CAR_Public/130325.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 25, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 59

                             Headlines



ALTRIA GROUP: $103-Mil. Counsel Fee in "Scott" Suit Now Paid
ALTRIA GROUP: Appeals in "Smith" Price-Fixing Suit Still Pending
ALTRIA GROUP: Continues to Defend "Lights/Ultra Lights" Suits
ALTRIA GROUP: Medical Monitoring Suits vs. PM USA Still Pending
ALTRIA GROUP: Smoking and Health Class Suits Remain Pending

AMAZON.COM: Sued for Holding Funds Beyond Contractual Period
AMERICAN INT'L: Judge Certifies 2 Classes on Bailout
AMERICAN INT'L: Amgen Ruling Bases "Inapplicable" to Class Action
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Retina Display Computers
APPLE INC: MacBook Pro Customer Sues Over LG Display Flaw

BANKUNITED FINANCIAL: June 12 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
BIMBO BAKERIES: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Class Claims
CAPITOL RECORDS: Judge Dismisses Suit Over itunes Royalties
CHINESE DAILY: Entitled to Individualized Damages, 9th Cir. Rules
CIBER INC: Motion to Dismiss "Weston" Suit Still Pending

CINNABAR SERVICE: Picher Class Action Awaits Scheduling Order
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Storm Calls for New Settlement Negotiations
CONVERGYS CORP: Seeks Reversal of Class Action Waiver Ruling
DINEEQUITY INC: "Fast" Collective Action Dismissed in November
DIODES INC: Faces Suit Over Dumping Shares at Inflated Prices

ERIE INDEMNITY: Continues to Defend "Sullivan" Suit in Pa.
EXPEDIA INC: $55-Mil. Judgment Sought in Texas Tax Class Action
FOREST LABS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Action Over Junk Faxes
HANOVER INSURANCE: Continues to Defend Durand Litigation
HEBEI WELCOME: China Balks at U.S. Ruling on Vitamin C Suit

ING BANK: Faces Class Action Over Fraudulent Mortgage Offer
JOHN HANCOCK: May Face Class Action Over Life Insurance Payments
KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Overtime Class Action
KEYCORP: Continues to Defend Checking Account Overdraft Suit
KEYCORP: Court Terminated Metyk Litigation in January

KIRBY CORP: Seeks Dismissal of "Rescue Mission" Class Suit
LABORATORY CORP: Claims in MEDTOX-Related Suits Dismissed in Feb.
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend "Jansky" Suit in California
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend "Pepe" Suit in Massachusetts
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend "Sandusky" Suit in Minnesota

LIVE NATION: Judge Rejects Class Action Over Parking Charges
MADISON COUNTY, IL: Judge Stobbs to Handle Bathon Tax Class Action
MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Suit Over RMBS Offerings
MORGAN STANLEY: Court Sets May 6 Trial in Cheyne SIV-Related Suit
NEW YORK CITY: Mayor Urged to Negotiate Equal Pay Settlement

NEW YORK LIFE: Agents' FLSA Suit Transferred to N.Y. Court
NOVA SCOTIA: To Challenge Sydney Tar Pond Class Certification
NPC INT'L: Pizza Hut Franchisee Facing Minimum Wage Class Action
RADIOSHACK CORP: Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed in Jan.
RADIOSHACK CORP: "Brookler" Suit Remains Pending in California

RADIOSHACK CORP: Final Hearing in "Sosinov" Suit Set for March 27
RADIOSHACK CORP: Settlement in FACTA Suit Pending Court Approval
SEARCH CACTUS: Faces Class Action Over Sending Spam Messages
SIGMA: Shareholder Class Action Settlement Hits Profits by 60%
SUNTRUST BANKS: Awaits Decision in Captive Reinsurance Suit

SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Colonial Securities Suit Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend Suits Over Overdraft Fees
SUNTRUST BANKS: Faces New Suit Over STI Classic Mutual Funds
SUNTRUST BANKS: Remaining Lehman-Related Suits Move to Discovery
SUNTRUST BANKS: Still Awaits Court Direction in ERISA Suit

SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Agrees to Settle Overdraft Fees MDL
TANGOE: Dumps Shares at Inflated Prices, Class Action Claims
TORONTO: Activists Mull Suit Over Police "Carding" Practice
UNITED STATES: IRS Sued for Stealing Medical Records Sans Warrant
WAL-MART STORES: Extension for Class Cert. Filing in Dukes Denied

WELLS FARGO: Awaits Final OK of Interchange Fee Suit Settlement
WELLS FARGO: Bank Defends RESPA Violations Suits in Maryland
WELLS FARGO: Continues to Defend Order of Posting MDL in Florida
WELLS FARGO: Discovery in Medical Capital-Related Suit Ongoing
WELLS FARGO: "Farmington Hills" Suit Remains Pending in Minnesota

WELLS FARGO: Has Final Okay of Municipal Derivatives Suit Deal
WELLS FARGO: "Gutierrez" Class Suit Remanded to District Court
WELLS FARGO: Suits Over Foreclosure Doc. Practices Now Resolved
ZEALANDIA HOLDING: Finn Law Group Files Timeshare Class Action

* Class Action Practices Ripe for Reform, Attorneys Say


                             *********


ALTRIA GROUP: $103-Mil. Counsel Fee in "Scott" Suit Now Paid
------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said 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 fees of the "Scott" lawsuit
plaintiffs' counsel, which fees were awarded for approximately
$103 million, have now been paid from the settlement fund.

Following a 2004 verdict that awarded plaintiffs approximately
$590 million to fund a 10-year smoking cessation program and a
series of appeals and other post-trial motions, Philip Morris USA
Inc. ("PM USA") recorded in the second quarter of 2011 a provision
on its condensed consolidated balance sheet of approximately $36
million related to the judgment and approximately $5 million
related to interest, which was in addition to a previously
recorded provision of approximately $30 million.  In August 2011,
PM USA paid its share of the judgment and interest in an amount of
approximately $70 million.

In October 2011, plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for an award
of attorneys' fees and costs.  Plaintiffs' counsel sought
additional fees from defendants of up to $673 million.
Additionally, plaintiffs' counsel requested an award of
approximately $13 million in costs.

In May 2012, after defendants challenged plaintiffs' counsel's
request that defendants pay their attorneys' fees directly, as
opposed to out of the court-supervised fund, the parties reached a
settlement on the amount of fees and costs to be awarded to
plaintiffs' counsel.  Plaintiffs agreed that any recovery of fees
and costs would come from the court-supervised fund, not the
defendants, and indicated they would seek approximately $114
million from the fund.  In exchange, defendants agreed to waive
50% of their right to a refund of any unspent money in the fund
after the 10-year program is completed.  The agreement is not
contingent on the trial court's granting plaintiffs' request for
additional costs and fees.  The trustee of the fund intervened to
challenge whether the plaintiffs' lawyers should get any money
from the fund or, alternatively, the amount they would recover
from the fund.  On December 20, 2012, the trial court awarded the
plaintiffs' counsel attorneys' fees in an amount of approximately
$103 million, all of which have now been paid from the fund.

Based in Richmond, Virginia, Altria Group, Inc. --
http://www.altria.com/-- (previously named Philip Morris
Companies Inc.) is a holding company incorporated in Virginia in
1985.  Altria's subsidiaries included Philip Morris USA Inc.,
which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and
certain smokeless products in the United States; John Middleton
Co., which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of machine-made
large cigars and pipe tobacco; and UST LLC, which through its
subsidiaries, including U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC and
Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd., is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of smokeless products and wine.  Philip Morris Capital
Corporation maintains a portfolio of leveraged and direct finance
leases.  Philip Morris International Inc. was spun off in 2008.


ALTRIA GROUP: Appeals in "Smith" Price-Fixing Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals in a cigarette price-fixing lawsuit in Kansas remain
pending, according to Altria Group, Inc.'s February 27, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

As of February 27, 2013, one case remains pending in Kansas
(Smith) in which plaintiffs allege that defendants, including
Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") and Altria Group, Inc.,
conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted.  In March
2012, the trial court granted defendants' motions for summary
judgment.  Plaintiffs sought the trial court's reconsideration of
its decision, but in June 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration.  Plaintiffs have appealed the
decision, and the defendants have cross-appealed the trial court's
class certification decision, to the Court of Appeals of Kansas.

Based in Richmond, Virginia, Altria Group, Inc. --
http://www.altria.com/-- (previously named Philip Morris
Companies Inc.) is a holding company incorporated in Virginia in
1985.  Altria's subsidiaries included Philip Morris USA Inc.,
which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and
certain smokeless products in the United States; John Middleton
Co., which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of machine-made
large cigars and pipe tobacco; and UST LLC, which through its
subsidiaries, including U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC and
Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd., is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of smokeless products and wine.  Philip Morris Capital
Corporation maintains a portfolio of leveraged and direct finance
leases.  Philip Morris International Inc. was spun off in 2008.


ALTRIA GROUP: Continues to Defend "Lights/Ultra Lights" Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. continues to defend itself and its subsidiaries
from class action lawsuits alleging, among other things, that the
use of the terms "Lights" and "Ultra Lights" constitute deceptive
and unfair trade practices, 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.

                   "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases

Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their
cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the
uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute
deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory
fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and seek
injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in
certain cases, punitive damages.  These class actions have been
brought against Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") and, in certain
instances, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries, on behalf of
individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of
cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights,
Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge
Lights.  Defenses raised in these cases include lack of
misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury and damages, the
statute of limitations, non-liability under state statutory
provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory
directives, and the First Amendment.

As of December 31, 2012, a total of 14 such cases were pending in
the United States.  Three of these cases were pending in U.S.
federal courts.  The other cases were pending in various U.S.
state courts.  In addition, a purported "Lights" class action is
pending against PM USA in Israel.

In the one "Lights" case pending in Israel (El-Roy), hearings on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification were held in November
and December 2008, and an additional hearing on class
certification was held in November 2011.  On November 28, 2012,
the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants
approximately $100,000 in attorney fees.  Plaintiffs in that case
have noticed an appeal.

                          The Good Case

In May 2006, a federal trial court in Maine granted PM USA's
motion for summary judgment in Good, a purported "Lights" class
action, on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims are preempted by
the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act ("FCLAA") and
dismissed the case.  In December 2008, the United States Supreme
Court ruled that plaintiffs' claims are not barred by federal
preemption.  Although the Court rejected the argument that the
Federal Trade Commission's ("FTC's") actions were so extensive
with respect to the descriptors that the state law claims were
barred as a matter of federal law, the Court's decision was
limited: it did not address the ultimate merits of plaintiffs'
claim, the viability of the action as a class action, or other
state law issues.  The case was returned to the federal court in
Maine and consolidated with other federal cases in the
multidistrict litigation proceeding.  In June 2011, the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice after the
district court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
concluding the litigation.

                Federal Multidistrict Proceeding
                   and Subsequent Developments

Since the December 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Good, and
through December 31, 2012, 24 purported "Lights" class actions
were served upon PM USA and, in certain cases, Altria Group, Inc.
These cases were filed in 14 states, the U.S. Virgin Islands and
the District of Columbia.  All of these cases either were filed in
federal court or were removed to federal court by PM USA and were
transferred and consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPMDL") before the United States
District Court for the District of Maine for pretrial proceedings
("MDL proceeding").

In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in four cases, covering
the jurisdictions of California, the District of Columbia,
Illinois and Maine.  These jurisdictions were selected by the
parties as sample cases, with two selected by plaintiffs and two
selected by defendants.  Plaintiffs sought appellate review of
this decision but, in February 2011, the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for
leave to appeal.  Later that year, plaintiffs in 13 cases
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice their cases.  In April
2012, the JPMDL remanded the remaining four cases (Phillips, Tang,
Wyatt and Cabbat) back to the federal district courts in which the
lawsuits originated.  In Tang, which was pending in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice in
July 2012, concluding the litigation.

In Phillips, which is now pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, defendants filed in June
2012 a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings on plaintiffs'
class action consumer sales practices claims and a motion for
judgment on the pleadings on plaintiffs' state deceptive trade
practices claims.  A hearing on plaintiff's motion for class
certification currently is set for August 30, 2013.

In Cabbat, which is pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii, plaintiffs in July 2012 amended their
complaint, adding a claim for unjust enrichment and dropping their
claims for breach of express and implied warranty.

In Wyatt, which is pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin, plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification on January 11, 2013.

                    "Lights" Cases Dismissed,
              Not Certified or Ordered De-Certified

To date, in addition to the district court in the MDL proceeding,
16 courts in 17 "Lights" cases have refused to certify class
actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior class
certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of PM
USA.

Trial courts in Arizona, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico,
Oregon, Tennessee and Washington have refused to grant class
certification or have dismissed plaintiffs' class action
allegations.  Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case in Michigan
after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs asserted under
the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act.

Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either affirmed
rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA or reversed
rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs.  In Florida, an
intermediate appellate court overturned an order by a trial court
that granted class certification in Hines.  The Florida Supreme
Court denied review in January 2008.  The Supreme Court of
Illinois has overturned a judgment that awarded damages to a
certified class in the Price case.  In Louisiana, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed a
purported "Lights" class action brought in Louisiana federal court
(Sullivan) on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims were preempted
by the FCLAA.  In New York, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit overturned a decision by a New York trial court
in Schwab that granted plaintiffs' motion for certification of a
nationwide class of all United States residents that purchased
cigarettes in the United States that were labeled "Light" or
"Lights."  In July 2010, plaintiffs in Schwab voluntarily
dismissed the case with prejudice.  In Ohio, the Ohio Supreme
Court overturned class certifications in the Marrone and Phillips
cases.  Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without prejudice both
cases in August 2009, but refiled in federal court.  The Supreme
Court of Washington denied a motion for interlocutory review filed
by the plaintiffs in the Davies case that sought review of an
order by the trial court that refused to certify a class.
Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed the Davies case with
prejudice.  In August 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Illinois federal district court's
dismissal of "Lights" claims brought against PM USA in the Cleary
case.  In Curtis, a certified class action, in May 2012, the
Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's entry of
summary judgment in favor of PM USA, concluding this litigation.

In Lawrence, in August 2012, the New Hampshire Supreme Court
reversed the trial court's order to certify a class and
subsequently denied plaintiffs' rehearing petition.  On
October 26, 2012, the case was dismissed after plaintiffs filed a
motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, concluding this
litigation.

In Oregon (Pearson), a state court denied plaintiff's motion for
interlocutory review of the trial court's refusal to certify a
class.  In February 2007, PM USA filed a motion for summary
judgment based on federal preemption and the Oregon statutory
exemption.  In September 2007, the district court granted PM USA's
motion based on express preemption under the FCLAA, and plaintiffs
appealed this dismissal and the class certification denial to the
Oregon Court of Appeals.  Argument was held in April 2010.

                       Other Developments

In December 2009, the state trial court in the Carroll (formerly
known as Holmes) case (pending in Delaware) denied PM USA's motion
for summary judgment based on an exemption provision in the
Delaware Consumer Fraud Act.  In January 2011, the trial court
allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint substituting
class representatives and naming Altria Group, Inc. and Philip
Morris International Inc. ("PMI") as additional defendants.  In
July 2011, the parties stipulated to the dismissal without
prejudice of Altria Group, Inc. and PMI.  The stipulation is
signed by the parties but not yet approved by the trial court.

In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower
court rulings in the Miner (formerly known as Watson) case that
denied plaintiffs' motion to have the case heard in a state, as
opposed to federal, trial court.  The Supreme Court rejected
defendants' contention that the case must be tried in federal
court under the "federal officer" statute.  The case was removed
to federal court in Arkansas and the case was transferred to the
MDL proceeding.  In November 2010, the district court in the MDL
proceeding remanded the case to Arkansas state court.  In December
2011, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against
Altria Group, Inc. without prejudice.  A class certification
hearing is set to begin on October 22, 2013.

                         The Price Case

Trial in the Price case commenced in state court in Illinois in
January 2003, and in March 2003, the judge found in favor of the
plaintiff class and awarded $7.1 billion in compensatory damages
and $3 billion in punitive damages against PM USA.  In December
2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial court's
judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.  In November 2006, the United
States Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for writ of
certiorari and, in December 2006, the Circuit Court of Madison
County enforced the Illinois Supreme Court's mandate and dismissed
the case with prejudice.

In December 2008, plaintiffs filed with the trial court a petition
for relief from the final judgment that was entered in favor of PM
USA.  Specifically, plaintiffs sought to vacate the judgment
entered by the trial court on remand from the 2005 Illinois
Supreme Court decision overturning the verdict on the ground that
the United States Supreme Court's December 2008 decision in Good
demonstrated that the Illinois Supreme Court's decision was
"inaccurate."  PM USA filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
petition and, in February 2009, the trial court granted PM USA's
motion on the basis that the petition was not timely filed.  In
March 2009, the Price plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
Fifth Judicial District of the Appellate Court of Illinois.  In
February 2011, the intermediate appellate court ruled that the
petition was timely filed and reversed the trial court's dismissal
of the plaintiffs' petition and, in September 2011, the Illinois
Supreme Court declined PM USA's petition for review.  As a result,
the case was returned to the trial court for proceedings on
whether the court should grant the plaintiffs' petition to reopen
the prior judgment.  In February 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended
petition, which PM USA opposed.  Subsequently, in responding to PM
USA's opposition to the amended petition, plaintiffs asked the
trial court to reinstate the original judgment.  The trial court
denied plaintiffs' petition on December 12, 2012.

On January 8, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
Fifth Judicial District.  On January 16, 2013, PM USA filed a
motion asking the Illinois Supreme Court to immediately exercise
its jurisdiction over the appeal.

In June 2009, the plaintiff in an individual smoker lawsuit
(Kelly) brought on behalf of an alleged smoker of "Lights"
cigarettes in Madison County, Illinois state court filed a motion
seeking a declaration that his claims under the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act are not (i) barred by the exemption in that statute
based on his assertion that the Illinois Supreme Court's decision
in Price is no longer good law in light of the decisions by the
United States Supreme Court in Good and Watson, and (ii) preempted
in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Good.
In September 2009, the court granted plaintiff's motion as to
federal preemption, but denied it with respect to the state
statutory exemption.

             State Trial Court Class Certifications

State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in
several jurisdictions.  Over time, several such cases have been
dismissed by the courts at the summary judgment stage.  Certified
class actions remain pending in California (Brown), Massachusetts
(Aspinall) and Missouri (Larsen).  Significant developments in
these cases include:

   * Aspinall: In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
     Court affirmed the class certification order.  In August
     2006, the trial court denied PM USA's motion for summary
     judgment and granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment
     on the defenses of federal preemption and a state law
     exemption to Massachusetts' consumer protection statute.  On
     motion of the parties, the trial court subsequently reported
     its decision to deny summary judgment to the appeals court
     for review and stayed further proceedings pending completion
     of the appellate review.  In December 2008, subsequent to
     the United States Supreme Court's decision in Good, the
     Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an order
     requesting that the parties advise the court within 30 days
     whether the Good decision is dispositive of federal
     preemption issues pending on appeal.  In January 2009,
     PM USA notified the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
     that Good is dispositive of the federal preemption issues on
     appeal, but requested further briefing on the state law
     statutory exemption issue.  In March 2009, the Massachusetts
     Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order denying summary
     judgment to PM USA and granting the plaintiffs' cross-
     motion.  In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial
     summary judgment as to liability claiming collateral
     estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the
     Department of Justice.  In March 2012, the trial court
     denied plaintiffs' motion.

   * Brown: In May 2009, the California Supreme Court reversed
     the trial court decision decertifying the class and remanded
     the case to the trial court.  At this time, the sole
     remaining theory of liability in this action is whether the
     marketing of "Lights" cigarettes was deceptive to consumers.
     In September 2012, at the plaintiffs' request, the trial
     court dismissed all defendants except PM USA from the
     lawsuit.  Trial is currently scheduled for April 19, 2013.

   * Larsen: In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed
     the class certification order.  In December 2009, the trial
     court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the
     period during which potential class members can qualify to
     become part of the class.  The class period remains 1995
     through 2003.  In June 2010, PM USA's motion for partial
     summary judgment regarding plaintiffs' request for punitive
     damages was denied.  In April 2010, plaintiffs moved for
     partial summary judgment as to an element of liability in
     the case, claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in
     the case brought by the Department of Justice.  The
     plaintiffs' motion was denied in December 2010.  In June
     2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motions
     challenging the plaintiffs' claims.  In August 2011, the
     trial court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary
     judgment, ruling that plaintiffs could not present a damages
     claim based on allegations that Marlboro Lights are more
     dangerous than Marlboro Reds.  The trial court denied PM
     USA's remaining summary judgment motions.  Trial in the case
     began in September 2011 and, in October 2011 the court
     declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a
     verdict.  The court has continued the new trial through
     January 2014, with an exact date to be determined.

Based in Richmond, Virginia, Altria Group, Inc. --
http://www.altria.com/-- (previously named Philip Morris
Companies Inc.) is a holding company incorporated in Virginia in
1985.  Altria's subsidiaries included Philip Morris USA Inc.,
which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and
certain smokeless products in the United States; John Middleton
Co., which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of machine-made
large cigars and pipe tobacco; and UST LLC, which through its
subsidiaries, including U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC and
Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd., is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of smokeless products and wine.  Philip Morris Capital
Corporation maintains a portfolio of leveraged and direct finance
leases.  Philip Morris International Inc. was spun off in 2008.


ALTRIA GROUP: Medical Monitoring Suits vs. PM USA Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two medical monitoring class action lawsuits against a subsidiary
of Altria Group, Inc., remain pending, according to the Company's
February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Two purported medical monitoring class actions are pending against
Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA").  These two cases were brought
in New York (Caronia, filed in January 2006 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York) and
Massachusetts (Donovan, filed in December 2006 in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts) on behalf
of each state's respective residents who: are age 50 or older;
have smoked the Marlboro brand for 20 pack-years or more; and have
neither been diagnosed with lung cancer nor are under
investigation by a physician for suspected lung cancer.

Plaintiffs in these cases seek to impose liability under various
product-based causes of action and the creation of a court-
supervised program providing members of the purported class Low
Dose CT Scanning in order to identify and diagnose lung cancer.
Plaintiffs in these cases do not seek punitive damages.  A case
brought in California (Xavier) was dismissed in July 2011, and a
case brought in Florida (Gargano) was voluntarily dismissed with
prejudice in August 2011.

In Caronia, in February 2010, the district court granted in part
PM USA's summary judgment motion, dismissing plaintiffs' strict
liability and negligence claims and certain other claims, granted
plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to allege a medical
monitoring cause of action and requested further briefing on PM
USA's summary judgment motion as to plaintiffs' implied warranty
claim and, if plaintiffs amend their complaint, their medical
monitoring claim.  In March 2010, plaintiffs filed their amended
complaint and PM USA moved to dismiss the implied warranty and
medical monitoring claims.  In January 2011, the district court
granted PM USA's motion, dismissed plaintiffs' claims and declared
plaintiffs' motion for class certification moot in light of the
dismissal of the case.  The plaintiffs have appealed that decision
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Argument before the Second Circuit was heard in March 2012.

In Donovan, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in
answering questions certified to it by the district court, held in
October 2009 that under certain circumstances state law recognizes
a claim by individual smokers for medical monitoring despite the
absence of an actual injury.  The court also ruled that whether or
not the case is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is
a factual issue to be determined by the trial court.  The case was
remanded to federal court for further proceedings.  In June 2010,
the district court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, certifying the class as to plaintiffs' claims
for breach of implied warranty and violation of the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act, but denying certification as to
plaintiffs' negligence claim.  In July 2010, PM USA petitioned the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for appellate
review of the class certification decision.  The petition was
denied in September 2010.  As a remedy, plaintiffs have proposed a
28-year medical monitoring program with an approximate cost of
$190 million.  In April 2011, plaintiffs moved to amend their
class certification to extend the cut-off date for individuals to
satisfy the class membership criteria from December 14, 2006, to
August 1, 2011.  The district court granted this motion in May
2011.  In June 2011, plaintiffs filed various motions for summary
judgment and to strike affirmative defenses, which the district
court denied in March 2012 without prejudice.  In October 2011, PM
USA filed a motion for class decertification, which motion was
denied in March 2012.  A trial date has not been set.

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

The Company says evolving medical standards and practices could
have an impact on the defense of medical monitoring claims.  For
example, the first publication of the findings of the National
Cancer Institute's National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in June
2011 reported a 20% reduction in lung cancer deaths among certain
long-term smokers receiving Low Dose CT Scanning for lung cancer.
Since then, various public health organizations have begun to
develop new lung cancer screening guidelines.  Also, a number of
hospitals have advertised the availability of screening programs.
Other studies in this area are ongoing.

Based in Richmond, Virginia, Altria Group, Inc. --
http://www.altria.com/-- (previously named Philip Morris
Companies Inc.) is a holding company incorporated in Virginia in
1985.  Altria's subsidiaries included Philip Morris USA Inc.,
which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and
certain smokeless products in the United States; John Middleton
Co., which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of machine-made
large cigars and pipe tobacco; and UST LLC, which through its
subsidiaries, including U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC and
Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd., is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of smokeless products and wine.  Philip Morris Capital
Corporation maintains a portfolio of leveraged and direct finance
leases.  Philip Morris International Inc. was spun off in 2008.


ALTRIA GROUP: Smoking and Health Class Suits Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class
action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs
have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action
lawsuits in various state and federal courts.  In general, these
cases purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular
state or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in
scope) and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of
physical injury as well.

Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 59
smoking and health class actions involving Altria Group, Inc.'s
subsidiary, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), in Arkansas (1),
California (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2),
Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1),
Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York
(2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto Rico (1),
South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1).

As of December 31, 2012, PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are named
as defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven
class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta,
Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario.
In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases) and
Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of
individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases,
including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart
disease or cancer, after smoking defendants' cigarettes. In the
actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs
seek certification of classes of all individuals who smoked
defendants' cigarettes.

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.

Based in Richmond, Virginia, Altria Group, Inc. --
http://www.altria.com/-- (previously named Philip Morris
Companies Inc.) is a holding company incorporated in Virginia in
1985.  Altria's subsidiaries included Philip Morris USA Inc.,
which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and
certain smokeless products in the United States; John Middleton
Co., which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of machine-made
large cigars and pipe tobacco; and UST LLC, which through its
subsidiaries, including U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC and
Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd., is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of smokeless products and wine.  Philip Morris Capital
Corporation maintains a portfolio of leveraged and direct finance
leases.  Philip Morris International Inc. was spun off in 2008.


AMAZON.COM: Sued for Holding Funds Beyond Contractual Period
------------------------------------------------------------
June William at Courthouse News Service reports that Amazon.com
reaps huge unjust profits by withholding payments due to online
sellers longer than allowed by its own contract or by Washington
law, a class action claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiffs Jo Ellen Peters and Ken Lane sued Amazon Services
LLC.

Amazon makes sellers sign an agreement that payment will be made
within 14 days, but "Amazon routinely holds funds beyond the
contractual period, often well in excess of 90 days," the
complaint states.

"Despite being a fiduciary and/or agent holding funds in trust in
regard to the collection of payments from 'buyers,' defendant
routinely holds payments for longer than permitted by its own
Participation Agreement, and for longer than permitted by
Washington law, before remitting the seller's portion of funds to
the seller.  In fact, the Participation Agreement, which Amazon
holds out as providing the terms for payment, states a date for
the transmission of payments that exceeds the time limit
established by Washington law."

Amazon acts as a "money transmitter" for the plaintiff sellers and
is required to transmit payments within 10 business days under the
Washington Uniform Money Services Act (UMSA), the complaint
states.

"The amounts of money Amazon holds in excess of the time allowed
by law range from a few dollars to thousands of dollars.  All the
while, Amazon keeps the interest and other gains generated by the
funds owed to plaintiffs and the Class and utilizes the available
cash in its business.  The scale of Amazon's practice makes it
lucrative.  Amazon.com, Inc. reportedly generated over $20 billion
in third-party sales on its website in the fourth quarter of 2012
alone.  On information and belief, the annual volume of third-
party sales in 2012 equaled or exceeded Amazon.com, Inc.'s own
sales of over $60 billion, which averages out to over $160 million
in third-party sales per day, every day.  By holding on to this
daily cash flow for only a few days or weeks, Amazon is able to
invest this money in money market funds, marketable securities and
other investments, and utilize the cash as working capital in the
operation of its business.  On information and belief, Amazon has
reaped and continues to reap many tens of millions of dollars
annually from this practice."

The named plaintiffs claim their seller accounts were canceled and
Amazon failed to remit money owed for more than 90 days.

Jo Ellen Peters sold DVDs on Amazon and her account was canceled
less than a month after her first sale, she say in the complaint.
She claims Amazon failed to timely transmit funds from her sales
within 14 days, but when her account was suspended, Amazon held on
to the money even longer.

"On November 7, 2012, Amazon notified plaintiff Peters by email
that it had suspended her seller account.  At that time, plaintiff
Peters had already shipped several items sold on the Amazon.com
website, and Amazon was in possession of the money received from
the sales.  Plaintiff Peters followed Amazon's policy and filed a
written appeal of the suspension by email on November 8, 2012.
Just one day later, on November 9, 2012, Amazon notified plaintiff
Peters by email that Amazon had completed its review and
investigation of the suspended account, and that its decision to
close the account permanently was final.  Contrary to the terms of
the Participation Agreement, and in violation of the UMSA, Amazon
continued to retain plaintiff Peters' money for 98 days from the
date the account was first suspended," the complaint states.

Plaintiff Ken Lane began selling flight training materials on
Amazon in 2010.

"After items were sold and shipped, Amazon routinely held Lane's
money longer than the 14 days specified in the Participation
Agreement and failed to transmit to him his money within 10
business days as required by the UMSA," according to the
complaint.

Lane says his account was suspended on May 29, 2012 after he had
shipped several items and Amazon had received money from the
buyers.  At the time the complaint was filed, Amazon still had
Lane's money, he says.

The class consists of seller account holders who have shipped at
least one item to at least one buyer on the Amazon website since
March 15, 2009.

They seek specific performance, rescission, an injunction and
accounting and damages for breach of contract and breach of
fiduciary duty and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection
Act.

They are represented by Beth Terrell with Terrell Marshall Daudt &
Willie.


AMERICAN INT'L: Judge Certifies 2 Classes on Bailout
----------------------------------------------------
Marlene Kennedy at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge certified two classes challenging the government's bailout
of American International Group at the brink of the 2008 financial
collapse.

AIG, a financial services company, faced "significant liquidity
pressures" in the summer of 2008, according to a report from the
Federal Reserve, as U.S. financial and credit markets began to sag
under the weight of subprime mortgage delinquencies.  Failure
seemed imminent after similar problems felled the investment bank
Lehman Brothers Holdings.

Many feared, however, that AIG's widespread dealings with
financial institutions would cause unsustainable ripples beyond
Wall Street.  The U.S. government in turn gave AIG an $85 billion
revolving credit line in exchange for a 79.9 percent equity stake.

Meanwhile federally appointed trustees also oversaw a 1-for-20
reverse stock split approved by AIG's board of directors.

Starr International, an insurance holding company and AIG
shareholder, claimed in a subsequent lawsuit that the actions
constituted the "taking" of shareholder property in violation of
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Late last year it moved to certify two classes, one for each of
the government's actions, a "credit agreement" class and a "stock
split" class.

Judge Thomas Wheeler of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted
certification Monday after finding that Starr had satisfied the
five necessary criteria: numerosity, commonality, typicality,
adequacy and superiority.

As to superiority, Wheeler noted that a cost-benefit analysis
"tips decidedly in favor of class certification."

Estimates have put the number of plaintiffs in the tens of
thousands scattered widely geographically, making class
certification "by far the most efficient method of adjudicating
these claims," according to the ruling.

"The court defines the primary issue for the Credit Agreement
Class to be whether the 79.9 percent equity interest in AIG
obtained by the government constituted an illegal exaction or a
taking without just compensation," he wrote.  "The court defines
the primary issue for the Stock Split Class to be whether the
reverse stock split on June 30, 2009, constituted an illegal
exaction or taking without just compensation."

Judge Wheeler also designated David Boies, of Boies, Schiller &
Flexner in Armonk, N.Y., as counsel of record for the classes.
     Starr is also represented by John Gardiner of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City.

Justice Department attorney Brian Mizoguchi represents the
government.

Joseph Allerhand of Weil, Gotshal & Manges in New York City
represented AIG as nominal defendant.


AMERICAN INT'L: Amgen Ruling Bases "Inapplicable" to Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that investors suing
American International Group Inc. for allegedly misrepresenting
its exposure to financial products that drove the insurer into a
government bailout are seizing on a recent U.S. Supreme Court case
in their bid for class certification.

In letters filed publicly on March 13, lawyers for the plaintiffs
urged a Manhattan federal judge to reject the defendants'
objections to letting the investors sue collectively in light of
the high court's February decision in a case against Amgen Inc.

"Lead Plaintiff respectfully submits that given the Supreme
Court's ruling in Amgen, and based on the entire record before the
Court, its motion for class certification should be granted,"
Jeffrey Golan -- jgolan@barrack.com -- a lawyer for the plaintiffs
at Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, wrote.

That letter, along with ones by the defendants, were dated as
early as March 1 but were made public only March 13.

Mr. Golan wrote that the Supreme Court's 6-3 holding in Amgen Inc.
et al v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, that
investors do not need to show misinformation was material to win
certification, was "important" in the AIG case.

The defendants' opposition was largely based on the supposed
immateriality of the alleged misstatements and omissions, he
wrote.

The AIG case was filed in 2008, and U.S. District Judge Laura
Swain denied a motion to dismiss in September 2010.  The AIG
investors have been moving to certify the class since then.

While the investors, led by State of Michigan Retirement Systems,
contend the Amgen ruling demands that class certification be
granted, the defendants in their own letters see it differently.

They gave a variety of reasons for why the Amgen decision does not
mean the end of the class certification fight.

                      'Inapplicable' Bases

In a letter dated March 6, AIG counsel Joseph Allerhand --
joseph.allerhand@weil.com -- at Weil, Gotshal & Manges conceded
that any arguments it advanced about the materiality of the
alleged misstatements were "no longer viable" post-Amgen.

But, he said, Amgen had an impact on only two of many arguments
AIG advanced.

For example, AIG contended that the proposed class of investors
weren't common enough, the letter said.  AIG said the proposed
class inappropriately combined investors in 2006 with ones in
2008, after AIG had disclosed billions in losses based on its
subprime-exposed investments.

Antony Ryan -- aryan@cravath.com -- a lawyer for Lehman's auditor
at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, contended the bases of the Amgen
decision were "inapplicable" to the AIG case since the plaintiffs
conceded that any misstatements in the insurer's financial
statements were cured with annual securities filing in February
2008.

"Amgen does not require the Court to certify a class for claims
. . . on which the undisputed factual record already makes clear
defendants are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law,"
Mr. Ryan wrote.

In a March 12 letter in response, Mr. Golan disputed that the
plaintiffs had made such a concession "and the issue of
materiality remains a disputed issue that is common to the class."

Mr. Golan declined comment, and an AIG spokesman had no immediate
comment.  Lawyers for the other defendants did not respond to
requests for comment.

The case is American International Group, Inc 2008 Securities
Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York,
No. 08-04772.

For the plaintiffs: Jeffrey Golan, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine.

For AIG: Joseph Allerhand, Weil, Gotshal & Manges.

For PricewaterhouseCoopers: Antony Ryan, Cravath, Swaine & Moore.

For the underwriters: Richard Rosen -- rrosen@paulweiss.com --
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Retina Display Computers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Apple sells MacBook Pro with Retina Display computers with two
different LCD screens, one of which is inferior to the other, and
customers don't know which they will get.


APPLE INC: MacBook Pro Customer Sues Over LG Display Flaw
---------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Khan, writing for 9to5 Mac, reports that since Apple
unveiled its first Retina MacBook Pro with the 15.4-inch model in
June, there have been a growing number of complaints from
customers experiencing issues with the product.  By far the most
reported problem is one that causes a burn-in or ghosting problem
on the device's display.  It has resulted in a support thread
boasting over 364,769 views.  Apple uses two display suppliers for
the device, LG and Samsung, and it wasn't until months later that
many started speculating the source of the issue was with LG.  On
March 13, one MacBook Pro user named Beau Hodges has decided to
launch a class-action lawsuit against Apple in a federal court in
California alleging MacBook Pro customers have no way of telling
which MacBooks have an LG display at the time of purchase.

Sean McLernon, writing for Lawe360, reports that the laptop owner
lodged a putative class action in California federal court on
Wednesday accusing the company of tricking consumers into paying
premium prices for MacBook Pro computers with shoddy retina
display screens manufactured by LG Corp.

Although Apple advertises the MacBook's liquid crystal display
screens as the best of its kind, some of the computers contain LG
screens that suffer from brightness, color and image display flaws
while others feature better screens made by Samsung Corp.,
according to the suit.

Law360 reports the suit is seeking unspecified damages for Retina
MacBook Pro customers nationwide:

"The electronics giant must know about the differences between the
two versions because it spent a considerable amount of time
testing the products during research and development and has been
inundated with complaints from customers about the LG screen's
problems," according to the suit.

"The performance disparity between the LG version and the Samsung
version is particularly troubling given that Apple represents the
MacBook Pro with retina display as a single, unitary product,
described as the highest quality notebook display on the market,"
the complaint said.  "None of Apple's advertisements or
representations discloses that it produces the computers with
display screens that exhibit different levels of performance and
quality."

According to 9to5 Mac, many users report Apple replacing their LG
displays with a Samsung-made display following the issues, but
Apple has yet to confirm the problem publicly and some users with
Samsung-made displays continue to experience graphic-related
issues.  Some reports indicated that Apple might have addressed
issues with the Retina MacBook Pro in a minor refresh to the
device last month, but many of the major problems still exist
according to some consumers.

Apple on March 14 released a software update for the 15-inch
Retina MacBook Pro that attempts to resolve some issues related to
graphics, PowerNap, and fans.


BANKUNITED FINANCIAL: June 12 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following is being released by the law firm of Berman
DeValerio.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS'
FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
SHARES OF BANKUNITED FINANCIAL CORP. COMMON STOCK DURING THE
PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 24, 2006 THROUGH AND INCLUDING JUNE 18, 2008
AND WHO WERE DAMAGED THEREBY.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, of the pendency of
this action as a class action on behalf of the persons and
entities described above, except for certain persons and entities
who are excluded from the Class by definition; and of a proposed
all-cash settlement of the Action in the amount of $3 million plus
$57,000 in reimbursement of fees and out-of-pocket expenses
incurred in connection with certain Bankruptcy Court litigation
that will fully and finally settle all claims against and release
all Defendants, apportioned as follows: (a) a settlement payment
from the Defendants of $3 million; and (b) a payment of $57,000
from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as receiver for
BankUnited, FSB in exchange for the assignment of certain rights
against the Defendants and an excess insurance carrier and for
reimbursement of out-of-pocket fees and expenses incurred in
connection with certain Bankruptcy Court litigation brought by the
Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of BankUnited Financial
Corporation.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Marcia G. Cooke, at
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Miami Division, Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse,
400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, FL 33128 at 11:00 a.m. on June 12,
2013 (i) to determine whether this Action should be finally
certified, for settlement purposes, as a class action under Rule
23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of
the Class; (ii) to determine whether the proposed Settlement
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(iii) to determine whether the Settled Claims against the
Defendants and other Released Parties should be dismissed with
prejudice; (iv) to determine whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair and reasonable;
and (v) to consider the application of Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel
for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY
BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.  If you have not yet
received the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement, Settlement Fairness Hearing, and Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, with the
attached Claim Form, you may obtain a copy of these documents by
contacting the Claims Administrator: BankUnited Securities
Litigation, c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 2584, Faribault,
MN 55021-9584, or by telephone at 1-866-686-3510.  Copies of the
Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the Claims
Administrator's Web site,
http://www.BankUnitedSecuritiesClassAction.comor from Plaintiffs'
Lead Counsel's Web site http://www.BermanDeValerio.com

If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the
Class, you will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action.
To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than May 22, 2013, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  Any
objections to any of the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or the request for attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of Litigation Expenses, must be filed with the Court and served on
Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel for the Class and counsel for the
Defendants no later than May 22, 2013, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may
be made to Lead Counsel:

          Michael J. Pucillo, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO
          3507 Kyoto Gardens Drive, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (800) 516-9926
          Web site: http://www.BermanDeValerio.com

          Glen DeValerio, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO
          One Liberty Square
          Boston, MA 02109


BIMBO BAKERIES: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Class Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that Bimbo
Bakeries cannot dismiss bread distributors' class claims that it
violated the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act, a federal judge
ruled.  U.S. District Judge Robert Kugler has ruled that the
plaintiffs have a plausible claim for relief under the Act, but
not for "lost profit" damages.

The New Jersey Franchise Practices Act (NJFPA) was enacted in 1971
to curb franchisors' ability to profit unduly from their superior
economic and bargaining positions when negotiating agreements with
franchisees.

In this case, lead plaintiffs George A. Strassle and Timothy S.
Carroll had contracts to buy Arnold's, Freihofer's and Thomas's
fresh baked bread and rolls and resell them to certain New Jersey
stores.

Bimbo in January 2010 acquired the company that hired Strassle and
Carroll.  Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution assumed all legal
duties under the original contract, agreeing to sell and deliver
products to the distributors, who would "develop and maximize
sales" by "maintaining an adequate and fresh supply" at various
stores.

Both parties agreed not to be liable for "any consequential,
incidental, indirect, or special damages, including lost profits
and punitive damages," under section 11.12 of the contract.

Strassle and Carroll sued Bimbo in Camden County Court on April
26, 2012, as lead plaintiffs in a class action on behalf of
"approximately 60 New Jersey bread distributors who drive out of
two depots maintained by defendant in Mt. Laurel and
Pleasantville, N.J."

The complaint claimed that Bimbo breached the distribution
agreement by refusing to allow distributors to buy and resell
Arnold's, Freihofer's, and Thomas's bread products, in violation
of the NJFPA.  The plaintiffs sought punitive damages,
compensatory damages and an injunction.

Bimbo removed the action to Federal Court, based on diversity
jurisdiction, then sought dismissal for failure to state a claim.

Kugler was not persuaded by Bimbo's claim that it does not
maintain a "place of business" in New Jersey, and found that the
NJFPA does apply to it.

"Section 7.2 of the distribution agreement, called 'Change in
Delivery Method,' states, in pertinent part, '[i]n the event any
outlet makes an independent determination to accept delivery of
the products by any method other than store door delivery, ...
[plaintiffs] shall have the first right to effect such alternative
service,'" Kugler wrote.  "Thus, the distribution agreement
specifically anticipates a situation in which plaintiffs provide
bread products without actually going to their customers'
(referred to here as 'outlets') particular locations.  If
plaintiffs are not going to their customers' stores, then
presumably the customers would be coming to pick up their bread at
some fixed place of business belonging either to plaintiffs or
some third party.  Regardless of what transpired in practice, the
court finds that the inclusion of section 7.2 in the distribution
agreement is just enough to show that the parties at least 'had in
mind' that plaintiffs would establish or maintain places of
business to exercise their rights under the franchise
arrangement."

But the judge struck the distributors' request for damages for
lost profits.

"To the extent plaintiffs seek recovery of profits which they
planned to make (but for defendant's alleged breach) on the sale
of individual Arnold's, Freihofer's, and Thomas's breads and roll
products to retail clients within their distribution territory,
the court holds that such recovery is barred under section 11.12
of the parties' distribution agreement," Kugler wrote.

He dismissed the distributors' request for an injunction, though
they may seek such relief as part of their NJFPA or common law
breach of contract claims.

Based in Horsham, Penn., Bimbo Bakeries USA - the corporate arm of
Mexico's Grupo Bimbo - is America's largest bakery company. It
owns six of the top 12 fresh bread brands in the country, and has
annual revenue of $3.9 billion.


CAPITOL RECORDS: Judge Dismisses Suit Over itunes Royalties
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Capitol Records and EMI Music
should not face a class action alleging that they owe artists like
Graciela Beltran more royalties for digital sales, a federal judge
ruled.


CHINESE DAILY: Entitled to Individualized Damages, 9th Cir. Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Gregg, Esq. -- mgregg@littler.com -- at Littler reports
that in Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS
4423 (9th Cir. Mar. 4, 2013), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit issued a decision that runs contrary to its prior
endorsement of the use of inferential statistics to award damages
in class actions.  The court for the first time ruled that
employers defending against wage and hour claims are "'entitled to
individualized determinations of each employee's eligibility' for
monetary relief" and entitled "to litigate any individual
affirmative defenses they may have to class members' claims."  The
Ninth Circuit also vacated the district court's certification
decision under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and
remanded the case to the district court to consider whether the
case should be certified as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3),
which requires proof that common questions of law and fact
predominate over questions affecting individual members.  The
decision will likely make it harder for plaintiffs to obtain class
action certification in federal courts within the Ninth Circuit.
Background

The plaintiffs in Wang v. Chinese Daily News filed a class action
against their employer -- a community newspaper -- for wage and
hour violations based on the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), California's Labor Code and section 17200 of the
California Business and Professions Code.  The plaintiffs claimed
that they were denied overtime compensation, meal and rest breaks,
and accurate wage statements.  The trial court certified the FLSA
claim as an opt-in collective action, and the state law claims as
an opt-out class action under Rule 23(b)(2), which applies to
class actions primarily seeking injunctive or declaratory, rather
than monetary, relief.

Following a 16-day trial, the jury returned a special verdict,
awarding the plaintiff class over $2.5 million in damages.  The
district court then held a bench trial on the remaining issues of
injunctive relief, penalties, and restitution pursuant to Business
and Professions Code section 17200.  The court denied the
plaintiffs' request for an injunction, concluding that the
employer had taken steps towards compliance with federal and state
wage and hour provisions such that the remaining injuries could be
remedied by money damages.

In 2010, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment, but on
October 3, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment and
remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit for further consideration
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011).

Ninth Circuit Departed from Its Prior Endorsement of Inferential
Statistics to Award Damages in Class Actions

In Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 767 (1996), the Ninth
Circuit affirmed an award of nearly two billion dollars to over
9,500 class members, which was determined by selecting 137 claims
at random and then extrapolating the validity and value of the
untested claims from that sample.  This procedure was supported by
expert testimony that an examination of 137 claims would achieve
"a 95 percent statistical probability that the same percentage
determined to be valid among the examined claims would be
applicable to the totality of claims filed."  The trial court then
selected a special master to review the claim forms and
depositions of the 137 randomly selected claimants and make
recommendations to the jury on damage awards to the remaining
class members.  The jury adopted most of the special master's
recommendations with respect to the 137 claimants and adopted the
recommendations as to the remaining class members.  The defendant
appealed the judgment on due process grounds, among others.  The
Ninth Circuit rejected the due process challenge and noted that
due process "is not a technical conception with a fixed content
unrelated to time, place and circumstances."  The decision to
affirm the judgment was based in large part on the fact that the
time and judicial resources required to try all the claims would
make resolution impossible.  After balancing the interests of the
judiciary and the parties, the court in Hilao concluded that the
statistical method used to award damages did not violate due
process.

The Ninth Circuit's ruling in Wang v. Chinese Daily News that
employers defending against wage and hour class actions are
"entitled to individualized determinations of each employee's
eligibility for monetary relief" and are entitled "to litigate any
individual affirmative defenses they may have to class members'
claims" departs from the court's prior endorsement in Hilao of the
use of inferential statistics to award damages in class actions.
Reversal of Certification of State Law Claims

In 2010, the Ninth Circuit initially affirmed the district court's
certification of the plaintiffs' state law monetary claims in Wang
under Rule 23(b)(2), which applies to cases seeking injunctive or
declaratory relief.  Significantly, a party seeking class
certification under Rule 23(b)(2) does not have to establish that
common questions of law and fact predominate.  The Ninth Circuit
affirmed certification of the monetary claims under the injunctive
relief provisions because the "claims for monetary and injunctive
relief were closely related" and "the request for monetary relief
neither 'introduce[d] new and significant legal and factual
issues,' nor raised particular due process manageability
concerns."

On remand, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Dukes
that claims for individualized monetary relief cannot be certified
under the injunctive/declaratory relief provisions, the Ninth
Circuit reversed the district court's certification of state law
claims under Rule 23(b)(2), and remanded the case to the district
court to reconsider its analysis under Rule 23(a)(2) and 23(b)(3).
With respect to the commonality requirement under Rule 23(a)(2),
the Ninth Circuit emphasized that, although a single common
question can satisfy the requirement, the common contention  must
be one that will resolve an issue central to the validity of the
plaintiffs' claims in "one stroke."  Moreover, the Ninth Circuit
instructed the district court that the plaintiffs "must show
significant proof" that the company operated under a general
policy that violated California labor laws.

As to the predominance requirement under Rule 23(b)(3), the Ninth
Circuit telegraphed to the district court that a certification
decision based solely on the fact that the employer had a uniform
policy of classifying all reporters and account executives as
exempt employees would be overturned.  The Ninth Circuit
emphasized that, as it previously held in In re Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage Overtime Pay Litigation, 571 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir.
2009), "a presumption that class certification is proper when an
employer's internal exemption policies are applied uniformly to
the employees . . . disregards the existence of other potential
individual issues that may make class treatment difficult if not
impossible."

                   Implications of the Decision

The decision in Wang v. Chinese Daily News is important because it
supports employers' arguments that they have a due process right
to defend against wage and hour claims on an individualized basis
and represents a departure from prior Ninth Circuit authority
endorsing the use of inferential statistics to award damages in
class actions. Consequently, the decision will likely make it
harder for plaintiffs to establish that litigation of wage and
hour claims on a class-wide basis is a superior -- or even an
appropriate -- method for resolving these types of claims.


CIBER INC: Motion to Dismiss "Weston" Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Ciber, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit
captioned, Weston v. Ciber, Inc. et al., remains pending in
Colorado, 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 October 28, 2011, a putative securities
class action lawsuit, Weston v. Ciber, Inc. et al., was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
against Ciber, its current Chief Executive Officer David C.
Peterschmidt, current Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer ("CFO") Claude J. Pumilia and former CFO Peter H.
Cheesbrough (the "Class Action"). The Class Action purports to
have been filed on behalf of all holders of Ciber common stock
between December 15, 2010, and August 3, 2011, by alleged
stockholder and plaintiff, Burt Weston. The Class Action generally
alleges that defendants Ciber, Mr. Peterschmidt, Mr. Pumilia and
Mr. Cheesbrough (the "Class Action Defendants") violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
the Class Action Defendants disseminated or approved alleged false
statements concerning the Company's outlook and forecast for
fiscal year 2011 in: (1) the Company's 8-K filed with the SEC and
press conference held with investors on December 15, 2010; (2) the
Company's press release and earnings conference call on February
22, 2011; (3) the Company's 10-K for fiscal year 2010 filed with
the SEC on February 25, 2011; and (4) the Company's press release,
earnings conference call, and Form 10-Q for first quarter 2011
filed with the SEC on May 3, 2011. The complaint also generally
alleges that the Class Action Defendants violated Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the
Class Action Defendants acted as controlling persons of Ciber
within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by reason
of their positions with the Company. The Class Action seeks, among
other things: (1) an order from the Court declaring the complaint
to be a proper class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and certifying plaintiff as a
representative of the purported class; (2) awarding plaintiff and
the members of the class damages, including interest; (3) awarding
plaintiff reasonable costs and attorneys' fees; and (4) awarding
such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The Court
appointed Mr. Weston and City of Roseville Employees' Retirement
System as lead plaintiffs and the law firms of Robbins, Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP and Robbins Umeda LLP as lead plaintiffs'
counsel on January 31, 2012. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint in early April 2012. The Class Action Defendants have
filed a motion to dismiss, which is currently pending. The Company
believes that the Class Action is without merit and intends to
defend against it vigorously. We are unable to predict the outcome
of this litigation."


CINNABAR SERVICE: Picher Class Action Awaits Scheduling Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melinda Stotts, writing for Miami News-Record, reports that
consolidation of 252 individual claims filed by Picher residents
against Cinnabar, the appraisal company hired by the Lead Impacted
Communities Relocation Assistance Trust (LICRAT), and several
insurance companies, into a class action lawsuit was certified by
Judge Dana Kuehn in Tulsa County District Court on March 12.

"The court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the
members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members, and that a class action is superior to other
available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the
controversy," Judge Kuehn's order says.

The claims, as documented in the Court's order for the case
CJ-09-2539 consolidated with CJ-10-2998, were that mining
operations conducted in and around the town of Picher resulted in
two major dangers to the population there: exposure to lead toxin
and subsidence or cave-in due to extensive underground mining or
tunneling.

LICRAT was formed and effective June 6, 2006, under the LICRAT Act
to help the residents of Picher, and taxpayer money for relocation
was distributed by LICRAT.

The decision says that the LICRAT Act delineated how the
properties were supposed to be evaluated and valued.  The trust
was to handle the claims of the residents who needed to relocate,
due to the hazardous living conditions.

The town was then struck by tragedy on May 10, 2008, when a
tornado hit Picher, destroying numerous homes and properties.
Numerous plaintiffs in the case had applications with the trust to
buy their property and collected various amounts of money from
their private insurance carriers or the Federal Emergency
Management Authority (FEMA) for damage to their residences.

Cinnabar, an appraisal company, was hired to help value the
properties of residents making a claim.

The third amended petition filed by the plaintiffs alleges
Cinnabar "Willfully and recklessly carried out cursory appraisals
and maliciously treated plaintiffs unfairly and prejudicially.
Favoritism is shown in their appraisal, including but not limited
to, favorable appraisals of property owned by persons linked to
trustees of the Trust . . . Further, when it serves (Cinnabar's)
best interests, appraisals are secured for comparison purposes
outside Ottawa County or outside the Superfund Site so as to
permit preferential or favored treatment to some favored by the
Trust or its members to the detriment of plaintiffs.  Securing
comparative property values outside Ottawa County is not
statutorily permissible."

"To view it as an opportunity to offer less is unacceptable,"
attorney for the plaintiffs Jeff Marr said.  "It was so prevalent,
so wrong, so inconsistent and underhanded."

Cinnabar argues that the process to evaluate was legitimate, and
there was not a conspiracy to defraud, and, therefore, no property
owner would have a lower-valued property.

The plaintiff's petition further alleges that Cinnabar routinely
conspired and engaged "in collusion in violation of Oklahoma law
in order to reduce monies offered plaintiffs to cheat them on a
pressured 'take-it-or-leave-it' basis under the buyout program
operated by the trust with taxpayer money."

Mr. Marr said, "What I heard repeatedly was they would go at them
(the plaintiffs) one at a time, and they were outnumbered and out
armed.  They were take-it-or-leave-it offers.  You could not have
not taken the offers when they were told they would have no water
or electricity. What are you going to do?"

Judge Kuehn's order says that the only issue before the court was
whether, "predominance and superiority," were present.  The
defendants in the case argued that the individual appraisals and
alleged resulting damages can't be separated or weighed.

"The liability issue the jury is to decide is whether or not
Cinnabar colluded with the Trust and insurance companies to
low-ball the appraisals and force the property owner to elect the
low rate . . . violated the rights of the property owners in the
process that was used to evaluate each claim, not the actual value
assigned," the Court's order says.

Judge Kuehn found that, "The actual loss in value for each
property does not have to be proven to the jury, only the
predominate question of was there collusion to defraud."

The court decision says that, "There is not an individual interest
of members of the class in individually controlling the
prosecution or defense in separate actions; the extent or nature
of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by
or against members of the class has been pending with this Court
in one case for years.  The class has been identified, the issues
narrowed, and the parties that will participate in the lawsuit
determined; concentrating the litigation of the claims in the
particular forum is desired by the Court and the parties; and the
Court does not anticipate any difficulties likely to be
encountered in the management of a class action."

"It makes sense.  This case is exactly why class action exists,"
Mr. Marr said.  "It became clear the most effective use of the
court's time, and the clients' time was to certify the class
action to move forward in one voice.  The class is going to get
their case heard much sooner.  God knows they've put in their
time. "

The specific defendants listed in the case are: Cinnabar Service
Company Inc., Van Tuyl & Associates, J. D. Strong, Larry Roberts,
and insurance companies; State Farm Fire and Casualty, Allstate,
America First, American Bankers of Florida, American Modern Home,
National Security Fire and Casualty, Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual,
Shelter Mutual , American Farmers & Ranchers Mutual and American
Western Home.

The next step in the process of the class-action lawsuit will be a
scheduling order from Judge Kuehn.  Depositions and discovery will
then commence and the trial should take place sometime this year.


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Storm Calls for New Settlement Negotiations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rae Wilson, writing for Daily News, reports that Storm Financial
victims in the Sherwood class action against the Commonwealth Bank
are rejecting the compensation deal made on the eve of a trial in
the Federal Court last year.

Class action group members will participate in a mass mail-out to
the Australian Securities and Investment chairman and CBA chief
legal officer charging that the compensation deal they announced
on September 14 was the product of ASIC's conflict of interest.

"It is wrong that I should be asked to consider accepting or
rejecting an ASIC compensation amount, funded by CBA or otherwise,
which is the product of negotiations in which neither I nor my
legal representatives were invited to participate," the letter
reads.

"There has been no transparency with respect to the data used in
any calculation or the opportunity for my own lawyers to appoint
their own forensic auditors, to determine what our total Storm-
related losses and my individual losses actually were."

ASIC has calculated investors lost about AUD830 million after
Storm's collapse in 2008 but the letter suggests that figure
depends on their definition of "losses".

The letter calls on the CBA to immediately engage in "new, good
faith negotiations with all of us" through Sydney law firm Levitt
Robinson, which is running the class action.  It asks the CBA to
open its books and records to victims' nominated forensic auditors
to come to their own conclusions, based on access to primary bank
data.  The letter writers also take issue with the bank and ASIC
referring to them as investors instead of borrowers.

"It is sad when ASIC uses the language of the bank to make me and
other borrowers seem more sophisticated and hence, less the
victims that you know we were," it reads.

The September deal involved ASIC entering an agreement with CBA to
make up to AUD136 million available as compensation for customer
losses suffered on investments made through Storm Financial.

The letter questions whether the timing of the agreement, on the
eve of CBA's scheduled trial, was "calculated to undermine the
Sherwood Class Action against CBA and Colonial First State".

"Repeatedly, ASIC through its public statements and its counsel in
court said it wanted to use its legal proceedings, brought in its
role as regulator, to seek declarations to set a higher bar for
dispensers of financial products and services.  How does ASIC see
its latest collaboration with CBA as achieving that?

CBA, upon being asked to respond to questions about the letter and
a renewed negotiation, said it "does not propose to respond"
because the claims could be part of class action proceedings
before the Federal Court.

A CBA spokeswoman said the bank had consulted with ASIC, Storm
clients and their representatives since 2009 and had resolved
claims for more than 2000 people.

"The bank believes that these measures delivered outcomes for its
customers that were commercially sensible and in their best
interests as they avoided uncertainty and years of litigation,"
she said.

"Commonwealth Bank is defending, and will continue to defend, the
Sherwood class action proceedings.  The bank believes that the
class action is misconceived.

"Commonwealth Bank did not provide and will argue that it is not
responsible for any financial advice provided by Storm Financial
to its clients."

An ASIC spokesman said the watchdog believed the compensation deal
is "a timely, fair and certain outcome" for Storm investors who
borrowed from CBA.

The spokesman said those who did not accept the offer had the
option to continue with court proceedings.

"Storm investors can be confident we would not have agreed to a
settlement unless we thought the compensation was appropriate," he
said.


CONVERGYS CORP: Seeks Reversal of Class Action Waiver Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Donahue, writing for Law360, reports that Convergys Corp.
pushed a Missouri federal judge on March 12 to rethink her
decision that class action waivers signed by the company's call
center employees are invalid, saying it conflicts with U.S.
Supreme Court precedent.  Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge
Carol E. Jackson ruled that the waivers would violate the National
Labor Relations Act if enforced because they improperly restrict
the right to concerted worker activity.  The ruling allowed a
collective wage-and-hour suit against the company to continue.


DINEEQUITY INC: "Fast" Collective Action Dismissed in November
--------------------------------------------------------------
The collection action filed by Gerald Fast against a subsidiary of
DineEquity, Inc. was dismissed in November 2012, 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 Company defended a collective action, Gerald Fast v.
Applebee's International, Inc., in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri, Central Division that
commenced in July 2006.  In this case, the plaintiffs claimed that
tipped servers and bartenders in Applebee's company-operated
restaurants spent more than 20% of their time performing general
preparation and maintenance duties, or "non-tipped work," for
which they should be compensated at the minimum wage.  Under this
action, plaintiffs sought unpaid wages and other relief of up to
$17 million plus plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses.  The
Company entered into a settlement agreement on September 25, 2012,
to settle the collective action for $9.1 million, and the court
granted final approval of the settlement and dismissed the action
on November 1, 2012.  The Company funded the settlement on
December 6, 2012.

Based in Glendale, California, DineEquity, Inc. --
http://www.dineequity.com/-- was incorporated in Delaware in 1976
with the name IHOP Corp.  The Company name was changed to
DineEquity in 2008.  With more than 3,600 restaurants combined in
17 countries and over 400 franchisees, DineEquity is one of the
largest full-service restaurant companies in the world.


DIODES INC: Faces Suit Over Dumping Shares at Inflated Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that insiders at Diodes Inc.
dumped $13.8 million in shares at inflated prices before the stock
price fell by 33%, shareholders say in a federal class action.


ERIE INDEMNITY: Continues to Defend "Sullivan" Suit in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------
Erie Indemnity Company continues to defend itself against a state
court lawsuit in Pennsylvania, captioned Joseph S. Sullivan and
Anita Sullivan, Patricia R. Beltz, and Jenna L. DeBord, trustees
ad litem v. Erie Indemnity Co., 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.

Erie Indemnity Company ("Indemnity") was named as a defendant in a
complaint filed on August 1, 2012, by alleged subscribers of the
Erie Insurance Exchange (the "Exchange") in the Court of Common
Pleas Civil Division of Fayette County, Pennsylvania captioned
Erie Insurance Exchange, an unincorporated association, by Joseph
S. Sullivan and Anita Sullivan, Patricia R. Beltz, and Jenna L.
DeBord, trustees ad litem v. Erie Indemnity Co. (the "Sullivan"
lawsuit).

As subsequently amended, the complaint alleges that, beginning on
September 1, 1997, Indemnity retained "Service Charges"
(installment fees) and "Added Service Charges" (late fees and
policy reinstatement charges) on policies written by the Exchange
and its insurance subsidiaries, which allegedly should have been
paid to the Exchange, in the amount of approximately $308 million.
In addition to their claim for monetary relief on behalf of the
Exchange, the plaintiffs seek an accounting of all
so-called intercompany transactions between Indemnity and the
Exchange from 1996 to date. Plaintiffs allege that Indemnity
breached its contractual, fiduciary, and equitable duties by
retaining Service Charges and Added Service Charges that should
have been retained by the Exchange.  Plaintiffs bring these same
claims under three separate derivative-type theories. First,
plaintiffs purport to bring suit as members of the Exchange on
behalf of the Exchange.  Second, plaintiffs purport to bring suit
as trustees ad litem on behalf of the Exchange. Third, plaintiffs
purport to bring suit on behalf of the Exchange pursuant to Rule
1506 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows
shareholders to bring suit derivatively on behalf of a corporation
or similar entity.

Indemnity removed the case from state court to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, on the
basis that it was a class action subject to removal under the
Federal Class Action Fairness Act. In October 2012, the federal
court remanded the case to state court. Indemnity has appealed the
remand order, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit will hear the appeal in March 2013. Indemnity has
requested that the state court stay all proceedings in the
Sullivan action pending the outcome of the appeal.

Indemnity filed a motion in the state court in November 2012
seeking dismissal of the lawsuit. A hearing on that motion was
held by the state court in February 2013, but a decision has not
yet been rendered.

Discovery is in its early stages.  Indemnity has meritorious legal
and factual defenses and intends to vigorously defend against all
allegations and requests for relief in the lawsuit.


EXPEDIA INC: $55-Mil. Judgment Sought in Texas Tax Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Heallen, writing for Law360, reports that the city of San
Antonio on March 12 asked a Texas federal judge to enter a $55
million judgment in a class action against online travel companies
Expedia Inc., Hotels.com LP, Hotwire Inc. and others found to have
underpaid hotel occupancy taxes to 173 cities.

A proposed final judgment filed by San Antonio incorporating a
jury's 2009 verdict against the booking companies requires
Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire, Orbitz LLC, Priceline.com Inc. and
Travelocity.com LP to collectively pay $54 million in unpaid
taxes, penalties and interest.


FOREST LABS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Action Over Junk Faxes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Heller, writing for Law360, reports that a Missouri judge
on March 13 refused to toss a proposed class action over junk
faxes, saying drugmaker Forest Laboratories Inc. had not shown
that faxes it sent to a St. Louis cardiology center were not
advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.  U.S. District Judge Jean C. Hamilton said the 40 junk faxes
that St. Louis Heart Center Inc. allegedly received between August
2010 and January 2011 may come under a category of promotional
material that would be covered by the TCPA.


HANOVER INSURANCE: Continues to Defend Durand Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., continues to defend itself in
the Durand Litigation in Kentucky, 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 March 12, 2007, a putative class action suit captioned Jennifer
A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and The Allmerica
Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The named
plaintiff, a former employee who received a lump sum distribution
from the Company's Cash Balance Plan (the "Plan") at or about the
time of her termination, claims that she and others similarly
situated did not receive the appropriate lump sum distribution
because in computing the lump sum, the Company understated the
accrued benefit in the calculation. The plaintiff claims that the
Plan understated her distributions and those of similarly situated
participants by failing to pay an additional so-called "whipsaw"
amount reflecting the present value of an estimate of future
interest credits from the date of the lump sum distribution to
each participant's retirement age of 65 discounted by applicable
IRS rates.

The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding two new named
plaintiffs and additional claims on December 11, 2009. In
response, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 30,
2010. In addition to the pending claim challenging the calculation
of lump sum distributions, the Amended Complaint included: (a) a
claim that the Plan failed to calculate participants' account
balances and lump sum payments properly because interest credits
were based solely upon the performance of each participant's
selection from among various hypothetical investment options (as
the Plan provided) rather than crediting the greater of that
performance or the 30 year Treasury rate; (b) a claim that the
2004 Plan amendment, which changed interest crediting for all
participants from the performance of participant's investment
selections to the 30 year Treasury rate, reduced benefits in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") for participants who had account balances as of the
amendment date by not continuing to provide them performance-based
interest crediting on those balances; and (c) claims against the
Company for breach of fiduciary duty and ERISA notice requirements
arising from the various interest crediting and lump sum
distribution matters of which Plaintiffs complain. The District
Court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss the additional
claims on statute of limitations grounds by a Memorandum Opinion
dated March 31, 2011, leaving the claims substantially as set
forth in the original March 12, 2007 complaint. Plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Reconsideration of the District Court's decision to
dismiss the additional claims, which was denied with respect to
the claims set forth in (a) and (b); however, the Court did allow
the fiduciary duty claim regarding plaintiffs' "whipsaw" claim to
stand. On June 22, 2012, the Company and the Plan filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment to dismiss the claims of one of the
plaintiffs who received his lump sum distribution after December
31, 2003, on the basis that certain amendments to the Plan
effective January 1, 2004 eliminated any basis for payment of an
additional "whipsaw" amount to participants who received lump sum
distributions after December 31, 2003. On December 13, 2012, the
Court held this motion in abeyance pending a ruling on Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Class Certification on January 14, 2013. On February 8, 2013, the
Company and the Plan informed the Court that they did not oppose
the certification of a class.

At this time, the Company is unable to provide a reasonable
estimate of the potential range of ultimate liability if the
outcome of the suit is unfavorable. The extent to which any of the
Plaintiffs' multiple theories of liability, some of which are
overlapping and others of which are quite complex and novel, are
accepted and upheld on appeal will significantly affect the Plan's
or the Company's potential liability. The statute of limitations
applicable to the alleged class has not yet been finally
determined and the extent of potential liability, if any, will
depend on this final determination. In addition, assuming for
these purposes that the Plaintiffs prevail with respect to claims
that benefits accrued or payable under the Plan were understated,
then there are numerous possible theories and other variables upon
which any revised calculation of benefits as requested under
Plaintiffs' claims could be based. Any adverse judgment in this
case against the Plan would be expected to create a liability for
the Plan, with resulting effects on the Plan's assets available to
pay benefits. The Company's future required funding of the Plan
could also be impacted by such a liability.


HEBEI WELCOME: China Balks at U.S. Ruling on Vitamin C Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Burkitt, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Beijing lashed out on March 19 at a U.S. court decision finding
Chinese manufacturers of vitamin C liable for price fixing, saying
the ruling would have negative global repercussions.

Officials from China's Ministry of Commerce urged the U.S. court
to reverse its decision, saying the ruling was unfair to the
Chinese companies, Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. and affiliated
company North China Pharmaceutical Group Corp.  The two companies
were ordered last week to pay $162 million in damages for the
antitrust claims in a civil trial in federal court in Brooklyn.

"If they don't correct the mistake, it will bother the global
society and global companies, which eventually harms U.S.
interests by increasing national disputes," a government spokesman
said at a news briefing on March 19.

Experts say that strong language from China's government raises
the possibility of a tit-for-tat response.  "This is a not-too-
subtle hint that we can expect retaliation against American
companies doing business in China," said James Zimmerman, partner
with the Beijing office of the international law firm of Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

The U.S. and China are tussling over trade issues on a number of
fronts, including China's dominance in the production of "rare
earth" minerals, used in manufacturing, and state support in the
ailing solar-panel industry.

North China Pharmaceutical plans to appeal the fine, the state-run
Xinhua news agency said on March 17.

Plaintiffs, including a Texas animal-feed company and a New Jersey
vitamin distributor, alleged the Chinese vitamin C makers
voluntarily formed an illegal price-fixing cartel that increased
prices significantly and resulted in tens of millions of dollars
of added costs for U.S. consumers since late 2001.

The vitamin C makers argued that Beijing forced them to coordinate
pricing and output.

Attempts to blame the price fixing on directives from the Chinese
government ran counter to China's declarations to U.S. government
agencies and the World Trade Organization that it doesn't compel
price fixing for any exported product, the plaintiffs argued.

The raw vitamins from the Chinese companies were used as food and
beverage ingredients, consumer vitamin supplements and animal
products, the plaintiffs said.

China's Commerce Ministry said it would continue to support the
Chinese companies.  It previously filed papers supporting the
companies' position and urged that the case be thrown out, saying
it couldn't be resolved without interfering with China's affairs.


ING BANK: Faces Class Action Over Fraudulent Mortgage Offer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that ING Bank dba ING Direct
fraudulently offer renewable mortgages with a balloon payment,
then won't renew them or charges more to renew than it promised, a
class action claims in Superior Court.


JOHN HANCOCK: May Face Class Action Over Life Insurance Payments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Galen Moore, writing for Boston Business Journal, reports that an
Illinois man, who claims John Hancock let his deceased mother's
life insurance benefit linger unpaid, is reportedly seeking class-
action status for his lawsuit.

According to the Boston Globe, the lawsuit filed in federal court
in Boston alleges Boston-Based John Hancock Financial Services
Inc. used the Social Security Administration's master death list
to check for the death of annuity holders, in order to stop
payments immediately.  Hancock did not use the same practice when
it came to paying beneficiaries of life insurance policies,
according to the complaint -- resulting in a four-year delay for
life insurance beneficiary Richard Feingold.

Hancock has already settled similar complaints brought by
regulators in several states, to the tune of $13.3 million.

Other insurers have done the same.  MetLife, for example, agreed
to pay $478 million, according to the Globe.

Mr. Feingold's attorney is Brian J. Wanca of Anderson & Wanca in
Rolling Meadows, Ill., according to the Globe.

Hancock has asked the court to dismiss the suit.  The company
declined to comment specifically, but issued a statement: "The
vast majority of our contract and policyholder benefits are paid
in a timely manner.  We are pleased to further strengthen efforts
to locate beneficiaries in those relatively small number of cases
where claims are not submitted."


KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Overtime Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kaiser Foundation Health Plan
Inc. stiffed employees for overtime for years, a class action
claims in Federal Court.


KEYCORP: Continues to Defend Checking Account Overdraft Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
KeyCorp continues to defend itself in a Checking Account Overdraft
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.

KeyBank was named a defendant in a putative class action seeking
to represent a national class of KeyBank customers allegedly
harmed by KeyBank's overdraft practices. The complaint alleges
that KeyBank unfairly manipulates customer transactions to
maximize the number of overdraft charges. The claims asserted
against KeyBank include breach of contract and breach of covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, common law unconscionability,
conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiffs seek restitution and
disgorgement of overdraft fees paid by plaintiffs since February
2004 as a result of the alleged manipulation of customer
transactions, damages, expenses of litigation, attorneys' fees,
and other relief deemed equitable by the court. The case was
transferred and consolidated for purposes of pre-trial discovery
and motion proceedings to a multidistrict proceeding styled In Re:
Checking Account Overdraft Litigation pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida. KeyBank filed
a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit in regard to the denial of KeyBank's motion to
compel arbitration. On August 21, 2012, the court of appeals
vacated the district court's order denying KeyBank's motion to
compel arbitration and remanded the case for further
consideration. At this stage of the proceedings it is too early to
determine if the matter would reasonably be expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition.


KEYCORP: Court Terminated Metyk Litigation in January
-----------------------------------------------------
KeyCorp obtained in January 2013 a dismissal order for the
consolidated class action lawsuit captioned, Thomas Metyk, et al.
v. KeyCorp, et al., according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "Two putative class actions were filed on
September 21, 2010 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio (the "Northern District of Ohio"). The
plaintiffs in these cases sought to represent a class of all
participants in our 401(k) Savings Plan and alleged that the
defendants in the lawsuit breached fiduciary duties owed to them
under ERISA. These two putative class action lawsuits were
substantively consolidated with each other in a proceeding styled
Thomas Metyk, et al. v. KeyCorp, et al. ("Metyk"). A substantially
similar class action, Taylor v. KeyCorp, et al., was dismissed
from the Northern District of Ohio on August 12, 2010. This
dismissal was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit on May 25, 2012. On January 29, 2013, the
district court in Metyk entered its order granting the defendants'
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' consolidated complaint for
failure to state a claim and entered its final judgment
terminating the proceeding."


KIRBY CORP: Seeks Dismissal of "Rescue Mission" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Kirby Corporation is asking the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey to dismiss the class action lawsuit
initiated by Rescue Mission of El Paso., Inc., et al., 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 July 1, 2011, the Company completed the acquisition of K-Sea
Transportation Partners L.P., an operator of tank barges and
tugboats participating in the coastal transportation primarily of
refined petroleum products in the United States.  On April 17,
2012, the Company changed the name of K-Sea to Kirby Offshore
Marine, LLC, to more fully integrate the Company's coastal
operations with the Company's inland marine transportation
operations.

On January 30, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey in a case styled Rescue Mission of El Paso., Inc.,
et al. v. John J. Nicola, et al., the Company, its subsidiary, K-
Sea, and current and former officers and directors of K-Sea were
named defendants in a putative class action complaint asserting
that during the period of January 30, 2009, to January 27, 2010,
K-Sea allegedly failed to disclose certain facts regarding K-Sea's
operations and financial condition, and asserting violations of
Sections 10(b)(5) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  Plaintiff seeks class
certification, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff filed its Amended Consolidated Complaint on behalf
of the class on July 9, 2012.  The Company filed a motion to
dismiss in response to the Complaint.

The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter based on the
information available to the Company at this time.  The Company
does not expect the outcome of this matter to have a material
adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements; however,
there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of this
matter.

Founded in 1921 and headquartered in Houston, Texas, Kirby
Corporation -- http://www.kirbycorp.com/-- through its
subsidiaries, provides marine transportation and diesel engine
services primarily in the United States.


LABORATORY CORP: Claims in MEDTOX-Related Suits Dismissed in Feb.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Claims against Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings in
MEDTOX-related class action lawsuits were dismissed in February
2013, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

Three shareholder class actions, Carol A. Kiel v. Braun, et al,
Louise Perlman v. MEDTOX Scientific, et al., and John Siciliano v.
MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al., were filed in connection with the
acquisition of MEDTOX in the County of Ramsey, Second Judicial
District for the State of Minnesota. The lawsuits challenged the
MEDTOX acquisition on grounds of alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty and/or other violations of state law. The Company and its
merger subsidiary were named only in the Kiel and Perlman cases.
On July 20, 2012, the parties, through their counsel, executed a
Memorandum of Understanding setting forth their agreement in
principle to settle all three of the putative shareholder class
actions. The Memorandum of Understanding was subsequently
superseded by a Stipulation of Settlement dated October 12, 2012,
and the settlement was approved by the Court on February 13, 2013.
Under the terms of the settlement, all claims were dismissed with
prejudice.


LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend "Jansky" Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 7, 2012, Laboratory Corporation Of America Holdings was
served with a putative class action lawsuit, Yvonne Jansky v.
Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. The
lawsuit alleges that the defendants committed unlawful and unfair
business practices, and violated various other state laws by
changing screening codes to diagnostic codes on laboratory test
orders, thereby resulting in customers being responsible for co-
payments and other debts. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief,
actual and punitive damages, as well as recovery of attorney's
fees, and legal expenses. The Company will vigorously defend the
lawsuit.

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


LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend "Pepe" Suit in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 7, 2012, Laboratory Corporation Of America Holdings was
served with a putative class action lawsuit, Ann Baker Pepe v.
Genzyme Corporation and Laboratory Corporation of America
Holdings, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants
failed to preserve DNA samples allegedly entrusted to the
defendants and thereby breached a written agreement with plaintiff
and violated state laws. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief,
actual, double and treble damages, as well as recovery of
attorney's fees and legal expenses. The Company will vigorously
defend the lawsuit.

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


LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend "Sandusky" Suit in Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On August 24, 2012, Laboratory Corporation Of America Holdings was
served with a putative class action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness
Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
The lawsuit alleges that on or about February 21, 2012, the
defendants violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
by sending unsolicited facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39
other recipients without the recipients' prior express invitation
or permission. The lawsuit seeks actual damages or the sum of
$0.0005 for each violation, whichever is greater, and injunctive
relief. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

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


LIVE NATION: Judge Rejects Class Action Over Parking Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that Live
Nation should not face a class action over the parking charges it
automatically adds to tickets prices, a federal judge ruled.

The dispute stems from a ticket James Batson bought from Live
Nation Entertainment in July 2010 to attend an O.A.R. concert at
the Charter One Pavilion in Chicago.

Although Batson walked to the concert, his ticket stated "$9 PRK
PAID," and he was never informed that he could get a certificate
valid for parking at the downtown Soldier Field North Garage.

In a federal class action, Batson called the $9 fee a "forced
parking charge," and claimed that he "was forced to either
purchase parking or decline to attend the concert altogether - the
tickets could not be purchased apart from the parking."

He also said the forced charge violated antitrust laws against
"tying" two separate products, and violated public policies in
favor of environmentally friendly modes of transportation.

U.S. District Judge Gary Feinerman dismissed Batson's amended
complaint with prejudice Wednesday.

The ruling notes that 7th Circuit precedent requires plaintiffs to
prove "oppressive conduct" by showing that they have no access to
alternate products and services.

Here, however, "as the amended complaint twice alleges, Batson and
other consumers could have avoided the $9 parking fee simply by
choosing not to purchase a ticket to the O.A.R. concert,"
Feinerman wrote.  "It is indisputable that there were plenty of
other avenues for musical and other entertainment in Chicago the
evening of July 10, 2010."

Feinerman also rejected claims that Live Nation's policy violates
public policy.

"Batson argues that Defendants' practice 'violates public policies
in favor of walking, biking, and public transportation' and
against 'drunk driving,'" the judge wrote.  "Batson's premise
seems to be that a concert-goer who buys a ticket with an embedded
$9 parking fee would drive and park rather than walk and take
public transportation - just for the sake of using the space that
he paid for - and then, to boot, would drink too much at the
concert and drive home.  That certainly is not what Batson did; he
walked to the concert, bought his ticket, and then did not go back
home, pick up his car, and claim his rightful parking space."

In refusing to let Batson further amend his claims, the judge said
"any attempt to plead an ICFA[Illinois Consumer Fraud Act]
unfairness claim would be futile."

Before it merged with Ticketmaster in 2010 to become the world's
largest ticket producer, Live Nation controlled 46 percent of all
U.S. ticket sales.  Today it owns the only amphitheaters in 18 of
25 regions in the country.

Pollster reportedly found that Live Nation accounted for 70% of
tickets for major artists in 1996.


MADISON COUNTY, IL: Judge Stobbs to Handle Bathon Tax Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Stueve Hodges, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that Madison County Associate Judge Steve Stobbs was
assigned to a class action lawsuit against Madison County over
delinquent tax sales handled by former Madison County treasurer
Fred Bathon.

Mr. Bathon, 58, who was treasurer from November 1998 until
December 2009, pled guilty Feb. 5 in federal court to violating
the Sherman Antitrust Act.  He was convicted of structuring
Madison County property tax sales in a way that increased prices
and rewarded campaign contributors.

Chief Judge Ann Callis reassigned the case from Circuit Judge
William Mudge to Stobbs on March 7.

Judge Mudge filed an order Feb. 22, stating he was required to
recuse himself from the case due to his former representation of
Madison County within the preceding three years while serving in
his capacity as Madison County State's Attorney.

St. Jacob attorney John Barberis and Collinsville lawyer Steve
Giacoletto filed the class action lawsuit Feb. 21 on behalf of
property owners who allege they suffered financial losses in
relation to delinquent tax sale auctions administered by Madison
County officials from 2005-2009.

Messrs. Barberis and Giacoletto, named Madison County, Mr. Bathon,
and individuals linked to the tax sale as defendants, including
John Vassen, Dennis Ballinger, Robert Luken, John Scott, Scott
McClean and Edward Beasley.

Madison County case number 13-L-276.


MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Suit Over RMBS Offerings
------------------------------------------------------------
Luther, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al.,
pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, was
filed on November 14, 2007 and involves claims related to Morgan
Stanley's role as an underwriter of various residential mortgage
backed securities offerings issued by affiliates of Countrywide
Financial Corporation. The amended complaint includes allegations
that the registration statements and the offering documents
contained false and misleading statements about the residential
mortgage loans backing the securities. The Company underwrote
approximately $6.3 billion of the principal amount of the
offerings at issue. On December 19, 2011, defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint. In February 2012, defendants moved to stay
the case pending resolution of a securities class action brought
by the same plaintiffs, styled Maine State Retirement System v.
Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al., in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. In June
2012, the defendants removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. The motion
to remand the matter was denied in August 2012.

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


MORGAN STANLEY: Court Sets May 6 Trial in Cheyne SIV-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action lawsuit captioned, Abu Dhabi Commercial
Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al., has been set
for May 6, 2013, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2012.

On August 25, 2008, the Company and two ratings agencies were
named as defendants in a purported class action related to
securities issued by a SIV called Cheyne Finance PLC and Cheyne
Finance LLC (together, the "Cheyne SIV"). The case is styled Abu
Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al.
and is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the
SIV were false and misleading, including because the ratings did
not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime RMBS
held by the SIV. The plaintiffs currently assert allegations of
aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation relating
to approximately $852 million of securities issued by the Cheyne
SIV. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied in
June 2010. The court denied the Company's motion for summary
judgment on the aiding and abetting fraud claim in August 2012.
The Company's motion for summary judgment on the negligent
misrepresentation claim, filed on November 30, 2012, is pending.
The court has set a trial date of May 6, 2013. There are currently
14 named plaintiffs in the action claiming damages of
approximately $638 million, as well as punitive damages.


NEW YORK CITY: Mayor Urged to Negotiate Equal Pay Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Teamsters Local Union 287 disclosed that Teamsters General
President Jim Hoffa and Teamsters Local 237 President Greg Floyd
held a press conference on March 13 to urge Mayor Mike Bloomberg
to intervene in the ongoing school safety agent federal class
action lawsuit demanding equal pay.  Joining in support was George
Miranda, President Joint Council 16 Teamsters.

More than 5,000 current and former school safety agents -- 70
percent of whom are women -- have joined the gender-based wage
discrimination suit, which seeks to remedy the fact that other
peace-officer titles, which are 70 percent male, receive $7,000
more in annual pay.  Teamsters Local 237 represents the school
safety agents and has repeatedly tried to address this 20 percent
pay inequity through contract negotiations with the city's Office
of Labor Relations, but it has refused to engage.  The retroactive
settlement the parties seek is about $35 million.

"We call on the Mayor Bloomberg to help us resolve this terrible
injustice and disparity," Mr. Hoffa said.  "School safety agents
play a critical role in keeping our children, their teachers and
education administrators, safe every day.  They should be paid the
same as their male counterparts at New York City's hospitals and
other city offices."

"Mayor Bloomberg needs to step in now and solve this problem.  The
lawsuit has dragged out far too long, and the city has tarnished
its ideals by refusing to negotiate and choosing instead to
aggressively litigate against brave officers," Mr. Floyd said.
"We are celebrating International Women's History Month,
Mr. Mayor, and equal pay for equal work is one of the fundamental
rights we celebrate.  Let's act now to end gender-based wage
discrimination among city employees."

Representatives of the workers said they believed that a
settlement could be reached without going to court. "Fair
settlements are always better than courtroom battles," said
plaintiffs' attorney James L. Linsey.  "The best battle is the
battle that ends with a handshake and a fair deal."

Founded in 1903, the Teamsters Union -- http://www.teamster.org--
represents more than 1.4 million hardworking men and women in the
United States, Canada and Puerto Rico.

Teamsters Local 237 -- http://www.local237.org-- represents over
24,000 employees, including about 5,000 school safety agents in
all public schools in the City of New York.


NEW YORK LIFE: Agents' FLSA Suit Transferred to N.Y. Court
----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID P. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO.,
Defendant, C.A. No. 12-11026-MLW, (D. Mass.), is a putative class
action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1332(d) by
Christopher Sweet, Richard Torres, Richard Torres II, Michael
Wiseman and David Johnson against New York Life Insurance Co., New
York Life Insurance and Annuity Corp., NYLife Insurance Co. of
Arizona, and NYLife Securities LLC.

The suit is brought on behalf of insurance agents currently or
formerly employed by defendants in the United States and in
Massachusetts. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to
meet the overtime and minimum wage requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 and the Massachusetts Minimum
Fair Wage Law, M.G.L. c. 151.

The Defendants have moved to transfer the case pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1404(a) to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, where a class action brought by the
plaintiffs' counsel and alleging the same FLSA overtime claim was
first-filed and remains pending.

On March 14, 2013, District Judge Mark L. Wolf concluded that the
Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue is meritorious, and will
therefore, be allowed.

"[T]his case is transferred to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York," ruled Judge Wolfe. "[T]he
Southern District of New York is a more convenient forum for most
of the expected witnesses in this case, and . . . litigation in
New York would promote the interests of justice by avoiding the
risk of inconsistent judgments, conserving judicial resources, and
discouraging forum shopping."

A copy of the District Court's March 14, 2013 memorandum and order
is available at http://is.gd/itijwefrom Leagle.com.


NOVA SCOTIA: To Challenge Sydney Tar Pond Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Selena Ross, writing for Herald News, reports that the federal and
Nova Scotia governments were slated to go to court last week to
fight the certification of a class action over the infamous Sydney
tar ponds.

The lawsuit, which represents people who live or have lived near
the former steel plant, coke ovens and tar ponds, was certified in
Nova Scotia Supreme Court in January 2012.  Beginning March 19,
the federal and provincial governments would seek to overturn that
certification, which allows the class action to proceed as a
single case.

Documents filed in the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal show the
governments will challenge several aspects of Justice John D.
Murphy's certification decision, including the commonality of the
claims and a lack of evidence for some of them.

For example, lawyers for the defendants wrote that "the definition
of 'the contaminants' in the statement of claim contains a long
list of substances, but the plaintiffs only led evidence relating
to the presence of lead, arsenic and PAHs (polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons) in the soil."

Since the plaintiffs didn't provide evidence for the presence of
any of the other contaminants named, the list should not have been
certified as a whole, the lawyers argued.

The class action seeks compensation for property damage and
exposure to the ponds, as well as money to establish a mechanism
to monitor the medical risks posed by the ponds' toxic emissions,
according to a news release from Wagners law firm, which is
representing the plaintiffs.

The court proceedings will be open to the public and streamed
online at bit.ly/WgCqiW

At the certification hearing last winter, it was "generally
agreed" that the class comprises 40,000 to 50,000 people,
according to court documents.


NPC INT'L: Pizza Hut Franchisee Facing Minimum Wage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanford J. Schmidt, writing for The Telegraph, reports that a
Memphis law firm has filed a federal class action suit against a
firm that owns 1,200 Pizza Hut restaurants, including one in
Alton.

The suit claims the firm, NPC International Inc., encourages shift
managers to work "off the clock," resulting in working for less
than minimum wage.  NPC International Inc. is the world's largest
franchisee of Pizza Huts and operates more than 1,200 in the
United States.  Along with the Alton restaurant, it also has
locations in Bethalto, Collinsville, Edwardsville, Godfrey,
Granite City, Jerseyville, Troy and Wood River.

"Pursuant to NPC's uniform policies and practices, plaintiff and
other members of the class have been encouraged, permitted and/or
required to perform prescribed duties before, after and during
their regular shifts without being clocked in to NPC's electronic
timekeeping system," the suit claims.

The managers also are required to attend regular meetings and
training sessions off the clock, the suit alleges.

A Web site gives examples of other alleged unfair labor practices.

For example, a tipped employee, such as a waiter, may be required
to prepare food.  Another example would be an employee being
required to clock out before delivering a pizza.

Another example would be a cook required to clock out at 39 hours
and 59 minutes, avoiding working in a full-time capacity.

When "off the clock" time is added to their regular hours, the
average wage is less than the federal minimum wage, according to
the suit filed by attorney Gordon Jackson of Memphis.  As a result
of the off-the-clock hours, they are entitled to overtime pay, the
suit contends.

The suit was filed in a U.S. District Court in Tennessee, but any
shift manager who has been subject to unfair wage practices could
be compensated as a member of the class.  The two named plaintiffs
work in Henderson, Tenn.  The suit also claims the firm violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act when it required servers to perform
"side work," accounting for more than 20 percent of the servers'
shifts while clocking in as tipped employees.  The firm allegedly
required tipped employees to work for less than minimum wage.

Mr. Jackson refers in a news release to the class action suit as a
"collective action."

"Collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act are unique.

"They allow similarly situated employees to join in the lawsuit if
they wish.  Yet, they allow similarly situated employees to hire
their own attorney and file their own lawsuit, if they so choose."

"The Fair Labor Standards Act makes it unlawful for an employer to
retaliate against employees for joining a collective action
lawsuit," Mr. Jackson said.

NPC Pizza Hut employees who feel they have been made to work "off
the clock" or who have been made to perform "side duties" while
clocked in as tipped employees may be eligible to join the suit.

More information about each of the suits is available at
http://www.npcofftheclock.comor by calling (800) 872-8001.

A spokesman for Pizza Hut could not be reached for comment.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed in Jan.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated Securities Exchange Act Litigation against
RadioShack Corporation was voluntarily dismissed in January 2013,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "In July and August 2012, two purported class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York against the Company and our former
Chief Executive Officer. The complaints allege that we and our
former CEO violated the federal securities laws, specifically
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
by making purportedly false and misleading statements concerning
the adverse impact of a corporate strategy to transform ourselves
from a seller of consumer electronics and accessories into a
reseller of wireless products. On November 27, 2012, acting upon
the Company's Motion to Transfer Venue, the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York transferred the cases
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, which consolidated the cases on December 17, 2012. On
January 2, 2013, the court was notified by plaintiffs' counsel
that they intended to file a motion to voluntary dismiss the case
without prejudice. On January 3, 2013, the court entered an order
dismissing the case without prejudice."


RADIOSHACK CORP: "Brookler" Suit Remains Pending in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit Brookler v. RadioShack Corporation remains pending in
California, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On April 6, 2004, plaintiffs filed a putative
class action in Los Angeles Superior Court, Brookler v. RadioShack
Corporation, claiming that we violated California's wage and hour
laws relating to meal and rest periods. The meal period portion of
the case was originally certified as a class action in February
2006. Our first Motion for Decertification of the class was denied
in August 2007. After a favorable decision at the California Court
of Appeals in the similar case of Brinker Restaurant Corporation
v. Superior Court, we filed a second motion for decertification,
and in October 2008 the trial court granted our motion. The
plaintiffs in Brookler appealed this ruling. Due to the unsettled
nature of California law regarding the obligations of employers in
respect of meal periods, we and the Brookler plaintiffs requested
that the California Court of Appeals stay its ruling on the
plaintiffs' appeal of the class decertification ruling pending the
California Supreme Court's decision in Brinker. The appellate
court denied this joint motion and then heard oral arguments in
the case on August 5, 2010. On August 26, 2010, the California
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decertification of the
class, and our Petition for Rehearing was denied on September 14,
2010. On September 28, 2010, we filed a Petition for Review with
the California Supreme Court, which granted review and placed the
case on hold pending its decision in Brinker. On April 12, 2012,
the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Brinker. On
June 20, 2012, the California Supreme Court remanded the Brookler
case to the California Court of Appeals instructing it to vacate
its prior order and reconsider its ruling in light of its ruling
in Brinker. Both parties filed their supplemental briefs and oral
argument was held on November 1, 2012. On December 5, 2012, the
Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decertification of the
meal period class. It is anticipated that counsel for Brookler
will attempt to amend the Complaint to add additional sub-classes.
The outcome of this case is uncertain and the ultimate resolution
of it could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
financial statements in the period in which the resolution is
recorded."


RADIOSHACK CORP: Final Hearing in "Sosinov" Suit Set for March 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing of a settlement in Sosinov v. RadioShack
Corporation is scheduled for March 27, 2013, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "In November 2010 RadioShack received service
of process with respect to the first of four putative class action
lawsuits filed in California (Sosinov v. RadioShack, Los Angeles
Superior Court; Bitter v. RadioShack, Federal District Court,
Central District of California; Moreno v. RadioShack, Federal
District Court, Southern District of California; and Grant v.
RadioShack, San Francisco Superior Court). The plaintiffs in all
of these cases seek damages under California's Song-Beverly Credit
Card Act (the "Act"). Plaintiffs claim that under one section of
the Act, retailers are prohibited from recording certain personal
identification information regarding their customers while
processing credit card transactions unless certain statutory
exceptions are applicable. The Act provides that any person who
violates this section is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$250 for the first violation and $1,000 for each subsequent
violation. In each of the cases, plaintiffs allege that we
violated the Act by asking them for personal identification
information while processing a credit card transaction and then
recording it. In May 2011 the Bitter case was stayed by the court
pending the conclusion of the Sosinov case. In June 2012, the
Moreno case was settled for a nominal amount and dismissed. In
July 2012, we reached a settlement of the Sosinov case. In
November 2012, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. Notices have been sent to the class members. A final
approval hearing is scheduled for March 27, 2013. The class of
plaintiffs in the Sosinov case includes the plaintiffs in the
Grant and Bitter cases. Therefore resolving the Sosinov case will
resolve the Grant and Bitter claims, although the plaintiffs in
Bitter have filed an objection to the proposed settlement in
Sosinov. The settlement will not have a material adverse effect on
our consolidated financial statements."


RADIOSHACK CORP: Settlement in FACTA Suit Pending Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement in a consolidated class action lawsuit alleging that
RadioShack Corporation violated the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act of 2003 is pending court approval, 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 26, 2011, Scott D.H. Redman
filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. Mr. Redman claims that we violated certain provisions of
the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA"),
which amended the Fair Credit Reporting Act, by displaying the
expiration dates of our customers' credit or debit cards on
electronically printed transaction receipts. Mr. Redman filed a
motion seeking to certify a class that includes all persons to
whom the Company provided an electronically printed transaction
receipt, in transactions occurring after June 3, 2008, that
displayed the expiration date of the person's credit or debit
card. On November 3, 2011, Mario Aliano and Vitoria Radavicuite
filed a similar putative class action lawsuit against the Company,
also in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, alleging similar violations of FACTA. Mr. Aliano and
Ms. Radavicuite initially filed a motion seeking to certify a
class that includes all persons to whom the Company provided an
electronically printed transaction receipt, in transactions
occurring in Illinois after June 3, 2008, that displayed the
expiration date of the person's credit or debit card. On December
28, 2011, Mr. Aliano and Ms. Radavicuite filed an amended
complaint and an amended motion seeking to certify a class that
was not limited to transactions occurring in Illinois. On January
11, 2012, the Aliano lawsuit was reassigned to the judge presiding
over the Redman lawsuit on the basis of relatedness, and the two
cases were consolidated for all purposes. On January 25, 2012, the
presiding judge referred the matter to the magistrate judge
assigned to the consolidated cases for mediation, extending the
time by which the Company must respond to the pending complaints
to such time as the magistrate judge shall order, and holding the
motions for class certification in abeyance. In November 2012 the
parties reached a tentative settlement. The parties are currently
negotiating the terms of a settlement agreement. The settlement
has not been presented to the Court for approval. The outcome of
these cases is still uncertain and the ultimate resolution of them
could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial
statements in the period in which the resolution is recorded."


SEARCH CACTUS: Faces Class Action Over Sending Spam Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Search Cactus et al. sent
millions of deceptive spam messages with bogus "gift" offers, a
class action claims in Federal Court.

Here are the defendants in the spam class action: Search Cactus
LLC; Fosina Marketing Group Inc.; North American Membership Group,
Inc.; Emusic.com Inc.; Consumerinfo.com Inc.; Net Markets LLC;
International Masters Publishing Inc.; Annie's Publishing LLC;
Equifax Information Services LLC; Efamily Network Inc., Real
Networks, Inc.; Paradigm Visions, Inc.; Players Vacation Club,
Inc.; JBR Media Ventures LLC; Find Fine Deals LLC; Inuvo Inc.;
Meredith Corporation; and Sandvik Publishing Interactive Inc.


SIGMA: Shareholder Class Action Settlement Hits Profits by 60%
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that Sigma's decision to
settle a shareholder class action has dragged down its full-year
profit by more than 60%.

The drugs wholesaler and pharmacy support services provider's net
profit for the year to January 31 slumped to $18.7 million from
$49.2 million the previous year.  The result was affected by legal
expenses related to the company's $57.5 million settlement of the
class action.  The case was brought against the pharmacy chain
owner in 2010 by shareholders seeking damages from alleged non-
disclosures by Sigma.

Excluding those costs, Sigma's net profit rose 4% to $52.3
million.  Revenues from continuing operations rose 3.1% to $2.9
billion, despite the impact of reforms to the federal government's
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Managing director Mark Hooper did not give any earnings guidance
for the year ahead but said Sigma would continue to pursue
improved returns.  He said while there were still challenges ahead
for retail pharmacies, including continued reform around the PBS,
there was a great opportunity for Sigma to provide a more
integrated offering across the pharmacy business.

"We believe the longer-term solution is about a holistic focus
right across pharmacy so it's about clinical and professional
services and the retail piece," Mr. Hooper said.

"There's some really exciting work we're doing on the clinical
piece at the moment and we think there's some real opportunities
there -- not only in terms of the practices that a lot of
pharmacists are doing at the moment around med checks and home-
based medicine reviews, but there's a more integrated solution
that we think is possible."

Sigma, which is behind pharmacy retail brands Amcal, Amcal Max and
Guardian, maintained its fully-franked final dividend at 2 cents a
share.

Chairman Brian Jamieson said Sigma should be able to maintain its
high dividend pay-out ratio for the foreseeable future.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Awaits Decision in Captive Reinsurance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss the remaining class action lawsuit related to "captive
reinsurance" arrangements, 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.

SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. ("STM") and Twin Rivers Insurance Company
("Twin Rivers") have been named as defendants in two putative
class actions alleging that the companies entered into illegal
"captive reinsurance" arrangements with private mortgage insurers.
More specifically, plaintiffs allege that SunTrust's selection of
private mortgage insurers who agree to reinsure loans referred to
them by SunTrust with Twin Rivers results in illegal "kickbacks"
in the form of the insurance premiums paid to Twin Rivers.
Plaintiffs contend that this arrangement violates the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") and results in unjust
enrichment to the detriment of borrowers.  The first of these
cases, Thurmond, Christopher, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et
al., was filed in February 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  This case was stayed by the
Court pending the outcome of Edwards v. First American Financial
Corporation, a captive reinsurance case that was pending before
the U.S. Supreme Court at the time.  The second of these cases,
Acosta, Lemuel & Maria Ventrella et al. v. SunTrust Bank, SunTrust
Mortgage, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California in December 2011.  This case
was stayed pending a decision in the Edwards case also.

In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court withdrew its grant of
certiorari in Edwards and, as a result, the stays in these cases
were lifted.  The plaintiffs in Acosta voluntarily dismissed this
case.  A motion to dismiss is pending in the Thurmond case.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://www.suntrust.com/-- one of the
nation's largest commercial banking organizations, is a
diversified financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a broad range of financial services to consumer and
corporate clients.  SunTrust was incorporated in 1984 in Georgia
and its executive offices are located in Atlanta, Georgia.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Colonial Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in July 2009, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., the
full-service corporate and investment banking arm of SunTrust
Banks, Inc., certain other underwriters, The Colonial BancGroup,
Inc. ("Colonial BancGroup") and certain officers and directors of
Colonial BancGroup were named as defendants in a putative class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama, Northern District, entitled In re Colonial BancGroup,
Inc. Securities Litigation.  The complaint was brought by
purchasers of certain debt and equity securities of Colonial
BancGroup and seeks unspecified damages.  Plaintiffs allege
violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 due
to allegedly false and misleading disclosures in the relevant
registration statement and prospectus relating to Colonial
BancGroup's goodwill impairment, mortgage underwriting standards,
and credit quality.  On August 28, 2009, The Colonial BancGroup
filed for bankruptcy.  The defendants' motion to dismiss was
denied in May 2010, but the Court subsequently ordered Plaintiffs
to file an amended complaint.  This amended complaint was filed
and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

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.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://www.suntrust.com/-- one of the
nation's largest commercial banking organizations, is a
diversified financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a broad range of financial services to consumer and
corporate clients.  SunTrust was incorporated in 1984 in Georgia
and its executive offices are located in Atlanta, Georgia.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend Suits Over Overdraft Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. continues to defend itself against three
class action lawsuits in connection with the imposition of
overdraft fees on customer accounts, 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 Company has been named as a defendant in three putative class
actions relating to the imposition of overdraft fees on customer
accounts.  The first such case, Buffington et al. v. SunTrust
Banks, Inc. et al. was filed in Fulton County Superior Court on
May 6, 2009.  This action was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division on
June 10, 2009, and was transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida for inclusion in Multi-District
Litigation Case No. 2036 on December 1, 2009.  Plaintiffs assert
claims for breach of contract, conversion, unconscionability, and
unjust enrichment for alleged injuries they suffered as a result
of the method of posting order used by the Company, which
allegedly resulted in overdraft fees being assessed to their joint
checking account, and purport to bring their action on behalf of a
putative class of "all SunTrust Bank account holders who incurred
an overdraft charge despite their account having a sufficient
balance of actual funds to cover all debits that have been
submitted to the bank for payment," as well as "all SunTrust
account holders who incurred one or more overdraft charges based
on SunTrust Bank's reordering of charges."  Plaintiffs seek
restitution, damages, expenses of litigation, attorneys' fees, and
other relief deemed equitable by the Court.  The Company filed a
Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Compel Arbitration and both
motions were denied.  The denial of the motion to compel
arbitration was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Eleventh Circuit remanded this matter back to the District
Court with instructions to the District Court to review its prior
ruling in light of the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility
LLC v. Concepcion.  The District Court then denied SunTrust's
motion to compel arbitration for different reasons.  SunTrust
appealed this decision to the Eleventh Circuit and, on March 1,
2012, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court's decision
and ordered that SunTrust's Motion to Compel Arbitration be
granted.  Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing
en banc, which was denied.  Plaintiffs have filed a petition for a
writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which also was
denied.

The second of these cases, Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank, was filed
in the Fulton County State Court on July 12, 2010, and an amended
complaint was filed on August 9, 2010.  Plaintiff asserts that all
overdraft fees charged to his account which related to debit card
and ATM transactions are actually interest charges and therefore
subject to the usury laws of Georgia.  Plaintiff has brought
claims for violations of civil and criminal usury laws,
conversion, and money had and received, and purports to bring the
action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who have incurred such
overdraft fees within the last four years where the overdraft fee
resulted in an interest rate being charged in excess of the usury
rate.  SunTrust has filed a motion to compel arbitration.  On
March 16, 2012, the Court entered an order holding that SunTrust's
arbitration provision is enforceable but that the named plaintiff
in the case had opted out of that provision pursuant to its terms.
The court explicitly stated that it was not ruling at that time on
the question of whether the named plaintiff could proceed with the
case as a class rather than as an individual action.  SunTrust has
filed an appeal of this decision, but this appeal was dismissed
based on a finding that leave to appeal was improvidently granted.
The parties now are conducting discovery in anticipation of a
motion for class certification.

The third of these cases, Byrd v. SunTrust Bank, was filed on
April 23, 2012, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee.  This case is substantially similar
to the Bickerstaff matter.  SunTrust has filed a Motion to Compel
Arbitration.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://www.suntrust.com/-- one of the
nation's largest commercial banking organizations, is a
diversified financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a broad range of financial services to consumer and
corporate clients.  SunTrust was incorporated in 1984 in Georgia
and its executive offices are located in Atlanta, Georgia.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Faces New Suit Over STI Classic Mutual Funds
------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. is facing a new lawsuit relating to STI
Classic Mutual Funds, according to the Company's February 27,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors,
and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action
alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") by
offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in
the Plan.  The plaintiff purports to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in
their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and
seeks to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly
incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual
Funds.  This action was pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District
Court").  On June 6, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
and, on June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss.  The Company filed a subsequent motion to
dismiss the remainder of the case on the ground that the Court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims.  On
October 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all claims in this action.
Immediately thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a
substantially similar lawsuit against the Company substituting two
new plaintiffs.

SunTrust says it intends to file a motion to dismiss in this
action.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://www.suntrust.com/-- one of the
nation's largest commercial banking organizations, is a
diversified financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a broad range of financial services to consumer and
corporate clients.  SunTrust was incorporated in 1984 in Georgia
and its executive offices are located in Atlanta, Georgia.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Remaining Lehman-Related Suits Move to Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Remaining lawsuits related to certain stock offerings of Lehman
Brothers Holdings, Inc. will move forward into discovery,
according to SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s February 27, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

Beginning in October 2008, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc.
(STRH), along with other underwriters and individuals, were named
as defendants in several individual and putative class action
complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York and state and federal courts in Arkansas,
California, Texas and Washington.  Plaintiffs allege violations of
Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 for allegedly
false and misleading disclosures in connection with various debt
and preferred stock offerings of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.
("Lehman Brothers") and seek unspecified damages.  All cases have
now been transferred for coordination to the multi-district
litigation captioned In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities
Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all
claims asserted in the class action.  On July 27, 2011, the
District Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to
dismiss the class claims against STRH and the other underwriter
defendants.  A settlement with the class plaintiffs was approved
by the Court on December 15, 2011.  The class notice and opt-out
process is complete and the class settlement approval process has
been completed.  A number of individual lawsuits and smaller
putative class actions remained pending following the class
settlement.  After motions to dismiss in these cases, a few
individual actions have survived and will move forward into
discovery.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://www.suntrust.com/-- one of the
nation's largest commercial banking organizations, is a
diversified financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a broad range of financial services to consumer and
corporate clients.  SunTrust was incorporated in 1984 in Georgia
and its executive offices are located in Atlanta, Georgia.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Still Awaits Court Direction in ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in July 2008, SunTrust Banks, Inc. and certain officers,
directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative
class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") by offering the Company's common stock as an investment
option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Plan").  The
plaintiffs purport to represent all current and former Plan
participants who held the Company stock in their Plan accounts
from May 2007 to the present and seek to recover alleged losses
these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their
investment in Company stock.

The Company Stock Class Action was originally filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, but was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia, Atlanta Division, (the "District Court") in November
2008.

On October 26, 2009, an amended complaint was filed.  On
December 9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted in
part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  Defendants and plaintiffs filed separate motions for
the District Court to certify its October 25, 2010 order for
immediate interlocutory appeal.  On January 3, 2011, the District
Court granted both motions.

On January 13, 2011, defendants and plaintiffs filed separate
petitions seeking permission to pursue interlocutory appeals with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ("the Circuit
Court").  On April 14, 2011, the Circuit Court granted defendants
and plaintiffs permission to pursue interlocutory review in
separate appeals.  The Circuit Court subsequently stayed these
appeals pending decision of a separate appeal involving The Home
Depot in which substantially similar issues are presented.  On May
8, 2012, the Circuit Court decided this appeal in favor of The
Home Depot.  The Company awaits further direction from the Circuit
Court.

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.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://www.suntrust.com/-- one of the
nation's largest commercial banking organizations, is a
diversified financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a broad range of financial services to consumer and
corporate clients.  SunTrust was incorporated in 1984 in Georgia
and its executive offices are located in Atlanta, Georgia.


SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Agrees to Settle Overdraft Fees MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------
Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. entered in December 2012 into an
agreement to settle a multidistrict litigation over overdraft fees
against its subsidiary, 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 July 29, 2011, Susquehanna Bank was named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit filed by two New Jersey customers
of the bank in the United States District Court of Maryland.  The
lawsuit challenges the manner in which checking account overdraft
fees were charged and the policies related to the posting order of
debit card and other checking account transactions.  The lawsuit
makes claims under New Jersey's consumer fraud act and under the
common law for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion and unjust
enrichment.  The case was transferred for pretrial proceedings to
pending multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.

To avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation
and without admitting any of the allegations in the complaint,
Susquehanna in good faith participated in mediation with
plaintiffs' counsel and as a result of negotiations following from
the mediation, on December 20, 2012, Susquehanna and counsel for
plaintiffs entered into a Summary Agreement, subject to
preliminary and final approval of the settlement and dismissal of
the action with prejudice by the Court.

Management, after consultation with legal counsel, currently does
not anticipate that the aggregate settlement amount arising out of
this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's results of operation, financial position, or cash flows.

Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. -- http://www.susquehanna.net-- is a
one-bank financial holding company organized in 1982 in
Pennsylvania.  The Company's executive offices are located in
Lititz, Pennsylvania.


TANGOE: Dumps Shares at Inflated Prices, Class Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that insiders at Tangoe dumped
$150 million of their shares at inflated prices before the stock
sank by 29%, shareholders claim in Federal Court.


TORONTO: Activists Mull Suit Over Police "Carding" Practice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patty Winsa, writing for Toronto Star, reports that lawyers and
civil right activists, who say they are frustrated by the Toronto
police board's inability to curb the controversial police practice
of "carding," are mobilizing to collect the race-based stats
themselves.

Moya Teklu, a lawyer with the African Canadian Legal Clinic, told
a meeting of activists at city hall on March 13 that she is
disillusioned by the board's slow pace after a Toronto Star series
published a year ago showed that police stop and "card" black
people at disproportionately high rates.

"I was optimistic" then, said Ms. Teklu, after the board passed a
number of motions in the wake of the series that would make the
force more accountable for who they stopped and why.

Ms. Teklu has now joined forces with two other lawyers to raise
$20,000 to develop a Smartphone application that can be used by
individuals to record and compile data on interactions with
police.

"A year later, I can confidently say that nothing has happened,"
said Ms. Teklu.  "Black is Not a Crime (the group she has founded
to develop the app) was born out of the slow pace of the Toronto
police board."

One of the motions passed by the board after the series was a
request that police give a copy of the document card -- with the
reason for the stop -- to the individual.  The thinking by
activists was that the receipts would make officers more
accountable.  The receipts have never materialized and the board
is now grappling with accusations by human rights advocates who
say the stops are contravening the Human Rights Code and the
Charter.

Reuben Abib, with the National Conference of Black Lawyers, told
the group his organization would eventually like to launch a class
action law suit.  "We want to start to collect people who have
been racially profiled, detained and searched for no reason," said
Mr. Abib.  "We will have a central location where they will be
able to contact us."

But he said that unlike the United States, it is harder in Canada
to launch a class action suit.  "Class actions in Canada don't
happen very often.  We can't get a class action certified," said
Mr. Abib.  "First we need to collect the plaintiffs."

In the meantime, lawyers say they are considering taking
individual officers, who they believe are racially profiling, to
small claims court for damages of up to $25,000.


UNITED STATES: IRS Sued for Stealing Medical Records Sans Warrant
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service reports that a lurid but
vague class action accuses corrupt and abusive IRS agents of
stealing 10 million people's medical records without a warrant --
including "intimate medical records of every state judge in
California."

John Doe Company sued 15 John Doe IRS agents in Superior Court.

"This is an action involving the corruption and abuse of power by
several Internal Revenue Service ('IRS') agents (collectively
referred to as 'defendants' herein) during a raid of John Doe
Company, in the Southern District of California, on March 11,
2011," the complaint states.  "In a case involving solely a tax
matter involving a former employee of the company, these agents
stole more than 60,000,000 medical records of more than 10,000,000
Americans, including at least 1,000,000 Californians.

"No search warrant authorized the seizure of these records; no
subpoena authorized the seizure of these records; none of the
10,000,000 Americans were under any kind of known criminal or
civil investigation and their medical records had no relevance
whatsoever to the IRS search.  IT personnel at the scene, a HIPPA
[sic: recte HIPAA] facility warning on the building and the IT
portion of the searched premises, and the company executives each
warned the IRS agents of these privileged records.  The IRS agents
ignored and discarded each of these warnings, ignored their own
published and public-reliant rules and governing ethical
requirements, and ignored the limitations of the court's search
warrant authorization, seizing the records under threat of
destroying company property."

Plaintiff's attorney Robert E. Barnes declined to elaborate on the
complaint's allegations, saying he will have more information "in
a few months."

"I had to file to protect against the statute of limitations being
an issue, but am still investigating all facts," Barnes told
Courthouse News in an email.

The putative class claims the IRS agents' seizure of medical
records violated the 4th Amendment.

"These medical records contained intimate and private information
of more than 10,000,000 Americans, information that by its nature
includes information about treatment for any kind of medical
concern, including psychological counseling, gynecological
counseling, sexual or drug treatment, and a wide range of medical
matters covering the most intimate and private of concerns," the
complaint states.

"Despite knowing that these medical records were not within the
scope of the warrant, defendants threatened to 'rip' the servers
containing the medical data out of the building if IT personnel
would not voluntarily hand them over.  Moreover, even though
defendants knew that the records they were seizing were not
included within the scope of the search warrant, the defendants
nonetheless searched and seized the records without making any
attempt to segregate the files from those that could possibly be
related to the search warrant.  In fact, no effort was made at all
to even try maintaining the illusion of legitimacy and legality.

"After being put on notice of the illicit seizure, the IRS agents
refused to return the records, continued to keep the records for
the prying eyes of IRS peeping toms, and keep the records to this
very day.  The records may concern the intimate medical records of
every state judge in California, every state court employee in
California, leading and politically controversial members of the
Screen Actors Guild and the Directors Guild, and prominent
citizens in the world of entertainment, business and government,
from all walks of life."

To top it off, the IRS agents were rude, childish and arrogant,
the complaint states:

"Adding insult to injury, after unlawfully seizing the records and
searching their intimate parts, defendants decided to use John Doe
Company's media system to watch basketball, ordering pizza and
Coca-Cola, to take in part of the NCAA tournament, illustrating
their complete disregard of the court's order and the Plaintiffs'
Fourth Amendment rights.

"This complaint seeks justice for each and all of those
individuals subjected to the invasive and unlawful search and
seizure conducted on March 11, 2011."

The complaint adds: "The search warrant authorized the seizure of
financial records related principally to a former employee of the
company; it did not authorize any seizure of any health care or
medical record of any persons, least of all third parties
completely unrelated to the matter.

"While executing the warrant, the defendants seized personal
mobile phones, including all the data and information on those
phones, without any employing the proper and procedurally correct
screening methods to protect private and privileged information,
all of which was completely unapproved by the search warrant."

The IRS' data theft was so enormous it affects "roughly one out of
every twenty-five adult American citizens," the complaint states.

It claims that one of the IRS agents involved has a "history of
misconduct, ethical breaches, and criminal activity," including
lying to grand juries, lying to witnesses about their rights
during investigations, and "abusing search warrants and subpoenas
for privileged information."

It claims the IRS refuses to reveal which agents participated in
the raid, who saw the medical records, and which agents have the
records today.

The class seeks $25,000 in compensatory damages "per violation per
individual" and punitive damages for constitutional violations.

It also seeks declaratory judgment "to protect the proprietary and
privileged information of the medical records seized," an
injunction preventing the IRS from sharing the information, and an
order "compelling the return of all such records and the purging
of government databases of all such records, in whatever form kept
or accessible."

The class is represented by Robert E. Barnes of Malibu.


WAL-MART STORES: Extension for Class Cert. Filing in Dukes Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In DUKES v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., District Judge Charles R.
Breyer denied a motion filed by the Plaintiffs seeking an
additional six months to file their motion for class
certification.

The Court initially required the motion by January 11, 2013, and
then approved the parties' stipulation extending the deadline for
an additional three months to April 11, 2013.  Having already
granted a three-month extension, the Court finds no good cause for
further extension.

"Extensions may be granted 'for good cause,' Fed. R. Civ.
P. 6(b)(1)(A), which the Court finds absent here," Judge Breyer
said.

According to the ruling, extensive discovery had already been
completed while the case proceeded as a nationwide class action,
and the current discovery period presented a limited opportunity
to supplement that record -- not to start from scratch. The
Plaintiffs say discovery disputes have hampered their progress,
but every party has to prioritize and tailor its discovery efforts
in light of court-imposed deadlines and the time it takes to
resolve formal disputes, which the Court has demonstrated its
willingness to address promptly.

The case is DUKES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant, No. C 01-2252 CRB, (N.D. Cal.).

A copy of the District Court's March 18, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/Fe7luvfrom Leagle.com.


WELLS FARGO: Awaits Final OK of Interchange Fee Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company is awaiting court approval of its settlement
of a consolidated class action lawsuit related to interchange
fees, 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.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo & Company, Wachovia Bank,
N.A., and Wachovia Corporation are named as defendants, separately
or in combination, in putative class actions filed on behalf of a
plaintiff class of merchants and in individual actions brought by
individual merchants with regard to the interchange fees
associated with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions.
These actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.  Visa, MasterCard and
several banks and bank holding companies are named as defendants
in various of these actions.  The amended and consolidated
complaint asserts claims against defendants based on alleged
violations of federal and state antitrust laws and seeks damages,
as well as injunctive relief.  Plaintiff merchants allege that
Visa, MasterCard and payment card issuing banks unlawfully
colluded to set interchange rates.  Plaintiffs also allege that
enforcement of certain Visa and MasterCard rules and alleged tying
and bundling of services offered to merchants are anticompetitive.
Wells Fargo and Wachovia, along with other defendants and
entities, are parties to Loss and Judgment Sharing Agreements,
which provide that they, along with other entities, will share,
based on a formula, in any losses from the Interchange Litigation.

On July 13, 2012, Visa, MasterCard and the financial institution
defendants, including Wells Fargo, signed a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiff merchants to resolve the consolidated
class actions and reached a separate settlement in principle of
the consolidated individual actions.  The proposed settlement
payments by all defendants in the consolidated class and
individual actions total approximately $6.6 billion.  The class
settlement also provides for the distribution to class merchants
of 10 basis points of default interchange across all credit rate
categories for a period of eight consecutive months.  The Court
has granted preliminary approval of the settlements.  The
settlements are subject to further review and approval by the
Court.

San Francisco, California-based Wells Fargo & Company --
http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is a Delaware corporation, and a
financial and bank holding company.  Wells Fargo is a diversified
financial services company that provides retail, commercial and
corporate banking services through banking stores and offices, the
Internet and other distribution channels to individuals,
businesses and institutions.


WELLS FARGO: Bank Defends RESPA Violations Suits in Maryland
------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company's subsidiary is defending class action
lawsuits in Maryland alleging violations of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, 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 26, 2007, a class action complaint captioned Denise
Minter, et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  The
complaint alleges that Wells Fargo and others violated provisions
of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and other laws by
conducting mortgage lending business improperly through a general
partnership, Prosperity Mortgage Company.  The complaint asserts
that Prosperity Mortgage Company was not a legitimate affiliated
business and instead operated to conceal Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s
role in the loans at issue.  A plaintiff class of borrowers who
received a mortgage loan from Prosperity that was funded by
Prosperity's line of credit with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. from 1993
to May 31, 2012, has been certified.  The Court has scheduled a
trial in this case for May 6, 2013.  A second, related case is
also pending in the same Court.  On July 8, 2008, a class action
complaint captioned Stacey and Bradley Petry, et al., v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., was filed.  The complaint alleges that
Wells Fargo and others violated the Maryland Finder's Fee Act in
the closing of mortgage loans in Maryland.  The Court certified a
plaintiff class of borrowers whose loans are secured by Maryland
real property, which loans showed Prosperity Mortgage Company as
the lender receiving a fee for services, and were funded through a
Wells Fargo line of credit to Prosperity from 1993 to May 31,
2012.  Trial in this case was set for March 18, 2013.

San Francisco, California-based Wells Fargo & Company --
http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is a Delaware corporation, and a
financial and bank holding company.  Wells Fargo is a diversified
financial services company that provides retail, commercial and
corporate banking services through banking stores and offices, the
Internet and other distribution channels to individuals,
businesses and institutions.


WELLS FARGO: Continues to Defend Order of Posting MDL in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company continues to defend its bank subsidiaries
from a multidistrict litigation challenging the high to low order
used in posting debit card transactions, 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.

A series of putative class actions have been filed against
Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as many
other banks, challenging the high to low order in which the Banks
post debit card transactions to consumer deposit accounts.  There
are currently several such cases pending against Wells Fargo Bank
(including the Wachovia Bank cases to which Wells Fargo
succeeded), most of which have been consolidated in multi-district
litigation proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.  The bank defendants moved to compel these
cases to arbitration under recent Supreme Court authority.  On
November 22, 2011, the Judge denied the motion.  The Banks
appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit.  On October 26, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed the District Court's denial of the motion.

San Francisco, California-based Wells Fargo & Company --
http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is a Delaware corporation, and a
financial and bank holding company.  Wells Fargo is a diversified
financial services company that provides retail, commercial and
corporate banking services through banking stores and offices, the
Internet and other distribution channels to individuals,
businesses and institutions.


WELLS FARGO: Discovery in Medical Capital-Related Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated lawsuit related to
Medical Capital Corporation, according to Wells Fargo & Company's
February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. served as indenture trustee for debt issued
by affiliates of Medical Capital Corporation, which was placed in
receivership at the request of the SEC in August 2009.  Since
September 2009, Wells Fargo has been named as a defendant in
various class and mass actions brought by holders of Medical
Capital Corporation's debt, alleging that Wells Fargo breached
contractual and other legal obligations owed to them and seeking
unspecified damages.  The actions have been consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  On
July 26, 2011, the District Court certified a class consisting of
holders of notes issued by affiliates of Medical Capital
Corporation and, on October 18, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals denied a petition seeking to appeal the class
certification order.  A previously disclosed potential settlement
of the case was not consummated and the case is in discovery.

San Francisco, California-based Wells Fargo & Company --
http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is a Delaware corporation, and a
financial and bank holding company.  Wells Fargo is a diversified
financial services company that provides retail, commercial and
corporate banking services through banking stores and offices, the
Internet and other distribution channels to individuals,
businesses and institutions.


WELLS FARGO: "Farmington Hills" Suit Remains Pending in Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled City of Farmington Hills Employees
Retirement System v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., remains pending in
Minnesota, according to Wells Fargo & Company's February 27, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., is involved in several separate pending
actions brought by securities lending customers of Wells Fargo and
Wachovia Bank in various courts.  In general, each of the cases
alleges that Wells Fargo violated fiduciary and contractual duties
by investing collateral for loaned securities in investments that
suffered losses.  In addition, on March 27, 2012, a class of Wells
Fargo securities lending customers was certified in a case
captioned City of Farmington Hills Employees Retirement System v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., which is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.  Wells Fargo sought
interlocutory review of the class certification in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  The Eighth Circuit declined
such review on May 7, 2012.

San Francisco, California-based Wells Fargo & Company --
http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is a Delaware corporation, and a
financial and bank holding company.  Wells Fargo is a diversified
financial services company that provides retail, commercial and
corporate banking services through banking stores and offices, the
Internet and other distribution channels to individuals,
businesses and institutions.


WELLS FARGO: Has Final Okay of Municipal Derivatives Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company's settlement of the lawsuit styled In re
Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation received final approval
in December 2012, 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.

Wachovia Bank, N.A., a Company subsidiary, along with several
other banks and financial services companies, was named as a
defendant beginning in April 2008 in a number of substantially
identical purported class actions and individual actions filed in
various state and federal courts by various municipalities
alleging they have been damaged by alleged anticompetitive
activity of the defendants.  These cases were either consolidated
under the caption In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation
or administered jointly with that action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The plaintiffs and
Wells Fargo agreed to settle the In re Municipal Derivatives
Antitrust Litigation on October 21, 2011.  The settlement received
final approval on December 14, 2012.  A number of municipalities
have opted out of the settlement, but the remaining potential
claims are not material.

San Francisco, California-based Wells Fargo & Company --
http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is a Delaware corporation, and a
financial and bank holding company.  Wells Fargo is a diversified
financial services company that provides retail, commercial and
corporate banking services through banking stores and offices, the
Internet and other distribution channels to individuals,
businesses and institutions.


WELLS FARGO: "Gutierrez" Class Suit Remanded to District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., was remanded to the district court for further proceedings,
according to Wells Fargo & Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

On August 10, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an order in Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., a case that was not consolidated in the multi-district
proceedings, enjoining the Bank's use of the high to low posting
method for debit card transactions with respect to the plaintiff
class of California depositors, directing that the Bank establish
a different posting methodology and ordering remediation of
approximately $203 million.  On October 26, 2010, a final judgment
was entered in Gutierrez.  On October 28, 2010, Wells Fargo
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On
December 26, 2012, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order requiring
Wells Fargo to change its order of posting and vacated the portion
of the order granting remediation of approximately $203 million on
the grounds of federal pre-emption.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed
the District Court's finding that Wells Fargo violated a
California state law prohibition on fraudulent representations and
remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings.

San Francisco, California-based Wells Fargo & Company --
http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is a Delaware corporation, and a
financial and bank holding company.  Wells Fargo is a diversified
financial services company that provides retail, commercial and
corporate banking services through banking stores and offices, the
Internet and other distribution channels to individuals,
businesses and institutions.


WELLS FARGO: Suits Over Foreclosure Doc. Practices Now Resolved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company 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 all eight class action
lawsuits relating to its subsidiary's foreclosure document
practices have been dismissed or otherwise resolved.

Eight purported class actions and several individual borrower
actions related to foreclosure document practices were filed in
late 2010 and in early 2011 against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in its
status as mortgage servicer or corporate trustee of mortgage
trusts.  The cases were brought in state and federal courts.  All
eight cases have been dismissed or otherwise resolved.

San Francisco, California-based Wells Fargo & Company --
http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is a Delaware corporation, and a
financial and bank holding company.  Wells Fargo is a diversified
financial services company that provides retail, commercial and
corporate banking services through banking stores and offices, the
Internet and other distribution channels to individuals,
businesses and institutions.


ZEALANDIA HOLDING: Finn Law Group Files Timeshare Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Finn Law Group P.A. has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf
of timeshare owners at Festiva's Orlando Resort, formerly known as
Celebration World Resort, alleging that the resort's developers
and managers have engaged in unfair and deceptive practices in the
sale of timeshare upgrades and reservation point allocation.

The class action lawsuit, Reeves, et al. v. Zealandia Holding
Company Inc., et al., cause no. 13-CA-866-MF, was filed March 1 in
the 9th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, in Osceola County.  The
suit alleges that, beginning in 2004, approximately 900 parties
purchased timeshare interests in Celebration World Resort Owners
Association, located in Kissimmee, Fla., from B.L. Vacation
Ownership Inc.  Between 2008 and 2011, representatives of B.L.
Vacation Ownership sold upgrades to existing timeshare owners that
would increase the number of points they had to apply to timeshare
reservations.

After the homeowners purchased the upgrades, B.L. Vacations sold
the resort to Festiva Hospitality Group, now known as Zealandia
Holding Co., and the resort's name was changed to Festiva's
Orlando Resort. After the sale, the lawsuit alleges, the
reservation point system was changed and the upgrades that had
been purchased by the timeshare owners were not honored.

The suit names the Orlando Homeowners Association, B.L. Vacation
Ownership Inc., Zealandia Holding Co. and its subsidiary and
affiliate companies, and RCI LLC as defendants. The suit alleges
that one or more of the defendants:

    * Violated the resort's declaration of covenants by
      improperly reallocating reservation points

    * Violated the resort's declaration of covenants for
      failing to give proper notice of the reallocation

    * Breached the fiduciary duty owed to the timeshare owners

    * Violated Section 721.18(5) of Florida's timeshare law

The timeshare owners seek a refund, rescission of the upgrade
sales contracts, attorneys' fees and other relief the court deems
proper.

The Finn Law Group, which has offices in Florida and Michigan,
represents consumers in timeshare and fractional real estate
matters.  For more information, contact Michael D. Finn by calling
855-346-6529 or michaeldfinn@finnlawgroup.com


* Class Action Practices Ripe for Reform, Attorneys Say
-------------------------------------------------------
Ama Sarfo, writing for Law360, reports that reform-minded
attorneys on March 13 highlighted class action litigation
practices they say are ripe for reform, battling before a U.S.
House of Representatives subcommittee over fixes for charitable cy
pres class action settlements, discovery abuses, public-private
contingency fee agreements and other issues.  The testimony came
as a House Judiciary subcommittee asked lawyers affiliated with
class action, small business and legal reform interests to weigh
in on the kinds of litigation abuses that they believe warrant
legislative reform.


                             *********

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  * * *