moreover, in January 2011, International
Paper was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court
in Cocke County, Tennessee alleging that International Paper
violated Tennessee law by conspiring to limit the supply and fix
the prices of containerboard from mid-2005 to the present.
Plaintiffs in the state court action seek certification of a class
of Tennessee indirect purchasers of containerboard products,
damages and costs, including attorneys' fees. The Company disputes
the allegations made and intends to vigorously defend each action.
However, because both actions are in the preliminary stages, we
are unable to predict an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably
possible loss."


INT'L PAPER: Unit Still Defending Suit Over Guaranty Financial
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company's subsidiary continues to defend
itself against class action lawsuits related to Guaranty Financial
Group, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

Temple-Inland is a defendant in a lawsuit captioned North Port
Firefighters' Pension v. Temple-Inland Inc., filed in November
2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas and subsequently amended. The lawsuit alleges a class
action against Temple-Inland and certain individual defendants
contending that Temple-Inland misrepresented the financial
condition of Guaranty Financial Group during the period December
12, 2007 through August 24, 2009. Temple-Inland distributed the
stock of Guaranty Financial Group to its shareholders on December
28, 2007, after which Guaranty Financial Group was an independent,
publicly held company. The action is pled as a securities claim on
behalf of persons who acquired Guaranty Financial Group stock
during the putative class period. Although focused chiefly on
statements made by Guaranty Financial Group to its shareholders
after it was an independent, publicly held company, the action
repeats many of the same allegations of fact made in the Tepper
litigation. On June 20, 2012, all defendants in the lawsuit filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint. The motion is fully
briefed and the Company is awaiting a decision from the court. The
Company believes the claims made against Temple-Inland in the
North Port lawsuit are without merit, and the Company intends to
defend them vigorously. The lawsuit is in its preliminary stages,
and thus the Company believes it is premature to predict the
outcome or to estimate the amount or range of loss, if any, which
may be incurred.


INT'L PAPER: Suit Settlement Related to Bogalusa Incident Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company's subsidiary obtained preliminary
approval in December 2012 of a proposed class action settlement
related to the Bogalusa Incident, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

In August 2011, Temple-Inland's Bogalusa, Louisiana paper mill
received predictive test results indicating that Biochemical
Oxygen Demand (BOD) limits for permitted discharge from the
wastewater treatment pond into the Pearl River were exceeded after
an upset condition at the mill and subsequently confirmed reports
of a fish kill on the Pearl River (the Bogalusa Incident).

The Company states: "Temple-Inland (or its affiliates) is a
defendant in 23 civil lawsuits in Louisiana and Mississippi
related to the Bogalusa Incident. Fifteen of these civil cases
were filed in Louisiana state court shortly after the incident and
have been removed and consolidated in an action pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana along
with a civil case originally filed in that court. During August
2012, an additional 13 causes of action were filed in federal or
state court in Mississippi and Louisiana. In October 2012,
International Paper and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, the
group of attorneys appointed by the Louisiana federal court to
organize and coordinate the efforts of all the plaintiffs in this
litigation, reached a tentative understanding on key structural
terms and an amount for resolution of the litigation. Preliminary
approval for the proposed class action settlement was granted in
December 2012. In the interim, all civil litigation arising out of
the August 2011 discharge has been stayed. We do not believe that
a material loss is probable in this litigation."


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on March 11 disclosed that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of ITT Educational Services, Inc. common stock during
the period between April 22, 2010 and February 25, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from March 11, 2013.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058,
or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/ittinc/

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

The complaint charges ITT and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
ITT is a provider of post-secondary degree programs in the United
States.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results in press releases,
analyst conference calls and filings with the SEC, specifically
with respect to the Company's compliance with relevant accounting
standards when reporting its risk-sharing activities in loan
programs.  As a result of defendants' false statements, ITT stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
reaching a high of $112.69 per share on April 22, 2010.

On February 22, 2013, after the market closed, ITT filed its Form
10-K with the SEC for its fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.
The Form 10-K disclosed that the SEC was investigating ITT's
involvement in some private student-loan agreements.  ITT revealed
that it had received a subpoena from the SEC on February 8, 2013,
along with a letter informing the Company of the investigation.
The subpoena issued by the SEC requested documents related to a
2009 loan risk-sharing agreement and ITT's PEAKS Private Student
Loan Program.  As a result of this news, ITT's stock plunged $3.10
per share to close at $15.53 per share on February 25, 2013, a
one-day decline of nearly 17% on volume of over 1.7 million
shares.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company failed to properly
account for the 2009 loan risk-sharing agreement and its PEAKS
Program; and (b) the Company failed to maintain proper internal
controls to ensure that risk-sharing agreements were properly
recorded.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
ITT common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  With nearly 200 lawyers in
nine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $2 trillion.


LIVE NATION: Ticketmaster Still in Talks to Modify Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.'s subsidiary, Ticketmaster,
continues to be in discussions over potential modifications to
settlement of Ticketing Fees Consumer Class Action Litigation,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

In October 2003, a putative representative action was filed in the
Superior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster's charges to
online customers for shipping fees and alleging that its failure
to disclose on its website that the charges contain a profit
component is unlawful. The complaint asserted a claim for
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and
sought restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i)
the total shipping fees charged by Ticketmaster in connection with
online ticket sales during the applicable period, and (ii) the
amount that Ticketmaster actually paid to the shipper for delivery
of those tickets. In August 2005, the plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint, then pleading the case as a putative class
action and adding the claim that Ticketmaster's website
disclosures in respect of its ticket order processing fees
constitute false advertising in violation of California's False
Advertising Law. On this new claim, the amended complaint seeks
restitution or disgorgement of the entire amount of order
processing fees charged by Ticketmaster during the applicable
period. In April 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint adding new claims
that (a) Ticketmaster's order processing fees are unconscionable
under the UCL, and (b) Ticketmaster's alleged business practices
further violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Plaintiffs later filed a third amended complaint, to which
Ticketmaster filed a demurrer in July 2009. The Court overruled
Ticketmaster's demurrer in October 2009.

The plaintiffs filed a class certification motion in August 2009,
which Ticketmaster opposed. In February 2010, the Court granted
certification of a class on the first and second causes of action,
which allege that Ticketmaster misrepresents/omits the fact of a
profit component in Ticketmaster's shipping and order processing
fees. The class would consist of California consumers who
purchased tickets through Ticketmaster's website from 1999 to
present. The Court denied certification of a class on the third
and fourth causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster's
shipping and order processing fees are unconscionably high. In
March 2010, Ticketmaster filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with
the California Court of Appeal, and plaintiffs also filed a motion
for reconsideration of the Superior Court's class certification
order. In April 2010, the Superior Court denied plaintiffs' Motion
for Reconsideration of the Court's class certification order, and
the Court of Appeal denied Ticketmaster's Petition for Writ of
Mandate. In June 2010, the Court of Appeal granted the plaintiffs'
Petition for Writ of Mandate and ordered the Superior Court to
vacate its February 2010 order denying plaintiffs' motion to
certify a national class and enter a new order granting
plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class on the first and
second claims. In September 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion
for Summary Judgment on all causes of action in the Superior
Court, and that same month plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Summary Adjudication of various affirmative defenses asserted by
Ticketmaster. In November 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion to
Decertify Class.

In December 2010, the parties entered into a binding agreement
providing for the settlement of the litigation and the resolution
of all claims therein. In September 2011, the Court declined to
approve the settlement in its then-current form. Litigation
continued, and in September 2011, the Court granted in part and
denied in part Ticketmaster's Motion for Summary Judgment. The
parties reached a new settlement in September 2011, which was
approved preliminarily, but in September 2012 the Court declined
to grant final approval. In doing so, the court identified
potential modifications to the settlement, and the parties
continue to discuss such potential modifications and the
possibility of a revised settlement agreement. Ticketmaster and
its parent, Live Nation, have not acknowledged any violations of
law or liability in connection with the matter.

As of December 31, 2012, the Company has accrued $35.4 million,
its best estimate of the probable costs associated with the
settlement. This liability includes an estimated redemption rate.
Any difference between the Company's estimated redemption rate and
the actual redemption rate it experiences will impact the final
settlement amount; however, the Company does not expect this
difference to be material.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Judge Extends Class Action Settlement Period
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Slezak, writing for Odessa American, reports that an attorney
upset over a class-action settlement involving customer deception
at a Dearborn fast-food restaurant can speak his mind about the
subject again.  And, because he spoke his mind before a judge
ordered him to stop, the settlement period has been extended.

Wayne County Circuit Judge Kathleen Macdonald ruled on March 11
that the settlement period for those who ate McChicken sandwiches
and Chicken McNuggets that were advertised as halal but weren't at
two east-end McDonald's restaurants will be extended for another
28 days.  The time period started on March 11 and ends April 8.
It was at Judge McDonald's request.

The new final settlement hearing will be at 10:00 a.m. April 17
before Judge Macdonald.

"Halal" refers to meeting Islamic requirements for preparing food.
God's name must be invoked before an animal providing meat for
consumption is slaughtered.

The class action suit covers anyone who ate the non-halal chicken
at two McDonald's -- 13158 Ford Road and 14860 Michigan Ave. --
since Sept. 1, 2005.  They are believed to be the only McDonald's
in the country to serve halal chicken.

Ahmed Ahmed of Dearborn Heights sued McDonald's and franchise
owner Finley's Management Co. because he ate the falsely
advertised chicken at the Ford Road McDonald's.  According to the
suit, the restaurant served non-halal chicken when it ran out of
halal and didn't tell its customers.

The judge ruled Jan. 18 that McDonald's and Finley's must pay
$700,000 to settle the suit.  Mr. Ahmed was to get about $20,000;
the Health Unit on Davison Avenue Inc. in Detroit, also known as
HUDA, was to get about $274,000; the Arab American National Museum
in Dearborn was to get about $150,000; and attorneys were to get
about $230,000.

Mr. Ahmed is being represented by Jaafar & Mahdi Law Group of
Dearborn, with Kassem Dakhlallah as the lead attorney.

Attorney Majed Moughni, who had not been involved in the case
before the settlement, posted on the Dearborn Area Community
Members Facebook page, which he runs, that he believed it was
unfair that most of the money would not go to those who ate the
haram, or forbidden, chicken.  He asked for page members who ate
the food to leave contact information for themselves and others
who ate the meat.

Mr. Dakhlallah filed a motion for injunctive relief against
Mr. Moughni on Jan. 31.  Judge Macdonald ruled in Mr. Dakhlallah's
favor Feb. 7 and ordered Mr. Moughni to remove information about
the case from his Facebook page and put her original class action
settlement order and her order against him on the page, which he
did.  She also prohibited him from communicating with class action
lawsuit members and the media about the case without prior written
permission from her and Jaafar & Mahdi Law Group.

Mr. Moughni filed a motion Feb. 15 to overturn Macdonald's ruling
against him; she dismissed it Feb. 22.

Before the March 11 hearing, Judge Macdonald held one hearing in
open court, in which attorney Steven Kiousis, representing
"certain objecting class members," asked for more time to
communicate with them and held a status hearing in her chambers.

Mr. Moughni did not attend either of those court dates, and also
wasn't in court on March 11.

On March 11, Macdonald heard a motion by McDonald's to lift the
order against Mr. Moughni because it said he was not acting as an
attorney when he solicited feedback on the page and by Paul Alan
Levy of the Public Citizens Litigation Group of Washington, D.C.,
saying Mr. Moughni's First Amendment rights of free speech were
violated.

The American Civil Liberties Union concurred with Mr. Levy.

Macdonald denied the motion to vacate the order against
Mr. Moughni, but also said it was a moot point because she granted
McDonald's request to extend the settlement period.  She said
Mr. Moughni can continue to identify himself as a class member,
but can't identify himself as an attorney in his case.

"If he even insinuates he was acting like an attorney, he'll be
back (before me)," she said, adding that Mr. Moughni identified
himself as an attorney and sent correspondence from his Dearborn
law office in this matter.

Mr. Levy had argued that Mr. Moughni "expressed his opinion very
forcefully," but was speaking as a member of the community and
wasn't soliciting clients.  Mr. Levy said there is no evidence
Mr. Moughni sought to be paid for gathering the feedback.  He
instead was rallying the community against a perceived injustice,
according to Mr. Levy.

"He should be considered a hero," Mr. Levy said.

Mr. Levy said it would be different if Mr. Moughni urged the
community to pack Macdonald's courtroom or organized a
demonstration outside the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center, home
of Wayne County Circuit Court's Civil Division.

"Moughni is a class member like any other class member, but he's a
lawyer and has a Facebook page," Mr. Levy said.

Kathryn Wood, an attorney for McDonald's, said Moughni made "false
and misleading statements to (the) class"; she also called his
comments "outright false."  She also said there is "ample
evidence" he "was clearly acting as an attorney," and even had one
retainer agreement.

Thomas McNeill, another attorney for McDonald's, said Mr. Moughni
was acting as an attorney, gave "grossly false and inaccurate
legal advice to the class" and said the injunction was
appropriate.  Eric Conn, an attorney for Finley's, also called the
injunction appropriate.

Mr. Dakhlallah said the idea that Mr. Moughni was not acting as an
attorney is "unbelievable, simply absurd."  He said his firm is
"very proud of this settlement.  . . . It's a great settlement."

Judge Macdonald said Mr. Moughni isn't just an objector, and he
can't separate the fact he's an attorney.  She also said she
didn't like that he called the settlement a "backroom deal" and a
"slap in the face" to the community.  "You don't get to say when
you're an attorney or inject yourself," she said.

Mr. Levy countered that Mr. Moughni has the right to state his
opinion "through the marketplace of ideas."

As she was granting McDonald's request for the additional 28 days,
which all sides agreed with, the judge said, "Because of this
lawyer's action, the costs of resolving this case are spiraling
out of control."

"We're taking about real dollars in the real world," said
Mr. Dakhlallah, who estimated that about $30,000 would come out of
the class action money to pay attorney fees because of the
extension. He said fewer needy people would get care at HUDA and
fewer students would get scholarships through the museum.

The original proposed settlement notice is at
http://www.jaafarandmahdi.com

The firm also has the notice available in Arabic and Bengali.
Questions about the settlement can be directed to Mr. Dakhlallah
or fellow attorneys Michael Jaafar or Zakaria Mahdi at 1-313-846-
6400.

Those who object to the proposed settlement, wish to intervene or
want to opt out if they're in the settlement class can mail a
written request to the court with a postmark by April 1 or hand-
deliver it by April 8.  Anyone who made a submission by Feb. 18,
the end of the first notice period, doesn't have to respond again.


METLIFE INC: Appeal From "Haviland" Class Suit Dismissal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Haviland, et al.'s appeal from the dismissal of their
class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.,
remains pending, according to the Company's February 27, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The lawsuit styled Merrill Haviland, et al. v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (E.D. Mich., removed to federal court on July
22, 2011), was filed by 45 retired General Motors ("GM") employees
against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MLIC") and the
amended complaint includes claims for conversion, unjust
enrichment, breach of contract, fraud, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, fraudulent insurance acts, unfair trade
practices, and claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") based upon GM's 2009 reduction of
the employees' life insurance coverage under GM's ERISA-governed
plan.  The complaint includes a count seeking class action status.
MLIC is the insurer of GM's group life insurance plan and
administers claims under the plan.  According to the complaint,
MLIC had previously provided plaintiffs with a "written guarantee"
that their life insurance benefits under the GM plan would not be
reduced for the rest of their lives.  On June 26, 2012, the
district court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss the complaint.
Plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Headquartered in New York, MetLife, Inc., provides insurance,
annuities and employee benefit programs throughout the United
States, Japan, Latin America, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle
East.


METLIFE INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Remand "Birmingham" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on the motion by the
City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System to remand the
City's class action lawsuit to state court, 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.

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common equity units in or traceable to a public offering in
March 2011, the plaintiff in City of Birmingham Retirement and
Relief System v. MetLife, Inc. et al. (N.D. Alabama, filed in
state court on July 5, 2012 and removed to federal court on August
3, 2012), filed an action alleging that MetLife, Inc., certain
current and former directors and executive officers of MetLife,
Inc., and various underwriters violated several provisions of the
Securities Act of 1933 related to the filing of the registration
statement by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue,
materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions
concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of
dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to
beneficiaries or escheated to the states.  Plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.  Defendants
removed this action to federal court, and plaintiff has moved to
remand the action to state court.  The defendants intend to defend
this action vigorously.

Headquartered in New York, MetLife, Inc., provides insurance,
annuities and employee benefit programs throughout the United
States, Japan, Latin America, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle
East.


METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend "Westland" Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit initiated
by Westland Police and Fire Retirement System, 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.

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011,
the plaintiff filed an action, captioned City of Westland Police
and Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y.,
filed January 12, 2012), alleging that MetLife, Inc. and several
current and former executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue,
materially false and misleading statements concerning MetLife,
Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance
benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated
to the states.  Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages
and other relief.  The defendants intend to vigorously defend this
action.

Headquartered in New York, MetLife, Inc., provides insurance,
annuities and employee benefit programs throughout the United
States, Japan, Latin America, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle
East.


METLIFE INC: "Dolan" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed in February
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit brought against a
subsidiary of MetLife, Inc., was voluntarily dismissed last month,
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.

Several plaintiffs filed the action titled Dolan v. Lawsky, et al.
(S.D.N.Y., filed November 8, 2012), against the New York
Superintendent of Financial Services, Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company ("MLIC"), and other parties alleging that the defendants
breached fiduciary duties and contractual obligations and were
unjustly enriched through actions they took with respect to the
rehabilitation and subsequent liquidation of Executive Life
Insurance Company of New York ("ELNY").  Among other things,
plaintiffs asserted that contracts entered into in 1992 between
MLIC and the ELNY rehabilitator were improper.  Plaintiffs sought
to represent a class of beneficiaries of ELNY structured
settlement annuities who will receive reduced payments under
ELNY's court-approved liquidation plan.  On February 6, 2013, the
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this action without prejudice.

Headquartered in New York, MetLife, Inc., provides insurance,
annuities and employee benefit programs throughout the United
States, Japan, Latin America, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle
East.


METLIFE INC: Hearing on "Roberts" Suit Settlement Set for April 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing for the approval of an agreement to settle a
class action lawsuit brought by Roberts, et al., and which
involves subsidiaries of MetLife, Inc., has been scheduled for
April 9, 2013, according to the Company's February 27, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

The lawsuit captioned Roberts, et al. v. Tishman Speyer
Properties, et al. (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County, filed January 22, 2007),
was filed by a putative class of market rate tenants at Stuyvesant
Town and Peter Cooper Village against parties including MetLife,
Inc.'s subsidiaries, Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company
("MTL") and Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company.
Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company has merged into MTL and
no longer exists as a separate entity.  These tenants claim that
MTL, as former owner, and the current owner improperly deregulated
apartments while receiving J-51 tax abatements.  The lawsuit seeks
declaratory relief and damages for rent overcharges.  In October
2009, the New York State Court of Appeals issued an opinion
denying MTL's motion to dismiss the complaint.  The defendants
reached a settlement in principle with the plaintiff tenants,
subject to finalizing the settlement terms and court approval.  On
November 26, 2012, the court preliminarily approved the proposed
settlement, to include payment by MTL of $10.5 million into
escrow.  Notice to class members was given on January 3, 2013, and
the court has scheduled a fairness hearing for April 9, 2013.  The
Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for this lawsuit.

Headquartered in New York, MetLife, Inc., provides insurance,
annuities and employee benefit programs throughout the United
States, Japan, Latin America, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle
East.


METLIFE INC: Still Awaits Judgment Bid Ruling in Keife Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuits involving a subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc., captioned Keife, et al. v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed in state court on July 30, 2010
and removed to federal court on September 7, 2010); and Simon v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed November 3,
2011), which have been consolidated, raise breach of contract
claims arising from Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
("MLIC's") use of the Total Control Accounts ("TCA") to pay life
insurance benefits under the Federal Employees' Group Life
Insurance ("FEGLI") program.  As damages, plaintiffs seek
disgorgement of the difference between the interest paid to the
account holders and the investment earnings on the assets backing
the accounts.  In September 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification of the breach of contract claim, which the
court has denied.  On April 28, 2011, the court denied MLIC's
motion to dismiss.  On May 4, 2012, MLIC moved for summary
judgment.

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.

Headquartered in New York, MetLife, Inc., provides insurance,
annuities and employee benefit programs throughout the United
States, Japan, Latin America, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle
East.


METLIFE INC: Still Defends Class Suits Over Sales Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Over the past several years, MetLife, Inc. has faced numerous
claims, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper
marketing or sales of individual life insurance policies,
annuities, mutual funds or other products.  Some of the current
cases seek substantial damages, including punitive and treble
damages and attorneys' fees.  The Company continues to vigorously
defend against the claims in these matters.  The Company believes
adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial
statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for
sales practices matters.

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.

Headquartered in New York, MetLife, Inc., provides insurance,
annuities and employee benefit programs throughout the United
States, Japan, Latin America, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle
East.


METLIFE INC: Sun Life Seeks Indemnification for Suits in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, as successor to the
purchaser of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's Canadian
operations, filed the lawsuit captioned Sun Life Assurance Company
of Canada v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario,
October 2006), in Toronto, seeking a declaration that MLIC, a
subsidiary of MetLife, Inc., remains liable for "market conduct
claims" related to certain individual life insurance policies sold
by MLIC and that have been transferred to Sun Life.  Sun Life had
asked that the court require MLIC to indemnify Sun Life for these
claims pursuant to indemnity provisions in the sale agreement for
the sale of MLIC's Canadian operations entered into in June of
1998.  In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given
timely notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it
found that Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss,
granted MLIC's motion for summary judgment. Both parties appealed.
In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto, Kang v. Sun
Life Assurance Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario, September 2010), alleging
sales practices claims regarding the same individual policies sold
by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life.  An amended class action
complaint in that case was served on Sun Life, again without
naming MLIC as a party.  On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified
MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun
Life in Vancouver, Alamwala v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Sup. Ct.,
British Columbia, August 2011), alleging sales practices claims
regarding certain of the same policies sold by MLIC and
transferred to Sun Life.  Sun Life contends that MLIC is obligated
to indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the claims in these
lawsuits.  The Company is unable to estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation.

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.

Headquartered in New York, MetLife, Inc., provides insurance,
annuities and employee benefit programs throughout the United
States, Japan, Latin America, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle
East.


MICHAELS STORES: Personal ID Info Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Egan, writing for From the Bench, reports that a plaintiff
consumer may bring an action for violation of G.L.c. 93, Sec.
105(a) without alleging a claim of identity fraud, the Supreme
Judicial Court has ruled.

The SJC announced its holding in response to a question certified
by a federal judge.

"We accept the judge's invitation to expand on this answer,
however, and consider briefly the issue of what must be alleged in
such an action with respect to injury or loss," Justice Margot
Botsford stated for a unanimous court.

"When a merchant acquires personal identification information in
violation of Sec. 105(a) and uses the information for its own
business purposes, whether by sending the customer unwanted
marketing materials or by selling the information for a profit,
the merchant has caused the consumer an injury that is distinct
from the statutory violation itself and cognizable under G.L.c.
93A, Sec. 9," the SJC concluded.

The 22-page decision is Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc., Lawyers
Weekly No. 10-036-13.


NISHIMOTO TRADING: Recalls Packages of Rice Cracker "Kotsubukko"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nishimoto Trading Co., Ltd of Santa Fe Springs, California, is
recalling its 4.37 ounce packages of Kameda Brand Rice Cracker
"Kotsubukko" snack food because they may contain undeclared milk.
People who have allergies to milk run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.  The
recalled Kameda Brand Rice Cracker "Kotsubukko" were distributed
to state of California, Texas, Colorado, Utah, Chicago, and Hawaii
in retail stores from November 2012 to March 2013 and have
expiration date as following:

     * 2013/03/15
     * 2013/03/27
     * 2013/03/28
     * 2013/03/31
     * 2013/04/05
     * 2013/04/17
     * 2013/04/19
     * 2013/04/21
     * 2013/04/23
     * 2013/04/24
     * 2013/04/28
     * 2013/05/26
     * 2013/05/27
     * 2013/06/03
     * 2013/06/13
     * 2013/06/22
     * 2013/06/23
     * 2013/07/03
     * 2013/07/17
     * 2013/07/18
     * 2013/07/21

The product comes in a 4.37 ounce, red plastic package marked with
item #63018 along with UPC Code 0-74410-63018-8 on the English
label on the back of package.  Pictures of the recalled products'
labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm344018.htm

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

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the milk-
containing product was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of milk.  Subsequent investigation indicates
the problem was caused by mislabel of milk ingredient.

Distribution of the product has been suspended until FDA and the
company is certain that the problem has been corrected.

Consumers who have purchased 4.37 ounce packages of Kameda Brand
Rice Cracker "Kotsubukko" are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the Company as following:

Tell: 562-229-3830, Hours of Operation: Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m.
- 5:00 p.m.


NYSE EURONEXT: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suits in Del. & NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NYSE Euronext continues to defend itself against shareholder class
action lawsuits pending in Delaware and New York, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On December 20, 2012, we entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with
IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. ("ICE"), pursuant to which ICE will
acquire us through a merger of NYSE Euronext into Baseball Merger
Sub, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and wholly owned
subsidiary of ICE ("Merger Sub"). As a result of the merger (the
"Proposed Merger") we will become a subsidiary of ICE (together
with NYSE Euronext, the "Combined Company").  The Proposed Merger
is currently expected to close in the second half of 2013.

"Following the announcement of the execution of the ICE-NYSE
Euronext merger agreement on December 20, 2012, the first of eight
putative NYSE Euronext shareholder class action complaints was
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
challenging the proposed merger. On January 29, 2013, the Court of
Chancery consolidated the Delaware actions under the caption In re
NYSE Euronext Shareholder Litigation and appointed lead counsel.
On February 1, 2013, the Delaware plaintiffs filed a consolidated
class action complaint (the "Delaware Consolidated Action"). On
February 15, 2013, the Court of Chancery entered an order
scheduling a preliminary injunction hearing on April 26, 2013.

"Additionally, on December 21, 2012, the first of four similar
putative class action complaints was filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York. The Supreme Court consolidated the New York
actions under the caption In re NYSE Euronext Shareholders/ICE
Litigation, and appointed lead counsel. On February 7, 2013, the
New York plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint
(the "New York Consolidated Action"). Also, on February 5, 2013, a
similar putative class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned Young v. Hessels, et al.

"All of the actions name as defendants NYSE Euronext, the members
of its board of directors, ICE and Baseball Merger Sub, LLC
("Merger Sub"), a Delaware limited liability company formed in
connection with the proposed merger. In all the actions, the
plaintiffs allege that the members of the NYSE Euronext board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to a merger
agreement that undervalues NYSE Euronext. Among other things, the
plaintiffs allege that the members of the NYSE Euronext board of
directors failed to maximize the value of NYSE Euronext to its
public shareholders, negotiated a transaction in their best
interests to the detriment of the NYSE Euronext public
shareholders, and agreed to supposedly preclusive deal protection
measures in the merger agreement that unfairly deter competitive
offers. ICE (and, in some of the actions, NYSE Euronext and/or
Merger Sub) is alleged to have aided and abetted the breaches of
fiduciary duty by the members of the NYSE Euronext board of
directors. The actions also allege that the Defendants filed an
inadequate and misleading preliminary proxy statement in violation
of their fiduciary duties (and, in the federal court action,
section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended).
The lawsuits seek, among other things, (i) an injunction enjoining
ICE and NYSE Euronext from consummating the merger and/or (ii)
rescission of the merger, to the extent already implemented, or
alternatively rescissory damages.

"In light of the substantial identity of parties and issues in the
Delaware Consolidated Action and the New York Consolidated Action,
on January 30, 2013 NYSE Euronext, certain of its directors, ICE
and Merger Sub moved to dismiss or stay the New York Consolidated
Action in favor of the first-filed Delaware litigation. The New
York plaintiffs opposed the motion. Oral argument was held on
February 20, 2013 and the New York Supreme Court reserved decision
on the motion."

ICE and NYSE Euronext believe the allegations in the complaints in
all of the actions are without merit, and will continue to defend
against them vigorously. NYSE Euronext does not believe that an
estimate of a reasonably possible range of loss can currently be
made in connection with these matters, given the inherent
uncertainty and the preliminary stage of these matters.


OUTDOOR CHANNEL: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
Roberta Feinstein, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Outdoor Channel Holdings, Inc., Perry T. Massie,
Thomas H. Massie, Ajit M. Dalvi, David D. Kinley, David C.
Merritt, Thomas E. Hornish, Thomas Bahnson Stanley, Roger L.
Werner, Jr., Michael L. Pandzik, Kroenke Sports & Entertainment,
LLC and KSE Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 8412- (Del. Ct. Ch., March
18, 2013), is a shareholder class action lawsuit brought on behalf
of shareholders of Outdoor Channel against its board of directors
to enjoin a proposed acquisition, pursuant to which Kroenke Sports
and its wholly owned subsidiary, KSE Merger Sub, will acquire the
remaining outstanding Outdoor Channel common shares.

The Proposed Transaction is the product of a flawed process
conducted by the Individual Defendants, Ms. Feinstein alleges.
She contends the consideration to Outdoor Channel's common
shareholders contemplated in the Proposed Transaction is
insufficient and is fundamentally unfair to her and the other
common shareholders of the Company.

Ms. Feinstein is a shareholder of the Company.

Outdoor Channel is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Temecula, California.  Outdoor Channel operates as an
entertainment and media company in the United States, and operates
in three segments: The Outdoor Channel, Production Services, and
Aerial Cameras.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.

Kroenke Sports, a Delaware limited liability company headquartered
in Denver, Colorado, is one of the world's leading ownership,
entertainment and management groups.  Kroenke Sports is the owner
and operator of several sports teams and entertainment venues,
such as the Pepsi Center, the Paramount Theater, Dick's Sporting
Good Park, the Colorado Avalanche (NHL), the Denver Nuggets (NBA),
the Colorado Mammoth (NLL) and the Colorado Rapids (MLS).  Merger
Sub is a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of
Kroenke Sports created for the purpose of consummating the
Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
          Craig J. Springer, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 482-3182
          E-mail: pandrews@faruqilaw.com
                  cspringer@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


PIPER JAFFRAY: Still Defends Consolidated Antitrust Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, the SEC and
various state attorneys general are conducting broad
investigations of numerous firms, including Piper Jaffray
Companies, for possible antitrust and securities violations in
connection with the bidding or sale of guaranteed investment
contracts and derivatives to municipal issuers from the early
1990s to date.  These investigations commenced in November 2006,
and approximately six years ago the Company received and responded
to various subpoenas and requests for information.  In December
2007, the DOJ notified one of the Company's employees, whose
employment subsequently was terminated, that he is regarded as a
target of the investigation.  In addition, several class action
complaints were brought on behalf of a purported class of state,
local and municipal government entities that purchased municipal
derivatives directly from one of the defendants or through a
broker, from January 1, 1992, to the present.  The complaints,
which have been consolidated into a single nationwide class action
entitled In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
1950 (Master Docket No. 08-2516), allege antitrust violations and
are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York under the multi-district litigation rules.  The
consolidated complaint seeks unspecified treble damages under the
Sherman Act.  Several California municipalities also brought
separate class action complaints in California federal court, and
approximately eighteen California municipalities and two New York
municipalities filed individual lawsuits that are not as part of
class actions, all of which have since been transferred to the
Southern District of New York and consolidated for pretrial
purposes.  All three sets of complaints assert similar claims
under federal (and for the California and New York plaintiffs,
state) antitrust claims.

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.

The Company says no loss contingency has been reflected in the
Company's consolidated financial statements as this contingency is
neither probable nor reasonably estimable at this time.
Management is currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably
possible loss for these matters because alleged damages have not
been specified, the proceedings remain in the early stages, there
is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class or classes being
certified or the ultimate size of any class if certified, and
there are significant factual issues to be resolved.

Based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Piper Jaffray Companies --
http://www.piperjaffray.com/-- is an investment bank and asset
management firm, serving the needs of corporations, private equity
groups, public entities, non-profit entities and institutional
investors in the U.S. and internationally.  Founded in 1895, Piper
Jaffray provides a broad set of products and services, including
equity and debt capital markets products; public finance services;
financial advisory services; equity and fixed income institutional
brokerage; equity and fixed income research; and asset management
services.


STATE FARM: Windshield Repair Class Action Certification Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTES, reports that a State Farm
customer who argued he and other customers should have received
checks for full windshield replacement rather than be given
repairs had his class action certification upheld by the Eighth
District Court of Appeals in the County of Cuyahoga, Ohio, with
slight modification, according to court documents.

Michael Cullen, who is the class representative, claims he
reported windshield damage to State Farm in 2003 and that his
claim was handled by the company's subcontractor Lynx Services, as
described in court documents.  After talking with this agent,
Mr. Cullen agreed to a repair instead of replacement, but later
brought suit against State Farm arguing he should have received a
check in full for the replacement value of his windshield, minus
the deductible.

In the case, Cullen v. State Farm, filed in 2005, Mr. Cullen's
attorneys alleged State Farm created a script that Lynx used to
steer claimants to opt into windshield repair rather than
replacement.  Mr. Cullen claimed the Lynx agent did not volunteer
all options, and in particular, did not share a "pay-out" option
where claimants could get a check for the entire amount of the
windshield, minus the deductible, and then repair the windshield
at their own expense.

Mr. Cullen alleged breach of contract, bad faith and breach of
fiduciary duty against State Farm.  He sought monetary and
declaratory relief as well as class certification for others
similarly situated.

After the trial court decided that Mr. Cullen met all the
requirements of class certification, State Farm appealed.

Writing the appellate court's prevailing opinion, Judge Frank
Celebrezze Jr., says, "For claims handled using a common script or
word track, the trial court did not err in certifying the class in
this case.  Individual questions do not predominate because the
script used by Lynx and developed by State Farm establishes class-
wide treatment under Mr. Cullen's theory that State Farm breached
its contracts with insureds by dissuading individuals from
replacing their windshields and not informing them of their option
to receive a check for the value of the windshield less their
deductible.

"For claims made prior to the use of a common script, Cullen
argues that the policy language simplifies the case to a showing
that the policy in question required State Farm to restore
vehicles to their pre-loss condition and that a windshield repair
cannot do so.  The theory, while dubious, does provide a means to
resolve the case on a class-wide basis for these members.
Therefore, the trial court did not err in certifying this class.
However, the class definition must be restricted to exclude those
who had their windshields replaced after repair.  Finally, State
Farm has provided nothing to indicate that the trial court did not
fulfill its duty to analyze the issues in the case when rendering
its judgment," the judge says.


SWIFT TRANSPO: Continues to Pursue Appellate Relief in 2004 Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company continues to pursue appellate relief
in the 2004 owner-operator class action litigation, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit
was filed by Leonel Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated persons against Swift Transportation: Garza vs. Swift
Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. CV07-0472, or the Garza
Complaint. The putative class originally involved certain
owner-operators who contracted with us under a 2001 Contractor
Agreement that was in place for one year. The putative class is
alleging that we should have reimbursed owner-operators for actual
miles driven rather than the contracted and industry standard
remuneration based upon dispatched miles. The trial court denied
plaintiff's petition for class certification, the plaintiff
appealed and on August 6, 2008, the Arizona Court of Appeals
issued an unpublished Memorandum Decision reversing the trial
court's denial of class certification and remanding the case back
to the trial court. On November 14, 2008, we filed a petition for
review to the Arizona Supreme Court regarding the issue of class
certification as a consequence of the denial of the Motion for
Reconsideration by the Court of Appeals. On
March 17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court granted our petition for
review, and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court vacated
the decision of the Court of Appeals opining that the Court of
Appeals lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction to reverse the
trial court's original denial of class certification and remanded
the matter back to the trial court for further evaluation and
determination. Thereafter, the plaintiff renewed the motion for
class certification and expanded it to include all persons who
were employed by Swift as employee drivers or who contracted with
Swift as owner-operators on or after January 30, 1998, in each
case who were compensated by reference to miles driven.

"On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial court entered an
order certifying a class of owner-operators and expanding the
class to include employees. Upon certification, we filed a motion
to compel arbitration as well as filing numerous motions in the
trial court urging dismissal on several other grounds including,
but not limited to the lack of an employee as a class
representative, and because the named owner-operator class
representative only contracted with us for a three-month period
under a one year contract that no longer exists. In addition to
these trial court motions, we also filed a petition for special
action with the Arizona Court of Appeals arguing that the trial
court erred in certifying the class because the trial court relied
upon the Court of Appeals ruling that was previously overturned by
the Arizona Supreme Court. On April 7, 2011, the Arizona Court of
Appeals declined jurisdiction to hear this petition for special
action and we filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme
Court.

"On August 31, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review
the decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals. During the month of
April 2012, the court issued the following rulings with respect to
certain motions filed by Swift: (1) denied Swift's motion to
compel arbitration; (2) denied Swift's request to decertify the
class; (3) granted Swift's motion that there is no breach of
contract; and (4) granted Swift's motion to limit class size based
on statute of limitations. We intend to continue to pursue all
available appellate relief supported by the record, which we
believe demonstrates that the class is improperly certified and,
further, that the claims raised have no merit. We retain all of
our defenses against liability and damages. The final disposition
of this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be
determined at this time."


SWIFT TRANSPO: Still Defending Misclassification Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company intends to defend itself in any
arbitration proceedings related to the owner-operator
misclassification class action litigation, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit
was filed against Swift Transportation and IEL: John Doe 1 and
Joseph Sheer v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., and Interstate
Equipment Leasing, Inc., Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No.
09-CIV-10376 filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, or the Sheer Complaint. The
putative class involves owner-operators alleging that Swift
Transportation misclassified owner-operators as independent
contractors in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act,
or FLSA, and various New York and California state laws and that
such owner-operators should be considered employees. The lawsuit
also raises certain related issues with respect to the lease
agreements that certain owner-operators have entered into with
IEL. At present, in addition to the named plaintiffs,
approximately 200 other current or former owner-operators have
joined this lawsuit. Upon our motion, the matter has been
transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York to the United States District Court in
Arizona.

"On May 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally
certify an FLSA collective action and authorize notice to the
potential class members. On September 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed a
motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Swift and
IEL from collecting payments from plaintiffs who are in default
under their lease agreements and related relief. On September 30,
2010, the District Court granted Swift's motion to compel
arbitration and ordered that the class action be stayed pending
the outcome of arbitration. The court further denied plaintiff's
motion for preliminary injunction and motion for conditional class
certification. The Court also denied plaintiff's request to
arbitrate the matter as a class. The plaintiff filed a petition
for a writ of mandamus asking that the District Court's order be
vacated. On July 27, 2011, the court denied the plaintiff's
petition for writ of mandamus and plaintiff's filed another
request for interlocutory appeal. On December 9, 2011, the court
permitted the plaintiffs to proceed with their interlocutory
appeal.

"We intend to vigorously defend against any arbitration
proceedings. The final disposition of this case and the impact of
such final disposition cannot be determined at this time."


SWIFT TRANSPO: Continues to Defend Wage & Employment Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company continues to defend itself against
certain California wage, meal and rest employee class actions,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was
filed by John Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: John
Burnell and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation
Co., Inc., Case No. CIVDS 1004377 filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, for the County of San Bernardino, or the
Burnell Complaint. On September 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the
matter was removed to the United States District Court for the
central District of California, Case No. EDCV10-00809-VAP. The
putative class includes drivers who worked for us during the four
years preceding the date of filing alleging that we failed to pay
the California minimum wage, failed to provide proper meal and
rest periods, and failed to timely pay wages upon separation from
employment. The Burnell Complaint was subject to a stay of
proceedings pending determination of similar issues in a case
unrelated to Swift, Brinker v. Hohnbaum, which was then pending
before the California Supreme Court. An opinion was entered in the
Brinker matter and in August 2012 the stay in the Burnell
Complaint was lifted.

"On April 5, 2012, we were served with an additional class action
complaint alleging facts similar to those as set forth in the
Burnell Complaint. This new class action is James R. Rudsell, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation
Company, Case No. CIVDS 1200255, in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Bernardino, or the Rudsell
Complaint.

"We intend to vigorously defend certification of the class in both
matters as well as the merits of these matters should the classes
be certified. The final disposition of both cases and the impact
of such final dispositions of these cases cannot be determined at
this time."


SWIFT TRANSPO: Continues to Defend Minimum Wage Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company continues to defend itself against
certain California and Oregon minimum wage class actions,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On July 12, 2011, a class action lawsuit was
filed by Simona Montalvo on behalf of herself and all similarly
situated persons against Swift Transportation: Montalvo et al. v.
Swift Transportation Corporation d/b/a ST Swift Transportation
Corporation in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, or the Montalvo Complaint. The Montalvo Complaint was
removed to federal court on August 15, 2011, case number 3-11-CV-
01827-L. Upon petition by plaintiffs, the matter was remanded to
state court and we filed an appeal to this remand. On July 11,
2011 a class action lawsuit was filed by Glen Ridderbush on behalf
of himself and all similarly situated persons against Swift
Transportation: Ridderbush et al. v. Swift Transportation Co. of
Arizona LLC and Swift Transportation Services, LLC in the Circuit
Court for the State of Oregon, Multnomah County, or the Ridderbush
Complaint. The Ridderbush Complaint was removed to federal court
on August 24, 2011, case number 3-11-CV-01028. Both putative
classes include employees alleging that candidates for employment
within the four year statutory period in California and within the
three year statutory period in Oregon, were not paid the state
mandated minimum wage during their orientation phase.

"On July 17, 2012, the parties involved in the Ridderbush
Complaint engaged in a voluntary mediation session in an attempt
to resolve the matter in order to avoid litigation and mitigate
legal expense. In January 2013, the parties executed a settlement
agreement whereby the entire matter has settled on a claims made
basis. The maximum amount to be paid by Swift shall not exceed
$700,000.

"The issue of class certification in the Montalvo Complaint must
first be resolved before the court will address the merits of the
case, and we retain all of our defenses against liability and
damages pending a determination of class certification. We intend
to vigorously defend against certification of the class as well as
the merits of this matter should the class be certified."


SWIFT TRANSPO: Still Defending Washington Overtime Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company continues to defend itself against a
Washington overtime class action, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuit
was filed by Troy Slack on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated persons against Swift Transportation: Troy Slack, et al
v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift
Transportation Corporation in the State Court of Washington,
Pierce County, or the Slack Compliant. The Slack Compliant was
removed to federal court on October 12, 2011, case number
11-2-11438-0. The putative class includes all current and former
Washington State based employee drivers during the three year
statutory period alleging that they were not paid overtime in
accordance with Washington State law and that they were not
properly paid for meal and rest periods. We intend to vigorously
defend certification of the class as well as the merits of these
matters should the class be certified. The final disposition of
this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case
cannot be determined at this time."


SWIFT TRANSPO: Court Dismissed Arizona FCRA Class Action in Feb.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona
dismissed in February 2013 a class action against Swift
Transportation Company, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On August 8, 2011, a proposed class action
lawsuit was filed by Kelvin D. Daniel, Tanna Hodges, and Robert R.
Bell, Jr. on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
persons against Swift Transportation Corporation: Kelvin D.
Daniel, Tanna Hodges, and Robert R. Bell, Jr. et al. v. Swift
Transportation Corporation, in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona, case number 2:11-CV-01548-ROS, or the
Daniel Complaint. Plaintiffs sought employment with Swift
Transportation of Arizona, LLC ("Swift Arizona") and that entity
has answered the complaint. The putative class includes
individuals throughout the United States who sought employment
with Swift Arizona and about whom Swift Arizona procured a
criminal background report for employment purposes during the
application process. The complaint alleges Swift Arizona violated
the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). Among the allegations are
that Swift Arizona i) did not make adequate disclosures or obtain
authorizations for applicants; ii) did not issue pre-adverse
action notices for in-person applicants who were not hired in
whole or in part because of a background report that contained at
least one derogatory item that would disqualify the person under
Swift Arizona's hiring policies; and iii) did not issue adverse
action notifications to applicants who were not hired in whole or
in part because of a background report that contained at least one
derogatory item that would disqualify the person from under Swift
Arizona's hiring policies.

"In October 2011, in response to a partial motion to dismiss filed
by Swift Arizona, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, to
which Swift Arizona answered in part, and after the court denied a
partial motion to dismiss, Swift Arizona filed an answer
addressing the remaining allegations. On October 1, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and motion for
Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. On October 5, 2012,
Swift filed a motion for summary judgment. On February 11, 2013,
the Court entered an Order denying plaintiff's motion for class
certification and the entire matter has been dismissed."


VERISK ANALYTICS: Unit Dismissed From Claims in Insurance Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the Citizens Insurance Litigation dismissed all
claims against Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s subsidiary in November,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On February 28, 2012, we were served with a
complaint filed in the Florida State Circuit Court for Pasco
County naming Citizens Property Insurance Corporation ("Citizens")
and the Company's Xactware subsidiary. The complaint alleged a
class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against
defendants and was brought on behalf of "all individuals who have
purchased a new or renewed a property casualty insurance policy
from Citizens" where Citizens used Xactware's 360Value product to
determine replacement value of the property. On
March 12, 2012, plaintiffs served their First Amended Complaint
additionally alleging : (1) that Citizens and Xactware knowingly
made false statements to the plaintiff class concerning their
properties' replacement cost values; (2) fraud against Xactware
based on its alleged misrepresentation of the replacement value of
plaintiffs' properties; (3) conspiracy against Citizens and
Xactware based on their alleged artificial inflation of the value
of plaintiffs' properties; and (4) products liability against
Xactware, claiming Xactware defectively designed 360Value as used
in the Florida insurance market. The First Amended Complaint
sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified
monetary damages alleged to be in excess of $1,000 for the class.
On May 31, 2012 plaintiff served his Second Amended Complaint
which no longer alleged a class action, but continued to allege:
(1) that Citizens and Xactware artificially inflated the
replacement cost value of plaintiff's property using 360Value; (2)
fraud by Xactware; (3) a conspiracy between Citizens and Xactware;
and (4) products liability against Xactware. The Second Amended
Complaint similarly sought declaratory and injunctive relief as
well as damages representing the difference between the premium
plaintiff paid to Citizens using 360Value and what the premium
should have been if Citizens used an accurate replacement cost
value for plaintiff's property. Defendants' motion to transfer was
granted and the case was transferred to the Leon County Circuit
Court on September 17, 2012. Plaintiff dismissed all claims
against Xactware on November 26, 2012."


VERISK ANALYTICS: Unit Continues to Defend "Roe" Suit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s subsidiary Intellicorp Records, Inc.,
continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit pending
in Ohio, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On April 20, 2012, we were served with a
class action complaint filed in Alameda County Superior Court in
California naming the Company's subsidiary Intellicorp Records,
Inc. ("Intellicorp") titled Jane Roe v. Intellicorp Records, Inc.
The complaint alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") and claimed that Intellicorp failed to implement
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the
adverse information contained in the background reports, failed to
maintain strict procedures to ensure that criminal record
information provided to employers is complete and up to date, and
failed to notify class members contemporaneously of the fact that
criminal record information was being provided to their employers
and prospective employers. Intellicorp removed the case to the
United States District Court of the Northern District of
California. The District Court later granted Intellicorp's motion
to transfer the case, which is now pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. On October 24,
2012 plaintiffs served their First Amended Complaint (the "Roe
Complaint") alleging a nationwide putative class action on behalf
of all persons who were the subject of a Criminal SuperSearch or
other "instant" consumer background report furnished to a third
party by Intellicorp for employment purposes, and whose report
contained any negative public record of criminal arrest, charge,
or conviction without also disclosing the final disposition of the
charges during the 5 years preceding the filing of this action
through the date class certification is granted. The Roe Complaint
seeks statutory damages for the class in an amount not less than
one hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars per
violation, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees. On
February 4, 2013, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
amend the Roe Complaint to eliminate the named plaintiff's
individual claim for compensatory damages. This amendment did not
change the breadth or scope of the request for relief sought on
behalf of the proposed class.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Unit Continues to Defend "Thomas" Suit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s subsidiary Intellicorp Records, Inc.,
continues to defend itself against the class action lawsuit titled
Michael R. Thomas v. Intellicorp Records, Inc., according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On November 1, 2012, we were served with a
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio naming the Company's subsidiary
Intellicorp Records, Inc. titled Michael R. Thomas v. Intellicorp
Records, Inc. On January 7, 2013 plaintiff served its First
Amended Complaint (the "Thomas Complaint") to add Mark A. Johnson
(the plaintiff in the Johnson v. iiX matter) as a named plaintiff.
The Thomas Complaint alleges a nationwide putative class action
for violations of FCRA on behalf of "[a]ll natural persons
residing in the United States (a) who were the subject of a report
sold by Intellicorp to a third party, (b) that was furnished for
an employment purpose, (c) that contained at least one public
record of a criminal conviction or arrest, civil lien, bankruptcy
or civil judgment, (d) within five years next preceding the filing
of this action and during its pendency, and (e) to whom
Intellicorp did not place in the United States mail postage-
prepaid, on the day it furnished any part of the report, a written
notice that it was furnishing the subject report and containing
the name of the person that was to receive the report." The Thomas
Complaint proposes an alternative subclass as follows: "[a]ll
natural persons residing in Ohio or Tennessee (a) who were the
subject of a report sold by Intellicorp to a third party, (b) that
was furnished for an employment purpose, (c) that contained at
least one public record of a criminal conviction or arrest, civil
lien, bankruptcy or civil judgment, (d) within five years next
preceding the filing of this action and during its pendency, (e)
when a mutual review of the record would reveal that the identity
associated with the public record does not match the identity of
the class member about whom the report was furnished, and (f) to
whom Intellicorp did not place in the United States mail postage
pre-paid, on the day it furnished any part of the report, a
written notice that it was furnishing the subject report and
containing the name of the person that was to receive the report."
The Thomas Complaint alleges that Intellicorp violated the FCRA,
asserting that Intellicorp violated section 1681k(a)(1) of the
FCRA because it failed to provide notice to the plaintiffs "at the
time" the adverse public record information was reported. The
named plaintiffs also allege individual claims under section
1681e(b) claiming that Intellicorp failed to follow reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in the preparation
of the consumer report it furnished pertaining to plaintiffs. The
Thomas Complaint seeks statutory damages for the class in an
amount not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 per violation,
punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, as well as
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the named
plaintiffs.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Unit Still Defending "Johnson" Suit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s subsidiary Insurance Information Exchange
continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit titled
Mark A. Johnson v. Insurance Information Exchange, LLC, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On January 3, 2013 we received service of a
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio naming the Company's subsidiary
Insurance Information Exchange ("iiX") titled Mark A. Johnson v.
Insurance Information Exchange, LLC (the "Johnson Complaint").
The Johnson Complaint alleges a nationwide putative class action
on behalf of "all natural persons residing in the United States
who were the subject of a consumer report prepared by iiX for
employment purposes within five (5) years prior to the filing of
this Complaint and to whom iiX did not provide notice of the fact
that public record information which is likely to have an adverse
effect upon the consumer's ability to obtain employment, is being
reported by iiX, together with the name and address of the person
to whom such information is being reported at the time such public
record information is reported to the user of such consumer
report." The Johnson Complaint alleges violations of section
1681k(a) of the FCRA claiming that iiX failed to notify customers
contemporaneously that criminal record information was provided to
a prospective employer and failed to maintain strict procedures to
ensure that the information reported is complete and up to date.
The Johnson Complaint seeks statutory damages for the class in an
amount not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 per violation,
punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: China Unit to Recall Cars With Substandard Gearbox
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Colum Murphy of The Wall Street Journal reports that Volkswagen
AG's China unit said it would recall an unspecified number of
vehicles following scrutiny from China's national state-run
television broadcaster and after receiving a notification from
China's quality watchdog.

In a joint statement issued Saturday, March 16, 2013, Volkswagen
Group China and its local joint ventures said they would
voluntarily recall cars suspected of having substandard direct-
shift gearbox systems, which can cause acceleration problems and
car accidents for an unspecified number of consumers.

Volkswagen has been and will continue to fully cooperate with all
relevant authorities, said Christoph Ludewig, spokesman for
Volkswagen in China.  The Company would announce recall details in
a later notice, he said.

The cars were featured on a Friday night broadcast from powerful
state-run China Central Television that also criticized the
customer-service practices of Apple Inc.

An Apple spokeswoman said it takes its customer service
obligations seriously.

In the television program, Volkswagen models including Golf,
Sagitar, Magotan and CC were cited as having faulty direct-shift
gearbox systems.  These models are made by the German auto maker's
joint venture company FAW-Volkswagen, according to Volkswagen's
Web site for China.

After the show, the General Administration of Quality Supervision,
Inspection and Quarantine, or AQSIQ, urged Volkswagen in a notice
to issue a recall.

A person familiar with the Company's practices said it took steps
to upgrade software used in the cars since March 2012 and had
notified car owners of the problems.  Roughly 90% of affected
customers affected had been serviced, the person said.

In 2012, Volkswagen extended the warranty on the two types of
transmissions affected by the quality issue to 10 years from four,
or 160,000 kilometers, whichever comes first.

On Saturday, March 16, 2013, state media cited AQSIQ spokesman
Zhang Yuanping as saying the watchdog had been investigating
Volkswagen's transmissions since March 2012.


WELLS FARGO: Excessive Insurance Claims in McKenzie Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
CLIFFORD McKENZIE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. C-11-04965 JCS, (N.D. Cal.), is a
putative class action brought by Plaintiffs Clifford McKenzie,
Daniel and Robin Biddix, David Kibiloski, and Virginia Ryan
against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., which at times does business as
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Wells Fargo Insurance, Inc., Assurant,
Inc., American Security Insurance Company, and QBE FIRST Insurance
Agency Inc. for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion,
tortious interference with a business relationship, and violation
of the New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Specifically, the Biddixes, Mr. Kibiloski, and Ms. Ryan brought
the action on behalf of all persons who have or had residential
mortgage loans originated and/or serviced by WFBNA/WFHM but owned
by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (the Government Sponsored Entities or
GSEs) who were required to purchase flood insurance coverage by
WFBNA in excess of what is required by the owner of the mortgage
note.  The Plaintiffs allege that the increased coverage
requirements had a deleterious effect on the borrower's ability to
make their monthly mortgage payments.  Thus, the Plaintiffs allege
that the increased coverage was not in the interest of the GSEs or
the borrowers.  This theory, the "excessive insurance theory," is
at issue.

At Wells Fargo's behest, Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero, on
March 14, 2013, granted a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' third
amended complaint's excessive insurance claims, saying the claims
are dismissed with prejudice because the Plaintiffs cannot state a
claim for relief on the excessive insurance theory even
considering amended factual allegations.  In addition, he said,
the Plaintiffs lack standing to enforce the GSE servicing
guidelines because they are neither party nor third-party
beneficiary thereto.

A copy of the District Court's March 14, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/04iO4Gfrom Leagle.com.


WELLS FARGO: Challenges MedCap Ponzi Scheme Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Ciaran McEvoy, writing for Law360, reports that Wells Fargo NA
asked a California federal judge on March 11 to throw out a
consolidated class action alleging it breached its contract with
noteholders by disbursing their funds to Medical Capital Holdings
Inc. in MedCap's $1 billion Ponzi scheme, arguing it wasn't
contractually required to notify investors of irregularities until
the accounts defaulted.  At a hearing before U.S. District Judge
David O. Carter in Santa Ana, Calif., John W. Spiegel, a lawyer
representing Wells Fargo, argued that the bank was not liable.


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: "Dewald" ERISA Violation Suit Now Closed
---------------------------------------------------------
Zimmer Holdings, 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 the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana declined to allow the plaintiff to
amend a class action complaint; hence, the case is now closed.

On November 20, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Dewald v. Zimmer
Holdings, Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and employees as defendants.  The
complaint related to a putative class action on behalf of all
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Company's
U.S. or Puerto Rico Savings and Investment Programs (plans)
between October 5, 2007, and the date of filing and whose accounts
included investments in the Company's common stock.  The complaint
alleged, among other things, that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended, by continuing to offer Zimmer
stock as an investment option in the plans when the stock
purportedly was no longer a prudent investment and that defendants
failed to provide plan participants with complete and accurate
information sufficient to advise them of the risks of investing
their retirement savings in Zimmer stock.  The plaintiff sought an
unspecified monetary payment to the plans, injunctive and
equitable relief, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief.  On
January 23, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
alleged the same claims and clarified that the class period was
October 5, 2007, through September 2, 2008.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 23, 2009.  On June 12, 2009, the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation entered an order transferring the Dewald
case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana.  On December 23, 2011, the Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On January 20, 2012, the
plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint.  On November 16, 2012, the Court denied the plaintiff's
motion for leave to amend the amended complaint and dismissed the
case with prejudice.  The plaintiff's deadline to challenge the
Court's decision has passed.  The case is now closed and the
Company will not be reporting the status of this matter in the
future.

Zimmer Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.zimmer.com/-- through its
subsidiaries, engages in the design, development, manufacture, and
marketing of orthopedic reconstructive devices, spinal and trauma
devices, dental implants, and related surgical products in the
Americas, Europe, and the Asia Pacific.  The company was founded
in 1927 and is headquartered in Warsaw, Indiana.


* More Than 11,000 New Zealanders Join Bank Fee Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Age reports that more than 11,000 New Zealanders have
registered to join a class action against major banks to reclaim
excessive default fees.  The Fair Play on Fees campaign has
attracted online sign-ups at a rate of 1000 per hour since it was
launched on March 11.  The legal action is being led by lawyer
Andrew Hooker, law firm Slater & Gordon, and Litigation Lending
Services.

Mr. Hooker says they didn't anticipate this sort of response from
the public.  "We now expect the Web site to register more than
20,000 in the first 48 hours of the campaign," he said on
March 12.

"We are very confident that on the back of these numbers we will
be able to file court documents within weeks."

At a press conference in Auckland on March 11, Mr. Hooker said
banks were unlawfully over-charging their customers in dishonor
and honor fees and late payment charges.

"Customers are charged an average of $15 every time they overdraw
their accounts, pay their credit card late or bounce a check when
the cost to the bank is actually just a few cents," he said.
"These fees are excessive and add up to around $1 billion over the
past six years."

By law, default fees must reflect what the actual cost is to the
party charging the fees, Mr. Hooker said.

According to Radio New Zealand, a banking analyst expects a big
response to the calls for New Zealanders to join a proposed class
action against the main banks though she says the litigation is
unjustified.

Massey University senior lecturer in banking Claire Matthews is
skeptical about the lawsuit.  Dr. Matthews sees it as an attempt
to generate some profits for those that are funding it and to
generate some interest amongst the public and get them involved.
She said the basis of the claim is doubtful and it is not evident
similar action being taken in Australia will be successful.

"They're trying to take what they've gained there and simply apply
that in New Zealand, without reflecting on the fact that New
Zealand is actually different."

Dr. Matthews said despite the fact that the big four banks in New
Zealand are Australian-owned, there are differences.  She said
banks in Australia have traditionally charged greater fees than
New Zealand ones.  Dr. Matthews said given the changes New Zealand
banks have made to fees in the last three and a half years it's
difficult to see the justification for the case.

Gareth Vaughan, writing for interest.co.nz, reports that the "Fair
Play on Fees" group behind representative legal action against
banks over default fees say about 11,000 people have signed up for
their campaign since it was launched on March 11 and they expect
to be able to file court documents within weeks.

In a statement on March 12 the group, consisting of Mr. Hooker,
Australian class action experts Slater & Gordon and litigation
funder Litigation Lending Services, say within the first seven
hours of their Web site's launch, more than 7000 people had
registered at a rate of 1,000 per hour.

"New Zealanders are signing up more rapidly than the rate
Australians signed up to a similar class action campaign launched
in Australia (per capita basis).  In the first 24 hours of that
campaign 22,000 Australians had registered," they say.

Mr. Hooker says he hadn't anticipated such a response from the
public.

"We now expect the Web site to register more than 20,000 in the
first 48 hours of the campaign.  We didn't expect these numbers on
the back of the Australian experience.  We are very confident that
on the back of these numbers we will be able to file court
documents within weeks," says Mr. Hooker.

On March 11, the group said it was seeking to "claim back
excessive" bank default fees charged to customers over the past
six years, which is the limitation period for such action.
"Exception" fees at the center of the case are what are known as
honor and dishonor fees, plus credit card late payment and credit
card over limit fees.

"Customers are charged an average of NZ$15 every time they
overdraw their accounts, pay their credit card late or bounce a
check when the cost to the bank is actually just a few cents,"
Mr. Hooker told a press conference at Auckland's SkyCity Hotel on
March 11.

The New Zealand Bankers' Association responded to news of the
looming legal action by saying the group behind it failed to take
into account differences between the New Zealand and Australian
banking sectors.  It said three of the four fees being targeted
have been overseen by the Commerce Commission for 10 years, and
customers concerned about fees should talk to their bank rather
than to lawyers.

The parties behind the legal action stand to pocket 25% of any of
the money won through their action, plus getting Litigation
Lending Services' costs of between NZ$3 million and NZ$4 million
back.

A Commerce Commission spokeswoman told interest.co.nz the consumer
watchdog did not know what legislation the so-called class action
would be taken under.  In 2010 the Commerce Commission said a late
payment credit card fee of up to NZ$15 was likely to be
justifiable on a cost recovery basis.


                             *********

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  * * *